“Martine 8 .That is terribly feeble and lacks quality, exactly what reubedube and I had discussed Is it really that you have a problem with two people of opposite opinion combining and attempting a bit of diplomacy beyond the usual puerile predicable tit for tat nonsense that goes on between alternative argument's.

My previous stuff has been quit opiniated but I don't ' believe an on line forum is that important to become so serious and we should not lose sight of what it really is.

However feel free to engage and send in some articles and your political solution and insight on the issue .”

“boring”

“reubedube Thanks for that”

“amoros11:Calmer waters prevail, and thus allow sensible debate to take place.
Yourself and many others no doubt will be surprised to learn that I do in fact agree with the stance taken by David Cameron. On occasion it is not what he does that I cannot agree with, but the manner in which he conducts himself, acting as though everyone else is wrong and only he knows what is right.
Like lots of people of whatever political leaning, I am concerned with the increasing amount of bureaucratic 'directives' coming from Brussels, and the new Treaty which Cameron was not happy to put his signature to on behalf of this country, would have been a step too far as far as being in our country's best interests.
The new Treaty is a Treaty contained within the existing European Union Treaty and the failure of David Cameron to sign it is in my opinion to be applauded. We are still party to the European Union Treaty, and with that nothing has changed.
According to a report in yesterday's 'Express' (Fri. 30 Dec.), as from Sunday 1Jan.2012, aviation will come under the EU's controversial "Emissions Trading Scheme" (ETS), a move which is expected to cost airlines across Europe £1.1 billion in it's first year. The ETS is on top of the Governments Air Passenger Duty, which is set to rise by about eight per cent in April.
The extra cost to airlines will of course be passed down to consumers.
Another example of a 'stealth tax' being imposed upon us by Brussels !
Without further debating this issue at present, I hope what I have written sufficiently answers
the closing paragraph of your last post ?
Happy New Year to everyone.”

“Hello reubedube

That' fine it's always been my intention to try to connect and interact with opposite opinion on the site in between, you write well, most of your post's are quite eloquent articulate and long, contrasting views are different of course.

Also you have had some recent stick from me and you have to stick up for yourself as well, within an abrasive site as it can get a bit blunt. It wasn't offensive but I felt that personnel emotion had replaced debate.

My view is that criticism within the context of political discourse or constructed within the issue is a lot more affective, the best way and I guess our own correspondences have been a mixture of polite cordial but sharp disagreement separated by different opinion as well. You will find that users of the same opinion will also side with one another. Guilty on my side on the recent debate.

You may have also noticed that the site is a bit confrontational at times opinion is quite frank .I have done it myself on occasions but if I find it's becoming emotional I try to instil a bit of diplomacy within the opposite exchange.

But there are many users who incur strained relation beyond, that is due to the different political beliefs on line. I have witnessed many feuds on line, but I think it's good If one can still maintain some context in between the difference.

Finally back on the issue I would be interested in your reply to my last comment. I left you a bit of a suggestion, that the issue was in the joint UK national interests, not one for party orientation or difference what do you think of that.!

Thanks”

“amoros11:
I concede that my post of 27 Dec. 8.56pm was touching on the sarcastic and ought not to have done so. If you found it to be insulting to you then I apologise. When I post on this site, or any other for that matter, it is for the purpose of exchanging opinion, certainly not to deliberately throw insults.
When I made my first comment on this particular topic I was simply asking of 'depreg' to provide evidence to support the statement he had made. Nothing malicious about it, just seeking factual evidence, quite a civil question on my part.
The response I got from 'depreg' was rather less civil; "reubedube Unlike you ,I deal in facts and I presume if you are able to post on here, you are also able to use a search engine.Just to help you along a little try ..........(a link provided). Not exactly a polite response My post following that still only questioned the validity of 'depreg's facts, again, not in a nasty way.
Not untill 'depreg' lowered the tone by declaring my contribution to be 'ridiculous' and I making myself look silly, did I choose to respond in a similar manner. When you chose to agree with depreg, declaring him to be "as accurate as he could be", I was not able to agree with your view either. Not just to be awkward, simply that I just could not agree with you.
I never intentionally insult anyone, no point in it as far as I am concerned, if I choose my words less carefully sometimes in responding to someone who I perceive to be deliberately trying to 'wind me up' or make me look small,then I may upset someone.”

“My comment was put in a clear, polite and diplomatic way that polls are not an exact science or fact , but are quite accurate indictors within a small margin of error and have been consistent in predicting votes and election results More or less yes, but reliable enough for parties to claim the moral ground over it and it helps experts assess the progress of partiies. Outside of that there are only actual election and vote ballets.

But it's interesting that after all your high moral talk with Eastonian on insults and papers innuendo and being above it all you're now repeating the same waffle paper talk and seeking exactly the same tit tat, thing with me , is this how all your correspondences go .Why the recent sermon then.
.
But I'm not interested in polls; it's an irrelevant statement that makes the mark rather than the complex issue itself.

However to be left wing doesn't mean that you have to challenge and deny everything put forward in the name of the coalition. This present issue isn't about party politics or compromise it's about the long term national interests at times supported by different viewpoints.

The EU would have imposed rules and restrictions on the London Financial Market s that would have undermined its authority. The majority of British people see the value and sense of preserving the future and security and control of the London Financial System and our influence.

The public also have concerns about surrendering too much control to a Euro sector of instability that can't get its own house in order

Also enterprise goes on outside side the EU and the UK is an important global enterprise and it's a myth that the UK would be isolated , enterprise goes on outside side the EU and the EU would still be included to do business.

However this is a UK issue not a party doctrine .
.”

“amoros11: I'm really sorry if as 'depreg' states, my contributions are ridiculous and I just manage to make myself 'look silly', I really must try harder to reach the standards you two display. I need to read the Daily Mail each day instead of just the 'Mail on Sunday', then I'll be sure of reading the facts about things all of the time.
However, you and 'depreg' really cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you are stating "One can only base and challenge argument on facts", but go on to state "there has to be a bit of factual give and take either way". (cannot agree there by the way).Facts are Facts,no more, no less !
'depreg' in his/her 26 Dec. 7.49pm post wrote "reubedube Unlike you I deal in facts".

When you write "Depreg is being 'as accurate as he can be' ; "Opinion polls are 'usually' quite accurate ; "are 'often' quite accurate"; -- None of that is convincing language I would associate with a sensible argument at trying to present a fact to someone!

depreg: I was tempted to take a look at the new link you offered. Was I surprised to see reference to another poll ? No! Was I surprised to see it had been conducted on behalf of the Daily Mail ? Not really.
Made me wonder though; Daily Mail supported 'Survation', conducted on line interviews with 1,020 people,the result of which showed majority support for David Cameron's veto. Now there is a real surprise ! What we do not know,however,is whether the interviews were with randomly
selected people, or were carried out from an address list provided by the Daily Mail, a list of people registered with the Daily Mail on line ?
Was the result of those interviews the 'source' of the fact (?) "Well as the majority of electors support Cameron's stance" ? If so, a rather weak basis on which to be purporting to be presenting factual evidence !
Making me wonder now, just who is being ridiculous, I'm beginning to feel less guilty in that area.”

“PM is playing a dangerous game - is he, do you know what was in the 'Treaty 'then?”

“Anyone who equates an opinion poll with a vote for strike action by a trade union clearly needs to take a long hard look at themselves”