Brexit #2

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