The European Union: We're out...!!!

[Gullscorer]

The 'Remain' campaign makes much (to the extent of self-evidently ridiculous scaremongering) of dubious and mendacious economic arguments, whilst remaining strangely quiet on the questions of independence, sovereignty, control of our own borders, our own laws, our own destiny - because the EU was always intended to be a political union, a superstate with totalitarian tendencies, for the benefit of the powerful elite and control of the masses. National parliaments will be little more than talking shops, much like the EU Parliament itself.

However, one of the great benefits of leaving the EU will be that we will once again be able to import Bombay Duck from India, along with Indian mangoes. Among the world's greatest gastronomical delights, Bombay Duck is not a duck but actually a fish, to be found only in the sewers of Mumbai (formerly Bombay), from which is derived one of the most delicious and aromatic of dishes. The same species of fish is imported from Vietnam, but somehow lacks the quality of the Indian version. Indian mangoes, too, are among the very best, with a flavour unsurpassed by those of Pakistan or South America, due to the quality of manure dug into the Indian soil.

It is the EU which has banned these delicious imports. If for no other reason, we must vote to leave the EU, and trade once again with our Commonwealth cousins, and the rest of the world, without EU red tape, conditions, and restrictions.

We want our country back. And our Indian mangoes and Bombay Ducks..

[Gullscorer]

The Vote-Leave campaign sidelines UKIP: the pro-EU Establishment's dirty tricks?
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/read ... rple-army/

[PhilGull]

Always with the conspiracy! As I understand it the kippers were part of the Leave.EU group and are still sulking at not being chosen as the offical Brexit campaigners. That and I imagine the Vote Leave group are a little concerned that the foaming at the mouth crazies which hang around the UKIP camp could cause more damage than do good to the campaign. It may be easier to persuade people to vote to leave if those telling them to do so are 'normal', 'regular' people like them and not perceived as racist or fascist nutters.


*In summary, UKIP have done their bit to get things this far but from here on in they are more hinderence than help.

[Gullscorer]

That and I imagine the Vote Leave group are a little concerned that the foaming at the mouth crazies which hang around the UKIP camp could cause more damage than do good to the campaign. It may be easier to persuade people to vote to leave if those telling them to do so are 'normal', 'regular' people like them and not perceived as racist or fascist nutters.

When opponents in debate or in politics attempt to slur, slander, vilify, and demonise, rather than present reasoned and cogent arguments of their own, then I know their position is a weak one. Just another reason why so many people support UKIP. Most people are not so stupid, and see these tactics for what they are.

I thought it an interesting article. Certainly there are legitimate questions to be asked of the Electoral Commission’s decision, though UKIP decided not to pursue the matter, and Farage has said the other campaigns should support Vote.Leave.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/exc ... -1-7852975
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... chdog.html

*In summary, UKIP have done their bit to get things this far but from here on in they are more hindrance than help.

Which rather proves the article's point: sideline UKIP and the Remain campaign's job will be much easier..

I’m just waiting to see what other dirty tricks the pro-EU establishment will produce between now and the referendum. Not that I'm attempting to slur, slander, vilify, and demonise, of course.. But they have already issued the Government’s mendacious pro-EU propaganda leaflet, the cost of which is denied to Brexit campaigners, so giving the Remain campaign an unfair financial advantage. No doubt there will be others; Brexit campaign expenses smears, perhaps?
Oh, wait.. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/so ... igns-email

[Gullscorer]

Deny it if you will, bury your head in the sand, but this is reality not fantasy. Read through this article carefully: http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=892 and ask yourself: do I really want to vote to remain in a European (political) Union in which such perniciously ideological and totalitarian tendencies are becoming established, reminiscent of Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and fascist dictatorships..??

[BobBobBob]

Deny it if you will, bury your head in the sand, but this is reality not fantasy. Read through this article carefully: http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=892 and ask yourself: do I really want to vote to remain in a European (political) Union in which such perniciously ideological and totalitarian tendencies are becoming established, reminiscent of Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and fascist dictatorships..??

I read through that article carefully. It is absurd. First of all, what is so objectionable about "feminism"? I've obviously missed a great number of your lectures on the subject. I'm a feminist, I believe in equal rights for both sexes. Just to emphasise: both sexes. Why on earth would someone want to be an "anti-feminist"? What does an "anti-feminist" do? Could you also perhaps elaborate on what you think a "radical feminist" is? I'm a radical feminist, that means I believe there is a patriarchy that harms both men and women and that enforces gender roles on society at large. I appreciate that this is not something everyone believes and I don't insist that I am right. It's just what I believe. I'm pleased that world leaders are beginning to adopt variants of this view. I am not, as the article describes, "an anti-male fascist" - I am a man myself!

The "Istanbul Convention" (which is the primary antagonist of the article) is aimed at "preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence". What sort of person is against that?! It's primarily focused on European countries (and not just in the EU, so we will very likely sign it no matter what we decide in the referendum) that are lacking in adequate legislation that protects women from abuses such as sexual violence, rape, forced marriage, forced abortion, forced sterilisation, female circumcision, other non-consensual acts, stalking and physical violence. Your article seems to gloss over these issues because... men are being ignored. That means countries in Europe shouldn't have laws protecting women from the listed things? Uhhh? This is certainly not a convincing argument for leaving the EU! On the plus side, it is good that "male rights activists" are now openly admitting that they are really just a front for anti-feminism, which I kinda suspected!

The EU has loads of problems; its involvement in attempts to protect women from violence is most assuredly not one of them! I should sincerely hope that Britain will continue to join them in these efforts should we vote to leave the EU.

[Gullscorer]

So you’ve missed all the posts and links provided in various threads on this forum to help you to be better informed. I suggest you take the trouble to follow some of these up and open your eyes. (Those who have already done so can skip the rest of this post). Or you can simply ignore all the facts and evidence, if it’s only just about what you believe, though you appear to be woefully ignorant, gullible and indoctrinated by the ideology that is feminism. It’s not appropriate on this thread to spend too much time putting you straight, but here are a few basics:

First, there is not and never has been a ‘patriarchy’ that ‘harms both men and women and enforces gender roles on society at large’. This, along with distorted history and manipulated statistics, is one of the lies of feminist ideology.

And, for your information, you don’t have to be a feminist to believe in equal rights for all. It may surprise you that to be anti-feminist is not to be anti-women. Over 80% of women reject feminism, and many women are actively anti-feminist. Why? Because they have seen the adverse effects of feminism (and gynocentrism) on their sons, brothers, fathers, boy friends, and so on, in the form of under-achievement in education, parental alienation, false accusations, male workplace deaths, suicides, homelessness, male victims of domestic violence, and male genital mutilation (circumcision), among other things.

Practically everything feminists say and do belies the dictionary definition of feminism. The very name ‘feminism’ must tell you something. If it were really about equal rights for all, it would have called itself something else, and would also be concerned about issues adversely affecting men and boys.

Feminism is not a disadvantaged group in society. It is an ideology. It is not a proper academic discipline: it is, in its guise of 'gender studies', an indoctrination process. It seeks to ban, silence, ridicule, mock, censor, and suppress those who disagree with it. And now you’re happy for any disagreement with or criticism of feminism to be made a crime? For all men and boys to be forcibly indoctrinated? Which is what the Istanbul Convention wants and what the article is trying to warn against. If you’re happy with that, then God help us all. You can of course believe what you like, as do all other feminists. But feminists have no right to force their misguided, fallacious beliefs and oppressive discriminatory laws upon the world at large. Leaving the EU won't make this and other problems go away, but would be a huge step in the right direction.

[BobBobBob]

When opponents in debate or in politics attempt to slur, slander, vilify, and demonise, rather than present reasoned and cogent arguments of their own, then I know their position is a weak one.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. I've read a bunch of your links, I unsurprisingly do not agree with any of them.

Feminists are not part of some monolithic group. There are loads of different feminist groups with different ideas and different philosophies. There is even criticism of feminism within feminist circles. There is wide disagreement within feminist communities. My feminism is belief in equal rights for both sexes, the vast majority of feminists I associate with believe the same. I didn't say to be anti-feminist was to be anti-women. I asked why someone would be anti-feminist. You haven't given a sufficient answer to that. By all means fight for the causes that affect men. I support that effort. I don't support those who try to repel efforts to fight for causes that affect women. There's a massive difference between criticising something and opposing it entirely.

I'm happy that efforts are being made to combat violence against women, which is what the Istanbul Convention is for. I'm happy that people who wish to pursue feminism as an academic discipline will not be suppressed, censored, mocked, ridiculed, silenced or banned by people like you.

[Gullscorer]

If you’d like to point out when/where I’ve not followed my own advice, I shall be able to respond. I’m not surprised you don’t agree with my posts and links, since I get the impression from your previous posts that what you believe trumps any facts or logic.

I know there’s wide disagreement within feminist communities. They tend to turn on each other as vehemently as they express their hatred for men. I’m talking here, of course, about die-hard feminists and not those people gullible enough to believe that feminism is simply about equality.

Why would someone be anti-feminist? I have a feeling I could write a whole book on the subject and it would still be insufficient for you. But you’ve given your own answer by effectively admitting that feminism does not fight for causes that affect men. In fact all the evidence is that they actively oppose attempts to resolve issues affecting men and boys.

And who is trying to repel efforts to fight for causes that affect women? Nobody. There’s a massive difference between opposing issues affecting women and criticising feminism. All normal people would support humanitarian and egalitarian causes. But this is not what feminism is about.

As for people not being suppressed, censored, mocked, ridiculed, silenced or banned by people like me, it’s not people like me who do that. Your comments seem to indicate a certain amount of projection on your part, along with an unwillingness to carry out any objective research of your own, a characteristic of many so-called ‘academic feminists’, and an unwillingness to see the truth. That's how it appears to me. Just my opinion.

But that's enough from me. This is a thread about the EU referendum. I shall be happy to discuss feminism and the Istanbul Convention further on a different thread, though I have a feeling I should be wasting my time..

[BobBobBob]

The whole of your previous post demonised and vilified feminism without any cogent reasoning. You referred to it as an "indoctrination process". You claimed that feminism is responsible for the litany of issues that affect men without foundation. You claimed that feminists force their views (which you also chracterised as "misguided", "fallacious", and "oppressive") on the world. You also indulged in some slurs against me, describing me as "ignorant", "gullible" and "indoctrinated" purely because of one post where I said I was a feminist. I would be happy to see any facts or logic you have to back up your claims.

There are distinct, occasionally overlapping, schools of thought in feminist theory. There are conservative feminists, liberal feminists, radical feminists, socialist feminists, cultural feminists, ecofeminists, black feminists, separatist feminists, intersectional feminists, libertarian feminists, anarcha-feminists, transnational feminists, third-world feminists, and so on and so on. In one way or another, some will disagree with others. And in other ways, some will agree with others. The point is that criticism is not just welcome, it's actively encouraged in feminist theory.

Being an "Anti-feminist" implies that you don't just oppose ideas within feminism, you oppose feminism itself. How does that not describe someone who wishes to silence, censor, ban and/or suppress feminism? Again I ask, what does an "Anti-feminist" do? I have carried out my research, I even read a load of your links for contrast. That is why I am happy to call myself a feminist. You can try to belittle me all you like, I have a thick skin. I am also very willing to see truth, I even asked you what you believed rather than just assume. I see no truth in your words, I see lots of unproven claims, insults and rhetoric.

[Dave]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... ine-for-t/

As I thought, being the 5th largest economy in the world, both the U.S and the E.U will want to trade with us with out restrictions, it's in their best interest to do so.

[Gullscorer]

Thanks Forever, for injecting some sense and relevance into a thread which was rapidly going completely off-topic. The rich and powerful elite and their representatives are pulling out all the stops to make economics the main issue to persuade us to remain in the EU, but I suspect the questions of sovereignty, independence, control of our own finances, laws, borders, trade agreements, and our own destiny, will ultimately hold as much, if not more, sway with voters in the referendum.

As for BobBobBob, I am reluctant to waste any more time debating with him, but in his very first post he states 'It's just what I believe', and is content to leave it at that. Yet he requires 'cogent reasoning, facts and logic' of anyone who dares to disagree with him. My opinion of him is just that: opinion not slurs, based on how he comes across in his posts here. I've had experience over the years of communism, fascism, totalitarian dictatorships, and religious and political ideologies. I recognise such ideologies and their adherents from their words, deeds and stated beliefs. They are adept at avoiding and ignoring valid criticisms whilst refusing to acknowledge evidence and facts, and are only too ready to project onto others their own faults and shortcomings in an effort to avoid culpability. No amount of argument, logic, facts, or evidence will sway them. BobBobBob is, unfortunately and self-evidently, one such fanatic of one such ideology. I can only urge him (more in hope than expectation) to look again at the many posts and links (and links within the links) on this forum and carry out some research with an objective and open mind, if that's possible, in order to discover some truth and reality. But I fear he is too far gone, so I shall say no more on that topic.

[chunkygull]

[Gullscorer]

Perhaps the most important reason yet for leaving the EU:

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP: the secret EU-US trade deal), which the European Commission has been working on behind closed doors with threats of criminal prosecution for anyone divulging the treaty’s contents, will be the final nail in the coffin of our national sovereignty and independence.

Under this treaty, US corporations will have unprecedented powers over any of our public health or safety regulations. If any European government tries to bring in laws pertaining to social, health, or environmental standards, US investors will have the right to sue in the US courts for loss of profits, in a judicial system which will be unavailable to European governments, companies, or individuals.

Under the treaty, European (and British) food safety standards will be at risk, and the EU economy will be opened up to unfair competition from giant US corporations despite the disastrous consequences for European producers, who must meet far higher standards than those in the USA.

Under the TTIP, we would be unable to prevent the privatisation of education and the NHS. The dividing of the NHS into NHS Trusts, and the conversion of all schools into Academies, are already part of the long-term secret strategy to privatise health, education, and practically everything the powerful wealthy elite can turn into private profit. But under this treaty, national governments would be powerless to prevent the ultimate privatisation of all our vital public services. If they attempted to do so, US corporations would be able to sue them for loss of profits.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 06471.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tti ... 10121.html

This was the real reason behind Obama's recent visit, the reason why he wants the UK to remain in the EU, and why his lap-dog Cameron is a traitor to his country.

[BobBobBob]

Now I can agree with you on something. This TTIP thing is quite worrying. I hope we will have a referendum on TTIP itself should we decide to stay in the EU.