The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Pretty pink fairy]

Latest from Nigel in regards of Turkey. Common sense as always.

Turkish invasion looms
regards
DR

 

[JC Footy Genius]

'cos democracy is always worth the risk, come what may.

A delightful if somewhat naive suggestion but I would say it was because of the number one goal I mentioned in my previous post. The Conservative party were losing votes to UKIP and internal discontent amongst the Tory Eurosceptics was growing. Promising an in out referendum was meant to counteract these problems. Cameron may even have thought it unlikely it would ever happen as the polls continuously showed the most he could hope for was another coalition government probably with the Lib Dems again, who opposed the idea. The overall majority was a big shock as I'm sure you remember.

If we take the governments numerous doom laden predictions at face value then we know they already knew the risks so they either put party before country back then or thought they could scare the bejesus out of the electorate ensuring an in vote. Cynical .. certainly... true .... almost certainly.

 

[sir albion]

Turkish invasion looms
regards
DR

He's been right all along as the hideous bunch from Brussels have a big agenda for Europe and to expand Europe as we are seeing...Having turkey in is just bloody hideous and opens up another massive door to Europe for extremists.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

A delightful if somewhat naive suggestion but I would say it was because of the number one goal I mentioned in my previous post. The Conservative party were losing votes to UKIP and internal discontent amongst the Tory Eurosceptics was growing. Promising an in out referendum was meant to counteract these problems. Cameron may even have thought it unlikely it would ever happen as the polls continuously showed the most he could hope for was another coalition government probably with the Lib Dems again, who opposed the idea. The overall majority was a big shock as I'm sure you remember.

If we take the governments numerous doom laden predictions at face value then we know they already knew the risks so they either put party before country back then or thought they could scare the bejesus out of the electorate ensuring an in vote. Cynical .. certainly... true .... almost certainly.

I agree with almost every word. The process has been designed for the internal convenience of the Conservative Party.

 

[brighton fella]

Turkish invasion looms
regards
DR

turkey is only the start of things to come if we remain in, wouldn't wish to put a dampener on things but i reckon turkey is the least of our worries as compared with what awaits us.....

mate do you seriously see us coming out of this sh*thole because i don't, you mark my words in some corrupt way the ba*tards will keep us in...of that i have absolutely no doubt at all....

 

[cunning fergus]

This post is the a perfect example of the bunkum you read and spout. The first link is in a word amateur, you get better from HB&B. Did the total lack of attributable quotes and zero references not make you think or question? And the whole thing is underpinned by initial supposition, in short it's nonsense. A quick search for the author's journalistic resume shows zilch as well.

"For example, current content of the draft GDPR may be interpreted as outlawing the processing of aggregated customer data" - may? Or may not?

"One responder to the survey predicted that GDPR would cost their company £5 million to become compliant, and £1 million a year to maintain it. A sizeable minority said there are no financial implications of any kind in preparing for GDPR." - A responder to a survey........very scientific. Who was it? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? Or a CEO? Hopefully you get my point. And if you do want to believe the poll the article seems to totally overlook the point that a sizeable minority said it will have no affect. What's it to be?

"However, 87% of the 506 companies surveyed said they are unable to calculate the amount compliance preparation will cost, with 82% unaware of their current spending on existing compliance rules." - This is my favourite bit. So, the vast majority of the people they surveyed have absolutely no idea how much it will cost, or how much it has cost. Genius! Let's recap: An article based on supposition with a survey where most of the participants do not have a clue either way. Seriously, can you not see what utter tosh this article is?

I'll say one thing. Whilst I am in the 'in' camp I quite enjoy reading some of the 'out' articles posted on here, as they are often interesting and present well researched points. I do not want to blow smoke up anyone's arses but the Bruegel link and the subsequent discussion made me think.... and it made various points which were properly researched and where analytical rigour had been applied. Your stuff seems like it comes from Viz.... or a straw poll in Farage's pub.

So, here we are once again. I now expect the usual trite joke Google translated into German, and then you will disappear for a few days.

Tschuss, see you on Friday then I guess.

So, maybe the last go was too complex for you, luckily us Brits are a plucky lot so here's another go for you, feel free to pick the bunkum out.........it's a simple true or false choice for you.

1) EU regulations are not required to be approved by member states democratically elected parliaments they go straight onto the statute book.

2) the GDPR is an EU regulation.

3) when transposed, the consequences for any firm failing to comply with GDPR will be substantial.

4) the consequences of implementing GDPR are significant......another link, knock yourself out there are loads online.....

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/preparing-for-the-eu-gdpr-what-you-need-to-know/article/475430/

5) larger firms can manage change (like GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

6) MiFID ll contains a directive and a regulation (MiFIR) and the consequences of implementing it are significant........

http://www.abide-financial.com/mifi...ater-burden-than-mifid-and-emir-put-together/

7) MiFIR requires investment firms to report much more data to member states regulators.

8) MIFIR requires much more client data to be reported to regulators by investment firms when they trade than now.

9) this extra data is not essential for investment firms to trade as its never been required before MiFIR.

10) DP principles state firms should not collect and maintain more client detail than they need.

11) because of MIFIR firms will have to implement more systems to collect, report and maintain this extra data.

12) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll are significant.

13) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

14) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll in conjunction with GDPR are significant.

15) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll & GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

16) Goldman Sachs and HSBC are large firms and want to stay in the EU, a smaller firm like Hargreaves Lansdown does not.

17) HSBC warned investors that Brexit would result in rising labour costs

18) Goldman Sachs and HSBC cannot be trusted.

19) people that align themselves with lying capitalist shits like Goldman Sachs must be Tories

20) you are a gross Tory scheisse.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I agree with almost every word. The process has been designed for the internal convenience of the Conservative Party.

Indeed. Luckily events conspired to give the electorate a direct say in the future of our country which most governments and large European entities normally avoid at all costs.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

So Dave is doing a speech today saying that the economy will jump in to a volatile state if we vote to leave.

Dave is going out on a limb here. Banging on about how the economy will implode if the vote doesn't go HIS way could become a self fulfilling prophecy if we do vote to leave.

He will have created an OTT level of panic in the markets and we could all suffer as a consequence.

Very risky and very irresponsible Dave. Bit like your pig episode.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Also he's failing to acknowledge the possibility that long term gain could be worth the short term pain.

He's saying that because he thinks there will be short term pain he refuses to consider the possibility of long term gain.

This really is one of the best examples of lobbyists and self interest turning a political leader in to a mindless muppet. I can't remember the last time I saw anything quite so blatant, public and long winded like this.

 

[pastafarian]

So Dave is doing a speech today saying that the economy will jump in to a volatile state if we vote to leave.

Dave is going out on a limb here. Banging on about how the economy will implode if the vote doesn't go HIS way could become a self fulfilling prophecy if we do vote to leave.

He will have created an OTT level of panic in the markets and we could all suffer as a consequence.

Very risky and very irresponsible Dave. Bit like your pig episode.

is this the same Dave who said if he didn’t get his reforms didn’t rule out promoting Brexit.

A Brexit that now all of a sudden spells doom and gloom and catastrophe to the very same Dave.

Im a Tory voter,always have been, but when it comes to Europe Dave is a lying crnt.I still cant believe people like Herr T have bought his lies balls deep when all year long every year they say don’t trust Cameron

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

is this the same Dave who said if he didn’t get his reforms didn’t rule out promoting Brexit.

A Brexit that now all of a sudden spells doom and gloom and catastrophe to the very same Dave.

Im a Tory voter,always have been, but when it comes to Europe Dave is a lying crnt.I still cant believe people like Herr T have bought his lies balls deep when all year long every year they say don’t trust Cameron

Brilliant point. So his message to his party was that he would campaign for exit if he didn't get his reforms. But now he is raising 101 in principle objections to exit which would all apply regardless of any reforms (economic impact, security implications etc).

His position is so contrived / conflicted.

He is now 100% against exit when a couple of months ago he claimed he wasn't sure?

NOB.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So, maybe the last go was too complex for you, luckily us Brits are a plucky lot so here's another go for you, feel free to pick the bunkum out.........it's a simple true or false choice for you.

1) EU regulations are not required to be approved by member states democratically elected parliaments they go straight onto the statute book.

2) the GDPR is an EU regulation.

3) when transposed, the consequences for any firm failing to comply with GDPR will be substantial.

4) the consequences of implementing GDPR are significant......another link, knock yourself out there are loads online.....

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/preparing-for-the-eu-gdpr-what-you-need-to-know/article/475430/

5) larger firms can manage change (like GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

6) MiFID ll contains a directive and a regulation (MiFIR) and the consequences of implementing it are significant........

http://www.abide-financial.com/mifi...ater-burden-than-mifid-and-emir-put-together/

7) MiFIR requires investment firms to report much more data to member states regulators.

8) MIFIR requires much more client data to be reported to regulators by investment firms when they trade than now.

9) this extra data is not essential for investment firms to trade as its never been required before MiFIR.

10) DP principles state firms should not collect and maintain more client detail than they need.

11) because of MIFIR firms will have to implement more systems to collect, report and maintain this extra data.

12) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll are significant.

13) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

14) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll in conjunction with GDPR are significant.

15) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll & GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

16) Goldman Sachs and HSBC are large firms and want to stay in the EU, a smaller firm like Hargreaves Lansdown does not.

17) HSBC warned investors that Brexit would result in rising labour costs

18) Goldman Sachs and HSBC cannot be trusted.

19) people that align themselves with lying capitalist shits like Goldman Sachs must be Tories

20) you are a gross Tory scheisse.

You're mad.

 

[cunning fergus]

I think that's deeply cynical. The report is clearly written and accessible. Believe it or not I believe government acts in the best interest of the public (not carte blanche but largely) and is doing so in the referendum debate (i did not vote for the govt).

This naivety you have about politicians acting in the interests is endearingly, however for those of us that we're alive when Peter Ward was smashing in his goals, we REALLY know politicians are largely liars.

Take the man who is responsible for the law making and executive arm of the EU, who can institute laws that bypass national states elected parliament and is unelected by the EU electorate........he openly admits to being a liar and working against the electorate's wishes.

"Mr Juncker was head of the Eurogroup during the eurozone bailouts and was accused on several occasions of being less than frank about what was doing on.

He denied European finance ministers were holding a meeting to discuss Greece's membership of the euro, despite organising the gathering, and once memorably said: "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

When the French were due to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution in 2005, he said: "If it's a yes, we will say, 'On we go', and if it's a no, we will say, We continue'."

http://www.channel4.com/news/jean-claude-juncker-what-you-should-know

You will be telling us that companies like Goldman Sachs only serve to act in our interests next you little tinker.........

 

[pb21]

This really is one of the best examples of lobbyists and self interest turning a political leader in to a mindless muppet. I can't remember the last time I saw anything quite so blatant, public and long winded like this.

This is classic Dave, he hasn't been turned, he has always been like this.

 

[pastafarian]

So, maybe the last go was too complex for you, luckily us Brits are a plucky lot so here's another go for you, feel free to pick the bunkum out.........it's a simple true or false choice for you.

1) EU regulations are not required to be approved by member states democratically elected parliaments they go straight onto the statute book.

2) the GDPR is an EU regulation.

3) when transposed, the consequences for any firm failing to comply with GDPR will be substantial.

4) the consequences of implementing GDPR are significant......another link, knock yourself out there are loads online.....

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/preparing-for-the-eu-gdpr-what-you-need-to-know/article/475430/

5) larger firms can manage change (like GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

6) MiFID ll contains a directive and a regulation (MiFIR) and the consequences of implementing it are significant........

http://www.abide-financial.com/mifi...ater-burden-than-mifid-and-emir-put-together/

7) MiFIR requires investment firms to report much more data to member states regulators.

8) MIFIR requires much more client data to be reported to regulators by investment firms when they trade than now.

9) this extra data is not essential for investment firms to trade as its never been required before MiFIR.

10) DP principles state firms should not collect and maintain more client detail than they need.

11) because of MIFIR firms will have to implement more systems to collect, report and maintain this extra data.

12) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll are significant.

13) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

14) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll in conjunction with GDPR are significant.

15) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll & GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

16) Goldman Sachs and HSBC are large firms and want to stay in the EU, a smaller firm like Hargreaves Lansdown does not.

17) HSBC warned investors that Brexit would result in rising labour costs

18) Goldman Sachs and HSBC cannot be trusted.

19) people that align themselves with lying capitalist shits like Goldman Sachs must be Tories

20) you are a gross Tory scheisse.

Thanks for this

I was aware about data protection issues relating to the EU but only up to a point as a layman,thanks for the clarification.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So, maybe the last go was too complex for you, luckily us Brits are a plucky lot so here's another go for you, feel free to pick the bunkum out.........it's a simple true or false choice for you.

1) EU regulations are not required to be approved by member states democratically elected parliaments they go straight onto the statute book.

2) the GDPR is an EU regulation.

3) when transposed, the consequences for any firm failing to comply with GDPR will be substantial.

4) the consequences of implementing GDPR are significant......another link, knock yourself out there are loads online.....

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/preparing-for-the-eu-gdpr-what-you-need-to-know/article/475430/

5) larger firms can manage change (like GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

6) MiFID ll contains a directive and a regulation (MiFIR) and the consequences of implementing it are significant........

http://www.abide-financial.com/mifi...ater-burden-than-mifid-and-emir-put-together/

7) MiFIR requires investment firms to report much more data to member states regulators.

8) MIFIR requires much more client data to be reported to regulators by investment firms when they trade than now.

9) this extra data is not essential for investment firms to trade as its never been required before MiFIR.

10) DP principles state firms should not collect and maintain more client detail than they need.

11) because of MIFIR firms will have to implement more systems to collect, report and maintain this extra data.

12) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll are significant.

13) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

14) the consequences of implementing MiFID ll in conjunction with GDPR are significant.

15) larger firms can manage change (like MiFID ll & GDPR) and absorb costs much more easily than smaller counterparts.

16) Goldman Sachs and HSBC are large firms and want to stay in the EU, a smaller firm like Hargreaves Lansdown does not.

17) HSBC warned investors that Brexit would result in rising labour costs

18) Goldman Sachs and HSBC cannot be trusted.

19) people that align themselves with lying capitalist shits like Goldman Sachs must be Tories

20) you are a gross Tory scheisse.

I'm still chuckling at that (probably spoof) link you sent. It's worth mentioning again as its so priceless: a blog by some random goon which was about the cost of new EU data laws which was based on a survey where over 80% had no idea of what the costs were or had been

"However, 87% of the 506 companies surveyed said they are unable to calculate the amount compliance preparation will cost, with 82% unaware of their current spending on existing compliance rules."

Genius.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thanks for this

I was aware about data protection issues relating to the EU but only up to a point as a layman,thanks for the clarification.

Check out the links Fergus has been posting as well.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Brilliant point. So his message to his party was that he would campaign for exit if he didn't get his reforms. But now he is raising 101 in principle objections to exit which would all apply regardless of any reforms (economic impact, security implications etc).

His position is so contrived / conflicted.

He is now 100% against exit when a couple of months ago he claimed he wasn't sure?

NOB.

They are talking the market down on purpose by scaremongering, this is what really annoys me. Makes no difference to Daves bunch they never lose. I hope people wake up to this constant bullshit. Hope we leave. What I find even more hypocritical, the pounds value has been going down long before brexit, and everyone who wants us to remain is now worried about it, but hey ask them if they wanted the euro instead they would say no. Remains don't know if they are are in or out. It's why we need to leave. We will be far better off.

 

[cunning fergus]

You're mad.

Really.........aw come on HT, play the game, which ones are false?

I will admit points 16 to 20 were only put in to poke fun at you and your legendary Teutonic sense of humour........(an oxymoron if there ever was one).

Come on my little Tory pickelhaube..........don't give up on something you started, I know that's culturally they way things are in your neck of the woods.........you're better than that.

 

[pastafarian]

Brilliant point. So his message to his party was that he would campaign for exit if he didn't get his reforms. But now he is raising 101 in principle objections to exit which would all apply regardless of any reforms (economic impact, security implications etc).

His position is so contrived / conflicted.

He is now 100% against exit when a couple of months ago he claimed he wasn't sure?

NOB.

yes you have grasped it.......its mad isnt it

new red tories like Herr T grasp it also but have decided instead for personal gain to suck on his balls and suck on the balls of big banks and big business,the only profiteers of The EU.
experiment

There are plenty of people with good and valid perceived reasons for staying in the EU......that is fine

never trust a bloke though that sells his values down the river because he wants an easier life