Like Snowden?

I'm very sceptical of Snowden. He has all the makings of an intelligence operation. Ex-military. Applied for special forces but supposedly didn't make it (which means he likely did and he's been "sheep dipped"icon_wink.gif. I think he went to somewhere like the Monterray School of Languages - which is a big "no no". As is the fact that he was working as a fully-fledged CIA operative in Switzerland. The guy is a spook.

His behaviour after he "downloaded" anywhere up to a million classified-or-above files from the NSA's servers (without their knowledge) screams spook.

The Snowden operation is a complex, multi-layered one serving several purposes which would take me too long to speculate on. Suffice to say that people should take note of [iwhat was going on in the world[/i the day the Snowden story broke.

John Young at cryptome.org has been holding Snowden & Glenn Greenwald's feet to the fire over the non-appearance of the overwhelming majority of these stolen files. Greenwald himself seems to be doing very well out of the whole affair landing a lucrative media opportunity with that very shady character, Pierre Omidyar (and ... believe it or not ... Booz-Allen Hamilton!).

I mean, what really has Snowden (and Julian Assange) released? It's a similar story to another Guardian-led operation which has emerged recently, "The Panama Papers". I said BEFORE I'd even seen the story that the number one target would be Putin and very, very few US or UK-based businessmen would be touched. When you look closely at Snowden, Assange & the Panama Papers it soon becomes apparent that aside from one or two minor incidents which result in some mid-level intelligence dweeb or squaddie in the US being thrown to the wolves the great majority of content is aimed directly at Russia, the BRICS nations and certain unfriendly Gulf states.

None of these people would ever have received the press they've garnered if they were legitimate. BTW, I'm not suggesting that they are knowingly part of a deception. There are plenty of "useful fools" in the world...

One argument for mass immigration is that we have an aging population and a low birth rate. Why don't we encourage Brits to procreate? At the moment women are discouraged from having children. Middle class women are told that they should be focusing on their career rather than having kids. Poorer women are met with "Who's going to pay for those kids?" and "benefit scrounger".

Before I start I'll state I'm in favour of staying in the EU. That doesn't mean I agree with everything it does or that everything is fine with it just that I think the way to solving problems is to come together as nations rather than stay entirely apart.

On immigration you're right that argument is often used and it's one I disagree with. It's a short term argument because it's a cycle then that requires yet more immigration to support the next group of retirees etc etc.
I also think that large amounts of immigration, especially the kind of immigration we're experiencing from Eastern Europe, simply drives down wages and, crucially, workers rights and conditions.

Of course the real problem came from too rapid an expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe, into countries that weren't and still aren't suitable for it. All that I can see is that this expansion was a political move against Russia to "grab" as many of the Eastern Europe countries as possible away from Russian influence, hence Russia pushing back in Ukraine.
The countries in Eastern Europe are just at too different a level of development for them to be compatible with full EU membership and should never have been admitted.
Free movement of people works fine between nations of relatively similar economies and/or states of development and that's where it should've stayed.

However, IIRC (I'm going off memory here and it may be wrong so I'm more than happy to be corrected if I am) but net immigration accounts for approx half the population increase, the other reason being birth rate. And of the net immigration approx half is from outside the EU.

So leaving the EU, at best, only deals with a quarter of the issue.

Whist we're on the subject of immigration I'm getting sick of hearing politicians and those pillocks in the media constantly saying we want highly skilled immigrants to come in. I don't want that. I'd rather we adequately trained and paid our own people to be highly skilled and be doctors/nurses etc etc rather than immigrants.

But, leaving the EU really really won't solve the immigration/population growth issue.

Yes



There's still too many coming from outside the EU despute claims we can control this.

If we had less migrants it would force wages up and more women could stay at home, especially if combined with a ban on non-residents owning residential property.

On the immigration thing - numbers will increase even more given the huge levels of unemployment being created by the EZ, the fact that English is often people's second language and as more people already have friends and family here. The EZ shows signs of creating even more unemployment and crises will come to light after 23 June. If we stay then numbers will increase - as they say "you ain't' seen nothing yet." That will lead to trouble and increased racism (for want of a better term).

The more population to pay for future pensions argument just isnt viable , as Him explains you then need more in future generations and so on , what is needed is everybody earning more income , paying more direct and indirect taxes and so on

Him is also correct with the expansion of the EU with countries not suitable economically

With regards immigration of highly qualified people from poorer countries within the EU ( and outside ) surely this means those countries will fail to develop and fall further behind the major counties , compounding the issues , we need more home produced work and help the weaker countries build themselves and their welfare systems up

We see the argument for cheap labour from the EU , but also hear the argument for labour protection laws from the Eu , so what are we suggesting ? , we want British workers protected but ' slave ' labour from poor counties ?

If cheap labour wasn't available the farmers would have to pay more for British workers and the result would be ? , 20p more for a cabbage ? , disaster

As Martyn Lewis has suggested , economically NOBODY knows what will defiantly happen , everybody on both sides are guessing , there are no facts , just opinions

And yet history is littered with CAST-IRON evidence [url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Presidents-Bankers-Nomi-Prins/dp/1568584792here[/url, and [url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flash-Boys-Michael-Lewis/dp/0141981032here[/url and [url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flash-Boys-Michael-Lewis/dp/0141981032here[/url (plus a hundred or so other books I could mention) of people benefiting enormously from KNOWING what will happen before it does.

Just how are we to reconcile the Great Sage of the Daily Mail's arguments with the above evidence?

Simple, really. Like every halfwit who repeats this garbage, Lewis' mistake is not in stating that complex and chaotic systems are, by definition, unpredictable (a.k.a. stating the BLOODY OBVIOUS

) - it is in the implicit assumption that all economics is complex and chaotic.

Insider trading is successful precisely because it transforms a non-deterministic (unpredictable) system into a deterministic (predictable) one.

And insider trading (such as the type highlighted in Michael Lewis's "Flashboys"icon_wink.gif is but one in a very, very long line of techniques of "gaming" a system.



You do realise this is a logical fallacy? If there are no facts then your fact that "there are no facts" is opinion ... not fact.

=#FF0000Score: E- (Must try harder)

If you read Peter Liiley's recent article in the Daily Telegraph there are very good reasons to think things will be better out. if the EU barred us from the single market the would be in breach of international law provided we legislate appropriately as part of the leaving process. in other words the scare stories are just that. Our net contribution is equivalent to a 7 per cent tariff on everything, whereas average international tariffs are just 2.4 percent. In other words we are in effect paying well over the odds, if it's just about the single market as Cameron and Osborne pretend. In fact it's all about integration, joining the Eurozone and destruction of the values and systems that made this nation the most successful in history and allows others such as USA, Canada, Australia to enjoy good standards of living.

A couple of interesting articles in the Mail today outlining the spending by the EU bureauocrats and the general feeling around the northern Labour heartlands , mirroring what I've been seeing when asking people how they are voting

I've been wondering if the 'shy Tory' factor will also apply to some 'Brexiters'.

Really cannot understand why anyone would want to remain in such a failed, dysfunctional, misguided, arrogant and undemocratic organisation. Out for me.

Happy to report I've changed quite a few minds. So many people still feel uninformed and in my experience they tend towards the perceived safe option of 'remain'. After a good chat they soon move to 'leave'.

Given the desperation of recent claims by Mr Cameron and the nature of the personal attacks we've witnessed in recent days , I predict a vote to leave with a 62% to 38% split

Cameron is getting really desperate now. After allealling to the young, cheating with extending the online deadline and polls showing Brexit support still grieving he's now tryi g to frighten the elderly by saying state pensions will be affected. His fear campaign is so transparent that if people buy into it then I will despair. However, I do thin the shy Tory thing could be an issue. As it has become more acceptable for people to say they support Brexit I think remainers are shy of admitting how they may vote, I think it will be a close remain victory but it will destroy our future prosperity if it is.

Again as pointed out by Mr Farage today , before his ill fated attempt to get us a genuine better deal , he was saying " If we do leave the EU , we will still be fine "

Short memory there Dave

i will be voting out

the bookies favour us stayin in though by quite a margin , though it is getting closer

seems the ones who do their research will vote out

while the ones who havent taken notice much and will just read the cameron scaremongering headlines will come out and vote to stay in at the last minute as they fear change and dont really understand it all

What research have you done?

It seems the ' In ' campaign now have just the one answer to every question

Economy

No matter what the question , be it immigration,NHS,sovereignty,law making,EU bureaucracy,future deaper involvement just the same answer , Economy

I spent a lot of time reading about the pros and cons thinking about it.

Issues regard the economy are huge and from what I can perceive there is no long term detriment To the British economy as the pros and cons will work out eventually.m anyOne who says anything else is guessing as no one can really say what the effects can be as there are far too many variables.


WHat is also clear is that there will be a lot of instability which will last a minimum of two years and could be as much as 10 before it settles down.

There will be a huge impact on the pound I could see the pound dropping 25%nagainst the euro in the interim.
(I have already got my euros for my holiday in the summer).


The big worry I have got is after watching question time this week, seeing interviews with the brexiteers and looking at some of te headlines it appears to me that the brexiteers campaign is just full of petty little englanders.
The thinly veiled racism is only a small scratch below the surface.

I was at school fayrebtoday with Filipinos poles Ukrainians Irish Thai Africans , goals etc.
That brought home to me very clearly the argument that stop the foreigners coming in will soon be, send the immigrants home.
I don't want to back to the bad old days of the 1970s with the NF and BNP

So I have changed my mind.

I will be voting to stay in . Internationalism rather than petty racist ignorant nationalism.

That is because all politics comes down to the economy.


To misquote Clinton and Carville.IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID

Yet the argument that I only here from the brexiteers campaign is based on. Racism and stop foreigners coming here.

enough to know to vote out.

do yours enough and you would agree, long term we will be better off and thats what its about

yes, cameron with the same old lines , it won him the election as labour made a hash of it previously and he is hoping it will win him the referendum.

and then on immigration he said he will get it down to tens of thousands, last count was 300k... great, carry on at that rate and we will have to build a house every 4 seconds to keep up! but the rich londoners wont care as we wont be building on their nice green fields

This thread is EMBARRASSING. Aside from the fact that most of you seem to equate [ithinking[/i with reproducing the words of [insert newspaper columnist here verbatim - we actually have several people claiming - quite seriously - that this debate is fundamentally about who is and who is not a "xenophobic racist".

The more I read of this kind of stuff the more I sympathize with the ruling class. At least they have some kind of purpose.

What was it that George Orwell said, [i“So long as the Proles continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult?”[/i

Trouble is Orwell was living in a time when his Proles actually showed some gumption. Left to trawl the fetid detritus in threads like these (which, alas, are all too common today) I'm sure Orwell would have opened up a vein in utter dismay.

Then you know nothing at all about Orwell. He was a strident campaigner and activist, not someone who would have curled up and dies in despair at other's views. If he were alive today he'd be front and centre for one side or the other.