'Brexit Discussion Fatigue'.

[Anna B]

The point is that none of the facts are facts. They are just opinions and attempts to persuade. It's a step into the unknown.

 

Well they could start with explaining why the EU accounts haven't been passed for umpteen years. How much it costs, how much the Commissioners are paid, why they have to move between Strassberg and the other place, why it admits countries who can contribute little, who decides who the Commissioners are, etc, in fact how the whole thing works.

 

Until I have some of these things explained I have no option but to continue considering it to be one gigantic and very expensive gravy train...

[tinfoilhat]

Well they could start with explaining why the EU accounts haven't been passed for umpteen years. How much it costs, how much the Commissioners are paid, why they have to move between Strassberg and the other place, why it admits countries who can contribute little, who decides who the Commissioners are, etc, in fact how the whole thing works.

 

Until I have some of these things explained I have no option but to continue considering it to be one gigantic and very expensive gravy train...

 

Have UK governments accounts been passed? Where can I get a copy?

[Quik]

Have UK governments accounts been passed? Where can I get a copy?

 

OBR i think covers that.

[L00b]

Well they could start with explaining why the EU accounts haven't been passed for umpteen years. How much it costs, how much the Commissioners are paid, why they have to move between Strassberg and the other place, why it admits countries who can contribute little, who decides who the Commissioners are, etc, in fact how the whole thing works.

 

Until I have some of these things explained I have no option but to continue considering it to be one gigantic and very expensive gravy train...

How disappointing to see that you'd rather continue to wallow in ignorance and confirmation bias, than point your browser away from SF for 5 minutes and onto Google/Bing/<etc.> to find your own answers, a mere search and couple of clicks away

 

We've had this exchange before. Education, pork, etc.

[Brian Equato]

I'd had enough from about 1 minute after David Cameron announced that he was going to negotiate some changes and then we would have the chance to vote.

 

It was always going to be...

 

The inners were always going to vote "in" regardless of any changes.

 

The outers were always going to vote "out" regardless of any changes.

 

The undecided would still be undecided, and be swayed by fear (either way) or gut feeling. The last couple of weeks have made, and will make, no difference at all.

 

I knew how I was going to vote as soon as the idea of a referendum was announced. I can happily switch off for the rest of it.

 

Both sides could at least make the scare stories more entertaining (And probably about as true). Today, Cameron could claim everyone in Britain will be attacked by rabid bats if we leave and Farage could claim the EU will force everyone to house a tribe of Zulus in their garage if we stay in.

[Anna B]

How disappointing to see that you'd rather continue to wallow in ignorance and confirmation bias, than point your browser away from SF for 5 minutes and onto Google/Bing/<etc.> to find your own answers, a mere search and couple of clicks away

 

We've had this exchange before. Education, pork, etc.

You might have had a point, until you came up with this. Insulting and unnecessary. No excuse for rudeness.

[999tigger]

[/b]

You might have had a point, until you came up with this. Insulting and unnecessary. No excuse for rudeness.

 

He does have a point though. You'd learn and understand a lot more if you read up on a subject. A bit of googling or even wiki reading would answer all those questions for you. Seems pretty short sighted to form an opinion without doing basic research.

[Anna B]

He does have a point though. You'd learn and understand a lot more if you read up on a subject. A bit of googling or even wiki reading would answer all those questions for you. Seems pretty short sighted to form an opinion without doing basic research.

 

Yes I could probably look it up but that wasn't the point I was making.

 

I was making a more generalist statement in response to Eater Sundae's post that there are no facts. I responded with some rhetorical questions to illustrate that there are some facts that should be out there in the public arena, for all to see, to help people make up their minds about the sort of organisation the EU is. Merely as a starting point to hang further debate on.

 

The general public tend to want pertinent information given to them, rather than have to go hunting online for it.

 

In the past, there has been a strange silence over much of what goes on in the EU, largely, I suspect because the powers that be know that the general population wouldn't be impressed. I don't recall the Lisbon Treaty, for example, being much discussed in the media at the time, all the in depth details, pros and cons, discussions and protests were online, at a time when many ordinary people mistrusted or didn't even have the internet. I wouldn't like the same thing to happen again.

[L00b]

You might have had a point, until you came up with this. Insulting and unnecessary. No excuse for rudeness.

I'd call it proportionally provocative.

 

You "rethorical questions" as you put it, could be read by anyone and taken for gospel, when they are so far from the truth ("EU accounts not passed" FGS, how many times will this myth need to be debunked?!?!) or phrased extremely disingenuously in view of the actual transparency of the very appointments/processes/costs you queried.

 

If you're going to ask question, ask questions. Don't misrepresent their ambit as (untrue) facts to help form your (invalid) argument

 

It's something which you seem to be doing very regularly about political topics. Others and I have taken you task -nicely- about that a few times, but clearly still unsuccessfully. So I'm just trying shock therapy now

I was making a more generalist statement in response to Eater Sundae's post that there are no facts.

The facts have been around in free-access literature at public libraries and many public service offices, not to mention t'Internet, for decades by now.

The general public tend to want pertinent information given to them, rather than have to go hunting online for it.

You're manifestly holding your fellow countrymen and women in lower esteem than I do. Surprising. And disappointing. Edited February 25, 2016 by L00b

[Anna B]

I'd call it proportionally provocative.

 

You "rethorical questions" as you put it, could be read by anyone and taken for gospel, when they are so far from the truth ("EU accounts not passed" FGS, how many times will this myth need to be debunked?!?!) or phrased extremely disingenuously in view of the actual transparency of the very appointments/processes/costs you queried.

 

If you're going to ask question, ask questions. Don't misrepresent their ambit as (untrue) facts to help form your (invalid) argument

 

It's something which you seem to be doing very regularly about political topics. Others and I have taken you task -nicely- about that a few times, but clearly still unsuccessfully. So I'm just trying shock therapy now

The facts have been around in free-access literature at public libraries and many public service offices, not to mention t'Internet, for decades by now.

You're manifestly holding your fellow countrymen and women in lower esteem than I do. Surprising. And disappointing.

 

But not on mass media, ie TV, Radio and popular newspapers, so I think my point stands.

As for holding my fellow countryman in low esteem, nothing could be further from the truth. However I do think politics can be seen as dull as ditch water, and a lot of people are not that interested, and certainly don't want to spend their time digging around for facts which should be mainstream information, especially with a referendum looming.