Political Chatter

[Sinned]

Stevie D, Yes we may have elected representatives but what is their role in the legislation that is churning out of the EU. As our Civil Service does here the legislation is written by the EU equivalent of the Civil Service and neither group is elected. The EU produces millions of sheets of paper on all sorts of topics so it is that EU bureaucracy that concerns me. The MEPs may debate the legislation and amend odd bits of it but I suspect, but can't prove, that the majority isn't even debated. I have friends in Belgium and France and whilst they are not completely happy they do have concerns. Interestingly there are rumours that if we were to vote to leave others may follow with France and Italy being the favourites to hold referendums. So now my comments were not tongue in cheek and whilst pointing out the more extreme faults of the EU there's nothing that I have said that is untrue to the best of my knowledge. You may vote in but my family and lots of my friends will be voting out, with one voting in and one undecided.

Anyway whatever is posted further I shall not comment again - politics being one of the topics where it is easy for tempers to get raised.

[Jim]

Yeah, that's a great idea. NOT!

Im with Bob!

She should hang next to oblabla ,Clinton and Holder on the west lawn, I'll spring for the rope , and a tarp to protect the grass! Ive never seen my country so divided !

I can't believe I'm reading such hateful things on this forum. We are all entitled to our differing political views but statements like this are inexcusable. I hope you don't really mean it. Would you be prepared to hang them yourself?

If it's a joke, then it is in extremely bad taste, happening as it does to coincide with the appalling mass murders in Orlando, FL.

I've been a member of this forum and its predecessors right from the very beginning, perhaps 20 years ago. I still read this forum most days and will contribute occasionally, but stuff like this really makes feel like leaving for good. I have better things to exercise my mind on.

That was my reaction also. The idea of political chatter here was to avoid the hate common in so many venues.

[Stevie D]

Stevie D, Yes we may have elected representatives but what is their role in the legislation that is churning out of the EU. As our Civil Service does here the legislation is written by the EU equivalent of the Civil Service and neither group is elected. The EU produces millions of sheets of paper on all sorts of topics so it is that EU bureaucracy that concerns me. The MEPs may debate the legislation and amend odd bits of it but I suspect, but can't prove, that the majority isn't even debated. I have friends in Belgium and France and whilst they are not completely happy they do have concerns. Interestingly there are rumours that if we were to vote to leave others may follow with France and Italy being the favourites to hold referendums. So now my comments were not tongue in cheek and whilst pointing out the more extreme faults of the EU there's nothing that I have said that is untrue to the best of my knowledge. You may vote in but my family and lots of my friends will be voting out, with one voting in and one undecided.

Anyway whatever is posted further I shall not comment again - politics being one of the topics where it is easy for tempers to get raised.

Thanks, Dennis. I'm interested to read your reply and I hope we can agree to differ amicably. We must all vote according to our own experiences and conscience.

On a general point about this referendum, in my opinion I don't think we should even be holding one; it's a mistake to let the ordinary 'man (or woman) in the street' vote upon such a complex issue. For it is indeed very complex and I think such a crucial thing should be left to (the UK) Parliament to decide, having gathered and deeply considered expert evidence for and against. That is what we elect our MPs for, to make the best possible informed decisions on our behalf. We should allow them to do their job.

Here's one analogy which I thought of:

Supposing as a breakthrough in cancer research, two novel and apparently effective treatment regimes came to light, each consisting of different types and combinations of drugs, chemotherapy and diet. Let's call them Treatment A and Treatment B. Both A and B carry other health risks and side-effects; some people are more susceptible in these ways by A, others by B. But overall, statistically, clinical trials demonstrate both A and B are generally effective and beneficial.

There is a strong clinical case for making the treatments available on the National Heath Service, but government funding is only possible for either Treatment A or Treatment B - not both. How can we arrive at the best decision as to which to choose? Do we (a) hold an in-depth inquiry in a parliamentary cross-party select committee hearing evidence and recommendations from medical and scientific professionals, the top experts in their field? Or do we (b) put it to the general population in a referendum? Can we assume that the men and women on the Clapham omnibus fully understand all the issues at stake and hence are capable of making just such an informed decision as the medical and research experts? I think it is extremely unlikely.

Holding a referendum on whether to choose Treatment A or Treatment B is clearly absurd, and to my mind, so it is with whether to remain or leave the EU. The many issues involved are so complex and interwoven that non-expert, lay people, however honest and well-intentioned, cannot possibly have a completely informed view and understanding which would enable them to make a proper decision.

[Disaffected.citizen]

Stevie D, Yes we may have elected representatives but what is their role in the legislation that is churning out of the EU. As our Civil Service does here the legislation is written by the EU equivalent of the Civil Service and neither group is elected. The EU produces millions of sheets of paper on all sorts of topics so it is that EU bureaucracy that concerns me. The MEPs may debate the legislation and amend odd bits of it but I suspect, but can't prove, that the majority isn't even debated. I have friends in Belgium and France and whilst they are not completely happy they do have concerns. Interestingly there are rumours that if we were to vote to leave others may follow with France and Italy being the favourites to hold referendums. So now my comments were not tongue in cheek and whilst pointing out the more extreme faults of the EU there's nothing that I have said that is untrue to the best of my knowledge. You may vote in but my family and lots of my friends will be voting out, with one voting in and one undecided.

Anyway whatever is posted further I shall not comment again - politics being one of the topics where it is easy for tempers to get raised.

Thanks, Dennis. I'm interested to read your reply and I hope we can agree to differ amicably. We must all vote according to our own experiences and conscience.

On a general point about this referendum, in my opinion I don't think we should even be holding one; it's a mistake to let the ordinary 'man (or woman) in the street' vote upon such a complex issue. For it is indeed very complex and I think such a crucial thing should be left to (the UK) Parliament to decide, having gathered and deeply considered expert evidence for and against. That is what we elect our MPs for, to make the best possible informed decisions on our behalf. We should allow them to do their job.

Here's one analogy which I thought of:

Supposing as a breakthrough in cancer research, two novel and apparently effective treatment regimes came to light, each consisting of different types and combinations of drugs, chemotherapy and diet. Let's call them Treatment A and Treatment B. Both A and B carry other health risks and side-effects; some people are more susceptible in these ways by A, others by B. But overall, statistically, clinical trials demonstrate both A and B are generally effective and beneficial.

There is a strong clinical case for making the treatments available on the National Heath Service, but government funding is only possible for either Treatment A or Treatment B - not both. How can we arrive at the best decision as to which to choose? Do we (a) hold an in-depth inquiry in a parliamentary cross-party select committee hearing evidence and recommendations from medical and scientific professionals, the top experts in their field? Or do we (b) put it to the general population in a referendum? Can we assume that the men and women on the Clapham omnibus fully understand all the issues at stake and hence are capable of making just such an informed decision as the medical and research experts? I think it is extremely unlikely.

Holding a referendum on whether to choose Treatment A or Treatment B is clearly absurd, and to my mind, so it is with whether to remain or leave the EU. The many issues involved are so complex and interwoven that non-expert, lay people, however honest and well-intentioned, cannot possibly have a completely informed view and understanding which would enable them to make a proper decision.

Although I am inclined to agree that a significant proportion of the general populace will not have the slightest understanding of the issues at stake or the ramifications of the decision, I am not convinced that our Parliament is much better placed for such a decision, either.

I can understand the arguments from both sides. What worries me is that the fragmentation of the EU may have far wider implications than the current discussions acknowledge. We have had 70 years of general peace in Europe, much of which has been a result of the cooperation of the member states. History has shown that isolation rarely results in long term stability. Sure, there are frictions and tensions, but a key point is that the interests of the wider community will be considered when making decisions when a single interest group may not even see the issue.

As a point of note, there is a general misconception that migrants who come to the UK and are entitled to council houses and benefits as soon as they step off the plane/train/ferry. In order to qualify for benefits, the claimant must pass numerous "tests", one of which is a "habitual residency test". Also, council or social housing have a framework and tests for qualification. One must also be able to understand and differentiate between "migrants" and " asylum seekers"; they are not necessarily the same.

If you really want to get the facts, your local council or job centre will be able to provide unbiased guidance. Other organisations, such as Citizens Advice can also provide information about who can get what.

Furthermore, there is a myth that the EU accounts have not been signed off for many years. There is information available, if you really look for it, that discusses how the Court of Auditors have assessed the use of funds. In any organisation there will be discrepancies, whether these be merely in a petty cash reconciliation or within the €130bn EU budget; and the proportion or size of the discrepancies cannot tell the full story.

Should we stay or leave? I'm no better qualified that Stevie, Dennis or Gregg to determine the answer. I have my opinion and you can try to second guess it if you wish. It is without question that there are problems and faults within the EU. There is always a need for change; the EU is a "living organisation", evolving and morphing into a new beast day by day etc. It is a very different organisation from what existed in 1973.

Will we still be able to trade if we leave? Of course we will.
Will we have better boarder security? Who can really answer that? You can't prove that the security services have foiled as many "terror attacks" as they claim. A terrorist only needs "get lucky" once, whereas the security services must be lucky all the time.
How many ex-pat Brits will return to Blighty if we leave the EU? As many as the migrants who return to their countries of origin? Who can tell?

There are only a few certainties in the two campaigns: neither side is telling the whole truth, nobody actually knows what wil happen either way, change will happen regardless. Therefore, I just hope that people vote after careful consideration and having undertaken their own research; doubtful, but one can hope! In any event, you can only complain if you exercise your democratic right and vote on 23 June.

Good luck and will the last person out please turn off the lights.

[Sinned]

I wasn't intending to comment further but since we are still on speaking terms .... So SD, if you don't think that the man in the street is qualified to decide on such a complex issue and the results of which are really almost impossible to predict then who is qualified to decide. Like DC I wouldn't trust our MPs as virtually to a man or woman they aren't qualified either and I don't trust Cameron and Osborne as far as I could throw them. Nor probably any of the other leaders as they all have their own agendas. And I was a staunch Tory until recently, now I'm not sure what I am. Don't get me wrong everyone is entitled to their opinion and in this area there are NO right or wrong answers. The EU has a lot going for it IF it was to remain as a confederation of separate countries united by common trading and political ties. But the idea of turning the whole block, from us to the borders of Russia, with widely disparate cultures, currencies, economies, languages, legal structures and political infrastructures into one federal country doesn't appeal to me and if I'm really hones that is probably the main area I am uncomfortable with. All other issues stem from that. At least America has the common currency, economy, language, legal and politics in common between the states, much more going for it than Europe has. And look at the tensions that exist there.

In terms of your analogy on the cancer treatments then holding a referendum is a complete nonsense and convening a select committee is also a nonsense as too much time would be wasted. So I guess that you choose one, the one that seems the best option at the time, as to choose neither only increases the pain for those suffering and perhaps cause unnecessary deaths and reduced life expectancy. As to WHO chooses, well that's the million dollar question again as who is qualified to choose. NICE, the medical confederations, leave it to the individual cancer specialist.

[Gregg1100]

SD has far more confidence in the lame heads that pass for a government and their hangers on than I have. You only have to look at the antics in the house to see most are a bunch of morons- IF you happen to catch a day when some of them are actually present. Skivers.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl, thank you for putting the cabash on calls to violence.

I found the discussion of the European Union interesting and educational, excepting the portions that descended into that tired old trope of all politicians being nothing but lazy, worthless crooks. Balderdash! Your Winston Churchill, our Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and yes even George Washington were all great men who have great accomplishments to their credit and were, to a man consummate politicians. (If I knew more of the UK's history, I would have more of your leaders there and undoubtedly several women. We're a little behind that latter curve on this side of the pond I'm afraid. Though we are making up for it this time around.)

None of those men were saints and all of them were subjected to the most scathing verbal attacks known to man, but look at what we think of them now. So let's please keep it civil and keep it at the plane of intelligence and reason which all seem quite capable of. If we do that we'll all learn something.

Btw, the one thing I do know about the EU is that they made a mistake in adopting currency for so many sovereign nations each with their own economies and monetary policies. THAT I would suggest repealing. The more free and open transit strikes me as a great idea. I can't imagine how the US economy or anything else could function at all if at each state border we had to show passports, visas go through customs, etc. and yet when you look at the geography, that's exactly what you were trying to do in Europe before you formed the EU, except without the wide open spaces we enjoy here in the Western United States.

Hopefully the economic crises and the threat of the Brexit (assuming you don't have the reality too) will get the European Parliament to reexamine the bigger issues as well as the day to day issues.

[Stevie D]

I wasn't intending to comment further but since we are still on speaking terms ....

Yes, of course - as far as I'm concerned anyway. We might differ in our opinions but we can certainly be civil about it, and I do try to listen receptively to other people's views.

So SD, if you don't think that the man in the street is qualified to decide on such a complex issue and the results of which are really almost impossible to predict then who is qualified to decide. Like DC I wouldn't trust our MPs as virtually to a man or woman they aren't qualified either and I don't trust Cameron and Osborne as far as I could throw them. Nor probably any of the other leaders as they all have their own agendas.

SD has far more confidence in the lame heads that pass for a government and their hangers on than I have. You only have to look at the antics in the house to see most are a bunch of morons- IF you happen to catch a day when some of them are actually present. Skivers.

It is a mistake to think that government policy is decided purely by what you see going on in the House of Commons during heated televised debates or the adversarial cut-and-thrust circus which is Prime Minister's Questions. The real work of MPs goes on in Westminster back room meetings, such as cross-party select committees, and back in their constituencies, meeting with ordinary people to understand their concerns and bring them to the House. Also, much goes on behind the scenes in Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet meetings which we, the public, never get to see.

MPs cannot be expected to know every little detail of every complex technical issue which comes before them (although they will nearly always have some in-depth understanding of some areas such as finance, environment, etc). That is why they have specialist non-government, non-party aligned advisors whose job it is to help MPs see through and understand such issues to the extant that they (the MPs) can come to informed and valid decisions.

A few years ago, I was privileged to serve as an expert scientific advisor on just such a cross-party advisory committee. I spent a couple of days in Westminster with a small team of other scientific and environmental specialists, advising and discussing some complex issues with a small group of MPs. As I recall there were 6 MPs, equally representing the three major political parties - Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems. What struck me forcefully was (a) just how highly intelligent and educated the MPs were, (b) their genuine quest for knowledge and understanding, and (c) the complete lack of party politics intruding into the meetings. There was an important job to be done and they got on and did it, with no messing. The results of our meetings eventually became incorporated into government policy which successfully addressed some important and urgent environmental problems.

By and large although it undoubtedly has some faults, the UK parliamentary system of government is probably one of the best and fairest in the world. It is supremely democratic; we the people vote for the MPs. If they do a bad job, sooner or later they are exposed and they can be thrown out at the next election or sooner if there is a vote of no confidence in them at constituency level. Yes - there's always the risk of a couple of bad apples in a barrel, but to dismiss MPs as 'morons' or 'skivers' is to do them a great wrong. They are nothing of the sort. Even if you disagree with their party politics, they nevertheless work bloody hard on behalf of all of us. Once more, don't take what you see at PMQ as being representative of the job that MPs do.

And I was a staunch Tory until recently, now I'm not sure what I am. Don't get me wrong everyone is entitled to their opinion and in this area there are NO right or wrong answers.

Spot-on there, Dennis!

The EU has a lot going for it IF it was to remain as a confederation of separate countries united by common trading and political ties. But the idea of turning the whole block, from us to the borders of Russia, with widely disparate cultures, currencies, economies, languages, legal structures and political infrastructures into one federal country doesn't appeal to me and if I'm really honest that is probably the main area I am uncomfortable with.

I would be against turning the EU into a single federal country too, and so would a lot of other member states. But unless I am mistaken, that is not the aim of the EU. Every member state has the right to retain its own sovereignty and set its own laws, and will continue to do so.

The EU has a lot going for it IF it was to remain as a confederation of separate countries united by common trading and political ties.

That's how I think it should be, and on that basis I hope we remain a part of that, because it is powerful and beneficial. If we remain in the EU we have a say in how it is run and be able press for change on the things which need changing. If we leave, we won't.

[Sinned]

SD, although we disagree at least we are having a reasonable debate and I would like to think that we could then have a pint, a laugh and leave a bit wiser but still friends. Unfortunately the direction seems to be toward a federal super-state and there seems to be no secret about it nor any sort of apology from a sector of those in the governing cadre influencing this. It would appear that the only way to stop it is to withdraw from it. What incentive is there for the EU leaders to renegotiate, and our record of success in renegotiations is appalling, if we simply agree to stay in the club. Look at Cameron's failure recently to renegotiate even some simple and commendable items. So I would question how much influence we really have.

I have never said, to my knowledge, that MPs in general were lazy and freeloading, although a significant number have been massaging the expenses system in ways that are at best unethical and at worst fraudulent and it will take a long time for them to live that down, and that they become an MP for generally good reasons. I did think about politics when I was younger but decided that as a man with then a young family my needs and aims were inconsistent with the lifestyle, long hours and travelling that the role demanded. I also felt that my senses of honesty and integrity were also not consistent.

BTW we seem to have hijacked this thread away from the Americans.

[Fred in Skirts]

BTW we seem to have hijacked this thread away from the Americans.

Quite alright there. But I have learned a lot about the country that you live in (well the government). I found it very interesting as how each of you feel about the EU. And since I don't have a dog in this fight I'll just sit back enjoy a pint and glean bits of knowledge from all of the conversations.

Fred

[Stevie D]

SD, although we disagree at least we are having a reasonable debate and I would like to think that we could then have a pint, a laugh and leave a bit wiser but still friends.

I hope so too. We don't live that far from each other - I was travelling round the York ring road only yesterday as it happened; and I occasionally travel to the Easingwold area to see friends. So we could meet and have that pint and a laugh!

Unfortunately the direction seems to be toward a federal super-state and there seems to be no secret about it nor any sort of apology from a sector of those in the governing cadre influencing this. It would appear that the only way to stop it is to withdraw from it. What incentive is there for the EU leaders to renegotiate, and our record of success in renegotiations is appalling, if we simply agree to stay in the club. Look at Cameron's failure recently to renegotiate even some simple and commendable items. So I would question how much influence we really have.

As time goes on, approaching the big 'R'-day, the leave/remain campaigns both seem to be getting increasing frantic and vociferous, to the extent that it's becoming more and more difficult for the ordinary people to make any sense from either side. Whatever is claimed from now on, I don't think I am going to be swayed from my currently held views, and I don't suppose you will either... So it's going to be a case of wait and see how the voting goes next week.

I have never said, to my knowledge, that MPs in general were lazy and freeloading...

No - you didn't. It was another poster's remarks that I felt I needed to take issue with.

BTW we seem to have hijacked this thread away from the Americans.

[TheSkirtedMan]

Interesting read this political thread. I have always been hesitant to comment politically on social media, keeping it to one to one and small group discussions where wordings cannot be misinterpreted and if so quickly clarified. I have my view on what the world offers and does. I'll listen to others and quite happily agree to disagree, after all the world will be a boring place if we all agreed. The secret is respect, tolerance and acceptance that it takes all sorts to make the world turn. I've been on this forum long enough now to see and know how it ticks and 99.9% shows respect and like with StevieD and Sinned agree to disagree, listen and still have good banter.

I'll dip my toe into the political arena on the UK referendum. I am voting out. I strongly believe in the original EEC and would vote in if that was here today but it isn't. We can still have ease of flight travel, mobile phone cooperation and in many other areas too. Europe as a body is failing, it mismanages events and situations, it is too bureaucratic and slow, the Euro is failing and more. The fact that it is 8 years on after the 2008 world financial collapse the only economic region in recession says it all. Many of its members have extremely high unemployment, France is now descending into industrial turmoil. Italy, Spain, Portugal and groaning at the seams, Greece is still a huge problem for the Euro and other members are not far behind. The Eastern block countries were absorbed before they were financially ready to join the previous 12 members and regardless of the political talk that the next 5 are light years away I think they will be in the EU by 2020 adding further woes. The Eastern block countries were absorbed before compatibility so as not to be taken back into Russia and the 5 new potential members will be in due to political wheeling and dealing. The EU clearly shows it has no interest in learning from it's mistakes or even trying to show it has a true democratic system. It has 5 presidents, and two political bases which it spends 100 million euros a year on transport costs. The migrant crisis in the EU clearly shows even a binding agreement between members will be ignore to suit themselves when the chips are down. EU rules are disregarded by many a member on numerous situations to suit. The move is to make itself one political state and for that to happen all members must walk and talk the same. It does not operate as a unified voice or movement therefore a political merging is impossible. Only MEPs are electable nothing else and MEP's do not have a lot of sway in EU, its the layers above that do. I'm voting out purely on this. I question the UK's opt outs it apparently holds as time and time again it is still involved. We contributed to the Greece Euro situation yet we are not part of the Euro to name but one. I have heard from two separate sources but not verified that our rebate ends in 2020. Each time the UK negotiates an opt out it has to give something in return and the rebate is the main concession as most EU members do not agree with it. I see the EU as a bully especially to its members.

Immigration is not a problem for me, except blanket uncontrolled. Economics in the EU referendum is not too much of a concern. Yes as in any divorce this country will go backwards. Some companies will suffer, others will prosper but the EU has only 27 of the world countries in it and most of those are not major industrial contributors. EU sells more to us than we do it. I do not accept EU will shoot itself in the foot in that area. If the EU does want to have a tantrum then let it. If the EU wants to slap tariffs on then that can be reciprocated. I understand 90% plus of UK companies do not rely on the EU for most of their trade.

I do see positives of the EU and I can see many more if it had true political democratic union. This political union cannot be achieved due to its members for 2000 plus years being culturally, politically and by language separate and its current examples prove this. I therefore see far more serious negatives. It needs to go back to a simple EEC arrangement and be good neighbours, friends, and basically have a pint and a good banter in a pub. That atmosphere will stop any wars in Europe and allow each other to support other members, after all is that not what friends do in everyday life?

The problem if a leave vote succeeds is how our elected politicians move from there. If they are to spend time squabbling told you so, told you that or even act to create problems for their own objectives the UK will fail. If they grasp the peoples vote to leave and work at it, in 2 to 3 years the UK will be back. The UK I have no doubt will still help the world and EU in situations, still talk and still trade but it all depends on others. The other problem is we are dealing with humans and its intelligence and that is why the world has so many problems. My observations, my interpretations. Scotland pushing for a break away again would be sad for the UK to end but then that is where politicians should be working to make the UK more inclusive. I feel the same way for Northern England. My sentiments towards the EU gives me sympathy to Scotland and its gripe of being ignored.

If the EU showed any signs of real reform and become a true unified true democratic body and made sure if its aim for political union was a 100% unified achievement I would vote in.

Having said all this I will accept what ever the outcome of the referendum even if to stay in. I accept democracy. Unfortunately which either sides loses all I can see is ongoing squabbles.

I have no real affiliation to any political party in the UK they are all as bad as each other but I do vote at each General Election but find it difficult where to put the X. Short term thinking i.e. 5 years, and what's in it for themselves. Broken promises, statements they know they cannot keep, and continually outdoing each other not what is good for the UK long term. If my lay experience/knowledge and as an ordinary member of the public has mislead me or even makes me not suitable to decide on important issues like EU membership for the UK then perhaps MP's and the UK Parliament should make its serious discussions, cross party cooperation and knowledge far more visible to the wider public. Perhaps many more would have faith in them as politicians and many more would turn out to vote rather than the approx 30% turnout at the General Election. A true democracy listens to the majority vote of its people, and the people accept the decision for the duration of the term unless a vote of no confidence is shown.

Wow, got that off my chest! Perhaps I should contribute more then I would have less to off load!

All the best UK on the 23rd June.

[Sinned]

TSM, thanks for your contribution and you have mirrored what I was saying plus a bit more. I had forgotten about the EU keeping two administrative centres, the other one being in France which the French insisted on so as not to be left out. I agree that there will be short term economic uncertainty as the bureaucracy and large concerns decide what they are REALLY going to do as to what they say now they are going to do, the two could be completely different. I feel that most of the figures bandied about by BOTH sides are spurious and a worst just made up to justify their positions. I don't believe that it will be a case of, will the last one leaving please turn the lights out. The UK will survive.

As for the Scots I too have a lot of sympathy with their position. Being a northerner also I have seen the disparity between financial support in the south and support in the north. Time we had another Jarrow march again, I think. As for the high speed rail link I feel that just to shave a few minutes off the journey from north to south the cost is unjustified. The south will be the main beneficiaries otherwise there wouldn't be such a big push for it. Rail fares are unaffordable as it is. I looked at the cost of travelling to Edinburgh by rail for a long weekend for MOH and myself and concluded that we could travel between at least twice over by car for the same amount.

Just for interest the Scots voted to stay in recently and various promises were made, so what has happened to fulfilling those promises. Anyone north of the border willing to comment.

[Stevie D]

I wrote a post in anger but subsequently thought better of it.
Content deleted.

[Mods - please delete this post if you wish]

[Moderator note: Nope, going to leave it here as an example of how we can get smart after the event and do not need to leave our errors on display . Thank you for dealing with this yourself.

Ian]

[TheSkirtedMan]

Sinned. Likewise with HS2. This country is too small for HS trains and what is 22 mins, 31mins etc in time all for 38 billion sterling and more. Just need to improve current rail infrastructure with improved monitoring so more trains can run on same track. Despite our moans on Europe, their train system far exceeds ours and I have yet to hear a bad word form those who use them unlike ours.

StevieD. I'm sure many of us would not mind hearing you observations if others pass comment that you know better facts and figures. I for one have on several occasions readjusted my thoughts based upon others observations, insight and input. I do not profess to be the worlds fountain of knowledge and openly claim to admit my knowledge broadens upon discussion. With the EU Referendum I could quite easily be swayed if the remain camp explained why the EU is so beneficial to UK especially if a lot goes on behind the scenes on our behalf that we do not know about. I have not heard anything about this aspect, only doom, gloom, pessimism, world war 3, famine, etc. Not heard plague yet. In this absense I stay with the facts that I know and are presented with.

I'll happily discuss any subject, so long as it is not a rant, dictator etc. I am always looking to broaden my knowledge even if many don't. Quite a few do though.