Originally posted by Zappa:
To my embarrassment I only discovered yesterday what "Brexit" is ... obviously I hadn't read this thread!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Do you really think it would help ? I think that those likely to losten to either of them would be turned off by their appearing together - it is not whether he can do it, it is whether it is useful to the remain campaign to do it.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Corbyn can share a stage with Hamas supporters he can share a stage with David Cameron. Typical politician prioritising his position over the good of the country.
Brexiteers thinking that leaving the EU might destroy it as if that was a good thing for the world...
quote:No, one needn't. For the answer is obvious: they're stupid.
Originally posted by rolyn:
If large proportion of the Electorate are looking to bunch of Mavericks for salvation then one only needs to ask -- Why?
quote:I take it that that last comment refers to Cameron, whose "principles" appear to operate on a swivel basis.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Labour shared a platform with the Tories in the Scottish Indyref and look where that got them.
Win or lose, Cameron is a toxic brand.
If you have an argument to make, base it on your own convictions and principles.
quote:Got it in one.
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
quote:So, what do you recommend? There has been a consistent message from the electorate (at least, as reported in the media) that what they most want is to know the facts. How do you propose to provide the electorate with facts if you want prevent the experts who can present and explain those facts from contributing to the debate?
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolynquote:Got it in one.
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.
For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.
quote:The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.
Originally posted by Rolyn
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
quote:
I've come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains
quote:What is really stupid is swallowing the idea that experts are "experts" and can therefore be disregarded because they are clearly in Cameron's pocket and making selective use of facts. The Brexit anti-"expert" campaign is pure Bulverism.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolynquote:Got it in one.
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.
For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.
quote:I'm not dubious about TTIP one bit. It's evil. Democratic rule is being rolled back as commercial interests take over and TTIP will be another nail in democracy's coffin.
Originally posted by Penny S:
OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.
quote:Actually we're less likely to get TTIP if we stay in the EU. For it to be enacted in Europe, it would have to ratified by all the member countries. A few, including Greece, have said they'll never agree to it.
Originally posted by Penny S:
On the whole, I feel that going with the people who want out, whose views on matters I know about I find repulsive, and who have brought this referendum on us as a result of cosying up to people who seem very xenophobic about migrants, and who said a programme telling us about the troubles of refugees shouldn't have been shown because it was biassed against leaving is not something I should be doing.
OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:They don't have any. They're too busy throwing around buzzwords like freedom and demogracy and appealing to some people's inner racist.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:What is really stupid is swallowing the idea that experts are "experts" and can therefore be disregarded because they are clearly in Cameron's pocket and making selective use of facts. The Brexit anti-"expert" campaign is pure Bulverism.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolynquote:Got it in one.
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.
For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.
Show me a Brexit argument which addresses the substance of the economic and political arguments in favour of remaining which have been given by experts. As opposed to simple rubbishing, which any fool can do.
quote:In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975. Shame that it is now clear that it was Government policy to lie to the electorate if any questions were asked about political or social union - and that IS a fact, borne out by papers released under the 30 year rule.
The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.
quote:Every economist of note believes that we're better off in, apart from one who's name I can't remember. And even he admits that leaving would cost the UK our remaining manufacturing industries. Pesky experts.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Arielquote:In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975. Shame that it is now clear that it was Government policy to lie to the electorate if any questions were asked about political or social union - and that IS a fact, borne out by papers released under the 30 year rule.
The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.
But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.
As for those who believe the "experts" are telling the truth, try this one for size: within the figures for "Exports to the EU from the UK" there is one giant elephant, namely those goods which go to countries outside the EU but via Rotterdam; once those are stripped out the trade balance with the EU is a lot less rosy than Remain would have you believe.
quote:Yes, that is what I want, but I don't think Leave will achieve it. In 40 years the culture of the country has changed and I'm not at all convinced that we could make it on our own. I see it more as being outside a closed door while the people in the room inside decide whether they want anything to do with us. I want to vote Leave but you can't live on past glories or hope to revive them in their entirety: there has to be some adaptation to the circumstances of the present and some of the glories have had their day and others are no longer feasible. I think we would struggle. And I think we're screwed whatever result we get.
Originally posted by L'organist:
In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975.
quote:And, on the flip side there is a lot of goods from elsewhere in the EU that get shipped through UK ports. Why do goods made in one country get put on ships in another? Simple - because it's cheaper (presumably some destinations are cheaper from the UK, others from elsewhere in the EU). So, UK exporters will have to pay more (by either paying tariffs to ship via Rotterdam or paying the extra costs of shipping from a UK port), and EU exporters will pay more (because they will no longer have access to the cheaper UK ports). Everyone loses. Whoopee.
Originally posted by L'organist:
within the figures for "Exports to the EU from the UK" there is one giant elephant, namely those goods which go to countries outside the EU but via Rotterdam; once those are stripped out the trade balance with the EU is a lot less rosy than Remain would have you believe.
quote:Oh yes the EEA a bit like the opposite to having your cake and eating it.
Originally posted by L'organist:
But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.
quote:It isn't what any fool can say, but what any fool wants believe.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Show me a Brexit argument which addresses the substance of the economic and political arguments in favour of remaining which have been given by experts. As opposed to simple rubbishing, which any fool can do.
quote:It may be valid to say that if the UK joins EFTA, then some of the worst economic effects of Brexit would be lost BUT some of the Leave campaign's comments over the last few months would make that a very difficult political sell. And it's the worst of both worlds.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:Oh yes the EEA a bit like the opposite to having your cake and eating it.
Originally posted by L'organist:
But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.
quote:At the moment, the speculation is that the pro-EU MPs will push for EFTA in the event of a successful Leave vote as that means we wouldn't lose the valuable trade links. (But brings its own problems). That might keep Scotland around for a little longer, but in the event of Brexit, they've already said they will go for another refendum as soon as they can get one. And that one will work. Frankly, I don't blame them!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me, the problem is that we're being offered a binary choice by people who are all clearly talking bollocks.
The Leave position seems to be "look, if we're not spending money on the EU, we can spend more on the NHS". Yeah, bollocks. Even if there were the amounts they're claiming could be freed up from leaving the EU - which almost everyone credible is saying are total exaggerations - there is no way whatsoever that the Europhile Tories and UKIPers would say "oh, ok then, we'll just forget privatising the NHS, forget cutting services, and instead put more taxpayer money into pensions, the NHS, the steelworks, fishing, farming... etc"
If there was any money spare, they would be looking to prop up their own white-elephant economic projects and looking to reduce taxes for their core constituents.
On the Remain side, a vote-of-confidence in the EU will be used as a blank cheque to justify anything they feel like - including TTIP etc. Yes, Cornwall, South Wales and elsewhere have benefited from EU funds, but the chances of any more coming in that direction are negligible to none.
And that's the trouble for Corbyn and the left. Those leading both Remain and Leave are fixated with the kinds of laissez-faire economics that caused the last crash and which are causing the problems in the South of Europe. Jumping into bed with Cameron is to find one on the same side as someone who believes only in feathering his own nest and couldn't give a shit about the things the left really cares about - rights for working people, fair wages, justice for the exploited and so on. Giving them a win will almost inevitably lead to the weakening of Europe's policies in these areas as the next step for the Tories would be to pull out from the European Convention on Human Rights and assorted other Directives that the blood-suckers who support the Tories don't much like.
But unlike 1975, there is no strong left argument against the EU - so the odd individual who takes that position is left floundering about with only Farage and Widdecombe for company. Leaving the EU is even less likely to bring stronger protections for most working people.
Another point is that whichever way the referendum goes, there is going to be an almighty fight in Parliament. At present there (appears to be) a majority of MPs in favour of Remain. If the country votes Leave with a slight majority - but, for example, a minority of voters in Scotland - it isn't clear how it would be ratified. Presumably if the MPs refused to vote with the will of the country shown in the Referendum, the only alternative would be a fresh General Election, but goodness knows what the result of that would be or what would happen in/to Scotland.
If the result is Remain with a slight majority in the Referendum, I don't see Farage going away any time soon and so UKIP and their dirty xenophobic mates would likely resort to any tactic in and out of Parliament to get their way. I'd imagine a whole lot of difficult debates and narrow votes in favour of even more painful forms of austerity.
If it doesn't cause a run on the £ and an instant recession - whatever happens - I'd be very surprised.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it would be fairly certain that in the event of an exit, Scotland would not just slowly stagger towards independence - as it is doing now - but take a running jump at it. I'm somewhat surprised that little has been made of this in the 'remain' campaign, but I guess there is no desire to add yet another hot political potato.
quote:Based on a read of some of the comments on FB, they're just in denial. Devo-Max is apparently way better than EU membership apparently. Boris and Nigel said so.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it would be fairly certain that in the event of an exit, Scotland would not just slowly stagger towards independence - as it is doing now - but take a running jump at it. I'm somewhat surprised that little has been made of this in the 'remain' campaign, but I guess there is no desire to add yet another hot political potato.
quote:I don't know the answer to that to be honest, but what I do know is that when/if it comes they will suddenly find they care an awful lot. All things Scottish aside (and there is a lot there that will vex those south of Hadrian's Wall) the result of it would have a hugely destabilising influence on the political climate of Northern Ireland and possibly even the Republic of Ireland. It may also wake a sleeping dragon a little closer to home. It really could get very messy and I'm not at all sure England would survive it.
Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
quote:Interestingly enough we had an EU Referendum debate at our church last week. Speaking for "Remain" was the Tory MP Ben Gummer; speaking for "Leave" was the Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And that's the trouble for Corbyn and the left. Those leading both Remain and Leave are fixated with the kinds of laissez-faire economics that caused the last crash and which are causing the problems in the South of Europe. Jumping into bed with Cameron is to find one on the same side as someone who believes only in feathering his own nest and couldn't give a shit about the things the left really cares about - rights for working people, fair wages, justice for the exploited and so on. Giving them a win will almost inevitably lead to the weakening of Europe's policies in these areas as the next step for the Tories would be to pull out from the European Convention on Human Rights and assorted other Directives that the blood-suckers who support the Tories don't much like.
quote:That will be something to look forward too.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
PS Gove and Boris have BOTH been in town today ... no doubt we shall see their gloating on the local news bulletin later.
quote:I have no idea whether it is true or not - but there is a perception for some in England that they're paying for Scots (and to a lesser extent the Welsh) to have a cushy life whilst things get worse here.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
quote:I understand that was basically the position of Tony Benn in opposing the EEC in 1975.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interestingly enough we had an EU Referendum debate at our church last week. Speaking for "Remain" was the Tory MP Ben Gummer; speaking for "Leave" was the Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins.
What was fascinating is that Hopkins, a left-winger, constantly looked back to the 1950s as a golden age of social democracy which, he believes, worked on behalf of the people and was embedded into the early days of the EEC. However he sees the present EU as dominated by monetarist and business interests which work against the people.
quote:When you hear a Tory talking about countering the power of corporations, you know it is a temporary position they're using to get votes. Because no Tory actually believes in limiting the power of corps.
Gummer, on the other hand, felt that we could not look back to the past, however rosy it may have been, and sees working together in the EU as the best way of counteracting the power of multinational corporations. It was a strange reversal of their natural positions.
quote:Sadly that's the problem. Protecting ourselves from corporations is a winning argument, but it becomes completely bastardised when borrowed as an argument by Tories.
I am no Tory but Ben was the better speaker and his arguments much more persuasive. He also shared a vision which went beyond mere economics.
PS Gove and Boris have BOTH been in town today ... no doubt we shall see their gloating on the local news bulletin later.
quote:OK even if he is the one living Tory who actually has his head screwed on the right way around, the fact is that others are going to use a Remain mandate in ways he doesn't want.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I tend to agree, although I know Ben quite well and believe him to be a man of integrity - he has held this view publicly for at least two years that I know of.
It's a shame he's a Conservative: in my view he'd make a good right-of-centre LibDem!
quote:It used to be a strain in conservative thinking. Thatcher tried to weed out those who thought that way, but I'm not altogether surprised there's some still around.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
When you hear a Tory talking about countering the power of corporations, you know it is a temporary position they're using to get votes. Because no Tory actually believes in limiting the power of corps.
quote:What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
quote:I don't know. But we do have a bit of history with other former relationships - such as with the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth countries. Of course, an ex-EU relationship would be different, but Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?
quote:I have to say, I think Cameron is more toxic than Hamas. At least his meetings with Hamas were in the name of negotiating peace. I think meeting with Cameron would be suicidal for him. And stupid - Cameron is on the way out, whatever the result.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Hamas is not a toxic brand? Corbyn is just the same as any other politician he just fools himself and others he is not.
quote:That is pretty much what the Labour In campaign is doing - but its biggest presence seems to be on Twitter, facebook and youtube. Not tending to see this stuff on tv / hear it on radio.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Not really. I think Labour should base the argument for Remain on the likes of workers's rights, cooperation in science, funding of projects for social good, reciprocal health care etc..
quote:Wow! That is a brilliant idea. Include a holiday cottage and we'll be your first guests
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the case of a Brexit vote, Mrs B and I are thinking of "emigrating" to an independent Scotland as soon as family commitments permit. One option would be to find somewhere to live on Mull and provide a holiday haven for children and grandchildren. They would enjoy the eagles, sea eagles, otters and friendly folk. So would we, even in the winter.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Irish people being able to move to and live in the UK has more to do with the division of the island more than anything else. I guess it's down to historical anomaly, but they could still do it under the EU.
Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.
quote:I've also heard 'Bremain' doing the rounds...
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any concept that needs a portmanteau words like 'Brexit' to label it, is surely bound to be a shit idea?!
quote:Technically EU citizens can only stay in the UK if they're working. I believe that the status of Irish citizens is not restricted by work. I could be wrong on that, but the status of citizens of the Irish Republic in the UK seem to be different to citizens of other EU states.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Irish people being able to move to and live in the UK has more to do with the division of the island more than anything else. I guess it's down to historical anomaly, but they could still do it under the EU.
quote:Again, this seems to be different to other EU citizens, who cannot vote however long they've lived in the UK unless they've taken UK citizenship.
Irish citizens can't vote in your referendum unless they have been living in the UK for over five years. British citizens living in Ireland can vote in the UK referendum if they have lived in Ireland for under five years (or have an address/permanent residence in the UK). Where it might get complicated is where Irish citizens might be able to vote if they lived in Northern Ireland for a time and retained their dual citizenship. I'm not actually sure what happens in that instance.
quote:From June 24th a campaign will begin to keep the Conservative party and therefore the Conservative government, in one piece, even though it may need a new leader.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The campaign in the press is between two of the most powerful organisations in the Country:
One hand we have the Conservative party fighting hard for remain.
On the other hand we have the conservative party fighting for leave.
quote:I think that's right - my understanding was that it was also reciprocal. Irish citizens can also join the UK armed forces as though they were UK citizens. I served with many - usually got statements (when asked why they hadn't joined the Irish navy) of "have you seen the Irish navy?", etc.
Originally posted by Gee D:
My recollection is that Irish citizens can vote generally in UK elections, at least for Westminster seats.
quote:And not just in the British military either - often public sector jobs in the UK state the categories of people who can apply (including, randomly, in the security services) always include people with Irish passports.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think that's right - my understanding was that it was also reciprocal. Irish citizens can also join the UK armed forces as though they were UK citizens. I served with many - usually got statements (when asked why they hadn't joined the Irish navy) of "have you seen the Irish navy?", etc.
quote:My observation is that the North tends to attract polarised views - those people I've met from the Irish Republic seem relatively unconcerned about the British occupation of the North. Of course, that might be related to the fact that I've met them in the UK - no doubt there are people with more fundamentalist views in the Republic.
At one point (IIRC, and excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment) there were more citizens of the Irish Republic in the UK armed forces than there were citizens of Norn Iron in the UK armed forces. Again, I'd understood that that was reciprocal - I certainly know one or two that transferred to the Irish Naval Service with no Irish connections.
quote:After last week's public debate in our church, people were hanging around in the church for ages. Our caretaker wanted to switch off the lights, lock the doors and go home.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any concept that needs a portmanteau words like 'Brexit' to label it, is surely bound to be a shit idea?!
quote:Just on a point of order, the EU had nothing to do with that - citizens of the Irish Free State/Eire/Irish Republic* and citizens of the UK have had those reciprocal rights since Home Rule.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I remember talking to one Irish man who was saying that the EU basically took the rug from under the feet of the Republicans. People from the North could live and work in the South and vice-versa. Irish people could move to wherever there was work, which was often to the UK.
quote:Yes, exactly the point I was bringing to this discussion! If you look above, we were discussing what would happen in an Indie Scotland Brexit future.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just on a point of order, the EU had nothing to do with that - citizens of the Irish Free State/Eire/Irish Republic* and citizens of the UK have had those reciprocal rights since Home Rule.
quote:I think this is a bit of an exaggerated point. The main direct route to Eire from Europe is by air. And I'm not sure how attractive Northern Ireland would be for illegal migrants.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
An interesting point which is being raised by some "Remain" people is that, if Britain comes out of the EU, it will have a land border with the EU across Ireland. Since, at present, British and Irish citizens can move freely across this without even having passports, this would provide an easy "back door" for illegal migrants travelling from Europe via Dublin.
quote:I've never been quite sure if there was actually a closed border from the 1970s or whether the border was technically "open" with prominent police and army checkpoints. Can anyone tell me?
In the early days of the Free State there were customs controls at the border and many roads and rail lines were closed. There were many controls during the Troubles, too. But essentially it's a border which would be hard to defend or close. And any attempt to do so would provoke strong reactions in both Dublin and Belfast.
quote:I presume when you use the term 'Republicans' you are referring to terrorists and those who exist in that rather strange world of hyper nationalism? I hope I'm pointing out the obvious in saying that 'Republicans' would generally be taken to mean 'those who believe in the ideals of a republic' (despite how the BBC might consistently understand the term) which would obviously be something quite different and effect more than just Ireland throughout Europe.
the EU basically took the rug from under the feet of the Republicans
quote:OK, I'm sorry I meant those who are profoundly against the British up to and including those who go in for violence against all things British.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
I presume when you use the term 'Republicans' you are referring to terrorists and those who exist in that rather strange world of hyper nationalism? I hope I'm pointing out the obvious in saying that 'Republicans' would generally be taken to mean 'those who believe in the ideals of a republic' (despite how the BBC might consistently understand the term) which would obviously be something quite different and effect more than just Ireland throughout Europe.
quote:This broadly - although it depends where on the border - "Bandit Country" (South Armagh) got more attention than other areas, and Lough Neagh more than other bits of coastline.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
On the border point: there were checkpoints and a strange sort of zone with hidden army and watch towers. At least, that's what I remember from my childhood.
quote:I'm not sure how having to go through passport control to get from one part of the UK to another is an improvement over having to go through passport control to get from the Republic to NI. You don't usually even need ID for internal UK ferry travel.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More of an issue might be the attraction of getting to England, but there is still the ferries and controls there.
quote:Well if you don't want TTIP the only rational thing is vote IN as TTIP is currently hanging on by a thread with Germany, Greece and France all having cold feet over it. If you vote 'leave' you will have the most pro TTIP government in the EU negotiating with the USA for new trade agreements.
Originally posted by Penny S:
OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.
quote:Given that this is Hell, and if Brexit does happen with the UK leaving the EEA as well, we have a huge problem locally with the hitherto open border in danger of being restricted.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't know. But we do have a bit of history with other former relationships - such as with the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth countries. Of course, an ex-EU relationship would be different, but Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?
My guess is that there will continue to be a free trade relationship with the Republic with no borders on the island of Ireland. Because basically it'd be a convoluted thing to take stuff from the UK to the EU via the Republic. Probably not worth trying to control.
I think it'd be highly likely this would also be the trading relationship with an Indie Scotland, which I think would probably remain with Sterling at least in the short term. Again, there are few direct land trading links between Scotland and the rest of the EU, so it probably wouldn't be worth setting up a separate customs zone just for that.
More difficult, I think, would be to work out how exactly Eire and an Indie Scotland could be managed as EU states with a non-EU rUK in the way. Clearly they wouldn't be in Schengen, but how could they be in the EU free trading zone? I'm not sure it would be possible.
quote:292 road crossings, mostly small, some great. Any interference in the openness of the Irish border by anyone, be it British, Irish or EU authorities will not be taken lying down. And I'm not an Irish Republican, for fucks sake. If I am angry at the potential for cocking up that Brexit threatens to our way of life up here, imagine the potential for others less moderate than me.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There will have to be some kind of border controls between NI and Eire if the UK left the EU even if it is just to collect VAT and duty on commercial goods.
quote:Wasn't there a pub actually on the border that did excellent cross-border sales? ISTR that smokes were cheaper in the South but some booze was cheaper in the North, so people would walk in, go to the correct counter, and do a deal to their best advantage.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There will have to be some kind of border controls between NI and Eire if the UK left the EU even if it is just to collect VAT and duty on commercial goods.
quote:This is what has just tipped the balance for me. I don't want to vote In but my God, look what could happen if you don't.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Well if you don't want TTIP the only rational thing is vote IN as TTIP is currently hanging on by a thread with Germany, Greece and France all having cold feet over it. If you vote 'leave' you will have the most pro TTIP government in the EU negotiating with the USA for new trade agreements.
quote:That is an understatement. The crash of the voter registration website, and the subsequent extension of the deadline, strikes me as clearly representative of the whole campaign.
Originally posted by Ariel:
What an utter shambles this whole campaign thing has turned out to be.
quote:This goes for the mainstream media as well.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.
quote:I believe the word you are looking for is
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.
quote:I tried to find the right word, but couldn't. Thank you - this is precisely it. We are ruled by a pile of kak.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:I believe the word you are looking for is
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.
kakistocracy.
quote:I like the way that link has a little map showing where that form of government is found.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I tried to find the right word, but couldn't. Thank you - this is precisely it. We are ruled by a pile of kak.
quote:Yet here we are. We the proletariat, the seething and humble masses being given a once in a lifetime chance to decide which pile of kak does the ruling.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are ruled by a pile of kak.
quote:The problem is not that there are no choices. The problem is that there nothing for which to vote.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yet here we are. We the proletariat, the seething and humble masses being given a once in a lifetime chance to decide which pile of kak does the ruling.
Providing we want to be ruled and not end up with anarkaky
quote:One of the phrases that came out of Lord Ashcroft's focus groups on EU membership went something like 'Europeans view the EU as a church, the British view it as Costco'.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I suspect it only looks that way because Britain has never really had to deal with the sort of rot and collapse that so many other parts of Europe have.
quote:That is part of the reason that I am all for staying in, and trying to change from within. If we leave, we still have to deal with the EU, but we will be dealing without having any say.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The choice that would get the most votes is
'sort the EU so it isn't quite so stupid'
But that isn't an option.
quote:I'm not sure it is weakened. Some people always leave things to the absolute last moment, and they have every right to do so if they've been previously told that this is the deadline.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
though weakened by the fact that they had weeks of being told how to register and left it until the last minute
quote:They have no right to complain if they then find they can't register. That's their problem. They had plenty of chances throughout the past weeks and on the annual form that comes round each year if they wanted to. The only reason the website crashed this time was through the sheer volume of numbers of last-minute applicants. What if the website crashes again? A further extension? And another? Because people can't get their acts together and comply with a deadline?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure it is weakened. Some people always leave things to the absolute last moment, and they have every right to do so if they've been previously told that this is the deadline.
quote:They did comply with the deadline.
Originally posted by Ariel:
What if the website crashes again? A further extension? And another? Because people can't get their acts together and comply with a deadline?
quote:There is a counter argument that they should have known there would be a last minute rush and allowed for that when building the site by adding lots of extra server capacity.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.
quote:I agree - people shouldn't leave things to the last minute (although I'm not entirely innocent of that), but on the other hand, people should still be able to register up to the deadline.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.
quote:No. Rubbish. Nobody should be penalised for legitimately trying to do something within the legal deadline but finding that it wasn't possible for no fault of their own.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.
quote:Actually, it does. When my ballot papers for a postal vote arrive in Japan with only 48h before they need to reach the counting room then my vote is not counted.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The law doesn't have a concept of "they left it a bit late, so tough cookie they don't get their legal rights".
quote:They'd need a clear majority of more than x%. So say, 60% of the vote or above.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't understand. Do you mean that Brexit should have been required to get X% of the votes cast (= significantly higher than 50%) to "win"?
Or do you mean that they should have needed to get votes from at least Y% of the total electorate?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Nope. Just 60% of the turnout.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not of the total electorate (which includes those who don't vote)?
I'm just clarifying.
quote:I wouldn't worry - you're in exalted company
Originally posted by Zappa:
To my embarrassment I only discovered yesterday what "Brexit" is ... obviously I hadn't read this thread!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Last couple of times I visited a hospital the nurses I met were English, Spanish, Irish, Polish, Filipino, West African, East African and Turkish. If immigration is a concern, leaving the EU will only curb part of it. The vacancies will probably be filled by non-EU nationals as before. And the EU nationals could probably still apply along the same lines as the non-EU nationals if they wanted.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Meaning several million pensioners coming home and nurses leaving the UK.
quote:I agree they might but the UK will have to create a whole new bunch of rules/laws to sort it out in 2 years.
Originally posted by Ariel:
And the EU nationals could probably still apply along the same lines as the non-EU nationals if they wanted.
quote:Not true.
Originally posted by Ariel:
If immigration is a concern, leaving the EU will only curb part of it.
quote:
I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'
quote:The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
quote:So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
quote:Ask Norway how that's working for them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
quote:No, is he planning to build a wall to keep them out?
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Not true.
If we leave the EU, no immigrant will ever arrive on our shores again.
Haven't you been listening to Farage?
quote:Exactly!
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.
quote:Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
quote:Considering that Norway doesn't have an application to join the EU, and possibly over 70% of Norwegians are opposed to EU membership presumably pretty well?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Ask Norway how that's working for them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
quote:This is an absolutely perfect example of what I mentioned in an earlier post that comes under the heading of straight bananas and driving on the right. It's just utter nonsense. And let's just say it was true; is that what this really boils down to? What vacuum cleaners you're allowed to sell?
Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.
quote:It seems odd to me that Norway isnt free to pass such legislation when, according to Alan, the UK is free to do so. One of you must be wrong.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
[Norway] are not able to pass any legislation which contradicts EU directives in a pretty wide swathe of competency which is connected with trade according to a pretty creative definition of the term.
quote:BTW, unfettered freedom to legislate = parliamentary dictatorship. A terrifying concept.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My point was more that we lose or gain no freedom to legislate by leaving the EU. The restrictions, such as they are, come from the creation and maintenance of a free-trade zone, which is the EEA, not the EU. Being part of the EEA creates all of those restrictions.
Human rights come from the council of Europe, not the EU. Again, therefore, no increase or decrease in freedom, but not unfettered freedom either.
quote:For Norway if they joined the EU they would pay more money into the budget and get a table to discuss the laws which they are obliged to follow if they wish to trade with the EU. If the UK went the Norwegian way we would probably end up paying the same amount into the pot but with no say and an obligation to follow the rules. If we left the EU we would be losing the rebate because we have left the EU and applying to join the EEA.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
possibly over 70% of Norwegians are opposed to EU membership presumably pretty well?
quote:I'm pretty sure the timeline goes something like this.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I enjoyed this story where
'Vote Leave said a new settlement - including a UK-EU free trade deal - would be possible by May 2020'
I suspect this is about correct but they have only 2 years to do it after invoking article 50 so that they can start to leave. In 2018 we leave and in 2020 we have a trade deal.
So the Vote leaves plan is that the UK is left in limbo for 2 years with no trade deal with the EU. Possibly the worst idea since Napoleon decided to invade Russia.
quote:They can take away our economic prosperity, they can take away our export capacity, but they will never take away our vacuum cleaners!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Anglican't:
quote:This is an absolutely perfect example of what I mentioned in an earlier post that comes under the heading of straight bananas and driving on the right. It's just utter nonsense. And let's just say it was true; is that what this really boils down to? What vacuum cleaners you're allowed to sell?
Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.
Ridiculous
quote:What people actually "need" is a vacuum cleaner that sucks. How hard does it need to suck? Well, that depends on the flooring you have, the dirt you have, and of course the size of the head.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still fail to understand who actually needs a 1,700W vacuum cleaner.
quote:Me buying an enormous amount of CDs from Presto Classical at an improved exchange rate.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Presumably the pound will completely tank in the vent of a Brexit and will in all likelihood tank overnight. It's already showing frightening signs of being jittery on the markets. What would be the result of that?
quote:First they came for our light bulbs, next it's to be hairdryers and vacuum cleaners. I'm still annoyed about the light bulbs. They now cost three times as much and are measured in lumens instead of watts. By the time the EC's finished with us, I'll be sitting there in the dark with wet hair and a filthy floor.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
They can take away our economic prosperity, they can take away our export capacity, but they will never take away our vacuum cleaners!
quote:Assuming Australia, NZ, Canada or anywhere else for that matter would want to enter into a deal. The way that the UK went into the EU caused very considerable hardship to NZ and the Aust state of Tasmania in particular. Why either country would be rushing into an agreement has not been explained.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When in a free trade area there will be some restrictions. Obviously one nation within that area can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other nations, within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.
quote:However, and I say this as someone minded to vote Remain, I suppose the point is more that at the moment negotiation of any such deal is a legal impossibility, so it doesn't even get to the point of whether other parties want it because it can't be done.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Assuming Australia, NZ, Canada or anywhere else for that matter would want to enter into a deal. The way that the UK went into the EU caused very considerable hardship to NZ and the Aust state of Tasmania in particular. Why either country would be rushing into an agreement has not been explained.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When in a free trade area there will be some restrictions. Obviously one nation within that area can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other nations, within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.
quote:Interestingly enough article 50 doesn't have to be brought to parliament, the Prime Minister can do it on his own.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
After the UK Parliament ratifies a Brexit vote, we give notice to the EU that we intend to leave. At this point Article 50 has been invoked, and we have 2 years to negotiate our new (out) relationship with the EU.
quote:I think there's a different story actually taking shape here. Someone in the pub last night asked an interesting question from an angle I'd not considered - viz "when Cameron dreamed up the referendum, did he realise he was finishing off the Labour party?"
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like the Tory party break-up may have started:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36543091
Watching the Tories tear each other to shreds, when this thrice-damned referendum started out as a Hameron ruse to keep them together, has been wonderful popcorn entertainment. Unfortunately the second act may be more of a tragedy than a farce.
quote:That does rather depend on which way the realignment proceeds...
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I have no particular love for either of the two main parties, if all this nonsense sets in train a major realignment of UK politics than some good will have come of it.
quote:Whilst I entirely agree with you, *if* he does manage to pull it off then it's another tick in the "lucky general" box because he'll have got what he wanted largely despite himself. Just like last year's GE, the Scotland referendum, the AV vote, etc.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Cameron has definitely not played a blinder. He's played a blunder. I'm sure he thought the scare stories would win the day. Like many a PM before him, he simply didn't realise how much trust he had lost.
quote:And that's a problem because...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.
quote:I don't see why we shouldn't be free to trade with whomever we want, on whatever terms we want. If I buy my fruit from Tesco that shouldn't mean that if I buy my vegetables from Morrison I have to pay the same price as I would at Tesco, even though Morrison are selling them for far less.
If we leave the EU, but arrange some sort of free-trade treaty with the EU that won't change.
quote:The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
If you want to trade with other nations then you will have to abide with their product standards and codes - and things are an awful lot easier if those are the same as your own. Whether in or out of the EU, so long as the EU is a major customer of our goods and supplier to our market, there will still be no market for over-powered vacuum cleaners.
quote:There are many countries that seem to manage it. I wonder what their secret is.
The only way to avoid those sort of restrictions is to close our borders entirely and trade with no one.
quote:Of course there won't be any such examples. Parliament is busy enough as it is, why on earth would any of them bother even starting to write a paper that they knew would be blocked?
But, I challenge anyone to point to an example of UK legislation that was blocked by the EU, or because of EU opposition didn't even get to a white paper
quote:Because by making trade deals with some nations we automatically restrict what deals we can make with others. If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs. That means that the trade agreement the UK has made with Australia is a de-facto agreement with the whole of the EU - and the rest of the EU had no say in it. Which isn't right, and is why trade deals are negotiated by the whole EU.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:And that's a problem because...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.
quote:I don't see why we shouldn't be free to trade with whomever we want, on whatever terms we want.
If we leave the EU, but arrange some sort of free-trade treaty with the EU that won't change.
quote:A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.
If I buy my fruit from Tesco that shouldn't mean that if I buy my vegetables from Morrison I have to pay the same price as I would at Tesco, even though Morrison are selling them for far less.
quote:Because we're in a free trade zone. By definition that means anyone in the zone can freely buy from anywhere else in the zone. If the UK sells over-powered vacuum cleaners that means they can be bought in France, Germany or anywhere else in the EU (even if they need to be shipped). Of course, if we leave the EU and the free trade zone then we can make and sell over-powered vacuum cleaners. But, the Leave campaign seem to want to keep the UK within the European free trade area - in which case, no over-powered vacuum cleaners.
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
quote:Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?
quote:There are many countries that seem to manage it. I wonder what their secret is.
The only way to avoid those sort of restrictions is to close our borders entirely and trade with no one.
quote:As I said, examples of bills that never got formulated because they would be blocked by the EU. Anything that was proposed for a party election manifesto but didn't make the cut because it was recognised as unachievable because of EU regulations? If the EU is preventing Westminster from acting as a sovereign government there should be plenty of examples.
quote:Of course there won't be any such examples. Parliament is busy enough as it is, why on earth would any of them bother even starting to write a paper that they knew would be blocked?
But, I challenge anyone to point to an example of UK legislation that was blocked by the EU, or because of EU opposition didn't even get to a white paper
quote:Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners? the Directive is sensible, and any sensible government in the UK would restrict their sale as well. Only the daft British public could be hookwinked by the idea that they somehow need a totally overpowered and unnecessary cleaner. Nobody else thinks they're at all necessary.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
quote:But those are two different transactions. If we want to export a widget to somewhere else in the EU, then why does it matter if said widget was made in Britain or bought by Britain from somewhere else?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs.
quote:Yes. But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?
A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.
quote:Which, in turn, means that if France, Germany or wherever doesn't like the idea of overpowered vacuums then we can't have them either. Which sucks (pun intended) for us, and is a good example of the restrictions EU membership puts on our freedom to buy and sell the things we want.
quote:Because we're in a free trade zone. By definition that means anyone in the zone can freely buy from anywhere else in the zone. If the UK sells over-powered vacuum cleaners that means they can be bought in France, Germany or anywhere else in the EU (even if they need to be shipped).
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
quote:Lots of countries trade with whomever they want. The bulk of New Zealand's trade is with Australia, but NZ is still free to deal with other countries without asking the Aussies for permission.
Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?
quote:There probably are, but if they were never formulated or published then how the hell would I know about them?
As I said, examples of bills that never got formulated because they would be blocked by the EU. Anything that was proposed for a party election manifesto but didn't make the cut because it was recognised as unachievable because of EU regulations? If the EU is preventing Westminster from acting as a sovereign government there should be plenty of examples.
quote:Let's break down the vacuum myth.
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
quote:Quality. Reliability of supply. The business relationship that means when you phone them up and say "I need another gross of buns by tonight", they don't laugh in your face.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?
quote:Nicely put. I hope he turns out to be lucky, not for his sake, but for the rest of us. But if he turns out to be unlucky, he'll manoeuvre without too much difficulty behind "the people have spoken, I am their servant". He doesn't need to resign. At least not straight away.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
*if* he does manage to pull it off then it's another tick in the "lucky general" box
quote:They're a proxy for the wider debate.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners?
quote:Marvin, have you forgotten that while you can draw from the general to the specific, you can't draw from the specific to the general.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:They're a proxy for the wider debate.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners?
quote:Especially when you start with a specific myth.
Marvin, have you forgotten that while you can draw from the general to the specific, you can't draw from the specific to the general.
quote:It matters to people importing widgets elsewhere in the EU. How about if the boot was on the other foot? In the UK we import a lot of lamb from NZ, there are UK businesses that do good business importing lamb and reselling it to our supermarkets (and, supermarkets elsewhere in the EU). But, being outside the EU there is an import tariff charged on that lamb. What if France decided to cut a deal with NZ and then imported NZ lamb without charging a tariff? Supermarkets across the EU can now buy their NZ lamb from French importers for less. Good for the French importers, good for consumers (lamb costs fall), good for the NZ sheep farmers. Bad for the UK lamb importers who now go out of business, bad for UK sheep farmers who now have to compete with NZ lamb that is even cheaper than it was before. Do you not think it unreasonable that those in the UK who lose out if that happens to think that it does matter what someone else inside a free trade area does? Because trade affects everyone within a free trade area, trade deals need to be applied across the whole area, which in the case of Europe means that trade deals are negotiated by the EU on behalf of all members of the free trade area - even those who are not EU members and have no say in those negotiations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But those are two different transactions. If we want to export a widget to somewhere else in the EU, then why does it matter if said widget was made in Britain or bought by Britain from somewhere else?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs.
quote:Yes, of course you can switch supplier. Although there is more than just price in the decision to do so (there may be benefit to your business to be known to support local business, supporting local business contributes to the local economy and means people may have more money to spend in your restaurant, if you're seen to suddenly cancel your deal with the baker would that affect your chances of striking a good deal with the local wholesale fruit and veg merchant?).
quote:Yes. But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?
A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.
quote:Except that isn't the way the EU works. If France and Germany want to ban overpowered vacuum cleaners then they need to convince all the other nations in the EU of the benefits of such a ban, and form a consensus that this is a good idea. If a nation is strongly opposed to such a ban then the EU gets into a stalemate and the ban doesn't come into force, or a compromise is reached (eg: the threshold for the power of vacuum cleaners is increased, so that the number of cleaners included is reduced). The whole of the EU structures are built around establishing consensus. Of course, for that to work it means that everyone should be involved. If one nation decides to sit out of the discussions establishing a consensus then they can't really complain when the consensus of everyone is isn't what they want. If an MEP has a seat on a fisheries committee he can't just take his pay and expenses but not turn up at the meetings, and then complain that the committee isn't doing what he wants.
Which, in turn, means that if France, Germany or wherever doesn't like the idea of overpowered vacuums then we can't have them either. Which sucks (pun intended) for us, and is a good example of the restrictions EU membership puts on our freedom to buy and sell the things we want.
quote:It's good to get that admission. The supposed restrictions on UK sovereignty imposed by EU membership are just speculation.
I could speculate about all kinds of good, bad and ugly things various parties might want to do if it weren't for the EU, but that's all it would be - speculation.
quote:I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's stupid, I know, but some see it as being of immense importance that they shouldn't have efficient energy saving vacuum's.
quote:Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.
And that's the rub. Every argument I've heard so far in regards to the leave campaign centres around insular selfishness. It's all about what 'we' get. There is no concept of being on this planet together with anyone else.
quote:How far do you want to push that principle?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's stupid, I know, but some see it as being of immense importance that they shouldn't have efficient energy saving vacuum's.
quote:Oh FFS. It was the British government who signed up for this. The one you vote for. Us. We said we shouldn't have stupidly powerful and inefficient vacuum cleaners, not Brussels.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
quote:Which Brussels bureaucrat would that be? I've yet to hear of this new European dictator who has overthrown the powers of Europe and gone over everyone else's head, including the UK government. More myths perhaps?
I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
quote:You're quite; it doesn't. But I'd much rather live in a world where people at least try to have concern for the planet and the people on it than live only for myself and my little insignificant country that builds a wall around itself and only ever thinks about what it can get for itself.
Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.
Get over it.
quote:Actually they are not, to get the mutual beneficial agreements they have to ask each others permission to deal with third party countries (hence this deal) When a country enters trade deals with another country they take on obligations & commitments which they may rescind but then of course the trade deals end to everyone's pain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Lots of countries trade with whomever they want. The bulk of New Zealand's trade is with Australia, but NZ is still free to deal with other countries without asking the Aussies for permission.
Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?
quote:Tough titties. That's business.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK we import a lot of lamb from NZ, there are UK businesses that do good business importing lamb and reselling it to our supermarkets (and, supermarkets elsewhere in the EU). But, being outside the EU there is an import tariff charged on that lamb. What if France decided to cut a deal with NZ and then imported NZ lamb without charging a tariff? Supermarkets across the EU can now buy their NZ lamb from French importers for less. Good for the French importers, good for consumers (lamb costs fall), good for the NZ sheep farmers. Bad for the UK lamb importers who now go out of business, bad for UK sheep farmers who now have to compete with NZ lamb that is even cheaper than it was before.
quote:I think that if they can be put out of business so easily by a simple trade deal then they either need to improve their product, lower their prices or diversify their holdings. If I can get good quality lamb at a competitive price then I don't really care if it comes from New Zealand or Cumbria, and I certainly don't want to have to pay more just so that the Cumbrian shepherds can stay in business.
Do you not think it unreasonable that those in the UK who lose out if that happens to think that it does matter what someone else inside a free trade area does?
quote:The thing with all those decisions you put in parentheses is that they're mine to make. If I think the saving on bread outweighs any bad publicity that might come from the deal then so be it.
Yes, of course you can switch supplier. Although there is more than just price in the decision to do so (there may be benefit to your business to be known to support local business, supporting local business contributes to the local economy and means people may have more money to spend in your restaurant, if you're seen to suddenly cancel your deal with the baker would that affect your chances of striking a good deal with the local wholesale fruit and veg merchant?).
quote:I guess it depends on how important the restaurant is to the baker's bottom line, and whether the baker thinks he can get by without any trade with it at all. If the baker needs to sell his cakes and sandwich bread to the restaurant in order to break even then he'll cut a deal.
But, to come back from the analogy, the Brexit campaign seems to want to break our trade deals with the EU (to open up trade with the Commonwealth in particular) but then expect the EU to agree to reinstate the same deal. It's like telling the baker "I can get rolls cheaper elsewhere. But, I still want the 20% discount on the cakes and sandwich bread." The baker has lost some of his guaranteed sales, and now knows that the rest is not as guaranteed as he thought - is that deal still as good for him? Of course not.
quote:Not a difficult proposition, since France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.
Except that isn't the way the EU works. If France and Germany want to ban overpowered vacuum cleaners then they need to convince all the other nations in the EU of the benefits of such a ban, and form a consensus that this is a good idea.
quote:That question is probably worthy of a separate thread. I'll happily follow to Purg if you agree.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How far do you want to push that principle?
If a 12 year old want to buy some cheap cider, and someone is willing to sell it, should someone tell them they can't?
If you want to buy some crack cocaine, and someone is willing to sell it, should some police officer tell you you can't?
quote:I would suggest you get a greater choice of things that you can buy or sell if you are in a free trade zone than if you are out of it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
quote:They have exactly 1/14th of the power. Which means 13/14ths of the power lies outside of France and Germany.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.
quote:Assuming they agree on the matter at hand.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:They have exactly 1/14th of the power.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.
quote:Martin - don't mind me saying so, but don't you (like me) work in the public sector? Your and my whole working world is a mile away from the kind of testosterone trip you're describing, notwithstanding ham-fisted attempts to marketize(TM) higher education over the last 20 years. If Wallmart/ASDA bought your institution, your life would become more shit. Is a 'no it wouldn't' all you've got?
Tough titties. That's business.
quote:Absolutely not - to believe it can't exist is to deny Christianity, its social teaching and the guidance of bishops in both the C of E and the RCC.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.
And that's the rub. Every argument I've heard so far in regards to the leave campaign centres around insular selfishness. It's all about what 'we' get. There is no concept of being on this planet together with anyone else.
Get over it.
quote:What you are basically arguing now is that tariffs and import barriers shouldn't exist at all. Which is a fine and respectable position. But, apart from the fact that it is as utopian as Socialist peace and love -
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think that if they can be put out of business so easily by a simple trade deal then they either need to improve their product, lower their prices or diversify their holdings. If I can get good quality lamb at a competitive price then I don't really care if it comes from New Zealand or Cumbria, and I certainly don't want to have to pay more just so that the Cumbrian shepherds can stay in business.
quote:Moreover, tariffs are good for us to impose, but terrible for others to impose on us. The formidable British manufacturing sector, the one which the Tories have done everything in their power to sell off to foreign companies or shut down, will be able to flood the world with their reasonably-priced, tariff-free excellence.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It is not what the Leave campaign are offering you! Plenty of Leave campaigners have explicitly stated they think tariffs are a price worth paying.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:So that's it then, it doesn't exist, so we should all just look out for ourselves and fuck the rest.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.
Get over it.
quote:No, it's just fucking unrealistic to think that you can impose such an order of things whether or not the EU existed or not.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Tough titties. That's business.
quote:Some of what Remain has produced has hardly been better.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
this has been one of the most vile, unpleasant, deceitful, manipulative campaigns ever. And that is saying something after the last election campaign.
I read a leave pamphlet and even I can find clear mistakes and problems in it
quote:Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.
quote:Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.
quote:Why keep praying if He has already answered it?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.
quote:God can bring His Kingdom any time He wants. Until He does, though, we appear to be on our own.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.
quote:A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.
quote:Nope, George Soros. He made a billion dollars on Black Wednesday back in 1992 and given the uncertainty now, I'm sure he is rubbing his hands at the possibility of a leave vote.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I thought we'd established that Rupert Murdoch was in charge of much of the English-speaking world.
quote:In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.
quote:I don't doubt this. I don't bother reading them, and one stuck out. My rant is about both sides, who are as despicable as each other.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Some of what Remain has produced has hardly been better.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
this has been one of the most vile, unpleasant, deceitful, manipulative campaigns ever. And that is saying something after the last election campaign.
I read a leave pamphlet and even I can find clear mistakes and problems in it
quote:Ah. You've noticed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.
If one or both of those things is not true then our problems go way beyond membership (or not) of the EU.
quote:Yeah. Government controlled by the people.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.
If one or both of those things is not true then our problems go way beyond membership (or not) of the EU.
quote:Keen as I am to tar Brexit with any brush going, do we actually know anything for certain about the motive for the attack?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, a very unpleasant campaign all round, culminating in the shooting of a Labour MP. Fuck it.
quote:While I'm commenting on shouty headlines and 30-second soundbites, is there a verified report as to the cause of the shooting?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, a very unpleasant campaign all round, culminating in the shooting of a Labour MP. Fuck it.
quote:Right, where I can find these rumours. Trustworthy sources? So far I've looked at the BBC.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rumours that the shooter shouted 'Britain First', presumably, about the EU campaign.
She's died.
quote:If true then it's probably safe to say goodbye to the Leave Campaign.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rumours that the shooter shouted 'Britain First', presumably, about the EU campaign.
quote:No direct involvement. Funny how killings like these tend to be perpetrated by like-minded people, though.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, most are saying he 'allegedly shouted 'Britain First''. The neo-Nazi organization, Britain First, have denied any involvement.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:
But, still. Look. When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’
When you shout BREAKING POINT over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.
Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them... that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.
We can’t control the weather but, in politics, we can control the climate in which the weather happens. That’s on us, all of us, whatever side of any given argument we happen to be. Today, it feels like we’ve done something terrible to that climate.
quote:The link appears too have been taken down.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is that Farage has said that "violence is the next step" if his supporters don't get their way.
see this
quote:Yes, wasn't it lucky he remembered to take his gun with him when he left the house! I usually need to leave a note on the fridge to remind me.
Originally posted by Louise:
His internet history is out there and it shows he subscribed to white supremacist groups. What an amazing coincidence that a politician known for speaking up for refugees and immigrants would intervene in an a random altercation in a British street and find a white supremacist carrying a gun. As the old Northern Ireland joke goes* 'Sure he must be the luckiest white supremacist in Birstall...'
quote:Try this one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:The link appears too have been taken down.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is that Farage has said that "violence is the next step" if his supporters don't get their way.
see this
quote:
According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair was a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States, for decades. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.
Mair, who resides in what is described as a semi-detached house on the Fieldhead Estate in Birstall, sent just over $620 to the NA, according to invoices for goods purchased from National Vanguard Books, the NA’s printing imprint. Mair purchased subscriptions for periodicals published by the imprint and he bought works that instruct readers on the “Chemistry of Powder & Explosives,” “Incendiaries,” and a work called “Improvised Munitions Handbook." Under “Section III, No. 9” (page 125) of that handbook, there are detailed instructions for constructing a “Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition” from components that can be purchased from nearly any hardware store.
quote:Fuck that. What Louise said. That Jo Cox was shot is the only thing which might be chance.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the cat and the organist said.
quote:That fits with the observation from a man who keeps a shop over the street who thought the gun looked homemade. Though I still wonder how he knew enough to tell.
Originally posted by Louise:
Or you might say the 'luckiest neo-Nazi in Birstall'
quote:
According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair was a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States, for decades. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.
Mair, who resides in what is described as a semi-detached house on the Fieldhead Estate in Birstall, sent just over $620 to the NA, according to invoices for goods purchased from National Vanguard Books, the NA’s printing imprint. Mair purchased subscriptions for periodicals published by the imprint and he bought works that instruct readers on the “Chemistry of Powder & Explosives,” “Incendiaries,” and a work called “Improvised Munitions Handbook." Under “Section III, No. 9” (page 125) of that handbook, there are detailed instructions for constructing a “Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition” from components that can be purchased from nearly any hardware store.
quote:"Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition" sounds fairly homemade and I think if I saw someone obviously shooting someone else with something that looks like a bit of pipe, I might be forgiven for describing it in the various ways that witnesses did - given they were various distances from the incident.
Originally posted by Penny S:
That fits with the observation from a man who keeps a shop over the street who thought the gun looked homemade. Though I still wonder how he knew enough to tell.
quote:...one of whom just happened to be carrying a gun and a knife. In a country where this is illegal.
at present it would seem she died while trying to resolve an argument in the street between two constituents.
quote:My point - perhaps I could have made it clearer - was that we should be very careful before we attribute the murder specifically to the referendum "climate" - or to anything else at this stage, for that matter. The fact that we know her murderer had (by his own admission) serious mental heath problems and a very long-standing attachment to politically extremist organisations disinclines me even further to attribute his actions to the "bloody Brexiteers".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Fuck that. What Louise said. That Jo Cox was shot is the only thing which might be chance.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the cat and the organist said.
What is known is than a racist who subscribed to racist, violence encouraging propaganda was carrying a weapon and used it during a time of racially charged rhetoric. Pretty damn lot of coincidence.
quote:AFAICT the SPLC have a practise of digitising documents that come into their possession, which means they are easily able to search them when something like this comes up.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the face of it, and if those documents are genuine (and they seem to be, although I'm curious why that organisation has them to hand to the extent that they can publish them this quickly)
quote:True, although if they have a dump of documents via wikileaks (etc), they'd still have to prove the general authenticity of them and the specific authenticity of this invoice
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Most of the documents actually bought would have been legal or quasi-legal in the US, so it isn't as if what they had in their possession constituted clear evidence of a crime.
quote:I presume they were looking for someone of that name and cross correlated against people living in the Fieldhead area in Birstall.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems quite inconceivable that even if they could be sure that they have a genuine dump of documents they could possibly be 100% sure that this is the same person from several thousand miles away and after a few hours of the incident.
quote:I understand. My point is that there could be someone else of the same name in the area, and there is little chance that the SPLC could be able to due the verification necessary to be sure this was the same person.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I presume they were looking for someone of that name and cross correlated against people living in the Fieldhead area in Birstall.
quote:That's a little different as the suspect himself appears to have implicated himself with that organisation and the organisation has named him.
As I said above, they have the information already available, as part of their work to build up databases of extremists and their connections, it's just a case of searching it.
I mean, Richard Barth doing the same thing on the internet, dig up this link:
https://twitter.com/Barthsnotes/status/743473590897623041
quote:So, we have a person with a history of mental health issues and links to far-right extremists. As you say a disaster waiting to happen.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think he was probably a disaster waiting to happen, but to attribute the trigger to the referendum campaign seems massively premature and prima facie questionable
quote:The Spectator is urging its readers to vote Leave. But it's also published this.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Seriously, we have nothing like the kind of information that would justify such an attribution. I get that there is visceral hatred out here for the Brexit campaign/ers but let's maintain a bit of a grip here, peeps.
quote:
Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.
quote:And is there any evidence whatsoever that Cox's murderer had even heard of this event, let alone attended?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is also suggestive that there was some kind of link:
Britain First were having an "activist training event" recently in Wales - including classes in "Knife Defence"
quote:Do we even know if he knew this about Ms Cox, let alone that it influenced his attack?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, he also chose to murder his local MP, a prominant campaigner for human rights and advocate for an open and welcoming multi-ethnic society.
quote:None and I wasn't suggesting that he did necessarily.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And is there any evidence whatsoever that Cox's murderer had even heard of this event, let alone attended?
quote:Well, it would look like the SPLC made their statement on the basis of a receipt with a name and address on it from the organisation concerned listing the items ordered. So I don't see what the difference is - in fact the SPLC actually had more information.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:That's a little different as the suspect himself appears to have implicated himself with that organisation and the organisation has named him.
I mean, Richard Barth doing the same thing on the internet, dig up this link:
https://twitter.com/Barthsnotes/status/743473590897623041
quote:IANAL, but I would have thought the fact he was carrying a gun and a knife around with him was clear evidence of premeditation to kill or injure *somebody*.
I guess the police are looking at the evidence for premeditation, for various reasons associated with the UK criminal law.
quote:No, we don't know.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Do we even know if he knew this about Ms Cox, let alone that it influenced his attack?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, he also chose to murder his local MP, a prominant campaigner for human rights and advocate for an open and welcoming multi-ethnic society.
quote:Extremely unscriptural Mt 28:20
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:God can bring His Kingdom any time He wants. Until He does, though, we appear to be on our own.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.
quote:Yes, it's speculation. But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation. Not so very different from the people who cry in other situations, "He was a Muslim so it must have been an Islamist attack!".
For the time being, they're only "suspicious co-incidences" which it "doesn't take a genius" to draw specific conclusions from to those who insist on reading them that way.
We simply don't know enough to make any such judgement at this stage - that's the plain truth of the matter.
quote::Waves hand in the air:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Like as with the Arch Duke Ferdinand, one person dies violently and everyone is holding their breath. The same thing with the Kennedy assassination, fortunately that did not trigger an imminent disaster.
Fear and tension is in the air, this bloody referendum. Hands up who'll be glad when it is over.
quote:The only piss-and-wind here is you hoping beyond hope that a man with neo-nazi links armed with a gun and a knife who stabbed and shot his internationalist, refugee-welcoming, Remain-supporting MP while shouting 'put Britain first' wasn't influenced by the toxic, deeply racist, mendacious Leave campaign.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation.
quote:Muslims are a much larger and more variable demographic than far-right neo-nazis.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation. Not so very different from the people who cry in other situations, "He was a Muslim so it must have been an Islamist attack!".
quote:You're missing my point. Whether he deliberately targeted Jo Cox or not, there is as yet no evidence that he targeted her (a) precisely because she was a remain supporter - that that was what motivated him - or (b) that it was the nasty leave campaign stuff wot made him do it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:Option A is possible, but ... oh look, there's the porcine aerobatics display team in action.
- He was going to kill someone, it didn't matter who, and he didn't know he killed the local MP
- He deliberately targetted Jo Cox
quote:We won't know what connections and motivations there were until the case comes to trial. By which time the referendum will be done. So any damage to the Leave campaign will be on the basis of supposition and speculation. Of which there is plenty at the moment on every news broadcast, newspaper article and FB share. I can't see how it won't damage the Leave campaign. Which is a pity, I would much rather the weaknesses in the Leave campaign (over their dodgy arithmatic, impossible promises, the suggestion that immigration is a problem etc) were the reason for their failure on Thursday than a lone crazy man gunning down an MP.
Originally posted by Piglet:
It seems to me that, unlike with the atrocity in Orlando, at least the perpetrator is still alive, so the police can at least attempt to discover why he did it.
As to whether the tragedy will affect the outcome of the referendum, I'm inclined to think that it might sway some waverers (of whom there appear to be many) towards the Remain camp. If the "Britain First"/neo-Nazi connection is proven to be right, the Leave campaigners will probably be damaged by association (real or imagined).
quote:Yet even proponents of Brexit have admitted that the nature of the Leave campaign, especially the focus on immigration, made something like the murder of Jo Cox inevitable. Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that. If we follow the climate analogy, we know that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of storm events, but we can't point a finger to a particular storm and say "that was caused by climate change".
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:You're missing my point. Whether he deliberately targeted Jo Cox or not, there is as yet no evidence that he targeted her (a) precisely because she was a remain supporter - that that was what motivated him - or (b) that it was the nasty leave campaign stuff wot made him do it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:Option A is possible, but ... oh look, there's the porcine aerobatics display team in action.
- He was going to kill someone, it didn't matter who, and he didn't know he killed the local MP
- He deliberately targetted Jo Cox
Really, there isn't. It may all be as you say. But would it kill us to suspend judgement until we have a bit more solid stuff to go on rather than scoring angry political points about this tragedy right from the get-go?
quote:Yes, the tabloids would be screaming about terrorism, probably, whereas this case is a 'crazed loner'. Well, the media are generally on the right, and support Leave, so they are not going to highlight any possible connection with that.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would suggest that if the murderer had shouted 'Allahu akbar', and had previously subscribed to Dabiq magazine, and some commentator said 'Oh we must not jump to conclusions about motives', then 'political correctness gone mad' is probably the kindest thing that would be said about that commentator.
quote:Inevitable? I don't buy that. And "something like" the murder of Jo Cox is almost offensively general. The murder of Jo Cox was a very specific, highly contingent and deeply personal tragedy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yet even proponents of Brexit have admitted that the nature of the Leave campaign, especially the focus on immigration, made something like the murder of Jo Cox inevitable.
quote:So far I have only seen Allan Massie "admit" that. And any "climate" that has been created is the product of the interaction between one side and the other - the ramping up of rhetoric and of accusation and counter-accusation. No one "side" can claim that it was blameless. But both "sides" are actually blameless of the actual murder of this one specific individual person.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that.
quote:Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think, and switches off his links to neo-Nazis. But of course, this can be switched on and off like a tap. One of Lee Rigby's killers had mental health problems, but I don't think that was emphasized by the right-wing media, was it?
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's interesting that they've gone for the crazed loner thing - since he spoke to neighbours, worked on their gardens, got involved with a local conservation project and helped people at the Job Centre with computers, he doesn't seem like a loner to me. Apart from not being married with a family, and living alone. Like me.
quote:But just as it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion that a murder by a Muslim must be a Islamist attack just because the assailant was a Muslim, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that not only was Mair motivated by his political opinions (the opinions of an very mentally vulnerable person) to kill Jo Cox specifically because of her political stance on immigration but that it was the Brexit campaign specifically wot did it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Yes, the tabloids would be screaming about terrorism, probably, whereas this case is a 'crazed loner'. Well, the media are generally on the right, and support Leave, so they are not going to highlight any possible connection with that.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would suggest that if the murderer had shouted 'Allahu akbar', and had previously subscribed to Dabiq magazine, and some commentator said 'Oh we must not jump to conclusions about motives', then 'political correctness gone mad' is probably the kindest thing that would be said about that commentator.
quote:Yes, it was a specific event. A tragedy for her friends, family and constituents. And, until the trial we won't know all that can be known about the circumstances. As I said, we can't attribute causes to the murder of Jo Cox at the moment, maybe even after the facts are presented at trial we won't be able to. Which is why I was trying to open things up to the more general.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Inevitable? I don't buy that. And "something like" the murder of Jo Cox is almost offensively general. The murder of Jo Cox was a very specific, highly contingent and deeply personal tragedy.
quote:Farage has also been banging on about violence in the streets.
quote:So far I have only seen Allan Massie "admit" that.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that.
quote:That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think
quote:Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said, we can't attribute causes to the murder of Jo Cox at the moment[.]
quote:Before you misquote me again, you might try reading what I actually wrote in a post which said all this supposition could be wrong.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.
quote:That's right, I acknowledged that the general view could be wrong and that there may turn out to be some other cause of the attack.
The attacker may have not recognised her as his MP, he may have been so high on something that he saw her as a slug etc and so on. These things happen.
But it isn't a stretch to say that there are rather a lot of coincidences here and it doesn't take a genius to think that they might be connected.
quote:Well, thanks for cutting off the rest of my post, which pointed out that it's the right-wing media which want to depoliticize this killer, as they don't want any connection with Leave.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think
quote:Well, he certainly wants her good work to be remembered, and for others to carry it forward. He also doesn't want people to respond towards those who hold similar political views as her murderer with hate.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, that's not true. Jo Cox's husband wants it, for a start.
(in reply to Alan's comment above)
quote:I didn't quite the rest of your post because there was nothing in there for me to disagree with, nor anything that I thought I could say better. I just picked the small point I wanted to expand on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, thanks for cutting off the rest of my post, which pointed out that it's the right-wing media which want to depoliticize this killer, as they don't want any connection with Leave.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think
I agree that it should not form a part of the referendum campaign now, but the behaviour of the right-wing media is certainly worth noting, as they are playing a part in generating large amounts of racism and xenophobia, and of course, support Leave.
quote:Its pretty easy to disavow a lunatic and distance your campaign from the extreme and refocus on a particular message based on "the issue", however that is defined.
Originally posted by Piglet:
....
As to whether the tragedy will affect the outcome of the referendum, I'm inclined to think that it might sway some waverers (of whom there appear to be many) towards the Remain camp. If the "Britain First"/neo-Nazi connection is proven to be right, the Leave campaigners will probably be damaged by association (real or imagined).
quote:Come off it. Given the deeply ironic tone of you whole post I'm pretty sure you meant that it was fairly safe to speculate that Jo Cox's death was indeed deeply influenced by the Brexit "climate". Are you really telling us now that you meant no such thing and that you meant to imply no such thing?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Before you misquote me again, you might try reading what I actually wrote in a post which said all this supposition could be wrong.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.
quote:That's right, I acknowledged that the general view could be wrong and that there may turn out to be some other cause of the attack.
The attacker may have not recognised her as his MP, he may have been so high on something that he saw her as a slug etc and so on. These things happen.
But it isn't a stretch to say that there are rather a lot of coincidences here and it doesn't take a genius to think that they might be connected.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Has he said anything specifically about the referendum?
quote:I think you'd have to have a particularly tin ear not to interpret that as an explicit call.
unite to fight against the hatred that killed her
quote:This is just one example of posts over the last day, but I find it genuinely odd that people didn't spot that I specifically noted the initial reports I read included statements that Jo Cox intervened in an altercation.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've not seen anything to suggest that there was an altercation which the MP tried to intervene to stop.
quote:Preach it, brother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We all seem to think that one day's news reports is enough to tell us everything there is to know about an event, and time and again I think that it's utter bullshit.
quote:So you don't accept even the possibility that he was a man involved in, say, an ongoing dispute with a neighbour or the local council or was upset at his local MP because of something else?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whatever the murderer's motivations and state of mind, it seems indubitably clear to me that his actions were fuelled by the environment both campaigns have sought to create and feed on.
quote:Of course I do. But it seems well-attested that he shouted "Britain first".
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:So you don't accept even the possibility that he was a man involved in, say, an ongoing dispute with a neighbour or the local council or was upset at his local MP because of something else?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whatever the murderer's motivations and state of mind, it seems indubitably clear to me that his actions were fuelled by the environment both campaigns have sought to create and feed on.
quote:Wow, that's bananas. I must have the right FB friends, because I never caught a whiff of those particular rumors.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen the same phenomenon with Orlando, of course. People declaring there was something fishy about there being no security at the club simply because they haven't read the news reports that say there WAS security at the club. People saying "why didn't people escape out the back" when a whole lot of people did escape out the back.
quote:I was lurking the Ship at the time of the Brevic killings in Norway. The way a running thread dealt with that terrible terrible event was awesome. The first thing to be debunked was that the fellow was a Christian nutter.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And rolyn-- straight up. If something newsworthy happens and I want to know more about it, I look for the inevitable Ship thread, with the confidence that bullshit sifting will already be well underway. [/QB]
quote:The BBC is also now reporting that the older man wounded in the abdomen had intervened trying to protect Jo Cox.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
FWIW it is being reported that police have found Neo-Nazi materials at the suspecrs' address.
quote:If we vote to leave it will not be all over it will be just the start of an economic & political roller coaster.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Fear and tension is in the air, this bloody referendum. Hands up who'll be glad when it is over.
quote:It presupposes that "the hatred that killed her" is the Brexit campaign. I read it as racism/xenophobia more generally, that filthy undercurrent in British society that she was fighting in her maiden speech proclaiming the wonders of her multi-cultural, multi-ethnic home town. A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Has he said anything specifically about the referendum?quote:I think you'd have to have a particularly tin ear not to interpret that as an explicit call.
unite to fight against the hatred that killed her
quote:No it won't. Especially now it's been legitimised by supposedly respectable political parties.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).
quote:This is just a different form of the racism that has existed in Europe for decades. I remember attempting to have discussions of multiculturalism and immigration 10 years ago with Europeans (on another site) and they thought I was nuts to suggest people of different faiths and cultures could get along. Even when I pointed out to them the different backgrounds of people I worked with, they scoffed at the idea of acceptance of others, suggesting I was just being tolerated.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:No it won't. Especially now it's been legitimised by supposedly respectable political parties.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).
quote:Absolutely. And how about this:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I struggle to find much difference in tone between "You see? Proof the Leave campaign is nasty" and "You see? Proof we have to take action against Muslims". They're both variations of "I told you so" that lack nuance.
quote:That's negative politics for you. The more politicians talk about what they are against the more the nutjobs that support them will do something stupid.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just in case anyone's still trying to spin this as random, the police are now saying that Jo Cox was the victim of a targeted attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-killing-suspect-far-right-links-a-priority-line-of-inquiry
They're also saying that the investigation of the perpetrator's links to the far right are major line of inquiry.
quote:I actually think a lot do. Cox seems to have been an example par excellence but I believe/hope not the only one by far.
Originally posted by balaam:
The sad irony is that Jo Cox was a politician who campaigned positivity. We need more politicians to act as passionately and compassionately as she did.
quote:I think it's going to be bloody hard for him to avoid the conclusion he premeditated SOMETHING. In the UK carrying those weapons is not a casual event.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's the line of enquiry they are pursuing, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the police haven't already found a lot of supporting evidence. The question of premeditation is key to resolving the nature of the crime and the charge. Whether there are accessories before the fact (e.g. in the supply of weapons, or in the planning) will also be of interest to the police.
quote:Thank you for posting that link - I've read through it - very interesting.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just in case anyone's still trying to spin this as random, the police are now saying that Jo Cox was the victim of a targeted attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-killing-suspect-far-right-links-a-priority-line-of-inquiry
They're also saying that the investigation of the perpetrator's links to the far right are major line of inquiry.
quote:The best thing we could do is give him a fair trial and then smother him with kindness. Reacting with anger and violence is exactly what he wants.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.
quote:I want to know how he is spelling that. Is it hyphenated?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I want to know how he is spelling that. Is it hyphenated?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
It's prounounced "luxury-yacht"
quote:And just to draw a comparison here. This is a quote from a Britain First newsletter just before the London mayoral election:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.
quote:Haha haha.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
And just to draw a comparison here. This is a quote from a Britain First newsletter just before the London mayoral election:
"They think they can get away with ruining our country, turning us into a Third World country, giving away our homes, jobs and heritage, but they will face the wrath of the Britain First movement, make no mistake about it!
We will not rest until every traitor is punished for their crimes against our country. And by punished, I mean good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope!"
quote:Oh probably. The one good thing about fascists is that they're fairly easy to identify because they just don't shut up about it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I predict Britain First will find its way rapidly onto the list of banned organisations, and its organisers will retreat back under the stones where they hide during daylight hours. Everyone connected will migrate to the EDF (if they're not already there) and it'll begin again.
quote:I predict Mr Britain will be shouting his allegiance to various groups in court, so I don't suppose there will be much to investigate.
Originally posted by Barnabas62: Was Tommy Mair a member of "Britain First"? I think the accounts of what he said (or didn't say) during the attack on Jo Cox are confused; at least that's how I read them. I've seen no evidence that he was in fact a member of "Britain First".
I think "Britain First" is an appalling organisation and indeed there may be grounds (hate speech) for banning it. The outburst in court gives some grounds for believing that Tommy Mair may indeed have read some of the "Britain First" propaganda.
But I'm happy again to leave to police investigators to see if there has been any direct criminal involvement (including aiding and abetting, or incitement) between "Britain First" or any of its members and this shooting.
quote:Nope. I'm sold.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anyone now in any doubt at all that this suppurating arsehole was inspired and driven by the same sort of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the leave campaign?
quote:An easy prediction to make,
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I predict Mr Britain will be shouting his allegiance to various groups in court, so I don't suppose there will be much to investigate.
quote:I was talking about his allegiance to fascist and neo-Nazi groups. Today's case was in the magistrate's court, on Monday it is moved to the Crown Court where he'll have more opportunities to shout inanities.
Originally posted by balaam:
An easy prediction to make,
This was published at 10.33 today, an hour before you made that prediction.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[snip] probably written in crayon and littered with spelling mistakes.
Because, y'know, those fascists are morons.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yes, that's not helpful.
Originally posted by balaam:
I just think that fighting bullshit with bullshit makes you just as bad as those you are opposing.
quote:Me too. It's so much easier to make reasonable judgements when the actual evidence begins to come in.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nope. I'm sold.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anyone now in any doubt at all that this suppurating arsehole was inspired and driven by the same sort of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the leave campaign?
quote:And just how is that different from the kind of violent rhetoric spouted by Britain First?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.
quote:Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And you're a child.
quote:So, let me get this straight. You're the bloke who just agreed that photoshopping isn't helpful, but you want to paint an image of comedy characters who are poor spellers and use crayons.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And you're a child.
quote:There is quite a difference between deliberately trying to tie the guy with a group deceptively via photoshopping the image and the poor spelling of fascists. Which is a known phenomena.
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, let me get this straight. You're the bloke who just agreed that photoshopping isn't helpful, but you want to paint an image of comedy characters who are poor spellers and use crayons.
Give me a break. You are being no more mature than the photoshoppers.
quote:Nope, you're quite right, he was absolutely sane. No question.
Let's go straight to the top "fascist" and to hell with anyone who criticises me for invoking him. Do you think Hitler rose to power and influenced millions because he was a drooling idiot? No, he got there by being bloody cunning and a magnificent orator. However much I might label his view of the world as 'insane' that is a very different thing from thinking that he was stupid.
quote:That's absolutely true. I happen to believe that this is a more positive way forward than wishing upon him gang rape or quacking at the thought of further violence every time I leave the house.
You're painting a caricature to make yourself feel better about dismissing a set of views that you find abhorrent.
quote:Oh I don't think fascists are incompetent. I'm mostly just making fun of them. Because, y'know, Life is Beautiful.
Suggesting that only a moron could believe such things. I'll happily agree with you that the view is moronic, but for God's sake think about what you are doing when you choose to portray a man who planned and committed a murder as some kind of incompetent clown.
quote:Never said it was, it's just what I want right now. I was also attempting in a rather flippant way to balance out my previous post which has been completely overtaken by events.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And just how is that different from the kind of violent rhetoric spouted by Britain First?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.
quote:There's a picture doing the rounds on twitter, of him standing in the centre of 5 BF activists, in front of a mosque.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Was Tommy Mair a member of "Britain First"?
quote:Yes, that concept has worked out really well for the fascists in Europe in the past.
Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.
quote:Wishing gang rape on somebody in prison is an odd way of being flippant.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I was also attempting in a rather flippant way to balance out my previous post which has been completely overtaken by events.
quote:If you're championing the idea that physical suffering is an appropriate and constructive response to wrongdoing, forget Brexit, you might as well tear up the European Convention on Human Rights while you're at it (much as many Brexiters would, apparently, be keen to).
Let him suffer a bit (a lot?), perhaps then he might come to some appreciation of the enormity of what he's done.
quote:I think a large number of people who saw Chaplin's Great Dictator thought it was funny in 1940.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, that concept has worked out really well for the fascists in Europe in the past.
I'll grant you, they were certainly idiotic, I just didn't see anyone laughing.
quote:Thanks Doc. To my untutored eye, the photos looked genuine and they contain someone who looks like Tommy Mair.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, the link I saw first was on a wayback machine thread, started in 2012 or so. If that's Mair deliberately photoshopped in, then someone has a time machine, and a better use to put it to than photoshopping.
I grant you this is the internet, and things can be fixed.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
)
quote:Weel, I really hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you aint no Chaplin.
I think a large number of people who saw Chaplin's Great Dictator thought it was funny in 1940.
quote:I never said I was. I was responding to your facetious argument that comedy had never had an effect on fascism - in fact it has.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Weel, I really hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you aint no Chaplin.
quote:I'm confused why you are making that comparison. All I'm saying is that fascists don't like being made fun of, and that in the past this has had an impact so in the same vein we should point and laugh at this current idiot.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Two instances from 70+ years ago where comedy has had an affect on public opinion do not compare to the amount of people killed by facism, even in the last 10 years in places like Hungary.
quote:Who is disagreeing with that?
I get that comedy is a decent weapon but many of our governments have been complicit in allowing facism to grow in other countries for the sake of things like trade or, in the case of the recently departed Conservative government of Canada, raking in money from supporters when being seen to be tough and keeping out the "other".
quote:That's fine, I respect your view and your inclination. I still maintain that a better way is to point and laugh.
Outrage and nasty pointed "WTF" discussions with God are probably better ways of going about things.
I'm not sure how the government of Guernsey (several members of which I know) will take that...
quote:One more victory for the enemies of democracy.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I won't vote and I no longer care about the outcome.
quote:Warmer weather and lower taxes? I think quite a lot of Britons would sign up to that...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister
quote:Sorry, Hosts and Shipmates. A retired person's blindspot.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Good point, well made.
DT
HH
(God forbid my computers ever get forensically examined.
quote:Now you have insulted both Jersey AND Guernsey. That's like confusing Australians and New Zealanders.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is that the same or different from Jersey - cos my immediate thought was of detective Bergerac.
quote:Primary healthcare is not free at the point of use, over 20% of the population are on £20,000 a year or less, with a state average income of £60,000 a year, this tells you there is a significant income gap. I'll pass thanks.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Warmer weather and lower taxes? I think quite a lot of Britons would sign up to that...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister
quote:Both places have also been very late to the table on civil rights.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Now you have insulted both Jersey AND Guernsey. That's like confusing Australians and New Zealanders.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is that the same or different from Jersey - cos my immediate thought was of detective Bergerac.
One senior official in Jersey delights in telling visitors that the States of Jersey has a mace given to them by Charles II, and showing them, and invites them to ask the States of Guernsey where their mace is.
quote:you will care about the income if it means that if we leave the EU the economy tanks so much that teh UK no longer has the money to do things you think are valuable like a free NHS.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:One more victory for the enemies of democracy.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I won't vote and I no longer care about the outcome.
quote:Given the known, brutal, psychological effects of solitary confinement, I'm not sure advocating that is a significant improvement on advocating rape.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I find all these references to prison rape as a justifiable part of punishment deeply disturbing. The perpetrators of those crimes should be tried for them and imprisoned in solitary confinement, possibly in Broadmoor, or somewhere where they can be treated. They should see their release vanish into the distance, because they are not fit to be outside.
quote:Rule 60.5 says
should not be considered an appropriate punishment other than in the most exceptional circumstances
quote:In other words, if it were to be applied to someone like Thomas Mair indefinitely, it would be considered inhumane and justifiably so.
Solitary confinement shall be imposed as a punishment only in exceptional cases and for a specified period of time, which shall be as short as possible.
quote:Your ignorance of how prison actually works in practice is becoming more apparent with every post.
Originally posted by Penny S:
So punishing the victim for being a victim.
quote:I see their former chief minister has responded in kind...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister
quote:An idiot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:Endows one with a lack of self-doubt and boundless confidence in your abilities, Dunning-Kruger is a thing because it is rewarded at many levels.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It makes one wonder about the value of a "good education"
quote:The sense of entitlement is not to be underestimated either.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Endows one with a lack of self-doubt and boundless confidence in your abilities, Dunning-Kruger is a thing because it is rewarded at many levels.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It makes one wonder about the value of a "good education"
quote:I find that sometimes direct yes/no questions are about the only way to get a meaningful answer out of a client. The problem is that I often have a chain of several yes/no questions, depending on what the answer to the 1st one was.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Helpful diagram
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:True. But what is really driving me mad is how the Leave campaign are able to promise all sorts of different things to different people despite them being mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I find that sometimes direct yes/no questions are about the only way to get a meaningful answer out of a client. The problem is that I often have a chain of several yes/no questions, depending on what the answer to the 1st one was.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Helpful diagram
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
It's not having a yes/no question that's the problem, it's having a single one that's the problem. Certainly, if the Leave vote wins, there are going to be a myriad of further questions to sort out. Possibly some even if the Remain vote wins.
PS That diagram is unnecessarily complicated. Some of the categories it uses are fairly trivial ones, groups of countries that agree to talk to each other without much that is binding.
quote:As I understand it, that's provided only that the other 27 agree to those terms. Which is not a given, seeing as how the 27 don't exactly want a relatively painless Brexit giving ideas to other members.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The most likely scenario of a post-Brexit Britain is to be in the EEA without being in the EU.
quote:On the other hand, if there are countries thinking of quitting the EU over immigration and/or the cost of supporting the EU (which seem to be the main arguments for Brexit) then the precedent of the only country leaving being in a situation where it's still open for all EU nationals to live and work there, and they still pay the same amount to the EU - but, get less back from the EU and no longer have MEPs, a seat on the Council and the chance to appoint members of the Commission ....
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:As I understand it, that's provided only that the other 27 agree to those terms. Which is not a given, seeing as how the 27 don't exactly want a relatively painless Brexit giving ideas to other members.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The most likely scenario of a post-Brexit Britain is to be in the EEA without being in the EU.
quote:This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:An idiot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:I think the distinction is that there was already a majority in the Scottish Parliament for independence. There's a difference between putting a question to the country to ask them to confirm a change you believe in and giving them the option of a change you believe to be disastrous. It's a reasonable question but I think the solution lies in that for a change to occur there ought to be agreement between parliament and the country. If you can't get a majority in parliament and a majority in a referendum then it's probably not a change that should be made right now.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
quote:Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:An idiot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:An idiot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:And in the event, were offered a choice between devo-max and independence. Those who wanted the status quo were effectively disenfranchised.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
quote:We're a representative democracy. We vote for representatives to represent us in parliament.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
quote:I'm not particularly fired up for democracy (or anything else), I just assumed the left-wing types on the board would be and if so your post above would apply to them.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're so fired up for democracy, for people being asked their opinion and being given a voice, I'd like to remind you how few people voted for the Tories, and ask you just how they became a majority in parliament? Where was your rhetoric, your passion, to demand the people were listened to then?
quote:Democracy isn't a simple yes/no question. It is an assemblage of sometimes complex yes/no final answers. Thinking in terms of yes/no, black/white, on/off does a disservice to democracy and oneself.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
quote:Clearly not, since you voted Tory.
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm not particularly fired up for democracy
quote:I'm with lilbuddha here. This referendum was never about going to the people to settle the issue once and for all. This referendum was a stupid, stupid, stupid and opportunistic miscalculation by Cameron to gain better control over his own destiny and that of his party.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
quote:Well, as civilized as you can be when you're passing the kind of ballot measures that would make Nigel Farage come in his pants.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know whether referendums always do this - presumably, Switzerland manage to keep theirs civilized...
quote:Yes, but the referendum I linked to was about restricting the construction of minarets within Switzerland itself. As such, it had little if anything to do with staying out of international agreements.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Switzerland is a case apart. It has a much smaller population than the UK and has historically been isolationist inasmuch as everyone with any money has vast amounts of it stashed away there, as remote from international legislation as possible. As a result, unlike the UK, its interest is to stay as clear of as many international cooperative agreements as it reasonably can and be reasonably sure its territorial integrity will remain intact.
quote:My response was more to the suggestion that voting Tory was not believing in democracy. Not voting is not believing in democracy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Firenze:
The question is what the best way of expressing that choice is. I'm all for grassroots engagement, but at a national level, I think the issues best solved by referendum are vanishingly small simply because the world at that level is such a complex place.
quote:Well, in the run-up to the Independence referendum I said several times that my preference was for a vote to establish (or not) a desire for independence to allow the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a mandate from the people of Scotland, which would be followed by a second referendum on whether to accept the particular proposal on the table. So, not a simple yes/no question, but a yes/no to see if there was sufficient support in Scotland for the hard work of the national discussion on what independence means followed by a vote to confirm that.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:An idiot.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
quote:I think there is a place for a simple yes/no question. But, the time for that is after a national discussion on the issues in hand. Probably to ratify (or reject) an Act of Parliament, with the government wanting a specific constitutional change.
Originally posted by Ariel:
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
quote:Eutychus, I acknowledge my ignorance. But I don't think that disqualifies me from expressing disgust with the glee which some people outside express about particular potential inmates having to deal with rape.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Your ignorance of how prison actually works in practice is becoming more apparent with every post.
Originally posted by Penny S:
So punishing the victim for being a victim.
quote:In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
quote:I'm not sure it is "nothing at all", although you are correct to say that leaving the EU is not to leave the ECHR.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nothing at all, as I have already pointed out.
Except that in the minds of many, I'm sure that achieving Brexit means breaking free of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, since it has the word "European" in its title and is located in one of those nasty foreign places. And that to my mind at least, the arguments advanced for decoupling from the Convention on Human Rights appear to be about as equally misguided as those for leaving the EU.
quote:Not really very anything. Who cares what you think?
Originally posted by pete173:
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.
quote:
In the midst of that deep distrust of our democratic institutions, we lob a time bomb - a referendum which allows all that distrust to be expressed, exacerbated by a free-for-all without rules in the social media and in the press. Result - a campaign where fear, misrepresentation, and paranoia become the currency of public discourse.
quote:And, who cares what you think?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who cares what you think?
quote:If you think the purpose of this thread/board is for someone to come along and simply post a link to their blog, on the expectation that we should be interested because they're a bishop, then I suggest it is you that is delusional.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, who cares what you think?
If you think people are reading and thinking about what you write, then a) everyone else has the right to expect that and, b) you're delusional.
quote:It hasn't been.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
quote:That'll be nothing compared to the outcome. It will be divisive if the result is to Remain and chaotic if the result is to Leave.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:It hasn't been.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
quote:Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:It hasn't been.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
quote:I have to agree with Cameron that if the EU needs reform you need to be a member of it to put your point of view across and try to get it implemented.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?
quote:This is a fake referendum where the Tory grandees are fighting it out in a way that means they'll get what they want whichever side wins.
For many people, the Brexit campaign feels, for one brief moment, like the first time they have had control. But the clue is in the word “brief”. Once the vote is over, it will be the rightwing Tories in control. Ask Ukip; ask Boris Johnson: will Brexit guarantee a rise in wages, a cap on rents, a fall in NHS waiting times or class sizes? Ask the leave camp to put targets on these things – not for the longterm, but within 12-18 months. They can’t.
What can is a left-led Labour party, combined with the progressive nationalist parties and the Greens, which will institute real change. There will be no dilemmas in the newsrooms of the Times and Telegraph if that happens: they will unite to crush it.
That’s how you know the difference between a real revolt and a fake one: by its enemies.
quote:I think you might be talking about Farage, who is on the European Parliament fisheries committee.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In other areas of EU policy there are standing committees who are constantly (if in amny cases rather slowly) reforming policy - recent changes to fisheries policy are an example (changes that the UK largely opted out of contributing too since the lazy sod who should have been on that committee couldn't be bothered to turn up, let alone contribute).
quote:And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
quote:Your comments are spot on
Originally posted by pete173:
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.
quote:Transferable vote?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
The best thing about yes/no questions is you know which answer won. Anything else becomes fraught with difficulty.
Are you using first past the post? That might work for, say, choosing a national anthem. Apparently in some places such as the UK it's good enough for picking an MP. But for something as core as the constitutional arrangements of a country, heaven help you if none of the options makes the 50% mark.
quote:And/or charismatic Brexit stuff. According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On a tangent; while a lot of Brexit stuff sucks, what sucks even more is Dispensational Brexit stuff.
quote:Disband and go back to blowing the shit out of each other. Is this what God wants? Rather thought He'd had a fill of that prior to the EU.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".
I presume that means all 28 nations have to disband?
quote:At the moment so many of the Parliamentary Labour Party are Blairites and they detest Jeremy Corbyn. That Corbyn was elected leader by an overwhelming majority only serves to upset them further.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
With the conservatives in a not so Civil war one should see the labour party emerging as the new dominate party but they are not.
quote:Largely because the Labour Party's currently engaged in a Cold War of its own. Parliamentary Labour Party vs the Leader and the rest of the party; Leader and the rest of the party vs the PLP and (probably) the electorate...
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
With the conservatives in a not so Civil war one should see the labour party emerging as the new dominate party but they are not.
quote:Yes, a post that came up on my feed claimed that the writer had been to the 'throne room of the father' and had had a vision of Europe 'a few thousand years ago' when God split the UK from the mainland of Europe. With the implication that we shouldn't try to join together that which God had split apart
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And/or charismatic Brexit stuff. According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".
quote:Apparently Anjem Choudary is backing Remain. Score draw?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... and I've just noticed that David Icke is on the OUT side!! I wonder how many exiters realise this weird fact!!!!
quote:Yes. I would have preferred a link to a video of Michael Gove being forcefed Boris Johnson's hair and Farage's cigar ash while the latter are taunted by foreign-born NHS employees shouting "you ain't no British, bro". But it'll have to suffice.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I've just posted this link on the In/Out thread in Purg, but thought I'd put it here too.* Wel worth listening to Prof Michael Dougan explain the law.
*Is that okay, Host?
quote:Actually, I'm not sure about that. Leave are so chockful of nuts it could be squirrel shit.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are nutters on both sides of the debate. A "nuttiness" metric of each side is a very poor method of deciding which way to vote.
quote:Let me clarify. My "nuttiness" metric applies to names of people. I'm willing to hold open the possibility that a total nutter like Farage, Johnson, Gove or Cameron might produce a sensible argument (although I'm still awaiting any evidence of that happening).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Actually, I'm not sure about that. Leave are so chockful of nuts it could be squirrel shit.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are nutters on both sides of the debate. A "nuttiness" metric of each side is a very poor method of deciding which way to vote.
Bluntly put, not every Leaver is a racist, but every racist will vote Leave.
quote:You've let your guard down now. How else could you know about that?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These are the people who think that MI5 are running the Remain campaign, and are even now, installing bugs in your bedroom.
quote:Oh, my brother-in-law has a contract putting the bugs in, and taking them out, when no longer needed. They don't actually listen to people having sex, well, not usually.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You've let your guard down now. How else could you know about that?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These are the people who think that MI5 are running the Remain campaign, and are even now, installing bugs in your bedroom.
quote:I was actually in Brussels not long ago, paid for by the European Commission (this may well push my detractors straight to a Leave vote
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So it was that and the various posts that claim that the European Parliament looks like the Tower of Babel (but only as depicted by one particular Renaissance artist in one particular painting), and that the statue of Europa outside the Parliament is actually a statue of the Whore of Babylon.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
). quote:Thank you, Host.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes. I would have preferred a link to a video of Michael Gove being forcefed Boris Johnson's hair and Farage's cigar ash while the latter are taunted by foreign-born NHS employees shouting "you ain't no British, bro". But it'll have to suffice.
DT
HH
quote:Seen that too. And read the Adrian Hilton book. At the request of some confused Christian friends. I did a serious critique but observed at the end that the pervasive partial success of such drivel depended on fear. Fear can and does make folks more vulnerable, more easily manipulated. That 'demon' is best cast out by love. I have that on good authority.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, a post that came up on my feed claimed that the writer had been to the 'throne room of the father' and had had a vision of Europe 'a few thousand years ago' when God split the UK from the mainland of Europe. With the implication that we shouldn't try to join together that which God had split apart
So it was that and the various posts that claim that the European Parliament looks like the Tower of Babel (but only as depicted by one particular Renaissance artist in one particular painting), and that the statue of Europa outside the Parliament is actually a statue of the Whore of Babylon.
quote:A nutbar then?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... [who] think that MI5 is a chocolate bar (with nuts).
quote:Yes, I saw that - it was distinctly unnerving to the point of even sinister. I nearly posted it on FB but I figured people had had enough.
Originally posted by Piglet:
There's a picture on the Daily Telegraph web-site this morning showing Nigel Farage looking like such a swivel-eyed loon you'd think it would send even the most dedicated of Brexiteers scuttling off to vote "remain".
quote:Perhaps it is the natural consequence of plying on ignorance, fear and hate? The true mark of the beast?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Has anyone else noticed that Boris Johnson's hair is looking more and more like Donald Trump's as the campaign progresses?
Coincidence? I think not...
quote:I'm not sure I'd go that far. I would say that reaction matters more to him than reality. Another Trumpish characteristic.
Originally posted by Ariel:
but I'm increasingly convinced he doesn't actually believe any of the stuff he's been saying.
quote:I don't. The Tories are bad, but a wind blowing in a bunch of crazed Brexiters in a rushed GE would be the worst.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, I hope so. Chews nails down to the quick.
quote:I've been convinced of that for some time - watch any interview where he is pressed hard and resorts to bluster - watch the video on youtube of him being questioned by Andrew Tyrie - there are moments where he seems somewhat sheepish to be questioned about something he previously said.
Originally posted by Ariel:
I like Boris, but I'm increasingly convinced he doesn't actually believe any of the stuff he's been saying.
quote:The outside London areas I've been inhabiting (work and home) all feel as if Leave is ahead. There is certainly a lot of noise about Leave in those areas. The MP in Romford, Andrew Rossindale, is very publicly supporting Leave together with the UKIP MEP. The Leave mob in the High Street last Saturday here were getting a lot of support from the noise from passing cars. Lots of Leave posters up and not so many Remain in both those areas.
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm looking to stay up tonight, but with a huge sense of foreboding. Voted at 7.00, and live in a Borough where support for Remain is just too obvious even to have to worry about canvassing. But the Outside London factor makes it impossible to call.
quote:To me the Boris charm offensive has become increasingly lacking in charm as the campaign has progressed.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The buffoon act is studied - and it doesn't speak well of this country that so many people assume that it is a form of charm).
quote:The British public have been steadily giving up on charm and stuffed shirts for well over a decade.
Originally posted by balaam:
To me the Boris charm offensive has become increasingly lacking in charm as the campaign has progressed.
quote:Fear sells. This should be a wake up for the US, Trump fits the same mold.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Are these people actually completely fucking insane?
Time to grieve for my country I think.
quote:How is that going to work, though? How can negotiations "break down" preventing an exit?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.
quote:This would be better than the alternative, but still will cause strife.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.
quote:Setting wheels in motion are one thing but the Leave campaigners have always stressed the need for continued trade treaties such as EEA or EFTA. If we don't get terms for that, we're shafted and if we do then we still won't get many of the purported benefits of leaving the EU.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:How is that going to work, though? How can negotiations "break down" preventing an exit?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.
I'd like to believe massive street protests might force the MPs to refuse to ratify the referendum, but the reality is that whichever scenario you look at, the result is the same.
If the UK doesn't quickly set in motion the process to leave the EU then there are going to be riots.
quote:For sure, but there is little chance of "negotiations breaking down" which means that we don't now leave the EU. That would be absurd.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Setting wheels in motion are one thing but the Leave campaigners have always stressed the need for continued trade treaties such as EEA or EFTA. If we don't get terms for that, we're shafted and if we do then we still won't get many of the purported benefits of leaving the EU.
quote:Ireland is not going to unite. That's a very silly thing to say: there are hardline unionists who will never ever ever join the ROI.
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
So Ireland reunites, and Scotland leaves the Union and England and Wales remain alone and increasingly insignificant.
quote:I'm clutching my French passport with both hands, and wondering what lasting damage they may have done to Europe.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Bloody Brexiters have stolen my country from me.
quote:Exactly. I feel like I am in a strange land.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Bloody Brexiters have stolen my country from me.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Martin, the full quote is: 'The people have spoken. The bastards.'
Originally posted by Martin60:
The people have spoken.
quote:I can't believe I'm about to say this. But, I'd prefer Gove.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Cameron resigning.
Boris in??????
quote:I'll second that.
Originally posted by RooK:
How utterly fucking ghastly.
quote:She has said there is no chance that she will go to Westminster. She is popular here partly because she has distanced herself from the main Westminster party. In the General Election all the Tory leaflets had "Ruth Davidson" in large letters and "Conservatives" in small letters, tucked away somewhere unobtrusive.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If we have to have a new Tory PM, let it be Ruth Davison. But she isn't even an MP.
Heaven help us if it's Mr. B. Johnson.
quote:The first words out of my mouth this morning too..
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER.
quote:Well you and I are exactly the kind of Europhile many in the UK would happily say good riddance to.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER. Or as I suppose I shall be saying from now on, merde. French passport, here I come.
(Actually for practical reasons, I shan’t apply immediately – much easier to wait until I become eligible on grounds of marriage. But in a couple of years from now, I am definitely going to become a proud citizen of la République. I’m so pissed off at the minute I even feel like abjuring my British nationality because this morning I am frankly quite ashamed of my country.)
quote:Much politer than the reaction of the North East household.
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:The first words out of my mouth this morning too..
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
quote:If you and your gullible, xenophobic, stupid and avaricious pals can pay for the difference between Britain in and Britain out, you're welcome. If we don't get a damn good deal through EFTA or EEA, trade will be fucked thanks to import and export tariffs. It'll make the EU contribution look like pocket change.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:Typical little Englander. Bangs on about forners and can't fucking spell his own language.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:I didn't have a vote in this referendum, you illiterate idiot.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:Enjoy your moment. I'm afraid this will be a hollow victory, late or soon.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:And, might I add, there is so little consideration for the minority.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Democracy is ugly when the public face of the majority, and the arguments that led to it being achieved, are so nasty.
quote:There is a long dishonourable history of "other" groups being targeted by unscrupulous politicians.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And, might I add, there is so little consideration for the minority.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Democracy is ugly when the public face of the majority, and the arguments that led to it being achieved, are so nasty.
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Along with the other far right politicians in Europe. Lovely.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
And now the Brexiteers have encouraged the Netherlands' own charming xenophobe, Geert Wilders, to call for a Nexit referendum.
quote:That could be interesting. Service industries have only been able to continue during this period of "austerity" because of migrant labour, which usually undercuts the UK workforce.
Originally posted by Ariel:
It could work – it won't work in the way it did years ago but it could be made to work, but only if people are prepared to put quite a lot of effort into it and to accept more austerity until things straighten out. I don’t see that happening.
quote:We certainly will. A friend of ours married a Canadian a couple of years ago. They have decided to settle in the UK and he has taken a job here (bit of a fiasco getting his visa and he's an electrical engineer).
Originally posted by Ariel:
We'll probably still have migrant labour. They don't all come from the EU.
quote:Middle class Brexiters have the most to lose, so they might be regretful. For less successful Brexiters, there's not much point worrying. Life is already challenging for them.
Originally posted by Kittyville:
A correspondent in the FT is wondering how long it will be before until the regret kicks in. How long, indeed?
quote:Which is why Mr. C was a fucking idiot to allow us to do the equivalent of throwing a bottle/brick in the street on a ballot paper.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:But that's not the same as saying that he/she didn't want it to happen.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:Well, usually when people use words like "shocked" and especially "worried", it means they are unhappy, or at least uncomforable, with what had happened or is going to happen.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:But that's not the same as saying that he/she didn't want it to happen.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb] Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:I take it "Mr.C" refers to Mr Cameron and not mr cheesy. I'm not aware of having thrown any bottles for a while.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which is why Mr. C was a fucking idiot to allow us to do the equivalent of throwing a bottle/brick in the street on a ballot paper.
quote:This is like voters in Kentucky who voted for a governor that promised to dismantled the social safety net, and then acted all surprised and offended when he went and did it.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:Well done gloating on the misfortune of others, on the chaos for the UK and the EU!
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:I am the only person in my family who is not eligible for another European country. Someone hates me.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the other hand, the value of having both passports has just gone up dramatically.
quote:& we don't understand why they have decided to say this.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The people have spoken.
quote:In all fairness, had I been convinced that Remain would win then I would have voted Leave as well. That way I would have been able to register my deep dissatisfaction with the EU and give the eurocrats a kick up the arse while also avoiding the economic repercussions of actually leaving.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
quote:It is a mind-numbingly stupid voting strategy. Do you think the Brexiteers will keep in mind all the Remain voters? No, the only thing they will see is they won. And there is nothing to hold them to their obviously bullshit promises.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:In all fairness, had I been convinced that Remain would win then I would have voted Leave as well. That way I would have been able to register my deep dissatisfaction with the EU and give the eurocrats a kick up the arse while also avoiding the economic repercussions of actually leaving.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:
quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
I guess that's the problem with a protest vote. Sometimes so many other people want to protest as well that it actually ends up winning.
quote:Well you lot have loosed something.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
I'm not. You are.
quote:MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?
quote:Be prepared for 52% of the UK population to phone it, asking what the fucking EU is.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm thinking a dedicated basket case line might come in handy.
quote:For so many situations.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm thinking a dedicated basket case line might come in handy.
quote:Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?
quote:Pans out with what I have been seeing on my Facebook feed. Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad. It really sucks. Fuck the Brexiters for making my friends sad.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One thing that has been quite interesting is how fast we've moved through the stages of grief since 4am this morning.
I'm moving out of anger, via a quick stop at bargaining and now speeding into depression.
quote:Hey chocolate-knob, we've got more important things to moan about than some other prick's spelling.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
quote:Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you had an ounce of sense, you'd be spending every waking moment in the fear of Trump doing the same to you.
quote:MT.... (Thinks).... Molasses...scrotum, I can't read minds.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:I honestly don't know what good it would do, marsh-mallow manboobs, but I'm pretty sure it is a better use of everyone's time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.
(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)
quote:Well, I for one have had about a 200% increase in worrying about a Trump win since yesterday, because if anyone would exploit a European division...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Hey chocolate-knob, we've got more important things to moan about than some other prick's spelling.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
If you had an ounce of sense, you'd be spending every waking moment in the fear of Trump doing the same to you.
quote:So you want people to do something, the benefits of which you have no idea. Kind of like people voting Leave who didn't even know what the EU was. You are a walking, talking dipfuck.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I honestly don't know what good it would do, marsh-mallow manboobs, but I'm pretty sure it is a better use of everyone's time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.
(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)
quote:Thank you. I wish I could wave a magic want and fix your country's creek/paddle problem. It's going to be rough times and I don't envy you. And as you point out if we manage to elect the Donald, we'll be right there with you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, ok the difference here is (a) I was up at 4am and (b) my country is now up shit creek.
I'm running on fumes, if I was overly offensive, it was unintentional.
quote:...and not in your hand?
Originally posted by mousethief:
(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:...and not in your hand?
Originally posted by mousethief:
(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)
quote:If we manage to elect the Donald, combined with this it could imperil the phrase " free world".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Thank you. I wish I could wave a magic want and fix your country's creek/paddle problem. It's going to be rough times and I don't envy you. And as you point out if we manage to elect the Donald, we'll be right there with you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, ok the difference here is (a) I was up at 4am and (b) my country is now up shit creek.
I'm running on fumes, if I was overly offensive, it was unintentional.
quote:It's their particular brain metabolism and the hair-raising ideas and behavioural attitudes it produces.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Donald and Boris, what's with the weird blond hair on those two?
quote:I was thinking that - I imagined Facebook metaphorically drowning under all the "
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad ...
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
' icons being used.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:...and not in your hand?
Originally posted by mousethief:
(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)
quote:Facebook's been like a river in full spate.
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:I was thinking that - I imagined Facebook metaphorically drowning under all the "
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad ... ]
quote:That hasn't actually been decided yet.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Oh well the most obvious issue of all migrants in France moving to Kent is now going to happen.
quote:
Just imagine what the Tories would do to workers’ rights here in Britain if we voted to leave the EU in June. They’d dump rights on equal pay, working time, annual leave for agency workers, and on maternity pay, as fast as they could get away with it. It would be a bonfire of rights that Labour governments secured within the EU.
Not only that, it wouldn’t be a Labour government negotiating a better settlement for working people with the EU. It would be a Tory government, quite possibly led by Boris Johnson and backed by Nigel Farage, that would negotiate the worst of all worlds: a free market free-for-all shorn of rights and protections.
quote:Unless you have verifiable proof that this has been promised to happen, this is scaremongering.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This is what Corbyn said in April in one of those public appearances apparently people think he wasn't making:
quote:No just a second, this isn't about "verified proof", this is about a politician making a statement about what would happen in a future scenario given what we know about the people in the Tory party who will be in charge.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Unless you have verifiable proof that this has been promised to happen, this is scaremongering.
quote:Not "would": "might" or "could". If there is no verification for something, it is not a certainty, only a possibility or probability. It should not be promoted as a fact when it isn't one. It might become one, but it hasn't yet and passing it off as one when it isn't is irresponsible.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No just a second, this isn't about "verified proof", this is about a politician making a statement about what would happen in a future scenario given what we know about the people in the Tory party who will be in charge.
quote:I'm reserving judgement on the specifics until I see how things play out.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Tories really don't want to change the deal with regard to labour conditions? Because if you are, you're deluded.
quote:The kind of 'fascist take-over' that approves of immigration? I think you'll have to find another word to describe that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'll tell you something, if one other fucking arsewipe Tory or UKIP prick performs another u-turn on national television today, I'm going to totally lose it.
How can they seriously stand there and make out that this campaign wasn't about releasing money from the EU to pay for the NHS and wasn't about reducing EU migration.
FFS. This is increasingly looking like a fascist take-over. Once they have the power, fuckkit, they just do whatever the hell they like.
quote:People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I would usually ask why they think so - although those that think so aren't usually backward in coming forward!
Originally posted by mdijon:
Do you take a consistent line when people say Corbyn would be a disastrous prime minister? (i.e. "show me the proof or that's just scare-mongering"?)
quote:I agree but as the declaration that founded it was based on EU solidarity & the principle of the Dublin agreement all of which we have just rejected. How long will it last?
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:That hasn't actually been decided yet.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Oh well the most obvious issue of all migrants in France moving to Kent is now going to happen.
quote:all EU law is going to be up for grabs. No one can seriously believe that a right wing tory party which has said they want to get rid of EU law will then implement the EU law they hate.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:I'm reserving judgement on the specifics until I see how things play out.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Tories really don't want to change the deal with regard to labour conditions? Because if you are, you're deluded.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Do you take a consistent line when people say Corbyn would be a disastrous prime minister? (i.e. "show me the proof or that's just scare-mongering"?)
quote:Asking why they think that is not really the same as asking for the proof or declaring it scare-mongering.
Originally posted by Ariel:
People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I would usually ask why they think so - although those that think so aren't usually backward in coming forward!
quote:Unfortunately, the Luftwaffe wasn't involved this time. Today's spit-fires appear to shoot their own people.
Originally posted by Ariel:
[...] Still, I'm sure we'll cope. At the risk of sounding like a Brexiteer there must surely be something of that Blitz spirit left (looks in cupboards and under table).
quote:I don't understand what kind of proof one needs when thinking about how right-wing Tories will act in the future.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Asking why they think that is not really the same as asking for the proof or declaring it scare-mongering.
quote:This is true, but we're in uncharted waters here and the EU leaders are saying they want a speedy divorce.
Originally posted by Ariel:
We are actually still in the EU. We haven't left yet. We've only announced that we want to. There is a(n unspecified) time frame on that and laws can't just be scrapped overnight. Some may be retained, some may be amended, some may be scrapped, we simply don't know. We don't even know yet whether there will be an election in the autumn. In short, the whole thing is uncertain.
(I can only add that there is now no credible political party that I feel I could vote for.)
quote:The two parties have already made an agreement. It is enshrined in Article 50, which provides that once a member state has requested to leave there is a timeframe of two years, or sooner, if agreed.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It might be true to say that there are three or six months or longer to negotiate Leave - or it might be sooner than we all think. The fact is that it takes two parties to make an agreement, so this bollocks which says the UK can take its own sweet time about it might just prove to be wishful thinking if the other EU leaders decide it must be done quicker to stop the rot.
quote:They are monitoring the market, as central banks tend to do when there is a bit of turbulence.
If nothing else, there is a certain irony that the European Central Bank is propping up the Brexit-caused slump at the moment. I don't know how that is being paid for (funnily enough nobody is talking about the detail), but my guess is that the EU states want to get the fuck away from this contagious plague victim as quick as is humanly possible before the UK drags everyone else down with it.
quote:Only the public has voted so far. But in any event it is quite normal to vote to get rid of the laws one doesn't like. I presume you do the same when you cast your vote.
As to the other shit; there is zero chance that the Tories and UKIP would have voted to leave the EU if the intention wasn't to get rid of the laws they don't like.
And we all know which laws they don't like.
quote:Article 50 only applies when a country requests to leave, there does not appear to be any kind of system if the other countries insist that one of the EU countries leave.
Originally posted by Cod:
The two parties have already made an agreement. It is enshrined in Article 50, which provides that once a member state has requested to leave there is a timeframe of two years, or sooner, if agreed.
So bollocks yourself.
quote:They're doing a damn site more than "monitoring", the Bank of England has put in £250 billion of liquidity and the European Central Bank has said it is ready to supply cash to banks if it is needed.
They are monitoring the market, as central banks tend to do when there is a bit of turbulence.
quote:I don't understand your point. Others were asking how we can be sure of what the Tories will do post-Brexit with regard to repealing EU labour laws. Well, we know what they want to do - they're Tories. They want to reduce business red tape and row back on worker rights. Nobody needs a crystal ball to see that.
Only the public has voted so far. But in any event it is quite normal to vote to get rid of the laws one doesn't like. I presume you do the same when you cast your vote.
quote:It was the Blitz spirit that cause the Leave win. The Remain's area scare-bombing did no more to break the resolve of half the Electorate than real bombs did in WW2.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Still, I'm sure we'll cope. At the risk of sounding like a Brexiteer there must surely be something of that Blitz spirit left (looks in cupboards and under table).
quote:The anti-EU Tories have basically always been anti-EU over the wider European Social Contract. They see the EU as a socialist brake on a vibrant free-market UK.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But it's certainly hard to know what their real agenda is.
quote:You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work aren't you? I mean, politics aside, you really, really are a complete cunt.
Originally posted by deano:
I thought the joyous feeling of brexit would be dissipating by now, but it isn't.
In fact the whining and whinging from the LOSING remainers is actually sustaining my enjoyment.
I like the online petition as well. I really hope that it does well because the thought of the signatories slowly realising that it is going to be completely ignored is making me even happier.
Can I just say thank you to all you out of touch lefties for providing me with a fantastic demonstration of desperate unhappiness. It does my old heart good.
I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?
quote:Oooh Karl. Calm down. Little hissy fits like that will raise your blood pressure something terrible.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work aren't you? I mean, politics aside, you really, really are a complete cunt.
Originally posted by deano:
I thought the joyous feeling of brexit would be dissipating by now, but it isn't.
In fact the whining and whinging from the LOSING remainers is actually sustaining my enjoyment.
I like the online petition as well. I really hope that it does well because the thought of the signatories slowly realising that it is going to be completely ignored is making me even happier.
Can I just say thank you to all you out of touch lefties for providing me with a fantastic demonstration of desperate unhappiness. It does my old heart good.
I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?
Now please fuck the hell off. You contribute fuck all to this community; you're like someone who comes in, eats the food, shits in the sink and pisses up the walls. Quite why you've not yet had your marching orders I don't know, unless Admin feel we need to know just how deeply unpleasant humanity can get. Your utter disdain and hatred o those who you disagree with is so palpable. I don't know how you have the utter gall to claim Christianity as your allegiance. It makes as much sense as being an anti-semitic Orthodox Jew. God knows, you desperately need some Christianity, and I pray to God one day you actually understand what it means, but for now you really are a very unpleasant, loathsome individual.
quote:Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.
quote:Karl, Karl, Karl...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You call it a hissy fit, I call it pointing out to a hateful shit that he's a hateful shit.
You've admitted yourself how you enjoy winding people up. How you enjoy other seeing other people's disappointment.
That doesn't make you a public service, or even a legitimate dissenting voice. It makes you an obnoxious turd. But you know that's what you are, you revel in being one.
quote:Well I'm "engaged" on the back of the vote. Nice Austrian girl, feeling nervous. We will bring her boyfriend on the honeymoon and as a thank you, she will bring a chap along for me. The consummation will therefore be a little unorthodox but it's public service. I am doing it free - for the country.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am going to open a marriage bureau.
Several British expat friends of mine are urgently looking for love with a citizen of an EU member state.
I am charging very modest rates.
quote:Karl, every-time you respond to him, you save him the cost of a Viagra. Might be a good idea to divest in Pfizer stock right now. Sir Wanks-a-Lot is driving up tissue stocks, though.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.
quote:Yes because I remember that part of the Sermon on the Mount when Christ said "Blessed are the remainers for they will ensure the Brussels gravy train shall continue rolling on."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Karl, every-time you respond to him, you save him the cost of a Viagra. Might be a good idea to divest in Pfizer stock right now. Sir Wanks-a-Lot is driving up tissue stocks, though.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.
You have to admire what a shining example of Christianity he is, though.
quote:Not me, but perhaps you need to have a chat with Dan Dan the Oratory Man. Sounds like you bought a pig in a poke.
Originally posted by deano:
I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?
quote:Keith Vaz, recognised by both sides of the house as a committed Christian and good constituency MP?
Originally posted by deano:
I love to see the likes of Keith Vaz crying on live TV because more people voted against his politics than did for them. Wonderful.
quote:Interestingly enough Daniel Hannan MEP leading Brexiter has confirmed that he would expect open borders to remain in the future & that leaving the EU will not stop immigration ( see here ) & of course he is correct as the only realistic option for the UK is a poor persons version of the Norway model. If you voted leave to close the borders that ain't going to happen.
Originally posted by deano:
I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts.
quote:Yes, and the Polish community centre in Hammersmith now has graffiti in large letters saying "Get Out". Wtf? Has this level of xenophobia really been simmering beneath the surface all along?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's been a few other things posted:
- Postcards put through the doors of Polish families living in Peterborough telling them to leave,
- a banner in Newcastle saying "Stop immigration, start repatriation"
- a photo of a Romford man wearing a t-shirt saying "Yes we won, now leave" on diamondgeezer's blog
quote:Yes, of course it has. What's changed now is that it's acceptable to voice it, because the racist and xenophobic believe that over 50% of the population agree with them.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Has this level of xenophobia really been simmering beneath the surface all along?
quote:Yes. Very much so.
Originally posted by Ariel:
It feels depressingly reminiscent of early 1930s Germany.
quote:Well, the global consequences of George W. Bush's foreign-policy were pretty horrible, but I don't recall that this led to any reticence on the part of Brits about making fun of HIS stupidity, or that of the Americans who voted for him.
The whole "ohshit, we voted for WHAT? WE did that? Maybe we should have looked up what the EU was before we left it" angle is being played for yuks a bit much here, especially given how frankly frightening the consequences may be both personally and globally.
quote:The genie is now out of the bottle.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A friend of mine has just posted on FB, witnessing a white child spit in the face of a black child and shout "Leave!" at her. In a McDonalds. And the manager asked the black family to go, because they hadn't ordered their food yet.
Well done, Brexit! *golf claps*
quote:I'm wondering if there has been an actual increase in this type of racism, or if the media is just reporting it more often because of the vote.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:The genie is now out of the bottle.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A friend of mine has just posted on FB, witnessing a white child spit in the face of a black child and shout "Leave!" at her. In a McDonalds. And the manager asked the black family to go, because they hadn't ordered their food yet.
Well done, Brexit! *golf claps*
quote:POSK has been in Hammersmith for decades. This is the first time I've ever heard of it being daubed in racist graffiti though.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm wondering if there has been an actual increase in this type of racism, or if the media is just reporting it more often because of the vote.
quote:I've said before that racism is a larger problem than most white people wish to admit.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If y'all want nightmares, you can also check out #PostRefRacism on twitter. Some seriously nasty stuff.
I think it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a "tiny minority" - racism is a big problem in Britain (particularly England) and there's a lot more of it than many of us would like to think.
quote:That one was worse than I remembered - the t-shirt says "Yes we won, now send them back".
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: There's been a few other things posted:
- a photo of a Romford man wearing a t-shirt saying "Yes we won, now leave" on diamondgeezer's blog
quote:I hope you are right, but I fear you are not.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Racist attacks or abuse, regardless of which race is doing it, will continue to be punishable by the Law. Talk of 1930s Germany is hysterical nonsense.
Doubtless there is a small and regrettable wave of nasty stuff going on in the wake of the referendum similar to what was seen after 7/7 terror attacks.
quote:Yes - if you can catch who's doing it. When stuff appears mysteriously overnight and the perpetrators can’t be traced, and there’s a series of this in the same locality, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Racist attacks or abuse, regardless of which race is doing it, will continue to be punishable by the Law.
quote:Would that be a different Keith Vaz from the one sanctioned by the house and the one involved in the passports for cash row? I don't suppose that would be the same Vaz who is rather better off than most of his constituents, living in London and nor Leicester?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Keith Vaz, recognised by both sides of the house as a committed Christian and good constituency MP?
Originally posted by deano:
I love to see the likes of Keith Vaz crying on live TV because more people voted against his politics than did for them. Wonderful.
quote:Ahem. We did it here first. Doesn't anybody know anything about history nowadays?
Madame la Guillotine is too European to be used in Britain.
quote:Fair enough, good to see you and Boris getting on so well at last.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Keep going. It's always best to learn at the feet of a master.
quote:And it's become more brazen. I'm having to start not just ignoring all the golliwog posts on Facebook and actually call people on it now. I fear I will lose friends.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If y'all want nightmares, you can also check out #PostRefRacism on twitter. Some seriously nasty stuff.
I think it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a "tiny minority" - racism is a big problem in Britain (particularly England) and there's a lot more of it than many of us would like to think.
quote:It's a recognised stage in grieving. We're also doing a fair bit of bargaining. Rage is mixed in there somewhere.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.
The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.
quote:Sudden and brutal? It's not like space-aliens came down one day and ordered the UK to leave the EU or else.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:It's a recognised stage in grieving. We're also doing a fair bit of bargaining. Rage is mixed in there somewhere.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.
The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.
Give us a break - the bereavement was sudden and brutal.
quote:I'm fimly on the Remain side but I won't be signing *that* petition. Referendums are stupid but holding them until you get "the right result" is worse.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.
The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.
quote:If, in a two-choice referendum with both options running neck-and-neck, people were stupid enough to vote for the choice they didn't really want just to stick it to the elites, that's their goddam problem. Votes are tallied according to what is marked on the paper, not according to what you speculate the hidden intention of all the voters really was based on anecdotal evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.
quote:Likewise, I was not prepared to sign the petition for a second referendum. Its clearly a very bad idea.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm fimly on the Remain side but I won't be signing *that* petition. Referendums are stupid but holding them until you get "the right result" is worse.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.
The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.
Let's just hope the negotiations really do turn into the humungous clusterfuck I mentioned a couple of weeks ago and the whole thing gets nowhere.
quote:There is no good road forward, ISTM. Not in the short run. But the best strategy is to fill the potholes in the road chosen as best that can be done.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Likewise, I was not prepared to sign the petition for a second referendum. Its clearly a very bad idea.
quote:That's a pretty crazy comparison. In order to be comparable to the referendum, there would have to have been a law passed by parliment saying "On such and such a date, Joe Bloggs will be taken to a cliff, and read a statement giving him the option of either running off, or staying put." In other words, the government has openly recognized running off the cliff as a legitimate choice for Mr. Bloggs.
Yes, ok, we have already decided to take it, but wouldn't you rugby tackle a family member if you saw them running towards the edge of a cliff? Isn't that deliberate sabotage of a decision freely made?
quote:Again, not a good comparison. The sale of medication is regulated by strict laws, laws which would certainly preclude their being labelled as candy. Not so electoral promises, about which voters are expected to maintain a significant measure of critical thought.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In this case, the pills were sold as Smarties. Those who swallowed them are finding that they have a fierce kick.
Yes, ok , it all sounds a little pathetic, but they were, and the speed at which the merchants are backtracking is frightening.
quote:Well, as I see it, the only way you can justify a re-vote is if the original process were somehow unfair. And I'm saying it wasn't; it was as valid as any other election or referendum, almost all of which involve questionable promises and statements of one form or another.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What the hell has process got to do with this?
quote:Well, you were the one who brought up things like alleged lying by the Leave side, so it would seem that you did indeed care about the process, at least a few posts back...
I don't give a flying fuck about the process
quote:
In this case, the pills were sold as Smarties
quote:And I find that far scarier than going through with it. Far scarier. Because it means that you're prepared to throw what's left of the UK's democratic institutions under the bus in order to achieve a notional result that you prefer.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.
quote:It doesn't have to. I think a UK Norway is workable even if I'm pro-EU. Achieving such a solution relies on accepting the outcome and acting on it, the sooner the better. The fastest and surest road to ruin that I can see is if y'all don't do precisely that.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life.
quote:Like I say, sometimes you have to say something in order to hear yourself saying it. Then you realise what you have said.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And I find that far scarier than going through with it. Far scarier. Because it means that you're prepared to throw what's left of the UK's democratic institutions under the bus in order to achieve a notional result that you prefer.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.
Yes those institutions have been sorely abused. But ditching them is orders of magnitude more stupid than voting to leave the EU.
quote:I understand. For what it's worth, I live contract to contract, in a pretty hardscrabble industry, in the Republic Of Korea, and I'm always one non-renewal away from getting sent home packing, with few prospects, to Canada.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Yes, OK, that is an argument which needs to be used with a serious amount of discretion.
Look. I'm 44 (by a curious coincidence as of the day on which the result was announced). This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life. I could probably find work elsewhere if I wanted to but (a) most of the viable possibilities are about to get harder and (b) there are reasons to stay here, and I'd rather it were in an unfucked country.
quote:I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!
quote:I would love to think that this was achievable, sadly I think it isn't though. It's not on offer, no one will go for it because of the role of the press as outrage generating machines, and no one will try and negotiate for it, based on the same principle.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It doesn't have to. I think a UK Norway is workable even if I'm pro-EU.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life.
quote:To be clearer, fuck those assholes. If you are getting in fights with some of your friends because you protest racists grotesqueries, they ain't friends worth having.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!
quote:Clarification appreciated. The tricky part is when you've got people who aren't inherently bad people, but without thinking they share the superficially convincing.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:To be clearer, fuck those assholes. If you are getting in fights with some of your friends because you protest racists grotesqueries, they ain't friends worth having.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!
quote:Bingo. And if people are that idiotic that they can't figure out their vote on the first attempt, why the hell does anyone believe having a second go will get a better one?
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:If, in a two-choice referendum with both options running neck-and-neck, people were stupid enough to vote for the choice they didn't really want just to stick it to the elites, that's their goddam problem. Votes are tallied according to what is marked on the paper, not according to what you speculate the hidden intention of all the voters really was based on anecdotal evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.
quote:And it's this kind of sense of melodrama that I find so pathetic from the Remain side.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Yes, ok, we have already decided to take it, but wouldn't you rugby tackle a family member if you saw them running towards the edge of a cliff?
quote:With the tiny, distant glimpse of things I have from over here in California, this makes some sense. From what I've seen/read over the last few days, ISTM there's a lot of festering stuff that needs to be aired and cleaned up--maybe on all sides. And that there are many, many threads to this whole thing.
Originally posted by Macrina:
This isn't a black and white issue - many of the things that people are concerned about, uncontrolled immigration and strain on public resources DO need to be addressed. They haven't been addressed for so long they've now resulted in this cluster fuck of a vote.
quote:And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.
Originally posted by Macrina:
My problem with the result isn't the result itself its that many people who voted for it are now loudly demonstrating all over their twittering social media feeds (a right not restricted to some fabled rich remainer sect) that they don't understand what they voted for.
quote:Well I guess those who voted to leave as a protest will learn a valuable lesson. The ones who voted to leave because they thought the U.K. would be better off may or may not learn a valuable lesson.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.
I agree that some of these ideas are unusual, but so are the circumstances.
quote:Well maybe there will be someone to Rugby tackle you before you run off the cliff. As long as there's a valid sizeable group that voted for this result, why do you think they would let you stop at a second election if they lost? They would demand a third.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What the hell has process got to do with this? There are no badges available for running referendums, and this one has left us with an outcome that sucks arse in hell.
I don't give a flying fuck about the process (which I think, btw, was sabotaged by a toxic combination of opportunism and complacency). I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.
quote:To use the Economist's line again, it's symptomatic of post-truth politics.
Originally posted by Macrina:
people who can't seem to tell the difference between what is NOW happening and what the politicians told them may happen.
quote:No, there is a difference - the representative democracy that we have doesn't made binary decisions based on the popular vote, probably for the sensible reason that the majority can simply railroad the minority even when the result is close.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.
We simply do not operate on a system whereby those who think they know the 'right' answer get to discount the value of the votes of those who gave the 'wrong' answer. That isn't how democratic voting works. The vote of the person who we either think or know is a complete moron who doesn't have a clue counts for exactly the same amount as the vote of the person who has a PhD in political theory.
quote:Can you really not see that if this happens on a ticket to disregard the referendum result, the legitimacy of its outcome (especially if it were close in any respect) would immediately be just as suspect as people are claiming the referendum result was?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the solution out of this particular constitutional mess is the traditional way we solve divisions in British political life - a General Election, not another stupid referenda.
quote:Well that's very likely true too - if the result was overturned because of a majority in the HoC that may well also cause trouble in the streets.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you really not see that if this happens on a ticket to disregard the referendum result, the legitimacy of its outcome (especially if it were close in any respect) would immediately be just as suspect as people are claiming the referendum result was?
quote:I suppose it depends on which way you look at it - from my POV, any legal tactic to try to stop a disasterous result is worth trying. And you can't tell me that the Brexit supporters wouldn't have done the same if they'd lost - we know they would have because Farage has said so.
Again: regardless of whether the referendum, the required majority, the campaigning, or the outcome sucked, disregarding the result (clearly billed in advance as definitive) wouldn't be a universal admission of "having got it wrong that time round". It would be a further devaluation of the worth of a democratic vote - irrespective of the type of contest. A future outside the EU may look bleak, but that prospect looks much bleaker to me.
quote:From my POV, that is precisely the kind of ends-justifies-the-means thinking that produced this mess in the first place. Cameron attempted to use the referendum as a party political tactic and to hell with the consequences. Now you're saying any tactic is worth trying to unfix it, without really weighing all the possible outcomes of that, including the imponderables.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
from my POV, any legal tactic to try to stop a disasterous result is worth trying.
quote:No, sorry, that Parliament is sovereign is not something I dreamed up, it is a fact. Nobody is suggesting doing anything which is contrary to the tradition that Parliament is sovereign.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From my POV, that is precisely the kind of ends-justifies-the-means thinking that produced this mess in the first place. Cameron attempted to use the referendum as a party political tactic and to hell with the consequences. Now you're saying any tactic is worth trying to unfix it, without really weighing all the possible outcomes of that, including the imponderables.
quote:No, once again this is not abuse of the parliamentary democratic system we have in the UK.
Aside from all the consequences of further abuse of the democratic process, you're forgetting the consequences outside the UK. A Leave vote may look dumb to many outside the UK; pretending it didn't happen looks beyond dumb. If Cameron has a shred of dignity left after the vote, it's that he acknowledged the will of the people and said their decision should be respected. Abandon that, and I'm not sure the UK will have much respect left at all with anybody else. Its word will be totally suspect.
quote:I can tell you for absolutely certain that the pain you're feeling is nothing as to the pain we're experiencing. So you don't get to start weighing your ex-pat pain against those of us who have to live with it.
I understand there's pain here, and despite having left my native shores many years ago I'm going through the trauma too; it's also triggering other stuff for me. But try to step back and think about this a bit. Trying to unfix this is worse than living with it.
quote:I'm not sure the question of exactly who has the authority to invoke article 50 is as settled as you think, but here, unlike previously, you are implicitly conceding it will happen.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the EU will just have to wait until the UK government is ready to give Article 50 notification once it has sorted out the mess.
quote:I guess we'll see what happens today, but given the statements by the Germans, it sounds likely that it is now agreed that Article 50 can only be set in motion with an official statement by the British government.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure the question of exactly who has the authority to invoke article 50 is as settled as you think, but here, unlike previously, you are implicitly conceding it will happen.
quote:You keep saying that as if it is obviously true. Has the Republic of Ireland lost legitimacy as an EU state because they have repeated referenda? Have they been excluded from the EU club because the results of the one referenda are the opposite of the previous one?
You can argue it's Parliament's right to ignore the referendum, but again, if it does it will have lost still further legitimacy. This game is not worth the candle. It will reinforce the impression that Westminster is an elite that tramples the expressed will of the people. Which is grist to the mill of the populist views espoused by the Leave campaign and used to turn people against the EU.
quote:Yes, Jeremy Hunt has said that. Just to reinforce his right the the rhyming slang name.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British politicians have said this morning that they think Article 50 should only be invoked in 2020 (!?)
quote:Oh fuck. I have just discovered that I agree with George Osborne. My viability as a human being is in question.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The other problem that we are currently facing is one of accountability. The whole model used by the Leave campaign as it was structuring itself was clearly that it could dump a whole pile of steaming shit on the doorstep of the Houses of Parliament and someone else would use it to fertilise the fields of our green and pleasant lands (including those not in Blake's vision). The idea that they should have to have an account themselves of how this was going to happen clearly did not occur to them. There is no reason why it should have occurred to anyone else, so please could it be noted that the current surreal hiatus is caused by the complete fuckwitted cluelessness of Boris and chums, and not by any fault of the Remain side.
quote:Not politically there isn't, but this kind of talk is why not a few voices in the EU-27 want the UK to put its money where its mouth is sooner rather than later.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British politicians have said this morning that they think Article 50 should only be invoked in 2020 (!?) and from what some experts are saying, there is nothing the other EU countries could do to stop this delay.
quote:You're welcome to try, but I think it's madness.
From our position within it, it is worth taking these very mild steps to see if the result can be challenged. If you don't like it, well hard cheese and tough tittie.
quote:Makes Theresa May (aka Thatcher Mk II) look like the moderates' choice, doesn't it.
I don't know what to say. I don't know which would be worse as PM, him or Boris.
quote:That's true. Normally you provide people with a range of candidates and a first-past-the-post voting system, so that the minority can railroad the majority instead.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:No, there is a difference - the representative democracy that we have doesn't made binary decisions based on the popular vote, probably for the sensible reason that the majority can simply railroad the minority even when the result is close.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.
We simply do not operate on a system whereby those who think they know the 'right' answer get to discount the value of the votes of those who gave the 'wrong' answer. That isn't how democratic voting works. The vote of the person who we either think or know is a complete moron who doesn't have a clue counts for exactly the same amount as the vote of the person who has a PhD in political theory.
quote:I don't know for sure about the IoM, but the Channel Islands have their own elected first ministers and government, and are not part of the EU. They are part of the EEA.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we could live on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
quote:You mean I only get to choose one?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, what is your problem with the commentary you're seeing here? The despair of what has happened to the country, with all the racism that has been unleashed? Or the wriggling around trying to find a way out?
quote:They are all Crown-dependencies. As such, changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU will impact their own positions. Especially if the UK doesn't end up within the EEA, in which case it would be difficult for the Crown dependencies to maintain their position within the EEA.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't know for sure about the IoM, but the Channel Islands have their own elected first ministers and government, and are not part of the EU. They are part of the EEA.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we could live on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
quote:Forget about the economy. They can't be trusted with the Government.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I have detected one small glimmer of a silver lining; this should put paid once and for all to the myth that the Conservatives can be trusted with the economy.
quote:Forget the Government, they couldn't be trusted to give out the pencils and collect the dinner money.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Forget about the economy. They can't be trusted with the Government.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I have detected one small glimmer of a silver lining; this should put paid once and for all to the myth that the Conservatives can be trusted with the economy.
quote:Plus he gets his expenses
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Farage turned up? Wait - guaranteed chance to get his smug, gloating face all over TV sets across the EU. Of course he turned up.
Someone probably got an asthma attack clearing out the dust and cobwebs from his office though.
quote:You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale
quote:The Lord looks on the heart, and I think the chances are it's little better elsewhere. Besides, come November 8...
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
demonstrably
quote:The mirror is a very harsh device.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.
quote:There are 28 countries in the EU.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale
The reason many of us are so upset is the humiliation of knowing that we are citizens of demonstrably the most stupid nation in the world. It stings. I personally don’t think another referendum is a good idea, but I kind of understand it. People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.
quote:Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??[/Q]
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb] It's sore losing on a colossal scale
quote:Yes, but they didn't just arrive in that state as the result of a xenophobic campaign which it would be charitable to describe as dishonest.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?
quote:The first two of which are in the EEA (and as part of that accept free movement), and the second two didn't just decide to throw all their trade agreements in the air and start again.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?
quote:A bit of a category error here. On the one hand you talk about the bare result. On the other hand you talk about the anticipated consequences of the result.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I don't think a second referendum is a realistic possibility but the democratic problem is no one is going to get what they voted for.
48% of us voted to stay. They won't get that.
Of the 52% they voted for lots of reasons such as
- A reduction in immigration (unlikely to actually happen)
- More money for the NHS (Not going to happen)
- A stronger economy (No)
- More control (Not likely)
quote:Overnight?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The first two of which are in the EEA (and as part of that accept free movement), and the second two didn't just decide to throw all their trade agreements in the air and start again.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?
Besides, there are important psychological differences between never being part of an organisation, and being part of something and then deciding to quit overnight.
quote:So, I guess prior to this vote, you figured that all the people who bought the Sun, the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph were just doing so to have a good laugh at how stupid those papers were?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale
The reason many of us are so upset is the humiliation of knowing that we are citizens of demonstrably the most stupid nation in the world. It stings. I personally don’t think another referendum is a good idea, but I kind of understand it. People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.
quote:Australian history had plenty of xenophobia and racism. Parts of Canadian history as well I believe. The Swiss told everyone to stay the hell away. Norway? Probably just too cold.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Yes, but they didn't just arrive in that state as the result of a xenophobic campaign which it would be charitable to describe as dishonest.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?
Clearly not everyone who voted to Leave was xenophobic and racist. Equally clearly, Leave only went ahead in the polls once they started playing the racist and xenophobic card unashamedly.
Oh, and one of the Remain campaigners was assassinated.
quote:The journalist is talking about the English team, but so much of this reflects my perception of the Remain supporters.
4) In times of crisis the naivety is exposed
Just as disappointing was the initial response to Ragnar Sigurdsson’s equaliser. As soon as England were pegged back they began chasing the game in such frantic fashion that one wondered if they had actually been expecting a walkover and assuming energy alone would be enough to prevail. This was a team exposed as wide-eyed and desperate as their attacks broke down so often upon organised, rugged defence. There was a desperation to the approach and a distinct lack of composure, a failing Hodgson attempted to address at the break, to little effect, with Jack Wilshere’s introduction. Certainly chasing the game with anxiety on the rise did little for players whose confidence has been suddenly so brittle. Sterling won the early penalty but was sacrificed before the hour-mark. Kane’s touch has deserted him and Alli snatched at opportunities and even tumbled dubiously in search of a penalty. This was a brutal education.
quote:So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know what the EEA is.
quote:Yes. Did you see the margin in most elections?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Did you see the voting Margin, orfeo?
quote:Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know what the EEA is.
quote:This does read rather like code for "goodness me orfeo, stop thinking for yourself and fall into line with the social media zeitgeist".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whoever programmed your AI did a fairly decent job, but s/he did get the outrage module wrong. Or perhaps there is a bug, you might want to get that serviced.
quote:It's not in the EEA but there are any number of agreements that say "The EEA plus Switzerland". I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know what the EEA is.
Switzerland is not in the EEA, by the way, so before telling me to fuck off with "inaccurate" comparisons, you should do your own homework.
Switzerland is in EFTA. Like the UK used to be.
quote:So let me get this straight. You believe that Switzerland has more clout than the UK.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.
quote:Since Friday morning Switzerland hasn't needed very much clout to have more clout than the UK.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:So let me get this straight. You believe that Switzerland has more clout than the UK.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid everybody. The crisis of confidence is developing nicely.
quote:Because it becomes increasingly less likely with every passing day that the UK is going to be in either the EEA or EFTA.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.
quote:It won't evaporate, but it will almost inevitably be more difficult. The only way it would continue in exactly the same way would be if it was part of the common market - and Germany is clear that without freedom of movement for EU labour, that idea is dead in the water.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The UK will not be in a Year Zero situation. Several decades of history is not miraculously erased from the history books. All of the trading that currently exists between the UK and other countries will not evaporate, for the simple reason that businesses quite like trading with existing customers and will continue to do it where possible.
quote:That's what happened here. Suddenly it became socially acceptable to do something fucking stupid.
In a famous essay published four decades ago, the Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter set out to explain a paradox: “situations where outcomes do not seem intuitively consistent with the underlying individual preferences.” What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.
In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them.
..a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.
quote:Nope. It is code for your incredulity and scorn for the reaction you disdain shows a failure to quite grasp normal, human behaviour. I don't expect you to applaud it or excuse it, but it is pretty normal.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This does read rather like code for "goodness me orfeo, stop thinking for yourself and fall into line with the social media zeitgeist".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whoever programmed your AI did a fairly decent job, but s/he did get the outrage module wrong. Or perhaps there is a bug, you might want to get that serviced.
quote:Fuck the entire prosperity of the UK. I don't care about the entire prosperity of the UK. Well, I do. But there are other things I'd sacrifice it for. And it seems that there are other people who would sacrifice the entire prosperity of the UK for something entirely opposite to my values. And, yes, gross overstatement, they just won.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for the assassination, with all due respect to a woman whom I admire from what little I know about her, are you seriously arguing that the entire prosperity of the UK is determined by her death?
quote:Just the ones who have voted against their own benefit. But in that I include the middle-class and the rich who voted in what they think to be their own interest at the expnase of the country as a whole.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since the Referendum result was called, I've been surprised by the number of people who would normally claim to believe in fairness, equality, democracy, etc. who have i) trash-talked the working classes;
quote:Not everyone. A fair chunk, but not everyone.
ii) branded anyone who voted Leave as a racist or a thicko or a racist thicko;
quote:Free, yes. Fair depends upon your definition. And not not everyone is calling for it to be disregarded.
and iii) claimed with a straight face that a free and fair vote should be disregarded simply because they don't like the result.
quote:At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Where if a neo-Nazi kills a politician, the side the neo-Nazi supported doesn't go on to win the vote. It's got really very little do with prosperity. It's got a lot to do with our national identity.
quote:Well that would be quite something given that the party that Cameron leads is still in government and, based on how Labour's performing at the moment, isn't leaving office anytime soon.
It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.
quote:Well that would be quite something given that the party that Cameron leads is still in government and, based on how Labour's performing at the moment, isn't leaving office anytime soon.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:You keep saying this like we don't already know this.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well I can't speak for all 17,000,000 of us who voted Leave but, fyi, I didn't go to the polls after listening to the Horst Wessel Song and sticking a pin in my Jo Cox voodoo doll.
quote:Theresa May is on record as saying that it's the ECHR the UK needs to leave, not the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is, however, an incontrovertible fact that all the racists voted Leave, and that if racists hadn't all voted Leave, Remain would have won by a handy margin.
quote:I can't say I do really. Surprised, mainly.
You can feel as pious as you like.
quote:Well, strike her off the list of people I'd vote for to be PM.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Theresa May is on record as saying that it's the ECHR the UK needs to leave, not the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.
quote:This reminds me of a survey conducted amongst college men in the US, where large numbers of them say how horrible rape is, and then go on to talk about how reasonable it is to force a woman to have sex if you bought her dinner, or if she got drunk with you or whatever.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It's apparently very difficult to tell, guy on the radio addressing a British female reporter of Indian descent, British birth, this afternoon as a paki went on to explain to her that "I'm not a racist".
quote:Given that immigration was the #1 reason for voting Leave, and that the Leave campaign deliberately used immigration (although apparently they intend to have open borders anyway) to gather support, and given that racists really hate immigration, I'm supposing a sizeable portion voted Leave based on anywhere from their fear of the Other to out-and-out fascism.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How many of the 17,000,000 do you think were racist and how many do you think weren't racist?
quote:According to the Ashcroft poll, it was #2.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that immigration was the #1 reason for voting Leave,
quote:Agreed. Yet again you are using rational, measured language to discuss this.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:It won't evaporate, but it will almost inevitably be more difficult. The only way it would continue in exactly the same way would be if it was part of the common market - and Germany is clear that without freedom of movement for EU labour, that idea is dead in the water.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The UK will not be in a Year Zero situation. Several decades of history is not miraculously erased from the history books. All of the trading that currently exists between the UK and other countries will not evaporate, for the simple reason that businesses quite like trading with existing customers and will continue to do it where possible.
quote:And I have no problem with any of that. But you decided to throw in a line about the death of Jo Cox into a response about whether the UK was comparable to countries with high standards of living (countries that in fact regularly outscore the US on such matters).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Fuck the entire prosperity of the UK. I don't care about the entire prosperity of the UK. Well, I do. But there are other things I'd sacrifice it for. And it seems that there are other people who would sacrifice the entire prosperity of the UK for something entirely opposite to my values. And, yes, gross overstatement, they just won.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for the assassination, with all due respect to a woman whom I admire from what little I know about her, are you seriously arguing that the entire prosperity of the UK is determined by her death?
The US is a damn sight more prosperous than the UK ever was. And you don't need to spell out that it isn't in the EU. That doesn't mean I want to live in a country whose health service is as dysfunctional as the US's health service.
And it looks like the UK is about to end up in the hands of people who want to take it there.
But you know what is even more important? Not being a country where racists and neo-Nazis feel emboldened to try and dictate public policy. Where if a neo-Nazi kills a politician, the side the neo-Nazi supported doesn't go on to win the vote. It's got really very little do with prosperity. It's got a lot to do with our national identity.
It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
quote:If that was the case, Remain wouldn't have lost, would they?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
quote:Yes, because critique of vacuous policies is a sign of 'the enemy within'.
Originally posted by M.:
And common consent is that rule no. 1 for getting on with it is not talking the country down.
quote:From inside the "machinery of government" that's exactly what is going on. Not "press on regardless" because the baseline for many things has been reset, but getting on with it is key, and whether we like it or not is immaterial.
Originally posted by M.:
After the headless chickening mass hysteria, it has been quite good to spend the last couple of days in meetings with business people and politicians, who whatever they voted (some openly expressed, some reasonably inferrable from what they said, mostly neither), who have just said 'whatever we think, let's get on with it'. And common consent is that rule no. 1 for getting on with it is not talking the country down.
M.
quote:Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
quote:Within UKIP there is a continuum of people, but some certainly are barely hidden premium grade fascist. And their whole schtick is at root fascist. The leadership is not only interested in "getting out of the EU", they're interested in getting power in any way to push their extreme agenda.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.
quote:You are probably right. If the economy crashes again, I expect the brownshirts on the street toot sweet.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Within UKIP there is a continuum of people, but some certainly are barely hidden premium grade fascist. And their whole schtick is at root fascist. The leadership is not only interested in "getting out of the EU", they're interested in getting power in any way to push their extreme agenda.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.
quote:UKIP is neither disciplined nor organised enough. Mosley, Mussolini, Franco and the rest were heavy on organisation and could keep discipline among their followers (pretty much in the way the Mob or certain hard-line biker gangs do). Farage cannot, mostly because while every party has some loose cannons, UKIP has nothing but.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.
quote:No. I wasn't talking about whether those countries had comparably high standards of living. Neither were you explicitly. You were responding to a post in which La Vie en Rouge was explicitly complaining about racism.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I have no problem with any of that. But you decided to throw in a line about the death of Jo Cox into a response about whether the UK was comparable to countries with high standards of living (countries that in fact regularly outscore the US on such matters).
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
UKIP is neither disciplined nor organised enough. Mosley, Mussolini, Franco and the rest were heavy on organisation and could keep discipline among their followers
quote:Especially when they devise policies to "protect British culture and values" while drinking a beverage from the European continent without, apparently, seeing the irony. I bet some of them stumble out of the pub and grab a curry or a kebab on the way home too.
I doubt EDL and the like could either. Any group that devises policy while swilling lager isn't going to deliver much discipline, however nasty they may be.
quote:No it's not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A bit of a category error here. On the one hand you talk about the bare result. On the other hand you talk about the anticipated consequences of the result.
quote:I suspect you mean brownshorts .. but anyway, I don't credit them with that level of organisation.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are probably right. If the economy crashes again, I expect the brownshirts on the street toot sweet.
quote:In the words of the Beatles [re WWII] "Bet you're sorry you won."
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are some of these abusers that wish we had become part of the Third Reich. They abuse the people whose forebears prevented it.
quote:Come off it yourself. Scotland is proposing a new referendum because circumstances have changed significantly.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
As a democrat I think the people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I also think they should be allowed to try and rectify them when they realise what they have done.
quote:I'm sure they'll try harder the next time.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:If that was the case, Remain wouldn't have lost, would they?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
quote:Friday morning, I got up and heard the news we were out. Made breakfast, took my daughter to school, went to the gym. Came home to the news that the UK had gone from being the 5th largest economy in the world to the 6th. That was between 6.30 and 10.30 on the first day of Brexit. Nothing that has happened since has convinced me that we are headed for the broad sunlit uplands. Pretty much the totality of informed economic opinion thinks that we are headed for a recession. It is entirely clear that no-one in the Leave campaign has the slightest bloody clue what we do next because the central plank of their campaign is entirely fraudulent. Over the next few months I expect this to start percolating into the popular consciousness. There will be a backlash. At which point it would be entirely legitimate to revisit the issue.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Come off it yourself. Scotland is proposing a new referendum because circumstances have changed significantly.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
As a democrat I think the people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I also think they should be allowed to try and rectify them when they realise what they have done.
Circumstances have not changed one iota when it comes to the EU since the last time you voted on the EU, which was less than a week ago. The only thing that has happened is a vote on the exact same question that you want to have another vote on.
quote:It's a bit like when my daughter became aware of the concept of stinging nettles. I told her she ought not to touch them but, blithely dismissing a 'Project Fear' based on expert opinions she decided to touch one anyway and promptly burst into tears. She now avoids stinging nettles. Given that the government's attitude and that of the Leave campaign to activating Article 50 presently appears to be "touch these two wires together and I destroy the EU forever... but do I have the right?" there may well be sufficient time for "information in the public domain" to turn into "why didn't people tell me this would happen!?"
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you're still only saying that all we have is more information on one part of the short term consequences of exit - information that had been available prior to going to the polls last week. Which means that a further referendum today would still be on the same non-question. The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. At present we're in the limbo land of having voted in a government and waiting for them to pick their leader and write their manifesto.
quote:Strictly speaking, Remain was a vote for the EU as modified by the epoch-making and fundamental reforms Cameron had negotiated.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed, last week one option was defined - Remain was clearly a vote for what we had at the time, with some small changes over time as the EU evolved.
quote:Except people did say it would happen. Repeatedly.
Originally posted by Callan:
there may well be sufficient time for "information in the public domain" to turn into "why didn't people tell me this would happen!?"
quote:True, they were a remarkably extensive set of reforms. But, it was still known.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Strictly speaking, Remain was a vote for the EU as modified by the epoch-making and fundamental reforms Cameron had negotiated.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed, last week one option was defined - Remain was clearly a vote for what we had at the time, with some small changes over time as the EU evolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Given that the government's attitude and that of the Leave campaign to activating Article 50 presently appears to be "touch these two wires together and I destroy the EU forever... but do I have the right?"
for the Doctor Who reference.
quote:Because you want a referendum in exactly the same situation as your first referendum on exactly the same question. This is not the case for Ireland or Scotland.
Originally posted by Ariel:
If Ireland have had a second referendum, and if Scotland intend to have a second referendum then why can't we have one as well?
quote:Same question but in a different situation. Since the result was announced any number of market indicators have shown that the UK is going to be less properous for some years and that many of the Brexiteers promises were hollow. I doubt many votes will switch but many who didn't vote before may vote given a second chance.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Because you want a referendum in exactly the same situation as your first referendum on exactly the same question. This is not the case for Ireland or Scotland.
Originally posted by Ariel:
If Ireland have had a second referendum, and if Scotland intend to have a second referendum then why can't we have one as well?
quote:That would be the honourable thing. So I think it's safe to say he won't.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Resigning his seat tomorrow?
quote:Hope not. I'm looking forward to the bit when he stands up outside Downing Street, after meeting a victorious Teresa May, to explain to the assembled hacks that his lifetimes ambition has always been to serve as a Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Department of Work and Pensions.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:That would be the honourable thing. So I think it's safe to say he won't.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Resigning his seat tomorrow?
quote:One of the claims made before the vote was that the stock market would crash. Of course, the stock market can go down as well as up but I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Since the result was announced any number of market indicators have shown that the UK is going to be less properous for some years and that many of the Brexiteers promises were hollow.
quote:It depends if you take into account the fall in the value of the pound, apparently. (In other words, the price in pounds has recovered, but if you converted it into other currencies the value has fallen.)
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.
quote:If you listen carefully, it is the media who have made a fuss about the stock market, no economist as far as I know has even mentioned it. It's not really relevant. As said above, you need at least 6 months to see the real effect. In reality it's the medium term that people are worried about.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One of the claims made before the vote was that the stock market would crash. Of course, the stock market can go down as well as up but I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.
I almost wish we could all vote again so that Britain could vote Leave for a second time. That would hopefully shut up most of the complainers. Not all of them, though, probably.
quote:Yep, that's the same reason why during the Junior Doctors' dispute I started using my "Don't blame me, I voted Labour" mug at work...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Possibly the same reason why I still have the REMAIN poster in my window. To remind people that we didn't all vote for this mess, we weren't all fooled by the lies and deceit.
quote:I got to hear Mark Zandi's (Moody's Analytics) talk this Tuesday on the forecast economic effects of the Brexit, and he puts the chance of UK recession at 50% for 2017 (and, as you say, he's putting the first signs of the impact at the end of this year). Their macro model puts the impact on the UK GDP at about -0.5%. The impact should be limited largely to the UK with a relatively minor impact on the rest of the EU. The US and the rest of the world will hardly notice the change economically (unless a bunch of other countries follow suit which would be bad for the world economy as a whole).
Originally posted by Beenster:
A recession has been predicted, but nothing is certain at the moment - not even some of the doom. My sense is that it will come, but it will take a while to kick in, partly due to the two quarters - ie 6 months - needed to measure a recession by definition.
quote:Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....
quote:And he was willing to sacrifice his career and reputation in order to bring about a Leave victory? Or was he planning to quit anyway?
In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave
quote:Well, I have to say this is the first time in my life I've heard my country referred to as a 'big fish'. It feels like a bit of a backhanded compliment, though, to be honest. And as I noted on the Farage thread, in reference to his metaphorical greasy hand of friendship being stuck in our face - why would you go back for seconds?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....
The popular notion pedalled since last week that a bunch of KKK coffin dodgers and racist chavs have unwittingly voted Britain into financial oblivion is, I think, total balderdash . In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave
quote:Don't forget that here in Aust, today's election day. I don't know what "the word" might be, certainly no publicity to it here, but if there's a vote in it, a pollie may say anything.
Originally posted by rolyn:
[QUOTE]Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.
quote:Article 50 is set up so that you only know the terms when you are halfway out of the exit door with no way to come back. On leaving for trade purposes the UK will be a brand new country following WTO rules which will hollow out our financial industry.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. .
quote:So what would happen, in terms of UK-EU relations, were the UK to just ignore the results of the referendum, and never ask for the activation of Article 50? Could they just continue on in the EU as before, or is there some rule that in the event of a Leave vote, the country which held the referendum has to leave?
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:Article 50 is set up so that you only know the terms when you are halfway out of the exit door with no way to come back. On leaving for trade purposes the UK will be a brand new country following WTO rules which will hollow out our financial industry.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. .
Only a fool would activate Article 50 but this is where we have come to.
quote:No one said he had to go. In fact most wanted him to stay so as to avoid the political turmoil we are now seeing. He knew that Referendum was going to be tight so he'd been a fool not to have a plan B.
Originally posted by Stetson:
And he was willing to sacrifice his career and reputation in order to bring about a Leave victory? Or was he planning to quit anyway?
quote:It was on Facebook apparently - I knew about it from the Guardian article linked to earlier on this thread. I didn't go, but knew people there according to my Twitter feed.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Anyone at today's Brexit protest? If it was organized on social media I never saw anything about it.
quote:That's an easy one legally. Tricky politically.
Originally posted by Stetson:
So what would happen, in terms of UK-EU relations, were the UK to just ignore the results of the referendum, and never ask for the activation of Article 50? Could they just continue on in the EU as before, or is there some rule that in the event of a Leave vote, the country which held the referendum has to leave?
quote:That was exactly my response too anoesis
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:Well, I have to say this is the first time in my life I've heard my country referred to as a 'big fish'. It feels like a bit of a backhanded compliment, though, to be honest. And as I noted on the Farage thread, in reference to his metaphorical greasy hand of friendship being stuck in our face - why would you go back for seconds?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....
The popular notion pedalled since last week that a bunch of KKK coffin dodgers and racist chavs have unwittingly voted Britain into financial oblivion is, I think, total balderdash . In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave
quote:The first part of the essay seems to be a rehashing of the argument that the voters got conned, because the Leave side didn't present a detailed enough plan about how the Brexit would work.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I enjoyed this comparison between two leave campaigns despite depressing me.
https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c#.kr5fj8dj0
quote:OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, though, the Leave plan apparently WAS detailed enough for the 52% who voted for that option, otherwise they wouldn't have voted that way.
quote:Fear sells, this is the main motivation.
Originally posted by rolyn:
It would be interesting to know where the loyalties of the media mogels lie.
quote:Was that a mis-type for "moguls" or "mongrels"? Could easily be either or both.
Originally posted by rolyn:
It would be interesting to know where the loyalties of the media mogels lie.
quote:I have an elderly relative who voted for Leave and his reasons were vague in the extreme; just a general "let's make Britain great again." He was quite clear that he didn't have any specific short term reasons, indeed he doesn't expect to live to see the "benefits" of Leave. He's always had a distrust of "over-regulation" and "red tape" so I guess he thought he was voting for less of that.
OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
quote:This one puzzles me. Why would one trust this promise as it was given by the very people who would dismantle th NHS? It is like the Three Little Pigs buying home security systems from the Big Bad Wolf.
Also I quite liked the idea that more money could be spent on the NHS.
quote:Alec salmond put it that way too on the night of the count. And he should know a thing or two about campaigning having come close with Scottish Independence.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Cameron's just promised more of the same and "don't you DARE vote Leave or the sky will fall in". Certainly amongst the people I talked to we were all getting quite sick of the campaign long before it ended and not wanting to hear any more doom and gloom.
quote:I think the biggest mistake was to assume that the vote would concentrate on issues relating to the EU. A very large proportion of discontent in the UK has nothing to do with the EU - lack of funding for the NHS, schools, housing, welfare reforms, the "bedroom tax", etc. Add to that a whole load of discontent with the political system - millions marching against a war in Iraq, and the war then going ahead anyway, MPs salaries and expenses, a large number of people in safe seats feeling their vote is worthless, even in marginals a feeling that the candidates are all as bad as each other, a general disconnect between politicians and the people they're supposed to represent.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Campaigning for things to remain as they were, knowing the level of discontent among voters, was a recipe for defeat.
quote:I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, though, the Leave plan apparently WAS detailed enough for the 52% who voted for that option, otherwise they wouldn't have voted that way.
quote:They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".
quote:And this is why we cannot have nice things.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, but I didn't realize that at first.
I suspect the same was true for a lot of people who tend not to take a close interest in politics.
quote:Well, then, apparently, zero accurate information was enough for those voters. Like I said. Enough.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".
quote:But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.
quote:Welcome to democracy. Why has it taken people until this vote to figure out how it works?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And this is why we cannot have nice things.
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, but I didn't realize that at first.
I suspect the same was true for a lot of people who tend not to take a close interest in politics.
quote:Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.
Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?
quote:...?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The main attractions of the "Leave" campaign, apart from the opportunity to give the political establishment a kick up the arse, were a) Sovereignty and b) Better border controls while c) retaining the trading relationship with the EU/EEA.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Well, then, apparently, zero accurate information was enough for those voters. Like I said. Enough.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".
I got this started because the article said that people were "conned". But in a campaign where both sides are openly presenting their arguments to the public, and voters decide that they don't need to pay much attention to any of the arguments, where is the con?
quote:The point being that to have nice things we have to have the emotional, conceptual and intellectual tools needed to deal with them. The decision to leave the EU demonstrates the capacity of one who has to be restricted to smooth-edged plastic utensils on all three grounds.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.
quote:When people can't be arsed to understand the decisions being made which affect their future, it is inevitable that those making the decisions will not consider the people's benefit.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:...?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.
quote:A confidence scheme is a deliberate attempt at deception to convince the mark to ignore their own interest in the favour of the con artist. The quality of the con is irrelevant to categorising it as such.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.
Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?
quote:Wherever you go there are always going to be an element of people who are like this. If you're looking for a country with a sizeable majority of well-educated, politically literate, sensibly behaved citizens you're going to be looking in vain. I can't think of anywhere that fits that description. The EU countries wouldn't have voted our way because continental Europe perceives the EU differently - less as an oppressor and more as a benefactor. Some of that is tied to having been part of continental Europe, with all its wars and conquests and invasions, now largely prevented by membership of the EU. It doesn't mean that a class of politically illiterate people doesn't exist in these countries.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It is so far beyond stupid, and demonstrates a pathetic level of gullibility on the part of those are, geographically and by custom, my fellow citizens. This is the level which is driving a desire to enquire about hitching my wagon elsewhere. I don't want fellow citizens who are this stupid.
quote:Well, I guess it might tenchnically qualify as a con. But I would say that the moral import of a con is pretty close to negligible if it takes place within the parameters of an adversarial system, in which it is understood that both sides will be presenting their claims to the public, and critiquing those of the other side.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.
Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?
quote:Thanks for the explanation. Google said it was an internet meme used when someone is considered to be derailing a thread, which didn't quite fit.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:When people can't be arsed to understand the decisions being made which affect their future, it is inevitable that those making the decisions will not consider the people's benefit.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:...?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.
quote:Urban dictionary says it's used when somebody ruins something you had that was good, eg. a child knocking an antique vase off the table. I guess that, applied to internet threads, it means the person who derailed the thread has wrecked a nice thing.
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE] Google said it was an internet meme used when someone is considered to be derailing a thread, which didn't quite fit.
quote:Yes. Part of the con was explaining away the evidence.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I mean, for example, the people who voted against Obama because they thought he was born in Kenya, even though there was ample evidence presented right from the beginning that he was born in the USA. Would you really consider them to be victims of a con in any morally meaningful way?
quote:I agree with that analysis
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The referendum gave people who have never felt they had a political voice a say, and they basically said "fuck you" to the political system that had never seemed to take-up their concerns. The arguments for or against the EU are secondary in that situation, it's simply that the Government and Opposition are campaigning to Remain - therefore the protest against the whole UK system is to vote Leave.
quote:Yes, it will probably take them the best part of 4 years to get Corbyn out at this rate.
Originally posted by rolyn:
A 2020 Election will be best for all concerned. Not least for Labour who look like needing good long while to get their shit together in order to mount something that resembles an effective challenge.
quote:Thankfully, most of the sharp implements are in other people's hands. David Davis has been appointed to deal with the EU, and our esteemed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has other deputies, including hopefully a minister for hiding the best Sabatier knives when his boss comes into the room, lest there be blood all over the floor - probably mostly Boris's, but still.....
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I see that May has chosen Boris Johnson to be Foreign Secretary. With him in charge of your diplomacy, all I can say is, Good luck! It seems like a move calculated to make the rest of the EU say to the UK, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" - as we say in the US.
quote:This is an interesting article which suggests that Theresa May would be wrong to call a snap election. She'd win it massively, but: "This is the mother of temptations for any PM. Only a potentially great one would resist it on the grounds that a one-party state – a state literally with only one relevant party, and no trace of a functional opposition on the horizon – is an abomination to a true democrat of any political persuasion".
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Yes, it will probably take them the best part of 4 years to get Corbyn out at this rate.
Originally posted by rolyn:
A 2020 Election will be best for all concerned. Not least for Labour who look like needing good long while to get their shit together in order to mount something that resembles an effective challenge.
quote:Yes, that could be part of it. I think it's actually quite clever on several levels. Boris gets to do what he’s best at, float around meeting people at cocktail parties and turning the sunny charm on. He’ll be out and about a lot so not on the ground that much. He gets a prominent post in the new Cabinet, which will please the people who voted for him (in the sense that he was mostly the face of Leave) and wanted to see him as PM. He gets something to keep him occupied instead of potentially sitting there making his own plans. And last but not least, he’s also going to have to face up to the consequences of his actions and meet a few people in person he’s been rude about. Possibly Erdogan and Obama, for starters, in the months to come.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think this might be a, give him enough rope to hang himself, type posting ?
She gives him a major office of state, he cocks it up by massively offending an ally - she fires him and he's never a serious contender for cabinet again ?
And no one can claim he didn't get his chance.
quote:This is exactly it. All that he's expected to do is know which knife and fork to use and know that Gazpacho soup is served cold.
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:Yes, that could be part of it. I think it's actually quite clever on several levels. Boris gets to do what he’s best at, float around meeting people at cocktail parties and turning the sunny charm on.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think this might be a, give him enough rope to hang himself, type posting ?
She gives him a major office of state, he cocks it up by massively offending an ally - she fires him and he's never a serious contender for cabinet again ?
And no one can claim he didn't get his chance.
quote:True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ...
Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).
The FO has been massively scaled back over the years. Foriegn Aid is done elsewhere, Brexit and Trade are being handled by other people and, if there's a real crisis, May would handle it. All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ... quote:Yes, apparently!!
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...
Tubbs
quote:Yay! And Nicky Morgan too ...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Yes, apparently!!
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...
Tubbs
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I wonder what job the wannabe mother of the nation is going to get? If any ...quote:What she's done Tubbs is to give him even more capacity to put on weight as he does the rounds of the world's capitals - after all he seems to have a lot to apologise for. He'll probably eat so much he'll explode.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ...
Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).
That said, it's a surprising appointment given the amount of slagging off he's done of foreigners of late. I'm sure the US are thrilled and he's loathed by the EU.
Tubbs
quote:I'm betting on Health.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Yay! And Nicky Morgan too ...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Yes, apparently!!
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...
Tubbs
Tubbs
quote:I hadn't thought of that, but it is a possiblity ...
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:What she's done Tubbs is to give him even more capacity to put on weight as he does the rounds of the world's capitals - after all he seems to have a lot to apologise for. He'll probably eat so much he'll explode.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ...
Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).
That said, it's a surprising appointment given the amount of slagging off he's done of foreigners of late. I'm sure the US are thrilled and he's loathed by the EU.
Tubbs
Of course that could be Teresa's Grand Design.....
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Ferrero Rocher, or are they beneath him?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ...
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A lot of bling and pazzaz, and all the promises of the ad-men. But, under the gold foil wrapper just a rather ordinary second-rate confectionary and very disappointing.
Sounds perfectly suited to anyone on the Leave campaign.
quote:It does look partly like that. It's possibly also recognition that Boris does have potential, which he hasn't shown much if any sign of fulfilling so far. Screw up and he's screwed.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
There is an element of "You broke it, you fix it or pay for it" in some of the appointments. The only one I really don't understand is Johnson.
quote:Amazing how any farmers ignored the NFU stance of Remain and campaigned for Leave. How many decades have UK farmers received price support from Europe? Even back before we joined the EU !
Originally posted by Callan:
Leadsom to DEFRA. So she's the one who will have to explain to farmers about how the subsidies from the CAP will come to an end and that the recession means that the Government won't be able to replace them.
quote:The best explanation I've heard is that no-one else wanted it after the festering shit pile Hunt's made of it.
Originally posted by Ariel:
The one I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt is still there. Since May seems to be axing almost everybody I thought she'd have axed him as well.
quote:Hunt is the great survivor. Any ordinary politician would have ended up on the back benches after his performance as Culture Secretary. At the end of time the last survivors will be the cockroaches, and Jeremy Hunt trying to explain to the cockroaches that they need to work longer hours for less money.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:The best explanation I've heard is that no-one else wanted it after the festering shit pile Hunt's made of it.
Originally posted by Ariel:
The one I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt is still there. Since May seems to be axing almost everybody I thought she'd have axed him as well.
quote:(re the countries Boris Johnson has insulted) He hasn't been unpleasant about the oil-rich and Islamic Middle East either.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
May is giving him the chance to complete the map? Look at South America, he's barely touched it. Interesting that they chose red to colour the map
quote:London should be aflame ...
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They missed off England.
quote:It's true Boris isn't as stupid as he's portrayed himself as being for so long. It would've been hard for him to have sustained his popular (and lucrative) media career on panel and chat shows if he'd been completely up front as an intelligent, sensible, reliable person; rather than the sweet, bumbling, you-gotta-love-him half-wit that he's painted himself to be for such a long time now.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Boris Johnson was born in the USA, has a cosmopolitan ancestry, and is probably a better linguist than most of his colleagues. So he's not such a dreadful choice for Foreign Secretary.
Some boring person we've never heard of would've been a safer, less controversial choice, but probably no more successful than Boris is likely to be in the long run. They're all politicians at the end of the day.
quote:Right down to the racism that Hills didn't pick up on because he's from Australia and had to apologise for the following week!
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:It's true Boris isn't as stupid as he's portrayed himself as being for so long. It would've been hard for him to have sustained his popular (and lucrative) media career on panel and chat shows if he'd been completely up front as an intelligent, sensible, reliable person; rather than the sweet, bumbling, you-gotta-love-him half-wit that he's painted himself to be for such a long time now.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Boris Johnson was born in the USA, has a cosmopolitan ancestry, and is probably a better linguist than most of his colleagues. So he's not such a dreadful choice for Foreign Secretary.
Some boring person we've never heard of would've been a safer, less controversial choice, but probably no more successful than Boris is likely to be in the long run. They're all politicians at the end of the day.
I always remember Paul Merton's comments that it was mostly an act to deflect serious political and critical attack. Right down to the studiously deliberately floppy mad hair. Merton always said Boris would very carefully run his hands through his hair just before appearing before camera, in case it was too neat.
To be fair to Boris, however, having watched his father on The Last Leg, he does take very much after dear old dad!
quote:Bright side? You think there is a bright side? As noted, that link doesn't work, but a lot of the other headlines from the same site (Financial Times) aren't predicting a much light to create brightness.
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
it looks like we are go to have to employ immigrants to negotiate our trade deals as we don't have any people who know how to do trade deals. The irony being the purpose of the trade deals is that it is to prevent immigrants.
On the bridge side as we the EU is about to consign the TTIP trade to the dustbin of history the UK might get it anyway... As I suggested earlier in this thread.
quote:Which is moronic to a staggering degree. Boggles the mind that people with so little a grasp of reality are allowed outside a care facility, much less a vote.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Precisely because some of its inhabitants regard it as an island which can sit serenely in its silver sea while remaining detached from the wider world community.
quote:Love it or Leave it? Rubbish in America, rubbish in the UK
Originally posted by rolyn:
If Britain is such a shit place, and 16 and a half million xenophobic voters have made it even more shit, then it is still perfectly possible to take to that 'Silver sea' in a little green boat like the Owl and the Pussycat.
Not sure which ocean anyone would choose to cross in order to find something better.
quote:I'm not saying a person has got to love it, they are though free to leave it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Love it or Leave it? Rubbish in America, rubbish in the UK
quote:The only time I find the LIOLI argument palatable is when the person in an immigrant themselves, and they bash the host country while praising their country of origin. Because the obvious question is "If your homeland is so great, why on Earth didn't you stay there?"
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Are you really suggesting that citizens of their own country should just suck it all up and leave it if they are deeply unhappy? It sounds like you are proposing a dangerous policy of 'put up or shut up'to those who want to criticise political developments. I hope I don't have to point out just how poisonous that would be to any form democracy. I think it was the policy of Erdogan, that he has just recently taken a step further to include 'put up or get locked up'.
quote:I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.
quote:Ironically, the places most impacted by loss of EU funding are the ones that voted most heavily to leave. Many of whom were demanding within a few days of the vote that the Government made up the lost funding ... This gives an indication of how likely that is going to be.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Independent is reporting that the government has already suspended ERDF project funding, in which EU payouts go hand in hand with domestic match funding.
This is the other side of that "£350m a week savings", and it's going to hurt.
quote:What's the one thing in common all these places had?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.
quote:You mean apart from dead and/or dispossessed indigenous peoples?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:What's the one thing in common all these places had?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.
quote:The British - at least in NI and Scotland - has a very long and extensive experience of leaving family and familiarity (usually against their will). Our working classes have spent centuries exporting ourselves and our talents all over the world. Admittedly out of a desire to earn money in order to eat, rather than the priniciples of Alle Menschen werden Bruder (all men are brothers). Ulster and Scottish communities are still pretty well known and extensive in America and Canada, aren't they?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the British people should be encouraged to leave more often!
If the indigenous population were deliberately educated and trained to see themselves as active participants in the job market of the whole of the EU then immigration and overcrowding wouldn't be seen as such problems here - and Brexit wouldn't have had so much appeal.
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.
You rang?
quote:Many of the other areas who voted to remain were the areas where people who've moved from elsewhere often end up if London is typical ...
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:The British - at least in NI and Scotland - has a very long and extensive experience of leaving family and familiarity (usually against their will). Our working classes have spent centuries exporting ourselves and our talents all over the world. Admittedly out of a desire to earn money in order to eat, rather than the priniciples of Alle Menschen werden Bruder (all men are brothers). Ulster and Scottish communities are still pretty well known and extensive in America and Canada, aren't they?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the British people should be encouraged to leave more often!
If the indigenous population were deliberately educated and trained to see themselves as active participants in the job market of the whole of the EU then immigration and overcrowding wouldn't be seen as such problems here - and Brexit wouldn't have had so much appeal.
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.
We also happened to be the two UK member nations who voted to Remain.
quote:Yes, apart from that.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:You mean apart from dead and/or dispossessed indigenous peoples?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What's the one thing in common all these places had?
quote:That would be a rather lopsided majority, for ANY issue. I'd like to know the exact question asked. I'm wondering if it was phrased in such a way so as to imply that "quit the EU now" meant something like "avoid a lot of bureaucratic arguments of indeterminate conclusion".
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see that the Daily Express reports that 98% of those surveyed just want to quit the EU now and stop messing around with all those Eurocrats.
The dumbness, it burns.
quote:What centre would that be. Don't most folk describe their own position as central?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Taking anything posted in the Daily Express as meaningful of anything seems somewhat naive. Like thinking that the Daily Mail would accurately describe the policies of anyone left of centre.
quote:It's hard not to conclude that there must be a correlation of some sort!
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Many of the other areas who voted to remain were the areas where people who've moved from elsewhere often end up if London is typical ...
Tubbs
quote:My late ex-brother-in-law, who worked in statistics, and for a polling type of company, before he was either late or ex, would counter that argument with a comparison with a blood test, in which the result is not solely representative of the mls removed.
Originally posted by Ariel:
A poll of a few hundred people isn't representative of anything but those few hundred people.
quote:Speaking for myself, I was thinking about the here and now, and my point is simply that rather than worrying about foreigners who are coming to live here, British people who are dissatisfied with their lives should have been encouraged to go elsewhere. Anywhere. Brexit would then have seemed less attractive.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Many settler colonies were] places where English people were automatically superior to the indigenous populations, where English was the language of government and the civil service, and where English immigrants were 'ex-pats', not immigrants.
So, no. Not the same experience [as foreigners moving to the UK].
quote:This argument is just as stupid as applied to Brexit as it is applied to anything else. I hear the second amendment gang use it about gun control ("This is America. We have guns. If you don't like it, leave.")
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Speaking for myself, I was thinking about the here and now, and my point is simply that rather than worrying about foreigners who are coming to live here, British people who are dissatisfied with their lives should have been encouraged to go elsewhere. Anywhere. Brexit would then have seemed less attractive.
quote:I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.
quote:Oh, don't worry, there will be. Worried about the loss of EU research funding and the consequences for British scientists? Concerned that British universities are going to go bankrupt due to the immigration restrictions for overseas students? Console yourself with the thought that McDonald's is investing more in the UK! And if all else fails, the Government will probably start up the Work Programme again, though I daresay they will think of another name for it; how about 'The Workhouse'?
I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
quote:This, Marvin: http://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/5141122/?type=responsive-gallery
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.
quote:If businesses hadn't got so used to a constant flow of cheap labour coming in from elsewhere, they would have probably made louder noises about UK educational standards than they have and the person referred to would have better skills to go with the STI.
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:This, Marvin: http://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/5141122/?type=responsive-gallery
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.
quote:You do not see that this is xenophobia? Immigrants are perpetually other. Immigrants. How long must a person's family have be in a place before they are no longer an immigrant?* Can you understand how frustrating it is to be told to leave by people whose family history in the country is several hundred years less than ones own?
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This is because the attitude is not about a fear of the unknown, but rather of looking after ones own.
Jengie
quote:I've lived in Norfolk too. In South Wales people talk to you freely probably the second time you enter a bar. In Norfolk I reckon you have to be there two generations.
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.
quote:Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.
quote:Come off it, the whole 'German' thing is largely facetious and is based less on the fact that George I was Elector of Hanover and more to do with the fact that, as a result of Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, the Royal dynasty gloried in the name of Saxe-Coburg Gotha until World War I, when they changed their names to Windsor. Hence, the Kaiser's quip about looking forward to seeing a performance of 'The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg Gotha'. Kaiser Bill had his faults but he did really put to rest the idea that Germans have no sense of humour.
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.
Ironically, George I came to England in 1714 which was only 101 years and two generations after his grandmother left Britain in 1613.
The reality, then, is that if one is emigrating one quickly becomes "non-belonging" but if one is immigrating one might never stop "non-belonging"!
quote:I've never actually heard any republicans objecting to the Queen on the grounds that she's German. She did marry a Greek, but if you're rich enough you can get away with that sort of thing and anyway republicans tend to be internationalist/cosmopolitan types. "The Queen is German" is a statement used to mock the ignorance of the likes of Britain First, UKIP and the National Front, who say immigrants should go home but are themselves descended from immigrants.
Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.
quote:Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.
(of the Queen) ...She did marry a Greek...
quote:Used to be like that in virtually every rural village up and down the Country in 1950.
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.
quote:He was born in Greece. His title at birth was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. His uncle was King Constantine I of Greece. Philip was baptised into the Greek Orthodox church.
Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.
quote:Are any royals natives of their realms? (Though I think the Danes have unbroken descent from Gorm, back in the distant past.)
The family came to the throne after the overthrow in 1862 of the first king of the independent Greek state, Otto of Bavaria. In a referendum, the Greeks elected Prince Alfred of the United Kingdom, the second son of Queen Victoria, as their new king, but the candidature was rejected by the Great Powers, who refused to permit any member of their respective royal families to ascend to the Greek throne. A search for other candidates ensued, and eventually, the Greeks offered the throne to Prince William of Denmark, the second son of the future King Christian IX, and younger brother of the new Princess of Wales and who was of the Danish Glücksburg Dynasty. He received six votes in the referendum, the Greek National Assembly proclaimed him king as George I, and he arrived in Greece in October 1863. George I would marry Grand Duchess Olga Constaninovna of Russia, and would have seven surviving children. After a reign of fifty years, George I was succeeded by his eldest son, Constantine I, who had married Princess Sophia of Prussia, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, in 1913. In turn, all three of Constantine's sons, George II, Alexander and Paul, would occupy the throne.
quote:Still like that in my village - even after 40 years of incoming people still talk as being 'old villagers'
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:He was born in Greece. His title at birth was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. His uncle was King Constantine I of Greece. Philip was baptised into the Greek Orthodox church.
Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.
It's hardly a stretch to describe him as "Greek."
quote:On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I think I'm seeing it the other way round - if I was born in Greece with a title such as Prince of Greece, I'd be annoyed if someone quibbled that I wasn't really Greek.
quote:Well, that's English parochialism for you. My daughter has had the school bullies yelling 'Go home' at her too. She is white British, was born in the same local hospital as they were... but doesn't speak with the same accent because her father and I are from elsewhere (though we both have family ties to Yorkshire, we don't have the regional accent).
On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
quote:I think the thing that is mildly amusing about the Royal Family is that they are basically a different version of the Schroedinger's Immigrant gag. The original joke, was that Schroedinger's Immigrant is simultaneously over here to steal our jobs and to claim benefits. The Royal version is that members of the Royal Family are simultaneously part of the apex of British patriotism and hail from abroad, or have foreign backgrounds, and that the sort of people who take British patriotism a bit too seriously would, ordinarily, object to. And you can cough to enjoying the joke because, let's face it, as marginalised immigrants go the Royal Family are probably not high on the list of people who are going to get a brick through their window. With Prince Philip, it is particularly amusing because he is the guy your racist uncle would object to, in any other walk of life, whilst, simultaneously, being your racist uncle.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I think I'm seeing it the other way round - if I was born in Greece with a title such as Prince of Greece, I'd be annoyed if someone quibbled that I wasn't really Greek.
quote:IIRC, and I've got no idea where I picked up this gem, during the divorce Philip was the only one who kept open channels of communication with Diana, and continued to correspond with her up to her death.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Prince Phillip:
(tangent)
When Charles and Diana married, P was the only one who looked happy. The couple were terrified; and Herself seemed decidedly not amused.
That's neither here nor there, really. But when it happened, some friends and I had a TV watching party (way over the Pond), and Phillip's joy made an impression on me--partly because, as I'd seen in news over the years, he usually looked so dour.
(No offense to anyone intended.)
quote:And it won't. The PM wants the post-EU trade arrangements sorted out before we start talking about leaving, because she is well aware that invoking Article 50 will FUBAR any ongoing trade negotiations.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is largely because none of the policy implications of Brexit have yet been implemented. The UK hasn't even got around to invoking Article 50 yet, to start the process.
quote:To add to that nothing, an increase in hate crimes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So far
Interest rates halved.
Massive injection of virtual money
Pound down 10% against dollar
Pound down against every nation we import from
Academics frozen out of international projects
EU funded projects frozen
Huge spike in hate crimes
Halt in investment
Jobs market grinds to a halt
House building ditto
Economy shrinking
But apart from that, nothing.
quote:This analogy works insomuch as the public were bombarded with fear.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Or, since this is Hell, it's like taking the view on October 15, 1939 that WW2 won't amount to much.
quote:Go on, then. Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Doc Tor's no doubt challengeable list
quote:Can't be arsed to do a 'link war' DT, (coupled with the fact I don,t know how).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Go on, then. Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Doc Tor's no doubt challengeable list
quote:Yes, because you'll hold your opinion entirely untrammelled by annoying facts.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Can't be arsed to do a 'link war' DT
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Go on, then. Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Doc Tor's no doubt challengeable list
quote:Not an opinion Sire, an observation based on my own eyes and ears. If your list holds up to scrutiny, grows longer and things really do start to go tits up in a year or so then I'll take my share of the blame at having voted Leave.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
because you'll hold your opinion entirely untrammelled by annoying facts.
quote:That the pound has decreased in value against the dollar is something you've witnessed with your own eyes and ears? My, aren't you special?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Not an opinion Sire, an observation based on my own eyes and ears.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
because you'll hold your opinion entirely untrammelled by annoying facts.
quote:I don't get your point.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The rise in hate crime is regrettable, there is no excusing that. However as I recall the 05 London suicide attacks caused a 600% increase in hate crime, not that two wrongs make a right.
quote:The underlying and irrational sentiment of 'Keep them out' goes back a lot lot further than Brexit and the 05 terror attacks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's also an argument that ignores the frequency of Brexit language in more recent hate crimes, the documented cases of phrases like "we won" in racist attacks.
quote:Because the fuel was already placed does not excuse the match being thrown.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:The underlying and irrational sentiment of 'Keep them out' goes back a lot lot further than Brexit and the 05 terror attacks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's also an argument that ignores the frequency of Brexit language in more recent hate crimes, the documented cases of phrases like "we won" in racist attacks.
Brexit didn't create it, it was already there. The platform had noticeably started to build under Blair with the media hype of mass immigration. Cameron thought Let's have it out and he blew it. Triumphalism in the event of a Brexit win was invertible. Unfortunately there is only a thin line between that and the racial incidents which have occurred.
quote:If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Getting sick and tired of people describing the referendum result as clear.
quote:It appears that Nicola Sturgeon hasn't got the memo.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The one positive thing to come out of this fiasco is that there will NEVER be another referendum in the UK.
quote:Yes! But I'm not the only one who considers these figures unclear and worthy of a second referendum...
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
quote:Yes I would. It would have settled nothing and the whole wretched business would probably have been repeated in a few years' time. It would certainly not have altered my belief that referendums are crude and undemocratic. That's why dictators have always been so keen on them.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Getting sick and tired of people describing the referendum result as clear.
quote:Anything less than 40:60 (on a very high turnout) is unclear - and even then I'd doubt the clarity. Regardless of which way it went in relation to my personal vote.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Getting sick and tired of people describing the referendum result as clear.
quote:Come on now, Sioni. The Prime Minister was elected by the voters of her constituency in the same way that every other Prime Minister in recent memory has been.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
An unelected Prime Minister to boot.
quote:The Brexit people were careful to leave that undefined (because they knew full well that no specific Brexit model would win). One can certainly blame the Remain campaign (of which Mr. Cameron was of course a leading light) for not making more of this issue.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would it have been too much to spend the time to allow the Brexit campaign to draw up a statement of what sort of Brexit we were voting on?
quote:I don't think that's entirely right. There were certainly bullshit personal power games going on, but IMO plenty of the Brexiteers are genuinely of the opinion that Brexit is in the UK's best long-term interest.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
This illustrates my major frustration with the whole sorry debacle. From the outset, it has not actually been about what's best for the long term future of the UK.
quote:Which is exactly why Cameron should have made it a condition of the referendum. He put it on the election manifesto to stay in No 10. There was nothing stopping him announcing the referendum subject to the Brexit side producing a definition of what they would seek if the vote went their way. If the Brexit side couldn't do that (and, as you say, the debate would likely set the Brexiters into a rate of schism that would make even Presbyterians heads spin) then Cameron could call the referendum off and be able to say "we tried to fulfill the manifesto promise to hold a referendum, but the Brexit side (over whom we have no influence) blew it". On the off-chance that Brexiters could unite around a Brexit manifesto then they would likely not have achieved as much electoral support, and Remain would have won. Both exactly what Hameron wanted. He started off playing a game with the electorate, then made the bizarre decision to stop playing.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:The Brexit people were careful to leave that undefined (because they knew full well that no specific Brexit model would win).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would it have been too much to spend the time to allow the Brexit campaign to draw up a statement of what sort of Brexit we were voting on?
quote:One of the brexit voters I know is an intelligent, post-graduate qualified professional person of British Asian ethnicitiy. So I would never make that accusation which you have chosen to randomly make about yourself for reasons which I can only guess at.
Originally posted by M.:
And yes, I realise that makes me deluded* ill educated** racist scum***
M.
quote:I'm starting to seriously wonder which way is up though.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
to the best of my knowledge I don't know anyone who voted for Brexit. Everyone at church, at work, my Facebook friends who had ever expressed an opinion were always going to vote Remain.
quote:No.
Originally posted by M.:
And yes, I realise that makes me deluded* ill educated** racist scum***
quote:Yes. What would've been clear and still is clear is how unsatisfactory and thoroughly undemocratic referendums of this sort are.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Getting sick and tired of people describing the referendum result as clear.
quote:No, because if I'd been in charge so it actually mattered what I called it, I'd have said at the outset that a 2/3 majority would be required for what is a massive constitutional change. This is common practice, is it not?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If 51.89% of voters had voted Remain, would you still claim that it was an 'unclear' result...?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Getting sick and tired of people describing the referendum result as clear.
quote:Don't ignore the well-educated, nay expensively educated, racist scum. Plenty of them around too.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No.
Originally posted by M.:
And yes, I realise that makes me deluded* ill educated** racist scum***
But you'll have to live with the fact that you voted alongside all the deluded ill-educated racist scum. I'm sure you'll cope.
quote:No, not really.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, because if I'd been in charge so it actually mattered what I called it, I'd have said at the outset that a 2/3 majority would be required for what is a massive constitutional change. This is common practice, is it not?
quote:Unfortunately, there are people on our side of the Pond who will vote for the Donald for the same reason. In fact, he has been trying to appeal to minorities by asking "What have you got to lose?" And he'll probably snag a few votes that way.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:One of the brexit voters I know is an intelligent, post-graduate qualified professional person of British Asian ethnicitiy. So I would never make that accusation which you have chosen to randomly make about yourself for reasons which I can only guess at.
Originally posted by M.:
And yes, I realise that makes me deluded* ill educated** racist scum***
M.
I think that this person's reasons for voting leave, as far as I can determine without using enhanced interrogation techniques, essentially amounted to "Things need to change. This is a change, let's do it."
quote:Which is an incredibly stupid reason.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think that this person's reasons for voting leave, as far as I can determine without using enhanced interrogation techniques, essentially amounted to "Things need to change. This is a change, let's do it."
quote:Cameron is expensively educated, as is the Bo-Jo the Clown. So yeah.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Don't ignore the well-educated, nay expensively educated, racist scum. Plenty of them around too.
quote:I'll call you callous and stupid. The callous should be obvious. As should to the stupid, it should also be apparent, but then if you were exhibiting intelligent commentary...
Originally posted by rolyn:
Call me racist scummy if you want but I've made the transition from regr-exit to feeling glad that Leave took it.
quote:If that's the case then, presumably, a good chunk of these people are the sort who have always voted Labour and will vote for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party when they get the chance. How do you feel about that?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No.
Originally posted by M.:
And yes, I realise that makes me deluded* ill educated** racist scum***
But you'll have to live with the fact that you voted alongside all the deluded ill-educated racist scum. I'm sure you'll cope.
quote:Remarkably sanguine.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How do you feel about that?
quote:I'm curious. Was the 'speaking terms' reference a jokey, throwaway comment or have you really struggled to continue speaking to such people?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I know several Brexit voters (we're still on speaking terms, just)
quote:And, before Brexit there was terrorist activity on mainland Europe. And, boatloads of people trying to cross into Europe. Your point is, what? Other than demonstrating your stupidity.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since Brexit we have seen terrorist activity on mainland Europe, we see boatloads of people still tryinging head this way from just about anywhere.
quote:It was sort of jokey, but I really want to find out why people I like and respect would choose to do something (to my mind)so bizarre and dangerous. Generally they don't really know themselves and don't really want to talk about it and there have been sharp exchanges along the lines of "I just feel we should have our country back, O.K?" or some such. I have enough social skills not to point out that this is nothing more than a slogan, so these conversations have been unsatisfactory to both parties.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm curious. Was the 'speaking terms' reference a jokey, throwaway comment or have you really struggled to continue speaking to such people?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I know several Brexit voters (we're still on speaking terms, just)
quote:You're conflating two different things. It may be the case that voting for Brexit, or for Trump, is "stupid". It is almost certainly the case that telling someone that a vote for Brexit or Trump is "stupid" won't dissuade them for voting that way.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Again that word "stupidity". Didn't work against brexit, hasn't worked against the rise of trump.
quote:This bit:
Originally posted by rolyn:
LilBuddha
If you can find a post of mine "gloating" over the death of other people then print it. Accepting you may have a different definition of the word to myself.
quote:
Does give a person the warm fuzzies though, shutting oneself in. Since Brexit we have seen terrorist activity on mainland Europe
quote:That others are callous as well does not excuse your "warm fuzzies".
Callousness is allowing people to think that giving all they own to crooked small boat owners will give them a ticket to paradise, when in reality they risk being drown or at best holed up in squalid conditions for an indefinite period.
quote:If I may ask, mightn't Brexit *also* be about heritage, nostalgia, national pride, and not wanting things to change?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Remarkably sanguine.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How do you feel about that?
Because Brexit was, and is, fuelled by racism, nationalism and xenophobia. That's why you'll find all the racist, nationalist xenophobes under the Leave banner.
Voting Labour however, is voting for a broadly positive collection of policies to increase the common good, whatever your religion, colour or ethnicity. If racists want to vote Labour, then okay - but they won't get what they want.
quote:It would be interesting to see if anyone voted for the biggest constitutional change in a generation for reasons of "not wanting things to change".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If I may ask, mightn't Brexit *also* be about heritage, nostalgia, national pride, and not wanting things to change?
quote:Practically, you need to produce a passport, and an appropriate visa if you're not an EU citizen (or state that you qualify for entry under a visa waiver scheme), when you enter the Schengen zone. Once inside you do not need to produce any documentation to travel between different areas. It's practically no different from arriving in the US at JFK then travelling to California ... you wouldn't need to produce your passport to cross from one state to another, and you don't need to produce your passport to cross from Belgium to France.
And how does that ideal of no borders work out practically? If Europeans don't have to present passports nor ID, how do officials know the real foreigners whose papers they *do* need to check???
quote:...Neatly illustrating the whole idiotic farce of the UK position on Europe.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Conversely, the Channel Islands are not part of the EU.
]quote:From this I conclude you're a civil servant who has no comprehension of how treaties - ANY treaties - usually work.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If any one thing pisses me off it's that there will be no vote in Parliament to invoke Article 50.(see below photo of Boris Johnson) So much for democracy: it took an act of parliament to sign up to the Lisbon Treaty, which took us "in", and now we are coming "out" on the Prime Minister's say so. An unelected Prime Minister to boot.
I'm a civil servant and this is bloody difficult to stomach.
quote:No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out. If that happens in a major championship the backpages of the newspapers and the fans will spend practically forever discussing every little incident during the game which might have produced a different result, one way or the other. Why should that be allowed for a stupid football match, but not for a major constitutional change?
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
quote:The Channel Islands are not part of Schengen but are part of the European Economic Area.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:...Neatly illustrating the whole idiotic farce of the UK position on Europe.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Conversely, the Channel Islands are not part of the EU.
quote:The way I feel about it at the moment is something like this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
quote:Haven't you just described a football match with a clear result?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
quote:For the latter, according to this truly fascinating* page, they are not listed as overseas countries and territories in the Treaty of Rome. Probably because they were military bases.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure quite how the decision was made to include Gibraltar in the referendum but not the Channel Islands or Man, or for that matter other British Overseas Territories - Akrotiri and Dhekelia in particular (the others not being geographically close to Europe could probably be excluded on those grounds).
quote:LOL. As has been already pointed out, that IS a football match with a clear result.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out. If that happens in a major championship the backpages of the newspapers and the fans will spend practically forever discussing every little incident during the game which might have produced a different result, one way or the other. Why should that be allowed for a stupid football match, but not for a major constitutional change?
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
quote:The bit of your particular mindset that fascinates me is how you and others expressing similar thoughts never examine whether any of the things you keep saying about referendums make them any different from general elections.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:The way I feel about it at the moment is something like this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
A referendum is declared about whether we should fly to mars. During the entire debate leading up to it, no-one ever says how it will be achieved, and the question is always waved away - successfully because the option captures the public mood which is looking for an escape, and in any case, for reasons not well understood by most, those campaigning against the proposition spent their entire time pointing out that the atmosphere on Mars is poisonous, rather than pointing out the complete lack of any proposal in the proposition as to how it would be achieved.
The proposition is endorsed by referendum. So naturally, everyone turns to those who made the propostion and asks how it will be achieved. "We don't know - just go and stand in the street and flap. If it doesn't work, that's anti-democratic". Of course it doesn't. They then make a whole series of other ridiculous propositions which completely fail to take into account other objective conditions, such as gravity, but their only response to any challenge is "that's anti-democratic". The entire situation rapidly descends into something poised delicately between tragedy and total farce, and the country in which the referendum was held looks utterly ridiculous, and the rest of the world points and laughs.
That's why I'm not lying down and taking it. I so hope that's OK with you - meanwhile, I will take your antipodean opinion under advisement.
quote:Take your contempt and shove it firmly up your advisement.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]LOL. As has been already pointed out, that IS a football match with a clear result.
quote:There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
quote:OK. So, we have a decision which would not survive most processes for decisions of similar gravity (many referendums elsewhere (in countries whose constitution can survive referendums) have a requirement for a 60% majority and/or a majority of all those eligible to vote), no clear proposal as to its implementation, and no possibility of reversing it as part of the normal political process. How could continuing opposition to such a clearly delineated decision which integrates so easily into the established constitution and political cycle possibly be justified? Beats me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
Hi, orfeo.
quote:No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Haven't you just described a football match with a clear result?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
quote:In a general election, it is normal for each party to produce a manifesto outlining what they would try to do if elected to form a government. Often, in quite significant detail. OK, so we know that circumstances will mean some of those policies will never see the light of day, and that policies which aren't on the manifesto will be brought forward. Some of those circumstances include a strong Opposition managing to produce strong arguments that encourage Government MPs to abstain or vote against their own party. Other circumstances include changes in the economy and other external circumstances. But, we know in outline what each party would do if elected.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd truly love to see a general election where all the policies are mapped out in this kind of concrete detail, nobody ever changes what they're doing 5 minutes after they're elected etc. etc.
quote:Worse still, the referendum addressed a single issue. Governments have to handle any number of issues in a coordinated manner but now, thanks to one stupid notion for which I hold David Cameron responsible, the government's policies, as if they weren't bad enough already, have been derailed by the referendum result which let's face it was conducted in the spirit of a nationwide by-election and as in by-elections the protest vote loomed large.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:In a general election, it is normal for each party to produce a manifesto outlining what they would try to do if elected to form a government. Often, in quite significant detail. OK, so we know that circumstances will mean some of those policies will never see the light of day, and that policies which aren't on the manifesto will be brought forward. Some of those circumstances include a strong Opposition managing to produce strong arguments that encourage Government MPs to abstain or vote against their own party. Other circumstances include changes in the economy and other external circumstances. But, we know in outline what each party would do if elected.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd truly love to see a general election where all the policies are mapped out in this kind of concrete detail, nobody ever changes what they're doing 5 minutes after they're elected etc. etc.
This referendum had no such equivalent outline of what the Brexiters would do if they won the referendum. We still don't know what the form of UK exit from the EU we will have, or where the UK will be heading.
quote:Oh, you can WHINE about it all you like. You just can't wave your magic wand and get a second vote.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:OK. So, we have a decision which would not survive most processes for decisions of similar gravity (many referendums elsewhere (in countries whose constitution can survive referendums) have a requirement for a 60% majority and/or a majority of all those eligible to vote), no clear proposal as to its implementation, and no possibility of reversing it as part of the normal political process. How could continuing opposition to such a clearly delineated decision which integrates so easily into the established constitution and political cycle possibly be justified? Beats me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
quote:Clearly FIFA has not got your memo. Nor indeed has the organiser of any sporting tournament that has a knockout format.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
quote:You seem completely confused between arguing whether the result of the referendum was good, and what the result of the referendum was.
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure why we are expected to treat the result of a referendum with the devout meekness, with which Roman Catholics are expected to treat infallible pronouncements of the Pontiff. For one thing it was the overturning of a previous referendum vote. If referenda are infallible, then we voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975 and no mere mortal should have questioned the vox populi. If referenda are not infallible then this one is as open to question as the previous one.
quote:Yo.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He's baaaa-aaack!
quote:The sky hasn't fallen in because nothing other than an advisory vote has happened so far. No one has yet even come up with a credible mechanism by which we will leave the EU, never mind a holistic picture of what the economic future will look like and how we will build it. Given the way political debate is carried out at the moment, where 10 minutes constitutes a long-term forecast, it comes as no surprise to me that reactions to a prospective event have not been extreme.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I recently read an article, I can't remember the exact title, but the general discussion was "why hasn't the sky fallen in on the UK economy since the vote when everybody told us it would?"
I'll see if I can find it again. Worth considering a read if you can shake your blind panic for a minute.
quote:Your notion of "reality" is your prediction of the future.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This process has been reality-proof throughout, and I see no reason why it should change now.
quote:True, but at the same time, there is at least a predictable cause which has a chance of leading to that effect. Take away this particular part of the economic system, and then this other part doesn't work and that leads to this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Your notion of "reality" is your prediction of the future.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This process has been reality-proof throughout, and I see no reason why it should change now.
By all means, if in a few years the UK has plummeted down the world quality-of-living tables and everyone is emigrating to find jobs in Ireland and Portugal, point out that your predictions have come true. But they're not "reality" now, they're your vision of the future.
And unless you're claiming some kind of spiritual gift of prophecy (and also misunderstanding the nature of what Biblical prophecy was, because it wasn't just an exercise in predicting the future), views on the likely future of the UK, however considered, are not "reality".
quote:What a shame you weren't around solving all of Ulster's problems when the 'losing' minority of Roman Catholics were being 'oppresssed' by the 'winning' majority of Protestants; thus obviating any struggle for civil rights, and over thirty years of terrorism. All that was needed, apparently, was your little genius voice piping up, 'Hard shit, guys, they outnumber you! Suck it up!'
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem under this weird apprehension that a win isn't "clear" because numbers are close, whereas most people who weren't trying to comfort themselves over a loss would understand that a win isn't "clear' when the numbers are indeterminate.
quote:Except - once again - it's not. As you'll remember from my last post, well over one million more people in Northern Ireland requested to remain and it didn't matter, because of the voting of the other UK member nations.
A difference of over a million votes IS clear, one number is clearly greater than the other, and whether it was a close game or a thrashing makes no difference to whether or not there's an entry in the win column. Your insistence that 17.41m versus 16.14m is some kind of "draw" borders on fantasy.
quote:Even if it were, there would be opposition MP's to hold the tosser to account, and possibly prevent him from doing the more tosser-ish things on his agenda. As it is, because it was a referendum there is no such democratic mechanism to represent the views of the large minority. One day, one narrow vote and the Brexiteers get to determine the course of our nation's history for the foreseeable future, however the views of the public may change in the interim, and however the world situation may evolve.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
This isn't an 'oh dear, another four years of some overpaid tosser at the despatch box, to put up with'.
quote:It's a buggers' muddle for the civil service. There are two new departments working towards a Brexit future, while the others have to work in the existing EU framework and look towards the (as yet unspecified) future.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It may not turn out to be the worst thing in the world for the UK. Indeed, for the civil service, the beaurocrats, and the gravy-trainers it's manna from heaven. But, for some of us, if it really is supposed to be the best way forward, it would be good to know 'why'. So far nobody seems to have answered that question.
quote:Except, since a referendum is an exercise in mass democracy rather than representative democracy then the equivalent to opposition MPs holding the government to account would be the people who did not vote for Brexit (and, since handing the whole process over to people who were not entirely keen on the idea, the people who voted for Brexit). If we're going to bypass the regular processes of representative democracy then it's only logical for the people to also bypass the regular processes of Opposition for direct popular action - protests on the streets, signing petitions, writing to MPs, etc.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:Even if it were, there would be opposition MP's to hold the tosser to account, and possibly prevent him from doing the more tosser-ish things on his agenda. As it is, because it was a referendum there is no such democratic mechanism to represent the views of the large minority.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
This isn't an 'oh dear, another four years of some overpaid tosser at the despatch box, to put up with'.
quote:As I said, it's a mechanism to ensure a result for sports where a draw would otherwise be a regular outcome. I've never met a football fan who actually likes a game being decided by a penalty shoot out, it's an unsatisfactory necessity.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Clearly FIFA has not got your memo. Nor indeed has the organiser of any sporting tournament that has a knockout format.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
quote:As I said, the "close sporting result" was your analogy, not mine. It's poor because the score is the ultimate result of a football match, but if instead of asking "who won?" you ask "which was the better team?" then the answer may not be reflected in the score, especially when very close. The final score involves various factors that may not reflect the quality of the teams and how they played, there is an element of luck in any sport - a bounce of the ball that goes particularly favourably, a marginal judgement call by the referee, a player stumbling, etc.
You also seem to have a hazy idea of what a "draw" involves. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that 17 million and 16 million are equal numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:No, not really.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, because if I'd been in charge so it actually mattered what I called it, I'd have said at the outset that a 2/3 majority would be required for what is a massive constitutional change. This is common practice, is it not?
The recent referendum in Scotland - a potential constitutional change of similar magnitude - required only a simple majority of those voting. The 1975 referendum in support of joining the EEC required only a simple majority. The 2011 Alternative vote referendum required only a simple majority of those voting. All the referenda on devolution for Wales required only a simple majority.
I don't think there's any kind of precedent in UK law for a referendum requiring a supermajority, is there?
quote:FYI
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The recent referendum in Scotland - a potential constitutional change of similar magnitude - required only a simple majority of those voting. The 1975 referendum in support of joining the EEC required only a simple majority. The 2011 Alternative vote referendum required only a simple majority of those voting. All the referenda on devolution for Wales required only a simple majority.
I don't think there's any kind of precedent in UK law for a referendum requiring a supermajority, is there?
quote:Wikipedia, of course.
The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.
quote:...you think that national membership of the EU is a civil rights issue or comparable to a civil rights issue? Interesting.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:What a shame you weren't around solving all of Ulster's problems when the 'losing' minority of Roman Catholics were being 'oppresssed' by the 'winning' majority of Protestants; thus obviating any struggle for civil rights, and over thirty years of terrorism. All that was needed, apparently, was your little genius voice piping up, 'Hard shit, guys, they outnumber you! Suck it up!'
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem under this weird apprehension that a win isn't "clear" because numbers are close, whereas most people who weren't trying to comfort themselves over a loss would understand that a win isn't "clear' when the numbers are indeterminate.
quote:You think the Irish Troubles were about civil rights? Interesting.
Originally posted by orfeo:
...you think that national membership of the EU is a civil rights issue or comparable to a civil rights issue? Interesting.
quote:I once heard a French commentator on the radio, in the wake of some crucial international or other which France had just lost, say "France was by far the better team, it's just that the other side happened to score more goals".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the score is the ultimate result of a football match, but if instead of asking "who won?" you ask "which was the better team?" then the answer may not be reflected in the score, especially when very close.
quote:At the moment the ball is with the High Court, where several legal challenges to the referendum result are due to be heard in October. These challenges mainly seem to be based on a) whether the UK Parliament also needs to pass a Bill to invoke Article 50, and b) by people who were excluded from voting in the referendum. Presumably there are also grounds for legal challenges to some of the claims made by Brexit which were clearly false, and continued to be used after this was repeatedly pointed out, or could be classed as hate speech.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm puzzled as to how you would envisage rolling back the referendum result. From outside the UK, there doesn't seem to be any question that Brexit is a done deal. The mechanism of the EU grinds on on the assumption the UK has left.
quote:I guess it depends on what 'troubles' you are referring to, but even the modern 'troubles' were linked to issues regarding human and civil rights despite the fact that it became clotted and poisoned by the agenda of one specific group. You have to remember that a large part of the issue wasn't actually centred on the political front of the desire for a united Ireland and rejection of what occurred in 1948. Those in Northern Ireland who were Roman Catholic, nationalist or republican (neither of which necessarily means terrorist sympathiser unless you work for the BBC) regardless of religious affiliation and all those who didm;t fit into the nice box of a white Ulster Prod having the correct name and address, weren't able to vote, weren't able to get jobs and discovered rather quickly that there were limited places where they could live. There were shops they could;t go into, schools they could not attend, church leaders who described and decried them publicly as satanic. Having the IRA bombing campaign presenting themselves as 'fighting for their cause' did them no favours, but the fact remains - there were major human and civil rights issues that to this day the UK still has not fully acknowledged.
You think the Irish Troubles were about civil rights? Interesting.
quote:It's not exactly a case of rolling back anything. The referendum is a piece of internal UK politics. It's not for you.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm puzzled as to how you would envisage rolling back the referendum result. From outside the UK, there doesn't seem to be any question that Brexit is a done deal.
quote:This is ridiculous. Passively accepting a result is not how any civil right was ever gained.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fairly neutral on the outcome of the vote. What I'm not neutral on is my growing contempt for the people, mostly leaning on the left side of politics like myself, who have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of losing a vote with good grace.
quote:If it had been firmly anyway then the amount of space to squirm over technicalities would be vanishingly small. It's precisely because it was a small margin that the technicalities are important. If knowingly making untrue statements swayed voters, then the technicality of telling porkies is important. If people were unfairly excluded from voting, then those votes should have counted (they, of course, always should have counted but if it wasn't close then they wouldn't have made a difference), if the vote is legally only advisory and a vote in the Commons is also needed to invoke Article 50 then there needs to be that debate and vote in the Commons, and with a close result then there's no clear "the people have spoken" mandate for MPs to vote against their convictions - especially if they have constituents telling them "we voted leave, but would not have voted for the deal on the table".
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Alan: I think that both the foot-dragging and the attempts to squirm out of the referendum result on technicalities are damaging. Fair-minded as you might be, I can't really imagine you supporting the latter course of action in particular had the result been firmly the other way.
quote:That is undeniably true. Personally, I don't regret the loss of the privileged position the UK enjoyed within the EU. The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better. If that means leaving and petitioning to rejoin in 5 years time, so be it.
p The UK couldn't simply pick up where it left off.
quote:You might have trouble selling that idea in a referendum campaign...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better.
quote:Look what won the previous referendum.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:You might have trouble selling that idea in a referendum campaign...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better.
quote:I've tried my best. But, nope. I can't think of any.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are there UK ... politicians you respect?
quote:So, what's the alternative to "gracefully accepting"?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is ridiculous. Passively accepting a result is not how any civil right was ever gained.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fairly neutral on the outcome of the vote. What I'm not neutral on is my growing contempt for the people, mostly leaning on the left side of politics like myself, who have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of losing a vote with good grace.
The democratic process should never be quiet or clean, that attitude leads to cueing for the abattoir.
I do not have hope far a clean way back, but the way forward is not set. And politely accepting the gross error will only feed the worst elements of society that led us here. This was not a vote on whether the Robin should remain the national bird. This has ramifications on the future of Britain and the E.U.
Gracefully accept? Rubbish.
quote:It's dishonest of you to suggest that's even an approximation of what I posted.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I've tried my best. But, nope. I can't think of any.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are there UK ... politicians you respect?
quote:More a bit fed up with arguing for the benefits of EU membership, apparently to either those who are not willing to hear or those who are already convinced. If the question was asked in Purgatory I wouldn't have given such a flippant answer - or, at least made the joke and then answered the question.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:It's dishonest of you to suggest that's even an approximation of what I posted.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I've tried my best. But, nope. I can't think of any.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are there UK ... politicians you respect?
Can I assume from this evasion that you're unable to describe any benefits of joining the Euro?
quote:I think I was replying to A POST THAT SUGGESTED EXACTLY THAT. Good grief, man, why put that on me when the post I'm replying to is sitting right there?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You think the Irish Troubles were about civil rights? Interesting.
Originally posted by orfeo:
...you think that national membership of the EU is a civil rights issue or comparable to a civil rights issue? Interesting.
quote:Oh look, more civil rights talk.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is ridiculous. Passively accepting a result is not how any civil right was ever gained.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fairly neutral on the outcome of the vote. What I'm not neutral on is my growing contempt for the people, mostly leaning on the left side of politics like myself, who have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of losing a vote with good grace.
quote:Of course membership of the EU is not a matter of civil rights.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm genuinely bemused at how anyone can think that civil rights has anything to do with this. Membership of the EU is not on an individual basis.
quote:No, it isn't. That was meant to be a clear and simple example of how an issue doesn't end at the ballot box.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh look, more civil rights talk.
quote:Is this really a major issue though? Are large numbers of people advocating that those who continue to campaign for Remain should be suppressed with the force of law?
Someone telling me I can't continue to say the UK should remain in the EU is infringing my civil (and human) rights. If someone comes along and demands I remove the Remain poster which has been in my window since June, then they are infringing my rights. Same if they said I couldn't join a peaceful demonstration on the streets of London or Edinburgh.
quote:That sounds like you are of the opinion that the democratic process ends once people have exited the polling station.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Personally, when I make statements like "Your side lost, so you need to face reality and shut the fuck up", I don't mean that the person has no right to continue whining about whatever. He DOES have that right, it's just that a lot of people, including me, are gonna find his behaviour annoying, and the government is under no obligation to listen to him.
quote:
All we lose through Brexit is then just our voice in the European Parliament, Commission and Councils.
quote:There's a kind of an 'elephant in the room' thing going on with the UK at the moment. Now I know it has its own concerns in regards to Brexit, but it still seems to persist in Pre-referendum spin which will make things intensely difficult later for Britain and won't do them any favours. Europe has no desire for another Greece on its doorstep, whether that be in Europe or out of it. It isn't in their interest to punish Britain or make things any more difficult than they have to or enact certain things to make the economy crash. Britain's economy crashing would likely still have a significant effect on the world economic stage. Nobody wants that. However there is still a narrative of a desire for punishment, that Europe should be seen as the tough negotiator, that things will be made difficult for Britain economically. This narrative is only coming out of Britain. Europe meanwhile is standing aghast at a Britain that is already making sounds that it wants all of the benefits of being in the EU without being in the EU. There's a kind of collective disbelief throughout Europe that a country could be so blatantly stupid and selfish. Today it isn't only Europe left standing with its mouth open in disbelief, and this is the elephant in the room. The world is about to wake up to what is about to come - that a world leading economy and society looks like it is beginning to take of isolationist policy. I'm not saying this is what Britain is doing, but this is how it looks to everyone outside of it; everybody, except Britain. I think for other countries looking in they aren't only seeing the Brexit. They also see the talk of scrapping the human rights act and they also see a country that may in the future split apart and they also see a current political instability. All these things add up to a picture that isn't very pretty and while Europe is scurrying to report on these things and try and get a handle on what is actually going on in Britain today and where it might all be headed, Britain itself seems to know there's an elephant in the room but seems quite determined never to mention it. From the outside looking in, it is frightening.
I suspect the other European governments know very well which way the referendum went, and are proceeding from the premise that the Leave vote was a valid expression of public opinion. Obviously, the proposed new arrangements will all involve varying degrees of association between the UK and the EU
quote:That would tend to be a given if you vote yourself out of a grouping which had part of its aims as providing economic stability and support for poorer nations, trade agreements and product protection to encourage local economies.....to name but a few. If all of that goes - which it will - then of course you are getting a worse deal. But as the woman said, 'Brexit means Brexit'; you did actually vote for this. The question isn't, 'Will it be bad?' despite repeated idiotic statements of 'Oh well, I think we don't really know'. Of course we know, it's not going to be at all good for the next while and the key question is, for how long will it be bad. Economic depression - on the back of an economic slump not so very long ago - can lead to other things and right now, looking in from the outside, you seem to have the perfectly heated soup for a little unpleasant bacteria growth.
...we are going to get a worse deal than we currently get....
quote:This is exactly what I've been thinking, except I might not phrase it it terms of "making things worse" for the UK, so much as just forcing the UK to reckon with the results of its own referendum.
Europe has its own version of far right nationalists, some of whom make Farage look like Shirley Williams. Nobody in European government wishes to empower them, so there is going to be a fairly solid consensus that Brexit should make things worse for us, rather than better.
quote:I think - as fletcher christian says above - there will be a cost as a mostly natural effect of no longer getting the benefits of the club we have voted to leave.
Originally posted by Callan:
Europe has its own version of far right nationalists, some of whom make Farage look like Shirley Williams. Nobody in European government wishes to empower them, so there is going to be a fairly solid consensus that Brexit should make things worse for us, rather than better.
quote:Either response plays well with the far right narrative. The EU may not want a good deal because it doesn't want to encourage the others, but a bad deal just proves that the EU is so awful that sovereign nations can't even leave without being punished ... The likes of Le Pen are going to have great fun with that.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Callan wrote:
quote:This is exactly what I've been thinking, except I might not phrase it it terms of "making things worse" for the UK, so much as just forcing the UK to reckon with the results of its own referendum.
Europe has its own version of far right nationalists, some of whom make Farage look like Shirley Williams. Nobody in European government wishes to empower them, so there is going to be a fairly solid consensus that Brexit should make things worse for us, rather than better.
Basically, the EU probably doesn't want to set a precedent where governing parties can say to themselves "Hey, let's hold an Exit referendum just to appease the torch-and-pitchfork mobs, and if the people vote Leave, we can just ignore the reasults like the British did."
quote:It has and it hasn’t. There’s an excellent analysis of the Brexit vote from CEEMEA – sadly subscriber only – that summarises the causes without much emotion:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Basically, the whole exercise of holding a referendum has allowed the far right in the UK to find a voice (and, far too often their fists, boots, and bricks through windows). Whatever way the vote went, that was always going to happen - the only hope being a resounding "Remain" vote to tell the far right that their views are not popular with the vast majority of the UK population (and, to be clear, I don't believe they are popular with the UK population, but that they have taken the vote to leave to be support for their views).
That also means that the far right in the rest of the EU have also been heartened by the UK referendum. So, Cameron not only encourage the UK far right to take to the streets with their vile message, he also did the same for the far right in France, Germany and everywhere else. Yay for Hameron, screw up the whole of the EU as well as the UK.
quote:Daniel Thorniley goes on to talk about how the perception of uncontrolled migration was an issue, but also states:
The austerity policies of the UK and EU have destroyed job security and undermined real wages over the last 5 and 20 years (also in the USA). People feel they have been mistreated economically and financially. They feel that that their elected representatives have abandoned them and are more concerned about the welfare of a minority running the banking sector or with a minority of foreign migrants; they see that no one was punished for the financial crash of 2008-09; they witness growing social global and regional inequality and manifest corruption and tax avoidance (“Taxes are for poor people”) as exemplified most recently in the Panama Papers, and they see the financial security of their children eroded.
quote:Bear in mind Daniel has no particular axe to grind and isn’t in the pay of the Mail and the Express.
Accusing people who think like this of being stupid, ignorant, fat racist fools is not constructive and often does not attract their vote, as we have seen. But unless European governments understand this, the political and social outlook for the EU is bitterly bleak.
quote:We know it's not constructive. We know it doesn't attract their vote.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Daniel Thorniley goes on to talk about how the perception of uncontrolled migration was an issue, but also states:
quote:
Accusing people who think like this of being stupid, ignorant, fat racist fools is not constructive and often does not attract their vote, as we have seen. But unless European governments understand this, the political and social outlook for the EU is bitterly bleak.
quote:I think for many people it was about immigration - most of the people on the Leave stall in my city had what can only be described as racist Tourette's. But for others it wasn't and they voted leave in the hope of getting a rebooted EU, EEFTA membership etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Leave was a hydra-headed monster, but that was its potency, I guess. It's quite interesting watching Mrs May gradually cutting some of the heads off - money for the NHS? No, thank you. A points based immigration policy? Not appropriate.
I was chatting to a UKIP guy who insisted that the vote was over immigration, and I asked where that was on the ballot paper, answer, incoherent rage. So it was a kind of Schrödinger's ballot, it existed in multiple states of virtual meaning.
quote:A car which was more aerodynamic going backwards than forwards. Kind of appropriate really.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Has somebody mentioned this? The solution, if people like the Japanese leave (cowards), is to rent some empty factories and build the Austin Allegro again. As David Davis said, Glorious! In fact, we could call it the Austin Gloriana.
quote:If industry and commerce need more people then firstly we should:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You would predict a lot of disappointment coming up. Already, it seems to be around, as Mrs May says no to NHS money, and no to a points system for immigration. I suppose the govt is trying to balance between the racists, and the requirements of finance and industry, which needs immigration.
quote:If they think that leaving the Single Market and signing up for some sort of experiment to turn us into Singapore is going to fix any of that I have many bridges to sell them.
The austerity policies of the UK and EU have destroyed job security and undermined real wages over the last 5 and 20 years (also in the USA). People feel they have been mistreated economically and financially. They feel that that their elected representatives have abandoned them and are more concerned about the welfare of a minority running the banking sector or with a minority of foreign migrants; they see that no one was punished for the financial crash of 2008-09; they witness growing social global and regional inequality and manifest corruption and tax avoidance (“Taxes are for poor people”) as exemplified most recently in the Panama Papers, and they see the financial security of their children eroded.
quote:I'm not disagreeing. The whole thing is bonkers and will be a world of pain. A hard Brexit seems very likely as both sides are entrenched in their "must have freedom of movement" v "we'd quite like some control over our borders" positions.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:If they think that leaving the Single Market and signing up for some sort of experiment to turn us into Singapore is going to fix any of that I have many bridges to sell them.
The austerity policies of the UK and EU have destroyed job security and undermined real wages over the last 5 and 20 years (also in the USA). People feel they have been mistreated economically and financially. They feel that that their elected representatives have abandoned them and are more concerned about the welfare of a minority running the banking sector or with a minority of foreign migrants; they see that no one was punished for the financial crash of 2008-09; they witness growing social global and regional inequality and manifest corruption and tax avoidance (“Taxes are for poor people”) as exemplified most recently in the Panama Papers, and they see the financial security of their children eroded.
quote:In exchange to some contributions to the EU budget and parity on key legislation. That would be the most pragmatic approach as both sides would benefit. But as the hawks seem to be running the show, good luck with that!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some people are talking of a bespoke deal, whereby the UK is sort of attached to the single market, and sort of has exemptions from free movement. The obvious counter-argument is, why should the EU be so generous? They don't want to make it easy to leave.
quote:Speaking as a non-Brexiteer though, this is where I start to look a little askance. It does look like the Brussels centre has a view of what the EU is and should look like, which they suspect doesn't have the support of (some? many?) member states.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They don't want to make it easy to leave.
quote:Yes, the idea of a looser organization might be attractive to some, although possibly it's very difficult to have a loose free trade area.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Speaking as a non-Brexiteer though, this is where I start to look a little askance. It does look like the Brussels centre has a view of what the EU is and should look like, which they suspect doesn't have the support of (some? many?) member states.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They don't want to make it easy to leave.
Ie, they don't want to make it easy to go for something that's just a free-trade deal because everyone else might want it instead too. Doesn't that raise all sorts of questions about *why* the people with the federalist vision should be allowed to keep forcing things in that direction?
Like I say, not a Brexiteer but troubled by the idea that the EU is something that states need to be kept in for their own good, when they might actually want something else.
quote:Most states want the idea of a free trade area but they don't want it to be a totally fair trade area, or a harmonised single market (in EU speak). That requires a "level playing field" hence the four freedoms, which inter alia include the free movement of people. Until now the rest of the EU has wanted us *in* to the extent that we have been able to get concessions from the other states. I doubt any future deal will include many of those concessions.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the idea of a looser organization might be attractive to some, although possibly it's very difficult to have a loose free trade area.
I thought the polls were showing that Brexit has increased support for the EU (among Europeans).
quote:There-in lies their problem. Some want more Europe whilst others want less EU and a return to an organisation that’s more trade led. They’re all trying to make those mutually exclusive ideas fit a pint pot designed in a very different time.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Speaking as a non-Brexiteer though, this is where I start to look a little askance. It does look like the Brussels centre has a view of what the EU is and should look like, which they suspect doesn't have the support of (some? many?) member states.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They don't want to make it easy to leave.
Ie, they don't want to make it easy to go for something that's just a free-trade deal because everyone else might want it instead too. Doesn't that raise all sorts of questions about *why* the people with the federalist vision should be allowed to keep forcing things in that direction?
Like I say, not a Brexiteer but troubled by the idea that the EU is something that states need to be kept in for their own good, when they might actually want something else.
quote:More likely to turn us into North Korea. Now *there's* a country that has control over its borders. Possibly because nobody in their right mind wants to go there, but they must be really happy because noone ever leaves...
If they think that leaving the Single Market and signing up for some sort of experiment to turn us into Singapore is going to fix any of that I have many bridges to sell them.
quote:There is some truth in this. The rural area where I live has a relatively low number of foreigners. We were seeing quite large numbers of Poles about doing mainly factory jobs 10 or more years ago.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Errm, some people don't like foreigners, especially in those areas which don't have any.
quote:I think your first paragraph misrepresents things for the following reason; The single market is much more than a 'simple' free trade deal/area.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Speaking as a non-Brexiteer though, this is where I start to look a little askance. It does look like the Brussels centre has a view of what the EU is and should look like, which they suspect doesn't have the support of (some? many?) member states.
Ie, they don't want to make it easy to go for something that's just a free-trade deal because everyone else might want it instead too.
quote:But for some things, particularly services, the single market is still more of a theory than a practice due to local quirks. Like the requirement that all documentation be issued in local language. Meaning that you’re potentially be working with two sets of documentation. The local language one for the regulator and the English one for internal use.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think your first paragraph misrepresents things for the following reason; The single market is much more than a 'simple' free trade deal/area.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Speaking as a non-Brexiteer though, this is where I start to look a little askance. It does look like the Brussels centre has a view of what the EU is and should look like, which they suspect doesn't have the support of (some? many?) member states.
Ie, they don't want to make it easy to go for something that's just a free-trade deal because everyone else might want it instead too.
Most free trade deals won't cover services. Secondly, in most free trade arrangements regulation will still be a completely national competence. This raises the possibility of potential non-tariff barriers (widget X made in country Y, regulated by the Widget Engineering Board of Y cannot be sold in country Z because of regulations set by the Widget Engineering board of Z), sometimes these barriers may in fact be punitive and at other times they won't be.
The whole point of a large part of EU regulation is to remove these kinds of barriers. Hence things like the financial passport, where banks regulated by the FSA-equivalents of their own countries, can then sell into other countries without being re-regulated (because of EU regulations and rules covering financial regulators across the EU). In the case of the widget, it means that suddenly you don't have a massive queue of lorries between Y and Z making sure that the widgets being imported comply with the standards of the local Widget Engineering Board.
Of course, every country would like to have complete access to the single market, whilst simultaneously being exempt to the four freedoms itself, so that they could put up barriers against international competition. But if every country operates like that there would no longer be a single market to sell into.
Incidentally, this is why trade deals are an EU level competence - to avoid the same situation being created at a supranational level (Republic of Rurutania selling widgets into Y, now requiring checks on all Widgets moving from Y to Z).
So your question is a little like saying; I want government taxes, but I don't want to pay any taxes and the fact that the government won't let me do that is highly suspect.
quote:Well, there are rough edges, and still areas that need working on. It is incorrect to call the 'single market for services' a 'theory' though, after all, for the purpose of cross-country selling financial products it already works.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But for some things, particularly services, the single market is still more of a theory than a practice due to local quirks. Like the requirement that all documentation be issued in local language. Meaning that you’re potentially be working with two sets of documentation. The local language one for the regulator and the English one for internal use.
quote:Well, regardless of how you or I may feel about that issue of refugees, the facts are that freedom of movement applies to those who are already permitted to be resident in the EU. Essentially the camps in Greece have become the external border. Sweden hasn't completely closed their border either, at various periods people had to either had to be EU resident/have a visa, OR they had to claim asylum at the border. What they couldn't do was transit Sweden and go into Norway/Finland. Leaving/Staying in the EU is unlikely to change the situation wrt refugees (the UK is not particularly refugee friendly as is, and is unlikely to become any better post-Leave, so it's not like we are Leaving in order to fix that).
And, if you’re a refugee seeking asylum, freedom of movement of people isn’t happening either. As many EU counties have closed their borders, including Sweden
quote:And all it would cost is the total destruction of the area itself. Who could possibly be against that?
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sometimes consider this open area, together with all the other open areas in England, and the the fact it could probably house the entire world's population using modern building technology.
quote:Whilst, ironically, that four bedroom detached house has become unaffordable to anyone not on a very high income.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, no one is actually suggesting that we will bulldoze the country to house an immigrant population. We can easily house a much larger population (say, an extra 5-10 million) without increasing the foot print of existing urban areas - maintaining both our countryside and urban parkland. The biggest problem isn't the growing population (whether from immigration or increased birthrate in the existing population), it's the increasing desire for larger houses. There was a time when a "decent family house" was a three bedroom, one bathroom, semi with a small garden - now that same category of "decent family house" would be a four, or more, bedroom detached house with at least two bathrooms and a large garden - often for families with less children.
quote:I'm being slightly mischievous about the services as in some sectors it works very well. In others, maybe not so much.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, there are rough edges, and still areas that need working on. It is incorrect to call the 'single market for services' a 'theory' though, after all, for the purpose of cross-country selling financial products it already works.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But for some things, particularly services, the single market is still more of a theory than a practice due to local quirks. Like the requirement that all documentation be issued in local language. Meaning that you’re potentially be working with two sets of documentation. The local language one for the regulator and the English one for internal use.
quote:Well, regardless of how you or I may feel about that issue of refugees, the facts are that freedom of movement applies to those who are already permitted to be resident in the EU. Essentially the camps in Greece have become the external border. Sweden hasn't completely closed their border either, at various periods people had to either had to be EU resident/have a visa, OR they had to claim asylum at the border. What they couldn't do was transit Sweden and go into Norway/Finland. Leaving/Staying in the EU is unlikely to change the situation wrt refugees (the UK is not particularly refugee friendly as is, and is unlikely to become any better post-Leave, so it's not like we are Leaving in order to fix that).
And, if you’re a refugee seeking asylum, freedom of movement of people isn’t happening either. As many EU counties have closed their borders, including Sweden
quote:What's that got to do with the question of whether we should use our countryside to house the world?
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Marvin
Would you say that an immigrant family with 5 children living in a two bedroom flat is really having a greater impact on green space than the fairly wealthy family who own three properties; the family home, a flat for Dad to stay during the week and a holiday home? These are not on the rich list, they are just upper middle class.
Jengie
quote:While I agree entirely with the proposal, it would only ever be a short-term solution. Once the houses were full we'd be right back where we are now, and that's without considering the impact on services and facilities.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Just to mount my own hobby-horse for a moment have people considered how many could be housed in the homes that are currently empty? Overall the total approaches a million such homes. It wouldn't require much effort to take the quarter of a million or so that have been empty for more than six months and make homes for upwards of a million people in very short order.
quote:No, we wouldn't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
While I agree entirely with the proposal, it would only ever be a short-term solution. Once the houses were full we'd be right back where we are now, and that's without considering the impact on services and facilities.
quote:How is it any more expensive than keeping them in well maintained accommodation?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We'd have housed a million families. Keeping those families in poorly maintained private accommodation is ruinously expensive to the public purse.
quote:The jobs would definitely only last until the houses were done. And while the second sentence may be statistically correct, I suspect it's more to do with the sort of people who end up in temporary accommodation than the accommodation itself. Put them in the penthouse of the London Hilton and they'll still need those services.
Bringing back empty housing into use provides jobs. People use more services and facilities if they're in temporary accommodation.
quote:You almost make it sound like the reason for the housing shortage is lack of workers to build new ones.
In other words, it's a long term solution. Those who've learnt their skills doing up the old homes can then go on to build new ones, knowing they have somewhere safe for them and their families to sleep at the end of the working day, too.
quote:Because well maintained accommodation means they aren't ill so often. They're happier. There's less mould spores. There's heating and lighting and somewhere to cook. Stuff like that that means they're more likely to hold down a job and their kids get to school because they're not crippled with asthma and lung infections.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How is it any more expensive than keeping them in well maintained accommodation?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We'd have housed a million families. Keeping those families in poorly maintained private accommodation is ruinously expensive to the public purse.
quote:The housing shortage is to a great extent caused by a desire to keep the market "hot". Landlords and builders, with the connivance of governments have to carry the burden for that. In the "bad old days" the market was cooled down by governments of all colours which regarded social housing as an option for all, like the NHS and state education, rather than the inadequate and stigmatized safety net it has become.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You almost make it sound like the reason for the housing shortage is lack of workers to build new ones.
quote:and also because the massive shortage of social housing means that there is an artificial floor to rental prices (the maximum amount a landlord can charge a social housing tenant).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because well maintained accommodation means they aren't ill so often.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How is it any more expensive than keeping them in well maintained accommodation?
quote:I want a divorce!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some people are talking of a bespoke deal, whereby the UK is sort of attached to the single market, and sort of has exemptions from free movement. The obvious counter-argument is, why should the EU be so generous? They don't want to make it easy to leave.
quote:Will that be the same Liam Fox who rented his own home out, pocketed the cash, then rented somewhere else to live and charged that to the taxpayer? The same Liam Fox who once claimed for a car journey of 3p? The same Liam Fox who got his 'special advisor' included in MOD briefings and trips at the public expense, strictly against all rules?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Liam Fox getting his excuses in early:
Britain lazy and fat says Fox
quote:This is the direct analogue for the argument that unemployment is merely the result of laziness or inadequacy on the part of the unemployed. Granted, both these things exist but unemployment rates vary because of government policies and prevailing economic conditions. No-one seriously thinks that the British people were lazy and inadequate in the early 1930s and hard-working and entrepreneurial in the 1950s. If you ask an economic historian about the difference between unemployment rates during the two periods in question they will talk about the Great Depression on the one hand and the policies of the National Government and the post-war reconstruction and the commitment to successive governments to full employment. They won't say that a mysterious Spirit of Gumption descended upon the land in 1945. The same is true about housing. When you have a government, in propitious economic circumstances, which puts adequate housing as a priority then, Lo and Behold, you will get more adequate housing. You will still have people who struggle to look after themselves, or would rather ponce off the state than do a days honest work, but you will have rather fewer people who struggle to find adequate housing because they can't get a break.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The jobs would definitely only last until the houses were done. And while the second sentence may be statistically correct, I suspect it's more to do with the sort of people who end up in temporary accommodation than the accommodation itself. Put them in the penthouse of the London Hilton and they'll still need those services.
Bringing back empty housing into use provides jobs. People use more services and facilities if they're in temporary accommodation.
quote:I think they are more the equivalent of people who give MM column inches or airtime. They do not care if it is fit to print as long as it is fit to purpose.
Originally posted by Callan:
This isn't terribly mysterious. People who claim it is are the political equivalents of the sort of people who think Mystic Meg is on the money.
quote:BoJo the clown and the others aren't tossers because they are fat and lazy. They are tossers because they are bad politician and likely not that great humans.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Come to think of it, this trio are not exactly sylph-like. Pot? Kettle? Black?
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:I expect employers would rather close factories and move offices than pay fair wages. Shit jobs at low wages will remain, but many farmers will allow crops to rot than pay a penny more to have them picked.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:The imposition of tariffs and the end of access to the single market will mean manufacturers moving to where their markets are.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:I suspect a variation on this will be true. The likes of Nissan - well paid jobs for skilled workers - will bugger off but the farmers will call for (and probably get) some kind on deal on immigration whereby they get cheap labour to harvest their crops.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I expect employers would rather close factories and move offices than pay fair wages. Shit jobs at low wages will remain, but many farmers will allow crops to rot than pay a penny more to have them picked.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:Yes, because world class academics to teach in our universities and do world beating research are sitting on the dole. As are plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Or even people who know how to pick and sort fruit quickly and efficiently. And, we have a surplus of doctors and nurses just waiting for the immigrants to go somewhere else so they can do those jobs.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:So basically, it's the "Brits are Shit" argument? We're too useless a people to get anything done without those nice foreigners to do it for us?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, because world class academics to teach in our universities and do world beating research are sitting on the dole. As are plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Or even people who know how to pick and sort fruit quickly and efficiently. And, we have a surplus of doctors and nurses just waiting for the immigrants to go somewhere else so they can do those jobs.
Heck, we don't even have anyone qualified to negotiate international trade deals.
Of course, we could have those people. We will need to start enrolling people on the appropriate university courses and apprenticeships. We can fill the gaps in, oh, 5-10 years (after study and gaining experience - less for some jobs, longer for others). Which leaves the country well and truly buggered for a few years after Brexit. It will of course require a government willing to spend money on education and training (because universities will be struggling after the income from overseas students that most rely on to make ends meet dries up). And, does assume we have any Brits able to teach the necessary skills ('cos we can't just ask some immigrants to do that - we'll have lost access to that labour pool).
quote:Come on. you cannot be this stupid. Please tell me you are not this stupid. I take it for granted that we will not agree on somethings political, but tell me it is not because you are this stupid.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, it's the "Brits are Shit" argument?
quote:No, we've built our economy and society around getting others to do our work for us - whether immigrants coming here, or our manufacturing going there. Of course Brits could do those jobs - but we'd need to restructure the way society works to train the people we need, and in almost all cases that will take more than the two years we'll have after Article 50 is eventually called.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, it's the "Brits are Shit" argument? We're too useless a people to get anything done without those nice foreigners to do it for us?
quote:With the government tightening restrictions on all immigrants, to meet some arbitrarily set net migration limit, getting a student visa is becoming increasingly difficult. OK, not really to do with Brexit. But, it is symptomatic of the truly bizarre attitude to migration that the UK government, and large parts of our population, holds - which also seems to have played a large part in the Brexit vote.
I was amused at the idea of universities losing Overseas students, by the way, given that by definition they come from outside the EU, so nothing about their visas or education will change.
quote:If the brexit Make Britain Great again hardcore really want to get us back to the 60s Britain of full employment then we have to be talking subsidised wages. Plus a Welfare system that somehow says you don't get your Mobile phone or stag-nights abroad if you don't work, and work hard.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect employers would rather close factories and move offices than pay fair wages. Shit jobs at low wages will remain, but many farmers will allow crops to rot than pay a penny more to have them picked.
quote:That's true of those areas of employment where the employers can't just move the jobs somewhere else.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or to put it another way, an employment market where the power lies with employees rather than employers. And with all those jobs coming available unemployment rates should plummet!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
unfilled gaps in the labour market due to considerably reduced labour pool
quote:We have it on good authority (from the Minister for Overseas Trade, or whatever he calls himself) that the British are fat and lazy. It doesn't have quite the same ring to it as your slogan, I must admit.
So basically, it's the "Brits are Shit" argument?
quote:Quite right: the government has been making it harder for Overseas students to get visas for years and refusing to allow them to stay and work after they've finished their studies (unless their prospective employer is willing to jump through as many hoops as it takes to convince the Home Office that no one else can do the job). All to meet some arbitrary target set by the Daily Mail. So a lot of them have been going elsewhere, which is good news for the other countries they've been going to because a highly educated workforce boosts their economy and good news for the students too, if they're going somewhere they will actually be welcome.
I was amused at the idea of universities losing Overseas students, by the way, given that by definition they come from outside the EU, so nothing about their visas or education will change.
quote:It's interesting that you should allude to Britain's increased success in the Olympic games. That is entirely because of a political initiative, namely to direct £100+ millions (of Lottery money) into elite sport, targeting those sports in which Britain has good facilities and talent. It isn't done by telling our athletes to work harder for less, or we'll take your bike/boat/horse/whatever away.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:If the brexit Make Britain Great again hardcore really want to get us back to the 60s Britain of full employment then we have to be talking subsidised wages. Plus a Welfare system that somehow says you don't get your Mobile phone or stag-nights abroad if you don't work, and work hard.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect employers would rather close factories and move offices than pay fair wages. Shit jobs at low wages will remain, but many farmers will allow crops to rot than pay a penny more to have them picked.
Some, including myself, might say the British attitude to work is so inherently negative it can never match that of our enthusiastic visitors. But then who is to say this cannot be turned around, look at how this has happened with the Olympics.
quote:The USA could help us out here in a few months.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Also not an economist, but just being the laughing stock of the entire world and our PM being treated like an embarrassing gatecrasher at G20 summits is humiliating in an interdisciplinary way.
quote:Just to unpack this a little; the larger issue as above is the non-tariff barriers. The regulatory effect of which the most visible and intuitive is the loss of the financial passport.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hard Brexit presumably means application of tariffs to trade; loss of passporting; slowdown in investment and growth.
quote:And we're back in control! What more could anyone want?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Look on the bright side, guys. We've got an unelected PM, a rise in hate crime, and more powerful toasters. Result.
quote:But your PM is elected, just as much as ours and those in Canada, NZ and so forth are. Ms May was elected by her constituency, and then the parliamentary party elected her (unopposed this time). In the UK case, the last PM not to have been elected by the parliamentary party was Douglas-Home. No PM anywhere that I'm aware o,f is elected to that position by a popular vote. Assuming the virtually impossible comes about, Corbyn will have gone through he same process.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Look on the bright side, guys. We've got an unelected PM, a rise in hate crime, and more powerful toasters. Result.
quote:Do you ever bother checking your assertions rolyn? Can you offer some evidence for these assertions that don't come from the Daily Wail?
Originally posted by rolyn:
For example. One-- people were arriving on these shores and jumping straight on a dole system that had been tightened against indigenous people. Two-- factories and workshops were opening in regions where local 'job seekers', (made to feel indignant by said stringent rules), had not a hope in Hell of getting a job there because all the jobs were offered directly to migrants.
quote:THANK YOU. Any time someone starts talking about the voting public electing a PM I feel the urge to whack them with a plank.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:But your PM is elected, just as much as ours and those in Canada, NZ and so forth are. Ms May was elected by her constituency, and then the parliamentary party elected her (unopposed this time). In the UK case, the last PM not to have been elected by the parliamentary party was Douglas-Home. No PM anywhere that I'm aware o,f is elected to that position by a popular vote. Assuming the virtually impossible comes about, Corbyn will have gone through he same process.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Look on the bright side, guys. We've got an unelected PM, a rise in hate crime, and more powerful toasters. Result.
quote:Return? That does rather presuppose that there was ever a time when there was a "culture of malingerers or work/claim cheats". I know expensive loo-roll like the Mail does think that was the case. That doesn't mean it ever existed.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I read some of your link KLB re. the stringent rules applied to those seeking benefits. On the surface they do appear tedious and harsh, but I suspect necessary unless we want to return to a culture of malingerers or work/claim cheats.
quote:In a British context, the phrase 'unelected PM' does not mean that she has not been elected by popular vote, since obviously no PM ever is. It means that she hasn't won an election as leader.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:But your PM is elected, just as much as ours and those in Canada, NZ and so forth are. Ms May was elected by her constituency, and then the parliamentary party elected her (unopposed this time). In the UK case, the last PM not to have been elected by the parliamentary party was Douglas-Home. No PM anywhere that I'm aware o,f is elected to that position by a popular vote. Assuming the virtually impossible comes about, Corbyn will have gone through he same process.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Look on the bright side, guys. We've got an unelected PM, a rise in hate crime, and more powerful toasters. Result.
quote:That is because, as I have already said on this thread, nothing has actually changed yet on the face of things.
Originally posted by rolyn:
If the outcome post June 23rd was such a freaking disaster there would be rioting on the streets and the government which wrought such catastrophe would be outed.
quote:The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken. Oh, and the rest of Europe too, because it won't do them any good either. Then again, the rest of Europe, if not the World, doesn't matter, and that is key to the Leave argument.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is a grave danger that this is going to be like the financial crisis in 2008. Lots of problems to do with the debt required to dig the country out of that crisis became dissociated from the crisis itself because people were too damned lazy to listen to anyone making the connections. There will be considerable effort required to force Brexiteers to listen to the sound of their own destruction and to prevent them from being able to profit from their own and other people's intellectual laziness.
quote:All of which is perfectly true. Sadly, I think it makes the dissociation of cause and effect even more likely to happen, and gives Brexiteers an even greater chance of getting away scott free from their wilful and wanton destruction. This makes me indescribably furious.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken. Oh, and the rest of Europe too, because it won't do them any good either. Then again, the rest of Europe, if not the World, doesn't matter, and that is key to the Leave argument.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is a grave danger that this is going to be like the financial crisis in 2008. Lots of problems to do with the debt required to dig the country out of that crisis became dissociated from the crisis itself because people were too damned lazy to listen to anyone making the connections. There will be considerable effort required to force Brexiteers to listen to the sound of their own destruction and to prevent them from being able to profit from their own and other people's intellectual laziness.
quote:Oh look. The melodrama is back.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken.
quote:Which makes not the slightest difference in a Westminster system, as you bloody well know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It means that she hasn't won an election as leader.
quote:This may have been true in the 18th Century but certainly hasn't been since the rise of the party system.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which makes not the slightest difference in a Westminster system, as you bloody well know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It means that she hasn't won an election as leader.
David Cameron was not on your ballot paper last election unless you lived in his constituency, so the fact that Theresa May was not on your ballot paper either means zero.
Vote on the POLICIES of each party by all means, but thinking of it in terms of voting for a person as Prime Minister is just idiotic.
quote:The assumption that if voters had been given “the right information”, they would have voted “the right way” or "they didn't understand the consequences" etc is really patronising.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is a grave danger that this is going to be like the financial crisis in 2008. Lots of problems to do with the debt required to dig the country out of that crisis became dissociated from the crisis itself because people were too damned lazy to listen to anyone making the connections. There will be considerable effort required to force Brexiteers to listen to the sound of their own destruction and to prevent them from being able to profit from their own and other people's intellectual laziness.
quote:Your jibe doesn't affect the accuracy of my post. Try doing that instead.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh look. The melodrama is back.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken.
quote:What was missing was an honest and clear statement of what Britain would lose with leaving the EU. It's true that negotiations could retrieve or replace some of this, but the Remain campaign wasn't remotely effective, in fact I think the Conservative element of the Remain team, more so than Jeremy Corbyn, stayed far too quiet about the real consequences of leaving for fear of upsetting the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party and splitting the party before June 23rd.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say that everyone had access to the information necessary to make their decision in June. Of course, not everyone chose to access that information - and, there were those who voted Remain who did so without thinking through the issues as well as those who voted Leave.
quote:True. What Remain never managed to do was demonstrate, in a way that people can relate too, the benefits of being in the EU. They talked about the consequences - "a bomb under the economy", Osbourne's punishment budget etc. I'm not sure this was because they didn't want to upset the Eurosceptics. More likely is most of them don't have a clue about life outside the M25 or for those who didn't go to Eton.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:What was missing was an honest and clear statement of what Britain would lose with leaving the EU. It's true that negotiations could retrieve or replace some of this, but the Remain campaign wasn't remotely effective, in fact I think the Conservative element of the Remain team, more so than Jeremy Corbyn, stayed far too quiet about the real consequences of leaving for fear of upsetting the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party and splitting the party before June 23rd.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say that everyone had access to the information necessary to make their decision in June. Of course, not everyone chose to access that information - and, there were those who voted Remain who did so without thinking through the issues as well as those who voted Leave.
quote:and not just Eurosceptics in the Parliamentary party. Their electorate was skeptic by a majority:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In fact I think the Conservative element of the Remain team, more so than Jeremy Corbyn, stayed far too quiet about the real consequences of leaving for fear of upsetting the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party and splitting the party before June 23rd.
quote:I love the fact that 4% of UKIP supporters voted Remain. Did they miss the memo or what?!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:and not just Eurosceptics in the Parliamentary party. Their electorate was skeptic by a majority:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In fact I think the Conservative element of the Remain team, more so than Jeremy Corbyn, stayed far too quiet about the real consequences of leaving for fear of upsetting the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party and splitting the party before June 23rd.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg
(As you mention Corbyn there, worth pointing out once more that Labour voters were split along the same lines as the SNP).
quote:They could have been persuaded to Remain but that campaign was so lacklustre that I doubt it. I think it more likely that they took a look at the leading Leavers and didn't like what they saw.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I love the fact that 4% of UKIP supporters voted Remain. Did they miss the memo or what?!
Tubbs
quote:And yet, when a Prime Minister is kicked out or resigns or dies or is presumed dead (they never DID find Harold Holt's body), none of this inherently triggers a new election.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:This may have been true in the 18th Century but certainly hasn't been since the rise of the party system.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which makes not the slightest difference in a Westminster system, as you bloody well know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It means that she hasn't won an election as leader.
David Cameron was not on your ballot paper last election unless you lived in his constituency, so the fact that Theresa May was not on your ballot paper either means zero.
Vote on the POLICIES of each party by all means, but thinking of it in terms of voting for a person as Prime Minister is just idiotic.
Constitutionally and legally it is undoubtedly the case that Theresa May is every bit as much the rightwise Prime Minister of the UK as David Cameron was. But if you vote for a party which purports, however implausibly, to have a claim to form the next government you do so in the knowledge that your vote will contribute to the electoral mandate of the Party Leader as Prime Minister, and if the Party Leader is popular his or her stardust will contribute to your MP's success, particularly if you are voting in a marginal constituency. And a decision whether or not to go for an early election upon inheriting the leadership of the Parliamentary Party may impact upon the Prime Minister's standing. Sir Anthony Eden enhanced his by calling, and winning, a snap general election in order to claim his own mandate and Gordon Brown weakened his by failing to do so. (Mrs May, ironically, was one of those who remarked on the weakness of his position.) The issue was sufficiently important that, in 1987, Neil Kinnock was forced to deny that he would be forced out of office by the hard left should he be become Prime Minister.
Granted, Prime Ministers are not directly elected but it's not strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney, either.
quote:How could I possibly negate your prediction of the future in several decades time?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Your jibe doesn't affect the accuracy of my post. Try doing that instead.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh look. The melodrama is back.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken.
quote:You couldn't. How about adding that to the growing list of things you can't do?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:How could I possibly negate your prediction of the future in several decades time?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Your jibe doesn't affect the accuracy of my post. Try doing that instead.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh look. The melodrama is back.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken.
quote:It is strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney. Strictly, it is not correct to say that anyone else voted for him.
Granted, Prime Ministers are not directly elected but it's not strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney, either.
quote:If you know your predictions are accurate, any tips on tonight's Euromillions numbers?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:You couldn't. How about adding that to the growing list of things you can't do?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:How could I possibly negate your prediction of the future in several decades time?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Your jibe doesn't affect the accuracy of my post. Try doing that instead.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh look. The melodrama is back.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The real victims weren't able to vote, or not even born when the vote was taken.
quote:Exactly what happens when a party leader leaves his position for less terminal reasons? How the hell does that invalidate my point?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And yet, when a Prime Minister is kicked out or resigns or dies or is presumed dead (they never DID find Harold Holt's body), none of this inherently triggers a new election.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:This may have been true in the 18th Century but certainly hasn't been since the rise of the party system.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Which makes not the slightest difference in a Westminster system, as you bloody well know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It means that she hasn't won an election as leader.
David Cameron was not on your ballot paper last election unless you lived in his constituency, so the fact that Theresa May was not on your ballot paper either means zero.
Vote on the POLICIES of each party by all means, but thinking of it in terms of voting for a person as Prime Minister is just idiotic.
Constitutionally and legally it is undoubtedly the case that Theresa May is every bit as much the rightwise Prime Minister of the UK as David Cameron was. But if you vote for a party which purports, however implausibly, to have a claim to form the next government you do so in the knowledge that your vote will contribute to the electoral mandate of the Party Leader as Prime Minister, and if the Party Leader is popular his or her stardust will contribute to your MP's success, particularly if you are voting in a marginal constituency. And a decision whether or not to go for an early election upon inheriting the leadership of the Parliamentary Party may impact upon the Prime Minister's standing. Sir Anthony Eden enhanced his by calling, and winning, a snap general election in order to claim his own mandate and Gordon Brown weakened his by failing to do so. (Mrs May, ironically, was one of those who remarked on the weakness of his position.) The issue was sufficiently important that, in 1987, Neil Kinnock was forced to deny that he would be forced out of office by the hard left should he be become Prime Minister.
Granted, Prime Ministers are not directly elected but it's not strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney, either.
You'd do well to think about the death case. What exactly do you think should happen if the PM dies?
quote:You can be as strict as you want, but I think the fact that a political party has never won a General Election when the Party Leader has been behind his opposite number on leadership, indicates that the desirability of Mr Cameron, or not, as PM had some salience to the choices made in other constituencies.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:It is strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney. Strictly, it is not correct to say that anyone else voted for him.
Granted, Prime Ministers are not directly elected but it's not strictly correct to say that the only people to have voted for David Cameron were the electors of Witney, either.
quote:Since when did a frequently used phrase count as a cliche? That makes "good morning" a cliche.
Originally posted by Gee D:
That is an entirely different argument to the one which you were putting. You now sound pretty close to admitting that your use of the cliché "strictly correct"was as inaccurate as it usually is.
quote:There may have been a few wacky eccentrics who wanted Ed Miliband to be the next Prime Minister but nonetheless voted for Sir Bufton Tufton, or whoever, because he is a good constituency MP but, if you vote in a General Election, a vote for an MP belonging to the same party as the Prime Minister will contribute to the electoral mandate of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is, if you like, indirectly elected. In some meaningful sense, therefore, a vote for Sir Bufton was also a vote for David Cameron.
But if you vote for a party which purports, however implausibly, to have a claim to form the next government you do so in the knowledge that your vote will contribute to the electoral mandate of the Party Leader as Prime Minister, and if the Party Leader is popular his or her stardust will contribute to your MP's success, particularly if you are voting in a marginal constituency.
quote:As I said, I've got no problem with voting for party policies.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Strictly? Come Dancing around a single word.
We all know that the strict, formal way people are supposed to vote is how virtually no one actually votes. We know we're supposed to vote for an individual candidate, on the merits of that candidate. But, most people wouldn't be able to recognise any of the candidates if they were walking down the street (unless festooned with coloured ribbons), maybe the sitting MP would be known. There's no way any candidate can be personally known to 70,000+ people - and, how are we to judge the merits of someone we don't know? are they trustworthy? will they be diligent and hardworking? All we have to go on are what their supporters say, and any existing record of their political career (local authority seats, and for the sitting MP their record in Parliament). So, the vast majority of people cast their vote on the basis of what party they represent, and the face of the party isn't the local candidate but the party leader.
quote:They are completely different animals. One is, as you would know if you looked at the name a lottery, while the other isn't little more than me agreeing with economists and other sages working with hard evidence that things will get worse.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you know your predictions are accurate, any tips on tonight's Euromillions numbers?
quote:Which is why May may next May.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
.....agreeing with economists and other sages working with hard evidence that things will get worse.
quote:The economists and other sages already predicted a significant downturn straight after the referendum. It didn't happen, hence a rash of articles a few weeks ago discussing "why didn't the downturn we predicted happen?"
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They are completely different animals. One is, as you would know if you looked at the name a lottery, while the other isn't little more than me agreeing with economists and other sages working with hard evidence that things will get worse.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you know your predictions are accurate, any tips on tonight's Euromillions numbers?
The odds are very, very different too.
quote:Thing is, no one knows how things are going to go because random shit that will affect the outcomes hasn't happened yet. All people can do is take an educated guess. If you're reading The Guardian that educated guess will be very different to the one you'll get from The Telegraph.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The economists and other sages already predicted a significant downturn straight after the referendum. It didn't happen, hence a rash of articles a few weeks ago discussing "why didn't the downturn we predicted happen?"
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They are completely different animals. One is, as you would know if you looked at the name a lottery, while the other isn't little more than me agreeing with economists and other sages working with hard evidence that things will get worse.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you know your predictions are accurate, any tips on tonight's Euromillions numbers?
The odds are very, very different too.
There is no doubt some skill involved in some of this work, but it takes some gumption to treat such predictions as gospel right after the first set of predictions failed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
quote:The problem is (and was) that there aren't enough lifeboats. Yes, if there's a job in Ireland that gives me a personal lifeboat. But, it doesn't help the millions of people who are going to be left on board Brittania as she sinks beneath the waves she once ruled.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
Then get in the fucking lifeboat and row away.
quote:And?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The problem is (and was) that there aren't enough lifeboats. Yes, if there's a job in Ireland that gives me a personal lifeboat. But, it doesn't help the millions of people who are going to be left on board Brittania as she sinks beneath the waves she once ruled.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
Then get in the fucking lifeboat and row away.
quote:I've no idea what happened to you between 10 July and 2 September, but it hasn't done your temper, patience or intellect any good whatsoever.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
Then get in the fucking lifeboat and row away.
quote:I've no idea what happened to your memory or your ability to research what I've been like for the last 8 years or so, but I can't say I'm enjoying the results.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I've no idea what happened to you between 10 July and 2 September, but it hasn't done your temper, patience or intellect any good whatsoever.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
Then get in the fucking lifeboat and row away.
quote:It wasn't my analogy either. But, for simplicity we have two groups of people:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The solution around here appears to be "If we start now there's still time to build a new hull".
quote:A fair enough description. But there's a significant element to be added...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It wasn't my analogy either. But, for simplicity we have two groups of people:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The solution around here appears to be "If we start now there's still time to build a new hull".
1. Those who consider that Brexit has punched a massive hole in the hull, that will eventually sink us
2. Those who consider Brexit is a wee bump that has caused no damage, and we're now free to sail away from Europe to once more rule the waves. With, obviously, no danger of sinking
For those of us in category 1 the options certainly include:
a) bailing furiously in the hope we can stay afloat long enough to find dry land
b) a patch to stop us taking in more water so we can continue sailing, but recognise it'll probably fail come the first storm
c) find a dry dock where we can rebuild the hull as a permanent fix, there will be a lot of expense but it should stop us sinking
d) abandon ship
Of those, c) is by far the prefered option. a) and b) are just stop gap measures at best.
quote:You missed
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It wasn't my analogy either. But, for simplicity we have two groups of people:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The solution around here appears to be "If we start now there's still time to build a new hull".
1. Those who consider that Brexit has punched a massive hole in the hull, that will eventually sink us
2. Those who consider Brexit is a wee bump that has caused no damage, and we're now free to sail away from Europe to once more rule the waves. With, obviously, no danger of sinking
For those of us in category 1 the options certainly include:
a) bailing furiously in the hope we can stay afloat long enough to find dry land
b) a patch to stop us taking in more water so we can continue sailing, but recognise it'll probably fail come the first storm
c) find a dry dock where we can rebuild the hull as a permanent fix, there will be a lot of expense but it should stop us sinking
d) abandon ship
Of those, c) is by far the prefered option. a) and b) are just stop gap measures at best.
quote:Bit of an issue if you're trying to find a dry dock, is my point.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment it seems like we're going round in circles with no one steering the boat.
quote:That's what concerns me. Before July 10th you were sharp but intelligent and rational. Since your two-month hiatus you've been like a bear with a sore head.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've no idea what happened to your memory or your ability to research what I've been like for the last 8 years or so, but I can't say I'm enjoying the results.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I've no idea what happened to you between 10 July and 2 September, but it hasn't done your temper, patience or intellect any good whatsoever.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Titanic was still afloat two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg, too.
Then get in the fucking lifeboat and row away.
quote:No, in some ways I do agree, but your attitude, to the whole of mankind, appears to have changed and not for the better. It can't be the heat because it's been what passes for winter downunder. Not for the first time, I'm puzzled.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. I see. Because I don't agree with you my mental faculties are in question. Got it.
quote:An even more significant question is: which group is correct?
Originally posted by orfeo:
A fair enough description. But there's a significant element to be added...
Which group is steering the boat?
quote:And we still have to do the fucking rowing.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's obvious. It's the group that agrees with me.
Unfortunately, the ship has been taken over by mutinous scum and the captain and crew who should be steering us are locked in their cabins.
quote:What board is this? Oh yeah, Hell. Which, in part, is for gnashing of teeth and wailing, with no designated levels of proportionality. So your whinging about our whinging is within scope, but also kinda ridiculous.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just following through with the latest melodramatic We're All DOOMED! pronouncement on this thread.
quote:Actually I belong to another group who:
It wasn't my analogy either. But, for simplicity we have two groups of people:
1. Those who consider that Brexit has punched a massive hole in the hull, that will eventually sink us
2. Those who consider Brexit is a wee bump that has caused no damage, and we're now free to sail away from Europe to once more rule the waves. With, obviously, no danger of sinking
quote:That is a very good use of homographs
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And we still have to do the fucking rowing.
.
quote:I am in group 4a) I think this is what we should work towards with the caveat that, if we can turn things around, we should get on with it. I note that the Swiss Referendum to preclude free movement is on the verge of being tossed out on the grounds that the Swiss Parliament think that losing the trade deal with the EU. If we can effect something similar, well and good, if not we ought to aim for EEA status.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:quote:Actually I belong to another group who:
It wasn't my analogy either. But, for simplicity we have two groups of people:
1. Those who consider that Brexit has punched a massive hole in the hull, that will eventually sink us
2. Those who consider Brexit is a wee bump that has caused no damage, and we're now free to sail away from Europe to once more rule the waves. With, obviously, no danger of sinking
4) Agree with Tubbs' Group 3 that what's done is done and we have to work on a solution that will see us outside the EU but still with a working economy and functional society and with as little damage to our international reputation as possible, but being British reserve the right to make jokes about the situation. It's the way we cope.
And as Alan says... getting in the lifeboat and rowing away will only work for some people.
quote:The whole of mankind?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:No, in some ways I do agree, but your attitude, to the whole of mankind, appears to have changed and not for the better. It can't be the heat because it's been what passes for winter downunder. Not for the first time, I'm puzzled.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. I see. Because I don't agree with you my mental faculties are in question. Got it.
quote:Kinda ridiculous? So, you think that the way Hell has worked for the last X years is that whenever someone comes down here and complains about something, all the other Shipmates gather around and say "oh I KNOW" and offer a cup of tea?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What board is this? Oh yeah, Hell. Which, in part, is for gnashing of teeth and wailing, with no designated levels of proportionality. So your whinging about our whinging is within scope, but also kinda ridiculous.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just following through with the latest melodramatic We're All DOOMED! pronouncement on this thread.
Also, what Sioni said.
quote:No, you pathetic excuse for an educated idiot, you are being a grumpy sarcastic bastard at all times and in all places. All the redeeming defects you may once have had have left you way behind, leaving a sad shell of the orfeo we once knew.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The whole of mankind?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:No, in some ways I do agree, but your attitude, to the whole of mankind, appears to have changed and not for the better. It can't be the heat because it's been what passes for winter downunder. Not for the first time, I'm puzzled.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. I see. Because I don't agree with you my mental faculties are in question. Got it.
And you're basing this on my engagement with how many threads exactly?
I'm being a grumpy sarcastic bastard on this thread because that's what I think it deserves, especially the kind of spineless whining that you, among others, are engaging in.
Also, we're in Hell you numbskull.
quote:What the hell do any of my posts have to do with your sexual preferences (or those of anyone else for that matter)? You reckon you're the clever one here, compared to me at any rate, so go on, explain my homophobia to me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh knock it off. You're suffering from a massive case of confirmation bias which involves reading posts I make here in Hell or in Dead Horses about homophobia and treating them as (a) encapsulating my entire personality and (b) somehow fundamentally changed from the posts I used to make here in Hell or in Dead Horses about homophobia.
I've been telling people when I think their arguments are stupid for years. And around here I've been doing it with exactly the same tone for years.
Thanks for helping to make the thread all about me, though, it's doing my ego wonders. Disappear mysteriously for a while and all the Shipmates get excited. It's like my own gossip column.
quote:Um... reading comprehension skills fail on a massive scale?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:What the hell do any of my posts have to do with your sexual preferences (or those of anyone else for that matter)? You reckon you're the clever one here, compared to me at any rate, so go on, explain my homophobia to me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh knock it off. You're suffering from a massive case of confirmation bias which involves reading posts I make here in Hell or in Dead Horses about homophobia and treating them as (a) encapsulating my entire personality and (b) somehow fundamentally changed from the posts I used to make here in Hell or in Dead Horses about homophobia.
I've been telling people when I think their arguments are stupid for years. And around here I've been doing it with exactly the same tone for years.
Thanks for helping to make the thread all about me, though, it's doing my ego wonders. Disappear mysteriously for a while and all the Shipmates get excited. It's like my own gossip column.
quote:Yes, I think that is the way Hell works, that is why I am all sweetness and light in this dank preserve.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Kinda ridiculous? So, you think that the way Hell has worked for the last X years is that whenever someone comes down here and complains about something, all the other Shipmates gather around and say "oh I KNOW" and offer a cup of tea?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What board is this? Oh yeah, Hell. Which, in part, is for gnashing of teeth and wailing, with no designated levels of proportionality. So your whinging about our whinging is within scope, but also kinda ridiculous.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just following through with the latest melodramatic We're All DOOMED! pronouncement on this thread.
Also, what Sioni said.
It does happen sometimes. Sometimes the whole Ship is pretty much united in railing against some external villain or circumstance. But if you genuinely think that's standard Hell procedure you're delusional.
Sioni is out of his depth around here.
quote:Yep. I have come across similar data... I think it's 71% / 69% but can't be bothered to look it up... that's the percentages who want to end free movement and maintain access to the single market.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
According to this article:
The brexit the public wants isn't the one they'll get
52% of the public think that we can stay in the single market but with restrictions on freedom of movement.
Further evidence that 52% of the population don't appreciate the wider implications of their actions (not very hellish but I'm being charitable)
Looks like we're heading for hard Brexit, which will be a very rough ride. Fasten your seatbelts.
quote:I keep hearing this term "Hard Brexit" but I'm puzzled what it means in terms of signing pieces of paper. As far as I can tell it has two facets:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like we're heading for hard Brexit, which will be a very rough ride. Fasten your seatbelts.
quote:Have you not noticed which bits of this conversation have me rolling my eyes at the doom merchants, and which bits don't?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yes, I think that is the way Hell works, that is why I am all sweetness and light in this dank preserve.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Kinda ridiculous? So, you think that the way Hell has worked for the last X years is that whenever someone comes down here and complains about something, all the other Shipmates gather around and say "oh I KNOW" and offer a cup of tea?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What board is this? Oh yeah, Hell. Which, in part, is for gnashing of teeth and wailing, with no designated levels of proportionality. So your whinging about our whinging is within scope, but also kinda ridiculous.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just following through with the latest melodramatic We're All DOOMED! pronouncement on this thread.
Also, what Sioni said.
It does happen sometimes. Sometimes the whole Ship is pretty much united in railing against some external villain or circumstance. But if you genuinely think that's standard Hell procedure you're delusional.
Sioni is out of his depth around here.
People are voicing genuine concern about what is very unlikely to be a bettering of the country and the sad state of just what percentage of racist, xenophobes there truly are. I'm not saying that you cannot be a myopic dick about it, I'm just saying that you are being a myopic dick about it.
As for Sioni being out of his depth here, I also had the impression that your behaviour had changed, though prior to your departure and continued upon your return.*
If you think it is because I am out of my depth down here, then it will be diminished capacity that we are sensing.
*If I am wrong, then I am genuinely happy to be wrong.
quote:Though, most nations haven't spent the last 50 years becoming closer to Europe markets. Most nations haven't encouraged substantial economic investment built upon access to the Common Market - both for free trade and free movement of labour. Most nations haven't come to depend upon immigrant labour, relying on the ease of employing qualified staff from a vast labour market. And, of course, the UK will also drop out of a large number of trade agreements with non-EU nations with corresponding knock-on effects, on the UK and the other partner.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This particular bit of logic just seems to be rarely addressed. There's this weird fairytale idea that the EU is the sole arbiter of the UK's economic fortunes, which seems completely blind to the fact that being in or out of the EU hasn't been the sole arbiter of other countries' economic fortunes.
quote:Yes, but isn't it nice to know that 52% of the electorate are starry-eyed optimists?
52% of the public think that we can stay in the single market but with restrictions on freedom of movement.
Further evidence that 52% of the population don't appreciate the wider implications of their actions (not very hellish but I'm being charitable)
quote:Communities relying on specific industries, yes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are communities where I live that haven't recovered from the collapse in coal mining/steelworking/shipbuilding, all of which happened in the 80s. That's three decades.
So I'm thinking decades is about right.
quote:I don't think you realise just how shit we collectively are at this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Communities relying on specific industries, yes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are communities where I live that haven't recovered from the collapse in coal mining/steelworking/shipbuilding, all of which happened in the 80s. That's three decades.
So I'm thinking decades is about right.
An entire national economy? I'm more dubious.
quote:I guess our worst case is that a sizeable chunk of the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I don't think you realise just how shit we collectively are at this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Communities relying on specific industries, yes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are communities where I live that haven't recovered from the collapse in coal mining/steelworking/shipbuilding, all of which happened in the 80s. That's three decades.
So I'm thinking decades is about right.
An entire national economy? I'm more dubious.
When I was wandering around Western Australia, there were ghost towns - former mining towns that once were homes to ten thousand people - and now almost all gone, because the reason for the town had gone. The people upped and left to follow the work. The town is abandoned and eaten by termites.
Not so in Britain. We have whole towns and villages that serve almost no purpose but to warehouse the unemployed. That is how we've done things here, and there's no incentive for us to change that now.
quote:This is an almost word-for-word rehash of what some people said in c. 2000 about would happen if Britain didn't join the Euro.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I guess our worst case is that a sizeable chunk of the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt.
quote:What didn't happen then is no guide to what might happen in the future. Remember that Britain retained a lot of international financial services through deregulation which the banks loved and turned out to cost Britain dear.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This is an almost word-for-word rehash of what some people said in c. 2000 about would happen if Britain didn't join the Euro.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I guess our worst case is that a sizeable chunk of the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt.
quote:It really isn't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This is an almost word-for-word rehash of what some people said in c. 2000 about would happen if Britain didn't join the Euro.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I guess our worst case is that a sizeable chunk of the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt.
quote:It’s hard to tell what’s going to happen there. Northern Ireland would, if it reunited with Eire, automatically join the EU. It’s what they did for Germany.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Not joining the Euro may have had some economic impact, I don't really know enough to say and it may be that such things are impossible to measure in a 'might have been' world. I still don't think the main issue is one of economics though - despite it being the main focus of this thread and of all public debate on the subject. To me, it's a much broader issue that involves both European and international politics, social cohesion and a united front against various evils that assault our world, etc, etc. That's not to say that Britain cannot continue to be a part part of this or indeed contribute to it, but I think it would perhaps be very foolish to suggest that a Brexit hasn't seriously weakened their position and given strength and impetus to some of the more unfavourable aspects of various evils that like to have a voice to be heard within Europe.
The major thing I can see - looking in from the outside - is the break up of the UK. Now I could make all manner of jokes about the possible formation of a United Celtic Nations, but leaving aside my draw to be flippant about the subject, I'm not sure England knows what it seems to pushing itself into. It seems to be stumbling blind towards an accidental independence, where Scotland will instigate the break up. Economic survival will certainly be on the agenda of all if/when that happens, but I do think that a Brexit has helped to increase the possibility of an independent Scotland. The knock on effects of this of course would be far more insular politics and the UK really hasn't had to deal with this in any serious way. It faces something of the edge of it in dealing with certain aspects of the politics and social mess of Northern Ireland, but that is generally perceived as being outside the door rather than in the front room. It's when that type of politics becomes 'front room' that a major problem arises.
quote:Yes, but I'm not sure that's likely. If Scotland got independence I think there might be a likelihood of a united Ireland in my lifetime, but if not, Northern Ireland will become a bit of basket case if there is an economic crash throughout the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland incorporated into Ireland would seem a sensible option, if a tad dicey politically and socially, but I suspect the greatest barrier to it - rather ironically - would be Ireland's own political parties. There is absolutely no appetite for it at all outside of SF and some of them even recently have given the impression that they would vociferously and energetically reject it.
It’s hard to tell what’s going to happen there. Northern Ireland would, if it reunited with Eire, automatically join the EU.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:It really isn't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This is an almost word-for-word rehash of what some people said in c. 2000 about would happen if Britain didn't join the Euro.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I guess our worst case is that a sizeable chunk of the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt.
quote:- Frankfurt vs London: The battle for supremacy, BBC, 1999
A survey by property consultants Healey & Baker indicated that almost half of all senior executives in Europe believe Frankfurt could supersede London as Europe's financial capital.
So will the UK's decision not to adopt the euro in the near future leave London out in the cold?
Or will London be able to fight off the threat from Frankfurt and continue to eclipse continental capitals of finance?
quote:- The five tests, Julian Glover, 2000
Test two How would adopting the single currency affect our financial services?
In theory this means: We'll all want to join the euro if staying outside looks like killing the City of London.
In practice this means: Virtually nothing. No one can judge the euro's real impact on financial services.
Pro-Europeans say: Panic! Everyone's moving to Frankfurt! Sceptics say: Who wants to live in Frankfurt? And anyway it's dollars, not euros, that count in the world of the money-men.
quote:- Richard Layard, Willem Buiter, Christopher Huhne, Will Hutton, Peter Kenen and Adair Turner, 2002
Continental financial centres such as Frankfurt and Paris will try very hard to stimulate the virtuous circle that has taken London to pre-eminence [if Britain became the sole EU member outside the euro-zone]... Continental determination to avoid London’s dominance would undoubtedly increase if it became clear that Britain’s absence from the euro was permanent. And British exclusion from euro-zone finance ministers’ discussions would permit the use of that forum to develop initiatives aimed at enlarging the roles of Continental centres at the expense of London.
quote:As I said, nothing of the sort, it's not a rehash, the first is an advocacy organization (for higher property prices in London), the second says nothing of the sort. The only thing that may be is the final PDF (where you exclusively quote from one side of the paper) and where they pose financial exclusion as one of a number of possibilities.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QB][/QB]
quote:How is "Panic! Everyone's moving to Frankfurt!" (Glover is obviously humorously summarising an argument there) so much different from "the financial services sector packs its bags and goes to, say, Frankfurt."? Or are we talking at cross-purposes?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As I said, nothing of the sort, it's not a rehash.
quote:Near-Earth asteroid expert
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
quote:
Yeah, I've some bad news about that 'sky is falling' thing.
quote:Parodying an argument that was so common you could only find a property consultant who was reporting it second hand?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How is "Panic! Everyone's moving to Frankfurt!" (Glover is obviously humorously summarising an argument there)
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As I said, nothing of the sort, it's not a rehash.
quote:SF called for it immediately after the Referendum. A few politicians in Eire did as well, but I got the impression it was because they felt that was the sort of thing they should say rather than because they wanted it.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Tubbs:
quote:Yes, but I'm not sure that's likely. If Scotland got independence I think there might be a likelihood of a united Ireland in my lifetime, but if not, Northern Ireland will become a bit of basket case if there is an economic crash throughout the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland incorporated into Ireland would seem a sensible option, if a tad dicey politically and socially, but I suspect the greatest barrier to it - rather ironically - would be Ireland's own political parties. There is absolutely no appetite for it at all outside of SF and some of them even recently have given the impression that they would vociferously and energetically reject it.
It’s hard to tell what’s going to happen there. Northern Ireland would, if it reunited with Eire, automatically join the EU.
quote:That, and it has dawned on her and the rest of the government that an Act of Parliament can only be undone by another Act of Parliament, hence the Great Repeal Bill.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So all the fun is to begin on April/May of 2017. Much quicker than I thought, but I guess May has been under pressure to do something other than utter her favourite catchphrase.
quote:For some time the government was harrumphing about not needing anything like a vote in Parliament. The threat of legal action has brought the government round.
Originally posted by Cod:
As the European Communities Act 1972 empowers Brussels to make law for the UK, yes it does make sense to repeal it as of the date the UK leaves the EU. I would be surprised if any parliamentarian didn't realise that.
quote:Yeah, those are all plausible thoughts. It's not too difficult, if that's what is wanted, to do something that preserves the laws that they want to preserve and doesn't chance the legal landscape.
Originally posted by M.:
Early on, I heard some talk of amending the European Communities Act, which would save European legislation brought into law in the ÛK via stautory instrument, but wouldn't save EU Regulations*.
My guess - and it is just a guess - is that we will need some sort of general statute into which we can dump all EU Regulations and those parts of Directives brought into force by S/I under the Act. We can then spend the next however many years (10 perhaps?) sorting through and deciding what we want to keep, what amend and what discard.
*EU Directives have to be brought into force by each member state. In the UK this is done sometimes by Act of Parliament, which is, well, an Act of Parliament but mostly by statutory instrument, which is secondary legislation and requires an Act of Parliament to have any validity. A lot is brought in under the EC Act, so if that is repealed, all that law disappears. EU Regulations are directly effective and don't have to be brought into force by member states. So when we leave, all that will go also.
I think we need a big bag to dump it all in while it gets sorted out.
M.
quote:Technically, a Parliamentary vote to repeal the 1972 Act isn't what the legal action is calling for. The legal action (one of at least three in the courts at present) seeks to obtain Parliamentary approval for invoking Article 50.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For some time the government was harrumphing about not needing anything like a vote in Parliament. The threat of legal action has brought the government round.
quote:Which, would presumably need another farcical referendum. This time to withdraw from something that the UK was instrumental in creating in the first place. Which would at least show that the June referendum wasn't as stupid as we can get. We do seem to be working hard at displacing the Crimean independence vote from the position of "most idiotic referendum of modern Europe".
many will be disappointed that European Court of Human Rights (based in Strasbourg) will remain effective. We would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe to do that.
quote:This has got absolutely nothing to do with the legal action you mention. The claim in that legal action is that the process of Brexit can't even begin without Parliament passing an act allowing this.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For some time the government was harrumphing about not needing anything like a vote in Parliament. The threat of legal action has brought the government round.
Originally posted by Cod:
As the European Communities Act 1972 empowers Brussels to make law for the UK, yes it does make sense to repeal it as of the date the UK leaves the EU. I would be surprised if any parliamentarian didn't realise that.
btw, I see that the Great Repeal Bill will also end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (based in Luxembourg) within the UK. I'm sure the Brexiteers will be pleased at that but many will be disappointed that European Court of Human Rights (based in Strasbourg) will remain effective. We would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe to do that.
quote:
Colombians, even those who backed the "No" vote, expressed shock at the outcome and uncertainty about the future.
"We never thought this could happen," said sociologist and "No" voter Mabel Castano, 37. "Now I just hope the government, the opposition and the FARC come up with something intelligent that includes us all." (from Reuters)
quote:But they will give a kind of simulacrum of intelligent government, as most governments do. This will satisfy some people, but not all, but then you can't satisfy all, all of the time.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sure the Columbian government will come up with something intelligent.
I hold out no such hope for the UK government.
quote:I think I slipped into a parallel universe at some point.
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
I want off this planet.
quote:It appears that something worse than a verbal assault has have happened to leading UKIP leadership hopeful Steven Woolfe. The Express reports that he was punched by a colleague and then collapsed. Looks like he isn't at all well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I see that UKIP have managed an 18 day leader. I think even the England manager would struggle to lose the job that quickly.
It appear Diane James was the victim of a verbal assault and got spat on. Which is, of course, a terrible thing to happen to anyone. However, I do seem to be feeling a bit short of sympathy for her. Probably due to the fact that the inflamatory campaign her party ran for Brexit has contributed to thousands of people being verbally and physically abused, and at least two murders.
quote:And good luck to her frankly! Would she consider a transfer? The whole country could do with the help, not just Scotland! Our PM appears to have turned into Nick Griffiths in a dress and pointy-wonties. (Yes, I know I've changed my tune!)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, it looks like a very clever political move. At present, I can't see an independence referendum being popular - the people of Scotland have had two referenda in as many years, a third anytime soon isn't generally wanted. That lack of popularity in the notion of another referendum, even in people who would be inclined to vote yes, will result in a low turn out, and probably a resounding defeat. Which will push independence into the long grass for decades, a disaster for the SNP and exactly what the Tories want.
It looks like the Tories have used the conference to goad the SNP into calling an early referendum. I hope Nicola has as steady a head on her shoulders as she seems to, and doesn't take the bait. She needs to push the government into as many concessions as she can get to compensate for the damage Brexit will cause in Scotland - use her 57 MPs and political capital from a Scottish remain vote to push for as soft a Brexit as possible, seek transfer of as much of the powers coming back from Brussels to Holyrood as possible, with the funding to go with them. If she gets all Scotland can manage then Scotland may not do too badly out of a soft Brexit (and, as far as the Scottish government is concerned England and Wales can bear the brunt of the effects of what they voted for). If she spends two years or more getting no concessions from Westminster then she will be building a much stronger case for independence ("they foisted a referendum we didn't want on us, they got a result which was not reflected in Scotland, and they've been unreasonable in not helping Scotland offset the damage their stupidity has inflicted on us") and a referendum sometime after the UK leaves the EU (autumn 2019 at the earliest).
quote:It says a lot about the way UKIP think of politics that their MEPs consider throughing punches to be an acceptable approach. I saw that over lunch, and my first thought was "you can take the man out of the National Front, but you can't take the National Front out of the man".
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It appears that something worse than a verbal assault has have happened to leading UKIP leadership hopeful Steven Woolfe. The Express reports that he was punched by a colleague and then collapsed. Looks like he isn't at all well.
quote:I think it shows that the hard Brexiteers are feeling insecure. Today in the Commons, a whole raft of MPs, from different parties, were arguing for greater scrutiny by them of Brexit. They weren't arguing against Brexit, but that there is discussion of what kind of Brexit.
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
Well, that's nice , isn't it?
quote:My memory isn't so sharp but I can't recall Eurosceptics or Leave campaigners being described as traitors while we were in the EU. Some might have been, but not simply by virtue of wanting out.
Originally posted by Callan:
Good article by Mr Chu.
My grandparents used to take the Express. It's worldview was not mine but it was, once upon a time, a serious newspaper. I wonder how long it will be before they run a front page with "Remoaners Killed Princess Di!"
quote:On the upside, Pot Noodle is another.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unilever is a multinational which owns over 400 brands, many of which are common items in the UK shopping basket. Some of these are produced abroad, and their cost has increased some 15-20%, which Unilever would like to pass along to Tesco. Tesco is refusing, and has delisted Unilever products.
Marmite is merely the collateral damage in a larger war.
quote:Which is (proudly?) made in the Welsh Valleys.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the upside, Pot Noodle is another.
quote:Because the largest costs associated with production is energy costs, followed by transportation costs (linked to energy costs).
Originally posted by Penny S:
How on earth can a product supposed to have been invented to use up the waste yeast from British breweries be affected by changes in the value of Sterling?
quote:I'm pretty sure that the major costs in making Marmite are in UK tax, labour and UK materials. Materials that vary on the international market are likely a minor part of the wholesale price - so whilst a small variation may indeed be in order, a 10% increase is hard to justify, particularly given that road fuel costs have not increased markedly for a long time.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because the largest costs associated with production is energy costs, followed by transportation costs (linked to energy costs).
So it's not implausible that the cost of production has gone up.
quote:I think you are overestimating the cost of dead yeast.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm pretty sure that the major costs in making Marmite are in UK tax, labour and UK materials.
quote:A number of the backwoods Tories are going off on similar(ish) lines:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Call the thought police!
At least that's what Councillor Christian Holliday has asked for, by launching a petition to amend the Treason Felony Act. If successful (at the time of writing, he has 201 signatures of the 100,000 needed for the petition to even be considered
quote:Perhaps I'm missing something, but I struggle to see the similarity between a call to criminalise certain thoughts (which is at best a rather dotty idea) and deciding to cancel a magazine subscription.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:A number of the backwoods Tories are going off on similar(ish) lines:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Call the thought police!
At least that's what Councillor Christian Holliday has asked for, by launching a petition to amend the Treason Felony Act. If successful (at the time of writing, he has 201 signatures of the 100,000 needed for the petition to even be considered
https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/787425569982050306
quote:It lies in tying certain thoughts to the idea of 'patriotism' while ruling out other thoughts for the opposite reason ("UK patriots shd do similar").
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I struggle to see the similarity between a call to criminalise certain thoughts (which is at best a rather dotty idea) and deciding to cancel a magazine subscription.
quote:I think other people are telling him that he's a pigeon-witted idiot, although not in so many words!
Originally posted by Sipech:
Call the thought police!
At least that's what Councillor Christian Holliday has asked for, by launching a petition to amend the Treason Felony Act. If successful (at the time of writing, he has 201 signatures of the 100,000 needed for the petition to even be considered for debate in Parliament), any support given to the idea that the UK should be part of the European Union will be considered as treason.
What a pigeon-witted idiot!
