Nicko McBrain

I would hope that a guy who’s toured the world many times since would have a more open world view.
 
Yes Ghost but the majority of voting in the UK wants less immigration (important aspect of Brexit). They willfully voted for that. Even if some have integrated well (and have good income) immigration will decrease as will integration for newcomers (they are not accepted easily). Let's not think Brexit won't change these matters for the better.
 
Forostar said:
Yes Ghost but the majority of voting in the UK wants less immigration (important aspect of Brexit). They willfully voted for that. Even if some have integrated well (and have good income) immigration will decrease as will integration for newcomers (they are not accepted easily). Let's not think Brexit won't change these matters for the better.
Click to expand...

You still have a limited view of the whole picture. True, some people in the UK want less immigration (51.9% voted for Brexit, but that does not mean that all those people want less immigration) or having more control of who comes here, but there are many others more concerned about the lack of transparency of how the EU works and how decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats, and about regaining sovereignty (nothing wrong with that if you ask me).

I would try and explain myself again, as you probably have not experienced this as you still live in your native country (please correct me if I am wrong). The EU started as a common market that later expanded to include not just goods but also people. The so-called freedom of movement allows people to work abroad, but they are essentially seen as a commodity: they can work elsewhere but they do not have the right to vote, something that is a fundamental right in a democratic society (I guess we would agree on this).

I have paid my taxes for quite some time in the UK without having the right to have a say about how the money is spent. Thankfully that now has changed as I have become a British citizen. Long may it remain so.

Last, but not least, although I disagree with many aspects of the EU (as do most Brits), I believe the only way to change it for the better would have been to remain part of it. Now it looks like Germany would be calling the shots and David Cameron, his cronies and their hubris are to blame...
 
Last edited:
Night Prowler said:
Technically yes, but really not. He was 26 back then, he's 61 now. Would you agree about everything with your 13 year old self?
Click to expand...
You are right about the time distance. And precisely, I'm sure he wouldn't and this is why I can love the man, not only the musician. And no, I wouldn't agree with my former self: he was a stupid wanker (except he already loved Maiden and Sabbath).
 
GhostofCain said:
Steve's comments about race integration not being possible were pretty disgraceful if you ask me. My workplace is an example of how wrong he was...
Click to expand...

I must admit that was the very end and I haven't read it fully when posting. Just keep in mind that he lumps everything into race (nationality, culture, religion). The statement is really dumb but what was the prevalent feeling back then? Today there are a number of countries in Europe that have multi-culti society that works, albeit having issues.
 
Zare said:
The statement is really dumb but what was the prevalent feeling back then?
Click to expand...

Steve's statements are probably at the tamer end of the spectrum for what would have been prevalent at the time, although I can only speak from what I have read and seen on TV, I'm too young. Use of the word "darkies" would not have been seen as taboo on television programs at the time.
 
Forostar said:
Having own control about many issues, without acknowledging the benefits of the EU (only thinking of disadvantages) can only be explained by having not much trust in good equal collaborations and relations with foreign people. Ignorance of these issues has led to that small majority. Segregation has led to the ignorance. Lack of integration led to segregation.
Click to expand...

Wow. I am quite surprised by your response. I always thought you could put forward balanced arguments. Maybe not on politics, so this will be my last reply on the matter -let's stick to music ;)

So you KNOW that people who voted "leave" did not acknowledge the benefits of the EU first? Have you ever thought that they DID acknowledge the benefits but genuinely came to a different conclusion to you? Or is that not possible?

We are people, not machines. The same facts can be presented to 2 different people and they could both come to different conclusions. For one party to say the other voted a certain way was clearly for 'reason x' (without asking them first) would be a huge assumption and probably incorrect. Both conclusions are correct. Politics is not a science. If it was, every country would have only one party ......"the best one".

Also, "can only be explained by having not much trust in good equal collaborations and relations with foreign people". Is this a FACT or an opinion? I have spoken to lots of people who voted to leave (it was a massive talking point here in the UK). The main reason cited was we pay more into the EU than we get back, and this money can be put towards the National Health Service instead. So some people voted to leave based on what turned out to be a lie from politicians.

Not having much trust in "good equal collaborations" is your viewpoint. Some people do not have trust in what they genuinely see as "unequal collaborations".

Forostar, I respect your opinion, but please remember that is all it is....an opinion. An opinion written from your assumptions that you seem to be presenting as facts.

I am not saying "remain" is better than "leave" or vice versa, but please remember people who think differently to you actually "think" in a different way, so your assumptions are only valid if they process information EXACTLY the same way as you do. Which they don't. Nobody thinks in the same way and that is why we all have different viewpoints even though we can have the same "experiences".
 
Last edited:
Definition of screed - a long speech or piece of writing, typically one regarded as tedious

I liked your post for the use of "screed". In the UK screed is the name for a mixture of sand and cement, not really for the definition above. I like the word though and plan on using it in work sometime ;)
 
Welsh and Ghost, you give lots of food for another reply going deeper into this. But since you two do not want to discuss further (it's not that nice to hear a different view is it?) (and like to have the last reply as well), I could respect that. Still you are getting very personal and even ask me some questions. Suits you well.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Welsh and Ghost, you give lots of food for another reply going deeper into this. But since you two do not want to discuss further (it's not that nice to hear a different view is it?) (and like to have the last reply as well), I could respect that. Still you are getting very personal and even ask me some questions. Suits you well.
Click to expand...

Foro, I won't comment further on the politics, but I was happy to hear your answers and give you the last word :)

I think you misread my post. I did not say this is the last reply, but my last reply. I expected you to answer if you wished to ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top