E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Here is a post by someone else from somewhere else. It is so well-written I had to post it here:

Voting 'leave' if you're not 'completely happy' with the EU seems like a bit of a high standard to set. I'm not completely and permanently happy with my Mrs but that doesn't seem like a sound reason to leave, and I've tried doing a cost-benefit analysis with her and all I got was a clout. Indeed, I was told by her to say that not all relationships are comfortably democratic, and not all are subject to fine, spreadsheet-based analysis.

You are, of course, entitled to vote how you wish but a vote either way is a very blunt tool and you will undoubtedly find yourself voting the same way as people of otherwise very different political opinions to you, so don't expect the EU to be listening to your nuanced wants list. If you want that, you're gonna need to declare independence from every other ****er. In fact, the logical end point of many people's anti-EU rhetoric is essentially an extremely atomistic insularism of the "I never walk on that bit of pavement so why should I ****ing pay for its upkeep" variety.

I'm not completely happy with the EU either, far from it. But frankly when I see Farage, Johnson and many of the other dodgy car salesman giving me the spiel about giving shameless careerists like them more power, I'm inclined to think that a faceless unelected technocrat in Brussels or Strasbourg might not be such a bad option after all.

 

Your unnamed source was doing so well until that last paragragh, where he/she blew the rest of it away by declaring for the emotional "I don't like their spokesmen" position.

Don't get me wrong, those guys are hateful, but no more so than the opposition.

Thing is though, if I take the emotion out of it, Remain is the only option that makes any sense.

 

That's because Remain is the only option. Leave is not an option; it is the not choosing an option. It is "anything else", whatever that may be.

 

When it comes down to it Nexxo, that is your opinion. One I don't share or subscribe to. The fact that we do not agree does NOT make either viewpoint wrong or any less valid. You argue you are using rationale and logic to come to your decision. I would argue your own personal bias is part of that decision making process no matter how much you claim otherwise. The fact that the referendum could impact on your residence here and also the perceived effect on the NHS, therefore your own job security provide that bias. I'm not saying that is wrong or shouldn't be the case before you jump on that one, what I am saying is that everyone's thought processes are clouded by the instinct to self preserve, mine too.

Where I disagree with you though is the fact that I do have serious concerns about the EU, ones in which I would call into question the merits of the EU. I've stated these numerous times but they have been ignored or poo poohed. I've also been accused of letting emotion cloud my judgement, when clearly I'm not on my own there!

 

I give up


Still voting out, for the sole reason that no-one and nothing has convinced me that by us staying in the EU we are going to see the changes we need across the EU, that does include immigration but it isn't just that.

Better the devil you know? No thanks!!

 

Dude, I don't care if you subscribe, because the facts I mentioned are facts, and the logic is irrefutable: unless pinned down to a specific plan, "Leave" just means: anything else.

Your concerns have been dismissed because you refuse to rationally explain or defend them, which tells us that they are irrational. And just because you are not alone in making an emotional judgement does not mean you are right.

I'm sure you have concerns about the EU. You are just arguing that anything must be better, and that is irrational.

 

It's fine to disagree but what i don't understand is that if you have serious concerns about the EU how would leaving address even a single one of those concerns?

Maybe I'm just being dense but i can't see a single thing we'd gain by leaving the EU.

 

May you live in interesting times.

 

It has darker side when you know the guys a neo-nazzi and he talks about the genocide of the British people, maybe Ben Phillips should look into the background of his meme's.

 

Here's the devil you know. After a Brexit Cameron will be ousted and we will be welcoming our new Tory government overlords. Here is the expected line-up:

Boris Johnson– prime minister (who wants to stay in the EEA anyway, and pushed for Turkey's accession into the EU in 2010. He is also pro-TTIP)

Michael Gove – deputy prime minister, leading EU negotiations

Liam Fox – home secretary (check out how well he did as defence secretary)

Iain Duncan Smith – work and pensions secretary (the guy who cuts benefits and then gets all teary about the tragedy of poverty. Oh, and he thinks Trump is a "decent man")

Theresa May – foreign secretary (you know, the one who slashed the Border Control Agency budget)

Theresa Villiers – health secretary

Owen Paterson – energy secretary (a passionate opponent of windfarms and a climate change sceptic, btw)

Brexit? You might as well vote C'thulhu. If you needed any reason at all to vote Remain, this would be it.

 

I just love how this turned into a pissing contest in education and IQ, I think you guys are in need of a break from this thread. Besides, most have been said on this subject already and things are now being repeated and neither one of you is going to convince the other.

My own stance is pretty clear, but I am neither English nor am I Dutch living in England about to vote.

 

I got TL;DR'd before (or possibly I'm just on everyone's ignore lists by now, it wouldn't surprise me) but I'll say it again: most people approach these things with no intention of letting anything change their minds. StingLikeABee, no offense, bro, but you seem like that. You've repeatedly said "look, nothing you've said has convinced me" but nor have you specifically rebutted some of the things people (mostly Nexxo, because he has the stamina to persevere where the rest of us just sort of wander off and have fun) have said, and I get the feeling nothing would change your mind.

So really, anyone approaching this, ask yourself: what would convince you to change sides? Can you imagine a set of facts or conditions that would?

If you answered no, get out.

I don't have to imagine, because I've changed sides several times while reading this thread and now have no idea what to think.

 

Oh the irony here, Some say all arguments at some point lead to the 'N' word:

http://www.eu-facts.org/en/whoiswho/architects.html

http://www.eu-facts.org/en/whoiswho/foundingfathers.html



Tell me who this sounds like:

Food for thought


Look at the clip of the EU's dear leader, Piised up on expensive plonk at the taxpayers expense no doubt, On camera for the world to see:



What a complete cock.

 

Can't tell if being serious or sarcastic.
I'm guessing sarcastic when the organisation behind those so call facts is a faith healer who says...

Now that's funny, although Jean-Claude Juncker isn't the EU leader, hes the president of the European Commission (the executive branch of the European Union), an area that i would like to see reformed in the future so we (the people) have more of a say in who gets elected to the 28 cabinet seats.

 

One question I haven't really seen addressed much by the 'Leave' sides is that of the scenario in which UK leaves the EU, followed by Scotland holding a new referendum on whether to leave the UK, this time with a resounding 'Yes' due to Scotland's positive attitude towards the EU and negative attitude towards England/London.

How does the Leave sides see this scenario of the UK collapsing after a Brexit, with possibly only England remaining of the United Kingdom?

 

It doesn't. The Leave side doesn't actually think about what a Brexit would look like. It explicitly leaves that to the government to worry about. It engages in some fantasy politics but nothing that has logic or substance behind it. It's a feel-good vote.

The Leave Alliance is an exception, having written a detailed proposal of how a workable Brexit could be implemented. I read it; it seems that none of the Leave proponents have. If they did, they'd be in for a rude awakening.

 

I've seen a Trust Executive get a bit merry at a conference dinner. Well, I'll never have treatment at his hospital!

Seriously, is ad hominem attacks a valid argument now?

 

So what you have a problem with here is not necessarily the information itself but rather with the "faith healer" who provided the information, and because he's a "faith healer" the information is automatically inaccurate because you view him to be a crackpot?

Let me give you the example of Nikola Tesla. Tesla was a genius who in many ways made Einstein look like a drooling baby, now for all his genius he was a bit eccentric to say the least and among many things he claimed to be in direct contact with aliens. Yes, true story.

Does that statement mean you would automatically ignore and refute his science because you would view him to be a crackpot? I would argue and say most people would after having learned about his communication with aliens.

Ninja edit.
I'm not saying the information is either this or that.

 

If someone expresses an opinion that ignores factual evidence on one subject, it behoves us to question the validity of his opinion on another.