[Vampyr]

 mike777, on 2016-June-16, 23:23, said:

YES

I do not think that my leaving would do anything to affect the housing crisis. My partner and I have only one house.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2016-June-16, 23:26, said:

I do not think that my leaving would do anything to affect the housing crisis. My partner and I have only one house.

i THOUGHT YOU WERE unhappy, grossly unhappy....if not nevermind


I note I now live close to a tiny town called Ashville,... I dont live there but Asheville is a tiny town, artsy town with pretensions


Compare that to london perhaps the greatest city on the planet but if you are unhappy.

[Vampyr]

I have done some more research, and the LEAVE oops I meant REMAIN campaign have come up with some facts, perhaps realising that their vagueness and hand-wringing were not convincing many people.

For many I expect that facts either way will not matter much; after Cameron's humiliation leaving, for good or ill, is a matter of national pride.

EDIT: meant the REMAIN campaign.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2016-June-16, 23:30, said:

I have done some more research, and the LEAVE campaign have come up with some facts, perhaps realising that their vagueness and hand-wringing were not convincing many people.

For many I expect that fa status either way will not matter much; are Camerson's humiliation leaving, for good or ill, is a matter of national pride.

Fair enough so your vote is?

[Vampyr]

Here's an interesting Article

Quote

I always thought that refusing to grant Britain a deal was a big mistake. It may come to be the EU’s last big mistake.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2016-June-16, 23:30, said:

I have done some more research, and the LEAVE campaign have come up with some facts, perhaps realising that their vagueness and hand-wringing were not convincing many people.

For many I expect that facts either way will not matter much; after Cameron's humiliation leaving, for good or ill, is a matter of national pride.

I would double check all of those facts if I were you. I usually love a good political debate but have found myself unable to sit through them for this referendum due to the large number of inconsistent or downright misleading positions being taken. There are examples from both sides but the Leave campaigners are particularly guilty.

The most recent where I had intended to watch but turned off in disgust after a short time was Gove's Q&A. An example, when asked about Turkey scaremongering his response was about their membership "within a lifetime" and that the government had no intention of using their veto. OK, so at some point within the next 70 years the subject might come up. Who will be in the government at that time? He obviously knows if he can state so categorically that no veto would be used. Not to mention that Turkey will probably be a rather different place in 70 years' time. And the UK too for that matter. And if the people genuinely were against being in a political union at that time, no PM would accept it as they would be out of a job in the following election.

It is a complete house of cards, as is so much of the Leave campaign's message. That so many seem to accept it is worrying. Indeed, it is so obviously rubbish, I am at the point where I would probably lose respect for anyone voting Leave. It seems to be the UK equivalent of voting for Trump, a sign of low education or racist values. Neither are things I wish to see in people I call friends!

[shyams]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-17, 02:57, said:

The most recent where I had intended to watch but turned off in disgust after a short time was Gove's Q&A. An example, when asked about Turkey scaremongering his response was about their membership "within a lifetime" and that the government had no intention of using their veto. OK, so at some point within the next 70 years the subject might come up. Who will be in the government at that time? He obviously knows if he can state so categorically that no veto would be used. Not to mention that Turkey will probably be a rather different place in 70 years' time.

Gove is 48. Assuming an average lifetime for a male Brit is 83 years, that's 35 more years.
And, "in my lifetime" does not mean in the last year of his lifetime -- so he is realistically talking about 20 years.

I saw the Gove referendum Q&A too. And I can say he was so much more measured than the Farages & the Johnsons of the world. And even I (a Remain voter) felt he was cogent & persuasive.

[Zelandakh]

He did not say "my lifetime" but "our lifetimes", which is extremely open to pretty much any interpretation he wants to put on it. To say that he meant 20 years by that is reading more into it than he said. Which is of course the whole point of using this phrase - it makes a distant possibility seem like a current threat. It is not. It is indeed scaremongering. I find Portillo a much more persuasive speaker on the subject and immeasurably more watchable.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-17, 02:57, said:

I would double check all of those facts if I were you. I usually love a good political debate but have found myself unable to sit through them for this referendum due to the large number of inconsistent or downright misleading positions being taken. There are examples from both sides but the Leave campaigners are particularly guilty.

The most recent where I had intended to watch but turned off in disgust after a short time was Gove's Q&A. An example, when asked about Turkey scaremongering his response was about their membership "within a lifetime" and that the government had no intention of using their veto. OK, so at some point within the next 70 years the subject might come up. Who will be in the government at that time? He obviously knows if he can state so categorically that no veto would be used. Not to mention that Turkey will probably be a rather different place in 70 years' time. And the UK too for that matter. And if the people genuinely were against being in a political union at that time, no PM would accept it as they would be out of a job in the following election.

It is a complete house of cards, as is so much of the Leave campaign's message. That so many seem to accept it is worrying. Indeed, it is so obviously rubbish, I am at the point where I would probably lose respect for anyone voting Leave. It seems to be the UK equivalent of voting for Trump, a sign of low education or racist values. Neither are things I wish to see in people I call friends!

Oops, I meant the REMAIN campaign.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2016-June-17, 04:13, said:

Oops, I meant the REMAIN campaign.

Good, then you don't need to double check

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-17, 02:57, said:

... downright misleading positions being taken. There are examples from both sides but the Leave campaigners are particularly guilty.
.. no PM would accept it as they would be out of a job in the following election.

I agree with the "downright misleading positions" comment, but far more of those are taken by the remain campaign. The lying PM will be out of a job probably before the next parliamentary election. Incidentally, I believe he was strongly in favour of Turkey joining the EU. Greece joined without fulfilling the nominal entry conditions, and Turkey will too.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2016-June-17, 04:35, said:

Good, then you don't need to double check

Yes, safest to triple check

[Zelandakh]

 fromageGB, on 2016-June-17, 05:18, said:

Incidentally, I believe he was strongly in favour of Turkey joining the EU.

Many years ago, when Turkey was making positive strides towards better democracy and civil rights the government was in favour of encouraging that further. Sadly those days are long since over. There are many analysts that believe the EU not being more encouraging towards Turkey is part of the reason for their turning away from that path so dramatically. What is absolutely certain is that Turkey will be a very different country to the one it is today before it was even considered for EU membership. Whether that happens within Gove's lifetime, or indeed within the lifetime of anyone in that audience, is unclear and depends on many unknown factors.

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-18, 05:38, said:

Many years ago, when Turkey was making positive strides towards better democracy and civil rights the government was in favour of encouraging that further. Sadly those days are long since over.

Maybe you should triple check?
Or perhaps "many years" and "long since over" have changed their meaning?

Dec 2014 - daily telegraph :
David Cameron has said that he still “very much supports” Turkey joining the European Union, despite his Government's inability to control numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK.
http://www.telegraph...rant-fears.html

Oct 2015 - House of commons :
I can confirm to my Right Honourable Friend that the British government’s policy hasn’t changed and he’s absolutely right in what he says about the importance of helping Turkey [become an EU member state].

2016 after seeing the strength of anti-EU referendum sentiment he seems to change his mind.

[kenberg]

It appears that there is a good chance the vote will be to leave. It may be a good time to repeat that I do not at all favor our own president's remarks about placing the UK at the back of the queue or at the back of anything. There will be difficulties, that's obvious. It will be in everyone's interest to deal with the difficulties.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-19, 07:13, said:

It may be a good time to repeat that I do not at all favor our own president's remarks about placing the UK at the back of the queue or at the back of anything.

I agree completely. One of the few certainties in life, in my opinion, is that a foreigner's advice to voters in another nation will backfire.

[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-19, 07:13, said:

It appears that there is a good chance the vote will be to leave. It may be a good time to repeat that I do not at all favor our own president's remarks about placing the UK at the back of the queue or at the back of anything. There will be difficulties, that's obvious. It will be in everyone's interest to deal with the difficulties.

 PassedOut, on 2016-June-19, 07:29, said:

I agree completely. One of the few certainties in life, in my opinion, is that a foreigner's advice to voters in another nation will backfire.

Yes, this was a particularly un-savvy move of Obama's. Of course it would cause a backlash and produce more votes the opposite way. This should have been obvious to him.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-18, 05:38, said:

Many years ago, when Turkey was making positive strides towards better democracy and civil rights the government was in favour of encouraging that further. Sadly those days are long since over. There are many analysts that believe the EU not being more encouraging towards Turkey is part of the reason for their turning away from that path so dramatically. What is absolutely certain is that Turkey will be a very different country to the one it is today before it was even considered for EU membership. Whether that happens within Gove's lifetime, or indeed within the lifetime of anyone in that audience, is unclear and depends on many unknown factors.

I thought that this article had an amusing line:

Quote

Turkey has about as much chance of joining the EU by 2020 as Istanbul being renamed Constantinople in a revived Byzantine empire.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-19, 07:13, said:

It appears that there is a good chance the vote will be to leave. It may be a good time to repeat that I do not at all favor our own president's remarks about placing the UK at the back of the queue or at the back of anything. There will be difficulties, that's obvious. It will be in everyone's interest to deal with the difficulties.

I think this was an unusual case where such an intervention was right. There was this idea pushed by many in the Leave campaign that the UK could leave the EU and could instead join a special trade partnership with North America. This idea was not based on reality - pushing a trade deal costs quite a bit of political capital these days; the idea that any future US president would make such a trade deal with a single nation is absurd.

All Obama did was to correct this misconception - successfully I think, as the Leave campaign pretty much dropped this talking point. This has nothing to do with punishment. And if Brexit wins, it won't be because Obama'so intervention was counter productive.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-19, 12:22, said:

I think this was an unusual case where such an intervention was right. There was this idea pushed by many in the Leave campaign that the UK could leave the EU and could instead join a special trade partnership with North America. This idea was not based on reality - pushing a trade deal costs quite a bit of political capital these days; the idea that any future US president would make such a trade deal with a single nation is absurd.

All Obama did was to correct this misconception - successfully I think, as the Leave campaign pretty much dropped this talking point. This has nothing to do with punishment. And if Brexit wins, it won't be because Obama'so intervention was counter productive.

Maybe so, maybe. Speaking of putting the UK at the back of the queue seems like a pretty harsh phrasing if all that he meant was that we wouldn't be taking the UK out of the queue for a special partnership. I much prefer my phrasing that a Brexit will of course cause difficulties and we will address them. In case it needs saying, it is true that the final outcome is uncertain. This all seems to me to be both true and obvious, and there is no need to speak of the front of the queue, the back of the queue, or anything about the queue. Maybe I should take a post-retirement job proofreading his speeches if he really meant no threat here.

At any rate, I agree that a Brexit will not be due to Obama. Nor will a vote to stay be due to Obama. It won't be due to me either.

This being the Brexit threat, and me being highly uninformed, I will take a Kenexit here. Best of wishes, however this goes.