|
Post by peterboat on Apr 11, 2016 23:05:34 GMT
I have just watched this program it has clearly left me with one thought................ and that is how much I hate that smug git Peter Mandelson!! he just doesnt answer questions clearly his motive to stay in the EU is to land the top job? for me real issues were raised, which he dismissed out of hand, as nonsense and of no concern to the public. He is clearly out of touch with large amounts of the public and will tell any amount of lies to get the job he so clearly wants. I found the expert panel wanting, and the dont know panel hand picked to get the answer the BBC wants. I now have to buy a new tv as my old one is wrecked Will I watch next weeks program lies I dont think my blood pressure can stand it!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 6:32:08 GMT
Do you know Peter,I saw the start of it and I mean the Introductions by Evan Davis of the panel and I went to bed. The girlfriend who watched it all came up exactly with your own analysis,you get the feeling Mandelson is touring the Media with the same old rubbish,thats of course when he isn't otherwise occupied on oligarchs yachts with Nat Rothschild and buying and selling multi million pound properties.Europe has certainly worked for him.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 12, 2016 6:41:06 GMT
Mornin' CDS ....didn't watch it (don't watch a lot of tv anyway) Glad I didn't miss anything important ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 12, 2016 7:33:04 GMT
I was particularly annoyed by the way that Mandelson spoke over Chris Grayling all the time and even, at one point, over an expert who was speaking and who, although not admitted, seemed like an out supporter. Evan Davis should have been a firmer chairman IMO. It was sickening to watch Mandelson's smug smirk every time he thought he had scored a point (in his own opinion of course). He was incapable of debating, merely over-riding any counter argument. In his career he had to resign twice from Labour government positions because of dodgy dealings and lying about the incidents and then was 'rewarded' with an EU Commissioner of Trade position which he held for four years. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, after only four years service (2004 - 2008) as a Commissioner, he will get a pension of £31,000 per year at age 65 BUT 'contingent on a duty of loyalty to the Communities'. Hardly any wonder then that he is an EU supporter, he has had four cushy years out of it and the receipt of his generous pension relies on continuing support for the EU. Impartial? You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment! Roger
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 12, 2016 9:02:36 GMT
Yes Roger you have it in one!! My partners mother was an MEP for labour and is drawing a very large pension, she is scared we will leave and her pension will be terminated as well. Mandy is a scumbag of the first order you can see where Blaire learnt his trade
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 10:20:36 GMT
Great post Albion,what is happening to the " out " campaign Why are they not shouting this from the rooftops? A sleazy Individual.Evan Davis owes his job to another form of tokenism a nice guy out of his depth
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 12, 2016 12:03:28 GMT
Great post Albion,what is happening to the " out " campaign Why are they not shouting this from the rooftops? A sleazy Individual.Evan Davis owes his job to another form of tokenism a nice guy out of his depth Yes, as you say, Evan is a nice guy and does his job quite well but when it comes to slippery politicians he hasn't the teeth and bite of a Paxman for example. Roger
|
|
|
Post by journeyperson on Apr 12, 2016 16:13:17 GMT
I think Mandleson is a bully who tries to ridicule anyone who disagrees with him. I liked Chris Grayling's quiet and patient approach; he wasn't intimidated by Mandleson.
I didn't like the offshore fortress analogy at the beginning. It suggested that brexit would result in us being a little, isolated island. It seemed like a bit of BBC bias to me.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 12, 2016 17:11:42 GMT
You are right also now the IMF has waded in with more lies or truths depending on your view. The trouble is the IMF constantly gets it wrong so why would they be right this time? Anyway for me its still out as this will be the last chance we have of getting rid of all those Eurocrats who sponge of us
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 13, 2016 0:25:44 GMT
Well I didn't see the programme, but from the comments on here the In campaign seems once again to have shot themselves in the foot, allowing Peter Mandleson, a very unpopular politician with his own agenda, to get people's backs up. This after the publicity of the glossy leaflets and now the IMF interfering.
As I've said before, I'm totally for the EU and our remaining in, but I despair. If we leave Europe will be in a sorry state, and may collapse into a motley of squabbling states, even into war. Putin is certainly rubbing his hands over this. Yes, the UK could manage outside the EU, but at what price to France, Spain, even Germany, etc? I am as concerned about the rest of Europe as I am about the UK, and can clearly see that the selfish and parochial nationalism which seems to prevail here could easily lead us into a disastrous mistake.
This whole referendum is a mistake. The trust and interdependence with our European allies has already been badly eroded merely to appease a few loudmouth rebels in the Tory party who took the opportunity to twist arms once the moderating influence of the Lib Dems had gone.
I know that this is not a popular view here, but I just hope that at least the electorate as a whole will allow us to get on with the job of reforming the admittedly bloated and self-serving Brussels bureaucracy from within, because we certainly won't be able to do it from without.
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 13, 2016 7:06:58 GMT
I know that this is not a popular view here, but I just hope that at least the electorate as a whole will allow us to get on with the job of reforming the admittedly bloated and self-serving Brussels bureaucracy from within, because we certainly won't be able to do it from without. If there was a snowball's chance in hell of reforming the bloated and self-serving bureaucracy from within I might agree with you. However, Cameron's pathetic efforts to get some reforms for us have proved that it ain't gonna happen. If there are any countries whose interests for their own people or funding are opposed to ours then we will never be able to get meaningful change. If you want to see an example of that then see Cameron's attempt to block benefits for migrant workers first four years. That didn't suit the newer eastern european countries and they and others forced a temporary tapering block which expires rapidly. I cannot blame them for doing that by the way, they are only looking after their own interests, but it just illustrates how you cannot bring about significant reform because we are just a small cog in that big bloated wheel now, as opposed to being a significant cog in a much smaller wheel when we joined the Common Market. And why would MEPs and the EU bureaucrats vote to reduce the bloated EU economy when they are direct recipients of its largesse? It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. We are the second largest net contributor in the EU after Germany so it is no wonder that some of the net recipient countries and the EU bureaucrats don't want us to leave. As the second largest net contributor we only have a 1 in 28 chance of effecting change. From the figures that I have been able to find 19 of the 28 members are net recipients of funding from the EU, why would they vote to reduce that funding? And why would they oppose the departure of the second largest net contributor? Why would we want to reform an organisation that we have left? When we joined the original 6 of the Common Market it was a different beast with different aims but we still weren't able to or chose not to block the morphing into a European super state. Roger
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 13, 2016 7:09:27 GMT
"you get the feeling Mandelson is touring the Media with the same old rubbish"
And Foxy is plying Thunderboat with some dog-eared jokes:
Lord Mandelson Visits School
Did anyone tell you about the day when Lord Peter Mandelson was visiting a primary school in England, and was taken into the room of a class discussing words and their meanings. The teacher asked Lord Mandelson whether he would care to lead a discussion on the word "Tragedy", so he asked the class to give him an example.
A little boy stood up, and said, "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, was playing in the field, and a tractor ran over him, and killed him, that would be a tragedy".
"No," said Lord Mandelson, 'that wouldn't be a tragedy: that would be an accident".
A little girl raised her hand: "If the school bus had fifty boys and girls in it, and it drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy".
"I'm afraid not," explained Lord Mandelson; "That is what we would call a great loss."
The room went silent. No child volunteered. Lord Mandelson's eyes searched the room. "Can no one here give me an example of a tragedy?"
At the back of the room, a little hand went up, and a quiet voice said, "If a plane carrying you and Mr Brown was struck by friendly fire and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy".
"Magnificent!" exclaimed Lord Mandelson, "That's right! And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," said the quiet voice, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it wouldn't be an accident!"
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 13, 2016 8:25:44 GMT
I watched a program last night which outlined that the deal was always for complete intergration when the common market was formed Ted Heath knew what he was doing along with Macmillan they most certainly have done the UK no favours with what they have done just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by Albion on Apr 13, 2016 8:43:08 GMT
I watched a program last night which outlined that the deal was always for complete intergration when the common market was formed Ted Heath knew what he was doing along with Macmillan they most certainly have done the UK no favours with what they have done just my opinion If they knew that then they certainly didn't tell the public. Neither were we told in the pamphlet that the Wilson government issued in 1975 encouraging us to vote to stay in the Common Market which was just morphing into the European Economic Community. The nearest that pamphlet gets to implying what the EU has now become is the phrase 'To bring together the peoples of Europe' which comes under the heading of 'The aims of the Common Market are:' We were misled for sure. What a lot of the Remain brigade say is the Leave brigade are anti-European. That is not true at all as most of us like Europe and the Europeans. It is only that we are anti-EU. The EU is not Europe, it is a bloated and possibly corrupt political organisation. Roger
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 13, 2016 8:54:34 GMT
All the old documentation was there it was plain to see that they wanted a united europe that had on central government from the beginning. It also showed the lies and the deals done by Heath to get it threw Wilson wanted them to vote against it then changed how strange is that. For me a common market is good the rest should be consigned to failed experiments bin quicker the better. Of course greeces loan comes up soon as well they need us in to pay for that
|
|