Brexit #2

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 09:36 PM

Hard to confront, innit, 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:08 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: 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 - 04:02 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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Thanks I'll try that

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:06 PM

Read more carefully, please.

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 - 02:01 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:52 PM

Now we have it. The truth is 'Nit Picking'. So says the in articulate left.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: peteglasgow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:22 PM

whatever....

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:48 AM

"President of the USA I would guess."

Bugger! Beat me to it! :-)

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: 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: 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.