Brexit #2

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!