Brexit #2

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.