EU Referendum

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's an unfortunate lack of contempt brought about by familiarity. And it has everything to do with money and nothing to do with health. When you smoke you are deliberately damaging your health. When the consequences hit you'll expect the NHS to treat you. This is wrong in principle. If you slash your wrists I shouldn't be forced to pay for your bandage. If I want to pay, that's a different matter, but when I'm forced to pay then I have been robbed and that's unlawful. Same with smokers, they are robbing health conscious people. .

Actually i totally agree with you. And have made a similar point myself, that although there should be freedom to choose.....choices must come with consequence. If i am selfish enough not to look after myself, I should not expect other people to contribute to prolonging my life to make other poor choices. I am in no illusion that if i have lung or oesophageal cancer i will have no-one to blame but myself, the fair option would be to pay for the treatment from National Insurance which would be subtracted from whatever pension i receive if i don't die first.

[Niall_Quinn]

Actually i totally agree with you. And have made a similar point myself, that although there should be freedom to choose.....choices must come with consequence. If i am selfish enough not to look after myself, I should not expect other people to contribute to prolonging my life to make other poor choices. I am in no illusion that if i have lung or oesophageal cancer i will have no-one to blame but myself, the fair option would be to pay for the treatment from National Insurance which would be subtracted from whatever pension i receive if i don't die first.

Fair? Are you saying you'd make this concession without the entire health system being overhauled from top to bottom?

I wouldn't. I'll go and take the treatment and won't care how much it costs and who paid because those are the rules. In a corrupt system corruption is what's expected, not concession. By that stage I also hope to have avoided paying as much tax as possible. I want something for nothing from this system, or as close to it as I can get. If I can't have a system based on principle and I'm forced to have this system then I'll abuse it in every way possible. Fuck fair. When was that ever a consideration in the Nanny State?

[Letters]

Name one benefit of EU membership. Just one. And it has to be an actual benefit, not some concession based on the fact a worse alternative would be created for you as a form of punishment. For example - favourable trade agreements. That's not a benefit. It's the lesser of two evils when no evil is necessary at all. Free trade has no agreements except between the interested parties. Controlled trade always hurts you when everything winds out. Cheap goods means cheap labour and that hurts you far more in the long run. The definition of a benefit is not something that is out of sight and therefore out of mind.

There are plenty of benefits but of course you don't accept them as such. Here's an article listing the main ones
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6850626.html
The question is what are the benefits of leaving and do those outweigh the disadvantages of leaving.

[Niall_Quinn]

There are plenty of benefits but of course you don't accept them as such. Here's an article listing the main ones
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6850626.html
The question is what are the benefits of leaving and do those outweigh the disadvantages of leaving.

I'm not following a link to somebody else's opinion when I asked for yours. The actual question was, name one benefit of EU membership.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fair? Are you saying you'd make this concession without the entire health system being overhauled from top to bottom?

I wouldn't. I'll go and take the treatment and won't care how much it costs and who paid because those are the rules. In a corrupt system corruption is what's expected, not concession. By that stage I also hope to have avoided paying as much tax as possible. I want something for nothing from this system, or as close to it as I can get. If I can't have a system based on principle and I'm forced to have this system then I'll abuse it in every way possible. Fuck fair. When was that ever a consideration in the Nanny State?

I also think it's unfair to offer anything but palliative care to the terminally ill

The point is that it would be fair in principle to make people whose lll health has been self inflicted solely finance their own treatment. Fairness isn't a binary concept, it's not either totally fair or unfair....there are always degrees and there are always differing perceptions on what constitutes fairness.

[Letters]

They aren't opinions.

[Niall_Quinn]

I also think it's unfair to offer anything but palliative care to the terminally ill

The point is that it would be fair in principle to make people whose lll health has been self inflicted solely finance their own treatment. Fairness isn't a binary concept, it's not either totally fair or unfair....there are always degrees and there are always differing perceptions on what constitutes fairness.

But when you are dealing with the state being fair is a bit like leaving your valuables in plain sight. They're robbing you anyway and they have no notion of equity nor a desire for it except in a PR context, so no reason to offer them more than they expect. They'll take your generosity and use it as a new benchmark. Of course if the health service still operated on the principle on which it was founded (allegedly) it's a different matter.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

But when you are dealing with the state being fair is a bit like leaving your valuables in plain sight. They're robbing you anyway and they have no notion of equity nor a desire for it except in a PR context, so no reason to offer them more than they expect. They'll take your generosity and use it as a new benchmark. Of course if the health service still operated on the principle on which it was founded (allegedly) it's a different matter.

Principle on which it was founded?

You mean free at the point of use?

[Niall_Quinn]

They aren't opinions.

I knew before I clicked on that link what I'd find. I'm never disappointed when it comes to the statists and their "facts" and "truths".

1) It gives you freedom to live, work and retire anywhere in Europe - Apart from the obvious, a state cannot grant or deny you freedom because this is an inalienable and tied to the very nature of your existence, you could live and work wherever you wanted long before the EU existed. Granted, nations didn't want just anybody pitching up, they wanted people who could add value to the society. So there were national restrictions. On a fundamental level this was of course wrong, as nobody has a right to tell you where you may or may not wander on the planet. But accepting that fascism has always been with us, and accepting that states have always been protectionist in nature, what's wrong with having a policy in who is allowed into your country? I'll translate this one for you:

1A) It allows any Joe to migrate where they please regardless of the benefits or costs they bring to a society. (So in fact this point is an argument for "Brexit")

2) It sustains millions of jobs - LOL. No it doesn't. What a load of bollocks. Private individuals through their endeavour sustain jobs. The states does fuck all in terms of having a positive impact on job creation and sustenance. The states steals from private enterprise in order to sustain itself, not jobs. This is a cost to enterprise and it can be a severe cost as not only does the state thieve from companies and individuals alike it then offers favourable conditions to some entities in preference over others, thus causing a double impact to those without favoured status. Without the state and the additional layer of the EU on top of that everyone would be considerably better off. There would be far less waste on administrative bullshit too. Again, this is an argument in favour of "Brexit" - this journalist is dumb as a plank.

3) Your holiday is much easier - and safer - So I assume I don't even have to comment on this one. Safer Easier You've got to be fucking kidding me right? Travel hasn't been more burdensome for decades and the continued rotten policies of Europe and the US and the west in general provokes the very violence these Europricks are rushing to protect us from. It's like kicking a hornet nest in your face and then rushing up and offering you a protective mask. Don't kick the next you stupid cunts. Getting out of Europe so we don't have to fund their stupid Euro army and whatever adventures it gets up to in the future, or be part of the horribly restrictive trade practises that victimise non-favoured nations, that's what will make travel easier and safer in the future. Another argument for "Brexit" - assuming of course we can do something about our own fucked up government here at home.

4) It means you're less likely to get ripped off - Unbelievable. Huge fucking tariffs and ballooning VAT, and you're less likely to get ripped off? A rapacious central bank that floods the continent with debt at huge repayment rates. Bail-outs and bail-ins. The huge cost of the EU itself. Set all that against the cost of exercising your own common sense in your own commercial dealings. Then again, common sense and personal responsibility are a price worth paying when you let Nanny do your shopping for you.

5) It offers greater protection from terrorists, paedophiles, people traffickers and cyber-crime - Scraping the barrel now. Terrorists, paedophiles, people traffickers, criminals - what do you think the fucking Euro Commissioners are? They are all these things and worse. Why do you really think we have free movement of economic migrants across the continent? See above for the cause of terrorism. Where will you find the densest cluster of kiddie fiddlers? As for the cyber-crime, that's icing the biscuit they just stole. These fuckers know nothing about technology. Fuck all. Every time they enforce one of their new crackpot schemes it's a raging disaster, as predicted by all (not just some) all industry experts who warn them in advance and beg them to listen to people who actually have a clue. That's hilarious. The EU will protect us from cyber-crime. That ranks top on the funny list for me so far.

6) Our businesses depend on it - No they don't. Our businesses have been roped into it and would suffer punitive measures if they didn't play along. Free business from the burden of state and the whole economic landscape changes. Just using reason, how can a huge, undemocratic, habitually incompetent bureaucracy possibly help commerce? Common sense will tell you this is a myth. Some businesses, like failed banks, may well rely on the EU. Are those the sort of businesses we want to prosper at our expense. Business that have something to sell that's in demand and who do a good job looking after their customers don't need a giant bureaucracy doing them favours. What they need is for giant bureaucracies to fuck off, and preferably die so they don't come back.

7) We have greater influence - Yep. 70% of our laws already dictated by an alien power, that's what I call influence. If we stay in we might even reduce that to 69%. Get out and we'll of course have total influence over our own affairs. As for a lack of influence in Europe, it just shows how deluded or misinformed the remain crowd are. The City of London is the largest money laundering operation on the planet. Most business, and probably all major business, at some points cleans its cash through London. London is the number one financial centre on the planet, don't let anyone fool you with that New York bullshit. London's influence won't be affected one jot if UK Plc extracts itself from Europe. What actually might happen though is London could end up more accountable to the people of Britain. This is too big a topic to go into on a message board, but this last point is the furthest of all from the mark. It's like an in-your-face lies delivered so brazenly you can't help but believe it. If you are dumb. Of course we don't have more influence by being governed by an alien power. How obvious does it have to be before people see it though?

[Niall_Quinn]

Principle on which it was founded?

You mean free at the point of use?

That wasn't the principle. The principle was a more caring society that vowed to care for those who were unable to care for themselves. Who wouldn't agree with that? Apart from the cunts currently gouging out the NHS, obviously.