Brexit #2

Subject: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words.

We are all supposed to be adult and have a modicum of intelligence, hopefully that will remain to be the case.

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

Could someone kindly provide a link to the article.

PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:48 AM

Foreign secretary surely Raggy?

Anyway, as I kept saying elsewhere, we all know what people mean so it doesn't really matter ;-)

Here you go.

D.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: JP2
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:57 AM

Completely agree Nick,but,and it's a big but,I'm not holding my breath!

I voted to remain in 1974 and the same again last time and nothing that I've heard in the last two years about leaving has made me sanguine about the future.

I've always taken the view that if the European Adventure has done nothing else it has meant that nobody in my family has been forced to put on a uniform,pick up a gun and fight in a European war since 1945.

There,I did that without being rude or offensive to anyone!!

JP2.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:02 AM

I concur - this is potentially the most far reaching event in UK and Europe for decades which could have an impact on more than half a billion peoples lives, and a greater impact on over 60 million lives in the UK, and when we hear, now almost on a daily basis, potential problems - the latest being continuation of an open skies and aviation safety deal if the UK refuses to recognise the ECJ as an overarching regulator. I will continue to voice my concerns on these matters and say why I am concerned, and respect the right of those who hold opposing views to explain why there is no cause for concern. Also I respect the right of some to say that they are not bothered about how things may impact on other peoples lives, as long as they are honest enough to say they don't care less and own that view rather than profess to be speaking on behalf of the UK electorate, and comments like 'they are only saying that because they want to remain, are traitors, it is all fake news is singularly unhelpful in progressing the debate and providing the reassurances that people are looking for.

So yes, lets ask the questions that need to be answered, lets hear both sides opinions about what is likely to happen, and why they think that, lets try to avoid thread drift into endlessly repeating polarised views on sub-topics, and above all, not engage in insulting language directed at other mudcatters (though I would suggest that politicians could be fair game).

Anyway, that is my two-pennorthworth of ground rules.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:30 AM

SPB: What is this problem with 'open skies and aviation safety'?
Where can I read about it to see whether you viewpoint is valid?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:40 AM

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

In today's Express "THE EUROPEAN Union is finally accepting Brussels needs to “fudge” crucial Brexit negotiations and offer the UK a vague blueprint for future ties with the bloc as tensions surrounding the divorce deal increase."
The Daily Wail:Just 5,000 jobs are expected to go in the City because of Brexit - despite earlier forecasts of 200,000 cuts

So who to believe?

So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides, in a world where nothing is agreed until all is agreed.
A lot of posturing and nonsense from both sides I suspect.
With no deal, both sides end up losers. Every upside has a downdside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:50 AM

Iains, I think we all understand that the discussion has two sides.

What I and other people have asked for is some indication of what good bits the UK can expect. To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

I honestly would like to believe that some good could result of us leaving the EU but to date I have seen none.

Therein lies the fundemental problem.

And now we have a situation where a senior member of the cabinet is clearly expressing his concerns.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM

DMcG,
So far all we are getting is progressively more hysterical exaggerations from both sides,

There has been no hysterical exaggeration from Leave side.

Rag,
To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative.

That is because Guardian only prints negative reports, and you only read the Guardian.

The problem here is that Remainers worry about everything and believe every scare story, while Leavers only worry that Brexit will not not be delivered because the establishment is trying to subvert the process.

That is the whole discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:04 PM

Raggy I suspect how a person voted was driven by their perception of what the EU was morphing into, today, tomorrow, 5,10,20 years down the road. No matter how much TPTB dodge the issue, I feel it is all about destroying the nation state, constucting a US of Europe with all power financial, economic and planning being tighly grasped by centrists.
This is not the world signed up for in 1973. The Bilderbergs and globalists of the world may embrace the idea. I do not and never will.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM

Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I link to the Guardian because, in the main, it echoes my own opinions which I arrive at after having read many sources.

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

If you continue to do so, I will have no other option than to ask the moderators to delete your posts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:17 PM

Iains, I can understand your concerns in that regard, however, whether you or I like the fact, the world is changing and the ideals that you and I held thirty, forty, or fifty years ago are history.

We have to deal with the now, and we have to deal with the future and the ever growing globalisation of the world.

The fundemental question is whether to be a part of a big organisation or be a very little fish in a very big pond, and as you and I both know little fish invariably get eaten.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:36 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied, are voicing concerns, then I think it is a worry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

Why was a quote made by Iains put in my name?
This thread is an attempt to keep things civil and calm. Misattributions don't help.

On the other thread I attempted for quite a while to distinguish between Leavers and Brexiteers, though in the end I gave up. A leaver may well have voted to leave as a matter of balance: some who voted remain or leave will not have finally decided until they had the pencil on their hand. Others will have mixed feelings, liking some of the leave arguments but not others. Only a comparatively small number are likely to have been leave at any cost Brexiteers. Equally, remainers also cover a spectrum of views. Can I then suggest we try to avoid terms like Brexiteer except for those towards the very end of the spectrum?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:26 PM

Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source of not be is still a senior member of the cabinet.

But the problem with both he and many other mp's is, are they for or against Brexit? Their party colours ain't necessarily their batting colours. This adds further complexity in trying to puzzle out who and what can be believed or nor believed. How many MPs are trying to forward Brexit, and how many to frustrate it.

Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? The jury has largely made it's mind (in my case)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:40 PM

Rag,
Keith you do not know which newspapers or other media sources I access.

I have read all your posts on this and you have only ever linked to or quoted Guardian articles.
If you had read any Leave papers how could you claim, "To date almost every single report I have read has been in the negative."

You have now posted twice with attacks upon people who favour the remain site and have not, as yet addressed the subject.

I have not. I have only disagreed with them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:42 PM

I don't think many politicians could be trusted with the TV remote let alone the country but the fact still remains that they are privy to information we do not get and have a host of people qualified to advise them. Yes, he will have an agenda. So do those who want a hard brexit, including the media barons who are using their power to convince people to let them use the UK as a tax haven.

Who do we believe? Jeremy Hunt? Nigel Farage? Rupert Murdoch? None of of them?

Up to you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:47 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them. Over and over again we have asked for any positive forecasts and over and over again the silence has been deafening.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 01:59 PM


Is May a passionate Leaver or a traitor? 
I think there are quite a few other possibilities than those.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM

But those other possibilities encompass a lukewarm brexit. i.e. All the shackles and no place at the top table. Rather a silly place to end up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:15 PM

It is quite simple for anyone wishing to prove that there is as many reports for leave as there is against. Post links to them

All the reports you have linked to have been opinion pieces from pro-Remain papers.
Doing that is not discussion.
Do you really doubt that the Leave press does not carry such pieces?
They do every day, but it is not discussion to just copy or link to the opinions of others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 02:31 PM

What Hunt actually said,
"Britain will prosper and succeed whatever the outcomes of these talks because we are that kind of country."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45033344

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:06 PM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible, and asking France and Germany to lean on them, when he would be better served leaning on his own party leader to face down Rees Mogg and his brownshirts, and to relax the red lines that she has drawn.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:12 PM

well, that's alright then, cheers jeremy . i was getting a bit worried for a while. in all the 1,000s of posts in another place i have seen many comments on trade prospects and intricate details of various opinions on most aspects of the problem, but it's the human aspect that most concerns me. on a personal scale i have 2 children in estonia and italy with no idea of how things will turn out (and another 3 who are also furious about this brexit thing) at a national level there seems to be very little concern about insulting our neighbours and disregarding the peace that's been maintained for decades. in these troubled times - surely this can't be the time to walk away from this. and how can we be so uncornerned about the loss of our rights? i'm hoping we will avoid some of the more scary predictions but a lot of damage has already been done and peoples' lives needlessly messed about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 03:22 PM

The implication is that if May is not a "passionate leaver" she must be a traitor, DMcG. Difficult to address such invective without going beyond the spirit requested but I shall try.

I agree, there are plenty other options and somewhere amongst them will be a number of sensible ones. Trouble is, they will all involve compromise and that will be seen by some as either weakness or treason. I don't know how to fix that but, surprisingly, I do wish May, Hunt and co every success with finding that compromise. If it involves retaining at least some of the benefits of being in the EU, it will be good for us all. Unfortunately, while some are prepared to accept compromise, the more vociferous leave supporters only seem to be interested in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

In my opinion of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:03 PM

Any views of the result of a survey which suggests that Brexit with cost the British People £800 per person?
Maybe it isn't important to those who can afford it !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:06 PM

THERE YOU GO

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 06:28 PM

Jim, As I have already posted prior to today, I have seen my food bill, my utlitity bills and my fuel costs rise over and above the rate of inflation. (which while not ideal is the normal state of affairs.)

I am in the fortunate position that to date I have been able to absorb these.

However, I also know many people who are now struggling because of these additional costs.

For example my food bill in the past two years has increased by around 17-18%. It is not that our diet has changed but that imports have risen in price due in no small part to the fall in the value of Sterling.

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 07:25 PM

I cannot foresee that our leaving the EU will address this problem and no-one has as yet submitted any article or news report that counters my increasing fears.
I thought I had submitted something in the previous discussion. But as you haven't seen it, here is another:
how we could see lower prices after Brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:58 AM

I have said before that I think Leavers put too much focus on tariffs, without looking at the wider ramifications. While that article does consider the CAP for example, tariffs are still a central theme.

The home-grown food has always relied heavily on cheap, seasonal labour. It is not an EU thing - it long preceded it. The changes to mobility look likely - nothing is certain yet - to reduce that. So the local growers either have to find an alternative source of cheap, efficient labour (no price change), or pay the pickers more (increased price), or as is happening in some places, pick less(increased prices through scarcity).

So even if tariffs come down the effects on prices will be complex: some will go up, some down. That is made more complicated because we eat foods in different amounts, so for one individual the prices of what they currently eat will go up, and another down. Then there is a third effect: especially for the poorest what they eat will change to seek out the cheapest foods, so they might see a reduction in price.

End of story? No. In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%. And we know that cheap food is often high fat and high sugar. This runs the risk - not certain, but an increased risk - that sugar consumption will rise. Which impacts obesity. Which impacts diabetes and other health risks and so the NHS costs. Which in its turn puts pressure on taxation and/or how taxes are allocated.

The real world is a complex, inter-related web. Change one bit and the ramifications spread far and wide. It cannot easily be represented adequately by a tariff rate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 02:27 AM

Nigel
Your link is based on so-called "European protectionism" - yet Brexit is based on an extreme form of just that - isolationism, euphmised as "standing on our own two feet".
Britain hasn't got feet any more - it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable
Agriculture at home is in severe decline
FROM ONE OF YOUR OWN
We are going to be at the mercy of the most protectionist, isolationist and most self-serving nation on the Planet - you have put us in hock to Trump's America
I was mildly amused when I spotted the headline next to your article reading "If only we had a leader like Trump" - sums up the whole farce really
Far from having an plan of how Britain is "going to stand on its own two feet", so far it has been unable to devise one on how we are going to leave Europe in 8 months time yet.
It seems this decision has no only naused up the lives of the present generation but has also placed a huge shadow of theod of the next one
And you still wave your little Union Jacks and sing rule Britannia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 03:09 AM

If he said that last bit Keith he is wrong. And he seemed to be blaming the EU negotiators for being inflexible

He did. I have never had much confidence in the man, but as Dave said, "Whether Jeremy Hunt is a reliable source or not he is still a senior member of the cabinet. If senior members of the cabinet, who have access to information we are denied....."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM

Hunt may be a senior member of cabinet, but that doesn't make him a judge of what kind of a country Britain is. Indeed the very concept of a country being a certain kind of country is meaningless. People are certain kinds of people. And people change.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

ok. how do people think brexit will impact on our disastrously depleted local services? a few years back the EU wanted to commit 22 million euros to support our food banks. the government blocked this money as not appropriate.

at present 40% of EU spending goes on agricultural subsidies. our farmers are having a terrible time with drought and worries about how brexit will affect their trade and their subsidies.

as the current government is committed to huge cuts in public expenditure - what hope for farmers after brexit?

there are very many things in our country that are badly in need of spending and a fresh approach away from privatisation and cost cutting. what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:29 AM

what fresh initiatives can we expect for social policy once EU subsidies have been removed?

Once EU subsidies have been removed we will have more money to spend not less.
They just give us back a little of our own money and call it a subsidy.
They also decide what it must be spent on. Post Brexit we can decide.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:33 AM

" In the article it mentions a few example high tariff foods, and one is sugar at 33%."
FACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?

"!it no longer has an industrial base so has nothing to export and is incapable of producing goods to become delf sustainable"
FACT
The UK produces 40% of goods imported into Ireland in the agri-food sector
and to name but one sector.
In 2016 the value of UK defence exports was. £5.9 billion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:36 AM

As for continued support for farming, promises have already been made. See Farmers Guardian

In a roundtable with farmers and agricultural organisations including the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society, Farmers Union Wales, NFU Cymru and the CLA, the Prime Minister will also reiterate her commitment to maintaining current funding levels until the end of this Parliament to ensure farmers have the certainty they need to plan for their business.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: “This Government is committed to supporting the half a million people who work in agriculture and growing our world leading food and drinks sector, which contributes over £100 billion to the UK economy. But we also need to protect the farmed environment for future generations.

“Leaving the EU presents us with a unique opportunity to transform our food, farming and environmental policies so we can have a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry that is fit for the future, and helps us to leave the environment in a better place than we found it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:43 AM

nigel - 'promises have already been made' - does that really reassure you these days? how about 'i am not going to call another general election' 'windrush generation are british citizens' 'if scotland wants to remain a member of the EU it must vote no to independence' etc etc etc etc....

really, if you were ...say, a cumbrian hill farmer would you feel safe?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Promises made by a tory are not worth the paper they are written on, even if its used bog paper.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:03 AM

Anyone I've talked to who is passionately pro-Brexit, and who voted for Brexit, did so for one main reason: "Too many immigrants".

But the immigrants into the UK they objected to were mostly from Britain's former colonies in the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East and Africa. Brown people, like. Brexit won't stop this immigration.

To me it seems a reckless action to leave a strong trading bloc. The UK's politicians are trying to convince their voters that they can bully this trading bloc into giving the UK a privileged trading position even after it leaves the bloc, an idea that seems pretty much away-with-the-fairies.

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:11 AM

that sounds like a straightforward and very fair assessment of the situation, thompson. without our fear and mistrust of the 'other' (provoked and encouraged by some very unsavoury and dangerous far-right people and press) and (here, i am entirely guilty) dislike of change, then i'm certain we wouldn't be having this crazy discussion about how best to leave a club that has many benefits for us- not least to encourage peace among nations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:17 AM

ACT
Boosted by the end of sugar quotas in 2017, EU sugar production is estimated to grow significantly for 2017/18. The EU is the largest producer of beet sugar in the world. Sugar prices are expected to drop across the EU. There is no tariff on internal distribution.
Perhaps you meant cane sugar?

I meant that the article Nigel linked two talked about the tariff on sugar. They may have meant cane sugar, but I made no claim about the type of sugar and nor did they.

I did make a mistake though. They said 31% which I misremembered and put 33%.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:18 AM

Fact, not act. And to, not two. Sorry about those.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:40 AM

Odd, that. Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers. Which seemed fair enough to me; why should we compete with some of the poorest people in the world, who are producing a healthy, high-quality product?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:45 AM

By the way, does the UK actually produce 40% of agrifoods imported into Ireland, or is it that the UK is used for shipping these goods to Ireland?
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2018/BrexitFactsheetJan2018290118.pdf

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/statisticalpublications/Brexit.pdf    (page 27)(page 32)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:55 AM

Mm. But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:58 AM

The story about the Irish sugar beet factory dates back to 2005. The end of EU sugar quotas was last year. 13 years is a long time in politics!

Why the EU deliberately impoverishes third world farmers (as shown in the link below) is a question you would be better off asking them!



https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:00 AM

Not just the EU, also the US - agricultural giants clearing jungles for factory farming and putting small family farms out of business. It's always the way with big biz.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:17 AM

no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet or whatever sort of typifies the way i'm feeling today. reel back say, 5 years, in your wildest imaginings did you ever think you would be doing such a thing - did any of us imagining we would be following such fabulously obscure (6.000plus) posts?

really, it's crazy, innit? maybe we should all allow ourselves to laugh about it. it's all we have sometimes

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 08:45 AM

"no disrespect, iain but quoting a 2011 article about irish sugar beet"
Actually the thrust of the article was dating from 2005, where the comment was made that " Ireland's beet sugar business was shut down by the EU (or by the withdrawal of EU grants supporting it) on the basis that its support was unfair competition with impoverished cane sugar growers"

But as I pointed out The EU abolished sugar quotas last year. As result this current year has seen bumper crops of beet planted, thereby exacerbating the situation highlighted by the original post. That is why comments need to be given both a context and a date.

" But "produce" is an odd variable. Ireland is the largest producer of bananas in the world (not grown in the well-known banana plantations of Finglas, but packaged and re-exported)."
NAFTA "producer" means a person who grows, mines, harvests, fishes, traps, hunts, manufactures, processes or assembles a good;

To define the redistribution and repackaging of bananas as   production is perhaps a stretch too far.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

From the Central Statistics Office figures for last year:

The EU accounted for €5,472 million (56%) of total goods exports in December 2017, of which €1,621 million went to Belgium and €1,131 million to Great Britain.

The EU accounted for €4,038 (63%) of the value of goods imports in December 2017, with €1,562 million (24%) of total imports coming from Great Britain.

The thing about goods being identified as coming from a specific country is that "added value" often means goods are described as belonging to a particular country, so that if, for instance, broad beans are flash frozen in Spain but then packaged for sale in Britain, they may legitimately (if not quite honestly) be described as "British", and ditto for other countries.

It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM

That is another thing I haven't got clear in my head - If companies currently use UK as a point of entry for import for distribution across EU27, will they want to incur two levels of tariffs in the future? How would this impact on ports. Would exporters want to do thorough the hassle of shipping to both UK and EU 27? As 88% of the market would be mainland Europe in the event of a drop in trade going through UK ports, where the money be found to maintain the employment levels of dock workers?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:40 AM

As I understand it, importers and exporters are currently looking to make new arrangements.

Dock workers? Not many of them left, now that so much is automated. Truckers and delivery drivers will be hit, though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:37 AM

"It will of course be necessary for the fruit, vegetables, cheese, meat, etc imported to Ireland from Europe to come via France or the Netherlands rather than through the UK after Brexit, because otherwise these imports would be hit by two lots of tariffs - one to bring them into the UK from Europe, the second to reimport them into Ireland (ie Europe again) from the UK."

WHY?

The Convention on International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention) is a multilateral treaty that was concluded at Geneva on 14 November 1975 to simplify and harmonise the administrative formalities of international road transport. (TIR stands for "Transports Internationaux Routiers" or "International Road Transports".) The 1975 convention replaced the TIR Convention of 1959, which itself replaced the 1949 TIR Agreement between a number of European countries. The conventions were adopted under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). As of January 2018, there are 73 parties to the Convention, including 72 states and the European Union.

The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 11:53 AM

Isn't the TIR convention mainly so that containers, etc, don't have to be opened up when passing through countries on the way to other countries? (I was baffled in my youth to see that many lorries bore the word "TIR", meaning "Country" in Irish, and a trucker explained this to me.

I don't think TIR means duties don't have to be paid by exporters, which is how Britain is treating these goods at the moment (as far as I know).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 01:16 PM

Thompson. If in transit from one eu country to another via the uk, then under the TIR convention, no duties would be paid entering or exiting the uk.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM

Genuine question here about no duties being paid. If the UK cannot charge a anything for goods crossing the UK on transit to the EU does that mean that roads and infrastructure can be used but we get no benefit from it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:00 PM

That is the current situation Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 05:09 PM

The subject seems a little confusing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564827/EU-court-threat-UK-foreign-trucks-levy-Brussels-officials-claim-10-day-toll-unfa


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2593608/Foreign-juggernauts-pay-drive-UK-roads.html

Post brexit I would envisage the playing field being leveled even more.
It seems very uneven at present.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:05 PM

I was against going into the Common market in 1974.

I voted for Brexit.

For many reasons.

I don't think Brexit will happen in any meaningful way. None of the nobs believe in it.

A couple of days ago the national news gave up their entire mid day broadcast to scare stories. Very reminiscent of the millennium bollocks - planes would fall out of the sky, every computer would stop, life as we know it would cease.

The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. The arguments are for nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 06:21 PM

"The people in charge simply don't believe in Brexit. Its not going to happen. "
I wish I could believe you Al - do you really think the destruction of a country's economy and the welfare of it's people are more important than saving face after this fiasco?
And besides, there are only so many terrorist linked parties to be bribed ans o many £Billions of the taxpayers money to bribe them with   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 10:05 PM

we'll see.

I think they'll tell the people its happened. perhaps on paper it will have.

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves and practicing protectionism under various guises. The Spanish will still be out there doing to our fishing waters what they did to their own years ago.

Its a bit like services led economic recovery, some daft sods will believe its happened despite all evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think its a bit like the permissive society. I never felt permitted to do anything much. Same old shit, with a new label.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:14 AM

But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves

I am not sure what you mean by that, Al. The EU is made up of its members, of which we are currently one. If the EU apply regulations they have to be approved by the UK as well. I am not at all sure if any country has approved regulations and then ignored them. The 'them and us' does not apply as we are one of them anyway!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

"But the EU will still screw us up with regulations, whilst ignoring them themselves"
I'm afraid that sums up the British approach to the E.U. from day one
Rather than treating it as an organisation they became part of it was always "them and us"
If the E.U. was "screwing Britain" - it was Britain screwing herself.
Ireland did extremely well out of the E.U. because they considered herself part of it - it was the predatory bankers who ******* up the booming economy not Europe.
In Britain, you can add the corrupt and inept politicians with their bogus claims for expenses for their Duck Palaces.
The E.U. is now doing its level best to prevent threat of a slide back to the days of 'The Troubles' and further economic chaos that British narrow-minded bigotry has put back on the agenda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

Ireland, the country doing so well that they import much of their food from UK manufacturers, yet threaten to close their airspace to the UK post brexit.
Does anyone else see a fatal flaw in this blatant attempt at blackmail?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Ireland can bring in food from other sources. You seem to have no idea of the weakness of the UK position. Hopefully the government can be persuaded to see sense and make the concessions which the EU rightly demand.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:04 AM

I think it will be unpredictable, other than those with little money will still have little money, property prices possibly might fall in Ireland for a short while

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

David Carter. Yes they can. Providing they can find the suppliers, shipping, distribution, and customers willing to pay the increased costs.As yet Ireland has very little direct trade with Europe. Most of the trade is with north west europe, and I believe I am correct in saying, as yet zero direct links exist.
I do not envisage seeing too many happy bunnies when they study the resultant inflation added to their food bill.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:52 AM

David Carter. not just my thinking.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unique-brexit-exposure-could-cost-ireland-billions-each-year-467105.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:16 AM

Of course, if Brexit is going to cost Ireland 'Billions more', presumably the EU will help them out with this, as their intransigence over the border issues will be a major part of the cause. Although the EU coffers will already have been severely depleted by the loss of a major contributor.
Perhaps Ireland will take it as a glimpse of their future relations with the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 07:53 AM

"Intransigence over the border issues?" There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border. We were all a bit too obsessed by the "fact" that we were being swamped by foreigners and by reading fake numbers on the side of a bus to bother our little heads with trivia such as that border, and that attitude went right to the top. So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution. Odd.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:30 AM

well to be honest, i think there are those of us who have done business in Europe and know the actuality of the EU, and those who are repelled by the racism of the EDL.

I sympathise with both points of view.

I've stopped responding to all the shit calling me a narrow minded little Englander racist on facebook.

I think rational debate went out of the window a long time ago. The EU isn't a bad idea, but its run by crooks. Why wouldn't it be, they're politicians. As Dennis Skinner says, at least outside the EU, we'll only have our own lot of crooks to deal with.

But like I say, it won't happen. There'll be some sort of flummery to appease the referendum voters, but the fix is in. Theresa May did not and does not believe in Brexit. Why would she, tory constituencies never felt the chill winds. Tories Thatcher, Major, Cameron, Blair weren't daft - they took care of voters they needed. Blair wasn't a tory - but he needed the marginal seats.

To compare an economy like Ireland, horse racing and dancing at the crossroads, with an economy of England is daft. Paul MacCartney could afford to buy everyone in Ireland a drink and an ice cream. If he had to buy everyone in England a drink, he'd keep his wallet in his pocket.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:50 AM

The only reason the UK/Irish border is a problem is that the EU chose to make it one.
So now you want the EU and the Irish to sort out the mess, and you call them "intransigent" when WE can't come up with a resolution
The UK have come up with answers, but they were not acceptable to the EU.
The EU seem to consider this a good negotiating tool. But so far, as with so many other subjects, they have not come up with their own ideas, nor accepted any of those put forward by UK.
So 'intransigence' is exactly the word I would use.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:05 AM

There WAS no border issue until the UK took a unilateral and silly decision to cause a border issue by voting for brexit without giving a thought to that border.

I think labeling all those that voted for brexit as being stupid does nothing to take the argument forward, besides being extremely insulting.
Britain and Ireland had free movement of nationals of the two countries since 1923details here
There is no reason for this to change. Random checks have been carried out on all incoming people since 1997, contrary to the view held by some on this forum.
If the EU and Ireland cannot come up with a solution then they have to swallow some major expenditure, and Ireland the loss of a massive import/export market. Eventually that will cause the intransigence to evaporate. Should that not happen the Irish people will be most unimpressed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:09 AM

The EU intransigence predates the referendum. Remember David Cameron sat in a row boat with Merkel et al? He went to get reforms from the EU to present to the UK referendum voters and got nothing. Even he could not spin what he got as reform.

The EU is like a stuck record. You can't have a conversation with a stuck record.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:20 AM

As I said earlier, the EU is just the sum of its component countries, including the UK. If the UK were negotiating with the EU they were negotiating with themselves as well. OK, the others could outvote the UK but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required. Once outside the EU we will have no such control and if we wish to deal with the EU, which we undoubtedly will, we will still have to conform to their rules but this time we will have no say what those rules are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 AM

...or to put it a little more crudely, I would rather have them in the tent pissing out that outside pissing in. (LBJ on Hoover?)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM

So nobody saw us as being inside the tent, and getting pissed on?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:31 AM

Stanron, that was nothing to do with the border issue. Whatever other EU intransigence issue you're referring to, there was no EU intransigence over the border before the referendum as there was no border issue. Cameron went off to get concessions from the EU full of hubris and, quite rightly, he was told where to get off. Negotiating with a tough and much larger partner isn't like falling out on Mudcat where certain persons may be given to calling you far worse things than "intransigent" just because they disagree with you. You have to play the game, which may involve smiling sweetly through gritted teeth. If you end up calling EU negotiators intransigent because you can't get your way, you're in severe danger of, er, making them intransigent.

The referendum was extremely ill-advised and the campaign was all heat and very little light. In those circumstances the only safe thing to do was vote for the status quo and throw the bloody thing back to the politicians to think again. So it was silly (the word I used, by the way, not "stupid") to vote leave, and it isn't just leave voters who will get the come-uppance they deserve, unfortunately.

And being silly is a very human thing. After all, billions of people believe in God.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Ireland isn't making any threats. The airspace rules are part of international agreements, as is the border question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:33 AM

Was the hoover inside or outside the tent when LBJ pissed on it, Dave? I hope it wasn't plugged in. Very dangerous!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:35 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:37 AM

I dunno where you could plug a Hoover in a tent anyway! (Sorry Raggy - Can we be allowed a few asides? :-) )

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:40 AM

but at least inside the EU we also got to veto any laws they propose if required.
No, we had a veto in a few, limited, areas.

In the special legislative procedure:
The assent procedure is used to approve certain key decisions such as the accession of new member states, and the approval of Commissioners.
Assent requires an absolute majority of MEPs to approve a decision.
A 'majority' does not mean unanimity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:54 AM

I really don't know how I can put this any differently. The UK are (for now) part of the EU. If you saw it as the EU pissing on us then we were also pissing on ourselves. We are a major and integral part of the EU and if you want to blame the EU for anything then our representatives in that organisation are equally to blame and, ultimately, so are we for voting them in. It is not an us and them situation, It is an us and us.

Once again, NO!.
Since issuing article 50 many decisions are being taken by "The 27" and we are already being excluded.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

We shouldn't be in Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:03 AM

are we being excluded? i thought we had chosen to leave. maybe they are kindly letting the UK know how to get used to not having a say in decisions that effect us. the scots, of course, know all about that

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

The sad thing is that the leave side has successfully misrepresented the EU and the UK as chronically adversarial. In general, EU laws and regulations are drafted after massive consultation intended to avoid conflict and dissent, and the UK is one of the most influential partners. Taking suggested new policies as far as a vote is the uncommon exception, not the rule, and, as a major partner, we have a big say in whether important new laws are passed. In some cases we have a veto on our own, in some cases we can team up with just a handful of other countries to say no. In some cases our population size is taken into account, not the fact that we are one in 28. Rarely do we have laws imposed on us, even more rarely anything incredibly significant, and NEVER by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels."   There is no point in having 28 countries enduring various levels of discontent all the time over regulations, in fact the EU would rapidly fall apart were that to be the case. Even though the UK has recently been the most argumentative partner, our huge influence has ensured that almost all EU law is agreeable to this country. There really is no argument here. If you really want to make a Big Thing about "taking back control of our laws," you'd better be ready with some substantial areas of current disagreement to put forward in support. And don't think that the size of duck eggs or the straightness of cucumbers will cut it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

OK Nigel, we WERE part of the EU until article 50. The rest of the statement still stands. Will you stop nitpicking now before the thread gets closed again?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM

Steve Shaw appears to be saying that because the EU was not intransigent over the border when the border was not an issue, it's intransigence since, or before on other issues is irrelevant. This does not follow. The EU is being intransigent over the Irish border. The EU has been intransigent over other issues in the past. The EU's inability to be flexible on any issue causes problems for the UK and the EU. Once we are out of the EU we will be free from some of the problems that come from EU intransigence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:14 AM

Well said, Pete.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:16 AM

Well you didn't clarify that earlier, Stanron. We were actually talking about the border but you chose to widen it. Still, you've clarified your opinion now. I don't agree with you, but cheers anyway.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 10:21 AM

Project fear goes into warpspeed as Governor of the BofE becomes blatantly political with his speeches. I look forward to seeing him fired!


https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/9625-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-fresh-blow-from-governor-carney

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:01 AM

I didn't find much iin Mark Carney's speech particularly political. It is part of his job to set out the prospect for the economy over the next year or two, and since March 2019 falls in that period he had to mention the prospect of leaving and outline what the expect the effects to be. In fact, he would be amiss not to.

The only really political comment was that the prospect of a no deal is 'uncomfortably close' - I accept that is not a 'it is close, let's all whoop and cheer' stance. But it is no different, really, to Raab's "risk of a no deal by accident" or May trying to get a deal. It is fully in line with the government position, I would say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:24 AM

I thought it was a bit political:
Carney also revealed the Bank of England recently ran a Brexit no deal exercise that saw property prices plummet by a third, interest rates go up to 4%, unemployment up to 9%, and a full blown recession

The Governor also refuses to say the 21 month transition period will be long enough to adjust the economy for Brexit, "we’ll take the two years. We’ll make it enough".

In view of the predictions he was making before the referendum, which failed to come true, I thought he might have learned to keep quiet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:34 AM

But if they did run those models which showed that, what should Carney say?

"I am not telling your predictions for the economy of the next two years" - I reckon that would start a panic.

Or say "We have run no models"? That's the same, but adding in that no one would believe him which would make people things were even worse than they could imagine. Result: an even bigger panic.

No, I reckon the best thing is to report what the model found. Then people can decide for themselves whether to believe the results of the model. And, of course, they should also accept their responsibility whatever decisions they take opposing it, should the model prove to be more or less right.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:46 AM

And should the model prove more or less totally wrong, how many more times should he be allowed to discuss forecasts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:57 AM

Mystic Meg is allowed to make off the wall forecasts, because they are of no consequence.
However Forecasts from the Governor of the Bof E have real time impacts and consequences. If public forecasts were part of his job description no doubt he would be a leading light at the BBC, like his flyweight brother in arms Lineker. But his job carries responsibilities to all of us. Time to give him his cards and repatriate him back to the land of Trump.

We would all be better off if he shut his mouth and got on with his day job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM

The model is based on a "no deal" scenario. With luck, we will never get to find out if it was right or not. Otherwise we will have a no " deal" and know within a year whether the model is looking close or not. But I see that while you accept there may be a period where the country suffers for a period just after a no deal, I think we are still missing any sort of indication from the Leavers how deep and how long this could be. Like Carney's model, we recognise the uncertainties and caveats needed. But some indication would be welcome. And then we can see if that is closer in the same timescales.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:06 PM

Nigel, Carney is the Governor of the Bank of England. As such it falls to him to forecast the projected future of the value of the pound and the possible impacts of various changes which affect it.

It would be incredibly remiss of him not to inform the country of the possible outcomes of a no deal, soft or hard Brexit.

I have noticed the fairly recent increasing usage of the term "project fear" which I interpret as a cover for items leavers would rather consider we didn't think about or discuss.

It smacks of "la la la, I didn't hear that, I want to believe in unicorns and fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Many of us continue to have very serious concerns about the future of our country, the future of ourselves, and the future of our children and grandchildren.

It is Mark Carneys job to warn us of potential pitfalls.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:15 PM

No, 'Project Fear' relates to the catastrophe which was forecast would follow immediately if we voted leave.
We voted leave and the forecasts proved to be almost totally wrong.

The same type of forecasts are being made again now, and are being described as 'Project Fear', or 'Project Fear mark2' on the basis that the original was so inaccurate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:25 PM

Then give us better forecasts, Nigel. Or at least alternative ones.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:40 PM

Perhaps it is also necessary to remind people that every business of any size has forecasting as a fundamental part of its business plan, despite the inherent uncertainty in any forecast. The alternative, in business terms, is a shop ordering a pile of clothes to be produced without making any attempt to estimate how many they will sell. You may be wrong, but you make the estimate. Every business does it, even if it a local café deciding how many loaves to order.


We know what forecasting is, and its uncertainities. These uncertainties are no justification for walking blindly by refusing to make any estimate at all. You make a your forecast and state what assumptions you are making and where you think the risk of errors is greatest. It is a well trodden path.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:49 PM

The reality is that positive or negative, the forecast cannot escape being a political statement. It's negativity not only puts the BOE firmly in the remainer camp but is having a negative impact on exchange rates as well.
What is done as an inhouse study should stay inhouse given the previous track record of the man's accuracy.
It is inescapeable that putting such a study in the public domain is a political stance, not economic.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:53 PM

I'm scratching my head here as to why anyone not shit-scared of brexit, as several here purport to not be so not shit-scared*, should be campaigning to get Mark Carney to shut up, etc. The same people who want that have nothing to say about nincompoops such as Rees-Mogg and Irritable Dowel Syndrome, who, compared to Carney, know bugger all about economics. Personally, I'd like to hear a bit more of the measured voice of Carney and a LOT less from those two ideologues, thank you. But let none of them actually shut up.

(*though I actually think they're just as shit-scared as everyone else deep down).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:55 PM

"What is done as an inhouse study should stay inhouse given the previous track record of the man's accuracy.
It is inescapeable that putting such a study in the public domain is a political stance, not economic."

So you're against free speech...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 01:57 PM

"Does anyone else see a fatal flaw in this blatant attempt at blackmail?"
SIMPLISTIC NONSENSE AS REPORTED BY THE SUN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:35 PM

Of course we are shit scared. We lose our right of freedom of movement. We lose tariff free access to QUALITY EU produce, rather than the polluted shit that the USA would force feed to our children. We lose EURATOM. Horizon2020, Erasmus, EHIC, and visa free travel to 23 countries. Its a complete disaster. And thats before you factor in the economic downsides.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:45 PM

Sadly, this it where it all comes apart. Again.

Anything negative predicted by qualified economists and business leaders is dismissed as project fear. Any optimistic forecast put forward by the unqualified and ill-informed is believed and embraced. People who want to remain are remoaners while those wishing to leave see themselves as patriots. There is no point in even discussing this in such a hostile environment.

It was a good try, Raggy, but while most people are happy to stick to your requests, there are those who will always want to deride others, nitpick and try to win trivial points.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 02:56 PM

Our economy is based entirely on forecasts - from buying shares to producing budgets
The predictions of the economists on the likelihood of Brexit damaging our economy has so fa proved to be spot-on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:24 PM

Carney can't be 'repatriated' to the land of Trump. He's a Canadian, born in Fort Smith, NT.

You know I'm right! :-)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/repatriate

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:58 PM

I have long campaigned for Ireland to be moved to the corner between France and Spain…

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM

The words of Carney's chief economist Andy Haldane, explaining why the experts had got their economic forecasts so wrong during the referendum:

    “Fair cop. If you look at how the consumer performed during the course of the last year it’s almost as though the referendum had not taken place. In terms of the real things like pay and jobs not very much happened during the course of last year. It’s pretty much business as usual. The spending power in people’s pockets was not materially dented… Maybe some of the scarier stories politically will be seen to be just that – scare stories.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:11 PM

Deleted? Really? I'm surprised. I wouldn't expect civil and thoughtful posts to be deleted.

I think the English - won't say British on this one - went a bit nuts with the 'leave' vote, but I think in a lot of cases it was a protest vote, by people who didn't expect 'leave' to mean leave.

But this is my own view; I'm quite willing and eager to hear other views and consider them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 05:51 PM

I don't find it in the least bit surprising that the estimates and economic forecasts have proved over-pessimistic. It's standard practice in the financial world to take a 'prudent' view when forecasting - which means that you generally present a near-worst-case-scenario. This is on the basis, of course, that if things turn out better than forecast, your pessimism will be readily forgiven whereas, if you're over-optimistic and things go tits-up, you're up for a slaughtering from the critics.

Regarding the forecasts for the social and economic future of the U.K. after Brexit, only time will tell how accurate they are/have been.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 06:07 PM

Hi Thompson. Just for the record I voted leave and I meant leave. I would be very happy if we 'crash out' with 'No Deal'. It's important to point out that 'No Deal' is not 'No Deal for ever'. No Deal means we start from a point where we are not a part of the EU. We don't owe them any money and they can't fish in our waters.

If the EU wants to do a deal on the Germans selling their cars to us, ie evading World Trade tariffs, then we can do a deal on that, assuming reciprocal stuff for cars produced in the UK. If the French, Spanish and Germans wish to sell us their wine and food produce on better terms than the WTO rules, we can do a deal on that as well. Mrs May lacks courage and conviction. Most remainiacs appear similarly doubtful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:11 PM

"They can't fish in our waters."

Well yes. The thing is that our coastline is pretty close to the coastlines of several EU countries, and fish stocks are notoriously migratory, so, er, who do they actually belong to? The Icelandic cod wars were far simpler in a way. They have an island hundreds of miles from everyone else. Then there's those Russian super ships hoovering up our fish... if the EU was simply about agriculture and fisheries, not only would I have voted brexit but I'd have fish-bombed and cabbage-bombed Brussels years ago. Those sectors are disastrous, but are still just a very small part of EU business. Whilst I'm not a fisherman meself, here in Bude I'm mates with several of them. The situation is disastrous. Thousands of tons of fish are thrown back dead every week. Over-quota or undersized. Sand eels, a crucial part of the marine ecosystem, are being removed wholesale to be rendered into fertiliser. What a world. Animosity between our lads and the lads from EU countries runs high. There's hardly any mackerel left to fish and nearly all lobsters have to be thrown back undersized. I can't help feeling that it'll be a bloody long time before we get reasonable deals on fishing, by which time we'll be feasting just on Pacific tuna.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 08:27 PM

Well Steve, I don't think you've given any consideration at all to the point of view expressed by Stanron.

To be honest, I don't think you give any consideration to the bare facts.

In 1974, both Morris and Renault were producing crap cars - the Renault 4, the apalling Renault Dauphin and the Marina.

Renault is still there - still producing shit cars. All our industries have gone because they said we were illegally subsidising our industries, which was just the way we did things.

The last smack in the kisser was the Skoda story- an entire 3rd world economy, we are asked to believe restored to health without subsidy, without unprecedented tax breaks.

The point is they don't adhere to the rules, We are stupid,   and we do.

We simply can't go on like this - running the economy on Russian gangsters buying football clubs and real estate. We have to get the wealth of the country back to work - reviving our industry.

We will never do it inside the EU. What ever the cost we have to get out, and sort ourselves out. No one else will do this for us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 09:21 PM

Stanron, like yerself, is a leaver by ideology. I have to make that my starting position when it comes to thinking about what you're saying. Until ten or twelve years ago I was an avid leaver. I know all the arguments about foreigners taking our jobs, overwhelming the NHS and filling our streets with foreign tongues (and fixing our electrics and plumbing and teeth and bad backs when we didn't have enough of our own...). But I've changed my mind. Not about fisheries, agriculture and the euro. Disasters all, but, for the UK, very little disasters. Fisheries are a basket case largely, but not entirely, of our own making, agriculture represents less than one percent of our GDP, and we very wisely stayed out of the euro. Nothing at all professed by the leave campaign was actually true, that's the problem. It was all hopeful noise, devoid of reality, peppered with xenophobia. No-one, from Cameron down, knew what leave meant. And when you're in that position you either play safe and opt for the status quo until something better comes up or you're basically insane. Not you personally. But there was an insane mode afoot in the country the day of the vote. Euphoric nonsense. You can bollock me all you like for saying that. But in nine months' time or less you'll see the light. Actually, the darkness. Guaranteed. And I think you know it, deep down. Nothing in this thread proposed by leavers is anything other than threadbare hope-mongering. You'll see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 11:10 PM

Not in Europe so I am sitting on the fence. Yet having read a lot of yall's thoughts on this I find myself logging in to say I best like Steve Shaw's summary and conclusions.

For my part I was in the UK when the 1st referendum happened, and yes most of us at the time said 'yes' to the EEC.

But as I see on Quora some now call it "BrokesIt" because this horrid mess is ruining Britain by breaking it into bits. Sad!

Reminds me of the 70's when us young Engineering types tried to save the great British Bike makers by renovating and showing off our AJS, BSA, Matchless, Velocette motorcycles.

As if there was much hope. We later had Maggie blankety blank Thatcher closing down the Black Country mills and mines. While long lines filled the Post Office for passports for those lucky enough to be able to emigrate to Australia, Maggie was busy filling their empty little houses with Pakis she brought in by the boat load. Please don't take offense but I was so mad at the time I near lost my peace.

Yet today we see DJT here saving our Mills for the very same reason in revere that the old crow did. Personal gain.

Please let not this 'BrokesIt' drive out yet another entire community of native British people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:10 AM

Well the thing is I grew up in the town of Boston. The kids I went to school were - many of their parents were fishermen. And I have tell you - there was nothing of the basket case about the fishing industry or (like the mining industry) there was an chandelry industry servicing the British trawlers and shrimping boats. As for it being a mini disater - look at England. The industry stretched the entire fucking coast line. I was in Looe one half term, and the bank had foreclosed on every single fishing boat in the harbour. This nonsense is what the EU does to our banking system.

To be honest its you Steve who is counselling do nothing and everything will be all right.

The wealth and stable society that we have and we share with immigrants is predicated on wealth creation and the industry of our population.

Just leave it to speculators and they will asset strip us, and the stable society will go.

I see the road to darkness as one we embarked on back in 1974, and we're a fair way down it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:01 AM

I must say I thought the last few posts were excellent. People from both sides presenting why they voted as they did with reasons and no personal insults - and no assumption the future will all be wonderful either. Both looking at the problems of the past and seeking for ways it could better. I think they set a standard for the thread we could aim at.

In my view peteaberdeen is right in suggesting we need to keep looking at how all this affects the ordinary person in the street. The 1% will make money any way this falls out: all that changes is the amount they make and what restrictions they have on future deals. The rest of us will just have to cope with whatever happens.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:20 AM

Having said that, I suppose I need to set out my own position a bit more. At the time of the vote I was 'Remain', but by no means as strongly for remain as I am now. In fact, if you could be bothered to search for it, you would see that I have posted that the way the EU treated Greece made me consider voting Leave. Greece had major problems, no doubt, but the EU solution was basically the asset stripping that Al referred to, and in a way that overrode the earlier democratic votes. That's a dangerous attitude, and one I wanted no part of it. So were that the extent of the issues, I would have voted leave. But it isn't. The EU is basically two projects interwoven - a financial one and a social one, and there were enough risks when you considered both to put me on the "Remain" side.

What has put me much further on the "Remain" side is that, by striving, I believe it would have been possible to agree with the EU a good working relationship. What has hardened my view is the totally unpreparedness of the UK position, and an unwillingness to consider options and consequences adequately. I remember the photo from the very first negotiation, where everyone from the EU side had several folders in front of them, and our side didn't have a side of A4 between them. That has typified our stance ever since.

I do not, by the way, think leaving will be as disastrous as the more extreme shroud waving of some remainers in the press. Nor will it be the sunny uplands. But on that spectrum, I think we will be much closer to the disaster end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:32 AM

I don't think that you can hanker after jobs or a lifestyle which has gone. My grandfather was a coal miner. The coal mines in his area were closing long, long before Thatcher. So he crossed the country looking for work, and found it first as a market gardener, then as an electrician. My father maybe could have had a university education but for poverty and later the war. He was a fairly senior local government officer in the end. But both my father and my grandfather emphasised to me that I should take up any educational opportunities on offer, and forge my own future, and not hanker after their past. Which is why the EU has been a fabulous benefit for people of the UK, particularly young, ambitious people, who have had opportunities that they never would have had without it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

Countries have to be self sufficent energy wise,and less wasteful. Most Empires in the past have invaded other countries to steal energy resources. Every empire[ including the european empire] only has a limited time span. in the short to medium term western europe will [i think] have more poverty
The european empire IS A CURATES EGG.
it seems to be benefit principally The International Banks, then its foremost adminstrators GERMANY AND FRANCE,
GREECE has been punished too severely, likewise Ireland.
Meanwhile we are ignoring, China a country that bans winnie the pooh, and is intent on controlling everyone by CCTV,
We are all going to have a hard time over the next few years, but maybe nothing like Greece has suffered

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:13 AM

My first contracting position was in Belgium over 20 years ago and I have worked in Europe a couple of times since. It would have been a lot more difficult to work there as an independent consultant had it not been for EU employment legislation. Luckily for me my working days are nearly through but I am sad that my children and grandchildren will not have the same opportunities.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:16 AM

Dick, is it going to affect you or are you now an Irish citizen?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:17 AM

Nonsense Dick, the EU benefits its people, and the people including in Greece would be far worse off without the EU. Without the Eurozone bailout they would not be able to heat their homes, as Greece most definitely is not self sufficient in energy. What you say is in part true, and is the reason for countries amalgamating in blocs which are large enough to be self sufficient in energy and food. The UK on its own clearly isn't quite self sufficient in either, as demands and expectations have increased. We are no longer content with a diet of gruel and turnips. We want, indeed now need, mangetout, Jamon Serrano and fine wines.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:32 AM

Bollocks David, I can grow mange tout anytime i like, we do not need Jason or fine wines, the consumer society tells us we need jason and mcdonalds and other shit including wine with added chemicals ,but we do not NEED them.
Greece would be worse off?
how do you know this , of course you do not, neither do I.
EVERY COUNTRY NEED TO THINK ABOUT BEING MORE SELF SUFFICENT ENERGY WISE.
Why did GERMANY invade Poland at the start of the second world war ..COAL

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:41 AM

Generally speaking Colonisation wars and invasion of other countries has been about stealing raw materials, we need to stop wasting our resources and start atempting to be more self sufficent energy wise.
Creating a European bloc does not solve the problem, neither does the UK leaving, solve that problem, the whole business is a red herring, there are more important issues.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:57 AM

David, you can not compare fishing to coalmining.
Deep mining is in trouble everywhere because there is much cheaper coal readily available.
There is still a huge demand for fish and our fishing industry has been all but destroyed by nothing other than the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:01 AM

This is what I don't get.

People worked and travelled in Europe before 1974.

People seem to think they will be forbidden from travelling. You could get a tourist passport for 7/6d from the post office - for an entire family.

Working in Europe is still very dodgy. When I was gigging there a few years back. the situation was far from straightforward. All sorts of protectionism were common. To this day - you'll find Spanish acts keep the front for themselves - the English work the cafes in the back streets.

Record royalties and download fees and performance right fees are just as fucked up as everywhere else. The dual tax agreements are administered by somnolent offices - you get the feeling most people just ignore them.. They seem to resent being reminded that they exist.

To be honest the Remain scare stories - they seem weird . Like the millennium ones.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:06 AM

There is still a huge demand for fish and our fishing industry has been all but destroyed by nothing other than the EU.
Correct.
The EU could have spent money more wisely in Ireland, in my opinion instead of building a few new roads[ and in one case destroying a natural heritage site] they should have spent money repairing the water mains infrastructure, an infra structure that leaks badly and is a hangover from the Victorian British Empire,.
Water is one of Irelands assets, something that possibly could contribute to future energy demands, without water there is no life.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:18 AM

"To be honest its you Steve who is counselling do nothing and everything will be all right."

Nowhere in any post have I ever counselled "doing nothing." Don't assume that remain voters think that all will be well if we just stay in and do nothing. In this thread I've criticised EU fishery and agricultural policies as disasters and said that the euro was a big, big mistake, and I also agree with what's been said about Greece. The EU needs root and branch reform. But that doesn't mean I think it's bad enough to abandon. We live in a world increasingly dominated by huge, fiercely protectionist trading blocs. If we leave our bloc we will be a little country in big trouble. We are not the manufacturing powerhouse we once were. No-one is queueing up to give us amazing deals and the world can manage quite well without our stuff. We have a good deal of influence in the EU but we have forgotten how to be a constructive partner, a deficiency started by Thatcher. Harking back to a past mythical golden age (mythical? We were the sick man of Europe when we joined. We seem to have done OK since...) is useless. Better to stay in the community and be a friendly but firmly-argumentative partner fighting for reform. That does not mean doing nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 06:26 AM

I don't think we were sicker than anywhere else.

My Renault Kangoo was as shit as any Austin Maestro.

It was written off after going through a deep puddle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:33 AM

I borrowed a Maestro for a year and could sit there on a quiet afternoon and watch it rust from underneath in a cancerous fashion. Remember Maggie getting in one outside Number Ten, lauding it as the best of British? Heheh. My next-door neighbour got a brand-new Marina as a firm's car (!). We found rust in the seams on the day it was delivered. After eighteen months it was incredibly shabby, on its way out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:47 AM

I had a Montego 7 seater estate that was full of rust after 12 months. Shame really as it was a lovely car otherwise.

As one who has worked in both Europe and elsewhere I can assure you that going to work in the EU is far easier and cheaper than having to get a work permit as you need to in many other places. Unless we come up with some sort of deal, Al, anyone going to get paid work in the EU will find it more difficult than it is now. No scare story, just a comparison between areas that you need a work permit for and ones that you don't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 08:03 AM

Well the usual thing the agent told me was if the customs people stop you with a PA in the back - they will send you back. So tell them you're playing at a friend's wedding, a private do. That sometimes works apparently.

That's an agent who's putting gigging acts all over the EU. So they aren't that bloody wonderful.

The subject has been a lead story in The Stage several times.

The reality gap between actuality, and the wide open spaces of the EU as described by Remainers is a constant source of puzzlement to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:03 AM

Better to stay in the community and be a friendly but firmly-argumentative partner fighting for reform
but it seems to have achieved nothing as regards the fishing community.
I agree the UK was privileged to kaep its own currency.
LIKE MOST BUREAUCRATIC EMPIRES SUCH AS THE SOVIET UNION IT IS DOOMED TO EVENTUAL FAILURE ,WHAT IS SAD IS THAT IN THE MEANTIME PEOPLE IN GREECE HAVE EXPERIENCED EXTREME HARDSHIP.
I think that in the next two years people in the uk and ireland will suffer which is sad and not something that I am happy about.
However relentless consumerism and the idea we NEED fine wine or mcdonalds shit needs to be adressed seriously

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:10 AM

I had three BL-built company cars in the '80s - an Allegro (a.k.a. 'All-aggro'), an Ital (successor of the Marina) and a Rover 200. I had each for three years and, by the end of the three years they were rust-buckets - wings, sills, bonnet-edges, boot-lids, all rotting to a greater or lesser degree.

It wasn't the EU that destroyed our motor industry, it was our own industry's poor designs, cheapskate materials, and shoddy workmanship. Utter rubbish that got what it deserved. And saying otherwise, blaming the EU, is typical of the 'everything is somebody else's fault' attitude so rife in society nowadays.

And it makes me smile to hear people bewailing the fate of our fishing industry, and complaining about 'Spanish fishermen plundering our waters'. I didn't hear them speaking out in support of Iceland when our own large fleet was plundering Icelandic waters. Funny how, when the boot's on the other foot, it's somehow 'different'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:24 AM

Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own.

A two hundred mile limit is now an accepted institution for a sovreign state such as we hope to be soon, and other fleets will have to respect that just as we accept Iceland's 200 mile limit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:38 AM

The maestro...Steve, wasn't that the one that talked. I often wondered what it found to say....

I had a 2nd hand marina. but the handles were very attractive to thieves. Someone nicked our tent from the car , smashing off the handles - outside Stirling University, it was.

Afterwards my father in law who was a fitter at the pit, did a 'pit job' and stuck some homemade handles on with pop rivets.

As they say in Worksop, John, it really looked a bugger.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 09:46 AM

I think you are getting it all out of proportion, kind of rewriting history. Don't forget that in those days the modus operandi was ' built in obsolescence'. We did that really well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 10:12 AM

"Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own"

That's not how the Icelandic government saw it. Nor, eventually, the way Nato and the UN saw it, who both backed Iceland's position on their declared fishing limits (as did, for reasons of national security, the US). I remember very well how we all cheered when the Icelandic gunboats tried to ram our trawlers and our crews' superb seamanship won the day - "That'll teach those rotten foreigners a lesson!". But the U.K. eventually had to accept the 50-nm, and subsequently 200-nm, limits.

Iceland was acting to preserve its own fishing industry, which played a far, far larger part in their economy than ours has done in the UK economy, and the UK was the interloper and, as far as Iceland was concerned, the aggressor. As I said earlier, it's very amusing to see how different people's reactions are when the boot's on the other foot.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: MikeL2
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 10:42 AM

hi Al

" I don't think we were sicker than anywhere else."

I agree entirely

I had a Fiat 124 from new. Became a "rust bucket" in no time at all.

At the time I was working on an important project and for my sins I was I was seen as the best man for the job. it meant commuting from Manchester to London 5 days every week.

I have to say that the hard working engine was fantastic as I flogged it severely.

Mind you I made a lot of money out of it as I negotiated a great deal on traveling expenses. I sold it and bought a Ford 1600 E. Fantastic motor.

Some of the european cars were crap. And then there was the Lada !!!

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 01:10 PM

DAVID, you understood my point jamon or jason,
I can grow mange tout for five months and with cloches or polytunnels all the year round, and the quality is better than imported ,free of any chemicals.
" As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything," it has much to do with it my point was about Consumerism
" We want, indeed now need, mangetout, Jamon Serrano and fine wines."
we do not all want or need any of that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 01:18 PM

I think the point David is trying to make is that at the moment we can, if we wish, buy these items freely. Post Brexit this may change due to delays at customs, costs, etc etc.

The fact that you do not want or need such things is basically irrelevant to Davids point. For instance in the UK access to plots for growing is difficult, my garden is tiny, two/three inches of soil then solid clay. I waited 9 years to get an allotment.

If you have the land to grow on, good luck to you, next time I'm down your way I'll come and have a look if I may.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:05 PM

Dick, if I understand it, you live in Ireland. So you are actually insulated from the problems that brexit will cause for us poor brits. So actually Raggy, Dick will still be able to buy these things freely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 02:55 PM

Of course I am not insulated , we will all be affected, not quite sure how badly, but both countries will be poorer with the exception of people like REES MOGG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:05 PM

jeez, i just tried to read 'the animals' by john berger. it's difficult, innit? however john berger is one of the things i love about my country - although his 'country' was indefinable, he didn't care much for borders and lived much of his life in rural eastern france/switzerland. i'd love to hear him talk about the little englanders and their precious brexit - or come to that the tommy robinson's of our times. by the way, i feel a list coming on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM

From: David Carter (UK) - PM
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 12:45 PM

The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers.

Ok. There is a (very) limited season for growing mangetout in UK. For how long can it be grown in EU? (probably not for a much longer season)
A quick google search suggests that most of it comes from Kenya. Which means that when we leave the EU we will be able to buy it without the EU import tariffs currently imposed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:48 PM

David Carter, HERE is a quote from McDonalds website, seems like they use european producers
We are proud to source many products and ingredients from Irish suppliers such as beef from over thousands of Irish farms, bacon from Dew Valley, Ballygowan water, Flahavans porridge oats, free range eggs from Greenfield Foods as well as products from Kerry Foods, Leestrand Dairies and Gempack. McDonald’s in Europe is the single largest purchaser of Irish beef by volume and one in every five hamburgers sold in McDonald’s across Europe every year is of Irish origin. The company also exports Irish dairy produce, bacon and eggs into the McDonald’s system internationally.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 04:59 PM

'Mange Bugger-All', if the rumours about food-shortage predictions are to be believed! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:13 PM

Other way round Nigel, Kenya and other EAC countries have preferential access to the UK market at present, but the UK government are refusing to say whether that will continue when and if the UK leaves the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 05:15 PM

Dick, you seem to have an obsession with Macdonalds. I care not where they get their food from, since I would never be seen dead in there. They may use fine Irish raw materials, but they still turn them into shite food.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 07:46 PM

"The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

And Dick, what the hell is Jason. I wrote Jamon Serrano, and if you don't know what it is don't pontificate on whether we need it or not. As for mangetout, there are about 2 months of the year when you can grow it in Britain, and even then it isn't the same quality as imported. As for Macdonalds, what has that to do with anything, I wouldn't touch Macdonalds with a bargepole. We need quality food, and that means European producers."

Amen to all that, David. It's the tradition to paint the EU as the sinners and us as the saints. One of my Bude mates is a lifelong fisherman who knows ten times more about fishing than any bloody bureaucrat. You want to hear what he says about the EU. But, when pressed, he'll tell you what you probably don't want to hear about British fishermen too. Farming's the same. Until someone cries foul, farmers will degrade the soil until the taxpayer has to stump up for dredging (Somerset Levels flooding a couple of years ago - entirely due to terrible farming practices). They will devastate wildlife until someone passes a law. Neonicotinoids are destroying insect life in this country but farmers will keep on using it until someone bans them. Same old story.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Aug 18 - 08:18 PM

An "Empire" is a gathering of countries ruled by a single state Dick - Europe is a conglomeration of States that have assembled to reach mutual understanding on certain major issues
Thirty or forty years ago I might have told them all Britain, The U.S.. the European countries to go to their own chosen hells in their own handcarts - the reality of the situation has made me think twice on this one.
The E.U. is an attempt to fend off the inevitable collapse of the present system by Capitalist Countries
Should that collapse happen in a disorganised random fashion, there is an inevitability that several countries will swing to the extreme right to solve their problems - we already have a rise in the fortunes of the neo-Nazi parties in Europe - Austria narrowly escaped a Nazi leadership a couple of years ago - Hungary has such a leadership at present
Brexit was carried though by drawing on the British people's xenophobic fears
I was appalled at the way Greece was treated during its economic crisis, but last time anything like that happened there The Colonels moved in and massacred and tortured their opponents
It is notable that the most vociferous opponents of the E.U. come from the Extremist right of Europe and America
The E.U. may not be perfect but until another "spectre comes to haunt Europe", it'll do for now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:22 AM

I should have thought Brexit would be just what the doctor ordered for Irish Unity.. the Irish want in the EU, the English clearly want out.

Surely the EU should be a great rallying point for Irish people. One subject, they can be united about telling England to bugger off, once and for all.

Sod off England! We want to be in Europe!

No.....?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:34 AM

In the Sunday Times today:

Britain is odds-on to crash out of the European Union without a deal, Liam Fox warns today.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, the international trade secretary put the chances of a no deal departure at "60-40", squarely blaming the "intransigence" of the European Commission.

Fox accused Eurocrats of harbouring a "theological obsession" with EU rules rather than "economic wellbeing", which would lead to “only one outcome”.


As I have said many times, the more extreme leavers completely fail to understand that the EU is about economic, political and social interests, not just economic. Any approach that concentrates just on the economic is extremely likely to fail. So what Liam Fox puts down to EU intransigence is actually the inability of one Liam Fox to recognise what the EU concerns are. Understanding what the other team wants is a vital part of any negotiation, and it looks like Liam Fox is failing dismally in that. Unless, of course, his only objective is to put the blame for anything that does go wrong on the EU, but surely not?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:32 AM

David Carter Ianswered your question about Quality European producers, as you Admit McDONALDS ARE A EUROPEAN PRODUCER AND THEY ARE NOT QUALITY. you have proved your quote was nonsense
We lose tariff free access to QUALITY EU produce
We need quality food, and that means European producers.
I probably will be worse of and so will most people apart from the rich
The real enemy is the system whether it be european or uk, The european version has imposed poverty on Greece and to a lesser extent Ireland by imposing draconiasn financial debt, after encouraging unwise loans etc , so that the multi national large investors and bankers get repaid, and you honestly think the Europeans will be kinder Capitalists you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:43 AM

and you honestly think the Europeans will be kinder Capitalists

This is the point of the social aspect of the EU. I admit, as with Greece, when it comes to it the capitalist interests usually win out, but the social side imposes limits on what the capitalist wing does. Hence the working hours directive and similar workers rights. Parliament explicitly excluded incorporation of workers rights derived from EU law in the Withdrawal agreement, you will recall.

So yes, the Europeans capitalists will be kinder. Not because they want to, but they do not have as free a hand as the ones in the UK are seeking.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: BobL
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:15 AM

I think I was born at just the right time. I missed WW2, but was around for the period of optimism and rebuilding that followed, for the Festival of Britain, for the Coronation, for the Swinging Sixties. Early computers - with 1KB memory, and on which an hour's time cost about a programmer's weekly wage - were a perfect match for my particular skills, leading me into a successful if unspectacular career. And I expect to be gone before the collapse of civilisation due to Brexit, Trumpism, religious extremism and global climate change.

And BTW, if you fitted a Rover engine into an Allegro, would you have Allegover?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:21 AM

ha ha,we will see.
in the past the EU HAS BEEN PROTECTIONIST , LARGE WINE LAKES AND BUTTER MOUNTAINS HAVE BEEN HOARDED.France has had its wine market protect4d, does anyone deny this
It seems we did not need these fine wines and fine EU produce of wine butter and milk[DavidCarter take note]
very shortly we will all have to consrve energy, consume less, and start where we can, being more self sufficient,unless the two brexit sides stop posturing we must prepare for being worse off, i hope it does not get too bad. but it is no point pretending that incompetent politicians can sort things out, most of the politicians seem concerned only with having a job and getting votes ,very little long term strategy
, i hope they do sort out trade deals benficial to both sides ,but I am preparing for the worst, the kind capitalists of the
EU DID NOT HAND OUT FREE MILK TO THE GREEKS
milk lake   

   

Milk cartons being transported on a conveyor belt in the Candia milk plant in Awoingt, northern France | Philippe Huguen/AFP via Getty Images
Europe’s hidden milk lake threatens fragile market

https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-hidden-milk-price-lake-threatens-fragile-market-eu-commission/

Brussels bought up a huge amount of milk to try to boost prices. The danger is that these stocks are now forcing prices down.

By Emmet Livingstone        

1

HERSTAL, Belgium — Milk lakes and butter mountains were meant to be a relic of Europe’s past.

Massive EU intervention in the dairy market is back, however, and its price-distorting effects are coming in for some of the same scathing criticism as in the 1970s and 1980s, when Brussels became a byword for reckless intervention.

In an attempt to prop up prices in the teeth of a dairy crisis, Brussels has been buying up milk since 2015. A lot of milk. The European Commission has used public money to buy some 380,000 metric tons of skim milk powder. That’s slightly more than a big dairy powerhouse like France produced in 2016, for example.

Stockpiled in warehouses — mostly in France, Germany and Belgium — the sacks of milk powder conspicuously failed to stop the price hemorrhage. In fact, the EU strategy is in danger of doing exactly the opposite. Milk farmers and traders fear that the very existence of these quantities is already dragging down prices, in the expectation that they will one day be sold back.

“This powder is the problem,” said Romuald Schaber, chairman of the German dairy association. “It’s the sword of Damocles hanging over us all.”

. . . .

---

Stop with the huge cut-and-paste, Dick. I've posted the link after a brief introduction. We only allow long cut-and-paste for stories we want to preserve in the music section. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:28 AM

Dick, do you live in some parallel universe? McDonalds are American, not European.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:31 AM

I was not saying the EU capitalist are kind, Sandman. I was saying their unkindness is constrained in some directions by rules the UK Parliament voted to remove, so the UK capitalists are likely to be still less kind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 03:48 AM

Backwoodsman,
"Our fleet was not plundering, it was fishing sustainably in international waters which Iceland suddenly claimed as its own"
That's not how the Icelandic government saw it.

They did not accuse us of "plundering." They just wanted to extend their territorial waters from the then accepted 50 miles to 200 miles in order to expand their own fleet and increase their catch.

David,
The UK fishing industry has been all but destroyed by overfishing by British fishermen. The EU has attempted to conserve stocks. If the British fishermen are let loose again there will be no fish left in the North Sea within 10 years.

I disagree. I do not believe that statement can be justified.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

The North Sea was overfished of herring at the time MacColl was making 'Singing the Fishing' at the beginning of the sixties
The fishermen the team recorded said that over and over again and commented bitterly on the effect it had had on the East Coast fishing towns
Parallel Universe about sums it up
Maybe the E.U. started W.W.1 - wouldn't put it past them!!
Dick
Your large, randomly gathered cut-'n-pastes are meaningless as they represent the views only of an unknown reporter working for a little known American publication with links to Europe's main opponent, Wall Street
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 04:59 AM

Jim meaningless to you but not to Dairy farmers, are you denying that there was a winelake or butter mountain asnd now an over production of milk.
David, stop being silly McDonalds say they use european producers, do you also deny there was a wine lake?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

To my mind the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU has been very bad for fish stocks and conservation. If shores were treated like land and each country could fish its own shores it would be a lot easier to conserve fish because you could see who's responsible if a particular area's stocks went down.

Policies like the quotas that ended up with fishermen throwing tons of dead fish back into the sea are just disgusting and have ruined Atlantic fisheries.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:35 AM

McDonalds use producers from everywhere they operate, which is just about everywhere. I havn't a clue what point you are trying to make.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:37 AM

Thompson, your proposal might make sense, were it not for the fact that fish can swim across the boundary between different country's territorial waters. And they can't read signs telling them when they are about to swim into the waters of a rapacious country which does not adhere to the common fisheries policy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:42 AM

Big Al says:

"Surely the EU should be a great rallying point for Irish people. One subject, they can be united about telling England to bugger off, once and for all.

Sod off England! We want to be in Europe!"

It would be even better were they to say that English people who want to be in Europe can come and live there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM

Ironically, it appears that Brexit is the straw the broke the camel's back for Northern Ireland
The gap between those who wish to continue to be part of Britain and those who want a United Ireland has shrunk to an unbelievable extent, turning a long-held wish into a distinct possibility
Even former leader of the DUP, PETER ROBINSON has said that his party need to discuss Unity
It seems that the predictions that Brexit could lead to the break-up of the U.K. had some foundation
That is a major problem for May's "Conservative and Unionist Party" as without the D.U.Ps support they can't survive in Government
It's an ill wind.... as they say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 11:06 AM

scotland too, will not be around for long. iain mcwhirter in the herald recently described the situation for the scottish parliament as 'like being chained to a lunatic' it won't be easy to get away though, the forces of unionism on both sides of the irish sea are strong and aggressive.

for those of us left after brexit in what's left of the UK it doesn't look good. i've always been a socialist and just despair of the current political scene. what hope is there for peace and progressive politics these days?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 11:18 AM

Yes it does not look good, bullshit on both sides , a new uk government in my opinion would be an improvement. but time will tell

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:24 PM

Re: David Carter (UK). "It would be even better were they to say that English people who want to be in Europe can come and live there."

Well they did, and they do! I have many a time met folks who moved, especially after the Maggie blankety blank Thatcher assault on the Black Country.

A great example is Katie Taylor, you should read her life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Taylor#Education

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:34 PM

Jo77, "they did and they do"

the question is really "will they" post Brexit

Some of us have concerns that they might say "bugger off"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 12:59 PM

So j0_77, are you going to give me a legally binding document which will entitle me to move when I retire in 8-9 years?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:13 PM

'chained to a maniac'.....I like that!

a pleasing image!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 01:25 PM

even when the maniac has the power.....and suicidal tendencies?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 02:53 PM

that's the only kind of maniac to be chained to....

who wants to be chained to a maniac who eats his sprouts, remembers your birthday, and shows his wild streak by drinking Earl Grey during The Antiques Road Show.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 07:00 PM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 09:58 AM
Ironically, it appears that Brexit is the straw the broke the camel's back for Northern Ireland
The gap between those who wish to continue to be part of Britain and those who want a United Ireland has shrunk to an unbelievable extent, turning a long-held wish into a distinct possibility

Fine, give the people of Northern Ireland a vote on whether they wish to continue as part of the UK, or seek to become part of the Republic of Ireland (assuming the Republic want to accept them).
But make it a 'one off' vote, which will commit them for an extended period, and don't allow for a second vote if things don't go the way the EU would like.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 10:55 PM

@Raggytash and SBP-Cooperator
Well I have no idea, but suspect that it will work out in the usual inter British way, just like it was back in the day. Used be a joke that there is a border between the UK and ROI, because in effect the only thing they stopped travelers for was liquor and tobacco. No passports or any of that sort of silly thing. They were, for most of us, happy times.

But there is enormous changes to property value in the ROI. Some cities are as expensive as UK, so be ready to dosh up a lot of loot if buying a home. Yet there remain bargains in the countryside just like you'll find in the UK.

Retiring there is somewhat of an industry as lots go from here, and Australia etc. I suspect Co. Clare prices are a bit of a shock, - music business and so on- but then who wants to move to a cosmopolitan community even if in Ireland? I certainly would not want that.

Yet I think this BrokesIt will bring folks to their senses and get a better deal for the UK than is now on the table, including retaining the relaxed UK / ROI relationship, so nothing will change for retiring from there to the wee green island.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:07 AM

Peter Hoskins has tweeted:

Pound hits 11 month low against the U.S. dollar after Liam Fox’s warning of a no-deal Brexit.
Wonder if the Telegraph will do a front page like they did on Mark Carney, when sterling was pretty much unchanged? 

We can't control what the Telegraph does, but we can wonder if the people who were critical of Carney will be equally crutical of Liam Fox.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:27 AM

"(assuming the Republic want to accept them)"
That's now the majority wish#
A second vote is not in question -
THe second vote over Brexit has been called for because of the shamblic handling of the negotiations, the revelations of the damage that is likely to be done to Britain and the extremist xenophobic policy that a significant enough minority of the British people were persuaded to vote to leave.
Given all these factors, it would be totally undemocratic not to allow a second vote on Brexit - if Governments can change their mind - why not the voters
None of these factors are comparable in any way to a national group being given the right to vote for full independence of their own country
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 09:28 AM

Re-unification of Ireland: That's now the majority wish#

An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:00 AM

re unification of ireland would solve the border problem

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

"An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum."
The subject has been surveyed constantly over the last few years
It was estimated nine years ago that only 11% of the Northern Irish people wanted a United Ireland - a survey two years ago indicated that this had leapt up to 48%
A recent survey has now suggested that a hard Brexit would increase that to 58%
An indication of the accuracy of this is that the DUP no longer have aan overll majority and could be outvoted by the three other parties gareeing to vote against them
Last yra in The Republic the figure for a United Ireland had leapt from around 25% to a little under half the population - more recent reports suggest that something like 65% of the Irish people enthusiastically support the idea
Brexit has done a wonderful job in this respect
The main beneficiaries of the Brexit fiasco in both the North and the South have been Sinn Fein, who are now serious Government contenders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:27 AM

Yes, and surveys showed that UK would vote to remain in EU, and Trump would not be president.
You can no longer trust polls (if you ever could) to give an accurate position on events.
Either people mislead the polls, or they are not set up to query a representative minority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:00 PM

Isn't it rather telling that, when a second referendum is mooted, these BrexShiteers never react by saying, "Bring it on, we won before, and we'll win again!"?

They're bricking it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:03 PM

Apologies, 'second referendum' should have been 'a further referendum on whether to accept the deal the government and EU have agreed on, or a 'hard Brexit' with no deal'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:28 PM

"Yes, and surveys showed that UK would vote to remain in EU, and Trump would not be president."
That was before people got a chance to see the results of Britain leaving Europe
Don't suppose you'd like to place a bert on the result now
As far as Ireland is concerned - there has always been a desire to unite - Why wouldn't there be, Ireland is Ireland whatever the Empire chose to call it?
In the North, the population shift alone has made unity a forgone conclusion - now it's only the diehards that wish to remain part of Britain and even they are now realising the implications of doing so - business and the economy is alredy feeling the effects of this idiocy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 04:42 PM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:28
Don't suppose you'd like to place a bet on the result now
As far as Ireland is concerned - there has always been a desire to unite -

According to an earlier post there has not always been a desire for unification (in the North at least).

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM
"An easy claim to make, but virtually impossible to back up without a referendum."
The subject has been surveyed constantly over the last few years
It was estimated nine years ago that only 11% of the Northern Irish people wanted a United Ireland

I fully accept that your knowledge of the Irish peoples is greater than mine, but your comments don't always appear to be consistent.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 06:19 PM

Both Australia and America are now saying they will only do a deal to supply the UK with food if we drop out standards. Well done brexiteers. Hormone laden beef and chlorinated chicken from now on I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:26 PM

"Apologies, 'second referendum' should have been 'a further referendum on whether to accept the deal the government and EU have agreed on, or a 'hard Brexit' with no deal'."

It wouldn't even be that, John. We've already had a second referendum, on 23 June 2016. That was forced on us by people who have never accepted the result of the first referendum. Of course, they'll pretend that it's all to do with "ever-closer union" and "United States of Europe" bollocks. But that isn't at all where they're coming from. They've been at it since the mid-70s, way before any of that arose. Yet the self-same people, the ones who agitated for forty-odd years for a second referendum, will tell you that we are being undemocratic in calling for a rethink. Yet they called for a rethink even after we remainers won a two-thirds majority. They won by a wafer-thin margin in 2016, unlike us in the seventies, yet according to them it's us who are "undemocratic" in calling for reconsideration. Of course, they will tell you how much things changed over those forty-odd years. Well I'll tell you summat. Things have changed a damn sight more than that in the last two years. But the brexiteers are scared shitless of a rethink, and they're sacred shitless of what's going to happen to this country. In that, I suppose, there's common ground with us remainers, if nowt else.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 07:55 PM

"Sacred shitless" sounds like the deification of a bad bout of constipation. Actually I think I'd be scared shitless of a bout of sacred shitlessness. I'll have a rethink and let you know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 08:16 PM

"but your comments don't always appear to be consistent."
Not really Nigel
The underlying intention of Ireland has always been to remove a partition that was forced upon them- pride of nation is part of the psyche of the Irish people
Since Independence (of sorts) in 1922 the Irish have been dependent on friendly nations with its nearest neighbour, mainly as a plane to emigrate to with a practial chance of returning home easily, so they adopted a 'don't rock the boat' pragmatism
An example of this is the fact that up to twenty years ago there has only been one major work Ireland's greatest disaster - the Famine, which was written in the 1960s by an Englishwoman - no point of rubing our neighbour's noses in what they did
The blossoming of the Irish Economy - 'The Celtic Tiger' (thanks to the E.U.) largely removed that dependency (the 150th anniversary saw a landslide of serious and uncomfortably frank books on Irish history under British rule.
These things are never straightforward
Now Brexit has made Britain a liability - hence the return to the old dream of a United Ireland
I am in no way a nationalist, but I hope I live to see that one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:31 AM

Both Australia and America are now saying they will only do a deal to supply the UK with food if we drop out standards. Well done brexiteers. Hormone laden beef and chlorinated chicken from now on I suppose."
A strong argument for not eating meat, you are right we should have a right to decnt quality food , and my impression of Germany is that it insists on high standrds of food as much as it can throughout Europe, i
I am not happy to trust Trump or mny other country to insist on as high a standard, it is ridiculous to suggest that everything about Europe is bad.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:35 AM

We do not have to go very far back in time, to remember the BSE beef scandal, The one people I would trust to be thorough in maintaining reasonable quality of food are the Germans

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:39 AM

As a nation they seem to be meticulous in their thouroughness.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:30 AM

in case we forget, March 27, 1996
The European Commission imposes a world wide ban on all British beef exports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:35 AM

Correctly so Dick, the reason was to prevent the transmission of CJD, and to prevent the presence of CJD in British beef undermining confidence in other European products, including British products.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:44 AM

AUGUST 1999
The official end of the export ban is celebrated by farmers as the first consignments of animals due for export are prepared for slaughter and a marketing drive - centred on France - begins.
The farmers are subsequently angered when France and Germany announce they will not lift their bans on British beef because they have further questions over their safety.

NOVEMBER 1999
EU food safety commissioner David Byrne announces the start of legal action against France for refusing to lift the ban.


DECEMBER 1999
French PM Lionel Jospin says his country will not lift the ban and threatens to take the EU to court for trying to force it to take British beef.

FEBRUARY 2000
The European Commission begins legal action against Germany for its failure to lift its ban.

MARCH 2000
Germany agrees to lift its ban but France maintains it will not. Legal action against Paris goes ahead.


The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4785610.stm

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:46 AM

And it is interesting to think what would happen post Brexit. Would the UK impose a ban on its own products? Possible, but I think unlikely. So each importer would choose whether and when to impose a ban on importing, and then we have a long exercise afterwards convincing each of them to drop the ban. I haven't checked but as far as I remember I think there was some EU support and limited compensation for the UK farmers when cattle were destroyed. If so, would the UK government do the same?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

"but your comments don't always appear to be consistent."
Not really Nigel
The underlying intention of Ireland has always been to remove a partition that was forced upon them- pride of nation is part of the psyche of the Irish people
But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland.
You have stated yourself that even within the last decade only 11% of people in Northern Ireland wanted unification.

This is like claiming that there is a clear wish for unification between Spain and Gibraltar, as it's the wish of the majority. That would only be true because of the much larger population in Spain compared with Gibraltar. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly wish to remain part of UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:51 AM

Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999. What remained until 2006 was a ban on the export of live cattle. And possibly on beef on the bone, which is reasonable, we certainly weren't eating beef on the bone for a long time after the ban on general beef products was lifted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:11 AM

It wouldn't even be that, John. We've already had a second referendum, on 23 June 2016. That was forced on us by people who have never accepted the result of the first referendum. Of course, they'll pretend that it's all to do with "ever-closer union" and "United States of Europe" bollocks. But that isn't at all where they're coming from. They've been at it since the mid-70s, way before any of that arose. Yet the self-same people, the ones who agitated for forty-odd years for a second referendum, will tell you that we are being undemocratic in calling for a rethink. Yet they called for a rethink even after we remainers won a two-thirds majority. They won by a wafer-thin margin in 2016, unlike us in the seventies, yet according to them it's us who are "undemocratic" in calling for reconsideration.

So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?

Thank you for confirming how long there have been calls for a referendum on leaving. That fact may surprise those who keep insisting that the only motivation is reducing immigration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM

What we need is a government of National Unity, maybe led by Ken Clarke, with the more rational wing of the tory party, LAbour, Lib Dems, SNP, Green, and, if the will come on board, Sinn Fein, to put a stop to this nonsense and put the country back on the right road.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM

"But that 'intention' must be in the view of the people of the Republic of Ireland."
The "people" had a bloody Civil War over partition - it was only ever accepted because of war fatigue - the famine - the evictions - the forced emigrations - the Land Wars - an Imperialist War - a War for Independence, The Civil War, then permanent immigration...
By 1922, the Irish people had had enough and accepted partition on the understanding it would be a temporary measure
The sectarian repression in the North led to bloody violence in which the British establishment carefully chose its side and became an extension of Northern sectarian oppression takes us right up to our recent lifetimes

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?
Of course dividin a country up into political or religious pieces is an outrageous action
The Spain/Gibraltar issue is a hangover from Empire as was the farcical Falklands War
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:37 AM

Voting on whether a single country and culture should be a single entity has always been utter and very dangerous nonsense - partition guarantees a legacy of body-bags for future generations - it always has
What would be oyur reaction if Devon and Cornwall (or more likely Liverpool and The Wirral!) suddenly made a U.D.I.
Would you debate it in terms of breaking England up into pieces or would you describe it as utter nonsense?

You seem to forget we've recently had just that. There was a claim that Scotland wanted to be independent. If the referendum that they held had shown the claim to be true, they would have become independent.
And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:40 AM

The ban on British beef by EU was not lifted until March 2006!
That give me faith in the integrity of maintaining food quality and concern of the German administrators of Europe, I have crticisms of Europe, but I would rather have the Germans in charge of food than anybody else.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:45 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:49 AM

Why not have a second referendum

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:58 AM

And before you say that you were speaking about England, not The UK, my interests are in the UK, not in England.
To an extent, Nigel. Don't forget that over on the other thread you said that if it came to it and the only way to achieve Brexit was to break up the UK, you would support a break up.

I don't recall the comment, but I would imagine it related to the Scottish referendum, and that I favour Brexit. If The Scots would only remain part of UK if the UK remained part of EU then I would be in support of their wish for independence.

Of course, I may have stated it exactly as you show above if the discussion had become heated at that time. But I don't remember that precise quote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

David,
Not true Keith, the EU ban on British boneless beef exports was lifted in 1999.

The EU lifted the ban but Germany and France continued with it anyway.
The EU found they were acting illegally and when France persisted it was fined, though obviously it never paid.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

"So, as the leavers have had to wait forty years for a reconsideration, why do remainers expect one almost immediately?"

Two things. Remain won by miles in the seventies, effectively putting the thing to bed. But you lot just wouldn't shut up (as is your right, of course, a right that some of you leavers would now deny the rest of us). By dint of that you've caused discontent both in this country and in the EU for decades, refusing to become a constructive partner. You won by a sliver in 2016, splitting the country down the middle in the most divisive political manoeuvre this country has seen since the war. I'd call that a significant difference. Second, as I've said, more has changed in the last two years than in the last forty. China now has a dictator for life, Putin is a hooligan and a protectionist moron has been installed in the White House. I can't think of a better time to reaffirm our membership of the EU. David Carter has the best solution. We need a coalition of the willing to restore sanity and ditch this bloody stupid and suicidal project. Sod referendums.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 05:51 AM

Correct, the EU, as in many instances, was fighting our corner.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:32 AM

"You seem to forget we've recently had just that. "
No I do not
Scotland acquiesced to British rule - Ireland never has - the Scots Gaelic culture was more or less killed off - the Irish never has been
Acceptance of English domination has been a part of Scottish life for many centuries - Irish history is full of wars for independence
Scotland became part of Britain via the deliberate and extremely brutal destruction of its national and cultural identity
I believe Scotland to be equally a separate country won by conquest and I should hope that one day it will decide to break with England but that will take more time and will depend on something more than a referendum
There are signs that Brexit has made enormous steps to doing that
You might have mentioned Wales of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:13 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:30 AM

Wales, now there is somewhere to talk about

We already are. See the music section for Eisteddfod

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:56 AM

we don't need another referendum, we need another general election with a labour party showing as much commitment to remaining as they , quite rightly, do to the destruction of our country's public services. for me , the latter is much more important to our future. if we looked after everyone in our countries and not just the wealthy, then we wouldn't be in this ridiculous brexit mess

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:58 AM

A friend crossing with us from Stranraer to Larne with a boatload of raucous Welsh Rugby supporters commented wryly and loudly "The feller who did most damage to British culture was the one who persuaded the Welsh that they could sing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 12:09 PM

Well because Steve Shaw has again hit the nail on the head, I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!

'"Sacred shitless" sounds like the deification of a bad bout of constipation. Actually I think I'd be scared shitless of a bout of sacred shitlessness. I'll have a rethink and let you know.' Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 06:41 PM

"I am voting for him to be the next Prime Minister of everything!"

Why, that's very grapefruit of you and you'll never see what I'll buy you!

"Steve Shaw Mudcat August 18 2018."

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a while for my thoughts on the 18th. You never know, I may have become a rampant Nigelesque or Keefie clone by then. We all have our nightmares, you know... ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 06:24 AM

I see that the pound has soared down to its lowest level against the euro and dollar in a year over fears of a no-deal Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: MikeL2
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 10:08 AM

hi

Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?.

Just thinking...

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM

Well MikeL2 since #LyingNigelFartage with his nasty filthy mouth peed off mostly everybody in the EU, they are unlikely to want the UK back in. And that is quite a shame. How could one POS get away with what he did/still does, while most people in the UK are neutral towards it?

Then there is the #LyingUKIP and its minions to consider. On Quora Russian trolls pretend to be those and continue the nastiness with more new lies.

When I reflect on the needless murder of MP Cox, I think it best the UK and the EU to part ways in order that #LyingNigelFartage gets what's coming to him. A more despicable dirt bag there isn't this side of hell.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 11:28 AM

Then of course the the cost of cleaning the egg of the faces of the Brexiteers!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:36 PM

Correction: lowest level THIS year. I misread a headline. Sorry!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 01:45 PM

There's a bit of a difference between deciding to stay in at this late stage (very desirable and a solution the EU would be certain to happily embrace) and trying to get back in once we're out. For a start it would take years, if not decades, of bureaucratic wrangling and extremely divisive domestic politics. Second, the UK would have rapidly become severely damaged goods by dint of our disastrous exit and would be a far less attractive addition. The new Greece. In other words, once we're out, we're out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 03:10 PM

MikeL re your post

"Has anyone investigated what it will cost us if we decide to stay at this late hour?? I suspect that it could cost us more than if we walk away?."

This is the first time I have heard this mentioned and to be honest not something I had considered.

I am curious to know why you think this situation may arise.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:17 PM

So, now it seems that Russia funded the LeaveEU campaign.

Russian deal offered to Arron Banks in Brexit run-up

Happy with that chaps? Or we going see spin the likes of which has not been seen before?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 04:19 PM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:06 AM

Everybody would be happy, Steve? You may be forgetting one or two people, there.

Joking aside, I think the biggest costs would be due to civil unrest, financially and more important politically.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM

Why would it cost us anything if we ditched brexit right now? Everybody would be happy, we wouldn't have to pay the forty billion, there'd be no fines to pay... OK, all that backslapping and the consequent redness of skin could mean increased expenditure on pots of E45...

But then we wouldn't be paying the 40 billion to EU, instead we would be bankrolling it (or a large part of it) for evermore.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM

" we would be bankrolling it "
We certainly wouldn't be using it to replace our lost industries necessery for our "standing on our own two feet"
There is no plan whatever to forge a new Britain, just a scrabble around to find who were will depend on next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:16 AM

Interesting piece of information from this morning’s Iris Times
Bexit at any price eh?
Jim Carroll

UK URGED GOVERNMENT NOT TO FOCUS ON BREXIT RISK TO PEACE
London asked Dublin to reduce emphasis on potential threat to Belfast Agreement
Request came in meeting between figures from the two governments
FIACH KELLY
Deputy Political Editor

The British government asked Ireland to ease off on its emphasis on peace in Northern Ireland as one of the main issues at stake in the Brexit talks.
The request, from representatives of the UK administration, was made in recent months because British prime minister Theresa May was said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement were not being taken seriously, sources disclosed.
However, Dublin did not accede to the call because of a view that the peace process should remain central to the Brexit negotiations.
The revelation comes as Ms May steps up preparations for the UK leaving the bloc without a deal. She is reported to have instructed her officials to make contingencies in such a scenario to ensure the Border is free of customs checks and police.
It is understood the request came in meetings between figures from the Irish and UK governments as Ms May was preparing to secure the backing of her Cabinet for her vision of a future relationship with the European Union after Brexit.

PREFERRED RELATIONSHIP
The UK government published its White Paper on its preferred future relationship last month, which set out a common customs area between the EU and UK, as well as Britain remaining aligned to the European single market for goods.
However, its key measures have been met with opposition from the EU. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has also said that
the integrity of the EU single market - and the accompanying commitment to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital - must be respected.
On the message from the British government on the emphasis on peace and the Irish Border, a source said: “Successive Irish and British governments have protected a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland and we need to make sure that continues, regardless of Brexit.” This includes a need for no hard border.
Another Dublin figure said the UK government felt that the peace process and Irish Border were being seen as mostly of concern to “nationalists, Dublin and the EU”, but were equally a concern of unionists and Ms May’s minority Conservative administration, which has a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Stepping up preparations
In a letter to members of the Conservative Party in recent days, Ms May said she “remained clear that no deal is better than a bad deal - and we are stepping up our ‘no deal’ preparations”.
Among her commitments, Ms May said: “There will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We will remain one United Kingdom with a single internal market.”
She said the two options on offer from the EU - a “standard” free trade agreement “with Northern Ireland staying in the customs union and parts of the single market” or UK membership of the customs union and. single market - are “unacceptable”.
The wording of the so-called backstop arrangement - which would guarantee no hard border even in a no deal Brexit scenario - is one of the main sticking points in EU-UK talks, which Ms May said have reached an “im-passe”.
The EU has said that without a backstop, there can be no withdrawal agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 06:42 AM

An interesting article on the BBC webpages today showing how the Brexit vote varied between the differing age groups. Well worth a read.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45098550

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.

DMcG, I really do think that most leavers would be, if not deliriously happy, deliriously secretly relieved if brexit failed to happen, but they'd never admit it, of course. They know deep down how bad things are going to be. All they currently have is Project Pie-In-The-Sky. We're going to reach a point in the next few months at which we'll be able to conclude that only the truly insane still support brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:47 AM

What really irks me about Nigel's position, and that of similar people, is his use of "we". By "we" he means British people, all British people, and no other people. But this is a wholly artificial grouping. No possible "we" includes both me and Nigel. I pay money in taxes, and some is reallocated by the UK government, and a much smaller amount goes to the EU. The EU allocates a far higher proportion to people I have an affinity with than the UK government. And those people have various nationalities, the thing they have in common with me is that they have, or they aspire to, an education. Nationality doesn't come into it. In my view people should be able to choose their own nationalities on the basis of shared values.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:17 AM

So Nigel thinks that there's a forty billion pot sitting around waiting to be reallocated when we crash out in economic disarray. Well I really have heard it all now.

No, I didn't say that. I only stated that we wouldn't be paying out forty billion pounds, but we would pay much more due to our continued membership, if we do not leave.

My response was to a comment (which I quoted) about the results if we ditched Brexit (so NOT crashing out).

Please try to read what I say before giving your own totally misconstrued view of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 09:59 AM

Surely, now the implications of Brexit have now becom obvious, it would be the democratic thing to ask the minority of the population to ask to vote again thereby not only giving them a chance to decide whether they had made a mistake, but possibly encouraging those who didn't vote to decide whether they would like a second chance to do so.
That way, the Brexiteers really could claim that this is the will of the people rather than dragging a dead horse over the finishing line
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 10:11 AM

The Brexiters would never agree to another vote because, as I pointed out elsewhere, they're bricking it that, now everyone can see the complete donkey's breakfast that the government are making of the negotiations, they'd lose. For god's sake, they don't even like parliament being given debate and a vote!

When the Cowardly Bullingdon Boy abandoned his responsibilities and ran away, and was replaced by Theresa May - a leading member of the Remain campaign - I told my wife that I didn't believe Brexit would ever happen, that she would engineer a situation whereby we would remain in the EU. The closer and closer we get to 29/3/19, the more I think my prediction could come true.

Please God, make it happen and save us from The Insanity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:22 PM

Er, Nigel, you said that we'd be able to bankroll the forty billion, etc. That does appear to assume that the forty billion pot is actually there to bankroll. You appear to have misconstrued your own post. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 12:38 PM

No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU.
Maybe I should have said "EU" instead of "it", but I thought the context would make that clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:28 PM

Oh well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 01:32 PM

"No, we would continue bankrolling the EU. The 'it' referred to the EU."
If leaving, with all its pitfalls, was something that was fit for the electorate to decide, why shouldn't "bankrolling the E.U." be equally a voting matter
Maybe you are afraid that that is not the way the electorate will see it?
It seems to me that you now want to decide on behalf of the people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 02:20 PM

I am bankrolling Trident, HS2, the damned military adventures abroad that politicians of all stripes seem to keen on. Where is my referendum on that?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 03:08 PM

scotland is in the same as yersel' david. forced to pay for things they never vote for. hopefully, they will soon have a chance to absent themselves from the madness of tory rule. unless we move, we don't have that opportunity

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM

And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen. Unfortunately, that trade doesn't civilise them into not chopping off people's heads by the hundred per annum in public squares, or bombing the living shite out of Yemeni civilians. Oh, and a couple of dozen kids were legit targets because those damn rebels "used them as human shields..." Yes, we know how to bankroll all the wrong things. Whatever we bankroll in the EU is chicken feed in comparison, and at least it does some good...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:18 PM

A very interesting article here from Gavin Esler, a former Leave supporter, on why he's now changed his mind and supports Remain.

I'm sure even the most rabid Brexiteer should be able to understand the incontestable logic and truth of Mr. Esler's piece.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

"And Saudi are bankrolling us by buying our fighter jets by the dozen"
All to help the SAUDIS the BRITS AND ISRAEL keep the peace
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Aug 18 - 05:22 PM

It's been pointed out to me that I mis-read the opening paragraph in Gavin Esler's piece - he was not. Leave supporter, he was a Remainer but, following the referendum, he accepted the result without demur. However, he has now changed his mind and no longer accepts the result - his piece sets out the reasons for this change.

Just thought I'd put this admission of my own error 'out there' in order to 'head off at the pass' anyone who might come along being a smart-arse and pointing it out

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 03:07 AM

Very good article, BWM. Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 04:50 AM

Thanks Dave, I thought so too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 12 Aug 18 - 11:23 AM

From Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-British-politicians-slow-in-completing-Brexit-as-the-GBP-is-suffering

"Why are British politicians slow in completing Brexit, as the GBP is suffering?


Answered Fri

Because a small cadre of the #LyingUKIP, the news group “The Exres", “The Telegraph” etc are heavily invested in shorting the British pound. It will continue to fall until March 19th 2019. Then on the next day it well rebound and those #LyingUKIP and their chums will be making a killing on the backs of the chumps that actually have to pay them for #BrokesIt, IOW the average person in the UK is PAYING for the whole self destructive catastrophe.

Hope that helps"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.

"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

Any good news yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/13/companies-brexit-supply-shock-fewer-eu-citizens-arrive-uk

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:12 AM

It would seem that more and more people are having such serious concerns about Brexit that they are no changing their minds on which way they would vote if a referendum was held today.

This is not at all surprising as we learn more and more about the potential negative impacts that Brexit may have.

The report suggests that up to 100 constituencies have now changed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:07 AM
Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 10:29 AM

Logical fallacy, Nigel. Post hoc ergo proper hoc.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 12:52 PM

Propter hoc. My iPad "corrected" propter to an English word and I didn't have my reading specs on. There is no obligation to put Latin phrases in italics. That's one hundred percent my choice. Anyway, logical fallacy, Nigel. You're not getting away with it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 07:20 PM

Not a logical fallacy at all. Although there may be a phrase which might describe the possibility of it being one.

Yet another unintended consequence of Brexit has been raised (again) today.
"The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the number of applicants per vacancy had fallen since last summer across all levels of skilled jobs, and said shortages were forcing many companies to raise wages."

If Brexit is causing a rise in wages, how do you square that with the insistence that membership of the EU, and EU immigration was not supressing wages?

The only logic required is the logic of the marketplace, of supply and demand.
Looking at available labour being the commodity supplied, if there is a shortage of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of the labour will rise.
If there is a glut of available labour, and demand is constant, the cost of labour will fall (Although it can be propped up by 'minimum wage' rules).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:30 PM

My gears are squealing again!

CIPD is picking and choosing which jobs it claims lack applicants. Typically these sort of numpty professions lack applicants EVERYWHERE, including China, Russia, Africa, oh and the rest of the world. It's a BS call, again sourced in the fake news sphere resting somewhere in the east ... hint hint.

I will not let #LyingUKIP sugar coat their lies onto unsuspecting good people, and I shall at every opportunity debunk the St Petersburg Russian lie factory whenever I see it.

Including here on Mudcat.

Because I have dozens of close family living in the UK and the ROI.

Now! as BrokesIt is the Law there is nothing that can be done, this side of Parliamentary action, to stop it. Best I can hope for is that Britain survives the outcome whole and undamaged, even if it results in Ire-brokesIt as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 18 - 08:51 PM

There are various facets to your logical fallacy, Nigel, but the main one is that we haven't had brexit yet, as far as I know. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 06:46 AM

A report today on Buzzfeed relates to various aspects of leaving the EU without a deal and apparently government papers will be released over the next few weeks.

I wonder if any of the pro-brexit lobby on here even consider one of the items on the list. I somehow doubt it.

Before I am asked did I consider them I will say they would not be issues had we voted to remain within the EU and this the question is negated.

Link

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:22 AM

I didn't consider most, if any, of those things, because we were given no information prior to the Referendum. My philosophy is that it is reckless and stupid to vote for something when you have no real information regarding the outcome and effects of that vote. So I voted Remain, on the basis that my knowledge of how membership of the EU affects my daily life was considerably greater, and in far greater depth, than the meagre crumbs of 'information' (a.k.a. Xenophobic, Nationalistic propaganda) which we were given by the Leave campaign about what life would be like outside the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:26 AM

Oooops - hit the 'Go' button too soon, was going on to say...

And I've seen nothing by way of information since the Referendum that would change my mind should there be a second Referendum. I was convinced in June 2016 that voting Remain was the sane option, I'm even more convinced now in August 2018.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 07:32 AM

Me too Backwoodsman, each and every report I have seen has been most negative. The odd post from pro-brexits containing news in support of them have not convinced me one iota that leaving would be beneficial.

I don't really expect any response from them because I think even the most committed of them if now having serious doubts about the wisdon of voting to leave and that rather than admit they have made a mistake will merely not respond.

My latest link serves to underline just how little they did know when they voted leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 08:09 AM

Remember the old programme 'Take Your Pick'? I am reminded of that. Either stick with a fair amount of cash or open an box containing anything from a mousetrap to a holiday. Except in the case of the referendum the choice was either carry on with a comfortable lifestyle or open the unknown box containing anything from a pair of Union Jack underpants to financial ruin.

Two years on andI still don't understand how so many chose the latter. All through this thread and the previous ones I have been asking for good reasons to be optimistic and no-one has, to date, come up with anything remotely reassuring.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:51 AM

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this piece but, if it's correct in what it's saying, it's very worrying indeed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 11:58 AM

remoaners are often accused of treating the brexit voters with contempt and with good reason. i have tried to understand and tried to have reasoned discussions with folk at work and elsewhere. however, now i'm no longer capable of trying to be so tolerant. aside from the personal - all 5 of our children have many friends/partners from all over and 2 of them live on the mainland in italy/estonia - it is just become ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence to be asked to assent to something that -as you say dave- has no visible positives. if you brexiteers wish to be treated with respect you do really have to give the rest of us something to work with. i'm currently switching between trying to not engage with this insanity and just getting cross. while listening in to an adjoining conversation in the pub on sunday (the usual scroungers, muslim , EU, brexit nonsense) i was forced to give out the archiest eyebrow and sulkiest pout that a man can do. my friend gave me the scrabble dictionary saying 'just chuck it at them - go on!' i didn't want to scare the dog is my feeble excuse.......(by the way it's 33 points for 'insanity' on a triple word)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 12:11 PM

Another little piece that I can't vouch for the accuracy of but, if true, I find it very telling about the kind of people who have led the xenophobes, the racists, and the simple-minded by the nose into voting to leave the EU.

I hope and pray that May is edging the U.K. towards a Brexit compromise which keeps us in the EU Customs Union, and maintains the trade agreements we enjoy as part of the EU, along with a system for individual UK-ers to opt to retain EU citizenship. The prospect of a 'No-Deal Brexit' is simply too disastrous to contemplate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 18 - 01:25 PM

MOGGIE
REDWOOD
BAKER
LAWSON

Full house Baccie
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:02 AM

Here's a link To an article in the Independent regarding the turd-polishing job that Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong and his bunch of rich, self-serving Brexit Crazies are doing on their Hard-Brexit plan. Changing its name to 'Clean Brexit' is an obvious ploy to 'clean up its act' and confuse feeble-minded people into thinking it's A Good Idea. More dishonesty and obfuscation from a shameless bunch of greedy bastards who put their own substantial wealth before the good of the country as a whole.

What an utter donkey's breakfast.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:25 AM

i was buying euros in carlisle m and s yesterday - cost £303 for 325 euros. i'm sure i got a lot more than that last time i bought them. should i go back and complain? have i been cheated?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:31 AM

No Pete, that's about par for the High Street. Ramsdens (pawn shops) provide the best High Street rates at a tad over 1.08 euro to the pound.

You can get better rates if you have a euro account with a foreign bank. Transferwise offer 1.11 euro to the pound today (which would have given you 335.81 euro, but I think you need to transfer to a bank account.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:05 AM

If I want euro notes, as opposed to loading my Caxton travel card, I use Tesco travel money. You can get 1.0979 this morning. You get the cash via Royal Mail Special Delivery. I think there may be a £4.99 delivery charge unless you order a minimum of £500-worth, in which case delivery is free.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:39 AM

I should point out that on the day before the referendum would have received 396.93 euros for your £303.

71.93 euros more.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 05:49 AM

Ah but, ah but, ah but....Brexit hasn't happened yet! Not fair to blame bad news on something that hasn't happened yet!

Any good news of Brexit, BTW?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 01:52 PM

Something the Brexiters didn't mention during the referendum campaign...

Not exactly good Brexit news though?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

1. The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever. Good News! we will no longer have to pay for their gravy train.
2. The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave. Good News! We will no longer have our common sense subordinated to their doctrinaire incompetencies.
3. The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that. Good News! We will no longer be deceived in this particular fashion.
4. The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy. Good News! We will become a Democracy again.
%. The EU is a train wreck in the process of happening. Good News! The light at the end of the tunnel is our escape, not a train coming the other way.

Let's see if this gets deleted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 07:08 PM

It won't get deleted but it does make you look foolish. Let's take a look.

"The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever."

Classic non sequitur.

"The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave."

We had a referendum because the hubris-ridden Cameron (65 million) thought he could swan into Europe, little-Englander style, and make big demands of Johnny Foreigner (450 million). He failed, rightly so, then thought he could win the vote. What a deluded twat. And, Stanron, he was your twat, not mine, lest you forget.

"The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that."

The most dishonest thing I've seen in my whole lifetime was the leave campaign. No need to revisit that. There can be no "United States of Europe" while we are members. We have the veto over any significant moves towards closer integration. To give you the supreme example, there will be no European army because we have vetoed the idea. Twenty-eight sovereign nations, each with their own nationalist sentiments going back decades or hundreds of years, are not going to stand by and see their sovereignty demolished.

"The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy."

Weasel words. The Commission may suggest policy but they have no powers to enforce it. All policy is agreed by elected representatives only. Would you like me to say that again in capital letters, by any chance, so that you might actually take it in this time? And we vote on every proposed new law or change in the law or on any new regulation. More often, we come to a consensus rather than taking things to votes. You can't keep twenty-eight sovereign states happy any other way. You are either lying or you are ignorant. I'll be charitable to you and assume the latter. Check your facts before you decide to parrot out your brexiteer received unwisdom. Sorry to be harsh, but you do have form when it comes to churning out this rubbish, and, when corrected, you neither listen nor bother to actually check your facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 07:48 AM

What I had overlooked was the fact that good news for leavers is, of course, bad news for remainiacs. Did I just hear on the news about a budget surplus this month? Bad news if you need scare stories to support your position. Apparently there was an equivalent one this time last year, but not as large. Oh dear, we must all be doomed!

Steve, I posted on EU corruption because of their failure to produce audited accounts and you say 'Classic non sequitur'. But my accusation follows directly from their failure to account for the money they spend, a large proportion of which comes from our pockets. No business would be allowed to continue in the absence of audited accounts so why should a political institution like the EU? The only other excuse for this failure, if you reject corruption (and I do not), is incompetence, and that is my next point.

I posted that the EU is incompetent. Your answer to that was a stream of abusive invective directed at David Cameron. That is not an argument.

I posted that the EU had been dishonest. Your answer to that seems to be that it was OK for the EU to have been dishonest back in the 1970s because the leave campaign ,forty or fifty years later was also dishonest. Now that is non sequitur. How can that which precedes follow?

I posted that the EU is undemocratic and your response is 'Weasel words. The Commission may suggest policy but they have no powers to enforce it.' The only policy that gets voted on is policy initiated or allowed by the Commission. The Commission is a body of unelected ex politicians. The voting public cannot vote them in and cannot vote them out. Your suggestion that they cannot enforce policy can only be believed by people who have not seen how they have made people vote again if they vote the wrong way. There is a serious attempt right now to get the UK to have another vote about leaving.

"You fools! Keep voting until you give the answer we want!" is not my idea of democracy.

You end by saying 'Sorry to be harsh, but you do have form when it comes to churning out this rubbish, and, when corrected, you neither listen nor bother to actually check your facts. '

I can quite confidently bat that last sentence back to you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 08:13 AM

Did I just hear on the news about a budget surplus this month?

You may well have done. What was the cost in terms of loss to our health service, people dying because we are no longer capable of looking after them, people committing suicide because their benefits have been axed and families forced to use food banks to make ends meet while the upper echelons continue to pay themselves massive amounts while paying no tax? Any budget surplus that this administration achieve means a severe loss to the most vulnerable and has sweet FA to do with brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 09:48 AM

You allege that EU money is not properly audited. But the thing is, it is, and errors are regularly flagged, and their importance is not swept under the carpet, ever. It's just that it suits you to think that then lie about it. The sheer complexity of the EU budget and its distribution leads to errors both at EU level and at member state level. You assume that this implies corruption, somehow. It doesn't, and it's about time you stopped making these unjustified accusations in order to bolster your entirely false case for brexit. The amount of EU money paid in error amounts to a low single-figure percentage each year and the vast proportion of that relatively small amount arises from not sticking to allocation regulations rather than fraud.

From the Full Fact website:

A small minority of the cases that the auditors look at each year involve suspected fraud [Steve sez, that's a small minority within that low single-figures I mentioned]. The UK’s Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded for years that the complexity of the EU’s spending programmes, which creates misunderstandings, contributes towards these errors."

It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules. One way to run afoul of the rules, for instance, is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. Even though the rules haven’t been followed, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.

The Court [the European Court of Auditors] explains:

“Our estimate of the level of error is not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste. It is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.”

Your comment about the EU being incompetent was "supported" by a remark that it had failed to offer reform before the referendum. It "failed to offer reform" in response to Cameron breezing into Europe making demands, in effect attempting to blackmail the EU into accepting his reforms in order to appease his own backbenchers. If you think the EU's refusal to comply amounts to their "incompetence," then the little England you inhabit must be on another planet somewhere.

As for "making" countries vote again if they "vote the wrong way," this is another lie. The EU has no power to force referendums on anybody. Whether to hold a referendum is always an a individual nation's decision. In any case, the alleged "second referendums" were successful attempts for those treaties to be explained to the electorate in any case, to allay fears that were hyped up in the initial campaigns. There was no browbeating and no coercion. Like a typical frightened brexiteer you fear a better-educated public reconsidering their opinion. And you dishonestly ally the move to have a people's vote on the final deal here with your twisted view of the EU "making people vote again." Calls for a reconsideration in this country are being driven internally, not by the EU. The trouble with you brexiteers is that you simply can't help twisting things to blacken the EU as much as possible. Well you're certainly taking a leaf out of the leave campaign's book there, aren't you. The people need the facts, both convenient and inconvenient if you don't mind, not some mad reinterpretations of them which you think suits your argument.

And I note that you just fell slightly short of parroting the ould lie that "we have laws forced on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels," as much as we know you'd love to say it. Go on, we don't mind!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 09:51 AM

There's an unjustified singular in that lot. Oh reading glasses, where art thou?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 12:12 PM

Good post Steve. Very nice to see real-world answers to Brexiteer-propaganda, distortions and bare-faced lies. How can the Brexit brigade be so gullible?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 18 - 07:47 PM

It takes effort to look this stuff up, John, and when you do you realise that the brexiteers totally rely on the Farage/Fox/Johnson/Gove bullshit. They chunter out the same tired old crap, all that received wisdom, and they never look anything up for themselves. They're parrots, and that's being bloody rude to parrots. What a shame we can't reset the starting point, but here it is anyway:

1. There will not and cannot be a "United States of Europe." Larger states have the power of veto over any moves towards the mythological "ever-closer union" and twenty-eight states with strong national identities will never allow such a thing in any case.

2. Not one law, ever, has EVER been imposed by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission, but NOTHING can be agreed without the consent of the twenty-eight member states via their ELECTED representatives, and, what's more, the way the EU works has to be on the basis of consensus. Do you really think that twenty-eight fiercely sovereign states would ever put up with a bunch of bureaucrats telling 'em all what to do? Do I see a flock of cloud cuckoos arriving?

3. The EU money is audited and always has been, and the bad practice that amounts to less than five percent of EU allocations, pretty good when compared with many large corporations, has rarely been shown to be allied to corruption. Yet it is conspicuously flagged up, year on year. Stanron and co clearly fail to see that sort of flag, presumably concentrating tbeir energies on the Union Jack.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the Brexiteer Brain seems to allow propaganda, slogans, and sound bites to over-ride truth and common sense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 04:09 AM

A monthly budget surplus is pretty meaningless when receipts are accrued and payments made quarterly. What is meaningful is the rolling annual figure. Even that needs to be looked at carefully as you need to separate capital from revenue expenditure. As always, brexiteers latch on to one remotely positive figure in a sea of negative ones, and a desperate attempt to justify their puerile and worthless project.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:49 AM

And here's another fact for the brexiteers to inevitably fail to digest: the UK's net contribution to the EU is ONE PERCENT of total government spending. Any bets as to how much brexit will force the UK to cut spending as the economy contracts? Any takers for more than one percent?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 08:21 AM

Very pertinent questions here for leave voters to ask themselves, and answer honestly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 09:18 AM

2. Not one law, ever, has EVER been imposed by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission, but NOTHING can be agreed without the consent of the twenty-eight member states via their ELECTED representatives

Not "Changes to laws and regulations may be suggested by the Commission" but "Changes to laws and regulations may ONLY be suggested by the Commission".
In other words, if the unelected commissioners don't wish something to become law, they don't even put it to the European parliament.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM

Seems fair enough to me. Prevents parliament from doing something stupid. Would that we had something similar in the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 10:01 AM

Changes to laws and regulations may ONLY be suggested by the Commission

I do not know whether that is true for the EU or not but changes to any member countries individual laws are not "only suggested by the commission". They are suggested by that countries own government and if the commission feels that the law is good enough to incorporate into EU legislature than they will recommend that it happens.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 11:16 AM

Correct, Dave. And agreed, David. Come on Nigel, force yourself to say what Stanron couldn't: "We have laws imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." We don't mind if you do!

For your delectation again, Nigel, here's how it works. Agreement on new or changed laws or regulations is often reached by consensus among nations before a vote is even considered. Over 95% of EU laws that have been debated during our membership have been fully agreed to by the UK without demur. Of the few remaining, we have abstained on about half and opposed the rest. In other words, there are very few laws that have been "imposed" without our agreement, and certainly nothing major. Here's a clue, Nigel. There are 28 countries in the EU. In every one of them the vast majority of domestic laws have nothing to do with the EU. When it comes to those EU laws and regulations, there are various degrees of veto available, to blocs of member states or even to individual larger members. You can't keep 28 countries happy by constant impositions of rules they don't want to accept. Every one of those 28 enjoys a good degree of nationalistic fervour and distinct national identity. Not saying for a minute that there haven't been issues, sometimes significant. But what do you expect in a club of 28 sovereign nations with a population of nearly half a billion? Let's consider how well Theresa May has handled a club of one with an eighth of that population, shall we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 12:14 PM

Sorry Steve, not good enough, you'll have to do better than that. The Brexiteers are not at all impressed by facts, especially if they're presented by 'experts' - the Brexiteers have said many times that they are 'fed up with experts'

And I'm sorry to have to bring this up here, but you must remember that the Brexiteers are 'taking are cuntry back', and they're going to do it despite people like you coming along, muddying the water with facts! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 01:46 PM

Nigel will tell you, however, that my "facts" are not facts at all, just my opinions. So that's all right then, John! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:14 PM

Re posting of 21 Aug 18 - 09:48 AM

The first thing I discovered about the Full Fact website is that it's claims for impartiality are strongly contested, and not only by pro Brexiteers. The consensus is that it is a left wing propaganda site, so I can see how the echo chamber here will be all in favour.

A partial quote from your quote of the Pro EU biased Full Fact website;

"It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules."

And your argument is that that is not corrupt?

The EU does have form on selectively not following rules. But that's OK folks. Steve thinks it's not corrupt.

And, of course, offering politicians and ex-politicians super high salaries and pensions to work for the EU at the expense of, and not always in the interest of, their own countries is not corrupt? You'll be pleased about the £10 million pension pot earned by the Kinnocks won't you? You have paid some of it.

Your quote;

"If you think the EU's refusal to comply amounts to their "incompetence," then the little England you inhabit must be on another planet somewhere."

The UK has been the second largest financial contributor to the EU budget after Germany. The EU will now have to do without that contribution or raise it from the remaining membership. Neither option is going to be popular or constructive. Reforms could have resulted with the avoidance of this loss and it's ensuing problems. The EU position was inflexible and doctrinaire. If it is not incompetent, what is it?

As for the 'Little Englander' sneer, I usually associate this sort of thing as coming from that part of the far left who, in the fifties and sixties, felt more loyalty towards the Soviet Union than their own country. Patriotism was something to sneer at. Same thing here?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

Tell you what, Stanron: drop your incredibly stupid echo chamber sneer (after all, it's meaningless drivel compared to your "take back control" mantra which goes way beyond echo and well into brainless parrot territory) and I'll consider dropping my rather accurate "little Englander" characterisation. No promises, mind, and you will have to promise not to TALK like a little Englander, constantly pitching our country against the EU and refusing to try to be a constructive partner.

As for EU corruption, a charge that you have consistently demonstrated that you can't substantiate, a payment made in error is likely to be just that with no dishonest intent. We are talking here about a tiny percentage, low single figures, of EU money. You have no evidence bar your rather silly "no smoke without fire" smear. Some of those wonderful Tory MPs fighting your shabby brexit corner were guilty of severe dishonesty over expenses claims, but I suppose that's all right, even though that was provable whereas your EU nasty corruption smear can't be corroborated. Piss or get off tbe pot, Stan. Give us your proof. Put up or shut up. You don't get to convince anyone except your fellow brexiteer suckers who, unlike thinking people, need bus slogans instead of facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 07:12 PM

Incidentally, Stanron, your big mate Nigel Farage (without whom we wouldn't be having this argument now) has taken millions from the EU in expenses, on top of a very handsome salary package, yet next-to-never actually turns up. I note that you didn't include that in your anti-Kinnock invective, which is yet another lame gravy train-style attack by feeble-minded brexiteers (and I'm no bloody Kinnock supporter, just to apprise you). However, as you assume I'd be pleased about Kinnock's pension pot (I'm far from that, as it happens), I dare say you'll be pleased about Farage's depradations. And, next time you pass by a dictionary, do look up "corruption." You may be surprised. And, when applied to some of the scumbags on your side, rather embarrassed. Though not into silence, knowing you. Do continue to bring it on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 08:31 PM

By the way again, Stanron, about this:

'The consensus is that it [Full Facts] is a left wing propaganda site."

Please provide a list of the people who have contributed to this "consensus." This quote from your post, unsupported, is just weasel words. We know what an expert you are in providing those. Perhaps this time you'll exonerate yourself by backing up your remark with a comprehensive list of your consensus buddies. Alternatively, why not just admit that you make it up as you go along?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Aug 18 - 07:38 AM

VAT for businesses if 'No Deal'

Trading with EU if there's 'No Deal'

Just a chance to read what the government has stated, before starting to comment on what other commentators are saying they believe the government have said.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:30 AM

Being on hols, I have far more pleasant ways of passing the time than reasing government publications. So I have only given those a 'speed read'. In that, they seemed astonishingly vacuous: i noticed very little that showed detailed thinking- the majoriry was obvious to anyone who contemplated a "no deal" even before the vote. I don't see the result of a couple of years of intensive thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:47 AM

(Interrupted slightly on that post.)

One of the things that leapt out was that they seem to forget Margaret Thatcher's oft misquoted dictum "There is no such thing a society." In context, she was saying neither 'society' nor 'the government' has any money of its own - it is all your taxation, one way or another. And that applies as much to the government statements about VAT here as any benefit expenditure.

But I will read the papers more thoroughly in a week or two.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 04:48 AM

The long preamble in those vacuous trading and VAT documents is clearly there to allay perfectly justified near-panic. The chancellor has split the Tories in two with his warning that no-deal would blow an 80-billion hole in government finances. And there is still nothing about the Irish border issue. The SNP brexit secretary (why have they got one of those!) says that no-deal should be off the table but that a responsible government should prepare for all exit possibilities.

A responsible government is a government that acts in the interests of the people. In this case, that means taking brexit off the table.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 05:41 AM

"A responsible government is a government that acts in the interests of the people. In this case, that means taking brexit off the table."

Amen to that!

Some people (and I'm one of those) suspect that's precisely what they're up to right now. Or rather, they're working on a form of 'Brexit Lite' - keep the Customs Union and Trading Arrangements, fudge 'Free Movement' - the kind of thing Norway has.

That would be better than nowt, but best of all would be to abandon what is, and has been from day one, an utter debacle and an impending disaster. The Brexiteer Bumpkins will 'get over it' or, if they don't, they know where the door is....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 06:53 AM

Just saw a good summation on Facebook

Brexit in a nutshell -

Gary: Will you drink this medicine? It's really good for you.
Bob: Yes, I will
Gary: Actually, its a poison
Bob: I'm not drinking it then
Gary: Too late, you already said you would drink it
Bob: But my decision was based on you saying it was good for me!
Gary: Drink it means drink it.

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 10:35 AM

It was kind of Nigel to give those links, but I would have thought we would have an accounr by now from the Leavers to say either that the reports show No Deal to be better than any alternative on offer or that they are greatly overstating the issues.

So far, silence.

I am particularly interested in their thoughts on the middling group of businesses: the smallest who don't trade with the EU at all will only be indirectly by those reports and the biggest who already trade with the EU and elsewhere can probably adapt existing systems and processes. But the middling ones who have only dealt with the EU will have to redesign/retrain their buyers and sellers completely. What support will available for them?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 11:09 AM

I wonder how a second referndum would go, also the result of referendum in Northern Ireland on a united ireland, the second would sort the border problem if it was yes for unification, or would the island of iureland have to vote about staying in europe?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 12:08 PM

No response from me so far as it's been Whitby Folk Week, far too busy enjoying myself to really bother with Mudcat!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 07:18 AM

Well the HMRC guidance is as clear as mud.

Surely if we are forced by the Tories to exit without a deal is to have no change whatsover for business/consumers in terms of additional administration, accounting requirement, and costs with HMRC completing 100% of the paperwork free of charge and paying 100% of additoanal duties, tariffs, etc from Treasury funds.

That way the rest of us won't need to worry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 09:51 AM

You really couldn't make this up. It would seem that MP's may be asked to vote on Teresa May's Brexit deal without having access to the financial details in the impact assessments.

How utterly stupid that would be. Not only do the government seem terrified of letting us voters have details but terrified on even letting our elected representatives have the facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

I think this is referred to as the Mushroom System of goverment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 10:22 AM

Utterly stupid to ask MPs.
They represent the ruling establishment elite, not us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 11:59 AM

A bit of education about the UK's democratic system...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 01:10 PM

Of course you are the elite Keith, don't try to pretend you are not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:03 PM

Thanks David, but an elite of just one I think.
BWM, would you like a link about referendums?
Your link is all about representative democracy. We had a referendum because on that issue many did not believe they were being represented.
That is why we needed a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:23 PM

Hoops gentlemen hoops.

The FACT remains that our democratically elected representatives may be asked to vote on a matter which they may not have full access to the facts regarding the subject that they are being asked to vote on.

Utterly ludricous.

A fine example of the Mushroom system of government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:25 PM

Talk about revisionism. We had a referendum because a feckless Tory leader, running scared of his backbenchers and of UKIP, brought it to a vote of MPs, most of whom were scared of a backlash if they voted against holding it and most of whom thought that there'd be no harm done anyway as we were sure to vote remain. Your analysis is pure confection. Is there any point any more trying to persuade you to get honest? Anyway, that's all you're getting from me. It was nice when you were away. I'm going to pretend you still are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 02:49 PM

Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. We elect representatives on the basis that they might know a bit more than the general populace about the issues they are deciding. If some of them had a bit more backbone then they might be able to avoid the catastrophe towards which a flawed referendum is propelling us.

You are the elite Keith in the sense that you have a great deal. Virtually everyone in the UK is elite in this sense. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make them intelligent.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 03:40 PM

Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. We elect representatives on the basis that they might know a bit more than the general populace about the issues they are deciding. If some of them had a bit more backbone then they might be able to avoid the catastrophe towards which a flawed referendum is propelling us.

You are the elite Keith in the sense that you have a great deal. Virtually everyone in the UK is elite in this sense. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make them intelligent.

Bingo!

Steve et al, ignore the troll. Please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:10 AM

"Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. "
That depends surely
In the recent past Ireland has had two nation-shattering referenda to correct past evils that have been instilled in Irish society due to uncontrolled religious influences - one on same-sex marriages . the other on pregnancy termination
Before either of those could be changed it needed to be established whether Ireland had moved on enough - in both cases it had

Brexit is different is that it was deliberately driven through on the basis of Xenophobia - sheet populist agenda-driving
Even then, there is no indication that that is what the majority of the British peope want and all the indications are that many of those who voted for it then would no longer do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:42 AM

"Referenda have no place in a representative democracy. "

But the representatives from all parties in this representative democracy all voted that this issue should be decided by referendum, and it was.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:48 AM

That's been fully addressed but he's ignoring it. Let's ignore HIM, chaps, until he decides to play nice. Dead right, John.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:57 AM

Quick. Bury your heads.
Pathetic non-response Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 05:10 AM

Meanwhile back with Brexit a report today suggests the cost of stockpiling medical supplies could be £2 billion.

"Owen Smith, the former shadow Northern Ireland secretary and a supporter of Best for Britain, said: “I don’t remember anyone warning that Brexit would mean we’d have to stockpile drugs or that this would cost the NHS and taxpayers up to £2bn. Maybe they should have slapped that on the side of the bus"

“Every day it seems as though there is another hidden cost being revealed.”

The last statement is something I, and others, have stated on here on numerable occasions.

No deal medical costs?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 05:46 AM

I wonder whether there'll be a bus with the Chancellor's "80 billion brexit black hole" on the side. It may not come true but it's a damn sight more likely than £350 million per week for the NHS. Actually, we could do with a whole fleet of buses to adequately cover the various aspects of the brexit disaster to come. I note that the PM is going round African nations trying stiffly to twerk deals out of countries that smile sweetly but who aren't really interested. Pity she didn't take Boris with her. Those "piccaninnies" are all grown up now and they might have found somewhere useful to shove those flags of theirs.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:44 AM

There will be no need for stockpiling if we get a deal.
There will be some costs to leaving without a deal.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:40 AM

I find the spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country and her senior ministers scuttling around the world holding out their begging-bowls utterly appalling and shameful - that this once-powerful nation should be reduced to the kind of behaviour that would embarrass even a third-world country is beneath contempt.

The Brexiteer Dumbfucks should hang their heads in shame that their gullibility, stupidity, and xenophobia has dumped this pile of crap on, not only our senior politicians, but also the entire population of the UK, the vast majority of whom did not express a desire to leave the EU in that ludicrously flawed referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:41 AM

Don't tell him, Pike. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:42 AM

Grr, you just beat me to the send button, John!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:44 AM

I'm still pretty athletic for a septuagenarian, Steve - ask Mrs. Backwoodsperson! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:49 AM

Steve, I should have made it clear that my post was in response to yours of 05:46 AM - nobody else's.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:51 AM

With you on that, John. I need to knock meself into line...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 08:31 AM

Some costs Keith?? You mean we won't be able to eat??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 01:49 PM

No David, but no-one denies that there would be costs to both sides from a no deal Brexit.

BWM, it is not acceptable to call people names like "Dumbfucks" just because they disagree with you.
Try to discuss reasonably and not be abusive please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 01:50 PM

Are you a Moderator?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 02:57 PM

" it is not acceptable to call people names"
"Pathetic non-response" when nobody wants to talk to you doesn't count I suppose
Stop feeding the chimps Baccy
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:31 PM

Yeah, you're right Jim. What on Earth was I thinking of? He can GFH.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:40 PM

Keith, no-one denies that there would be costs to both sides if I stepped in front of a bus. Mostly to me. So I don't do it. So why the hell, when no-one denies that there would be costs, especially to us, are our politicians, and for the current government I do think BWM's description is apposite, do the dumbfuck's persist in doing it??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:56 PM

I don't know about anyone else but I cannot recall being informed, prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU would have a negative financial effect on me or any other person in the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:15 PM

Me neither, Raggy.

I do, however, recall being told countless times that we would all be much better-off if we leave the EU, how the NHS would get an extra £350 million a week, that there would be far fewer immigrants claiming benefits (or stealing our jobs, depending on which lie you fell for), how we will be 'taking are cuntry back', and many lies and exaggerations. And, not long after the referendum, I recall one particular Tory Brexiteer-dumbfuck announcing that the Exit Agreement would be 'the easiest Agreement ever' to negotiate.

All this, for no other reason than to ensure that the likes of Rees-Mogg, the Rothermeres, Rupert Murdoch, et al can continue their dodgy tax-avoidance/evasion schemes, while the plebs pay for the entire debacle.

And the resident troll objects to me referring to Brexiters as 'dumbfucks'? Obviously hit a nerve there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:18 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 03:56 PM
I don't know about anyone else but I cannot recall being informed, prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU would have a negative financial effect on me or any other person in the UK.

No, you were told most clearly (if inaccurately) that following a vote to leave the EU there would be a massive black hole in the economy, there would be massive unemployment, and there would be an immediate punitive budget. Those were clearly expected 'negative effects'.

You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign, but you were certainly told about them by the remainers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:29 PM

Feel free to ask the mods to delete my previous comment, as you clearly have issues with any contrary opinions expressed in this discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:42 PM

"...you were told most clearly (if inaccurately) that following a vote to leave the EU there would be a massive black hole in the economy..."

Well your Tory chancellor is saying the same thing right now. Eighty billion. Seems to be a fairly persistent worry, doesn't it, Nigel...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:45 PM

Yes, it's consistent, (even if Raggytash says he hasn't heard it).
But being consistent isn't the same as being accurate.
It's been proved wrong once, why believe it the second time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 06:45 PM

Yes, it's consistent, (even if Raggytash says he hasn't heard it).
But being consistent isn't the same as being accurate.
It's been proved wrong once, why believe it the second time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:02 PM

How has it been "proved wrong," Nigel? Shouldn't we await brexit before we conclude that?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:09 PM

How has it been "proved wrong," Nigel? Shouldn't we await brexit before we conclude that?
The scare stories about what would happen if we voted to leave the EU have already been proved wrong.
If you care to believe similar scare stories about what will happen when we leave the EU, that is, of course, up to you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:18 PM

But you said it had been proved wrong. I want to know how this amazing prescience of yours mIght be justified.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:34 PM

By the way, Nigel:

"Feel free to ask the mods to delete my previous comment, as you clearly have issues with any contrary opinions expressed in this discussion."

Don't be so bloody stupid.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:22 AM


You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign

I *know* it is a valid English construct, bu5 that 'may' is still rather weaselly. The poibt Raggy was making, surely, was that Leave did not acknowlege any financial impact of leaving. They did not day, for example, that there would be an impact but Remain were greatly exaggerating it: the leave campaign admitted no impact at all.

Of course, I may have missed such a more nuanced statement, so feel free to link to offical campaign documents from 'Leave' dates before the vote accepting there would be a finacial impact on the ordinary citizen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:24 AM

(Must put my glasses on before typing)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 02:50 AM

Nigel, still peddling the brexiter lies are you? The negative effects are real and serious, and for a start we have not left yet, if we do they will kick in big time. If no deal on the customs union then there will be shortages of foodstuffs and medicines. We have already seen a massive drop in the value of the pound. Today we see car sales down, and major manufacturers will leave. The effects are dire indeed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:22 AM

But, but, but...'taking are cuntry back', unicorns...?? ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:37 AM

Ah - c'mon lads - IT'S NOT ALL BAD NEWS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 03:41 AM

Ah but David, the pound soaring downwards is merely a "correction!" Nigel said so!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:12 AM

That sounds like disastrous news AFAIC (and I'd guess, AFAMOUAC), Jim. And of course Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong would back Bozo the Brexit-Buffoon against The Praying Mantis - anything to ensure a no-deal Brexit so that he and his immensely wealthy kind can continue their offshoring and other tax-avoidance/evasion schemes. Why should they pay UK taxes - isn't that what the plebs are for? :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:31 AM

I don't know about anyone else but I cannot recall being informed, prior to the referendum, that leaving the EU would have a negative financial effect on me or any other person in the UK.

I do. That was the main focus of the Remain case.

when no-one denies that there would be costs, especially to us, are our politicians, and for the current government I do think BWM's description is apposite, do the dumbfuck's persist in doing it??

It is a medium to long term thing, not a short term hit.

We have conflicting predictions of the outcome of leaving . We do not even know what deal we will get. The predictions from Remain about the immediate effect of a Leave vote have all proved wrong, and that damages the credibility of those same people making dire predictios now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:51 AM

"You may not have been told of possible 'negative effects' by the Leave campaign..................."

You are quite correct Nigel I should have made myself clearer. I forgot that I am dealing with pedants.

Today Michael Barnier has suggested that the UK could get a bespoke deal with the EU unlike any other. On the face of it that sounds like a positive note ............ however it could also mean that a deal we were offered is worse than any other deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 04:56 AM

It could, but no-one took it that way and certainly not the markets.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 05:02 AM

"That sounds like disastrous news "
Wellll!
Do you honestly believe any political party could survive a dream-team leadership like that
Not only digging their own grave but also making their wn funeral arrangements
Bring 'm on I say
Mind you - I believe Moggie's Nanny still packs a lethal punch
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 09:46 AM

"We have conflicting predictions of the outcome of leaving. We do not even know what deal we will get."

And there, gentlemen, in two short sentences, is the admission of the Brexiter's stupidity - they voted for something without the faintest idea about what they were voting for. Not a clue about what the outcome would be. Gullible fools sucked in by sound bites, slogans on buses, and blond Bullingdon-Boy buffoons parroting "Take Are Cuntry Back" at the end of every sentence he uttered.

And, as the whole debacle crashes around their ears, with the PM and her ministers scuttling around the world rattling their begging-bowls, more and more businesses indicating their intention to desert the U.K. in favour of EU Member-States, they continue to defend the indefensible. You couldn't make it up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Aug 18 - 11:07 AM

May seems to be rattling her begging bowl in places like Nigeria, asking for a share of their finance industry. Which seems as I remember to consist of people running 419 scams.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:13 AM

BWM has expressed his opinions on why Leavers voted Leave.
I do not think any of that is true. Apparantly I am not allowed to say that, but it remains my opinion.

It is a sad day for the forum if one side can request that opinions from the other side are deleted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:20 AM

No request for deletion from me. I'd far prefer it if your utter stupidity was left in full view for everyone to see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:38 AM

May I refer people back to the opening post when my intentions were made quite clear.

"OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words.

We are all supposed to be adult and have a modicum of intelligence, hopefully that will remain to be the case.

In todays Guardian Jeremy Hunt, the Home Secretary, has suggested that the possibility of a "no deal situation" outcome is growing by the day. He suggested that this "is a huge geo-strategic mistake".

Could someone kindly provide a link to the article.

PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 08:22 AM

Here's something he can't claim I 'made up'...

Panasonic announcing they are to move their European HQ from the U.K. to Amsterdam, in order to avoid problems following Brexit.

Any good news about Brexit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 08:29 AM

I will not be surprised if this is not the tip of the iceberg. The last paragraph of the article says a lot more:

"Japan is a major investor in the UK, where more than 800 Japanese companies employ more than 100,000 people.

However, financial firms including Nomura, Sumitomo Mitsui and Daiwa have already said they will no longer maintain their EU headquarters in London."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Aug 18 - 05:04 PM

"May seems to be rattling her begging bowl in places like Nigeria, asking for a share of their finance industry. Which seems as I remember to consist of people running 419 scams."

Oh, she seems to be doing OK! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 18 - 04:55 AM

Rattling a begging bowl? Uk is second only to US in investment in Africa.
BBC,
"In a speech in Cape Town, she pledged £4bn in support for African economies, to create jobs for young people.
She also pledged a "fundamental shift" in aid spending to focus on long-term economic and security challenges rather than short-term poverty reduction.
She will also visit Nigeria and Kenya during the three-day trade mission."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45325701

What is your objection BWM?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 06:22 AM

I had to laugh at this Express headline: "Theresa May vows to STOP second Brexit vote as poll shows 90 percent would vote the SAME"

So 90% would vote the SAME? So you mean 10% would not? I am not claiming all these would switch in the same direction, but a swing of up to 10% could reverse the result, you know...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 07:48 AM

It's called 'Spin', DMcG - but you know that already! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 08:49 AM

You were not intended to infer that May's decision followed from the poll result.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 09:07 AM

So I did not infer it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 09:38 AM

So what can we sell to Africa, and, more important, what can we buy? South African wine obviously. Beans from Zimbabwe. What else. It is the loss of imports from the EU which worries me far more than the loss of exports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 10:04 AM

more important than Zimbasbwe is Zambia which seems to have replaced zimbabwe as the breadbasket of africa

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 11:21 AM

Neither produce the quality foodstuffs we need, such as the range of French cheeses, Spanish and Italian cured meats, Belgian pate, Polish sausages.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 12:02 PM

Need?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 12:06 PM

Whether we get a good deal, a bad deal or no deal, the EU will still be willing to sell us anything we want.
They may choose not to buy our stuff, or apply tariffs, but their producers will always be willing to sell their produce to us and their governments have no say in that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 01:43 PM

No they will not apply tariffs to EU produce. That will be a decision of the British government. Why should my hard earned money be used to subsidise a British government which is pursuing a far right agenda.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:35 PM

There will be no tariffs on foods from anywhere.
EU foods will cost the same and non-EU foods will be cheaper.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:39 PM

You are joking aren't you Keith. Of course there will be tariffs. WTO rules does not mean no tariffs. If there are no tariffs, and no EU support then UK food production is finished.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 02:55 PM

WTO rules does not mean no tariffs.

WTO allows no tariffs provided you do not discriminate between countries, and we would not.
We would only apply tarrifs for those very few products where our farmers need protecting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Sep 18 - 03:53 PM

"There will be no tariffs on foods from anywhere.
EU foods will cost the same and non EU foods will be cheaper"

And your evidence is.....??

"WTO allows no tariffs provided you do not discriminate between countries, and we would not.
We would only apply tarrifs for those very few products where our farmers need protecting."

And your evidence is....??

Without evidence, "you just made it up".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 02:48 AM

The think tank UK in a Changing Europe say that the UK would be forced to apply tariffs under WTO rules, not just allowed to. Who to believe, real economists or Keith? Its a hard one.

But they also point out the more serious problem which is disruption to the supply chain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 04:33 AM

The WTO does not prevent countries from applying no tariff to a commodity.
That is a fact.

Tariffs are import taxes. We do not tax food in this country. That is why I am confident we would not apply tariffs to say rice and bananas as we have to now.
That has also been a central plank of the Leave case.

Our elected government can now choose which products require tariffs.

David said, " It is the loss of imports from the EU which worries me far more than the loss of exports. "

He was totally wrong to claim there is any danger of EU withholding goods from us.

Who to believe, real economists or Keith? Its a hard one.
You are the one making false claims Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 06:02 AM

Excellent point if I may say so, John. Thumbs up from me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 12:42 PM

You said you believed it. That is "a view" by any reckoning of those who adhere to the normal use of the English language. Of course, you've demonstrated that you don't always adhere so, for example with your Wheatcroft fiasco, when you said, more or less, that black was white.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 12:43 PM

Oh well. That one might as well go too, along with my thumbs-up one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Sep 18 - 01:07 PM

I took my and my wife's prescription repeat forms in to the chemist this week.

Between us we have about 10 items that matter.

Of those, all are made in the EU but outwith the UK, with the sole exception of English-made microdose aspirin.

We're stockpiling.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 18 - 04:15 AM

You said you believed it. That is "a view" by any reckoning of those who adhere to the normal use of the English language

No. When I was diagnosed I believed the doctors, but it was their view not mine. I was not qualified to form such a view, but they had all the knowledge needed to interpret the evidence before them.
It was their opinion not mine. They knew all about it and I did not.

Why would I not believe them?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:46 AM

James O'Brien summing up the Brexiteers' idiocy pretty well, as usual.

Still waiting for Brexit-Drivellers to come up with some good news about Brexit...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 03:10 AM

He is pretty spot on with that analysis, BWM. Even the resident brexiteers on here are now saying things will be worse. Makes you realise that there is no real point in discussing it. After all, what is the point of trying to reason with turkeys who vote for Christmas?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 03:44 AM

Even the resident brexiteers on here are now saying things will be worse.

No-one has ever denied there will be short term costs.

Makes you realise that there is no real point in discussing it.

You have a choice Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 10:27 AM

I see to recall that one of the basic tenets of the leave argument was that we would be #350,000,000 a week better off!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 10:30 AM

That was just a joke, Raggy - Haddock-Face admitted they never meant it!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 12:35 PM

Then you failed to follow it Rag.
That is just the annual amount we now have to give them.
The full benefit is long term. Clearly and obviously there will be short term costs.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:29 PM


No-one has ever denied there will be short term costs

No Brexiteer has ever, as far as I know, said how long 'short term' is, or how heavy the total short term cost will be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Sep 18 - 02:42 PM

Jacob ("Call Me Jake") Rees-Mong said fifty years, didn't he?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Sep 18 - 03:07 PM

No.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 03:30 AM

It looks as if no Brexiteer here is prepared to say whether, for example, some problem still going on after ten years can reasonably continue to be labelled 'short term'? Or twenty? Or five? Or indeed put any upper limit - and hence any meaning - to 'short term'.

Meanwhile, today's BBC news has Boris claiming that the December 2017 on Northern Ireland has opened us up to perpetual blackmail.

I may well be wrong, but I don't remember him saying that at the time. In fact, again according the the BBC report when the agreement was signed, 'Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted: "Congratulations to PM for her determination in getting today's deal."'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 04:45 AM

"Problems" will be sorted within weeks.
What will take longer is the increased prosperity that will come with freer trade and full independence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 04:57 AM

Really? There will be no ongoing legal issues, traffic jams, unresolved funding agreements with universities or business contracts? Nor any significant shortages? All will be sorted after "a few weeks"?

I'll be generous and let three months go by before I remind you of that statement. And feel free to do the same to me if there are no such issues remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 08:11 AM

3 months after Brexit.
Ok, if I am still around.
Remember half our trade already comes from outside EU. No traffic jams at those ports
Why would there be any significant shortages? Why would any supplier withhold their products from sale?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:09 AM

Let's make sure we are in agreement with the tests!

We are talking about the position 3 months after Brexit day, i.e. on May 29th, 2019. I am also assuming have not we agreed a transition in which the UK is still subject to all EU rules and regulations.

I consider 'a traffic jam at the ports' to be present if Operation Brock is in place to the extext that one or more lanes of the motorways near the ports are not available for the ordinary driver. [Note, Dover is not the only port!]

I consider "a shortage to be in place" if at least one of the items in the Consumer Price Index 2017 basket of goods, Annex A has increased in price by 10% more than overall inflation. Since there is unlikely to be an OCD report on that date, we will have to make an informal assessment, pending the next OCD report.

I also consider a shortage to be in place if a major manufacturer is having problems satisfying its 'Just in Time' deliveries.

As for legal and funding matters, the test will be based on comments the relevant bodies are making.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:31 AM

Oops, ONS, not OCD!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:36 AM

Remind me again Keith, which of our ports is not facing an EU country? Possibly Lerwick, but thats about all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 03:01 PM

Remind me again Keith, which of our ports is not facing an EU country? Possibly Lerwick, but thats about all.

The container ports, the three biggest of which are Felixstowe, London Gateway, and Southampton. The major difference between these ports and Dover is that more than 90% of the goods passing through are going to or from non-EU countries.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 07:07 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 11:09 AM
Let's make sure we are in agreement with the tests!
We are talking about the position 3 months after Brexit day, i.e. on May 29th, 2019

Just to be clear, "Brexit Day" is March 29th, not May 29th.
If you mean "three months after Brexit Day" that would be June 29th.

Where May 29th comes into the reckoning I don't know.
Which date were you actually referring to?
And don't even try to pass this of as "nit picking", it seems to be a major part of your argument, based on a date which has nothing to do with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 01:56 AM

And the accepted standard date format in the U.K. is the chronological order of day-month-year. So 'Brexit Day' is (the) 29th (day of) May, 2019.

Dead easy, this childish nit-picking, innit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:02 AM

And don't even try to pass this of as "nit picking",

Errrrmmm...it's off! Dead easy, this childish nit picking, innit?

And before you start trying to be a clever-cunt, I'm well aware it should be 'isn't it?'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:04 AM

Ok Nigel, we will go with june 19th. I made the classic march-april-may slip up, but you are right, three elapsed months does take us to June.

Do I take it then that you agree with Keith that none of the things I listed will be a problem by June 29th? If not, what is you deginituon of 'short term' in 'a short term problem' when all these things will be resolved?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 02:05 AM

Argh, the 29th, not 19th!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 09:43 AM

Careful, DMcG, Nitpicker Nigs has his beady, nitpicking eye on you...!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 10:29 AM

I missed an appointment by 10 days and I said "Lets not nit pick".
I was charged $30 for a missed appointment.

Brexit will probably happen late at an extra expense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 05:53 PM

Anyone seen tomorrow's headlines?

Barnier says deal possible in 6 to 8 weeks.

Are we still all doomed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 06:15 PM

I suppose that depends on the deal ........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 06:20 PM

Says it all....

https://inktank.fi/i-spent-a-day-on-pro-brexit-facebook-pages-this-is-what-i-discovered/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:02 PM

Barnier is a scallywag who blows with the wind. There has been no progress. Of course he wants a deal. But he won't accept Chequers without compromise. The Tories won't accept Chequers as they think it's already a massive compromise. I'd love you to tell me how the twain will meet. It's a shambles. We're in big trouble.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:07 PM

From John's link:

"Make no mistake about this, it was a mostly racist vote. This is why presenting facts to leavers makes no difference. You think you’re discussing Brexit with them, but they’re not. You are simply wasting your time. This also explains perfectly why Leavers are not angry about being lied to and basically getting scammed. It still gave exactly what they wanted."

Couldn't agree more. And, speaking for John and me I reckon (sorry, John!), it's precisely why we regard leave voters as feeble-minded.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:17 PM

Who's John?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:31 PM

Backwoodsman. As fine a man as ever bestrode this planet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 07:51 PM

Steve, let's pretend that come next March 29, my birthday as it happens, we exit the EU with a deal that is passed by Parliament and rubber stamped by the Lords, what then? I am assuming that you will still be able to buy your favourite wines from your usual supermarkets, still be able to go on foreign holidays and all that. Will it still be a disaster?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 08:28 PM

I'm at a loss as to why you think that the only priorities I have are my wine and my holidays. It may seem a little odd to you Tories, but some of us lefties have a little more than self-interest on our minds.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Sep 18 - 02:11 AM

"Backwoodsman. As fine a man as ever bestrode this planet."

Gawrsh Steve, you ole flatterer, you sure can toyn a goyl's head! :-) ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 02:21 AM

If we pass with a deal, everything depends on what the deal is, Stanron, but I agree with Steve than whether either he or I can buy wine is approaching the bottom of the list of concerns.

But let's imagine 'no-deal' instead. The Whitehall auditors have found Defra is not ready. The side deals Raab seeks for airlines are reliant on the EU countries breaking ranks, and to top it off the police are preparing for civil disorder (andJavit will not rule out the idea this could last three months.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 06:18 AM

While I would be more than happy to agree that there was a lot of racism behind the anti-EU vote, I can also see that some people (eg Kate Hoey and the RMT union too, I believe) opposed the EU on genuine constitutional/democratic deficit grounds. Let us not forget that some on the left opposed our initial membership on leftist grounds.

I will never forget seeing open racist abuse on a pavement café the day they announced Brexit (some about a person having the cheek in the view of the racist to wear a Sari in this country, and some from a waiter in the next door café who believed 'we' were 'going to get our jobs back').

And though the democratic deficit points may sometimes be made in an exaggerated way, there is a problem in this areas. One could also point to the way Greece was treated.

I'm sure there were decent people who believed the stuff about how money that is spent on the EC would be used for public services including local councils instead (which I did not; this government is ideologically committed to tax and local services cuts).

Ironic, since the right always objected to Europe because it involved the social chapter, workers' rights, working time directives and other stuff that eroded the sort of 'freedoms' beloved of the right.

What happens won't just be about the sort of 'deal' we get with Europe, or the reductions in food standards to be expected in future trade deals, or the changes in power structures with companies able to take governments to courts in some proposals, it will be about who is in power at the time and their politics.

So while I'm sure a lot of dim people voted Brexit on racist grounds, feelings whipped up by Farage and his ilk and sure to get worse given Bannon's involvement in European politics, I don't think you can call them all thick!

But those who imagined there would be a lot more money to spend on stuff for ordinary people are in for a disappointment. And this is without the loss of scientific co-operation, EU based security, EU grants and subsidies which benefited a great many of the Brexit-voting communities and so on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:14 AM

If you cannot play the race card, play the brexiteer stupidity card.
Remember those in favour of brexit could make similar observations about remainiacs. But they do not.

Compare with the bell curve, and where the majority lie for intelligence. Constant swearing and insult hurling does not suggest remainiacs lie to the right of said bell curve. What does that say about stupidity and referendum majorities?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:30 AM

Please tell me something horrible about the other side, I'll believe anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 07:45 AM

I will never forget seeing open racist abuse on a pavement café the day they announced Brexit

We have a long way to go to catch up with the major EU states on racism.
Muslim women are banned from covering their face in France, Belgium, Denmark and Holland.
Not on one day, but all the time.

The Far Right have not gained any representation here, but are aggressively gaining legitimacy in France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy,.....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 12:48 PM

"The Far Right have not gained any representation here"??? What the hell are Boris, and Rees Mogg doing in parliament then? And Andrew Brigden. And Loathsome Leadsome. The far right are in government, Raab is pretty far right. May is not capable of standing up to them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:00 PM

Re far right representation: The BNP has had some success at local government level, and both Nick Griffin and Andrew Bron were MEPs. And then there is Farage, of course. Before that the NF also had some local government success, and some Tories defected to them so they indirectly gained representation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:34 PM

No Far Right anti-immigrant party has reached Parliament here, unlike France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy where they are major parties and dangerously close to achieving government.

And you people want ever closer union with them!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 01:45 PM

And Farage, thanks Karen, how could I have forgotten him. He may not be an MP, but he is an MEP, so he has achieved representation (even if he has wilfully refused to carry it out).

And Theresa May is the architect of the "hostile environment" policy. And she is after all Prime Minister now. Now you may not regard a hostile environment as a policy of the far right, but there, Keith, you and I will have to differ.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Sep 18 - 02:05 PM

From the Times:

Leaving the European Union would not guarantee a rosy economic future for the UK, the international trade secretary Liam Fox has admitted.

In a frank assessment of Britain’s prospects Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity".


All together now:
"I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden..."

..
Oh, we did.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 04:44 AM

David, Labour were first to use that term when they were in government and committed to reducing immigration too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 04:50 AM

DMcG,
Fox said,
“We have to say there are great opportunities that come from Brexit but that is not a guarantee that everything is going to be rosy on the other side.
“Let’s not have an irrational positivity, but look at the opportunities and look in a balanced way at the pluses we can control. We will be subjected to the same global pressures as before.”

Of course the same global pressures will apply whether we are in or out.
No-one ever claimed that all the problems of the world would disappear.
Us leaving will not change the whole world!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 06:20 AM

Good article in politics.co.uk

Remain is the only part of the political spectrum which looks alive

There is one phrase I love and while I know it is cherry picking, I love it :-)

Returning to campaigning may make Farage feel better, because it returns him to the world of gibbering baseless promises rather than technical horror stories, but it actually complements the narrative of his enemies rather than his friends.

Enjoy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 08:03 AM

The 'rose garden'I was referring to was the same Liam Fox saying the EU trade deal "should be the easiest in human history."

Seems a good example of irrational positivity to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 02:10 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 08:03 AM
The 'rose garden'I was referring to was the same Liam Fox saying the EU trade deal "should be the easiest in human history."
Seems a good example of irrational positivity to me.

But he's right. it should be the easiest deal: The easiest if the EU were not insistent on making the UK pay a price for leaving pour encourager les autres

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 02:17 PM

Not so, Nigel, or at least not in my opinion.   If both sides were committed to maintaining the same standards and regulations etc - which is why he said it should be easy - then I agree it might be easy. But the UK was clear it wanted to diverge from that, so whatever agreement was put in place would have to deal with that divergence. And differences like that are why such deals take years and are not simple.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 18 - 09:14 PM

"The easiest if the EU were not insistent on making the UK pay a price for leaving pour encourager les autres"

They are not "insistent on making the UK pay a price." They are simply sticking to the rules. We are not a special case. There's more than a touch of the little Englander "you do know who I am, don't you?" about your attitude, Nigel.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 04:53 AM

Steve Shaw wrote

They are not "insistent on making the UK pay a price."

Nothing happened in negotiations until the UK agreed to a 'Divorce Bill'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:09 AM

That is not a fine. That is to meet our legal (and moral) obligations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:13 AM

Fine. Who was talking about a fine? The end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:18 AM

one thing ministers seem to forget was that the original EU figure was much higher and it only came down the current figure as part of the negotiations. If we leave with "no deal" and remembering nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the EU's willingness to accept the current figure is also void.

So it is feasible what we have to pay for leaving with no deal is higher, not lower.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:42 AM

We negotiate the outstanding money we are committed to paying once we leave. The continual gloss put on that by leavers, that the EU is insisting/forcing/penalising/punishing us/doing it as a deterrent to other member states, is a complete misrepresentation of the position. As I recall, we negotiated our commitment down to that forty billion from a much higher initial figure. I do understand that leavers want to use any stick they can find to beat the EU with. This is not one of them.

If we leave with no deal, there will still be money to be paid. And, if the Tory Chancellor is to be believed, whatever we pay to leave will be dwarfed by the cost of the hit to our economy. Then there's Mark Carney... Still you brexiteers are so fed up with "experts," aren't you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:12 AM

Still you remainiacs hide behind partial Quotes. The full quote said that people were fed up with experts WHO KEEP GETTING IT WRONG.

Nah. Let's delete the last five words and tell lies with partial truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:18 AM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 05:42 AM
We negotiate the outstanding money we are committed to paying once we leave. The continual gloss put on that by leavers, that the EU is insisting/forcing/penalising/punishing us/doing it as a deterrent to other member states, is a complete misrepresentation of the position. As I recall, we negotiated our commitment down to that forty billion from a much higher initial figure. I do understand that leavers want to use any stick they can find to beat the EU with. This is not one of them.

As I recall, a certain Steve Shaw did not believe we should be negotiating that sum at all, but paying the much higher figure which the EU had, apparently, plucked from thin air.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:19 AM

Nothing like on the same scale as "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead." Did I leave anything out of that quote??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:23 AM

That seems to be a a fair quote of what was advertised on the side of the bus.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:24 AM

So, "My lie is OK because you can't prove what some one else said was not true"?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:41 AM

I repeat my latest quote, from politics.co.uk

Returning to campaigning may make Farage feel better, because it returns him to the world of gibbering baseless promises rather than technical horror stories, but it actually complements the narrative of his enemies rather than his friends.

Leave campaign = gibbering baseless promises

Remain campaign = technical horror stories

They were both wrong.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:45 AM

Actually, Stanron, what was most entertaining about the Gove interview, in which he was clearly rattled by the extremely alert and astute interviewer, came just after the bit you quoted (misquoted, actually, but hey ho - watch out, Nigel's about) when Faisal, appalled by the "experts" quote, accused Gove of Trump politics. Lovely! Listening back to the interview now, it was just about the most cringeworthy display by a politician imaginable, well, apart from anything by the aforementioned Trump. I had to stop after a few minutes for fear of bursting my corset, so I don't know whether Gove actually named any of the "expert" authorities or individual economists he was lambasting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 06:56 AM

Link please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 07:03 AM

On a different matter, there was an interesting article in the Independant a few days ago about Gibraltar.

Our understandable focus on the Irish border
tends to make us lose sight of how this and other overseas groups are affected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 07:12 AM

The whole interview is on YouTube. Sadly, I don't have a whole hour to spare in which to learn how to do links, and, such is the limited capacity left on my cerebral hard-drive, I'd have forgotten again how to do it within the day. You'll easily find it if you try.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 10:38 AM

and he calls himself a well educated scientist?
'aving a larf aren't we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:05 AM

Publishing group that includes Elsevier is to move its corporate HQ to London.

https://order-order.com/2018/09/10/anglo-dutch-giant-relx-moves-hq-london/

Chanel is moving staff to its global hub in London

https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/sacre-bleu-chanel-snubs-paris-london/

Spiffing News! and brought by Guido Fawkes, the man with his finger on the political pulse!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:30 AM

Doesn't Harry Cole do the occasional Guido blog? You know, the long term partner of Carrie Symmonds who is now being shagged by Bo...

Oh, never mind :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 05:01 AM

Ignore the silly bugger, Dave. He never adds a bloody thing to the conversation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 05:33 AM

Just a few positives prior to brexit. Examples you remainiacs all keep bleating for, and when it is presented the ostrich syndrome kicks in!
and you wonder why your asses keep getting kicked?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 05:42 AM

Which silly bugger, Steve? Iains hasn't posted for weeks. Which is good because I find mixed metaphors with an underlying tone of violence rather dull.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 05:59 AM

He's been like a rash all over a couple of threads since he was unbenched, Karen. It didn't do him any good, unfortunately. It's all just silly little sideswipes and pointless links to right-wing blogs and stuff.

I wonder how it would have influenced the vote if the electorate has been told "You might have to go back to paying astronomical roaming charges. You'll definitely get a really poor exchange rate for your pound. Watch that passport expiry! And your driving licence may be invalid. Still want that fortnight in Majorca? It'll cost you!"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:01 AM

Iains is the silly bugger, Karen. He could not post for weeks because his account was suspended. He has been granted access again but is heading for expulsion if he continues. Not that it matters to him as he will continue to post his bile above the line as an anonymous guest when he gets kicked out again. Maybe it is better to have him in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:05 AM

"Our understandable focus on the Irish border tends to make us lose sight of how this and other overseas groups are affected."
Very noticeable here in Ireland and even more so in the North where the besieged DUP are now calling for direct rule from Britain - a thirty year backward step to the dark Ages
We've just been told that our Car Insurance Broker is no longer dealing with British Insurance companies
Havining lived here for twenty years Pat and I are now considering applying for Irish passports - no great problem with us, just an inconvenience.
I'm not sure how the other 1.22 million Brits living in Europe feel about it (if they are able to)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:34 AM

"Still want that fortnight in Majorca?"

Probably not in view of the widespread protests against tourists in Spain that have made headlines recently. In another headline Spain is calling the tourists that were driven away "traitors"
Now where have I seen that logic before?
Headlines in the SUN
Mail
Express
Guardian
Telegraph
Independant
FoxNews.................

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 09:28 AM

" pointless links to right-wing blogs and stuff."

Care to give a few examples of my links to right wing blogs and stuff? or are you trying to deny the facts displayed by certain blogs that you do not like? Perhaps you would care to demonstrate where my links to Guido show him telling porkies instead of telling it like it is?
Perhaps you could demonstrate where facts I clearly portray as facts are in error. Is pointing out the truth pointless? or is it more a case that it displays the hypocrisy of the far left. Perhaps the gnome would like to offer examples of the bile? or of posting above the line as a guest?


I await your clarification with interest!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 12:31 PM

Paul Staines is morally bankrupt, as well as being an actual bankrupt. He also has four alcohol related convictions. Political porkies are his stock in trade, but not the only reasons not to give him any credibility. His only actual achievement is that he was once the Atari Asteroids UK champion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:26 PM

There is an extremely enlightening article by Jay Raynor (not someone I would normal praise) in the Guardian today entitled "Brexit and Food" explaining our reliance on foods from Europe and beyond and the impact that Brexit will have on them.

I would suggest that if some kind person would link to it you should take the time to read it.

Frankly it is very disconcerting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:45 PM

"Paul Staines is morally bankrupt, as well as being an actual bankrupt. He also has four alcohol related convictions. "
That's jolly interesting! Now demonstrate where my links provided by him are factually in error.
You talk the talk, now walk the walk!

(Chanel chooses London for global office
BBC News · 1 day ago"
(RELX to lose the Dutch half of its Anglo-Dutch identity | Reuters
https://uk.reuters.com/...relx.../relx-to-lose-the-dutch-half-of-its-anglo-dutch-identity-i.)

Once again cannot kill the message so shoot the messenger instead. Wonderful!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:48 PM

Iains, could you please provide a proper link.


PS was it you or Nigel who castigated steve for not being able to provide links?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:11 PM

Jay Rayner: Food and Brexit, as requested.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:12 PM

Raggy you can refer to the original linked guido articles above
(From: Iains - PM
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:05 AM )

or you can put the non linked strings in google search and all will be revealed.
Guido, the BBC and Reuters, the news item is as stated.
The story is repeated in the financial times and to give a   little balance Inilever has finally decided to make its corporate headqarters in Rotterdam, rather than London.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 02:25 PM

I have no need, Iains to explain in detail the flaws in Staines' information and methodology. The guy is a scumbag of the first order. Not to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 03:03 PM

Care to point out the factual errors in my links?
I can see you do not like the guy. Now demonstrate where he is lying.
I would imagine many parliamentarians gladly feed him titbits about the opposition. Again, demonstrate the flaws in his factual reporting on the links I provided.
Just because you do not like him does not automatically label him a liar. I personally think Corbyn is a scumbag, but that is a personal opinion,as yet not demonstrated to be a fact. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 04:02 PM

Guido lies?
howsabout this then:

https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-chanel-moves-staff-global-hub-london

https://www.reuters.com/article/relx-results/update-1-relx-to-lose-the-dutch-half-of-its-anglo-dutch-identity-idUSL8N1Q52HT

I suppose in your view both France 24 and Reuters are lying, as guido cannot possibly be correct?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 06:32 PM

I've read the Jay Rayner link.
It is riddled with half-truths, and suppositions, and totally fails to make any points in an understandable way.
Presumably the 'Remainers' here find it intelligible because it reinforces their views, but it is a very poor article.

I'm not going to even try and critique it as it is beyond parody.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 07:32 PM

What a cop-out, Nigel. Can't think why you even bothered to mention it then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 06:57 AM

A radical blueprint  for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers, is to be launched by prominent Brexiters.
....

 It would remove tariffs and throw out the precautionary principle that has guided much EU regulation on GM foods, chlorine-washed chicken, hormones in meat, pesticides and chemicals in cosmetics.

.....

The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

=======

it will be interesting to see who, on this thread and in the ERG, endorses this, who opposes it and who prefers to 'cop out' in silence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:04 AM

A stunning link. It goes back to the top of the page. Should this be meaningful?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:06 AM

Unless there's a problem with my computer that's another link to a blank page.
Looking at the source code it shows (a href="")A radical blueprint (/a)
Angled brackets have been replaced with round brackets to make it visible.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:11 AM

Apologies to all. Here is the the link.

But as you are here, we can hope for a quick response from you on the article?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:18 AM

What a think tanks proposes and what actually happens in the real world is a totally different beastie. After all Corbyn wargamed a catastrophic drop in the value of the pound should he become PM.
Which of the two possible futures is the most likely?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:23 AM

That's a different question, Iains. I asked if you agreed with it or not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:27 AM

Well, for starters, your original attempt at a link mentioned opening the NHS to international competition.
The headline, and first paragraph (both by The Guardian) also mention it. (presumably why you used that line of attack)
The only allied comments I can find in the article:
The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

It recommends testing the waters with foreign competition in education and legal services first.

This mentions competition for 'health services'. We already have private health services, which could, arguably, benefit from competition. This does not mention the NHS, and could just as easily relate to private hospitals/dental care/eye care.
It also makes clear that it would not be an automatic imposition, but they would have to 'test the waters' first.

So far that sounds like a reasonable set of parameters for discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:00 AM

The Guardian did not quote the following line to that from the full paper, nigel. It goes on "That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognision across all areas within 5 years." And all areas includes all government procurents and services, and rules out having protected services except in a few circumstances, like defence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:15 AM

I was responding to the article you identified.
The additional line adds little, as it is a consultation document only. Does it include that bit about all areas includes all government procurents and services, and rules out having protected services except in a few circumstances, like defence, as that is not included in your quote marks, so I guess is just someone's additional thoughts to try to make it say something which is not actually there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:26 AM

For anyone interested enough, my corrected link is to the Guardian article, which gives the link to the full think-tank paper in its first sentence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:49 AM

Here's a novel slant on things.

Migrant EU workers contribute more than British citizens

So, thanks to the brexiteers wanting to keep their little corner of England free from that foreign riff-raff, we lose key NHS workers and pay more tax for the privilege.

Thanks a bunch.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:58 AM

Yes, its good to have that quantified, it is something that many of us have been fairly sure of from personal experience, but here it is, hard statistics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 09:52 AM

Brexit - The gift that keeps giving.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 12:28 PM

so I guess is just someone's additional thoughts to try to make it say something which is not actually there.

A cut'n'paste is painful on my phone, so I needed to wait until I had access to a more convenient machine. I find it marginally odd, Nigel, that you can see I quoted the sentence in the report after the one in the Guardian article without thinking it at least possible I had more of the report itself before I expressed that opinion, but hey ho, that's life.

Here is an extract from the actual paper produced by Daniel Hannan and co. I do not intend to discuss it further, but it is left to the reader to decide if anything in this suggests I am trying to "make it say something that is not there" about the risks to the NHS:


Summing up, the ideal FTA is one that removes all barriers to trade in goods and services, opens up all sectors of the economy to investment, and, ultimately, goes as far as possible to remove all administrative impediments to integration of the economies of the parties without encroaching on the sovereignty of governments to pass laws and regulate in the public interest in ways that do not discriminate against foreign goods, services, and companies.

In practical terms, that means that the ideal agreement will result in the following:
•Zero tariffs on all goods (agricultural commodities, primary industry resources, and manufacturing industry goods);
•Zero discriminatory nontariff barriers, which means no discrimination by either party in the content or exercise of the laws, regulations, or practices affecting the provision of services of either party, including no restrictions on the entry of businesspeople in the conduct of the provision of business services;
•Zero restrictions on competition for government procurement;
•Zero restrictions on foreign direct investment in the economy;
•Zero restrictions on cross-border data flow;
•Elimination to the fullest extent possible of impediments to expeditious customs clearance procedures for both imports and exports;
•Preclusion of the adoption of antidumping or safeguard measures between or among parties; and
•Strict prohibitions against the use of nontariff barriers, such as performance requirements, restrictions based on scientifically unsubstantiated public health and safety concerns, and restrictions based on national security concerns that fail to meet certain minimum standards.

What this means substantively is that, without the need to articulate exceptions and carve-outs, which are so common in other agreements, the U.S.-U.K. FTA can be shorter and simpler, and its provisions can be covered in fewer chapters



Equally, on getting rid of the precautionary principle, so that all additives etc can be put in food unless positively proven to be harmful:

Chapter 12. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

It is critical that measures to protect animal, human, or plant health are based on sound science and that the parties do not adopt measures that are disguised barriers to trade and competition. The purpose of this chapter is to afford appropriate protections and to impose disciplines on the parties to ensure that measures in this area are not corrupted toward impeding trade

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Sep 18 - 03:49 PM

Oh dear, I do not envy Teresa May one jot.

Caught between several rocks and a hard place. Today's press suggesting that European leaders have no faith in the Chequers "Agreement" may be the final nail in her (I have to admit) valiant efforts to negotiate a deal.

Could some kind person please link to the Guardian article "May humiliated by Salzberg Ambush"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 18 - 04:50 PM

May in fight to save Chequers Brexit plan after Salzburg ambush.

Link as requested.

Both the Labour and Conservative conferences are set to be quite lively over the next few weeks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 11:52 AM

Today in the Guardian there is an article which clearly defines one of Terasa May dilemmas regarding the border in Ireland and the EU response to her.

Could someone please link to "Don't buy the Brexit hype"

As I said in an earlier post I do not envy her one jot. Rocks and hard places come to mind again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 11:59 AM

I also see the pound has "plummetted" again!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:00 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:02 PM

Y'r 'tis
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:07 PM

Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 01:34 PM

You're welcome - thank yourself
Great article
May still throwing her toys out of the pram because Europe (27 countries) won't surrender to Britain's (1 country's) demands
Somebody needs to tell her the Empire's long dead
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:18 AM

Labour wants to push ahead with Brexit

I don't envy any of the leaders given the current mess, but that Labour appears to think it would have a better chance than May to get a special deal with the EU just by picking different cherries is delusional.

I am no supporter of referendums in the UK system and fear that another, whatever the result, would bring years of division and possible violence. If the vote decided to cancel Brexit I am sure all those saying "we won, get over it" would suddenly find "the will of the people" didnt matter this time. Equally, if leave won, especially by another few percent margin, I would not expec4 all to be sweetness and light.

What is said at this Labour conference will, in my opinion, be critical. Including if the leadership says nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:25 AM

I can think of nealy 40 billion reasons why the EU will blink first!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:32 AM

I do not know the furure any more than anyone else, but a deal - or no deal - has an annual cost/benefit, stretching over decades. it would be foolish to ignore that and focus on a one-off payment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:45 AM

Remaining has a year after year commitment coupled with eternal rules subjection.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:21 AM

Not a question of blinking first; it's a question of Britain keeping its sworn word on the commitments of the Belfast Agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:39 AM

Not a question of blinking first; it's a question of Britain keeping its sworn word on the commitments of the Belfast Agreement.

Not so. The EU has no sensible argument so bring up the question of the Irish Border as a negotiating tool. In other words, with their intransigence they are quite happy to risk re igniting the troubles.

The sooner we leave the motley crew the better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:58 AM

What could reignite a war is a border that breaks the Belfast Agreement.

The EU doesn't have to have "arguments" - it's Britain that wants to leave this trading bloc; it's up to Britain to work out how to do so gracefully and while keeping its legal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 06:33 AM

"The EU doesn't have to have "arguments".

Best tell that to the majority that voted for out!

The EU is worried the flood gates will open if we leave. The meddlesome bureaucrats morphed a simple trade organisation into a monolithic political entity that pays attention to no one.

I look forward to the coming collapse of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:08 AM

"I look forward to the coming collapse of it."
I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:08 AM

"I look forward to the coming collapse of it."
I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:25 AM

"I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists"
What an exceedingly stupid post.

Best ignored I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 11:58 AM

Yes Jim. You should ignore him.

Just reminding you :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 12:03 PM

Maybe. The kind of nationalism that sees immigration not as a leavening and enriching of a country but as thinning out of the purity of race is rising worryingly in both Europe and America (and of course has never ceased in China, Japan and the subcontinent).

And the thing is, because it's creeping in - at first as dog-whistle ideas and symbols (like the Aryan Nation hand signal in the US), and gradually becoming more overt, we think it's harmless. The kind of thing that's said quite commonly about Muslims is identical to what was said about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s; now that it's become acceptable to speak about Muslims like that, it's also becoming acceptable to speak about Jews in the same way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:11 AM

Brexit: Labour 'would back members' on new vote, says leadership>

"Labour's leader and deputy leader say they would be ready to back another EU referendum if party members want one.

Leader Jeremy Corbyn told the Sunday Mirror he was not calling for a new vote but would "adhere to" any decision made at this week's party conference.

And deputy leader Tom Watson, speaking to the Observer, said the view of party members must be respected.

It comes as a poll for the newspaper suggests 86% of members want a vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations."


The chances of the membership calling for a vote are extremely high, with so many submissions for consideration calling for precisely that. It is a good 'out' for him, because whatever he has said or not said about Brexit in the past, he has made 'the membership' the central plank of his leadership.

We wait to see what happens on Tuesday. He has not said it explicitly as far as I am aware, but if the membership is insisting 'remain' be one of the options in the vote, consistency would demand he backs that as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:11 AM

"Yes Jim. You should ignore him."
I will, of course, unless he's suggesting that we should ignore the sound of Jackboots in Europe, which is not beyond the realms of possibility, of course
As Thompson just pointed out, that's on the cards, both over here and in The States.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:25 AM

PATRIOTIC SPRING

OPPORTUNISTIC RISE OF THE FAR RIGHT

BREXIT, TRUMP anf RISE of FAR RIGHT

Suits some, I suppose
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:45 AM

That last article resonated with me, Jim. I mentioned in another thread the the EU had helped to stabilise Europe and given my family background it was little wonder that I was pro EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:47 AM

the sound of Jackboots in Europe

A good reason for us to get out!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:55 AM

I mentioned in another thread the the EU had helped to stabilise Europe and given my family background it was little wonder that I was pro EU.

It is questionable that EU was responsible for Europe's stability, and it is far from stable now with the Far Right on the rise everywhere, except here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:57 AM

Don't respond, Jim. You know it makes sense :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:09 AM

Don't worry Dave
Why respond to people who miss the poingt that it's Brexit that is causing the rise in Fascism and similar things are happening IN BRITAIN

FAR RIGHT TERRORISM IN BRITAIN

BRITAIN'S WAKE-UP CALL SIR MARK ROWLEY
What did they used to say, "If you're not against them you're part of them"
Goes without saying

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:10 AM

Whoops
Worth saying three times though
Sorry mods

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:10 AM

Why do you post everything twice?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:21 AM

Again Jim, don't respond. Posting multiple times is a technical glitch. Responding to those who get their rocks off by winding you up is just madness!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:41 AM

"Again Jim, don't respond. "
No intention of Dave
The links say everything that need to be said, as does the failure to respond to them

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/far-right-white-trump-extremism-ukip-tory-party-churchill-race-privilege-a8241796.html
Can't blue clickie
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 06:35 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/far-right-white-trump-extremism-ukip-tory-party-churchill-race-privilege-a8241796.html

A rather hysterical article by a leading light of the loony left.
He is currently a journalist-in-residence at Kingston University.That says it all really!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 08:43 AM

Corbyn has told the party conference that, even though he would prefer a General Election he would not oppose a second referendum if that was what was decided
It is reckoned that 87% of the Labor Party now wants re-run of the referendum - can't think of another Party that allows such democracy in its ranks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 08:50 AM

WHAT PASSES FOR "LOONEY LEFT" TO SOME - PROBABLY A 'COLOUR' THING
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 08:52 AM

to be fair, i have also asked why you so often repeat posts, jim? (and was also ignored!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 10:44 AM

Repeat posts are just accidents. You think your post is hanging so you try again slightly prematurely. It happens to me when I've forgotten the insurance of putting it on the clipboard before submitting, so I keep trying again in panic mode for fear of losing the damn thing altogether. It honestly isn't worth commenting on. Some forums give you the chance to remove duplicates and edit typos. Not this one, so these things shouldn't be turned back on the poster. I've found without fail here that the people who take the mick out of other people's typos, etc., are guilty of all sorts of glitches and absurdities of language in their own posts. They are the only people who deserve to be ribbed. I mean, YOU don't exactly use many capital letters, eh, Pete... ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 10:47 AM

Sunny Hundal is as fearlessly unracist as they come.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 10:54 AM

"to be fair, i have also asked why you so often repeat posts, jim? (and was also ignored!)"
Four activ lifelong interests of mine have been politics (a family thing), Modern European history, classic films and traditional culture
Now I'm retired I spend a great deal of time in front of the computer working at the latter so it's convenient for my to pursue my other interests as a breather here for light relief
Why do you ask?
Sorry I missed your question first time

"YOU don't exactly use many capital letters, eh, Pete."
Never read any e e cummins Stve ;-) great poet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 10:56 AM

"Sonny Hundal is as fearlessly unracist as they come."
He's also Liberal left
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 11:01 AM

"Sonny Hundal is as fearlessly unracist as they come."

So why bring colour into it?   Seems a racist comment to me, otherwise why link to a wiki article on someone of Indian ancestry and mention colour. It is blatantly racist!


"Repeat posts are just accidents."

Once Is an Accident. Twice is a Coincidence. Three Times is a Habit.
and a particularly irritating one!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 11:04 AM

it's Brexit that is causing the rise in Fascism and similar things are happening IN BRITAIN

Ha ha ha. None of it can be linked in any way to Brexit.
In France the Le Pens predate it by years.
There is nothing remotely similar happening here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 11:58 AM

Both our countries are acting like there is no reset button and once they find one they are afraid to press it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 01:33 PM

Cheers for fixing my typo, mod. And for your ultimate wisdom in not deleting Jim's post in the face of...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 03:24 PM

Sorry Pete - ansered wrong question - can't multi-task too well
"why you so often repeat posts, jim?"
Sometimes my posts don't go off (or appear not to) - slow speeds heer in the wild-west, so I repost, only to find they went off the first time
Anyway - it gives the trolls something to make an issue of when they find themselves at a loss!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 23 Sep 18 - 05:16 PM

FAIR ENOUGH, JIM. MY OWN HABIT OF NEVER USING CAPITALS IS LAZINESS AND AN AFFECTATIOn. doesn't really matter, eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 02:45 AM

I think that anyone who finds trivial stuff such as typos or accidental duplicate posts "particularly irritating" should visit their doctor with a view to being prescribed tranquillisers. On the whole, I've found that such people have their own well-rehearsed ways of being "particularly irritating" and, not infrequently, are given to displaying semi-literate traits of their own. That's not irritating. That's highly amusing.

I'm very worried about this people's vote malarkey even though I seem to be in a small minority of Labour members. It will be down to the Tories to set up and run the thing, including setting the question, and another close vote would do nothing to settle the issue and everything to whip up a nasty brand of Farage-populism. I'd like to see Labour coming out to oppose brexit. Not much chance of that, but the ground could shift significantly within a few weeks. Who knows.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:03 AM

"Farage-populism."
We've just had a visitation from this twot - he booked a hall in Dublin and held a rally (couldn't find a Biergarten) to encourage the Irish to leave Europe
Hopefully it will fall as flat as the beer he appears to drink
Ireland has been fotunate with the E.U. - it's backed new roads and has been a godsend to the arts
I have litle doubt that, without E.U. support May and her Mayflies would have hung Ireland out to dry and walked away from the implications of re-establishing the border
As it is, their indifference to the little bit of Ireland that considers itself England, they have not had a workable administration up there for nearly two years and the Foster enquiry that is taking place at present looks to drag that out for even longer
Their only purpose at present is to help Britain's dying dog over its stile

"doesn't really matter, eh?"
'Coure it doesn't - I quite like it Peter - I'm a great fan of e e cummins - he never used them
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:10 AM

We neither need a 'people's vote', nor is it democratic. We have a system of Representative Democracy, with 650 MPs being very well-paid to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. What's needed is for those very well-paid MPs to do their bloody job, debate whatever ramshackle deal this bunch of incompetent spunk-trumpets manage to come up with (or, more likely, 'No Deal'), and vote according to conscience in a free vote?

That's true democracy in action, and it's precisely how the decision to leave, or not to leave, the EU should have been made in the first place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:12 AM

Bloody iPad! The ? after 'free vote' should have been a !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:42 AM

I couldn't agree more. And it's now as plain as the nose on everyone's face that brexit can't be in this country's best interests, and any political leader worth his or her salt would stand up and proclaim so. This is one issue above all that simply can't be settled on party lines.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 04:22 AM

"I couldn't agree more. And it's now as plain as the nose on everyone's face that brexit can't be in this country's best interests, and any political leader worth his or her salt would stand up and proclaim so"

Seems a majority do not agree. They voted for brexit, and you again are trying to pass off opinion as fact.

a little history for you!
From: Iains - PM
Date: 13 Oct 17 - 12:05 PM
. . .why do you continue to quote your opinions as though they are incontestable facts? You fool very few here.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Oct 17 - 12:21 PM
Because that’s what I do. Live with it.
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 15 Oct 17 - 10:09 AM

Nigel is not a stalker, merely showing where Steve is being "wrong headed". If he was not regularly checked by logic, people might start to believe his myth spinning.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 04:24 AM

According to the Guardian, Jon McDonnell told the BBC "However he appeared to confirm that senior figures believe any referendum would ask voters to approve Theresa May's deal or leaving without a deal - removing any option of staying within the bloc."

The Independent reports the BBC interview in very similar terms.


This is substantially different from the BBC's report on agreeing the motion:

"But what was left out of the conference motion is as important as what went in.

The leadership had to agree that wording which restricted a future referendum to "the terms of Brexit" had to go.

This means that the party could, in theory, back a referendum that gave voters the option of remaining in the EU and not just a vote on the final deal."

It sounds like the BBC interview by Robinson had McDonnell taking the stance "that had to go".

The debate tomorrow will focus on this I think. In tactical terms, a distraction from May's difficult day today.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 04:28 AM

Much as I agree, Steve, the consequences of that could be very mixed. On the one hand, as it happened on their shift, it would do irreparable damage to the tories. Which is good. On the other hand it could open the door for old frog face and his merry band of fascists. Which is bad.

It could of course be an opportunity for the Labour party to take real control of the situation and say what they are going to do about it in the event of an election before next March. But the vaguely pink Tories in the party are more intent on saving their own necks while joining in the right wing game of kick the Corbyn.t

I don't think the state of politics in this country of the world has ever been so bad. The establishment and rich king makers are running so scared of an educated and well informed electorate that they are trying their utmost to destroy the gains the common people have made in the last 100 years. They would rather see the world destroyed by their puppets than give away one ounce of their power.

Ok. Rant over. Who's next for the soapbox?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 04:32 AM

For what it is worth, I think Justine Greening's approach of ranking outcomes in your order of preference is very sensible and allows all options to be covered without splitting the remain vote, as some have claimed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 04:38 AM

As much as I don't want there to be any more referendums, I feel that one that doesn't have a remain option would be a bit pointless. One other thing. We haven't got a lot of time to set one up and get this people's vote done and dusted before March, have we? It isn't as if we're all going to agree within the next few days to have one...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 05:16 AM

the loony left agenda:

Labour to back second Brexit vote if MPs reject PM's deal, no election called
Delegates to vote on making second referendum an 'option' on Tuesday
John McDonnell suggests second vote would not include option to stay in EU
McDonnell: Any second referendum 'should be a vote on the deal itself'
Shadow chancellor to announce plan for multi-billion raid on companies
Jeremy Corbyn says he will be "bound" by conference vote

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 06:30 AM

LOONY LEFT TORIES

OVERWHELMING LOONY LEFT BRITS

LOONY LEFT ECONOMISTS

LOONY LEFT BREXIT U-TURNERS

EVEN LOONY LEFT LOONYS

It seems some parties are in touch with what Britons want, some aren’t
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 06:55 AM

Brexit rules ok!
the valiant Tories are in touch with what the people want, the remainiacs are a simply outgunned, outclassed remainiac minority, as worthless as the fleas on a dogs back.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 07:38 AM

"Brits Overwhelmingly Favor A Second Brexit Referendum, New Poll Shows"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 10:19 AM

What new poll Jim?
26th January perhaps!?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 12:59 PM

YOUR VERY OWN RIGHT-WING UGOV POLSTERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 01:06 PM

THE TORY SCOTTISH HERALD

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 02:28 PM

Latest government 'no-deal' papers confirm the possibility of flights being grounded unless airlines sort it out themselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:14 PM

There is an interesting article in the Guardian today, it seems like a last ditch attempt by Johnson, Gove, Davis and former Labour MP Gisela Stewart to try and propose yet another unworkable "solution" to the Brexit debate.

Could someone kindly link to "Hard Brexiteers new Plan get A for idiocy"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:17 PM

THERE y'GO

Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:21 PM

Thanks Jim, wouldn't like this gem to slip under the radar!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Sep 18 - 03:37 PM

I though that Gisela Stuart had stood down as an MP and returned to her native Germany, having connived with the far right to screw up the UK. Maybe they didn't let her back in.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 07:51 AM

Copy 'n' paste from the "conferences" thread:


Subject: RE: BS: UK party conferences
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 07:45 AM

Gotta be firm here. I'm going to try the following:

1. Ignore everything posted by Iains and Keith.

2. If possible, post something relevant to the thread after they've posted but without referring to any points they make.

3. Do not refer to them by name.

4. Don't make points that may appear to be responses to something they've said.

In short, cut them dead. Completely. They get what they want not by making constructive arguments but by provoking. As soon as we respond they win. They're both sick in the head. So let's try harder, eh?

Starting... NOW! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 08:15 AM

Steve, both the named posters actually post sensible things on non-political threads, they have some credibility and knowledge on geology and physics respectively.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 09:36 AM

Potential game-changer at the Labour conference as Keir Starmer declared (off his script, apparently) that remain is still an option. It went down famously. Of course, 35% of Labour voters who took part in the referendum voted leave, so he has a job on. Bit of a dark horse, is Keir...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 10:12 AM

Well, I have mentioned the political ramifications of remaining before and, sad as that is, I cannot see a way of doing it without opening the floodgates for right wing nutters to gain some support.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 11:43 AM

With regard to future trade deals (and with tongue firmly in cheek) it is reported in the Guardian today that the New Zealand government has ordered the destruction on 170 boxes of British made Weetabix!

A sign of things to come perhaps?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 18 - 11:46 AM

Wonder which came first, tbe NZ Weet-bix or the great British Weetabix... :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 01:54 AM

Well, we now appear to have a Minister for Food Shortages! I don't remember seeing, "We'll try to make sure you get a turnip to feed your kids" on the side of that friggin' bus!

It's all going really well, innit?

Any good news about Brex-Shit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 07:13 AM

Wonder which came first, tbe NZ Weet-bix or the great British Weetabix... :-)
According to 'Wiki': Here Weet-Bix came first.
There is enough detail there to make it reasonable to accept it as likely to be accurate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 08:21 AM

The Northern Ireland authorities have just announced that if Britain crashes out of Europe they will be unable to guaranty electricity supply throughout the province
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 09:29 AM

What Jim didn't mention was that this information (electricty shortages in Northern Ireland) has come from the Goverments own reports.

There is an article in todays Guardian "No deal Brexit could result in Northern Ireland Blackout"

Could someone please link.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 10:01 AM

No-deal Brexit could result in Northern Ireland blackouts

There you go.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 10:07 AM

Thank you Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 10:09 AM

Thanks both
I just caught it on the news
Jim
(I'm running a night-school class on how to blue clicky in our local bar if you fancy a Guinness some night Rag!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 10:42 AM

Not those ludicrous scare stories again!
From your article,
"Senior energy industry figures have told the Guardian that Northern Ireland is not sustainable as an energy market on its own, because of its relatively small size.
However, they believe that in the event of a no-deal Brexit and the SEM collapsing, a way would be found to keep electricity supplies running cross-border."

Why would the link to Scotand have to close?
The link to RI flows both ways, mostly out of NI.
RI relies heavily on that link and one to UK mainland. They are the ones at risk.

"Previous government leaks have suggested that a flotilla of electricity generators on barges could be sent to Northern Ireland if the UK crashed out of the EU."

All bollocks. If true why not put them on lorries and drive them to suitable locations?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 11:08 AM

FIGGIN' IRISH CAUSING TROUBLE AGAIN - SEND FOR SUPERKEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 12:44 PM

PROBABLY WASTING MY TIME
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 12:56 PM

Sorry - wrong thread

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 01:54 PM

"Not those ludicrous scare stories again!"

Fraid so. On two threads now.
Northern Ireland is a net exporter of leccy to the republic and there is a second interconnector to Dublin. Also the republics natural gas sources are depleting rapidly, Whereas we have just discovered a biggy!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 02:58 PM

An article from the express several months ago says the same thing.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/987992/Brexit-news-Northern-Ireland-power-cut-energy-eu-uk

The abbaccus school of maths strikes again! The hack responsible was probably holding the graphs upside down

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 03:33 PM

"An article from the express several months ago says the same thing."
Severl months ago being the operative phrase
These claims have bor been revived by the British authorities
Yours is old news

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 03:38 PM

Thanks Jim I know how to do them but working on a tiny android with my fingers is hard enough, doing clickies well .........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 03:46 PM

Amazing. "Government documents shared widely across Whitehall and seen by the Guardian" are now just scare stories.

Obviously no truth in government documents then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 03:53 PM

The stories are simply stories. 5 minutes research displays their inaccuracy. Much of Ireland's energy is trans shipped over UK borders.
It is the republic exposed with no security. The interconnecter being no longer connected between north and south or from Dublin to the UL leaves the republic exposed. Like a lot of hard brexit realities, the republic will be the one picking up an increased tab and not merely on energy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 18 - 08:05 PM

It seems that facts are only facts when they are blogged by Guido!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 01:50 AM

According to the BBC version of the 'blackout' issue:


It is understood that a formal "no deal notice" on the SEM will be published in the next few weeks.


So we will soon see if that paper is issued, and if so what it says.

But if it does say there is a risk of blackouts, I hope we all agree that it will not do so lightly, and that it will be based on more than a five minute investigation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 03:04 AM

Don't call him Guido, he is "The Disgraced Former Bankrupt Paul Staines".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 03:26 AM

Don't forget the 4 alcohol related criminal convictions, including 2 for drunk driving, and the fact that he was given an 18-month supervision order and had to wear an electronic tag for three months. Little wonder he is a pin up boy for the morally bankrupt :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 03:31 AM

Another gem from Guido:

https://order-order.com/2018/09/27/labour-run-money/



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7361020/jeremy-corbyn-michel-barnier-brussels-brexit/
Labour giving another fine demo of their cavalier approach to money.

And you would elect them to handle yours???????

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 04:20 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable

I would suggest if the issue of electricity transmission across borders is not resolved then everyone will have a severe bill hike.
The republic is on the end of the supply chain and therefore most exposed.

Some of the projects listed are operational, some near completion, others proposed. Without these power lines, everyone will have a deficit of generation capacity, EVERONE!
The news articles are poorly researched scare stories.


Do you really think attacking guido destroys the accuracy of his material?

A thought for   the day for some of those above:
John 8:7,

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 05:24 AM

Now for some double standards from out champion of Law and order
Jim Carroll

Daily Teleraph
Guido Fawkes: the colourful life of the man who brought down Damian McBride
Gordon Rayner unravels the controversial and sometimes criminal past of Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, the blogger who strikes fear into Westminster
Paul Staines is a political blogger.
Mr Staines went to great lengths to keep his identity anonymous when he set up his blog
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:56PM BST 17 Apr 2009
As Damian McBride contemplates the wreckage of his career following his exposure over the Tory smears scandal, one name will buzz around his head like a wasp trapped in a bottle: that of his nemesis, Paul Staines. Better known by his nom de plume of Guido Fawkes, it was political blogger Mr Staines who obtained emails written by Mr McBride that proposed publishing online a series of slurs about the private lives of leading Conservatives.

Ironically, Mr McBride, the Prime Minister's former spokesman, had been keen to start a website apeing Mr Staines's acerbic, gossip-laden blog, which has become the country's most visited – and controversial – political blogsite since it was set up in 2004. His plan went hideously wrong when the emails, originally intended for Derek Draper, a Labour blogger, somehow fell into Mr Staines's possession, and instead of replicating the success of Guido Fawkes, Mr McBride was hoist by his own petard.

Mr Staines, the journalistic equivalent of an arsonist, has spent the week basking in the heat of the flames he kindled, posting a cartoon on his website which shows Mr Brown as his next intended scalp.

The stated aim of the Fawkes website is simple: to expose hypocrisy, corruption and impropriety in a parliament that he believes is rotten to the core.

Yet none of the politicians who preoccupy his waking hours boasts as colourful a background as Mr Staines himself. While rival bloggers are drawn mostly from journalists and the political class, Mr Staines, 42, is a convicted criminal, one-time national video-games champion, and former acid-house party organiser who turned to blogging after a turbulent spell as a hedge-fund manager ended with him declaring himself bankrupt.

He was described by a High Court judge as a man who "played fast and loose" with the truth during a particularly messy court case, and once wrote that he believed Tory politicians should follow his example and take drugs such as LSD and ecstasy, which he described as "staggeringly enjoyable".

Not a typical career path for a member of the commentariat, then. But who exactly is Paul Staines? What makes him so angry? And is his incendiary website funded, as some of his victims like to imply, by a shadowy millionaire intent on overthrowing the Government?

Iain Dale, the Conservative blogger and former parliamentary candidate who wrote a book with Mr Staines about Labour sleaze, described him to me as "essentially an anarcho-libertarian with a tremendous sense of mischief".

He said: "He doesn't have any political motivation, apart from thinking the political system is corrupt and politicians are corrupt."

Mr Staines certainly doesn't seem motivated by fame. He went to great lengths to keep his identity anonymous when he set up his blog, registering his website in the Caribbean tax haven of Nevis under a false name and address, and refusing to give interviews when his eye-catching postings started to attract more mainstream attention.

When he finally agreed to an appearance on Newsnight in 2007, it was on condition that he appear in shadow, using only his pseudonym – a strategy which backfired spectacularly when another guest, the Guardian's Michael White, referred to him by his name and blew his cover.

So personal fame may not be a big factor for Mr Staines, but it seems that power – particularly power over individuals – is everything to him. When he revealed the contents of the Damian McBride emails to newspapers last week and it became clear that it would be front-page news the next day, he became so excited that he began texting Mr McBride with slightly manic messages gloating about the political aide's impending demise.

In one bizarre text, quoting a line from the film Conan the Barbarian, he wrote: "What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

His wife Orla, a high-flying solicitor who works for a bank in the City of London, appears not to share his enthusiasm; he has admitted she was "livid" when she found out he was hawking the emails around Fleet Street for £20,000 (newspapers refused to pay him anything) and demanded to know: "Why are you doing this?"

When I asked Mr Staines yesterday what drove him on, he said: "It's anger. With politicians who are letting us down, journalists who let them get away with it, and a shabby opposition."

In truth, the Guido Fawkes blog picks up where a politically-active Mr Staines left off in the early 1990s when he went to make his fortune. Born in Ealing, west London, and educated at the Salvatorian College Catholic school in Harrow (where contemporaries included Tony McNulty, the minister caught up in the "second homes" scandal last month), Mr Staines was an outspoken member of the Federation of Conservative Students while at Humberside College of Higher Education in the 1980s, before he was "kicked out for smoking dope", in his own words.

His politics, however, could hardly be described as toeing the Party line. In an article published by the Libertarian Alliance in 1991, Mr Staines wrote enthusiastically of his experiences with LSD and ecstasy, saying: "I have fond memories of taking LSD and pure MDMA, trance-dancing and thinking that I had turned into a psychedelic, orgiastic wisp of smoke – it was the most staggeringly enjoyable, mind-warping experience I have ever had. The only word to describe it is WOW!"

He suggested that many Tories "would benefit from taking drugs, particularly Thatcherites", adding: "Couldn't we put acid in the punch at the Young Conservatives ball and then really have a party?"

As a father of two daughters aged four and two, he has since changed his views, admitting: "I don't want my daughters to do that kind of stuff."

He went on to work as a researcher for the Right-wing Committee for a Free Britain, editing a publication called British Briefing, which aimed to expose the activities of extreme Left-wingers, then as a spokesman for a group called the Sunrise collective, which organised acid-house parties.

After a brief spell as a professional blackjack player, his next stop was Tokyo, as chief investment officer for Mondial Global Investors, a Bahamas-based hedge fund, earning $1.4 million in commissions between 1997 and 2001. His time there was characterised by drugs, alcohol and fast living. One former friend recalled how he had told them he was ordered by a doctor to "give up drinking and sniffing" because of the effect on his health.

He was also something of an adrenalin junkie, travelling to Pamplona for the annual bull run, where in 2002 he was gored in the face (he still has a slight scar).

Later that year he picked up the first of four alcohol-related convictions, a 12-month driving ban for drink-driving (his most recent was in April last year, when he was again banned, this time for three years, as well as being given an 18-month supervision order and wearing an electronic tag for three months).

His somewhat chaotic private life has not stopped him building up a highly successful website, however, and he claims more readers – up to 200,000 per month – than political weeklies such as the New Statesman. Before the McBride affair, he did substantial damage to Peter Hain's campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party by revealing details of MPs who were secretly supporting him, and he has been named in polls as one of the most influential people in British politics.

He has also, however, been criticised for the tone of some of the material which he has allowed to be published on his blog, such as a description of Harriet Harman as "a throwback to the unwashed 'ladies' of Greenham Common"; and a caption competition with a picture of Gordon Brown talking to black children which attracted entries such as "have you been CRB checked yet", and "welcome to Brown Britain" (the comments were later taken down).

Despite innuendo-laden questions about his funding that regularly appear on Left-wing websites, Mr Staines is entirely self-sufficient. When he set up his blog, he was a house-husband, having declared himself bankrupt in 2003 after he discontinued a court case against a former business partner, Martin Walsh, whom he claimed owed him £180,000.

Mr Staines was accused of lying to the court about the amount of money he had available to pay legal costs and during one High Court hearing in June 2003, Mr Justice Laddie accused him of "playing fast and loose" with the truth and "grossly misleading" the court.

He is certainly substantially better off today. Checks with the Land Registry have shown that his wife Orla owns at least two properties in London – a house in Clerkenwell and a flat in Wandsworth – while the couple are also understood to have another home in County Wexford and a holiday cottage in France.

As well as receiving around £15,000 a year from advertising on his blog, Mr Staines also has a financial interest in Eos Online Media Ltd, a firm which he set up in 2006 with his friend Alex Hilton, a Labour activist, and which sells online advertising on blogsites, including Guido Fawkes.

Mr Staines is reluctant to discuss the nature of his interest in Eos – doing so would, of course, make it easier for potential libel victims to pursue him – and would only admit to being an "adviser" to Global and General Nominees, the Nevis-registered firm which has a controlling interest in Eos, and which also holds the registration for the Guido Fawkes website.

Regardless of his rather unorthodox past, Mr Staines has proved himself a force to be reckoned with. Matthew Elliott, founder of the TaxPayers' Alliance and a friend of Mr Staines, said: "If the Conservatives get into power at the next election they will owe as much to Guido as anyone in Conservative Central Office. But once they are in power, they'd better expect to get just as rough a ride from him as their predecessors."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 06:42 AM

POLITICAL CREDENTIALS "TORY LOONY FRINGE"
Guido Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 07:43 AM

The loony left are running scared from Guido's hard hitting journalistic accuracy!
Carry on Boys.
Make even bigger fools of yourselves.

https://order-order.com/2018/09/28/corbynistas-launch-boycott-of-deplorable-guardian/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 08:08 AM

Point made I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 09:31 AM

Just read a brilliant comment about Laura Kuenssberg

doesn’t listen to responses and knit-picks on totally trivial issues. She is incapable of having an in depth and honest talk

Does she remind you of anyone on here?

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 09:38 AM

No!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 09:57 AM

Yes

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 09:58 AM

Ripping Labour a new one from the BBC Question time yesterday



ripping a new one

Note the audience applause!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 10:26 AM

"Note the audience applause!"
Bit out of context
There was equal enthusiasm for all the speakers
Liddell was the only one actually booed last night - why not, he's a misogynist, right wing thug, as one of the other speakers (a women of course) pointed out
One of the striking things in the programme was the lady in the audience
who had voted for Brexit and is now demanding the right to vote again
She got the loudest applause of anybody
You can 'prove' anything if you ignore the awkward bits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 18 - 10:35 AM

"And the audience cheered!"

The writer of that little gem needs to get his hearing checked out by an audiometrist. I heard polite, reserved applause in that clip. Not a single cheer.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 03:50 AM

"You can 'prove' anything if you ignore the awkward bits"
But facts are facts and can always pop up to shine the light of truth on the awkward bits!



Another favourite argument of the remainiacs trashed:
(By no less than the upright man Guido!)

https://order-order.com/2018/09/27/voters-knew-voting/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 04:01 AM

Now that the troll seems to have found a doll to play with perhaps the adults can go on with this discussion uninterrupted
hLABOUR MANIFESTO SUMMARISED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 04:19 AM

Hardly convincing. There is a lot of research about how people rationalise and defend decisions after they were made, even when the thing decided is trivial. For a decision that has significant consequences, people almost always say they were right when questioned.

Which is one reason most people would vote exactly the same way, given the same question. Which also why the "people's vote" would not repeat the question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 04:36 AM

1)scrap student fees. £11.2bn price tag on scrapping fees and bringing back grants
2)Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
and the abbaccus was going to pay them £30p.a. GOOD LUCK with THAT one!
3)End to zero hours contracts. Yet quite happy to employ stewards at the labour conference on the same contracts!

Of course all these daft schemes such as renationalising the railways and water authorities come at a cost.
No doubt the costings have been performed by the abbaccus school of maths aided by liberal sprinklings of fairy dust.

Just a few selections of Lefty lunacy at its best!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 04:41 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/east-coast-mainline-renationalisation-goverment-virgin-trains-failure-chris-grayling-latest-a8354031.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 05:15 AM

Zero hours contracts are ok by mutual agreement, but a worker should a) be entitled to a base level of say 10 hours, if they want it and are prepared to work those hours, and b) be entitled to take work with a different employer even if this precludes them from taking work from the zero hours employer. I suspect the Labour stewards would be fine.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 06:39 AM

Recent headlines:
Labour's manifesto pledge on getting a fair deal at work. ... Ban zero hours contracts – so that every worker gets a guaranteed number of hours each week.

Labour has pledged to ban all zero-hours contracts

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

Shining examples of labour hypocrisy.
Do as I say, not as I do!

Does the good book not say?
Matthew 7:12

TSk, Tsk

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 01:20 PM

"Labour has pledged to ban all zero-hours contracts"
That is a manifesto promise that will be carried out after it has been debated with the Unions according to Corbyn's promise
Some party and Union members are demanding complete banning, others are arguing that, in certain circumstances, zero contracts are essential and to the advantage of the employee - the matter has tyet to be decided

One Labour council in Britain has been accused of using zero contracts "in response to the Government's austerity cuts"
THERE ARE NOW 1.8 MILLION ZERO CONTRACT WORKERS IN BRITAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 01:48 PM

I do find it rather odd that some describes Diane Abbott who holds a Master of Arts degree from Newham College Cambridge a "abbaccus"

Tell us Iains can you claim such a prestige education.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 03:01 PM

I do find it rather odd that some describes Diane Abbott who holds a Master of Arts degree from Newham College Cambridge a "abbaccus"
So do I! an abbaccus perhaps and some describe?

Thought I had better correct that before the resident pedant strikes up. Oh, Sorry he does not do that to the usual gang does he?

Perhaps you would like more shining examples of her numeracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 04:52 PM

Nicely avoiding the gist of my post Iains.

Diane Abbott attended Newham College, Cambridge. Something that many of us consider to be one hell of an acheivement, espeially considering her background. Her father was a welder and her mother a nurse.

No silver spoon here.

She graduated from that college with a degree in History.

Now Iains can you claim that you have achieved a degree from a Cambridge college ..............

Yet you refer to the lady in a desisory manner as "Abbacus"

No doubt you take your views from your mentor Terribus "I was educated in the University of life" school of thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 18 - 05:01 PM

Don't bother, Raggy. It really isn't worth the effort.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 03:49 AM

"Don't bother, Raggy. It really isn't worth the effort."
He most certainly Dave, but it is an opportunity to point out that Theresa May's grasp of mathematics in miscalculating her support lost the Government their majority, cost the British taxpayer £1 billion in a bribe to allow her to coninuing to run the country, and cost Britain its reputation because that bribe was to a sectarian party with links to terrorism
Some examples of Tory miscalculations:

BUDGET DEFICITS

ECONOMIC RECORD SINCE 2010

MISUSE OF TAXES

BBANKS BAILOUT

Much easier to call a politician stupidly childish names that deal in real economics
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 03:59 AM

More loony left nonsense:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6223091/LIZ-JONES-happened-did-Socialist-Yoga-bunch-Jeremy-Corbyn-worshippers.html

and the scary side of leftards:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1024709/labour-party-union-tuc-schools-bully

Tories rule OK! (Thank God!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 04:11 AM

More gems from the abbaccus:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkt0cevwMU

"No doubt you take your views from your mentor Terribus"

Ah yes! The man that always destroyed the pontifications of the cabal here by using cold hard logic.

By the way did he not call you a snapping hyena? Very apt, I feel!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 05:44 AM

Please don't allow this moron to wreck the thread
He isn't going to respond to anything uncomfortable so why bother

ANTISEMITIC TORIES

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 05:44 AM

Please don't allow this moron to wreck the thread
He isn't going to respond to anything uncomfortable so why bother

ANTISEMITIC TORIES

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 06:05 AM

Nothing uncomfortable about my education jimmy, but unlike shaw I find no need to boast about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 06:31 AM

It apparently failed to teach you self respect, good manners or humanity - nothing to boast about is you wished to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 06:42 AM

Leave it, Jim. The moderators need to see this thread and they may decide to get rid of him, permanently this time. They won't do it if we keep responding. There's enough evidence in his posts here for them to do it if they so decide. Just talk past him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 07:22 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
"OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words.

We are all supposed to be adult and have a modicum of intelligence, hopefully that will remain to be the case."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 07:29 AM

"The moderators need to see this thread and they may decide to get rid of him, permanently this time. "
I totally agree Steve
Sometimes life becomes like a pubic hair on a toilet seat - one occasionally gets pissed off
He obviously isn't intending to take part in any discussion, "intelligent" or otherwise
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 09:51 AM

Hey, Jim,

If you sprinkle
When you tinkle
Be a sweetie
Wipe the seatie

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 10:08 AM

May describes Boris Johnson as "deranged". Well, a stopped clock and all that....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 01:29 PM

"May describes Boris Johnson as "deranged"."
I think it was the opposite way around and Johnson described May's proposals for Brexit were 'Deranged
Nothing like starting a Party Conference as you mean to go on
I wonder if they're selling tickets !!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 01:37 PM

Just popcorn, Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 18 - 04:22 PM

From the upright man guido:
Hunt compares EU to USSR, telling it like it is . Stirring stuff, makes you proud to be a Brit! No namby pamby corbinista contortions off this lad!


https://order-order.com/2018/09/30/hunt-compares-eu-ussr/

I might just have to go and whistle a few bars of the National Anthem!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 04:17 AM

THE WORLDLINESS OF BREXITEERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 05:02 AM

BREXIT BRITAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 05:51 AM

What Brexit is really about
Jim Carroll

This morning's Times
POLICE TRIED to DEPORT SLAVERY VICTIM+
Gabriella Swerling
Northern Correspondent
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been accused of wasting public money for prosecuting a Vietnamese teenager whose case was dis¬missed when a judge said that he was probably the victim of slavery.
The boy, who may have been trafficked into the UK to work on a canna¬bis farm, now faces deportation.
An investigation by The Times revealed that between 2012 and last year more than 1,100 Vietnamese children suspected of being smuggled into Brit¬ain had been arrested rather than being seen as slaves. The authorities refuse to
say what happened to them after their detention, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has no data on how many were prosecuted or convicted.
Judge Robert Trevor-Jones dis¬missed the case against the boy, who said that he was 16, on the fourth day of his trial at Liverpool crown court. The child had spent six months in custody on remand. The boy, who does not speak English, had been accused of being involved in the production of cannabis. He was arrested at a cannabis farm in St Helens earlier this year.
Baroness Butler-Sloss who helped to draft the Modern Slavery Bill in 2014, said that the case was “undoubtedly a waste of court time, the judge’s time and the jury’s time — as well as a waste of public money. If he is genuinely a victim, to deport him without protection will be to put him back in the hands of the traffickers.”
The court was told that the boy’s parents had died and he was responsible for their debts. He said he had been threatened by creditors who told him to earn money in the UK. He was taken to China, shipped to France, smuggled into England on a lorry and given to a man in Manchester known as Uncle.
Uncle took him to St Helens where he was told to help men to take bags and boxes into a flat above newsagents. The boy denied knowing that these contained cannabis plants and thought that he was moving household goods. Judge Trevor-Jones asked if the defendant had been subject to a referral under the Modern Slavery Act and said that if the boy were convicted he would ask for one.
Clare Jones, for the prosecution, said that the boy had been seen by a social worker who assessed his age as 25 but it was unclear whether there had been a referral. Ben Morris, for the defence, said that more inquiries were needed to assess his age.
Judge Trevor-Jones said that it would be “wrong to risk a possible conviction” and that there should be a Home Office appraisal to assess the boy’s status and verify his age. He discharged the jury because the boy had spent six months in custody, the time he could have éxpected to serve if convicted.
Debbie Beadle, of Ecpat UK, an anti¬child trafficking charity, said: “Being wrongly accused of crime and put through the court system means child victims are at risk of being removed from the UK and placed back into a situation where they are vulnerable to being re-trafficked.”
Merseyside police said that the force noted the judge’s comments.
The CPS said that the boy had been “deemed an adult at an earlier hearing” and that it had been unable to satisfy the court that the appropriate inquiries and referral had been made.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 06:00 AM

FRIENDS IN LOW PLACES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 10:33 AM

Just as well we are leaving. Italy is becoming a basket case and the pound is soaring! Happy days are here again!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 10:46 AM

"Don't respond, Jim. We all know where it will lead."
I'll leave talking to walls to Shirley Valentine - far more interesting

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 04:35 PM

The pound is soaring is it, well yes it has gone up .. slightly.

Today I can get 1.1214 Euro to the pound as opposed to Friday when I could get 1.1197 to the pound.

This is of course somewhat removed to a period years ago when I could get 1.4159 Euro to the pound and certainly far less than the day before Brexit when I could still get 1.3154 Euro to the pound.

In case this is beyond some people to comprehension before Brexit in return for 1OOO Pounds I would have got 1315.54 Euro, today I would receive 1124.40 Euro.

A deficit of 190.70 Euro for the same 1000 pounds.

Tell you what Iains, if and when the pound returns, as it may/may not, return to that value before Brexit give me a shout would you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 04:41 PM

Well, for loading my Caxton prepaid travel card the pound has "soared" by a quarter of a cent in a day. Wowser! I dare say that the pound will soar right down again if Boris comes out with one of his bon mots tomorrow...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 04:52 PM

Would you recommend a prepaid travel card Steve? We are off to Florida soon and I was considering one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 05:09 PM

Well we took out our Caxton one, just for euros, a few years ago, when it was the best. There's no fee and you can get dosh out of ATMs in the local currency without fees or bad currency conversions (though Greek banks now charge €3 for foreigners withdrawing cash, the bastards). Basically, you load the card with euros when the exchange rate is looking good. They do do American dollar cards but I ain't familiar with anything except euros. It's a Mastercard so you can use it to pay for stuff in shops and restaurants like any other credit card, fee-free because you're paying in the local currency. You get their app on your phone from which you can load up your card, which you sort of couple to your debit card, dead easy. These days you tend to be able to get a slightly better rate by shopping around for foreign cash. Tesco Bank and John Lewis are both pretty good and give a better deal than Caxton, though that's only fine if you don't mind stuffing your body belt with a couple of thousand in banknotes before you set off...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 03:42 AM

Thanks Steve. We got the best cash deal from one of the modern day pawn shops when we last had euros. May just shop around for dollars then. Although I will investigate what is recommended.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 05:09 AM

If you do a one-off trip to somewhere and buy a ton of their banknotes you have the issue of the excess when you get home. You can sell them back but your supplier gives you a rotten buyback rate. As our hols are always in Europe, having euros left over isn't an issue. Caxton will convert them back for you, but they offer a rotten rate buyback rate too. You could consider getting a traveller's card that lets you draw out currency from ATMs fee-free. They do exist! It's a bit off-topic is this, so later on I'll look up what Which? sez (I'm a member) and tell you what they recommend. One advantage of a pre-load card is that you can load up currency to it in dribs and drabs from your bank account while you're on your trip (if you can bring yourself to trusting the system!), so you don't end up with too much leftover mickeymouse dosh...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 05:11 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

Why are we waiting, why are we..............

---

Your wish is my command. Iains in time out. Again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 05:19 AM

Notable that the Tory tactics of accusing the EU of being obstinate and that we can't be bullied by them is well to the fore this week, when the whole bloody shambles has been our fault all along. Two and a quarter years and next to nothing on the table. This Tory shower couldn't run a bath, let alone a country.

Bath? Shower? Whaddam I like!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 08:15 AM

The tories think that taking away rights from people is a vote winner. They may be right, but if they are it is a sad indictment of the population of the country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 10:12 AM

This seems to give name-caling SOME TEETH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 10:52 AM

Play nicely, this thread is still going. For now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 12:57 PM

From Bozo's pontification at the Conference today...

"It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy – would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever – and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years – all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
This is not pragmatic, it is not a compromise. It is dangerous and unstable – politically and economically.
My fellow Conservatives, this is not democracy. This is not what we voted for. This is an outrage."

The best way to deal with 'Whatever the EU comes up with' would be by Remaing in the EU, and being part of the discussion process (not forgetting that the UK is in the exalted position of being one of only nine member-states who have the power of veto). That's what a proper, mature nation should and would do - not throw a hissyfit, grab the ball, and run home with it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 12:59 PM

Oops, pressed 'go' too soon! Should have ended with, 'not throw a hissyfit, grab the ball, and run home with it like a spoilt brat who can't get his own way'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 01:23 PM

How can he get away with lies like we have no ability to change or resist when he has already been caught in his £350 million NHS lie is beyond me. What's the phrase? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. There must be an awful lot of fools at that conference. A proven liar and philanderer that cannot keep control of his gob or his willy yet his name is still bandied about as potential prime minister.

Still, he has one thing going for him. He is not Nigel Farage.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 18 - 01:52 PM

He and his ilk have awoken to the power of indoctrination. Hence the ad-nauseam parroting of slogans like 'Take Back Control' and the relentless onslaught of 'Look over there, Labour [insert latest 'ism' here]' designed to take the eyes of the feeble-minded and easily-influenced away from what they should actually be up in arms about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 09:27 AM

BWM - Just for you. I believe these will be readily available after Brexit.

Magic Unicorn Mugs

Although I am not sure what the term 'mugs' applies to. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 09:36 AM

I've been and gone and booked a post-brexit holiday in Sicily. We're staying at Jim Kerr's hotel outside Taormina. We've been before and I gave the buggers five stars so I think they'll let us in...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 10:55 AM

Jim Kerr as in Simple Minds?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 11:16 AM

"Taormina."
Still have the wine bottle we bought there - named Teararse - a name to remember (but not necessarily a wine!)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 12:36 PM

Yep, that Jim Kerr. In a brexit thread I've moved from Bwm's feeble minds to Jim Kerr's Simple Minds. A step up...?

It's a lovely hotel, by the way, with a spiffing view of Etna from the terrace of every room. I get a lovely little company called The Sicilian Experience, Italia Nel Mondo, to tailor-make my Sicily holidays, who can do it cheaper than I ever can. Jim, when in Sicily you should be drinking only Nero d'Avola (or Nero Mescalese, grown on the slopes of Etna). When in Napoli it should be Lacrima Christi grown on the slopes of Vesuvio, and when in Puglia it should be Primitivo or Negroamaro. Tsk. And I think your wine is Terre Arse, as I recall a rather decent Marsala, Jim, just the thing to round off a good pasta dinner...

Apparently, the corporate video promoting your wine had a gorgeous young woman suggesting breathily, ‘Let’s try Terre Arse. Breathe in its intense aroma…’ :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 01:36 PM

I remember back in my youth drinking a Midlands brew we nicknamed 'Shipstone's Rip-Arse'. It certainly did... ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 01:45 PM

Cameron's Strong Arm drunk in quantity at Whitby Folk Week had the same effect, John. Will you be ordering your unicorn mug? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 02:49 PM

I seem to recall a few pints of Banks' Bitter, followed by a late-night prawn vindaloo with extra pappadoms, having a similar effect. Rip 'n' burn...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Oct 18 - 03:07 PM

Nah Dave - it's the Brexiteers who are Unicorn-Mugs! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 11:56 AM

More dire forecasts of what we can expect post Brexit. One from the Royal Bank of Scotland and one from Nissan in Sunderland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 12:39 PM

Of course our resident brexiteers will point out that Nissan did say some time back that nothing will change. I shall not say 'I told you so', but how gullible they are. Mind you, if you can believe anything that Farage, Johnson or Gove tell you, you can believe anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 02:56 PM

With reference to my earlier post which mentioned the Nissan plant in Sunderland there is a very good article in todays Guardians "long read" section about the possible future of the plant.

One very enlightening comment was from Keith Joseph, the Industry Minster in 1980.

Could someone please link.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 03:06 PM

THINK IT'S THIS ONE!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 03:06 PM

THINK IT'S THIS ONE!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 03:20 PM

That's the one Jim, Thank you.

It does makes for very sobering reading.

Yet another potentially unintended consequence of the Brexit debacle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 04:09 PM

It does indeed. It gives me no pleasure to say it but the 61% who voted leave in Sunderland only have themselves to blame. Still, when the Nissan plant closes down they can all retrain as nurses or waiters or fruit pickers to fill in the gaps left by their resolve to rid us of them damned furriners...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 04 Oct 18 - 04:28 PM

10 folk at my italian language class tonight. 5 are learning as they hope to retire to italy given the state that england is in. i'm learning to visit my son next month - my son is hoping to gain italian citizenship. my escape route is scotland - but i'm sure italy - or maybe estonia -could be an option

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Oct 18 - 02:57 PM

Wonder if this is what the Brexiteers meant by "Take Are Cuntry Back"?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 03:14 AM

So lots of talk about Canada+++ at the moment, and it was always something Barnier said was a possibility in his several-years-old diagram.

I think it vastly better than no deal, but still a pretty bad deal. Northern Ireleand remains as problematic as ever, but let's imagine some solution is found. Canada+++ is a deal which puts the maximum administration costs on individual businesses, since they end up having to get certificates, making declarations and so forth. If their product uses third party components, they end up with all the responsibility of ensuring those components are to the relevant standards. It is quite easy to see the costs of this end up as O(n*n) rather than O(n) for n businesses. It will work, certainly, but not efficiently.

Because of the administration, the risk of delays and disruption at the ports remains almost as high as under a no-deal.

And because of the costs of this, the pressure to cheat the system and use unverified and possibly unsafe third party components is maximised.

So not a good deal for most, I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Oct 18 - 06:18 AM

One of the more sinister aspects of Brexit as covered in the Sunday Times this morning
Fraage has already taken steps to get something in Ireland - now he seems to be going International
Just what Britain needs is hepp from the feller who put the head of the United Rapes of America where he is today
Jim

Bannon bags a Belgian buddy to launch far-right Assault on Brussels
Peter Conradi Brussels
When Mischael Modrikamen, leader of a small populist party, sat down for the first time with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s one-time ideologist, at Brown’s hotel in Mayfair for a Sunday lunch arranged by Nigel Farage, it came close to love at first sight.
“It was immediately clear we shared a vision about what should happen and what should be done,” said the Belgian, 52, puffing on a cigar last week in his mansion in Watermael-Boitsfort, one of Brussels’s smarter suburbs. “Steve said recently to me, ‘I could have finished your sentences and you could have finished mine.’”
Within a few days of their lunch on July 15, the unlikely couple had agreed to transform their shared vision into a “club” that will help like-minded political parties in Europe to apply to their own countries the ideas that swept Trump to power in America.
They call it the Movement, though - with a nod to Lenin’s Communist International, the Comintern, which propagated world communism - perhaps the “Populist International” or even “Popintern” might be more appropriate. “We are starting with Europe but aim to go global,” said Modrikamen.
Its immediate target is next May’s European parliament elections, which its founders see as a chance to give a bloody nose to the centrist leaders of France and Germany. Success for the populists - or “sovereignists”, as Modrikamen likes to style them - would be to win 30% of the vote, enough to form a blocking minority.
Membership of the Movement will be based on adherence to a few core principles: national sovereignty, secure borders, controls on immigration and the battle against radical Islam. Run from Modrikamen’s mansion, it will not just link parties but also offer expertise in polling analysis and other techniques that helped Trump to victory two years ago.
“It is aimed as a loose affiliation. You can be a member of our club and also of any other organisation you want,” said Modrikamen, who has a huge portrait of Winston Churchill in the hall and named one of his dogs Clemmie, after Churchill’s wife. The other is called Mrs Thatcher.
In the past few weeks, Modrikamen and Bannon have travelled across Europe to vet potential members. First to be signed up last month were Matteo Salvini, the Italian interior minister and leader of the League, and Giorgia Meloni, head of the smaller Brothers of Italy party. The pair also met Milos Zeman, the Czech president.
Modrikamen - whose own Popular Party will struggle to reach double figures in the European election - claims interest from 20 or so other organisations, including Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly the National
Front) in France and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), as well as smaller parties in Holland and the Nordic countries.
They also have their eyes on Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, who, while threatened with EU sanctions over his increasingly illiberal policies, has become a poster boy for the populists of western Europe thanks to his hostility to immigration.
“Hungary is being punished today because it is fighting for its culture and its identity and because it is refusing to take its quota of migrants,” said Modrikamen. “As a Jew, I feel much safer in Budapest than I would be in Brussels or Paris. I feel much more concerned about Jeremy Corbyn becoming the next prime minister of the UK.”
Bannon plans to devote himself almost full-time to European politics after next month’s US mid-term elections. Smaller parties trying to break their way into parliament for the first time may need his help, but established leaders maybe more reluctant to be seen to turning for advice to an American. “Of course Salvini and Orban don’t need our help winning elections,” said Modrikamen.
Yet Europe’s populists have the wind in their sails - and see the value of co¬operation with one another. Salvini is soaring in the polls by pursuing a tough line against migration and budgetary discipline from Brussels. He has accused Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU Commission president, of having “ruined” Italy
Populists are shaking up the political landscape in other countries, too. The latest is Latvia, where the recently formed KPV LV - whose name means “Who does the state belong to?” - was expected to take third or fourth place in yesterday’s election with a programme attacking “elites” and offering radical change.
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, is fighting back with plans for a conference of like-minded “progressive” Europeans in Paris on October 20 in an attempt to transplant his own disruptive political
success in France to the continent as a whole - though this may not go down well with centrist parties.
Yet while Modrikamen’s 30% target may be optimistic, Europe’s dominant parties, whether on the centre left or centre right, are losing ground. Macron, hailed as the saviour of liberal democracy when he became president in 2017 and still feted abroad, is plunging in the polls at home.
A bad summer has turned into an even worse autumn, marred by a series of gaffes and defections from his government. The most serious loss was Gérard Collomb, his interior minister, who stepped down last week, forcing the president to contemplate a big reshuffle.
Angela Merkel, the German leader, meanwhile, risks becoming a lame duck after a series of crises that have pushed support for her ruling “grand coalition” with the Social Democrats below 50%. Further humiliations loom in state elections in Bavaria next Sunday and in Hesse two weeks later.
@Peter_Conradi

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 18 - 12:27 PM

From a live newsfeed on The Guadian website a few minutes ago:

Majority of Tory voters in England would be happy to see UK break up as price of Brexit, survey suggests


According to research by the Centre on Constitutional Change, which is based at Edinburgh University, Brexit is “dislodging long-held red lines about the [UK] union”. It says a majority of Conservative voters in England would prefer to press ahead with Brexit even if it led to the UK breaking up.

Here is an extract from the news release it has sent out.



Clear majorities of English Conservatives would support Scottish independence or the collapse of the NI peace process as the price of Brexit

87% of (overwhelmingly unionist) leave voters in Northern Ireland see the collapse of the peace process as an acceptable price for Brexit ...

Nearly half (49%) of English Conservative voters do not think Scottish MPs should sit in the UK cabinet and, in worse news for David Mundell [the Scottish secretary] as the SNP gathers in Glasgow, 24% of Scottish Conservative voters agree with them

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 06:56 AM

According to my memory, Farrige has repeated stated that he would welcome the break-up of the entire EU, and that, combined with the far-right/neo-nazi sorts he associates with can only suggest that his aim is a breakdiwn of inrernational cohesion and coioperation which would be able to make a collective stand against any uprising of the far-right. We live in frightening times.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 09:16 AM

The government are now advertising EU Exit Readiness and Response Support roles.

This is not scare tactics. This is the government getting ready for envisaged problems. They do not admit that there could be problems lightly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 10:57 AM

I wonder if any any the Brexitters will classify todays report that 5,000 jobs will be lost in the City of London if there is a no deal situation.

Now I know some of you will say this is bad news, however this forecast is lower than some others previously, so I am certain that some will claim it as good news.

Could some kind soul link to the article in the Guardian "UK expects to lose 5,000 jobs"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 11:09 AM

CAN'T FIND GUARDIAN REPORT - WILL THIS DO?
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 12:02 PM

Iains, Jim, Steve, Al, Keith and everyone else it may concern.

I stated at the start of this second discussion on Brexit that I would ask for posts not directly related to the subject to be deleted. More the most part this has served to temper the discussion, although some posts by both "sides" have has to be erased.

I have limited access to the internet and I'm certain the Moderators have far better things to do with their time than trawl through posts deleting the "naughty" ones.

Please keep to the subject.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 04:32 PM

The idea of a 'resiliance officer' is an abuse of public money. Any problems if they arise will be totally as a result of the government's own making and as such, any mitigation needs to be paid 100% from the governments own pockets.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 06:50 AM

DUP
TESSIE MAY'S THEME TUNE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 01:35 PM

The great Brexit fishing scam:

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/amp/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:45 AM

Just for those who insist that it is only the papers who supported remain that carry the bad news.

Daily Fail article stating that No-deal Brexit could cause the worst economic crash since the 'Three Day Week' in 1974 with the Pound slumping and Britons hoarding food.

I wonder when they are going to say 'You know that thing that we promoted a couple of years back? Well, sorry, it it was crap after all."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:53 AM

Mail has changed its tune since Dacre has gone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 05:59 AM

Interesting piece on 'Look North' (Yorkshire) last night. A number of residents and business people from Hull, which came down strongly in favour of brexit, were interviewed and most had changed their minds.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 08:18 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html
2.6 million have changed their mainds
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 08:24 AM

Tories would rather see the UK destroyed than stay in Europe.

Quote from the article.

May’s approach to Brexit has never had space for compromise with the 48% of the UK that voted remain. But she has consistently made compromises with a section of the Tory party that cultivates a particularly reactionary form of Anglo-Britishness, and which regards Brexit as much more important than the preservation of the union. Polling this week showed that 77% of English Tory members would rather see Scottish independence than abandon Brexit; much the same proportion of May’s party say they would sacrifice the Irish peace process too.

Sickening. Would rather look after their own power and interests than the good of the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 10:05 AM

A bit of light relief.

Hard Brexit will be ‘brilliant for Britain’, insists complete f*cking moron

Would be even funnier if it was not so close to the truth...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 10:16 AM

Thanks for the article Jack, very interesting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 12:37 PM

Something else the Brexit campaign didn't put on the side of a red bus...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/11/second-kent-motorway-is-possible-post-brexit-lorry-park?CMP=share_btn_fb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:07 PM

apparently brexit is now being driven by the extreme anti-eurpean zealots on the extremist wing of the tory party and (ffs) the DUP. is this really what 'the people' voted for?

come on guys, you've had your fun - but it's time to get sensible now, surely?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:14 PM

Sorry Pete, they don't do sensible.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 01:14 AM

"apparently brexit is now being driven by the extreme anti-eurpean zealots on the extremist wing of the tory party and (ffs) the DUP. is this really what 'the people' voted for?"

Surely you meant "Is this really what a small minority of the people voted for?". 37% of the electorate hardly constitutes 'The People', and 26% of the population even less so. We are being led by the nose towards a disaster - anyone with a working brain should be able to see it - and on that basis alone, the entire ridiculous farce of Brexit should be abandoned.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 07:27 AM

Sheffield University Young Liberals have been forced to cancel an event with Nick Clegg after threats of protest and disruption from leftist students. The society said that “after lengthy discussions with both the SU and University we had no option but to cancel the event” on the grounds of “security.” Clegg joins the ranks of Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer as someone whose opinions are clearly too dangerous to be heard by students…

From the upright man guido.
https://order-order.com/2018/10/12/nick-clegg-no-platformed-sheffield-students/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 07:40 AM

That almost certainly is about tuition fees and the coalition with the Conservatives. It is unlikely to have any connection with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 05:09 AM

Foster emerged from a meeting last week in Brussels with Michel Barnier, the French official leading the EU's negotiating team, convinced that the prospects for a Brexit deal were fading so fast that, given Brussels' stance on Northern Ireland, an agreement had become the least likely outcome. Senior government advisers were swiftly informed that the DUP leader was "ready" for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal.


So the DUP is ready for a no-deal. I wonder if they think the rest of Northern Ireland is ready, in the sense of having taken all appropriate steps to mitigate the effects of the risks in Raab's papers....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 11:49 AM

"No deal" (actually meaning leaving and relying on WTO terms) may be the best we can hope for.
To my mind it is definitely better than the terms Theresa May is supporting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:07 PM

"The best we can hope for" does not exactly inspire confidence Nigel.

Both you and I know it will take years to renegotiate new terms with the WTO that MAY be favourable to the UK. I am sure we both know that the UK is in a very weak position to negotiate anything at the moment.

And we both know that Teresa May has an extremely difficult task trying to persuade even her own colleagues that her proposals are in the best interest of the UK.

There is a minority within the Conservative party who favour a hard brexit, the conservatives themselves are also a minority of the people eligible to vote and the voters themselves are only a percentage of the population in total.

I'm actually feel a bit sorry for Teresa May, rocks and hard places come to mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:11 PM

Well, there is a good chance that we will know whether we have taken the first steps in a few days. Since everyone is make lots of noise to try to promote their own stance before Wednesday, I am not sure there is much point commenting on the news at the moment: we are the 'spin cycle' at the maximum now.

Naturally, Nigel, I take a different view: almost any deal May came back with is likely to be preferable to no deal. But we may as well hold off a few days and see what happens next.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:17 PM

I would feel sorry for May but for the fact that she introduced the 'hostile environment' policy that fueld the fires of racial hatred that tipped people into voting brexit. She is getting everything she deserves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:17 PM

"The best we can hope for" does not exactly inspire confidence Nigel.
Both you and I know it will take years to renegotiate new terms with the WTO that MAY be favourable to the UK. I am sure we both know that the UK is in a very weak position to negotiate anything at the moment.

No, I don't 'know that'.
WTO terms are already set. They are the general terms on which the whole world trades (in the absence of specific agreements). They will not take years to 're-negotiate'.
I think you are displaying the general level of ignorance about how world trade is actually conducted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:29 PM

The labour party contribution to brexit is summed up beautifully by Corbyn below!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YiXsuyYa4c

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:31 PM

You missed my point Nigel "terms that MAY be favourable to the UK"

The current terms are not necessarily as favourable to the UK as the terms of agreements we already enjoy as members of the EU.

To Hell in a hand cart springs to mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:37 PM

Ye gods and little fishes Iains, that's really scrapping the barrel even by your standards. Steptoe and Son was last produced 45 years ago.

What's that phrase "a week is a long time in polictics, well if that is the case what price 45 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:41 PM

You missed my point Nigel "terms that MAY be favourable to the UK"
The current terms are not necessarily as favourable to the UK as the terms of agreements we already enjoy as members of the EU.
To Hell in a hand cart springs to mind.

I didn't "miss your point". You failed to make it.
Both you and I know it will take years to renegotiate new terms with the WTO that MAY be favourable to the UK.
WTO terms are already set. Except for our dealings with the EU, and the protectionist tariffs they set for dealing with other countries, WTO terms are likely to be better than the terms on which we currently deal with the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:44 PM

Which bit of "new terms" do you not understand?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:51 PM

I fully understand "new terms". I just don't believe they are needed to get transactions which are more beneficial to the UK than those which we currently trade under as part of the EU bloc.
Most of the world trades under WTO terms.
If you seriously believe that we benefit from trading as part of a bloc which bases its rules on protecting the French and Italian wine industry, etc. you still aren't understanding the points being made.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:59 PM

I agree with Nigel. No deal is a lot better than a bad deal and, as has been said before, no deal does not mean no deal forever.

Now, at last, we are getting reports that Germany is very afraid of the consequences of no deal to it's own prosperity.

The EU is afraid of giving the UK a good deal in case other members decide to leave as well. Even if that good deal is also a good deal for it's remaining members. To put it another way, the Eu will negotiate to the detriment of it's members in order to follow it's own dogma.

The previous sentence in itself contains all the reasons I would ever need to want to leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 02:39 PM

, as has been said before, no deal does not mean no deal forever. 

True, but if you remember the deal was supposed to be easy because we were fully aligned. Since the intention is to diverge, a future deal would have to take that divergence into account, so is likely to be more difficult than now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 03:01 PM

The deal is supposed to be easy because we are fully aligned. The easy deal would be a good deal for the UK and for the members of the EU. However the EU puts it's dogma before the interests of both it's members and it's ex-member.

Divergence is possible, not certain. Potential for divergence could be infinite. Why not wait until it is specific and matters?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 04:15 PM

Divergence is possible but not certain? Without divergence from the rules and regulations of the EU, what is the point of Brexit? Having control, but never exercising it, for example, would make the whole fandango even madder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 07:24 PM

Divergence is possible but not certain? Without divergence from the rules and regulations of the EU, what is the point of Brexit? Having control, but never exercising it, for example, would make the whole fandango even madder.
At present we are not 'permitted' to diverge from the EU plans.
Regaining the right to choose whether to diverge (or not) puts us back in control of our own future, and free to diverge if we wish. However, I am fairly sure we will diverge once we no longer need to align ourselves with import tariffs intended to protect markets in which we are not major suppliers (such as wine). This does not mean we will have to divulge in all areas.
The comment about 'making the whole fandango even madder' suggests that you believe that the majority of the voting public have made a 'mad' decision. Clearly you do not believe in democracy. The 'remain' voters can hardly claim to be the only sane group in the UK. If their vote was based on the forecasts made by the remain campaign, then their views have already been proved to be false. How much longer will remainers continue to claim we're "going to hell in a handcart"? We were told (by the remain campaign) that voting to leave would cause immediate job losses in the hundreds of thousands, and a 'massive' black hole in the budget. have you not yet noticed that this didn't happen?
Why do you assume that the current prophesies of major calamity (if we eventually leave) are accurate, based on past performance?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 02:02 AM

I said nothing about diverging in all areas. My point was that each divergence is something that makes setting up a new deal more difficult. That is all. Nothing in that requires us to change everything.

I am sorry you object so much to my statement about making the project even madder. It is my view that to embark on a major change without clearly understanding the implications is mad. That is a normal colloquellism about lack of wisdom, not mental health. Even so, how would you characterise it if after all this we decided having regained control we never exercised it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 02:24 AM

Clearly you do not believe in democracy.

Whether a policy is wise is nothing to do with how many people vote for it. Should there be a general election which Labour won, I am fairly confident you would agree.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:13 AM

Even within the mighty EU continental block there is unhappiness. The march to federalism is leaving more and more behind.
OH HAPPY DAYS!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1031269/EU-citizens-poll-Brexit-Juncker-Tusk-anti-EU-protest

The EU's road to hell is paved with mad pretensions!
But sanity is prevailing. Merkel has been hammered in the polls.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1031397/bavaria-election-2018-results-exit-polls-germany-AFD-Angela-Merkel-CSU

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:17 AM

"The comment about 'making the whole fandango even madder' suggests that you believe that the majority of the voting public have made a 'mad' decision. Clearly you do not believe in democracy."

False equivalency, Nigel. A person's belief that a bad decision has been made in a vote in no way reflects their belief in democracy. Think about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:44 AM

"We were told (by the remain campaign) that voting to leave would cause immediate job losses in the hundreds of thousands, and a 'massive' black hole in the budget. have you not yet noticed that this didn't happen?"

In the event we leave(???) the only black hole is within the EU. The UK will no longer contribute to the EU equivalent of danegeld. Furthermore the EU will also have a huge bill in compensation for the various projects they threaten to blank us from.
From their intransigence it is clear they are scared that after Britain departs other "rats" will flee the sinking edifice.

What else explains their totally irrational negotiating stance?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:48 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 10 Oct 18 - 12:02 PM
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 14 Oct 18 - 12:37 PM
Hmmmm!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: j0_77
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 10:50 AM

Err... except that on Oct 7th at the #Wooferendum hundreds of thousands of dogs peed on photos of Fartage, Johnson, Adolf-Rees-Mogg and the other Caymen Islands / Singapore off shore money laundering thieves which is the heart of #BrokesIt..

Wooferendum

And on October 20th there is to be another public protest against the idiotic self abusive stupid #BrokesIt.

From which I deduce that not all is well for Britain destroying looney #BrokesIt ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 03:47 PM

Ford joins other car makers with no-deal worries

Ford employs some 14,000 in the UK so to a first approximation 7,000 voted leave. I hope they are all as sanguine as Nigel at the prospect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:10 AM

As the Praying Mantis goes off to Brussels to make herself, and the entire United Kingdom, look stupid once again, here's something for the Brexiteers to think about... at least, for those whose ability to think goes beyond 'Taking Are Cuntry Back'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:47 AM

Good article, John. I particularly like one of the PSs.

International law doesn’t care about feelings, belief, positivity, optimism, or patriotism. It just is. Anyone who says that “Brexit is failing because you don’t believe in it enough” might as well be talking about fairies at the bottom of the garden, for all that their comment relates to the reality of our situation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 06:46 AM

Basically it seems to be saying much the same as the arguments being put forward by the Remain supporters on this site, although, in some cases, not as eloquently.
I love the bit at the end of page 3 about a "vote of no conference". It also suggests that this (the vote of 'no conference') could happen (future tense) and that it 'precipitated' a general Election (past tense). Clearly not the sharpest pin in the box!

But, if it supports your entrenched viewpoint (and yes, I accept that mine is also entrenched) feel free to quote it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 07:15 AM

So, Nigs, instead of doing the usual thing BrexShitters do when presented with realities which run contrary to their 'hopes' - merely waving it off - how about an item-by-item criticism of the piece? You know, taking each of the points it makes, explaining why those points are wrong, and giving us the hopeful, fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden, a-personal-unicorn-for-everybody, view from your own entrenched position?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 10:31 AM

Going through the whole thing line by line would be an almost pointless exercise. There is so much repetition, and personal opinion, that it would take too long.

But as I said, if in supports your viewpoint, feel free to quote from it.

If you choose a particular comment, I may argue it, or I may let it stand, but life is too short to dissect it line by line.

For example, he quotes all the benefits he believes are conferred by membership, and fails to mention any disadvantages of membership.
His idea that it is a conveyor belt, leading to a pool of sharks, is his personal opinion. I prefer to see it as a moving walkway taking us to a freer existence outside of the EU.

His idea that all EU treaties automatically cease (to apply to UK) exactly 2 years after invoking Article 50 is also inaccurate. He says it is from section three of Article 50. That Article actually says:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
So, if the EU had actually negotiated, instead of stonewalling, we could already have been out. Also, if agreed by all parties, the date can be extended.
So it could be 29th March, or it could be earlier (unlikely now) or it could be later (equally unlikely I hope).
So much for the 'facts' he's trying to put across.

You are, of course welcome to believe what he says, just as you appear to believe in unicorns.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 11:16 AM

Later would be better. Much, much later, say January 1st 2039.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 11:19 AM

"So, Nigs, instead of doing the usual thing BrexShitters do when presented with realities which run contrary to their 'hopes' - merely waving it off - how about an item-by-item criticism of the piece?"

Defintion: Realities    the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Remainers seem unable to differentiate between past, present and future and resort to dogma when the true outcome, as of now, is still uncertainty

The realities of future events cannot be categorized until they have actually occurred. Until such time such theoretical constructs can only be a statement of opinion.

This confusion between fact and fiction is a common failing of the left, and frequently demonstrated on this forum. The presented argument is frequently fatuous so it is beefed up by the addition of ridicule and insult.

Responding to such a confused view of the world is a considerable challenge. Logic fighting entrenched dogma and ideology is something of a lost cause.
The consolation is that the passage of time clearly outlines the consistant failures of the above and logic prevails.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 02:25 PM

That is a somewhat limited definition. It is also a reality that major roadworks take a long time, which is why work has started on preparing the M26 to be a lorry park in the event of a no-deal. It may not be needed, but it is sensible to mitigate the risks. It would be foolish indeed to wait until no-deal was 'a reality' and only begin to take action then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 02:37 PM

It is also extremely foolish to select a limited possibility from a plethora of possible outcomes and present it as fact. English offers a vast vocabulary enabling a precision to be given to statements. Why does the left never avail themselves of this facility?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 03:32 PM

Very good opinion piece by John Major

I don't expect any response to the points he makes, naturally.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 03:49 PM

Not much point in responding to his OPINIONS. You may dance upon a pin if you wish, I prefer facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:09 PM

It's interesting (to a point) that you prefer FACTS Iains.

So tell me what FACTS did you have when you chose to vote leave, what FACTS did you have about the future of the UK.

What FACTS did you have about the prosperity of our country.

What FACTS did you have about a whole plethora of issues that have been raised by Brexit.

Speaking for myself I didn't have any facts, I listened to both sides of the discussion and after much deliberation I decided on the information available at the time that we would be better off, as a nation, to stay within the EU.

Nothing has been shown since that time to dissuade me from that position, if anything the more details of the repercussions of us leaving are revealed, the more I think that I made the correct choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:11 PM

Oh that cheered me up. John Major, who was so good for the Conservative party that he led to Tony Blair's landslide victory and thirteen years of Labour Party ineptness. And we are supposed to take anything he says seriously! Wonderful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:11 PM

I suppose there is another alternative ireland joins the common wealth, unlikely, mean while if sinn fein took their seats at westminst the uk might have a governmentnew

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:17 PM

The EU wants Northern Ireland to leave the UK and stay in the EU. It makes as much, if not more, sense for the Irish Republic to leave the EU and join the UK. Look where the trade goes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:18 PM

No one in the real world - including Iains - just uses facts. They use facts, and balance of probabilities, and judgement of risks, and considered opinions. It would be impossible to drive, for example, without continually assessing the risks whether a pedestrian is about to step into the road. Waiting until that becomes a fact would guarantee an accident.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:19 PM

How would Ireland being in the commonwealth change anything?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:27 PM

Raggytash presumably you voted. Let us see you answer your own questions.

The only facts I needed was the proven intransigence of the EU and the headlong rush to federalism. We needed to take back control of our country

Note the correct spelling of country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:32 PM

From the John Major link:
For centuries, our state schemed and plotted to prevent all Europe uniting against us. Now, we have chosen to turn our back on all Europe. A long line of former statesmen will be turning in their graves.

No, there was never a 'united Europe' looking to oppose England/UK. There were dictators (would be European leaders) such as Napoleon & Hitler who were only stopped from unifying (by force) the countries of Europe, who found England/UK (together with others) were standing against them. The EU, as a political force, seems to be unifying Europe (To the disadvantage of some of its members e.g. Greece) but the people (majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote) of UK have, by referendum, decided that that is not something which the UK should be part of.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:38 PM

Oh, and the heading of the John Major bit:
I have made no false promises on Brexit – I’m free to tell you the truth

Despite that, at no time does he actually claim to be telling us the truth. He is just pushing his own opinions. But some people will read the headline, and assume that everything he says is incontrovertible truth.

I think Lincoln got it right:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Oct 18 - 04:47 PM

You can certainly fool Brexit voters - all it took was a few slogans and a red bus.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 02:12 AM


The EU wants Northern Ireland to leave the UK and stay in the EU.

No it doesn't. It says the best way of avoiding a hard border is to work to the same rules on goods, but it is not proposing any change to the governance, or that NI should make payments to the EU, or that it must have free movement or anything else about the EU. It would not be part of the EU if the proposal was adopted.

It makes as much, if not more, sense for the Irish Republic to leave the EU and join the UK. Look where the trade goes

The Republic is a self governing independent country within the EU that will do what it thinks is in its own best interests. Having fought to gain that independence from the UK it is hardly likely to give it up to help Brexiteers out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 04:31 AM

You can certainly fool Brexit voters - all it took was a few slogans and a red bus.

Cheerfully ignoring the fact that many people were calling for us to leave the EU long before the slogans were written, or the big red bus even thought about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 04:40 AM

Not just the economic effects.

For those who think that this will only affect the economy, a pretty good summary by Melvyn Bragg in the House of Lords the other day. It is a direct link to the Hansard record and the rest of the debate follows. I have only skimmed the rest but what I have seen does not seem to allay fears in any meaningful way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:08 AM

"Cheerfully ignoring the fact that many people were calling for us to leave the EU long before the slogans were written, or the big red bus even thought about."

Ah, you're right, I'd forgotten about the lengthy propaganda campaign in the Express, Torygraph, and The Daily Heil, fighting the corner for their immensely wealthy, tax-avoiding owners.

And there's nothing 'cheerful' about the utter debacle we've been landed with by the Leave voters.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:30 AM

Until we have some signed agreements with the EU, both sides are going to post more and more scary scenarios in order to attempt to change and enforce Mp's opinion to their particular stance. It is hard to discuss potential outcomes until negotiations have made some progress and tangible outcomes can be given some kind of precision. Until that time the argument swings back and forth with no progress. One thing we can be sure of, It will not be a land of milk and honey on one side nor off to hell in a handcart on the other. The outcomes so far discussed are but possibilities.

The referendum was a simple cross to one of two questions:
The ballot paper which will allow voters to cast their vote on the future of the UK's relationship with the EU has been published by the government. It asks people if they would like to remain or leave the European Union and to choose their option by placing a cross in one of two boxes

It seemed pretty unambiguous to me at the time. There was no requirement to justify the vote. There was in my view no degrees of leaving. We were to remain
shackled or not shackled, not partially shackled(as seems a strong
possibility)

My feeling is that the democratic vote will be betrayed yet again by our weasel mps. Where this will lead is anybodies guess. The fact we have been/are fighting wars in several countries without public discussion of consent admirably demonstrates the utter contempt Mps have for their electorate and their opinions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:36 AM

The ambiguity was all in the destination after voting leave. Many a couple has amicably agreed to go out for the evening then ended up sitting grumpily in front of the TV at home because they could not agree where they would go out *to*. Deciding to leave something or voting for change is easy: the hard part is always agreeing what the change should be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:37 AM

No more from me folks.
See my chemotherapy thread.
keith.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 05:44 AM

That's awful news, Keith. I will post to the other thread as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 09:53 AM

This wonderful gem courtesy of Gary Bainbridge:

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 11:42 AM

Never mind the eggs that are already consolidated within the cake. I just want to be sure that we've stopped providing ingredients for future cakes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM

There is nothing worse than being eggbound!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 18 - 08:54 PM

Eggsactly so.
....

This should be the point in this Monty Python sketch of a Breggsit when someone steps up and says "That's enough. It's getting too silly" and we move on to Something Completely Different.

The Backstop stuff is a silly joke too far. The British government signs up to a backstop solution involving checks on goods from Northern Ireland (with its fingers crossed because it doesn't mean it), so as to be able to keep talking about other stuff, and then declares it is all off, and complains that the EU is refusing to play fair because it wants to stick to what had been agreed nearly a year ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 01:51 AM

Not forgetting that we are considering extending the transition for a year to prevent a backstop we won't agree to taking effect. Which it can't anyway unless we agree to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 02:20 AM

Anybody remember, a couple of years ago, Liam Fox saying that the Brexit agreement would be "The easiest deal ever"?

Bwwwaaaaaaaaaaa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaahhhh!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 02:38 AM

Anybody looking forward to our new trade deal with the US?

Eeeeeeeuuugghh!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 04:15 AM

if everybody just ignored our politicians - they would probably just forget about it

'oh yes, i remember that brexit thing...it was about backstopping or something wasn't it? all seems a bit silly now, doesn't it?'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 05:02 AM

This needs repeating over and over Backwoodsman, brexiters looking to a trade deal with the US are playing Russian Roulette with the health of our children.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 05:09 AM

Amen, David.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 05:14 AM

"This needs repeating over and over Backwoodsman, brexiters looking to a trade deal with the US are playing Russian Roulette with the health of our children."
I presume a few facts to justify the above statement is not an unreasonable request?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 07:03 AM

Here in the UK we may on occasion forget that the origins of this forum are American. For our American friends I would like to point out that the ideas expressed in the post of

18 Oct 18 - 05:02 AM

are NOT universally accepted in the UK. It is the view of a small minority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 07:23 AM

I presume this is a fearmongering reference to washed chickens.
chlorine
A Trade agreement is one thing,sorting out the nitty gritty detail is another.
and surely the function of an opposition party is to highlight any such concerns and to fight for whatever may be deemed the best solution.
As the article explains there are very good reasons for the chlorine wash. The EU taking it as an excuse for unproven detrimental practices and poor husbandry is simply hysterical protectionism at its worst.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 07:47 AM

certainly not the views of a small minority in the UK - many of us are rightly doubt the wisdom of throwing ourselves at the current US government in the hope of getting a favourable trade deal. the president has made it very clear it is AMERICA FIRST!!!! from now on and has no reason to give anything like a good deal to a failing nation on the edge of the richest trading bloke of the world

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 07:51 AM

Are you quite sure about that, Stanron?

Revealed: rightwing groups plot to ditch EU safety standards on food and drugs

I know many Americans who are just as concerned with the profit over safety principle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 07:55 AM

Is The Times newspaper sufficiently authoritative...??

Or is this something else that our resident BrexShit Ostriches will cheerfully bury their heads in the sand over?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 08:00 AM

A few facts for our Brexit Ostriches to be in denial over...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 08:17 AM

Most of the Americans I know would like the US agro-industrial complex to adopt food hygiene and animal welfare standards more like those of the EU than the ones they get away with now. And in the UK this is not the view of a small minority, it is the view of the majority, particularly of educated people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 08:36 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Are you quite sure about that, Stanron?

In the UK section of this forum they/you are not a small minority, they/you are a highly vocal majority.

In the real world we may have to wait for four years for the next General Election to prove me right or wrong.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 08:42 AM

I have lost either the plot or the will to live. Time for a bit of light relief.

It is the year 2137. Brexit has still not happened. Theresa May is still prime minister

Unfortunately we still have to put up with Boris Johnson because he lives on as an artificial intelligence synthesised from his Telegraph columns.

Michael Gove is still waiting his turn too, although he’ll be an unusual prime minister because he’s mutated into an immortal slime mould colony.

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 09:42 AM

Slime moulds are ace. They can live as single cells, but they can aggregate together to form multicellular reproductive structures. If you break up such a multicellular structure the individual cells will try to recombine. They are fascinating. Do not diss slime moulds by comparing them with Michael Gove.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 09:59 AM

:-D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 10:31 AM

Save yourselves - DON'T deal with Trump. He's a bully in "business" like Walmart is to all of it's vendors, they just want the best "deal" for themselves regardless of if they drive other companies out of business or harm people in the process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Oct 18 - 11:09 AM

Yep SRS, that's what some of us keep trying to tell the Brexiteers who are creaming their jeans at the thought of 'Taking Back Control'. But of course they aren't 'taking back control', they're handing absolute control to the people who are desperate to sell the U.K. down the river in a trade deal with Trump's Amerika.

Stoopid is as stoopid does.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 01:00 AM

Arguably, the "take back control" was a bigger lie than the bus. The argument in short was that if decisions are made by our politicians and we don't like them, we can elected a different set next time. Which is true, but ignores that fact that there actions while in power are not necessarily reversible. In particular if they sell something off to the private sector, it cannot easily be undone. And control of that sector is then largely lost. Equally any trade deal involves giving up some control in exchange for whatever you are getting. Depending on the deal, it might be a tiny amount or substantial, but whichever it can be very difficult or expensive to reverse. Witness the obstacles to Labour's plans to "take back control" of the railways.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 02:02 AM

Come on, DMcG, there's no point presenting our Resident Brexiteer Ostriches with fact and logic. No doubt one or other of them will be along in a minute with more conflicting horse-pucker from 'Seaman' Staines....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 02:03 AM

'Horse-PUCKEY'!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 04:55 AM

And we may not even be able to watch TV!

Sky warns Disney and Discovery of no-deal Brexit blackout

How will the Brexiteers deliver the promised magic unicorns with no Disney channel?

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 11:56 AM

I find it interesting that some politicians who are very keen on taking back control as an abstract concept are far less interested in the government being in control in practice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 18 - 01:46 PM

"Some politicians who are very keen on taking back control as an abstract concept are far less interested in the government being in control in practice" is a fact. I am sure everyone on this thread could name some.

And that I find it interesting is another fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 03:22 AM

Interesting article on the border problem and simple demographics.


A Nation once again

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 03:52 AM

There is a lot of truth in that article, I think. I agree it is possible Brexit could make a united Ireland arrive earlier than it would otherwise. But the opposite is also true: the DUP's stance is driven as much by preventing reunification, in my opinion, than any of the proposed benefits of leaving the EU. And hence delaying reunification is a major factor in what sort of Brexit we end up with, albeit indirectly. The "border in the Irish sea" is arguably the biggest single factor whether unification is earlier or delayed.

But some people - McGrath was one I think - were saying much the same as that article even before the vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 11:04 AM

My view is that it is something that only the north and south can decide. For the EU to pick on it as a blunt hammer says a lot about the character of the EU negotiators, that they are prepared to weaponise an issue, that any rational person can see, has the capability of reopening old wounds.
That they are quite happy to run the risk of reawakening sectarian warfare in order to bludgeon a brexit/nexit agreement gives a clear indication of what sort of governance some are more than happy to embrace.
Not for me I am afraid!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 11:15 AM

Well, my view is that because of the Good Friday Agreement and the fact it must be the line along which the EU and the UK interact (since the word 'border' some find problematical) means that for anyone who thought about it at all before voting this was self evidently going to be a problem. It is not, I would say, the EU weaponising the problem but the UK failing to think about it, as they failed to plan so much else. Even now, when Brexiteers talk about it they only seem to see it as a trade issue, so all their plans forget about the political and social aspects and only talk about financial paperwork.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 01:00 PM

A very interesting article here giving the view of a German commentator, and showing their regret at the lemming-like behaviour of the UK in general and our esteemed and revered PM in particular.

BTW, I'm joking about May being 'esteemed and revered'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 03:09 PM

Backwoodsman
Once again you link to an article which supports your viewpoint, but which spouts crap. Definitely supporting your view:
They'll be left in their water-damaged homes with no heating oil and no aspirin --
Aspirin is manufactured in USA and China (so we don't have to rely on EU supplies) It is also manufactured by Aspar pharmaceuticals. (in the UK)
Once one comment in any article can be shown to be totally crap, surely it calls into question anything else in that article.

You believe what you wish. But by quoting crap articles you are associating yourself with crap views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 03:18 PM

WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" SHAM, I WONDER

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 03:56 PM

If Corbyn and Labour's response to Brexit is not already a pantomime of confusion we now appear to have an argument within the party as to whether bullying trumps brexit. It could only happen within Labour. What fine entertainment!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/17/labour-facing-civil-war-bercow-bully-row/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 05:19 PM

"If Corbyn and Labour's response to Brexit is not already a pantomime of confusion we now appear to have an argument within the party as to whether bullying trumps brexit. It could only happen within Labour. What fine entertainment!"

Supported by an article from the Torygraph? As The Beast of Grantham once said, "They would say that, wouldn't they?".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 06:44 PM

Where does this leave the "will of the people" sham I wonder?

With regret, I think it leaves things completely unchanged. It will be argued, with some justification, that it was made up almost entirely of people who voted Remain in the first place, and we already knew there were millions of those. There were some 160 coaches from all over the country: if we said 50 in each, that still makes the whole thing largely Londoners, which we knew was remain in the first place ... The arguments for ignoring it will be widespread.

However, since there was a march it is essential it was large. Farage's event in Harrogate pro-Brexit mustered 1,200. Even a figure much larger than that but just a smidgen less than the 100,000 originally suggested would be used to make the argument that the media and a few fanatics (on Mudcat!) care, but the ordinary person doesn't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 06:54 PM

"We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead."

Nigel, you do realise, don't you, that "instead" in the above is intended to persuade the whole populace, not just clever interpreters of nuance, that the NHS was going to get the £350 million (a lie as it happens: the net contribution is far less) that would otherwise go to the EU? Or do you perhaps believe that the statement was aimed only at those with degrees in semantics and that the rest of us undeserving ignorantes could go hang?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 03:40 AM

" It will be argued, with some justification, that it was made up almost entirely of people who voted Remain in the first place, "
Ythe interviewees on the demonstration indicated that this was not the case
The only way May has maintained a majority in Parliament is by bribing a sectarian party to vote for her, using taxpayers money - even that is crumbling
Democratic or what!!
Brexit was never a democratic decision - it was decided on a 'populist' call to keep immigrants out and it has now infested the western world, first with Trump, then with with neo-fascist governments throughout Europe - all jumping nn 'let's get rid of the immigrants' bandwagon'

I've steereed clear of this forum since I realised that the right here had 'Mod on its side' - seemed little point i continuing.
But standing back and watching the Little Englanidism in full flow has been educational, to say the least
"Brexit is democratic" - "Ireland should leave the E.U" - who are these people and what part of the Universe do they occupy?
I understand that yesterday's demonstration was onluy the first - the organisers need the get their act together before the lemmings take Britain over their Rule-Britaniaism cliff
Jim Carroll

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 03:51 AM

Brexit was never a democratic decision - it was decided on a 'populist' call to keep immigrants out and it has now infested the western world, first with Trump, then with with neo-fascist governments throughout Europe - all jumping nn 'let's get rid of the immigrants' bandwagon'


        Votes        %
Leave        17,410,742        51.89%
Remain        16,141,241        48.11%
Valid votes        33,551,983        99.92%
Invalid or blank votes        25,359        0.08%

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:04 AM

" It will be argued, with some justification, that it was made up almost entirely of people who voted Remain in the first place, "
The interviewees on the demonstration indicated that this was not the case

The Telegraph show what I mean by how it will be argued. This is the start of an article, the rest is behind a paywall. It is possible that section completely reverses the introductory tone, but I doubt it:

Berets, juvenile posters, and EU-themed wigs: Did the ‘People’s March’ dispel any of its stereotypes?

According to its official line, the so-called "People’s Vote" campaign is neither for nor against Brexit - it merely wants the electorate to “have a say” on the final deal.
But looking among the many thousands of placards, banners, and t-shirt slogans between Park Lane and Parliament Square in London yesterday, it was curiously impossible to spot a single pro-Brexit message.
The slogans ranged from the mainly conventional and often amateurish - “Stay Sane and Remain”, “We are the People Too” - to various, predictable anti-Tory insults. But there were also the odd jarring or downright offensive notes, including one poster joking about the government’s recent appointment of a suicide minister,...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:15 AM

The People's Vote March
At yesterdays rally (attended by an unknown number according to the Metropolitan Police)
London Mayor Mr Khan told the crowd: "What's really important is that those that say that a public vote is undemocratic, is unpatriotic, realise that in fact, the exact opposite is the truth.

"What could be more democratic, what could be more British, than trusting the judgement of the British people."

Surely the judgment of the people was expressed with the brexit referendum?

Has anything changed, other than the remainiacs increasing levels of hysteria?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:29 AM

The level of information has changed, which is substantial. The likely consequences of the deals, while still probablistic, have different probabilities now. (I know some don't regard changes in probabilities as changes in facts, but they are). They are many statements from business on how they may react to a bad deal. Yes, "may react. This is not "will'. Nor is it "won't"

Even leavers are very concerned that the deal we end up with may be very different from the deal they voted for, hence all the BRINO stuff.

Yes, a lot has changed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:54 AM

" remainiacs increasing levels of hysteria?"
Fuheress Thatcher preferred the term "rentamob" which summed up here contempt for bot the people and democracy, just as it does here
Brexit no longer has majority support - it hasn't even had it in parliament without a massive bribe
It was always based on a plea to xenophobia, but even that has been over-redden when the consequences became clear
If the leavers were so confident that they could win again, they would have no opposition to a second referendum - nothing has changed - my arse it hasn't

Brexit has debased the image of Britain and its people throughout the world - it has painted us as hate-filled Little Englanders who have never really left the Empire
Throughout all this it has strengthened neo-nazism - it has put scum like Tommy Robinson back on the streets and has empowered monsters like Trump and Orban - achievements to be proud of!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:58 AM

I think I would prefer probabilities to be mre accurately expressed as possibilities. Both sides are jockeying and posturing and we have no idea as to the behind the scene discussions. We merely know what we are told. A no deal   hurts the EU equally, but the EU cannt be seen to be soft because Italy is lurking in the wings watching closely. The euro is a very dodgy currency and the disparate economies of the EU will likely tear it apart, if diktat continually comes from the center.
We have clearly seen the evil gnomes of Brussls and Strasburg care not a fig for the common man and will allow nothing to impede their rush to federalism. History shows that taking more and more powers to the center and ignoring the populace only has one eventual outcome.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 05:24 AM

"care not a fig for the common man"
Not like those who refer to them as "rentamob" or "remaiiacs" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:00 AM

Since you have a fixation on young tommy, 500,000 voted for him! How many were on the march?

It puts a rather different perspective on the March than the headlines would have us believe.

I believe it is called "vocal minorities!"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:14 AM

Brexit has debased the image of Britain and its people throughout the world - it has painted us as hate-filled Little Englanders who have never really left the Empire


Anglophobic nonsense at it's worst. Nearly 1/2million non British voters were allowed to vote in the referendum. Who knows their voting intentions?

Wonder why that never hit the mainstream. Cypriots, Maltese and Irish were allowed to vote.


https://www.rt.com/uk/340061-irish-commonwealth-eu-referendum/

It rather nails the stupidity of the insulting term "little englander"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:18 AM

And now to more serious stuff from Guido.
A petition to put the face of St Maggie of middle england on the £50 pound not.



https://order-order.com/2018/10/15/petition-put-maggie-new-50/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:27 AM

"Rush to federalism": As we are a large and influential member of the EU there can be no "rush to federalism" without our say-so. We have the veto.

"True democracy in action": Well, democracies are predicated on universal suffrage, true enough. But in a TRUE democracy the electorate is properly and honestly INFORMED before being asked to vote. We live in a country in which, at best, lip service is paid to political education; at worst, it's frowned on. Of course, we have the radio and the telly, oh, and social media, God help us. And we also have the Mail, the Sun and the Express and blogs by far-right idiots, all of which deal in confirmation bias on a very shallow level, ruthlessly manipulating the electorate into one chosen political direction whilst demonising those on the other side. An electorate well-educated in politics wouldn't be anywhere near as easy to manipulate, but that is what we have not got. Both sides in the referendum campaign exploited this in the most unprincipled manner, by lying, misrepresenting and making totally unjustified predictions. The trouble with giving just voting statistics in order to declare that "true democracy" was served is that this aspect is completely ignored. Asking people to vote on a huge issue about which they are deliberately kept uninformed and misinformed, and which is in essence giving them an irrevocable decision, has nothing to do with TRUE democracy, and anyone who claims that it is could use a good dose of political education themselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:32 AM

But in a TRUE democracy the electorate is properly and honestly INFORMED before being asked to vote.

Lets be having a few examples of the above since universal suffrage was introduced.

You confuse ideals with reality. Do you read the Guardian?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:35 AM

"Anglophobic nonsense at it's worst"
You need to get out more
Britain is being disgraced daily by teh behaviour of this Government
Brexit was about keeping immigrants and refugees out - very few people deny that, certainly those who are aware of the economic consequences
The next major wave of refugees is likely to be of Yemenis escaping the slaughter being caused by British fighter planes sold to the Saudis by our arms dealers
When the refugees turn up on Britain's shores they will be turned away, as are so many escaping British supported oil wars - also fought by British arms
This shit has gone far beyond a political issue and is now approaching a crimes against humanity level
I see you people seem to given up on the idea that Brexit is now the will of the majority of the British people, which is why you are shit-scared of a second referendum
Long live democracy, eh!!
The only true gauge of the true feelings of the British people is to be found in demonstrations like that magnificent one yesterday - people have long stopped believing that elections mean anything other than more shit on their doorstep
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:39 AM

Because it hasn't happened doesn't justify in the slightest what was done in tbe referendum campaign.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 07:36 AM

"Lets be having a few examples of the above since universal suffrage was introduced."
Rather makes the point that Parliamentary democracy has never been much more than a sham - an unfulfilled promise of change so that things could remain the same
The post war Labour Government came nearest by beginning to build a "land fit for heroes to live in" after the war but the Thatcheralikes put an end to that one as soon as the opportunity arose

Guido again?
So hard pressed for responses that you have to fall back onthe blogs of a political cretin
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 10:07 AM

Don't call him Guido. His name is Paul DeLaire Staines, and he is a former bankrupt with several alcohol related convictions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 11:28 AM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 18 - 06:54 PM
"We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead."
Nigel, you do realise, don't you, that "instead" in the above is intended to persuade the whole populace, not just clever interpreters of nuance, that the NHS was going to get the £350 million (a lie as it happens: the net contribution is far less) that would otherwise go to the EU? Or do you perhaps believe that the statement was aimed only at those with degrees in semantics and that the rest of us undeserving ignorantes could go hang?

Your interpretation of the words includes an inference (that the whole of the £350 million would go to the NHS), that is not, however, spelt out on the bus.
Nice to see you describing yourself as an ignorante rather than your previous claim to be a "well-educated scientist".

Whichever way it was intended to be read, the government has already (since the referendum) promised an even greater sum to the NHS Here Making the comment on the side of the bus a 'conservative estimate'!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 12:23 PM

"Don't call him Guido"
We know that David - as does Iains
It is a feeble attempt at a wind-up
Not even he is stupid enough.... Oh, I don't know though!
I see Nigel is still ducking and diving the real issues and continues to defend these people and their near criminal activities
BRITISH BOMBS FOR THE YEMEN
"A NATIONAL DISGRACE"

No same with Tories eh
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 12:34 PM

Nigel,

Ask yourself a question, what proportion of the public read the side of the bus and asked themselves "does that mean the NHS will only get a part of #350 million a week and if so what part"

Or did they perhaps believe that the NHS would get all of the #350 million every week, this week *, next week, next month, next year.

*from the date we leave the EU, I wouldn't like you to get upset about semantics of the NHS getting that amount before we leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 12:57 PM

Jim, I am disappointed in you! I thought you knew better than to encourage this nonsense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 02:22 PM

Sure Jim, but every time Iains or his fellow travellers quote him, remind yourself and anybody who might be reading that he is an ex bankrupt and convicted drink driver. Thats who he is, it isn't just a footnote, that is his very nature.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 02:30 PM

I read all this as you being unable to attack the arguments you attack the character.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 02:47 PM

"Jim, I am disappointed in you! I thought you knew better than to encourage this nonsense."
Which nonsense - it's hearest I ever come to bloodsports and for me a mention of the drunken con-man blogger is an indication that your opposing poster has run out of what few ideas as he can manage to muster
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 03:35 PM

"...the government has already (since the referendum) promised an even greater sum to the NHS..."

Sure, Nigel, sure..

NURSE...!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 04:11 PM

Staines makes no arguments. He merely reproduces tittle-tattle. He is of no value.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 06:55 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 03:35 PM
"...the government has already (since the referendum) promised an even greater sum to the NHS..."
Sure, Nigel, sure..
NURSE...!

Once your argument is shot down in flames, rely on berating the opposition!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 07:17 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 12:34 PM
Nigel,
Ask yourself a question, what proportion of the public read the side of the bus and asked themselves "does that mean the NHS will only get a part of #350 million a week and if so what part"
Or did they perhaps believe that the NHS would get all of the #350 million every week, this week *, next week, next month, next year.
*from the date we leave the EU, I wouldn't like you to get upset about semantics of the NHS getting that amount before we leave the EU.
As I've already stated, there is already a promise of a payment to NHS even greater than that shown on the bus (if the comment on the bus is taken as promising £350 million per week). What is the problem? Is it that the labour party wouldn't match that funding?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 07:42 PM

Once your argument is shot down in flames, rely on berating the opposition!

BINGO!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 08:26 PM

Several things, Nigel. First, as you know (unless you're a babe-in-arms), government promises are worth diddly squat. To give you just one example of a recent Tory promise, immigration was promised to go down to "the tens of thousands." When this did not even begin to happen (on Theresa May's watch), the promise was miraculously downgraded to "an aspiration." Second, £350 million was a lie, as it did not represent anything like our net contribution to the EU, which was far less than £350 million a week. A barefaced lie, Nigel. Third, and this is just a prediction of course, once we leave the EU there'll be little or no extra money for the NHS because the country won't be able to afford it. Watch that space. Fourth, your Tories don't give a flying shite about the NHS in any case. So which bit of my argument is "shot down in flames," Nigel dearest?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 02:09 AM

Also, do not forget that the latest promises are based on borrowing or additional taxes - ie you, dear taxpayer, pay more - whereas the bus message was based on the taxpayer paying no more, or possibly even less as the 'Brexit divided'would be covering it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 03:57 AM

"Once your argument is shot down in flames, rely on berating the opposition!"
The problem with that Nigel is the worst offender(s) offer no argument other than their original opinion which they refuse to discuss in terms other thna contempt for those who disagree with it - serially
You tend not to abuse, rather, you refuse to comment on the awkward bits on the grounds that it would incriminate your government - very familiar to those of us who are hooked on courtroom dramas
TRY THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:35 AM

It's quite amusing in a dark sort of way to hear that the man who devised the bus lie now sez that leaving the EU would be a mistake. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:16 PM

apparently the government have agreed 95% of the final agreement with the EU. with the irish border being the 5% obvs.

hurrah- a triumph for the diplomats.

but does anyone know what that 95% entails? would the EU negotiators agree with this figure. for example i assume the status of us working on the continent and vice-versa be all settled but i don't feel reassured at all. do we still enjoy assurance from ECHR?
it's all a puzzle eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:32 PM

Only 95% sorted? Humans and chimpanzees share 98.8 of their DNA.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 05:20 PM

I immediately thought "Reader, I didn't marry him."

That's only about a 0.0001% change to the book...

(Percentage made up: no point anyone working out the actual percentage!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 06:31 PM

Er, but nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Remember?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 03:26 AM

"I immediately thought "Reader, I didn't marry him.""
Wan't he groping around blindly and bumping into things when she finally did?
Nice analogy !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 06:54 AM

i'm just off to skipton for a night out - probably discussing brexit in the sound bar and later in the sheep. with green woolly hat - dave the G?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 01:50 PM

A most unusual comment section from the Daily Mail.

Who knows, they may eventually acknowledge their part in this little saga.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:05 AM

Out of interest......

For all the countries in the world we benefit from being part of visa-waiver artangments with the EU, how are we going to FORCE those countries to extend/continue these arrangements if/when the UK leaves the EU?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:18 AM

We can't force them, no. I lsuppose the theory is that they will continue because it is in our mutual interest. But of course, it will require a negotiation with each of the countries to do that, which will all take time...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:34 AM

Not acceptable, new arrangements must be in place to ensure a seamless transition. The rest of the world has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this, and if they lack the intellegence to realise that the UK government are too incompetent to secure new measures, then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 09:20 AM

As of 9 October 2018, British citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 186 countries and territories, ranking the British passport 5th in terms of travel freedom (tied with Austrian, Dutch, Luxembourgish, Norwegian, Portuguese and the United States passports) according to the Henley Passport Index.

Travel within the Scgengen area is another matter entirely as is visa free for EU citizens.
Eu citizens freedom of travel outside the EU is dependent on citizenship

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 09:41 AM

" then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot."
Might well be a bit academic after tonight
Jim Carroll

CONFIDENCE VOTE IN MAY COULD BE CLOSE
UK ‘drawing up plans' to charter ships for emergency food and medicines
DENIS STAUNTON London Editor
Theresa May will address the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers this evening amid rumours that the number of MPs seeking a confidence vote in her leadership is close to the threshold of 48.
Her appearance before the committee follows what Downing Street described as an “impassioned” cabinet discussion of her Brexit strategy yesterday.
The prime minister’s official spokesman brushed off an RTÉ report that the EU is prepared to offer Britain a legally binding, UK-wide customs backstop.
“Take any of it with a pinch of salt. The PM set out our position yesterday in relation to the backstop. That remains the case today. The prospect of Northern Ireland being placed in a different customs arrangement to the rest of the UK is unacceptable. The House of Commons has voted to pass a law to that effect,” he said.
According to the report, the withdrawal agreement would still include a Northern Ireland-only backstop, and the UK-wide version would be in a separate treaty to be concluded after Britain leaves the EU next March. The withdrawal agreement would, however, contain a specific commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement by way of a legal article.

FOUR STEPS
In the House of Commons on Monday, Mrs May outlined four steps to resolve the issue of the backstop, including a demand that the UK-wide customs backstop should be legally binding so there would be no need for a Northern Ireland-only version. Downing Street said later that any Northern Ireland-only backstop was unacceptable.
During yesterday’s cabinet meeting, ministers are report¬ed to have warned that Britain must not remain in a tempo¬rary customs arrangement with the EU for an extended period and that any backstop must not be indefinite.
The cabinet is to receive weekly updates on preparations for a no-deal Brexit and the Financial Times reports that the government is drawing up plans to charter ships to bring in emergency supplies of food and medicines.
The government fears that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new customs controls in France could create a bottle¬neck on the Dover-Calais route.
“Whatever we do at our end, the French could cause chaos if they carry out checks at their end,” one government official told the Financial Times.
“Dover-Calais would be the obvious pinch point. The French would say they were only applying the rules.”
Edward Leigh last night became the 50th Conservative MP to sign a StandUp4Brexit pledge to oppose Mrs May’s Chequers proposal and demand a hard Brexit.
The signatories, who include Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg, also oppose the backstop, claiming it cuts Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK.
1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady indicated yesterday that he has not yet received letters from 48 MPs calling for a confidence vote in Mrs May. If he does, he must call such a vote, which is conducted by secret ballot and the prime minister’s adversaries will need 159 votes to topple her.
If she survives the vote, she cannot be challenged again for a further 12 months.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:14 AM

From: SPB-Cooperator
24 Oct 18 - 08:34 AM
Not acceptable, new arrangements must be in place to ensure a seamless transition. The rest of the world has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this, and if they lack the intellegence to realise that the UK government are too incompetent to secure new measures, then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot.
Yet another comment based on ignorance of the conditions of Article 50. The UK is unable to 'secure new measures' while we remain a part of the EU. (as good a reason as any for leaving)
Also, why are you calling for The Queen to be sacked? She, and only she, is our 'head of state'.

Jim: You tend not to abuse, rather, you refuse to comment on the awkward bits on the grounds that it would incriminate your government - very familiar to those of us who are hooked on courtroom dramas
You seem not to realise that it is not just 'my' government, but the government of the whole UK (so the government of of lot of those arguing against Brexit as well).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:36 AM

Nigel, I do not recognise them as my government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:38 AM

That is, I do not recognise the May regime as the legitimate government of the UK. They may have won an election, but so did Assad.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 11:01 AM

"You seem not to realise that it is not just 'my' government, but the government of the whole UK "
It is riven with so many divisions it can no longer claim to be representative on anybody - it certainly has never adhered to any of the promises that got them elected in the first place
Parliamentary politics has only ever paid lip-service to democracy, but the present situation is based on rabble-rousing against minorities - Enoch's sick dream brought to life
Populism has replaced democracy and is in the process of breeding neo-fascist regimes

"but so did Assad."
And Hitler, of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 11:14 AM

The Queen wouldn't come into this as, as far as I am aware, UK nationals do not need a visa to travel in the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:11 AM

Boeing, the world’s largest plane maker, has opened its first European manufacturing site in Sheffield.

The company will make components for 737 and 767 passenger jets at the new UK operation, with plans to produce thousands of parts each month which will be shipped to the US for assembly.

Brought by guido

https://order-order.com/2018/10/25/sheffield-soars-ahead-boeings-first-european-factory/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:24 AM

That's good news. 52 jobs....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:35 AM

Typical of Brexit pre-planning, the board set up to examine to problems of the Irish Border are now about to start work !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 11:51 AM

Very important reminder for The Brexit Bunch...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 09:01 AM

Argentina eyes Falklands again

Ok, it is just a politician talking. But even so, I wonder how many anticipated this could kick off again?

At least we have many more cruise ships we could commandeer this days. (though, I am not sure how many are owned by UK companies any more, so maybe not.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 09:48 AM

Merkel is stepping down after 2021. Surely this will impact the whole Brexit discussion?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 10:36 AM

I don't think that who is Chancellor of Germany has much impact on the UK, brexit or no brexit. Unless its an AFD headbanger of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 11:30 AM

Brexit is due 29 March, 2019, with a transitional period to 31 December, 2020
Angela Merkel has said this will be her final term as German chancellor, confirming that she will not run in 2021.

However she is likely haemorrhaging power big time between now and then.
Good for UK bad for EU. How sad!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 11:55 AM

The party which seem to be doing well in recent German elections are the Greens. And thats good for the whole planet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

To stop this thread falling off the end, some recent Brexit events have been:

* Raab implying the deal will be agreed by 21st November and having to backtrack.

* Aaron Banks facing an investigation by the National Crime Agency into potential illegalities in the Leave campaign funding.

* The (belated) awareness by the UK fishing sector that EU countries may yet get access to UK waters.

* The home affairs committee being decidedly unimpressed by the Home Office preparations for Brexit.


P

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:17 AM

RUSSIAN BREXIT !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 11:18 AM

As DMcG mentioned earlier Arron Banks is to face a criminal investigation into the, possibly illegal, funding of the leave campaign.

When this was mentioned some time ago by myself and others we were told we were talking nonsense.

The investigation by the National Crime Agency may well throw up some very uncomfortable disclosures for the leave side here.

Could someone please link to the article in todays Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:08 PM

Here You Go

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 11:44 AM

Thank you Mossback.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:42 AM

Early days yet. The electoral commission do not know their own laws and have given flawed advice.

Electoral Commission suffers High Court defeat over Brexit expenses ...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/.../electoral-commission-suffers-high-court-defeat-over-brexi...
Sep 15, 2018 - The High Court agreed with the Electoral Commission finding in July, when the campaign group was fined, that Vote Leave had broken the law, but said the watchdog had misinterpreted the rules in advice it gave to the Leave campaign. ... Either the Electoral Commission is wrong or the High Court is wrong.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

It came up on Question Time last night whether Brexit should be delayed until we know the result of this. People will have strong opinions both ways, and I see no benefit in exploring that. But one panellist claimed part of the consideration was that this was not the official leave campaign.


That seems a nonsensical argument to me: it implies only the official campaigns influenced people's opinions, which is not the case. It would only needed to have swayed a few percentage to affect the result so I don't see being "unofficial" has any bearing on the significance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:17 AM

Hilarious that those that argue that leave and remain lied through their teeth therefore the brexit vote should be rerun, and then have the gall to suggest Mr Banks few million from alleged iffy sources single handedly swung the vote. Yet again argue this should make the brexit vote invalid.
Do you boys see a rather fundamental flaw in your argument?

Lord Hains claimed he was too busy to keep track of where his money was coming from,in breach of electoral law.
This is a defence that a billionaire could use with far more conviction.

Just luv to see a consistency in your arguments? I must obtain some more popcorn!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:21 AM

Thanks DMcG.
If we are not to accept that only the official campaigns swayed the votes in the referendum, then Aaron Banks' £2m should be compared with the £9m spent by the government in trying to put the Remain side.

Do you think that will happen?
If not, is that possibly because the electoral commission is biased?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:54 AM

Iains: I make no comment either way whether this should affect the negotiations or timings of Brexit. I merely point out that I do not think whether it was an official body or not is not important to any such considerations.

Nigel: I am not very interested in what the total spending each side was. I am interested that all such spending is lawful. You, Iains and others have argued about the importance of sticking to the law on another thread: for consistency you need to apply the same discipline here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:57 AM

Does it really not bother you that it was possibly RUSSIAN MONEY that brought about this decision Nigel
Funny thing, patriotism !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:00 AM

Tied myself up in 'not's there! :)

For clarity, I meant whether the money was spend by an official body or an unofficial one makes no difference.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:32 AM

The government has a very different role in this to the various lobby groups on the leave and remain sides. Having foolishly allowed the referendum, it was perfectly order, as the executive, to let the electorate know what their position was. After all, in theory they knew better than anyone else* what the implications of the referendum decision were likely to be. I can't see any good reason for bringing in the rather modest (in my opinion) sum of money they spent on letting us know their position, and that expenditure should not be set alongside the remain campaign's expenditure. The government is not a lobby group.

*Words chosen advisedly. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 07:24 AM

The other side of the coin from some months ago:
Priti Patel refers Remain campaign to electoral watchdog amid claims it may have breached EU referendum spending rules


https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/referendum-spending-is-a-murky-world-when-it-should-be-crystal-clear/

The entire situation is confused and Parliament and the courts need to clarify just what is allowable and what is not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:12 AM

"The entire situation is confused and Parliament and the courts need to clarify just what is allowable and what is not."
In veiw of the entire cock-up, the only way forward if to put the whole question to a second referendum
No Decision of this importance can be moved forward on the basis if iffy expenses (whoever's) and possible foreign interference
It has been a shambles (fully admitted) from start to finish and it would be crazy to go ahead, knowing what we know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:19 AM

True, Priti Patel made a complaint about spending on the remain campaign but it was rejected as lacking evidence. But I don't think Priti suggested the breach might be due to illegal donations. I think she just claimed overspend.

The rules on what is permitted could benefit from more clarity but there is a definate "legal" and a definite "illegal" area, as well as a grey "We are not sure" area. The alleged foreign donations are in the "illegal" set.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

Amazing, isn't it, that thoroughly discredited politicians such as Cameron and Priti Patel always manage to creep their way back in. Apologies for the aside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

I suspect Cameron may find obtaining a safe seat poses an insurmountable challenge(Ihope!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:17 AM

Meanwhile, the Aaron Banks saga continues.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Meanwhile the electoral commission has a few problems.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-electoral-commission-is-not-fit-for-its-crucial-purpose.html

They were recently trounced in the courts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/electoral-commission-suffers-high-court-defeat-over-brexit-expenses-advice-jhnx7hpf6

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:27 AM

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1041974/pound-euro-exchange-rate-brexit-news-deal-best

Exchange rate the best for months.
Contrary to popular belief the sky is not falling.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:44 AM

But still far worse than it was before the Union-Flag Boxers Brigade decided to vote to 'Take are cuntry back'.

A few facts for BrexShiteers' education.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:18 AM

How do you know they wear boxers? Any other unhealthy fixations you would care to share with us?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:22 AM

Instead of trying to be a barrack-room, clever-shit, smart-arse, Professor, why not comment on the facts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

and the opening post was?

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:14 PM

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:20 PM

Having your grammar/spelling/punctuation corrected is very annoying, but the beauty of it is that the person correcting you is invariably guilty of much more of said inelegance than you are. It's generally very easy to pick them to pieces on account of their own peccadillos, always far more numerous than yours, and the temptation to move in for the kill is too great to resist. Very naughty, but I'm only human

As Martin said to his man..............Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:34 PM

I'm not going to bicker with the likes of you, but I would remind you that you serially take the piss out of Jim's posts apropos of his typos. You are the biter bit, old boy. I don't criticise people, ever, who make mistakes, unless they puff out their chests in order to criticise others' peccadillos, as you do. No further comment from me on this. Nighty night.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:07 PM

It must be pointed out shaw that it is a silly little game started by you and can easily be demonstrated. All your petty nitpickings are archived. Here is my response some while back to your pontifications
From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Oct 17 - 03:40 AM

If you do not wish to contribute to the thread, why are you here?
You are trying hard to bring others into the thread simply to stir things up. That is not very clever, is it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 05:32 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Oh well. That wipes out the use of the question mark, and exclamation mark, at a stroke.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:14 AM

Stop engaging with this feller Steve - it's how he works when he runs out of the limited responses he has at his disposal
Brexit is further up Shit Street than it has ever been and the behaviour of those attempting to drive it though by refusing to take it back to the people is indefensible
Why waste time on a serial abuser rather than hit them with the facts of the situation (pause while awaiting further racist abuse about bog-trotting)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:17 AM

BREXIT CRISIS EXPLAINED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:50 AM

Re 5 Nov comments on the Electoral Commission (The UK body set up to ensure compliance with electoral law): I think it is worth pointing out that the Times article to be found by following the link shows that the courts upheld fines against the Leave campaign on the basis of its significant breach of the spending rules in relation to a Canadian digital marketing company. It is common ground that at one point the Commission seems to have got it wrong, but in its favour goes the point that it put its mistake right before the court decision, which supported the Commission's eventual position, and which found additional reason for the illegality of the financial arrangements/declarations. The Commission expressed happiness at the fact that it now had the guidance of the court on the matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

I have finally got round to those purported briefing notes outlining a schedule for the PM to 'sell' her deal to Parliament and us. The government has denied this document has any official status, but even so, this is an interesting entry:


20th - Theme is Delivering for the Whole of the UK - PM to visit the north and or Scotland and the Commons will debate in business motions the date of the Meaningful Vote.

PM will be back in the house to vote. The Cabinet Office publishes its explainer of the deal and what it means for the public, comparing it to No Deal, but not to our current deal.


Whether this is official or not, the time will come when the government must persuade us and Paliament about the merits of the proposal. I wonder if, like this document, they will "compar[e] it to No Deal, but not to our current deal". Maybe comparing it to what we would have if we just stayed as we are is far too painful?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:05 AM

I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen. I suppose I have to practice all the stereotypes now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen."
Stand by for the "bog dweller" jibes, very popular with one of our insecuros
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:35 AM

The final Brexit will be neither soft or hard
but rather wet.
The wet Brexit will be independent pricing of agricultural goods crossing the channel.
Rip offs and savings will abound.

-Nostrildamus-

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 01:18 PM

Arlene Foster has said the DUP won't support May's "betrayal" plans for Brexit - (that-s a billion of the taxpayers money down the Swanee) and a cabinet minister resigns over Brexit
Oh Calamity!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:03 PM

In his defence Jim he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Fair play to himm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:17 PM

"Fair play to him."
Not criticising him Steve - I only caught the tail of the story
Just pointing out that the Brexit team is like the blind men who went to see the elephant - they only understand the little bit they can grasp themselves but none of them have the faintest idea what the whole animal looks like
Feckin self-destructive madness
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third.

I think by debacle you mean betrayal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:55 AM


Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:05 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:06 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up

Essentially I propose a vote to ensure any Brexit that happens is acceptable to the people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:07 AM

I should perhaps have phrased it as 'the particular version of Brexit that happens'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

And if unacceptable to the people, you wish to frustrate brexit, as I stated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:33 AM

There are Brexit options with an NI relationship that the DUP can back, and options that they will vehemently oppose.

There are Brexit options with a customs union that the UK can end unilaterally, and options where it can only end via a joint agreement.

There are options more like Canada, and options more like Norway

The second vote is not whether Brexit should be frustrated, but whether the particular version the government ends up with is one the people wish.

Now certainly my first preference would be to call the whole thing off. But my second preference is for a Brexit that does as little damage to the UK as possible.   So for example I would prefer just about any 'deal' Brexit to a 'no-deal' Brexit. That second preference is not in any way about frustrating Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:04 AM

"DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit,"
Knowing what we now no, the people have a right to vote again on the issue
There is enough evidence to suggest that those who voted for would no longer do so ad those who didn't vote would come out and vote - even the Conservative party are totally divided on the issue
What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote
Another referendum would be a damn sight cheaper that another bung to the DUP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:19 AM

What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote

Problems understanding the written word again?
My words:Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

Too busy stalking to read properly perhaps?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 08:09 AM

"you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote"
I have no idea whether it would - if you see nothing wrong with giving people the vote why not say so instead of just hurling abuse
You really ought to control your abusive behaviour, we already know how the extreme right behaves without your reminding us
Grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

oh dear!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:11 AM

I know exactly what you mean, and so does everybody else
Time to take the giant step into adulthood -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:57 AM

Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:12 AM

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

It seems that those who have consistently supported Remain believe that the alternative, should an agreement not be reached, is to remain in the EU.
Those who supported Brexit feel that if no 'good deal' (or acceptable deal) is offered then the alternative is that we leave without a deal.

Effectively, the two views above come down to something which was already decided in 2016. We are leaving the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:31 AM

I don't agree, Nigel. The Soubry proposal for a ranked voting system does not split the leave vote- despite what some claim - but does allow a vote for leave to express the type of Brexit that is preferred.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:54 AM

"Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter."
Ask away Rag...
You have my full compliance
Wouldn't miss Nigels explanation of how many of the Leavers now seem to be of the opinion that they were conned and how it can be [possibly democratic to crash out without consulting them again (though I doubt if one is forthcoming)
Even Cris Tarrant has to get hi competitors to say "final aswer" before the answer becomes final
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

Don't forget the Brexiteers' Mantra Jim - "We won, get over it".
It's a real shame they don't have the faintest understanding of the UK democratic process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 12:26 PM

Am I the only one who suspects that, despite his claim to be a Remainer, Baby Johnson's resignation is an attempt at further destabilising May in the hope that she will fall, and his Big Bro can be shoehorned in as PM - thus opening the door for a crash-out Hard Brexit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 02:23 PM

Bring it on!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 03:41 PM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:54 AM
"Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter."
Ask away Rag...
You have my full compliance
Wouldn't miss Nigels explanation of how many of the Leavers now seem to be of the opinion that they were conned and how it can be [possibly democratic to crash out without consulting them again (though I doubt if one is forthcoming)

Jim.
Would you care to explain where I have "explained that the opinion of the leavers is that they have been conned"?
This seems to be another claim of yours with no basis, used to put forward your own baseless arguments.
Either respond to what has actually been said, or leave the discussion to those who can.
I do not try to prevent you expressing your own opinion, but wish you would do so without misquoting others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 03:56 AM

THe evidence is plain - even within your own party
The British people would have to be extremely stupid to see that what started as a move to keep immigrants out into something that is breaking up the UK and, according to the economist, has placed a huge question mark ofver Britain's future
I didn't say that you said that, I said that that is the present situation
Even your own party is at each other's throats on the issue
An interesting article in our 'Times' yesterday suggested that not even Mad Boris is committed to Brexit but is using it as a career move to grab May's job- an inter-party attempt at a coup

My stance is a simple one - in the circumstances iot would be totally undemocratic not to have a second referendum to confirm that the British people believe it right to leave Europe
It has been noticable here in Ireland that referenda on major issues that are repeats of previous ones have shown a marked rise in numbers voting - that has also been the case in the U.S. mid-terms
Increased involvement by the electorate is a major step towards real democracy
Brexit, Trump, Orban, Peru and the horrific swing to the extreme right has sfa to do with democracy - it is a step towards fascism
Jim Carroll
By the way, I may mistake what people say on occasion - I do not deliberately misrepresent anybody - it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do on a public forum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:11 AM

"By the way, I may mistake what people say on occasion - I do not deliberately misrepresent anybody - it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do on a public forum"

On occasion? more like monotonous regularity. The proof is archived for all to discover.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:13 AM

Remember that the 2016 referendum was an advisory one. It was the government of the day, IE David Cameron's Tory administration, that took the decision to act on that advice and press ahead with the cataclysmic departure from the EU. Cameron knew what a disaster leaving would be but instead of staying to face the consequences he washed his hands of it. Bastard.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 04:40 AM

Should the government of the day or opposition ignore the wishes of the electorate they know full well what would happen to them come election time. How else to explain Corbyn and the Labour part behaviour. As has been pointed out here, had they gone against the wishes of the electorate they would have been toast.

From Labour's manifesto:

Negotiating Brexit

Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

Jim as by your own admission you have lived in Ireland for 20 years, this means you lost your right to vote in the UK 5 years ago. As you are disenfranchised I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:14 AM

The party that has the majority in government has the responsibility for legislation regardless of what the opposition says. The blame for this debacle lies entirely with Cameron's administration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:33 AM

"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first."

Oxymoron.

"Should the government of the day or opposition ignore the wishes of the electorate they know full well what would happen to them come election time."

So the government of the day and the opposition should get their heads together and do what's blatantly obviously in the national interest: declare that they are both opposed to brexit and ditch it forthwith.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:38 AM

"I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?"
How dare anybody suggest a Brit living abroad cannot comment on what's happening in his birthplace - how narrow-mindedly 'Little-Brit' can you get?
My roots are in Britain, py political understanding was formed in Britain, my family still live there - a nephew stands to lose his job with Westland once this shit slithers under Britain's door
A state that only represents those who vote (by choice or circumstance) is as far from a democratic one as you can get

The racist nature of Brexit affects the world anyway - the Populism it let out of the bottle gavce us Trump and Orban... and the neo-fascist revolution that is now taking place

"The proof is archived for all to discover."
It most certainly is, and very reluctant to show its face, just as is the accusations of lying
I've shown you my lists, you show me yours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 05:42 AM

Brexit should have been a Cross-Party endeavour right from the outset. If we have to accept 'the will of a minority of the people', it is far too important and complex an issue to be left to an incompetent and self-serving Tory government to handle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 06:07 PM

Brexit should have been a Cross-Party endeavour right from the outset. If we have to accept 'the will of a minority of the people', it is far too important and complex an issue to be left to an incompetent and self-serving Tory government to handle.

Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 06:59 PM

"Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?"
A moinority of the British people voted for it
If the vote was called again that would probably be no longer be the case you well know as is obvious from your refusal to respond to that fact Nigel
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 08:35 PM

38% of the electorate voted for brexit, Nigel. That is not just a minority of the electorate, it's a minority of the people. 62% of the electorate did not vote for brexit. With a result like that in a trade union strike ballot you and your fellow Tories would be down on us like a ton of bricks. You should listen to Steve Shaw more often, Nigel. He'll do your sums for you.

And yes I do know how democracy works. It works a million times better when we're told the truth, instead of the pack of lies we were told by both sides.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 09:02 PM

A smaller minority voted against it. Steve Shaw's posting is a perfect example of using statistics to tell lies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 18 - 09:09 PM

Nope. Every statement in my post is completely truthful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:11 AM

"Where do you get this idea of 'the will of a minority of the people'? have you been listening to Steve Shaw too much?"

Stop being a thick twunt, Nigs - even a nit-picking simpleton like you should be able to realise that, of a population of 64 million, with an electorate of 45 million, the 17 million who voted to plunge the country into catastrophe is a small minority of those numbers.

However you try to pretend otherwise, 47 million of the total population or, put another way, 28 million of the electorate, are being led down the road to wrack and ruin by 17 million 'Take are cuntry back', flag-waving, Nationalistic nit-wits.

Now knock off the 'thick as a plank' act.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:15 AM

"If the vote was called again that would probably be no longer be the case you well know as is obvious from your refusal to respond to that fact Nigel"

Yes Jim, and he also nit-picked the 'minority' thing, whilst refusing to comment on the real point I was making - that the entire Brexit negotiation and planning process should have been a Cross-Party endeavour.

He's a lightweight, just ignore him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:09 AM

It boils down to this - if these people believe yjey could win a second vote they'd be breaking their necks to hold one - why wouldn't they ?
It can't possibly be more expensive than bungning the DUP to vote in their favour again
That is the regard in which they hold democracy
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

I think, Jim, part of the reluctance lies in this earlier post of mine:

The Soubry proposal for a ranked voting system does not split the leave vote- despite what some claim - but does allow a vote for leave to express the type of Brexit that is preferred.

As anyone who looks into it will confirm, the ranked voting system does not split the vote, if people who wanted leave were in the majority leave would win.

But - and I think this is where the problem for leave lies - the 'deal' Brexiteers would have to be explaining why the 'no deal' was such a bad idea and vice versa, which would end up with both leave groups showing why the other had problems. And those voters for leave who were content with empty 'leave means leave' rhetoric - which may be a minority of those who voted leave, who can say? - would have to take their ideas to a deeper level. Which risks some saying, "you know what? Both leave routes sound bad."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 04:52 AM

"It boils down to this - if these people believe yjey could win a second vote they'd be breaking their necks to hold one - why wouldn't they ?"

Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? What arrant nonsense!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

"Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? "#
Because it was an obvious crap decision that was taken not knowing the consequences
Now those consequences are known, the vote needs to be confirmed - that is how democracy workd - a little different from populism
What is nonsensical about that ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:25 AM

Members of my family voted for Brexit - now they know what it entails they wish they hadn't
Brexit isn't a philosophy - it's a political decision and, as such, can b reversed if it is found to be unsitable
Now we have the ludicrous position of members of the opposition and Brexiteers uniting to oppose May - this has turned into a classic political farce to rival 'The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:55 AM

The consequences will not be known until after the event. Until then it is only conjecture, and frequently hysterical from the remainers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:13 AM

"The consequences will not be known until after the event."
What a crass way to run a country - leap off the cliff - we won't know what happens until we hit th ground
The consequences are already being felt
Even the economists say that the damage will take at least twenty years to recover from the damage that is now being done
It was a crass narrow-minded decision taken on Xenophobic promises that will not and cannot be met
The first reactions made that obvious - the low-foreheads approaching those obviously not indigenous and asking them when they are going back to where they came from
Since then, racist incidents have spiralled upwards
It was a decision based on hate, economic and social consequences be damned
Maybe these people should be told something similar to:
"As you are disenfranchised I fail to see why you insist on contributing to UK political threads. With no vote to contribute, what are your opinions worth?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 09:19 AM

In the same interview with Der Spiegel we have from his masters voice:
Corbyn: I think a lot of people have been totally angered by the way in which their communities have been left behind. We had high Leave votes in the most left-behind areas of the country. In a lot of deprived areas, working conditions have deteriorated over the decades, protected by European legislation. Indeed, we would enhance workers' rights, where the Conservative Party wants to go in another direction of a largely deregulated economy.

Stunning doublespeak! High leave votes in the most left behind parts of the country.I wonder what that means? The industrial labour heartlands voted for out, resoundingly. Where and what are these most left behind parts? A meaningless concept unless defined.
He also says:In a lot of deprived areas, working conditions have deteriorated over the decades, protected by European legislation.
Does he realise what he said? or perhaps this is why he supports brexit, so the tories can protect working conditions with positive legislation? Where the conservative party wants to go in fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 09:37 AM

None of this addresses the fact that Brexit is now considered a disaster on all sides of the political divide
To gop ahead without a second referendum would te totally undemocratic - nearly as bad as the fact that no exit plan was devised before it was put to the people - a fundamental flaw
Sort of setting out on a long journey in strange territory without taking maps   
As you say - all bluster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 11:04 AM

WHAT COSY CORNER OF the PLANET ZOG do you INHABIT ?

WHAT AREAS ARE LIKELY TO BE WORST EFFECTED BY BREXIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 11:30 AM

Of the towns you list from planet Zog:
Barnsley voted leave
Peterborough voted leave
Sunderland voted leave
Harlepool voted leave
Rotherham voted leave
Wolverhampton voted leave
Bolton voted leave
Leeds a narrow remain vote
Kingston-upon-Hull voted leave
Stoke uon Trent votd leave

Notice a pattern here.
Labour heartlands detest the EU.Perhaps tis you on planet Zog( a place you must be intimately acquainted with)
The message I would take from this is that these areas feel betrayed by the EU and your second link is but merely opinion.
I know you like to bluster through opinion as fact, a miserable trait shared by most on the left, but let us stick to facts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:00 PM

My point exactly
The British people were conned into believing this shit on a promise that it would stop immigration - it won't
Do you think the British peole are so stupid as to vote for this shit if they'd had relised what would happen
It was sold on a racist package - nothing to do with hating Europe - try asking them to vote again and see what happens
FURTHER PROOF
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:02 PM

There are nearly one and a half million Brits living and working in Europpe - tat's how much they hate it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:03 PM

"Why would a brexiteer want to repeat a vote already won? What arrant nonsense!"

"The People have spoken..."

And he claims that it's Remainers who don't understand the meaning of 'democracy'! Bwaaaaaaahahahaaa!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:10 PM

Interesting article, Jim.
Did you get as far as the part which says:
Mark Hamilton, the NPCC lead for hate crime, said that the reductions in the rate of increase meant they were no longer going to require weekly updates from police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

“We have seen continued decreases in reports of hate crimes to forces and these reports have now returned to formerly seen levels for 2016. For this reason, we will return to our previous reporting procedures and will no longer be requiring weekly updates from forces,” he said.

“This doesn’t mean that hate crime is no longer a priority. We know that divisions still exist in our society and that tensions could rise again. Police forces will continue with their robust response and we will react swiftly to any future signs of tension.”


Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, and assume that the following report confirms that headline.
Just look at the headline. It proclaims a "Lasting rise in hate crime". The section I've just quoted appears to show that the rise isn't 'lasting', and anyway, all the figures quoted relate to a rise in 'reported' hate crime. It should be clear that there is not necessarily any direct correlation between the level of crime reported, and the level of the actual crime.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 12:32 PM

"Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, "
Go read the other headlines instead of quoting a lone voice
Hate crimes have escalated beyond belief - they have brought the Klan out on the streer=ts of Northern Ireland and ex-army Nazis are being jailed for their hate crimes in Britain
Britain supposedly fought a war against fascism and now it is rife on BRITISH STREETS
AND MORE
I've never seen scul like Robinson on the streets of Britain to this extent - have y
About time you fellers took responsibilit for your behaviour ou ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:11 PM

I've never seen scul like Robinson on the streets of Britain to this extent - have y
About time you fellers took responsibilit for your behaviour ou ?

Care to explain yourself? preferably in english.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM

Just a thought about the democracy of the Brexit vote.

If the public elect a Labour or a Conservative Government a few years down the line they will be given another choice and another vote will be held.

If the sitting Government has done what the people expected they may well be re-elected.

If the population decide that now, that they have more information, that the Government has not delivered what was promised they may de-select that Government.


The current situation is akin to saying you voted for a Conservative/Labour government then you are now stuck with it for perpetuity.

We now ALL have far more information than we did 30 months ago.

Democracy would indicate we should be given another choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 01:50 PM

Amen, Raggy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:26 PM

"Care to explain yourself? preferably in english."
if you don't understand simple sentences you have no place here - go buy a book
If yhou have to rely on tipos (written in haste) you have nothing to offer
Pa-the-tic, as ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:38 PM

"Steve Shaw's posting is a perfect example of using statistics to tell lies."

Another thought on this disgraceful assertion that I used statistics to tell lies. We have yet to see Stanron comment on the mantra that the leave side hurled at us for over two years that "the British people have spoken." As Stanron is so concerned that statistics should be used only honestly, I ask myself why he didn't rush to correct that assertion. As I'm ever-helpful, I'll suggest a more honest version, thus: "38% of the British people have spoken in the way Stanron wanted, whereas 62% either spoke in the way Stanron didn't want or didn't speak at all."

Now if Stanron isn't too thoroughly ashamed of his slur, perhaps he'd tell me which bit of either of my last two posts contained a lie and why he hasn't attacked that "people have spoken" pile of dishonesty. Well, as if I don't already know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 02:55 PM

"Another thought on this disgraceful assertion that I used statistics to tell lies"
If you're not used to this dishonest tactic by now Steve, you never will be
I've asked our serial abuser to back up his accusations - nothing so far
They're like Billy Connolly's suggestion "If you want to confuse a policemen, ask him a question'
Works every time
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:02 PM

I'm well used to it, Jim. After all, we're being infested by brexiteers all the time in threads like this. I'm not too keen on being called a liar by people who are really good at pulling the wool over their own eyes when every statement in my previous two posts is the unvarnished truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 03:41 PM

Wiggle as you wish, more people voted for Brexit than against. To group non voters with either side is dishonest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:02 PM

To claim that to leave is 'the will of the people', when only a small minority of 17 million out of a total population of 65 million (which is what 'the people' actually means), is dishonest. Spin it however you wish, it won't change that fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:04 PM

To claim that to leave is 'the will of the people', when only a small minority of 17 million out of a total population of 65 million (which is what 'the people' actually means) expresses the wish to leave, is dishonest. Spin it however you wish, it won't change that fact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:04 PM

The votes of a mere 38% of the electorate cannot be described as "the will of the people". It is that term that is dishonest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:22 PM

It's you wriggling, Stanron. You called me a liar when I typed nothing but the unvarnished truth. You get to demonstrate where you think I lied. You do not get to accuse me of wriggling. What I said was plain, straightforward and truthful. Think before you post in future and just behave yourself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:56 PM

From: Jim Carroll
12 Nov 18 - 12:32 PM
"Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, "
Go read the other headlines instead of quoting a lone voice.
I was only quoting that 'lone voice' because it was the basis of the article that YOU linked to.

Hate crimes have escalated beyond belief - they have brought the Klan out on the streer=ts of Northern Ireland and ex-army Nazis are being jailed for their hate crimes in Britain
Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism, and prepared to use the rule of law to prevent it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:59 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:11 PM

Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. Who thinks that that is true?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:41 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.
If you could show that that poster (I'm guessing which one you mean) was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution. Even then Nigel Farage would only be in jail if the prosecution was successful.
If not, then freedom of speech (or of other forms of expression) trumps your feelings of taking offence on behalf of others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:58 PM

On alleged use of statistics to 'tell lies'. I can find no example in the accused post. Steve Shaw has never, as far as I can make out, argued that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. He pointed out that a minority of the electorate voted for 'Brexit', which is true. Nor has he ever asserted that to calculate a 'majority' you must include all those who didn't vote, though of course to calculate whether a majority of the electorate voted for Brexit one would indeed have to include those members of it who did not vote as 'the electorate'. And his point was, in effect, that it is not the case that a majority of 'the electorate' voted for Brexit. This is correct, and even if it were not, it would not necessarily be a 'lie'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:32 PM

"Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote.Who thinks that that is true?"

I said no such thing. Read my two posts germane to this spat and you will see that I made plain, straightforward, unspun, factual statements. Othung like the quote in bold. You're compounding your own twisting dishonesty via the highlighted remark. Shame on you. Cease and desist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:34 PM

Thanks, Karen. Truth will out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:42 PM

The alleged "freedom of speech" you're defending in that poster, Nigel, was deliberately predicated on a lie. The people depicted in the photo used for that poster were in no way linked to the brexit argument for "getting back control of our borders," though that's how we were supposed to interpret the thing. And you know it. And the fact that the people depicted had dark skins seals the racist, demonising nature of the poster. You really do need to be very careful as to what you choose to defend, Nigel. Well, unless, of course, you subscribe to the Trumpist school of untrammelled "free speech..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 08:59 PM

Dammit. Don't ask me what "othung" means. It's nothing like wot I intended. Nothing, I tell you. Absolutely othung at all...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:45 AM

What I find interesting is how when everyone from Rees-Mogg and the ERG group through to the most staunch remainers insist what is on offer bears no relation to what was promised, some in this thread insist we must do it anyway.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:04 AM

It's simple, DMcG - it's all about 'we won, get over it' as far as they're concerned. I wonder if many of them have ever heard of, let alone understand the significance of a 'Pyrrhic Victory'?

The way things are going, they'll find out all about it soon enough. And it won't be pretty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

"was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution."
It should be, but in the world we live in such behaviour has become acceptable - if the Foreign secretary and the President of the United States cand get away with it....

We really don't need written laws to tell us what we can see - we are learning only to well that the wealthy and powerful can circumvent laws with ease, should it be convenient to do so.
Confirmation of the hate inspiring nature of the 'Leave' campaign can be found in the immediate aftermath - the rise in hate incidents (which you, to your shame, have tried to minimise and the open presence of fascists on the British streets in the form of Robinson and his scum

When Enoch Powell mounted exactly the same campaign back in the day, his behaviour was unacceptable, even to his own party - the only way he could remain in politics was to cross the Irish Sea and throw in his lot with a sectarian party
It would not surprise me to read that Brave New Brexit Britain, will erect a statue in his honour

"Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism,"
On the contrary, taking just the most extreme and ignoring the mainstream Neos plays into the hands of the rabid right - Nick Griffin realised this when he attempted to respect realise the British National Party
It was internal squabbles and incompetence that destroyed the BNP, not British laws
The same goes for Ukip which virtually laughing-stocked itself out of existence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 03:50 AM

"If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign."
What complete and utter nonsense!
Do you really believe that the DPP would overlook such public criminality if your asinine statement had any validity? Several staunch labourites reported the poster but as you carefully sidestep the outcome,I will point out, no action was taken.Perhaps you would like to make a freedom of information request to the DPP as to why such a supposed heinous crime was overlooked?
The poster was actually a photograph of migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015.
Just like your playing with words on the Brexit vote you try to mask the reality. The poster actually showed a preponderance of young single males.

The true figures for brexit.
The total number of the electorate 46,501,241
Leave 17,410,742
Remain 16,141,241
Valid votes 33,551,983
Turnout Turnout 72.2%
Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept. It is rather like those that refuse to accept that Trump won the Presidency(and did rather well in the mid terms)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

The european public view on immigration:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/why-do-politicians-refuse-to-tell-it-how-it-is-on-immigration/

The relationship between immigration and crime is a taboo subject and little work has been done to study it. Is it, in fact, a perceived or actual problem. Existing research gives conflicting views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:48 AM

The whole point is that actions such as the promotion of that horrid poster are not prosecuted because there IS tolerance of a degree of racism in this country. Do read what I said, properly this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:53 AM

"Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept."

Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

Something for those who don't understand the difference between an election and a referendum to ponder (if their indoctrination allows Them to ponder and understand)...

Election/Referendum - Different Voting Threshholds

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:29 AM

An excellent read, John.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:40 AM

We could try an experiment here. Let's take a vote for whether we think I should go out for a pint of Black Sheep on Friday or stay in. If more people vote for one it must be adhered to as it will be 'the will of the people'.

The polls are open between 10:40 and 14:40 GMT and I will cast the first vote.

Pint.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:58 AM

Hold the vote in the actual pub, Dave. That should rig the outcome in your favour.

The Spectator article is a mishmash of confusion between immigrants/refugees, legal/illegal and temporary/permanent, and the survey appears to have been conducted largely by leading questions.

A nice piece of nonsense from this Tory rag's article:

"Fully 81 per cent of the European public agree that immigrants should be helped in their own countries"

Just 1000 people in each country were asked, therefore the assertion "fully 81 per cent" (of almost half a billion people!) is invalid. We're not told how that tiny sample was selected for a start. And someone really should appprise the writer of the simple fact that if you're still in your own country you're not an immigrant. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:03 AM

It would appear that Ians may have shifted his ground, though his 'argument' is, I think, simplistic and fallacious.

I am not aware of anybody who does not 'comprehend' that the voting system here in the UK is a first past the post one in which a 'simple majority' wins that particular election/referendum. I doubt that Ians knows any such person. To the best of my knowledge, no post on this thread has suggested lack of comprehension of that issue.

Where Ians' argument becomes fallacious is when he goes on to assert that 'nothing else has any importance or impact'. This may be because he did not spell out sufficiently clearly what he meant. Importance in terms of what? Impact upon what? Here is where the argument appears fudged.

It is perfectly feasible and legal within our system, that system that he suggests some people fail to 'comprehend', for a topic to be voted upon more than once, for example. So, if public opinion were strong enough, then there would be nothing within our system to prevent a second referendum relating to membership of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:08 AM

Not bad for double standards, with only ten minutes between.
At 7:32 Steve Shaw is arguing against anything being read into his posts which is not explicit in the original text. (fair enough)
At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated, and may never have been intended to be read into it. That is an action which he himself describes as "twisting dishonesty".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

The 'savage hordes invading Britain' poster was racist by its very nature no matter how the authorities chose to deal with it(or not to
It was reported as such throughout the world - not just by 'staunch labourites' our own press described it for what it was
Why am I not surprised at racists who depict the Irish (and non-Irish living ing Ireland) as 'bog-trotters' and claim Brits living abroad have no right to comment on British politics, standing up for racists ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:55 AM

A very good article from the Irish Times yet again

Historians will not believe sheer ignorance of Brexit supporters

It is in the main opinion but does highlight some interesting points such as, refering to Theresa May on the border issue,

So she knew full well that a Brexit that involved leaving the customs union would create a hard border. And then, as prime minister, she insisted on the opposite: that a hard Brexit was perfectly compatible with no return of a hard border. She unknew what she had known.

That is what I would call dishonesty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:05 AM

"At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated..."

I said no such thing, nor anything remotely like it.

On the separate matter of that poster's content (separate, that is, from the third person in a couple of days to completely misrepresent what I've said in really simple words in my posts), anyone who can't see the devious, dishonest and downright wicked intent of that poster was clearly born yesterday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:07 AM

"That is what I would call dishonesty."

Agreed, Dave. Plus the near-criminal dishonesty of a Tory government prepared to plunge the country into division on a scale unseen previously, the likelihood of serious social unrest, the possible return to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, and the probable black-hole of the as-yet-unknown consequences of a no-deal Brexit, for no other reason than to preserve the tax-evasion/avoidance activities of a small cadre of immensely rich individuals (including some of their own members and MPs) to whom they are in deep hock.

There must be a special place in Hell for this bunch of lying, deceitful, self-serving scrotes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.

Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

Pint !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:53 AM

Too late, Raggy. Polls are closed!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:28 AM

Polls are closed or pubs are open?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:40 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!
:D

An incomplete analogy. No-one else was either eligible to vote, or even advised of the vote.
The referendum was well advertised, and members of the electorate could either vote, or choose not to vote. Those who chose not to vote were leaving the decision to the voters who could be bothered to turn out and vote.
Of those who chose to vote 52% (a majority) decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:21 PM

I'm not on British time, I demand a recount !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:52 PM

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

"...who could be bothered to turn out and vote."

Unless you are some kind of omniscient being, you can't know why people didn't vote. It's almost a dead cert that some people genuinely couldn't decide. It's almost a dead cert that some people felt they didn't know enough to make an informed decision. Some people oppose referendums on principle and may have refused to take part. Some people probably forgot to vote, were too sick to vote or were out of the country. Sure, some people "couldn't be bothered" but how extremely arrogant it is of you to diss all the people who didn't vote by insinuating that they "couldn't be bothered."   

One more thing, Nigel. 52% of those who voted didn't "decide to leave the EU." The poll was advisory only. Voters expressed a view, then the government decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:01 PM

Fudge it, Dave. Drink a pint of John Willie Lees instead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:10 PM

Eeeeeh. Not had a pint of Moonraker for yonks. But that was not one of the options on the referendum so, sorry, no can do!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:42 PM

Given today's news of a deal agreed at the technical level and being discussed by ministers, the exact way the voting figures of the referendum are presented is of little significance. The decisions now being taken are entirely in the hands of a small number of ministers and, probably, some 630 Mps thereafter, which is where it should have been all along if MPs had done the job they are paid for. I hope they will do so this tome, unless the duck their responsibility again and have another referendum - which seems likely to me at the moment. But all could change ...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:18 PM

Who really cares about those that did not vote. They lost the chance to possibly make a difference to the outcome. Further analysis achieves zilch. To further claim the vote was advisory overlooks a fact of life Labour was all to aware of. Ignore the electorate and you may not have a seat come the next election. Seems the remainiacs are dancing on a series of pins. Would that be because they have run out of meaningful argument?
Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."

No need to strive fellah. The only rules concerning the outcome was first past the post the winner takes it all. (I find the use of apropos rather condescending. I wonder if that is why the boy keeps using it?)
Keep pin dancing! is it a square dance or a line dance. My father and grandfather used to perform a sword dance each New Years Eve. They used to lay them flat on the ground.(Health and safety issue. I suggest you take heed.)
Below a reinforcing mechanism to make my point. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 03:04 AM

Once again and for the last time. So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

No, Dave,
I do not believe your decision to go to the pub was flawed.
I just do not believe it is a valid analogy to the Brexit referendum, which is what you seemed to imply with the line:
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:56 AM

C'mon, Theresa, throw in the towel, say it can't be done and walk away now. You know it makes sense!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

I asked was my referendum flawed, not the decision.

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel

Do you? And if so, should I rerun the referendum giving better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Yep,
Accept that we are never going to reach an agreed settlement with the EU, and use the remaining 4 months to plan for leaving on WTO terms.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Better start stockpiling those fresh tomatoes and peppers and aubergines and lettuce and cheese that all come through the Channel ports...oops, maybe not...we can live on cattle fodder and vitamin pills, can't we? Pass the tin opener!

D'ye think Morrison's Nero d'Avola will go up, Dave? Jeez, better get in there NOW! Panic!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

Don't worry Steve, you will be able to live off chlorinated chicken, vegetables with rat droppings and Californian Zinfandel when we deal with Trump :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:32 AM

Better spare a thought for Ireland.Many of their exports end up in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. The only direct ferries are to Cherbourg, Roscoff and Santander. The rest come through the UK. The same for imports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:26 AM

"Further analysis achieves zilch". I disagree.

"Who really cares about those who did not vote". Lots of people presumably. For example, a politician who did not consider abstainers would be foolish, as these same people may elect to vote in future elections.

It takes longer than four years to negotiate with the WTO. As I understand it, those people who believe this is a quick fix appear to misunderstand how it works. Here is a link to discussion of the WTO and Brexit.




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45112872

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

We've had this with him before, Karen. We've told him that there is no law in this country that says you have to vote, that people who choose not to vote (for the variety of reasons I listed, at least some of them representing perfectly valid and conscientious choices) still pay their taxes and contribute to society just as much as people who vote. Perhaps we should ask this rather crude and vulgar man this question: Who has the greater merit, a person who chooses not to vote at all or a person who chooses to vote for the BNP...?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:36 AM

tick tock 4 months to the deadline in March.
Today I hear Theresa has an important show down meeting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM .................

Out of sensible discussion,so back to the insults. I notice the left offer no analysis as to why they lost-just an endless succession of arguments as to why those that did not vote should be understood.

An analysis of commy corbyn otherwise known as st corbyn of the allotment

Labour Press Team
?
@labourpress

Tonight @BBCNewsnight wrongly??? claimed that Jeremy Corbyn always thought UK would be better off outside the EU, and failed to correct despite our complaint. He campaigned for the UK to remain in and reform the EU.
3,256
12:18 AM - Nov 14, 2018


Let’s examine this post-midnight claim by Labour’s Press team:

    In 1975, Corbyn voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community, which later became the European Union
    Corbyn later voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the EU, arguing it was undemocratic.
    Corbyn voted against the Lisbon Treaty, which established the constitutional basis for the EU.
    In 2010, Jeremy Corbyn voted against the creation of the European Union’s diplomatic service.
    In 2011, he broke the Labour whip to vote for a referendum on our EU membership.
    During the referendum, when for party management reasons he supposedly supported the remain campaign, he went on holiday.
    After the referendum he called for the immediate triggering of Article 50.
    During the 2016 general election his Labour Party stood on a platform of implementing Brexit.
    He now says “Brexit can’t be stopped.”
    His leadership of the Labour Party is widely recognised as strategically enabling for Brexit.

Corbyn has always been against what he sees as a capitalist club and he has been admirably consistent on this issue for over four decades. Who is Labour’s press team trying to kid?

From the impeccable source Guido, of course.
An open invitation for any of the remainiacs to prove him wrong:
Good Luck

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:07 PM

Well, Iains, if Rees Mogg and co are right and the deal is nothing like what people voted for, I put it to you that you lost as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:31 PM

DMcG I think betrayed is the word you may be searching for. But as yet I hear no dulcet tones from the fat lady. Counting chickens may yet be premature.
Should it come to an election I wonder what platform. Corbyn will be on?
Will he support his heartlands as displayed earlier (From: Iains - PM
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM) or run with the trendy guardianistas that infest this thread.
Will the real corbyn stand up! The man has the backbone of overcooked spagetti. Is Janus his role model?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:48 PM

DMcG I think betrayed is the word you may be searching for.

Not really. I did consider the word 'betrayal' before I posted, but did not think it captured what I wanted to say. That puts the blame on someone else - May, the remainers, the judges, the media, and who know who - anyone else, really, rather than face the possibility what was demanded may not have been realistic.

If you voted to leave, you didn't vote to get some paper measurement. You voted to achieve something. It looks as if you are not getting that. That is what losing looks like.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:38 PM

So Theresa has more than hinted that the alternatives to this deal, should it be rejected by parliament, would be no deal or no brexit.. We live in hope.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 01:00 AM

"So Theresa has more than hinted that the alternatives to this deal, should it be rejected by parliament, would be no deal or no brexit.. We live in hope."

Well, I said on this forum a couple of years ago that 'no Brexit' was her end-game, and I still believe that could be the case. She's seemed to be heading that way all along, with a strategy that will enable the abandonment of Brexit, but which will lay the blame at other people's doors. In which case, hats-off to her, she's a smarter cookie than many (including me) would believe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 05:09 AM

So the brexit secretary has resigned, and now the pure-evil Esther McVey has gone. You're belly-up, Theresa.

No brexit?

No-deal brexit?

Another bloody referendum?

General election?

Nice work, Tory tossers. Two and a bloody half years to get to this...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

I suspect the next few days could be interesting

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:49 AM

At last something we can all agree on, there, Iains!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:51 AM

Uncertainty = the spice of life!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 07:15 AM

She's doomed ah tell ye, doo-o-omed!

Fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 07:49 AM

Maybe! But   what will follow?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 08:00 AM

We are certainly in interesting times.

Can we go back to boring now please?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 08:31 AM

From guido, the man with a finger on the pulse!

https://order-order.com/2018/11/15/erg-advises-mps-send-letters/

How many supporters I wonder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 08:36 AM

Nobody in England knows what is going on, except which immediate domino is going to fall today. No democracy if you do, no democracy if you don't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 08:58 AM

psst - in a double negative situation it is best to 'don't do' -
Do over.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 09:10 AM

Six resignations to date and ain impending Tory coup and what do we get Guido and "see what happens" ?
I think we have the makings of the next Prime Minister here !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 09:27 AM

Pound falls steeply as Brexit resignations rock UK government

Time to sell my leftover dollars methinks.

Always look on the bright side of life...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 10:01 AM

I think you mean, "Sterling soars downwards", using the ever-optimistic BrexShiteer's language.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 10:16 AM

"Sterling soars downwards"
More hysteria off remainiacs.
Sterling was far lower back in August and trading lower exactly one year ago.

But never let facts spoil a good story!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

Hang about, it was one of your cohort who said first suggested that the pound had "soared" when it went up by half one one cent.

Not half a percent but a half of one cent.

Don't recall you saying anything about hysteria on that occasion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 10:50 AM

FROM THE HORSES MOUTH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 11:08 AM

A stunning link from the horses mouth. It just wants money

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 11:18 AM

No comment on the ecconomic damage done by Brexit so far - who's to blame you ?
Patriots ?
I've shit 'em
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 11:43 AM

TRY THIS FOR SIZE - though I prefer the Financial Times analysis - so clear even our resident morons could understand it when it was read to them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 11:48 AM

As the article says:
Using a "Frankenstein" model, which cobbles together data from other major economies, the bank's economists worked out the hit to UK growth.

Has as much validity as Frankenstein as well,I would say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 01:05 PM

Moggie in the Window has proposed a 'No Confidence' vote against the Prime Minister
Wonder what tomorrow will bring?
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 01:21 PM

ALong with presumably thousands of others I have just got this email from Corbyn. The bolding is mine.


======

If we cannot get a General Election, in line with our conference policy, we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.

We are ready to lead, ready to deliver a sensible deal that works for all our regions and nations and ready to build a Britain that works for the many, not the few.

Jeremy Corbyn
Leader of the Labour Party

======

I have also got an email from my Tory MP who says he will vote against the deal because "To agree to this will be worse than staying in the EU". I have asked him to confirm this means if his only choice is between this deal and remaining, he will vote remain. I do not expect any response at all, but certainly not one that is compatable with his assertion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 02:27 PM

LORD SNOOTY FOR PRIME MINISTER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 03:33 PM

Do you often link to the comic above? In comparison it makes the Guardian look to be almost a serious newspaper!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 03:39 PM

"Do you often link to the comic above?"
Not as often as you link to your moron Guido - I know Snooty is a cartoon - you have that yet to learn about yourr clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 03:50 PM

I see you have not responded Iains to my observation about the comment of the pound "soaring" of the pound.

.................. I wonder why that is.

I take it you do recall one of your cohorts saying the pound had "soared" when it had risen by one half of one cent.

Not, as I'm sure you understand, even one half of one percent.

As I'm sure you realise the pound PLUMETTED from 1.31 before Brexit to a distinctly lower amount afterwards.

The attached website would seem to claim that the pound loss 19% post Brexit, not one half of one cent but a full 19%

Link

Can we hope for an improvement in the value of the pound?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 04:08 PM

"Can we hope for an improvement in the value of the pound?"

More importantly, can we hope for a bit of good news about the Brexit Debacle - like, for instance, that the government has come to its senses and abandoned it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 04:40 PM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 01:21 PM
ALong with presumably thousands of others I have just got this email from Corbyn. The bolding is mine.

======

If we cannot get a General Election, in line with our conference policy, we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.

We are ready to lead, ready to deliver a sensible deal that works for all our regions and nations and ready to build a Britain that works for the many, not the few.

Jeremy Corbyn
Leader of the Labour Party

Is it fair to guess that the section you highlighted in bold is intended to read: "we will support (keeping) all options remaining on the table (open for consideration)"? If not, he is not stating which option he supports. "We will support all options" so maybe Mr Corbyn has yet to make up his mind!

And before anyone accuses me of nit-picking, I am merely commenting on the supposed contents of an email which has, presumably, been vetted by the Labour Party before issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 04:57 PM

{{{ Yaa-a-a-awn }}}

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 05:03 PM

May's Tory Government publicly self-destructing before our eyes, making the U.K. an utter laughing-stock around the world, and Nigs The Nitpicker can't find anything to comment on except a badly-worded sentence in something the leader of HM Opposition put out.

What a muppet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 05:27 PM

Brexit in a Nutshell - it would be funny if it wasn't so true.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:54 PM

A chap came to my house today to do some work for me (no names, no details, no pack drill). While he was here the news came through about Dominic "Slimeball" Raab and Esther "Devil-Incarnate" McVey. I commented on the news to him. He told me he didn't follow politics and didn't understand any of it. But he'd voted leave, for chrissake. I told him to come round my house in the event of another vote for a ten-minute chat in which I'd tell him why he should vote remain next time. He doesn't need it. He assured me that he'd changed his mind. Good thing, but the exchange hardly cheered me up. Let's redefine democracy, mused I after he'd gone, as a system in which ignorant people can be kept ignorant so that they can be manipulated, but make them feel good by "giving them the vote."

We are in a nightmare. What is happening to this country is insane. I want to hear politicians saying what is blatantly, bleedin' obvious: that staying in the EU is by FAR the most beneficial outcome for the national interest. There is no-one here on this forum that can make even the weakest argument as to why we would be better out. They can quote Tory rags and Tory blogs until they're blue in the face. But not one of them, not Iains, not Nigel, not Keith, not Stanron, can make any sort of case that we will be better off out. They can offer only vacuous and faux-hopeful aspiration. Nothing else. It's been like that for over two years, but the issue is crystallising fast before their eyes. Time to ditch the hubris, chaps. We are better off by a million miles in the EU. Apart from the clear economic benefits, look at the rest of the world. We have Trump destroying democracy in the rest of the western world, and he's going to get a second term. Six more years. We have a dictator for life who tramples on human rights in the biggest country in the world. We have Putin who is determined to turn Russia into a corrupt and dangerous superpower. We have far-right populism in Brazil and, worryingly, in some European countries. We have a horrid regime in Israel that is at the root of all middle-eastern conflict and we have an antediluvian, murderous regime in a country we daren't criticise because they have oil. The EU, for all its faults, which are legion, is a democratic bulwark against these horrible trends. If you can't see it, you're blind, and you are not thinking about the nasty world you're unconsciously arguing should be visited on your children and grandchildren.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 03:34 AM

Well said, Steve.

Looking on the bright side again the EU referendum debacle has had the benefit of showing everyone that the self serving shower of shits who started it are not fit to govern. Hopefully they will completely melt down and by next week we will be one step further towards an administration that does really serve the people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 03:46 AM

"making the U.K. an utter laughing-stock around the world"
A little more than that, I'm afraid
Brexit was sold on keeping immigrats and asylum seekers out - as May put it yesterday "taking back control of our borders"
Not only is this basicalloy racist, but it is self-destructive and inhuman
Had the British governments in the thirties taken the same stance there would have been far more Jews exterminated than there were - we and other nations took in the refugee from Nazisim - Britain is turning its back on today's refugees - shame on Nigel and his fellow appeasers
Not only are the present leaders encouraging this inhuman policy, butt by supporting the regimes who have caused the refugees to flee their countries; politically, financially and even militarily, NOT JUST FIGHTER PLANES
In doing so, our leaders have made Britain part of the slaughter
A little more than a laughing stock, I'm afraid
What are these people turning Britain into and how do those who support them square their concionces?
Beyond me !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 04:01 AM

PEOPLE LIKE REES MOGG TALK ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF LEAVING BUT ADVISE THEIR INVESTORS TO INVEST IN EUROS , UNBELIEVABLE

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 04:04 AM

"What are these people turning Britain into and how do those who support them square their concionces?"

What consciences?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 04:37 AM

Some have compare Theresa May to Neville Chamberlein.
Others have said "That's unfair to Chamberlain, he didn't pay the Luftwaffe for the blitz."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 04:57 AM

"As I'm sure you realise the pound PLUMETTED from 1.31 before Brexit to a distinctly lower amount afterwards."
I am afraid the significance of 1.31 totally escapes me, That was the exchange rate in January 2016 and part of a decline from 1.42 in July 2015.That was a rise from a historic low of 1.02 in 2008. The pound presently trades at a level seen in 2010 but with reduced volatility.The point you are trying to make has no validity. Economic factors dictate exchange rates, not headlines.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 05:06 AM

Kindly explain then, why did the pound really plummet the day after the Referendum vote when the decision to leave the EU was announced.

Coincidence ????

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 05:28 AM

Oddly enough, May is the only one to come out of this showing a shred of principles and dignity in all this - certainly more than any (either) of her supporters here
One of the saving graces of Brexit is watching the rats turn on each other
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

Kindly explain then, why did the pound really plummet the day after the Referendum vote when the decision to leave the EU was announced.

It was part of a decline from 1.42 in July 2015. Look at the graphical data. How many times do you need telling this?

Would you like a merry-go-round for Christmas?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:14 AM

A sobering piece in 'The Scotsman'. A paper known for being centre, moderate and down to earth.

Wealthy men are playing with the lives of 60 million people as if Brexit were a game of chess

Plenty to think about but the following passage is particularly disturbing to me.

It is clearly true that many of them are now trying to unseat their own party leader for not delivering on a fantasy of painless, glorious Brexit that they themselves have failed to turn into political reality, since the task is impossible. And as for concealing their true aims – well, who can say what strange brew of midlife psychosis and outright political dishonesty has motivated the bizarre wave of retro-imperial fantasy and anti-European rhetoric that has swept through parts of the Tory Party at Westminster in recent years; although investigations into the funding and management of the Leave campaign suggest that there are, at the very least, very serious questions to be asked about the sources of its funds, and its shadowy political connections.

It was obvious to some of from the start. It should now be blatantly obvious to all that the whole sorry affair was dreamed up by a tiny but powerful minority with vested interests in keeping the British people under their heel.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

I think perhaps Iains that you are choosing to ignore the facts that the pound had been trading* at levels in excess of 1.25 euro to the pound for over 2 years prior to the dramatic fall the day after the Brexit referendum.

* There was a slight dip in late April 2016 when it was 1.23.959.

The truth of the matter is that the referendum caused a massive decline in the value of the pound that it has not recovered from and which has had a negative impact on the rise in the cost of living for everyone.

That rise, of course impacts, to a greater degree on those with lower incomes. Although I suspect you couldn't give a toss about those people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

"The pound presently trades at a level seen in 2010 but with reduced volatility."

Reduced volatility? On Tuesday I bought a hundred quids'-worth of euros to load on to my prepaid card. If I'd bought 'em today I'd have got two and a half cents less per quid. With "reduced volatility" like that, who needs ordinary volatility!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:40 AM

If anyone doubts that the campaign against the EU has been orchestrated for a long time and mainly false try this

The EU has archived all of the "Euromyths" printed in UK media - and it makes for some disturbing reading

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 07:48 AM

"It was obvious to some of from the start. It should now be blatantly obvious to all that the whole sorry affair was dreamed up by a tiny but powerful minority with vested interests in keeping the British people under their heel."

Precisely what I've been saying throughout this thread and its predecessor, and for which I've had scorn heaped on me by our indoctrinated, happy-to-take-it-up-the-arse-from-a-Tory, Conservative stooges on here.

It's got Sweet Fuck All to do with 'Take Back Control', and everything to do with giving complete control to that 'tiny but powerful minority with vested interests in keeping the British people under their heel'.

Never have so many feeble-minded fools been so misled by so few.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 08:57 AM

According to Steven Swinford of the Telegraph the remaining Eurosceptics in cabinet "aim to change the wording of the backstop exit mechanism to stop it binding UK in customs union indefinitely"

... so far it is understandable ...

"There's genuine optimism it can be done ahead of Brussels summit on Nov 25"

... what?????? Even by Brexiteer standards, that may be a new high for 'genuine optimism'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 09:10 AM

Never have so many feeble-minded fools been so misled by so few.
Must be remainiacs. Brexiteers have far more sense, as we all know.
We deal in facts not fancy, unlike the clowns.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 09:24 AM

Here are the arguments of Rees-Mogg as stated in the Express:

"What we need is a leader who will say to the EU 'it is impossible to divide up the UK, it is impossible to agree to a situation where we have a perpetual customs union, it's impossible to pay £39billion of taxpayers money for a few promises which were meant to be £39billion for an implementation of a deal, and it is impossible for us to allow the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice’."


I am not saying I agree with them, just trying to put a bit of focus into the discussion. For example:

Why are we paying the EU this money: it is 'for an implementation of a deal' or is it for some other reason?

In what aspects if any will the European Court of Justice continue to have jurisdiction?

In what sense does the proposed agreement 'divide up' the UK?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 09:34 AM

Mention feeble-minded Tory stooges who enjoy taking it up the arse from the toffs and, right on cue, one appears...

"Brexiteers have far more sense, as we all know.
We deal in facts not fancy, unlike the clowns."

And that's going really well for you, innit? Bwwaaaaaahh-ha-ha-ha-haaaaahh!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 09:44 AM

"We deal in facts not fancy, unlike the clowns."

Would these be the facts that you, Nigs, Keefie, and other sundry wandering BrexShitters have told us, on numerous occasions, are as yet unknown 'because Brexit hasn't happened yet'?

A liar needs a good memory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 10:32 AM

I believe the renmainiacs were the ones gathering up horror stories to gleefully display here. They were all successfully repudiated by pointing out the fact that brexit has yet to occur.
Brexiteers 1!
clowns 0!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 10:42 AM

No. As you're very well aware, the Remainers here have constantly asked the BrexShit-Bumpkins for some positive facts about the looming BrexShit disaster, and have been told there are no facts "Because Brexit hasn't happened yet".

Tell us, how do you avoid bumping into things as you walk around with your head on back-to-front?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 10:57 AM

Interesting yougov survey from Guido


https://order-order.com/2018/11/16/just-36-brits-want-stop-brexit
I wonder just how accurate it is? The remainiacs are obviously not quite where they would like to be. No surprises there!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 11:21 AM

Here ya go, a few facts for you...

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/11/brexiteers-only-have-themselves-blame-uk-s-disastrous-fate


Any good news about the BrexShit Debacle?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 11:45 AM

What amuses me in a horrible way is that if the unionists had themselves negotiated the deal they’re being offered they’d be gloating and boasting unbearably.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 11:46 AM

Here you are, some more facts for you (you do understand the meaning of the word 'facts' do you?) from a considerably more reliable source than a Right-Wing Extremist Criminal, and based on a significantly bigger sample than your idiot-boy, Seaman Staines...

https://news.sky.com/story/majority-of-brits-now-against-brexit-and-back-second-eu-referendum-sky-data-poll-11555078

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 12:14 PM

That order.order articl3 claims those are from the latest YouGov poll but they do not seem to match the one carried out by YouGov for The Evening Standard after the deal was declared. Can you tell us which poll it is?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 12:30 PM

Here's another good one.

The government is fighting hard to ensure it does not have the right to cancel the Article 50 unilaterally.


That's taking back control for you.

"And I think to myself/What a wonderful world!"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 01:24 PM

may will survive because the rest of the conservative party mps are even bigger idiots

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 01:37 PM

If you resign from the Cabinet in a huff (Johnson, Raab, Davis, McVey) you've basically shat in your own bed. But one prominent member has decided "to stay loyal to May." Gove.

Meet the next Tory party leader. Oh, I suppose he might have to scrap it out with Leadsom and/or Mordant, two other biters-of-lips. No contest, I'd say. Aren't Tories just so lovely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 02:22 PM

Here you are, some more facts for you (you do understand the meaning of the word 'facts' do you?) from a considerably more reliable source than a Right-Wing Extremist Criminal.

The only problem that you have is that you have only ever managed to attack the source of the article with your insulting remarks.
Not one of you have managed to discredit his data. A fact you should perhaps ruminate on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 02:48 PM

What data ?
He's a right wing blogger who offers a distorted analysis of events - no data
You hav Persistently dismissed information as "only your opinion", yet you rely on a criminal blogger for your own contributionBoth lacking in imagination and claiming something you will not accept (on occasion) from others
Most people here offer up documented facts - you rely almost entirely on a tory liar

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 02:56 PM

"Most people here offer up documented facts - you rely almost entirely on a tory liar"

Yes Jim, those Tory liars certainly stick together - like dogshit on the sole of your shoe.
Have you noticed how the resident BrexShit-Bumpkins never respond to the substance of what's actually put to them? We have one whose only tactic is to nitpick others' spelling and/or grammar, and another who relies on a proven Right-Wing Extremist, racist criminal.

No wonder Brexit's gone tits-up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 03:33 PM

"Most people here offer up documented facts - you rely almost entirely on a tory liar"

More little jimmie frothing idiocy. I substantiate what I say with numerous links from varied sources. Frequently when I quote guido I put up alternative media sources corroborating his information. Rather makes a nonsense of your puerile assertions doncha think?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 05:07 PM

Iains,

No-one from your side of the discussion has ever proffered any facts.

Not once.

What has been said on frequent occasions is a "promise" that things will be better for us all if we leave the EU.

Now I realise that no one on my side of the discussion has been able to offer any concrete facts either.

However almost without exception every commentator of every hue has proffered that the political and economic ramifications of leaving the EU will be detrimental to the well being of the UK as a whole.

I have asked repeatedly over the past 30 months for a positive reason to be believe that our leaving the EU will be beneficial to the people of this country.

Surely after 30 months you will be able to provide such evidence.

So ...................

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:32 PM

"I substantiate what I say with numerous links from varied sources. Frequently when I quote guido I put up alternative media sources..."

No you don't. Please don't try to peddle bullshit. You extremely frequently resort to Guido with no further balancing links. Just because you occasionally use other sources doesn't justify your second sentence. And there's one very basic thing that most thinking people get that you don't. Guido, the Sun, the Express, the Mail and one or two others down there in the gutter don't just relay news. They relay news mixed with comment laced with a healthy dose of sensationalist scandal. That comment may be subtly put. It's put in a tendentious, hidden, right-wing guise. But you don't see it. You've been seriously taken in. You actively seek out sources that confirm your personal bias. I mean, how crude is that? You rarely if ever resort to sources that at least try to report news neutrally, keeping their opinion separate in a separate section of the paper. In fact, you routinely diss media that do that. You'd far rather just brand them, simply because they don't share your bioted ideology, as leftie crap. You are the epitome of the pig-ignorant Sun-reading, brainless bloody prole. And you're even a bit shit at geology. I'm not even a geologist, and I can see it. It's late. Sleep tight, "fellah."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 18 - 06:39 PM

"Bioted?" I had a teddy bear like that once. He was vegan and definitely organic. We didn't get on, but at least he wasn't bigoted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 02:57 AM

"More little jimmie frothing idiocy. "
And more insecure insulting childishness, you are not even very good at that
You have never offered original opinions, nor have you attempted to respond to the actual situation
Where is your response to the economic uncertainty that is predicted to last for at least a decade that this crass referendum has set into motion?
Or the racist policy on which it was sold?
Or the fact that it will almost certainly bring the Government down and possibly break up the United Kingdom ?
Or the immorality and inhumanity of refusing refugees asylum while at the same time arming their persecutors ?
These, and many more points you have totally ignored; in return, each time you find yourself in confronted you scurry behind extremist bloggers - Guido being a favorite - the dregs was a rabid racist site.
That is not discussion - that's mindless soap-boxing
Your return to your anonymous bullying persona is as unpleasantly childish as it is predictable
You want to debate - debate; you want to strut and display, go join a gang, that's how bullies usually operate
It seems my first impressions - "M M", were correct

Raggy just put your situation perfectly
No-one from your side of the discussion has ever proffered any facts.
Not once.

Let's see if Nigel can make a better job of it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 03:09 AM

"Let's see if Nigel can make a better job of it"

Very doubtful Jim, although I'm sure he'll get immense satisfaction from pointing out slip-ups in your grammar, or punctuation errors. ;-) ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 04:12 AM

What has been said on frequent occasions is a "promise" that things will be better for us all if we leave the EU.

It is worse than that. Most Brexit commentators and promoters recognise there will be some short term disruption, but insist in the future it will be better.

Keith was honest enough to say he believed that disruption would last at most three months after Brexit day if we left with no deal. Nigel, despite picking me up on an error I made with dates, was not prepared to give any indication how long these short term effects might last. Some politicians have said 10 years, and while Rees-Mogg didn't quite say how long they would last, be did say it might take 50 years for the full effects of Brexit to be understood.

What 'short term' means is vital, because to cope with short term disruption requires resources. Some big manufacturers are stock-piling: that ties up money and affects balance sheets. Some householders may be thinking of or actually doing the same with non-perishable food - again, that ties up resources. Whether you do that or not, come any actual disruption you may be living of some kind of savings - actual money or food stocks for example - to cover any shortfall during the disruption.

Now, if you are a millionaire, you may well be able to cover a disruption lasting a few years. On the other hand if you are living on a zero hours minimum wage job you may not have enough resources to last a week. Small businesses may have enough cash in the bank to pay their workers for a month or two but would go bust if the disruption continued for three months.

That is why how long and how severe the disruptions are matter. Sunny uplands beyond, even if real and not some mirage, cannot be considered in isolation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

I've always thought it sloppy and disrespectful to misspell people's names through carelessness and inadequate checking, so I hereby eat humble pie and correct my rendering yesterday of Penny Mordaunt's surname, much as I detest the woman.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:18 AM

"I've always thought it sloppy and disrespectful to misspell people's names through carelessness and inadequate checking, so I hereby eat humble pie and correct my rendering yesterday of Penny Mordaunt's surname, much as I detest the woman."

I agree Steve. I always seem to have spelling problems with Michael 'Bad-Wig' Fabricunt.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:27 AM

Somewhat reminiscent of Jim Naughtie's faulty yet oddly appropriate rendering of Jeremy Hunt's surname. As it involved a word I try never to type out, let's just say that the Cockney rhyming slang of it is very likely "James Blunt."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

INTERESTING COMMENTS HERE THAT WILL BE IGNORED BY OUR DEFENDERS OF THE REALM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:51 AM

Will grey anoraks be cheaper after brexit!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 08:10 AM

DMcG You said "...live of some kind of savings." It should be
"Live ON some kind of savings."
Nigel (Donuel) Parsons

My point is that
I see that even the enlightened folks in the UK are getting bogged down in unimportant detail. Democracy is at stake. The Brexit issue presents the conundrum that democracy is challenged because of one very large uninformed vote and as a result democracy is damned if you do or damned if you don't implement Brexit.

As an American I am insulated and naive regarding the information overload you guys are immersed in. So I am instead left to think of the big picture.

Are the people there really forgetting that they have been socially attacked by Russia, Cold War Style, for your hearts and minds to be subverted from a united Western liberal Democracy?

Sure you all speak with expertise about the next domino that is about to fall in your country as a result of the squabble over left-right, Hard-Soft, wet-dry, Brexit-Fixits. These are details that are given power by discussion that need not have arisen in the first place.

Could 51% of you be united against a common foe (Russia) instead of yourselves? Is there room for a reset/revote?


Was Belgium that tyranical? Am I all wrong?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 08:22 AM

Are the people there really forgetting that they have been socially attacked by Russia

Russia is not the only hostile state meddling in the UK, Iran is also doing its part.

See: TOI

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 08:22 AM

My point is that I see that even the enlightened folks in the UK are getting bogged down in unimportant detail. Democracy is at stake. The Brexit issue presents the conundrum that democracy is challenged because of one very large uninformed vote and as a result democracy is damned if you do or damned if you don't implement Brexit.


Both are important, Donuel, and they are interconnected.   What happens if a large proportion of the population have substantially reduced their resources? A lot can be done by changing what you eat, how you live and so on, but it is not inexhaustible. I think you get an amplification of the belief that 'democracy does not work for me', which fed into the forces for Brexit and the election of Trump, and many others riding the populistic waves.

The essential condition for democracy to work is that people feel that on balance it is a way of improving their or their descendants lot. If that goes, so does a belief in democracy as a whole.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 08:34 AM

or is it all expensive racism

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 09:19 AM

The proposal by May as regads the irish border is in my opinion a reasonable one, i am not a supporter of the conservative p[arty , but nobobdy has come up with anything better apart from the suggestion of a second referendum and who knows how that would go, a uk leadership conservative party contest with the subsequent instabilty is not in the interst of people in ireland at this moment

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 09:32 AM

"Russia, Cold War Style,"
There seems to be a lot of point missing here
The "free" former Communist nations are far more of a world threat than ever they were under communism - there was never a threat of invasion or direct interference from The Soviet Union, China, or any of the old states
First we had direct interference in referenda and national elections, now we have outbreaks of poisonings in Britain and the torture and murder of a foreign national in Saudi Arabia
This is now an international ball-game encouraged by the populism set rolling by Brexit - all the extremists have to do is wag a flag and make foreigners culprits and they are on a winner
Fascist parties on the rise, the Nazis back on the streets of Germany... we've been here before - throw in the Klan ready to take to the streets of Northern Ireland and Britain and you can include places we've never been]

"Russia - Iran"
How about your own flavour of the month Bobad - selling nuclear triggers to Iran, while at the same time demonising them ?
The Israeli leadership, as right wing as it is, is now at war with its own extremists over attempts to negotiate peace with the Palestinians

The fall of Communism was heralded as a great leap forward - now there is hardly a Continent on the planet where there is not cause for concern

As a young man, I took to the streets to oppose nuclear weapons - we were told they would never be used but were necessary as "deterrents" - not an arument I ever bought.
Now we are being asked to accept a world where only the extremists right nations - America, Israel, The Saudis..... have a list has been compiled as to who is fit to hold them, headed by a madman who boasts that "his button is bigger than anyone else's"
We need to hang our heads in shame over the world we have bequeathed to those who will take over, and we certainly need to stop pointing fingers and start to clean up our own dog-shit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:05 AM

at the same time demonising them

Demonizing a misogynistic, homophobic, totalitarian, terrorist supporting theocracy............good heavens, imagine!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:10 AM

I left out oppressive, xenophobic, anti-American and anti-Semitic because I wouldn't want to, you know, be accused of demonizing them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:13 AM

Demonizing a misogynistic, homophobic, totalitarian, terrorist supporting theocracy

I assume you're referring the right-wing Israeli government?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:21 AM

Donuel

With respect, one of the biggest threats to social democracies in Europe has to be the US neo-right, including, but not limited to, Breitbart.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:30 AM

I suggest the answer to not getting this thread closed is not to respond to those who advocate for their own favourite terrorist states and treat the pressing problems as what they are - a result in the sharp rise in the extremist right
I don't think there are many here who have trouble in sorting out the sheep from the lambs in that one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 10:42 AM

I hear pessimistic voices from some of you.
The UK was the bastion of Democracy when the rest of Europe was under nationalistic Nazi control.
What's the matter, don't you think you can do it again?
Have you lost your leadership or your spine?
When only the Nationalists sound confident you sound weak.


Italy is close again to nationalist rule, but are you?
I really don't think so.
Elsewhere the right is only in third place,
soon that will be only as far that Trumpism will get in the US.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 11:06 AM

"The UK was the bastion of Democracy when the rest of Europe was under nationalistic Nazi control."
A matter of opinion -
Britain was fighting a defensive war because it attempted to appease Nazizm upto the point where it could no longer do so - the failure to launch a 'Second Front' was an indication that that appeasement sill remained to a a degree during the war
It really is complex - much of this involved pragmatism rather than real democracy
Any democracy was introduced after the war by a watered down 'socialist' Government - despite fierce opposition from Britain's former leaders
My old man was criminalised for fighting fascism in Spain, just as members of his family were for taking to the streets to fight an Antisemitic member of the House of Lords (protected by British policemen on horseback)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 11:13 AM

Jim we know you are a tough cookie.
You need to get Bannon who is unifying disparate Nazi sects in Europe ask we speak.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 11:29 AM

I know what's happening in the U.S. Don - scares the shit out of me (though to a degree, it's not really that new)
We watched nightly over the seven years while as your 'Democratic nation' pured burning petrol on peasant farmers and sprayed them with carcinogenic chemicals which took out your own pilots
Not much new under the sun.
A statement in The Irish Times chilled me to the bone when I read it "There is a Nigel Farage in every country in Europe at present"

I'm actually not that hard line - a bit of a reformist rather than a revolutionary nowadays
I believe the E.U. to be an organisation of Capitalist States trying to defend Capitalism as it dies
I would rather support that than the alternative, but it doesn't mean I am unaware of what I'm supporting
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 11:41 AM

outright plagiarism.

There once was a PM named May
Determined to get her own way.
Not listening to reason,
She opted for treason
And was gone by the end of the day.

We hope!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 12:56 PM

Well then Reformer Jim I'm sure you can Re-form Bannon into something no self respecting Nazi could stomach. Defame to deflate and defeat.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 12:56 PM

"outright plagiarism."
As you're fond of saying - oh dear !!

A cabal the brightest of BLUE
One day planned a leadership coup
This sad bunch of tossers all aspired to be bosses
And flushed the poor Brits down the loo

All my own work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 01:08 PM

People like Bannon, Trump and Farage are the symptoms of the rather than the disease itself - the buboes in the armpit of society
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 01:14 PM

Tory colours are dark blue, derived from the Union Jack. Your own work shows the usual deficiencies. Oh dear!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 01:20 PM

So do your Iains, the Union Flag is only correctly named a "Union Jack" when it is flown on the Jack Staff of a ship.

If you really want to be a little Englander at least learn your history.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 01:30 PM

Not only chief advisor for Trump white nationalism, Bannon is steering fascism in the UK, in case you missed this Wiki nugget.
I am sure more is to come about Bannon from Mueller as well.

European politics
Bannon has announced plans to move to Brussels for half the year to launch a new political operation to unite populist parties across Europe before the European Parliament election. He has formed a foundation for nationalist parties called The Movement.

Brazilian elections
In August 2018, Bannon met with Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, and serves as informal advisor to the Bolsonaro campaign in the Brazilian presidential elections.

Political beliefs
Bannon told Michael Lewis in February 2018, "We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall. This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls." He added, "The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

Individual issues
Bannon has advocated reductions in immigration and restrictions on free trade, particularly with China and Mexico. He is in favor of raising federal income taxes to 44% for those earning incomes over $5 million a year as a way to pay for middle class tax cuts.[49] He also supports significantly increasing spending on infrastructure, describing himself as "the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan". Bannon is opposed to government bailouts, describing them as "socialism for the very wealthy".[197] He generally believes in reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, declaring at the Conservative Political Action Conference he favored the "deconstruction of the administrative state". However, he does support increased regulation of Internet companies like Facebook and Google, which he regards as akin to utilities in the modern age. He opposed the merger between Time-Warner and AT&T on antitrust grounds. He was a strong opponent of the Paris climate agreement within the administration, successfully persuading the President to withdraw from it.

On overseas military intervention
He is generally skeptical of military intervention abroad, opposing proposals for the expansion of U.S. involvement in the War in Afghanistan,[50] the Syrian Civil War, and the crisis in Venezuela. On the Middle East
Bannon strongly favors U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal,[206] and was supportive of the approach taken by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis and the 2017 Saudi Arabian purge.[citation needed] He believes Qatar is "no less dangerous" than North Korea.

Bannon believes Iran, Turkey and China are forming a "new axis" to challenge the West, and has described Turkey as "the greatest danger facing the United States" and "far more dangerous than Iran".[208]

Bannon reportedly speaks often with Trump donor Sheldon Adelson, and has been alarmed at a push for a renewed Middle East peace process.[210] He has described Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as a "terrorist". He has advocated giving the land in the West Bank to Jordan and in Gaza to Egypt.

On the UK
Although Bannon initially favored the British National Party (BNP) and the English Defense League (EDL) in the United Kingdom, he later backed the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP, once presented Bannon with a portrait of Bannon dressed as Napoleon Bonaparte. Bannon has encouraged Farage to return as leader of UKIP.

Bannon has called for the release of former EDL leader Tommy Robinson from prison, describing him as the "backbone" of Britain.

Bannon has also called for a revolt in the United Kingdom should the country adopt a soft Brexit, stating, "If I was in middle England and said this wasn't what I voted for I would rise up and make sure the guys in parliament knew it." When asked whether this should be interpreted as a "call to arms", he replied: "Absolutely".

Bannon has met with Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prospective candidate for the leadership of the country's Conservative Party, describing him as "one of the best thinkers in the conservative movement on a global basis."

Bannon has also urged Boris Johnson, another potential leadership contender, who Bannon said in July 2018 that he had known "over the last year" and was "very impressed" with, to challenge Prime Minister Theresa May. According to a Buzzfeed News report, Bannon was in private contact with Johnson during his visit to Britain that month, and the two men were previously in text communication during their respective tenures as White House Chief Strategist and British Foreign Secretary.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 01:37 PM

"Tory colours are dark blue, derived from the Union Jack. "
What an ignorant soul you are
If you knew what you were talking about you would realise that this forum only gives one choice of any colour
How frigging petty can you get - beats typos into back place anyday
You really aren't very good at this are you
Wanna try another flyting (look it up) ?
Tosser !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

"So do your Iains, the Union Flag is only correctly named a "Union Jack" when it is flown on the Jack Staff of a ship."
OBVIOUSLY NOT
Not the brightest Iron Cross on the uniform, is he ?
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 02:18 PM

Apparently the Nationalists will own the UK, they try harder and are more focused.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 02:56 PM

So do your Iains, the Union Flag is only correctly named a "Union Jack" when it is flown on the Jack Staff of a ship

That may well explain the orgin of the term but present usage is either Union Jack or Union Flag regardless of how or where displayed. Only vexillologists make a distinction.AS wiki states" Even if the term "Union Jack" does derive from the jack flag (as perhaps seems most likely), after three centuries, it is now sanctioned by usage, has appeared in official usage, and remains the popular term. The BBC website disregards the term "union flag" because of its "great potential for confusion", preferring union jack (in lower case) The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 refers to the national colours of the United Kingdom as "the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack)".

As you so like to malign the illustrious font of all knowledge Guido Fawkes. Here are a few tasties to redress the balance:
labour mp charged perverting course of justice

sex abuse allegations labour
Elliot Morley
Former environment minister and Labour MP for Scunthorpe
Offence – Pleaded guilty to fraudulently claiming £32,000 of parliamentary expenses.
David Chaytor
Former Labour MP for Bury North
Offence – Pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting relating to approximately £18,000 of parliamentary expenses.
Eric Illsley
Former Labour MP for Barnsley Central
Offence – Pleaded guilty to fraudulently claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.
Jim Devine
Former Labour MP for Livingston
Offence – Found guilty of dishonestly claiming £8,385 in parliamentary expenses.

Never learn do you?          John 8:7

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 03:13 PM

"You are the epitome of the pig-ignorant Sun-reading, brainless bloody prole. And you're even a bit shit at geology. I'm not even a geologist, and I can see it. It's late. Sleep tight, "fellah."

Prole?????

The working class can kiss my a***s
I've got the bosses job and class

Ode to stevie blunder(the union activist

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 03:22 PM

There was a fine fellow named Jake
Who believed a great leader he'd make
But he thought it more canny to first go and ask Nanny.
She said, "Yes dear; but first, eat up your cake"

or
There once was a lessie named Tess
Got the country in such a fine
But instead of resigning she sat at home whining:
"I'm afraid we'll just settle for less
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

There once was a writer named Staines
Who, for stories, dredged sewers and drains
But on being found out, he gave a loud shout;
"How would you do with just shit for brains?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 03:49 PM

"Ode to stevie blunder(the union activist"
No bright eunuch tae mak' yer ain laddie ?
Whit a TOSSER - roll on the next Games
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 04:57 PM

I am the only one who finds it amusing the Tory blue is derived from the Scottish part of Union flag?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:10 PM

You asking us, or telling   us?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:13 PM

It is valid English form, Iains, though less common than the 'Am I'. I am sure Nigel will be along to explain it shortly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:21 PM

Data data everywhere but not a drop of wisdom
I exaggerate but which will come first, a revolution by idiots or a World War?
You can try and talk Tom Cruise out of Scientology if you think you can change anyone's political persuasion.
It is only how effective you make your own base that counts.
There are more posts about underlying fear than uniting your base.
Anything else is just political masturbation until you make each others head pop.

The most effective thing I can do for this crew is to shut the fuck up and watch the apocalypse on TV even if one person can make a difference. It ain't me babe no no no it ain't me

There are more positive threads like How many, amazing dog, recipes, should be banned.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 07:31 PM

"The working class can kiss my a***s
I've got the bosses job and class"

Gosh. You got "Union Jack" all wrong and you've now managed to utterly mash up this couplet.

For your info, it goes:

"The working class can kiss my ass
I've got the foreman's job at last"

I could mention the rather excessive number of asterisks you employed in "a***s", not to speak of the illiterate "bosses", but I suppose you've probably had a hard day and that we should let that pass...

Worth remembering, perhaps, next time you prattle on (as you do) about someone else's typographical peccadillos...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 03:29 AM

Bosses = plural possessive of boss's. If no S to pronounce then no apostrophe either.
Call yourself well educated? What a fool!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 03:40 AM

The above was a windup.It should of course be bosses'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 04:19 AM

So the government is imploding, the Sunday Times reports preparations being made for troops on the street, the arch Leaver Leadsom and my local MP Royston Smith both putting in writing that May's deal is worse than remaining (but both declining to confirm that if their choice was between only those two they would go for remain), five of so members of the cabinet thinking they can change the wording of the backstop agreement in a few days, impervious to the knowledge this has been the main focus of the negotiations for months, the Labour party appearing to be demanding its own equally unachievable form of Brexit agreement...


And we argue about apostrophes?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 05:01 AM

The Leave-Muppets argue about about apostrophes because the truth about their ludicrous fantasies is being laid bare, and they have nothing left. Some good stuff here...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 05:11 AM

Even Michael Heseltine, arch tory, says we should hold another referendum saying that future generations we not forgive us if we leave.

Link

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 06:40 AM

You wont catch me arguing about apostrophe's.

We are truly living in a nightmare. The Tories will make it even worse if they try the confidence trick. They'll lose and that'll mean she's there for another year minimum. And I really can't see what difference another Tory leader would make. Theresa May is actually garnering sympathy, thoroughly undeserved, all round except from those hard-bitten brain-dead twats on the right wing of her party. To compound the nightmare, I'm certain that Corbyn wouldn't do any better if he suddenly found himself in charge. Having been utterly against it until now, I've come to the conclusion that another referendum is the only way out of this morass. It'll mean no brexit and big trouble for years to come, but that would be a damn sight better than the prospect we're facing now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 08:39 AM

"You wont catch me arguing about apostrophe's. "
Give them a break Steve
If they have nothing else, they have to argue about something

A street walker named Maggie May
Walked her beat 'round Westminster one day
She met with four knobs, all after her job,
"You can have it, but you'll have to pay"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 09:45 AM

From: DMcG - PM
Date: 17 Nov 18 - 05:13 PM
It is valid English form, Iains, though less common than the 'Am I'. I am sure Nigel will be along to explain it shortly.
Sorry, no. I cannot find a valid construction that would make: I am the only one who finds it amusing the Tory blue is derived from the Scottish part of Union flag? into a valid question, despite the question mark at the end.
For it to be a question you would need to change the start to "Am I . . ." or, add something at the end, such as "I am the only one who finds it amusing the Tory blue is derived from the Scottish part of Union flag, am I not?
You might get it accepted in spoken English as then tone of voice can be added, which helps indicate from the start that it is intended as a question. That doesn't work in print. It would work, possibly, if we introduced the Spanish practice of starting sentences with inverted punctuation.

As to the use of "Union jack" I also used to argue that it was not strictly correct. But I have since been informed that it is perfectly valid. The following page shows that not only does the usage pre-date the term "jackstaff", but that it also has parliamentary backing. Flag institute.org
I still usually term it the Union flag, if only to avoid starting long discussions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 10:31 AM

It seems to me that 'Union Jack' and typos have suddenly come into fashion when the Brexiteers ran out of explanations for this appalling shambles
Does anybody really care ?
It seems to me that the only thing to have come out of this 'Little Britain' decision so far is the destabilisation and almost inevitable destruction if the Conservative Party
I'd salute any flag to see that happen
Rule Britannia eh what !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 11:27 AM

Nigel, most people on this site do not hold degree in English Language. We type more or less as we speak.

To nickpick about the use of language is exactly that nitpicking.

Please try and tell me something positive about the UK leaving the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 11:51 AM

It is not usually a good idea to try to explain humour, but I thought it was obvious to all and sundry that my writing "I am" rather than "Am I" was an error. If you are concerned enough, it arose because I was originally written as a sentence and part of the way through I changed, but because I am not writing for a textbook or thesis but am making a throw away remark I did not treat it as if it had any great significance so did not eliminate that mistake.

Secondly, by sheer chance the mistake led to a valid English sentence with the same meaning. Conversational English is valid English. Literary English is not the only valid form, though I expect we can find examples of that form in literary works if we cared to look.

Thirdly it must have been obvious, surely, that saying "Nigel will explain it" was a gentle dig at your tendency to argue
about any grammatical faux pas, even if it is of no significance whatever. Actually responding is a touch silly.

So a joke. Maybe not a good one, but a joke nevertheless.

Now do you want to say anything whatsoever relevant to the Brexit deal, the current state of the government, the Sunday Times report on military preparations? Or any aspect of Brexit?

Yours, with tongue in cheek,
DMcG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 11:54 AM

And there are some 'I' in that which should be 'it's. That's autotext combined with using my phone keyboard and typing while I am in the passenger seat of a car.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 02:19 PM

Nigel is wrong. Whether or not a sentence is a question is entirely a matter of context. Try this:

"I'll be home on Wednesday, Mum."

"You won't be here on Tuesday?"

No, sorry, Mum."

That works perfectly both in print and in speech. This is a path not worth following, Nigel.

Now let's discuss instead whether Theresa will still be here on Tuesday... :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 02:20 PM

And thanks in advance for telling me that I missed out a speech mark!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 03:07 PM

I THINK SHE WILL BE,Because the tory mps know that the alternatives are more incompetent

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 18 - 05:27 PM

I agree, and I also think that the general election that Labour is baying for would solve nothing whatever the outcome. The only way out of this is the abandonment of brexit, and it looks like the only way to achieve that would be another referendum, a prospect that I abhor but which I'm beginning to think I should now support.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 03:07 AM

Not sure the Labour Party is baying for an election, though, if the Tory dissidents get their way, I think one would be inevitable
No Government can possibly survive a major defeat of this nature
This has long ceased to be about leaving Europe to Mogg and Johnson - it has become their crawkling-board to leadership.
Labour would be lacking in its duty to allow them get there
May is bad enough, but these people are truely the dregs of British politics - old school thugs of the worst kind
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 04:12 AM

I don’t think the British can abandon Brexit at this stage. This insanity has become their norm, even if they pull down the whole western economy with them. The best thing Europe can do is to try to quarantine them so the other economies won’t be infected.

God help them. Apparently frozen food is being stockpiled in huge quantities by British wholesalers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 04:26 AM

There may be less stockpiling than you think

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 04:32 AM

Mrs. Backwoodsperson and I were discussing the calamitous debacle of BrexShit yesterday, and she reminded me of a 'vox-pop' on one of the BBC news programmes a couple of weeks after the Referendum. The interviewee, a typical Leaver (two-sizes-too-small sweat-shirt, jogging bottoms, un-combed hair, no front teeth) wanted to know why, two weeks after 'the cuntry voted to Leave', we still hadn't 'left Europe'.

"Why are we still in Europe?" he demanded, "We voted to Leave Europe. We should just leave now - today - it's simple!".

Maybe they should have signed him on as Brexit Secretary there and then. He couldn't have done any worse a job than The Praying Mantis and her bunch of Muppets.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 05:04 AM

"The Praying Mantis "
Preying mantis, you mean ?
Have to be careful that our own muppets don't catch you out on your spelling !!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 05:19 AM

"The Praying Mantis "
Preying mantis, you mean ?
Have to be careful that our own muppets don't catch you out on your spelling !!

No need, if you're going to do it. However, Backwoodsman used the correct spelling for the insect also known as Mantis religiosa.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 05:36 AM

A joke Nigel preying - praying
It seems our brothers on the right need a sense of humour transplant as well as a conscience
Jim :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 06:20 AM

A prime example of the level of intellect of Leavers....and this one is an MP, elected to take part in making the important decisions that affect all our lives!

We're doomed, ah tell ye, doo-o-o-oomed! :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 06:35 AM

Indeed. I remind you of my earlier post. the arch Leaver Leadsom and my local MP Royston Smith both putting in writing that May's deal is worse than remaining (but both declining to confirm that if their choice was between only those two they would go for remain).

So they assert "A is worse than B". "And, if you are forced to choose between them because your preference C is not available?" The worse one, A, as far as we can tell.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:16 AM

" The only way out of this is the abandonment of brexit, and it looks like the only way to achieve that would be another referendum, a prospect that I abhor but which I'm beginning to think I should now support."

But the cry of the leftards is that the valiant brexiteers are too stupid to know what they voted for.
As per the backward man:Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:15 PM

And the resident troll objects to me referring to Brexiters as 'dumbfucks'? Obviously hit a nerve there.

But if all the leavers change their minds and vote "Remain" where will this sudden flash of 'intelligence' come from?
Answer me that!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:28 AM

I don't always succeed, by any means, but I do try to distinguish between Leavers and Brexiteers. Leavers, on a balance of probability and their assessments, came to the conclusion that to go was the most appropriate vote. Brexiteers are those of an ERG-like ideological commitment to leaving whatever the damage over the "short term". The first group will weigh the evidence again and may come to same conclusion or change. The second will not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:30 AM

And, for the benefit of the Chief Dumbfuck on here, here are eleven things you thought you voted for, but which have been abandoned - and we haven't even had BrexShit yet!

Never have so many feeble-minded, racist, xenophobic simpletons been led by the nose by so few...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:38 AM

"But if all the leavers change their minds and vote "Remain" "
Nothing to do with the end result, as you have been told numerous times - nobody knows what the result of a second referendum will be
Brexit was sold on a hate package without being aware of the consequences - now those consequences have become more clear, the people who voted are entitled to confirm their support or change their mind
Those who mistrusted politicians enough not to vote are entitled to rethink their position
Democracy should never be restricted by a 'caveat emptor' clause - that would require everybody being told everything from the beginning
The shits who pushed this through have persistently blamed the people for the result "that's what the people wanted" - pig in a pole politics
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:44 AM

Never have so many feeble-minded, racist, xenophobic simpletons been led by the nose by so few..

Sounds like a perfect description of the leftard pack trying to dominate this thread.
And below is a gem from Guido:
The CBI has endorsed Theresa May’s draft withdrawal agreement, Guido thought it would be a good time to remind younger readers of its long and distinguished history of making bad political calls:

    In the 1930s it supported appeasement.
    In the 1940s it supported nationalisation.
    In the 1950s it supported state planning.
    In the 1960s it supported tripartite industrial relations.
    In the 1970s it supported price controls.
    In the 1980s it opposed getting tough with the USSR.
    In the 1990s it supported the ERM.
    In the 2000s it supported joining the Euro.
    In the 2010s it supported Remain…
    … and now it has declared its support for May’s draft withdrawal agreement.

Not exactly a laudable record…

And what is labours brexit policy these days? They ring the changes faster than a madras hitting the porcelain throne.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:50 AM

...and now the self-same dumbfucks are being led by the nose by a Right-Wing Extremist, racist criminal. Dumbuck is as dumbfuck does.

And Labour's policy on BrexShit is immaterial. In case it's a bit too difficult for you to understand, I'll explain - Labour aren't the party-of-Government, your Tories are, and a damn fine mess they're making of everything, BrexShit included.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:53 AM

And before Nitpicking Nigs, The Scourge of the Fourth Form, jumps in with his playground antics - I know I missed an 'f' out of 'dumbfuck'. I'll take 100 lines, if it makes him feel better about himself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:55 AM

I do hope I live to see in a years time who, if anyone, actually eats humble pie.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:59 AM

I have said before, Stanron, that I hope I am wrong about how this is going and will certainly eat humble pie if it goes well. I set out below what I mean by "going well" in a conversation with Keith.

Will you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 11:17 AM

Good to see the leftards keepimg up a string of abuse instead of rational argument. Must be due to the pack mentality!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 11:31 AM

DMcG wrote: I set out below what I mean by "going well" in a conversation with Keith.

Will you?

Date and time of this? The problem with answering the 'will you?' question is that if Brexit actually occurs, and we actually agree that it has occurred we would then have to agree as to whether it has gone well or not.

I happily predict that if Brexit occurs Labour will claim it to be a disaster in order to make political capital even if, by my view, it is a success.

If this happens we could both decide that we do not need to eat any pie at all.

Gregs will be livid.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

" In the 1930s it supported appeasement."
As did the British Government, even to the extent of members of the Royal family supporting the Nazis and teaching The Queen, as a child to give the Nazi salute

"In the 1940s it supported nationalisation."
To pay for the promises of "a home fit for heroes to live in"

The CBI has followed the lead of various Tory governments every step of the way - i oy object to this why the fuuck do you support Tory Policy as you do?

The rest speaks fro itself - Brexit has proved a shambls from day one and not one of those attemting to depose May has come up with an alternative

A right little fascist, your uido - but we knew that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 12:41 PM

DMcG wrote: I set out below what I mean by "going well" in a conversation with Keith.

Will you?
Date and time of this? The ....If this happens we could both decide that we do not need to eat any pie at all

That's sounding very like a 'no', you know, Stanron.

To be precise, Keith and I were only talking about the 'no-deal' case. As to the date and time, it is earlier in this very thread. I said 'below', which is a bit confusing because it depends how you read the threads, but 'earlier' is clear enough. And it was based on fairly measurable things, like whether the motorways are being used as lorry parks three months after March 29th 2019.

For 'a deal', I am not sure there is too much measureable we could address within a year, given nothing much is likely to change before the end of the transition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 12:42 PM

"keepimg up a string of abuse instead of rational argument. Must be due to the pack mentality!
Are so stupid as not to realise how your abusive post complaining about abuse only underlines your own abusive stupidity
For Christs' sake - grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 12:42 PM

"keepimg up a string of abuse instead of rational argument. Must be due to the pack mentality!
Are so stupid as not to realise how your abusive post complaining about abuse only underlines your own abusive stupidity
For Christs' sake - grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 12:59 PM

Thinking about it, Stanron, there is no need to refer back to my conversation with Keith. I am quite happy if you suggest a list of things as measurable as whether the lorry parks are in use on such a date, that you are happy to use as tests of whether Brexit is a success or not. They need to be precise and measurable - things management theory refers to as S.M.A.R.T. rather than vague things like

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 01:01 PM

Oops! .... like exchange rates where causes are challengable.

I may not agree the whole list, but with luck there will be enough be can both agree to.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 03:15 PM

Gentlemen,

Once again can I remind you of my opening post when I asked that people refrained from personal abuse and stuck firmly to the topic of the thread.

Please ..........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 03:48 PM

"But if all the leavers change their minds and vote "Remain" where will this sudden flash of 'intelligence' come from?
Answer me that!"

No sudden flash of intelligence required. We've wlll had two and a half years of learning-curve brexiteer bullshit to inform us. We know a lot more now, in particular about all those issues that the June 23 2016 brexit brigade thought would be so easy. The Irish border, for example. And they won't all change their minds. Some of them will though. Which is what you're scared of.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 03:49 PM

We've all had. Tsk.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 05:26 PM

A right little fascist, your uido? - but we knew that.
No. It is what you like to label him as. Let me help you. Fascism = As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle. Sounds more like a definition of the loony leftards to me!

Care to point out a flaw in his statements, in my post above?

You are getting very boring constantly attacking the messenger because you cannot deny the message. Do you not get tired of repeating the same approach? You do not convince anyone with half an active brain cell.
Why do you not attempt adult argument, or does that present too much of a challenge?

An interesting aside from guido. Why lefties are totally unable to grasp economics, and thus totally unfit to govern. They escape to la la land in their infancy. As shown below.

https://order-order.com/2018/11/19/left-wing-students-demand-nus-spending-response-5-4m-deficit/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 06:10 PM

Don't respond, Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 06:14 PM

Yes, Don't respond, Jim, lest you make yourself look more a fool.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 07:48 PM

Corbyn's Sky interview was quite impressive and sure-footed. I disagree with Jezza on lots of things, but his emphasis on protecting jobs (real ones), workers' rights on both sides of the Channel and on environmental issues was good to hear. The interviewer was not one to take prisoners but she never got the better of him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 09:48 PM

"Once again can I remind you of my opening post when I asked that people refrained from personal abuse and stuck firmly to the topic of the thread."

It would be far easier to 'stick firmly to the topic of the thread' if our resident Right-Wing Extremist would stop trying to drag it away from Brexit, and turning it into an anti-Labour, pro-Conservative party-propaganda-piece. Typical of the diversionary tactics of the Right when the paucity of their arguments, and the untenability of their position on any given subject, are exposed.

So...after two-and-a-half years of floundering by our incompetent and clueless Brexit negotiators, is there any good news about Brexit yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Nov 18 - 10:25 PM

Yes. It's about to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 01:38 AM

"Yes. It's about to happen."

Perhaps you could expand on that, and explain to us precisely the benefits we will all experience when it's happened?

But I'll bet you can't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 02:17 AM

Take your time, think carefully about it, and then give us a list of benefits we will all feel from leaving the EU. Not airy-fairy nonsense like "Take our country back", or "Make our own laws" - 'we' won't take anything back, and 'we' won't make laws, those are the province of politicians and their immensely-wealthy puppeteers, and anything they do will be for their benefit, not ours - but real, solid, tangible benefits that will positively impact the daily lives of every man, woman, and child in the UK.

It's not a trick question - it's the question those of us who voted Remain have been asking the Leavers from the very start of the referendum campaign. And we're still waiting for answers.

Over to you Stanron......we won't hold our breath.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 02:48 AM

"Don't respond, Jim."
Little point Baccy
This feller started off as a bullying wannabe and has turned into an unresponsive Troll who has no interest in either the subject or what others have to say
He doesn't need my, or anybody's responses he has Guido and fellow-Troll Bobad to keep him warm
If this thread is to continue as it should (especially this week) can I suggest that nobody rises to their abuses - their erudition will hardly be missed and their are far more interesting things happening for us to be dealing with dysfunctional children
Onwards and upward
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 03:12 AM

"Don't respond, Jim."

Ha! That was Steve, Jim! :-)
But I agree with him....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 03:37 AM

Thought you would - you usually do
Hope you don't think I don't appreciate having so many guardian angels reminding me that too much makes you go blind :-)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 05:06 AM

He doesn't agree with me about dogshite, Jim! :-)

I see that the hard-right Tory brexiteers have failed to garner the support needed to bring on a no-confidence vote. The idiots don't seem to realise that their recent tactics have served only to bring her sympathy and strengthen her. No doubt there will be some flaking away of Commons opposition to the deal. The tactic will be to blame MPs who vote against the deal for threatening a no-deal brexit, with the disastrous consequences that would entail. Of course, she has the option of going for another public vote...

Unlike the predictions made in late 1914, this one won't be over by Christmas...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 05:31 AM

To be precise, Keith and I were only talking about the 'no-deal' case. As to the date and time, it is earlier in this very thread. I said 'below', which is a bit confusing because it depends how you read the threads, but 'earlier' is clear enough. And it was based on fairly measurable things, like whether the motorways are being used as lorry parks three months after March 29th 2019.
As a measure of the effects of Brexit, it needs to be made clear that the above is (presumably) talking about 'semi-permanent' use of the motorways as lorry parks. Let it be clear whether it is because of Brexit, rather than because of strikes in France

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 05:50 AM

A Ratner moment as the mail morphs into the gruniard.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-mails-gerald-ratner-moment/

Or as a former avid reader tweets:
Started buying the Telegraph this week after 30 years buying the Mail. Will miss Quentin Letts but the new editorial no longer chimes with me, might as well be the Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 05:52 AM

Backwoodsman wrote: "Yes. It's about to happen."

Perhaps you could expand on that, and explain to us precisely the benefits we will all experience when it's happened?

Remember the USSR? A union of eastern European states that collapsed after almost seventy years. The collapse can be attributed to the financial incompetance which followed a political dogma that suppressed individual initiative and enterprise.

I see signs that the EU is becoming a kind of western European equivalent to the USSR. Not exactly the same of course but it has it's own dogma, and we have all seen the inflexibile adherence to that, and there is plenty of evidence of financial incompetance.

I'd say that the EU will collapse, or at least change significantly, in the next twenty years. The sooner we are out the better.

Incidentally, remembering that the extreme Left in UK politics has always been Communist, it isn't surprising that they are the strongest supporters of what is now happening in Europe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 05:56 AM

Very interesting guesswork, Stanron, but your response is the standard Righty-tactic of deflection, and in no way answers the question. So answer the damn question!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:02 AM

In am happy to accept the caveat that we will only assess whether motorways are being as lorry parks if there has been no strike in France in the preceding week, or other agreed period. Once the strike has been over for that period, can we then use it as one criteria of success or otherwise of Brexit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:06 AM

So kind of you to describe your own question as damned. The main benefit of being out is that when it all goes pear shaped we will suffer less.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:16 AM

"Not exactly the same of course..."

Well not quite. The EU comprises 28 sovereign democracies which all must abide by strict human rights standards and the rule of law. In terms of domestic laws, the states are independent. They must abide by laws and regulations to do with trade, tarriffs, quality and welfare standards and environmental considerations that have to be agreed by the democratically-arrived at decisions of all member states, and there is the power of veto, especially by larger states such as the UK, over major issues such as the founding of a European army. The vast bulk of domestic laws in this country have nothing to do with the EU, and in money terms about one percent of our GDP is tied up with the EU. So yes, Stanron, apart from all that we're just like the USSR, aren't we?

In other words, before you post such twaddle here, do bear in mind that you're not talking to a bunch of idiots. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:18 AM

Care to take a little wager on that last statement?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

"The collapse can be attributed to the financial incompetence which followed a political dogma that suppressed individual initiative and enterprise."
On the contrary; The Soviet Union collapse was aimed at by outside nations who feared 'The Domino effect) from the day it wa established
The "financial incompetence" transformed the former Russian Empire semi-feudal group of countries into a contender on the world stage in four decades, industrialising the State and even throwing missiles into Space, being the first nation to do so (which probably had more to do with their downfall than "industrial incompetence had) - all this, despite massive losses in two world wars and a Civil War which drew in 14 invading foreign armies fighting on the side of the opponents.
The Soviet Union was set up to develop the "initiative" of all its people to the full - one of the rights written into its constitution was "homes for all", rather than our situation which is "homes for those who can afford them"
The downfall of the S.U was due in part to bad, ruthless leadership, but given their starting point, they didn't do to badlly on the world stage, and they did so with the overwhelming support of the people - even in the most oppressive times of Stalin's rule
The same goes for China, who was worse than Tsarist Russia when they started out - overwhelmingly semi-feudal -t a world leader in less than thirty years.
No entrepreneur or fortune seeking enterprise wold ever have started on that path - no profit in it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

As I thought, and suggested earlier, you aren't giving us any solid, tangible benefits which we will all feel after Brexit because you can't.

Why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

So, as Stanron has fallen at the first hurdle, can any of our other Brexiteer Bright-Sparks give us some actual benefits we will all feel the benefit of after we leave the EU? Guesswork and desperate hopes don't count.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 06:30 AM

So Stanron basically you have no idea of what benefits, if any, may result from us leaving the EU.

I am not surprised by this. Since the referendum I have not seen a positive forecast from any source whatsoever.

What I have seen is a government in absolute turmoil unable to agree a common strategy to any part of our leaving that will be of benefit to all parts of the UK.

What you, and all the others, can only promise is "pie in the sky"

(with apologies to Joel Emmanuel Hagglund)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 07:25 AM

If I have this right, Stanron, your hypothesis is that in a decade or two the EU will break up. By leaving now we incur a degree of pain - even Raab and Rees-Mogg agree about that - but the summation of that pain plus its consequences are less than the pain if we waited and fell out with everyone else.

What can you offer to support that hypothesis?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 07:43 AM

I note that the Mail today is referring to Rees-Mogg's 'Lemming Plot'. Little as I like the Mail, you have to acknowledge that they manage to find sound-bites that serve their purpose well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 07:57 AM

None of them can offer anything DMcG. In over 2 years there has been nothing positive from experts in this field so we should not expect anything from random people on a folk music forum.

I would say that the EU does have its problems and by leaving we are distancing ourselves from, for instance, the very poor treatment that Greece suffered. We will also be able to trade with non EU countries without having to apply tariffs. These are the sort of arguments they should expand on but they don't. I suspect it is because they now realise, like the rest of us, that the costs of these 'benefits' is far greater than the gains.

The current government debacle is not about leaving the EU. They know that is the worse possible outcome. It is about saving face and how they can stay in while pretending that they are still fulfilling the 'will of the people'. Brexit supporters are in the same position. They will just not admit that they were wrong, which is a perfectly human trait.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 08:01 AM

I wrote a few days ago that The government is fighting hard to ensure it does not have the right to cancel the Article 50 unilaterally. 

The UK Supreme Court has just ruled that the case should be heard by the ECJ as planned at the end of the month.

The government insists it will not withdraw Article 59. That is not the point at issue: they could decide not to withdraw it without needing the ECJ to rule they can't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 08:02 AM

50, not 59. Small keyboards and large fingers are a pain, you know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 08:10 AM

May's two major hurdles appear to be the The DUP have declared that they will not vote for the agreement and the Spanish have said tha they will vote against it in the EU parliament unless the Gibraltar question is clarified
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 08:46 AM

Oh, and I forgot to mention, in my response to Stanron, another ever so slight difference between Soviet Russia and the EU. When we leave the EU, the tanks will not come rolling into the streets of our capital city. Hardly a difference worth mentioning, eh, though, Stanron? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 09:30 AM

In over 2 years there has been nothing positive from experts in this field so we should not expect anything from random people on a folk music forum."

Who are the experts? the likes of mystic Meg? Judging by the major contributors here, there are a number of self proclaimed experts.But then one definition of an expert is: "whoever maketh the most noise".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 09:39 AM

Come on then Iains, you've had 30 months to come up with some positive outcomes for the UK from this situation.

So how about sharing them with us, something you and your co-brexiters, have signally failed to do thus far.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 09:51 AM

How do you discuss that which has not yet come to pass? All we have so far is proposals and opinion from very dubious experts. You may wish to work yourself into a frenzy over progressively more outlandish rumours that make a feeble attempt to masquerade as facts. Some of us are more
circumspect in our response to such provocations.
We have been told nothing is agreed   until everything is agreed. Otherwise we walk and keep the 35billion. (which increasingly looks like a fine idea)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 09:54 AM

Dave as human traits go I am often wrong for the right reasons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:04 AM

Iains, no one has, as yet, put forward any grounds for the "optimism" that Brexiteers seem to have about the future of the UK.

Almost without fail the forecasts have been bleakly pessimistic.

Now you may have reasonable grounds for your "optimism" but you have not told us what they are and understandably there are many who consider such grounds do not, in fact, exist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:12 AM

Almost 100% of economists are against brexit. A large majority of business leaders want to remain in the EU. Scientists, doctors and university lecturers seem to be, in the main, against brexit.

Who is batting for the leave team?

Farage the toad. Gove the snake. Johnson the bufoon. Rees-Mogg straight from the pages of Lord Snooty.

Come on, leavers. Give us a list of people who are for brexit that can match the heavyweights fighting to remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:19 AM

My list is 17,410,742 people. That is bigger than your list, and as you are told repeatedly, that is all that matters!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:19 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:04 AM
Iains, no one has, as yet, put forward any grounds for the "optimism" that Brexiteers seem to have about the future of the UK.
Almost without fail the forecasts have been bleakly pessimistic.

Might that be because the only people putting forward 'forecasts' are the relentlessly pessimistic remainers.
The 'forecasts' they were putting forward before the referendum, of an immediate black hole in the budget, mass unemployment, and massive tax rises to immediately follow the referendum if we voted 'leave' were all false.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:43 AM

Might that be because the only people putting forward 'forecasts' are the relentlessly pessimistic remainers.

So why are no optimistic leavers making forecasts? Apart from Prof Minford, of course, who happily lets much of UK farming fail ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 10:56 AM

Give us a list of people who are for brexit that can match the heavyweights fighting to remain.

The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, Both enfranchised, both votes equal.

Wots Muhamed Ali got to do wiv it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 12:12 PM

Every single one of us rely to a greater or lesser extent on what we are told by other people. We weigh the arguments and, when the option is a simple yes or no such as the referendum, we decide which way to vote. The leave team made a better job of lying to the electorate than the remain team did. Which is why more people voted to leave than to remain. Over 30% could not make up their minds. 30 months later the lies have been exposed and the dirty tricks have been revealed.

I, like everyone else, would like to believe I was right in rejecting the antics of the Farage menagerie but I seriously do hope I was wrong about what will happen. Sadly,every reputable source so far confirms my fears. Not one single argument has been put forth here to help allay them. On last performance I suspect that no such assurances will be forthcoming.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 12:18 PM

Over 30% could not make up their minds.


DO NOT MAKE RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 01:55 PM

https://uk.ambafrance.org/Europe-must-become-a-peaceful-empire-says-Minister
Not just a federal Europe,but an Empire no less!


Goodbye

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

Sorry, but you can't read. The term empire is used in a highly-philosophical sense in that link, not at all in the sense of a superstate with an emperor, the yarn you're presumably trying to sell us. The piece fully recognises the diversity and individualism (and the sovereignty) of the 28 nations. Have another go and desist from the silly scaremongering.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 02:04 PM

Over 30% of people did not vote. To say that they could not make their minds up is a far less ridiculous statement than they could not be bothered to vote. The truth probably lies somewhere between.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 02:13 PM

David Davis proves his worth - again!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 03:09 PM

The term empire is used in a highly-philosophical sense in that link
In your mind perhaps. The more discerning of us recognise the words used, the context used and prior statements concerning federalism.

Who do you think you are kidding mr teacher(ex)?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 18 - 03:22 PM

No, either you can't read or you're deliberately trying to mislead us. Today we've had Stanron with his EU/USSR fake equivalence, now you're trying to pretend that the EU is some kind of evil empire-to-come. It isn't, and you need to look back at your source, properly this time. It's saying the precise opposite of what you think it does.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 02:35 AM

Again, he's ampoyed the standard diversionary tactics of the Right, by isolating a tiny part of the whole piece - in this case a single word - and perverted it's meaning within the whole piece in order to give a false impression.

He provides a perfect example of the depths of deceit and dishonesty that the Right is prepared to plumb, in order to misinform and delude anyone feeble-minded enough to fall for their chicanery.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 02:38 AM

Nitpicking Nigs - don't bother. I realise I mistyped 'employed' three words in to my first sentence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 03:29 AM

Let us revisit the question in 20 years and see who was correct. I am confident!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 03:42 AM

In twenty years' time I'll almost certainly be pushing up the daisies and I won't give a damn. But my children will, and it's their future I care about - probably Right-Royally fucked-over by you Righty toadies-to-the-wealthy who voted to enable their tax-avoidance schemes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 03:48 AM

Macron the muppet.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/emmanuel-macron-pan-european-army-crackpot-idea/

and from the gruniard:
History suggests an EU that could evolve into a new Holy Roman Empire: a confederation of states, some big, some small, some little more than cities, like Monaco, San Remo and Lichtenstein.

France calls for EU 'empire' and warns of euro break-up in next crisis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk › Business
Napoleon dictatorship RETURNS: France sparks OUTRAGE as as ...
https://www.express.co.uk › News › World
The EU Is Looking Like Europe's Next Failed Empire - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/...09.../the-eu-is-looking-like-europe-s-next-failed-empir...
French Minister Wants EU to Become 'Empire' - Sputnik International
https://sputniknews.com/.../201811121069731439-french-minister-european-empire/

More than a couple of headlines suggest shaw's restricted analysis is away with the faeries. The usual posturing from the loopy left.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 04:59 AM

Perhaps you should look up the word "empire" in a dictionary, then tell us (not forgetting, of course, that the power of veto exists in the EU) how precisely you think an EU ""empire" could ever come about. Aspirational calls for such an entity have about as much credibility as the calls by extremist Islamists for the destruction of Israel. In other words, not a cat in hell's chance. As for a pan-European army, let me repeat for the umpteenth time: while the UK remains a member of the EU, that army can never come about. We've vetoed it. You're indulging in rather brainless and deceitful scaremongering. Finally, as for my analysis, at least I'm giving you one. There's no analysis from you, merely the chunderings of a right-wing blogger and unsupported links. You don't try very hard at all, except for your diligent and constant resort to confirmation bias.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 05:30 AM

Righty-Toadie is as Righty-Toadie does, Steve.
By their righteous stupidity (and their brown noses) shall ye know them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 05:33 AM

"Let us revisit the question in 20 years and see who was correct"
Sums up Brexit perfectly - nobody knows what will happen -
Economists have predicted that the adverse effects of Brexit will take this long to stabilise (if they ever do) - no responsible economic system can possibly survive on that basis, as the economists have stated over and over again - they need to plan.

Pause for a list of how many bad policies the Economists have backed from Guido the Gobshite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:47 AM

The twenty year timeframe misses the differences between succeeding and failing. You may not be able to tell if something is success until it has completed every stage, but you can detect failures much much earlier. If we used a space flight as an analogy you cannot say it has succeeded until the very end, but there are lots of points - launch, first stage separation, reaching orbit and so on.

And that is true of most things: you can detect something had failed/not-yet-failed many times and much earlier than the eventual success.

So you can see if Brexit is on course for success at least monthly over that 20 year period.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:57 AM

This is how Der Spiegel analyses Macron:
But he now wants to transform the elite project into a citizens' project and is proposing reasonable steps toward democratic self-empowerment of European citizens against the national governments who stand in each other's way in the European Council.
Call it federalism, call it empire, it is a vow to destroy the nation state. That in a nutshell is the problem! Tell me stevie, where is your national veto in the nightmare above? Answers on a postcard please!

You can bend it, twist it, shake it but those are weasel words he uses. If you wish to interpret his words through a happy clappy pinky fog of lefty ideology that is your affair. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/juergen-habermas-on-the-european-vision-of-emmanuel-macron-a-1174721.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:05 AM

Isn't it wildly optimistic to expect those who are Communist in all but name to disagree with the demise of the nation state?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:11 AM

https://unherd.com/2018/11/even-superforecasters-dark-brexit/

Predictions are hard, especially about the future, as Niels Bohr may have said. But that doesn’t stop people making them.

Except:"He had nearly 300 pundits make an average of 100 predictions each, and then saw how well they did over the coming months."

"What he found was that pundits’ calibration, on average, was no better than random guessing – or, as Tetlock described it, “than a dart-throwing chimpanzee”.

That sez all you need to know on the subject!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:16 AM

Except should of course be excerpt( before the pedants awake!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:17 AM

Emmanuel Macron has a term of five years as the President of France, at the end of which he can be replaced. He will have no lasting influence on whether or not the EU becomes a federal government but, by remaining in the EU, the UK can prevent that happening by virtue of our elevated status within the 28 Member-States, and our Veto.

The Brexit foisted on the majority of the British public by a small minority in a badly-flawed, advisory-only Referendum is, effectively, permanent.

The Brexit that The Praying Mantis is trying to push us toward will keep us tied to the EU, subject to many of its rules and regulations, but with no say in the formulation and application of those things.

The alternative Brexit to that proposed by The Praying Mantis - the 'No-Deal' hard Brexit - will leave us at the mercy of the US and China - effectively a vassal-state, reliant on them for trade, but too small and weak to influence the terms of trade agreements in our favour.

Time to abandon the whole stupid escapade, reverse A50, and remain with our friends in the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:21 AM

"Isn't it wildly optimistic to expect those who are Communist in all but name to disagree with the demise of the nation state?"
Dpmn't know who this is aimed at but, as far a I know, nobody here had ever proplosed the replacing of the present British system wita communist one
Reds under the bed has no place her unless you are prepared to substantiate your accusations with examples
Won't homd my breat
As far as the crass "nobody knows, let's wait and see" stupidity
Ant leadership who takes such a radical step as adopting a policy that will leave the nation in the dark (for trenty ****** years) has no right to describe themselves as leaders - the quoted phrase "lemmings" in today's press is more appropriate
Nobody can predict the nuts and bolts of future economical or political events, but in order to plan policy, a general direction has to be mapped out.
Can't wait for the next buget speech when the chancelor stands up and tells the nation - This is what we are going to do - no idea if it'll work or not"
Infantile nonsense !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:22 AM

"Isn't it wildly optimistic to expect those who are Communist in all but name to disagree with the demise of the nation state?"

Isn't it wildly optimistic to expect those who are Righy-Extremists to eschew hysterical McCarthyism?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:23 AM

And to save Nitpicking Nigs the trouble...I meant 'Righty'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 09:17 AM

Dpmn't know who this is aimed at but, as far a I know, nobody here had ever proplosed the replacing of the present British system wita communist one
Reds under the bed has no place her unless you are prepared to substantiate your accusations with examples
Won't homd my breat
Infantile nonsense ! Yup! A fine summary of your post. Always helps when you understand what has been said before jumping in,
A forlorn hope, I am sure.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

I think it worth reiterating that Europe is a collection of capitalist states working together to benefit their system - not to change it into something else
It is knee-jerk crassness to bring "communism" into the equation
Any "communist" worth his/her salt wouldn't be working for their ideals by supporting Europe
As far as I am concerned, Europe serves the people of the countries involved as well as any capitalist state will in the present situation
It is significant that those who dragged Britain into Brexit were Ultra rights like Farage, using ultra right arguments - "it's all the fault of those foreigners" -
The ultra-right have prospered by the populaism used to get Britain out, with the inevitable result; a rise in racism and the the re-emergence of long-dead policies and parties
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 09:52 AM

"Infantile nonsense ! Yup! A fine summary of your post"
Prove it with argument, not with your infantile insulting - as is your wont
Your hit and run cowardice is becoming tedious
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 10:13 AM

First one must demonstrate that the argument has been understood.
As you frequently demonstrate your inability to understand(as above) any further discussion is obviously an exercise in futility.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 10:13 AM

What I find to be so difficult with the point of Brexit as told by people like Iains and Nigel is that they want people to follow them but cannot tell us just where they are going, or just what the future will hold.

They tell us life will eventually be "better" but they cannot quantify what they mean by "better" or even when that eventually will be.

That is akin to being blindfolded and lead by a deaf, mute and blind man on a walk on a narrow cliff top path.

It's probably going to end in disaster.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 10:19 AM

Is it really too much to ask that quotes from others' posts are made in quotation marks and italicised?

I manage to do it, so it really isn't that difficult, and it would save those of us with real lives interminable time trying to make sense of posts, who said what, yadda, yadda.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

"First one must demonstrate that the argument has been understood."
Stop making excuses
You do this every time, first you disparage the arumnet without replying then you insult the poster, as you are doing now
It's about time you manned up and took part in this discussion instead of avoiding it with insults you are not in the position to make
Man up for christs sake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 11:18 AM

arumnet?? Is that to use in our fisheries nicked by the EU?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 11:36 AM

Typos - "the refuge of a moron, tp paraphrase
You have been asked on innumerable occasions to substantiate your abusive claims - you refuse to do so
To say you have been found wanting would be to understate
You would need a very large box to talk down to the smallest of us here, which is what you always attempt to do - very much like the Wizard of Oz with his Big megaphone from behind a screen   
If you don't wish to be part of this discussion - piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 12:59 PM

The laddie is a little behind the curve on this one!
https://order-order.com/2018/11/20/french-finance-minister-calls-europe-become-empire/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 01:10 PM

As Mr very angry said:
"Over the Millennia Europe, or rather other Continental nations, have suffered as either Francophone or Germanic nations have sought to build 'Empires' in Europe by violence. Over the last three centuries - approximately - us Brits have spent blood and treasure defending victim nations from one or other of these Teutonic or Latin aggressors, most notably twice in the 20th Century. Now we have the combination of the French and German bureaucracies (they have realised that they can dispense with the strutting would be Emperors of earlier times) seeking to build another Empire. You can be sure that this will end in tears. And Brexit might be the catalyst that stops this grand folly. And why would any real Brit want to be enslaved to such a construct?"

Very well summarised in my view!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 01:16 PM

"If you don't wish to be part of this discussion - piss off"
Most erudite!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 01:18 PM

"The laddie is a little behind the curve on this one!"
Which appears to be a confirmation that you don't wish to participate in this discussion
You wer asked again to substantiate your accusations
I suggest you don't make them again if you have no intention of backing them up

Good analysis of the catastrophic BOMBARDIER pull out from Northern Ireland as the shape of things to come in Brexit Britain AFTER LATEST ANNOUNCEMENT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 01:19 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 02:33 PM

"Mr Very Angry" is an idiot. Modern-day France and Germany are solid democracies (currently both with highly-unpopular leaders). In order to create an "empire" they would have to act as a single sovereign power (impossible, I'd say, as that would require their own democracies to be ditched) and sweep aside 26 other democracies, each of which is highly individualistic and possessed of national pride, in order to reign over them. Well we'd have to endure the collapse of western civilisation to get anywhere near anything like that. The structure of the EU simply does not permit moves in that direction, what with powers of veto all over the place and a constitution that requires unanimous consensus on all major issues. Quite frankly, it's just ridiculous talk. I suppose it makes an unrefreshing change from hearing about "having our laws imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels." I'd say the chances of your fearmongering prediction coming about are around 0.00001 percent. And with the UK in the EU, 0.000001 percent.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 02:49 PM

Well, lets see.

Over 4 hours have elapsed since I last posted.

I asked if either Nigel or Iains could provide some positive reason for anyone to subscribe to the UK leaving the EU.

This is not the first time I have asked such a question, in fact I've been asking the same question for 30 months.

Needless to say neither Nigel or Iains have replied to my quite straightforward and simple question.

You have to ask why they cannot, or will not, answer.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 03:14 PM

Easy, Raggytash. Ideology.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 04:12 PM

Ideology?

Idiotology, more likely!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 04:16 PM

Remarkable how the Brexiteers witter on about the Remain campaign's supposed 'Project Fear', yet all we get from Brexiteers is.....their own version of Project Fear'. Not a positive fact, or even projection, from any of them, just forecasts of doom, doom, doom for the EU's Member States.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 06:40 PM

From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 02:49 PM
Well, lets see.
Over 4 hours have elapsed since I last posted.
I asked if either Nigel or Iains could provide some positive reason for anyone to subscribe to the UK leaving the EU.
This is not the first time I have asked such a question, in fact I've been asking the same question for 30 months.
Needless to say neither Nigel or Iains have replied to my quite straightforward and simple question.
You have to ask why they cannot, or will not, answer.

Answer?
Maybe you need to re-read your own (most recent) post of 10.13 am:
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 10:13 AM
What I find to be so difficult with the point of Brexit as told by people like Iains and Nigel is that they want people to follow them but cannot tell us just where they are going, or just what the future will hold.
They tell us life will eventually be "better" but they cannot quantify what they mean by "better" or even when that eventually will be.
That is akin to being blindfolded and lead by a deaf, mute and blind man on a walk on a narrow cliff top path.
It's probably going to end in disaster.

Maybe there has been no answer (to your question) because you only made a statement of your own opinions. There was (as far as I can see) no question posted.

To fail to ask a question, and then to demean the people who 'fail to answer it' is a very dubious tactic!

As to the analogy of being lead by a blind, deaf, mute, at least he will still have the sense of smell to enable him to lead you away from the shit-pool you've been wallowing in.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 06:43 PM

"Mr Very Angry" is an idiot. Modern-day France and Germany are solid democracies (currently both with highly-unpopular leaders).
It says much for the level of democracy within those countries that they can have 'highly-unpopular leaders'. If they are so democratic, why are those leaders still in place?
In contrast, Mrs May's days may be numbered.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:06 PM

This latest tack, of demonisation of the EU on the grounds of there being a conspiracy to create an empire, etc. (a strained variation on the theme that we'll get "ever closer union"), has the ring of desperation about it. Even without the UK in the EU, the proposition is completely wacky. And the irony is, following their logic, which I don't, is that the best way to avoid what they're scared of is for the UK to stay in the EU. In the same way, the best way to avoid there being a European army is for the UK to stay in the EU. There's no doubt that the UK leaving the EU will rock Europe. Which is precisely what the world doesn't need right now. As things stand, the EU is by far the safest place on earth for democracy on anything like a global scale. India is chaotic and corrupt. China has a dictator for life and doesn't give a flying shite about human rights. I've just covered half of the world's population. The US as a democracy is dying on its feet. Don't get me started on the Middle East or Brazil. I can't understand people who want to see the demise of the EU. It would be the end of democracy on this planet. There's literally nowhere else. If we stay we can fight all the EU's myriad absurdities from within. Outside, they will do things that we don't want and which will be to our detriment and on which we will have no say. Yet we'll still be doing half our trade with them. Leaving the EU at this juncture would be an incredibly stupid mistake. Only the ideological blind would now support that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:14 PM

"It says much for the level of democracy within those countries that they can have 'highly-unpopular leaders'. If they are so democratic, why are those leaders still in place?"

You don't really understand democracy, do you, Nigel? They were popular enough to get elected. They are still in place because their democratic electoral systems have yet to boot them out. But democracy demands that that potential is always there. Perhaps you're implying that unpopular leaders in democracies should be ousted by military coups. I think we should be told...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:27 PM

I'm pleased to see you admit that, without our influence, the EU will do stuff of which we do not approve. I have no confidence that an unwanted veto could not be circumvented.

As to half our trade being with the EU, yes we do buy stuff from them, and it's more than they buy from us.

Did you know that if we sell stuff to America, China, Australia or anywhere outside the EU and the ship it is in visits the EU on it's way that is counted as trading with the EU? The same for stuff coming into the UK. Half our trade with them is probably a false figure.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:43 PM

You don't really understand democracy, do you, Nigel?

Yes, I do.
I understand that in the UK, when a referendum is called, and a majority vote in favour of a given proposition, that is taken as the will of that majority. Our democracy makes no allowance for how those who chose not to vote, or failed (for some reason) to exercise their right to vote, might have voted. So, despite all your attempts to re-write history, the 'democratic will' of the UK (according to our system of democracy) is that we will leave the EU.

Do you understand democracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 07:59 PM

Do you understand democracy?

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:17 PM

"I'm pleased to see you admit that, without our influence, the EU will do stuff of which we do not approve. I have no confidence that an unwanted veto could not be circumvented."

You may have no confidence, old chap, but you can't point to a single instance during our forty-odd years of membership in which any "unwanted veto" of ours, or of anyone else's for that matter, has been circumvented. It's just more twaddle, isn't it, Stanron?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:24 PM

You think that the future is twaddle?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:25 PM

Well, you see, Nigel, you said you couldn't understand why deeply unpopular leaders in democracies are still in office. So I patiently explained to you that we have elections every few years, in these democracies of ours, that help to redress such things. I had to explain to you that we don't have military coups in democracies that remove unpopular leaders. If there's anything else about democracies you don't get, do let me know. I'd be pleased to explain it all to you in words of one syllable.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 18 - 08:32 PM

Answer the question, Stanron. You are trying to claim that the EU can circumvent vetoes. I asked you for a single example of that having happened during our membership. Thing is, it never has happened. I suggest you find something else to try to scare us with.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:12 AM

When you say May is unpopular and could be replaced, Nigel, who did you have in mind to replace her who is more popular?

Recent 'popularity poll'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:42 AM

So, despite all your attempts to re-write history, the 'democratic will' of the UK (according to our system of democracy) is that we will leave the EU.

And you are usually so careful about such things! It would be accurate (so far as the term is meaningful) to say that was the will of the people. To insist it is the will is asserting something that is unknown.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

"And you are usually so careful about such things! It would be accurate (so far as the term is meaningful) to say that was the will of the people. To insist it is the will is asserting something that is unknown."

Ha! The Biter Bit! Or should I say "The Nitpicker Out-Nitpicked!"?

Nice one, DMcG!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:22 AM

Hoist by his own petard!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:33 AM

Raise your glasses to the neverendum.

Two years of planning and negotiation, on the brink of an agreement, but wait, we have to test the will of the people again!

Do we have our neverendums yearly, monthly, weekly or daily, or just until you get the result you want?

This approaches one definition of madness.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:46 AM

"You think that the future is twaddle?"
DEPENDS ON THE FUTURE - SURELY?

"that is taken as the will of that majority. "
Utterly false
Unless the voter is given access to all the necessary information, any decision they take is flawed - in this case, dangerous
Rather than planning for the future, this vote was won on withheld information, outright lies and by drawing in the genuine fears engendered by politicians who blame others for their failings - in this case, immigrants
It was led by a man who is now discredited and whose party has collapsed due to its vicious policies and poor organisation - a party based on hate
Not one of you people have had the common decency to acknowledge the social damage done by the policy that drove this decision (Nigel attempted to down-play the seriousness of the rise in racism - some people seem to do that)
The only "democratic" thing to now is to ask the British people to reconfirm the decision KNOWING WHAT THEY NOW KNOW
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:51 AM

The last referendum was the second one, actually, Stanron. I don't recall hearing you complaining then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:01 AM

Once again Nigel you are fudging the issue. you have been asked many, many times over the past 30 months what benefits leaving the EU will bring to the people of the UK.

Not once have you even attempted to answer that question, nor have any of your fellow Brexiteers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

An even more democratic thing would be to give the Commons a free vote on whether brexit should go ahead. The debate leading to the vote should be predicated entirely on what is now seen, after two and a half years of angst, to be in the country's best interests. This is too serious and long-term in its implications to be subject to tribalistic party politics. The 2016 vote was not binding on Parliament just because a bloke who likes to pretend to be sucked off by dead pigs said so and Article 50 can be overturned. We elect our MPs to make big decisions and we can chuck them out if we think they get it wrong. Calling referendums comes a very poor second. But at the moment there seems to be no other way out of this morass.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

Simple question for anybody
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAIN?
Don't really expect an answer, given the track records of those defending Brexit, which more or less sums up the lip-service they pay to democracy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 06:23 AM

In today's Guardian:

US trade deal would flood Britain with 'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon


Trade deal would open door to meat containing banned growth promoters, from pigs kept in conditions banned in UK, industry leaders warn

Tom Levitt

The US meat lobby is “salivating” at the prospect of flooding the UK with bacon and pork produced using practices that are currently illegal in the UK, a top food expert has warned.

Gestation crates and the chemical growth hormone ractopamine – both banned in the UK – are regularly used in the US pig industry, which achieves the lowest costs of production in the world. Any future trade deal which includes accepting US pork could potentially have a disastrous impact on the UK’s pig industry as well as diluting our welfare standards, say both industry and campaigners.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Tim Lang, from City University, said the British public needed to “wake up” to the dangers of animal welfare being rolled back as the UK prepares to leave the EU.

“[The US] secretary of state for commerce has already made it clear EU standards must go if the UK wants trade deals. Did voters really want leaving the EU to mean taking us out of a powerful and – by global standards – progressive trade block, and into the clutches of US big food?”

In the US, the chemical ractopamine is fed to the majority of pigs as a growth promoter. There is evidence that it causes lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals and its use has been banned in the EU since 1996.

A sow stall or gestation crate is a metal enclosure that holds the pig in a confined space during pregnancy. It is too small to allow the animal to turn around. It is legal in all but nine US states, none of which are major pig producers, and is used ostensibly to prevent larger pigs from taking food from smaller ones and to enable farmers to keep productivity higher.

However, the practice has been criticised for restricting the ability of animals to move or carry out natural behaviours such as rooting, and the UK was one of the first countries in the EU to ban its use in 1999.

..............................................................................................

Hands up all those brexiteers who thought that this is what they were voting for. Well, I suppose that the inhumane US bacon will go nicely with my chlorine chicken traybake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 07:54 AM

The barmy buggers don't care Steve. All they care about is 'Taking Are Cuntry Back' and 'Make Are Own Laws', and 'Get Rid Of Unelected Bureaucrats' - the meaningless twaddle the feeble-minded fuckwits allowed themselves to be sucked in by during the election campaign.

And, now the writing's on the wall and the catastrophe is unfolding before our eyes, the thick, cowardly twunts haven't even got the balls to admit they were led up the garden path by a few immensely-rich tax-avoiders with a not-very-well-hidden agenda.

Brexiteers? I've shat better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:03 AM

A little toon for remainiacs who either have a restricted vocabulary, or suffer from Coprolalia


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vka2ZgzZTvo

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:04 AM

There is nothing wrong with asking people to vote again. This is why we have general elections every so often.

Trade deals with the USA seem highly likely to involve a lowering of 'standards', which are often seen as being nothing but protectionism in disguise. De-regulation is indeed one of the things that some Brexiteers wanted; they wanted less red-tape around business ie fewer regulations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:11 AM

How weird is that? don't know how I accomplished that link above
Try this one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT2Vx9jSyjg

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:19 AM

Don't waste your energy on serious discussion of brexit in a brexit thread whatever you do. Heaven forfend. Just keep on posting silly blogs and YouTubes, why don't you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:29 AM

I have no lack of English vocabulary skills, my degree confirms it. However, there are times when a little Anglo-Saxon not only adds emphasis and reinforcement in a form easily understood by those less gifted than oneself, but also provides release from the pressure which builds up when one reads the bovine ordure passed off by Brexiteers as 'discussion' on threads of this kind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:02 AM

Do we have our neverendums yearly, monthly, weekly or daily, or just until you get the result you want?

No, Stanron. We have general elections at a minimum 5 year interval. In those we vote for people who should make the right choice for the good of the country. If they do not do so, we elect someone that does. This referendum was an ill advised and deceptive campaign by the very people we pay to make the right choice. They abdicated responsibility. The results can never be overturned. If you cannot see the difference then we cannot get any further with the discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:05 AM

So we have two monks who have taken a vow of silence on the bals0-up that is Brexit and an unimaginative spokesman for blogger, Paul Staines posting meaningless blogs
Where have all the debaters gone ?

It's just been announced that the EU has accepted May's proposals in principle - hard-liners are describing the acceptance of the Customs Union as a betrayal, but have yet to come up with an alternative to any of the major problems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:26 AM

Apparently we voted to get back control of our fish. The fact that May has negotiated an agreement based on quotas and access to waters means that this is not Brexit. Does this mean we are not allowed to have any agreements with the EU about anything if this is to be a real 'Brexit'? Sounds fishy to me :)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 10:11 AM

If you have coal, it's your coal and foreigners can't come here and mine it and take it away. That's our good luck. We have coal, but we can't grow bananas or avocados. So we have to buy those, not steal them from someone else's territory. If you haven't got coal, you have to sell what you do have and buy coal if you need it. If you have gold or diamonds in them thar hills, the same. Australia is extremely rich in iron ore, so much so that flogging it to the Chinese enabled Oz to bypass the recession. Good luck to them, its their stuff. We should draw a line on the map around all our shoreline exactly half way from other countries, and say that any foreign fishing boat that trespasses inside that line will be sunk by our navy. The boundary limit in open ocean should be at least a hundred miles offshore. Those fish are ours. We should have to agree a responsible fishing policy, but, other than that, they're ours alone. And no Wild West in the open oceans either: we need sensible international treaties for maintaining ecosystems and fish stocks. I'd be the first to admit that the EU fisheries policy is a total balls-up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

Poses a bit of a problem in the Atlantic with the south of Ireland being in the EU and the north not! Pretty sure the French would complain about the Channel Islands too. Mind you, they complain about everything :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

The French have been unhappy since Agincourt! The only difference now is that we need to raise 2 fingers to the rest of Europe as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

The truth about Agincourt

I like the bit that says "Agincourt typified the struggle of little England against the world and heroism, particularly of the common man."

The little Englanders are still trying to repeat it 600 years later...

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:31 PM

Getting a touch racist, I think
The Australians used to ask "How do you know it's a British plane that's landed - cos it continues whining after the engines have been turned of"
About as fair as denigrating any national group, I think
I think that over the last few years, Britain has done far more whining than any and the Europeans have been extremely tolerant
Glass houses, throwing stones and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:42 PM

Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form. I wonder if he did it all by himself, or the true patriots bundled him out?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:14 PM

"Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form."
Rich, coming from a raving racist
Perhaps if you can find someone to read you what I wrote I said it is unfair denigrating any National group - which would include Irish "bog" dwellers, and "thieving gypsies - not to mention the Muslim victims of the criminal you tried to have released with your efforts on his petition
Brexit was based on racism and aimed at people like you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:22 PM

"true patriots"
Now there's a blast from our Imperial past
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:27 PM

Well I haven't got round to the necessary tweaks of the details, Dave. But I really don't want a bloody EU fishing policy, even if we stay in. I don't go into France or Spain to steal their Burgundy or chorizo rings, so they shouldn't come here nicking our fish. Every nation has its own unique assortment of national resources, and that helps to make the world go round. So let them either catch fish in their own waters or buy ours.

And, in the spirit of Backwoodsman, let me preempt Nitnigelpicker by pointing out that I know about the lost apostrophe in my post before this one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:57 PM

Not sure of the nuts and bolts of this, but to be honest, I can't see much wrong with this
What is the Common Fisheries Policy?

The CFP is a set of rules for managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks. Designed to manage a common resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly.

Stocks may be renewable, but they are finite. Some of these fishing stocks, however, are being overfished. As a result, EU countries have taken action to ensure the European fishing industry is sustainable and does not threaten the fish population size and productivity over the long term.

Stocks may be renewable, but they are finite. Some of these fishing stocks, however, are being overfished. As a result, EU countries have taken action to ensure the European fishing industry is sustainable and does not threaten the fish population size and productivity over the long term."

We spent enough time wit East Anglian fishermen to realise the damage done by overfishing the North Sea long before the E.U. was a twinkle in anyone's eye
Overfishing is down to multinational's greed, and British multinationals are as avaricious as any - go look at the damage they'vedone to farming land
Jim Carroll

"The CFP is a set of rules for managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks. Designed to manage a common resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

Well we've had disastrous overfishing even with the common fisheries policy. There is no reason why the UK couldn't regulate its own fish stocks sustainably just as well as, if not better than the EU. In a way, this is beside the point. Yes I know that fish swim around and that spawning grounds don't respect territories. But geology and climate, on the whole, don't respect territories much either. We don't share our land-based natural resources cost-free with other countries. I see the fish in our territorial waters in the same way. And so does the overwhelming majority of our fishing industry. Those fish are ours.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:07 PM

"There is no reason why the UK couldn't regulate its own fish stocks sustainably just as well as"
Do yuo think getting out of Europe is going to quench the thirst of teh multinationals or a persuade a government that depends on them to regulate
Give us a break Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:41 PM

Number one, I don't want to get out of Europe. Number two, the CFP is an unmitigated disaster, both for fishing stocks/marine ecosystems and for the fishing industry, and always has been. Number three, up to half of all EU fishing is done illegally. Number four, bycatch and excess catch has to be thrown back into the sea, even though it's all dead fish. Ridiculous. Number five, a shocking fishing policy, which it is, is not a reason for getting out of the EU. Fisheries yield a tiny proportion of EU production. Reform has never been remotely effective. The CFP is a failure and is one case over which we really do have to "take back control." We couldn't do any worse. But none of this stops me from being an ardent remainer. I've never denied that the EU embraces many absurdities, and this is, intractably, an egregious example of that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 02:10 AM

I am not so opposed to the CFP as that but what it does emphasise is that remainers do not think the EU is wonderful and perfect. It is a messy and flawed compromise between lots of competing interests and few if any people who look at it on depth will be completely happy with those compromises. And yes, introducing changes is difficult precisely because it is a negotiated compromise. But that is true of many things in life and not in itself a reason to abandon it.

But all this is backward-looking, I would suggest. The 2016 result is what it is. What matters is where we go from here. It was interesting on Newsnight that three pundits were asked what is likely to happen and two bottled out part of the way through the process: they were happy to make best guesses up to a point, but not of the final end state. The third ended up with May's deal but only after all the alternatives had been tried but rejected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 02:32 AM

I don't know who else attempted to read to 580-odd page agreement. I have made my way through about a third of it, but it is hardly light reading. Anyone else had more success?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 03:52 AM

Not me, cousin McG. I am waiting for you to summarise it for us :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:04 AM

The EU is far from perfect and the CFP is one of its worst attributes, failing to achieve almost all of its stated aspirations, failing to prevent illegal fishing on a huge scale and demanding the absurdity of throwing perfectly good fish back into the sea, dead. Bloody awful policy! The Common Agricultural Policy is almost as bad. It sucks up a huge amount from the EU budget (41%!) yet agriculture comprises just one and a half percent of EU GDP. In the UK, agriculture represents less than one percent of GDP. The elephantine subsidy structure has been highly protectionist, it encourages fraud, it has encouraged farmers to grow inappropriate crops such as maize on sloping land (highly polluting) and encouraged bad practice such as hedgerow removal, it has promoted indiscriminate use of chemicals which are wiping out birds and pollinating insects, it has resulted in massive overproduction at various times and it has paid farmers to do nothing. The millionaire barley barons have received massive subsidies whereas small farmers have got next to nothing. A single cow gets a hundred times more in subsidy than we give in per capita aid to the poorest African nations. These absurdities keep popping up and the EU is always several years behind the pace in trying to correct them. If ever there was evidence that a policy needs a root and branch rethink, it's that. I'm an ardent remainder as I've said, but there are some matters, such as agriculture and fisheries, which can't be controlled by gigantism and which are best left to individual nations, which should have to adhere to a basic framework of standards for animal welfare and environmental protection but which should have the bureaucratic fetters (and subsidies) removed.

So there! No sycophancy from ME!   :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

I'm not quite a remainder as yet, but I am a remainer. The spell check hates the word remainer and loves to put in that d. The compiler thereof is clearly a brexiteer!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:57 AM

Recent poll data ( from our favourite pundit guido)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/11/my-new-brexit-poll-good-for-theresa-may-bad-for-her-deal/
I wonder if it is any more accurate than ipsos mori?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 06:30 AM

I wonder if it is any more accurate than ipsos mori?"
I wonder if anybody even bothers opening anything labelled "Guido"
As for the other piece of conservative shit...... stupid name calling - beyond belief
Stop dragging this discussion down to your miniscule level
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 06:48 AM

Well lets try and get some things cleared up.

1. It is not from Guido, it is from Lord Ashcroft.

2. Lord Ashcroft is a former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.

3. Lord Ashcroft is a Billionaire, estimated wealth circa 1.7 Billion.

4. Lord Ashcroft is a tax exile.

5. The poll (after a quick read) does not mention the number of people asked. Was is 10, 100, 1000 etc thus it is not necessarily at all accurate.

6. Thus: it is in all probability a load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:07 AM

Earlier quote from our self-accaimed ttrue patriot
"Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form. I wonder if he did it all by himself, or the true patriots bundled him out?"
TRUE PATRIOTS ALL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:24 AM

Another of your heroes Iains has had some bad news today.

The BBC report today that extreme right wing activist Tommy Robinson is not wanted in the UKip ranks by none other than Nigel Farage.

If even Farage does not want him it speaks volumes.

Link

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:48 AM

On fishing there has in fact been some progress within the EU, but it seems that it would be naïve to suppose that British policy would be much better. Also, I cannot see how international agreements on quotas designed to prevent depletion of stocks would be easier to negotiate with European countries when some of our leading politicians have insulted Europeans and we have walked away from the EU.

On throwing dead fish back, see

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/21608848

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:57 AM

Wonder which of his two buddies Bannon will be going with, Farage or Yaxley-Lennon?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 08:13 AM

"Glad to see your powers of observation and analysis remain a tad above zero."
Interesting to see you contributions have not risen above the level of abuse
Treating the word of a criminal blogger as gospel is both stupid and lazy
Put a bit of imagination into your abuse if you're going to persist
Like this, perhaps
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/postmistress-may-roadie-rees-mogg-and-the-great-twatsby-dominate-tory-conference-1.3651455

Beats your Tory ladies hands down, I suggest

"even Iains is giving him a wide berth "
Don't bet on it, Tory messiahs are thin on the ground nowadays
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 10:54 AM

Thanks for that update on discards, Karen. I was a bit out of date. But it confirms what I was saying about the EU being behind the pace when bad things are being done (in agriculture AND fisheries). Farming and fishing people are out to make money, as business people, and taking the long view in matters of welfare, conservation and the environment often comes a very poor second. If we didn't stop farmers from using neonicotinoids, they wouldn't stop themselves and the bees would all disappear. If there weren't heavy penalties, our rivers would be filled with slurry. If we hadn't taken severe measures to put things right, our sausages would be coming from pigs bred in stalls too small for sows to turn over and kept in filthy Belsen-houses, and we'd be eating battery chicken. Not saying there aren't good farmers. But when you meet the typical farmer it's making money coming first, and other considerations are low down the priority list.

And those fish that are no longer thrown back, well they're largely made into fishmeal. Which feeds farmed fish. How nice. Don't get me started on fish farming.

Would it be any better if individual nations made up their own rules? Probably not. And if we're going to trade in agricultural and fish products with the EU (hopefully as members) we need common minimum standards in terms of environmental considerations, quality and welfare. My grouse is that, in these two areas, the EU has done a rotten job and either must get its act together or consider whether there's a better way. Not good enough!   And I'm still an avid remainer!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM

Fishing and taking back control

Leaked EU memo

Two relevant articles on fishing in today's Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 12:52 PM

Steve

I'm no expert at all: I was just hoping the thread could get a bit more focussed. I found out the info about two minutes before posting it, but the example does show how easy it is to get out of date. My feeling is that the fishing industry is probably doomed to overfish itself into oblivion. And since it seems fish are getting full of plastics we have dumped into the ocean, I'm getting less attracted to the idea of eating them.

Regarding research into pesticides, the precautionary principle seems like a good idea to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 01:38 PM

I agree, Karen.

Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides that kill bees and other pollinators via nectar and pollen. Then they pass up food chains into birds and other insectivores. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Widespread use on crops can result in runoff into waterways where fish and insect larvae may be killed. They are a severe threat to whole ecosystems and to our food supply. The time for vacillation about them is long past. But unless we ban them gardeners and farmers will carry on using them. The mindset is that if we can legally buy them they're safe. Not true. The EU has been slow to act but there are some moves being made. They are found in some garden sprays such as Roseclear Ultra and Bugclear, and in Provado vine weevil killer. It behoves gardeners to read the labels and familiarise themselves with the names of the culprit chemicals, and maybe ask the shop to stop stocking the products containing them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 01:47 PM

Thanks Steve. So that's what has been destroying bees?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:49 PM

Are we only allowed to post lefty leaning propaganda on here now?
A perfectly reasonable post about Merkel calling for the relinquishment of the nation state has been deleted.

Fighting this movement was a major drive for voting to leave the EU.

In a thread about Brexit it is an integral part of the discussion especially as it reinforces the statement by Macron calling for a european empire to be formed. This was staunchly denied by some here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:09 PM

I asked for a reset of this thread and someone has deleted it. Ok. Let me ask again. Raggytash, any chance of your reiterating your bollocking of the eejits who have ground us into the earth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:43 PM

Well lets try and get some things cleared up.
1. It is not from Guido, it is from Lord Ashcroft.
2. Lord Ashcroft is a former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.
3. Lord Ashcroft is a Billionaire, estimated wealth circa 1.7 Billion.
4. Lord Ashcroft is a tax exile.
5. The poll (after a quick read) does not mention the number of people asked. Was is 10, 100, 1000 etc thus it is not necessarily at all accurate.
Clearly a 'quick read'. Almost at the bottom it offers "Download the full data tables" Doing this shows that it was a poll of 3189 adults.
6. Thus: it is in all probability a load of bollocks.

If it doesn't match your pre-conceived notions, feel free to ignore it. But don't question its basis without at least attempting to find an answer for yourself.
Does any part of your second and third points invalidate the poll in any way?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 02:59 AM

The clue is in the name of the poll company. Lord Ashcroft Polls. Common sense dictates that you need to look at who commissioned a poll to detect if there may be any bias. Would you expect a survey of breakfast cereals commissioned by Kellogg to conclude that Nestle was best? So, yes, the points do have a bearing.

The number surveyed is not as relevant as how they were surveyed. Do we know how it was done? Random sampling? Active sampling of a larger base? Internet survey? Telephone? A combination?

I think we should stick to the larger pollsters like Mori and YouGov who are transparent in their methods.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 03:38 AM

Mean while the french are out protesting about the cost of fuel

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 03:43 AM


Fighting this movement was a major drive for voting to leave the EU

For some, undoubtedly. But the problem is that there were many factors, and things that were of crucial importance to some people were of little or no importance to others. This is why the more sensible Leavers do not talk about "the will of the people", they talk about "implementing the referendum result." The second is known, well defined and fixed. The "will of the people" is more or less constantly unknown, which is why those who want to say this is the will of the people have to claim that will is unchanging, or find themselves of the shaky ground of implementing something that they admit might no longer reflect the will of the people, while in general refusing to have another referendum to find out whether the will has changed.

No, must better to be sensible and talk about implementing the referendum result and drop this "will of the people" stuff, with its overtones of a Galahad or Percival on a Noble Quest to rescue Albion. Implementing the result is a duller, less flamboyant piece of bureaucratic work, but it is at least known.

If you do insist on talking about the will of the people stuff, you get things like this from this weeks Prime Minister's Questions.

"Conservative Andrew Rosindell has the first question. He says the people of Romford are unhappy with the prime minister's proposed deal."


Sorry. You know they voted leave in the main. You know you are unhappy with the deal. You do not know the people are unhappy with the deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 03:54 AM

I had a message from an American friend who posed the question about another referendum. We had one in 1975 that said stay. The last one, in 2016, said leave. Why not have a third and make that one the decider. Makes sense to me :-)

Also puts the brexiteers point about standing by the result in perspective doesn't it. If it was ok to have a second referendum because they did not like the result of the first, why not have another?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 04:08 AM

I should perhaps say I am still against the idea of another referendum. It may happen circumstances force us to it, but I would much prefer the way forward was sorted in Parliament without another referendum. I fear to hold one would open up more problems than it would solve. And no-one should assume it would go their way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 05:31 AM

And another bites the dust

There seems to be quite an outbreak of leading Leavers saying staying is better than leaving under May's deal...

(I already appreciate, by the way, they may prefer no deal to either)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 06:35 AM

Correct me if Iam wrong but I believe the only people talking about the will of the people are remainers. What caused anyone to vote the way they did is an unknown. Many factors dictated the way the vote went.

To use the "will of the people" as a way of debasing the result is an exercise in futility. The vote was leave in the majority. Analysis of the outcome after the event is akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I wonder why there is a reluctance to believe a poll just because of who financed it? Why bother to hold a poll at all if the results are to be massaged?
   Just because a millionaire funded it and guido referred to it you automatically write off the results before even studying it. If you cannot be bothered to do a little digging, before quoting the party line, why are you here? Not much point in any attempt at discussion with those that close their eyes and ears.

Just remember what Ipso Mori predicted prior to the referendum:
Ipsos MORI extended their fieldwork into the final day of campaigning and updated their final predictions from a four-point to an eight-point Remain win

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 06:51 AM

"Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the only people talking about the will of the people are remainers"
You're wrong
"The will of the people" has been the argument of the Brexiteers from day one, even though the reasons for reaching that result have been persistently challenged by those by those believe it to be th wrong decision

There is no earthly reason for not holding a second referendum - it would be the democratic thing to do
It would give people the chance to reconsider the vote, now kwing the possible consequences and the questions that have been raised since the first vote
Nobody nows the result, but it is more and more obvious that the Brexiteers are the ones who have lost confidence in 'The People's Choice'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 06:51 AM

Correct me if Iam wrong but I believe the only people talking about the will of the people are remainers. 

Then be corrected! Nigel did so very recently on this thread. Or do you think Nigel is a remainer?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 07:08 AM

Quite happy to be corrected. The fact remains the vote was for out.

Nobody nows the result, but it is more and more obvious that the Brexiteers are the ones who have lost confidence in 'The People's Choice'

No. We are losing confidence in the PM's promise to deliver. The tories may well suffer a massacre at the polls should brexit be castrated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 07:22 AM

"No. We are losing confidence in the PM's promise to deliver. "
That is no argument for not having a second referendum
The question is whether the likely consequences are nor acceptable to the people
Part of the damage done has been that one way or the other, the strong leadership needed to steer Britain into 'standing on its own two feet' has been totally fractured
THere is no clear consensus in the Tory party and many of the leaders have used this split as a career opportunity - the leading party is now involved in an undignified dog-fight
No grounds for building a new Britain whatever
To go ahead without confirmation would be a total renaging of the duty of any government
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 07:30 AM

Incidentally, there were no specified details of hw Britain should leave so The Prime Minister has failed nobody
You claim nobody knows why the minority of the pulatition voted the way they did, so you have no grounds for suggesting that she has betrayed the people - it is the hard-liners who are dissatisfied
Only a second referendum can show what 'The People' want NOW THEY HAVE MORE TO GO ON
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 07:50 AM

YOU COULDN'T EVEN ORGANISE A DAY OUT ON THIS BASIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 09:45 AM

losing confidence in Theresa...surely not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 12:23 PM

She makes a good politician! 'nuff said!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 01:20 PM

Foster and Johnson join forces to oppose the agreement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 02:42 PM

I gather 'nothing has changed' about Gibraltar. One of May's favourite ways of describing significant changes, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 02:52 PM

"I gather 'nothing has changed' about Gibraltar. "
Spain has agreed not to hold up proceedings apparently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 03:32 PM

Yes, Spain has agreed to let things proceed. This clip from the Guardian say a why, though other papers claim the same;

n the eve of Sunday’s special Brexit summit, the British ambassador to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, wrote to concede that Gibraltar would not necessarily be covered by a future trade deal with the EU.


The development gives Spain a veto over Gibraltar benefiting from a future trade and security agreement between Brussels and the British government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 06:26 PM

There's an awful lot of silly brinksmanship going on. Spain over Gib, the bloody DUP over everything, the ERG arseholes who just want no deal, May threatening no brexit at all, Raab putting his oar in to say that this deal is worse than actually staying in the EU...

It's all desperate and I'm sick of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 02:16 AM

This is what happens when politicians do not commit to carry out the clearly stated wishes of the majority of the voting electorate. It could get ugly!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:04 AM

I do wish people would stop talking about a second referendum. As I pointed out earlier, the 2016 one was the second referendum on whether we should leave. The score so far is Remain 1, Leave 1.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:27 AM

Brinkmanship is pretty inevitable in this situation and there are are least two major ones still to come (the period between the Dec vote and March 2019, and when we approach the end of the transition if we have one)


We have lots of special interest groups and it is simply going to be the case that they try everything to get what they want, including threatening to stop any agreements at all.

As to "The clearly stated wishes" - I think there was very little clarity, but there is nothing to be gained by revisiting that particular rabbit hole.

Will things turn ugly? I don't know what you mean by that. Are you talking about in Westminster parliamentary shenanigans or on the streets?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:49 AM

It is important to Leavers to refer to a "People's vote" as a second referendum as they wish to characterise it as an attempt to reverse the 2016 referendum which opens up several strong rhetorical cards, like "voting continually until to get the result you want." That could even be the most effective argument in a subsequent debate even though it is entirely irrelevant to the only important question which is determining the choice makes the country and it's people better off.

Similarly remainers should focus on another referendum being about making it clear which of various interpretations of "leaving' is the one you want, if any. I think referring to it as a third referendum strengthens the "vote until you get what you wanted" irrelevancy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 04:40 AM

As I pointed out earlier, the 2016 one was the second referendum on whether we should leave.
It should be pointed out that:On Thursday 5 June 1975 the United Kingdom held its first ever nationwide referendum on whether to continue its membership of the European Communities (EC) principally the European Economic Community (EEC, or "Common Market") as it was more widely known at the time.
This is a very different entity to what exists today as the EU.
'By the Maastricht Treaty (formally known as the Treaty on European Union; 1991), which went into force on November 1, 1993, the European Economic Community was renamed the European Community and was embedded into the EU as the first of its three “pillars” (the second being a common foreign and security policy and the third being police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters). The treaty also provided the foundation for an economic and monetary union, which included the creation of a single currency, the euro. The Lisbon Treaty, ratified in November 2009, extensively amended the governing documents of the EU. With the treaty’s entry into force on Dec. 1, 2009, the name European Community as well as the “pillars” concept were eliminated'

You cannot compare apples to oranges. There is a vast gulf between the old EEC and the morphed EU of today.
The tail now wags the dog! That is why the last referendum cannot be considered the second referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 05:18 AM

I think wow! is called for.

Expect to hear more "Enemies of the people" cries.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 06:20 AM

If wow is justified I suspect all contributions, from all sources, for both sides, demand a very close scrutiny. Other donations are also suspect. As yet only limited media coverage, probably all it deserves in my book.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 06:44 AM

I look forward to the analysis of all sources of funding for the campaign, including George Sorus


https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 06:47 AM

That comes up "page not found" Iains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 07:18 AM

"That comes up "page not found" Iains."
THIS APPEARS TO WORK
THIS SEEMS TO HAVE FADED FROM MEMORY

Surely, accusations of Russian interference in such an important decision are grounds for giving the people a chance to restate their opininions on such an important decision
I find it fascinating that those who have hidden behind the "People's choice" frm day one should break their balls opposing the same people the right to reaffirm their decision (or otherwise)
Funny old world, political acrobating !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 07:19 AM

Iains, be careful - otherwise you'll have Nigs The Nitpicking Nitwit along to correct your spelling of 'Soros'. :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 07:21 AM

"This appears to work"
Apparently not - worked in the link-maker and works if you google the address
Fuckin' Russians are at it again !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:02 AM

George Soros is of course one of Bannon's main targets. So why blame the Russians: just as likely to be Bannon and his crew of right-wingers if there are attacks on Soros.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:17 AM

Which fits with Ians seemingly gloating reference to riots in France, said to have been inspired by far-right elements, and his 'could get ugly' comments.   


Will things 'turn ugly'? Well some far right have been threatening trouble on the streets if they don't get what they consider to be the right sort of Brexit. We can expect some to be hoping for more of the sort of racism that I witnessed the day after the referendum result was announced. That was ugly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:25 AM

"So why blame the Russians: "
The Russians have been directly implicated in providing money for the Brexit Campaign, just as they were directly implicated in electing Trump
That they may have 'sleeper' right-wing collaborators in Arron Banks and Bannon is not really under dispute
I think these examples may well be the tip of a larger iceberg - we know for certain that an extremist Middle Eastern foreign power has attempted to undermine the British Labour Party to defend its own extremist behaviour - technological advance has opened the door to a future where national politics ain't national any more, I'm afraid
I thin the days when MAGGIE and RONNIE rode off into the sunset together is rapidly becoming part of an idyllic past
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:25 AM

"So why blame the Russians: "
The Russians have been directly implicated in providing money for the Brexit Campaign, just as they were directly implicated in electing Trump
That they may have 'sleeper' right-wing collaborators in Arron Banks and Bannon is not really under dispute
I think these examples may well be the tip of a larger iceberg - we know for certain that an extremist Middle Eastern foreign power has attempted to undermine the British Labour Party to defend its own extremist behaviour - technological advance has opened the door to a future where national politics ain't national any more, I'm afraid
I thin the days when MAGGIE and RONNIE rode off into the sunset together is rapidly becoming part of an idyllic past
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

"This is a very different entity to what exists today as the EU."

If you're using that as an excuse for holding the 2016 referendum, then the argument for having a rethink vote now must be equally valid. What we KNEW in early 2016 is vastly different from what we know NOW. If you believe in democracy you must embrace the idea that the electorate must have the maximum possible information in order to make an informed choice. The choice made in 2016 was made with far less information than we have now. By that measure, the choice we made in 2016 was clearly uninformed.

"You cannot compare apples to oranges."

What we knew in 2016 was the apples. What we know now is the oranges.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:43 AM

Let us not forget the Iranians' interference in the election of and support for their useful idiot in the Labour Party. That subversion of the country's democracy surely warrants scrutiny.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:54 AM

Interesting Bobad, do you have any facts to support your assertion?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:01 AM

That's just daft.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:02 AM

"support for their useful idiot in the Labour Party. "
If yopu have a shred of evidence of this you need to produce it, otherwise it remains a slanderous accusation
It is interesting that the power I refer to has sold parts to both Iran and North Korea though
As I say, National politics is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and political differences seem to be becoming overridden by economic interests, making for unlikely bedfellows
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

Which fits with Ians seemingly gloating reference to riots in France, said to have been inspired by far-right elements, and his 'could get ugly' comments.   

Terrible things delusions! If I wished to use French riots as an example I can assure you I would have done. Do not make artificial constructs on what I say.

A link that should work
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums/donations-and-loans-reported-by-campaigners-at-the-eu-referendum

Where's all these pesky ruskies then?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/police-will-not-examine-claims-of-russian-meddling-in-brexit-vote

Far more fruitful to investigate US meddling in elections. They have been doing it for decades!

http://rozenbergquarterly.com/noam-chomsky-on-the-long-history-of-us-meddling-in-foreign-elections/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:11 AM

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome war criminal.

From Guido, the man at westminster.

https://order-order.com/2018/11/25/blair-second-referendum-time-real/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

Sorry, Ians, but I feel I have a right to interpret your posts in any reasonable way - and to be amused by your personal gibes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:33 AM

"Where's all these pesky ruskies then?"
The fact that the police will not examine the charges proves nothing - this is a political matter, not a question of law and order
Banks is under investigation regarding the funding of his campaign - it is somewhat premature to suggest what they will find before that is completed
Trum fought tooth and nail to block enquiries into Russian involvement there and convinced no-one
As I said - National Politics have gone international
Not more right wing criminal blogging - surely
Don't they do night-school classes on expanding the imagination in your area
Usinbg the same blogger over and over again because you know he is going to come up with the blogs yiou need shows both lack of imagination and of real interest in teh subject under discussion - it is a technique of debate even a five year could manage with little practice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:57 AM

I look forward to the analysis of all sources of funding for the campaign, including George Sorus

Surely the more the funding is dubious, from whatever direction, the greater the justification for the Court to declare the result void?


Still, as the remainers have always insisted, the vote was only advisory. So declaring it void would not necessarily alter anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:58 AM

A link to a BBC political program and you babble on about the blogger that supplied the link. OH DEAR!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:30 AM

Here ya go Raggy: TOI

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:35 AM

Matt cartoon caption in the Sunday Telegrope today

"If it was up to me, I would choose to crash out of the EU, with no deal"

But the skill of the cartoonist is to have a crash test dummy saying it.

I've long said, apropos, it isn't like watching a slow car crash, it's like being in one. Waiting for the bump. And there are a lot of air bags sounding off!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:47 AM

Most of my and everybody elses postings are not blogs, nor do they contain links (some do)
We post reported information, not opinionated blogs
Guido is a predictable right-wing cretin who offers little than his own opinions - he is reputed for doing so
You are entitled to post what you wish and am equally entitled to comment on it
Personally I would like to know what YOU know - not a torrent of insultingly presents blogs from the same source, over, aand over and over.......... again
I don't "babble" - nobody here does, though you far too often accuse us of doing go- part of the 'talking-down' process
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:51 AM

"Here ya go Raggy:"
The OPINION" of w Times of Israel writer - with no reference to sales of Atomic parts to the country they are slagging off
Very convincing, I'm sure Bobad
Where's your proof?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Waiting for the bump that never comes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"Here ya go Raggy:"
Incidentally Bobad, the writer of your article, Robert Philpot, was a supporter of Blair' New Labour, the veterans of which are now attempting to have Corbyn removed fro leadership
As I said - very convincing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:34 AM

"Guido is a predictable right-wing cretin who offers little than his own opinions - he is reputed for doing so"
So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?

Are you trying to tell me Blair, Marr and the BBC are rightwing?
You do post some nonsense!

From the Gruniard about Guido(therefore you know it must be right!)
Five years ago he told the Guardian: “I still hate politicians. My contempt for them is undiminished.” The politicians know this, but they appear to nervous of crossing him. “We cringe and simper around Guido,” Johnson said at the anniversary celebration, “in the pathetic delusion that we may thereby encourage him to be merciful to us.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:55 AM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information.
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

It has already been established that the elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled.
Donations to both sides seem to lack clarity.

From Reuters
Ever since the shock vote, supporters of EU membership have been exploring an array of different legal and political methods to prevent what they see as the biggest mistake in post-World War Two British history.

Brexiteers say such efforts threaten political stability as they go against the democratic will of 17.4 million people. They have vowed to fight any attempt to stop Brexit.

“The new Soros-led coalition is planning a coup in Britain, against the democratic will of the people,” Richard Tice, who chairs the Leave Means Leave campaign group, told Reuters. “They have been outed and will be defeated.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. 
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

Not in the slightest. The problem lies in your presumption it provided information.   However information and propaganda are quite different, whichever side is providing it.

As a general rule, all political advertising everywhere in the world is far more concerned with swaying opinion than providing information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides. The original argument still applies, a cute change of name does not alter the fact that you cannot argue the vote was swayed by propaganda(facts) and in the same breath argue the propaganda(Facts) was/were inadequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:31 PM

"So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?"
I don't support Blair, which is, in fact "a rightie" war criminal who removed much of the left wing policies of the Labour party
I have said exactly why I believe there to be the need for a referendum without having to rely on the opinions of such people - in detail
I put up information, not opinions
To suggest the BBC is "left wing" is an indication of how far right your own opinions are - Atilla the Hun springs to mind
It would help if you specified why you regard information as "rubbish" - argument is far more convincibng as nake-calling dismissal
Fairly pointless attempting to justify Staines by saying he distrusts politicians - most people do, it indicates nothing
He is recognised widely as the spokesman of Right-wing toryism

"and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. "
So you believe Russian money paid for "information" - what on earth brought on that little brainstorm ?
The money paid to a Ukip Supporter - its major donor - paid for Brexit propaganda - hardly information !!
What was missing was a prognosis of what might happen when Britain left Europe - the Independent (suppose that counts as "leftie") produced a magnificent article pointing out that THERE HAD BEEN NO PLAN FOR LEAVING, NO STUDY OF THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF DOING SO... NOTHING, UNTIL THE REFERENDUM HAD BEEN HELD - A TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY FOR A GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW SUCH A VOTE TO TAKE PLACE
It was a deliberate use of populism by a now discredited leader of a now discredited party
The consequences of that populism was a sharp rise in racist incidents
May is now crowing about how Brexit will control immigration - not a single explanation of how her "better Britain" will be achieved.
Brexit played the same race card Powell was thrown out of his party for
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains - PM 
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM 

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides

I think I was clear enough that this applies, not only to both sides, but all campaigning everywhere in the world.

I can see where there might be a lack of information even when buried alive by propaganda. I think there is a meaningful distinction. If you do not, we must simply disagree about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts ......... not allegations.

I am sure even you kow the difference.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:02 PM

You've been given exactly what people were given Iains - if you have any proof to the contrary, please give it
The Financial Times puts it quite well (can't link to it, so I've put it up in full - well worth reading
Hope the FT s not too "leftie" for you
Jim Carroll

UK approach to referendums needs ‘overhaul’
Independent commission says vote should take place after significant preparation
Henry Mance, Political Correspondent JULY 10, 2018 Print this page85
The UK’s approach to referendums needs “wholesale reform”, and major constitutional changes should be subject to a second vote once the details have been worked out, an expert panel has concluded.
The Independent Commission on Referendums, run by University College London, is one of the most detailed attempts so far to reform the use of referendums, following the votes on Brexit and Scottish independence.
The panel said that Britain should only hold referendums where parliament would know what to enact after the vote, and where governments had first undertaken “significant preparatory work”.
That is an implicit rebuke for the former prime minister David Cameron, who refused to allow contingency planning for a Leave vote. Brexiters have blamed Mr Cameron’s approach for many of the difficulties in negotiations with the EU.
The UCL panel also concluded that referendums should normally take place once the relevant legislation has been passed. If a referendum takes place without detailed plans for change being set out, a further vote should be held once they are.
That finding could give succour to those now calling for a second Brexit vote, before Britain leaves the EU in March 2019. However, the panel made clear that its report was not retrospective, and that the prospect of a second referendum should be made clear before the first vote was held. Public appetite for a second Brexit vote varies depending on whether it is described as “a second referendum” or “a vote on the deal”.
In the past two decades, referendums have taken place on Brexit, Scottish independence, electoral reform, Welsh devolution and peace in Northern Ireland. The Brexit vote, in particular, has exposed constitutional tensions between the popular will, parliamentary democracy and legal safeguards. Yet opinion polls have showed support for more referendums in future.
UCL’s panel, which included two pro-Brexit and two anti-Brexit politicians, said that referendums should not be seen as quick-fix solutions, but as “coexisting alongside” representative institutions.

Recommended
Explainer Brexit
Brexit timeline: key dates in UK’s divorce with EU
Alan Renwick, an academic at UCL, said that citizens’ assemblies could be held before future referendums, “to consider the issues and work out what the options should be — as was done successfully before Ireland’s recent referendum on abortion”.
However, the panel shied away from other potential safeguards — such as introducing a threshold for turnout, or a ‘supermajority’ requirement for a referendum to back major constitutional change. A “simple majority is considered sufficient for electing MPs and for almost all parliamentary decisions, even those of major constitutional importance”, it noted.
Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and a member of the panel, said the public appetite for referendums followed from a decline in trust in politicians and an expectation that politics should be participatory. Young people were more likely than old people to favour more referendums, she said.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM

Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate but who will chose the syllabus, who will teach it, and who will ensure subject matter neutrality. I think you will agree it ain't gonna happen. There is no such requirement for any other election. Wherein lies the difference?
For another referendum I would suggest the following.
1)The required legislation is in place to make the outcome binding on Parliament
2)the electoral commission is made fit for purpose
3)Total transparency is required for all donations
4)all donations to cease 6months prior to voting in order all donations may be vetted
I am sure many other requirements could be added.

We could of course turn many of the arguments here on their head and argue that the remainers were totally illiterate and easily bamboozled by flim flam, and as such should be disenfranchised.

To try to argue the vote should be declared null will cause many to lose faith in the judiciary. Such an argument should be the outcome of parliamentary debate in my view, and the courts should keep well clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:14 PM

"Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate"
Patronising shite - nice to see we aren't the ones you talk down to]
If you ask people to vote for something - a political party or a referendum, you are committed to explain what they are being invited to vote for - that's how democracy is supposed to work
This friggin referendum was won on getting rid of immigrants and meaningless "taking our country back" - nothing else - sort of like Trump's "Lets make America Great Again"
Both are a lie - America may have been powerful, but it was as bad as some of the worst dictatorships - Britain is in the hands of multinationals - no industries to sustain it and no plans to rebuild an industrial foundation to make Britain self sustaining - Britain's largest export percentage is finance to the tune of 30 plus percent
Britain can never become viable in that situation and, as the Financial Times has been pointing out since the referendum, it cannot plan to do so until the economy gets over the aftershock of Brexit - at least twenty years
When Britain leave Europe, it will have to find somebody else to be dependable on - who - Russia, China, Daffy Donald's U.S,...... the mind really does boggle

You appear to be describing a system that runs elections on the basis of an uninformed electorate and the only way to achieve that is by legislation - what the **** has that got to do with democracy ?
These are the horror stories that were told about Soviet Russia at the height of the Cold War - a "massive Empire held in thrall by ignorance and oppression"

Another referendum can be held simply on the basis as the last one was; "Knowing what you now know, do you still wish to leave Europe?"
There can be no possible argument that the electorate now knows far more of the consequences than it did last time around
The Ireland you despise so much as "bog-trotters" holds referenda on a regular basis, during which they have taken decisions that have overturned centuries of fears and ignorance imposed by the most powerful mind-controlling body on the planet
Two more in the pipeline, both on Constitutional issues - the women' place in society and divorce
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:26 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts .........not allegations.

Plenty of facts both in the article and in the links therein........pity they don't accommodate your ideological position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 04:34 PM

"I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum..."

Not so. Remainers complain that no-one was given sufficient information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:46 PM

"
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!"


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 03:33 AM

Your post suggests that no one told the truth, so why should any one believe you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:08 AM

Very good Stanron:-)

A perfect example of changing what was actually said into suitable propaganda too!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:17 AM

Who changed what? I asked a question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:21 AM

You said "Your post suggests that no one told the truth" which is nothing like what I said so I assumed your question was a rhetorical joke. It was, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:51 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

This is your post. You say that the leave side lied. Am I wrong to read from your post that the remain side lied as well? If both sides lied where is the truth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

Looks suspiciously like nitpicking to avoid the mani issues to me

INTERESTING STATS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:20 AM

The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Can we have some links to give factual support for any of the above, or is it merely a fairy tale to make you feel better because you lost?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:24 AM

There are been enough reports of this during the past 30 months. You, in particular, have chosen to ignore them.

There is no evidence that you would listen to anything anyone posted regarding this so why should they once again provide you with the reports.

Waste of time and effort.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Result of the lie
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crimes-racism-eu-referendum-vote-attacks-increase-police-figures-official-a7358866.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Reports can consist of rumours, hearsay and outright lies.
Yet another acolyte dodges the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 07:42 AM

Stanron, there is no interpretation of my words that leads to the conclusion that no one told the truth. I am simply saying that some people told some lies some of the time. The fact that you seem to interpret this as "no one told the truth" is not my problem. There was plenty of truth told by both sides but it is the lies that seem to have swung the issue.

Now, rather than get bogged down in the past, do we have any forecasts of a rosy future for us all yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:07 AM

"Yet another acolyte dodges the issue."
None of you have addressed the issues raise - not one of them
Denying research and persistently bombing the discussion with partisan blogs just about sums the level adopted here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

"THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL"
A prime example of remainer lies and distortions.
Unison’s Dave Prentis said poster showing a queue of migrants and refugees incites racial hatred

This is obviously an opinion masquerading as fact as we can easily tell.
The article is dated Thu 16 Jun 2016 14.08 BST
As can clearly be seen no court case resulted. the DPP obviously saw no case to answer.
Therefore we can take it as fact that the picture, that had been licensed from Getty Images and was taken in Slovenia in 2015 by its staff photographer Jeff Mitchell, DID NOT INCITE RACIAL HATRED.

As Jim points out (inadvertently I am sure) the article was based on a lie. The remainiacs stoop to any level to force their false news upon us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:15 PM

The DPP make decisions about how likely a prosecution is to suceed. The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster. The fact that racist hate crimes increased sharply following the referendum indicates that there was a link between the racist nature of some of the leave propaganda, including that poster, and motivation for such crimes.

There could be other reasons for the increase in hate crimes of course but, to date, no one has yet out any forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:34 PM

"A prime example of remainer lies and distortions."
That the DPP did not act on it - I said it was a lie, not a crime (though it should be)
The poster depicts hordes aof invading foreigners, suggesting that these are the reason Britain should leave Europe - that is a ****** lie
Even government surveys have not made immigration a major problem in the fortunes of Britain; reports have shown over and over again that immigration had benefited Britain both economically and socially
Pewll was kicked out of his party for using this disgustingly racist argument
Like it or not, Britain's Imperial history has made immigration a permanent feature of its life
As far as refugees are concerned, Britain's policies abroad have made us part of the creation of the mass mif=grations that are taking place - oil, propping up dictators, and particularly arming them
Your denial of this is typical of those who share your racist views (begorrah), as is your refusal even to acknowledge the disgusting effect it has had in accelerating racism amnt turning a built-in passive prejudice into action - yhoui ignore it - Nigel downplays it
Nobody suggested the poster was the sole cause - just part of the hate campaign that is Brexit
Even May, the most dignified of the bunch, is crowing about keeling them out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:41 PM

The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster.

There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated.
You may think you are being cute with wordplay, but you fool no one.
The photo made the point the subjects in the photo were young single males. Are they in fear of their lives, potential free loaders or economic migrants?
Asylum seekers are covered by the Dublin agreement, any other illegal migrants should be deported. They have regular channels they can apply through. If they cannot satisfy that set of criteria then deport them back from whence they came.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:23 PM

From the BBC news today:

"Theresa May: "We will take back control of our money, by putting an end to vast annual payments to the EU.

Instead, we will be able to spend British taxpayers' money on our own priorities, like the extra £394m per week that we are investing in our long-term plan for the NHS."

Hmm.......... it would seem that the "gullible" remainers were not the only one's taken in by the slogan on the bus then!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:00 PM

The amount of money we have tied up with the EU is around one percent of our GDP. Just thought I'd mention it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:45 PM

Glad to see stories in the media suggesting that a Norway style Brexit might be on the cards. Strikes me that could be fine by me. Solves the Irish border problem, and preserves the right of freedom of travel within Europe. And remember, the only thing on that referendum ballot paper was leaving the EU, nothing about any of the other stuff that's been tied into it since then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 09:02 PM

That requires freedom of movement. I'd love it, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 02:13 AM

"There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated."
Outrageous nonsense
The police may decide they cannot or do not want to prosecute hate posting but this does not make it hate posting and it dosen't alter one iota the fact that hate crimes have increased sharply and have been linked directly to Brexit
You may think it clever to dismiss everything that doesn't suit you out of hand - but it isn't it's stupid, it's immoral and in the cse of the hate thtat leads us back to the porld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people
That's what racism is about

I wish you people would take it elsewhere

"but you fool no one."
You obviously need reminding that your little band are very much in the minority here - it's you who are not fooling anybody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 03:51 AM

"Outrageous nonsense"

More literary coprolites from the resident fossil.The police do not have authority to prosecute. Do try and get your facts right!

You are up to your usual trick of introducing multiple irrelevancies to pad out your nonsense.

What has the (p)orld of Paki bashing and the pouring of inflammatory substances through letter-boxes, it's inhuman to the extent of killing and maiming people got to do with brexit?
Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:26 AM

Brexit was sold on a arcist ticket which has led to a rise in racist incidents, which include attacks on non nationals - simple as that and totally indisprab[e
One more time
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

All your crapping around with semantincs does not alter a single syllable of what I wrote
"Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your waffling?"
You are the only one disputing it - it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if you are claiming to speak for everybody here
Wake up pal - you and yours are very much in the minority here
How about some real evidence instead of your insulting denials - you've been given enough to show it is you who is talking crap
If you are incapable of debating intelligently, why are you here ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 05:47 AM

Pointing out your gross factual errors is hardly semantics. I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute. Your powers of debate are on a par with your spelling. Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.Most of your scribbling above makes no sense at all. Is it a version of jimmie's esperanto or just the usual incoherence? We need to know these things.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

Racial violence and the Brexit state
Jon Burnett First Published April 4, 2017 Research Article

Abstract
Research by the Institute of Race Relations into over one hundred incidents of racial violence reported in the mass media in the month after the EU referendum indicates that the ‘spike’ in such attacks has to be understood in terms of the racist climate created not just during the clearly nativist referendum debate, but also in the divisive policies and programmes of successive governments preceding it. The politicians and police chiefs, who have recently condemned the violence, analyse it in terms of already given media frameworks about ‘hate crime’: bigoted individuals are to blame; this is a law-and-order issue not a socially based problem – thus avoiding any responsibility for the creation of state racism. The research also reveals the central role of the police, at the expense of community groups’ or victims’ voices, when the media decides an attack is newsworthy.

"I will say again, the police do not have the power to prosecute."
The term "police prosecution" is common in our language usage - you are hising behind it because you are unable to answer the points made - jus as you are returning to your old abusive self in an attempt to talk down people - doesn't work
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains
Flinging interminable blogs bty criminal bloggers is not debating

Lets see how you get on with the statement from the Institute for Race Relations - probably a 'leftie' extremist group

If you are good at debating - how about dealing with that one (denial doesn't count as debate)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - should have written Institute OF Race relations'
Don't want to give you another back door to sneak out of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:34 AM

The CPS was formed in 1985. The police have not prosecuted since then.
As you are a fossil police prosecution may be common parlance for you, but not for the rest of humanity it most assuredly is not.
Of course my scribblings make no sense to a racist - very litle does to bears with very small brains ????? Oh Dear! He knoweth not what he says!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

No response - just semantic bullshit
No intention of getting this thread closed - I'm off -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:16 AM

"Why not use a spellcheck and spare us all our abuse of the english language."

A question with no question mark, and the word English written without an initial capital. Hoist with his own petard, perhaps?

Given that Trump regards May's Brexit deal as a threat to a US/UK trade deal, I'm warming to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:25 AM

Ironically, they are saying that 'services' won't be kept within the customs union. Now that seems to be one of our main exports, so in terms of being able to strike deals outside of the UE customs union. May's deal seems to have achieved something.

It isn't a 'bombshell' from Washington either; Trump's dislike of Europe is well-known. So is his protectionism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:32 AM

"So is his protectionism."
It Remains to be seen if this will impinge on relations with Brexit Britain
He has a nasty habit of threatening to cut trade if you don't jump through his hoops - Britain isn't actually flush with bargaining chips
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"Why not use spellcheck snd spare us the misery of trying to interpret your constant abuse of the english language.More..."

A short extract there (from a post intending, without irony, to excoriate someone else over their use of English) that contains five blatant solecisms. Physician, heal thyself.

Yep, very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works. May has survived remarkably well, considering, but she's rapidly running out of road. Now Fallon has put his oar in and the beloved ECJ is considering whether we can unilaterally ditch Article 50 if we want to. I reckon that it wouldn't need to be unilateral. The EU would bite our hand off.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:40 AM

Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

Before Ian decides to make this an issue (he obviously has little else to offer)
I spend 99/9 hours a day at the computer - largely working on indexing, annotating and transcribing our very large collection of traditional music recordings - Mudcat is something I involve myself in when I need a breather and have time.
I have never had a spelling problem, nor one of grammar - I have written masses for lecturing and for publication.
I don't use a spellcheck very much, because I don't need to
I'm not particularly good at multi-tasking, nor am I adept at typing at speed
Add to this a keyboard that suits my sound editing, but is not one I would choose for writing
During my time here, I have noticed that some of the best contributions have come from people who are not particularly good at expressing themselves in writing, but who have something to say of importance - that's what public fora should should be about as far as I'm concerned
In life outside the Mudcat greenhouse, in my experience, some of the most articulate and often poetic people have come from the non or pre-literate communities, like the despised (by some here) Travellers - they also display far more humanity than many of the educated elite - evidence that education does not mean intelligence
The last person I would look to for literary criticism is one who believe the Irish live in bogs, who think those who can't vote should not be allowed to post and who rely in a semi-literate extremist for their political information
Nuff said on that particular subject, I think
Jim Carroll
"Perhaps our resident pedant can point out to little jimmie the difference between semantics and veracity. The poor lad seems to be struggling a little."
See what I mean??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:49 AM

Whoops another typo to hide behind - should read 8 to 9 hours of the day
Never mind - save him actually responding to what has been said
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 10:07 AM

very nice of Trump to chuck a spanner in the works

Er, Steve, that's what - or more properly ALL - the man does, in both domestic & foreign affairs.

Looks as though Obama was a bit more prescient than folks thought, eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:43 PM

According to the Independent:

===
Warehouses to stockpile food for a no-deal Brexit may be empty because they have been snapped up by Amazon to pounce on the UK market, an inquiry by MPs has been told.
The Food and Drink Federation warned that all available frozen and chilled space had been taken – but no one knew who had taken it and whether there was anything in it.

"What we don’t know is whether there is actual product in those places," said Ian Wright, the federation's chief executive.


And he added: "There is some gossip, and I can't stand this up, that quite a lot of this has been booked by Amazon for their entry into the food market at some point over the next few months"

===

Well, what a surprise: Of course there will be a shortage - the famed 'market forces' make the supply of space more or less match the demand, so if there is a sudden sharp rise in demand there will inevitably be a shortage. Nor is much more space likely to appear, unless suppliers are convinced this is not a short term effect, because none of them want to end up with lots of unbought space when the short term demand passes.

I doubt if it is Amazon, in particular. Every single potential purchaser is in competition with the rest for space, and Amazon just happens to be one with the resources to do what it wants. That's how it works. I do not claim Amazon are deliberately targeting the others - it is simply doing what it needs for its business plan, and that's that.

I am reminded of an event in about 1980. A friend was sent by his company on one of those teamwork and management courses. There were some six teams and they each had to build a bridge out of straws, paper, paper clips, sellotape and so on. Instead, he bought up the entire supply of straws and thereby prevented everyone else from completing the task unless they were prepared to pay his exorbitant prices. When the course leader and the other teams claimed he was cheating, he simply replied that's how capitalism works.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

I posted about this few days ago DMcG, the article I linked to suggested that to develop a new refrigerated site for 10,000 pallets would take about 2-3 years. A site for 100,000 pallets would take 4-5 years. *

* My figures may not be strictly accurate but they were of that magnitude.

That all available site are fully booked for the next few months which is normally (according to the article) a quiet time for this industry should set alarm bells ringing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:04 PM

Thanks for that, Raggy. So that gives some guidance on how long "short term" could be in that area, a term that few Brexiteers are willing to give much clarity to. I noticed on Newsnight last night the phrase being bandied about and no one have to sit to say "what do you mean by that?". I found the vicar especially annoying, since he was prepared to put up with any impact however severe - he put up his hand when that absurd question was asked. I wonder how he makes the case to his parishioners some of whom are probably struggling as it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:07 PM

'have to sit' was supposed to be 'having the with. Apologies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 01:11 PM

Wit, not with. Blooming autotext. This is why I turn it off for long periods. I may still make typos, and I do, but at least they are mine not some computer changing things further from what I mean.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 06:01 PM

A coprolite by any other name would smell as sweet.

Brexit is finally starting to become a reasonable product.
Whats to worry about?
Now Parliment can iron out the final wrinkles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:30 PM

Yes the Norway Deal would imply a degree of freedom of movement, but there was nothing in the wording of the referendum about stopping that. It would deliver on leaving Brexit, which was all that was on that ballot paper.

The way that freedom of movement was interpreted within the UK was significantly different from the way it is interpreted in many countries in the EU and also in Norway Iceland and Switzerland, and there is plenty of scope for a version that would be less open to abuse, but that would avoid the drastic devaluation of British passports that is looming.

We're all just spectators in this farce, but I suspect that there is more chance of a majority in the Commons for this deal than for any other.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:34 PM

I thought the vicar on Newsnight that got up DMcG's nose was actually a lady vicar. No matter, either way an extremely irritating cleric.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:06 AM

'Freedom of Movement' would have been considerably less 'open to abuse' during our membership of the EU if successive UK governments had not chosen to ignore the EU's own system of controls, and enacted the recording/registration of arriving EU citizens, monitoring them during their stay, and ensuring that any who, after three months, did not have accommodation and employment, were sent back whence they came.

Uncontrolled immigration from the EU has not been the fault of the EU, but of our own governments. The means of controlling EU immigrants have always been there, but our own governments have chosen not to enact them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM ............

I was always taught If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Your bleating for sympathy is totally wasted on me. I have zero interest in how you spend your day.
If you cannot be bothered to check your work why should anyone here take you seriously? A rash of feeble excuses do not hack it, regardless of your domain in a bog.

Anyway to more important things. The daily wail under new management has changed it's political affiliation and is trying to mislead the readership(This probably explains why the Telegraph has had a recent jump in subscriptions)
This info is brought by the man with a finger on the pulse and leading political blogger guido:
https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

and for those that cannot accept the pearls of wisdom from guido here is the original
https://www.survation.com/public-surveyed-on-the-draft-government-withdrawal-agreement/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:56 AM

Guido again - really !!!!
Nothing to see here lads - move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:21 AM

I see someone has spectacularly failed to mention that while the poll shows a majority oppose May's deal, there is a very similar majority support staying in the EU...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:35 AM

Bloody marvelous !

Even the Chancellor has now admitted there is no version of leaving the EU that will make the UK more prosperous.

Thank you to all the idiots who voted the leave, you have managed not only to shoot yourselves in the foot, you managed to shoot every single citizen of the UK in the foot **

You have also managed to shoot your children, my child and our grandchildren in the foot.

(** I'm sure a few people will make a nice sum of money out of this)

No chance of increased prosperity

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:42 AM

What's become abundantly clear is that the very best deal this country can possibly have is the one we get right now as a full member of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

INFORMATION HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

We now have almost 100% of economists, a high majority of business leaders, the treasury and the chancellor saying that leaving the EU is worse for the country than staying in. They back up their forecasts with hard statistics. A handful of brexiteers on here are saying that leaving the EU will benefit the country and, over the course of the last 2.5 years, have not been able to provide any meaningful statistics to justify their optimism.

I wonder who we should believe...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Very nice Jim, Tommy was a great fiddle player but I don't think he had owt to do with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 07:03 AM

Sorry about that
Posted to wrong thread
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:14 AM

Just come in
A new Government backed economic survey has estimated that, if May's proposals are accepted, the British economy stands to suffer around a 3% plus reduction.
If no agreement is reached, the figure is likely to be three times that amount
You lose some, you lose some, apparently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

Now our resident Brexiteers have always maintained that people knew exactly what they were voting for and that a second referendum is not necessary because "the people have spoken"

Now I wonder do they really believe that 17.4 million people voted "yes please I want to be worse off"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:08 AM

It is plain that some Brexiters do not care why people voted for Brexit, as posts on this thread demonstrate.

I personally believe that some Brexiters did believe that some people would be better off: some people imagined that EU workers in Britain would be kicked out, resulting in more jobs being available for British people: I know this because on the day after the referendum I heard a Brexit voter saying this to somebody wearing Asian dress (not logical I know, but it happened).

Some Brexiters believe that at least some business people will make more money after Brexit because the 'red tape' which they see as holding business back can be got rid of, stuff like workers' rights, holiday entitlement, product standards, environmental rules and so on. The Leave means Leave web site mentions pharmaceuticals being hidebound by regulation, which suggests that some pharmaceutical firms want to be selling stuff that doesn't meet EU standards. But of course if you want to sell stuff to the EU it will still have to meet EU standards.

So these economic predictions don't really address the issue of who will be paying the price for UK lower performance as some business people clearly expect to do better. Given the present government my guess is that it will be as usual the lower echelons who will end up paying the lion's share of any price.   

But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:14 AM

Personally, I am getting tired of 'Brexit Bombshell' headlines. There aren't really any surprises. The latest 'bombshell' is that EU leaders are planning a No Deal summit: it seems common sense that people should plan ahead for reasonably likely scenarios. Other 'bombshells' seem similarly unsurprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 09:43 AM

"But a lot of the arguments were about 'sovereignty', and 'control', which you cannot really put a price on."

And those arguments were, at best, misleading and, at worst, bare-faced lies.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 10:01 AM

But we are taking are cuntry back BWM ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:13 PM

The vast majority of our domestic laws and 99% of our GDP have nothing to do with the EU, and, of the laws and regulations we sign up to as members (most of which are arrived at by consensus and which nobody in their right minds argues with), we agree with 97% of them. And no law can ever be put into force by "unelected bureaucrats" in Brussels or anywhere else. EU law has be ratified by elected representatives of the member states, and larger states such as the UK have considerable powers of veto. So much for taking back "sovereignty." The conditionality within future trade deals with the UK's being outside the EU would sacrifice just as much "sovereignty" in any case. Sovereignty is a bogus argument and always was. As for the "control" freaks, what they never tell you is that we can never control people leaving. So after we've made our country unattractive to EU members and positively "hostile" to unskilled workers, be prepared for shortages of doctors, nurses, plumbers and electricians and for our cauliflowers and sprouts to rot in the fields. Of course, we'll have more control of our money (unless we adopt the Norway model, that is). It's just that there'll be, by all the analyses we've seen today, a lot less of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:29 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

Any good news yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

"The Treasury’s modelling is notoriously dodgy. So dodgy in fact that in 2010 George Osborne set up the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to provide less political analysis than the hyper-political plaything of the chancellor of the day.

Economist Andrew Lilico has pointed out that in its analysis, the Treasury makes three remarkable assumptions.

    Assumes there is no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy compared with the EU doing it.
    Assumes there is no gain from “Future domestic policy choices.”
    Assumes GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of what the EU estimated those gains would be.

These are clearly ludicrous assumptions as no credible economist assumes there are zero economic gains to be made from liberating companies from EU red tape. This further exposes the Treasury as a political tool not a serious economic body.

Guido remembers the Treasury’s bogus analysis during the referendum….

    “Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.”

In February of this year, Cambridge academics concluded that most of the economic impact assessments before the referendum were “flawed”, and that the Treasury’s analysis was particularly bad.

    “The short-term forecasts of the Treasury and OECD, which have turned out to be wrong, have further damaged the already weak public confidence in economists’ contributions to public debate.”

Wrong then, wrong now…"

I preume the treasury went to the same school of economics as the Abbacus ( The same idiot claiming it is wrong for the police to knock scooter thugs off their wheels. As Camden council leader said:    “Camden has been ground zero for moped muggings – but tough tactics has cut them by 90% in the last year, so it’s outrageous to see Abbott talk down our girls and boys in blue. Labour are tough on crime-fighters and tough on the solutions to crime.”)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

The Bank of England has confirmed the predictions of the Government survey and has said that a 'no deal' Brexit will hit Britain harder than the 2008 crash
Northern Ireland is predicted to be hit hardest

"Any good news yet?"
I'm sure Guido the Gobshite will come up with some soon
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM and ask again. Who do we believe, the legions of economists and business leaders or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:46 PM

or a right wing convicted criminal blogger and his fan boy?>/I>

Oh dear, we have yet another remainiac unable to differentiate between the message and the messenger! Is the plague contagious?
You know what they say: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink!

https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2018/treasury-economic-modelling-is-flawed-say-economists-from-the-centre-for-business-research-cb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 01:56 PM

So, who do we believe then?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 02:33 PM

"So, who do we believe then?"
There are always the Leprechauns Dave
Our absentee landlord must have heard of them (might even be one)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 03:52 PM

Latest government backed figures indicate that in 15 years our economy will be nearly 4% poorer if we adopt the latest deal as against staying in the EU. No deal is even worse with a predicted 9% shrinkage. This is not a pro Europe lobby nor project fear but official research by the people best placed to understand the full implications.

At least they appear to have learnt their lesson after getting their prophesies so wrong over the economic outcomes of if we voted for brexit.
This time they are making (very long-range) forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false. Either we will remain in the EU, or we will leave with some sort of deal, or we will leave with no deal. Under any of those three possibilities, in fifteen years time they will be able to say "We were right in our forecasts", but unable to prove it as they will have no baseline figures to compare the actual outcome with.

If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy suffers serious problems they can claim that we would not have suffered, or not suffered so badly, if we'd remained in EU.
If we leave with no deal, and the UK economy does well they can claim that we would have done even better if we'd stayed in.
Similar responses can be made for the other two possibilities.

Can none of the remainers here see through this 'smoke and mirrors' act?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:06 PM

It will at least be possible to compare UK growth against other EU and non-EU countries which will go some way towards validating the forecasts.

So on the assumption you think Brexit will be an economic success, how do you propose demonstrating it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:12 PM

I refer back to my post of 28 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM once again. This latest piece is just one of a myriad of similar works by different bodies working independently yet all drawing the same conclusions.

On the one hand we have a vast body of economic and business expertise telling us one thing and on the other there is you, Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite.

Give me a good reason to believe you. Show me the research that matches the body of evidence against you. I hope you can and reassure me with something other than blind faith but as there has not been one scrap of any such in the last 30 months I suspect I will be disappointed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 04:51 PM

No Brexiter has responded to my question would people have voted to leave the EU if they had known that they would be worse off.

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:09 PM

Chuffing marvelous news today.

The warnings from the Bank of England suggest that the government warnings are the tip of the Brexit Iceberg.

Bad news again

Now who should we listen to, our two resident Brexiteers or the Bank of England?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:16 PM

17.4 million people voted to leave. If the reality of the effects of leaving had been known to them would they have still voted that way?

They were told that there was no downside to leaving by the leave campaign. Had the leave campaign admitted there would be short term disruption but insisted it would be sorted quickly it is not impossible the 700,000 necessary to alter the result would have voted differently: it does not need all 17.4 million to reconsider.

(I am still waiting for any Leaver to clarify how long short term might be. I.e. how many weeks or months before the disruption is sorted. Silence reigns)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:22 PM

There was a guy on Newsnight in Derby questioned about another referendum who said that he voted remain before but would definitely vote leave if there was such a referendum 'because of the way the EU has walked all over us." While that is a purely emotional response that does not have any bearing on our long term future, I suspect it could be common enough to result in another Leave vote. It would be very unwise of anyone to make assumptions about how th2 voting would go.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 06:54 PM

Well, Nigel, you leavers absolutely can't see through the smoke and mirrors. Polish the mirror and blow away the smoke. No-one in a position to know is telling us that the country wouldn't be worse off if we leave the EU. Of course, by some miracle we just might be better off but forgive the one or two of us who doubt that just a little. And, of course, you and Iains may well know something that the rest of us don't know. But the omens are closing in on you. Of course, there are still people who think that Brussels dictates our laws (which it doesn't) and that we will get £350 million back every week (which we won't) and that we can stop nasty foreigners coming in (including doctors and nurses, etc., who are already being severely put off, the kind of people we don't train ourselves). You forgot to tell those people that the EU is tied up with just one percent of our GDP, that we wholeheartedly agree with almost all EU laws and regulations (all of which, without exception, are democratically arrived at) and that the EU is very likely to be, in future years, the only major democratic bulwark on the planet against increasing far-right populism (well, unless you think that Donald is a rabid socialist). Enjoy your ideology, Nigel. Some of us prefer pragmatism, principle, and, above all, reality.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 02:56 AM

"forecasts which can never be either verified, or proved false"
As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England
Economies work on being able to plan based on such predictions as these - you are dismissing them as you would a horse race result - "better luck next time"
It may be ok from the safety of a discussion group - doesn't work for running a country
What serious investor is going to invest in a lame-duck country where economists are making such serious predictions?
You have been asked over and over again to produce benefits of leaving Europe - you take a vow of silence, Iains scurries behind Staines the Sihtbag Blogger
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"As has been pointed out, these predictions have been verified by The Bank of England"
you are 'aving a laugh. Erroneous predictions backed up by further erroneous predictions

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/984559/brexit-news-mark-carney-bank-of-england-uk-economy-mistake-latest

The simple remainiacs cannot recognize project fear round two and believe everything fed to them. Baaaaaaaah humbug!

If you read guido's links it may perhaps cure your sheep like behaviour

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:16 AM

"Iains, a convicted criminal"

care to esplain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:25 AM

If you do not understand a comma separated list yet I am not going to bother explaining it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:41 AM

"...Iains, a convicted criminal and one of two others telling us the opposite."

Good English, perfectly clear in its meaning (bar the typo "of", barely noticeable in the flow of the sentence). Perhaps you thought he meant "Iains (a convicted criminal) and one or two others telling us the opposite" or "Iains, a convicted criminal, and one or two others telling us the opposite." I recommend a strong coffee and the donning of reading glasses, along with resort to a tome on English grammar and punctuation!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:34 AM

"care to explain yourself gnome? Or are you just being your usual insulting piece of shit?"
An oxymoron, if ever there was one
Are you really unable to recognise your own permanently abusive attitude ?

Bank of England and Government appointed enquiry versus Guido - what a quandary eh - how ridiculous can you get ?
Not very good at this, are you ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

Thanks, Stove. I don't usually make typos.

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

WE really don't have to respond to this moronic behaviour
Like paying attention to the behaviour of dysfunctional children, the longer we do the more it encourages them - and the closer we get to having this otherwise interesting thread closed
Memo - must stop feeding the trolls - after all, we'll hardly miss the thoughts (sic) of Chairman Guido
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:33 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 18 - 05:09 PM
Chuffing marvelous news today.
The warnings from the Bank of England suggest that the government warnings are the tip of the Brexit Iceberg.
Bad news again
Now who should we listen to, our two resident Brexiteers or the Bank of England?

Read the article again. The headline (for once) seems clear: Bank warns no-deal could see UK sink into recession
The report itself makes clear:
These are scenarios not forecasts. They illustrate what could happen not necessarily what is most likely to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:39 AM

"These are scenarios not forecasts. "
Both are based on what is on the table Nigel - they are forecasts of what would happen in Brexit goes ahead on the present agreement and wout could happen with no deal
It is sheer stupidity to write them off a "scenarios" if there is no alternative on offer - you have never offered one
This has moved from a leap in the dark to a plunge into the abyss
Had any of this ben predicted no sane politician would have allowed it to happen, nor would any self-respecting economist
The public would certainly have never voted for it, which is why a re-vote is vital
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

So, Nigel. You tell us what is most likely to happen. Preferably with some research to back it up. Has anything changed in the last two and half years to make us believe your scenarios are more likely to happen than those of the experts?

I do not usually defer to experts so strongly but when they all seem to agree I think I still believe them above a few posters to a folk music web site and a right wing loudmouth. Unless of course you can demonstrate why I should not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

Nigel was the Bank of England has said when taken in conjuction with what the Chancellor had said earlier in the day paints a very bleak picture.

Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

Another little snippet for you to consider below.

London to lose £700 Billion

I first mentioned this as a distinct possible 2 1/2 years ago. I was told I was talking nonsense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 07:58 AM

Raggytash wrote: Yesterday I asked do you really believe that 17.4 million people voted to leave fully accepting that they would be worse of after Brexit?

I'm currently watching Politics Live where one panel member pointed out that despite the 'Project Fear' predictions of financial disaster, massive loss of jobs and all the rest, the vote was to leave. It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:01 AM

Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:10 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

A liar as well as a buffoon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 08:47 AM

"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."
As far as the effect on race relations, that immediately happened
Nobody discussed the economic effects that have now been suggested
Nobody even considered the effects that leaving would have on Northern Ireland and the possible repercussions on the peace process

This is what I predicted earlier - the supporters of the Government are now blaming "the people" for what is likely to go wrong
The incredibly stupid irresponsibility of allowing a referendum without planning for such a momentous move for Britain is beyond belief
The British people entered into this with no information as to what might happen - Farage's racist poster won the day, not common sense based on real information
Now, it transpires, there was not even a 'plan B'
I've never been a great fan of Murdoch's 'Times', but today's leader seems to lay out everything the voters should have known about leaving Europe before they were asked to vote.
That was not thw case, so people need to be given the right to make a decision based on what is now known
Jim Carroll

Today's 'Times' leader
Brexit’s Costs
The UK will not have a cost-free or jobs-first exit from the EU
Brexit will make Britain worse off than it would be remaining within the European Union. That is not a partisan claim. It is the stated position of the government that is intent on executing the policy, as set out in an 83-page cross-departmental study published yesterday. The projections are inherently uncertain but the only credible position is for policymakers to be upfront. Brexit has inherent economic risks and trade-offs. Politicians and voters need to be clear what these are.

Forecasts have admittedly been wrong before. In the 2016 referendum campaign the British Treasury estimated that there would be an “immediate and profound" economic shock in the event of a Brexit vote. George Osborne, then chancellor, said it would tip the economy into a re¬cession and cost up to 820,000 jobs within two years. The outcome was very different. Economic growth has decelerated but continued Employment has continued at record levels. The hit to consumption that economists generally expected did not happen, as households drew down savings.
That is the necessary caution when considering the new study. It sets out 15-year projections of the economic impact of four scenarios for Brexit. These are: Theresa May’s scheme of exit from the customs union and single market, with frictionless trade, a negotiated UK-EU free-trade agreement; a Nor- way-type arrangement, under which the UK remains within the single market and retains freedom of movement; and a no-deal Brexit.

All of these, according to the study, are economically damaging for Britain to varying degrees. And the first (the Chequers plan) is not even on offer. The impact of Brexit on GDP in the first 15 years is estimated to be a hit of 2.5 per cent under Mrs May’s preferred scheme, up to a decline of 9.3 per cent under a no-deal scenario. The Bank of England has warned that a no-deal scenario might cause greater damage than the financial crash.
The long-term nature of these projections and their specificity are bound to elicit scepticism. Economists cannot see the future but they do know the impact on growth of cross-border flows of goods, services, capital and labour. Brexit is set to constrain these flows. Hence the British government concludes that a negotiated deal would reduce GDP by between 2 and 4 per cent compared with staying within the EU. Leaving without a deal would be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that both sides in the referendum campaign made flawed claims and that economists did not in the main expect growth to re¬main as robust after the vote. Yet the effects of Brexit are now more visible, as measured in an enduringly lower level for sterling, weaker investment intentions and emerging labour shortages.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor, acknowledged that a deal would make Britain's economy smaller than if it were inside the EU but argued there were countervailing political benefits. That is a plausible case, as it sets out trade-offs between sovereignty and economic growth. It is not the case made by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, who argued that Britain outside the EU would benefit from access to faster-growing markets while retaining access to Europe s single market. So long as the costs are widely understood and acknowledged by policymakers and voters then Brexit is a democratic course. But there is no cost-free or jobs-first Brexit to be had. Britain must face and make its choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

According to the ONS net migration from the EU has plummeted and has now actually turned negative. At the same time net migration from non-EU countries has reached its highest level since 2004. So now the government is going to relax restrictions on non-EU doctors wanting to come here. So we piss off EU citizens to such an extent that we're being forced to increase the raid on non-EU doctors (that we didn't train).

As I said, this "controlling-our-borders" malarkey doesn't work for people leaving or for valuable skills choosing to come here. All it does is stop whichever EU citizens we select from coming here, and it makes EU citizens, either here or on the continent, see this country as an unwelcoming and undesirable place to be. It doesn't even stop non-EU citizens coming here, something that we presumably could control but don't. You really couldn't make this stuff up. One of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, for people voting leave turns out to be the con of the century.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 03:29 PM

people with valuable skills

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 04:52 PM

Luckily most of knew it was a con and those that did not are now begining to see it, Steve. At least immigrants were not turned into the type of scapegoats that were created in 1930's Germany. Although Farage and his hateful crew tried there best to emulate that. Very sadly, they nearly pulled it off :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Nov 18 - 10:24 PM

Raggytash wrote: Arrant nonsense Stanron, and more to the point you know it is.

Backwoodsman wrote: "It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."

The standard Stanron horse-shit. Never let us down, do you?
It was actually a vote despite 'all the worse stuff the Leave campaign predicted' - you lot were the Village-idiots who declared you were 'fed up with experts' weren't you?

Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:55 AM

The argument is clear enough. The Remain campaign said 'A' would happen if the leave side won. The Leave side said 'stuff and nonsense, 'A' will never happen so go ahead and vote leave."

The absurdity is a claim that those who voted leave were therefore voting for 'A' to happen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:26 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."
You have been given arguments by the score
Ignoring them is not argument - it's ignoring them
You coose to ignore the most prolific and abusive insulter on this forum because he is on your side
That is hypocrisy, impure and simple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:36 AM

"Denials are not arguments, Abuse and insults likewise."

Hilarious, coming as it does from a crony of Iains - the most abusive and insulting poster on this thread or, for that matter, any thread he infects.

BrexShitters, Know Thyselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 04:35 AM

Watch the respones Backie
Billy Coonolly used to claim that if you wanted to confuse a policeman - ask him a question
Seems to be the case here
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:54 AM

I find it strange that people believe that the deal the May has cobbled together represents the EU treating treating the UK unfavourably.

It seems to me that the EU negotiators have bent over backwards to accommodate unreasonable demands made by the UK. Right from the start that said that clearly leaving the EU must mean losing the privileges provided to member states.

As for the £39 billion being paraded as being some kind of fine for leaving, it's nothing of the sort. It's money which we owe because of existing commitments we made before there was any prospect of leaving, and it's a figure that represents only a part payment, because the EU negotiators were able to fiddle the real debt down to make it easier for Theresa May.

Denying us a fresh chance to vote is presented as being democratic. In two countries, Ireland and Denmark, where an initial referendum voted against the EU the people were given a second chance, and voted the other way - and in both cases there is now overwhelming support forEU membership. It's rather as if we were being told that once a government has been elected it is our duty to support that government, and not seek a chance to throw it out. And of course the number of people who have been added to the electoral register since the referendum is significantly higher than the Brexit majority over Remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:59 AM

Good post, McG, and absolutely spot-on, of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:15 AM

Interesting interview on the news just now
Teresa May, when questioned, has refused to rule out a second vote on her Brexit proposals if she cannot get Parliamentary acceptance next week
It appears she is prepared to accept for politicians what she is refusing to allow the British people - a chance to reconsider their decision
Some are more equal than others, as the man said !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 08:29 AM

Equally inconsistent is the way that, while still refusing to entertain the suggestion of asking ordinary people to express their wishes about this deal of hers directly and collectively, she charges around the place calling for the public to put pressure on their MPs to do what she wants.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:17 AM

I also think DMG's post of 1.55 am was excellent. I would quite like some intelligent discussion of the options, but it seems clear that we are not going to get that via Ians or Stanron.

The question on the referendum said

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The papers available to the public at the time stated that there would be a lengthy process of negotiation following a decision to leave, with the UK having lost the right to influence EU decisions. The 'treaties' would cease to apply to us either when withdrawal was agreed or when two years were up.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503908/54538_EU_Series_No2_Accessible.pdf

It may be the case that people who voted 'leave' did so for various reasons included the spurious arguments about vacuum cleaners I remember hearing discussed even on Radio 4, and Borish Johnson's nonsense about bendy bananas, but we cannot know.

On the topic of EU people coming to live in the UK, EU people from the Irish Republic have rights agreed by early instruments to come and live here and it seems that this will continue. Not sure how many qualified doctors are among them.

Our GP practice cannot recruit enough GPs. This is a scandal. Anybody who imagined that a Tory government, some of whose members are ideologically opposed to the very idea of the NHS, wanting to do trade deals with the USA whose big businesses have been wanting to get their teeth into our health service for a long time, and many of whom are ideologically opposed to national health services (look at how they claimed Obama's health care actually KILLED people) wants their heads looking at. But I met people who thought that government spending on local stuff like street cleaning would improve after Brexit because we would not be sending money to the EU. These clowns had no doubt never heard of 'austerity', or the food banks which are now needed to make up for the total mess of benefit changes. They were no doubt aware of the Tory habit of cutting taxes for the rich and cutting state support for the jobless and the working poor. And the rest of us will be paying the price for their stupidity.


Here endeth the rant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 10:21 AM

Sorry, I meant to say that people who imagined that the Tory Government would spend any 'profit' from leaving the EU on public services and/or the NHS wanted their heads looking at, but didn't quite manage it.

But a lot of people I spoke to did, and they were not voting for what Stanron claims they were voting for.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 11:53 AM

I have a friend who runs a small haulage company - 5 drivers. She is desperately worried about whether her company will survive a no deal (and a Brexiteer has posted to her Facebook page that she is being selfish!)


In that context here is a clip from the BBC live feeds"

Northern Ireland will be allowed to operate just 60 lorries in the Republic of Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, threatening disaster for businesses on both sides of the Irish border.

In a no-deal scenario, all commercial drivers in the UK would be reclassified as third-country operators requiring special permits to operate in the EU.

This spells chaos for the Dover-Calais route, which 11,000 trucks cross each day, and has special consequences in Ireland, where 13,000 cross-border journeys are made daily, transporting everything from bread to Guinness to cement.

The Department for Transport told the Freight Transport Association (FTA) this week that only 984 annual European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) permits would be issued for 2019.

It has warned hauliers that if the UK leaves the EU with no deal then they may need these permits to transport goods within the EU or EEA, but the Department for Infrastructure in Belfast has said just 60 permits will be issued in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

A long and barely coherent rant (not my word) which ends by accusing me of making 'claims'. What claims? Read my last post again. I was reporting a comment made on a TV show. If you have access to BBCiPlayer you can watch it for yourself, if you can be bothered to trawl through 45 minutes for a single sentence. Mind you there were quite a few pro remain points of view which you would no doubt enjoy.

I know why I wanted, and still want, to leave. There is more than one reason. I don't know what every one else thought and to claim to know would be stupid.

I happily embrace the conceit that I am not stupid. Can you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

Yes, we know that you want to leave, Stanron. Tell us why. Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave, against the advice of almost 100% of economists and most business leaders. Now that the body of evidence saying that leaving will be a bad thing is overwhelming do you still think it was the right choice? This is what we are trying to learn. We are hoping for some glimmer of hope amongst the gloom. 'We will be out of the EU' just does not cut it. Iains and Nigel have failed to come with any good justification of how we will be in any way better off. I know I am clutching at straws but maybe you will fare better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

I can't answer for Stanron, of course, but one 'reason' I have started hearing more often is that "our parents/grandparents fought to be from of Europe and you dishonour their memory if you do not want to leave."

Pure emotion, of course. No regard for or interest in whether we will be better, worse, or completely collapse. No factual basis at all. Just armchair warriors who somehow think they are doing their bit in the last war.

But I think quite a lot of people could be persuaded by it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:40 PM

What I can't understand is why a vote in June 2016 is the fixed and unchangeably valid expression of the will of the people’s of the UK, while a vote in Spring 2018 would be a a mortal blow to democracy and an insult to the people of the UK.

There are two indeed rational bases for opposing such a vote. For committed Brexiters it would entail a risk that this time the vote might go against them. For MPs in constituencies where there was a strong vote for Brexit last time there is a risk that, if they supported a fresh vote, this might entail a risk of losing their seats in the next election, especially if it turned out that the will of the UK as a whole was to remain in the EU. But neither of these reasons are anything at all to do with democratic principles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:42 PM

to be 'free of' or 'free from' Europe ..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:44 PM

Spot on, Kevin, but sadly it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out. Yes, I do mean third. The first was in 1975 when we voted remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:50 PM

it seems that a third referendum has been ruled out.

I think that is a bit premature. Let's see what happens after around Dec 12th. I agree May is trying to rule it out, but equally there are amendments being proposed that as Laura K puts it:

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says it supports what "some in Number 10 suspect - that is vote falls, Parliament essentially takes over from the executive".

And if that happens, any options could arise, whether Mrs May agrees or not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 12:58 PM

Things are normally ruled out before they are ruled in. Remember May repeatedly saying that there would not be a General Election until 2021. Or Cameron repeatedly saying that if by any possibility there was a vote to leave the EU he would stick around as Prime Minister while the mess was cleared up? Or every single LibDem candidate making an individual pledge to oppose tuition fees irrespective of how the election turned out? Pledges and promises by politicians are almost invariably written in water.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 01:30 PM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Give us good, quantifiable reasons why you decided to vote leave

Again? See post

Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

It's even got a typo.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

For those who cannot be bothered to look back at Stanron's quoted post, here it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron - PM
Date: 20 Aug 18 - 05:49 PM

1. The EU is corrupt, It has failed to produce audited accounts for approximately ever. Good News! we will no longer have to pay for their gravy train.
2. The EU is incompetent. Had the EU offered any kind of effective reform before the referendum we may not have voted to leave. Good News! We will no longer have our common sense subordinated to their doctrinaire incompetencies.
3. The EU is dishonest. It disguised the plan to transform into a United States of Europe because it knew no one would vote for that. Good News! We will no longer be deceived in this particular fashion.
4. The EU is undemocratic. We were never allowed to vote on stuff they reckoned we would reject. We cannot elect any of the people who originate policy. Good News! We will become a Democracy again.
%. The EU is a train wreck in the process of happening. Good News! The light at the end of the tunnel is our escape, not a train coming the other way.

Let's see if this gets deleted.

Well, thing is, Stanron, that does not give anyone any reason to believe that being out of the EU will be any better. In fact, as we still will have to trade with them but have no control over what goes on, it will be decidedly worse. If that was your reason for voting leave, fine. I think you got it wrong, as Steve's post following yours showed, and how do you still justify your vote in the light of what has subsequently transpoired about the dishonesty of the referendum campaign and the obvious damage it is going to do to both the economy and social structure of the UK?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:03 PM

Oh, and 1500!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 02:11 PM

The claim the accounts have never been signed off Is also disputed but it seems 2016 - before the poat - was free of material errors.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 03:59 PM

Nice link.
The main 'conclusion' given is:
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.

How can 2016 be the first year to be largely error-free, if the accounts have been accurate since 2007?
My understanding of 'accurate' would include the accounts being 'error-free'. Clearly the EU auditors work to a different lexicon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 04:20 PM

50 plus years of absent, erroneous, corrupt or disputed accounts might be seen as OK if we were a country which received EU money but as a country that paid in more than it got out it was a bad deal. It was our taxed money, despite opinions that say it was only a little bit. Once we are truly out it will be ZERO!


As to the post following mine, that showed little to me other than skills of misdirection and avoidance.

My first point, corruption, was answered with the words "Classic non sequitur." That is, itself, a classic non sequitur that has nothing to do with corruption.

Point two was incompetence. This was answered with a condemnation of David Cameron, a 'Little Englander' insult and bad language. Not my idea of an argument.

Point three was about EU dishonesty. This was answered with the accusation that the Leave campaign was dishonest, an irrelevance, and the fact that we have a veto. I'm not sure if that is another irrelevance or a non sequitur, but it is not a counter argument. A denial maybe.

Point four was about the EU being undemocratic. The answer to this was an animal reference and a denial that an unelected Commission could be undemocratic.

Point %, or 5 as it should have been, was not addressed.

Non sequiturs, insults, bad language, denials, avoidance and no arguments.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:11 PM

The link explains that accurate means it is a correct accounting of all income and expenditure but that errors relate to the authorisation of that expenditure. So you might use the link in support of your corruption charges, perhaps, but not that the audits were not signed off.

Of course, the authorisation issues do not necessarily it was actually unauthorised overall; sometimes it might be spent in a later quarter than it was approved for, for example. This is not to say the EU is corruption free - the UK isn't either - but you need to be careful you are not distorting the position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:24 PM

Point 1. You work on the basis that we give money to the EU in return for nothing. That is nonsense.

Point 2. The government we currently have is incompetent. You need only look at the mismanagement of the NHS. How will leaving the EU make that better?

Point 3. What is your evidence of the EU being dishonest? Have 'they' ever been tried and convicted?

Point 4. The EU is not undemocratic. It is run by elected officials including ones from the UK who have considerably more power than the representatives of some other member states.

Point 5 (%). How are you measuring this "train wreck"? Compared to how many economies are being run now, including ours, the EU seems to be faring far better.

So, all your points are disputed but even if they were partially true the fact still remains that there is a mass of evidence confirming that we will be considerably worse off outside the EU. If your points did hold water, think how much better it would be if we stayed in and resolved all those issues!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 05:48 PM

Oh, and I should have added that if the EU is all those things you say it is then the UK must shoulder a lot of the responsibility. It is not an "us and them" situation. We have been a major part of the EU since 1973 and if it was in anything like the state you suggest then we have helped to make the mess. Shitting on your partner's floor and then leaving others to clean up the mess is hardly the act of a decent country is it? But luckily, flawed as it is, it is nothing like the picture you paint. You have fallen for the EU smear campaign hook, line and sinker.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:19 PM

Goodbye, Galileo

I suppose some think the leavers voted for this, as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:37 PM

Of course any moves towards greater clearly democratic instructions in the EU would be seen as trying to turn it into a federal nation analogous to the US or India. The existing rather clunky system is a consequence of trying to avoid that while enabling communal harmony. It's a complicated business doing that, and there's room for improvements. It's work still to be done.

The "reforms" David Cameron failed to achieve weren't anthing to do with that, they were merely about getting further UK opt outs and exceptions.

As a citizen of another EU country I think I'd be pretty pleased to see the end of UK membership. Aside, that is, from the potential damage to Ireland arising from the special circumstances of the Northern Ireland involvement in the UK.

A Norway style deal makes a lot of sense, freeing the EU from the UK as members, and vice versa, but retaining a fair degree of harmonisation, and freedom of travel for both UK and EU citizens. And ending the troublesome fishery and agricultural policy links which underlay a fair chunk of the Leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 06:42 PM

(Damn spell checker that thinks it knows better...)

Of course any moves towards greater clearly democratic institutions in the EU would be seen as trying to turn it into a federal nation analogous to the US or India. The existing rather clunky system is a consequence of trying to avoid that while enabling communal harmony. It's a complicated business doing that, and there's room for improvements. It's work still to be done.

The "reforms" David Cameron failed to achieve weren't anthing to do with that, they were merely about getting further UK opt outs and exceptions.

As a citizen of another EU country I think I'd be pretty pleased to see the end of UK membership. Aside, that is, from the potential damage to Ireland arising from the special circumstances of the Northern Ireland involvement in the UK.

A Norway style deal makes a lot of sense, freeing the EU from the UK as members, and vice versa, but retaining a fair degree of harmonisation, and freedom of travel for both UK and EU citizens. And ending the troublesome fishery and agricultural policy links which underlay a fair chunk of the Leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 18 - 07:18 PM

I see I was right about the fiercely pro-May cleric on Newsnight being a lady - but wrong about her being a vicar. In fact she's a pastor in a very strange "Seeds for Wealth" church - "give us your money and we guarantee God will make you very wealthy" - and is also professional who's had parts in a Star Trek film and in Eastenders among other performances. The BBC has denied hiring her for Newsnight to liven up the discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:10 AM

I don't think the leavers actually voted for opting out of any scientific cooperation or for damaging the economy, DMcG. I do think that many did not realise that the impact of their vote would have any such consequences because they were told that leaving would be easy and have no downsides. The remain campaign's warnings were, and still are, called "project fear". It is a testament to the duplicity of Farage, Johnson, Gove and co. that they managed to con so many and shame on the remainers for not going far enough to dispel such errant nonsense.

For that reason and many others the terms of the deal should be put to the country either in another referendum or a general election.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:24 AM

BTW, I still believe that the referendum was a massive mistake and that Cameron's government abdicated their responsibility. I have always said that referendums are wrong and argued against any more but I cannot see any other way out of this mess. Except maybe a coalition government deciding to do the right thing for the country and cancelling the whole sorry affair.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 03:07 AM

The whole sorry mess is the result of the Tories trying to go it alone, instead of creating a cross-party 'Brexit Team'. Of course, they didn't want a cross-party team, because they might not have got their own way and achieved what they're really after, which is a crash-out 'Hard-Brexit' in order to enable the immensely-wealthy cadre who give the party its instructions to avoid EU anti-tax-avoidance regulations which come into effect in 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 04:25 AM

I don't think the leavers actually voted for opting out of any scientific cooperation or for damaging the economy, DMcG.

Nor do I. But there are those who will claim that, even though the precise consequences were not known, the risks were known and were included as part of their decision.

If you wanted my entirely speculative guess on what most leavers voted for, it was for everything to carry on exactly as it was, but with the additional rights to make new trade deals, to change any laws we wanted without referring to anyone else, including immigration and to pay less to the EU.   In the line of a song that I knew as a child but is so often apposite "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."


Our private Galileo will cost £92million just to work out what to do, and then we can expect to overall costs to be a big multiple of the 1.4 billion euro which was our share of the project if we end up having to build a new one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 09:41 AM

The amendment proposed by Hilary Benn to Ms May's Dec 11 motion specifically rules out a no- deal .The amendment is winning support from a cross -party group of pro-remain MPs ;it would if passed be a "staging post to a new referendum" according to Jack Straw . If Theresa May’s motion fails and Benn’s amendment is carried , “parliament essentially takes over from the executive" according to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg.Reading between the lines of an article in the UK’s Independent during the week, Benn’s parliamentary move may have been initiated the other end of Pall Mall :ihttps://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-vote-no-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-queen-remain-mps-new-coalition-government-a8

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:02 AM

I note the Daily Mail has a 'scare' headline relating to some new EU rule supposedly requiring a good mobile signal for banking deals to be processed with a threat this might harm Xmas shopping:


"Warning over new EU banking rules that means online shoppers need to have a mobile phone and good signal for their purchases to go through"


Some clown in the comments is moaning about being made to buy energy saving light bulbs by the EU. I bought a lot of these some time back and cannot remember the last time I bought a light bulb!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:10 AM

I find it mildly disconcerting that some of these bulbs have a longer life expectancy than I do...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:37 AM

I say bring back the electric fires without plugs the Brussels bureaucrats forced us to do away with. Anyone else remember the fun it used to be buying an electric fire and having to buy a plug and put it on yourself ? Watch you connect the right wires or you have to start all over again! (if you're lucky)That was before the busy-body EU dictators ruled that such harmless fun was "potentially dangerous".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:38 AM

It doesn't really surprise me Karen. This has been going on for at least a quarter of a century. I have posted similar before but it is always worth repeating

Euromyths A-Z index

Beware - it is a long read! This has been the 'us and them' scenario since we joined the EU and sadly the campaign to discredit the EU took a massive upsurge in the few years leading to the referendum. It fooled a lot of people, including some on here, into believing the EU was some sort of evil monster foisting its petty rules on us against our will.

The question that people should be asking is if the likes of Farage, Johnson and Gove are so anti EU, what is in it for the? It is sure as hell not for the benefit of you and I.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:39 AM

Mayomick - :-D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:46 AM

Matt Kelly, editor of The New European, revealed last week on Twitter that someone who knows Johnson very well said he now wishes he had "sent the other letter".
The source said: “He knows he’s fucked up massively. Now he’s working out how to get himself out of the mess.”
I guess that the person who knows Johnson very well but is also clearly a Remainer would be Boris' brother , Jo , who is one of the MPs backing the Benn ammendment I mentioned earlier today .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:11 PM

Telling, though, that he's only concerned about his fuck-up in terms of self-extrication. Presumably, the fact that he's fucked it all up for the rest of the 65 million people in the U.K. doesn't disturb the self-centred, self-serving twunt one little bit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:21 PM

I believe I said somewhere further up the thread that it was no longer about getting a good deal but exercise in how to save face while remaining in the EU. Which is the best possible deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:42 PM

Fingers crossed, Dave!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:19 PM

Which is the best possible deal.

Almost. Marginally better would be if those who got us here *did* lose face - or at least acknowledge their role. But I would let them escape with glory if that was the price of getting out of this mess.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:28 PM

Agreed, DMcG. Good point

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:37 AM

DavetheG

The euromyths lists are staggering.

I liked the 'myth' that kilts must be listed as women's wear on official lists, especially since the mistake seems to have originated in the UK, not the EU.

Boris's curved bananas nonsense dates from the 1990s apparently.

Moreover some of these regulations are sensible, including one limiting where householders can do electrical work on their own houses, which was not a EU idea in any case, just falsely stated to be such. Daily Mail again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:49 AM

The family income is threatened by Brexit since we supply goods and services to other members of the EU, and at present can do so without worrying about EU tariffs. These are specific EU customers, and we can't be waiting around for years while some WTO deal is struck with the country in question. A big worry. Lots of businesses must be in this sort of limbo.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

Hard Brexit might end up going soft

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 09:45 AM

Ha ha ha

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 01:58 PM

Due to hit the fan this week, according to the news headlines
MORE SECRETS - MORE LIES
How worse can this get ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 02:13 PM

ITN News piece from Robert Peston regarding this coming week's machinations....tick, tock, tick, tock....

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-02/theresa-may-has-nine-days-to-save-her-world/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:41 PM

I wonder what odds I'd get on the possibility that, having lost the vote next week, Theresa May will opt for a fresh referendum? Given that she's being charging around calling for people to speak out in support of her deal, and to try to get their MPs to back it, going for a "people's vote" on it when the MPs defy what she'd claim the people had called for them to do would make sense. It could give her more chance of getting the deal accepted and of surviving as PM than anything else in sight.

In fact it would make sense for her not to wait, but to come out with it in her debate with Jeremy after Strictly Come Dancing on Sunday. It would put him on the back foot if it came out of the blue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

So, if we do have another vote, what should the question be?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Very difficult question, Steve. If Parliament thinks no-deal is unacceptable it makes sense to leave it off the question paper. But without a shadow of doubt, that would cause massive anger amongst those who voted to leave. However, if it is on the ballot and people vote for remain - or even May's deal - I am not convinced their anger will be much less. Also, if Parliament has decisively rejected May's deal, it would be odd to put that as an option.

All the questions I can think of have problems but I find Soubry's idea of ranking May's deal, no-deal and remain in order the best.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:45 AM

I think Labour also needs to drop this "constructive ambiguity" and have a much clearer stance for the planned tv debate. Going in saying they want a general election but are not clear what they will do if elected is probably about the worst thing they can do.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:59 AM

Given the population should now have a much clearer picture of the implications of the UK leaving the EU should the question on a second referendum vote be the same as on the first.

"Should be United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union"

That way there can be no ambiguity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:31 AM

Unfortunately that would keep a winning Leave vote as unclear as ever whether it means May's deal or no-deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:35 AM

Raggytash

With respect:

If only it were that simple. For me, one thing that has emerged is that there isn't really a shared definition of what being in and coming out means. Some Brexiters appear to be insisting that we do not enter into any sort of deal with the EU that resembles the arrangements we had as members on the basis that it isn't really what the people wanted eg customs deals, eg free trade. 'Out means out', or does it?

And the problem of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the border between the two: would this be decided or solved by such wording?

It's a horrible mess, and not likely to get better any time soon as far I can see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:49 AM

Sadly you are correct Karen. As Steve has pointed out on many occasions we elected politicians to act on our behalf. They negated that responsibility when the referendum was called and left us with the mess that we now have.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:58 AM

A further referendum repeats that dodging of responsibility and puts decisions about the Northern Ireland border and much else onto we ordinary citizens, some of whom will care deeply and others who are totally uninterested.

I do think it the duty of Parliament to sort this out without a referendum. But I admit I can't see how they can.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

I said many months ago, and have repeated it often, that our politicians of all shades should be banging their own heads together, across the party lines that are ready highly irrelevant when it comes to brexit in any case, and declare that they will act in the country's best interests. It's as plain as the noses on the faces of all but the blind and the bigots by now that that means ditching brexit, reminding the nation that the referendum was after all only advisory, and that we know a lot more now than we did then. It'll cause trouble. But so will everything else. Anyone who thinks that another referendum will put this to bed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:17 AM

"Already." Sorry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:40 AM

Just skimming the 52 page "Legal Position on the Withdrawal Agreement". I would be astonished if this satisfies those demanding the full legal advice. Expect a call for contempt by the end of the day.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:59 AM

I said in the 'closed original' Brexit thread that I had a sneaky suspicion that May was seeking a means of aborting the village-idiocy of Brexit, and trying to manipulate a process of achieving the abandonment which would give her a get-out from shouldering the blame that the Brexit village-idiots would undoubtedly try to heap on her.

I've seen little to change my opinion on that, in fact as her government rumbles inexorably towards a bloody good kick in the balls in the 'meaningful vote', it seems more and more likely to happen.

Fingers crossed!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:08 AM

If you wish to highlight the fact the referendum was merely advisory how on earth can you justify the call for a second one if it is merely advisory? It is clearly a waste of both time and resources.
Even the squeaker admits a second is not on.
Courtesy of guido(of course!)

https://order-order.com/2018/12/03/bercow-second-referendum-fundamentally-undemocratic/

Cue the usual denialist remainiacs!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:14 AM

Mention village idiots, and.....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:40 AM

No, the speaker did not say that. He said, one week after the 2016 vote, that it would be undemocratic to rerun it because you did not like the result. He said nothing whatsoever about rerunning once you knew the proposed deal, or in the light of two more years' information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:41 AM

Brexiteers cannot possibly be idiots, village or otherwise. Idiots are defined as those having poor motor skills, very limited communication and very little response to stimuli. Under the 1918 Representation of the People Act, you cannot register as an elector if you are an idiot.

It is unclear what degree of retardation remainiacs suffer.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:47 AM

"There is nothing advisory when a vote is held before which the nation's PM promises, verbally and in writing, that the government will obey the result and carry out the wishes of the majority. That forms a binding contract with the electorate. Much as many with personal disappointment issues would like to rewrite the terms under which people voted after the event because they don't like the result, it would be fundamentally undemocratic to allow them to do so. Parliament is only sovereign because the people allow it to be so. That sovereignty is not owned by parliament but simply held in trust. Were it otherwise we wouldn't need to hold regular elections."

Don't claim to be the author but certainly agree with the opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:57 AM

The village idiot I was referring to was the multiple-bankrupt, criminal fuckwit whose Right-Wing-Extremist-Agenda-driven ramblings you set such great store by. But, if the cap fits....suits you, sir.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:34 AM

Would you like a mouthwash?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:42 AM

From the Full Fact website:

Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true... That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.

In other countries, referendums are often legally binding—for example, because the vote is on whether to amend the constitution. The UK, famously, doesn’t have a codified constitution.

A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way.

Otherwise, as the High Court put it on 3 November:

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.
So, purely as a matter of law, neither the government nor Parliament has to do anything about the referendum.

Brexiteers are clinging on to "it wasn't just advisory" because Cameron, then May, declared that they would be bound by it. They were both speaking way beyond their remit in saying that, tantamount to declaring a sort of edict. That was way out of order and was done as a political stunt in order to save face when they were confronted by opposition to brexit. They were going over the heads of our democratically-elected representatives, who overwhelmingly oppose brexit, to make a populist appeal directly to the electorate so that democratic opposition to brexit would be thwarted. To put it simply, the referendum was not legally binding, and it couldn't be made so simply via the say-so of two politicos who both seemed to forget what democracy is all about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:51 AM

A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. 

And that also addresses Iains 'waste of time and money' remark. Parliament, if it wishes, can make a further referendum binding. (Though there is complication that in our system no Parliamentary session can bind a subsequent one.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:56 AM

The fact that Theresa May refuses to reveal the advice given to her on the legality of Brexit is an indication that it is not binding or at the very least, that only she knows whether it is legally binding or not, so any claims that it is is a load of arrogant bollocks
As it was passed by vague promises that are mostly impossible to honour and the chaos that is likely to follow exiting Europe is now obvious, the only democratic and honorable thing to do is to allow the electorate to confirm the decision (or otherwise)
Interesting that those who hide behind "the people's choice" excuse refuse to even consider that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:56 AM

The fact that Theresa May refuses to reveal the advice given to her on the legality of Brexit is an indication that it is not binding or at the very least, that only she knows whether it is legally binding or not, so any claims that it is is a load of arrogant bollocks
As it was passed by vague promises that are mostly impossible to honour and the chaos that is likely to follow exiting Europe is now obvious, the only democratic and honorable thing to do is to allow the electorate to confirm the decision (or otherwise)
Interesting that those who hide behind "the people's choice" excuse refuse to even consider that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:59 AM

I have already pointed out that anyone capable of any kind of accomplishment cannot be called an idiot. To continue to use the term, after being told how totally inappropriate it is, merely demonstrates your own degree of retardation. Whether that lies in the range of moron or imbecile, I leave you to decide, I cannot be arsed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:09 PM

"Would you like a mouthwash?"

Mouthwash stains the teeth. My dentist (you wouldn't like her, she's from Lithuania, one of those immigrants you and your village-idiot Brexit-cronies are so pissed off about) strongly advises against its use.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:16 PM

You seem to have forgotten in the brief respite from idiocy Baccy
No sense, no feeling
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:16 PM

I have already pointed out that anyone capable of any kind of accomplishment cannot be called an idiot

You are making the same mistake that Nigel did earlier. Any discipline tends to use terms with a level of formality that is not present in every day English. In his case, he was mixing up the terms error and accuracy as used in every day English with the terms as used in a formal accountancy context. You are doing something similar: treating a common or garden sense of the word 'idiot' as if it was in a clinical or legal context.


Which of course has nothing to with Brexit. Why not comment on the debate about legal advice going on at this very minute in Parliament instead?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM

I regard the debate in Parliament as idiocy of the first order. The referendum when first mooted should have been given a clear legal status by a parliamentary debate and and ensuing vote. That those that supposedly know better than the rest of us made such a monumental cockup says little for the calibre of out politicians and civil service. That the ensuing fiasco was not envisaged by all those "mighty brains" does little to inspire confidence in any of them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:36 PM


I regard the debate in Parliament as idiocy of the first order.

So are the people doing this idiots (q.v.)?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:43 PM

At 17:36 Cox said it would be "an astonishing thing" if the EU were not to act in good faith.

I gently point out that if everyone acted in good faith there would be little need for lawyers at all. Disputes arise when one party thinks the other is not acting in good faith.


And I suspect many Brexiteers will find the idea that the EU acts in good faith a rather difficult morsel to swallow.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:44 PM

"The referendum when first mooted should have been given a clear legal status by a parliamentary debate a"
That couldn't have happened without specifying exactly what was on offer - you can't make binding agreements on selling a bag of fog
Pretty obvious we still don't know
Since when has anything the British people voted for been mandatory ?
The British electoral system is based on politicians making promises they have no intention of keeping
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 01:09 PM

As expected:

18:05 Six opposition parties have written a joint letter to the speaker calling for contempt proceedings to be launched against the government over its failure to publish its Brexit legal advice in full.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 01:19 PM

"There is nothing advisory when a vote is held before which the nation's PM promises, verbally and in writing, that the government will obey the result and carry out the wishes of the majority. That forms a binding contract with the electorate. Much as many with personal disappointment issues would like to rewrite the terms under which people voted after the event because they don't like the result, it would be fundamentally undemocratic to allow them to do so."

This comment, quoted by Iains, appears after an article on Iain's fave website, made by someone called "Malcolm" who we know nothing about apart from the fact that he or she's a brexiteer. The vote was advisory because the act passed that permitted it didn't say otherwise. That's the rules, Iains, and Cameron had no power to override that just on his say-so. We don't run our democracy like that. The comment about a "binding contract" is entirely specious. The last sentence has nothing to do with what is now being campaigned for apropos of another referendum. No-one to my knowledge is calling for a rerun or a rewriting of terms, whatever that means. The question on the ballot paper will be a different one, and we know far more now than we knew last time around.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 02:43 PM

.good to see someone actually reads the comments section of guru guido.
The argument is very simple. The referendum was a democratic vote. Should the government of the day thwart it, where does that leave democracy? If the government does not wish to be bound by the clearly stated wishes of the majority, then why should we be bound by the government. The government of the day are there by consent only, no other mechanism can maintain their validity.

The recent events in Paris could pale into insignificance if Joe public wishes to express his displeasure. Governments have fallen and countries have been destroyed for lesser provocations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 03:43 PM

Ooooooooh .......... project fear !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 04:37 PM

Project fear, based on who knows what odd conception of 'Joe public'. Farage has been pushing this line for some years. How democratic would a society run by violent right wingers be, I wonder? Has it ever been tried?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 05:02 PM

The referendum might well have been a democratic vote (though the campaign fell well short of what democracy should be about), but the act of Parliament that allowed the referendum did not specify that it was binding, and the default is thereby that it isn't. Do feel free to look that up. All else is opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:01 PM

"How democratic would a society run by violent right wingers be, I wonder? Has it ever been tried?"

Germany in the 1930s and 1940-45. I'm sure the six million Jews could tell you precisely how democratic a society run by violent right-wingers was, if they hadn't been murdered by those violent right-wingers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:43 PM

"All the questions I can think of have problems but I find Soubry's idea of ranking May's deal, no-deal and remain in order the best."

I can't agree with this. Whatever way you juggle the votes around in order to do the eliminating, you would be doing two things: squeezing out an awful lot of people's second-best from consideration, and giving leave two options but only one for remain. That simply would look wrong on the ballot paper. There'd be wigs on the green if remain were to lose.

I think you'd have to ask the people whether there should be another referendum or not. If yes, the next question could be a binary leave/remain, and remain would (probably) be a shoo-in. If no, then we take that as the go-ahead for May's deal. Yeah, problems, problems. But if you can find a better 'ole...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 02:20 AM

The only second votes ignored are those of people allocated their first choice. Leave people sometimes argue it splits their vote but it doesn't because if one of the Leave options came third and was eliminated the majority of the second choices which came into play would be for the other leave option.

The only disadvantage of two leave options to one remain would be for people who make a random choice from the options, which would advantage leave, but hopefully there would not be too many picking at random.

I don't think a series of binary ballots works very well: the campaigning alone sounds horrendously complicated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 02:46 AM

"The referendum was a democratic vote."
Utter nonsense - again
Democracy can only work when people vote on all the facts - Brexit was driven by populism - the appeal to people's prejudices - the main instigator was the leader of a now discredited party which was based on Xenophobia
Any decision forced through by such a vote, where the voters were refused a chance to re-confirm that vote based on additional knowledge is as far from democracy as you can get.
Baccie just put it in a nutshell - the Nazis came to power on a democratic vote.
Why are those shouting the loudest about 'The People's Vote' also the main opponents of giving 'The People' the right to re-affirm that vote - rhetorical question, of course
It is no accident that the same people (here and elsewhere) treat working people with contempt
If we ask for a voice in the workplace we become "the Enemy within"
If shoddily built homes burn down it becomes "Loony Leftism" to allow the survivors to use vacant property.
I'm sure people here can make their own lists of the contempt with which ordinary people are regarded by these 'defenders of the people's vote'
Why have none of these people Iains, Stanron, Nigel; ever answered the simple question
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION - another rhetorical question, of course
'The People' now have far to much information to take 'THE RIGHT' decision
As far as the rabid right are concerned, "too much knowledge in the 'wrong' hands is a dangerous thing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:14 AM

Jim won't satisfied til we go for the hard remain option.

We all get a gap year in Prague, a Volkswagen camper, The Greatest Hits of Sacha Distel cd and the boxed edition of the Eurovision Song Contest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:26 AM

"As far as the rabid right are concerned, "too much knowledge in the 'wrong' hands is a dangerous thing"
" Brexit was driven by populism - the appeal to people's prejudices - the main instigator was the leader of a now discredited party which was based on Xenophobia"

More demented rubbish from the king of bullshit. Lets be having some proof to back your ludicrous assertion! Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your deluded ramblings?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:31 AM

"More demented rubbish from the king of bullshit. L"
More insecure insulting from or resident mental midget
How about addressing the points instead of throwing stones from a safe, anonymous distance - neither intelligent or particularly courageous

"Jim won't satisfied til we go for the hard remain option."
I have no idea how a second vote would go
As a claimed socialist, You should be ashamed siding with these cap- diffing brain-deads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:18 AM

" Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your deluded ramblings?"
A further reminder tha you are very much in the minority here - just you and your two friends who scurry into self-imposed purdah when they are confronted with a difficult question
As far as I am concerned, your only value here is as an example of the paucity of ideas of the extreme right - we can expect no more from someone who regards Paul Staines A GURU
Keep up the good work, your right-wing hissy-fits are the nearest thing we have to entertainment in these grim days

This THUMBNAIL SKETCH offers a pretty reasonable summing up of the effects of Right-wing politics   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM

Good article, Jim, and very disturbing. I suppose it is the Tory party's return to the old values! Not a lot to do with brexit though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:39 AM

SOME FACTS THAT HAVE SLIPPED UNDER THE NET amidst all the Brexit cavortings

Some practical back-up here

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-in-work-family-joseph-rowntree-foundation-state-of-the-nation-report-a8664891.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-in-work-family-joseph-rowntree-foundation-state-of-the-nation-report-a8664891.html
Sorry, can never get the Independent to blue-clickie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:59 AM

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION"

Whether it's the least bad option is a moot point. But make no mistake - if it were to happen it would happen after another campaign of lies and distortions from both sides of the argument. I'm not clear as to how you think that would advance democracy beyond what happened in the last campaign... Thing is, it could be the best, or only, chance of our ditching brexit. But we remainers arguing for it, knowing full well that we're going to get a lot more heat and very little light all over again, seems just a little expedient. I just wish that referendums had never been born, but this is too serious for us to just sit around wishing.

It now seems as if we can reverse Article 50 unilaterally. Interesting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:41 AM

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION"

Wotcha going to do if they do reconfirm their original decision?
Do you think you have sprinkled fairy dust over the winning brexiteers?
Are you really convinced the outcome would change? IF the vote went 60/40 for leave, you would still be bleating.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:45 AM

It was an attempt at humour Jim. I used to be in the Dennis Skinnere mould of Leave voters. On the grounds that one load of bloated capitalists is enough to take on at a time.

Nowadays I realise I know nowt. So I have no horse in this race.

I feel revulsion at the way both camps express themselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

The UK is not governed by a system of 'Popular Democracy', where the citizens make the judgments and decisions necessary to run the country. We periodically elect Members of Parliament, whose (very well-paid) job is to make the important decisions of policy and law on behalf of all of the citizens of the UK. It's called 'Representative Democracy' and it's the system we have relied upon for several hundred years.

It's our parliamentary representatives who should be making these decisions, based on the information which they receive as part of their position as representatives of the people, and which the ordinary people do not. It's what they exist, and receive their generous remuneration, for.

The utter chaotic donkey's breakfast we currently find the country and parliament paralysed by is the result of the abandonment, albeit for one poll only, of our system of Representative Democracy, and handing responsibility for the most important decision since the end of WW2 to the electorate, with campaigns run on the basis of lies and mis-information.

There should be NO SECOND (or third, depending on how you look at it) REFERENDUM. Our MPs are elected and paid to make The Big Decisions on our behalf, and that's how this whole catastrophe should have been run right from the start. Let Parliament decide which of the three options they prefer:-

1) The No-Deal Hard Brexit
2) Brexit according to May's watered-down 'Deal'.
3) Remain in the EU, preferably on the terms that we had prior to the Referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:09 AM

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:24 AM

A simple reconfirming of the original decision gets us nowhere. Too much has happened since 2016 and a deal has been put on the table. It's late in the day but we need our politicians to do the job we elected them for, which is to decide what is in the country's best interests (not the Tory Party's). We know know that we can reverse Article 50. That's a start. We know that there is little appetite for no deal. We know that May's deal will fall. We know that a majority of MPs favour remain. We know that the referendum wasn't binding. We need these brave MPs of ours to stop watching their backs and do the Right Thing. Which is to ditch brexit. Anything else is just insane and will wreck the country. It'll take time but we'll forgive them. This is a time to put party politics aside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:15 AM

We know that a majority of MPs favour remain. We know that the referendum wasn't binding. We need these brave MPs of ours to stop watching their backs and do the Right Thing.
The 'right thing' in your view.
It was always the case that 'a majority of MPs favour remain', but it was seen that they were not representing the views of their constituents. The referendum made quite clear that they were not representing the views of their voting constituents. To now act directly against that expressed view, without getting confirmation of their actions from their constituents, would be a disaster for democracy in UK.
The job of MPs now is to get us out of the EU with the best deal possible, or on WTO terms if no good deal is forthcoming.
And yes, that is my opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:26 AM

The problem there Nigel is that every deal (or no deal) would be detrimental to the UK as a whole.

Every pundit, economist, financial guru etc etc over the past 30 months has said that we will be worse off if we leave the EU.

The Bank of England and even the Government has said the same.

Now you may be in a position where you can absorb that downside, but many people do not have that luxury and are dependent of our elected representatives to ensure they do not suffer adversely.

If that means those representatives throwing out Brexit then so be it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:27 AM

The only job most MPs do is to ensure their re-election come the time.
It is me me par excellence! To see any posistive attributes is the height of folly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:34 AM

The only job most MPs do is to ensure their re-election come the time.
It is me me par excellence.

Not entirely true, but a common trait of human nature, I am afraid. For example, I have asked quite a few Leavers to name ways in which they will personally be worse off but think that a price worth paying to leave. I haven't had a convincing response yet, which sounds very like "me, me, me" in my opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:52 AM

MPs are not the slaves of their constituents. Democracy does not demand that MPs always do their constituents' bidding. If they did, we'd still be stringing people up and carting boatloads of "immigrants" (especially black ones) "back to where they come from" and putting boys in the army for being naughty because "it nevvah done me no 'arm." Democracy demands that MPs wise up on the issues affecting the country and act in what they then believe to be in the country's best interests, not on the whims of their constituents. And if their constituents don't agree, they can boot them out next time. I'm so happy to be able to apprise you of what real parliamentary democracy is, Nigel. It's worth remembering that 38% of the electorate voted leave. So by that measure 38% of MPs voting leave should be fair representation, eh, 34% voting remain and the rest left shrugging their shoulders. That would work, wouldn't it, Nigel? Everything solved Nigel's way!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

MPs are elected to represent their constituents by pursuing the policies and views of the political party in whose name they stand for election. That is how Party-political representative democracies work.

They are not elected to 'represent the views of their voting constituents' - their voting constituents will undoubtedly have many varied, widely differing views on any given subject, common sense dictates that it would be impossible for an MP to represent that wide range of views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:22 AM

It's tough for leavers to take that in, though, John. It's slightly reminiscent of the "who cares about the losing side" conversation we're thankfully no longer having.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:33 AM

Waiting for the backlash on that one ....... I’m sure Brexiteers will be delighted to learn that the top EU court has granted Britain permission to act unilaterally .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:36 AM

My views are almost always 180-deg from those of my Tory MP, one of The Beast of Grantham's 'Golden Balls' boys. Which shows Nigs's assertions that an MP should always represent his constituents' views as illogical nonsense.

I feel sorry for the Banana-Bunch on here, their teachers should have made them sit at one of the front desks, and made sure they were paying attention.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:13 AM

"Wotcha going to do if they do reconfirm their original decision?"
Accept it, of course
It would then have been based on information that was not available first time around
It's the right who send in the troops and open up the torture chambers when things don't go their way - as did Thatcher's fascist mentor, Augusto Pinochet (probably another of your lily-white heroes)

Sorry Al - my mistake - humour's a bit thin on the ground at present
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:21 AM

MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Not the views of their constituents. and definitely not their political party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:36 AM

MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Not the views of their constituents. and definitely not their political party.

Typical socialist arrogance to decide what is best for the little people, and when did they ever do other than follow the party line.
Definitely an escapee from la la land to come up with the opening sentence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:38 AM

So by that measure 38% of MPs voting leave should be fair representation, eh, 34% voting remain and the rest left shrugging their shoulders. That would work, wouldn't it, Nigel? Everything solved Nigel's way!
Yep, that would work. If it comes to a parliamentary vote on whether we complete on the intention to leave the EU, I would be quite happy if 38% voted to leave, 34% voted remain, and the rest shrugged their shoulders and let those willing to take an interest to get on with it. Though I doubt that was what you meant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:51 AM

"Typical socialist arrogance to decide what is best for the little people"
Where did that come from
The views of the British people are as varied as the politicians - no party could possibly represent all the views of the British people at the one time and it would be totally unconstitutional to attempt to represent only those who voted for them
Brexit in fact scraped through on a tiny majority - in fact a minority of the British people voted for it.
Nobody asks the British people what they want or think before they put up for election

The politicians tell the people what they intend to do at election time and, when they are elected, forget what they've promised and do what suits their own policies
You argued that the Brexit vote should be mandatory - if what the people actually voted for (what had peen promised) Britain would be as near to socialism as you could get = that would never suit you people now, would it?
You don't answer questions and you continue to personally insult people - each time you do you shrink mentally   
You really are not very good at this, as you continue to prove by your infantile behavior
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 12:10 PM

"'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion"

Now who said that Iains? Its not difficult to look up, but it was no socialist, in fact it dates from well before there was even such a thing as socialism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 12:12 PM

Well it wasn't shit-for-brains Guido...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 01:16 PM

May and her cronies have been found guilty of breaching parliamentary privilege for refusing to reveal the full legal advice on Brexit
It has also been decided that MPs should have a vote on the details of Brexit thanks to an alliance between the opposition and the D.U.P.
I'm beginning to change my opinion of blood-sports - beats Est Enders any day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 01:36 PM

I think the business over publishing the legal documents is more important than the documents, or even Brexit. It was about whether, after Parliament has passed a binding motion, the government can just say "Nah, we'll ignore that." At heart it was about whether authority rests in the Commons or the government, and Rees-Mogg argued on Newsnight last night that was constitionally important.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:44 PM

I think its become more obvious than ever that the blokes in charge will do what they want and all our arguing and bitterness has been for nothing.

No one we know, will decide what happens. Very probably someone we've never heard of decided what was going to happen, long before the referendum.

I can't believe I'm the only one who feels totally powerless.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:44 PM

some excellent news from guido, the man with a finger on the pulse!

https://order-order.com/2018/12/04/brexit-britain-fdi-soaring-manufacturing-booming/






















IHS

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:55 PM

Edmund Burke Quotes. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation.”
? James Freeman Clarke

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:03 PM

Who to believe, Paul Staines, bankrupt, drink drives and general conspiracy theorist, or the Governor of the Bank of England. Hard one.

As for James Freeman Clarke, yes thats a good quote. And the next generation, the young and educated, they are the ones above all who will benefit from continued membership of the EU, the ones to whom the loss of Freedom of Movement is a drastic blow. So yes, the representatives need to think about the next generations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:57 PM

That sounds like writing the guy a blank cheque to do what he likes.

After all, Hitler was thinking about 'future generations' when he brought in capital punishment for being disabled, racially impure, or thinking differently to him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:43 PM

Could I politely request that references to Germany in the 1930's and 1940's are not included in this thread.

Please refer to my opening post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:32 PM

It was interesting that Theresa May chose to absent herself from the House when the crucial vote today was declared, and that it was Angela Leadsom who announced to the members that the government would obey their instructions, and publish the full advice tomorrow.

Even more interesting was the legal opinion today indicating that the European Court of Justice is likely to rule that the UK government can just cancel its withdrawal from the EU if it chooses. A clear Parliamentary vote to reject May's deal, stated by the EU to be its last word, together with a firm decision that No Deal is totally unacceptable would logically mean that the only option in town should be to do precisely that.

If it were seen as essential to hold a referendum, the predicted ruling would simplify matters. It would remove from the table arguments about whether the EU might make demands on the UK in return for cancelling withdrawal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:52 PM

I'm getting an increasing feeling that the whole thing will implode before we get another referendum. I don't think we're going anywhere.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 12:22 AM

I hope that you are right Steve, I really do.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:57 AM

Even off all implodes and we end up withdrawing Article 50, the Brexiteers will never accept any reason for it failing apart from May and co not really fighting for interests or being prepared to 'no deal'. So come the next election there would certainly be a UKIP or similar shouting "we were betrayed." There is no knowing how successful they would be, but it a definite risk that we end up with such a party in government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 02:56 AM

Farage has left UKIP

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 03:15 AM

"Farage has left UKIP"
Perhaps he's going after Theresa May's job
He'll have to join the queue
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:07 AM

I think we ned to take that risk, DMcG, but we need to face them down. As Mosley was faced down and Powell was faced down. Appeasing them will not work, the more you give them the more they want, and if you keep throwing them scraps we will have nothing left.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:38 AM

I agree, David. To quote a song from the 60s I think "How can you fight if you don't recognise the warning?" The risk is there, it is hopefully not great, but whatever we n3ed to face it and deal with it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:16 AM

It says it all about Guido that his web page includes so-called cures for baldness. For a decent speech about Brexit, try this

https://www.libdemvoice.org/devstatingly-powerful-speech-from-margaret-beckett-59345.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:17 AM

So....any good news about Brexit? Iains? Nigs? Anybody...??

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:22 AM

And here's another piece demolishing the Brexiteers' WTO fantasy

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/brexit-wto-terms-rules-theresa-may-deal-eu-world-trade-organisation-peter-lilley-a8668311.html

In any case, at the G20 last week concerns were expressed about global trade problems.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:26 AM

Becket was particularly good on Euratom and nuclear safety, deriding May's claims that we can do it all by ourselves by pointing out a) May seems to have found a money tree to pay the added costs, and b) there is a shortage of experts so that even the EU found problems hiring suitable people.

More reading material on the WTO myth

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-would-trading-on-WTO-terms-mean.pdf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:29 AM

Guido is claiming there would not be a hard border with Ireland on the WTO basis. Here are the arguments that this is false.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-would-trading-on-WTO-terms-mean.pdf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:31 AM

The stupid thing has been that so many people who favoured Remain have accepted, and even echoed the stuff about how a second referendum would somehow be undemocratic. There is nothing undemocratic about giving people an opportunity to change their minds, or to confirm their wishes.

There is no way in which either Ireland or Denmark are less democratic countries than the U K - in fact there are good grounds for arguing that their political systems are considerably more democratic than those of the UK. To suggest that in giving their electorate a second chance in similar circumstances is deeply unjust, and absurd edgy so.

In addition a fresh vote would reflect the fact that more than two years after that first vote the additional number of people who have become entitled to vote is far higher than the narrow majority that separated the two sides in 2016 - people who have not had any chance to vote on this issue, which will affect their lives and opportunities profoundly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:37 AM

Not at the moment. Even the Spanish are taking the piss and being encouraged by the EU vice president. News from guido of course!

https://order-order.com/2018/12/05/eu-vice-president-applauds-spanish-warships-illegal-anti-british-stunt/
All the more reason for brexit.

Who to believe, Paul Staines, bankrupt, drink drives and general conspiracy theorist, or the Governor of the Bank of England. Hard one.
Remainiacs may find it hard, but you constantly attack the man not the message. This is not a very intelligent technique to adopt. Neither is offering a comparison between Carney and the righteous Guido.
One man offers hopelessly incorrect forecasts with a definite political bias, The other is nowt but a hack that makes no secret of his affiliations.
He presents factual arguments backed up by multiple alternative media .There is a distinct lack of logic to hold one up as an example to us all(Whose forecasts are demonstrably false) and on the other hand denigrate a man that presents facts (that are easily verified)
It does get a little tiresome pointing this out on here at regular intervals. Remainiacs must have the perspicacity and attention span of a gnat, besides being unable to appreciate that a comparison between forecasts and facts simply cannot be made. Facts are facts, forecasts largely fiction, no matter how massaged.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 08:46 AM

Facts are facts indeed. And only giving the facts from one side of an argument is known as biassed reporting. Anyone who cannot appreciate that is beyond redemption.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 09:04 AM

I've just heard a conversation between two old ladies in a Truro bus shelter.

"This Brexit...What's the point of us voting...They don't take no notice of us anyway...They just do what they want...I thought this was supposed to be a democracy...These MPs don't even pay income tax...and they don't have to use the NHS like us...and I don't like Gemany telling us what to do either...They're very dodgy, the Germans..."

Meet the people who are taking us out of the EU!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 09:05 AM

A solicitor, having examined the full text of the legal advice in full, suggests that there are only two alternatives - a new referendum or a NO DEAL BREXIT

"the man not the message."
The man is a politically devious thug committed to extremist right wing politics
His message in this case, is that the British manufacturing economy has risen recently
As it has dwindled to virtually nothing over the last few decades, it is like saying the dying man is not looking too bad this morning
If you care to check what the Economist says about the rise, it points out that it is more to do with what is happening elsewhere than being a significant rise in Britain's fortunes - a short-term blip
This is typical of your "Guru's" manipulating figures rather than reporting the facts in full
It is totally mindless to only have one source of information that has proved flawed and dishonest over and over again
Christ - even Teribus had the nouse to try to sell his bullshit
This is just laziness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

On constitutional Parliament v The Government who rules, it is The Crown in Parliament which is why the Queen calls somebody to form 'Her Majesty's Government'.

It's all well and good to discuss British manufacturing industry but we hardly have any such thing. People seem to imagine we are still in the 20th century. Jim is right.

Given the information available about Staines via Wikipedia, I think one would be unintelligent if one took anything he wrote or published at face value. Clearly, the character of the messenger is sometimes important in evaluating whether the 'message' he delivers will be fair and accurate. I note that Staines has apparently been advising the Russian embassy on how to use social media.


I didn't know that he was an Irish citizen.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:04 AM

Anyone else noticed that there's only one person on here who appears to set any store whatsoever by anything that 'Seaman' Staines, the Drink-Driving Criminal, has to say?

The poor sap reminds me of the proud mum watching the cub-scouts marching on St. George's day. As her son's troop passes by, she turns to her friend, beams with glowing pride, and says, "Look, they're all out of step except my little Tommy!".

QED.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:13 AM

Talking of facts, lovely short film here by Stephen Fry. Well worth a look.

Brexit. Facts versus Fears

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:17 AM

If you all continue to attack guido the man, it merely demonstrates the paucity of your counter arguments.

A fact is something that is consistent with objective reality or that can be proven with evidence. Therefore there cannot be an argument over them, unless you wish to question reality. (Something remainiacs constantly do with referendum results)

"The man is a politically devious thug committed to extremist right wing politics
His message in this case, is that the British manufacturing economy has risen recently
As it has dwindled to virtually nothing over the last few decades, it is like saying the dying man is not looking too bad this morning
If you care to check what the Economist says about the rise, it points out that it is more to do with what is happening elsewhere than being a significant rise in Britain's fortunes - a short-term blip"

OH DEAR! Nurse! Nurse! The patient lives in a timewarp and repeats the same pack of lies every couple of weeks, despite being offered constant evidence rebutting his mindless mantra.

The decline in manufacturing is shared throughout the OECD. Manufacturing employment has declined steadily in most OECD countries. since the 1970s, in particular in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. As the birth place of Industrialisation was in the UK the percentage employed in manufacturing from say a benchmark year of 1890, was historically high.

Here are some remainiac inconvenient truths below. No doubt some will dispute the FACTS

You will have to construct your own link:
The Changing Nature of Manufacturing in OECD Economies - OECD.org
www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/37607831.pdf

by D Pilat - ?2006 - ?Cited by 142 - ?Related articles

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:39 AM

It is a fact that Staines has four alcohol related convictions.
It is a fact that Staines declared himself bankrupt after failing as a financial broker and trader.
It is a fact that Staines is a right wing blogger.

These facts are proven and indisputable.

His blogs may contain factual information but the above facts prove him untrustworthy, irresponsible and biased toward the right wing of politics. His blogs tell only one side of the story so it is little wonder that his message is, quite rightly, discounted by those who want to more than propaganda.

Marching to a different drum can be a good thing but dancing a quickstep to a slow waltz tune does little to endear anyone to the strictly panel...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:44 AM

That's far too deep for him, Dave - it'll go straight over his head.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 10:56 AM

I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, BWM. What they do with that benefit is up to them :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 11:15 AM

More sense from guido concerning the clown at the Bank of England!

https://order-order.com/2018/11/29/economist-won-nobel-prize-trade-theory-sceptical-carneys-forecasts/

WARNING!!! contains big words and complex facts. The remainiacs may require remedial classes in order to comprehend the content.
But of course they will dismiss the man and hence the message. Attempting rational discussion with them is a waste of time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 11:25 AM

"Look, they're all out of step except my little Tommy!".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 11:41 AM

You may have noticed gentlemen that you are being goaded, Iains no more believes the sound bites that guido gives out than you do.

He does believe however he has found a good way to get you rattled, which is why he keeps referring to guido.

However yet again he has shot himself in the foot. Even Paul Krugman in the article Iains cites states:

"Again, I’m anti-Brexit, AND HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IT WILL MAKE BRITAIN POORER*. And the BoE could be right about the magnitude. But they’ve really gone pretty far out on a limb here.

And if anyone does believe that Mark Carney is a clown he is an even bigger fool than I already take him for.

* My capitals

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 11:45 AM

Some random gibberish from Guido's site: let's all enjoy it

Having to follow EU regulations to sell goods to China, Malaysia, Kuwait and New Zealand is a perfect example of a restrictive practice. These countries don't recognise EU standards but the EU forces our manufacturers to follow them. In some industries such as digital, microbiology, AI, spacetech, fintech and others, the EU has close to zero competence yet we have to follow their rules.


More of this laugh out loud stuff please, Ians. 'Close to zero competence' in the EU, which of course, includes us ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 11:55 AM

"OH DEAR! Nurse! Nurse! The patient lives in a timewarp and repeats the same pack of lies every couple of weeks, "
Every time you behave like this you confirm your idiocy and your lack of understanding
Your dependency on Staines is akin to alcoholism
Respond to the points made or make some of your own - even starlings can mimic car alarms
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 12:02 PM

Guido has produces a lot of articles .Which one are you referring to?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 12:26 PM

"Guido has produces a lot of articles .Which one are you referring to?"
He has produced nothing of note
If he had anything to say worth saying you wouldn't have to rely on him - everybody would be saying it
You have the economists analysis of the present rise - your silence speaks volumes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 12:38 PM

That's Guido Sarducci, yes?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:17 PM

Guido produces a platform to display others conclusions. Very little of what he displays is his own work. That is why I try to give links. Obviously a wasted effort for all the impact it has.

He has produced nothing of note
If he had anything to say worth saying you wouldn't have to rely on him - everybody would be saying it

What a comical lad!
If he produced nothing of note why do the pack jump on his every utterance? Do we assume your demented responses are caused by nothing?
He must say something that upsets you, or are you too lacking in integrity to admit it? Like most of your arguments, it is facile.

Answers on a postcard please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:21 PM

Who's interested in what that bloke sticks on his website anyway? Shouldn’t the old adage "don't feed the trolls" apply in this case. Trolling by proxy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:28 PM

But it's such good fun!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:38 PM

I did not realise presenting a counter argument is trolling. How quaint!
It must be a definition unique to mudcat.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:40 PM

From BBC live:
Jim Pickard(@PickardJE)

Mogg just told ERG meeting that (having met Nigel Dodds earlier today) his understanding is DUP will only vote against government in a no-confidence vote IF the withdrawal agreement gets Commons approval next week - not if it’s rejected

======
Let me get this straight. The DUP are confident in May if she fails to achieve what she set out to do. On the other hand, if she succeeds they will not be confident in her.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:42 PM

"What a comical lad! "
What a reticent ladf when it comes to replying
Any moron can insult, as you regularly prove - it takes intelligence and imagination to respond intelligently and imaginatively
Staines is a sordid, muckraking blogger who came to public notice with a classic piece of gutter-wading homophobia - he has never risen above that scabloid level
You have had the Economist's response to /your/Staines's latest offering on the economy - instead of responding to it you opt for childish insulting
If you can't respond to it, why not just say so?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 03:13 PM

You have had the Economist's response to /your/Staines's latest offering on the economy

OH DEAR! I even supplied the link for Guidos article, and the other was referenced in the text.
Now pay attention!


https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/index.html


https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/foreigndirectinvestmentinvolvingukcompanies/2017

Both organisations better funded and far better informed than the hacks at the economist.

You are not very good at research are you? You stumble into the same holes over and over and over. You'd think it might knock a bit of sense into you or is your brain permanently addled by the impacts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Dunno about anyone else, but I'd rather believe a long established, serious, well respected daily newspaper's correspondents than a racist, serial-bankrupt, criminal, piss-headed Right-Wing Extremist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/30/brexit-britain-crisis-uk?CMP=share_btn_fb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 03:50 PM

It is a fact that Staines has four alcohol related convictions.
It is a fact that Staines declared himself bankrupt after failing as a financial broker and trader.
It is a fact that Staines is a right wing blogger.

These facts are proven and indisputable.

His blogs may contain factual information but the above facts prove him untrustworthy, irresponsible and biased toward the right wing of politics.

In Nov 2012: More inconvenient truths!
The houses of Parliamenr had ˜635 members.
29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupt at least 2 businesses
...3 have done time for assault
71 can not get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shop lifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
And collectivity, this year alone they have cost the tax payer £92,993,748.00 in expenses (nearly 93 million)
!
These are the people responsible for 100's of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in check!

Oh and by the way, the also have probably have the best 'corporate' pension scheme in the country, while trying to ensure that the rest of us has the worst!

These are the jokers that the remainiacs try to argue have our best interests at heart. Yet they attack Guido's character every opportunity.

What pathetic point is the shrivelled gnome trying to make I wonder?
Are we supposed to follow his grossly flawed logic and believe MP's make a more trustworthy class of criminal or is he simply full of S**t?
A gentle reminder: the above facts prove them untrustworthy and irresponsible
I look forward to your soft shoe shuffle out of that conundrum!
I recommend Mathew 7.5

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:12 PM

OK Iains, let us take just one of the statements you posted:

"84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year"

Now if this correct it is deeply concerning.

So I would ask three questions.

Is it true that 84 MP's have been arrested for drink driving and if so have any of of those have been convicted of the same or are facing charges of that offence.

As you said earlier, answers on a post card, or preferably a direct answer here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:26 PM

Iains:
In Nov 2012: More inconvenient truths!
The houses of Parliamenr had ˜635 members.
29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupt at least 2 businesses
...3 have done time for assault
71 can not get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shop lifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
And collectivity, this year alone they have cost the tax payer £92,993,748.00 in expenses (nearly 93 million)

Amazing statistics, and probably impossible. Almost identical figures were being quoted online in 2006, and refuted by The Guardian as the whole meme appeared to be a cut'n'paste from statistics about American politicians.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:39 PM

Ragggy, I have pointed out myself that he is just a wind up merchant, best ignored. It is a sad reflection on the state of argument that he cannot even come up with anything original to annoy people and has to rely on a discredited non-entity to do his talking for him. Little wonder that he gets suspended periodically.

I will make one final point to him though. If anything in my prior post was not factual he can feel free to disprove it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 04:49 PM

Thank you Nigel, I am not at all surprised by your post though.

So again Iains I would ask you to respond to my previous post:......

OK Iains, let us take just one of the statements you posted:

"84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year"

Now if this correct it is deeply concerning.

So I would ask three questions.

Is it true that 84 MP's have been arrested for drink driving and if so have any of of those have been convicted of the same or are facing charges of that offence"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 06:11 PM

If you were presenting the argument yourself, Iain’s, that would not be trolling. But it's not what you are doing in brandishing those irrelevant links.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 06:14 PM

https://www.channel4.com/news/out-of-order-politicians-who-ended-up-behind-bars
Got to admit on this topic I exaggerated by not checking the source. For that I apologize.
But the basic premise that there are many MP's and ex MP's with convictions still stands as shown by the links below. Therefore my argument still stands. The list is by no means complete and if we believe Jim no lesser person than Ted Heath should be included (although Iam not in favour of this) The way in which our representatives try to hide their nefarious activities from the light of day further demonstrates their devious untrustworthy behaviour.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11688002

https://londonist.com/2013/06/top-6-politicians-convicted-for-traffic-offences not forgetting john Prescott for speeding and John Cruddas for driving without insurance.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mps-vote-keep-identities-secret-14931428
https://metro.co.uk/2013/03/11/after-chris-huhne-10-other-politicians-who-were-jailed-3536565/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 06:45 PM

I presume that no one imagines MPs are less likely to be dishonest and dishonourable than the people who elected them. Whether they are by and large more so is unclear but quite possible.

But it's not particularly relevant in the context of Brexit. After all, clearly the people voting in the referendum included all kinds of unpleasant characters, on both sides, as is the case in all elections.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 01:56 AM

Sound about 1 in every 530 adults is charged with a speeding office each year. As not all adults drive, this is only a rough guide. But it would suggest one or two MPs per year would match the general public level.

I don't think a speeding offence has any bearing on Brexit voting. Tax fraud, maybe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 03:52 AM

More discussion on a gutter-level muckraking blogger, which totally diverts from the fact that Britain is in a serious crisis regarding its exit from Europe - and all our Guidoist disciple can do is point us to yet another a proven flawed article

Britain's economy is virtually non-existent and what is left is in shreds
We have no major producers any more; out-r textile industry is a dream of the long past, shipping is long gone, mining is gone, the Steel industry is gone, what remains of our car industry is based on assembling parts made abroad, the Aerospace industry is under severe threat if there is a no deal exit, the Chemical industry is not only faced with huge expenses from a 'no deal', but environmental groups have described the dangers of a huge environmental problem if Britain leaves Europe, with the rise of chemical "dumping Grounds".....   
And we are expected to swallow the words of a tabloid-level gutter-raker that "British Industry is doing well"
Britain is planning to "stand on it own feet" - what good are feet with no legs to support them ?

Earlier, Stanron listed the reasons for leaving - every single one he aimed at the European Parliament is equally applicable to the British Parliamentary system - the bureaucracy, the lack of democracy, the dishonesty..... all a built in part of modern politics
The greatest lie of all has been to treat Europe as a single entity rather than the 28 states it actually represents, all trying to make the best of a dying system

I have no love for Capitalism and have spent my life longing for its demise, but I have always hoped that would happen naturally and with the will of the people who count - those make the wheels of our existence turn
What is happening in France today is extremely significant - people who have had enough turning to violence because the politicians simply no longer care not the way to go as far as I'm concerned - every bit as divisive as is Brexit, which is based on blaming people in deep trouble themselves for the troubles of Britain

You want to say something Iains, how about addressing the reality of the situation rather than delivering The Message from a Mount of Garbage from a self-proclaimed Messiah who is actually a spokesman for everything that is wrong and sordid in our society
THIS IS ONE OF THIS MESSIAH'S LONG-TERM PARABLES taken up recently by his disciple on another thread
Enough is enough, I think - let's discuss these subjects without the extremist propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 03:58 AM

whatever is going on, whatever next

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

Warblings from a timewarp by our one and only talking fossil!
We have no major producers any more; out-r textile industry is a dream of the long past, shipping is long gone, mining is gone, the Steel industry is gone, what remains of our car industry is based on assembling parts made abroad, the Aerospace industry is under severe threat if there is a no deal exit, the Chemical industry is not only faced with huge expenses from a 'no deal', but environmental groups have described the dangers of a huge environmental problem if Britain leaves Europe, with the rise of chemical "dumping Grounds".....   
And we are expected to swallow the words of a tabloid-level gutter-raker that "British Industry is doing well"
These are the same declines shared by all advanced western economies as demonstrated in a previous link.

Only socialism produces expensive goods that cannot be sold to export markets. All other factors being equal, production migrates to the lowest cost base. An inescapable fact of life and essential lynchpin of capitalism.
Your huge chemical dumping grounds are a figment of your imagination.
Waste disposal is tightly controlled now, and will continue to be.
You are not very good at reading links are you? Would you treat the articles with the same contempt if in the Guardian?
That you cannot accept a link to the Office of National Statistics because it is referenced to by guido is a clear measure of your own atupidity. Do all government figures have to come from the guardian in order to be accepted? What a funny littlee fellow you are!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 04:55 AM

Recent events have clearly shown that the UK needs a written constitution. We may well be in a no mans land for British government in the near future. Possibly even a constitutional crisis.
Where will we go from there I wonder?
The Spectator's take seems very mild = we shall see!


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/britain-is-heading-towards-a-soft-brexit-or-a-second-referendum/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medi

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

I think it is time just to ignore him, people. If he continues with the irrelevant abuse it will just result in yet another spell in the naughty corner for him and that would be a pity as we would having nothing to laugh at. Let him carry on posting his errant nonsense but just don't respond.

I shall keep reminding you, Jim :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:11 AM

I was an early member of Charter88, which amongst other things sought a written constitution. Mrs Thatcher was very much against the idea and wrote a response - which was quite correct in this respect - that some of the countries with worst human rights and corruption have a written constitution. It is a useful tool in the armoury, but it is a very limited defence in itself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:28 AM

"These are the people responsible for 100's of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in check!"

And the two old ladies in the Truro bus shelter, who think that MPs don't pay income tax and never use the NHS, and who think that "the Germans" are very dodgy, are, along with millions just like them, the people who are dragging us out of the EU. A bit weird, this democracy lark, innit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 05:31 AM

"I think it is time just to ignore him, people. "
@bout right - we should have done this long ago
here's little point in being diverted by someone who denys facts and offers none of his own
Every single point I've made here is verifiable - including the Chemical dump, but there's little point of making the effort to dig up the link again for someone who will just ignore it and move on
This feller has no intention of entering into debate - his knee jerk reaction is to hurl abuse at anybody who presents something he can't deal with
Anybody will balls would counter it with information of his own instead of sprinting behind a mindless "GURU" - (I think that's the term you used Iains)
Let's move on
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 09:25 AM

Here's something to debate from the Independent today

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."

What I noticed about this is that the focus is on what British producers sell, not on what we buy, which includes a great deal of our food. The economics of the deal has to be about more than what our producers sell. And what some people are interested in is what they can sell to us after we leave the EU and they want to be able to sell us stuff that does not meet EU standards.

I also noticed that it doesn't take into account our making of parts of things which can then move freely into Europe to be finished. And so on.

There is so much that this apparently short and 'to the point' statement does not take account of, including security, policing, scientific research, EURATOM, working conditions, and so on.

I am thinking that in any case 'Economics' is not an exact science and never has been. And that any economic predictions must be based upon 'assumptions' so criticisms of various analyses on the basis that they do contain 'assumptions' and a bit unfair.

Moreover, the situation regarding the island of Ireland is not directly an economic one, though plainly the problems relating to the 'backstop' do have potential economic consequences as having another big outbreak of sectarian or nationalist violence will cost both the British and the Irish governments.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 10:05 AM

The decline of industry since the 70/s is well documented, as are the causes. Were this a feature unique to Britain it would be a major cause of concern. HOWEVER it is a decline shared by all advanced western economies. It is a fact of life. Meanwhile other fields of employment have been created. It is a reality, and is an ever changing dynamic. It started long before the common market was ever dreamed of. Industrialisation created both better agricultural machinery and lead to a dramatic decline in agricultural workers. In 1800 30+% of the labour force worked in agriculture, today it is roughly 1% with a consistent decline up until about 1980 when it slowed. Coal mining peaked in 1920 employing 1,191,000. By 2015 the number was 2000.
In 1971 the steel industry employed 350,000, 32000 today.
Constantly bringing up the decline of industry in a discussion about brexit is merely a red herring. It contributes nothing to the debate. It is pointless. You would be better off considering the impact of technology in the future rather than harping on about a mythical golden age that never existed.
You cannot cherry pick progress, it comes as a package.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 10:05 AM

"Recent events have clearly shown that the UK needs a written constitution. We may well be in a no mans land for British government in the near future. Possibly even a constitutional crisis."

IF this is a case, I is a manufactured state of affairs that lies squarely at the feet of Cameron. If the referendum hadn't of been held in the first place.......

The real question is who should be paying the price? I would argue that should be 100% down to the electorate of Witney who were stupid enough to elect him in the first place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 12:27 PM

"The decline of industry since the 70/s is well documented, as are the causes. "
The decline of industry is not at issue here, what is is what are these "feet" that Britain are going to stand on when it leaves Europe
It's already been established that the system we live under is in decline - "going it alone" while at the same time blaming immigration for a natural decline in a moribund system only acts as a diversion (pretty well as your irrelevant points are acting as a diversion to this discussion).
The E.U. is a gathering of States living under a dying system - together the fall might just be a soft one when it comes, as it inevitably will
We can already see what "going it alone" is likely to produce
We already have a sharp rise in racism, Trump's flag waving militaristic threats have moved the atomic clock nearer midnight in the short time he has been in power
The ultra-right are on the move again, it is no accident that, in Europe they are aiming to destroy the E.U.

Add to this mix the Oil Wars that have established the poorer nations, not only incited by West, but armed by them, which is leading to a rise in religious fundamentalism
If Global warming wasn't enough, ll this is leading to a planet unfit for Human habitation
This is the level we need to discuss - not crappy blogs by a career blogger who has turned blogging into a self-serving cottage industry

"Your huge chemical dumping grounds are a figment of your imagination."
I don't expect either a withdrawal (not your thing apparently) but

https://chemicalwatch.com/69212/no-deal-brexit-could-make-uk-chemicals-dumping-ground

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 12:31 PM

FOR THE MORE LITERATE AMONG US

AND ANOTHER POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF BREXIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 01:13 PM

Here's something to debate from the Independent today

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."


I would debate it, Karen, but I suspect we are pretty much in agreement. The sentence is a mass of assumptions and dubious claims - I wonder exactly why the British producers will sell more to the UK for example. If the demand is there now, why are they not selling at home already? If it is so, it needs far more explanation than a simple throw-away line.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 01:30 PM

https://chemicalwatch.com/69212/no-deal-brexit-could-make-uk-chemicals-dumping-ground
Chemical watch is an online publishing outfit formed in 2007. They are simply scaremongering. It is the season of goodwill so Greenpeace need to go out and get their begging tins out.

You make a mistake holding up the EU as the goldstandard for chemicals and their control, distribution and removal

International treaties have existed for decades: A link somewhat out of date but gives the basics.
https://archive.epa.gov/oswer/international/web/html/200610-international-chemical-hazards.html#multilateral
Having worked internationally using various chemicals I hsve seen a progressive tightening of the regulations over time concurrent with the growth of the role of safety officers to police their implementation.
http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2016/09/06/ghs-classifying-chemical-substances/
I have also worked on landfill hazardous waste cell construction and contaminated sites. From my own experience I know that over time regulations become ever more stringent. The international aspect of many regulations makes the thought of their relaxation after brexit risible.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/894/contents/made
In a nutshell many of the regulations are subject to International treaty, EU regulations are a subset.
To suggest that brexit will lead to relaxation of legislation in my view is ludicrous. It takes a couple of minutes on the internet to determine the hazmat classification and hence handling instructions for any chemical. Who in their right mind would volunteer to ignore them?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 02:49 PM

"You make a mistake holding up the EU as the goldstandard for chemicals and their control, distribution and removal"
And you make the mistake of believing that a quick shufti though the net will will wipe ot concerns that have been covered thoroughly in the international press and which are now prominent of the concerns of the environmental bodies - doesn't work like that
I suggest you look up exactly how effective international regulations are on pollution
Two of your linked articles are around a quarter of a century old, during which time environmental pollution has reached "doomsday point" - international regulations, be damned
European countries are Capitalism controlled and as such, as prone as anywhere to breach laws in order to make money - however, Europe gets off pretty lightly as far as major pollution by dumping is concerned
This is immaterial
The concern is that Brexit Britain will seek the slackening of regulations in order to increase trade with some of the world's worst polluters - China and India feature prominently in this endeavour
As far as your own experiences are concerned, which I am sure are first carefully filtered through your desire to protect the status quo and the establishment
I spent large parts of my life in areas that were severely effected by pollution cased by large-scale industrial dumping, despite all the regulations.
I have friends and family whose lives are still effected by it - rivers, waste land, woods and forests....   
THIS APOLIGIST DOCUMENT FROM THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SAYS IT ALL   

We seem to have moved on from "Your huge chemical dumping grounds are a figment of your imagination" to "it's a figment of everybody else's imagination" apart from yours. of course
Denial and stonewalling seem to come natural to some people
As I said, no apology and no withdrawal - just more obfuscation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 04:01 PM

I think we are going to have to differ. The areas you are talking about are historical sites originating before adequate legislation existed.
Legislation in itself does not cure past mistakes and omissions. You would find that when redevelopment occurs on brownfield sites,a vast swathe of regulations come into play. The initial procedure is covered by BS 5930:2015, "the code of practice for site investigations", a UK code of practice which came into effect on 31 July 2015 by the British Standards Institution. This establishes the type and degree of pollutants and the consulting engineers would outline recommended remedialmeasure. .Even though it is nearly20 years since I had any involvement I know the regulations always become more onerous when updated.
Highlighting past "malpractise" as being the fault of modern industrial practice is blatant dishonesty. Even moving uncontaminated topsoil in the uk requires a license. There is contaminated land in the UK stretching back beyond roman times to the birth of smelting. Humans create waste on an epic scale, dealing with it in an environmentally sensitive fashion is a recent process still under development.
Interestingly China hhas legislation about pollutants also. Here is a gem from Al Jazeera We can no longer export our plastic rubbish to pollute someone else's backyard.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 09:47 PM

"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."

Nothing straightforward in that, even if it might be true. The implication in that sentence would appear to be that the less to the EU and the more to the UK and the world would balance out, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Dec 18 - 11:41 PM

It's a perfect example of the kind of false equivalence nonsense the Brexit Banana-Bunch used to bamboozle people into voting Leave. Another being the assertion that, by leaving the EU, 'we will be free to negotiate our own trade deals' - on the face of it fair enough, but who can guarantee that those deals will materialise quickly, or at all, or that, even if they do, they will be better than the deals already in place via our membership of the EU?

Up there for thinkin', down there for dancin'!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 03:01 AM

The problem is the British producers don't produce a lot of the stuff we need and want. We rely on imports, as does every country in the world, which is why all this nonsense about a trade deficit with a particular part of the world is just that, nonsense. Trump spouts this, so do some on here. Trade tariffs are a direct tax on your own consumers. The point of trade is to enable you to get the stuff which isn't made locally.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:00 AM

"I think we are going to have to differ."
What you do is unimportant - the point remains
Britain stands to lose what little environmental protection it has if the extremest Brexiters have their way at a time when cleaning up the planet has become a life-or-death issue
May not concern you, I can only hope you are in the minority - I read some of your views on Global warming, so your attitude hardly comes as a surprise
None of this is an "issue of the past" - it is what is happening now and what is likely to happen in the immediate future
If/when Britain leaves Europe things issues like the environment and human rights will be thrown into doubt

Britain is already a human rights abuser, by proxy - we fill our shops with goods produced in appalling, near-slave conditions - that can only accelerate after Brexit
We sell weapons to some of the world's worst oppressors - on the eve of the Arab Spring protests the British Prime Minister opened a huge Arms Fair aimed at the very people being protested against
When British, French and U.S. troops went into Libya to remove a dictator who had been put into place with the support of these nations (contradiction enough) they were fired on by shells licensed by the British Government
One of the great torturers and mass murderers today, Bashir al Assad, was supplied with riot equipment and sniper rifle ammunition which was used to suppress human rights protesters in Syria
It later transpired that we had supplied chemicals that may have been used to produce the weapons that were illegally used against the Syrian people.
Britain sold fighter plane to the Saudis that were almost certainly used against the Yemeni people at a time when the Brexiteers were taking steps to ascertain that refugees such as those fleeing the Yemen would not be given shelter in Britain

Brexit goes far beyond the future of the Britain economically and politically; it puts blood on all our hands by making us accomplices in State Terrorism - as if we weren't wading in that blood already
We have yet to see he full effects of the rise of the Neo-Nazi Genii that the Populism used to win Brexit has let out of the bottle - it has already put in appearance on British streets
We ain't seen nothing yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:34 AM

Norway rejects Norway+

Yet another example, I fear, of the UK assuming it can have whatever it wants without realising others have their interests too.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:37 AM

"Britain stands to lose what little environmental protection it has if the extremest Brexiters have their way at a time when cleaning up the planet has become a life-or-death."
Did that come out of a christmas cracker, or was it from Podge and Rodge's scare at bedtime?
Britain started the industrial revolution and also led the world in legislation to protect workers.(e.g. The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in 1802, followed by the cotton millsand Factories Act 1819. If you seriously think this and all subsequent protection will unravel because of brexit you are away with fairies.
Your problem is that you think you know what you are talking about whereas I have been at the "coalface". You have been festering in a bog, whereas I was doing the science in Borneo on my 65th birthday. Do you think workers in the nuclear industry will no longer be monitored for personal dosages, that people will enter hazardous areas without PPE. Even in Ireland if a farmer wants to use any spraying equipment he needs to be trained. To ignore such requirements risks part of their payments. The latter is a typical example of very recent legislation.
I am afraid you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
In Syria, Iraq, the Yemen. Angola and many other places I have worked the safety regime has been practically identical when using potential chemical pollutants. If you were conversant with the measures companies such as BP put in place to protect their workers in places like Iraq your view of multinationals would change.
Was it not the EU that reduced the distance required to read a number plate from 75ft to 20m?
Your knowledge is stuck in a timewarp and influenced by mickey mouse outfits such as greenpeace and ludicrous scare stories from lefty rags like the guardian. If you were in the real world and had some slight familiarity with the subject matter I might consider your opinions, but you jump around the dartboard like a demented dervish pulling bits of this and bits of that in order to construct you fallacious arguments. How can anyone take your ramblings seriously? You started your rant babbling about a victorian legacy of pollution and carrying on as though it happened yesterday. The march of progress is littered with errors. Newspapers threatened an ice age in the 70's, global warming in the 90's and climate change today. All based on "impeccable" science! As was thalidomide and the indiscriminate use of asbestos.
Early cigarette advertising enthused about the benefits, today the only benefit would be perceived as a limited cull. You conveniently overlook the fact that much cutting edge science is not settled. There are both proponents and opponents. Climate change is a prime example.
Much of the data is obtained by the use of proxies. How reliable is that? The understanding of Carbon dating today is a multiple morphed beastie compared to when first introduced. Study the history of that and then look closely at those climate proxies.Just because something is mainstream it by no means guarantees it's validity. Your superiors just luv it being mainstream because the bulk of the sheeple will accept whatever it is. There is no need for a Goebbels, the age of spin has constructed his alter egos in the mainstream and in cyber space. You Jim are a prime example of one led by the nose.

Why you introduce Assad into the conversation escapes me. You are floundering again. I think Teribus demonstrated very clearly the fallacy of your argument. I am very glad you did not have the opportunity to submit any scientific reports to me. I would have had no hesitation in firing you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:53 AM

Climate change is absolutely settled science, and the rest of your post is unfocussed waffle. I don't know why you bother.

What's lamentable is that the Norway option has been bandied around forever by certain softie-brexiteers as an alternative, whilst Norway has been telling us since the referendum that it's impossible (and if Norway sez it's impossible, it's impossible). The fact that it's still been on the table until now in the minds of some brexiteers is yet another example of the brainless hubris of leavers who think that we can cut ourselves adrift and still call any shots.

Stand by for Canuckistan plus plus plus plus plus plus...minus...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 05:58 AM

Steve, he is just a wind up merchant. I suggest you just don't respond at all.

Jim - Same goes for you. Don't do it!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

ANOTHER CLOUD ON THE HORIZON
Should add a few years on to the estimated time for Britain to recover from Brexit

"I don't know why you bother. "
It's us that don't need to bother Steve
This feller serves only to show how low society can sink if we take our eye of the ball
His behavior makes him unfit to be let out without a keeper
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:49 AM

Climate change is absolutely settled science, and the rest of your post is unfocussed waffle. I don't know why you bother.

Flat earthers believed it was absolutely settled science. Here are a few other gems.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

scientific method
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

    a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Is unfocused the new word of the moment when the idea box is empty?
For someone that professes to be a well trained scientist you appear to know precious little about the scientific method.

Freezing in the 70's, warming in the 90's changing today.
A perfect example that the science is not consistent over time.
I wonder what the consensus will be in 20 years?
and as you have been wont to say consensus is not SCIENCE

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:57 AM

Even the gruniard gets in on the act.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-te

My take is that human activity makes a partial contribution to global warming. The true impact of that is as yet unresolved. Their are many models, many theories many publications but not 100% agreement as to what it all means.
What is goldplated this week may well be a pile of rust by next week!
Just look at the change over the last 50 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:07 AM

Flat earthers believed it was absolutely settled science. 

That really is a wind up, surely? Science has never claimed the earth was flat, nor did the ancient Greeks etc, well before science existed as a discipline. On the other hand if you are saying you can find a tiny group who believe pretty much anything and are prepared to assert science agrees with them whether it does or not, well, that may be true.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:13 AM

"On the other hand if you are saying you can find a tiny group who believe pretty much anything .................."

I think that neatly describes the Brexiteers on here !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:21 AM

The impact of Global warming is happening now and those involved have given their verdict as to its causes
Waiting for it to happen is somewhat like ignoring all the warning signs of Brexit until they come to fruition
Tending to the future of the planet and managing the economy doesn't work like that - both depend entirely on planning for the future
Even the most stupid know that, bar some, it would appear

"Even the gruniard gets in on the act."
The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:55 AM

Raggy - :-D

Jim. Just don't respond at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:01 AM

The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
Jim Carroll

The page does exist, even if Iain's link is faulty: Here: The Guardian

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:12 AM

Thanks Nigel
So - someone has put up another theory
As things stand at present it would be totally insane to take any chances
Go with what we know, (or trust) as far as I'm concerned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:18 AM

For someone that professes to be a well trained scientist you appear to know precious little about the scientific method.

Teaching science to school children does not make one a scientist it makes one a teacher.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:20 AM

Ha ha Nigel.

A good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, replace his
no-links with a real link to an article written by those who believe in man-made climate change which explains that many Americans fail to realise that the scientific consensus in favour of believing in man-made climate change is over 90%, and which also deals with some attempts to rubbish the idea and dismisses them. The article also explains that some politicians (US Republican ones linked to the fossil fuel industry) have said that a good way to combat public concern about climate change is to convince them that the scientific community is heavily divided on the issue, because if people realised how many scientists believed in it they would be more likely to believe in it too.

Some, of course, go further down the line and just seek to discredit science as a whole. My understanding is that this may be easier in the US because a lot of religious people prefer what a book called 'The Bible' says to what science says on a number of issues.


It cannot be a coincidence that so many people who object on ideological to regulations and controls on big industry and multinationals also seek to argue that stuff like pollution and climate change don't exist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 08:57 AM

A good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, replace his
no-links with a real link to an article

I hate to disappoint people. The article most definitely exists and thank you Nigel for relinking.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-te

There seems to be confusion over consensus.

Scientific
consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
It does not ensure validity either. There are many Christians believe in God. Is there a proof of his existence?


The page you link to does not exist, pretty much like all the claims you have made
I cannot be bothered to go back to the original articles and link them so here is a wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 09:13 AM

Your Guardian link doesn't work (again) and you've disparaged Wiki enough to show you only use it when it says the right things
You really are a Trumpite when it comes to global warming, aren't you?
We are allowing the pursuit of profit to destroy our planet - as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather listen to David Attenborough than those who would make a quick buck out of turning about homeland into an uninhabitable desert
Even the rightest of right are now concerned about putting things right - I'll go with them rather than someone who is more interested in winning arguments, if it's ok with you (or if it's not)

All this is very revealing and I am sure you are grateful for the chance to bod us down in irrelevant arguments
Brexit is a fuck up that is destroying our society and stands to destroy our economy
Try that for size and answer some points or at least make some of your own rather than constantly hiding behing predatory and very predictable "Gurus"
Game over o this shit, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 09:31 AM

The game will never be over until you stop responding, Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 10:19 AM

"The game will never be over until you stop responding, Jim."
Has to be a team effort Dave
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 10:58 AM

I think many here confuse the very rigorous science of collecting data and the less vigorous means available to interpret it. This is further complicated by having to adopt proxies to derive measurements for which no actual techniques exist.
https://www.clim-past.net/13/629/2017/cp-13-629-2017.pdf
There is also a problem potentially when combining terrestrial and satellite data sets and believing satellite data replicating that from ground stations.
Had we relied on satellite data exclusively who knows how big the ozone hole would be. However the exceedingly antique Dobsons photometer saved the day and embarrassed NASA.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/joe-farman-scientist-who-first-uncovered-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer-8624438.html

Blind belief in the consensus of the IPCC leads to all sorts of problems = just ask mr macron.(if you can find him among the yellow jackets)

I have collected, collated, and interpreted data all my working life. All is not always what it seems.I have learnt to trust nothing and question everything.

If you insist on being led by the nose by the pontificating of the guardian that is up to you. I know better.





Dobson

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:14 AM

We have started, Jim. Just waiting for you to join us :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:24 AM

Righty-O
Off to hear some great music tonight anyway (forgotten it was Willie Clancy's 100th anniversary)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:37 AM

So what are the scientific qualifications of the yellow jackets? Or indeed M. Macron for that matter, though he probably does indeed listen to those with scientific qualifications.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 12:14 PM

Time for a little sanity from Guido

https://order-order.com/2018/12/07/20-back-second-referendum-deal-voted/
cannot link to the next one
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-may-feels-to-win-backing-for-her-deal-as-more-than-half-of-brits-reject-pms-a4011266.html
Note the survey source ipsosmori

Theresa May's efforts to win public backing for her Brexit deal have failed, according to a poll that will pile pressure on her to delay a potentially crushing defeat in the Commons.

More than 60 per cent think leaving the European Union on her terms would be a bad outcome for Britain, including 47 per cent of Conservatives, Ipsos MORI said. Only 25 per cent think the deal would be good.

Seven in 10 are not confident she obtained a good agreement from the EU, including more than half of Conservative supporters. Half of the public say the deal is “worse” than they expected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 02:54 PM

Only 20% favour a second referendum.
Only 20% favour leaving with no deal.

I wonder which Guido will concentrate on?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 03:35 PM

He merely reported the results reasonably objectively. This may be construed as heresy by some!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:53 PM

We now have two links to the Guardian article which don't work.

However, thank you to the poster who confirmed that the link which does work is to the correct article.


Just for the record, I never said that the article didn't exist.

And thank you again, Nigel, for the link which does work. Posting it is, as I said, a good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, as it does not say what he appears to understand thinks that it says. I have explained once what it does say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:39 PM

I know this Brexit stuff feels like it’s been going on for ever, and it can be tempting to switch to something else, but I suggest that it,s better to do that by switching to another thread, and keep this one on target. Things are moving quite quickly, and it's quite handy to have a thread about the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM

"Teaching science to school children does not make one a scientist it makes one a teacher."

Well, in this country you have to be a science graduate in order to teach science. In fact, I taught children, not science, to 'A' Level for many years, and was an assistant chief examiner for 'A' Level biology for the University of London examinations board. My job entailed moderating the marking of the chief examiner team as well as that of my own team of assistant examiners, and I marked thousands of overseas scripts and adjudicated on grade challenges. Accuracy and close attention to detail were the order of the day. My degree was from Imperial College. Why I'm telling a confounded idiot all this is beyond me, actually. I could also tell you, uselessly no doubt in your case, that it's inadvisable to pay too much heed to the ramblings of a chap whose main aim appears to be to try to blind us with arcane references to many an off-topic enterprise of his that we only have his word for his involvement with. His science, and his understanding of the scientific method, is so shaky that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the companies foolish enough to employ him haven't all gone bust. Or maybe the fact that they haven't is testament to the fact that he was a mere minion within their employ, definitely no leader of men. It can't be both. Still, bobad, your call, me old son.

Anyway, sod all that. I see that May has promised MPs a vote in the dim and distant future as to whether we should enter the backstop. Quite simply, this is a promise she can't make. There's nothing unilateral about the backstop. She's given up control on that one so she's lying to MPs. I'd love to say that her days are numbered, but I can't think who would want to inherit the poisoned chalice. Not any Tory grandee, and not, I suspect, in spite of the bold talk, Jeremy Corbyn. The national interest is well and truly buried. If you have tears, prepare to shed them soon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:24 AM

I think someone said earlier that the choices now are May's deal, no deal or withdraw article 50. I would agree with that. There is no time to negotiate another option. Given that that is true, and I would be happy to be corrected if it is not, then how would parliament go about voting for one of them? Votes have always been binary so will they just use the Noel Edmonds option of deal or no deal, ignoring the elephant in the room of staying put? Or will they do, as I and others have suggested, and try to stay in while saving face?

I think it would be provident to stay put and sell that to the country as a temporary measure until the complex issues are sorted out. The reasoning being that once we leave, that's it but if we stay we can always invoke A50 at a later stage. If that involves another referendum in, say, 2 years then so be it. I disagree with referendums but if it gets us out of the mess we are in, so be it.

Chris Evans on the radio, not noted for deep political analysis but bear with me, said something interesting the other day. It is not so much brexit that is the issue now but that brexit had broken the existing political system. I think he could be right! Maybe David Cameron did do us a favour after all. The system is deeply flawed if one administration can ruin the country for generations to come. Maybe, just maybe, something better will arise from the ashes of May's crash and burn.

Yes, I know, pigs may fly too. I am a glass half full person :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:52 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:59 AM

I'm pretty sure that the brexiteers will say that remain has already been ruled out. In answer to that I would say that the leave that they were promised, easy, no downside etc. is a very different leave to the leave they are likely to get!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM

But if you have another referendum that excludes the possibility of remaining you are immediately excluding the opinions of at least a very large minority, or even a small majority, of the electorate... Suppose the choice was between May's deal and no deal, and the turnout was slashed because millions of disgusted remainers refrained from voting (there's no way I'd vote for either of those and I wouldn't be on my own, would I?) How would any result based on that serve democracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

I see mr shaw's last contribution is way off topic and you blame me for distraction!


“He thinks the sun comes up just to hear him crow.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:27 AM

That is of course a reference to From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM
As apparently we cross posted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

That is why we have to use some form of eliminating transferable vote system. Yes, actually agreeing what form is a problem in its own right, but it has to come up with a result where the is a clear winner. Anna Subry's approach of eliminating the weakest - No deal in your example - and redistributing the second preference to whichever of "May's deal" and "Remain" they preferred will end up with one above 50%, which would be the winner. Now, if some of these Brexiteers are telling the truth that they really do prefer remain to May's deal, then Remain would be highish 50's or low 60's and a clear win. However, I suspect they are not and we would end up again at an almost 50-50 split. And I cannot see that ending well.

There has been quite a lot of talk of the Condorcet system. I don't think is a good idea partly for technical reasons but mainly because it does not eliminate options, so would indeed end up with the sort of result Steve listed, probably with no-one above 50%. That also, I think, makes ongoing division near certain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:35 AM

VOICES IN HIGH PLACES
MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:04 AM

I found it darkly amusing this morning to reflect on the fact that one of the things May and many others complained about for the 2016 referendum vote was that there was no plan whatsoever for how to proceed if the option Cameron preferred did not win.   

Which appears to be exactly the position for the Dec 11 parliamentary vote on her deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:41 AM

I think that may be human nature, DMcG. No one enters a challenge expecting to lose. I agree that they should have a contingency for if they do though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:07 AM

How many are emigrating if the fickle finger of fate places Corbyn in power.
(An unlikely scenario, but nothing can be discounted in these mad times)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:09 AM

The problem of the short timescale is eliminated if we withdraw Article 50 now, then a period of negotiation, the exactly the vote that Steve proposes, with the options being no deal, whatever deal is negotiated, and remain as is. Personally I would be in favour of a fourth option, further integration with membership of the Euro and Schengen, but I suspect that would be almost as unpopular as no deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

I fail to see how two posts nine hours apart can be regarded as having been "cross-posted."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

It's amazing how, in all this talk of another vote, we've forgotten about the crucial principle that Cameron forgot when he set up the referendum, that if you want to make a massive and irreversible change of direction then the bar for change must be set very high. The original vote was marginal and unconvincing and the whole matter should have been dropped there and then. A similar close vote in whatever cockup of another referendum is magicked up would solve absolutely nothing. It reminds me of that old Irish joke in which a chap asks another chap for directions to another town. "Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here," came the reply.

I can't see a way out of this that isn't going to pitch this country into big trouble. I'd like to see our politicians pulling the plug on the whole thing, taking us back to the halcyon days of pre-2016, then ducking.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:50 AM

From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM
Call yourself a scientist?
Apparently you cannot even read a clock!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:04 AM

If we do enter into the unfortunate circumstance of another vote, I see that there are some, including John McDonnell, who are suggesting that remain shouldn't be an option on the ballot paper. I think that would be an outrage and an affront to democracy. We are where we are because of unforeseen difficulties (yes, I know...), the need for unsavoury compromises and almost certain economic catastrophe. None of those were flagged up by the leave side in the first campaign, so giving us now only a choice of how to leave would be immoral. If this country still has the ability to ditch brexit, then that option must be on the ballot. Far too much has changed since June 2016 for the assumption to be fairly made that we must "respect the result (38 percent, lest we forget) of the referendum." The very fact that we'd be having another vote instead of just getting on with it suggests a root and branch rethink. Massaging the ballot to exclude remaining would be an affront to millions of people whose only choice would then be between two equally bad options. There's already a groundswell against that which would result in millions of spoiled ballot papers with REMAIN scrawled across. It's a dead cert that such a ballot simply wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:11 AM

The post you're complaining about contained considerable on-topic material in addition to my response to bobad's off-topic post. You complain about people going off-topic, yet three out of YOUR last four posts have been completely off-topic and peppered with petty insults. Now why don't you just go and sort yourself out. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what YOU think about brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:25 AM

Steve
He probably only comes here because nobody else will talk to him - nort even at home
How would your family react to somebody who behaved if you brought that behaviour home ?
Let him wallow in his own swill
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:55 AM

Errr. Steve, are you sure? Last I saw from John McDonnell was that a referendum would be between Mrs May's deal and remain, and that he would vote remain,

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:28 AM

Ah, dammit, David, he's changed his mind! This from the Guardian on Nov 28:

"At a Guardian Live event less than 24 hours earlier, McDonnell had said a second Brexit referendum “might be an option we seize upon”, suggesting for the first time that remain should be on the ballot paper and insisting that a no-deal Brexit should not."

I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 09:04 AM


I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Probably of limited value until after the vote on the 11th! :)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 10:40 AM

I think thats a point in McDonnell's favour, when faced with overwhelming evidence, he is prepared to change his mind. No such common sense from May, who adheres to her "red lines" no matter how damaging to the national interest they are shown to be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 12:38 PM

What about Amber Rudd? Is it pay-back time for May's treatment of her over the past couple of years, or is she a committed accomplice of May in a plan to abandon the idiocy of Brexit but in a way that will avoid the blame falling on May, and laying it firmly on the other 648 MPs?

I think it's the former, but I fervently hope and pray that it's the latter.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:29 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.

I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 01:10 AM

"I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that."
It's about time the system was considered for all elections
Ireland has its problems with rogue politicians, the recent Presidential election which presented us with a blatant attempt at a takeover by the use of racist Populism against Travellers, showed that.
In the main, the PR system manages to present some form of balance and the worst excesses are kept in check, forcing the leaders to at least listen to what others are saying, unlike Britain
The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives.
Here, you are left with the feeling that, by voting, you are making a difference - I can never remember feeling that in Britain - you always know that, whatever they promise at election time doesn't mean squat once they are in power
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 04:03 AM

That is pretty much what I said earlier, McGrath, but it does make the assumption there is a means for the least favoured option to be dropped. Which is not only reasonable, but is easy to understand. Voting systems using one of the various Condorcet systems do not do that: instead they use the ranking to assess each pair - leave versus May, remain versus May, leave versus remain - and allocate a total percentage to each option, which would end up looking very like Steve's list.

If it does, it will not matter a jot how clever the mathematics behind it is to ensure fairness in a formal sense, people will see one of two things, or possibly both:

a) There are two things that could be labelled 'leave' and one 'remain', so the 'leave' vote will be claimed to have been unfairly split.

b) the 'experts' behind the scene are rigging the vote.

Which is why I say elimination of the weakest option is vital.



I have also been thinking about any forthcoming campaigns. As I said before, people votes are more based on emotion, in the main, rather than fact - there is plenty of research. So I think to have a chance of winning the Remain camp really does need to talk about 'retaining control' (who believes Trump's America will be gentler than the EU?), patriotism (keeping the UK together) and other such softer things, not just financials.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 09:12 AM

Boris has had a haircut, He must be planning something. Another career for Marr at the very least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 10:07 AM

"The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives."

Is this the reason the brexit referendum result is being thwarted at every turn?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 11:01 AM

Mr. Natural sez 'Tuesday afternoon after lunch is the most cosmic time of the week".
Good luck on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:32 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was
May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%
Then what?
The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.
I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.


The problem is that a vote on those terms will give an unfair advantage to the remain proposition. On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.
For those who are serious about leaving the EU, "May's deal" is effectively a vote to remain.
It is interesting to note that the suggested voting figures give 48% to 'remain', which was the original voting pattern, but improves the chance of 'remain' getting the final vote. Obviously a skewed system.
Under the above suggestion, if one of the other two options fails at the first hurdle, 'Remain' can never drop below 48%, and so has an unfair advantage.
'Remain' has already been voted against by the public, so any vote should be between 'accept May's deal' and 'leave with no deal'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:54 PM

On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:57 PM

I think, by the way, that May's deal is the one most likely to be eliminated, so the deciding factor is likely to be what those who put May's in first place put in the second place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is. Then May's deal will split the remain vote, rather than splitting the leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 06:45 PM

"That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is."

Nonsense. It provides for a small number of the provisions of membership, but without the opportunity to take part in the processes that control those provisions - it would make us a Vassal State of the EU. Completely unacceptable.

Just as you mob demand that Leave means Leave, Remainers demand that 'Remain means Remain' on precisely the terms we currently enjoy. May's half-arsed agreement doesn't even begin to do that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:11 PM

"Obviously a skewed system."

Somewhat ironic, this, from a brexiteer. Nothing could have been more "skewed" than the original referendum. The electorate was given a choice between leaving, an irreversible decision (once enacted) that would affect generations to come, and remain, a decision that could be challenged again and again at frequent intervals for about ten million quid a time. Yet the bar was set at fifty-fifty. When an irrevocable change in a nation's fortunes is called for, you might expect the bar to be set high. I'd have said a minimum of a two-thirds majority on a minimum 75% turnout, but hey. Expediency rules OK!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:22 PM

Fishing again. In case anybody didn't notice, you can't store a live lobster and hope a customs official will get round to collecting the duties on it.

https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/is-eyemouth-facing-a-brexit-employment-tsumani

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:26 PM

I agree with Nigel. May's deal is actually 'remain'. I'm amazed that you (the extreme UK left wing) don't support it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:57 PM

Don't be silly. May's deal takes us out of the single market and customs union, and ends free movement. Remain means keeping all those things. If you can't see the difference, you simply haven't been keeping up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:03 AM

ate: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM 

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly? 

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is.

Now who is claiming the general public are too stupid to understand what they are voting for?

Whether you think May's deal is remain, or I think it is leave matters for how we vote as individuals. It is for each voter to decide what it means. So it needs to be labelled May's vote. Not leave. Not remain.

Nor does it split the vote, because the system merges the results until there is a clear winner. I happen to think most people who put May in first place would put leave in second. If that were true, Remain would get the 48% on both rounds on Steve's figures and leave would get the 52%. Talk of splitting votes is misunderstanding the system.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:08 AM

There is no extreme left wing on here. Use of that phrase only proves how far to the right things have moved. Even if there were, they would most likely support your view as both ends of the political spectrum are anti-europe. It is the more moderate who support remain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 03:16 AM

"There is no extreme left wing on here."
Of course there isn't, there never has been
Easily proved by asking those who believe there is to produce examples, but we know from past experience that would be a waste of time.
There is not really an 'extreme left wing' in Britain - the UK has never really produced one.
The left Parties, many now moribund, have mainly opted for theory rather than action and, as far as I know, have never advocated violence as a policy - cold be wrong, of course, but again, a waste of time asking for examples
Anybody can fling about names - bit more difficult to substantiate the labels they choose to use.

When it comes to right extremism - take your pick
Racism is the jewel in that particular crown
Brexit motivation, Islamophobia, antisemitism-proper (the hatred of Jews), religious and cultural sectarianism.... all advocated, financed and carried out by the right
There extreme poverty rising from the inequality of our society, the debasing of the British people by associating with despots and selling them arms to oppress their subjects, the refusal to provide sanctuary to their victims - that makes British right wing extremism International

There Stan - I've shown you mine, now let's see yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 03:41 AM

I'm an extreme leftie. I own a big house outright with half an acre of garden with a view of the sea and there are two cars on the driveway, one of them a sports car. Unless you think I don't qualify...

Oh, and there's a bottle of prosecco in the fridge, so I don't qualify as a champagne socialist...

God, I'm confused.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:09 AM

Meanwhile, in other news, ECJ rules that the UK. can unilaterally cancel Brexit.

Tick, tock, tick, tock....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:30 AM

Whatever happens we need a deal whereby if the UK government treats the rest of EU like proverbials, UK citizens (not the goverment) must continue to enjoy freedom of movement, the benefits of customs union, and access to structural and cohesion programmes. Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

" Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties."
This appears to regard the EU as a single entity, which it is not
If Britain remains in the EU it is just another country with an equal voice in what happens there
The problem from day one of this whole debate has been the "them and us" atmosphere which as dominated
Britain appears never to have shaken off the "I'm the king of the castle" attitude that prevailed throughout the Empire
Brexit was launched largely on the interests of England - "the other lot" hardly fatured in the equation, even to the extent of ignoring the possibility of reawakening violence in Northern Ireland - co-operation, not confrontation is what is needed if anything is going to work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

" Uk citizens must have the continued right to take action against the EU if the UK government violates existing and future regulations and treaties."
This appears to regard the EU as a single entity, which it is not
If Britain remains in the EU it is just another country with an equal voice in what happens there
The problem from day one of this whole debate has been the "them and us" atmosphere which as dominated
Britain appears never to have shaken off the "I'm the king of the castle" attitude that prevailed throughout the Empire
Brexit was launched largely on the interests of England - "the other lot" hardly fatured in the equation, even to the extent of ignoring the possibility of reawakening violence in Northern Ireland - co-operation, not confrontation is what is needed if anything is going to work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

This morning I have heard senior politicians from Labour and the Conservatives saying the ECJ ruling doesn’t change things. Maybe not over the next few days, but if we should get as far as a referendum it is of critical importance, because without it any ‘remain’ option would be speculative: we would have no idea if it was possible at all, or whether we might lose things compared to our current position. That would have been a major debating factor, and is now eliminated

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 05:30 AM

At the entrance to the Visitors Centre of the European Parliament, there is a plaque with these words:

    “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times….The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”

Federalism is the game plan! Time we was orf!

"That explains why they are so obsessed with free movement, mass immigration and cultural diversity. Those are all instruments for smashing traditional nationhood and creating a new common European citizenship. As the EU’s rulers know only too well, a country without any borders or identity is not a country at all."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/the-eu-has-revealed-its-true-nature-a-federalist-monster-that-wi/
And yet there are still denialists!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:31 AM

Jim's agin it

Iain's for it.

Just thought I'd do condensed version.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:43 AM

It is silly to say that May's deal is a 'remain' option. Catchy but silly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

"Just thought I'd do condensed version."
A bit more complicated than that, I'm afraid Al
Ther is nothing wrong with federation as long as it is voluntary and based on mutual co-operation
Our nations have been part of federations at all levels for centuries - The U.N., Nato, Economic, political and military ones, supposedly to create a united effort to make things better... not always the case, of course.
The E.U. is a federation of capitalist states; at present, its aims are to make Capitalism work to the advantage of its members
I believe Capitalism is on the skids and is long past its sell-by date, but until genuine attempts to fix things for all, it'll have to do
Just look at what has emerged as an alternative - Trump, Orban, 'Free' Russia..... all the tinpot fascists that have crawled from the woodwork with their own alternative future
Nice to see Tommy Robinson and his Neo-Nazis out with their banners over the weekend (very little mention of the counter-demonstration though)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 06:48 AM

Big Al are you a minimalist?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:07 AM

"Nice to see Tommy Robinson and his Neo-Nazis out with their banners over the weekend (very little mention of the counter-demonstration though)
Actually if you bothered to read the reports there were more counter demonstrators than demonstrators.
From the guardian (you know it is right)
Anti-racist marchers in London claim victory over far-right protest

‘Brexit betrayal’ march led by Tommy Robinson heavily outnumbered by opponents

More made up jimmy bullshit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:20 AM

As reported by Guido
"After days of intense speculation, Sky News are reporting that Theresa May has finally decided to pull tomorrow night’s meaningful vote – despite Number 10 repeatedly insisting for the last few days that it was going ahead and sending numerous ministers on air including Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and Michael Gove to insist that it was “100%” happening. “100%” shambolic…"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:23 AM

As a larger EU nation, Jim, we have more than an equal share of influence. While we are members there can be no European army and no moves toward the much-derided, dishonestly-invoked "ever-closer union." We have the power of veto over such things. Of course, if we leave we lose that influence, and those things we affect to detest so much are far more likely to come about. As a member of the EU the UK can help to preserve what looks like becoming the last bastion of democracy on the planet (other than disparate, small nations, with apologies to Canada). If Trump gets another term we can forget all about the US holding its place as the Land Of The Free, we have a dictator for life in China who tramples all over human rights, we have Putin ruthlessly trying to turn Russia into an aggressive superpower, we have disgusting regimes all over the Middle East, shambles all over Africa ( thanks to past colonialism) and the far right gaining ascendancy in Brazil.

And now she's put off the vote in Parliament. She's becoming a serious threat to democracy in this country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:42 AM

"As a larger EU nation, Jim, we have more than an equal share of influence. "
Absolutely
Huffing off in a huff with the ball only makes us dependent on somebody else - s.f.a. about "standing on our own two feet"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:47 AM

" no moves toward the much-derided, dishonestly-invoked "ever-closer union."

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times….The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”


Do you think they nail the above on the front door purely as a windup?

I suppose you also cannot believe the IPCC has no political agenda?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 07:51 AM

A The 'short sellers' are already betting on disasters after Brexit. And guess what, some of them actively support Brexit.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/10/hedge-funds-make-big-bets-against-post-brexit-uk-economy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:09 AM

It surprises me not one bit that an article from the Torygraph dated the April before the referendum is so full of anti-EU spite. It does surprise me that anyone fell for the lie that the EU was about to take over the UK because a slogan written by a British politician is displayed in a visitors centre. Now that It is obvious that the whole campaign was based on scare stories and lies it is even more surprising that some are still repeating the same tactics. Sad.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:13 AM

You obviously cannot differentiate between a slogan and clear statement of intent. SAD!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:15 AM

Interesting debate ahead
Despite the "Lady Haw-Haw' posters on the pro-Brexit march, so far May has come out as the most principled of the whole circus
She has to call a Parliamentary vote, she has already been told by the E.U. that there is no more room for compromise and the push for a second referendum is now coming from both sides
Throw into the mix that the E.U. has said that Britain can change its mind about leaving....
More exciting than 'Line of Duty'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:34 AM

Do you seriously think the eunatics wish to stop at Federalism? They are after world governance!
Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task."

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

Seems some have a clear agenda. Up to you whether you give it any credence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:40 AM

Seems like a good idea to me. We all live on one planet, whose resources we are fast destroying.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:59 AM

"Seems like a good idea to me"
Me too
You must remember that you are responding to someone who advocates that Global warming is a product of 'fake news'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 08:59 AM

"Seems like a good idea to me"
Me too
You must remember that you are responding to someone who advocates that Global warming is a product of 'fake news'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:06 AM

Did anyone else realise that the opinion of a British politician in the 1930s had now been adopted by the EU as part of its mission statement! Or is someone telling us porkies? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:07 AM

you are responding to someone who advocates that Global warming is a product of 'fake news'
Another stunning example of your inability to understand plain english.
The contribution of CO2 to global warming is unquantified and the models inexact. Try paying attention!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

"The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”

Read my lips for the umpteenth time. While we are members of the EU, this can never happen. We have the power of veto to prevent it every step of the way. Have you got it yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:34 AM

Jean-Claude Juncker
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,

Hooray for sheople!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:42 AM

We can cede no sovereignty unless we agree to it. We'll be ceding a damn sight more once we leave, and over that we will have no choice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:52 AM

"Try paying attention!"
Try to get your head around the fact that nobody wants top talk to tyyou because of your persistent appalling behavior
You have recently raised the question of bullying elsewhere rather disgustingly but you have made it a statement of identity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 09:58 AM

He has nothing but insults, bluster and ill concealed propaganda, Steve. That has been obvious for a long time. Don't engage with him and we can continue to laugh at it without him being suspended again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 10:09 AM

"You have recently raised the question of bullying elsewhere rather disgustingly but you have made it a statement of identity"
A bit of totally unnecessary thread drift there and you were certainly not smelling of roses on it. DO you have to repeatedly drag in irrelevancies from other threads to construct you argument? Have you ever considered simply keeping quiet. You frequently promise to, but pop back up again like a turd in a punch bowl.

You keep posting outright lies, I will continue to correct you. Simples!

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 11:34 AM

Even the squeaker is upsetting Treason May.

From the all seeing eye of guido of course

https://order-order.com/2018/12/10/bercows-bombshell-bollocking/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 12:52 PM

Can we expect Nigel to explain that the fall in the pound is nothing to do with Brexit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 01:05 PM

"Try to get your head around the fact that nobody wants top talk to tyyou because of your persistent appalling behavior
You have recently raised the question of bullying elsewhere rather disgustingly but you have made it a statement of identity"

So, why do you keep responding to the twunt, Jim?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 01:37 PM

"So, why do you keep responding to the twunt, Jim?"
In the hope he might either clean up his act or go away
I have no wish to disbar anybody from this forum - but I have no intention of entering into discussion with this brain dead
I see no harm in reminding people what he is while he persists - Don't want him whingeing about being bullied when somebody else's passing is being commemorated, do we ?
Finished for now
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 01:43 PM

It would appear that in putting off Tuesday's vote in the Commons Theresa May be following the example of the Sufi teacher Nasruding in a similar predicament.

Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.

"And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 02:12 AM

As long as May does not dance . she really does look like a puppet when trying

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 02:32 AM

Pretty much sums the whole farrago up....

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andy-serkis-theresa-may-brexit_uk_5c0d9209e4b0a606a9a9f08f?skj&guccounter=1

---

That doesn't seem to load in the U.S. after redirect. Try https://www.facebook.com/WeWantsIt/. --mudelf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 03:19 AM

So the letters are in and there is a confidence in May. I wonder if this will persuade Labour to trigger a confidence vote in the government? Meanwhile the SNP are trying to trigger one (Or as close to it as they can.)

Yes, another quiet week on the House.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 03:23 AM

A genuine question here. Yesterday during the S024 debate there were various promises a made to the House about the meaningful vote process. Presumably these were made on the part of the government and so still apply whoever is leader. Or were they statements of her commitments and so not applicable if there is a change of leader?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:34 AM

Progress at last. If Treason May survives I will be very disappointed.
We should really depose the partisan pipsqueak bercow as well.
Perhaps we will get brexit back on course, though not without difficulty.
Even the US ambassador to the EU thinks they are obstructionist,
Guido, of course

It comes as no surprise that there is an Interfada in France and to a lesser extent Belgium. Very interesting to see the EU symbol displayed prominently on the armoured cars deployed in Paris.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dantedisparte/2018/12/10/the-gilet-jaunes-movement-risks-becoming-europes-intifida/#1c0b187758c5
'Twould appear (B?)anker Macron>

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:54 AM

(Try again)
It would appear Macron's globalist march to federalism is not shared by his hapless subjects!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:34 AM

There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?
As for getting brexit "back" on track, do remind us as to when it was ever on track in the first place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:35 AM

At school we used to sing this song about the EU.

'EU would valiant be gainst all disaster..'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:46 AM

This says it all really
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-free-protest-nazi-salutes-london-violence-police-arrests-attacks-prison-a8393566.html
The Times has a large photo across two pages of two more of Robinson's supporters, carrying "Crash out and pay nothing" banners doing exactly the same
This is where it has been from day one
Of course, they are only exercising their "right to free speech" that some hold so dear !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 06:57 AM

"'EU would valiant be gainst all disaster..'"
Hw about the Liverpool Lullaby which starts, - "EUR a mucky kid"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:02 AM

'Crash out and pay nothing'. Against this made idea is the argument that we have legal obligations to pay something. Who would want to deal with or trust a nation that failed to meet such obligations? How would paying nothing encourage the EU to trust or trade with us in future?

On the current US administration's dislike of the EU, and its oppositions to standards and regulations, which it likes to see as nothing but barriers to trade (in items such as chlorinated chicken etc), this is well-known. As is US-based support for the right.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:36 AM

If May loses the vote of confidence convention has it that she stays until she can find somebody who can get a majority in the House of Commons. Given that the Tories don't have a clear majority, this presumably means somebody whom the DUP will support. This leads to the backstop question again.

The backstop question seems intractable to me. If we leave the customs union and the single market, then Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be in different economic areas, operating under different rules. Customs checks at the border seem inevitable unless the whole of the UK is in the same system.

This conflicts with the 'Good Friday' peace agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:40 AM

Pay nothing? Wasn't it just last week that just about every economic prediction was saying that we'd pay an extremely heavy price for every possible brexit scenario except for remaining? That 39 billion is going to look like pocket money a few years down the line after our economy has shrunk by seven or eight percent...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:51 AM

Any deal that gives us the unilateral right to leave the backstop would be absurd. The backstop involves the Republic and the North. Some brexiteers seem to have forgotten that the Republic is an EU country, so any decision to exit the backstop must clearly be bilateral.

The so-called Norway option is not going to happen. We would dwarf the other EFTA nations and they can (and will) refuse to admit us. Apart from that, it keeps us in the single market, maintains free movement and keeps us paying in. And the "Norway-plus" notion does all that AND keeps us in the customs union. A bit like now except we'll have no say. Whoop-de-do!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:05 AM

"There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?"

Are you trying to convince me or yourself, by endless repetition?

What others think

One version of reality:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/five-facts-you-need-to-understand-the-new-global-order/

What better way to destroy the nation state by flooding countries with immigrants? Do you really think multiculturalism arose with no underlying agenda? Was the destruction of Libya, Iraq, and attempts in Syria really to onward the path of democracy?or an extremist destruction of the nation state? The grandplan seem to have hit a roadblock in Afganistan though! Even the gruniard accepts the reality
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

Do you seriously believe the globalists give a second's thought to the views of a lefty exteacher? The bankers and multinationals do not like nations- they tend to frustrate their plans of enriching themselves while they pauperize the rest. The establishment of progressively larger political blocks is merely a step in the road towards total control, and if you think this is to your benefit I feel sorry for you.(or perhaps you have been common puposed?)

I wonder what really lies behind this?
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/world-leaders-adopt-first-ever-global-compact-migration-outlining-framework-protect

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:14 AM

"If May loses the vote of confidence convention has it that she stays until she can find somebody who can get a majority in the House of Commons."
Not an option being discussed at present - like Tesco, "when she's gone, she's gone"
Britain will have to crash our of Brexit leaderless with a divided party and country - a real 'Brave New World'
The economic predictions that a hard Brexit will damage Britain's economy for decades to come means that it is our kids who will have to pick up the tab, not us
A truly great legacy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

Not sure this 'when she's gone, she's gone' is quite right, Jim. Or at least not the whole story. I think it is the monarch who invites somebody to become Prime Minister. And gets rid of them. What the Tories are voting following the 'no confidence' letters on is not who should be Prime Minister, but who should be leader of their party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:37 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/how-conservative-leadership-challenges-work

This was the source for my remark.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:22 AM

"Not sure this 'when she's gone, she's gone' is quite right, Jim."
Neither am I Karen, but this is the situation being outlined by Maggie May and the news commentators at present - it is one of her main arguments for staying in office.
Maybe its political bluff - anything seems possible nowadays.

Whatever happens, if Brexit is forced through it will leave behind a deeply divided Government and a deeply divided people - not a situation in which to plan to 'go it alone' - (good basis for a good, 'marooned on a Desert Island or lost in the desert/space/at sea/in the jungle thriller which I have spent many happy hours watching or reading)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:52 AM

There is a vast gulf between an opposition vote of no confidence in the government and a party vote of no confidence in the PM. Only in the former case does the monarchy have involvement. The leader that can demonstrate a majority is automatically rubber stamped by the monarchy.
"The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets the interval between general elections at five years. At the end of this time a new House of Commons must be elected.

However, there are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five year intervals:

    a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
    a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)"

"The economic predictions that a hard Brexit will damage Britain's economy for decades"

Operative word PREDICTION!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:56 AM

Smoking ruins if she remains! Analysis by guido's gurus.

https://order-order.com/2018/12/12/tory-mps-worry-keeping-may-lead-party-electoral-disaster/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 10:45 AM

Trouble is there is a lack of evidenced predictions for the alternative hypothesis that a hard brexit won't cause any damage. The point is if we wait and see if the damage will happen, then that damage can't be undone immediately if it does happen. Similar to predicting that kicking a ball at the front of a house could break a window. Would anyone say - lets wait for proof that a window will break before taking measures to prevent the window breaking?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 11:11 AM

All politics and economics is based on Predictions - society would have ground to a halt centuries ago without them
When asked what are the benefits of leaving Europe, the only thing we are given is a list of E.U. 'flaws' that equally apply to British Parliamentary politics
Leaving Europe would be a totally unplanned leap in the dark
Jim Carroll
I have to say that Guido's Little Helper is working very hard for his fee

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 03:59 PM

At a time of National Crisis, it's interesting and revealing to see that the party of greed and selfishness is continuing to put its own interests above those of the nation...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/12/national-crisis-pointless-tory-feud-brexit?CMP=fb_gu

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:13 PM

If Treason May survives I will be very disappointed.

I am sure you will cope with the disappointment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

It is also revealing that some Brexiteers have only VERY recently started to refer to Teresa May as Treason May.

What price loyalty?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:34 PM

She LIVES !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:40 PM

There's far too much of this 'treason' shite from Brexiteers. I've lost count of the times Brexiteers have told me I should be 'arrested, marched out, and shot for treason'. Clearly, their intellect doesn't extend to an understanding of what the offence of treason actually consists of.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:49 PM

When (not "if") Labour puts a motion of no confidence, it will all be down to the UDP. If they abstain the motion should pass. And with Theresa May still intent on her deal, with the non-exit backstop, the DUP can be expected to abstain.

And there is no prospect of the EU (especially Ireland) giving way on that part of the backstop.

Stuff about the EU being unreasonable in negotiating doesn't stand up to examination. It's the reverse, if anything, far more flexible than the UK. A year ago the UK essentially agreed to the backstop, to continue until and unless some alternative could be cobbled together to provide a permanent guarantee against a hard border, and did so specially in order to allow other negotiations to proceed - then after going ahead with those negotiations it has tried to backslide on it.

The £39 billion isn't a charge for an agreed withdrawal which can be dispensed with in a no deal exit, it's a debt which we'd be duty bound to pay however we leave. If the UK defaulted on that debt it would be acting illegally, and would do enormous damage to it's reputation. Financially it would be a rogue state, and no one would be likely to trust it. The old label "Perfidious Albion" would be revived, and justly so. And this would be a country hoping to set up favourable trade agreements round the world?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:02 PM

"I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

By the way certain versions of the backstop, if implemented, would in my view be treasonous by way of depriving the sovereign of her crown.
(Crown of Ireland Act 1542:)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:27 PM

"There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?"

"Are you trying to convince me or yourself, by endless repetition?"

Neither. I'm trying to get through those cloth ears of yours to whatever resides within your cranium that no major shift in direction, policy or law can be pushed through, as long as we are members, and as a large and influential member state, without our consent. Veto is a four-letter word in your lexicon, I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:29 PM

I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

Interesting. So you think when a Tory MP is focused on progressing their career - which necessarily includes future elections and judgement by voters - they think their best bet is to stick with Teresa May.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:30 PM

Despite the fact that she on with a reasonable majority, Lord Snooty and the Bash Street Brexiteers are demanding that she resign
"Yes means yes" only when it suits some people, it would appear
What a friggin' shower of articulated arseholes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:31 PM

As the May vote had around 140 spineless mps on the government payroll, then adopting remainiacs logic. May lost by a vote of approx. 100 to 50.
I think she is damaged goods no matter how the spinmeisters present it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:51 PM

She is damaged Tory goods only if there is a credible successor waiting in the wings. Which there isn't. She is damaged in the country, that's for sure. But she was anyway. Nothing has changed, frankly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:50 AM

Thatcher won by 53 votes and was gone a week later. Who had ever heard of Major at that time? May has won by 83. You really think she has the continued confidence of her party?

Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:05 AM

It should be gratifying to se the right tearing each others throats out, but somehow, it sends a shiver down the spine to think it is jackals like these who represent the British people
Nice to be able to open Mudcat and see it in the raw

I never thought I'd say this, but May is the only politician to emerge from this mess with a shred of dignity - Parliament seems to be made up of elected Iain-alikes with every bit as little grasp of humanity and political responsibility
Bring on THE GREAT TWATSBY I say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:15 AM

This situation is different. They say she's theoretically safe for twelve months. I reckon she's safe until 29/3/19. After that it depends on whether we have left or not. If we have left the EU by then, whoever replaces her will not be to blame directly for the result. They will start with a clean sheet. It will be relatively safe to replace her.

If we have not left, the situation is more fluid and more difficult to predict. Her replacement will then be responsible for leaving or not leaving. That would be a much more vulnerable position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:20 AM

May has some rather vital legislation to get passed by parliament.
Stalling this helps no one. Delaying until January is not going to achieve anything useful, it merely enables Corbyn to call for a vote of no confidence in the government, and the outcome of that would be anybody's guess.
May's hubris may well lead to both her and her governments downfall.
She needs to go now, and I am sure many others view the situation the same way. Interesting times!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:40 AM

Well Iains, you are clearly wrong that stalling helps no one. By your own admission it helps Corbyn. By extension many of us will feel that this helps us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:42 AM

Best thing to come out of Brexit if it brings on a Labour Government

"She needs to go now,"
So musch for democratic voting
I watched those arrogant twots lastt night all claiming to speak for the British people - just like here - when in faxcct all they are speaking for is their own Litle England view
The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely - they would have had to be a nation of lemmings to do so
It is deeply insulting to the British people to suggest any of this has anything to do with them - nothing new there from these flag-waggers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:13 AM

The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely

Is the above sense or nonsense? To know something is quite likely is to know jack shit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:18 AM

We do now know a lot more about the damage the brexit will cause. So now is time for a more informed vote, a People's vote. Time for a government of National Unity to be appointed, to withdraw Article 50, and hold a People's vote in 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:30 AM

"Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!"

I clutched at nothing. A rereading of my post will confirm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:56 AM

To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. Daily Mail readers, apparently, want Rees Moog as the next Prime Minister.

The backstop issue is the one Theresa May is focussed on, presumably because she needs the Northern Ireland DUP's support and they won't support a solution that leaves them treated differently from the rest of the UK in terms of customs arrangements with the UK.

While we are still in the EU the border on the island of Ireland has no customs importance; there is free movement of goods and services. When we are not in the EU, the border will be a border between the EU and the UK.

In theory this means there should be border checks on goods crossing the border, but imposing such checks would be in breach of an agreement between the UK and the Irish Republic, and is seen as likely to bring about a return to higher levels of sectarian violence.

So the aims in terms of that are to agree a trade deal with the EU that keeps the border as open as it is now, which seems to mean pretty much a 'free trade' agreement, which seems to mean that goods we send across that border must reach EU standards, which is what Rees Moog and co want to be free from (especially in respect of finance and chemicals).

In the event that a deal isn't reached by a certain date, the backstop kicks in and specifies that there must be no 'hard border' across the island of Ireland.

I'm thinking that both the Republic and the UK must have within their 'no deal' planning, thoughts about how to address the political violence with which we may be faced if we crash out with no agreement that supports a no hard border option.   The Republic is recruiting potential customs officers already, though as it is sometimes said that border posts may be a target it seems a job for the brave!

The DUP are concerned that solutions to the no hard border problem will result in a customs border between the island of Ireland and GB, which they do not want as they see it as weakening the union.

This seems to me to be an intractible problem, and I don't know what Johnson or Rees Moog would do about it, and my guess is that they won't get rid of May before Brexit because nobody else knows what they would do about it, simply because it is intractible, so they are happy to let May continue until we crash out, which is what some of them want. Then she can get the blame.

Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:17 AM

"To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. "
Of course it doesn't - it is open to historical prejudices and misinformation - the problem here is that there was no study of how Britain should exit Europe, no game plan for the future and no discussion of the likely consequences
One of the things never considered was the debt Britain owes to its former colonies, some of whom are at war with the despots who rule them
Instead of assisting former colonial citizens to repair the mess left behind by the fallen empire, the British State is licencing arms to be used against their bettering their lot while, at the same time, blocking the entry of refugees from the wars created by the situation we left behind
This cynical and predatory behaviour s not only inhuman, but it has given rise to world-wide terrorism

Ireland is not untypical of what is happening - a partitioned nation moving slowly towards reconciliation which is quite likely to be thrown into further conflict by the re-introduction of solid borders.
The effect of Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of Britain   
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 01:48 PM


Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland

That is my understanding, but I would put it more strongly. He opposes a hard border, but sees the entire UK responsibility being not to implement one on our side. If international law requires one - which some dispute - he is willing to delay enough to force the EU side to implement it. Then it is entirely the EU's responsibility - "we have not implemented a hard border."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:30 PM

The Norwegian situation is an interesting one. They rejected full membership of the EU in 1994.
Does Norway have free trade with EU?
As member of the European Free Trade Association ( EFTA ), Norway seeks to conclude bilateral Free Trade Agreement in the so-called EFTA framework. This means that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein can negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with a respective third country via EFTA .

Thus they avoided The Maastricht Treaty, known formally as the Treaty on European Union, the international agreement responsible for the creation of the European Union. They pay €0.40billion annually for the privilege.While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked to trade relations with the EU. Norway's EU minister said last year that “We gain from being a member of the single market. Norway is also in the Schengen area whereas the UK has never been a part of it. Norway is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU.
    Personally I would be happy to see some brexit result approximating the Norway model. But I doubt the EU would agree, too many in Brussels and Strasbourg would be trampled in the rush to follow us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:33 PM

"Rees Moog "
Love it - why does the idea of a 'Moog Sympathiser conjure up thought of electronic music
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Hmmmmmmmm

Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.

She has retained her position.

Less than 40% of the electorate voted to leave the EU and yet we are told we have to follow that vote.

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:45 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.
Probably your comprehension.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:52 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Not at all, in both cases the issue being voted on was decided by a majority of the votes - you know, the way it works in a democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:23 PM

The thing is, 100% of the Tory MPs voted, whereas only 74% of those entitled to vote in the referendum. So the refenfum majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million, far larger than the margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37 PM

The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that. Second, brexiteers will very gleefully point out that "we did not vote to stay in the single market, to allow free movement, to keep paying money to the EU and to have no say in rule-making." Finally, and even worse in the eyes of brexiteers, the "Norway-plus" option also involves staying in the customs union. It's remain without the bollocks. It'll do me if we really have to leave, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:45 PM

the refenfum [sic] majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million,far larger than the margin of victory

Totally irrelevant in a democratic vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Hmmmmmmmm
Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.
Yes, it was 'over 40%'. But with 317 Conservative MPs eligible to vote, she polled 200. That is 63%, so yes, it is over 40%, but accurately representing your figures might allow you to make a more convincing argument.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:32 PM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37
The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that.

And why are we not members of EFTA?
Because we left to join the EEC in 1972 (having been a founder member of EFTA from 1960). So as the EU is the current form of the EEC I would say that us not being members of EFTA is very much to do with the EU.

For those who want facts to back up opinions: EFTA through the years

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:57 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Sorry Greg but a majority of the voters decided the issue. You seem to be a little confused about the concepts of majority and democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:00 PM

I don't really think facts have much to do with anything. Theres a sort of random facts aspect. Every buggers got facts and statistics to prove their point of view.

Its down to gut feeling.

I knew before we went in it wouldn't work.

All the industrial decline I've seen since, somewhere in the mix you could spot the fine Italian hand of the EEC/EU. If you weren't looking for it, you wouldn't have seen it. And the south eastern part of our country (its economy bolstered by foreign investment and property speculation have never had reason to look for it.

Its too big, too long, too unwieldly a process for any fact fuelled bean counting expert to have noticed. But my god, I've seen it happening the communities I lived most of my life in and grew up in. Steel,   fishing, textiles, cars, motorbikes, heavy engineering, ship building and re-fitting.....all down to villainous trade unions, rotten management, corrupt politicians.

You can carry on telling yourself that if it fits your set of predjudices...

Great news about the Fiat Panda and the Fiat 500 failing every safety standard. My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.
Wolsey, Reliant Scimitar, Triumph, Austin, Morris, Singer....never mind the competition will give them something to think about.

Those are my predjudices.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:16 PM

My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.

As Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the hosts of APR's Car Talk program used to say regarding French made cars; "the French copy no one and no one copies the French".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:33 PM

Mossback is not Greg. Sorry.

The EU will not intervene in any effort we make to become a member of EFTA. That's what I meant and it was pretty clear. Nothing to do with our departure from EFTA all those many decades ago. Stop being silly again, Nigel.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 08:18 PM

Sorry Greg but a majority of the voters decided the issue.

Yup.

Just like a "majority" of voters put that piece of dirt Trump in the White House.

You SHOULD be sorry.

"Fred"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 08:39 PM

I was just looking up the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. According to the internet, a referendum is a yes or no decision to be voted on by all citizens legally empowered to vote. The result is binding. A plebiscite is a yes or no decision to be voted on by all citizens legally empowered to vote. The result is not binding.
I was under the impression that the Brexit vote two years ago was non-binding, although the Government treated it as binding and this began the laborious unhappy process that has led us to the present situation.

. . .
Okay, now I've looked it up in Wikipedia, which has an excellent article on just the matters I'm concerned with. It's a bit more complicated than what I wrote above.

Could the government put together a multiple choice referendum which would put to the electorate the primary choices they have before them. That vote would be decidedly final and take it out of the hands of the politicians who seem to be unpopular no matter which direction the country is to go. If the outcomes can be put in simple understandable terms, why not have the public in a situation where there is no one to blame but themselves. After all a referendum is what got us here.

Then vote for the politicians the electorate thinks can best execute the referendum choice. As usual.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:14 PM

A question of such national import should require a 2/3 majority at least, IMO. Barring that, in the case of a yes vote, a second vote on the exit details should be required. But of course, these requirements would have to have been established prior to the vote. As it stands it is incumbent that the results of the vote, such as it was, be accepted as representing the will of the voters.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:35 PM

The government could of course put together a multi-choice referendum, or a two stage one. But they've no intention of doing so. And they'd need to get legislation to do it through parliament, which might be difficult.

I can see them going round in circles right up until the end of March. At that point, with No Deal imminent, given that there is so wide opposition to No Deal in the Commons, I can imagine a majority vote by MPs to cancel Article 50, and to hold a referendum to approve or overturn that, with Remain or No Deal Exit as the options.
...........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:43 PM

Or, to be embarrassingly more accurate, the will of 38% of the electorate. Setting aside the fact that referendums are extremely undemocratic (Jesus might agree with me whereas Barabbas wouldn't), a move to change the fundamental status quo in a nation requires the bar to be set very high indeed. We've been a member of the EU for almost half a century, during which time we've enjoyed prosperity, security and peace in Europe. Unarguable. Cameron's 50-50 vote was extremely skewed. A vote to leave, shattering the status quo, was virtually irreversible once the assumed mandate had been carried out (until it is, I suppose there's hope). A vote to remain would have been challenged again and again for decades and would have been easy and cheap to reverse. That simply can't be right.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:59 PM

Nigel Farage in fact said while the result was being awaited that, if the Remainers won, as he thought likely, the struggle to reverse that would begin immediately. And he'd have been quite entitled to do that.

I've been trying to think of any other choice we make in our lives which eliminates any chance of changing our mind. Apart from something like jumping off a roof.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Neil D
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 10:53 PM

There has been little coverage of the confidence vote here in the U S with the sentencing of Trump's lawyer to 3 yrs sucking up all the news time, but I did learn that May survived. I've been reading this thread and other sources, and I think I'm beginning to understand where things stand at present. The conflict between hard and soft Brexiteers is dividing the conservatives, while Labour/Liberal are hoping for the situation to deteriorate to the point where they get a redo on the original Brexit vote. I'm sure this is a broad brush understanding, lacking much in the way of nuance, but that's where I'm at.
   In the original Brexit vote in 2016, Scotland voted 63% to remain and Northern Ireland 56%. England (51%) and Wales (52%) voted leave. Exiting the EU was very unpopular in S and NI, presumably because of the predicted negative economic impact on those countries, but the much larger population of England made it's vote the only one that mattered. This had to seem like a real kick in the teeth to the Scots coming less than 2 years after they themselves were begged not to leave the UK, and capitulated. In the wake of the Brexit vote 2 years ago, there was a lot of talk that Scotland would hold a new referendum. Some, JP Morgan analysts for example, predicted that Scotland would be long gone from UK before Brexit could be achieved, while others said the Scottish economy was too weak at the time to consider leaving (the UK). There was also some speculation that the EU wasn't that enthused about accepting an independent Scotland, especially member nations with their own separatist movements. Think Spain.
    So. Where does that stand now? Obviously, 2 years on, Scotland is still part of the UK, so has independence been shelved for now? Might it be taken up later, even after Brexit? And what about Northern Ireland? Could they be allowed to have their own independence referendum? NI independence would certainly solve the backstop issue. Or is leaving the UK something the majority in NI would NEVER consider for fear of being absorbed by the Republic of Ireland?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 03:36 AM

There seems to be great confusion between the terms "democracy" and "populism"
AS somebody has pointed out Trump was elected 'democratically', moved the nuclear clock forward a couple of notches and put the Klan back on the American Streets
Similar things have happened in Britain after Brexit (substitute Tommy Robinson for The Klan)
Hitler was put into power democratically, plunged the world into war and chalked up six million hits for his democratic cause
Some here need to examine their own consciences when they espouse certain causes and fling about certain accusations Bobad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 04:11 AM

There seems to be great confusion between the terms "democracy" and "populism"

Democracy:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Populism: A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. 'In the context of electoral politics as practiced there, populism is attractive to politicians of all shades.'

The two could not be more different. There may be confusion in your mind but that would surprise few here.

As yet democracy is unsurpassed as a means of government. Very little point in criticising it unless you have a viable alternative.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

Populism is the cynical use of people's prejudices to gain decisions that otherwise would have been unobtainable
Hitler chose the Jews, Farage chose immigration
A recent example of the use of Populism when a no-hoper candidate in the Irish Presidential election targeted Travelers and the lesser well of and shot his expectations from virtually nothing to 22% of the vote
Trump appealed to the Redneck States
None of this has the slightest thing to do with democracy - it's about diverting the attention away from the main problems of society and scapegoating the weakest

It is reckoned that there is a Nigel Farage in most of the European countries now - hence the rise of fascism
The "Democratic States" have made sure there is no alternative system as yet - America chose napalm and Agent Orange
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

Populism means never having to say sorry - to borrow an old caption
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

Populism is the cynical use of people's prejudices to gain decisions that otherwise would have been unobtainable.
Short answer: Rubbish
Long answer: RUBBISH

Most people base decisions on how they understand the situation, and what they need to do to change it. That is why the majority voted for brexit. They no longer wished to remain in the EU.
Your feeble attempts to undermine that decision by an increasingly strident pack of lies will never alter that reality. Calling them stupid, recist, bigoted, little englanders and all the other crap you hurl about with gay abandon does not change the majority position to leave.
Roll on 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:15 AM

I far prefer your take on populism to Iains', Jim.

"Democracy:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Sure. Except that you've indicated repeatedly that you don't believe in it. You've called the 48% who voted remain losers who should stop moaning and trying to overturn what you regard incorrectly as a democratic decision, and you've said that the 28% of the electorate who didn't vote (even though they still pay their taxes, etc) are feckless and undeserving can't-be-bothereds whose opinions don't count and who don't deserve to have any say. Your brand of "democracy" is for winners only and the rest can go hang. And in the next breath you defend the populism that brought us Trump and Farage. I suppose you're going to tell us next what a great leader Boris would be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:20 AM

"Roll on 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019."

Yup. And there's a nice little bit of irony that has gone over your head. The moment of our leaving is actually midnight.

EU time. Heheh.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

Actually, it's incorrect to consider democracy and populism as comparable. Democracy is an agreed system of government whereas populism is merely a campaigning mechanism, generally intended to over-simplify and appeal to people's basest instincts and prejudices. Obsessively demonising your opponents, sloganising (e.g. that bus and the Farage poster) and mantras (e.g. "fake news," "make America great again") and a rabble-rousing gutter press are the main tools of populism. Populism degrades democracy by riding on its back. That's precisely how Nazi Germany proceeded. We should be very watchful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:58 AM

"Short answer: Rubbish
Long answer: RUBBISH"
As ever, your non-response certainly is
Only a megalomaniac would claim to speak on behalf of "most of the people" by saying what they think
Most of the British people did not vote for Britain to leave - only a small minority of those who voted did, and you and your "democratic" democrats are not willing to let any of the British people vote on what are the probable consequences of leaving, none of which was apparent when the vote took place - but that's right-wing democracy for you

Nice summing up on the Parliamentary shenanigans from this morning's Irish Times


CONFIDENCE VOTE HAS WEAKENED BOTH MAY AND BREXIT HARDLINERS        
Denis Staunnton, London Letter


As the smoke cleared around Westminster after Wednesday’s confidence vote in Theresa May, it became clear that the exercise had weak¬ened both the prime minister and the hardline Brexiteers who tried to bring her down. May’s acknowledgment that she cannot lead her party into the next general election was a statement of the obvious since few expected her to survive long beyond March 29th next year when Britain leaves theEU.
But by stating publicly that she has a sell-by date, she has given potential successors licence to campaign openly within the party and rendered herself a lame duck whose authority diminishes every day. And although she survived Wednesday’s vote, more than a third of her parliamentary party has no confidence in her leadership.
The prime minister’s assertion that a Brexit deal must have the support of the DUP if it is to win parliamenta¬ry approval reflects a belief in Downing Street that the DUP holds the key to reconciliation with hardline Brexiteers in the Conservative party. If May can negotiate changes to the terms of the backstop that satisfy the DUP, the theory goes, Conservative Brexiteers will have sufficient cover to fall into line behind it.

BACKSTOP CONCESSIONS
There are two problems with this strategy: nothing the EU would consider conceding on the backstop is likely to be sufficient to win over the DUP; and there is no evidence that the hardline Brexiteers are seeking an excuse to back the prime minister’s deal.
May’s would-be assassins emerged snarling into the morning on Thursday, with Dominic Raab suggesting that since they had failed to force her out of office she should now resign voluntarily.
“We will have to back her as best we can but the problem is that both in relation to Brexit and the wider sustainability of the government given the likelihood of any changes to the deal, given the likely scale of opposition it looks very difficult to see how this prime minister can lead us forward,” he said.
The Brexiteers had one shot at removing May from Downing Street before the end of the Brexit negotiations and they have blown it. She may be a lame duck but she is immune from a leadership challenge for 12 months.
The confidence vote further weakened the hardlin¬ers by revealing the limits of support in Parliament for a no-deal Brexit. Even if all 117 MPs who voted against the prime minister would also back a no-deal Brexit (a dubious assumption) they account for just over a fifth of the membership of the House of Commons.
May’s former policy adviser predicted on Thursday that she would have to bring her Brexit deal before the Com¬mons a number of times before it is approved.
“I think there will be at least one if not two or three defeats before opposition MPs and Conservative MPs start to realise that they’ve done their signalling and now it’s real. One of the reasons I think it’s important that the prime minister stayed is that whoever leads through this, I think, will be finished by it,” he said.

Legally binding
But unless the EU agrees to a legally binding text that renders the backstop inopera¬ble, neither the DUP nor Conservative Brexiteers are likely to support it. MPs will be able to introduce amend¬ments to the motion on the Brexit deal, telling the prime minister what course they want her to take.
Some ministers suggest¬ed at last week’s cabinet meeting that MPs should have an indicative vote to test support for various options on Brexit. If the House, as expected, rejects the idea of leaving the EU without a deal and it also rejects May’s deal, two options remain.

‘NORWAY PLUS'
One is "Norway plus' which would see Britain leave the EU but remain in the single market and the customs union, and the other is a second referendum. Support for “Norway plus” has evapo¬rated in recent weeks as former supporters grow confident that they could get a chance to reverse Brexit in a second referendum.
There may not be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum now but support is likely to grow as other options fall away.
And if May’s deal is rejected, she could be faced with a choice between a no-deal Brexit an sending the decision back to the people

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 06:03 AM

A reasonable definition of RIGHT WING POPULISM, which is what is under discussion here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 06:47 AM

You can call it populism if you wish. You merely use it as a stick to beat brexiteers with by constructing a case they voted leave for all the wrong reasons.
The sad reality today is that the political system in the UK is broken. The MPs of both parties are split between brexiteers and remainers and the tories have constructed a slow train wreck of our departure.
Even clot corbyn cannot make up his mind, otherwise why has he not called for a no confidencein the government?

This situation makes the outcome of the confidence vote for May a very precarious creature. Backbenchers largely voted for her to be ditched and whips have less control on the back benches. This struggle is by no means resolved, especially after her humiliation yesterday.
We are now in stormy seas in uncharted waters, while both parties rearrange deckchairs on the ship of state Titanic.

Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
William Shakespeare

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 06:58 AM

You can deny all you like, unless you come up with an alternative, that is what populism is and how it is now being used
Yours, and the goose-steppers in Britan who share your views take on democracy appears to be only that which they agree with - living proof is the baying of the rabid right that, despite having wone a parliamentary vote May should resign
You really can't get a clearer indication of how they/you regard democracy than that

The only way of Britain getting out of this appaling mess with a shered of decency is to put the vote to the people again and ask them is this what they actually voted for
Not one of you "'democrats' have explained why another vote should not take place - that's a pretty clear indication that you regard democracy as your own personal view put into action
Such views have caused wars and filled extermination camps in the past are are quite likely to do so again if allowed to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 07:07 AM

"Even clot corbyn cannot make up his mind, otherwise why has he not called for a no confidencein the government?"

Because Mr Corbyn is a very intelligent and astute politician, who realises that BrexShit is a poison-chalice that's seen off one PM, effectively currently seeing off a second PM, and seen off numerous BrexShit ministers and other sundry Cabinet members, and that to call for a no-confidence vote could result in the Labour Party in general, and himself in particular, drinking from it.

Your fuck-witted Tory Toffs landed the country in this steaming pile of ordure - I'm sure that Mr Corbyn's attitude is, "Let those whose arrogance and jaw-dropping selfishness dropped us in the shit pull us out of it".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 07:35 AM

7 Euros for a visa, sounds cheap enough to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 08:04 AM

Not all Brexiteers are 'populists'. Some are older people brought up to believe in the greatness of Britain and its empire, and the superiority of the British/English and they believe this is somehow lost while we are in Europe. I had a lecture from one such yesterday about how in world war two there was no bug ridden housing in England as there were regulations and such places would have been closed down. According to the same person there was not poverty in Victorian England and the industrialists looked after their workmen like their own children. Domestic servants were never badly treated but were like one of the family. Appalling and depressing junk but not what you might call 'populists'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

Because Mr Corbyn is a very intelligent and astute politician,

When was your last visit to specsavers?

A question for remainers.
If the clear mandate of the first referendum is betrayed by calling for a second one, what on earth gives you the confidence the outcome of a second, third, or fourth referendum would be honoured?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 08:23 AM

"Some are older people brought up to believe in the greatness of Britain and its empire...."
These are the targets of populism K, not the instigators
The system I was educated under taught us everything you describe - we even sang hymns which proudly declared that to be foreign was to be - "In error's chain"
I had family and immediate friends to counteract what I was being taught in school and I was encouraged to find out for myself
Passive racism is rampant in Britain - a survey a few years ago suggested that one third of the British people held racist views and had openly stated them - but up to now, that's as far as it goes

The only openly public demonstration of racism, other than that of the racist parties, was when the East End dockers marched in support of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech it was generally ignored and Powell was kicked out of his party as an embarrassment (even to the right)
I fear thisngs are changing; Brexit was pushed through as POWELL'S DREAM BROUGHT TO FRUITION
Not a Britain I'd hoped our children would inherit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 08:56 AM

Farage's poster with (in)appropriate spin put on it by the lefty rag, the gruniard.
"This picture, filled with nonwhite faces, makes explicit the racism in Ukip’s vision of leaving the European Union"
Yeah right!
Predominantly young unemployed Moslem males.

Now let us cut to the chase. In the land of the free and unfettered of the grand european union why did so many members of the borderless Schengen zone find it necessary to reintroduce border checks?
If you wish to tell a story, try fleshing out all aspects of it, not a carefully selected fragment. Your argument is false in every respect.
You are spreading false news as usual. Try reading guido and become educated!


The true story of border controls

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 09:01 AM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:20 AM
"Roll on 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019."
Yup. And there's a nice little bit of irony that has gone over your head. The moment of our leaving is actually midnight.
EU time. Heheh.

How is 'EU time' defined? The EU (even excluding UK) does not operate within a single time zone. Of course, if you meant CET (Central European Time) you would be correct.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 09:05 AM

The UK operates on GMT, Nigel. Not picked enough nits yet?

Sigh.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 10:14 AM

First thing I did was check the date of the Spring Equinox.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 10:30 AM

"arage's poster with (in)appropriate spin put on it by the lefty rag, the gruniard."
Outrage to this poster appeared in all the papers, including the Daily Mail and the Express
It would have been a credit to the left if they had been the only ones to pick it up, but it was so outrageously racist that they all did
More whataboutism again
Who on earth suggested that Europe is racist free ?
Stop making things up
The poster as racist and events immediately following Brexit showed it had the effect it was intended to have
You are the last person whose comments on racism are to be taken seriously given your own track record

"Predominantly young unemployed Moslem males."
Never realized the people in the poster were identified in any way - you are pretty consistent in your racist stereotyping, aren't you?
Your sole contribution to any discussion you take part in is to provide an example of what is happening to Britain and what is likely to happen - the only reason I (or, I presume, anybody) continues to respond to you (when they do)

"Try reading guido and become educated!"
It is pretty significant that you have no-one other than a criminal right wing blogger to rely on for 'information - a pretty clear indication that there is nobody else
Keep it coming
Good to know that thi is where you gain your education - it really does explain a lot
Jim Carroll

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-racism-religious-intolerance-united-nations-special-rapporteur-a8348021.html

https://discoversociety.org/2018/04/03/racism-work-brexit-empire/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2017.1361544

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:07 AM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:11 AM

The UK operates on GMT, Nigel. Not picked enough nits yet?

Sigh.

No, the UK operates on GMT for the present, but that is for the smaller part of the year. For approximately 7 months out of 12 it works on BST (British Summer Time)

I'll see your 'sigh' and raise you one.
Anyway, my comment was on what time zone(s) the EU works on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:12 AM

SOME "LEFTIE" STATISTICS MORE

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:13 AM

Oh Dear! If jimmie read his own links he would know who the refugees were "The photograph shows refugees in Slovenia in 2015, many fleeing a murderous civil war in Syria."(Now Syria prides itself on religious tolerance but the dominant religion is Islam)
If you managesd to escape from your bog periodically you would be able to identify the people in the photograph as Middle Eastern by facial features and facial hair. Having lived and worked in swathes of the middle east over nearly 40 years such things are immediately apparent to me.
   If they were in gainful employment they would not be refugees ergo they are unemployed. Some of us can figure such things out. You apparently must be lead by the nose.
Not very good at this are you.


EU time. Heheh.

No such beast. The EU covers 3 time zones. You really do need to be more specific HeHehHeh

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:21 AM

A question of such national import should require a 2/3 majority at least, IMO. Barring that, in the case of a yes vote, a second vote on the exit details should be required. But of course, these requirements would have to have been established prior to the vote. As it stands it is incumbent that the results of the vote, such as it was, be accepted as representing the will of the voters.

Had we gone for a 2/3 majority first time, I would agree with you. But you seem to be saying that if there was a second referendum with say 62% for leave (when that vote is based on current information) that should not overturn on vote of 52% that was several years old (which was based on limited information and lies from both sides.) I would say that is a definite affront to democracy myself.   Having a 2/3 majority for such things make sense, but I don't think you can have different rules for what constitutes a majority for the two referendums.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:33 AM

Look we used to have a fishing industry all the way round our coast . Thousands of people employed/ We didn't run it very well but little fishing boats used to come over from France, and there was no hassle. We overfished our waters , the pink shrimp disappeated frpm our waters off Boston, where I lived. By the time I grew up Albert Gostelow had the last shrimping boat out of Boston.

After the EU, came the Spnish facrory boiats. We didn't know it, but they had emptied the seas of fish off their own coasts.

The Remainers sneer and say, we should have had the factory boats - we were too backward looking.

Forward looking would be if we restocked our waters - planned by marine biologists. We licnced fishing boats - so that only boats of a size that would fish a sustainable amount were allowed.

We can't be forward looking in the EU. They just want to satisfy everybody. To look after our own future - we need to think for ourselves. We can't possibly sort out all Europe's problems. Our own are difficult enough.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:34 AM

The People’s Vote’s luridly-coloured ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ bus has recently started its tour of the country, presumably to test out the theory of whether being as irritating as possible is a good way to win voters over.

From your media maestro GUIDO. Not only is the bus illegal but it regresses to the same gutter language as many remainiacs here. Call me old fashioned, but displaying such a sign in the streets, surrounded by impressionable children, is not a very clever thing to do.

I am sure Mrs Whtehouse would turn in her grave,.
Bad language coarsens the whole quality of our life. It normalises harsh, often indecent language, which despoils our communication.

    As quoted by Jonathan Brown in "Mary Whitehouse: To some a crank, to others a warrior",

https://order-order.com/2018/12/14/peoples-vote-driving-illegal-bollocks-brexit-bus/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:38 AM

Not only is the bus illegal...


Is it? No one apart from Guido seems to claim it is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:41 AM

"Oh Dear! If jimmie read his own links he would know who the refugees were "
I did - nwhere is the suggestion that they were "unemployed" and, unless they were in drag, I can spot a few women in there
The racist scare is that they are after our jobs and are a threat white women - racist stereotyping as old as The Windrush generation

You abusive attempts to talk down is a predictable sign that you have no decent responses to offer
Your mentor, Teribus, was bad enough (as has been shown of the last couple of days) but at least he got up off his arse and made an effort - - your postings are both unimaginative and lazy
And you clam to be an adept debater - in my hole you are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:21 PM

Not only is the bus illegal...
Is it? No one apart from Guido seems to claim it is.

Go online and check it yourself.

No what else would you like to argue over?



under DVLA rules, it is “paramount that the information stored on the vehicle register is accurate and up to date… Any changes to the vehicles details must be notified to DVLA by law. By covering the entire vehicle in a coloured adhesive/vinyl wrap, it is DVLA’s view that the colour change should be recorded.”

However, a quick search on DVLA’s database reveals that the ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ bus is in fact registered as “white”, rather than “nauseating yellow”
I have checked it myself:

    Registration number FJ60 EGD
    Make VOLVO
    Colour WHITE

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:23 PM

Well, Nitnigpick, let me put it this way. In Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and Italy, a goodly selection of EU big beasts there, we leave on the stroke of THEIR midnight. Oh, and not forgetting Brussels, of course. Never mind. We can take back control at one minute past. Oh, except for that pesky backstop, if we need it. Oh, and except for the trading standards that China and the US can impose on us and shrug if we demur. Excelsior!

And Iains, there is one glaringly simple reason why Corbyn hasn't called for a no-confidence vote. The Tories would win it. For now they have the DUP reluctantly onside. Maybe Jezza is a little more canny than you think. But watch that space.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:28 PM

" nwhere is the suggestion that they were "unemployed"

how can you be both employed and a refugee?
I despair! debating with you is like discussing metaphysics with cotton wool.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM

Go online and check it yourself.

No what else would you like to argue over?

I am not arguing - asking is not arguing, you know. But yes, I did look online and Guido was the only one saying it was illegal.

The DVLA update on April 10, 2014 said that they wanted to be notified:
===
The register maintained by the driver and vehicle licensing agency (DVLA) essentially exists to assist in revenue collection, road safety and law enforcement. The Police and other enforcement agencies rely on the DVLA record for all vehicles-related investigations. It is therefore paramount that the information stored on the vehicle register is accurate and up to date.

By covering the entire vehicle in a coloured adhesive/vinyl wrap, it is DVLA’s view that the colour change should be recorded.

===

However, that is the DVLA's view that it should be recorded may or may not be sufficient for it to be illegal. I would not know, which was why I asked.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:36 PM

I did look online and Guido was the only one saying it was illegal

For the nit-pickers, that means - obviously - Guido was the only one I found saying that. There may be any number of others who did not show up in the search.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:40 PM

"how can you be both employed and a refugee?"
Perhaps you should read the text yourself

THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS REFUGEES IN SLOVENIA IN 2015,

It's a ****** fake - they are not refugees coming into Britain
Britain is morally bound to take refugees - lying about who and where they are is utterly obscene racism of the inhumanly worst type, as is defending such behaviour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:17 PM

And how many hours has it taken you to work out they were in Slovenia.
It was in the article you linked to
I gave the same information.
No person at any time said anything about the photograph showing people coming into Britain. Your splattering of red paint merely indicates you are incapable of following an argument. As Arthur Askey would say:
Wakey Wakey!
As usual you spout demented rubbish. lying about who and where they are is utterly obscene racism of the inhumanly worst type, as is defending such behaviour The only one lying here is little demented jimmie.
I asked earlier why the Schengen zone reintroduced border controls and had a deathly hush in response. Do you think it was to impede Father Christmas, or perhaps to keep tabs on migrants in order to sift genuine refugees from returning Isis members and terrorists.
You may like living in your lefty delusion of the fiction they all are innocent refugees, the rest of us are more aware of the potential hazards of uncontrolled immigration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:33 PM

So the country to being taken to hell in a hand cart by the Government, the Prime Minister is hanging on, just, and Iains thinks the MOST important topic is the colour of a bus.

My god we're in a real mess.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:41 PM

"And how many hours has it taken you to work out they were in Slovenia."
I was always aware that the poster was lying - which is the point
It is a fake representation of the refugee situation in Britain
The article, and many other similar have described the poster as an incitement to race hatred in order to push through a decisin that will almost certainly damage Britsin, which is what you are defending
Why am I not surprised
I poined out that what happens elsewhere has sfa to do with what happens in Britain
You lyingly suggested that I regarded what happens in Europe is perfect - the only lying here
THe poster was racist - it has been widely recognised as such
Why are you defending it (rhetorical question, of course)

Little Jimmie again - both insecure and unoriginal - something you lifted from Teribus
You really have nothing of your own to contribute - do you
Right or wrong, the contributors here offer their own thoughts without having to plagiarise them from elsewhere - Guido and Teribus - great sources to "learn from" eh what
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:41 PM

"And how many hours has it taken you to work out they were in Slovenia."
I was always aware that the poster was lying - which is the point
It is a fake representation of the refugee situation in Britain
The article, and many other similar have described the poster as an incitement to race hatred in order to push through a decisin that will almost certainly damage Britsin, which is what you are defending
Why am I not surprised
I poined out that what happens elsewhere has sfa to do with what happens in Britain
You lyingly suggested that I regarded what happens in Europe is perfect - the only lying here
THe poster was racist - it has been widely recognised as such
Why are you defending it (rhetorical question, of course)

Little Jimmie again - both insecure and unoriginal - something you lifted from Teribus
You really have nothing of your own to contribute - do you
Right or wrong, the contributors here offer their own thoughts without having to plagiarise them from elsewhere - Guido and Teribus - great sources to "learn from" eh what
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:42 PM

Jim - one more time, ignore the troll! He makes no attempt to discuss, he just insults and provokes. He's winding you up, and getting a hard-on from doing it. He's a worthless waste of oxygen. Ignore him, FFS!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:53 PM

You're right, of course Baccie
It's just extremely pleasurable allowing him to humiliate himself
He obviously hasn't enough self respect to stop himself
I'm afraid I find him like a dysfunctional child, difficult to ignore while he's crapping on the sofa
Must try harder
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 01:53 PM

You're right, of course Baccie
It's just extremely pleasurable allowing him to humiliate himself
He obviously hasn't enough self respect to stop himself
I'm afraid I find him like a dysfunctional child, difficult to ignore while he's crapping on the sofa
Must try harder
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 02:14 PM

The poster was supposedly all about taking back control of migration into the UK. But it showed refugees, not migrants, and they were nowhere near Britain. And they largely had dark skins. There would have been absolutely no point in showing a picture of refugees in Slovenia in a brexit campaign in order to make some point or other about control of our borders. The sheer dishonesty of the thing was glaringly obvious.

As for the bus colour, I too did a lot of googling, and, like DMcG, the only reference I could find to any controversy was on Fawkes's website. The DVLA statement was not a reference to illegality, as DMcG stated. If, as was indicated, the bus was covered in removable coloured material, I can't see any problem. Lots of cars and vans have various painted company names added or removed, or have big orange stripes painted on the back. Gosh, we'll be outlawing stick-on L-plates next. Even the Boris bus had big letters daubed on it. Someone appears to be clutching at straws in order to concoct some fake news, I reckon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

SURVEY OF THE GENII THAT BREXIT LET OUT OF THE BOTTLE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

SURVEY OF THE GENII THAT BREXIT LET OUT OF THE BOTTLE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 06:49 PM

It seems to be the Irish who have ensured that there has been no EU movement on the backstop. So if we crash out with 'no deal' what happens then in respect of the EU border between The Republic of Ireland and the UK? I suppose we have to pay the new fee to go to the Republic - except those of us who have passports for both countries?

Suppose the UK just decided to open the border and ignore it. How would this affect WTO negotiations?

Seriously confused by all this. But assuming the Irish Government has thought it through.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 06:57 PM

Ah, the Irish PM says a No Deal Brexit would be bad for Ireland. Still confused. And LBC says that worries about the Irish border question is nothing but remoaner project fear …..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 07:17 PM

If we leave with a deal, we then have to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. If that goes well, there's no need for a backstop. But if it goes badly, which is fairly likely, then the backstop keeps the whole of the UK in a customs union. The trouble with that is that it could go on for a very long time. The upside is that the border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic would carry on as they do now. There would be no return to those horrid border checkpoint skirmishes that so helped to define The Troubles. The downside is that only a bilateral agreement could end the backstop. We are not permitted to withdraw from it unilaterally. Quite right too, as we would be outside the EU, but the Republic, just as much affected by the backstop as the UK, would still be a member. A unilateral abandonment of the backstop would be unconscionable except to those people who think that we Empire-wallers shouldn't kowtow to these inferior Johnny Foreigners. It's all such an incredible bloody mess. The only answer is that, somehow, we have to ditch the insanity known as brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 07:27 PM

Thanks Steve. Nice summary. But the backstop is in the deal which is now rejected, to be used in case negotiations during the 'transition period' fail. So if we crash out, the backstop as I understand it, won't apply. Or am I wrong about this.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 07:43 PM

The backstop is an integral part of May's deal. It's a reluctant addendum both from the UK's and EU's point of view. If we crash out without a deal the backstop doesn't come into it. We are then into wild west territory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 11:53 PM

"We Are then into Wild West territory"

Wonder what the drunk-driver criminal ' Seaman' Staines thinks about it? I'm sure he'll have some balanced pearls of wisdom, maybe his brown-tongued bum-boy will be along shortly to share them with us. There's nothing better than a good laugh when the going gets difficult.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 03:46 AM

Strictly Karen the deal has not been rejected, May has been too cowardly to put it to a vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:04 AM

I have always had a bit of a smile at the way Brexiteers are happy to trade on WTO rules. Rules, you note. Set by one of those unelected bodies. Here is a clipping from therir 'who are we?' page:

-----
At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations. These documents provide the legal ground rules for international commerce. They are essentially contracts, binding governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits.
------

Binding governments? - sounds like a loss of sovereignty to me. Contracts? - ruled over by a non-UK court? Surely that's exactly what the leavers are complaining about?

True, the UK signed up - just as it did to the EU rules....

Then there's Trump, who is not happy to abide by the WTO rules. He may or not break them, but there is no guarantee that the WTO rules are a firm foundation at all.

"Wild west territory" seems a good short hand to me for the state we would be in. I agree with Leavers to this extent - eventually the effects of leaving will settle down into some other stable configuration, just as the wild west did. Whether that is better or worse than now is debatable, but eventually a settlement will occur.

There will be some winners. Like the fall of the USSR, (or the Reformation, which someone compared Brexit to on the radio yesterday), it will mainly be those which enough resources and the right contacts now who will find themselves better off in 50 (or 500!) years. But there will also be some small fry who do quite well. I was buying some cheese last weekend and got chatting. This guy makes a small quantity of brie, gouda and similar style cheeses which he sells as premium products to the middle classes. Now, IF he isn't too affected by changes of subsidies and can get more land, and goats, and manage the expansion, and the middle class purchasers are themselves not too badly affected, a tariff or other barrier that makes foreign cheese more expensive can only help him. However, it is a total change of business to move from selling to a few hundred relatively wealthy customers to becoming a nationwide supplier of supermarkets - if it happens at all, it will take many years. It is not his aim either, doubling the number of cheeses he makes would be a reasonable ambition from his point of view.


He needs to be compared to a small scale haulier I know who is in fear and dread that even a month or two chaos will destroy her company. Waiting for a new long term stability to appear will not help her.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:07 AM

I really think people should be aware of the significance of hard borders to Ireland, both in terms of economics and of peace and The Good Friday Agreement
I sometimes feel that even the best intentioned are not and regard it as just another obstacle, when in fat it is literally a life-and-death issue - a return to the killing-fields of the seventies
This will continue to be the case while Ireland is partitioned - still a hangover from the glorious 'Empire Days'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 07:29 AM

The Ireland border issue is a classic example of a brexit problem that was swept under the carpet during the referendum campaign. An inconvenience to brexiteers kept out of the glare of investigation (and underplayed by remainers to boot). Brexiteers just hoping it would go away. We had all the lies about immigrants and taking back control and extra money for the NHS, but the border issue was possibly the most egregious example of all of sheer political irresponsibility and shortsightedness. It's impossible to overstate the drastic implications of no deal with a hard border, as Jim says. "We know more now than we knew then." Well the electorate does, but the brexiteers must have known all along, but they weren't telling us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 07:34 AM

This will continue to be the case while Ireland is partitioned - still a hangover from the glorious 'Empire Days'

Unlike Southern Ireland, which would become the Irish Free State in 1922, the majority of Northern Ireland's population were unionists, who wanted to remain within the United Kingdom

If they wish to vote to join the republic, they are free to call for a vote on the matter at any time.
Northern Ireland also costs the exchequer £7.2 billion. Is the south happy to continue such a subsidy?
Realistically northern Ireland is an expensive liability we would be far better off without, but they, and only they, can create a change to the status quo.
In 1973, the population of Northern Ireland was granted a referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. ... The pro-UK vote did however represent 57.5%
As usual jimmie you bend and twist to display your anglophobia. Carillion used to blacklist objectionable people, a shame we do not do the same.

The DVLA statement was not a reference to illegality, as DMcG stated. If, as was indicated, the bus was covered in removable coloured material, I can't see any problem.
Well for a person that merely professes to be
a well educated scientist this does nor surprise me
A glaze is a removable material, as is paint, as is vinyl.
From the DVLA website: it is “paramount that the information stored on the vehicle register is accurate and up to date… Any changes to the vehicles details must be notified to DVLA by law.
Changes you need to update

You must update your V5C if you change any of the following:

    colour
    engine
    cylinder capacity (cc)
    fuel type
    chassis or bodyshell (replaced or modified)
    seating capacity
    weight of a large vehicle, eg goods vehicle or campervan

If you wish to argue why not check your facts first?

It is also advisable to inform the insurance company as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 08:01 AM

Odd that Google does not find the phrase "Any changes to the vehicles details must be notified to DVLA by law" (at the time of writing!).   Be that as it may, only Guido seems to be complaining of the buses illegality - no one has reported the DVLA is taking an interest as far as I know. Even if it is technically illegal, I would expect it to be a minor regulatory infringement carrying a smallish fine - hardly significant in the context of the Aaron Banks farrago, for example, or other claims of illegality.

So let's move on from trivia. There is a lot of talk of the 'nuclear option' among Brexiteers next week, and rumours Labour might call a confidence vote in the Government if the DUP looks like it will oppose May's government. What say people of those?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 08:06 AM

Have no intentions of entering into debate with this troll, but would like to make the position of partitioning clear
Irland was never asked to vote on the division so there was veer any question of the majority choosing to remain separate
Lloyd George presented a take it or leave it Treaty, pointing out that if it was not accepted they would not intervene when the Unionists invaded Dublin as they had threatened to do - the treaty was signed under threat of War
Originally, the intention was to partition the whole 9 Counties of Ulster but when they did the math, Briain realised that this would give the Catholics a majority, so they removed the three Catholic Counties from the Treaty to allow the creation of an artificial gerrymandered Protestant State
The Unionists set about making the new province unequal by disfranchising those with no land - overwhelmingly Catholics who had been forbidden to own land for over a century   
This inequality led to held a century of unrest and bloodshed - the 'Troubles' broke out when Civil Rights marches demanding equality were diverted through crowds of stone-throwing Unionists and escalated into open warfare
While Ireland remains partitioned bloodshed will remain a threat, which is why the Border issues is so important

I have little doubt that our resident troll will scream "Made up shit" as this is all he seems to be capable of, but those are the documented historical facts of the partitioning of Ireland
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

"led to held a century "
Tempted to leave this in to give Timmy the Troll a typo to pick up on, - should read "half a century"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 08:55 AM

On the WTO thing, service industries aren't covered by it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 09:17 AM

Odd that Google does not find the phrase "Any changes to the vehicles details must be notified to DVLA by law" (at the time of writing!).
Closest I can find is here: Gov.UK:
You must update the details on your registration certificate (V5C) to tell DVLA about:
•mistakes on your V5C
•most changes you make to your vehicle
Changes you need to update
You must update your V5C if you change any of the following:
•colour

If those pages follow the same format as the Highway Code, then anywhere that it says "you must" relates to a legal requirement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 09:23 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 12:23 PM
Well, Nitnigpick, let me put it this way. In Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and Italy, a goodly selection of EU big beasts there, we leave on the stroke of THEIR midnight. Oh, and not forgetting Brussels, of course. Never mind. We can take back control at one minute past. Oh, except for that pesky backstop, if we need it. Oh, and except for the trading standards that China and the US can impose on us and shrug if we demur. Excelsior!

I will take it that that is an acceptance that you were wrong in quoting an "EU Time zone". Usual response of not admitting an error, but going on the offensive by insulting anyone who dares correct you.

Still incorrect anyway (after you had a chance to check it). Portugal uses the same time zone as the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 09:48 AM

How tiresome!
You must update your V5C if you change any of the following:
    .......
    colour
    .......

https://www.gov.uk/change-vehicle-details-registration-certificate
It seems to me that if a government department says you must do something only a fool would argue over it's validity as to being a legal requirement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 10:08 AM

Last word on the subject from me, because it is both tedious and trivial. There is no question that a change of vehicle colour needs to be notified. What is less certain is whether a temporary wrap institutes a change of colour IN LAW. Not in your opinion or mine, but in law. We know that it is the DVLA "view" that is does need to be notified, but that is a comparatively recent statement (a few years old: previously they did not treat it so.) But that has not been tested in law, as far as I am aware, and as I said earlier I do not know whether the DVLA's view has the weight of law.

Let us take an extreme case: you wrap a vehicle for two hours, then remove it. Does that have to be notified? I would say no. Then suppose it is left on for two years? Yes, I would say. So there is scope for treating short term coatings differently from long term..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 10:13 AM

DVLA updates Colour change wrap advice - April 10, 2014

The DVLA have updated their advice regarding the registration of full colour change vehicle wraps.

The DVLA have previously not considered vehicle wrapping as a permanent alteration but have now changed the requirements to include vehicles that have had their colour changed by adhesive / vinyl wrap.

The following statement had been issued by the DVLA :-

The register maintained by the driver and vehicle licensing agency (DVLA) essentially exists to assist in revenue collection, road safety and law enforcement. The Police and other enforcement agencies rely on the DVLA record for all vehicles-related investigations. It is therefore paramount that the information stored on the vehicle register is accurate and up to date.

DVLA records details given by vehicle manufacturers at first registration. Any changes to the vehicles details must be notified to DVLA by law.

Now can we move on. Lefties are wrong(again)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 10:42 AM

" Lefties are wrong(again)"
And the mental midgets are still mental midgets
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 11:12 AM

The people who are against 'No Deal' are the people who are against Brexit. Brexit is 'No Deal'.

However, 'No Deal' is not 'No Deal' forever. 'No Deal' is a bargaining position which has more power than than that of a supplicant who is afraid of 'No Deal'. 'No Deal' is a starting position from which we can actually say "No".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 11:44 AM

" 'No Deal' is a starting position from which we can actually say "No"."
Pie in the sky nonsense.
May has got all there is to be had from Europe - Europe doesn't need the U.K. but it's turned out that The U.K sure as hell needs Europe
1.3 million Brits live and work in E.U. countries, at least 36,000 of them are drawing unemployment benefit
If Britain crashes out, as the Brexit Braindeads are suggesting, without paying the exit fee, there is no reason on earth why Europe should allow Brits to remain
Some people can't get their head around the fact that Britain is outnumber by 27 to 1 - in no position to bargain with anybody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 12:43 PM

May has got all there is to be had from Europe - Europe doesn't need the U.K. but it's turned out that The U.K sure as hell needs Europe
1.3 million Brits live and work in E.U. countries, at least 36,000 of them are drawing unemployment benefit.

More little jimmie rubbish! May is merely a duplicitous closet remainer, hellbent on betrayal.
Britain is the second largest economy in Europe and the EU exports considerably more to the uk than the UK exports to the EU. £100billion more in 2017. UK exports to the EU represent 13.4% of the British economy and our EU exports have been declining for some years. Germany in particular would be hit by a hard brexit. They export around £22billion of an imbalanceto to the UK. Our total exports to the EU are actually in decline over the last few years.
As has been said many times, it is money makes the world go round, not morality, or even politics. We can probably excuse the lefties for their ignorance of these facts, because it is always other people's money they spend and thus have little idea as to how it is created.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 12:50 PM

I cannot see why Ians imagines that the fact that we buy a lot of goods from the EU should mean that they want us in the UE.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 12:51 PM

Forgive typos. I guess the argument might be that we will stop buying EU goods because they will get more expensive, which seems likely due to queues at Dover etc. Sadly, I do not fancy chlorinated junk and so on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 01:09 PM

The argument is tha Europe needs our markets £100billion/year more than we need their markets.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&biw=1366&bih=590&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=F0EVXO7WINLCxgOTmrSIBA&q=did++May+vote+remian+in+referendum&oq=did++May+vote+remian+in+referendum&gs_l=img.12...0.0..9336...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.ijXCArYhEzo#imgrc=5jfvJlXlavI3BM:

As I said duplicitous!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 01:15 PM

"More little jimmie rubbish! "
Are you really the only one to realise that your uncontrolled outbursts only underline your ignorance and mental dwarfism ?
Perhaps you can tell us about the North voting for partition again !!
Jeez....!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 01:49 PM

"More little jimmie rubbish! "
Are you really the only one to realise that your uncontrolled outbursts only underline your ignorance and mental dwarfism ?
Perhaps you can tell us about the North voting for partition again !!

I wasn't aware of any recent vote by Northern Ireland for partition. Can you link to it so that I can read what has actually been said?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 02:25 PM

"I wasn't aware of any recent vote by Northern Ireland for partition."
They didn't - the Mindless Muppet with the foul mouth claimed they did but we all above to make allowances
Thank you for allowing me to underline his idiocy again
Happy Crimbo Nigel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 02:53 PM

The fact that we buy a lot of goods from the EU is a reason to stay in the EU. Quality and range for consumers is important. I don't see what the USA produces that we need.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 03:09 PM

"I wasn't aware of any recent vote by Northern Ireland for partition."
They didn't - the Mindless Muppet with the foul mouth claimed they did but we all above to make allowances


I am sure you would like to entertain and enlighten us all by providing a link to substantiate your twaddle. I must remember the expression mindless muppet, it suits you to a T. Make my day - Prove me wrong!
Again you provide an example of reacting to something you thought was said (or more probably bending and twisting what was said) rather than what was actually said. Have you no shame, or does being a clown come naturally?

The Northern Ireland border poll was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
98.9% voted to remain. Since then the demographic has changed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 03:20 PM

Reunification the facts:

Who gets to decide whether and when to hold a border poll?

The UK Government has the power to call a referendum in Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

The Secretary of State would do this by laying before Parliament an Order in Council, specifying the details of the poll and the date on which it will be held.

In the Republic of Ireland, reunification would require a constitutional amendment. This would require legislation to be passed by both chambers of Parliament, before it was put to the people in a referendum.

In the event that either part of Ireland voted against reunification, another poll cannot be held within seven years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 03:49 PM

Spot on there with Portugal, Nigs. I was just testing you. And, let's face it, getting you to check all the little piddly details does keep you off the streets.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:38 PM

You may recall Iains that the Nationalists boycotted the 1973 referendum as only unionists voted.

Thus if 100 people voted and 98% voted to remain you arrive at your figure (appromimately Nigel!)

The result was meaningless.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:54 PM

Interesting that the hard brexiteers told us that 38% was the voice of the people, and that 37% of Tories was enough to justify ditching Theresa. Not too good at maths, these hard-right faux-democrats, are they? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 05:51 PM

The result was meaningless.
IN the 1973 referendum in Northern Ireland ?57% voted of which 98.9% voted to remain within the UK.
Please explain how it can be meaningless when 98.9% of 57% of the electorate voted to remain. In a democracy a simple majority prevails
and 98.9% of 57% is a very clear majority.
Do you have anything sensible to say or are you trying to follow your compatriots with drivel?

Not too good at maths, these hard-right faux-democrats, are they?
I see mr shaw does not understand the difference between a referendum vote where a simple majority dictates outcomes, and a vote of confidence in a Prime Minister.
The former is a democratic vote, the latter is a confidence vote. In the case of a confidence vote a majority may or may not suffice. Mrs. Thatcher won a confidence vote but was still toppled one week later.
The self proclaimed well educated scientist seems to think it is merely a simple mathematical exercise to demonstrate outcomes. Some of us know better!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 06:30 PM

Yeah, whatever.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 07:18 PM

Still no cards with stagecoaches on them... probably the bleeding French up to their old tricks!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 07:28 PM

If you cannot figure out for yourself why the 1973 referendum was meaningless I, for one, am not about to start your education, I have far better things to do than try and enlightnen a committed hard line right wing bigot.

For instance the music and singing in here tonight is superb and still ongoing !!!

Message timed 00.27 GMT.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 08:30 PM

"I see mr shaw does not understand the difference between a referendum vote where a simple majority dictates outcomes, and a vote of confidence in a Prime Minister..."

Well 38% of the electorate is not a simple majority. Nor is 37% of Tory MPs. Simple majorities would be 50%+I of the electorate/Tory MPs. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 04:06 AM

"IN the 1973 referendum in Northern Ireland ?57% voted of which 98.9% voted to remain within the UK."
When Ireland was partitioned, the Northern Counties were left with the wealth producing industries and the best land
We first visited Ireland around this time and there was hrdly a young person between 17 to 45 living in this town - they'd all gone to America
Up to when Ireland joined the E.U. the Republic was still recovering from the hard times
With the outbreak of the Troubles and the economic situation, Northerners regarded the South as a liability
hen Ireland joined the E.U. it prospered and became "The Celtic Tiger" until the International bankers fucked up the economy agan
The position now as far as unity is concerned is that in the North the demand has shot up to almost parity and in the South, it is now regarded as inevitable thanks to Brexit
You have been told how your "majority" was obtained - the dead of The Trouble, when demands for Civil Rights of a minority led to open warfare shows just how democratic The North was
More recently, the same "democracy" was used in Britain when the Government bribed the terrorist linked DUP £1 billion of the British taxpayers money in order to stay in office

None of which makes your claim of "choosing to partition" anything but a crass load of invented horse-shit
Partition has produced decades of persecution and warfare - no nation has a right to partition another as history has shown... Korea, Cyprus, Vietnam, India, - all trouble spots and all hangover of Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 04:29 AM

Now for something sensible!
I was surprised to see the following in the Guardian, Guido will be miffed:
"
Why are Labour’s leaders so quiet on Europe? Maybe it’s the lure of disaster. The party’s apparent defeatism on Brexit is grounded in old-style Leninist fantasy.

It seems a brutally honest depiction of corbyn and his dream team.
"Labour has inherited the mental deformations of the Leninist style of doing business: the leadership personality cult, the love of conspiracy theory, the robotic denunciations of opponents, and most critically for our current crisis, the ineradicable fantasy that the worse conditions for the masses become, the brighter the prospects of the far left are. Disaster socialism is its alternative to disaster capitalism."

Printed in the Guardian, therefore every word is guaranteed to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 04:43 AM

The link goes nowhere

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-disaster

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 05:57 AM

Nick Cohen, eh? Well you should be pleased that the Guardian embraces such a broad spectrum of columnists that people like Nick can be included. He's so right-wing that even Blair accused him of undermining him when New Labour was at the helm. Quite a bellicose-minded chap too. From wiki:

He was an advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and a critic of the Stop the War Coalition. An opponent of what he has termed the "tyrannophile left"Cohen has criticised individuals such as Andrew Murray and George Galloway, while expressing his admiration for the opposition movements in countries such as Belarus. He called for Western military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. He also supported the NATO-led intervention in Libya to oust former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Cohen criticised Ecuador for granting political asylum to Julian Assange and called Ecuador a "petro-socialist authoritarian state".

Thing is, Iains, you throw scorn at the Guardian whenever you can, yet here you are cherrypicking a bit of stuff that feeds into your confirmation bias. Talk about giving yourself away. I have never liked Nick Cohen, along with several other Guardian columnists, but guess what, I still buy the paper. Unlike you I'm not constantly on the lookout for the succour of people whose views happen to chime with mine. No wonder you can't debate things. You never see things in the round because you only consider sources that you think you'll agree with. To employ common street parlance, you're sussed, mate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 05:58 AM

Watching Andrew Marr.

Apparently Labour is anti Brexit.

But!

They are fighting with each other about what anti Brexit means.

They could decomplicate things with a policy statement, something like

Apart from Dennis Skinner - WE DON"T WANNA LEAVE!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:08 AM

An Irish view:
As somebody said, regarding the British Brexit negotiating team: if the British had the same team negotiating with us in 1922, we'd not only still have the 6 counties, but Wales too.

Sadly they are probably right. When you have a remainer leading the negotiations for departure...........?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:30 AM

LABOUR SITUATION HERE
Not so much a split, but an open debate
Chissum represents the new Left that have now taken control of the Party, while Flint represents the right-wing New Labour old Guard
Personally, I think Corbyn has boxed clever (at least I hope what is happening is deliberate)
They have avoided any major in-fighting by steering clear of the melee and have allowed the Tories to self-destruct (as displayed here by our own little band of right wing brothers)
Whatever happens, the Tories have torn themselves into shreds without the help of the Labour Party - all their own self-destructive work.
Any intervention by the Labour Party might well have caused the Tories to close ranks against the common enemy
If it was deliberate, it is brilliant and has shown Corbyn to be a great tactician, if it wasn't - it was sheer good luck
To say that the Tory Party will never be the same again is to put it mildly - they are really shitting on their own doorstep
At least there is an open debate within Labour whether to hold a second referendum - it hasn't even been considered by the Tories
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:39 AM

Still not getting any satisfactory response on the question of why the fact that the Germans sell more to us than we sell to them means that we have a strong hand in negotiating with the EU.

Nobody is going to ban German goods from entering the UK. They are not going to lose their market if we come out of the EU, are they?

Not only that, but it seems that Germany is the 2nd on the list of countries we export to. Looked at like that, it seems that if we do 'lose' the abilitity to export to Germany, we will be losing our 2nd largest market. Size isn't everything, is it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:24 AM

I have still not had anyone answer the question of why importing more from a country than we export to it is a bad thing. We get lots of good stuff from Germany. In return, all we have to give them is money, which we have. With the USA it's the opposite. Mostly because they do not produce stuff which we want and need. If we do not have a good trading relationship with the EU, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the range of goods available in our shops and supermarkets will be vastly reduced, to our detriment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

"Any intervention by the Labour Party might well have caused the Tories to close ranks against the common enemy"

That is spot-on and is why Labour have yet to bring a motion of no confidence in the government. It would unite the Tories and, given that the DUP have yet to jump ship, the motion would fail and the Tories would be secure. That situation could change if May can't persuade the DUP to accept her deal, which I'm sure they won't in its current form. It would, however, be good to have a better idea of Labour's honest position in all this. We are definitely not hearing enough from Jezza.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

I see that David. But the argument has been put and I am still struggling to see why people regard it as a good argument. Also,
in the face of a 'hard Brexit' those pro Brexit people argue that WTO terms would kick in so trade would continue.


There are some big issues about the sort of terms the USA would want to impose as I understand it. This applies also to the TTIP that was being negotiated betweern the USA and the EU, which was an argument in favour of coming out of the EU. You guessed it, the USA wants less environmental protection, etc. ALso I read that there are moves to make trade agreements with the USA actually secret, so how that figures with democratic accountability and taking back control I cannot see. The whole thing is also seen as a threat to European Social Models.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

"It would, however, be good to have a better idea of Labour's honest position in all this.
Not sure that is either possible or necessary Steve - if the elected Majority is not going to listen to each other they're not going to listen to anybody else
Let them dig their own graves and bury their own dismembered corpse, nobody else could make a better job of it than they are

A manipulated referendum got Britain into this mess, it will take another, based on real information to get her out if it
Interesting to listen to Liam Fox rejecting a second referendum today - you can bet that once they start doing that, it's a possibility
Fox said he was against a second referendum because "it would divide the country" !!!!!
You couldn't make this crows up if you were writing a script for 'Spitting Image"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 10:26 AM

And if 'no deal' is so simple, why is Liam Fox (according to Daily Mail) preparing to spend 100 million on trade negotiators if this happens?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 10:55 AM

Because, Karen, the simple no deal with Europe and ease of trade with other states is yet another lie that the brexit team have been caught out in.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 12:11 PM

"Britain may have lost the right to claim Americans are dumber, but the US clearly has no right to feel any political superiority. Indeed, it feels as if certain parts of American society now feel a sort of exhausted solidarity with the UK, a relief that they are not the only ones whose country is a raging dumpster fire.

A new sort of special relationship has been forged between the UK and the US; we are united by the fact that we have become global jokes."

Check It Out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/when-americans-want-to-understand-brexit-its-clear-britain-is-in-trouble

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 01:47 PM

Yes I know, Jim, but the "lack of clarity" as perceived and as whipped up by the tabloids is in danger of working against Labour. "The Tories might have screwed things up but Labour is not giving us a viable alternative." I get it, you get it but it's all too easy an argument to make.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:31 PM

Spot on there with Portugal, Nigs. I was just testing you. And, let's face it, getting you to check all the little piddly details does keep you off the streets.

I was also right about the fact that you are unable to ever admit that you're wrong. "I was just testing you".
No, you screwed up!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:42 PM

From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 18 - 04:38 PM
You may recall Iains that the Nationalists boycotted the 1973 referendum as only unionists voted.
Thus if 100 people voted and 98% voted to remain you arrive at your figure (appromimately Nigel!)
The result was meaningless.

The referendum was decisive. 98.9% of those voting decided to remain part of UK.
The votes of those who chose not to vote cannot be accurately counted for either side of the vote.
However, if, as you say, "Nationalists boycotted the vote" then even if they were the only ones who didn't vote (unlikely), and you attribute all of their votes as being against remaining part of the UK, of those who voted 98.9% voted to remain as part of the UK. If you include all those who didn't vote, on a 58.7% turnout, 98.9% of the 58.7% would still give a vote for remaining part of the UK of just over 58% of the total electorate. So the fact that Nationalists boycotted the vote had no meaningful effect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 02:49 PM

mean while the EU is intending to penalise british holidaymakers after 2021
British tourists wanting to visit Europe after Brexit face a €7 fee and an online application process after the UK government outlined new immigration rules yesterday.

Under a plan announced by Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, Europeans wanting to visit Britain on holiday would have to submit to security and criminal records checks before they arrive in the country.

Sources in Europe told The Times that this would automatically result in British citizens having to participate in the European Union’s new travel authorisation system, which is due to come into effect in 2021.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:01 PM

V2
You've had the reasons for that vote - fully documented
You may add to that that the referendum was held at a time when the state was at war with Britain
All academic anyway - the situation at the present time is there is around a 25%difference between those who want Irish unity and those who don't, despite the fact that the Unionists still make up the majority of te population - the massive leap is indicative that the time for ending partition is well past its sell-by date
Partitioning countries is the legacy of a (thankfully dead) system
NO COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTITION ANOTHER
The hint is in the name IRELAND
Are you really defending this practice, or this more of your nit-picking ?
Brexit has more-or-less rung the death toll on the partition - and quite possinbly The 'United' kingdom as a whole
Jeez - the Empire has never died in the the minds of the Little Englanders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:11 PM

"You may add to that that the referendum was held at a time when the state was at war with Britain."

What state and what war was that then? Pray enlighten us all!
Is this another story that starts Once upon a time?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.

Mind you, I am tempted...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:25 PM

One of the most dishonest claims made by what is still referred to as "the government", though it has ceased to be an effective government, is that Theresa May is seeking "clarifications" about the withdrawal agreement. In reality what she is seeking is to find some form of words which might enable her to obscure and fudge the meaning of that agreement.

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 06:46 PM

The past:
I just watched a very sympathetic documentary about the life of Sir Winston Churchill. Even in his era, they were talking in the U.K. about a "United States of Europe" (U.S.E.) I think the European Union is what they got. It wasn't perfect but the main goal of no more world wars out of Europe was achieved. That and NATO are not small potatoes.

The present:
I think a multiple choice referendum is the best way out for the current UK:

1)BREXIT MAY - Accept the terms as promulgated by EU and Theresa May.
2)Cold BREXIT. Leave now and negotiate after.
3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as thought the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

Those are the clear seamless choices UK has because the EU has laid down the law. They've done you a favor and kept it simple.

Since this is multiple choice you have to determine if it will be a simple majority win situation or you want to have a minimum percentage of electorate on the winning selection. But that is simple enough for anyone to understand and gets the political 'leaders' out of the loop since they seem to be bogged down by the situation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:04 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Well you're wrong about everything all the time, Niggler, but I don't go on about it.
Mind you, I am tempted...

Once again, shown to be wrong, cannot accept it, reduced to insult and name calling.

Maybe I should start misusing his name (as he does mine) and calling him "Steve Shat" after all, he posts a load of crap!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:08 PM

Of the options 1, 2 or 3 I prefer 2. Cold Brexit. Leave now, negotiate later. This would give us, the UK, the strongest hand.

Option 1. Brerxit May leaves the UK with a weaker bargaining hand but attempts to placify those people who don't want to leave the EU in ther first place.

Option 3 is a betrayal of the referendum. Any party that enforced option 3 would be political toast for the next 30 years.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:09 PM

I got his number eons ago Nigel, glad to see you coming around.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:40 PM

Another referendum is no more a "betrayal of the referendum" than the 2016 referendum was a betrayal of the 1975 referendum. If we have another referendum, all those people who voted leave can still vote leave, and they'll get what they want. What are you afraid of? That a few of your leave compatriots will have changed their minds in the light of all the new information we now have and swing the vote? Give over! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:45 PM

After the experience with the agreed backstop which was negotiated a year ago in order to enable negotiations to proceed, it is highly unlikely that the EU will agree to any such pseudo-"clarification". In the case of the backstop agreement the UK reinterpreted it, and misinterpreted it, so as to provide a cover for an attempt to back out of what they had agreed a year later.

We have not yet reached an agreement on how Brexit will be effected. Anything which has been suggested so far is a negotiating position, and can still be changed. This is the EU position. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".
By delaying discussing future trade the EU are ignoring their own guidelines. 'Brexiteers' may not find this surprising.

I have quoted the guidelines before, but people (usually remainers) insist on ignoring them in this discussion.
Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately. The Union will approach the negotiations with unified positions, and will engage with the United Kingdom exclusively through the channels set out in these guidelines and in the negotiating directives. So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on matters pertaining to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.
3. The core principles set out above should apply equally to the negotiations on an orderly withdrawal, to any preliminary and preparatory discussions on the framework for a future relationship, and to any form of transitional arrangements.
From the EU's own guidelines : Here

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 07:51 PM

Stanron. I really appreciate your answer. It means to me that it is far better to submit the UK to a referendum because should it go No. 3 the population has to take the blame independent of any party.

Once the referendum was over with the public could vote for the 'responsible' parties to administer it.

I think putting such a complicated decision to a deceptively simple vote and a simple majority rule was not a particularly salutary way to go BUT now we've got a much better idea of where we're going and a referenfum is the way to get past the fallout of the first referendum.

Again, the EU has been kind and presented you with a straightforward choice.

It's the clearest path forward. The cherry on top would be if Trump tweets against it. That would be the ultimate recommendation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:05 PM

"Leave now, negotiate later."

Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:09 PM

3)Abandon BREXIT entirely (BREXIT EXIT) as though the first referendum had gone the other way AND make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority for any future single choice referendum to leave.(assuming the EU will have you).

The second part of that would be impossible. A future parliament could always repeal any legislation that attempted to bind it in that way. Parliament always has the right to repeal or reverse any legislation, it's a fundamental part of our democracy.

I still haven't heard any justification for the assertion that a referendum at this time, giving a second chance to the people to decide what should happen, would be "a betrayal of democracy", with its implication that Ireland and Denmark betrayed democracy in similar circumstances in giving its electorate a opportunity of thinking again, and that those countries are less committed to democracy than this one is.

Actually the principle that is involved is the same as that in the previous paragraph. Just as parliament cannot bind itself in its future action, nor can the voters. That's why we can vote the other way in any election - and a referendum is really just a different kind of election.

The argument that if the decision in a fresh referendum was to remain, the minority who had voted for Brexit would call for a third one, doesn't stand up to critical examination. Yes, of course they might, and they'd have every right to do so. That's what those calling for us to leave the EU had been doing for years, calling for a vote to reverse the previous referendum which had confirmed our membership of what was then the Common Market. And, as with the 2016 referendum, those who had won would do everything they could to stop that dream and being successful. All part of our imperfect democratic process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 18 - 08:13 PM

The EU is not "delaying discussions on future trade," Nigel, much as you'd like that to be the case. And you really ought to bone up on the backstop. You seem to not get it at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 03:54 AM

Perhaps if those advocating Britain having "the strongest hand" explained what that "strongest hand" was, it might help
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:14 AM

>

Steve Shaw wrote: Wow, don't you just LOVE the little Englander hubris here? Negotiate what? With whom? From what position of strength, like wot we 'ave not got? We piss the EU off, the EU wot is eight times bigger than us, and depend on deals that'll take years to seal with countries that aren't interested in us and don't need us, and you think that all that'll be better than wot we 'ave now?   Pie in the sky! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

Once again the "Little Englader" sneer. Is that the best you've got? It's not very good. Obviously I don't expect an ultra communist lefty to understand this but the arguement is based on something called the 'profit motive'.

When the Germans sell us a car it costs them, let's say, X amount of money to produce and they sell it to us for X plus a little bit. Actually it's more likely to be X plus quite a big bit. That big, or little bit is their profit. They use that profit to employ a workforce, maintain their infrastructure, buy supplies and pay their taxes. After all that there should be a surplus, some of which will be a return to investors.

OK, the day after a No Deal Brexit. Is the EU going to say to the UK "We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!"

If they do, the result will be that they will have less moeny, because we have not bought their cars, and we will have more money, because we have not bought their cars. Who hurts more? Who has the better bargaining position?

I honestly don't expect you to get it. Apparently the left thinks that all money grows on trees and you just pluck it when you want it. Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:45 AM

They are eight times bigger than us. They'll manage without us. You should have listened to Start The Week this morning. All round the world, people are scratching their heads as to why a little country should be cutting itself adrift. The world is dominated by big hitters such as Russia, China, the US and India. We are making ourselves into small fry. They don't particularly need us as trading partners and will call the shots in any trade deals we try to achieve. At the same time, trade with the EU will tougher. Our economy, on every available forecast, will shrink. But you brexiteers are fine with all that. You call it "taking back control."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM

This ultra-communist leftie owns a big house in the country (lovely sea views) outright, has a huge garden and has two cars in the capacious driveway, one of them a sports car. Is there a bottle of Prosecco chilling, dear?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:55 AM

Trying to discuss the finer points of finance with the left is as futile as discussing astrophysics with a lamprey.They even share similar traits. The left largely leech off the public teat therefore have no concept as to how money is generated, only how to squander it. Just look at the state of the economy after a hard left administration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 04:49 AM ..........

I wonder why he feels a need to boast all the time? Must be insecurity!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 05:39 AM

""We will no longer sell you our BMWs and Mercs. Take that!""
How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:11 AM

Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials. Don't forget to buy the 30-day dry-hung sirloins at Waitrose this morning, dear (actually true! Only cos it's our anniversary tomorrow...)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:27 AM

"Not boasting, merely reinforcing my ultra-commie hard left credentials"
Don't rise to this brained insecuro - he only comes here because nobody else wants to have anything to do with him and he can abuse away to his hearts content from the shadows of anonymity without fear of retribution
He's little more than a cyberstalker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:28 AM

Congratulations. Enjoy your meal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Stanron's post makes no sense to me. For I do not know anybody who imagines that the Germans are planning to refuse to sell BMWs to people in GB after Brexit. The idea is ridiculous.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:55 AM

On the contrary, we have voted to some out of a system where BMWs can be sold from the EU to GB without trade tariffs. Looking at one of Trump's ideas, we could think about putting a 20% tariff on cars imported from Germany.

The other question would be about GB based manufacturing owned by BMW. Take the Mini, for example.

I cannot find a more up to date source at short notice, but in 2016 the Independent newspaper reported that SIX British-based companies owned by BMW, including at the time Rolls Royce warned of British job losses in the event of tariffs being introduced after Brexit.

The same article stated that

For BMW Group, more than half of Minis built and virtually all the engines and components made in the UK are exported to the EU, with over 150,000 new cars and many hundreds of thousands of parts imported from Europe each year

This isn't the ravings of some commie, it is from the mouths of industry executives and managers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 06:58 AM

How about if they decide to send home all the Brits working there - maybe the unemployed 36,000 will find jobs stacking shelves in Sainsburys to keep Britain's employment figures up
Take that
Jim Carroll

Ho Hum! More nonsense. Below, the facts.

1.3 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries
Around 3.8 million people living in the UK in 2017 were citizens of another EU country. That's about 6% of the UK population.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:00 AM

Let's take Rolls Royce. It was on the radio this week that the team who get approval for engine designs is leaving GB for the EU because only teams based in the EU can approve engines for flying. Ironically, the Telegraph discussed plans to do this by referring to the iconic British brand, but guess who owns Rolls Royce? BMW. ANd before that Volkswagon owned it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:14 AM

Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. Brexit isn't going to alter that, unless we follow Jim's logic and cut Ireland as a whole off completely.   We should maybe get rid of the dual Irish GB passport business as well because I for one resent the fact that people with Irish ancestors will still get UE passports whereas I won't be able to. Not fair. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:36 AM

Well, glad to see some of the 2 billion put aside for No Deal preparations is going on ensuring we can continue to import the chemicals needed for clean water from the EU. This issue was well rehearsed in the run up to the referendum, and we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1059650/brexit-news-philip-hammond-no-deal-money-preparations-theresa-may-eu

Awaiting Stanron's comments about how much more they will lose y not selling us their water purifying chemicals than we will lose by not selling them ours. :)

I like having Europeans living in GB. Variety is the spice of life.

Giving up Brexit pondering for Xmas. Speak in the new year.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 07:59 AM

The UN estimate for 2016 suggests just over 500,000 Irish in the UK and around 10% of the UK population are able to claim Irish citizenship by virtue of having at least one Irish grandparent. Britain and Ireland have allowed unfettered travel and residence under the CTA long before the EU was even dreamed of.

Citizens of Ireland and the United Kingdom living in each other’s countries will not have to apply for residency rights to protect existing social and travel entitlements, the foreign office in London has confirmed.

The agreement reached in Brussels earlier this month(Dec.2017) “means the rights of Irish and British citizens under the Common Travel Area (CTA) are protected after the UK leaves the EU”, the foreign office declared.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:05 AM

A couple of memorable quotes from grandstanding bliar blair:

   “If the British people vote no, they vote no. You can’t then start bringing it back until they vote yes.”

    “If the British people vote no in this referendum, that is their verdict. That is absolutely clear.”

How best to remind him I ask myself?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:08 AM

Also, I disagree that the 'partition' of Ireland was really one 'country' partitioning another; it was the UK divesting itself of a bit. Different thing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:24 AM

we all voted in the knowledge that clean water was dependent on EU chemicals.

Yeah right! Project fear in top gear. (Unstable chemicals?volatile? did they bother to check with a chemist?)


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6892/michael_gove_from_brexit_hero_to_political_clown

and from Gaia Fawkes

https://order-order.com/2018/11/26/dehydrated-zombie-brexit/


I do recommend guido's comments. Very pithy!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:27 AM

"Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. "
Ireland doesn't count in these figures - the Treaty established a 'special relationship' between the U.K. and the Republic which has no effect whatever on what happens with Brexit
Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have
Britain is in the pretty unique situation where it is now possible to be in work while, at the same time living in poverty - nice thing to be able to offer returning Brits

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

"Ho Hum! More nonsense."
It is getting beyond a joke that this feller can continue to abuse and insult the way he does without being checked by the mods - at least two of his mates have had their arses kicked off this forum for lesser serious behaviour
I really thought they had scraped rock bottom last week with the thread they got closed - apparently not
How long Lord - how long!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:27 AM

"Not sure whether Ians' figures include the Irish. "
Ireland doesn't count in these figures - the Treaty established a 'special relationship' between the U.K. and the Republic which has no effect whatever on what happens with Brexit
Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have
Britain is in the pretty unique situation where it is now possible to be in work while, at the same time living in poverty - nice thing to be able to offer returning Brits

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

"Ho Hum! More nonsense."
It is getting beyond a joke that this feller can continue to abuse and insult the way he does without being checked by the mods - at least two of his mates have had their arses kicked off this forum for lesser serious behaviour
I really thought they had scraped rock bottom last week with the thread they got closed - apparently not
How long Lord - how long!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:36 AM

Let's take Rolls Royce. It was on the radio this week that the team who get approval for engine designs is leaving GB for the EU because only teams based in the EU can approve engines for flying. Ironically, the Telegraph discussed plans to do this by referring to the iconic British brand, but guess who owns Rolls Royce? BMW. ANd before that Volkswagon owned it.

Oh, well if it was on the radio it must be true.
Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?
It would seem you're only reporting part of the story, or misconstruing it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:42 AM

Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?

Yes. The EU nations will not allow the sale of goods that do not meet the standards set by the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 09:50 AM

Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens. I checked on the BBC web site.

@ Nigel, read below an extract of what it said in the Business Section of the Telegraph some time ago. It seems that this week the decision was finally taken, which is how come BBC Radio 4 reported on it.


Rolls-Royce is preparing to relocate the “signing off” of British-made airliner engines to Europe, as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit.
The iconic British brand - and leading member of the country’s £31.8bn-a-year aerospace sector - is preparing the contingency plan to protect itself from huge disruption if negotiations stall over Britain leaving the EU.
Without such an arrangement, sources inside the company say that design, manufacturing and maintenance of Rolls-Royce engines built at its Derby base could grind to a halt if Britain suffers a “cliff-edge” departure from the EU.
The UK was a founder member of the European...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:04 AM

From the De Vere Group

https://www.devere-group.com/news/Rolls-Royce-EU-relocation-Brexit.aspx

From Derbshire Live

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/rolls-royce-confirms-transfer-work-2319550

From Capital FM

https://www.capitalfm.com/eastmids/radio/news/local/rolls-royce-confirms-its-moving-some-work/

And nobody is claiming that the European Aviation Safety Authority is the only body internationally to set standards, the point is that unless/until we negotiate access/membership we have a problem.

@ Nigel;

"Do you honestly think that American businesses (or any other major manufacturing nation) have to get their engines approved in the EU?"

No mate. Did you honestly think that I did? Unfortunately, we cannot 'take back control' over aircraft engine design. We're governed by rules which we have to take.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Certification_of_Aircraft,_Design_and_Production

You knew all that when you made your post, of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:06 AM

"Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here - apart from a hard Border, Brexit should not affect movement between Britain and Ireland in any way
THE EU have already confirmed this
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-and-uk-citizens-common-travel-area-rights-protected-1.3337125
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:06 AM

"Ians' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here - apart from a hard Border, Brexit should not affect movement between Britain and Ireland in any way
THE EU have already confirmed this
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-and-uk-citizens-common-travel-area-rights-protected-1.3337125
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:31 AM

"Ia(i)ns' figures for EU citizens living in the UK do include Irish citizens."
Then they have no relevance here"

All countries try to keep tabs on the number of foreigners within their borders. If such data was of no relevance why do you think money is wasted to collate such data?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 10:54 AM

Britain would lose hands down any 'sending home' pissing competition - Any European looking for work in Borderless Europe has a far greater choice of work than British returnees forced to come home would have

Around 3.8 million people living in the UK in 2017 were citizens of another EU country. That's about 6% of the UK population. They obviously regard the UK as a land of milk and honey! Why else be here?

As usual, your argument does not compute!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:15 AM

"Why else be here?"
Various reasons
Not the point
We are talking about who si likely to lose the most from closing borders
Europe has achieved a degree of stability - Britain never has; not if people can be working and living under the poverty line, it hasn't
Whatever exists in the form of trade will be most effected when free movement stops, both in cost and in movement of goods
Please do not act as if you have all the answers when in fact you have none
Your arrogance ceased to be amusing last week - it is now sickening
Only ignorant people are arrogant and those the most ignorant are the most arrogant
Nobody believes you as re as good as youi obviously do
Wonder if your position as an absentee landlords will be affected if the borders close
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:19 AM

I understand that free movement between the Irish Republic and the UK, exists irrespective of the EU. However, given that Irish insistence on the backstop seems to have been a bit of a pest, it might be time to reconsider both this and the dual passport stuff. Time for a proper clean break. Perhaps divest ourselves of the Northern Ireland too. It seems to cost us billions.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:41 AM

"It seems to cost us billions."
reland is Britain's Tiger by the tail
Ireland was an essential part of the British Empire - the oldest 'Jewel in the Crown
Despite centuries of opposition, it was held onto for both political and economic reasons - 'England's Breadbasket' and 'A safe pair of hands"
It's fight for independence and partial success sett the building blocks of Empire tumbling - statesmen like Gandhi and Nehru wrote of how they took heart from Easter week and the following War of independence
The unequally Protestant Six Counties State turned out to be a Frankenstein creation - recent events (the £1 billion bung) has shown how important politically The North still is to the British Establishment - especially to 'The Conservative and Unionist Party'

THe relationship should have been mutually beneficial, and would have been if Britain had opted for c-operation rather than the tanks and the Paras
'Gunboaat mentality still remains foremost in British policy - both abroad and at home
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 12:04 PM

I'd remind people that at present the term "EU citizens living in the UK" includes all British citizens. At present you all have the right to live and work in all 28 EU countries, together with EFTA countries. I hope you continue to have that right after March 29th because Brexit has been cancelled.

Otherwise the only people to still have that right will be us Irish citizens.

And you have Theresa May trumpeting proudly about taking that right away from you. It's no wonder that the people who are most going to be hit by this, young people, are 84% against Brexit according to recent polls. But of course, they never even had a chance to vote on this issue, and won't unless there's a fresh referendum - described as "a betrayal of democracy" by May.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM

"Perhaps divest ourselves of the Northern Ireland too. It seems to cost us billions."
Not so easy. It takes two to tango!
As per the good Friday agreement a referendum for reunification can only occur should the Secretary of State consider that at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

This of course assumes the Irish Republic should wish to accept such a potential liability and passes the required legislation to allow for a successful outcome.
"THe relationship should have been mutually beneficial, and would have been if Britain had opted for c-operation rather than the tanks and the Paras"

Well that has to be a unique interpretation for explaining the troubles. Realistically it will gain zero support from serious historians.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 01:52 PM

"Well that has to be a unique interpretation for explaining the troubles"
Nothing whatever unique in that statement - a recorded fact confirmed by the many millions of Irish people having lived in Britain built the roads railways, canals, tunnels for the last few centuries and settled peacefully without warfare or social unrest
Irish people have become part of Britain, whereas the British establishment have ruthlessly supposed the inequalities and oppression in the Six Counties and helped to turn Civil Rights protests into a major war
Britain is now busting a gut to ascertain that crimes committed by soldiers during the most recent troubles are not brought to account while at the same time demanding that Republican Crimes be tried
Britain did not, as usually claimed, go into Ireland to keep the peace but to support the Unionists
The affair of the paedophile assassin 'Stakeknife' has already hit the Irish papers - not sure if it's made it to Britain yet
Lot's more to come yet
This behavior is historical - despite British laws which demand of uncovering state papers after a set period, there is still no information available about the execution of the Easter Week Leaders and how tey were 'tried' - the actions that led to Britain losing Ireland
I'm sure you have an alternative picture of British/Irish relations, but I doubt if it ever gets beyond your usual "made up Little Jimmie rubbish"
Why you are here, apart from to preen and bully, it totally beyond me
It certainly isn't to pass on information or to gain any
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 01:57 PM

Europe has achieved a degree of stability - Britain never has.

That is a gem worthy of framing. Let us analyse it.
1) French riots in Paris and elsewhere
2)Recent riots in Brussells
3)Germany has had a series of protests in recent months
4)Italy protests about anti=migrant law
%)Spain. In October. Thousands of people flooded the streets of Barcelona on Friday for rival protests on Spain’s national day, highlighting the division in Catalonia over support for the Spanish state and those seeking independence.
6)Farmers in central Greece parked their tractors on the shoulder of the ... to escalate protests unless the government addresses their demands
7)Opposition in Hungary Demonstrates Against Orban, in Rare Display of Dissent

You are 'avin a laff!   more 'impeccable' research prior to posting

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 02:02 PM

The UK has negotiated an agreement to stay in the Common Transit Convention (CTC) even if there is no Brexit deal between the two sides

From Guido of course


https://order-order.com/2018/12/17/uk-eu-agree-maintain-common-transition-convention-even-no-deal/

Corbyn quote:"So, as the only way I can think of ensuring a vote takes place this week, I'm about to table a motion which says the following: 'That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the Withdrawal Agreement and framework for future relationships between the UK and European Union.'

"That will be tabled immediately, Mr Speaker."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 02:07 PM

Note: the above is a different beastie to tabling a vote of no confidence in the government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 03:10 PM

"You are 'avin a laff!   more 'impeccable' research prior to posting"
No - it's you who is
Of your list three are protests against increasing hardship; one is the result of the brutality used by the Catalan protesters
Two are riots by fascists put back on the streets by the passing of Brexit and the election of Trump
The peaceful demonstration against anti immigration laws is a protest against anti-immigration, both practical and humanist in nature

I's you gave the quote applauding the democracy of allowing the people to raise their voice in protest (can't be arsed finding it) but you might have added J S Mill's 'shedding blood to replenish the Tree of Liberty"
What' the fuck's wrong with people taking to the streets to oppose Orban - the man's a fascist, and Hungary, of all countries knows what that implies
More power to their **** elbows - hope they find a good lamp post while they're at it
None of these events has in any way effected the stability of these countries, if anything, they have strengthened it
Would that Britons had the balls to take to the streets in their millions to stop the farce that is dooming British people to a generation of poverty and hardship instead of watching you and your friends circus antics which is making Britain a total laughing stock

I take it we're finished with Ireland - I was looking forward to the usual torrent of racist "bog-Irishisms" - you disapponit me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 11:09 PM

THE FROGS were living as happy as could be in a marshy swamp that just suited them; they went splashing about caring for nobody and nobody troubling with them. But some of them thought that this was not right, that they should have a king and a proper constitution, so they determined to send up a petition to Jove to give them what they wanted. “Mighty Jove,” they cried, “send unto us a king that will rule over us and keep us in order.” Jove laughed at their croaking, and threw down into the swamp a huge Log, which came down—kerplash—into the swamp. The Frogs were frightened out of their lives by the commotion made in their midst, and all rushed to the bank to look at the horrible monster; but after a time, seeing that it did not move, one or two of the boldest of them ventured out towards the Log, and even dared to touch it; still it did not move. Then the greatest hero of the Frogs jumped upon the Log and commenced dancing up and down upon it, thereupon all the Frogs came and did the same; and for some time the Frygs went about their business every day without taking the slightest notice of their new King Log lying in their midst. But this did not suit them, so they sent another petition to Jove, and said to him, “We want a real king; one that will really rule over us.” Now this made Jove angry, so he sent among them a big Stork that soon set to work gobbling them all up. Then the Frogs repented when too late.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 04:12 AM

Is Jim a closet frog?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 04:33 AM

Better a frog than a worm anyday
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 04:54 AM

Guido tells how it is. Cue "project fear" going into overdive!

https://order-order.com/2018/12/18/hancock-time-full-preparation-no-deal/

Good to see the worthless leader of the opposition shot his bolt yesterday. I wonder what he hopes to achieve by calling for a vote of no confidence in the PM. He has simply helped unify the Tories. Is he hoping to find a vote of no confidence in the government is in his christmas stocking? It now has even less chance of flying. clearly obvious that he gains his strategic insight from a career steeped in never never land rather than reality.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 04:55 AM

Dick missed off the Moral from the Aesop version of his fable and it is very pertinent to brexit.

Be sure you can better your condition before you seek to change.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 05:50 AM

"Dick missed off the Moral from the Aesop version of his fable and it is very pertinent to brexit.

Be sure you can better your condition before you seek to change."

That's a very big assumption you're making there, Dave - that the average BrexShitter has even heard of Æsop! Very unlikely...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 07:11 AM

But they have heard of democracy, believe in it, know how to spell it and have integrity. How many remainiacs can claim the same, if any?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 07:30 AM

There has been news about NHS planning for a no deal situation for months; inaccurate to suggest 'Guido' was the first to mention it, and frankly incredible that such planning should be dismissed as 'project fear'. More interesting to ponder the point that the earnings limit being proposed for EU immigrants may limit NHS ability to make up growing shortages in workforce. The problems of leavning Euratom have been widely discussed. I don't recall the pro Brexit campaign mentioning those.

Of more interest to anybody concerned for the future of our wonderful NHS is the announcement already made that the exdtra money promised for it won't won't heppen in a No Deal Scenario, the chances of Jeremy Hunt being PM in the future and the terms the USA may get through in any trade deal. Trade deals with the USA and their implications for the the NHS were one argument against the EU, though given the only options that seemed likely in th event of leave given a Tory government were and are no better, worse if anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 07:56 AM

"But they have heard of democracy, believe in it, know how to spell it and have integrity. How many remainiacs can claim the same, if any?"

The majority of BrexShitters, including you, may have "heard of Democracy, believe in it, know how to spell it" (even though 'our country' seems to defeat a significant number whose spittle-flecked rantings abound on social media platforms - 'traitor', 'arrested', 'marched out and shot', etc.), but they completely fail to understand its meaning.

'Democracy' provides for minds to be changed and for decisions to be amended or even (gasp!) reversed in the light of information which subsequently comes to light - a concept that seems to completely bamboozle the average BrexShitter (I don't include you in the 'average BrexShitter' group - you're not that bright).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 08:04 AM

and frankly incredible that such planning should be dismissed as 'project fear
Exact Words: Guido tells how it is. Cue "project fear" going into overdive!

Operative word CUE: Meaning a thing said or done that serves as a signal to begin their performance.

I will explain it in simple terms:Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Newsnight last night that the NHS has gone to “full no deal planning” and added that there is a need for the “whole of government” to go to that position “because it’s the responsible thing to do”. This will cue/lead to/bring about all sorts of horror stories to scare the populace.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 08:19 AM

"remainiacs "
I still find it extremely amusing that someone who supports a policy that stands to impoverish Britain and is happily watching (even participating in) his party humiliating itself on a daily basis can still fling his mindless insults about as if he occupies some sort of high ground
Sort of like a bear of little brain who relied on a criminal blogger as a guru and is forced to retreat from subject as after subject when his arrogant claims fall apart before his eyes
'Bout time you got a new guru, or better still, began to think for yourself
In the present circumstances, you make yourself more stupid every time you post
You have proven over and over again that you are in no position to talk down to anybody - stop humiliating yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 09:04 AM

But you don't believe in democracy, Iains. You'd like remainers to shut up and stop being inconvenient and you denigrate them at every turn. You think that 48% of voters are losers who should just get over themselves. You think that the 28% who didn't vote are feckless wasters who have given up their right to have a voice (though you're happy for them to keep paying their taxes, I presume). Democracy means running the country for everyone, not just the people on your side. I've just described your consistent stance over many posts over many months. Democrats are thoughtful, reflective people who take on board opposing views, not people who crow over their very narrow "victories." A country full of your kind of "democrats" would be a dangerous place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 09:41 AM

Frankly, 2 billion seems relatively little to spend on preparations for Brexit - so we should be scared.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 09:42 AM

Just heard an Irish broadcaster taking the piss out of Britain by playing two recordings of Rees Mogg; first following May's winning the vote of no confidence, demanding that she resign, then, shortly after, congratulating her in the House of Commons for winning the support of her party

“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" - springs to mind
These people are humiliating Britain of a daily basis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 10:14 AM

Enjoy it while you can Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 10:21 AM

Its nice to think ideally but all governments have their sticking points. I am used to a fake Democracy.

Will London streets look like Paris this coming March?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 10:26 AM

From Bloomberg
EU Rules out 'Managed' No Deal.
The areas are:
Aviation: The EU will allow airliners from the U.K. to fly over the EU, land in the EU and fly back to the U.K, and make refueling stops in the EU.
Financial services: The EU would allow the U.K.’s derivatives clearinghouses to continue serving banks in the bloc -- under a so-called equivalence arrangement -- for 12 months after Brexit in the case of no deal.
Customs: The EU will levy duties and taxes on U.K. goods and is stepping up arrangements to carry out customs checks at entry points from the U.K.
Road transport: Permits will still be given to U.K. truck drivers but these would be far more restricted than is currently the case under EU membership.
Climate policy: EU climate change legislation won’t apply to the U.K. The Commission will take steps to ensure its emissions trading system isn’t affected.
Rights of citizens: The EU will say it is taking a “generous” approach to British citizens living in one of its 27 countries at the moment of Brexit and will enable them to obtain long-term residency status if they fulfill the necessary conditions.
Livestock and animal products: The EU hopes to allow the import of live animals and animal products from the U.K. as long as the country meets sanitary standards. Disruption will be expected, however, because new checks will have to take place on entry into the EU.
Personal data: If the U.K. leaves the EU with no deal, the country will be governed by the rules covering international transfers, which makes it far more difficult to exchange personal data.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 10:31 AM

Posted by a friend of mine on Facecloth (thanks Geoff)

BBC announced this morning that Theresa May has just allocated £2 BILLION pocket money to prepare for a no deal brexit.
That is over £38 Million a week.

I say we should give it to the NHS and scrap brexit.

Hashtag there's always a magic money tree

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 10:34 AM

NHS poor lookout, one part of plan is to reduce taxes. Cue US style get health insurance if healthy and young, die otherwise. Just what Jeremy *unt spoke up for when in charge of health.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 11:01 AM

It seems Gavin Williamson has told Mps that 3500 were ready to be deployed if needed by any government departments in the event of a no deal.

I wonder what they will be doing. Not just manual labour, I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 11:04 AM

... 3500 armed forces...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 11:04 AM

"“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" - springs to mind"

Be careful what you wish for! I am sure you would be highly disappointed if you knew how others view you. You gave yourself away very publicly on a recent thread.(and I have a copy of it)
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 17 Dec 18 - 03:10 PM ................
The true story is below- from the telegraph,
I wonder who is correct, the anglophobic refugee or theTelegraph?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/17/street-protests-full-blown-riots-europe-raging/

Would that Britons had the balls to take to the streets in their millions

Easy for an exile to say that, hiding in a bog, while others are at risk from possible murder and mayhem. What kind of sorry assed person does that make you I ask myself? It rather confirms what I alluded to above.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 11:07 AM

"Will London streets look like Paris this coming March?"
Unfortunatel no - not without a sea-change

"Enjoy it while you can Jim."
I might do Karen if it wasn't for the fact that my relatives back home are amongst those paying for this fiasco

WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR DAUGHTER TO BRING HOME THIS MAN ?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 11:47 AM

could it be flouride in the water that makes the english and irish so passive
Ireland

Near the end of 2015, Ireland was the only country in the European Union with a nationwide mandate for water fluoridation.[18][82][83]

The majority of drinking water is fluoridated. In 2012, roughly 3.25 million people received artificially-fluoridated water.[22] Almost 71% of the population in 2002 resided in fluoridated communities.[84] The fluoridation agent used is hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA; H2SiF6).[85] In a 2002 public survey, 45% of respondents expressed some concern about fluoridation.[86]

In 1957, the Department of Health established a Fluorine Consultative Council which recommended fluoridation at 1.0 ppm of public water supplies, then accessed by approximately 50% of the population.[87] This was felt to be a much cheaper way of improving the quality of children's teeth than employing more dentists.[88] This led to the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960, which mandated compulsory fluoridation by local authorities.[88][89] The statutory instruments made in 1962–65 under the 1960 Act were separate for each local authority, setting the level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.8–1.0 ppm.[90][91] The current regulations date from 2007, and set the level to 0.6–0.8 ppm, with a target value of 0.7 ppm.[92]

Implementation of fluoridation was held up by preliminary dental surveying and water testing,[93] and a court case, Ryan v. Attorney General.[94] In 1965, the Supreme Court rejected Gladys Ryan's claim that the Act violated the Constitution of Ireland's guarantee of the right to bodily integrity.[94][95] By 1965, Greater Dublin's water was fluoridated; by 1973, other urban centers were too.[96] Studies from the late 1970s to mid 1990s showed a decrease in (and lower incidence of) dental decay in school children living in areas where water was fluoridated than in areas where water was not fluoridated.[97]

A private member's bill to end fluoridation was defeated in the Dáil on 12 November 2013.[98][99] It was supported by Sinn Féin and some of the technical group and opposed by the Fine Gael-Labour government and Fianna Fáil.[99][100][101]

Recently there is much local opposition to the national fluoridation mandate. Early in 2014, Cork County Council and Laois County Council passed motions for the cessation of water fluoridation. In Autumn 2014, Cork City Council, Dublin City Council,[82][83] and Kerry County Council passed similar motions.[82]
LUnited Kingdom

Around 10% of the population of the United Kingdom receives fluoridated water.[106] About half a million people receive water that is naturally fluoridated with calcium fluoride, and about 6 million total receive fluoridated water.[113] The Water Act 2003 required water suppliers to comply with requests from local health authorities to fluoridate their water.[113]

The following UK water utility companies fluoridate their supply:

    Anglian Water Services Ltd
    Northumbrian Water Ltd
    South Staffordshire Water plc
    Severn Trent plc
    United Utilities Water plc

Earlier plans were undertaken in the Health Authority areas of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Birmingham, Black Country, Cheshire, Merseyside, County Durham, Tees Valley, Cumbria, Lancashire, North, East Yorkshire, Northern Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Trent and West Midlands South whereby fluoridation was introduced progressively in the years between 1964 and 1988.[114]

The South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out the first public consultation under the Water Act 2003, and in 2009 its board voted to fluoridate water supplies in the Southampton area to address the high incidence of tooth decay in children there.[113] Surveys had found that the majority of surveyed Southampton residents opposed the plan, but the Southampton City Primary Care Trust decided that "public vote could not be the deciding factor and that medical evidence shows fluoridation will reduce tooth decay – and failed to back up claims of serious negative side effects".[115] Fluoridation plans have been particularly controversial in the northwest of England and have been delayed after a large increase on projected costs was revealed.[116] In October 2014, Public Health England abandoned plans for water fluoridation for 195,000 people in Southampton and neighbouring parts of south-west Hampshire due to opposition from both Hampshire County Council and Southampton City Council.[117]

It was reported in 2007 that the UK Milk Fluoridation Programme, centered in the northwest of England, involved more than 16,000 children.[118]

The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in two small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years. By 1999, fluoridation ceased in those two areas, as well.[citation needed]

In 2004, following a public consultation, Scotland's parliament rejected proposals to fluoridate public drinking water.[59]

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 12:22 PM

"WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR DAUGHTER TO BRING HOME THIS MAN ?"

An article from CQ magazine:(B)GQ is an international monthly men's magazine based in New York City and founded in 1931. The publication focuses on fashion, style, and culture for men, though articles on food, movies, fitness, sex, music, travel, sports, technology, and books are also featured.(/B)
Yeah just the place to find a reasoned article on the mighty Rees Mogg.I cannot see any heading he would fit into!
His intellect is streets ahead of Corbyn, I have yet to see the beeb beat him in an interview, or parliamentarians beat him in debating skills.
The link was about the level to be expected from the contributor. A link to a comic!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 12:22 PM

3500 nowhere near enough, their own advisors say that 3500 are only enough to secure London.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 02:03 PM

I was remiss in referring to 3500 armed forces. What was identified was "3500 service personnel." You know, cooks, filing clerks, medics, HR staff, radio operators....

Any suggestion weaponry might be involved is an assumption ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 02:51 PM

"His intellect is streets ahead of Corbyn,"
Another hidden talent he's kept hidden undet his ridiculous top hat}Moggy is living proof that education has nothing to do with intelligence
The fact that he can demand May's resignation in one breath and congratulate her for uniting the Tory party with the other - a hypocrite and an idiot

You haven't seen him beaten in debate - the 'Have I Got News For You team made him look the arse-hole he is with no effort whatever
For Christs sake, he's a bigger caricature than your lover, Guido
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 03:22 PM

You haven't seen him beaten in debate - the 'Have I Got News For You team made him look the arse-hole he is with no effort whatever

Another stunning example of a non sequitur! You have a rare skill in constructing them. But. Do they really aid your argument or just make you look ..........?

Breaking news:
BELGIUM CHAOS: Prime Minister RESIGNS as UN migrant pact crisis ERUPTS

BELGIUM’S Prime Minister Charles Michel has quit after losing a vote of no confidence, Belgian media reports.

Another politician that does not know how to listen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Dec 18 - 04:28 PM

Michel is a soft right politician who went into coalition with a far right party who then decided he wasn't far enough right and walked out. Sound familiar? But it is the socialists and the Greens who have brought him down, and maybe they can profit from his demise. All in all, the future of Belgium looks brighter than ours.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 04:53 AM

"All in all, the future of Belgium looks brighter than ours."

Well I hope you are right but the runes say otherwise. EU citizens are getting fed up, as has been amply demonstrated over the last weeks.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/social-democrats-must-say-another-globalisation-is-possible


https://www.wibc.com/blogs/tony-katz/morning-news/riots-france-reveal-greater-truth-about-governments-and-ideologues

And of course fettering disparate economies within a single currency was doomed from the outset. The great north south divide in europe is far greater than that in the uk. Yet the great game of eunacy continues, oblivious to all reality. When the next major economic contraction occurs even more will be on the streets. It will be game over when troops are deployed as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 05:03 AM

Yesterday Labour’s NEC decided not to endorse Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt as a candidate on the basis that she had brought the Labour Party into disrepute. In a late night posting on Facebook she blamed Guido for her demise as a candidate:
Does Labour really want such people. Their image needs a bit of polish
these days. Guido should be congratulated for his diligence.

https://order-order.com/2018/12/19/labours-nec-drops-south-thanet-candidate-hitler-tweets/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 05:12 AM

I've never completely swallowed the received wisdom that the UK staying out the single currency was a Good Thing for us. Although I agree that the euro was a terrible mistake that would forever blight the smaller and poorer member states, I can't see that the same would have applied to us. I don't think you'll hear too many Germans moaning that the euro was a kick in the goolies for them. We're definitely more in their league than some of those smaller and poorer states are. But I do agree that it was a bloody bad idea.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 05:55 AM

I don't agree Steve, when the Euro became an accounting currency in 1999 the pound was 1.4 Euros, when the notes and coins were issued in 2002 it was 1.6. Now it's 1.1. That is a direct depreciation in the value of our savings and earnings of between 25% and 40% depending upon the date. The Euro provides stability and certainty, it would as its backed by a strong economy. It stops politicians from meddling with its value for their short term gain, and to our long term detriment. I have a lot more time for Gordon Brown than many people, but opposing us going into the Euro was his one big mistake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:15 AM

Well in a way we are agreeing. But the euro has not been good for some countries with smaller economies. I don't think that Greece would agree that the euro has been good for them or for a number of other states in southern Europe. When they get into straits they can't devalue. That's a major issue for them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:26 AM

" The Euro provides stability and certainty, it would as its backed by a strong economy. It stops politicians from meddling with its value for their short term gain, and to our long term detriment"

below:Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute. The article is 6 months old. Recent events rather confirm his thesis.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/13/euro-growth-eurozone-joseph-stiglitz
and

https://www.globalchange.com/future-of-euro-and-breakup-of-the-eu.htm#
STABILITY AND CERTAINTY?   I think not!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Is this crying wolf, or a cause for concern?


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/06/central-bank-warnings-are-getting-louder-and-more-frequent-howard-davies

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:51 AM

Is whinging about the exchange rate for your holiday euros not overlooking the true impact of fluctuating exchange rates? The rates react to market realities with a direct impact on employment and inflation. Your" poor" deal may be keeping your neighbours in work
Below: A primer


https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/exchange-rates-macroeconomic-effects-of-currency-fluctuations

scroll down to graphic
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-EUR

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:54 AM

Steve, I think if you talked to Greeks with savings, they are rather glad that they have not been placed in a depreciating currency.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 06:59 AM

Did I ream hat Britain plans to mobilise troops to handle the crises arising from a hard Brexit ?

Good to see that people are largely ignoring this moronic Guido disciple
Keep it up
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:01 AM

"dream that" of course, so I don't have to respond to Braindead Bertie's grasping of typos
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:01 AM

"dream that" of course, so I don't have to respond to Braindead Bertie's grasping of typos
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:03 AM

I am quite aware of your links Iains, the second one was where I got my figures from. The first highlights the inflationary effect of exchange rate depreciation. Its not just "holiday Euros", its the cost of practically everything we buy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:30 AM

The Guardian has another article arguing that the WTO option isn't the saviour it is cracked up to be. That Weatherspoons chappie and Rees Bogg both see it as better than the EU. The former thinks we will once again be 'the champions of free trade'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/wto-brexit-trade-uk-economy

The article questions the equation of 'British' and 'Free Trade'.

And quite rightly, we didn't obtain an empire by paying respect to the free trading choices of others.

The article also explains that all the states which are members of it also have 'side agreements' for trading, as not all of them actually agree with the abolition of all trade tariffs. We could of course put Trump on this list.

Looking to the EU, where so many British businesses trade, does this mean we could get round EU tariffs on our goods by joining or becoming more active in the EU?

But the WTO isn't part of Farage's arguments, he thinks we will be more 'competitive' against EU countries when we have left. Not sure why this should be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:34 AM

More info on No Deal documents and q and answer pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/contingency-qanda_en.pdf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:38 AM

It's not looking good for the Brexiteers I was talking to who hoped all the Romanians (they thought all Romanians were gypsies) would be going home after Brexit. Except for racist aggro which might do the trick and which probably will intensify after No Deal Day.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:43 AM

And I've just found out what 'cabotage' is, or perhaps 'was' for any British haulage firms currently engaging in cross EU haulage.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:45 AM

The first highlights the inflationary effect of exchange rate depreciation. Its not just "holiday Euros", its the cost of practically everything we buy.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Competitiveness or lack of it has an upside and downside. Ask the Greeks if they would prefer the drachma over the euro?
With your own currency response can be made to the economic dynamics.
In southern europe the only way is Brussels/Down! The latest economy getting trashed is that of Italy.
How many times do you need to be hit before you feel the pain and see the bruising?

Good morning jimmie. Happy trolling!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 07:53 AM

"Steve, I think if you talked to Greeks with savings, they are rather glad that they have not been placed in a depreciating currency."


https://tax-free.today/blog/4-lessons-greek-crisis-protect-savings/

https://cointelegraph.com/news/greece-seizes-500000-bank-accounts-worth-euro-16-bln-escape-with-bitcoin

First you have to find a greek with any savings left!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 08:04 AM

Most Greeks I know prefer the Euro. And plenty have savings in Euros.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 08:12 AM

Just listened to the preparations for a hard Brexit
Sounded very much like those being made for a national emergency.
We have had our share of mindless abuse - can anybody offer anything positive about this catastrophic mess ?
Noticably, one of the first questions asked was not on the threat to the economy or the well being of Brits living abroad but - you guessed it - contolling immigration
Sums up perfectly what all this is about
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 08:31 AM

The UE treatment of Greece and Germany (and Spain) was an argument against it. But the Brit government was adopting austerity policies without being required to by the EU......

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 10:56 AM

Austerity measures are adopted for sound financial reasons by selfgoverning countries that are in charge of their own fiscal policy.
When external bankers dictate fiscal policy problems result, as in Cyprus, Greece and latterly Italy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 11:59 AM

Well, in the UK, grinding the faces of the poor and disabled seems to be the point. I guess that is sound financial policy, and one that will no doubt continue after Brexit though they'll have to grind some new faces when the EU workers on the farms have gone home to Romania etc. Also, it's been austerity for some, massive tax cuts for the rich. Trickle-down benefits for the poor via the foodbanks so praised by Rees Moggie.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 12:49 PM

But it does need to be pointed out that under the last Labour government the National Debt increased threefold.
It also needs to be said that On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) and thereby discharged the last of its war loans from the US. By the end of World War II Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion. Also the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid.
There is a big picture for those that can be bothered to look for it. Also an explanation of whose policies aided the decline of british industry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 12:58 PM

Whoops. By election coming up?
Labour mp guilty of perverting the course of justice. From the pen of guido!

https://order-order.com/people/fiona-onasanya/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 01:04 PM

There is a big picture for those that can be bothered to look for it.

Indeed there is. And like any big picture, people tend to see some details and ignore others. Like what has happened to national debt since 2010, for instance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 01:49 PM

You are quite right DMcG, Labour increased National Debt at a far higher rate than conservatives, by any metric.



https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 02:32 PM

"But it does need to be pointed out that under the last Labour government the National Debt increased threefold."
The Last NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT (indistinguisheble from the Tories) is a very different animal to one under Corbyn - hopefully
WHAT THE TORIES DID AND LABOUR IS PLEDGED TO STOP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 03:15 PM

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”. I think that sums up the case for a fresh referendum pretty well. It expresses the reason why those who assert that in refusing any such vote is because it would be a betrayal of democracy are so wrong headed.

It's ironic that the words come from a speech made by arch-Brexiters David Davis. But then he was talking back in 2012.

I wish that people who oppose the electorate having a fresh vote would say the truth - that they are against it because they don't want to risk losing. That's a perfectly valid reason after all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 04:05 PM

I see the Tories have hit a new low. A Tory PM dropped us in this shit. Another Tory PM has presided over the worst negotiations since Custer said to the Cheyenne "lads, lads, let's talk about this". The whole Tory party is in a shambolic civil war. And what do they do? Complain about something Corbyn may have said and, even if he did, was true anyway.

Who wrote this? Galton and Simpson?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 04:31 PM

You are quite right DMcG, Labour increased National Debt at a far higher rate than conservatives, by any metric


Well, as that fullfact article explains:

====

Public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP was down under Labour for most of its term. But it then jumped from 36% of GDP in 2007/08 to 65% in 2009/10.

As with the big jumps in the cash amount, that reflects the impact of the financial crisis and the accompanying recession that began in 2008. The reduction in economic activity in that period meant less in tax receipts and higher welfare spending—blowing a hole in the national finances. The much bigger deficits every year added considerably to the overall debt.


====
And, As of Q1 (the first quarter of) 2018, UK debt amounted to £1.78 trillion, or 86.58% of total GDP.

As I say, looking at the big picture and ignoring the world wide financial turmoil during the time Labour was in power, leading to a debt level of 65% when they left power, compared to 86% now, is exactly what I mean by concentrating on things you want to while ignoring things you would rather not think about.


As a general rule of thumb - you can always quote a difference in figures as a ratio or as an absolute change. There is often a political or journalistic reason to quote which looks most dramatic when it suits you, and whichever looks least dramatic when that suits. So the alert reader always asks why this representation is being used when a politician quotes figures.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 18 - 04:36 PM

The Last NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT (indistinguisheble from the Tories) is a very different animal to one under Corbyn.

Quite right

It must be pointed out that for all it's faults new labour did   actually form a government. Corbyn cannot even create a viable opposition. As for forming a government, that is pushing the envelope of reality too far!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 03:04 AM

"Corbyn cannot even create a viable opposition. "
On the contrary, that's what he has shown he can to - that's why the rats have spent so much time snapping at his heels in an effort to bring him down
When people wth your evil views pour out your hatred you realised he must be doing something right
If he wasn't the threat that he is arsholes like you wouldn't bother
Can't thik of many people who regard involving Britain in a long-term war by inventing Weapons of Mass Destruction superior to adoping a policy to create a more equal society but I know they exist because we are living through the consequences of them right now
How anybody can criticise past governments while at the same time throwing your support behind the shambles that is Brexit and caricatures like Rees Mogg is beyond me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 03:47 AM

This is an old tory tactic. "Look, we are completely rubbish. If asked to organise a piss up in a brewery, we would be scouring the attic for used urinals. But look, the polls! The ones carried out by our mates and ex-Chairmen. They say we are ahead! Labour must be hopeless! Vote for us!"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 03:58 AM

"When people wth your evil views pour out your hatred you realised he must be doing something right"

More little jimmie made up shit and you wonder why I treat you like a fool.
Can we for once have a post from you without distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. Just think. You would have nothing to say and what joy that would bring to the world this festive season.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:33 AM

Brexit in a complete shambles? "Look over there - Corbyn insulting May!"
NHS in meltdown? - "Look over there - Corbyn anti-semitism!"
Benefits being withdrawn from the disabled? - "Look over there - Corbyn friend of terrorists!"
Tories being torn apart by internal war? - Look over there - Corbyn enemy of the people!"

And shit-for-brains fuckwit Daily Heil readers fall for the bullshit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:19 AM

Corbyn dragged back to the commons to apologize and still the man lies through his teeth.
Labour MP Fiona Onasanya has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice after a mammoth Old Bailey trial. (A former lawyer to boot)
Labour’s NEC decided not to endorse Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt as a candidate on the basis that she had brought the Labour Party into disrepute. In a late night posting on Facebook she blamed Guido for her demise as a candidate:
Not a very pleasant bunch now, are they?
With Corbyn’s incoherent and contradictory strategy the People’s Vote crowd are escaping attention. It will be no surprise when Guido tells you there is lots of infighting there too…

Viable opposition? Surely you jest !!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:32 AM

Ha! Mention 'Shit-for-brains fuckwit' and immediately, to prove my point perfectly, one shows up with more of his shit-for-brains fuckwittery! Fucking dick-wad.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:32 AM

I see the Republic of Ireland has dire predictions about a No Deal Brexit, rich since their backstop demand seems to have been a main cause of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:43 AM

And Trump's pal Putin has followed suit and wants Britain out of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:02 AM

Looking forward to Trump waking up and deciding to withdraw troops from the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:20 AM

The standard diversionary tactics of the hopeless, clueless Tories...The facts here...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:21 AM

Another fine display of Coprolalia from backwoodsman, Perhaps it is a facade to masquerade behind, or perhaps it should be backwardman?

It is said swearing is the inevitable crutch of the inarticulate!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:27 AM

"More little jimmie made up shit and you wonder why I treat you like a fool."
Good job your on your own then innit
A lesson to be learned there

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:44 AM

I see the Republic of Ireland has dire predictions about a No Deal Brexit, rich since their backstop demand seems to have been a main cause of it.

Perhaps the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar should have thought a few things through before gobbing off.
This was the man that threatened to close irish airspaceto to the UK, despite being dependant upon Britain to patrol that airspace if required. A Learjet is the only jet aircraft on the defense force payroll and I do not think "Fighter" is a configuration offered.

From the Irish Government website: “Brexit is posing very complex challenges for Irish aviation and Ireland is uniquely affected compared to other EU Member States given our geographical location.

That same argument applies to all imports and exports from the emerald Isle by all other means.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:06 AM

I've just tried muttering "stupid woman" and "stupid woman" int a mirror, and my mouth movements looked identical.

I can't understand why the word "woman" is evidently seen as offensive. I don't imagine "stupid man" would be. Pretty clearly Hersa May was acting in a particularly stupid manner at the time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:07 AM

Their demand is based on not returning to the seventies conflict and playing their part as a community rather than destroying their own future and that of others
Britain;'e 'go it alone and fuck the consequences' is, as has been probed by current behaviour, based on historic xenophobia rather than good business sense (waste of time mentioning good neighborliness)

Britanains actions are besed on small minded nationalism and little else - the E.U.s are based on the interests of a group of European countries
You need to think anout thsese things before you gob off
I have little time for Varadkar, but at least he has the interests of those he represents at heart on this one AS DISTINCT FROM
Your continuing abusive behaviour and your refusal to respond to what people say only proves you to be a gobby ignoramus - carry on gobbing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:09 AM

"Looking forward to Trump waking up and deciding to withdraw troops from the UK"

They are in the UK under invite.

More significant is the fact that they are terminating their illegal presence on the ground in Syria. They are mainly in the NE where the bulk of the oil is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:33 AM

Nobody wants a return to the violence of the 70s, but if the view is that a hard border would create this, then it would be, as far as I can make out, something very like small-minded nationalism, coupled with religious bigotry, giving rise to the violence. Not neighbourliness.

Sorry, Jim, not excusing the actions of the Normans etc viz a viz the island of Ireland (I won't say the 'country' because it isn't clear that at the time such a thing existed) but a) the attitudes you seem to me to have expressed to the British based on historical events in which I played no part and would not have approved of and b) the mention of a return to sectarian violence - including knee-capping, punishment beatings, protection rackets, funded often from North America etc needs to be stood up to when almost issued as a threat and coupled with strong dislike of DUP voters. If that is how the Irish think and feel about eachother, it is a shame but it isn't endearing, and seems to me it needs to change. You almost feel like pulling up the drawbridge and leaving them to fight it out among themselves. But not to listening to lectures about neighbourliness.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:50 AM

"but if the view is that a hard border would create this,"
A hard border goes far belong nationalism and bigotry, it would severely effect the economies of both sides
Psychologically, the lack of a visible border has done much to bring together both sides - you might believe Ireland to be one country if you allow your attention to slip
Recently the percentage gap between the two communities has almost reached level pegging and the will for a United Ireland has made a United Ireland inevitable in the foreseeable future
That the transition is a peaceful one very much depends on what happens after Brexit
As far as history is concerned - the violence of Northern Ireland has everything to do with the creation of two unequal communities rather than what the Normans did, which is why the recent troubles rose from brutalised Civil Rights marches rather than nationalist or religious fervour
Robert Kee explains it well in his books
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:51 AM

Also, while I am sure that small-minded nationalism, a fantasy of a return to the 'great days of empire' when Britain was a big player, right wing dreams of increasing profits by reducing regulation and working conditions etc did make a lot of people vote Brexit, it is not reasonable, accurate or helpful to tar all Brexit voters with the same brush (or to tar and feather them ha ha, tasteless joke).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 10:34 AM

From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 09:06 AM
I've just tried muttering "stupid woman" and "stupid woman" int a mirror, and my mouth movements looked identical.

So they should, the words are the same.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:15 AM

So they should, the words are the same.

Stunning! Comrade Corbyn discovered the exact same thing but lies to avoid apologising. If he lies about little things now can he be trusted to tellthe truth on major issues?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:17 AM

"I can't understand why the word "woman" is evidently seen as offensive. I don't imagine "stupid man" would be. Pretty clearly Hersa May was acting in a particularly stupid manner at the time."

Kevin, the answer to that is in my posts of 20 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM and 08:20 AM. They do it deliberately in order to distract simpletons from what is actually going on. Every time the Tories get up to their necks in a disaster of their own making, they drag out the dead-cat claims. Useless and clueless, led by a Praying Mantis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:33 AM

"Another fine display of Coprolalia from backwoodsman, Perhaps it is a facade to masquerade behind, or perhaps it should be backwardman?

It is said swearing is the inevitable crutch of the inarticulate!"

As I've told you before, I am not in any way inarticulate - my Degree is evidence of my ability with our language. And there's nothing involuntary in my use of expletives where you're concerned - they are a deliberate demonstration of the utter contempt in which I hold you and your vile racist, extremist views.

Now Foxtrot Romeo Oscar.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 11:47 AM

Corbyn's Faux Pas (if that's what it was - not sure what happened to "innocent until proven guilty these people are so fond of when it's a woman or child-groping Tory under scrutiny) - it measures small next to Trump's "pussy-grabbing behavior which is ignored by Insulting Iains when he whines that "the elected President should be allowed to get on with his job"
Seem to remember Nigel stepped up to the line and sprang to the defence of Gropey Greene when the call came as did Maggie Mayfly
There's sexual mis behaviour and sexual misbehaviour depending on who does it, it seems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:12 PM

Jim
If you can't understand the difference between sexual behaviour which, it is claimed, happened in private, and for which there appears to be no separate corroboration, and comments made live in front of the members of the Commons, and in full view of the nation (thanks to television), then I doubt that any explanation from me would help you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:25 PM

And I didn't "spring to the defence" of Greene. I merely called for the due process to be followed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:34 PM

Nigel
If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid, but no maore stupid than most of us have been - melee that was taking place was enough to make anybody lose ther cool
I you are really upset Corbyn sid what he is accused of in public - how horrified are you that your parliamentary representatives behaved the way hey did publicly yesterday - childishly stupid - the lot of them
As for differentiating between, supporting that behavior and that of gropers and pedos - are you serious!!!!
The speaker appeared to believe there was room for doubt but hey - Corbyn is Corbyn so he must be guilty
Give us a break - this is a photo-opportunity for people whose party is rapidly swirling down the pan - nothing more
Westminster is full of sexual predators from all sides - far more serious that a slip of the tongue in the heat of a punch up, and you damn well know it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:34 PM

Nigel
If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid, but no maore stupid than most of us have been - melee that was taking place was enough to make anybody lose ther cool
I you are really upset Corbyn sid what he is accused of in public - how horrified are you that your parliamentary representatives behaved the way hey did publicly yesterday - childishly stupid - the lot of them
As for differentiating between, supporting that behavior and that of gropers and pedos - are you serious!!!!
The speaker appeared to believe there was room for doubt but hey - Corbyn is Corbyn so he must be guilty
Give us a break - this is a photo-opportunity for people whose party is rapidly swirling down the pan - nothing more
Westminster is full of sexual predators from all sides - far more serious that a slip of the tongue in the heat of a punch up, and you damn well know it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:37 PM

Backwardman you really do not have to explain your obvious inadequacies to me.

"A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding." -Joseph Cook

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 12:43 PM

If Corbyn did what he did, he was stupid,
100% he did. Whether he said what he was accused of saying is another matter.
Yes, groping is more serious than calling someone a 'stupid woman'. An admission, and apology would have sorted things.
While not an expert lip-reader, I know enough to tell that what he said did not match his claim that it was "stupid people", and it may well have been "stupid woman".
However, to come back and lie to Parliament (which is what he appears to have done) is more serious than calling Mrs May a stupid woman.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:06 PM

If Corbyn is lying about his words, that opens him to criticism. But I can't see that there is anything to apologise for in the term he is accused of using. Theresa May was behaving in a cheap stupid way, and she actually is a woman. I'm not sure whether she has ever called Corbyn a "stupid man", but she's said things a lot more insulting to and about him.

Well spotted Nigel. I should have typed "people" there. Or spotted it, if it was my bossy computer that made the mistake. But my observation stands. If I said the words out loud, they looked different, but if I muttered them to myself, they looked the same - and that was what Corbyn was doing. Even if he did use the W word which is evidently seen as offensive.y

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:33 PM

"100% he did.100% he did."
He claimedhe said something else and nobody had come up with evidence that he didn't - certainly not the speaker
You people are certainly very quick with your rope over the branch when their's political capital to be made from it
Nobody could possibly have heard what he said and, as someone with a slight grasp of lip-reading, I couldn't make it out
I'm sure no expense will be speared obtaining professional help on these extremely serious matter
He only lied if he lied - you and your good citizens have already made your minds up on that one- so let's drag the bastrd out of his cell and string him up
Politicians lying to Parliament - Heaven forfend
Are you joking!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:37 PM

1) There are rules in the house that govern the behaviour of an MP. The latest revision was issued by no less authority than the squeaker, very recently.
2) Corbyn had to be dragged back to the house to be questioned over his conduct.
3)He then lies to the house about what he said, despite recognized experts in lip reading corroborating the original accusation.
4) When in a hole,why keep digging? His behaviour is neither honest, nor of the standard expected of an MP.
5) To be caught In flagrante delicto on camera, to be viewed by all, is hardly the action of an intelligent man.

Is not" Oh yes he did" a staple of Christmas pantomime, now recently migrated to the commons?
But it was not mother goose making the accusation now, was it? And we can all lipread the words ourselves as many times as we like.
stupid woman

1 min 11 seconds in

Tsk Tsk, guilty of misogyny as well!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:41 PM

""A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding."
Have you counted your insults and racist jibes lately
You're a bigger joke than your mate

If the Tory party were i the slightest bit concerned about the position of women in Parliament would they have ever appointed Creepy- Crawly Johnson, (who thinks the term 'Foreign Relations has "Sexual" in the middle) in a senior position ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 01:45 PM

Ye Gods, clutching at straws or what.

One point though Iains the speaker quite clearly said that the people who maintained Corbyn said 'stupid woman' were not experts. You, I am sure, are well aware of that so you are lying to us all.

Should we go get a rope and find a tree ?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:10 PM

Raggy who cares what the squeaker says. I said experts, not a weasel.

Like little jimmie you need to read, assimilate, and think before
posting otherwise you may end up looking as stupid as him.

A complete waste of time asking little jimmie to provide proof of his statements below. He never has before when challenged. A measure of the man I feel.
""A single profane expression betrays a person's low breeding."
Have you counted your insults and racist jibes lately.
I do not make racist jibes and neither do I insult people, I merely describe them accurately.

However I keep a file of his more outrageous allegations, because he has a nasty habit of denying the content of his posts. Others posting here have more integrity, making such extreme measures unnecessary.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:22 PM

Funny how our resident right wingers come over all pro feminist when Corbyn is accused of something he may or may not have said yet kept quiet when proven sex pest and misogynist Andrew Griffiths had the party whip restored just in time for a crucial vote...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:26 PM

...or when Phillip Hammond mouthed the same words back in July.

Hypocrites, the lot of them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 02:39 PM

OH! Look what Guido's found:

https://order-order.com/2018/12/20/ireland-no-deal-no-hard-border/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:02 PM

This is all very silly. Jezza didn't actually *say* anything. He mouthed it. It was sotto voce. Muttered at best. Inaudible. His critics like to claim that he *said* a thing because they wanted him to say it. Jaysus, let's get the best friggin' lipreader in town, fellow Tories. We're desperate. We simply must get something, anything, on this man. They also wanted him to be a friend of Hamas. They wanted him to be an antisemite. It's very odd, this wanting someone to be horrible. Well I'd prefer a world in which no-one was horrible, frankly. Let's judge people on what they actually do or actually say (out loud, infinitely preferably). Let's grow up, in other words. Nothing to see (or hear) here. Move on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

When did "woman" become "a profane expression", the use of which "betrays a person's low breeding"?

Since the word is in no way offensive, and the adjective attached to it was perfectly appropriate in face of Theresa May's loudmouthed panto performance - look at the video - there would have been no reason for Jeremy saying he didn’t mutter it if he didn't. As I point out, words muttered are far less easy to unambiguously interpret than if he had been speaking out, or shouting in the same way as Theresa May had been doing.

This is a phoney diversion, transparently so.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

When did "woman" become "a profane expression", the use of which "betrays a person's low breeding"?

Since the word is in no way offensive, and the adjective attached to it was perfectly appropriate in face of Theresa May's loudmouthed panto performance - look at the video - there would have been no reason for Jeremy saying he didn’t mutter it if he didn't. As I point out, words muttered are far less easy to unambiguously interpret than if he had been speaking out, or shouting in the same way as Theresa May had been doing.

This is a phoney diversion, transparently so.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 04:25 PM

I've done it again (or my computer has). That second "didn't" should havebeen "did". I thought I'd better point that out before Nigel does.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:48 PM

"dragged back to the house"? I think not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:55 PM

I see that in his end- of-year news conference Vladimir Putin has been talking about Brexit and declared himself fervently in the support of the view that a second chance for people in the UK to vote on this would be an offence against democracy. And of course everyone knows how strongly he supports all democratic principles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM

And of course he spoke up in support of Trump, and denounced those who find it hard to accept him as president. Just because 2 million more people voted for his opponent than voted for him...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 06:27 PM

I note that a YouGov poll is now giving remain a 59-41 lead over May's deal. Not that I'd rely on such things over-much, but I would say to brexiteers, should there be a third referendum, be very afraid...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 06:56 PM

https://www.facebook.com/904705202/posts/10161155567570203/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:01 PM

Rees Moggie has the solution: he says

If Ireland had no intention of setting up customs checkpoints along the politically-sensitive frontier, there is no need for the contentious Irish backstop element of Theresa May’s deal.

According to the Express, Rees Moggie has 'shit down' the argument about the backstop with this 'simple' solution.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 07:03 PM

Woops, should have been 'shut down'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 18 - 08:19 PM

I think you may have got it right first time.

With the UK being tied to WTO rules after a hard Brexit, the only way to avoid a hard border in Ireland would be for Northern Ireland to become a member of the WTO in its own right, separate from the rest of the UK. I somehow can't see the DUP going for that, though it would make some sense. Or rather, because it would make some sense, as a step towards a two Ireland constitutional arrangement outside the UK. Here's an RTÉ story on that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:45 AM

There is all this talk about customs work being done without a hard border, but as I understand it this will/would take years to develop.
They'll have to start charging tariffs to goods from Northern Ireland when we come out, so something will have to be done. I predict a lot of criminality/smuggling - possibly in both directions.

But Rees Mogg assumes that the UK won't want to put up hard borders ie it will stick to the Good Friday agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:01 AM

Wonderful article from The London Economic

Enjoy :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 03:14 AM

Rees-Mogg and co have been making that argument since the referendum, so there is little justification in the Express repeating it now - the EU have always been clear they don't want a hard border either in any circumstances. But there is a world of difference between what people want and what the law and circumstances may oblige them to do.

Einstein is often attributed with the saying "Everything should be as simple and possible but no simpler." (Actually, what he said was more complicated than that! :) .) The Irish border has been the subject of intense negotiation between the UK and the EU. As Mogg was saying that while the negotiations were happening, it is incredibly unlikely it was not considered and rejected as unworkable.

We have discussed lots of variations of this in this thread or its predecessor. As with most subtopics, we have not got beyond and assertion it could work with no explanation of how that can cope with all the differing requirements of the 'users'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:38 AM

but I would say to brexiteers, should there be a third referendum,

1) After Labour won under Harold Wilson, a referendum was held on whether to remain in the Communities after a renegotiation of its membership. The result was in favour of remaining. The European Community were three international organizations that were governed by the same set of institutions. These were the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), and the European Economic Community (EEC)
2)he Maastricht Treaty built upon the Single European Act and the Solemn Declaration on European Union in the creation of the European Union. The treaty was signed on 7 February 1992 and came into force on 1 November 1993. The Union superseded and absorbed the European Communities as one of its three pillars. The first Commission President following the creation of the EU was Jacques Delors, who briefly continued his previous EEC tenure before handing over to Jacques Santer in 1994.
The Community institutions became the institutions of the EU but the roles of the institutions between the pillars are different. The Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice are largely cut out of activities in the second and third pillars, with the Council dominating proceedings. This is reflected in the names of the institutions, the Council is formally the "Council of the European Union" while the Commission is formally the "Commission of the European Communities". This allowed the new areas to be based on intergovernmentalism (unanimous agreement between governments) rather than majority voting and independent institutions according to supranational democracy. after the Treaty of Maastricht, Parliament gained a much bigger role. Maastricht brought in the codecision procedure, which gave it equal legislative power with the Council on Community matters. Hence, with the greater powers of the supranational institutions and the operation of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council, the Community pillar could be described as a far more federal method of decision making.
The Amsterdam Treaty transferred rule making powers for border controls, immigration, asylum and cooperation in civil and commercial law from the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar to the European Community (JHA was renamed Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) as a result). Both Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice also extended codecision procedure to nearly all policy areas, giving Parliament equal power to the Council in the Community.

In 2002, the Treaty of Paris which established the European Coal and Steel Community (one of the three communities which comprised the European Communities) expired, having reached its 50-year limit (as the first treaty, it was the only one with a limit). No attempt was made to renew its mandate; instead, the Treaty of Nice transferred certain of its elements to the Treaty of Rome and hence its work continued as part of the EEC area of the Community's remit.

The Treaty of Lisbon merged the three pillars and abolished the European Community; with the European Union becoming the Community's legal successor. Only one of the three European Communities still exists and the phrase "European Communities" no longer appears in the treaties.
The European Union has seven principal decision making bodies, its institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors. Competence in scrutinising and amending legislation is shared between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, while executive tasks are performed by the European Commission and in a limited capacity by the European Council (not to be confused with the aforementioned Council of the European Union). The monetary policy of the eurozone is determined by the European Central Bank. The interpretation and the application of EU law and the treaties are ensured by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The EU budget is scrutinised by the European Court of Auditors. There are also a number of ancillary bodies which advise the EU or operate in a specific area.

The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, 23 June 2016, 51.9% to leave, turnout 72.2%

The second referendum in the uk was for a very different entity to that voted for under Wilson's government. Primarily as a result of the Maastricht treaty.

Therefore to talk of a possible 3rd referendum is a bit of a misleading, simplistic distortion.
From 1975 to present the EU has morphed from an economic union to an increasingly political union, usurping national identities and rights of self government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:43 AM

Jacob Rees Mogg Hero of the year!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/tcw-hero-of-the-year-the-mogg/

"The Leftist media and the Leftist MPs in his own party have gone for him over everything from his Catholicism, the number of kids he has, his suits, to ultimately his political views. Some of this criticism is fair enough; most of the personal attacks most certainly are not. Philip Collins, in the Times on the 14thof December said it was time the team of JRM ‘were taken outside and shot’. Collins didn’t mean this literally, we assume, but still it is somewhat ironic that the Mogg is painted as the extremist when writers use language such as this.
   Jacob Rees-Mogg has faced these relentless, poisonous personal attacks with grace and fortitude. He has never attacked another MP, least of all his Prime Minister, in a personal way. It is this dignity in the face of stone-throwing that drives his opponents crazy"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 04:58 AM

From that article linked to by Iains:

Jacob Rees-Mogg could become another greasy-pole-climbing, payroll MP. He could just put his head down and hope to make his way into cabinet. But he is no ordinary man; he is a man of principle, courage, honesty, integrity and dignity. He could just put his head down and hope to make his way into cabinet. But he is no ordinary man; he is a man of principle, courage, honesty, integrity and dignity, as we have noted many times on TCW, and Kathy most recently here.

Indeed you have said it many times. Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:08 AM

You don't like my talking about a third referendum (which would be predicated on very different information from that given to voters from the 2016 one), but you're happy to call the latter a second referendum, which was predicated, in your view, on the fact that the EU had become a very different beast, as you've painstakingly spelled out for us in some rather dense prose. Well let's just fantasise a little and guess at the percentage of the 2016 electorate who knew anything at all about your potted history as they voted. I'd guess about one in twenty (OK, Nigel, that isn't a percentage, so 5%?) How about you? In other words, it would be far-fetched to claim that the electorate voted the way they did because they disapproved of the evolution of the EU. I'm claiming that nearly all of them actually knew diddly squat about it. If you don't believe me, risk losing your mates down the pub by asking them what they know about the history of the EU since 1975. One point and fifteen passes, I should think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:20 AM

Too many froms.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM

"Philip Collins, in the Times on the 14thof December said it was time the team of JRM 'were taken outside and shot’. Collins didn’t mean this literally, we assume, but still it is somewhat ironic that the Mogg is painted as the extremist when writers use language such as this."

Now where have I heard that kind of extremist language before? Oh yes, it's what knuckle-dragger BrexShitters have, on numerous occasions, told me should happen to Remain voters, because we're 'traitors'.

When the boot's on the other foot... :-/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

Pretty good summing up here
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-lies-brexit-theresa-may-dream-team-boris-johnson-michael-gove-deceitful-bully-18th-a8194011.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:06 AM

Pretty good summing up here
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-lies-brexit-theresa-may-dream-team-boris-johnson-michael-gove-deceitful-bully-18th-a8194011.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:12 AM

Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)
I suggest you take your issues with the article to the author/s.
Your petty little post is not worthy of consideration.

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM
Typical leftard exaggeration. Perhaps you would like to show us all an exanple of brexiteers suggesting killing remainiaca. Or are you guilty of terminological inexactitude? Prove me wrong!

If you don't believe me, risk losing your mates down the pub by asking them what they know about the history of the EU since 1975.
I would posit th eaverage MP ain't too clued up either. So where does that leave your argument?
Below is a fine example of the caliber of our MPs:
Talk about deluded!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-mp-who-lied-to-avoid-speeding-charge-compares-herself-to-jesus-d9tlpjg2t

She seems a little slow to resign her seat.
However as a Lawyer that pleaded not guilty and was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, I would think slammer time is a likely outcome. Under the Representation of the People Act any MP detained in the UK for more than a year is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and their seat will be vacated..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Twice in that paragraph for a start (channel Nigel here)
I suggest you take your issues with the article to the author/s.
Your petty little post is not worthy of consideration. 


I agree. Hence the reference to channelling Nigel. Nitpicking is rarely worthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:12 AM

Two years after their country voted for trade war against its neighbours, British nationalists, Iain and Karen, at last agree on something: that it is unfair for other countries to protect their own national interests. Such narrow-minded nationalism from the Paddies!
Old Moore’s Almanac 2019 prediction   Opposition to Irish chauvinism will unite the Remoaners and Brexiteers .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:26 AM

DMcG:
I agree. Hence the reference to channelling Nigel. Nitpicking is rarely worthy of consideration.

If it's rarely worthy of consideration, why do it. It's a poor excuse to say you're 'channeling' someone else in order to make a post which you then claim is unworthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:32 AM

Mayomick I think it probably more accurate to say that despite the posturings and threatening from the Taoiseach, his obduracy is not necessarily shared by the Irish government. They know full well that despite reciprocal agreements between the UK and republic, predating the EU, a hard brexit has the potential to devastate Ireland.
Losing the UK landbridge will have immense knock-on effects, especially on prices.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/project-pricey-16-ways-a-hard-brexit-would-hit-irish-pockets-1.3642215

Such an outcome helps no one!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

"From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:29 AM
Typical leftard exaggeration. Perhaps you would like to show us all an exanple of brexiteers suggesting killing remainiaca. Or are you guilty of terminological inexactitude? Prove me wrong!"

No exaggeration whatsoever. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told, on other social media sites, that Remainers are 'traitors who should be arrested, marched out and shot', and I'm confident that most, if not all, of the other posters on this and other Brexit threads have seen and/or heard comments of that nature. Do a bit of research, there's plenty of it on, e.g. Leaver FaceBook Pages, Twitter, Righty-websites (you'll get a big kick from trawling through those).

As a matter of lifelong principle, I don't tell lies - your use of the Churchillian 'Terminological Inexactitude' really does underline your ridiculous arrogance and pomposity, BTW - and anyway, I have no need to lie on this topic, there has been plenty of evidence of such outrageous comments, inclouding on TV news Vox-Pop clips, since the Referendum. Clearly, you have selective auditory/visual senses. Your being in denial doesn't detract one iota from the fact.

On a different topic, here is an example of a Tory minister in the House of Commons calling Yvette Cooper a 'bitch'.

When the boot's on the other foot...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 08:21 AM

There have been numerous quotes in the Irish press from ex Brexiters wh have changed their minds but daren't go public because of the bullies who have now mobilesed themselves to make sure they don't - jackboots kicking down doors springs to mind
This bullying is perfectly represented here by our own resident would-be bully (if he had a gang to back him up)
Nearly have those who voted "traitors" - what kind of extremist shit is this?
PRETTY WELL SUMMED UP HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 08:34 AM

And a very pertinent comment here about the kinds of things which, apparently, are or are not worthy of an apology....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 08:52 AM

Yet another problem for corbyn after
lying again on the BBC

https://order-order.com/2018/12/21/chris-williamson-shares-petition-defending-notorious-anti-semite/

What a shower!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 09:21 AM

Minutes from Tory party think tank

Q. We've broken our election promises. What can we do?
A. Call Corbyn an anti-Semite.

Q. We're in the shit about the Windrush immigrants, What can we do?
A. Call Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser.

Q. We've totally screwed the Brexit negotiations. What can we do?
A. Call Corbyn a misogynist

I can't wait for the next cock up.

Q. We lost the election. What can we do?
A. Call Corbyn a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eater

It would be really funny if it were not so tragic.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 09:31 AM

Well, Dave, they tried that approach in the last election and were utterly amazed to find that it lost them their majority. So let 'em run with it, sez I!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 09:43 AM

A JEWISH VIEW OF LABOUR ANTISEMITISM - NOT IMPORTANT TO SOME
But then again, they hate the Irish and Gypsies and they think Brits who want to stay in Europe are "traitors"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 09:50 AM

Actually since the comment in this that the US in Syria were 'illegal' which reflects what Putin said on the subject I have been thinking we have a Russian operating on this site.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 10:08 AM

Lovely comment in The Sun that shortages of fresh fruit and veg from the EU will only affect effete Londoners who should stop eating foreign food. Some Sun readers grew up eating only seasonal veg grown at home; some think we can get 'fresh' fruit and veg more cheaply from non EU countries because the EU 'fraudulently' keeps the price of them high. If this is so, why have the supermarkets not being doing it anyway?

Another Sun comment is that under WTO we can suggest a trade deal with no duty either way and no strings attached. I suppose we could suggest it.


Puzzled as usual.


A Sun columnist is arguing that what folk voted for in the ref. was in fact a No Deal Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 10:09 AM

"I have been thinking we have a Russian operating on this site."
WHY NOT - DON'T THEY GET EVERYWHERE ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 10:49 AM

Lovely comment in The Sun that shortages of fresh fruit and veg from the EU will only affect effete Londoners who should stop eating foreign food. Some Sun readers grew up eating only seasonal veg grown at home; some think we can get 'fresh' fruit and veg more cheaply from non EU countries because the EU 'fraudulently' keeps the price of them high. If this is so, why have the supermarkets not being doing it anyway?
Because we are required to charge the same 'protectionist' import tariffs as the EU for as long as we are members. Whether the supermarkets buy South African apples from South Africa, or via a supplier in the EU, the price will have been inflated by the EU import tariffs.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 11:35 AM

Fruit and vegetables are displayed for sale at a grocers shop in London, United Kingdom | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Brexit will raise imported produce prices by 8 percent
Goods to get more expensive because of border controls.

By        GAŠPER ZAVRŠNIK        3/29/17, 8:40 AM CET Updated 8/17/17, 10:43 PM CET
EU fruit and vegetables imported into the U.K. will become more expensive after Brexit, regardless of the trade deal Britain secures with the bloc, the Guardian reported Wednesday.

Analysts calculated the price of imported food will go up by up to 8 percent as a result of border controls, the paper reported.

Last year the value of imported food and agricultural products to the U.K. was £47.5 billion, of which 71 percent came from the EU.

"U.K. consumers should brace themselves for some price rises ... on those products for which Britain is almost solely reliant on the EU,” said Harry Smit, a senior analyst at Rabobank.

Ian Wright, director general of the Food & Drink Federation trade body, disagreed, saying price fluctuations will depend heavily on the nature of the U.K.’s new initial relationship with the EU, according to the Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 11:36 AM

How about dem apples?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:14 PM

We all decide for ourselves if something is worth posting, Iains.

I accept the point I made was trivial, both in itself and in the context of the whole Brexit fandango. But in itself it is not entirely devoid of information. It tells everyone, including you of course, that I bothered to open your link, and read it enough to see that repetition. That suggests the site "www.conservativewoman.co.uk" is not, despite its official sounding name, run by some subsection of the Conservatives, where you would expect such posts to be reviewed and such errors spotted. Instead, it looks rather more like some random post by some random blogger who happens to like Rees-Mogg, with the same status as all the posts on here: a personal opinion, but no more.

Further evidence for this is that the domain name 'conservativewoman.co.uk' was registered by "godaddy.com" whose main market is selling domains to private individuals. conservatives.com, the official site, on the other hand, is registered by company dealing with full IT systems.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 12:44 PM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 11:36 AM
How about dem apples?

Read the quote in your own post which shows what was being discussed:
"U.K. consumers should brace themselves for some price rises ... on those products for which Britain is almost solely reliant on the EU,” said Harry Smit, a senior analyst at Rabobank.

Clearly that quote is not about South African apples.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 01:00 PM

So ?
A lot appears to depend on how Britain exits Europe, but that doesn't alter the fact that Britain will lose out if they close access to Europe,as they seem hell bent on doing
One of the immediate effects is that Ireland, which now exports via Fishguard will be exporting by sea straight to Europe, which will almost certainly decimate Fishguard as a port
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 01:57 PM

"Actually since the comment in this that the US in Syria were 'illegal' which reflects what Putin said on the subject I have been thinking we have a Russian operating on this site."

No UN mandate equals illegality of action. Show me any UN authorisation.
As far as I am aware the only mandate operating is mentioned below:
"Security Council Grants Six-Month Mandate Renewal for United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, Adopting Resolution 2450 (2018)"
1)The fallacious argument in Iraq:
In the run-up to the Iraq war of 2003, there was the famous 45-minute claim concerning Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Laying the ground for an argument of anticipatory self-defence against a strike that might come in the future, the UK argued that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might reach UK military bases in Cyprus with minimum warning.

2)The doctrine of forcible humanitarian action gained credence throughout the 1990s when it was applied to rescue the Kurds of northern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq from destruction by Saddam Hussein. It was later employed unopposed in cases including Liberia and Sierra Leone.

However, international division about its application emerged in the wake of the operation on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians of 1999.

Since then, the UN has embraced the concept that international action can be taken to rescue a population under immediate threat. However, the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) was narrowed down to cover operations mandated by the Security Council. Still, a number of states claim a right to act when the Council cannot.

Not much point in having an international body if it is consistantly ignored. How many resolutions id Israel in breach of?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 02:05 PM

"One of the immediate effects is that Ireland, which now exports via Fishguard will be exporting by sea straight to Europe, which will almost certainly decimate Fishguard as a port"
The additional Time at sea and escalated costs will only impact the Irish. Far more sensible to revert to TIR
The TIR Convention establishes an international customs transit system with maximum facility to move goods:

    in sealed vehicles or containers;
    from a customs office of departure in one country to a customs office of destination in another country;
    without requiring extensive and time-consuming border checks at intermediate borders;
    while, at the same time, providing customs authorities with the required security and guarantees.

The TIR system not only covers customs transit by road but a combination is possible with other modes of transport (e.g., rail, inland waterway, and even maritime transport), as long as at least one part of the total transport is made by road.
or is that too easy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:18 PM

Nigel, the point I made was relating to a quote explicitly about food from the EU. To the best of my knowledge South Africa is not in the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 06:59 PM

I rather think that prices of a lot of British produce will rise, if there's the predicted lack of harvesters from elsewhere in Europe.

And it seems pretty likely that the value of the pound relative to other currencies is liable to go through the floor in a No Deal Brexit. That would inflate the price for any imports from anywhere. Even during these endless two and a half years in Limbo it's gone down to near parity with the euro (£1 /= €1.11).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 07:48 PM

From: KarenH - PM
Date: 21 Dec 18 - 05:18 PM
Nigel, the point I made was relating to a quote explicitly about food from the EU. To the best of my knowledge South Africa is not in the EU.

Your knowledge is correct, South Africa is not part of the EU.
But I was responding to your comment about views given in "The Sun": Not a rag I read.

Your comment was:
Lovely comment in The Sun that shortages of fresh fruit and veg from the EU will only affect effete Londoners who should stop eating foreign food. Some Sun readers grew up eating only seasonal veg grown at home; some think we can get 'fresh' fruit and veg more cheaply from non EU countries because the EU 'fraudulently' keeps the price of them high. If this is so, why have the supermarkets not being doing it anyway?

Another Sun comment is that under WTO we can suggest a trade deal with no duty either way and no strings attached. I suppose we could suggest it.

The comment made no mention of the source of the fruit and veg, nor a link to the original article to allow us to have any idea what (exactly) you were talking about.
I responded to your comments. If you wish to be more specific as to what you think you're discussing, please provide the details.

Bear in mind that the expression "fresh fruit and veg from the EU" does not automatically mean produce originated/grown in the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 04:17 AM

"The additional Time at sea and escalated costs will only impact the Irish. "
No extra time involved - goods are at present carried by road through Britain and through the Channel Tunnel
A sea journey without barriers can't possibly take that long - Ireland has already equipped itself with a number of giant transport ships in preparation for Brexit (and Britain still has no plans whatever as to what they intend to do when and if they leave) - economic and social insanity
Beside the point anyway
Fishguard depends greatly on commercial trade passing through to and from from Ireland - that gone, do is a large slice of their income
Nice way to stat to "stand on our own two feet"

Another possible victim of the economic uncertain future of Belfast's Harland and Woolf which is being put up for sale by its Norwegian parent company
If, say, the Japanese decide to buy it up and close it as a competitor, that will be the end of the British shipbuilding and repair industry - another giant leap into Brexit's Brave New World
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 04:50 AM

No extra time involved - goods are at present carried by road through Britain and through the Channel Tunnel

To quote your little mate: Unfocused waffle.Do you ever check anything?

Example Dublin to Rotterdam via UK land bridge less than 20hours.
By single ferry journey 45 hours.

Nominally 8 hours ferry time using landbridge as opposed to 45 hours continuous ferry.

The clincher is that if it made any kind of economic sense they would have introduced super ferries years ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 05:04 AM

The clincher is that if it made any kind of economic sense they would have introduced super ferries years ago.

Hardly a clincher. *Any* changes to tariffs or costs due to changed paperwork and timings, etc, change the economics. What is most advantageous under one set of arrangements may not be under another, and vice versa.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 05:32 AM

DMcG I was talking about the present situation. Your contribution assumes a change in the status quo. It is patently obvious that a change could conceivably modify the present economic model.
I could be wrong but I believe the present schedule of the superferry to europe carries primarily tanks and trailers and few tractor units.
Who wants a tractor unit trapped on a ferry for 80 hours per round trip?
But not every truck is an artic. in fact they are a minority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 06:51 AM

DMcG I was talking about the present situation.

My apologies. I forgot you regard it as inappropriate to think three months ahead. Unlike the ROI where, as Jim pointed out, they are in the process of obtaining those ships 'in the present situation', presumably because the businesses concerned think it is good economics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 07:09 AM

@ Mayomick: this is the sort of comment that that more or less makes me think let's get out of that damned island and let them get on with killing eachother again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 08:43 AM

The bulk of Irish goods go through the tunnel - Ireland now has the wherewithal to deliver in Europe more cheaply by sea should the borders close -
The difference of sea and land times is made up by the fact that drivers will no longer have to waste time and money with accommodation and will be able to sleep while travelling
The main problem will have been avoided as there need by no delays caused by border bureaucracy
Ireland has thought out the problems of a hard Brexit, Britain has not even made up its mind how it is to exit - then they will, ahve to start planning

"Unfocused waffle.Do you ever check anything?"
If youu have no self control or self respect, can you not at least give a thought to your few mates here
The picture you present of Brexiteers is a bunch of mindless bullying thugs who, whenever faced with a difficult question, opt for hurling personal abuse
The fact that you do so conscious of the fact that you risk no comebacks because you do so from the safety of distance of anonymity and distance makes you a spineless coward
You wouldn't dare abuse people to their faces the way you do here - you know damn well that they would either laugh at you are punch you - hardly the behavior of a patriotic hero !!
It is totally beyond me why mods continue to close threads (like the one you and your mates closed recently) yet allow you to strut and bully towards fellow members - if they got rid of your mates for similar behaviour, why not you?
It seems that Mudcat's requirements that members are civil to each other don't apply to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:03 AM

"It seems that Mudcat's requirements that members are civil to each other don't apply to some people." Yes Jimmie and who is the biggest offender by a country mile. You have the rare distinction on here of even insulting deceased members, to the disgust of all!
Physician heal thyself springs to mind. But the blindingly obvious escapes little jimmy

A few points.
Some 50 percent of Ireland's hauliers serve the Continent, and 30 percent of them carry refrigerated goods, where every hour counts.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cargo-food-production-producers-brexit-burns-irelands-british-bridge-to-eu-markets/

The first superferry has already started service the "brexit buster" MV Celine. For such a "cheap,efficient service", I wonder why it is presently operating the present service?
Zeebrugge        2018-12-21 07:05
Killingholme        2018-12-20 07:21
Zeebrugge        2018-12-19 08:29
Killingholme        2018-12-18 08:11
Zeebrugge        2018-12-17 08:09
For accuracy it's present position is off Salcombe,en route to Dublin.
As I said before if a direct link was cheaper that the UK landbridge everyone would be sailing. But for a rigid as opposed to a semi trailer,you have to pay the driver 40hrs of a round trip to do nothing.
I cannot find a direct comparison but I recall a round trip from Plymouth to Santander was approx 3 times the cost of Rosslare to Fishguard. The former distance is 800 miles, Dublin to Zeebrugge slightly less.
If it was cheaper it would not be skipping in and out of the UK'S biggest port inorder to fill it's timetable.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:19 AM

" and who is the biggest offender by a country mile. "
You are - you've been given a fraction of your series insulting - you have come up with nothing

"See what I mean you can't stop yourself
You know if you behaved as you do face to face wiuthout a gang behinfd you oyu'd end up with a mouthful of loose teeth
Man up, for the sake of this thread and this form
Stop behaving like a gestapo thug - you impress nobody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 10:49 AM

Footnot
If you continue to behave as you are I am going to gather all your abusive postings and send them directly to a mos, requestiing why you should be allowed to continue the way you have always done
You are, of course, welcome to do the same
Pack it in for all our sakes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 11:43 AM

Back to the subject
"As I said before if a direct link was cheaper that the UK landbridge everyone would be sailing. "
Any major changes of rout woud mean the re-organisation of long-standing practices
Up to now, the old system has worked perfectly well - should things not alter radically the new vessels will be an addition to an efficient and well established business
Jim Carroll

From the BBC 26th November
On Monday, the assembly's Brexit Committee will release a report saying that a 'no-deal' Brexit would pose a "serious threat" to the ports sector in Wales.

The committee's chair David Rees AM said: "What we found is that there needs to be a step-change in Welsh Government activity to support the sector prepare for a no-deal Brexit.

"If our worst fears of new delays and checks at Welsh ports like Holyhead and Fishguard are realised, Wales will need detailed plans to manage the fallout.

"That is why we were calling on the Welsh Government to publish details of any traffic management contingency plans it has, including outlining what new infrastructure spending may be required."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Dec 18 - 12:35 PM

So Corbyn has restated that it is Labour policy to continue with Brexit. There is no change here since the referendum and the last party conference but I think there is a far amount of cynical calculation here. All parties have multiple policies - Brexit, yes, but also housing, education, NHS, and so on. I suspect that the calculation is that Labour Remainers have nowhere else to go, and the stance on those other issues will keep them voting Labour. On the other hand if Labour backed Remain, an unknown number would switch to Conservative. And of course it is true that the EU rules on state investment are an obstacle to Corbyn's investment plans. But left wing unicorns are just as I.aginary as right wing ones, I fear.

It is a policy that could very easily come unstuck. Most party members are Remainers, and they are the ones who is it comes to it are out knocking on doors, posting campaign leaflets and on voting day giving lifts to prospective voters. Alienating that group should not be undertaken lightly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 03:22 AM

"Ending the incorporation of Northern Ireland in the UK and the reunification of Ireland are two different issues"
Not intentionally - inevitably
These issues have become entwined due to Brexit, which threatens the economies and the social well-being of both the North and the South (and, to some extent Scotland) - from the very beginning it was suggested that Brexit would break up the United Kingdom
Northern Ireland has not had a Governing body for nearly two years, the D.U.P. has been caught up in scandals, has been under pressure after the Abortion vote in the South, no longer holds an overall majority and is faced with a situation where the desire for a United Ireland has shot up to near parity
Given the right conditions, Ireland can move to reunification naturally and without too much trouble - nearly a century overdue.

The now extremely unstable British Government is in the ridiculous position of not being able to survive without bribing a Party that cannot itself survive without the co-operation of other parties - At a time when Britain desperately need a united and coherent leadership and the goodwill of the British British people (who are not even trusted enough be given the right to re-confirm that their decision to leave Europe is still valid), it is as far away from any of that as sending a probe to Alpha Centuri   

What a fine ******* mess they've got us into Ollie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 04:12 AM

Probably one of the most disturbing aspects of Brexit is the rise of English Nationalist Fundamentalism, with accusations of "traitor" being flung about
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:37 AM

"Probably one of the most disturbing aspects of Brexit is the rise of English Nationalist Fundamentalism, with accusations of "traitor" being flung about"

Nah Jim, our resident Right-Wing Extremist says that's just a 'lefty terminological inexactitude' (his rather pompous, clever-shit way of saying 'lie').

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:40 AM

Saw a good one on FarceBook this morning - "Country which says, "Everything will be fine after Brexit" brought to a standstill by a toy helicopter". :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 05:59 AM

"three interested parties simultaneously."
No foreign country can possibly have a say inn this
If Britain, why not The E.U. ?
Nonsense

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 08:31 AM

In addition to above
With the vast reduction of the political influence of the Catholic church in the Republic, one of the greatest excuses for not re-unifying used by the Unionists has now been removed
The shenanigans by the Northern fundamentalists regarding abortion and same-sex marriage is quit likely to do the same job
HOPEFULLY, THE SAME WILL SOON BE THE CASE REGARDING DIVORCE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 03:35 PM

As a break from our usual disputes, here's hoping everyone on this site, and this thread in particular, gets to enjoy this time in whatever way suits them. Celebrate with friends and family or just relaxing quietly: however you choose to spend it. I have little doubt that whatever our different views, each person on here is arguing for the country to be the best it can be, even though we differ on what that means. The next few months look as if they will be as eventful as the last ones, and depending on what happens so might the coming years. But just for a few days, we can put that aside, I hope, and wish each other well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 07:35 PM

A Christmas Truce.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Dec 18 - 08:01 PM

Festive greetings to all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Dec 18 - 10:03 AM

Some good reading here, and in the article linked to in the piece, about the reasons why people voted leave - as a deep-seated protest against the inequalities and injustices in our own country.

Worth reading, when the inanities of ChristmasDayTV begin to pall.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 18 - 07:52 PM

Missed a bit
Happy New Year to all
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 18 - 09:10 PM

Wi' knobs on, Jim, wi' knobs on, walkin' about wi' clogs on!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:43 AM

Too much christmas spirit I think!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 04:21 AM

"Too much christmas spirit I think!"
Come back when you sober up then
Plenty to respond to there if you're that way inclined
How about a New Years Resolution that you'll join in instead of throwing stones from a safe distance - does wonders for the image and the personal satisfaction !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 06:15 AM

Make sure that they're living historians only, writing in the last thirty years and whose books may be found on the shelves of reputable bookshops. Definitely nothing by AJP Taylor or Alan Clark, natch. It would be good to see someone such as yourself continuing to carry the flag...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 06:35 AM

Wot !?! No Herodotus, no Thucydides, no Xenophon, no Cato the Elder, no Livy, Ceasar or Tacitus ?

The Venerable Bede no longer venerated ?

If your history is historical it can no longer be history?

Sounds like potty water to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 01:23 PM

Meanwhile .......... Back to Brexit.

It is reported today that the UK government is spending over 100 million to secure extra ferries to try and limited the negative impact on major ports in the event of a no-deal situation.

Could someone kindly link to the article in todays Guardian entited 'Brexit over 100 million spent on extra ferries'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:09 PM

I fink the Taoiseach is about as popular as Macron. Like Macron he should tidy up his own backyard before doing his damnedest to frustrate brexitf

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/2019-chaos-crisis-and-conflict-as-brexit-looms-37645897.html

For example:
"The UK leaving the EU presents the most serious threat to Irish farming and our agri-food sector in the history of the State.
IFA has identified the critical issues for farming and food and clear objectives that must be delivered to secure the interests of Ireland’s vital agri-food sector in the years ahead."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:16 PM

I wouldn't say Brexit is on holiday: the MPs are, but the clock ticks on regardless. Hence the extra ferries Raggy referred to, and the slightly odd articles about John Redwood's knighthood. In one Guardian article it is claimed the knighthood is being offered to try to sway him vote to support May's deal. Someone has a fevered imagination I think - I see not the slightest chance it would do any such thing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:18 PM

Oh Dear! Irish Government accused of ‘standing idly by’ as UK bolsters ferry links for Brexit

4 hours ago!"Brexit on holiday?" In your dreams laddie!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-accused-of-standing-idly-by-as-uk-bolsters-ferry-links-for-brexit-1.3744328

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:32 PM

All the times David Davis said Brexit would be simple - New Statesman

Liam Fox says Brexit will be 'the easiest thing in history' - The Independent

11 times Brexiteers said Brexit would be easy

Utter, utter, fuckwitted cockwombles.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:49 PM

Has anybody mentiuoned the disgusting display of humanity by British politicians strutting on camera and telling the world how they are going to keep Britain clean and pure from the infection of refugees Britain is either directly involved in or has acted as armourer for

Can't remember if anybody mentioned of the sixty odd D-type contracts May has demanded be issued to ascertain that the British people are kept in the dark over the emergency plans now being put into place to divert the likely medicine supply crisis that is likely to appear should Britain crash out of Europe
"We've had your vote folks so you can now fuck off"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 02:54 PM

No Jim, no one has mentioned D contracts. Do you have any details to share with people here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:10 PM

Going from Backwoodsman's link "Liam Fox says Brexit will be 'the easiest thing in history' - The Independent"

What The Independent actually quotes is: This may explain why Liam Fox is so confident, saying on Thursday the Brexit agreement should be “the easiest deal in human history”.

Again, to quote Backwoodsman's link: All the times David Davis said Brexit would be simple - New Statesman
Nowhere in that article does David Davies say that "Brexit would be simple".

I realise that some of the remainers here have a problem with the English language, but they are following the example of those who are trying to sabotage Brexit by misquoting the people actually faced with delivering Brexit.

Brexit should be straightforward, if we weren't faced with the EU team who are trying to prevent an orderly Brexit, or, if they can't prevent it, to make it as expensive for the UK as they can.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:19 PM

Nigel please !!!

Once again you are arguing semantics, I realise it is important to you but the rest of us understood what Backwoodsman was driving at.

Do you have ANY good news about Brexit for instance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:24 PM

We are faced with exactly the EU team we knew we would have when those statements were made. The EU was always going to work in what it perceived in its best interests, which would be financial and political and social and every other interest. Make as much of 'should and 'would' as you like, but the reality was always that, and none of the Leave spokespeople said that as explicitly as they spoke of things being easy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 03:33 PM

The EU team are trying to get the best deal possible for the EU. And by chance, often also for the British people. Not so much for the British government, which is the stumbling block in all of this. If Theresa May would relay her insane red line insisting that she take away the right of Freedom of Movement for the British People, then progress might be made.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Dec 18 - 05:12 PM

EU team who are trying to prevent an orderly Brexit, or, if they can't prevent it, to make it as expensive for the UK as they can.

I think any objective observer would see more or less the direct opposite. Faced with a devious and fundamentally untrustworthy set of negotiators from the UK, the EU has done it's best to act reasonably and consistently. It has been remarkably ready to do its best to cope with impossibilist demands by the UK. It has whittled down the debt owed by the UK in respect of commitments previously entered it to a fraction of the actual total.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 04:12 AM

"more little jimmie rubbish!"
New Year resolution broken before New Year - tsk - tsk
Can some mod get this feller intoi line and save me having to collect his history of abuse and post it to them please ?
This behaviour should not be tolerated on a debating forum

Of curse they are refugees - you don't need papers to flee a war
Do you think the Jews who fled the Nazis all arrived with "papers"
Stop being so inhumanly stupid
You'll be saying that those who managed to get through should go and sleep rough instead of being given the use of vacant private property, as you did with the Grenfell survivors
Let someone else deal with them doesn't hack it - we are part of the responsibility of what is happening in the world today by either supporting and/or selling arms to scumbags like your friend Assad

Brexit was aimed directly at keeping 'the sick, needy and those in peril' out of Britain, as is being shown by the minister on tele last night
Shortly we are likely to see a wave of refugees from the Yemen, fleeing the effects of British fighter planes sold to the Saudis
Maybe it's time Britain built a Trump/Berlin-type wall, eh Iains ?

"No Jim, no one has mentioned D contracts."
May has demanded confidentiality orders be issued to Medical firm employees who are at present working on plans to deal with what is likely to happen to medical supplies should Britain crash out of Europe - I think 60 have been issued so far
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 04:12 AM

From today's Observer

Senior Tory and Labour MPs are planning to force the government to delay Brexit by several months to avoid a no-deal outcome if Theresa May fails to get her deal through parliament in January, the Observer has been told.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Some good news, then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 04:52 AM

I think only you respond to his nonsense now, Jim. As long as you keep responding he will keep abusing. It is in your hands to stop it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 04:53 AM

What a strange, perverse idea for a Right-Wing Extremist to come up with - that it's a country's responsibility to prevent people from leaving. The former USSR would be proud of him. What next - a concrete wall on the French coast, with border guards shooting 'escapees'?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 05:57 AM

"I think only you respond to his nonsense now, Jim."
Had enough of allowing an abusive poster fucking up threads
It takes a special talent to close an obituary thread -time he either stopped or was gone
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 06:21 AM

Ha-ha! This will get our Right-Wing Extremist Fuckwit foaming at the gills...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 06:45 AM

"It takes a special talent to close an obituary thread"

Indeed it does Jim. Are you proud of yourself?

Shall I repost your highly offensive comments, so all can see precisely what you are?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 06:57 AM

If you wish Iains - as long as you put up exactly what I said in full
Better still, why not tell us where we can find it so we can see the whole nasty incident in all its glory
I had stopped posting and left home when you and your two expelled mates closed Keith's thread
Enough really is enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 08:06 AM

I note that two of the ferry firms involved in the emergency 'No Deal' arrangements are, respectively, Danish and French. This implies that somebody knows at least what taxes will be involved in boat hiring between the UK and the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 09:01 AM

Just been announced that Britain is in "CRISIS" - following the small boat that managed to land on our coast a couple of days ago, another six refugees have made it across the Channel through the ring of steel
The Home Secretary has promised he will ascertain that there are enough naval vessels on hand to cope with this massive threat to the freedom and well being of the British People
For crying out loud !!!!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch
The Government have awarded £14 million of the taxpayers money to a shipping company that has no vessels and exists only on paper, in order to deal with the likely problems of delivering goods to Europe after a 'No Deal' Brexit
The port this as yet non-existent fleet is proposing to sail from has insisted that they have neither the facilities nor the capacity to deal with vessels of any significant size

Pity Ealing Studios stopped making comedies - this shower is providing plots that would set the British Film Industry back among the world giants in next to no time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 01:49 PM

Rubberboatgate is primarily about Javid positioning himself to make a play for Theresa May's job when she's dumped. Though why anyone would want that is hard to imagine.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 04:08 PM

Nothing would surprise me about this bunch of self-serving, deceitful Tory Mo-Fo's...

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/12/30/a-manufactured-migrant-crisis-to-create-anti-eu-sentiment-ahead-of-the-big-brexit-vote

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 18 - 07:05 PM

Not sure that would work. A key part of what is liable to scupper May's "deal" is anti-EU sentiment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 05:19 AM

I think thats right Jim, Javid has seen Trump sending troops to the Mexican border, and think that this plays right with the sewer press and their readers. Maybe he is right, but it is the lowest form of politics. Meanwhile Williamson thinks that British Standing in the world can be restored by constructing more military bases. Standing with whom, exactly?

As others have said, it is a far right coup, appealing to the basest of emotions in the same way that Mosley and Powell did.

Sadly, my Irish ancestry is two generations too far back to give me the right of an Irish passport. Otherwise my application would have been in some time ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 06:15 AM

I am undecided - still! - whether to apply for a Irish passport. I have Irish citizenship, which is more important, providing the rules don't change. I may apply in the next few weeks, but in practice it would be more symbolic than anything else, since my wife is not entitled to one and we usually travel together. ,

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 07:00 AM

Will this Dublin agreement apply after Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 07:05 AM

Of course, the countries of the Schengen Area, by removing borders, are giving the appearance of a single country, so arguably the Schengen Area is the 'country' of first landfall.

As our famed demander of precision, I am sure you realise you cannot just change the legal definition of what is and is not a country for your convenience. The Schengen Area is not a country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 07:15 AM

I was not attempting to change a legal definition. Maybe instead of 'arguably' I should have written "it could be argued that". This does not mean that I was making that argument.
The lack of internal borders make it very difficult for France or Germany to identify the first place of landfall for these migrants. This is a problem of the EU's own making. UK kept out of Schengen, and so retains an ability to attempt to control borders. We can see (in most cases) where those crossing the channel started from, and so should be able to return them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 07:30 AM

Whether it is could be argued or not is beside the point: I could argue black is white, but I would still be wrong. The Schengen area simply is not a country and any argument that is it might be so regarded is simply false. And I suggest that by raising the Schengen area you were making that argument.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 11:31 AM

And, in beast 'Nitpicking Nigs' mode, I'll just point out that it's 'superseded' - no 'c'.
So glad I got a good education - I might resort to the occasional expletive, but at least I can spell properly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 11:33 AM

Once again can I remind posters that this thread is about Brexit.

I will open another thread about refugees and asylum seekers so you continue your discussions there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 01:25 PM

The linked article above: GlobalPost

GlobalPost provides original international reporting rooted in integrity, accuracy, independence and powerful storytelling.
aka Once upon a time!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 02:06 PM

Plus, of course, Old Haddock-Face's '70 million Turks waiting to invade the UK'. More Brexit bollocks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 02:19 PM

Fact:    a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not based on fact or knowledge.

Posting the identical article twice does not alter the fact that it is voicing opinions unlike the font of truth Guido, whose content is factual. As can easily be verified.


Now for some facts that are not derived from scare stories


http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153
I think I would have preferred a rephrasing of some of the questions but classing sociology as a science is stretching the definition a little in my book, so perhaps I should not be surprised.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 18 - 08:05 PM

Now into the fourth year of the Phony Brexit War. Happy landings...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Is it my imagination, or has some unseen hand moved some postings to a thread I have no intention of posting to ?
To separate Brexit, immigration and the refugees is artificial is nonsensical and to do so is stupid
Keeping foreigners out of Britain was the sole objective of Brexit - it was its raison d'être - it had no other purpose
The effects of this objective were felt immediately after the vote was taken; a sharp rise in racist incidents, a steady rise of open displays of racism - culminating in Britain now being put of a war footing to keep refugees fleeing from our wars out
To keep these incidents apart from Brexit is to rip the heart out of this discussion
I shall continue to post my thoughts to this thread and hope no censorious hand prevents me from doing so
Happy New Year all; or most of you! (New Year Resolution not to be nice to Nazties
Jim
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-eu-citizens-xenophobia-racism-police-bracing-march-2019-article-50-a8590921.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:12 AM

Life is more complicated than that, Iains. You also have the selection of which facts you choose to report and the way in which you report them. An entirely factual report can - and frequently is - spun to tell a story to match an opinion. Guido does this all the time, as do many others. If A and B both occur, reporting just A, just B, A as if it causes B and A as if it is caused by B are four distinctly different 'factual'stories.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:22 AM

"Keeping foreigners out of Britain was the sole objective of Brexit - it was its raison d'être - it had no other purpose"

Sorry Jim, but that's completely wrong.

The sole purpose of Brexit was, and is, to allow a small number of immensely wealthy individuals, families, and businesses to avoid becoming subject to the EU Anti-Tax-Avoidance and Evasion regulations which come into force in, IIRC, May 2019, and which would, amongst other things, make them pay tax in the country in which their income and profits are earned.

The rabidly xenophobic Leave campaign was the carefully thought-out tool which those with everything to gain from Leaving used to persuade the easily-influenced, the feeble minded, the disenfranchised, and the Union-Flag-wavers - those with little or nothing to gain - to vote for a result which would guarantee the ability of that small cadre of immensely wealthy people to continue their Tax-Avoidance activities.

The fact that the end of March 2019 is the date set for our departure from the EU is no coincidence, it is essential in order that those who drove, and are still driving, the Leave campaign - the tax-exiles (some not even British!) and tax-avoiding businessmen who give the Tory Party its instructions, and who gave Haddock-Face, Bozo, and Gove The Little Scottish Viper their direction in the Leave campaign - are able to continue to avoid paying taxes in this country on their vast earnings in this country.

Never, in the field of U.K. Politics, have so many been so successfully deceived by so few.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:33 AM

I somewhat agree, Backwoodsman. The xenophobia was a useful tool of the Leave campaign, rather than the prime reason.

Where I differ is that I don't think there was a sole reason. Taxation was a factor, but not the only one. The ability to increase profit by dropping some of the EU regulations was another, and that is largely independent of taxation.

Leavers are in a far better position to say why they voted as they did, but I am fairly confident that there is no single reason that would have given a majority: that came from a number of different reasons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:46 AM

You could be right, Mac, but I think the role of the Tax-Avoiders/Evaders - the Murdochs, Rothermeres, and others (e.g. Rees-Mogg, Redwood and their kind) - should not be underestimated. There are dark forces, very dark forces indeed, afoot in, and behind, the corridors of The Palace of Westminster.

Telling their target-voters to vote Leave because they want to carry on stashing their wealth in tax-havens wouldn't work, would it? But "Look out, that foreigner's coming to steal your job/benefits/overload the NHS/overturn UK law and replace it with Sharia/groom and rape your daughters" certainly did.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:47 AM

"Sorry Jim, but that's completely wrong."
We..eeel !!!
Think I ma have put it badly

No argument with what you say about the reason for them in charge to leave Europe - of course it is as you say - all moves such as this are motivated by such reasons.
I'm referring to why the idea was taken up by a significant enough minority of the population to be passed
It was sold and bought on a racist ticket - a classic case of divide and rule

Whether rabid ranters such as the one strutting his stuff on the other thread like it or not, Britain is now a solidly multi-racial and multi-cultural society - in essence, it always has been - Britain could never have become as wealthy and powerful as it did without having to ponce off other nations and cultures - "The Empire on which the sun never sets, they called it ("and the blood never dries", they usually forgot to add)
The incoming of the ex colonials after the fall of the Empires was inevitable - it provided the great and good with a perfect scapegoat to maintain power - while we were fighting each other we were ignoring what they were doing

Things like Brexit never have a singe purpose
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

Nicely cross/posted Mac
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 05:39 AM

This is a perfect example of how this garbage is used
From the bginning, this feller has been insisting - abusively - that immigration has nothing whatever to do with Brexit
Now, in one mighty bound, he's out of his closet in full Tommy Robinson mode - from taking our jobs and houses and a drain on the health service to Sharia Law - The Full Monty
It's long been acknowledged that The National Health Service would have collapsed without immigrant Labour, Immigrants have been a benifit to, not a drain on British society
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 07:57 AM

"From the bginning, this feller has been insisting - abusively - that immigration has nothing whatever to do with Brexi"

would you care to point out where? or is it yet another "once upon a time" jimmie story? Go on! try to prove me wrong!

I believe the argument is about uncontrolled immigration. This is probably a proposition a little too subtle for you. You really do spout some rubbish at times. What on earth has sharia law got to do with the subject? How many more bits of other threads are you going to drag in to pad out your ludicrous postings?
Migration figures are notoriously difficult to calculate, for illegal immigrants it is pure guesswork.
Jack Dromey, Deputy General of the Transport and General Workers Union and Labour Party treasurer, suggested in May 2006 that there could be around 500,000 illegal workers. He called for a public debate on whether an amnesty should be considered. Analysis suggests that if the migrants granted amnesty were given access to healthcare and other benefits, the net cost to the exchequer would be £5.530 billion annually. As the food industry claims to feed around 10 million more than the official figures show, the estimated cost of an amnesty could be considerably higher. We are very lucky we live in a society where roadside ID checks are not the norm, as in the Irish Republic. The downside is that an unknown number of ghost illegal immigrants exist under the radar.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 08:38 AM

"Sorry Jim, but that's completely wrong."
Nope - been there, done that
a search of "leftie garbage" should do the trick
Here isn't and has never been "uncontrolled immigration" - a racist myth
If there had, Britain and all wealthier countries would be crammed full of immigrants seeking a better life
If my points are ludicrous, they should be easy to shoot down - "I see no drones", as Nelson would have said if he'd been around
We owe the third World big time - we manipulated their economies, their politics and their cultures to serve the Empire and we made sure the former Colonies were in 'A safe pair of hands' when we left - what is happening now in Pakistan is as good as example as any of the mess we left behind

Morally, we should be committed to accepting refugees from dictatorships we helped to set up and continued to support with arms and money - our contradictory attitude to The Arab Spring is another pretty good example of our indifference and self interest

As far as economic migrants are concerned, we fill our shops with goods produced under near-slave conditions, and so become part of those horrific conditions.

You mentioned Sharia Law - an abhorrent practice, but no less horrific than letting Christian clergymen loose to rape children - very few religious groups can take the high-ground when it comes to the treatment of women
These practices will only end when action is taken within the societies, and that will be don by persuasion and international encouragement, not using them as a weapon to besmear and eject foreigners from Britain, as your lot constantly do

Roadside ID checks - Hitler must be tap-dancing in his bunker - what a frighteningly nasty brave new world you aspire to
This mornings 'Times' (Irish edition) welcomes the fact (in large headlines) that 10,000 people gained Irish citizenship here last year - beats 'Rule Britannia' any day of the week   

Feel free to deal with any of these suggestions in as much detail as you wish, but do so as an adult with a modicum of intelligence that has been, so far missing from your postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 08:40 AM

That should have begun "would you care to point out where? " - thought I'd copied and pasted it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 09:21 AM

Jim is right about 'uncontrolled immigration'. It's one of those weasel phrases.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 10:03 AM

There is no "uncontrollled immigration". The last time we had uncontrolled immigration was in the dark ages, when the anglo-saxons came over. And the point about the "immigrant workers" is that they are workers. They are working and contributing to society, both through their productivity and through their taxes, which mostly they pay.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 11:08 AM

Keeping foreigners out of Britain was the sole objective of Brexit - it was its raison d'être - it had no other purpose
The effects of this objective were felt immediately after the vote was taken; a sharp rise in racist incidents, a steady rise of open displays of racism - culminating in Britain now being put of a war footing to keep refugees fleeing from our wars out

Okay. Jim finally made a statement that makes sense as to why immigration is a component of Brexit - certainly Farage had his eye on excluding a whole group of people we know he has abhored and discriminated against for years when he got behind the vote.

But this doesn't mean that the whole conversation can or should shift over to the topic of immigration. And stop the name calling and insults. I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks that don't further the conversation but do ratchet up the anger.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 01:04 PM

Thanks for that S.L.R.
New Year's Res - must try harder
Happy New Year
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 01:19 PM

"
Feel free to deal with any of these suggestions in as much detail as you wish, but do so as an adult with a modicum of intelligence that has been, so far missing from your postings
Jim Carroll "

Rather difficult when my response is promptly deleted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 01:31 PM

If your remarks were part of an off topic scrum, they were eliminated. Trying to keep to just one Brexit thread means keeping this one on the rails. Play nice.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 01:53 PM

Leave obtained 1.8 percent over the magical fifty mark. Now suppose that that just a little more than that majority had voted remain instead. Let's say two percent of the total voting electorate. That swing would have left remain the winnner. Now is anyone really going to argue with me that fewer than two percent of the voting electorate were racist, xenophobic ignoramuses? The conclusion must be obvious: anti-immigration sentiment won the referendum for remain. It was always there in spades anyway and was exploited extremely cynically, dishonestly and successfully by the leave campaign. Disagree and you're in cloud-cuckoo land. By the way, the proportion of immigrants who claim state benefits is tiny when set alongside the numbers of native Brits who do so. In my mum's care home Elena from Italy and Emilia from Romania (to take just two examples from many) are wonderful, enthusiastic and beautiful women who are over-qualified and who have come here to WORK. Their wages are low and they have to sign up for weekend and shift work. I don't know where we'd be without them and tens of thousands of others like them. I think we may be about to find out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

"Now is anyone really going to argue with me that fewer than two percent of the voting electorate were racist, xenophobic ignoramuses?"
A little more fundamental than that Steve
A survey carried aout a little over two years ago (published in The Daily Mail, of all places) suggested that between a half and on third of the British population held and had expressed racist views
That is not to say they were active racists, of course they aren't.
Active racism is growing, but it is still a tiny minority who are prepared to act on their prejudices
We (my generation certainly) were conditioned to dislike, distrust or denigrate foreigners we even SANG ABOUT IT IN OUR SCHOOL SERVICES uny=ti it was removed from the hymn books
It is this passive racism that the Brexiteers drew from

It happened here in Ireland recently when a Presidential candidate, PETER CASEY , drew on the Irish hatred and fear of Travellers and managed to push up his vote from nowhere to 22%, and Ireland hasn't got a real race problem
Both depressing an frightening to learn what lies just below the surface
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 03:12 PM

Steve I would not argue with your suppositions, but I would take issue on one point. Immigration has been a fact of life in the UK for many decades and has presented no real problems. In fact in the 50's immigration was encouraged from the West Indies to swell the labour force. Modern Immigration is now on a scale that impacts the low skilled. Surplus labour creates low wages and zero hours contracts. This is one of the many drawbacks of capitalism. Both Labour and Conservatives could have legislated against the more severe impact of these realities but chose not to. I wonder why not? It was also labour that ceased to keep checks on aliens departing the UK, as a result thousands exist illegally under the radar further depressing unskilled wages. Trying to explain the loss of the referendum on a minority racist,xenophobic ignoramuses voting is insulting all those that voted for other reasons. When are you going to accept you lost. I am surprised you do not blame it on Putin as well.
There is yet another problem in Europe:
Yanis Varoufakis The Euro Has Never Been More Problematic 16th November 2018

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 05:51 PM

"Surplus labour creates low wages and zero hours contracts."

This is simply not true, and, worse, it is one of the stock racist excuses for keeping immigrants out. Low wages are created by employers paying low wages because they can. Get it? Zero-hours contracts are created by unscrupulous employers who have bought into the Tory lie of the "flexible labour market." Yes there is a minority of workers who put on a brave face to say that those contracts suit them. The truth is that those contracts are one of the most iniquitous developments of modern capitalism, the legacy of the emasculation of the trade unions, started by Thatcher and gleefully perpetuated by New Labour. Corbyn's Labour has promised to get rid of zero-hours contracts. I disagree with almost everything that Corbyn is doing apropos of brexit, but that's one thing I mightily applaud.

Subject: RE: Brex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

There's a lot of racism of one sort or another in society.

I rather suspect there were a fair few among the Remain vote who were to some extent racist. But they still saw enough reasons to vote to stay in the EU to decide t

And the same would apply the other way, people who weren't in any way racist who had other reasons to vote Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 02:16 AM

Surplus labour creates low wages and zero hours contracts.

I think is intended to be a version of "the law of supply and demand". If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls. If the demand exceeds supply the price rises.

But that is only an approximation to the rule. You need to add in the clause "until some constraint is reached." You can't increase production of widgets indefinitely: you run out of factory space or skilled staff or raw materials. Even if you can't satisfy the demand. And the same is true in the case of labour: things like the minimum wage act as constraints. As can, or could, laws about zero hour contracts.

It is worth remembering that the minimum wage is not about the government being nice. It is about reducing the amount the government would otherwise have to spend on benefits by making the employer shoulder a reasonable part of the burden, rather than take more profit and pass the costs onto the country as a whole.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 03:55 AM

"There's a lot of racism of one sort or another in society.
"
It's artificial to allot racisim to any social group - it runs through our society like Blackpool runs through rock
Active groups have divided into two camps,
The Tommy Robinson/Nigel Farage crowd who have taken it onto the streets, formed parties (Robindon has about six to his credit(sic) and Farage will no doubt form another now that his creation has been laughed off the political scene
The other (looney left, no doubt!) side have formed anti-racist groups to actively oppose it
As for a large section of the population, it lies dormant to be drawn on when needed by them upstairs
Powell tried his hand at it and became an embarrassment to the establishment, was kicked out and sought refuge with the Sectarian Unionists of Northern Ireland
Interestingly, some of the Sectarian paramilitaries in the North, finding time on their hands following The Troubles, turned their hand to targetting the homes of immigrants DETAILED SURVEY HERE

I have no doubt that racism is rife among the upper echelons of society, but they have learned to use it wisely rather than to have it emblazoned on their T-shirts (or dress shirts, as the case may be)
Brexit was a perfecct example of the skilful use of racism, as was Trump and Orban.... et al
It might have given us a vicious, talentless, no-mark right-wing President had not most of the Irish people seen though Peter Casey
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 04:56 AM

I agree with what you say, Kevin, but my point was that it would have taken just two percent of the voting electorate to vote leave wholly on the grounds of racism/ xenophobia/anti-immigrant to swing the vote in favour of leave. Utterly without evidence, I contend that that is highly likely to have been the case. Just another argument against referendums, I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:21 AM

You could put it even more strongly, Steve. Of the 52% that voted Leave, 48% could have voted the same way with never a racist thought in their entire lives, and that 2% of racists *could* swing the result. I say could because some of them would still have voted Leave on other grounds.

And I point that out because Remainers are often accused of labelling all Leavers as racist. Not so - it just needed a minority to affect the result.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Agreed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 07:22 AM

Before Jim claims there is no racism or prejudice in Ireland again, have a look at the comments page here. I selected this one as an example:

"Saw a few Muslims wearing Burkas today. Scary stuff"

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-refugees-2-2982893-Sep2016/

The Bank of England did a detailed survey using statistical measures on the effect of immigration on wages and found that only in certain areas of work was there a negative outcome, something like 1% per 10% of immigrant workers in unskilled/semi-skilled areas. They worked on a supply and demand model.

However, arrangements have already been made to allow temporary immigration in some less popular areas eg seasonal farming work. With a Tory government it would not be reasonable to expect wages to go up after Brexit. In fact if you include holiday pay and other things, one of their big reasons for coming out is less regulation.

Take the care secton, where there is a lot of use of immigrant workers, low pay poor conditions and poor services are well rehearsed features of the system, but I see no prospect of these improving as nobody seems able to pay for it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 07:44 AM

"Before Jim claims there is no racism or prejudice in Ireland again, have a look at the comments page here."

Karen, I might be being a bit thick, but my understanding is that Jim has consistently said precisely the opposite - especially in terms of racism against the Traveller community?

Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:07 AM

It might have given us a vicious, talentless, no-mark right-wing President had not most of the Irish people seen though Peter Casey.

Though that would have been embarrassing,Irish presidents are basically just decorative, but without any significant power. A very sensible arrangement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:21 AM

You are of course, right Baccy
There is racism in Ireland, and not just with Travellers (who's treatment verges on ethnic cleansing)
It would be complacent to suggest otherwise

The incoming of immigrants has raised the level of prejudice here, but not seriously - yet - I think I mentioned the welcoming ceremony for the new citizens a couple of days ago - tends to be the way things are in general
In the main, Ireland is an extremely welcoming country, but since the shenanigans pulled the teeth from the Celtic Tiger, things have toughened somewhat and Goldman-Sachs buying up of rented property and selling to to the better off have made things a damn sight worse - a breeding ground for scapegoating and racist resentment
According to the Jewish community here, they have met with nothing but friendliness since they first started to settle in Ireland after the war
We'll have to run very fast and a long way before we catch up to the UK though

Farage held an Anti-Europe meeting a few months ago in Dublin - so far, no effect; let's wait and see.
Would be very grateful if you kept in in a cage back there
It is now reckoned that most European Countries now have a Farage waiting in the wings
Happy days are here again eh
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:21 AM

.........This is simply not true, and, worse, it is one of the stock racist excuses for keeping immigrants out. Low wages are created by employers paying low wages because they can.

This is one of the many drawbacks of capitalism. Both Labour and Conservatives could have legislated against the more severe impact of these realities but chose not to. I wonder why not?
'Twould appear I get it rather faster than your goodself!

To turn your own argument around it could be argued that in a normal population 15.7% are below average intelligence and 6.4% Cognitively impaired. Therefore a valid argument would be that 22.1% of the electorate probably had no idea what they were voting for and what way they voted is anybodies guess. Trying to argue a minority of a certain mindset stole the referendum is pure hokum, as you very well know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZO9JGSScMQ

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:40 AM

Showing videos like that is despicable - are you seriously suggesting it represents anything other than a poor individual with communication difficulties ?
Crap - utter despicable crap
Developing articulacy has nothing to do with intelligence and far more to do with education which is more and more being put out of reach of those who are unable to afford it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:56 AM

Have a look at this, and then argue that bad jobs and conditions are caused by immigrants:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/01/newcross-healthcare-ex-employee-cut-throat-culture-fines-sick-staff

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 09:23 AM

HERE KAREN
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 10:12 AM

I am completely baffled that people don't see 'racism' as part of Brexit, though I do accept that the ethnocentrism and anti-Europeanism which gave rise to the contemptuous and contemptible use of words like 'Grog' 'Eyetye' 'Dago' may not strictly speaking be "racist". Similar enough in many cases.

Jingoism is not a 'thick working class' thing, as sometimes implied; an academic historian tried to convince me the other week that the only thing the Victorians admired which was Italian was ancient Rome. So much for the quattrocento and the Renaissance then. The partner of the same person commented on the bad housing described in the novel about refugees in Italy in WW2 was that in England such housing would have been closed down. ANd this demented gibberish came from somebody who had been alive in WW2 and must remember Homes for Heros. Crackpot jingoism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 10:59 AM

Interesting piece by Dan Snow in the Guardian

Brexit is not an end to Britain’s liaison with Europe

May be a bit too optimistic but that is needed at the moment :-)

Enjoy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 11:23 AM

Interesting article DtG, and not much there that I would disagree with. It has been said many times, perhaps not so much recently, we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 12:01 PM

" we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe."
Remains to be seen - the mess that has been created leaves a huge question mark over both
If democracy had anything to do with any of this the people would be aseked to re-conirm this decision based on everything that has emerged - even leading Tories are suggesting this
Over Moggie's dead body, of course - he happily invests his money in Irish funds while wagging the flag fro Britannia, AS WILL MANY BREXITEERS

Patriotism doesn't travel much further than personal financial interests, it would seem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 01:52 PM

https://www.schroders.com/en/uk/private-investor/insights/markets/where-are-the-post-brexit-opportunities-in-europe/

Why link to a financial article written in 2016?

They say a week is a long time in politics. One day can be a long time in financial markets- Remember black Wednesday when Sorus cleaned up?

we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe.

Interesting you say the political construct called the EU. The UK willingly voted for an economic union, the political union slid in by the back door. Yet some still deny the name of the game is a Federal United States of Europe. An interesting race through history below:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html


https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-priorities-2020/news/merkel-calls-for-political-union-to-save-the-euro/


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

Below:Sorbonne speech of Emmanuel Macron - Full text / English version
(a very dangerous man)
http://international.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2017/09/29/macron-sorbonne-verbatim-europe-18583.html

Retaining our sovereignty seems a worthy ideal to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 01:57 PM

I don't have any sovereignty. It makes little difference whether it is exercised by UK, French, German, Polish or other politicians, except that of those choices the UK ones are the ones I trust least. Even if I did have sovereignty, it would be worth giving up for cheaper and better imports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 02:18 PM

Even if I did have sovereignty, it would be worth giving up for cheaper and better imports.

So you would sell your birthright for a mess of pottage?

Think about it next time Armistice comes around:
" tell them of us and say,
For their tomorrow, we gave our today”

and yet you would trade their sacrifice quite happily for baubles!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 02:49 PM

"
Why link to a financial article written in 2016?"
For the same reason you were hauling up articles which went back as far as 2010 nor so long ago
You seem to want things both ways
If Moggie can put his cash in Ireland im sure his fellow "patriots" will be more than happy to do likewise if it keeps their feet on the table
Bit crass to challenge the validity when much af your argument is proudly based on a self-confessed propagandist blogger

So you would sell your birthright for a mess of pottage?"
Meaningless rubbish - the most of our birthright is to make the best of shitty and rapidly deteriorating - go measure the gap between haves and have nots, or see the jobs we and ours are forced to take in order to stay alive - go look at the number of workers living on or below the poverty line despite that fact that they are in work
Are you for real
I bet you sing the National Anthem every time you turn the tele off
You are an anachronism that it would be hard to make up

Birthright - for crying out loud....
Best line since Spitting Image went belly upwards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 03:13 PM

Well we know you are an anglophobic exiled racist jim. You do not have to confirm it each time you post. By the way, what did your father do in the war? I assume, despite your hatred of all things British, you still hold out your hand each time for your British pension. I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 04:02 PM

"I assume.......you still hold out your hand each time for your British pension. I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket."

Why should anyone refuse the pension to which they are entitled by virtue of contributions paid in via NICs over many years of work?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 04:49 PM

Obviously there are many people who see a Federal United States of Europe analogous to that in North America as desirable, and express their hope to achieve that. There are people who would hope for a World Government. There are those who plan for inhabiting Mars. But none of these ambitions are at present close to coming into existence, and they can't come into existence, if they ever do, until a lot of things have changed.

UK membership of the EU in no way involves a commitment to such a project. In fact it is a major block on any developments in that direction. For anyone wishing to achieve a Pan-European state, Brexit is clearly to be desired. The evidence that there is general opposition to a British exit within the EU is evidence that it is absurd to see talk of this dream as anything more than a fantasy in this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:32 PM

That's absolutely right. Sure, the occasional zealot may have called for a United States of Europe or for "ever closer union." Those sentiments have been pounced on, clutching-at-straws style, by brexiteers and their ancestors. But the mass of Europeans don't want that. They comprise patriotic citizens of their own very distinctive countries. If anything threatens their individualism it's globalisation led by massive multinationals, not some bloke sitting in an office in Brussels. And, while we are members, that individualism is protected. We have the power of veto. Once we leave, all that finishes and everything we hate about the potential future of the EU becomes more likely to come about. And we won't have a say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:41 PM

All part of the 'Leave Project Fear' - just like the '70 million Turks queueing up to invade the UK'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 02:20 AM

I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket.

It is an interesting one, that. I have asked a lot of Leavers to say how they will be personally worse off - not the country paying an "exit fee" but actual cash from their own pocket - or longer wait times for the NHS, if only temporarily, etc etc - and, faced with these say "Yes, I embrace these deprivations because of my convictions."

None has done so yet, partly because few can admit to the possibility of being worse off at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:49 AM

There is no point in arguing any of this. The remainers on this forum take a statement like

"this COULD mean that we will be poorer"

and re-interpret this to mean

"this WILL mean that we will be poorer".

but the original statement could also mean

"this COULD mean that we will NOT be poorer"

which COULD mean that we will be the same or even richer.

Three possibilities of which the inconvenient two are ignored.

Why would any intelligent person argue around this?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:08 AM

I think the hard left posting here like to deny reality:

Quotes from Federalists and Pro-Integrationists:
Jean-Claude Juncker - President of the European Commission quotes:

    "When it becomes serious you have to lie."

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

    "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious, I am for secret, dark debates."

    "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"

    "There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law."

    "If it's a 'Yes,' we will say "On we go!" and if it's a 'No' we will say "We continue!">/I>

Viviane Reding - Vice President of the European Commission

    "Strengthening Europe's legitimacy can be best done by turning our Union into a United States of Europe. As in the U.S., we need a two-chamber system for the United States of Europe. A strong political Union with a strong government (the Commission) and two Chambers - the European Parliament and a 'Senate' of Member States."

    "There will be no repatriation of EU powers. It is not our problem, it is not us making the demands. You are either ‘in’ or ‘out’."

    "At Maastricht people wanted to have us believe that we could irreversibly establish a monetary union and a new world currency without creating a United States of Europe at the same time. That was a mistake, and now that mistake needs to be corrected"

    "We must now embark on the road to a United States of Europe."

    “British sovereignty is mainly in their head because they've signed the EU treaty and most business is in Europe.”

    "The most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament. Seventy per cent of laws in this country are co-decided there.”

    "When people ask politicians today “What will become of Europe?” or “Where is European integration heading?”, we usually give an evasive answer. “We don’t want a super state” that is generally the first thing we say. I must admit that I have in the past often resorted to this kind of thing myself.

    "On the basis of a report by the Presidents of the EU institutions, the European Council is currently working on four new stages of integration: a European banking union with central European bank supervision; a European fiscal union with stricter control mechanisms over national budgets and the development of our own European financing capacity; a European economic union, involving a greater degree of joint decision-making on economic, tax, and social policy and finally a political union."

Jose Manuel Barroso - Former President of the European Commission and Former Prime Minister of Portugal

    "The time for piecemeal solutions is over. We need to set our minds on global solutions. A greater ambition for Europe. Today we are at a turning point in our history. A moments when, if we do not integrate further, we risk fragmentation."

    "For the euro area to be credible – and this not only the message of the federalists, this is the message of the markets – we need a truly Community approach. We need to really integrate the euro area."

    "For all of this to work, we need more than ever the independent authority of the Commission, to propose and assess the actions that the Member States should take. Governments, let's be frank, cannot do this by themselves. Nor can this be done by negotiations between governments."

    "We should remember that our Europe is a Europe of citizens. As citizens, we all gain through Europe. We gain a European identity and citizenship apart from our national citizenship."

    "We must also be realistic and recognise that, if Europe is to exert its influence fully, if Europe really wants to be a power, we must strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It must be credible. It must be based on a common security and defence dimension if we are really to count in the world."

    "Certain forms of intergovernmentalism could be the death of the united Europe we wish for."
Posted byu/[deleted]3 years ago
Quotes from Federalists and Pro-Integrationists

Jean-Claude Juncker - President of the European Commission

    "When it becomes serious you have to lie."

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

    "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious, I am for secret, dark debates."

    "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"

    "There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law."

    "If it's a 'Yes,' we will say "On we go!" and if it's a 'No' we will say "We continue!"

    “You would not create a European army to use it immediately”

Viviane Reding - Vice President of the European Commission

    "Strengthening Europe's legitimacy can be best done by turning our Union into a United States of Europe. As in the U.S., we need a two-chamber system for the United States of Europe. A strong political Union with a strong government (the Commission) and two Chambers - the European Parliament and a 'Senate' of Member States."

    "There will be no repatriation of EU powers. It is not our problem, it is not us making the demands. You are either ‘in’ or ‘out’."

    "At Maastricht people wanted to have us believe that we could irreversibly establish a monetary union and a new world currency without creating a United States of Europe at the same time. That was a mistake, and now that mistake needs to be corrected"

    "We must now embark on the road to a United States of Europe."

    “British sovereignty is mainly in their head because they've signed the EU treaty and most business is in Europe.”

    "The most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament. Seventy per cent of laws in this country are co-decided there.”

    "When people ask politicians today “What will become of Europe?” or “Where is European integration heading?”, we usually give an evasive answer. “We don’t want a super state” that is generally the first thing we say. I must admit that I have in the past often resorted to this kind of thing myself.

    "On the basis of a report by the Presidents of the EU institutions, the European Council is currently working on four new stages of integration: a European banking union with central European bank supervision; a European fiscal union with stricter control mechanisms over national budgets and the development of our own European financing capacity; a European economic union, involving a greater degree of joint decision-making on economic, tax, and social policy and finally a political union."

Jose Manuel Barroso - Former President of the European Commission and Former Prime Minister of Portugal

    "The time for piecemeal solutions is over. We need to set our minds on global solutions. A greater ambition for Europe. Today we are at a turning point in our history. A moments when, if we do not integrate further, we risk fragmentation."

    "For the euro area to be credible – and this not only the message of the federalists, this is the message of the markets – we need a truly Community approach. We need to really integrate the euro area."

    "For all of this to work, we need more than ever the independent authority of the Commission, to propose and assess the actions that the Member States should take. Governments, let's be frank, cannot do this by themselves. Nor can this be done by negotiations between governments."

    "We should remember that our Europe is a Europe of citizens. As citizens, we all gain through Europe. We gain a European identity and citizenship apart from our national citizenship."

    "We must also be realistic and recognise that, if Europe is to exert its influence fully, if Europe really wants to be a power, we must strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It must be credible. It must be based on a common security and defence dimension if we are really to count in the world."

    "Certain forms of intergovernmentalism could be the death of the united Europe we wish for."

Jacques Santer - Former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and former Chairman of the European People’s Party

    "We Christian Democrats in the European People’s Party want the European Community to become a United States of Europe."

Romano Prodi - EU Commission President

    “Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers. I have executive powers for which there is no other name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government”

Helmut Kohl - Former German Chancellor

    "We want European Union, a United States of Europe."

    "In the next 2 years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight”

    “The process of Union is like the Rhine flowing into the sea. Anyone who stands in its way is crushed”

Angela Merkel - Chancellor of Germany

    "The ideal of European unification is still today a question of war and peace.”

    "I believe we will come to it step by step. The process of handing over authorities to a unified European department will take 20-30 years."

    “In the European Union we have to come closer to the creation of a European army.”

Joschka Fischer - German Foreign Minister

    “Transforming the European Union into a single state with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age.”

    “The creation of a single European state bound by one European constitution is the decisive task of our time”

Guy Verhofstadt - Former Prime Minister of Belgium, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament (The group the LibDems are in.)

    "We are at a crossroads, are we becoming the UN of Europe or are we becoming the US of Europe?

    "Are we becoming a loose confederation as the Eurosceptics want? With the nation states in the driver seat and without any real European Integration coordination and solidarity. Or we become this federation, this political and economic union that we absolutely need." Video

    The constitution was rejected last year by France and the Netherlands do you think the constitution should be revived or should we start from scratch? "No, no I think that we have to continue the ratification process because that keeps the pressure on the European Institutions and the European leaders to continue European integration." You would disregard the votes in France and the Netherlands? "That is there responsibility." Video

    "That is the real problem colleagues, why there is such a real problem in this crisis because member states are reluctant to transfer new soveriegnty and powers to the European Union and we all know that the only way out of this crisis is a new transfer of powers to the European Union and to the European Insitutions." Video

    "We have now a diplomatic service… but we also need a European army."

    "We need to go forwards to the United States of Europe."

Franco Frattini - Former Italian Foreign Minister

    “It is a necessary objective to have a European army”

Matteo Renzi - Prime Minister of Italy

    "I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe."

Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention

    We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes. "

Arnold Toynbee - Historical researcher and founding father of the EU

    "We are working discreetly ........ and all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."

Raymond Barre, former French Prime Minister

    "I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account."

Jean Monnet Founder of the European Movement (One of the EU's 'Founding Fathers')

    "Europe's nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

    "The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:14 AM

"Well we know you are an anglophobic exiled racist jim. "
You know no such thing
I detest or mistrust most English politicians
I would be as much wasting my time asking you to back your claims up with afacts as I have in th past asking you to produce evidence for all your claims
Your "bogtrotting Irish" racism is so regular as to need no backing up
"There's always something there to remind us" as the song once said

Once more, your expected abuse is a filler-in for the fact that you are unable to respond to the points made about you heavily clichéd flag wagging - regular and as expected as number 10 buses

What did my father do in the war ?
He spent a couple of years recuperating from the serious wounds he received wound's and a horrific year in a Spanish jail after setting out to fight fascism while the English authorities were appeasing "Herr Hitler" and King Edward the 8th (would have been) was teaching the Royal family the Nazi salute
When he finally recuperated, he spent the next ten years as a Navvy because MI5 blacklisted him as a "premature anti-fascist" as those heroes came to be known

His brother, my Uncle Jerry, a decorated war hero who was traumatised when he was sent to Germany to open up the extermination and slave camps financed and run by German Industrial right-wing capitalism, became a regular Commando and was disciplined for refusing to obey the British Army's orders to go to Greece to train Fascist fighters in the Greek Civil War

I would wish on everybody the same pride I still feel for my family's dedication to humanity
Far more 'patriotic' and human than the pathetic flag-wagging that now passes fro being "British" - heroes all, as far as I am concerned
Why do you ask ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:16 AM

Ah, the Nigel defence.

It is not about what will or could or might happen. It is about you saying something like "Even if it means I or my loved ones have to suffer X that is a price I am prepared to pay." In the medical case that might mean suffer a painful medical condition for months longer than would otherwise, for instance. My half brother - a strong Leaver- keeps reminding us of what our parents and grandparents went through 'to be free of German domination.' 'They risked their lives and those of loved ones. So what are you prepared to risk?' Answer comes there none.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:22 AM

Three possibilities of which the inconvenient two are ignored.

Yes, Stanron. Three possibilities of which only the one that says we will be poorer is backed up by almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself.

Why would any intelligent person argue around this?

Well, yes. Exactly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

The fact, and as a fact it is questionable, that lots of people make a mistake does not stop it being a mistake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

If anything threatens their individualism it's globalisation led by massive multinationals,

Where do you think the ultimate destination of globalism resides?
Do you not think European Federalism is merely a stepping stone to an eventual world government?

Other events are afoot.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was launched by a UN Summit in New York on 25-27 September 2015
According to some the above declarations have some nasty stings in their tale. Beware that weasel word sustainability!
The significance of a world government in the process of globalization in the 21
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-02-13/secretary-general%E2%80%99s-remarks-world-government-summit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:55 AM

The fact, and as a fact it is questionable, that lots of people make a mistake does not stop it being a mistake.

So, Stanron, what do you have to offer by way of evidence that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself are wrong on this while you are right? This is what this thread has been about from the start. If you believe we will be better off, let us in on your insider knowledge. Up to now all the pointers indicate that we will be worse off. What makes you so optimistic?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:08 AM

A world government would be fantastic. But its not on the agenda. The link you give is a theoretical analysis of how it might work if people agreed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:13 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: So, Stanron, what do you have to offer by way of evidence that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself are wrong on this while you are right?

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:25 AM

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

From The Economist

From The Caterer

From CNN

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such links. I have yet to see any saying we will be better off.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:26 AM

I understand from a friend this morning that one of the first effects of Brexit will be that those wishing t visit Australia will be forced to take out medical insurance

Not even the good grace to respond to the answers I gave Iains
How expected !
Far from being the Anglophobe and racist you describe me, I am extremely proud of what my family of British citizens did for their country, while the people you represent and admire dragged its name into the mire prior to the war and continue to keep the spirit of race hatred and bigotry alive and kicking up to the present day   
I trust we will never see this accusation ever again
Rule Britannia - pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 06:59 AM

As there has been no answer to my question, by someone who expressed self-righteous outrage that a UK National, living in Ireland, should have the temerity to accept the UK State Pension, I'll ask again - why should anyone refuse a pension to which, by dint of contributions via NICs over many years of work, they are perfectly entitled?

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 08:36 AM

"What stunning advice for little jimmie to follow!"
Sorry - forgot one
Three in one posting - you excel yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:34 AM

Can I make something clear here Karen
I have no great objection to occasional outbursts of temper, most of us do it at one time or another
Iains has developed abuse into a technique for avoiding arguments he can't handle from the first thread he posted on, go look - I doubt if you can find he hasn't done this on
I got so fed up with being abused by him at one stage, I began to paste them up and post them on the relevant thread - they numbered into the twenties and thirties on some threads on occasion- in all, I would guess they amount to the several hundreds .   
Each time I put them up, he calms down a little, but come the next problem, he starts over again
I really have had enough - I don't mind strong argument - I welcome it, but Iain's personal abuse has got beyond a joke - time for it to stop once and for all before more threads get closed
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:41 AM

You insult Jeremy Corbyn all the time, Iains.

As for Juncker, a couple of things. First, you gave no sources for your quotes and I imagine that a bit of context for a good few of them might have provided a bit of gloss that you didn't supply. Second, the President of the Commission has no powers to execute any of his aspirations. Only elected members of the European Parliament can do that, and we have considerable powers of veto. Generally, the EU is run by consensus and one man spouting his hopes means not a lot really.

Stanron, you'd make a damn good climate change denier too.

Oh no...don't tell me...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:43 AM

Juncker et al is what I meant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:46 AM

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?
I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

From The Economist
The link does not refer to "almost 100% of economists". It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%

From The Caterer
This page does not give a forecast for Brexit, it details costs already incurred, and plans currently being laid.

From CNN
This page deals (mainly) with the expected results if we follow Mrs May's deal, which does not have much support from those who voted Brexit, as it does not get us 'out'.
It does go on to give forecasts for a 'no-deal' Brexit, but based on the prognostications of the Bank of England. A department which has so far failed to cover itself in glory with its predictions.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such links. I have yet to see any saying we will be better off.
If your hundreds, or thousands, of such links are of the same standard it is hardly worth bothering, as they do not support your statements.
__________________________________________

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:59 AM

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Well that is certainly a start, Nigel, but it is a long way of identifying any personal hardship, staring it in the face, and saying "If needs be, I will pay that." We know the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS has fallen because of Brexit and immigration policies . Are you willing to say to friends and family I know this is delaying your treatment but I think it a price worth paying?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions' which appear to be cherry-picked (some might say nit-picked) to suit their personal agenda.

Words like 'cloud', 'cuckoo', and 'land' spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.

Now, how about any links whatsoever detailing or even forecasting any of these possible long term benefits that you can see. Or could I borrow your rose tinted specs?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:16 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.
Hardly 'nitpicking'. You selected three links to support your argument, and they do not do so. Some, such as Backwoodsman: "I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions'" might not choose to actually read the links but to assume that they support your argument.
If there are several thousand such links available, why not provide the ones which actually support your contentions?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:34 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.

I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.

Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

You have obviously ignored the warnings first time round and give not sign of changing your mind if we were to repeat them.

You seem to think there is a better world to be had if the UK leaves the EU.

What we have consistently asked for is some backing for your viewpoint. To date you have signally failed to post such.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.
I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.
Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

Try reading what I wrote. I am not asking to be shown more links to guesses of what might happen when/if we leave the EU. As you rightly say, I can read these anywhere.
What I was asking was that, if links to external articles are used to back up arguments being made here, then they should show support for the argument being made. The three links given by Dave:
Stanron: What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

Dave the Gnome:I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

Do the links support the viewpoint that: "almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you (Dave) say they say?"

My post was not even showing a pro/anti Brexit bias. It was asking that an honest form of discussion be used when giving links.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:10 PM

The good thing about this thread, including the tone of some of the debate, is that it shows the fractures that exist within the UK, which have been exacerbated, though probably not created, by Cameron's decision to hold a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:25 PM

Yes they do, Nigel. Now try doing a bit of work yourself and doing a Google search. Better still, provide us with some links that support your optimism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:28 PM

Oh,and it wasn't an honest form of discussion at all. It was a blatant diversion away from the honest discussion on Btexit in one of your usual attempts to avoid the main issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:30 PM

The welfare state is buggered whatever. It needs taxation, which this government reduces.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

It's worse than that, Karen. Not only are they reducing taxation, one of the main drivers for brexit is so their rich puppet masters can use the UK as a tax haven once the EU tightens up avoidance legislation. And the turkeys that voted for Christmas are still trying to justify it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 01:40 PM

"It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%"

May I nitpick the nitpicker? If 51% of economists say a thing, and you then claimed that "most economists" had said it, you would be seriously misrepresenting the position in a tendentious manner. Honest debate dictates that you'd say instead "just over half of economists..." or "a small majority of economists..." or, most honest of all, "51% of economists." "Most economists" would be highly misleading. You have a hundred apples. You tell me that most of your apples are bruised. I examine your apples and find 51 bruised and 49 unbruised. The first thing I'd say to you would be to tell you to stop being such a bloody pessimist. Dunno about anybody else, but I'd have expected at least 70 to 80% to be bruised had you told me that "most" were bruised.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

Nigel has yet to tell us why he feels optimistic for the UK after we leave the EU.

Not once has he addressed that question, not once.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:27 PM

No one will, Raggytash. If it has not happened in 30 months I cannot see it happening now.

Sent you an email on another matter BTW but I dunno if you are in a position to pick it up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

More police for "hard border" in Ireland

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:23 PM

The good thing about this thread, including the tone of some of the debate, is that it shows the fractures that exist within the UK, which have been exacerbated, though probably not created, by Cameron's decision to hold a referendum.

But conservatives held to their promise to the electorate to hold a referendum,unlike Labour who reneged on their promises.
( 20 April 2004 the PM told Parliament it should debate the European constitutional question "in detail and decide upon it" and "then let the people have the final say".He ended the Commons statement with the war-cry: "Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined." Fast-forward to the Labour election manifesto in 2005 and the language is as forthright.
Blair promises: "We will put it [the constitution] to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote."

Also worth noting:
the Labour manifesto in 2017 was a hard Brexit manifesto. It promised to leave the European Union by “accepting the result”, and that “freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union”.
How do our resident lefties square the circle on those little gems?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:40 PM

Not only are they reducing taxation, one of the main drivers for brexit is so their rich puppet masters can use the UK as a tax haven once the EU tightens up avoidance legislation.

Tell me. Why are so many global companies based in Ireland?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-commission-pushes-ahead-with-plan-to-end-unanimity-on-tax-1.3746080 (Synopsis:The ending of unanimity would carry significant risks for Ireland, particularly as the EU continues to discuss plans to come forward with a common tax base for big corporations across Europe and eventually to consolidate collection of this tax. This would threaten Irish corporate tax revenues and would meet strong opposition from the Government and from businesses.)
It would seem the Irish are finally waking up to the realities of being obstructive

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/farming-news/emergency-eu-aid-for-farmers-to-be-sought-for-brexit-fallout-37677

and what about the 13billion that appl was forced to pay in back taxes due to irish shenanigins.
https://www.thejournal.ie/apple-tax-ireland-escrow-3889453-Mar2018/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

Here is the beady eye of guido on the situation:


https://order-order.com/2019/01/03/eu-preparing-clobber-ireland-tax-brexit/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:52 PM

It will probably be required DMcG. It will not only be goods across the border but when the EU tax laws are tightened up there is likely to be a mass migration of tax exiles moving to third world UK!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:33 PM

And while these 1000 police are undergoing training, they cannot be preventing or solving crimes in the rest of the UK. All part of the cost of Brexit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 06:25 PM

True enough, the 2005 Labour manifesto promised to put any EU constitution to the public - but that promise was dependant on their being a ratified constitution, and there wasn't, because it was rejected by the French and Dutch.

Instead we got the Treaty of Lisbon, which wasn't a constitution. It was this Treaty that got initially narrowly rejected in an Irish referendum, but then accepted when presented again for a second referendum with some slight (but significant) adjustments - thus demonstrating that Ireland is a considerably more democratic country in this respect than the UK. Support for EU membership in recent polls in The Republic runs at around 84%.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 07:15 PM

"But conservatives held to their promise to the electorate to hold a referendum,unlike Labour who reneged on their promises."

Well yes, apart from what Kevin has said to correct your perspective about Labour and its promises. But now here's summat. What a bloody stupid promise it was from your lot in the first place. You've forgotten that bit. A complete abnegation of the way our democracy is run. Sniffily praising the Tories, especially the idiotic Cameron, for plunging us headlong into utter foolery may chime with whatever principles you might be adhering to, but some of us are just a tad more interested in the actual wellbeing of the country. Sod your Tory principles and sod the Tory party's ever-present need to stave off its own right-wing and the proto-fascistic UKIP. Apart from one or two of you on here, it's amazing how quiet brexiteers have become about those future "opportunities" of ours. Wot we have patently not got. Unless you know different but wot you are cleverly keeping secret from the worried rest of us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 07:50 PM

Tory promises in a manifesto are worthless. Remember the last one with its firm promises that free TV licences for people over 75 were guaranteed for the whole of the next Parliament? Torn up and forgotten. Hopefully not by those over 75s who have been daft enough to vote Tory previously.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 08:20 PM

Then was was Georgie-boy's 2010 promise that the deficit would be gone by 2015 and Maybot's promise that immigration would be cut to the tens of thousands.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 03:01 AM

And don't forget there will be no general election :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 04:53 AM

Why not just accept Labour lied, as usual? Waffling around the small print fools not a soul. Even your own party supports Brexit.
Below from the official labour website

Where We Stand

Labour's Plan for Brexit
Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU.

More Lies from Labour mayhap?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Broken Tory Promises from May 2017.

A few more with no apologies for redressing the balance.

Enjoy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:33 AM

Isn't it strange how quickly criticising elected politicians stops being unpatriotic ?
Funny old world !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:43 AM

Keep EU referendum promise, MPs tell Brown
"One of Tony Blair's last acts was to renege on a promise and it is almost unbelievable that one of Gordon Brown's first has been to do the same," she writes. "There is still time for Gordon Brown to put this right.(July 2007) That is labour mps talking.
" What a bloody stupid promise it was from your lot in the first place. You've forgotten that bit."
Indeed you have. You just cannot trust Labour, unless economy wrecking is the subject under discussion!






https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558786/Keep-EU-referendum-promise-MPs-tell-Brown.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:53 AM

Chris Grayling awards ferry contract to Nigerian Prince

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:21 AM

Just in case anyone takes Dave's link at face value, here's how the Rochdale Herald describes itself:
Daily news, satire and comment from the world’s worst local newspaper.
The Rochdale Herald is a satirical, spoof, parody commentary on current affairs, and stuff that annoys and amuses us. We make it up and it’s not intended, in any way whatsoever, to be considered factual.
From their own website Here

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:28 AM

JUST IN CAE PEOPLE TAKE NIGEL'S LAST POSTING SERIOUSLY
Keep up Nigel - old news
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:31 AM

Yes, Nigel. And, for the record, The moon is not made of cheese, I am not really a garden ornament and nitpicking does not require the nit nurse.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:38 AM

MORE

Gets even better
MORE STILL
Maybe their planning to export pizzas !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

I expect we all realised that, Nigel, but even spoofs that are not intended to be any way factual rely on references, taken to the extreme, to things that occurred in reality. So the 13m paid to Chess Pizza, for example, refers the terms and conditions of Seaborne being adapted from those for a fast food delivery.

Taking of stating the obvious, Seaborne said those Terms and Conditions were "an error." Yes, we can all see that. But what is this specific error? Is it, for example, that the web developer had two sets of T+Cs, both mentioning Sherborne, one of which was for a takeaway and the other the real set, and somehow he uploaded the wrong set? Or was the error that the board of Sherborne had not p4oduced a proper set of T+Cs? Let's drop this anodyne reference to an error, and spell out what the error really is.

And why were these oddities not spotted in the "thorough" due diligence process undertaken by Grayling's department? The spoof rightly compares that failure - while taking to deliberately absurd extremes - to failing to spot a fake offer from a Prince.

There can be truth in simile and metaphor, you know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

"Green cheese isn't far off the mark Dave
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 06:58 AM

Seaborne, not Sherborne! I visited the town recently so autotext helpfully changed it for me...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 07:14 AM

Once again. There wasn't any existing EU constitution for Labour to to have a referendum about. The one referred to had already been vetoed by two other countries.

There was never any kind of promise to have a referendum about membership of the EU in that manifesto.

Unlike the firm and unambiguous promise I mentioned in Tory referendum of 2017: We will maintain all other pensioner benefits including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 07:58 AM

Having demonstrated what a greedy and dishonest bunch of scrotes the current government are - even by Tory standards - by their Seaborne Freight ferry scam, one could almost be forgiven for believing that this could be genuine...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 08:11 AM

Can't see anything wrong with that Baccie
I'd say she was overqualified, considering their track record - May wants to make sure she doesn't take her job
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 09:11 AM

BWM, you have not pointed out to NP the NP that the link may contain certain inaccuracies. Vengeance will be heaped upon thee! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:21 AM

Labour’s ambiguous Brexit stance is now untenable
I wonder if the fence corbyn sits on is strung with razor wire? You cannot beat a little party unity.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0d676d4-0ead-11e9-b2f2-f4c566a4fc5f

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:22 AM

"BWM, you have not pointed out to NP the NP that the link may contain certain inaccuracies. Vengeance will be heaped upon thee! :-)"

Like I give a FF! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:27 AM

I get all my information from The Daily Mash. Iains gets all his from Guido Fawkes. You decide who is the sillier. Answers on a postcard, please, closing date April 1st.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:49 AM

Ian's, why are you trying to make this a party-issue?

The Tory government decided there would be a referendum. The Tory PM of the day decided to announce that the result would be binding, and on the basis of a simple majority, despite the fact that the standard referendum terms in the U.K. are that referendums require a super-majority.

The current Tory PM decided to press ahead with Brexit, and has steadfastly turned her back on any and every suggestion, including by members of her own Cabinet, that Brexit should be a cross-party project.

Jeremy Corbyn's position on Brexit, indeed the position of the Labour Party itself, is of no consequence - they have no representation on the Brexit team, and no say in the way the process is run.

It's the Tories' project. That's the way they wanted it, so that they could call all the shots and ensure that the true purpose of Brexit - to enable their small but immensely-wealthy cadre of tax-avoiding masters to escape the stringent anti-tax-avoidance regulations being introduced by the EU in mid-2019 - is fulfilled.

The Tories made their bed, it's for them to lie in it. It's got SFA to do with Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems or anyone else. The entire blame for the whole steaming, festering pile of excrement that you feeble-minded, Union-Jack-waving cockwombles were fooled into voting for lies with The Conservative and Unionist Party, no-one else, and they are the ones who should, and will, carry the can in the final analysis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 10:58 AM


The Tories made their bed, it's for them to lie in it. It's got SFA to do with Labour, the SNP, the Lib-Dems or anyone else. The entire blame for the whole steaming, festering pile of excrement that you feeble-minded, Union-Jack-waving cockwombles were fooled into voting for lies with The Conservative and Unionist Party, no-one else, and they are the ones who should, and will, carry the can in the final analysis.

Almost true. Even now I hope I got it wrong and Brexit will turn out to have been a great idea. I can't say I think it likely, but I would still love to be wrong.

If, on the other hand, I am not wrong, then in my view those who fell for the lies take some responsibility as well. But rathermore so those insist they did not fall for any lies and insist they voted for Leave with clear eyes and a full understanding of what it would entail. I don't feel inclined to let them put all the blame on the Tory party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 11:00 AM

He's got you dancing again, lads :-( I thought only Jim was falling for it now but it seems contagious. Now, take a deep breath and repeat 10 times "I will not respond" :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 11:06 AM

I was only responding to Backswoodsman!

One of the clear markers of Brexiteers is that it is always someone else's fault if the dream is not realised. It is May ("She's a Remainer"), or judges ("enemies of the people") or Remainers obstructing things, or the EU ("punishing Britain") or, or, or …

Never anything to do with them.

Sorry, you take responsibility for how you voted, whether it turns out badly or well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 11:38 AM

"I thought only Jim was falling for it now but it seems contagious."
I really have stopped - I heeded what Baccy told me - whoops - what happened there ?
You know what they say - "no sense, no feeling"
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 12:33 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 12:33 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 01:04 PM

Ian's, why are you trying to make this a party-issue?

Do not all mps have a vote? Are labour going to abstain when the vote on treason may's deal is put to the commons

Is it a party issue? Is the pope a Catholic?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 01:29 PM

As usual, you're talking through your hat. The greedy, nasty Tories caused this disaster, it's their responsibility to sort it out. Nothing to do with any of the other parties (except possibly the terrorist arm of the Conservative Party - the DUP).

Deceitful and spineless. You should hang your head in shame (except, of course, you don't have the grace).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 01:49 PM

Sorry DMcG. Just bad timing. My comment was meant much more for Steve and BWM.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 01:58 PM

Sorry Dave, just having a bit of fun. It makes me laugh, the way The Nasty Party and their supporters try to turn every disaster they cause by their own incompetenence and deceit back on the Labour Party. Every question JC asks The Praying Mantis at PMQs is responded to with, "Ah but, ah but, what happened when the Labour Party was in power eight years ago?". Just like our resident Right-Wing Extremist, she never answers a question.

Anyway, time to go out and play some music - have a good weekend.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 02:11 PM

No problem, DtG. Enjoy the music, BWM! I don't have anything planned until Sunday :(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 02:31 PM

"Treason May"
Whatever happened to It's anti British to insult our elected representatives ?
These little Englanders are caricatures
Alf Garnett - where are you when you're needed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 02:44 PM

I agree with Dave the Gnome. It's like watching somebody playing with a Jack in the Box toy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 04:01 PM

Sadly, Jim, whom I respect without agreeing with everything he says, together with his 'temper' (his term), are the Jack in the Box.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:32 PM

Not too much discussion going on here is there - just trading insults.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Jan 19 - 05:51 PM

I saw a brief bit today that UK universities are very concerned about the negative effects that Brexit could have on them.

I'm lacking access at the moment, due in part to the music having my attention.

Perhaps someone could find a link!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 02:11 AM

There is a Guardian article about research projects, staffing etc, EU-based research grants. There is no way the government has the money to replace what the unis seem to have been gaining. But then knowledge is so commodified that once again how far 'we' as opposed to businesses gain is unclear. We'll lose some kudos for sure. And no point in having new cancer treatments unless you can afford the medical fees by the time austerity has finished with the NHS as turned it into a lifestyle advice service as per the aims of the current minister.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/04/a-no-deal-brexit-seriously-threatens-uk-universities

"There are many other serious implications for universities of crashing out of the EU without a deal on 29 March. These span procurement, data protection, the mutual recognition of qualifications and intellectual property. The contribution that universities make to local economies, through employment, services and support for regional supply chains, will also be put in jeopardy. Perhaps most importantly, a no-deal Brexit will compromise the vital research links which benefit wider society, from new cancer treatments to technologies combatting climate change."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 02:15 AM

See also The Independent

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/uk-universities-bust-no-deal-brexit-eu-deal-students-finances-bailout-bankruptcy-a8710216.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 03:05 AM

Don't worry, Karen. Someone really clever will be along in a moment to tell you that "It's a sacrifice worth making" in order to 'Take our country back', 'Regain our sovereignty', 'Break free from being ruled by unelected bureaucrats', 'Escape from the undemocratic EU', or any number of other meaningless slogans and sound-bites.

This popped up on FarceBook this morning (although it's from July 2018) - I didn't see what the doctor is saying written on the side of a red bus in 2016 though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 03:26 AM

"together with his 'temper'
I don't have much of a temper - certainly not publicly - irritation, yes, impatience - certainly...
A little pointless singling individuals out when, as I pointed out, we are all prone to it at times (can't remember it happening with you Karen and I wouldn't mention it if I had - too even tempered (and good-mannered :-)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 06:10 AM

Thought I'd share this brilliant (in my opinion) analysis of Brexit from this morning's Irish Times; I think is sums up the situation perfectly and makes some remarkable comparisons - some nice analogies too 'my precious'
Jim Carroll

The Irish Like What The British hate about Europe

Bobby McDonagh Opinion
The sad reality is that our mental geography is increasingly different and that we are now set on different trajectories

Although Ireland will be deeply affected by Brexit, we have to an extraordinary extent been unaffected by the Brexit debate. The main arguments and fears of the Brexiteers are essentially alien to us. We don’t share their wish to return to an imagined past. Unlike the UK today, we are confident about our ability to promote our interests in the modern interdepend world.
Xenophobia in Ireland is not on anything like the scale we have recently witnessed in the UK. Nor do we share the insularity of the Brexiteers. Quite remarkably, today it is the UK rather than Ireland which, in the words of the song, thanks God it's surrounded by water.

In Ireland and Britain, we increasingly perceive reality in quite different ways.
The reasons a majority in the UK voted to leave the EU are, paradoxically, the very same reasons that an overwhelming majority in Ireland want to stay. This is ttrue of each of the six main arguments of the Brexiteers.

An attachment to sovereignty was the first and major reason put forward for Brexit. We in Ireland, however, under¬stand sovereignty in the 21st century as something to be judiciously shared rather t0han as a tribal token to be protected from the sunlight like Gollum’s ring in The Hobbit. Gollum’s plaintive words, as he looks for the ring, could almost be those of Jacob Rees-Mogg speaking about British sovereignty: “We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses.”

Second, many Brexiteers want to leave the EU because they believe that it will enable Britain to “go global”. Ireland’s desire to be as global as possible, on the contrary, is one of the very reasons we remain committed to the EU. We under¬stand that there is no contradiction between, on the one hand, developing the closest relations with our natural neigh¬bourhood and market and, on the other hand, developing deeper links with the wider word. Indeed we recognise that the EU has the essential negotiating heft to make global reach effective, as reflected most recently in the EU’s major trade deal with Japan.

‘Taking control'
Third, the Brexit slogan about “taking control” was at the heart of the Leave campaign and has echoed across the British public debate ever since. The immense success of that policy has been on daily display at Westminster. Funnily enough, we in Ireland, in common with our other E U partners, are opting to stay in the EU precisely because we want to have control over the issues that affect us. Many issues, from education to health to policing, will, of course, continue to be controlled largely at national level since the EU can only exercise the powers which all member states have agreed to confer on it. Hut in Ireland we understand that if we want to maximise control over the important issues which by definition do not stop at borders - from trade to energy to international crime - these must be addressed on a cross-border basis; and we know the EU remains the most effec-tive cross-border mechanism in the world.

Fourth, many Brexiteers are driven by the idea that they are putting their country first. But so, of course, do we. The real issue is whether national interests are to be defined narrowly and pursued as if the aim is to be masters of our own little world; or whether, as we believe in Ireland, those interests should be defined broadly and pursued in the knowledge that the real world is necessarily one of interdependence, compromise and shared interests.

Fifth, the most emotive argument for some, though not all, Brexiteers has been about keeping foreigners out. In Ireland, we support the principle of free move¬ment of people and welcome the “new Irish” who are building up our economy, enriching our culture and making us proud to be Europeans.

It requires myopia
Finally, many Brexit voters were influ¬enced by the notion of the UK becoming more “independent”. Some even went so far as to call June 23rd, 2016, “Independ¬ence Day”. It requires myopia, when one thinks of say Finland or Lithuania, for any of our British friends to believe that they alone truly value independence. But it reaches full historical amnesia for any British person to believe they need, as Nigel Farage absurdly has done, to remind Ireland of the meaning of independence.
Independence for us is not something to celebrate in lonely isolation; rather it allows us, to use Robert Emmet’s phrase, to take our place among the nations of the earth.
It has become clear that many Irish and British people now have quite different understandings of the world. The sad reality is that our mental geography is increasingly different and that we are now set on different trajectories. The mature Irish response to Brexit may prove to be the most important assertion yet of our psychological independence.

Bobby McDonagh is a former Irish ambassador to the EU, Britain and Italy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 06:28 AM

There is a lot of truth in that Jim. Unfortunately part of the way through it says "developing deeper links with the wider word" which is meaningless: the wider world would have made sense. That will be enough for some to dismiss the entire article (*smile*)

I can't really speak for how the Irish see things, having not visited there for years, but the article does cover some of the differences in how I see things when compared to the Leave rhetoric.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 06:42 AM

It's a very good article, and one which lays bare the short-sightedness and xenophobic attitudes of the Brexit-Brigade - something those driving the Leave Campaign recognised existed amongst the UK's population, and which they had no compunction in harnessing in order to achieve their self-serving aims.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 07:18 AM

And, in a lighter vein, from the pen of Richard Medrington, seen on FarceBook this morning...

An Absurd poem for absurd times

JABBERMOGGY

"Twas brexig, and the slithy gove
    Strategically supported may.
All chumsy were the boris-moves:
    The country’s fate looked grey.

Beware the Jabbermogg my friends!
    Beware the phobious Eeyahrgee!
They pout and spout for their own ends
    And not for you and me.

Dressed in their daily cloaks of mail
    And breastplates of hypocrisy,
They masquerade on Question Time
    As guardians of democracy.

They sing, “Britannia waives the rules!”
    They want to take us back in time
To days that never did exist
    Save in their mothballed minds.

“No deal! No deal!” their reckless spiel,
    “Procure more ships and call their bluff!
Make Brussells wait; no-go-tiate
    Until they’ve had enough.”

Hast thou a plan, O Jabbermogg?
    An actual plan, that we can quote?
‘Cos if you don’t, we hope you won’t
    Oppose a People’s Vote.

‘Twas brexig, and the slithy gove
    Strategically supported may.
All chumsy were the boris-moves:
    The country’s fate looked grey."

Apologies to Lewis Carroll. Thanks to Elspeth Murray for help with word-wrangling and image-mashing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 07:23 AM

"the wider world would have made sense."
Either a typo or a scanning fault - my fault, i'm sure
Doncha love the Gollum comparison - pretty well in line with the brilliant film depiction
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 07:35 AM

You are innocent, Jim (Of that anyway!) The typo is in the original article. And a typo is all it is: anyone can see the intended term. It would be rather desparate if opponents used that as a criticism of the article.

I have shared the link to the original with a few people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 07:37 AM

Chickens are coming home to roost. Whoops! Where is the henhouse?

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/outrage-in-uk-at-irish-plans-to-demand-eu-aid-37679728.html

" Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg responded to the report, claiming: "If we leave without a deal, the main culprit will be the obdurate Irish Government's threats about the phantom Border issue."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 07:40 AM

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg responded to the report, claiming: "If we leave without a deal, the main culprit will be the obdurate Irish Government's threats about the phantom Border issue."


As I said, for Brexiteers it is always someone else's fault. They never accept any responsibility.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 08:03 AM

Regarding the article above, its denial of racism/zenophobia in The Republic seems ill-founded. There seems to be a view that a) incidents are under-reported and b) the legislation of the country is not fit to deal with the problem.

A couple of articles, including one from today's Independent

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/reports-of-racist-incidents-in-ireland-are-on-the-rise-1.2750542

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swastika-synagogue-dublin-ireland-gardai-antisemitism-graffiti-vandalism-a8710381.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 08:28 AM

"Regarding the article above, its denial of racism/zenophobia in The Republic seems ill-founded"
You need to qualify that Karen
The only serious recism in Ireland is towards Travellers
Look at the annual numbers and you will see that, despite the rise, they are actually quite low and very much related to the rise in populish which is emanating largely from the Uk
The Brexiters, in particular Farage, have actually targeted Ireland as their next port of call - so far without success

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg"
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - YOUR NEXT PRIME MINISTER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 09:33 AM

Sorry but your idea of 'serious racism' and mine are plainly different.

Black Irish citizens twice as likely to experience discrimination, for example. That sounds serious to me.

Almost 20% of Irish citizens believe some races are born less intelligent. That sounds serious to me.

Part of the problem appears to be under-reporting and a lack of suitable legislation.

All sources for this can be found from the Irish TImes article I linked in my previous post, which in my mind counts as 'qualified' enough.

So, with respect, I stand by my view that Jim is incorrectly denying that there is 'serious racism' in Ireland. Without getting into aspects of claims relating to the concept of 'celtic' which even some Irish historians have felt veered over the line into racism. Too idle to get the source book downstairs but obviously it figures.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 09:35 AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/he-called-me-the-n-word-i-felt-absolutely-terrible-1.3555524?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fhe-called-me-the-n-word-i-felt-absolutely-terrible-1.3555524


This looks serious to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 12:10 PM

"The only serious recism in Ireland is towards Travellers "

Simply not supported by the facts!
Steady rise in racist incidents being reported by public.Crime and discrimination was experienced by people from 22 ethnic backgrounds


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/steady-rise-in-racist-incidents-being-reported-by-public-1.3659115?mode=sample&au

RepoRts of Racism in iReland - Irish Refugee Council
4th Quarterly Report of iReport.ie. April-May-June 2014

Ethnicity of Victims
A significant number of cases in this period involved racism against people described as Traveller (25%) highlighting a notable increase
in reporting from previous periods. Reports of racism against people identified as Black however remained consistently high, with incidents
against people identifying as Black-African constituting twenty percent of reports, with a further seven percent of reports pertaining to racism against other Black identities. Although twelve percent of reports are reported as happening to White Irish people, all but two were based on visibly mixed ethnicity, racism against someone with whom the victim had a relationship, or ethno-religious prejudices constituting racism. Incidents against Jewish people constituted
ten percent of reports in this quarter, while incidents against Muslims constituted eleven percent, slightly lower than in the last quarter.People of Roma background again experienced 7 percent of cases reported, while the number of cases against people identifying as non-Chinese Asian rose to 11 percent in this quarter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 02:07 PM

The 2014 report HERE
There are seldom reports of racist incidents, certainly no violent ones in the press or the media and we do have a fairly liberal press
No marches or demonstrations, you never see racist graffiti
Of course there's rcism, but it has not reached visibe proportions
The major rise has followed Brexit

The racist backstop here is in the NORTH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 02:07 PM

The 2014 report HERE
There are seldom reports of racist incidents, certainly no violent ones in the press or the media and we do have a fairly liberal press
No marches or demonstrations, you never see racist graffiti
Of course there's rcism, but it has not reached visibe proportions
The major rise has followed Brexit

The racist backstop here is in the NORTH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jan 19 - 05:42 PM

"Of course there's rcism, but it has not reached visibe proportions
The major rise has followed Brexit"
Seeing as Brexit has yet to occur,you are obviously talking rubbish, as well as jumping from the Republic to Northern Ireland. In the Republic your assertion, that after the brexit vote racism increased, is simply incorrect! You are obviously talking about the Republic because your first link was launched in Dublin.

Fact:"Although there have been no reports of an increase of racist incidents in Ireland following the Brexit referendum, there are reports of a constant level of racism present within Irish society. Young, dark-skinned men—especially asylum seekers—seem to be major targets for online abuse on Irish news sites."
(The European Commission: Migrant Integration Information and good practices)
Why do you keep making assertions that are so easily disproved? Have you ever considered checking your facts before posting?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 04:27 AM

YouGov poll on impact of supporting Brexit on Labour

Ok, polls are polls, but the commentary on this is, I think, broadly right. What Labour decides to do (assuming May's deal is voted down) will probably determine its chances of winning the next election. As if often the case, it cannot guarantee to win, but it could guarantee to lose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 05:55 AM

DMcG I do not know why you linked to a yougov survey. According to Jim Carroll (Date: 10 Sep 18 - 08:27 PM )
"- it's a 'survey' from a multi-million stock-exchange marketed company named You-gov with Conservative Party connections whose surveys are all carried out on the internet"
or at least that is the response I received when quoting it one time. My feeling is that like many surveys, it may attempt accuracy,but does not always achieve it.


I suspect labour takes a heartland hammering next time around if they betray brexit. After all brexit support is an integral part of their manifesto, unless they are deceiving their electorate.
What happens after the vote will probably be a sea change of British politics, and Corbyn will be between a rock and a hard place.(as will May)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 06:48 AM

Today's Observer reports a survey showing that 'remain' is now ahead of No Deal by 18 points, but ahead of May's deal by even more. The comment is to the effect that views are polarised, with little chance of agreement. Well done, David Cameron.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 06:53 AM

"This looks serious to me."
Iains has made my point perfectly Karen - no report of an increase of actual attacks but an increase in on-line ones
On line attacks are usually impossible to trace and uantify in terms of people
It takes one organisation to organise say twenty of its computer-owning supporters to start a hate campaign, which then shows up on the figures as a large increase in racist incidents
If Russia can swing Brexit and the US elections, any tinpot 'Blueshit wannabe outfit in Ireland can impact on racism statistics - they have a roving diplomat now in the form of Farage
France is having the same problem now with the rise of Vox
All this can be confidently chalked up to Brexit, which led the way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 07:13 AM

Labour's position on Brexit is total opposition to the May botched deal. Once the deal is voted down, Labour wants a general election. They may get that by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. If that fails, I should think that Labour would support a new referendum. If that happens and the electorate votes to remain, that is NOT the Labour Party "betraying brexit." As a member of the party I feel frustrated that Corbyn has not been far more assertive in setting out the party's stance, and that will come back to bite him. But let's not forget that the party in charge of brexit is the Tory party. There are people here who ridicule and dismiss Corbyn, so I find it odd that they are braying for him to reveal his stance, which you'd have thought would be of no interest to them, at least until he gets power. I have a feeling that increasing numbers of one-time leavers are now losing courage and are secretly hoping for no-brexit. If that is achieved they'll be accusing us of betraying brexit, undermining democracy, etc, whilst at the same time breathing a quiet sigh of relief.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 07:38 AM

As a Labour member as well, I don't find Labour's position quite that clear, Steve. Yes, they oppose May's deal. Yes, they want a general election. But if one is called, what will the manifesto say about Brexit? I fear it might go with this exit-with-a-better-deal-than-may nonsense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 08:20 AM

If Labour is now led by a genuine Socialist, as I believe it might be, they are caught between a rock and a hard place
The E.U. is a collection of capitalist states seeking to make the best of a failing system and that is what they are being asked to support
I very much doubt if I would have voted remain in my more passionate youth - why should I have ever supported an association of states based on a system defending wealth, power, privilege and greed which I find abhorrent ?
I believe supporting stay to be a short term measure - a way to steer the death of a system so that too many people don't suffer
Lets face it, the EU isn't going to do anything to lighten the load on its subjects
As things stand at the moment THIS IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE ON THE TABLE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 09:26 AM

I've just now been discussing exactly that with Mrs Steve, DMcG. Emily Thornberry was asked about it at lunchtime and was utterly unconvincing. "We'd go back to the EU for a better deal and if the people don't like it they can vote us down," etc. Load of old waffle and not what I'd call an alternative.

Jim, no-one is pretending that the EU is the paragon of all that is good in the world. Is unwieldy, gigantist and riddled with absurd policies. However, it insists on democracy, the rule of law and on human rights in all its member states. Countries which abide by those standards rarely go to war with each other and that has proved to be the case. It insists on high standards in food production and animal welfare, better than almost anywhere else. It pushes for better environmental standards. It allows people to move freely to find work and new places to live. Looking at the world today, in which we have dictatorships in huge countries with aggressive tendencies such as China and Russia, a resurgence of the far right in South America and in the US (where democracy itself is under threat) and despotic regimes all kvetch the Middle East, Europe is qlmostbthe last bastion of denocracy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 09:29 AM

Sorry, hadn't finished. Wrong button hit. ...and despotic regimes all over the Middle East, Europe is almost the last bastion of democracy among major political blocs. The fight to overturn capitalism will have to wait. Principles are fine but the urgent interests of this country and the whole of the EU are at stake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 09:39 AM

"However, it insists on democracy"
Not really Steve, it's states pay lip service to democracy jut as we do - how can an an association of capitalist states do other?
The well being of the people of Greece went flying out of the window not so long ago because a democratically elected government couldn't paqy its debts - not muc democracy towards the cradle of democracy there
As far as I am concerned, it's the best thing on offer at the moment - if we forget that we're kidding ourselves
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 10:31 AM

Sorry Steve - I dn't finish either
"The fight to overturn capitalism will have to wait."
It doesn't work like that - nobody has ever "set out to destroy capitalism" and won
Systems die when they have run their natural course and can no longer sustain themselves - both Russia and China are prime examples - both were the result of World wars, though it took longer for the Chinese left to get their act together

All the indications now - increasing poverty in Britain widening of the gap between haves and have nos, the option of take whatever job is on offer or do without, the massive contradiction that, wherever there is work, accommodation is so expensive that workers can't afford to live there, no longer having a base of a national industrial system which means that we can never be self-supporting... are all signs of dying system.
If the people's representatives don't do something about it, there are plenty more that will - enough examples of that - even in the E.U. to show that to be the case
GOOD SONG THIS (DESPITE THE SPELLING MISTAKE
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 11:40 AM

Labour could quite easily get a better deal than May by dropping her absurd red lines. Most of which lines are to the detriment of the British People. Labour could get a BINO deal which us in the Customs Union, Single Market, Euratom, Horizon2020, Erasmus and the ECJ, but we would be out of the EU and everybody would be happy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 11:45 AM

That may have been possible, David C. But the patience of the EU has been worn very thin. It is quite possible they decide they have appeased the UK enough. After all, eventually even if Labour won the next election, in time another Tory government would be in power and want to start all over again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 11:47 AM

I wish David Carter's hopes were well-founded, but I would be surprised if the EU gave up on freedom of movement. And people like Roos Moggie would be furious about the ECJ.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 12:55 PM

The DUP have confirmed they will not accept May's deal and describe it as "Toxic" - no better experts on poison, I suppose!
I suppose this means anther £Billion bung from the taxpayers' coffers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 01:45 PM

Karen,

I do not want to lose Freedom of Movement. I see the efforts of May to give this away, even to insist that is give away, as treason. That is the one red line above all others which I want May to drop.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 01:47 PM

Corbyn of course, would need to stand up to McCluskey, who seems not to value Freedom of Movement for his members, even to denigrate them for desiring it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

Every bloody country calling itself a democracy pays lip service to democracy, Jim, and the EU as a body is no worse than any individual state. In fact, most EU law is achieved by consensus among the 28 (and is NEVER imposed from on high by "unelected bureaucrats,' etc). As I said, there are absurdities and there are certainly instances of democratic deficit, as we saw with Greece (though I doubt that the EU can match Theresa May when it comes to that. Ask Gina Miller. Ask the idiot Cameron. Ask the MPs deprived of their promised vote last month. Ask the people lied to by the daubings of "democrats" on that red bus). Of course, the bigger and more cumbersome a body is, the harder it is to be democratic. Ask the Turks and Indians, and the US currently proves the point beautifully. Tell me of any democratic country you know in which democracy proceeds flawlessly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 06:09 PM

Seems the milk is curdling in the milk and honey of the european dream!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/yellow-vest-protests-paris-police-eighth-weekend-france-emmanuel-macron-a8713341


https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/world-economy-trade-and-finance/eurozone-challenges-and-structural-problems

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/02/euro-has-failed-threatens-democracy-should-abolished/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-


https://www.independent.ie/business/italian-bank-job-spoils-ecbs-birthday-as-new-year-sees-same-old-problems-37683521.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 06:38 PM

David: I hear what you say, but as I see it, this is the big issue that motivated a lot of Brexit voters, which is why I mentioned it in the way I did.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 19 - 07:36 PM

DMcG wrote "I am undecided - still! - whether to apply for a Irish passport. I have Irish citizenship, which is more important, providing the rules don't change. I may apply in the next few weeks, but in practice it would be more symbolic than anything else, since my wife is not entitled to one and we usually travel together."

I would love to achieve Irish citizenship. I'm entitled because my grandma, Mary Anne Mulholland, was born in Athlone in 1902. But the documentation I'm required to provide would be next to impossible for me to acquire. The spirit of Ireland runs strongly through that side of my family and my traditional music credentials are almost all Irish. Dammit. Dunno how to do it!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 02:10 AM

The documentation is not too difficult to get. Both the UK and the Republic Records office sell copies of birth, marriage and death certificates for around £7 or the equivalent. You just need the complete set to prove your ancestry. Grandmother's birth, her wedding, your mother's/father's birth , their wedding, and Your birth certificate. All those can be ordered online.

I am not sure what is needed if people were unmarried, but otherwise it is not too onerous, especially if you already have the approximate dates.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 02:37 AM

I know that Karen, but Labour members, the young and the educated all value Freedom of Movement. Labour should seek to govern for them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 04:55 AM

Claiming Irish citizenship through grandparents.

https://www.dfa.ie/irish-e
I believe you also need to register as a foreign birth and the fees are quite steep. I think around eur 1000, but I could be wrong on that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 05:03 AM

sorry the link above failed,

https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/usa/passports/top-passport-questions/born-outside-ireland/

https://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/citizenship/born-abroad/registering-a-foreign-birth/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 05:35 AM

I went through the whole process in case, including getting all the certificates. The fee for a foreign birth is £245 I think; it is definitely mid £200s. I sent that off but because my mother was born in Ireland even though I was not, I was automatically a citizen so got it refunded.

Quite steep? Or a reasonable off-one off insurance against risk? That's a judgement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 05:40 AM

"One off insurance". A brain-glitch that time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 06:26 AM

Trial of "Operation Brock"

I appreciate the point of a trial like this is to identify issues. Nevertheless, it is looking unworkable as is.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 06:54 AM

" I was automatically a citizen so got it refunded."
That bit of news will make my kids very happy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 07:05 AM

Why is your children's happiness affected by whether I get a refund of few hundred pounds from the Republic because of agreements put in place between the UK and the Republic long before the EU or its previous incarnations existed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 07:07 AM

Let stress that we are talking about a REFUND: your children are not paying a penny of it. It is simply my own money returned.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 07:32 AM

"The fee for a foreign birth is £245 I think; it is definitely mid £200s.......Quite steep? Or a reasonable off-one off insurance against risk?"

To borrow a Brexiteers' phrase, regularly trotted out when challenged about the likely negative effects, be they short-term or long-term, of leaving the EU - "It's a price worth paying" to keep one's EU Citizenship.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 08:19 AM

British lorry drivers are now testing out plans to cope with the chaotic that will almost certainly inflict British ports come a no-deal Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 08:22 AM

"Why is your children's happiness affected by whether I get a refund of few hundred pounds from the Republic because of agreements put in place between the UK and the Republic long before the EU or its previous incarnations existed?"
I took him to mean that his children have childre born in Ireland
Wonder if he subjects them to the same racist abuse that he does non Irish living in Ireland
Poor kids
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 09:17 AM

Wonder if he subjects them to the same racist abuse that he does non Irish living in Ireland.

Is that the day's ration of bile and venom, or have you further delights for us all?
Does pathetic little jimmie feel proud of himself?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 09:49 AM

"s that the day's ration of bile and venom, or have you further delights for us all?"
Call that a warning shot cross your bows
Don't you ever use mine or anybody's father's war record as a display of you're spite again
If you can't take the heat, piss off out of the kitchen
There is no reason we should have to tolerate your behaviour - enough is enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 09:52 AM

I found my gran's birth registration, in Athlone in 1902. Oddly, today, the day I turned it up, is her 117th birthday! That means my mum is an Irish citizen as of right, though she's never lived there. And I suppose I can apply because of both of 'em. I'll see what I can do...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 10:27 AM

I was hoping to go for Polish citizenship but, even though my Dad and his Mum were Polish, I cannot get it because his Dad was Russian.

Reckon ol' Vlad would take me in?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 10:31 AM


Reckon ol' Vlad would take me in?

Well, some claim he took in a lot of others *smile*

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 10:34 AM

"Reckon ol' Vlad would take me in?"
WOULDN'T BOTHER IF I WERE YOU DAVE
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 11:17 AM

If UK leaves EU then it must (morally) either provide for refugee settlement in the UK proportionate to its GDP, or contribute financially to the costs of refugee settlement in other EU states (on top of any leaving settlement). Racists must not be allowed to use leaving the EU as an excuse for wriggling out of their responsibilities. Any racists who are against this must be forcible deported to state from which refugees are seeking asylum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 11:21 AM

"Any racists who are against this must be forcible deported to state from which refugees are seeking asylum."
What a wonderful isea
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 12:55 PM

NIGEL FARAGE has said he is “worried” MPs will block a no deal Brexit, which he has said is now a “more realistic possibility” than ever before."
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.
What was never explainedto a lot of uk voters ON THE BREXIT REFERENDUM was that they do not have the final say ,
PARLIAMENT DOES,. FARAGE AND ians put that in yourpipe and stick it up your rectum

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 02:48 PM

Iains/Jim
Jim/Iains

Can you please do us all a favour and take your bickering elsewhere.

I am sick of it, I think I could safely guess that everyone else is sick of it.

It is childish, tedious and extremely boring.

I'm sure that one of you will now complain to the moderators who I'm sure have far better thing to do than delete your posts when asked.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 19 - 07:22 PM

I was hoping to go for Polish citizenship but, even though my Dad and his Mum were Polish, I cannot get it because his Dad was Russian.

Have you checked that, Dave? One Polish parent or grandparent should be sufficient to entitle you to Polish citizenship from what I've read, the same as with Irish citizenship. Of course with borders changing all over the place, and records getting destroyed there might be complications proving stuff, but I can't see how a Russian grandfather would in itself debar you.

The whole business of citizenship seems to have got a lot trickier over the last few years (with the UK leading the way in making it harder and more expensive.) When I sorted out my Irish citizenship a few years ago it was pretty straightforward and cheap, just get the relevant certificates.

There was a little problem for me with that, since I needed to use my grandfather, since my father been born over in England, though he was taken back home at a few months old, and he'd been born early enough that the records were among those destroyed in the Four Courts when the Free State army shelled it at the start of the Civil War. But they came up with a short form version that did the job. It might have helped getting that done that my father acted up and told them he knew about that because he,d been one of those getting shelled inside - which wasn't actually true, except in spirit, since he'd been down in Tipperary at the time. But they were duly impressed.

For me the deal breaker on Brexit is defending the right to freedom of movement (together with the threat it poses to peace in Ireland.) I could live with a Norway style relationship, with that freedom retained.
.................
Harking back a few posts - I can't see anything wrong with "the wider world", in the same way we say "the bigger picture". And how about "the narrow world" - good enough for Shakespeare - "why man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 01:26 AM

The phrase 'the wider world" is perfectly acceptable. Put it into a Google Search with quotation marks around it and this will become clear.
Has somebody really suggested that it isn't?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 02:33 AM

!Can you please do us all a favour and take your bickering elsewhere."
How about complaining about the behaviour that causes it Rag
Someone makes a comment Iains doesn't agree with and is met with a barrage of personal abuse - that has been the case since he joined this forum - go and check if you don't believe that
It's all very well to say we should ignore him, but he is so persistant in his appallingly childish behaviour that eventually it infects every thread he partiv=ci pates in
The Mods appear not to be interested and you behave like a defensive mother of a dysfunctional child telling her friends "ignore him and he'll get tired"
It doesn't work like that
Most of us here disagree, sometimes strongly - but nobody else attempt to insult and talk down to other posters in this way
If somebody does not stop him I can see no future for this section of the forum
Do not compare his behaviour with mine - I put up arguments - he offers only abuse and denial
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

It was me suggesting that you ignore him, Jim. It does work and the proof is plain to see on this forum. He used to be persistently abusive to a number of people who now just talk around him as if He wasn't there. The only one he remains constantly abusive towards seems to be you. He is doing it just to wind you up and you rise to it every time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:00 AM

Interesting point from Jonathan Cooper in the Independent.

No deal brexit breaches the UK's own human rights laws

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:18 AM

Jonathan Cooper in the Independent.
"Operation Fear on steroids!"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:28 AM

"It does work and the proof is plain to see on this forum. "
No it does not Dave
If, whenever you post this feller hurls personal and racial abuse at you it fouls up the atmosphere
It is respect for other members that makes this forum a valuable debating source - if that is persistently being breached we lose a large slice of teh value
I am not the only one who falls into the trap of rising to this fellers bait - we all do it - Baccy, Steve - you...
He is on his own in this behaviour ad it really is time he was stopped
When someone so unaware of reality is allowed to racially abuse someone of his own race I really do think it's time for hi to be muzzled
Enough really is enough
With respect
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:52 AM

The only person he consistently hurls abuse at is you, Jim. Just look back over the last couple of months on this thread. The moderators are here to stop shit storms but they have better things to do than monitor a couple of UK antagonists so, if you feel that they need to intervene, let them know.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 05:52 AM

"The only person he consistently hurls abuse at is you, Jim. "
No it isn't - it's lessened with others but its still there
I decided to try and stop it altogether for the good of this section of the forum
Why don't the rest of you do the same
The mods would have to respond to racist abuse if everybody complained
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:03 AM

PM on its way, Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:06 AM

If we allowed him to become the ONLY persistently abusive poster, by ignoring the abuse and refusing to respond to his more egregiously silly posts (which in my book would automatically include any with reference to Guido Fawkes), then the moderators would find it ten times easier to deal with him. He has a massive "do as I say, not as I do" issue, and leaving him in lonely isolation will ultimately fix the problem.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 06:27 AM

Spot-on, Dave and Steve.

On another topic, still Brexit though, I came across this piece this morning, shared by a Yorkshire-based folk-musician whom I very much respect. If I'm reading it correctly, it seems to have been written around the time of the Referendum but, having seen everything that's gone on since then, and the complete fuck-up (suck it up, Nigs) that BrexShit has become, it has an uncanny, and undeniable, foresight embodied in it, and it has the absolute Ring Of Truth.

It's a bit long, but worth a read - especially for the Leavers....but I suspect their Union-Flag-Boxers and British-Bulldog-Tattoos will deafen them to the message.

It's a tragedy...

A piece by Adrian Gill.

“It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”
It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”

Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.

The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.

And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.

All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.

There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.

The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty

We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”

Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

Nine out of 10 economists say ‘remain in the EU’. You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.

Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.

The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.

No time for walls: the best of Europe, from its music and food to IM Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre, depends on an easy collision of cultures.

There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.
The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.

Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?

I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:10 AM

I am afraid that Jim, as I have said before, appears to be blind to the tone and content of his own posts. Just now, despite only recently having, as I understand it, excused some of his outbursts as 'temper', he is claiming to be acting for the best of the thread in attempting to close down or put an end to the tone of Iains' posts. I cannot really distinguish between the two motives in Jim's posts, though I do note that Jim seems to accuse Iains of being about to get the thread closed down by posting insulting stuff in the same post as Jim posts insulting stuff.

I am baffled by the comments on Iain' 'race' as I for one have no idea what 'race' Iains is supposed to be a member of. If this is a reference to some so-called 'Irish' race, then I think the comment needs careful examination. I for one find 'race' a problematic concept in any case, and certainly a 'social construct'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:15 AM

One thing Rees Moog and his crew want from Brexit is a lightening of the regulations around chemicals, something much desired, one has to suppose by a number of American firms whose products are produced in the laxer environment of the USA. Here is a nice article about how things mmay change in terms of consumer protection if we do a trade deal with the USA.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/carcinogens-cosmetics-brexit-britain-eu-makeup

Key points are not just the loss of the precautionary principle, but also the loss of informed choice as a result of no requirements for transparent labelling.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:19 AM

I think any comment on race is by definition racist. Luke 4:23 (King James Version):

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:28 AM

There is an interesting article by one of the Remain groups published in today's Guardian.
It is worth reading in full but this section leapt out to me:

So what are the lessons if another referendum becomes the only route out of the current mess?

First, a new campaign will need an emotionally resonant message rather than relying solely on the “facts”. The former prime minister Gordon Brown came closest to finding this tone when he argued that Britain should “lead not leave”. His video from the ruins of Coventry Cathedral making this case was the most shared remain video on Facebook during the referendum. Unfortunately, greater use of this slogan was dismissed by our pollsters. They insisted that voters simply wanted facts on the economic impact. “Tell them again” is likely to be the leave slogan if there is a new vote. Something appropriately patriotic and uplifting will be needed on the remain side to compete.

I think he is spot on, and that a lot of campaigners for a second referendum risk making the same error: "Now the facts are clearer people will change their minds."

That will almost certainly fail because it lacks that emotional dimension. Such a dimension is often treated as inferior to the cold rational thinking, but on truth we are all a mixture of both, and there is good evidence that the emotional cannot easily be overridden by fact: an attempt is more likely to give rise to a "blow you! I will do what I want" response. So for a second referendum I agree with the author that a good emotional case needs to be built, not just a rational one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:32 AM

Good piece, BWM. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:40 AM

One thing Rees Moog and his crew want from Brexit is a lightening of the regulations around chemicals

I think you need to be a little more specific. The European Union implemented the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) through its Classification, Labeling & Packaging Regulation (CLP) which became fully effective on 1 June 2015.

"Hazardous chemicals in products like toys and pizza boxes are a global threat and must be regulated under an international protocol, NGOs told the European Commission ahead of a UN meeting in Stockholm next month.

A legally binding protocol in supply chains across the world is needed to avoid the presence and improve the tracking of hazardous chemicals in products, said several NGOs in a letter to the European Commission this week.

The letter was sent ahead of a UN meeting where world leaders will discuss a post-2020 policy framework to minimise the adverse impact of chemicals on the environment and human health."

I think you cry wolf. 40 years ago IATA was probably the only body that had a prohibited list of chemicals (Carbide was one of them, as I tried to ship it-very unsuccessfully) Now every tanker on the road boasts a hazmat sticker, even extending to carrying propane cylinders in a van. The trend is to increasing legislation governing labeling,
transporting, selling and utilising anything perceived to be a hazard. The chances of such legislation becoming anything but ever more stringent is very unlikely.
Many of these constraints are the result of international agreement meaning a departure from the EU would have zero impact.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 07:42 AM

DMcG, I agree. Do you think a bit red bus advertising how much brexit will cost and insinuating that any savings would be spent on the NHS is going too far? ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 08:09 AM

A cross party group of MPs have tabled a motion that will starve the government of funds if a no-deal Brexit is attempted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 09:24 AM

"by posting insulting stuff in the same post as Jim posts insulting stuff. "
Can you please identify the "insulting stuff" (as distinct from a response to what has been said for me please Karen ?
It really would help
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 10:53 AM

My first instinct is to decline your respect, Jim,

a) because I do respect you and I'm not going to feed any potential trolls by laying out evidence for them;

b) because I do think that if you looked at it calmly you would see for yourself.


But here are a couple of quotations to start with:

"it's time for hi(m) to be muzzled": comparison with vicious dog/wild animal


"appallingly childish behaviour that eventually it infects every thread he partiv=ci pates in" insulting adjectival phrase, insulting choice of verb

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 10:57 AM

I wonder whether a request for " "insulting stuff" (as distinct from a response to what has been said..." attempts to set up an definition of 'insulting' that excludes insults offered in response to what has been said. If so, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 11:05 AM

50!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 11:08 AM

Sorry Karen - you're not responding to what asked, which I find disappointing
I have had several years of Ian's abuse, as has many of us here
If my asking him to be stopped (muzzelled - is not comparing hinm to wa wild dog, it is a simple request for he to be stopped from insulting people
I attempted top stop this several years ago by gathering together his insults and putting them up on the threads he had posted them to - didn't work
I asked the mods to stop him - didn't work
I asked him to stop - didn't work
He continues to abuse me (not so much others now)
His insults have now reached the stupid stage of racist attacks (somewhat stupid as He and I are the same race and nationality)
ou want me to accept this politely - sorry - I don't think I have anything to add - in fact I don't think I have anything to add about anything to anybody
I'll leave you to it, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 11:22 AM

Promise?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 11:23 AM

Promise Raggy
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 11:33 AM

byesy bye!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 01:46 PM

Now that was a very sensible post. Touch wood.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 01:48 PM

Wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 03:41 PM

Teresa May has suffered a commons defeat today as a result of the perceived chance of the UK leaving the EU with a no-deal scenario.

I suspect this will be the first of several setback for her and the government.

Could someone please link to the article in todays Guardian @Teresa May suffers........ '

Thanks

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:05 PM

Guardian article

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:17 PM

Thanks

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 04:40 PM

There is another Guardian commentary on Brexit entitled 'The Guardians view on Brexit: the Government has failed - it's time to go back to the people'

It reflects some, if not most, of my views on the subject and is worthy of consideration. I recommend you read it.

Could someone please provide a link.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 08:11 PM

The big worry about going back to the people would be that there might be a vote for a no deal Brexit. However the hostility shown by Brexiters to the very notiion is good reason to think that is unlikely. If they believed there was reason to hope for a repeat victory they'd be all for it.

The barrage of claptrap about it being a blow to democracy is hypocritical rubbish. Unfortunately an awful lot of people seem to have actually been taken in by it, including some Remainers. So if a fresh referendum votes to stay, even by a much larger margin than that of 2016, there'll be many who will see that result as illegitimate.

Strange. When an early General Election in 1917 took away from the Tories the Commons majority that had been voted in,supposedly for five years, in 2015, did anyone suggest that was cheating the electorate of 2015 and a betrayal of democracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 19 - 08:47 PM

Many will see it as illegitimate - even though it would represent "the will of the people," to use the favoured brexiteer parlance, even more than before.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:34 AM

PM Blair in 2004: "The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised."
The prime minister said the question would be on the treaty, but added that the implications went far wider: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making."

He concluded: "Let the issue be put - and let the battle be joined."

The BBC in 2008 quoting William Hague:
What has really changed between Tony Blair standing at the despatch box and saying let battle be joined in a referendum in April 2004 and the current Prime Minister saying let battle be avoided at any cost and please don't let me be photographed at the signing ceremony? Two things have changed - the general election of 2005 was got out of the way and the government have decided that a referendum cannot be held because they do not think they would win it.
BBC 2013. PM Cameron
David Cameron has said the British people must "have their say" on Europe as he pledged an in/out referendum if the Conservatives win the election.

The prime minister said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people the "simple choice" between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU.

When the previous three Prime Ministers clearly state they will put the issue to the people, it does not show politicians in an edifying light, when they conspire hellbent on betrayal. Where does that leave democracy?
It is worth repeating the terms of the referendum, many think it contained much more.

Give people the "simple choice" between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:39 AM

I promised I wasn't going to post again, and that was my intention, but I've been around so long that I feel I couldn't go without a last goodbye to those I've come to like and respect

It's always disturbed me that this forum has been used by a few as a platform for hatred and racist bigotry and I was disturbed when an attempt was made separate these subjects from this topic - Brexit - which, I believe, was sold on the basis of stopping foreigners from coming to Britain
These vicious outlooks gave us not only Brexit, Trump, Orban... et al, but a sharp rise in support for Neo Fascism throughout the world - including ethnic cleansing in the Middle and Far East - as MacColl's song nearly says, "Hitler Ain't Dead" - he's found Populism as a way of crawling to the top.
I was strongly opposed to Raggy's banishing refugees and asyylum seekers from this thread and, with I little difficulty, managed to persuade a Mod that they were as closely stuck together as are a lump of dog-shit to the sole of a shoe, and was happy to slog away

Ironically, the thread that Raggy opened to divert us away is now being used as a hate-platform against the Travelling people - people who have occupied a major part of mine and Pat's lives for about half a century - From Jeannie Robertson and the Stewarts, who were among those who introduced us to Traditional singing, to the thirty odd pleasurable and educational years we spent recording Travellers in the UK - all now energetically being depicted as "slave owners", thieves, disease ridden and untrustworthy anachronisms not fit for human society

I have always been unhappy that the Mods allowed a member of this forum to mount a several-years- long insult campaign against fellow Mudcatters, but I came to consider his abuse a conformation that my arguments were striking home
I was appalled when they did nothing when he upped his game into making the attacks against me racist - Anti Irish (rather stupid, as I am far more British than I am Irish - but racists tend not to be very bright)   

What has upset me the most has been when members of this form who I have come to like and respect, lumped my opposition to all this with his behavior and asked me to stop posting to this thread - and welcomed my message when I said I would

Anyway - didn't want to go without saying 'Goodbye and Thanks for the Fish' - it really has been a pleasure
I would be hypocritical to wish you all the best - maybe 'I wish you all you wish me' would be more appropriate
This will probably be deleted - perhaps it should be, but I hope enough of my friends see it before it is   
Jim
By the way - I will wear Iains "byesy bye!" and Bobad's "Wishful thinking." as badges of honour - both are exponents of everything I believe to be going wrong with today's society

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

There is really no need for drastic action, Jim. Things offend and upset me as much as they do you (I am the son of one of those thieving, trouble making, scrounging, job-taking immigrants, remember) but I have found the way to reduce it that will eventually eliminate it. I have told you many times to talk round them and completely ignore the more stupid posts. Try it for a while.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 05:46 AM

This will probably be deleted - perhaps it should be

Cannot happen soon enough!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:09 AM

What DtG said.

Jim, there really is no point arguing ad infinitum with those whose wiring is so completely fucked-up (suck it up, Nigs and Iains) that they feel compelled and permitted to preach their bigoted message anywhere they choose. You cannot 'win' with these people and, by continuing to argue with them, rather than preventing them from spouting their vileness, you both encourage and enable them in their endeavours.

Ignore them. It's perfectly obvious to anyone reading this and the other threads they infest what they are, and there is no need for anyone else to comment. They are what they are, and they will continue to expose their obnoxious personae whether you argue with them or not.

Talk around them, but don't talk to them. That will disturb them far more than losing your rag and allowing them to get a huge hard-on from winding you up.

Now, any good news about BrexShit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

"Cannot happen soon enough!"

                                  :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:48 AM

Backwoodsman, I give up trying to talk sense into Jim.

As I have said before he cannot or will not accept the fact that his posts come across as insulting and unpleasant.

He asked me for quotations. I provided them while predicting accurately that he would try to argue that they were not abusive, an argument I don't believe even he would accept in an objective way as some of his comments on song lyrics have demonstrated that he is capable of understanding how language works.

He represents himself as a misunderstood crusader, but for me being a jack in the box toy for provocative right=wing posters to amuse themselves with does not further his cause and puts people off. And the latest post in which he seems to feel himself betrayed by his allies seems to show that sadly, he still doesn't get it.

I never believed for one moment he would stay away, and was not prepared to humour him by asking him to return. Sadly, I am guessing that if Jim stayed away Iains would find another mug on another thread to wind up. Then maybe we might get some more interesting discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:50 AM

Sorry, the word 'mug' was insulting, though if Jim had written it he would be denying that. I maybe should have said 'victim'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:03 AM

What's the point Baccy - you can see the rection from Karen here and from his posting on the other hread Iains sees no harm in his tirades racist tirades against Travellers
I really don't with to be associated with a forum that gives a platform to this filth
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:42 AM

"racist tirades against Travellers"?
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your departure. We may attract more people below the line as a result. The way you play the victim is an embarrassment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:58 AM

"The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised."

For once Tony Blair was spot on in laying down the basic terms for a referendum on this issue. Though of course he was talking about a referendum that could only have taken place if the proposed EU Constitution had still been there to vote about.

And this quote sums up the things that were completely lacking in Cameron's botched referendum. It is bizarre for it to be deployed by an opponent of a fresh "people's vote" when it actually serves to lay down the basic requirements for such a vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:08 AM

@KarenH - thanks for your response to my post, very interesting. I'm thinking on your post for a while, not at all in disagreement with you, but I need to consider the content of any reply I may, or may not, make, and how to deliver it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:16 AM

"The way you play the victim is an embarrassment."And the way you have used this forum is sickening
It is not the first time that this forum has overstepped the line of illegality on the issue of racism, taking refuge in the immunity that the internet allows to direct hate mail at racial and cultural groups , but you are the most persistent and in my experience, the one who has targeted one of the most vulnerable cultural groups in Britain
I saw up close over thirty years, the misery and the harm resulting on racism towards Travellers... demonstrations, firebombings, harassment, physical assault and state persecution of people who showed only friendship and generosity towards our quest for songs and tales
Your latest crusade is the straw that broke the camels back for me
If my going draws in more of your ilk, in a sad way, my point will have been made
Off out for some fresh air
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:18 AM

It helps to complete Mr Blairs little gem: the implications went far wider: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making."

The issue of being in or out of the EU did not go away on account of the constitution no longer being an issue. The core issue was to remain or stay.
and looking at the clip below out is better than in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noR_7BOeU20

Is Macron not a globalist with all that it entails?

You may not agree with the content but it covers some awkward ground.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:23 AM

I promised I wasn't going to post again

Lololol!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:30 AM

Obviously the issue of being in or out of the EU is very much still with us. And it is also obvious that the 2016 referendum did not determine that. That is the very basis for the case that a fresh popular vote is needed, and this time on a clear choice, rather than a fuzzy and ambiguous one like last time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:46 AM

Rats leaving the sinking ship

This is now, not in the future. It is a direct result of the UK saying it will leave the EU. Things will get worse if and when we do leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 09:43 AM

The London Economic (TLE) is a left-wing digital newspaper.
Guido's leftwing counterpart. Does that mean we have to treat everything it says with the uttermost contempt?

and refusing to respond to his more egregiously silly posts (which in my book would automatically include any with reference to Guido Fawkes)

Sauce for the goose............... !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:11 AM

"Is Macron not a globalist with all that it entails?"

While we are a member of be EU, Macron can attempt only to impose French policies on behalf of France that are nothing to do with the EU. Should he attempt to impose globalist policies that do impinge on the EU, the UK won't let him. We have the veto. So, whatever your point is, it falls. I don't know how many times I have to say this: flagging up issues that have no chance of coming about while the UK is a member is nobbut vacuous, pointless scaremongering. You are a leaver ignorantly straying on to remain territory without realising it. You'd be a damn sight more relevant if you were flagging up the undesirable things that could come about once we leave that can't happen now. A European army, for example, which we've vetoed. Maybe even moves towards your dreaded "ever-closer union." We will have no say in those two areas, among many others. And to add insult to injury, we would have to be part of that army and we'd be even more adrift from the EU should they come about. And with no control. Enjoy your new-found "sovereignty." Perhaps Trump or China or Vlad The Lad would let you have a little bit if you grovel nicely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:29 AM

TLE? Never heard of it. Had a quick look. Won't be quoting from it any time soon. Has anyone else here? If not, I don't see your point about geese, whatever that meant. Just heard a faint echo of your mate Mr Woodcock there!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:56 AM

What on earth is wrong with being a globalist?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 11:40 AM

Well, in the US of A, at least, "globalist" is a right-wing dog-whistle for "Jew".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 11:45 AM

Ok, didn't know that. Even so, I see nothing wrong inbeing one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:06 PM

"Rats leaving the sinking ship" is a link to an article in The London Economic (TLE), a left-wing digital newspaper.

"TLE? Never heard of it. Had a quick look. Won't be quoting from it any time soon. Has anyone else here? "

Obviously Dave the Gnome has or he would not have provided the link
- PM Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:46 AM

The actual title of the original article was:
$1 trillion leaves British shores ahead of Brexit D-day.

Needless to say no evidence is provided to back up the assertion!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:31 PM

I have quoted from The London Economic a few times, Steve. It is a good counter to nonsense from right wing sources and about as biased :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

I'll keep an eye on it then. At first sight it seems to be somewhat more measured than the usual, ranting outpourings of Giddy Faux.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:07 PM

It is pretty good, Steve, but remember that all publications show some bias. It is always worth quoting as a cure for an overdose of faux giddiness though :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:10 PM

What on earth is wrong with being a globalist?
A few postings on the subject covering a wide spetrum

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/5f880y/what_is_globalism_and_why_does_the_altright_view/
views both strongly in favour and against. Interesting views on Unions and mega Corporations.

What it all means is largely dependent on who is in the driving seat.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:54 PM

The BBC is popping up above the parapet with an unusually honest appraisal of squeaker Bercow. He apparently acted contrary to the advice of the Commons Clerk, Sir David Natzler.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 03:51 PM

I posted this on the precious thread:

====
Subject: RE: BS: Post Brexit life in the UK
From: DMcG - PM 
Date: 17 Jan 18 - 09:18 AM 

I have to say I have been impressed with Dominic Grieve throughout the debates this week. He has spoken with great clarity and considered insight
=====

Apart from that time he was persuaded not to vote for his own amendment, my view has not changed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:07 PM

Whether Bercow acted in accord with the advice he was given by the Commons Clerk is not the relevant thing. It would appear he acted in accordance with the wishes of the House, and that is his job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:50 PM

In some things one has to think 'globally'. We all live on one planet with finite resources and an increasingly devastated natural world. 'Think globally, act locally'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:52 PM

Those brexiteers who are attacking John Bercow...wassup with them! The amendment was carried, even though they thought it shouldn't have been brought. So why can't they just accept the will of the 308/650 people? After all, I've been told to accept the will of the 38% (a far weaker percentage) of the people, even though I think the vote should never have been called - and told to accept it, what's more, by the self-same buggers who are attacking the Speaker!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:00 AM

You're wasting your time, Steve - it's absolutely useless presenting logic to BrexShiteers, and you'll frazzle their brains and cause their Union-Flag boxers to spontaneously combust with a complicated concept like yours.

But, as someone said earlier, sauce, goose, gander....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:04 AM

A very belated word of caution. If there were to be a second referendum and Remain wants to win it, characterizing Leave voters as all idiots, racists, illogical, devious scumbags and so on is not a very good way of proceeding.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:17 AM

No worse than them telling me - as they have on a number of occasions, one of them in the past few weeks on another forum - that I'm a 'traitor who should be arrested, marched out and shot' because I voted Remain. If those loons want to be taken seriously, they should stop that kind of nonsense.

As someone said earlier, 'sauce', 'goose', 'gander'...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:29 AM

And 2500!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:37 AM

TBH, DMcG, I neither want a second referendum, nor a GE. I want the 650 MPs we elected to Parliament to do their jobs for which they are handsomely rewarded, recognise what is best for the UK as a whole - not just the tiny, immensely wealthy minority - and reject the entire, ridiculous, dangerous project.

This is a Representative Democracy, it's high time our Representatives started shouldering their responsibilities and doing what's best for everyone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:12 AM

I totally agree with that. I have said several times in the past that I don't think referendums and our system of government fit together - countries with a written constitution have been able to define rules for it, but we have an ad-hoc, hope the best approach. Then there is the level of understanding of the voters: even at this stage I suspect few people - leavers or remainers - could reliably say whether particular things relate to the single market or the customs union.

But if Parliament cannot come to agreement we may be forced down that route. I am convinced it would deepen the divisions but that may the price Parliament's failure would make us pay.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:42 AM

There may be cheering on this forum as a result of the Speakers actions yesterday.
However this overlooks the fact that not onlyis the speaker highly partisan(why else a "bollocks to brexit" in his car) but on procedural matters he is "guided" by the clerk of the house.viz.
Chief procedural adviser

In the absence of a Speaker vested with formal powers of order the Clerk of the Parliaments is expected actively to provide authoritative advice on procedural matters on a daily basis to the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House and other Members of the frontbenches, the Chairman of Committees and individual Members.

The Clerk of Parliaments sits for a significant proportion of each day in the Chamber of the House, and keeps a supervisory watch over its proceedings. He calls on the business of the House and participates in certain ceremonial occasions.

The fact the speaker is rather coy on the matter of either accepting or disregarding the advice of the clerk is significant.
He has done no favours to himself, Parliament or democracy.

Ex-ministers, constitutional experts and respected former Speaker Betty Boothroyd united in a chorus of anger over the Commons "stitch-up" that led to a Government defeat. COMMONS Speaker John Bercow was last night told to quit after "disgracefully" flouting parliamentary rules to help Remainers seize more control over Brexit.

The above could be regarded as "sour grapes" but when the highly respected former speaker Betty Boothroyd joins the chorus,I feel the allegations have substance.

or as another sees it:
A few weeks ago I made reference in an article to the fact that the Speaker’s car sported a sticker declaring “Bollocks to Brexit”. Within minutes, his defenders had got in touch to inform me that the sticker was affixed to his wife’s car, not his. This seemed to matter. It does not. No one surely now claims that Bercow is anything other than an anti-Brexit partisan cheering his side’s efforts to thwart our departure from the European Union from the safety of the Commons chair.

His bizarre and dangerous ruling in the Commons today, in favour of selecting an amendment by former Attorney General (and arch Remainer) Dominic Grieve, proposing that the Prime Minister be given a maximum of three days (instead of the current 21) to return to the Commons with a plan B if her withdrawal agreement is rejected by MPs next week, is proof positive of his political position. It is now accepted that his own clerk advised against the constitutionality of allowing the amendment to proceed, and that Bercow overruled him and others of the same opinion.

In some senses the fact of selecting the amendment, and the effect it would have if passed, change very little. On the first point, it will come as no surprise that Bercow opposes Britain’s exit from the EU and is comfortable using his authority in order to prevent it happening. This has been an accepted fact of life at Westminster since before the 2016 referendum.

Virtually every Labour MP in the Commons, formerly proud advocates of women’s and workers’ rights to workplaces free from bullying, chose to suspend that particular principle last year when serious accusations against the Speaker, from more than one reliable source, emerged. Normally – and especially if such allegations had involved a Conservative minister – Labour would have demanded immediate action. But in Bercow’s case – as lucidly explained by Dame Margaret Beckett MP – the cause of opposing Brexit trumps any less important issue such as the rights of Commons members of staff.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

Yep, I'm absolutely with you there.

FWIW, whatever I might say on here (and much of it is actually a particularly wicked SoH which I inherited from my mother's side of the family) I don't regard the majority of Leavers as swivel-eyed, Union-Jack boxer-clad, unicorn-awaiting loons - I understand that many, probably most, are just like me but with a different PoV. Unfortunately though, the vocal minority who do fall into the 'loon' category are also the ones who seem to be 'angry winners, and post the venomous, threatening stuff on social media. I do get very tired of being told to 'get over it', and that I should be executed, and hence I frequently feel inclined to express my disdain for those types.

Just thought I'd say that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

That was for DMcG, by the way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:58 AM

I need to correct the Parliamentary clerk. It should of course be The Clerk of the House who advises the Speaker and MPs on the formal and informal rules of the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 05:10 AM

There may be cheering from me - quietly, I am not given to such exuberance! - but it is about rebalancing the relative power of Parliament and the Executive, not just about Brexit. I want a Labour government, whenever it may be we next have one, to have its business motions subject to amendments by the House as well. And the house as a whole decides if those amendments are accepted. That moves us towards a truly representative democracy and away from an elected dictatorship. Many years ago now I heard Robin Cook saying he was sick of an approach where a government can do what it likes with almost no effective opposition for years, then the other party gets in and equally ineffectually unopposed undoes all that and does what it wants, then another reversal when the first party gets back in. In order to get a truly lasting change you need a broad consensus across parties. And making Parliament more in control of what government can do helps.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 01:45 PM

Parliament is now at war with government

Interesting points from politics.co.uk

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:27 PM

The referendum result created something of a constitutional problem because the required legislation, to honour the totally unexpected outcome, was not passed. All along this has created a problem of different groups arguing what is paramount- The referendum outcome, or parliament.
The majority that voted for brexit rightly feel cheated by Parliament, who have shown their disdain for the outcome by constantly thwarting it. The linked article above raises some interesting points that could be argued as positives.
What Bercow has done is truncated the time for the boil to be lanced. The present situation is intolerable.   The PM's present course of action is a progressive watering down of the departure terms to the extent that it will be a brexit in name only. Tied to the EU legislation with no seat at the table to dispute it.
May needs to call a snap election. Any other path of action will leave the electorate feeling alienated from their representatives for a long time into the future.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 05:38 PM

It wasn't the Speaker's car. Comment is free but facts are sacred.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 07:30 PM

Well wasn't Fiona Bruce excellent on Question Time. She had three arseholes on the panel (plus Jo Swinson and Nish Kumar, definitely not arseholes), but she still managed to keep the atmosphere reasonably sweet, and the audience reacted well. Makes you realise what a tedious fart Dimbleby's too-long stewardship was. But why we give the crypto-fascist Melanie Phillips airtime is beyond me. Free speech I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 01:58 AM

She was far more prepared to challenge what people said than Dimbleby was.   The 'Plan B' sequence was revealing - or at least showed what we knew. It would have been easy to let it go, or keep pushing it once the lack of a plan was obvious without letting others speak, but for me she got that balance right.

There was an excellent camera shot of Melanie Phillips collapsed on the desk. I felt sh3 was signalling she wanted to be called to give a rant, and wasn't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

And by way of light relief...

Theresa May hires Baldrick to discuss ‘cunning plan’ for Brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 03:52 AM

"It wasn't the Speaker's car. Comment is free but facts are sacred."
Hmmm! I wonder who the car is registered to?

In my view the point is irrelevant, In his role as speaker Bercowis expected to show decorum and impartiality in all aspects of his public life.
Many would see a car belonging to the Bercow family with a bollocks to brexit sticker attached to be not simply raising two fingers to those that voted leave, but a direct display of his partisanship. If he and his wife are not capable of making that connection, then perhaps the speaker is unsuited to his role.The sticker incident is but one of numerous actions where his impartiality can be questioned.
I am afraid to excuse it as being purely the actions of a totally independent person, namely his wife, does not diminish the affront, or his demeaning of his office.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:24 AM

Am I my brother's (or wife's) keeper?

Surely it is rather old fashioned to expect anyone's wife to fall in with their husbands politics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

If the sticker had said "rollocks to remainers" would your response be identical? Are not assets in marriage jointly owned?


"Am I my brother's (or wife's) keeper?"

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

Also Profumo's career was destroyed by a "bit on the side".

In certain spheres of public life the behaviour of the individual cannot always be separated from that of the spouse or close associates.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:45 AM

We are getting a string of sexist irrelevancies here. Move on, Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:46 AM

If the sticker had said "rollocks to remainers" would your response be identical?

Yes.

Are not assets in marriage jointly owned?

What his wife does with her own car is entirely her own business.

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

President of the USA I would guess.

Also Profumo's career was destroyed by a "bit on the side".

Nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Just like this exchange has nothing to do with brexit. I suggest it ends here although I accept you will probably want the last word. You are welcome to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:48 AM

"President of the USA I would guess."

Bugger! Beat me to it! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 08:27 AM

I don't actually imagine that being married to a porn actress would necessarily in any way automatically impede a politicians career. It might even help advance it, if spun the right way.

This is a very strange comment, which seems to imply that those who oppose Brexit - probably a significant majority of the population now, going by recent polls, are equivalent to porn entertainers.

I sometimes wish we had a facility on Mudcat enabling us to filter out some people's posts.
..............
"No worse than", backwoodsman, is also a way of saying "no better than". It can provide an explanation for doing something silly, but never a justification or excuse.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 10:47 AM

""No worse than", backwoodsman, is also a way of saying "no better than". It can provide an explanation for doing something silly, but never a justification or excuse."

No it isn't. Except to those with a very perverse view of the world. What I said is what I meant, and I'm disappointed that you have decided to join the group of word-twisters and nit-pickers who have caused so much ill-feeling here at times.

If you regard a bit of fun-poking about Leavers' intelligence as being as bad as the suggestions that I should be 'arrested, marched out, and shot' - tantamount to a death-threat - that I've received from some of them, then your view is very perverse indeed.

Or you're just being a smart-arse.

You decide which.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 10:52 AM

30 months ago I posted that numerous banking, finance and insurance companies where considering moving some of their operations out of the UK to locations that would remain within the EU post Brexit.

At the time I was told, more or less, that I was talking bollocks.

Today I received a letter from one of my insurance companies it reads:

' We are writing to you regarding your active ********** insurance policy that you purchased from our partner ******** company. We *********** Insurance are the underwriter and administrator of this policy. Currently this policy is underwritten from the UK.

As a result of the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU, we intend to transfer your policy to our new insurance company in Germany whch will be withing the *********** group of companies.

The transfer is being undertaken to allow us to continue to service your policy and write business in Europe after the Brexit date'

So now some people will probably be out of work due to this, the revenue to the UK goverment from various taxation will not be forthcoming more people will probably be reliant on the welfare state and someone is probably looking for new tenants.

I don't like to tell you I told you so but ............

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:01 AM

It can't be true, Raggy. You must have dreamt it. Just like I dreamt that 1 trillion dollars has already left these shores in anticipation of brexit. Just project fear...

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:14 AM

Those brexiteers who are attacking John Bercow...wassup with them! The amendment was carried, even though they thought it shouldn't have been brought. So why can't they just accept the will of the 308/650 people? After all, I've been told to accept the will of the 38% (a far weaker percentage) of the people, even though I think the vote should never have been called - and told to accept it, what's more, by the self-same buggers who are attacking the Speaker!

Yes, 38% of the electorate is less than 47.3% of the available electorate of the House of Commons.
But as with the referendum, when you look at the percentage of those who actually voted, you will find the vote was even closer than the referendum result. 51% to 49%.

Parliamentary votes are never decided on a basis of what percentage was scored against a possible 100% turnout, but as a percentage of those actually voting. And all that is required is a majority. The majority, in this case, supported Dominic Greives' amendment.

Any complaints about the Speaker's actions relate to whether the matter should, legitimately, have been before the Commons.
The referendum was brought forward legally, with the prior agreement of the House of Commons. A totally different proposition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:15 AM

That is what bothers me when Leave supporters say things like "I can foresee there may be some hardships in the short term but believe it will be better in the long run" (that is not a direct quotation, but Leavers have said very similar things on this site and elsewhere)

It is so abstract isn't it? As if 'hardships' exist in splendid isolation. Had they said "some people may suffer hardship" it is rather less comfortable. "some people, even perhaps my friends and family may suffer hardship" - now it is getting really uncomfortable, but it is still saying the same thing. Let's just say "there may be some hardship" and not think about what that means....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 12:36 PM

Yes, Nigel, but as you brexiteers keep saying, it was carried by a majority. Get over it ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 01:29 PM

I was making the point that a lot of brexiteers were squealing that the Commons vote should never have been brought. Well I was squealing nearly three years ago that the referendum should never have been brought. So when I lost I was told by the brexiteers to get over myself, etc, and accept the will of the people and stop being a remoaner. So I say to you brexiteers, you lost, so get over yourselves and accept the will of the Commons - and stop moaning about Bercow. And don't be such whited sepulchres.

Oh, and by the way, bollocks to brexit!

Oh, and by the way mk II, Iains, nothing original about calling Bercow the "Squeaker", was there? I happened to read Quentin Letts yesterday too, in the spirit of know-thine-enemy...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 02:45 PM

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

This is a very strange comment, which seems to imply that those who oppose Brexit - probably a significant majority of the population now, going by recent polls, are equivalent to porn entertainers.

I must congratulate you on being able to create a unique spin and extremely contorted interpretation of a very simple sentence.

Until now I thought that such a 'talent' was possessed by only one on this forum. Are you due a hardware update?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:22 PM

whatever....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:01 PM

Too much meta-communication here. Though perhaps meta-noncommunication might be a better term.

By which I mean concentrating attention on how we are talking to and at each other, and virtually ignoring the actual subject.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:27 PM

I have said an awful lot about brexit, Kevin. On any internet forum there will be sidetracks. I'm trying to use them as a fun diversion and will no longer get into spats with the problematics. Let's me and you see who can get another letter into the Guardian first. The only rule is that it must be brexit-related. Are you on? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 01:05 AM

Agree about that, Steve. They add flavour, like salt or pepper. But the flavourings shouldn't become the main ingredient. And some of the flavours we've been getting are pretty unpleasant.

You're on. I'm always sending in letters anyway, though most never get in. Their criteria for publication is pretty weird, considering some of the ones they use. Anything even mildly critical of anything the Guardian has written hasn't a chance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 03:57 AM

I write to the Guardian very occasionally indeed, and have had two, or perhaps three, published over the years, so I guess my success rate is perhaps 10-15%. Who knows what Keith Flett's success rate is? Or is he the Guardian equivalent of Alan Smithee?


Still all to play for in the predictions Nigel and I made over ofn the predictions for 2019, but I suspect mine is more likely at the moment. (Nigel's wwe leave March 29 on WTO rules, mine was come April 1st we will still not know what we are doing)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 06:17 PM

I've had a lot of letters printed, many of a slightly trivial nature (as per some of my asides here), but a good few serious ones too. My mum always looks out for one from me but I've disappointed her in recent years, as I haven't sent any for ages. I understand that the Guardian receives about ten times or more as many letters as they print. They like you to follow the format of the letters you see printed, so no fluff and nearly always that reference to a previous letter or an item in the paper in the form you see in other letters. And if you send it after about 2pm you haven't got much of a chance. You can be unlucky in that you can send in a letter on a topic that they're not including in the letters column the next day. If they've covered it today, there's a good chance they won't cover it tomorrow, depending. You won't get in if you're discursive or if a lot of editing is required. Play their game and you up your chances!

I've had a couple printed in the Saturday mag and I got my entry in "that's my pet" in 2002 with my cat Toots, photo of both me and Toots. I shared the column that day with Catherine Zeta-Jones! I've had a couple of contributions to Notes & Queries printed too. But perhaps my greatest achievement was a letter in the Radio Times praising a radio programme about wine. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 07:34 AM

I'm beginning to get very tired indeed of hearing Tory Leavers complaining about Labour 'not supporting May's Deal', or demanding to know 'what Labour's position is', or asking JC to 'get off the fence'.

How perverse that the same party who opened us up to the Brexit debacle by calling a referendum, then made things worse by calling a GE in 2016 and had to jump into the very dirty bed of the DUP in order to try to hang on to power by their fingertips, and during the entire Brexit negotiations steadfastly refused to involve the other parties in talks with the EU, preferring instead to keep everything to themselves, are now trying to dump the blame for their own abject failures on Labour.

Nobody to blame but the Tories themselves. Man up and face it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 09:43 AM

I'm beginning to get very tired indeed of hearing Tory Leavers complaining about Labour 'not supporting May's Deal', or demanding to know 'what Labour's position is', or asking JC to 'get off the fence'.

How perverse that the same party who opened us up to the Brexit debacle by calling a referendum,

No, the Tories included the promise for a referendum in their manifesto, and kept that promise. The referendum was 'called' by Parliament, with a majority of labour MPs also voting to hold a referendum. To say that the Conservative Party called the referendum is disingenuous.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 11:45 AM

"No, the Tories included the promise for a referendum in their manifesto, and kept that promise. The referendum was 'called' by Parliament, with a majority of labour MPs also voting to hold a referendum. To say that the Conservative Party called the referendum is disingenuous."

Still nitpicking I see, Nigs? And it's you who is being disingenuous of course. The Referendum was proposed and sponsored by the Tory government of the day, led by Cameron. It was in their manifesto, as you very well know, because they were terrified of losing votes to UKIP in the 2015 election - it was a political move in the interests of the Tory Party, not the interests of the country as a whole.

Having been proposed and sponsored by the Tory government, it is true that it was ratified by parliament, but the fact remains that, had the Tory government not chosen to serve their own party interests by putting the referendum in their manifesto and then before Parliament, it would never have taken place, there would have been no reason for May's half-cocked, near-suicidal 2016 GE, nor her disgraceful decision to jump into bed with the dreadful DUP, and the government could have spent the past two-and-a-half years concentrating on dealing with things that would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole, instead of making a complete pig's-ear of their so-called 'negotiations' on BrexShit.

And for the Tories to now demand Labour's input and support, having kept every party except themselves out of the process from day one, and for them and their supporters to howl for JC to declare his, and Labour's, position re BrexShit is not because they believe it's in the interests of the BrexShit process - it's simply another party-political manœuvre by the dishonest May and her followers in order to try to discredit Labour ahead of what looks more and more like an inevitable GE, because they are defecating building-blocks that they'll lose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 12:52 PM

Now we have it. The truth is 'Nit Picking'. So says the in articulate left.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:30 PM

Just a few simple questions, Stanron.

Who had the majority when the referendum was called?
Who invoked article 50 even though the referendum result was only advisory?
Who tried to get that passed through parliament without involving a vote?
Who called the last general election after stating there would not be one?
Who is in charge of the negotiations for brexit?

If the answer to any of the above is Labour then please feel free to blame Corbyn.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:48 PM

Your 'not getting it' is well expressed. Calling the referendum and declaring article 50 were passed by majority votes in the House of Commons. They were Parliamentary decisions. The fact that Labour did not5 out vote those decisions does not make them Tory. They are parliamentary.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:58 PM

Although I know that Mudcat has been down for some time, 48 hours have elapsed since I posted that one of my insurance companies are relocating some of their operations to Germany, as I suggested they would 30 months ago.

30 Thirty months ago I was told, more or less, that I was talking bollocks.

Now the topic has been ignored ........... hmmmm ....... wonder why

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:01 PM

Well the one and only reason that the Tory referendum, then Article 50, were ratified is that the steamroller was already in full flow and that any party which voted against either would have been toast. We call it realpolitik. I state this to explain it, not excuse it, which I definitely don't. And please give over about politicians' "promises." Anyone using that to cast the Tories as the noble beasts in all this are exhibiting the very epitome of disingenuousness. To the point of dishonesty, actually.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:05 PM

And who, exactly, has used 'politicians' "promises."' to be dishonest?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:06 PM

Read more carefully, please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:16 PM

"Although I know that Mudcat has been down for some time"

Raggy, when it's down, try logging in using https://http://awe.mudcat.org/index.cfm#top
Often works when the usual server is out of order.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Thanks I'll try that

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 03:53 PM

Calling the referendum and declaring article 50 were passed by majority votes in the House of Commons.

Which party had the overall majority in the house of commons when those items were passed, Stanron? I think it could be you not getting that a party with an overall majority in the commons is quite capable of passing legislation with no help from the rest of parliament. The opposition when these things were passed could moan and whinge as much as they wanted but they had no teeth and could not have stopped them if they tried.

I suppose that when we are out of the EU in the deep shit you will blame Jeremy Corbyn. Taking a leaf out of the Daily Mail or Trump's alt truth book? Unfuckingbelievable.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 03:55 PM

Of course we'll blame Jeremy Corbyn. What else is he there for?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:02 PM

"Of course we'll blame Jeremy Corbyn. What else is he there for?"

And ther we have it in two short sentences - the dishonesty of the Right, from a Righty who accused the Left of dishonesty.

You should hang your head in shame, you despicable zit on the face of humanity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:03 PM

I'm just waiting for someone to assert that Labour's attitude to brexit is antisemitic. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:08 PM

"I'm just waiting for someone to assert that Labour's attitude to brexit is antisemitic. :-)"

Nah Steve - those Righty Liars keep that up their sleeves until th shit properly hits the fan, then they drag it out to divert attention from their own mess they're in.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:08 PM

I think it was a joke BWM but it will not be long before the right wing rags do start something similar seriously!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

Doesn't look like a joke to me, Dave - no smilies, nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:22 PM

If Jeremy Corbyn Leads the next UK government This country is well and truly *ucked. So is the rest of the 'Free world'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 05:54 PM

Calling the referendum and declaring article 50 were passed by majority votes in the House of Commons.

Which party had the overall majority in the house of commons when those items were passed, Stanron? I think it could be you not getting that a party with an overall majority in the commons is quite capable of passing legislation with no help from the rest of parliament. The opposition when these things were passed could moan and whinge as much as they wanted but they had no teeth and could not have stopped them if they tried.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill (to issue article 50).
BBC Here
Even though the Tories had a majority in the House, Labour (in general) did not oppose the issuing of article 50.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 07:07 PM

I've told you why, Nigel. Do listen.

"If Jeremy Corbyn Leads the next UK government This country is well and truly *ucked. So is the rest of the 'Free world'."

Now this bears closer examination. Many would say that the country couldn't be more "well and truly fucked" (I assume that's the word you intended) than it is now and which it has been since the pigshead-screwing public school clown Cameron took power (with the help of a bunch of opportunist losers, aka LibDems), followed by the most disastrous prime minister of all time bar none, who is "in power" (a term used advisedly, especially in view of the coming week) with the help of a bunch of sectarian thugs, aka the DUP. Of course, that's a matter of opinion innit. But it's mine. As for the free world, whoever that is, the UK leaving the EU is a major threat to what's left of democracy on this planet. We have China, Putin, a cluster of regimes in the Middle East, including Israel, who wouldn't know what democracy was if it reared up and bit them on their hubris-laden bollocks. And now we have Trump, who has just about done away with democracy in his own country and who threatens it in his allies. Not to speak of the ascendancy of the far right in Brazil and elsewhere, including in some countries uncomfortably close to home. The EU is the last bastion of democracy among major blocs on this planet, and our leaving is a dire threat to its existence. You would like to lead the world blindfolded into planet-wide despotism. Still, you'll be dead and the generations behind us will have to endure the pain, so why should you bother, Stanron?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 09:13 PM

Nurse! He's having one of his tantrums.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Hard to confront, innit, Stanron?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 02:36 AM

One Right-Wing Extremist Troll buggers off for a while, and his considerably-less-intelligent apprentice turns up like dogshit on your shoe.

Somebody was whingeing a few days ago about lack of communication on this thread. HTF can you 'communicate' with a troll who only ever drops in with deliberately-provocative, one-line statements? Or, more importantly, what would be the point?

Methinks the same tactic is desirable as was used with our aforementioned Right-Wing Extremist Troll - ignore him completely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 02:49 AM

Even though the Tories had a majority in the House, Labour (in general) did not oppose the issuing of article 50.

I really don't believe I am reading this. Are you telling us that whatever a government does is the fault of the opposition rather than of the ruling party? I always thought that the buck stopped with whoever was in power? If it is the other way round, how come our friend Stanron is not welcoming Corbyn's government? When it comes to pass everything that he does will be down to the Tory opposition!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 03:29 AM

It's the NuPolitik philosophy Dave, being currently applied by the BrexShiteers - Corbyn and Labour to blame for the utter failure of May and her government over BrexShit.

Just another example of Tory diversion-tactics, very much along the lines of 'Look over there - Corbyn antisemitism' and all the other tosh they've come up with in the past year or two.

A bunch of clueless idiots trying to divert feeble minds away from their clueless idiotry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 04:21 AM

Unfortunately remainiacs and well educated leavers are split between the two main parties. This is having the effect of creating profound changes in traditional 2 party politics. Even Steptowe senior does not want a second referendum. This is about the only fact concerning his attitude to brexit we do know! Perhaps this is because, in his dotage, he has to rely on Harry, or maybe he has to wander off to his allotment and consult with his cabbages.

It is rumoured the 29/3/2019 2300 departure from Brussels may be delayed due to leavers on the line!

A bunch of clueless idiots trying to divert feeble minds away from their clueless idiotry.
I presume you mean all the labour Mps that are hellbent on defying their electorate concerning brexit. Come the next election their safe sinecure will turn to ash. They will find realpolitik resides in the ballot box!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 04:46 AM

48 hours have elapsed since I posted that one of my insurance companies are relocating some of their operations to Germany, as I suggested they would 30 months ago.

The operative word is "SOME"
THis makes sound sense for any number of reasons, but chiefly regulatory.

Why overlook Jaguar Land Rover moving 2,350 jobs to Slovakia with the help of £110m sweetener offered under EU rules before it axed 4,500 British workers.
This has been happening for years.

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

From my experience trying to transfer a policy from one country to another or even have them communicate details in order to take out a new policy is simply not going to happen. They are totally discrete fiefdoms. Therefore it makes perfect sense for the profit center to be administered within the same country, especially if changes in the regulatory environment are envisaged.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 04:54 AM

I don't overlook that at all, Iains. Companies will always move work around to maximise profits (once hysteresis effects are overcome.) They will always attemptbl to take all relevant economic factors into account.

Brexit is one of them, so it is taken into account. That this sort of reallocation happens a lot does not reduce in any way Brexit being a significant factor.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:00 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 07:07 PM

I've told you why, Nigel. Do listen.

"If Jeremy Corbyn Leads the next UK government This country is well and truly *ucked. So is the rest of the 'Free world'."

Now this bears closer examination. Many would say that the country couldn't be more "well and truly fucked" (I assume that's the word you intended)

Do pay attention. Steve. The line you quote is not one of mine.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:23 AM

Apparently Liam Fox has recently said "I think no-deal would damage our economy - I’ve been frank about that - but I think it’s survivable."


Well, that's good isn't it? Moving from sunny uplands to we think it's survivable is so encouraging ....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:28 AM

Nigel, my first line was a response to a point in your post. I then left a gap. I then quoted a line from Stanron, to which I gave a lengthier response. Pretty clear I should think. I've read it again and it makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:40 AM

"I presume you mean all the labour Mps that are hellbent on defying their electorate concerning brexit."

This confirms what I've said several times about this poster, that he doesn't understand democracy. Not one MP in this country was elected on the understanding that they would cowtow to the whims of their constituents. That is simply not how it works. We expect them to have a little more expert knowledge than the rest of us and that they will devote their time to working in the best interests of the country. "Defying" is an inappropriate characterisation. My neighbour voted leave but I voted remain. If my MP (an unreconstructed, ignorant Tory git, but hey) goes for leave, he's "defying" me. If he goes for remain he's "defying" my neighbour. You can't defy or not defy everybody all of the time. And the "electorate" isn't one big lump with a single brain. Even David Willets is only one person even though he has two brains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:14 AM

that he doesn't understand democracy. Not one MP in this country was elected on the understanding that they would cowtow to the whims of their constituents.
No, but both major parties had manifestos which would be MPs needed to agree to.
The Labour manifesto said: Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
The Conservative manifesto said: “We will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union.”

So MPs of both major parties have committed to going ahead with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

I don't think tax payers who would be content with just surviving would be happy to receive a tax bill to compensate the rest of us, would they?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

It was perfectly clear to anyone but the nitpickiest nitpicker in Nitpickering, Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:20 AM

Yes Steve, but I think you will find future events prove you wrong. Revenge for the electorate is a dish best served cold, after a nano second of reflection.

There is a certain inconsistency in your arguments:
You say they(mps) work for the best interests of the country ...chunder, chunder, chunder....
But!
you also say:"Well the one and only reason that the Tory referendum, then Article 50, were ratified is that the steamroller was already in full flow and that any party which voted against either would have been toast. We call it realpolitik."

seems to me you want to have your toast and eat and furthermore accept when it comes to survival Labour MPs would sell their aunts!

For a man that argues the sins of nitpicking you obviously hope your dual standards will not be commented on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:30 AM

Only convenient nits are picked, though. It is all very well quoting "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first" but what happens when sunsequent analyses convince you in the sincere belief is that those two clauses are in conflict? Do you follow Brexit in the sincere belief it does harm to the national interest? Or do you put the national interest first in accordance with the manifesto even if that means no Brexit.

Each Labour MP will have to decide, but it is simply wrong to say their manifesto commitment obliges them to take one clause rather than the other.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:33 AM

Pointing out what MPs should be working for (the best interests of the country), in contrast to what most of them actually do (give in to realpolitik) is wholly consistent. And I've told you several times now, Nigel, why both parties "supported brexit" after the referendum. Any party opposing the outcome of the vote would be toast. The fact remains, and what brexiteers are shit scared of, is that there is no actual majority among MPs for any kind of brexit at all. In fact, there wouldn't be a majority even if you lumped all the brexit-in-any-form MPs together. The majority of MPs know that remaining is the only option that is in the interests of the country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:00 AM

Pointing out what MPs should be working for (the best interests of the country), in contrast to what most of them actually do (give in to realpolitik) is wholly consistent.

Consistant with what?
Reality?
or your opinion?
To a rational person the two stances are most inconsistent.
(We know you offer your opinions as facts because you have admitted it)

what brexiteers are shit scared of, is that there is no actual majority among MPs for any kind of brexit at all.

Simply not true. Valiant Brexiteers are more that miffed that MPs elected on an honouring Brexit ticket are betraying their manifestos en masse. This will nor be forgotten, neither will the dwarf's devious machinations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:37 AM

I'm cutting you dead. Bye.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:39 AM

are you leaving as well? Bon Voyage!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:20 AM

It's laughable that Theresa May, who has serially tried to undermine parliamentary democracy and who has even been successfully taken to court over it, is now threatening that MPs would be fatally undermining democracy if they don't vote for her deal tomorrow. The whole point of tomorrow's vote (which she undemocratically postponed) was to give MPs a meaningful democratic voice over her deal. Now she's invoking a mini-Project Fear instead of making the argument for the deal, and she's lying about the "legality" of the gentle encouraging whimpers she's getting from the EU. Doubtless she'll bring her discredited deal back again and again in the coming weeks with tiny tweaks intended to get the result she wants. And these people have the gall to criticise those who call for a people's vote on the grounds that we just want to keep trying until we get the result we want...

Whatever happens tomorrow, and I hope the deal gets so comprehensively trounced that it'll have no way back, anything would be better than this woman carrying on being our PM. Almost, anyhow.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:23 AM

She didn't undemocratically postpone tomorrow's vote. She postponed it TO tomorrow. There, I've been and gone and nitpicked my own post. It's very catching I find.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:27 AM

According to convention a rejected vote can only be brought back if it is significantly changed. And who judges that? Why, our old friend, the Speaker.

Expect more criticisms of bias on his part.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

So looking at the news today, the UK political system is in turmoil - Cameron has done untold damage to the political, economic and social structure of this country,and if/when the people of Witney are punished for electing him, I will have no sympathy whatsover.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:46 AM

Well it seems that there's no room for significant changes. The backstop can't be changed in any shape or form. It's ironic, really, that a measure that no-one wants and which probably won't be needed, given sensible and sane trade talks after brexit*, has got the brexiteers in such a flat spin...


*Mind you...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:00 AM

Have you learned nothing from past discussion SPB? It is not Cameron that has done untold damage. It is Jeremy Corbyn with his antisemitic, unpatriotic opposition to Theresa May's destruction of the country that has caused all this. It is likely to go on to cause a plague of Morris dancers, rivers of Watneys Red Barrel and the death of the first born song on any given singers night.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:06 AM

Somehow I can see John Redwood playing the role of the Mari Llwd. His welsh connections are impeccable.

I am not sure we should trust the cabinet with rapper swords though. The ritual beheading in some dances might go wrong if one is accidentally sharpened.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:13 AM

(Self nitpick: The ritual beheading is more common in longsword than rapper.

You are right: it *IS* catching.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:14 AM

As an only child, I will need to avoid singers nights, then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:16 AM

Has Midsomer Murders done that yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:29 AM

Anyone remember Steve Bell depicting John Redwood as the alien with no nipples? We stayed at a B&B a few years ago where he'd recently been a guest. The other guests told us that he'd been obnoxiously aloof and sullen and wouldn't speak to anyone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:47 AM

"Despite Theresa May heading towards what could be the biggest Government defeat in modern political history tomorrow, the Tories are still a comfortable six points ahead of Labour according to the latest YouGov poll. The Tories are on 41%, ahead of Labour on 35% with the Lib Dems and UKIP trailing behind on 11% and 4%. Voters are still favouring chaos with the Conservatives over chaos with Corbyn…"

From youGov and quoted on your favourite "sauce" Guido!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 11:11 AM

That same survey reports 46% would vote to remain and 39% to leave if there was a referendum tomorrow. Just in case you and Guido forgot to mention that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 11:20 AM

If a Tory 19% poll lead results in them losing their majority in parliament. 6% poll lead.... BRING IT ON!!!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

"The new quarterly GDP figures this morning reveal that EU economies are experiencing a significant slowdown in growth. The UK on the other hand is one of the few EU countries where GDP growth is higher this year than last year’s admittedly anaemic performance. It is still a staggering outcome compared to previously gloomy official forecasts.

The Bank of England is warning that the UK economy is nearing full capacity and it may have to raise interest rates. So much for the post-referendum immediate economic aftershock we were warned about.

France’s growth rate has halved on last year’s Q3 numbers, and German growth is also expected to halve from 0.8% last year to just 0.4%. On average Eurozone growth was a dismal 0.2%, a new four year low."

These figures would put the UK above all other EU countries in the G7 in terms of GDP growth quarter-on-quarter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 01:46 PM

Nice quotation from Speaker John Bercow a few minutes ago:

I have no intention of taking lectures in doing right by Parliament from people who have been conspicuous in denial of and, sometimes, contempt for it. I will stand up for the rights of the House of Commons and I will not be pushed around by agents of the executive branch.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:03 PM

It could well happen that we have a fresh General Election in a few weeks time. It could also happen that we have a fresh referendum. Why is one of those possibilities seen as undemocratic, but the other is not?

I've yet to read any comprehensible reason why deciding to have a fresh referendum on something about which there has already been a referendum is in any way more undemocratic than deciding to have a fresh general election which wasn't timetabled, as happened in 2017, regardless of the fact that when people voted in 2015 it was for a five year parliament.

Before the fixed term Parliament act, of course, a Prime Minister could decide to have a General Election any time they wanted. Now it's harder, but it can still happen any time, if the appropriate procedures are carried out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:13 PM

As I oppose referendums vehemently, and as I fervently opposed the last one, I'm finding it difficult to make any case whatsoever in my mind for another one. There's an argument that we have reached such a severe state of crisis and paralysis that another vote is the only way out. But I think that it would be incredibly divisive. The polls may be showing a majority for remain, but, if it comes to the crunch, I think an awful lot of remainers would either refrain from voting in disgust at the "affront to democracy" or vote leave. Most leave voters would still vote leave. There is not going to be a result any more decisive than the last one, so is it really a way out? I take the point that if we allow one referendum it can hardly be argued that another, taking into account developments since June 2016, would be in any way undemocratic. No-one's hands would be tied into voting a certain way. Whether it's the right way forward is an entirely separate issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:24 AM

The significant change in any new vote, particularly a new referendum, would be that there are nearly three million people on the electoral role who were not there in 2016. Most of them would be young people, who, if electoral research is correct, would be 80% likely to vote remain. That is far higher than the 1.4 million margin for leave last time.

The relevant thing isn’t whether a referendum is preferable to a general election, or the other way round. It is a matter of which option is capable of being established.

The catchword "affront to democracy" which has become attached to the notion of a fresh referendum, but evidently not to a new general election is very strange. It just doesn't stand up to critical examination.

Unfortunately the fact that it is essentially a nonsensical label doesn’t stop it from being a very powerful one . It's rather like a term like "stab in the back" after a military defeat, or the lie that the 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending. It's treated by many as true beyond question. It's an emperor parading openly with no clothes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

"Unfortunately the fact that it is essentially a nonsensical label doesn’t stop it from being a very powerful one . It's rather like a term like "stab in the back" after a military defeat, or the lie that the 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending. It's treated by many as true beyond question. It's an emperor parading openly with no clothes."

And proof, if any were needed, of 'The Illusion of Truth Effect' well known to psychologists, and beloved of politicians.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

Speaker fails to call amendment that would limit 'backstop'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 10:38 AM

He actually has allowed several that aspire to do so. But there is no way in which a vote in the commons can change the backstop so that there's an end date. It's a bit like having a vote to determine that the earth is flat, or the capital of Italy is Venice.
......................
One interesting point that has been entirely ignored by commentators. If Theresa May's Deal we’re somehow to win the vote today, the DUP has said it would abandon its agreement to support the governmen. That would mean that it wouldn't have any majority in Parliament, and would be liable to find it impossible to get anything passed - including the legislation needed for the deal to take effect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 01:07 PM

Sticking my neck out for tonight: when Corbyn responds to May after the vote, he will say that it is appropriate to wait until the three days allowed for a response are up and May's retry has been voted on. Only then will it be appropriate to call a confidence vote.

He may well not say it that explicitly, but I suspect that will be the essence of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 01:10 PM

There are nearly three million people on the electoral role who were not there in 2016.
It just doesn't stand up to critical examination.

Peter Kellner, YouGov’s former president states: 395,000 reach voting age each year.( Assuming 3 full years- to be generous) That equals 1,185,000.It also assumes they are registered on the electoral role.

Government Statistics:
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors increased by 380,000 (0.8%) between December 2016 and December 2017, a smaller increase than in the previous year. This follows an increase of around 1 million the previous year.
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors in December 2017 was 46,148,000. The electoral roll does not directly correlate with those of voting age. Not every adult qualifies, those that are have to ensure they are registered.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:41 PM

For the sake of accuracy the Office for National statistics has estimates and projections for the years in question of around 725k reaching 18. I am beginning to think all the figures are inaccurate apart from those supplied by the Electoral Commission. Decide for yourself.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/elec

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:50 PM

So I guessed wrongly - Corbyn has tabled a confidence motion. It was an interesting offer from May to allow other parties to submit no confidence motions: if Corbyn hadn't intended to, he would have little choice as a result.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:16 PM

Biggest government defeat for 95 years (Ramsey McDonald 1924).

Probably an even bigger defeat than was expected. So Teresa May has effectively wasted over two and a half years of everyones time and effort.

No doubt those on here who maintain we should respect our MP's will be calling for heads to roll, particularly hers.

For some reason the words ship, leaving, sinking and rats come to my mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:20 PM

Considering the Brexit vote of June 2016 preceded the T***p vote of November 2016, this may be an ill wind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:30 PM

My previous post was based on the assumption that 423 to 203 votes represents a majority by the remainers on here!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:38 PM

EU president suggests remain may be only option left

Maybe, but probably not too helpful a thing to say at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:51 PM

The only down side to such a huge defeat is that pig sticker Cameron was not at the receiving end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:26 PM

Watching from this side of the pond - seems like you should do another referendum to stay or split, and make sure everyone takes it seriously this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:28 PM

I wonder whether there will be a "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" moment here? (I can tell you precisely in my case, actually...). I can also tell you that when tonight's vote came in (I had my phone on silent buzzing) I was in the Rebel Cinema just outside Bude, watching the new Laurel And Hardy film. And I can tell you that it's one of the loveliest, most warm-hearted films you'll ever see!

Tomorrow is another day. Don't you just love it when some media twat tells you that you're "living through history"?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:29 PM

Interesting that the pound has truly soared in the last hour. Up almost 10 Cents.

I'm sure someone will give me the exact percentage but it's about 9%

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

I well remember a salesman showing me some software and explaining the new functionality in the upgrade. He was talking through menu options to show which were new and remarked "History - that's always been there..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:47 PM

DMcG - :-D

Raggy. Surely it only soars when a brexiteer tells us it has soared :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:51 PM

No Dave, even I can figure out that a fall of one half of one cent (less than 1/2 a percent) is not plumetting although there were those who suggested it was.

I can also tell that a rise of about 9% in an hour is also pretty unusual, to say the least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:55 PM

At last! A result which is undeniably convincing! None of your 55/45 or 52/48 but 202/432!
Just watching this space, having not been on this thread before, and can't be ersed to read all 2,700 and something posts!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:00 PM

This possible explanation on the BBC Raggytash   :
""The probability of a no deal has diminished while the chances of a delay in Article 50, a second referendum or even, at the margin, no Brexit at all, have all increased. The consequence of those scenarios has encouraged sterling to rally despite the PM suffering the worst parliamentary result in a century," said Jeremy Stretch of CIBC Capital Markets.""

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:02 PM

I'm just waiting for the reasons why it is nothing to do with brexit! At least they are not going blame it on Jeremy Corbyn...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:06 PM

Sorry guys, my error.

In my defence drink has been taken!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 07:17 PM

Very timely with the Stan and Ollie film supplying the verdict.

"Another fine mess you've got us in."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 08:48 PM

There's a rather weird feeling that, in spite of the alleged historical significance of the day, there isn't actually anything new that anyone can say, including on here. Maybe tomorrow...

I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire
I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up
in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement
And I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames
And when it was all over I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire?

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is

[Cheers, Peggy]

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:06 PM

Bugger. Now that I've mentioned it, I can't resist. I was twelve years old, in the second form of my grammar school. I was sitting in our front room with the telly on, putting off my homework, at half past six on November 22 1963. My dad was still at work, at Burtons in Pendleton, where he was the shop manager. My mum was in the kitchen washing up. The magazine programme Scene At Six Thirty had just started, presented by the much-loved Mike Scott. From his obituary:

While still appearing in a more familiar capacity, as anchorman of the regional news magazine, Scene at 6.30, Scott was the messenger in an historic Granada coup. On November 22 1963, the programme had been on the air five minutes when the telephone rang in the newsroom adjacent to the studio. It was CBS in New York with the tip that President John Kennedy had been shot. There was a rule that individual programme companies should never pre-empt ITN on big news. Denis Forman, the senior Granada executive present, called ITN and was told they were not going to break into the schedules with the story until they had it from their own reporter in America. On the impulse Forman decided to go ahead, and Scott broke the news to northern viewers half-an-hour before it reached the rest of the country.

At twenty-five to seven we knew that Kennedy had been shot. Within half an hour we knew that he was dead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:11 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.

But now all the Tories in the House of Commons are going to troop through the lobby proclaiming they have full confidence in that government. Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 AM

"Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate."

Three words, actually, one of which I'm sure you and others here might deign use. But I worked in engineering for much of my life, in close contact with the men and women who are the true wealth-creators - the shop-floor workers - and I'm no stranger to, nor squeamish about using, their language. The phrase that immediately springs to mind is 'Self-serving arse-holes'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:02 AM

Does that mean we can now get compensation from higher rate tax payers for the impact of the referendum on stirling, and therefore our pockets?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:32 AM

Just heard on Victoria Derbyshire's programme that Jacob 'Call Me Jake' Rich-Mong held a champagne reception at his London home last night, for him and his immensely-wealthy chums to celebrate their victory, and the increased likelihood of a 'hard' BrexShit - which, of course, they want in order to escape the new EU Anti-Tax-Dodging regulations due to come in this year.

Once again, the tiny wealthy minority are squaring up to give it straight up the arse to the hoi-polloi.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:37 AM

All this arse-talk brought to mind David Lammy's remark about Jezza's reluctance to call for a people's vote: "If he vacillates and sits on the fence I’m afraid he is going to get splinters in a place he doesn’t want."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

The no-confidence motion will be lost. I have a feeling that Corbyn didn't want to call it right now, but was forced into it by May's intimation that she would accept a motion from any party, not just the official opposition (which is the only source of the motion she is obliged to accept). Say the SNP had jumped in with the motion instead of Labour and May had accepted. That would have made Labour look vacillating. She is gambling on winning this and wants it out of the way as quickly as possible, not hanging over her for days. She has good advisers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

The Brexit Bollox is front and center in US media.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:18 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.
Surely the 'central policy' as per the Conservative manifesto is that we will leave the EU. The compromise Mrs May was putting forward would not have got us out, so voting against it was the correct thing to do.
The size of the majority would have been because Brexiteers would vote against it as it is 'BRINO' (Brexit in name only), while Remainers would have voted against it as they do not want Brexit in any form.

All the pundits were projecting that Mrs May would lose. It was only the size of the loss that was surprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:23 AM

Strange though it might seem, the chances of a no deal and of a second referendum have both increased. That's what happens when other options are eliminated or become less likely.

No deal is hanging its hopes on the fact it can only be stopped by amending legislation, which is true. And that legislation must identify something else to do. But they are wrong in claiming that needs to be a new deal proposal: things like a new referendum or a request for an extension could also do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:25 AM

Rees-Mogg demolished by James O'Brian

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:21 AM

I can barely believe it! At a time when BrexShit is a disaster, the government has suffered its greatest defeat ever, and she's under the cosh in a Confidence Debate today, that bloody woman has just raised 'Jeremy Corbyn and Labour anti-semitism' again at PMQs!

Standard diversion tactics of the despicable, clueless Tories once again - BrexShit and the government reduced to chaos? "Look over there - Labour anti-semitism!". What a bunch of deceitful dicks this seedy bunch of Tories are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 08:59 AM

Backwoodsman, yes, foul tactics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:09 AM

Watching Parliament live, some Tory moron has suggested May goes back to the EU and ask them to change the backstop in legally binding ways. Jees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:17 AM

Lots of attacks on Corbyn, with antisemitism raised yet again a minute or two ago.

Reminder: this debate is not about whether Labour would be better. That decision is, at some point, for the electorate to decide, not Parliament. This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:39 AM

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic. I just thought I would make that point crystal clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:06 AM

Deflection, DMcG. It's the only form of 'defence' those Tory cockwombles have got.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:39 AM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)
So the only effect is to give Jeremy Corbyn the chance to say that he tried to do something, and to reduce the available time to discuss Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:46 PM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)

There is a fair amount of truth in that, Nigel, but of course it applies to every confidence vote (on the government), for any party, at any time. There is nothing special about this one, in that respect: self interest is always a significant aspect. Occasionally, an MP 'sniffs the wind' and thinks the movements under way mean that there could be a change of leader/direction coming, and their long prospects at better supporting the new rather than the old, but that is pretty rare.

I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:59 PM

"I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers."

I agree, in fact I don't believe JC actually wants a GE at all - who, in their right mind, would want to take on the absolute crock of shite we've been dropped in by Idiot Boy Camoron, Farage, Bozo, Gove, May, and their terminally fractured Tory Party?

Those cocks made their bed, let the buggers lie in it. With any luck, they'll bugger it up so Royally, they'll render themselves unelectable for generations - they're well on the way to it already.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:20 PM

Farage is now saying

the EU would come back with a better Brexit deal within 48 hours if the threat of leaving under WTO rules was delivered to them by a new pro-Leave Prime Minister.

Reported by the Express as a brilliant idea.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:21 PM

"reduce the time available to discuss Brexit"

For crying out Nigel your mob have had over two and a half years to discuss Brexit and to date have achieved next to bugger all.

This situation is down to the Conservative and Unionist party and them alone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:37 PM

Ex Labour MP John Woodcock:
"With a heavy heart I have to tell the House that I cannot support the no confidence motion tonight. Some of my friends mutter disgrace, I hear some of them tutting, I have to say that many of them have privately said “Thank God that you have got the freedom to actually not support this”. Because they are wrestling with their consciences of wanting definitely a Labour Government, knowing that the leader of their party is as unfit to lead the country as he was when they voted against him in the no confidence motion of the party those years ago."

There speaks an honest MP!
(A cousin of the esteemed Teribus, Mayhap?)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 PM

He is mistaken. As I say, the question before the House he is being asked to vote on is whether he has confidence in the government. A decision whether Labour and Corbyn is elected if it comes to it belongs to the whole public. It is not his to decide.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

An honest MP? I suggest you look into how he dishonestly breached parliament rules, and misused nearly £2000 of public money that furthered a campaign which was beneficial to his re-election chances. He was elected as a Labour MP then decided to sit as an independent, thus cheating the people who thought they were voting for a Labour government. There's a bit more murk around him too, yet to be resolved. I wouldn't buy a used car off him, that's for sure. I doubt whether Teribus would either.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:04 PM

Gove speaking now - deflection, deflection, deflection. The wreath-laying incident now. Have I missed something? I thought the debate and vote was about confidence in the Tory government? They're desperate, and deflection is all they've got.

On a point of order, Teribus is not 'esteemed' by anyone here except, apparently, Iains. And, of course, displays of self--worship demonstrate a lack of class.. Stooping lower than we would have expected of you, Teribiains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Esteemed Teribus?

You mean the man who's postings proved so abhorrent he was banned from posting as a member.

You really pick some choice people don't you.

Right back to Brexit. The government unsurprisingly has survived the no confidence vote. Those turkeys decided not to vote for Christmas.

The next few days and weeks will no doubt see even more turmoil within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:42 PM

Not a fan of Tom Watson, but he made a good speech which stuck to the topic of the debate, and laid bare the abject failures of May and her government. It's a pity the same can't be said of the Slithy Gove who seemed to be very confused and under the misapprehension that the subject of the debate was the leader of the opposition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 03:44 PM

Just ignore him chaps. You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

Is that the backward man? What a jolly good idea! Meanwhile steptowe senior has made a fine spectacle of himself.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:13 PM

I'll bet he can spell Steptoe properly though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:53 PM

One minute she's trying to smear Corbyn over the dead antisemitism bollix, next minute she's saying how disappointed she is that she couldn't persuade him to toady along with her. Why is this bloody harridan still our prime minister?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:06 PM

Gracie Field's 1932 classic deserves updating. "He's dead but he won't lie down"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:05 AM

It's just a shame that she let two-and-a-half years slip by, and arrived at the last few weeks before 29/3/19, before asking the other parties to take part in the process, and then tries to make political capital because Corbyn is less than enthusiastic. She's a joke, and not even a good one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:38 AM

And, of course, she could get Corbyn involved very easily, by declaring that there will be no 'No-Deal Brexit' and doing whatever is necessary to extend A50. But, whereas Corbyn has acted in the interests of the countryi n order to try to prevent the likelihood of the undeniable disaster of Hard-Brexit, May is trying to use his decision to make Party-political capital.

A perfect example of the perfidy and deceit of May in particular, and her dreadful party in general.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 04:07 AM

Not my work but I wish it was :-)

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen. She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not. Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is. Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been. At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more. The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic. And of course as expected she loses. Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not no-deal either.
Thank goodness for strong and stable government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 04:42 AM

Wish it was mine too, Dave! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 05:03 AM

I can't disagree with the critiscism levelled at the Prime Minister but the fact of her being bad does not make Jeremy Corbyn good. Immeadiately after the meaningful vote he said that Labour's position was clear. If the Labour Party have a clear policy on Brexit then I better look under the sofa and see if I can find it.

Both May's and Corbyn's styles are similar:- say as little of substance as you can get away with in the hope that you won't get the blame in the future and, once you have found a phrase that seems to work, repeat it as a mantra. I'm sure that Theresa May has tried her best and that Jeremy Corbyn is a man of principle but neither of them are strong leaders.

DC

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

I don't think there is much to disagree with there Doug but there is one thing that you have not factored in. May has been given the opportunity and has failed miserably. Corbyn has not yet had the opportunity. He could prove to be as bad but I doubt it and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unlike brexit we could always change our minds after 5 years anyway :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:48 AM

Jeremy Corbyn has made it absolutely clear that no-deal must not be an option. Theresa May is desperate to keep it ON the table, because she thinks that will give her blackmailing leverage to get people on board with her already-failed deal. She is playing dice with the public interest by so doing and we should applaud Corbyn for seeing through her ugly ploy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 01:03 PM

According to the Independent, the UK government is calling up reservists to help in the case of crashing out of the EU. They are to help with issues including wealth, health and security. The Daily Mail says they will be on standby in the streets in case of civil unrest. It seems that such unrest is seen as a possible outcome of shortages.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 01:34 PM

Yes, we know there might be some hardship in the short term....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:32 PM

Doug, Jeremy's position is quite clear. It is to remain in the Customs Union and be closely aligned with the Single Market, although not in it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 02:57 PM

I'm voting for it too...#hardremain :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

Posted by a friend just now on his FB Page...

"Take back control" they said, "Return decision making to Parliament" they said. Oh the irony! Sophocles himself couldn't have written it.

Sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 07:19 PM

Terrible Question Time. A greasy little Toryboy and Isabel Effin' Oakeshott. A dreadful antediluvian audience, and Fiona trying way too hard. We've got nowhere.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 07:49 PM

Why, oh why, do they keep wheeling the harridan Oakeshott out, with her rabid far-right views, when they could give us the far more intelligent, balanced, and absolutely delicious, Isabel Hardman?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 08:12 PM

I agree, John. She's lovely but she appears to be shagging the execrable John Woodcock, he of Iain's "now there goes an honest MP" ilk...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 08:25 PM

Oh bugger, I thought Isabel (or Issi, as she likes me to call her) was saving herself for me! :-) ;-)

And to abandon me for the slime-ball Woodcock! Oh the betrayal!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:18 PM

"I've said it before and I'll say it again...'Democracy simply doesn't work." "

The Simpsons

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 19 - 09:33 PM

Never mind, John. As for me, I'm sure that the exceptionally lovely Lucy Worsley has me in her sights...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:07 AM

Every time I see Oakenshot it is a good clue how things were going to go. I thought her reponse to the "must we go vegan" queatuon right at the end was interesting. How she thinks we must move to quality meat where we keep eating it, and how the animal welfare is so close to her heart...


Fits so well with free trade with Trump, does it not?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:18 AM

I should perhaps also say I find Rory Stewart to be one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic Tories. There are plenty a lot worse than him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:10 AM

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-january-2019/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:39 AM

Most unlike you to post a poll saying Labour is ahead of the Conservatives.

As for supporting a second referendum, that is more subtle than the straightforward numbers suggest. I (and some others on here) do not support a second referendum. But I do think it better than some other alternatives. So to really find out what is the preference you with have to have a whole series of queations of the form "If your only choice was X or Y, which would you prefer?" Either that or rank the options first, second, third etc (which is logically equivalent if, but only if, people are consistent.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

I like Emelia Fox.

Do you think she is a real forensic pathologist?

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:08 AM

From the Express poll:

"On the issue of a second referendum, most people want the 2016 Referendum to be respected (53%)..."

When I read stuff like this (and it applies to several other questions in the poll) I scratch me head wondering what the question was that might have been put. "Do you want to respect or disrespect...?" "Do you or do you not want to respect...?"

Respect in what way? The way it was organised? The campaigns? The way the bar was set low? The result? The people who voted the opposite way to you? The fact that a referendum was called at all? I mean, I like the idea that the poll put Labour slightly ahead, etc., but I think I need to know a bit more before I can respect this poll!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:21 AM

I agree with DMcG about another referendum. (A) I don't agree with referendums at all, (B) I can't think of a good, fair way of posing the right question, (C) the result will be divisive and quite likely will resolve nothing, (D) I can't see the campaign being any less dishonest than last time, (E) listening to the vox pops that the Beeb employs as cheap telly non-news, and the ignorance of Question Time audiences, etc., on show, I despair of the British public ever being able to make a fair, balanced and measured decision on this complex matter. Other than that, he may be right in that it could be the only way out of this morass...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:35 AM

That's three on'us then. And, in my case, for precisely the same reasons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

It has been said a lot by Brexiteers that we have to agree another deal under legislation to change that. It is not true, of course. We do have to have legislation, but that does not have to be a deal.

Here is an idea I have been mulling over 'the DMcG backstop.' We agree in legislation to ask the EU for an extension to allow us to run a referendum in 12 months time unless we agree a deal in the interim. Any deal we bring to to EU will already have been approved for that purpose by Parliament. If we fail to agree such a deal either within Parliament or with the EU the referendum happens. Otherwise it is does not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:46 AM

..to change the March 29th date..

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 10:49 AM

A live report:

Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has said that other countries are to blame for the fact that the UK does not have alternative trade deals ready by 29 March to replace the existing 40 EU ones that will lapse if the UK leaves without a deal. Asked about this revelation in today’s Financial Times (see 10.57am), he said:

[The agreements are] not just dependent on the UK. Our side is ready. It is largely dependent on whether other countries believe that there will be no deal, and are willing to put the work into the preparations.



Unbelievable. At least it would be were it not for "I didn't understand Dover" Raab, "Who needs boats?" Grayling and so many others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Here is more on 'No Deal'. I don't have any solutions, but turkeys and Xmas come to mind.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisted.pdf

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Liam Fox is obviously a very important person, and it shows clearly that the rest of the world are either too useless and incompetent to give Fox what he wants, or they are deliberately disobeying the British Master race, which if this is the case their nationals living in the UK should be severely punished.

Alternatively, Tory supporting idiots should grow up and realise that the rest of the world aren't going to subjugate themselves to British excrement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 11:58 AM

I have the answer. All we have to do is to persuade the Republic of Ireland to leave the EU at the same time as us and there would be no need for a backstop or a hard border. Problem solved!
?;-)

DC

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:02 PM

I have heard Brexit supporters suggest that in all seriousness, Doug. No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:11 PM

Even simpler, cut Northern Ireland loose from Great Britain. Then it's up to them to decide whether they'd sooner be off on their own, link up with the rest of Ireland, or something in between.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

"No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well..."
Been there - done that
Didn't work out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 01:17 PM

"No doubt they think it might be a good idea if the Republic joined the UK as well..."
Been there - done that"

Don't think so!   The Republic If Ireland has never been part of the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:30 PM

Ignore, Jim. Absolument not worth it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

"Ignore, Jim. Absolument not worth it."
Sorted Steve - but thanks for the thought
(What's absolument?)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 02:35 PM

Goddit
"D'une manière absolue.
Il veut absolument vous voir."
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:37 PM

Question time yesterday
I recommend the comments section.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:46 PM

Boris Johnson would be amazed if the EU could not be got to drop the backstop ( and falsely claims not to have mentioned Turkey in campaigning).


PS 1801 "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:49 PM

Rather good article in Mirror on Johnson's attitudes to foreigners, different cultures,

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-reasons-boris-johnson-probably-8416540

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 03:55 PM

allez to franglais, c'est absolutement la language de les deues.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: keberoxu
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 04:01 PM

les whos?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 04:05 PM

pardonnez-moi - les dieus - obviousleyment

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 05:05 PM

P.S. Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Effective 1949.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 05:51 PM

And despite assurances, May is thinking of doing away with the Human Rights Act. Yep, we're sure getting rid of all that leftie regulation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 06:02 PM

I've heard so much bollix-talk about the backstop this week. The bottom line is that we can't decide unilaterally to end it. We can't decide to put a time limit on it. This is not the EU "dictating" to us or cutting up rough. The backstop is a mutual agreement between an EU country and a non-EU country. It can't be one-sided either in its implementation, its duration or its termination. If we don't mutually agree to it, there's no backstop and there's a hard border. We can't put a legal condition on ending it. And it can't be ended until we strike a final trade deal with the EU. Sensible people would sit down to ensure that that happens, negating the need for a backstop, but hands up anyone here who thinks that sensible people are dealing with this. The way some of these Tory brexiteers use the backstop as the big dealbreaker is totally dishonest. They constantly try to blame the EU for our woes. Thing is, chaps, we started it...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:36 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 07:53 PM

Further to my post of 7.19pm yesterday, in which I blustered about how awful Question Time was this week, I note that Momentum (which I've persistently refused to become a member of, by the way) has complained to the BBC about the treatment of Diane Abbott, both before the programme in the warm-up and in the exchanges involving Diane, Isabel Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce concerning opinion polls. Oakeshott and Bruce, wildly incorrectly, asserted that Labour were trailing badly in the polls, which they are not. As Diane said, Labour is, according to most recent polls, level-pegging with the Tories. But she was ridiculed and shouted down after lies were told by Oakeshott and Bruce. Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

Can you just confirm what polls you are relying on for this statement?
Also the expression "most recent polls". Is this 'the majority of recent polls' or 'the most-recent' of available polls. The expression the most recent polls has two clear, and different meanings.
A quick google gives the Conservatives a good lead: YouGov
I'm not stating that you are wrong, just asking what is the basis for your claims.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:11 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:13 PM

Would it be too much to ask that the presenter of Question Time should be someone who is actually informed?

I'd ask the several presenters at Fux "News"[sic], Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 08:19 PM

Yup.

I gave her a bye on her first week, but, bejaysus, not only was she trying too hard last night and butting ignorantly in as often as possible, she was also showing her right-wing bias big time. Not to speak of her ill-informedness (have I just made up a word?). Read the news nicely and stick to antiques, Fiona.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:28 PM

Do not try to twat around with me, Niglet. The information you "require" is available on the Guardian website, the Beeb website and mo'. Go for it, boy. It's all out there. And don't be so bloody lazy.

No, you didn't mention The Guardian, just "most recent polls".
I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on. If you can't provide the details then I'll guess that you are plucking figures out of thin air.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps it's not just Steve being a twat (although that is possible).
In The Guardian report on abuse of Diane Abbott on Question Time Here The Guardian states: Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.
The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were "way behind in the polls" and Abbott replied that "we are kind of level-pegging" before Bruce said that Labour were "definitely" behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
But the included link is to poll results in November 2018 Here

It seems that The Guardian can make statements about the current situation, but is unable to link to suitably supporting data. Just like Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:07 AM

A bit of a pointless spat about polls, given that I think we all know they can be unreliable. But only a day or two ago Iains linked to a recent poll in the Express showing Labour a few points ahead of Conservatives. The link is available to every poster on this thread, and is to a recent poll and that stated lead has been mentioned on at least two subsequent posts.

More serious than a poll is the question of whether Diane Abbott was being treated unfairly. That is important, both individually and politically.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:59 AM

Back to the topic of the thread....

I found this rather amusingly-written piece this morning, can't give attribution as there was none on the original which I copied, but it made me think about the innately invincible humour of the Brit - that at a time of the biggest crisis in our democracy since WW2, we can still 'see the funny side' of the completely unnecessary bollocks-up that BrexShit, in the hands of a bunch of Tory incompetents and crooks, has been since Day One...

Apologies if it's been put on here before, but I'm not going to trawl through >2!000 posts to check...

"BREXIT; THE STORY SO FAR.

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, didn’t, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen. She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She stayed in power by paying the DUP to agree with her. The DUP wanted to leave the EU but the people of NI wanted to remain. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't.

People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to things she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't, said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary.

People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not. Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.
At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more. The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic. And of course as expected she lost.

Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not managed either. When asked, our MP’s voted that they had confidence in her when they haven’t and said that we can’t have a Corbyn government because it would be chaotic and be bad for the country. Corbyn complained that May hadn’t asked for his views but when she did he said he wouldn’t talk because she is intransigent. There are 10 weeks left before it will all be sorted at the last minute. Or not......"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:11 AM

When various polls show both parties running neck and neck, then to make any meaningful interpretation merely displays a woeful lack of knowledge as to the accuracy of polling.

More serious a question is: why was the Abbacus riding first class to question time?
Is the champagne socialist afraid to associate with the proles?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:39 AM

Ignore, chaps. That's a troll post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:41 AM

It sounds like you agree QT should not have claimed Dianne Abbott was inaccurate when she saiad the polls showed the parties as more or less level.

I suspect the train tickets are arranged and paid for by the BBC for all panellists, but I don't know for certain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 04:44 AM

But my post is on topic. Yours most definitely is not!

troll: a person who sows discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, off-topic messages

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:07 AM

From today's Guardian:
I once read an account of the late Eric Heffer MP having a row in a meeting held in an oak-panelled room. Eric decided to storm out. He got up, walked round the room, pushing hard on a succession of identical oak panels, none of which proved to be the exit. His indignation abating as his frustration mounted, Eric turned round, walked back to his chair, and rejoined the meeting with the immortal words: “Bugger it, I might as well stay.” We now look to parliament to emulate Eric’s good sense.
Emeritus Professor Glyn Turton
Baildon, West Yorkshire

I think that about nails where we've got to...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:15 AM

Can anyone explain what Diane Abbott sitting in a First Class railway carriage has to do with the topic of this thread - the BrexShit process?

If not, the post that introduced that issue is, by the definition in a later post made by the very same person who introduced it, a trolling post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:17 AM

When I attended a Question Time at the Eden Project, the panellists appeared to arrive in a fleet of Beeb cars. Mind you, it's tough getting there by public transport, and it was many moons ago. The point about Diane Abbott is that she spoke accurately on the point of recent polls but was shouted down/ridiculed for doing so, aided and abetted by Fiona Bruce and the obnoxious Ms Oakeshott, who were both clearly uninformed, or, worse, telling lies. Whether polls can be relied on or not is utterly beside the point.

What was it that the great John Seymour once said, Nigel? It's useless having knowledge poured over you. You have to go and grab it for yourself. In your case, that means checking facts that you doubt before spouting off about how other people are trying to mislead poor old you. It's becoming quite a habit with you, and the danger is always that you'll end up with egg on your face. As here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:23 AM

I find the idea that socialist politicians should travel second class while Tories lord it over us hilarious. Just shows how some Tory supporters are based firmly in a non existent rose coloured past. To attempt to discuss anything important with such people is impossible so don't even try!

Now, back to the show. Has anyone else spotted that while May is trying to divert attention from her disastrous plans by blaming Corbyn for scuppering talks, her own chancellor is telling businesses leaders that a no-deal brexit could be taken off the table?

Guardian article

He also goes on to say that article 50 could be rescinded. I suppose it it is, it will be down to Corbyn being the mastermind behind ISIS :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:33 AM

It's a bit like all those wealthy Tories who loved to excoriate the unemployed by accusing them of living the benefits lifestyle, what with their flat-screen tellies and their smartphones, etc., while their landlord mates were creaming off all of the housing benefit money plus some and their lackeys at the job centre were "sanctioning" people because the bus they came on was a few minutes late...

Yup, the true colours don't take much to show through...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:44 AM

Diane Abbott has long been the target of misogynist right wingers with a race problem - (the language used to vilify here often betrays these prejudices) especially when she forgets her place and claims rights reserved for the Tory elite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:54 AM

Diane Abbott has a very unfortunate problem - two, actually.

The first is that she sometimes has difficulty processing information 'on the fly'. I suspect that this is a by-product of her diabetes, a result of blood-glucose deficit and, as a fellow-diabetic who suffers similarly from time to time, she has my sympathy. Her intelligence, as evidenced by her Masters from Newnham College, Cambridge, is undeniable. Rather than abusing and lampooning her for her occasional, almost certainly diabetes-induced, brain-farts she should be congratulated for sustaining a high-level career despite her condition.

The second and, for me, more serious problem is, in fact, the one that should be comparatively easy to correct - her manner. DA has a very unfortunate way of speaking - she sounds patronising, as though she considers everyone else an imbecile. I'm astonished that she doesn't seem to have had training to improve her verbal delivery, and I'm sure she would benefit enormously from voice- and presentational coaching.

Otherwise, she is a good example of a fair-minded, socially-aware politician, undeserving of the abuse heaped upon her by her intellectual inferiors.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 06:36 AM

Can't disagree with that Baccie, but tht's what she should be judged on
If all MPs were judged on their abilities and dedication, I very much doubt if all but a few of them would merit more than a d-minus "must try harder" - go look at the empty seats in filmed Parliamentary sessions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:11 AM

Given the racist sh*t that Abbott has experienced through her career the fact she is still going shows sterling qualities. Great role model. More power to her elbow. One man's 'difficulties processing information on the fly' is another man's 'showing the ability to provide a considered response'. Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:16 AM

Car insurance to get dearer due to Brexit uncertainty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46922989

Such fun!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:25 AM

"Given the racist sh*t that Abbott has experienced through her career the fact she is still going shows sterling qualities. Great role model. More power to her elbow. One man's 'difficulties processing information on the fly' is another man's 'showing the ability to provide a considered response'. Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women."

Spot on Karen. Some men will also be incapable of comprehending what you wrote, or understanding its truth.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:13 AM

I find it ironic that some of those who are quick to censure others who, like me, drop the occasional expletive into a post, and to claim that to use that language displays a lack of breeding, intelligence, or education, are perfectly happy themselves to post in appallingly offensive, racist terms about black politicians, Travellers, Irish citizens etc., yet seem not to consider what message that gives out about themselves.

And I was very surprised, and not a little saddened, to discover recently that those who are prepared to challenge others who post in racist terms here are regarded by at least some of the moderators as 'bastards'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:25 AM

" Some men just cannot cope with intelligent women.."
Yes dear -I'm sure you're right :-)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:09 AM

Difficulty in processing information on the fly as an effect of diabetics? I hadn't heard of that - but it occurs to me it could be in a factor of how the Maybot operates, especially when faced with questions in public, since she also has diabetes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 10:17 AM

Tell you what - I'd ten times sooner listen to Diane's delivery than I would to Gove's. And who could forget Thatcher's ghastly tones?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 10:20 AM

McG, it's a very well-known and well-documented effect of low blood-glucose - a.k.a. 'going Hypo'. If I start to go slightly Hypo, I feel clammy, my hands shake, and I feel unable to think straight or perform even simple mental tasks. Google it.

Diane Abbott is a diabetic.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:30 AM

Nigel, I have a favour to ask. I think it was you who suggested that Policitians should be treated with respect. If that is the case could you have a word with your friend Iains and ask him to refrain from calling Diane Abbott "abbacus" which I have to admit is a slight improvement on his previous term for her.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:54 AM

Better stop your compatriots talking about the PM as Maybot and other such insults. A Little more respect for the President of the US from the shouty lefties here would not go amiss either.

Are nicknames for politicians and erroneous labeling everyone with a counter view purely a prerogative of the leftards?

...... are perfectly happy themselves to post in appallingly offensive, racist terms about black politicians, Travellers, Irish citizens etc.

I think one of those labels has been proven wrong quite conclusively. Perhaps the backward man would care to put his money where his mouth is and substantiate his other allegations!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 11:55 AM

Surely any request to treat politicians with respect has to be weighed up next to the fact that respect doesn't come as a privilege to anybody but needs to be earned
Few politicians can claim that, which is why they are treated at best, with mistrust, but more likely with contempt
THIS SEEMS TO SUM IT UP

Iains' misogynistic and occasionally racist language aimed at a black woman politician is a different matter altogether and fully earns the contempt it is due
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 12:12 PM

Ignore the goose-stepping lads
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 12:52 PM

"Iains' misogynistic and occasionally racist language aimed at a black woman politician is a different matter"

I see little jimmie is still mad as a hatter. Waste of time asking him to substantiate his allegations. One thing you can be sure of with jimmie. Ask for proof and watch him run!

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 18 - 02:23 PM :..... Mayfly,
                            .......Ellie May

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:07 PM

While not wishing to prolong this I do recall a reference to Abbottpotamus or simliar coming from Iains.

Perhaps Iains you should temper your name calling and stick to the discussion. I am sure the Moderators have far better things to do with their time than delete obnoxious posts.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:23 PM

Why can't we just cut him dead completely? If we do that he'll either stop or it'll be much easier for the mods to deal with him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:32 PM

Amen to that Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:37 PM

Incidentally, parodying and ridiculing politicos is a time-honoured thing. I recall John Major depicted with underpants outside his top pants and John Gummer as a carbuncle on Maggie Thatcher's nose. Steve Bell exaggerated George Osborne's nose-cleft out of all proportion and Tony Blair was a stary-eyed maniac, but only via one eye. John Redwood was the alien with no nipples and Gordon Brown became a gross caricature of himself with all his grumpy features exaggerated. Dubya had a mouth like a trumpet mouthpiece and Trump is bright orange, etc etc. All that is part of the game. But guess what. Sexism and racism absolutely aren't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 01:49 PM

A time honoured thing ....

Not to mention James Gillray (1756/7–1815), Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827), and George Cruikshank (1792–1878)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 02:09 PM

I imagine Rees-Mogg is regretting launching his bid to have May dumped by the Tory Party prematurely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:23 PM

Guys, guys, guys! The Mods - at least some of them - regard those who challenge the misogyny, racism, insults, and sundry, random verbal abuse put about here by Iains as 'a bunch of bastards'. I know this to be fact.

The only way to show who the true bastards are is by not responding, either directly or indirectly, to anything he posts.

Ignore him! For fuck's sake, IGNORE HIM!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:39 PM

I also know it, John. Tant pis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 03:43 PM

By the way, I had to ask Mrs Steve what that meant. I was quite good at French at school but I couldn't get my head round things like tant pis, eh bien and alors. I'm ok with tant pis now. I could become obsessed with using it. If you don't like it, tant pis.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:12 PM

I had to look 'tant pis' up too! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:39 PM

Hopefully the final word, from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott...

https://www.facebook.com/1011891022185237/posts/2669447033096286/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 05:56 PM

The BBC have been pushing a story about a “surge in shortage of common medicines”, reporting that 80 medicines were on the “shortage of supply” list in December which the NHS can pay a premium for, “up from 45 in October”. Naturally they are trying to link it to Brexit with the entirely nebulous line that “there are now concerns that uncertainty over Brexit will only make the situation worse”. What the BBC fail to mention until much further down the article is that this number is actually down on the figure for November 2017. They even have a graph showing it…

Scroll down yet further and the article explicitly states: “Generic shortages started peaking in 2017, so it is not possible to say that this issue has arisen because we are so close to Brexit” before quoting Sandra Gidley, chairwoman of the English Pharmacy Board who was also a Liberal Democrat MP from 2000 to 2010. Her words: “Brexit is not a factor… Shortages have been a problem for some years. It’s a fluctuating problem.”

A furious Whitehall source said: “This sort of scaremongering is completely outrageous – and to have it coming from a broadcaster that is meant to act in the public interest is unacceptable.” When even a Lib Dem is saying Brexit is not to blame you know you’re on shaky ground…

https://order-order.com/2019/01/18/bbc-disproves-brexit-medicine-scare-story/

You can always rely on Guido's accurate reporting to highlight the duplicity of the BBC. No doubt some would blame the weather on Brexit as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:00 PM

John McDonnell could have mentioned the Tory "promise" in 2010 that net immigration would be reduced "to the tens of thousands." May was the home secretary who lied to us, saying, after the promise had been comprehensively broken, that the promise had, after all, not been a promise but a mere "aspiration."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:16 PM

And I never thought I'd agree with John Major. But I agree with John Major.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:57 PM

Thinking about medicines and Brexit, the BBC has a good article on the topic here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46843631

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:04 PM

Oo look, another good article on medicines,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36599417

and a whole discussion including research, regulations, new medicines, and new medical devices

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-43118667/chris-morris-explores-how-brexit-could-affect-medicines-and-medical-research

Other BBC bits and pieces on these topics

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45727317

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 09:07 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45958713

And another one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:50 AM

I was talking about this yesterday with my nephew's fiancee, who is a nurse. Her experience is that such shortages are not rare but are, in most cases, connected with the renegotiation of contracts with the drug companies. Acting in the interests of their shareholders, the companies usually try to increase the price or at least maintain them, whereas the NHS is usually keen to reduce it, especially on drugs where the development cost have already be compensated for. So you get a stand off during which the drug supply is halted. She has experienced this many times.

Brexit is a factor because it impacts the exchange rate and hence the cost of any drug prices in euros or dollars. It is also a factor because drug companies for entirely sensible business reasons are wondering when the most profitable time to sign a new contract will be: now or in a few months time. And this works at other levels: the companies that supply the raw materials to make drugs go through a similar process.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 02:47 AM

" from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott..."
Not quite, Baccie

SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, OF COURSE
THat's what happens when you make racism a major issue of British politics

A COUNTRY UNITED BY BREXIT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 02:47 AM

" from John McDonnell, on the disgraceful racist, sexist campaign of attacks on Diane Abbott..."
Not quite, Baccie

SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, OF COURSE
THat's what happens when you make racism a major issue of British politics

A COUNTRY UNITED BY BREXIT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

It'll be Jeremy Corbyn's fault. Just you see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 04:43 AM

A little reality:
Six in ten UK hospital pharmacists encounter medicines shortages daily, finds survey, including responses from nearly 300 UK hospital pharmacists.

The survey, the results of which were published in a report on 7 November 2018, asked a total of 1,666 hospital pharmacists in 38 countries about their experiences with medicines shortages.

It found that 36% of hospital pharmacists experience shortages on a daily basis across the EU.

However, the survey revealed the shortages are experienced at nearly twice that rate in the UK, with 60% of hospital pharmacists reporting daily medicines shortages.
From another report:
January 25, 2018

Last year was one of the worst years for medicines shortages for NHS patients, and the situation is unlikely to improve, a senior health service figure has said.

The Medicines for Europe conference heard that shortages of previously abundant generic drugs is an issue throughout the continent.

A perfect storm of pricing pressures, increasing costs, and procurement policy is causing issues across the EU, with countries such as Portugal, Romania and Estonia the worst hit.

Maggie Dolan, regional pharmacy procurement specialist at NHS Commercial Solutions, said the UK issues had been caused by an industry-led legal challenge to the health service’s procurement of drugs.

The shortages are affecting products such as analgesics, anaesthetics and antibiotics which have been available for years.

Participants included 291 pharmacists working in UK hospitals, just under 30% of whom said they experience medicines shortages on a weekly basis — nearly 10% less than those working in the EU (39%).

The EAHP, which represents more than 22,000 hospital pharmacists in 35 European countries, said in its report that the supply issues “have become more problematic” since its last survey in 2014, with 92% of respondents in 2018 reporting that the shortages are a problem compared with 86% in 2014.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:03 AM

It is pretty self evident that any shortages that are present in existing drug supplies are going to be exacerbated by crashing out of the EU, the customs union and the single market.

Arguing that current shortages under the existing system mean that additional shortages caused by leaving it can be disregarded is analogous to climate change deniers who argue that, if natural processes are a factor in causing climate change, there is no point in reducing human activities that contribute to these changes. Essentially, don't worry about adding fuel to an existing fire.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:13 AM

Of course Ms. Abbott isn't the only one, Jim, but she's the one that's targeted repeatedly on this forum. And she's the one referred to in recent days as 'Abbacus' and, elsewhere, as 'Abbopotamus'. Hence my specific points in her defence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:43 AM

"but she's the one that's targeted repeatedly on this forum"
Quite true, that's what happens what you get stuck with one of those on your forum, isn't it?
He'll be telling us next that proven sexual predator, Sir Philip Greene was unjustly accused because of a legal technicality - nah - he'd never go that far !!
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 05:54 AM

The backward man, our resident Coprolaliac, is a fine one to talk about insults:

A few gems off this thread alone:

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 12:00 PM BrexShiteers

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 19 Aug 18 - 04:02 AM ...... the turd-polishing job that Jacob ("Call me Jake") Rich-Mong and his bunch of rich, self-serving Brexit Crazies are doing on their Hard-Brexit plan.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 03:56 AM Unfortunately, the Brexiteer Brain seems to allow propaganda, slogans, and sound bites to over-ride truth and common sense.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 22 Aug 18 - 12:14 PM ..... but you must remember that the Brexiteers are 'taking are cuntry back',
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 05:41 AM That would be better than nowt, but best of all would be to abandon what is, and has been from day one, an utter debacle and an impending disaster. The Brexiteer Bumpkins will 'get over it' or, if they don't, they know where the door is....
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 07:40 AM The Brexiteer Dumbfucks should hang their heads in shame that their gullibility, stupidity, and xenophobia has dumped this pile of crap on, not only our senior politicians, but also the entire population of the UK, the vast majority of whom did not express a desire to leave the EU in that ludicrously flawed referendum.
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 04:15 PM how we will be 'taking are cuntry back', and many lies and exaggerations. And, not long after the referendum, I recall one particular Tory Brexiteer-dumbfuck announcing that the Exit Agreement would be 'the easiest Agreement ever' to negotiate.

All this, for no other reason than to ensure that the likes of Rees-Mogg, the Rothermeres, Rupert Murdoch, et al can continue their dodgy tax-avoidance/evasion schemes, while the plebs pay for the entire debacle.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:02 AM

Yes we should have consideration for Diane Abbott being type 2 Diabetic, but we can be totally abusive of Theresa May who, I think, has type 1 Diabetes.

Ignorance or hypocrisy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:14 AM

But any abuse aimed at Theresa May is not based in racism, whereas much of that directed at Diane Abbott is inherently racist in nature. That's the difference.

Politicians have always been regarded as 'fair game' for lampooning and mickey-taking - it goes with the job - but racist abuse, for instance comparing a black female politician to a very large, black, semi-aquatic mammal, is completely out of order.

Not clever, not funny.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:27 AM

"The backward man"
Welcome to the club Baccie - must be feeling the cold he's been left out in
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:32 AM

But any abuse aimed at Theresa May is not based in racism, whereas much of that directed at Diane Abbott is inherently racist in nature. That's the difference.

Good to see idiocy is alive and well. Care to illustrate with an example of inherent racism.

It always helps to be accurate:
Hippopotamidae: The animals' upper parts are purplish-gray to blue-black, while the under parts and areas around the eyes and ears can be brownish-pink.

Cetaceans:Most whales tend to be various shades of light to dark grey, blue and black, which may lighten or darken as the whale ages.

Some whale species may also appear to be a brownish color while the beluga whale is born white.

If you include toothed whales such as the amazon river dolphin (all species of dolphin belong to the toothed whale family) then the color palette may also include yellow and pink.

Lardass may superficially resemble a whale of hippo but a comparison on colour just does not hack it, and luckily nakedness is another attribute she does not share.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:39 AM

Let him fester, lads. No more responding.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 06:44 AM

It's schoolyard stuff Steve. I left school fifty-five years ago.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:13 AM

Think we get the message Steve - best ignore im completely
Hes's getting somewhat desperate - he's quite likely to be claiming that the Salisbury poisoning was all an MI5 plot next - Putin must be just about ready to demand he earn his crust and come up with the goods - bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:18 AM

Schtumm! ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

bi of a long shot to somebody incapable of putting up links that don't open.

A double negative there. Is that what you meant?

A step ahead of shaw though. He boasts he cannot construct links-yet also claims to be a well educated scientist!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

"Schtumm! ;-)"
Sorry Baccie - no point in going to the circus if you can't laugh at the clowns
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:26 AM

Oh Dear! Labour supporters are flocking away from clot corbyn in order to to seek pastures anew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6611965/Labour-membership-plunges-150-000-amid-backlash-Corbyns-handling-Brexit.html

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:27 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:36 AM

Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!
Why not just pm one another?
The rest of us are not interested in the puerile games of the usual gang.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:48 AM

From our blogger somewhere in France:


https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/01/20/the-sunday-essay-how-uk-media-censorship-is-dictating-the-second-referendums-outcome/

Seems Macron the banker is a bit of a failure and the indefatigable Mr Farage has been proved to be right all along.

I do enjoy being able to post without the gang's usual asinine comments. It is a breath of fresh air!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:32 AM

"Jim Jim Jim Jim JIM!"
Did you call ?
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 11:00 AM

TuQuoque: A type of ad hominem argument in which a person turns a charge back on his or her accuser: a logical fallacy. Also called the "you too," the "two wrongs," or the "look who's talking" fallacy.

A type of argument that we should all be ashamed of when we deploy it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:47 PM

Liam Fox lying bare-faced again on Marr this morning - claimed that "The British public want Brexit to happen" which, of course is untrue.

What is true is that a very small majority of those that voted in 2016 - which, at 17 million is a small minority of 'the British public', who number 65 million - expressed a wish to leave at that time. What is also true is that nobody knows what 'the British public', or even the small majority of voters who voted Leave back then, want now, because they haven't been asked.

It's not accidental that Fox and his ilk use expressions like "The British public want...", even though they know that it's untrue - they use deliberate exaggerations of that kind in an attempt to lend legitimacy and weight to the Leave At All Costs argument they put forward. More of the dishonesty and deceit they employed during the Referendum campaign of course.

So far during the appalling donkey's breakfast that May and her bunch of incompetents have made of the BrexShit process, I've been very much against delaying A50 and having a 'People's Vote' but, with Parliament deadlocked, and May paralysed and in meltdown, I'm beginning to think it's the only way forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:07 PM

i resigned myself from this debate 2/3 months ago but i have been following it on here. i have had to come off facebook (etc) because it's so depressing. i'm failing to do my duty as a union rep in standing up to racism and bullying as i am intimidated by the every day aggressive nonsense of the UKIP, 'sovereignty!' types at work. my boss posts 'albion action' and 'british patriot' type shit. whistleblowers are , of course, heroic, but don't tend to stay in their job very long.

ironically the last senior politician to try to stand up to this racist, tory extremist, sub-fascist, daily mail fear and hatred of foreigners stuff was john major. they have been tolerated, indulged and encouraged by the media to bring us to the current state our country is in. i feel the difference every day, it's horrible to witness the decline of manners and common decency - people seem proud of their bullish, racist, ignorance. 'f..k off with your elitist facts!')

i had hoped that mudcat could have moved on from tolerating this kind of attitude but no, and of course i am not allowed to get so angry with people. i need to make it clear that i do not so much blame the thugs on our streets here - who i see as victims of the vicious and greedy tories (liam fox ffs! JRM!) and the 30 years of anti-eu drivel from the media.

rant over, back to my jigsaw

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 04:49 PM

The stuff about "respecting the people's will", while resisting any attempt to ascertain what that actually is at this time, is of course a smokescreen. The reality is that what actually drives Brexiters who talk in those terms is that they see any fresh vote as threatening to indicate that there is no longer support for leaving the EU.

That's a very reasonable basis for opposing a fresh vote. It's got nothing to do with "democracy", but it a fair enough expression of realpolitik. Holding on to your winnings rather than risk them is not a completely dishonourable thing, even if it is shaky morality. But pretending to be acting out of principle when doing that is pretty shabby.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:24 PM

"From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 18 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps it's not just Steve being a twat (although that is possible).
In The Guardian report on abuse of Diane Abbott on Question Time Here The Guardian states: Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.
The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were "way behind in the polls" and Abbott replied that "we are kind of level-pegging" before Bruce said that Labour were "definitely" behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
But the included link is to poll results in November 2018 Here

It seems that The Guardian can make statements about the current situation, but is unable to link to suitably supporting data. Just like Steve Shaw.....

....No, you didn't mention The Guardian, just "most recent polls".
I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on. If you can't provide the details then I'll guess that you are plucking figures out of thin air. "

Some Nigellisms from last week there. Perhaps, Nigel, after slurring me over those recent polls, you would like to take note that the BBC has now acknowledged that they got it wrong on Question Time and that Diane was correct. Don't bother apologising, Nigel. Just try to not do it again, old chap. Nothing like taking the trouble to check your facts, is there?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:37 AM

Do as I say,not as I do! A normal shouty lefty ruse!

I'm not going to do an internet search to try to identify what it is that you are basing your arguments on.

Why not? You expect everyone else to with your postings!
(Never having provided a link in your entire mudcat career and expecting the rest of us to separate your facts from fiction, or even whimsy)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Funny how wrong people can get it if they have not bothered to follow the argument init, Steve. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:10 AM

If the laddie cannot construct quote fields or italics one must assume he is making his own statement. If this is not the case, then it merely highlights that his shortcomings extend beyond an inability to construct links.

Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:24 AM

Heheh!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:02 AM

Stop feeding the troll
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:08 AM

No one is, Jim. There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. As you have just demonstrated :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:41 AM

Good to see the usual gang totally off topic. You should pay heed to your little mate Raggy's opening post!
I have just been reading through the "For fucks sake thread". I am surprised the mods let it run as long as it did. It rather shows the pack for what they are, especially the pinched goblin.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:47 AM

"There is a huge difference between talking about and talking to. "
I thought so too until I was reprimanded a few postings ago for taking the piss out of our resident troll - which I was enjoying immensely, as I always do
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:52 AM

Devastating argument from Policy Exchange this morning. Sir Stephen Laws QC – who was until 2012 the Government’s most senior lawyer on legislative and constitutional matters – says don’t assume that MPs could engineer a change to the law to postpone or cancel Brexit without persuading Government to acquiesce and participate in securing the change.





https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/government-entitled-ask-queen-not-give-assent-brexit-wreckers-bills/

up to the minute news from trusty guido!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:53 AM

Be afraid. He very afraid.

Nigel Farage makes comeback

Hopefully most will see him for the charlatan he is but given some of the postings on here, some people can be fooled all of the time :-(

One thing made me laugh though.

And he warned: “This time there will be no more Mr Nice Guy. "

WTF?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:08 AM

The question I keep asking myself, Dave is, "If the referendum result had been the exact reverse - a tiny majority voting in favour of Remain - how would the Leavers be behaving now? Would they have graciously accepted the result, and all be going around patting Remain voters warmly on the back and cheerfully remarking, "Well done chaps, the people have spoken, you won, and we're happy to accept that we're going to remain with our good chums in the EU", or would they be kicking and screaming under the continued leadership of Farridge, Bozo, and The Slithy Gove, demanding a re-run of the Referendum 'because people could have changed their minds'?"

I think we know the answer, don't we?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:09 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:34 AM

Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:35 AM

"Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?"
I take it that was an ironic comment ?
I watched an old 'Have I Got News For you' last night, where, at the time of the Wind-rush racist cock-up, Home Secretary, Theresa May was claiming there was racism towards Immigrants who spoke perfect English and that they should "Adopt West Indian accents" - that was the published Government advice at the time
You really couldn't make this ***** nonsense up
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:39 AM

Does that mean he plans to be openly racist as opposed to just stirring the proverbial with innuendo?

If he was openly racist he would lose support and be liable to prosecution.(and rightly so)

Why the weasel word "openly"? Racism is racism! However as it is a term loosely slung around on this forum by leftards, one is forced to assume they have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Otherwise they would be more circumspect in it's application and usage.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:51 AM

I'm trying to guess what he means by "no more Mr Nice Guy". I agree he should have been prosecuted over his publicity stunts and his radio interviews - remember his 'living next door to Romanians'? He uses innuendo to stir racism and prejudice.
The biggest problem is that the media gives him a platform to do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:52 AM

"Nigel Farage specifically said while waiting for the referendum result, at a time he was expecting it to be a victory for remain, that the struggle to overturn that would continue. For once he was saying something no fair minded person should disagree with.

After any election it is reasonable to expect the losers to work to overturn the result next time, and to press for it to be next time as soon as they think they have a chance of winning. GThere is nothing sacred about a referendum as opposed to any other election. It's just that rather than having individual constituencies, the whole country is treated as if it were one big constituency. Elections are fundamental to any form of elective democracy.

Seeking to avoid an election is not an expression of democratic principles, as is now being claimed by opponents of a fresh referendum, it is the opposite."

Absolutely bang-on the button, Kevin, and that's precisely what I was driving at.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:55 AM

Before either of our Extreme-Right-Wing nitpickers start up, I intended the quotation to be in italics, but fouled up on the HTML that the archaic system this forum runs under obliges us to mess about with.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:59 AM

Another Leaver liar on Politics Live at the moment, just claimed that Leave voters in the referendum "Voted to leave with no deal". A bare-faced lie - the referendum asked one question, Leave or Remain, no mention of anything else.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:01 AM

That business about adopting West Indian accents to fit in wasn't addressed to "immigrants". It was a government recommendation to British people, with British accents, but with West Indian roots, who were exiled from this country to the West Indies illegally under May's "hostile environment". Rather than calling them immigrants it would be fairer to refer to them as transportees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:02 AM

You could always post second time with a correct version. Some double post repeatedly, though God knows why!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:11 AM

As backswiodsman rughtly pointed out, the referendum just asked one question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

No mention of leaving the single market, no mention of leaving the customs union, no mention of stuff like ending freedom of movement. Everything that get's thrown about making assertions about that stuff and what people wanted is just speculation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:58 AM

Apparently Sky News has just held a twitter poll which asked the question "We want to know, do you really know what does 'No-deal' mean?"

26% of people who responded thought No-deal meant remaining in the EU.


(This was not broken down into Leavers and Remainers, so no one should treat it as a slur on their affiliation.)

So even if a majority of people were to vote for no-deal in a new referendum, it looks like we will STILL not know what they want.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 09:03 AM

At one level that is not actually surprising to me, to be honest. In general in life if you don't make a deal you stay as you are. So I can understand people who got fed up of following the whole palaver nearly two years back being confused into thinking 'no-deal' means 'no change.'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nothing positive to say when your motley crew are hellbent on destroying it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 12:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

And of course the number of new voters on the electoral roll is several times the size of the narrow margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

i'd agree with that, jim. it's very rare to have a political topic that lasts for more than a few posts without bickering and insults coming into it. it's why i often disappear for a few weeks at a time. it's a shame because i do like a political discussion and am finding the current real-life political scene difficult at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:19 PM

Rupert Murdoch was once asked why he hated the EU so much. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied.’When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’.
Jim, by using sky box you are financially contributing to rupert murdoch and brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

You can get the same session that you get talking to him by wiping your arse with your finger and smelling it
Jim



Well?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:59 PM

Leave it, lads.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:09 PM

Iains, I have asked on numerous occasions for several posts to be deleted, including at least one of my own.

The moderators have a hard enough job without constantly checking this thread.

Perhaps if you were a little less abusive and actually posted regarding Brexit the situation may improve.

Down to you I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:20 PM

"We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper."

I think there were also quite a few people who voted Leave, not because they were particularly anti-EU, but as a protest against the government, austerity, the widening equality gap, etc, etc., not because they desperately wanted to Brexit, but simply to give the finger to the government. And I'm guessing those voters no more expected to 'win' than to walk on the moon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

Well you can always throw ridiculous speculation about why people voted leave back in the faces of those leavers who claim these things without foundation. How about this, which is no more ridiculous than those claims:

"The majority for leave was 1,269,500. If just half of those had voted the other way, that is 634,750 plus one, remain would have won. 634,750 is less than one percent of the UK population and is just 1.37 percent of the electorate, by the way. The anti-immigrant, xenophobic, some would say racist sentiments expressed in the leave campaign, looking at the recent past history of BNP and UKIP successes, could confidently be said to have have influenced far more people than that 1.37 percent to vote leave, which was the intention of course, and probably swung the vote to the leave side. Therefore leavers should be careful when it comes to crowing about their victory, which was, after all, only made possible by appealing to racist sentiment."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 10:00 PM

There's a pretty good National Public Radio Program called On the Media. Saturday I heard their presentation: "Why Brexit Shouldn't Have Been A Surprise" It was good, particularly in explaining UK business to American ears. I especially appreciatged the commentary by Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent and author of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. He had a strong opinion that another referendum would be a bad idea.

---

This has run its course and Brexit events are changing. Perhaps it is time for a fresh start. --mudelf