As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
This sort of view really annoys me. Nothing personal DINLT but effectively what you are proposing is to screw over people in another part of the world simply because they are "out or sight, out of mind". It's all very well doing this, except of course, that the people it will effect are in an even worse position than even the poorest in this country. That we like to be consider nice and left leaning as long as it benefits us at the expense of them. It's just another type of exploitation that we are continuing comparable to the empire days. Instead of raw resources it is instead people whilst we happily ignore the consequences on those that experience the consequences of it. If we don't have enough doctors then we need to consider why that is and make it a more attractive environment (such as not exploiting their working hours).
What I find interesting about DINLT's proposal, is that it's so laughably unworkable. Consider: the UK has roughly 1 doctor for every 235 people. Meanwhile, India has 1 doctor for every 1300-1700 people. And he thinks he is just going to wave a british passport in front of them and get them to instantly go to the UK?
That is without even going into the amount of selection required for such a ridiculous scheme, because you are going to want to select and check their background. After all, who can say that DINLT brings back actual doctors and nurses when he returns with planes full of Indians? Another question that is bound to come up: are said doctors and nurses properly qualified? If they need some additional education or training, who is going to pay for that? how long will that take? and how will that affect their employment contracts?
Or am I just being dumb and will this all magically sort itself the moment the planes touch the ground in merry ole England?
Well at least they can fill the hole left by EU doctors and nurses that will leave the UK after Brexit!
Kilkrazy wrote:The high street situation will correct itself. As the high street dies, so too business rates die. Eventually the govermnent will be forced actually to tax out of town businesses at a realistic rate.
I like the "eventually" (and I fully expect it at some point) but we all know who will suffer the consequences while all this is happening over a few years/decades.
As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
So you intend to fix a problem in the UK by screwing over a different part of the world, because clearly those 50.000 Indian doctors aren't needed in ... India.
Without diving too deep into plan of yours (which also reeks of old British imperialism, good riddance), I find it hilarious that an adamant Brexiteer as yourself wants to solve a problem in the UK by ... importing 50.000 foreigners.
Whereas if we stayed in the EU; we wouldn't need so many doctors as we wouldn't be chasing away existing doctors that have been here for years.
Brexit was for all but a small percentage, all about getting rid of foreigners. Replacing white English speaking doctors with fresh Indian imports isn't going to go down well with the electorate.
I had a thought on the tax thing; Amazon themselves commented that it because we don’t tax revenue, so what if we did?
There’s ways I think you could do it; one is just flat stop taxing profit and tax revenue instead, problem is this could be very painful for businesses with low margins (particularly if they don’t have large reserves, like smaller independents).
Second would be to use it as a lever to encourage UK based businesses; if you report let’s say 75% of your profit within UK territory (where it can be taxed), you get taxed as normal. If it’s less than that, you get taxed on revenue in the UK, albeit at a lower rate. This would still allow smaller companies to have some overseas operations (GW would be an example).
Without diving too deep into plan of yours (which also reeks of old British imperialism, good riddance), I find it hilarious that an adamant Brexiteer as yourself wants to solve a problem in the UK by ... importing 50.000 foreigners.
I agree about the point on imperialism. However to be fair on DINLT I don't think he has ever objected to immigration or as a reason for Wrexit. Others have but not him. For DINLT it's more about an ideology that we don't need the EU and are better off without it (summarising). I don't think this is correct, the British Empire is long gone and any influence occurs from our ability to influence our allies through institutions such as the EU. Being isolated is only going to make us poorer socially, politically and economically.
It does however show a problem with the Wrexit referendum. Because there was no stated aims to vote on leave then different people could make up whatever they wanted which meant that different factions voted to Leave but for different things, whereas remaining meant only one thing. Hence leave got a whole gamut from the neo-nazi's, to racists, to bigots, to imperialists, to we just like to blame the EU, to we can make better trade deals, to it was better in the 60's, to blinkered it was greener in the past etc. It's one of the arguments for a new referendum once people know what they are getting...there is no way for Leavers to lie to the populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: I had a thought on the tax thing; Amazon themselves commented that it because we don’t tax revenue, so what if we did?
There’s ways I think you could do it; one is just flat stop taxing profit and tax revenue instead, problem is this could be very painful for businesses with low margins (particularly if they don’t have large reserves, like smaller independents).
Second would be to use it as a lever to encourage UK based businesses; if you report let’s say 75% of your profit within UK territory (where it can be taxed), you get taxed as normal. If it’s less than that, you get taxed on revenue in the UK, albeit at a lower rate. This would still allow smaller companies to have some overseas operations (GW would be an example).
The issue with tax is that we work in a global world. It allows the multinational companies to move money around to avoid tax.
My view is that the tax system should be changed to the following (simplistically):-
A. Take total global profit of the parent company.
B. Determine all sales undertaken globally (parent and subsidiaries)
C. Determine all sales undertaken in a respective country (parent and subsidiaries)
D. Determine percentage of sales in the applicable country C / D * 100
E. Multiply that percentage (D) to the global profit (A) to determine profit on that Country (and then take a tax percentage)
This way simplistically the profit is proportional to your sales in a country. The higher the sales the higher percentage of the profit you get to tax.
I would say to whirlwind and others that yes, it's not a good thing to be plundering the third world for doctors and nurses, as those countries will obviously need them.
But people are overlooking human nature here. People will always want to better themselves and enjoy a better life.
As an example, if an Indian doctor is getting 10 grand a year in India, but the USA or Germany, or the UK or whoever, is offering 80 grand a year. They will move.
Most people move in those circumstances. Happens all the time. It's not unique to the UK.
That's reality, and we need doctors, so why not make it easier to facilitate something that happens anyway?
So they need extra training? So what.
In a 20 year career, an average doctor will save dozens, if not hundreds of lives. That obviously pays for itself. The training money is cash well spent.
And on a final note, I didn't vote Brexit because I'm anti-Immigration.
We need the best wherever they may be. Why should the EU citizens get preference over an Indian surgeon, or a Peruvian engineer, or whatever?
As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
So you intend to fix a problem in the UK by screwing over a different part of the world, because clearly those 50.000 Indian doctors aren't needed in ... India.
Without diving too deep into plan of yours (which also reeks of old British imperialism, good riddance), I find it hilarious that an adamant Brexiteer as yourself wants to solve a problem in the UK by ... importing 50.000 foreigners.
I'm not anti-immigrant. It's silly to think that in a globalised world, you can keep people out. How can I be anti-immigrant when I'm calling for 50,000 non-white people to turn up?
You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in Britain who'd object to more doctors and nurse turning up, white or no white. If you're laying half dead on a hospital bed, you want cured, you've not giving two hoots for ethnicity.
I want the best of the best for Britain, from all points of the compass, from every continent, be they white, blue, black, green, or florescent yellow!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Whereas if we stayed in the EU; we wouldn't need so many doctors as we wouldn't be chasing away existing doctors that have been here for years.
Brexit was for all but a small percentage, all about getting rid of foreigners. Replacing white English speaking doctors with fresh Indian imports isn't going to go down well with the electorate.
That we need migrants is neither here nor there.
We need root and branch reform. Getting doctors from India would be a stop gap until we start churning out our own doctors. We should coordinate this policy with higher education, joined up thinking and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: With respect to the Indian proposal, there are several issues:
1. We already refused visas for several thousand very well qualified Indian doctors on the Learn/Earn/Return scheme.
2. We don't want more foreigners. The purpose of Brexit is to have fewer of them.
3. The advantage of Brexit is that having fewer foreigners, we can encourage more British people to go to medical school.
We've got some 'soft' cultural power with India, via the shared interest of cricket and the huge Indian diaspora in Britain. Plus, the Indian middle classes contain huge numbers of English speakers.
They are a demographic that is massively growing. Our tourist industry should target them, our immigration policy should be targeting their skilled professionals, and business should be rolling out the red carpet for them. Their purchasing power is huge. Some of them seem to like Britain.
Better to deal with a democracy like India than China. Plus, India obviously matches China's population.
I've said it before. India, that's the future. Send forth the cargo ships.
Dexeu discussing cancelling police leave for two months in case of ‘no deal’ Brexit backlash All police leave could be cancelled in the two months after Brexit
Plans to ask police chiefs to cancel officers’ leave in the two months after Brexit have been discussed in Whitehall as the government readies itself for the worst case scenario of social unrest caused by a No Deal. i understands that officials at the Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) are contemplating the move as they prepare to issue guidance to individuals and businesses over how they should prepare for a chaotic British exit from the EU next March. One MP protested last night that the police should be fighting crime rather than coping with a “no-deal shambles”.
While Brexiteers will dismiss the plan as scare-mongering, it comes after a raft of recent warnings of the consequence of a no-deal Brexit. These include the government stockpiling food to cope with food shortages, and a weekend report – later denied by Downing Street – that the army was on standby to cope with disorder.
Food shortages could happen because Britain is on a just-in-time import basis which could be scuppered by custom delays. Reports from a series of Freedom of Information requests this week also showed that many local authorities are preparing for civil unrest and while impact reports obtained by Sky from Kent County Council found it was preparing for 13 miles of the M20 near Dover to be a lorry park until at least 2023. A report by civil servants reached a conclusion similar to the local councils’ in June. In a worst case scenario, the port of Dover would “collapse on day one,” it said. Officials would have to charter planes to airlift medicines into the country, and within days petrol would be in short supply. Within two weeks, supermarket shelves would be bare. Half our food is imported, of which 80 per cent comes from Europe via Dover.
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: “The Police have not been asked to cancel leave. The Government is focused on securing a good Brexit deal which works in the interest of the UK and the EU.” Home Office sources pointed out that the government had no authority to intervene in the staffing arrangements of local forces. The government is preparing to issue two tranches of plans setting out proposals for no-deal planning over the next month. The Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, said it had not been made aware of the proposals. The Labour MP Chris Leslie, a former Cabinet Office minister for civil contingencies and emergency planning, said: “Nobody voted for a chaotic or dangerous Brexit. Nobody voted for their safety to be put at risk or for food supplies to be threatened or medicines to be stockpiled. Public safety “It is truly shocking that all of these things could now happen and that a botched Brexit could even end up threatening public safety. “Our police should be catching criminals, not preparing to handle a post-Brexit shambles.” Any such move is unlikely to be kindly received by police officers. Met Police officers alone saw 189,000 cancelled rest days last year because of “unprecedented” demands on the force. Officers had been allowed to carry rest days into 2018 and 2019, said Deputy Met Commissioner Craig Mackey.
Global Future, working with Populus, then asked the public how they felt about the four deals we analyse. In particular we asked whether they thought the overall cost of each deal represented ‘too high a price’ to leave the EU. In addition, we asked Leave voters whether each deal represented a deal that was as good or better than they had hoped for when casting their vote, or worse. In both cases the results were emphatic:
Leavers and the public at large reject every Brexit deal modelled by government, and ministers’ own preferred scenario (EEA, FTA, WTO, a bespoke deal), as Too High a Price to leave the EU by enormous majorities.
The vast majority of Leavers regard each deal as worse than they had hoped when voting to Leave the EU.
Finally, we asked voted, if forced to choose which deal they would like to leave the EU both Leavers
(narrowly), and the public at large (by a significant distance), chose the EEA model (the so-called Norway option) as their preferred deal of those on the table.
All these dire predictions if we leave the EU on WTO terms are like the Millennium Bug all over again. And about as realistic.
But that's the Brexiteers in a nutshell : no idea of how things actually are, just some entirely ludicrous fantasy about how they think things should or do work, reality be damned.
East Sussex council set to cut services to bare legal minimum
Tory-run authority reveals plan to avoid following Northamptonshire into bankruptcy
Fresh evidence of the funding crisis facing local government has emerged after a second Tory-run council said it was preparing to cut back services to the bare legal minimum to cope with a cash shortfall that could leave it bankrupt within three years.
East Sussex county council said growing financial pressures and rising demand for social care were forcing it to restrict services to the most vulnerable residents only. Under this “core offer”, many of its services will be severely cut or shut down completely.
It said families and neighbourhood voluntary groups would have to take increasing responsibility for supporting those older people who would no longer qualify for social care support from the council under the new arrangements.
East Sussex’s outline of its strategic approach, revealed in a council paper last month, appears to have been adopted wholesale by Tory-run Northamptonshire county council, which this week adopted an emergency cuts plan to reduce services to skeleton levels as it attempts to close a £70m black hole in its budget during the next few months.
Northamptonshire’s financial collapse has been portrayed by ministers as being down to chronic mismanagement rather than lack of government funding. However, East Sussex is regarded as a stable and well-run council, giving authority and credibility to its shock warnings of the consequences of underfunding.
East Sussex said that without more government funding, stripping services back to a core offer would be the best it could afford to deliver, although it added that without a sea change in local authority finances even this most basic model of municipal service might be unaffordable by 2021.
The government insists that the funding arrangements for local government strike a balance between relieving the pressure on councils and keeping council tax bills down. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said: “We are providing local authorities with £90.7bn over the next two years to meet the needs of their residents. We are also giving them the power to retain the growth in business rates income and are working with local government to develop a funding system for the future based on the needs of different areas.”
It is understood a number of other English county councils are drawing up core offer budget scenarios as they prepare for an increasingly tight financial future. Councils’ collective funding shortfall will reach nearly £6bn by next year. “The core offer is going to be increasingly the norm,” one local government insider said.
East Sussex said it was reluctant to comment on its core offer strategy, but confirmed it would be further developed over the next few weeks. Its chief executive, Becky Shaw, has insisted the core offer “paints an honest picture of the minimum that we realistically need to provide in the future”.
A cabinet paper written by Shaw said that having made £129m of savings since 2010 and facing a budget deficit of up to £46m within three years, the council would have to “concentrate services on those in most urgent need and will not be able to maintain a comprehensive offer of universal services to all residents”.
Although it regarded extra funding as essential to the council’s survival, the paper was gloomy about the prospects of a swift government intervention to ease councils’ financial crisis, saying that Brexit and the announcement of extra funding for the NHS had limited ministers’ scope to address wider social issues.
Although the government has promised a review of how council funding is shared out and a green paper on social care funding for older people, the paper said any changes would not be in place until 2021 “which leaves us with difficult decisions to make about the services we provide with our remaining resources”.
It said the county’s rapidly ageing population – a third of residents will be over 65 by 2031– meant it could not maintain current levels of care. “Our community will therefore need to take more responsibility for looking after themselves and each other to keep everyone safe and independent as long as possible.”
The paper said some statutory services, such as home-to-school transport for schoolchildren, while crucial in a largely rural area, were prohibitively expensive and financially unsustainable in the currently climate, and it would press ministers to lift some of the duties it currently placed on councils.
“For example, the £8m we are obliged to spend on concessionary fares for older people would provide care packages to allow 700 of the most vulnerable people in this group to continue live independently,” the paper stated.
It said rising levels of poverty in the county had resulted in an increase in child neglect cases. Although the council had deployed “early help” services to successfully support families and prevent the surge in child protection cases seen elsewhere in the country, these services were now at risk.
East Sussex’s core offer proposals, which were published and discussed at a meeting of senior councillors last month, appear to have been heavily plagiarised by Northamptonshire as it searches for a solution to its dire financial problems.
Whole passages of the East Sussex paper appear to have been cut and pasted into a discussion paper by the Northamptonshire county council leader, Matthew Golby, which was presented to an extraordinary meeting of the council held to discuss its dire finances on Wednesday evening.
There are minor differences of emphasis and tone in the Golby paper, which may reflect the greater urgency and scale of the crisis facing Northamptonshire. For example, while both versions promised to engage with local people, Northants added the rider that it would do so only “where required to by legislation”.
Similarly, while East Sussex promised that its core offer would “give the best possible customer service”, Northamptonshire, which is technically insolvent and faces having to make unprecedented levels of cuts, adapts this to the more downbeat “a reasonable level of customer service, within our means”.
A Northamptonshire spokesperson said: “Councils work together, through the Local Government Association, to share experience and best practice, to ensure we are making the best use of public funding and not duplicating effort. Northamptonshire has followed a path laid by others and East Sussex has done this particularly well.”
Meanwhile, Heather Smith, the former leader of Northamptonshire who stepped down in March after a critical inspector’s report, hit out at the current administration, calling them “slaves” to the county’s seven Conservative MPs, who include the leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom.
Smith, who resigned the Tory party whip on Friday, told Local Government Chronicle she had been made a scapegoat: “All I can say is what’s happening in Northamptonshire will come home to roost when there’s a general election and number of those MPs, who’ve done nothing to support Northamptonshire, will lose their jobs.
Simon Edwards, the director of the County Councils Network, said the core offer was the “stark reality” of cuts. He said: “Councils have a duty to be honest with residents and plan ahead, with many having no choice but to consider reducing services to the bare minimum as part of prudent financial strategies to protect vulnerable residents while fulfilling their legal obligation to deliver a balanced budget. The only way to avoid this is by government delivering a sustainable and fairer funding settlement for councils as part of next year’s spending review.”
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would say to whirlwind and others that yes, it's not a good thing to be plundering the third world for doctors and nurses, as those countries will obviously need them.
In that case, why suggest such a scheme?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But people are overlooking human nature here. People will always want to better themselves and enjoy a better life.
As an example, if an Indian doctor is getting 10 grand a year in India, but the USA or Germany, or the UK or whoever, is offering 80 grand a year. They will move.
Most people move in those circumstances. Happens all the time. It's not unique to the UK. That's reality, and we need doctors, so why not make it easier to facilitate something that happens anyway?
So they need extra training? So what.
In a 20 year career, an average doctor will save dozens, if not hundreds of lives. That obviously pays for itself. The training money is cash well spent. And on a final note, I didn't vote Brexit because I'm anti-Immigration. We need the best wherever they may be. Why should the EU citizens get preference over an Indian surgeon, or a Peruvian engineer, or whatever?
20 year carreer for a doctor? So what on extra training and the time that takes? Good to see you know nothing about the medical professions! As for your better life, not everybody wants to move away from their families. Your suggestion on this will be to allow their families to come over as well, but where do you draw the line? Are you going to bring in aunts and nephews thrice-removed just for a single doctor?
As for needing the best wherever they may be, why bother shipping in people from India when there is (Soon was, thankfully. Can't wait for the hard brexit you voted for! ) a continent filled with doctors and nurses that will require less training and already speak English as well? Thus meaning they could be moving in a lot quicker to help the NHS out?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not anti-immigrant. It's silly to think that in a globalised world, you can keep people out. How can I be anti-immigrant when I'm calling for 50,000 non-white people to turn up?
You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in Britain who'd object to more doctors and nurse turning up, white or no white. If you're laying half dead on a hospital bed, you want cured, you've not giving two hoots for ethnicity. I want the best of the best for Britain, from all points of the compass, from every continent, be they white, blue, black, green, or florescent yellow!
Hard pressed to find anybody in the UK that does not want more doctors and nurses if they happen to be brown? You would be surprised. You seem to base this on the illusion that racists are capable of looking at your suggestion rationally. Spoiler: they are not capable of doing so. You yourself not being anti-immigrant is irrelevant due to the sheer number of people in the UK that are anti-immigrant. Unfortunately, a good portion of western Europe seems to suffer from that particular problem.
And I just caught you in a lie. If you wanted the best for britain, as you claim, you would at very least have read up on what you were voting on before you voted leave. The fact that you have since learned a lot, as you stated a bunch of pages back, shows that you are incapable of judging what is the best for britain. After all how can you deem something to be the best for britain, when you're as ignorant as you are when making choices on important issues? Just wondering.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We need root and branch reform. Getting doctors from India would be a stop gap until we start churning out our own doctors. We should coordinate this policy with higher education, joined up thinking and all that.
Your fellow brexiteers will not view getting doctors from India in even remotely the same light as you do. Besides, as far as stop gap measures go it is poor. What do you do when you have changed your education system and gotten more doctors and nurses? Are they allowed to stay, or is it more likely that your fellow leavers would want them gone from the UK on account of them not being as white as they themselves are? And what kind of time frame are you thinking of? months? years? (spoiler: it is more likely to be decades, going by the amount of trouble changes in education systems tends to bring, which would all have to be sorted out as well.)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We've got some 'soft' cultural power with India, via the shared interest of cricket and the huge Indian diaspora in Britain. Plus, the Indian middle classes contain huge numbers of English speakers.
They are a demographic that is massively growing. Our tourist industry should target them, our immigration policy should be targeting their skilled professionals, and business should be rolling out the red carpet for them. Their purchasing power is huge. Some of them seem to like Britain.
Better to deal with a democracy like India than China. Plus, India obviously matches China's population.
I've said it before. India, that's the future. Send forth the cargo ships.
Send forth the cargo ships? Just how blind to history are you? edit: Seriously, "Send forth the cargo ships" is a really poor choice of words given the context of the UK being the former brutal colonial oppressor of India.
Yes. My own doctor has been a doctor for 30 years. 30 is more than 20? Right?
As for your better life, not everybody wants to move away from their families
Nowhere did I say that everybody wants to move away from their families.
a continent filled with doctors and nurses that will require less training and already speak English as well? Thus meaning they could be moving in a lot quicker to help the NHS out?
Does every doctor in Europe speak English? Won't they be needed in their own nations?
Hard pressed to find anybody in the UK that does not want more doctors and nurses if they happen to be brown? You would be surprised
I am surprised. We've had thousands of non-white doctors and nurses in the UK for nigh on 7 decades. The UK's leading heart surgeon doesn't have white skin. But I suppose they'll all be getting burnt at the stake soon by Brexiteers.
shows that you are incapable of judging what is the best for Britain.
As a British taxpayer for nigh on 5 decades, I'll be the judge of what's best for Britain. People like me have been the backbone of this country.
Are they allowed to stay, or is it more likely that your fellow leavers would want them gone from the UK on account of them not being as white as they themselves are?
No offence, but have you ever been to Britain? There are millions of non-white British citizens, most of which were born in Britain.
How are people like you the backbone of the country and what makes you think you know what's right; since you're willing to send us back to the stone age.
Are also blind to the anti-immigrant stance that makes up the bulk of the leave movement, or how racist a large minority of our population Are?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're pretty much the textbook definition of ignorant, by your own admission.
We've got some 'soft' cultural power with India, via the shared interest of cricket and the huge Indian diaspora in Britain. Plus, the Indian middle classes contain huge numbers of English speakers.
They are a demographic that is massively growing. Our tourist industry should target them, our immigration policy should be targeting their skilled professionals, and business should be rolling out the red carpet for them. Their purchasing power is huge. Some of them seem to like Britain.
I am surprised. We've had thousands of non-white doctors and nurses in the UK for nigh on 7 decades. The UK's leading heart surgeon doesn't have white skin. But I suppose they'll all be getting burnt at the stake soon by Brexiteers.
A few months ago I had a hilariously depressing encounter with a gentleman on my commute.
I was standing with him in the vestibule (it's impossible to get a seat on my trains to and from work) and as we waited for the train to leave the station we stuck up conversation.
After exchanging the usual banal pleasantries he informed me that he was on his way home from a court case where he was the defendant. He mentioned that it was especially burdensome for him to attend his court case because he had a badly injured arm, which he had loudly and continuously referred to since embarking.
I asked this man why he had been in court and he said that he had been charged with racially aggravated assault. He claimed that he was having surgery to repair his damaged arm and, in the middle of the surgery he noticed that one of the doctors working on him was Asian so he attacked him mid-surgery!
He then had the nerve to complain that the surgery was stopped and that his arm still hasn't been repaired.
My fellow passengers and I took the opportunity to let this bloke know just what a cretin he was before he decided it best to head down the carraige looking for a seat.
Some racists are Brexit supporters, therefore, all Brexit supporters are racist. Is that the logic at work here?
I must admit I do get tired of being tarred with the racist brush these past two years.
After all, the man who wants skilled non-white people from the rest of the world to come to Britain must be racist right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: How are people like you the backbone of the country and what makes you think you know what's right; since you're willing to send us back to the stone age.
Are also blind to the anti-immigrant stance that makes up the bulk of the leave movement, or how racist a large minority of our population Are?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're pretty much the textbook definition of ignorant, by your own admission.
I'm entitled to cast my vote as I see fit. Same as everybody else. I'm entitled to my own opinion, same as everybody else.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws, attend jury service and vote every election, even the EU elections, which is a damn sight more than most people have ever done.
Thanks to the business I run, I probably pay more tax than most people on dakka. I think I've earned the right to a say in my country's future.
Better than anybody else? No. Equal to everybody else? Absolutely.
If Remain supporters are not happy with us leaving the EU, then I suggest you elect some MPs with a spine who take us back in.
Perhaps you could call them Lib Dems. And perhaps you could get them to turn up for key votes?
I am surprised. We've had thousands of non-white doctors and nurses in the UK for nigh on 7 decades. The UK's leading heart surgeon doesn't have white skin. But I suppose they'll all be getting burnt at the stake soon by Brexiteers.
A few months ago I had a hilariously depressing encounter with a gentleman on my commute.
I was standing with him in the vestibule (it's impossible to get a seat on my trains to and from work) and as we waited for the train to leave the station we stuck up conversation.
After exchanging the usual banal pleasantries he informed me that he was on his way home from a court case where he was the defendant. He mentioned that it was especially burdensome for him to attend his court case because he had a badly injured arm, which he had loudly and continuously referred to since embarking.
I asked this man why he had been in court and he said that he had been charged with racially aggravated assault. He claimed that he was having surgery to repair his damaged arm and, in the middle of the surgery he noticed that one of the doctors working on him was Asian so he attacked him mid-surgery!
He then had the nerve to complain that the surgery was stopped and that his arm still hasn't been repaired.
My fellow passengers and I took the opportunity to let this bloke know just what a cretin he was before he decided it best to head down the carraige looking for a seat.
So we take this one anecdotal example and extrapolate it into solid evidence that Britain is a hotbed of racism?
Some racists are Brexit supporters, therefore, all Brexit supporters are racist. Is that the logic at work here?
I must admit I do get tired of being tarred with the racist brush these past two years.
After all, the man who wants skilled non-white people from the rest of the world to come to Britain must be racist right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: How are people like you the backbone of the country and what makes you think you know what's right; since you're willing to send us back to the stone age.
Are also blind to the anti-immigrant stance that makes up the bulk of the leave movement, or how racist a large minority of our population Are?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're pretty much the textbook definition of ignorant, by your own admission.
I'm entitled to cast my vote as I see fit. Same as everybody else. I'm entitled to my own opinion, same as everybody else.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws, attend jury service and vote every election, even the EU elections, which is a damn sight more than most people have ever done.
Thanks to the business I run, I probably pay more tax than most people on dakka. I think I've earned the right to a say in my country's future.
Better than anybody else? No. Equal to everybody else? Absolutely.
If Remain supporters are not happy with us leaving the EU, then I suggest you elect some MPs with a spine who take us back in.
Perhaps you could call them Lib Dems. And perhaps you could get them to turn up for key votes?
I am surprised. We've had thousands of non-white doctors and nurses in the UK for nigh on 7 decades. The UK's leading heart surgeon doesn't have white skin. But I suppose they'll all be getting burnt at the stake soon by Brexiteers.
A few months ago I had a hilariously depressing encounter with a gentleman on my commute.
I was standing with him in the vestibule (it's impossible to get a seat on my trains to and from work) and as we waited for the train to leave the station we stuck up conversation.
After exchanging the usual banal pleasantries he informed me that he was on his way home from a court case where he was the defendant. He mentioned that it was especially burdensome for him to attend his court case because he had a badly injured arm, which he had loudly and continuously referred to since embarking.
I asked this man why he had been in court and he said that he had been charged with racially aggravated assault. He claimed that he was having surgery to repair his damaged arm and, in the middle of the surgery he noticed that one of the doctors working on him was Asian so he attacked him mid-surgery!
He then had the nerve to complain that the surgery was stopped and that his arm still hasn't been repaired.
My fellow passengers and I took the opportunity to let this bloke know just what a cretin he was before he decided it best to head down the carraige looking for a seat.
So we take this one anecdotal example and extrapolate it into solid evidence that Britain is a hotbed of racism?
Did you see me do any extrapolating? I just thought I'd take your comment as a chance to share a ridiculous story about a gakhead I met on the train.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Some racists are Brexit supporters, therefore, all Brexit supporters are racist. Is that the logic at work here?
I must admit I do get tired of being tarred with the racist brush these past two years.
No one called you a racist, but you must acknowledge that Leave was all aboit immigration for most and heavily supported by racists?
I'm entitled to cast my vote as I see fit. Same as everybody else. I'm entitled to my own opinion, same as everybody else.
But you've admitted your voting choice has nothing to do with the facts, and despite learning a lot you'd vote the same way every time. How is that not ignorant?
I pay my taxes, obey the laws, attend jury service and vote every election, even the EU elections, which is a damn sight more than most people have ever done.
With the exception of the MEPelections that's the same as most people.
Thanks to the business I run, I probably pay more tax than most people on dakka. I think I've earned the right to a say in my country's future.
I dunno, I pay a lot of tax. But your tax bill doesn't correlate to a say; you get exactly the same way as everyone else. You do have the duty to so your research and vote based on the facts.
You also seem to be in a fairly unique position where your business (being mostly non-EU exports) avoids most of the brexit damage and actually benefits from the falling pound.
Most of my customers (manufacturing businesses) will be the opposite - brexit will hurt their supply chains and make things harder. Some are price insensitive so can pass it on happily.
I think everyone is assuming that No one is stupid enough to let a no deal happen by default. That this is all an elaborate bluff to get EU concessions before staying in at the last minute.
Alternatively; crashing out is deliberate, people like Mogg will make a fortune on acquisitions before we rejoin under weaker terms.
Alternatively; crashing out is deliberate, people like Mogg will make a fortune on acquisitions before we rejoin under weaker terms.
Indeed.
Plus there can only be no deal as to do otherwise would involve those behind Brexit actually coming up with a plan other than believing really really hard in whole nonsensical idea of us being better off in any way.
But if we crash out then they can continue to blame everyone else except themselves and the policies they've chosen -- whilst ensuring that they themselves are insulated from the worst of it by things like moving their businesses to the EU etc etc .
I love (read: am extremely annoyed by) Fox’s “waaa, the EU are standing by their principles, that’s not fair” attitude. What the hell did he think they were going to do?
Oh, yes, bend over backwards, because “we hold all the cards”(!)
Kilkrazy wrote: Partly for the lack of a credible alternative.
The Labour Party is not covering itself with oppositional glory.
All the other third parties are too small and unproven for people to invest faith in them, except the regionals (SNP) who by definition won't operate in England where most of the electorate live.
It's like what I said a few weeks ago: a decade of coalition politics is upon us.
Coalition politics is fine, but sadly it won't actually happen. Labour would rather set themselves on fire or drown themselves in the Thames than admit for even one picosecond that they're not capable of winning alone and that this time things in Scotland will go back to how they were pre-Blair, and even were they to admit the changed electoral landscape to themselves, would still refuse to deal with the SNP making the numbers for a left coalition difficult to put together. The best we can hope for is an endless parade of weak minority governments from either side both pretending we still live in the pre-Cameron era when the government could rule with an iron fist if they wanted to, and getting feth all done except making life shittier for everyone.
Is the country just going to let itself slide off the edge of the cliff?
This article was interesting because of some of the wording Liam Fox used
He said: "We have set out the basis in which a deal can happen but if the EU decides that the theological obsession of the unelected is to take priority over the economic wellbeing of the people of Europe then it's a bureaucrats' Brexit - not a people's Brexit - then there is only going to be one outcome."
Mr Fox said if the EU did not like the proposal, they should "show us one that they can suggest that would be acceptable to us".
He added: "It's up to the EU27 to determine whether they want the EU Commission's ideological purity to be maintained at the expense of their real economies."
They've been on a grand tour of the EU to try and get support for their proposal. Reading between the lines they aren't getting anywhere. He is admitting that the EU are being asked to break the fundamental concepts that make up the EU (aka 'ideological purity') and that they are holding firm on these. The first statement itself is a lie. The EU parliament voted on the negotiating position.
Hence the way I read this is that they are steadily shifting the rhetoric to "Don't blame us"
It is, if there is no deal "It was the EU's fault they wouldn't change their stance" - Despite us knowing what the EU parliament agreed 2 years ago
If there is a deal but it is effectively in the EU but with no say then we "It was the EU's fault they wouldn't change their stance and we did not want to ruin the businesses that support the Tories" - To try and persuade their hard right nutcase supporters not to abnadon them
Or it is "No deal is so bad we can't possibly accept it, but as you, the populace, voted for it then it is your fault. We just acted on what you wanted".
I think they are barking up the wrong tree if the EU are going to change their position because of the economic impact as the UK is not the majority of their economy overall. I can also see that some would see it is a benefit. Companies like Airbus etc will just leave to the EU, that makes their countries stronger whilst at the same time make a direct competitor weaker.
There is even a suggestion that the government have been discussing cancelling police leave after Wrexit.
Coalition politics is fine, but sadly it won't actually happen. Labour would rather set themselves on fire or drown themselves in the Thames
Neither of the major parties will admit they would work in coalition (although in reality they will do). That is a problem with first past the post system. They know that enough people vote to stop the other party. If a major party states it will work in coalition it is a green flag for people to think well I might as well vote for this other party because they will work with the party anyway.
On the other flip side there will those that might not vote for the party because they don't want anything to do with the SNP [insert other party]. A lot of MPs will look at the LDs and worry that you can be punished for a coalition.
Neither of the major parties will admit they would work in coalition (although in reality they will do). That is a problem with first past the post system. They know that enough people vote to stop the other party. If a major party states it will work in coalition it is a green flag for people to think well I might as well vote for this other party because they will work with the party anyway.
On the other flip side there will those that might not vote for the party because they don't want anything to do with the SNP [insert other party]. A lot of MPs will look at the LDs and worry that you can be punished for a coalition.
Aye, all true, but it's not as if Labour are clamouring for a change to the voting system either. They could be leading a left coalition and implementing a lot of policy, but they would rather let the country go to gak in the medium term in the vague hope that eventually they'll get a thumping absolute majority again and won't have to make any compromises at all. And I'm well aware the Tories are the same, but the thing is I expect the Tories to be scumbags, while I still entertain some few remaining shreds of expectation that Labour are supposed to be better than that.
Aye, all true, but it's not as if Labour are clamouring for a change to the voting system either. They could be leading a left coalition and implementing a lot of policy, but they would rather let the country go to gak in the medium term in the vague hope that eventually they'll get a thumping absolute majority again and won't have to make any compromises at all. And I'm well aware the Tories are the same, but the thing is I expect the Tories to be scumbags, while I still entertain some few remaining shreds of expectation that Labour are supposed to be better than that.
I think we don't hear about there support it has in the Labour party rather than it isn't there.
Herzlos wrote: I think everyone is assuming that No one is stupid enough to let a no deal happen by default. That this is all an elaborate bluff to get EU concessions before staying in at the last minute.
Alternatively; crashing out is deliberate, people like Mogg will make a fortune on acquisitions before we rejoin under weaker terms.
Welcome to the dark side. I truly believe that was there plan from the start.
If you look at it from that perspective it all makes sense.
Why is the only certainty about brexit is that we will leave at the end of march 2019, but the governments negotiating strategy is to kick the can down the road
and fight with each other?.
Why did we not pay the trade negotiator that we wanted the bit more he wanted?.(because a no deal will cause civil unrest and we will rejoin in about a month, about
the same sort of time that police officers have had leave suspended for)
Why did we not just hire the top 3 candidates?. brexit can only be a success if we get good trade deals, so why did they scrimp on the cost?
Why did davis resign because of the chequers deal, a deal that lasted less than a week before mogg added his amendments and the government
told the whips to force there MP's to vote for HIS plan?. (He knows whats coming and was getting out of dodge, no one can blame him for a no-deal brexit if he
isn't even in the cabinet)
Why have we made so little preparation in terms of border checks?, the Netherlands has hired 4 times as many border security agents than us!,
how is our plan still operation stack forever? (because we won't need it the civil unrest will mean that we rejoin in about a month)
Why are they talking about a blind brexit? who does that help over just extending the negotiating time?
(THEM they will saunter out with no one to stop them, and then unleash no-deal brexit. and no one could stop them because we have already left)
The anti EU brigade If we leave the EU who will they rail against? farage is only in the position he's in due to the EU. Who will they blame for the bad deals we will get with all the other Countries we
are so desperate to make trade deals with? etc.
It will also damage the EU,both monetarily and politically. It may cause anti EU sentiment in other countries, like Ireland, who may blame the EU for not protecting them better,
for punishing the UK. etc.
A no deal will probably also strengthen there hand. If we are forced to rejoin, the EU may say we have to get rid of our rebate or something that just plays into there
hands.
The conservative party Lets face it the torys are finished right now. There have been 5? cabinet ministers resign (it should be more and many should have been sacked), they have presided over the destruction of the public sector, the NHS in need of
so many staff up to there eyeballs in debt and failing there targets repeatedly. The police, numbers and money cut dramatically, whilst crime increases. I read that they won't
investigate a robbery unless more than £5000.00 had been stolen here in south Yorkshire. etc etc.
They have presided over scandal after scandal like Windrush, etc.
We are up to our neck in debt £1.75-2 TRILLION and there austerity measures have barely scratched the deficit.
A no-deal brexit will kick them out of power, and dump the chickens that are coming home to roost on whoever takes over.
They will walk away blaming everyone else for why they didn't get a good deal (the EU, Remainers, the civil service etc.)
and they will get away with it from some parts, the parts that are laughing and saying food shortages are just project fear, that agree with mogg when he said we could just not put
up a border between northern and the republic of Ireland. etc.
They have got away with blaming others before remember when they blamed immigrants and people on benefits for the recession?
how they still blame Labour for the continued use of austerity?
A UKIP spokesman said: “It’s no surprise that some of the poorest areas of the UK are the ones which support Brexit most strongly.
“For decades successive British governments have pursued economic and social agendas set by the European Union. These have undermined the British economy and by extension the poorest in our society. The measures put in place by the EU supporting Tory ministers have only exacerbated these deep problems.
With "facts" like that, ones people already believe, It's not too hard to believe that it will get eaten up as gospel.
And Corbyn will be dumped in a situation where he won't have the money to re-nationalise anything, won't be able to reverse tory cuts, will be taking
a kicking from the media and those on the right for taking us back into the EU (the only viable solution to a no-deal brexit). They are afraid of him
He's almost teflon no mud they have slung at him has stuck except this recent anti-semitism one, which i admit there does seem to be a problem in Labour,
but he can do no right and the ones attacking him are slowly having there voices curtailed for, what some believe, is crying wolf.
His policies are death to austerity and neo-liberal ideas, similar policies are at play in Portugal and appear to be working, at least better than austerity.
It will also "solve" brexit for them. They won't have there name signed all over a deal that will be worse then we have now (rees moog it will take 50 years to see the benefits etc.)
They won't "seem" to be the ones that caused a hard border between the Irelands, at least to those that believe them.
They can have brexit now. Not wait 10 years for the technology to create no border between the Irelands, to continue to negotiate until they get a deal etc.
there is a good chunk of brexit supporters that want it now, because each year the demographic moves towards remain, they may except any brexit and vote
tory for giving it to them, even if it doesn't last long.
It really does seem to explain all the baffling behaviour. Why even bother with a plan if you know it'll be undone almost immediately (after cashing in).
To be fair I'll be cashing in as well; I've got a small fortune in US stock I'll dump once the pound drops to take advantage of the exchange rate.
The weak pound may take with one hand, but it gives with the other.
Britain is undergoing a tourism boom, the likes of which we've never seen. I was watching countryfile earlier and they were saying that tourism will be worth 250 billion to the UK by 2025.
That's a tidy sum for the old GDP, and that boom will bring a gak ton of jobs with it: hotels, tourist guides, food and drink, etc etc
And there's climate change as well. Spain, Portugal and Greece are baking this summer, and if that repeats itself every year, people will naturally flock to cooler climes.
I don't like climate change, but we may as well cash in if more people are flocking to Britain.
And of course, the weak pound is a God send to my foreign customers. Thank you Australia.
The UK has a vibrant tourism industry partly because we have excellent free museums, and a vibrant arts sector. Guess which two sectors are threatened by austerity cuts.
The UK has a vibrant tourism industry partly because we have excellent free museums, and a vibrant arts sector. Guess which two sectors are threatened by austerity cuts.
Plus it's going to get harder to get visas.
People are probably fed up of me saying this, but that's where we need vision.
I'm sure it's not beyond us to create a seasonal visa scheme for artists visiting us during the art festivals in the summer.
And I'm hearing that HS2 is spiralling out of control. we're looking at 100 billion!
If we say bollocks to HS2, and we should have said it months ago, then we can invest that money into road and infastructure to handle the tourists turning up.
These Tories. Utter incompetence at every turn. Feeble. Useless.
I'm amazed that Brexit has manged to get this far.
But back to tourism. Like I said yesterday, there is a huge and growing middle-class in Inida and China. They have money to burn, and are frequently travelling abroad more and more.
Let's lure them in, and get them to part with the readies in exchange for Duchy originals.
Britain is undergoing a tourism boom, the likes of which we've never seen. I was watching countryfile earlier and they were saying that tourism will be worth 250 billion to the UK by 2025.
That's a tidy sum for the old GDP, and that boom will bring a gak ton of jobs with it: hotels, tourist guides, food and drink, etc etc
Context is important here....
In 2013 it amounted to 9% of the economy (£126.9bn). By 2025 they are predicting it will be 9.9% of the economy (£257.4bn). Firstly I wouldn't call 0.9% a boom.
So comparing like for like:-
9.9% in 2013 of GDP is equivalent to £139.6bn
Hence, simplistically £257.4bn compared to £139.6bn is equivalent to an 84% increase from inflationary pressures only.
Over 12 years that equates to 7% inflationary increase in prices year on year.
So before you become astounded by the numbers just think about this. They are predicting a 7% inflationary increase every year from 2013. Realistic? Well rampant inflation is not really what the country needs. So either our overall economy is expected to grow stupendously, something that has never happened since the mid 1950s or we are looking at inflation.
Lets say we split evenly between inflation and UK growth. 3.5% inflation is not to be laughed about. 3.5% growth is not something we have seen since the late 1970s. So it is either woefully optimistic or woefully depressing from an inflation perspective. As ever the government is giving you hopelessly optimistic, and almost certainly unrealistic, prediction. Rather than accept the tripe you are fed, *think* about what it means practically.
Regardless I'm not sure growth in a low skilled industry is what we really need. The majority is for waiters, food, shopping and so forth. You are the first to want a grand vision for the UK. Tourism will never provide you this. It is unskilled, basic labour. Whoopee, such a great vision.
And there's climate change as well. Spain, Portugal and Greece are baking this summer, and if that repeats itself every year, people will naturally flock to cooler climes.
I don't like climate change, but we may as well cash in if more people are flocking to Britain.
And of course, the weak pound is a God send to my foreign customers. Thank you Australia.
Yes that's honestly a good reason to think climate change is a good idea. I presume you haven't really studied what happens to the UK then? You may as well count out central London as it is likely a soggy mess by that point.
Are you sure you're not a Tory at heart. The what's best for me and the damn the future consequences is pretty much their mantra? And no disrespect but second hand wargaming supplies is not likely to keep the UK going.
I'm not disputing your numbers Whirlwind, but you're looking at it from a Whitehall account's perspective.
To the man on he street, he sees tons of jobs being created. To your average MP, that's a vote winner on the doorstep. Something to hang your hat on.
And don't be too quick to dismiss these as low paid jobs. They're ideal for students and young people looking to get on in life and build a CV before moving on.
I think I can safely say that most of us probably had gak jobs when we were young.
And if automation takes over, tourist jobs may be one of the few growth industries we have left for the low skilled.
As for climate change, I don't like it, but there's nothing that anybody on dakka can do about it. That's for governments to hammer out a solution.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
We may as well take advantage of something that's happening anyway and out of our control, whilst hoping a solution can be found.
And before some smart ass says it, no, I'm not basing a Brexit future on climate change.
If Brexit never happened, and we were still in the EU, we'd still be getting climate change.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not disputing your numbers Whirlwind, but you're looking at it from a Whitehall account's perspective.
To the man on he street, he sees tons of jobs being created. To your average MP, that's a vote winner on the doorstep. Something to hang your hat on.
Except it's not job creation, it's job transference. The forecasts in total eligible working population between now and 2025 are effectively zero change (using age groups of 15 - 60 as a baseline) - 38.7 million now, 38.6 million in 2025.
As such any percentage change means that the employment has to come from somewhere else. You have to lose part of another industry to gain growth in another. We could break that slightly if:-
(a) We de-educate the population forcing more into work at a younger age - long term that means your country becomes poorer; or
(b) You increase the pension age forcing more people to work longer (work till you drop mentality) - Again this is not great for the output of the country as, as we get older our overall contribution drops.
Hence you aren't actually creating any new jobs, your just moving the employment around and transferring work to lower grade work. This is not a good idea for any country that wants to grow and compete. You want to be moving people to more high quality jobs. All you actually causes by championing such jobs is an the transfer of wealth to a few at the expense of the many. We won't have a sudden influx of students to do these jobs; that population growth is not on the horizon; what you are seeing is wide scale redistribution of jobs to lower tier, lower quality, lower pay. Economically that is a terrible thing to be planning because it makes the country poorer.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
However the point obviously missed is the assumption that we will be isolated from climate change. We will not be our weather patterns will change to more extreme weather as well. Low lying areas will flood (including central london) and perhaps large parts of the east coast depending on whether we contain it at all. You are making the assumption that everything will be rosy - it will definitely not be. Areas of world will become uninhabitable which will drive immigration, food and water shortages. 50% of our food already comes from abroad (mainly the EU). If we lose the east coast then that's probably another 50% of our food growing ability. Food growth in some areas will dry up. If there is a shortage of food institutions will priortise their own needs over others. It is hopeless naive to sit there and state but we might get more tourists when the 'benefit' of climate change will be negligible compared to the costs. But please go ahead and stick your head in the sand if you want.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here? Only three Spanish cities have ever reached 45 degrees and average warmest month tenperatures are a solid 10 degrees below that. You're quoting the kinds of temperatures I only see when I'm working jn Iraq in July and August.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here?
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here? Only three Spanish cities have ever reached 45 degrees and average warmest month tenperatures are a solid 10 degrees below that. You're quoting the kinds of temperatures I only see when I'm working jn Iraq in July and August.
That't been his modus operandi for years. That's how he can defend brexit. He just invents good numbers to make it look like good ldea
These Tories. Utter incompetence at every turn. Feeble. Useless.
I'm amazed that Brexit has manged to get this far.
It's not the Tories that are at fault. Brexit was a stupid idea from the start and doomed to fail. I'm getting rather fed up with the pro brexit camp blaming the government and the EU right from the start. It was always a stupid idea and it was always going to fail for exactly the reasons remain laid out right from the start. The amount of made up or distorted numbers you need to defend it proves this.
Brexit was a stupid idea that the Tories made a referendum about to try and prevent their anti-EU wing from splitting off like lots of Tory voters already had defected to UKIP.
Having run and lost the referendum, the Tory government then screwed implementation by a series of bad moves:
1. Triggered Article 50 early and set a time limit.
2. Laid down the red lines which make it impossible to do a deal.
3. Held a general election to get national support for their Brexit programme -- and essentially lose it.
4. Generally muck around like silly schoolboys instead of getting stuck into solving the bad situation they had created.
But having said all that, the Labour Party aren't doing their proper job as Loyal Opposition.
These Tories. Utter incompetence at every turn. Feeble. Useless.
I'm amazed that Brexit has manged to get this far.
It's not the Tories that are at fault. Brexit was a stupid idea from the start and doomed to fail. I'm getting rather fed up with the pro brexit camp blaming the government and the EU right from the start. It was always a stupid idea and it was always going to fail for exactly the reasons remain laid out right from the start. The amount of made up or distorted numbers you need to defend it proves this.
But the government are incompetent though. That's one of the very few things both sides agree on. Bojo, Cameron, Fox, Gove. None of them are fit to run a fish and chip van.
As I've said before, I'm not sure why Remain supporters on this thread are worried. Give-away-May will roll up the white flag in the Autumn, so we'll be back in the EU at any rate, anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Brexit was a stupid idea that the Tories made a referendum about to try and prevent their anti-EU wing from splitting off like lots of Tory voters already had defected to UKIP.
Having run and lost the referendum, the Tory government then screwed implementation by a series of bad moves:
1. Triggered Article 50 early and set a time limit.
2. Laid down the red lines which make it impossible to do a deal.
3. Held a general election to get national support for their Brexit programme -- and essentially lose it.
4. Generally muck around like silly schoolboys instead of getting stuck into solving the bad situation they had created.
But having said all that, the Labour Party aren't doing their proper job as Loyal Opposition.
I agree with every one of those points, but trouble is, you lot down south will vote for them by the millions come next election.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here? Only three Spanish cities have ever reached 45 degrees and average warmest month tenperatures are a solid 10 degrees below that. You're quoting the kinds of temperatures I only see when I'm working jn Iraq in July and August.
That't been his modus operandi for years. That's how he can defend brexit. He just invents good numbers to make it look like good ldea
Meh. All you do is snipe from the sidelines, but I forgive you
I hope that Britain still has friendly relations with Finland for years to come.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here? Only three Spanish cities have ever reached 45 degrees and average warmest month tenperatures are a solid 10 degrees below that. You're quoting the kinds of temperatures I only see when I'm working jn Iraq in July and August.
'Only' 45 degrees? It's not likely to get better though, is it? The Southern Med is not going to be much of a tourist destination in summer, if people are getting the gas mark 16 treatment every day!
Britain and Scandanavia are well placed to cash in with rising temperatures.
Naturally of course, we all hope global action is taken to tackle this huge problem.
But if the reality is that Spain is baking every year in a 45 degree summer or there abouts, and Britain is a lot cooler, people will naturally flock to the cooler northern climes.
Do you just invent all the numbers you post in here? Only three Spanish cities have ever reached 45 degrees and average warmest month tenperatures are a solid 10 degrees below that. You're quoting the kinds of temperatures I only see when I'm working jn Iraq in July and August.
'Only' 45 degrees? It's not likely to get better though, is it? The Southern Med is not going to be much of a tourist destination in summer, if people are getting the gas mark 16 treatment every day!
Britain and Scandanavia are well placed to cash in with rising temperatures.
Naturally of course, we all hope global action is taken to tackle this huge problem.
I didn't say 'only 45 degrees'. I said only three Spanish cities have ever recorded a temperature as high as 45 degrees. Again, where did you get that figure as an average when the average in the warmest months in the hottest regions is ten degrees lower? Your imagination? Wild guessing?
In any case, global warning is not threatening a leap in temperatures as experienced by humans. We're talking about very slight increases in terms of how we feel in the heat, it's just that on a global scale very small increases are catastrophic. Spanish tourism isn't going to fall apart because Barcelona averages 30.5 in August instead of 30.
To the man on he street, he sees tons of jobs being created. To your average MP, that's a vote winner on the doorstep. Something to hang your hat on.
He's going to see lots of low quality, low reliability, low paid, crappy condition and hour jobs created, and a generation of full time earners who can't afford to move out of their parents house.
They're ideal for students and young people looking to get on in life and build a CV before moving on.
Before moving on to where? A lot of the high skill, high paid jobs are being driven away (science, culture, manufacturing, R&D, banking), others that support businesses will shrink with demand (less businesses means less accountants, surveyors, etc & less money means less renovation and building). There will be some things with constant demand (doctors, dentists, undertakers) but they only take up a tiny percentage of the population.
Tourism isn't something to hang any hats on - it's very concentrated, and since we import a lot, the costs will go up whilst profits go down. Those earning the money from tourism still can't afford much as the prices have gone up. Austerity will directly hurt a lot of the things tourists go to - museums, national parks, etc. As stated, the growth in tourism is tiny.
But the government are incompetent though. That's one of the very few things both sides agree on. Bojo, Cameron, Fox, Gove. None of them are fit to run a fish and chip van.
Brexit being a bad idea and the government being incompetent* are not mutually exclusive though. Brexit was hard enough to make a success of without incompetence*.
You still voted for Brexit despite both facts. You pressed for them to get on with it as soon as possible without any plan, concern about the details or any problems.
*I suspect it's malice, at this stage. Even incompetent people get more right by accident than this lot.
Kilkrazy wrote: Brexit was a stupid idea that the Tories made a referendum about to try and prevent their anti-EU wing from splitting off like lots of Tory voters already had defected to UKIP.
Having run and lost the referendum, the Tory government then screwed implementation by a series of bad moves:
1. Triggered Article 50 early and set a time limit.
2. Laid down the red lines which make it impossible to do a deal.
3. Held a general election to get national support for their Brexit programme -- and essentially lose it.
4. Generally muck around like silly schoolboys instead of getting stuck into solving the bad situation they had created.
But having said all that, the Labour Party aren't doing their proper job as Loyal Opposition.
I agree with every one of those points, but trouble is, you lot down south will vote for them by the millions come next election.
You continually lambast people for voting in the Tories no matter what they did to the country yet you yourself have admitted you voted and would again for Brexit no matter the cost to the country. How is this any different?
I will be worried until the day I see formal acceptance from the EU of a request to repeal our article 50 notification. Up to that point we are still at risk of crashing out and at the moment our government seem politically and intellectually incapable of making the request, never mind getting the EU to accept it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Brexit was a stupid idea that the Tories made a referendum about to try and prevent their anti-EU wing from splitting off like lots of Tory voters already had defected to UKIP.
Having run and lost the referendum, the Tory government then screwed implementation by a series of bad moves:
1. Triggered Article 50 early and set a time limit.
2. Laid down the red lines which make it impossible to do a deal.
3. Held a general election to get national support for their Brexit programme -- and essentially lose it.
4. Generally muck around like silly schoolboys instead of getting stuck into solving the bad situation they had created.
But having said all that, the Labour Party aren't doing their proper job as Loyal Opposition.
I agree with every one of those points, but trouble is, you lot down south will vote for them by the millions come next election.
You continually lambast people for voting in the Tories no matter what they did to the country yet you yourself have admitted you voted and would again for Brexit no matter the cost to the country. How is this any different?
You forget your British history. Brexit is, and should be an issue that crosses the political spectrum. People forget that long ago, Labour was a socialist party, and not this cabal of Blairites and war criminals.
The main opposition to the EEC was the Left, Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner being notable examples. Back then, the Tories were EEC enthusiasts.
Hell, even the SNP were anti-EEC at one time. Changed days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: I will be worried until the day I see formal acceptance from the EU of a request to repeal our article 50 notification. Up to that point we are still at risk of crashing out and at the moment our government seem politically and intellectually incapable of making the request, never mind getting the EU to accept it.
It's a non-starter. Too much water under the bridge. And is any French politician going to stand up and say, sorry lads, those EU jobs we got from London. We have to hand them back.
To the man on he street, he sees tons of jobs being created. To your average MP, that's a vote winner on the doorstep. Something to hang your hat on.
He's going to see lots of low quality, low reliability, low paid, crappy condition and hour jobs created, and a generation of full time earners who can't afford to move out of their parents house.
They're ideal for students and young people looking to get on in life and build a CV before moving on.
Before moving on to where? A lot of the high skill, high paid jobs are being driven away (science, culture, manufacturing, R&D, banking), others that support businesses will shrink with demand (less businesses means less accountants, surveyors, etc & less money means less renovation and building). There will be some things with constant demand (doctors, dentists, undertakers) but they only take up a tiny percentage of the population.
Tourism isn't something to hang any hats on - it's very concentrated, and since we import a lot, the costs will go up whilst profits go down. Those earning the money from tourism still can't afford much as the prices have gone up. Austerity will directly hurt a lot of the things tourists go to - museums, national parks, etc. As stated, the growth in tourism is tiny.
But the government are incompetent though. That's one of the very few things both sides agree on. Bojo, Cameron, Fox, Gove. None of them are fit to run a fish and chip van.
Brexit being a bad idea and the government being incompetent* are not mutually exclusive though. Brexit was hard enough to make a success of without incompetence*.
You still voted for Brexit despite both facts. You pressed for them to get on with it as soon as possible without any plan, concern about the details or any problems.
*I suspect it's malice, at this stage. Even incompetent people get more right by accident than this lot.
Most of what you say would still happen even if we were in the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: DINLT, you were calling for Article 50 to have been invoked literally the day after the referendum.
I can't even remember what I was doing two days ago, never mind two years ago.
It's a non-starter. Too much water under the bridge. And is any French politician going to stand up and say, sorry lads, those EU jobs we got from London. We have to hand them back.
The jobs that are already gone aren't coming back. The jobs that haven't gone can't be counted. There's nothing non-starter about withdrawing A50 beyond denial.
Plus it's swings and roundabouts - they'd lose some potential jobs, but they'd also avoid any trade related suffering.
I can't even remember what I was doing two days ago, never mind two years ago.
Well we can. You're lambasting the government for having done something you were jumping up and down on here about them doing. Not being able to remember doesn't prevent it being hypocritical.
Most of it will happen if we stay in the EU? Absolutely not.
Some of it might happen, a lot slower, but most of the jobs we're chasing off will stay if we stay in the EU (apart from those we've already lost). We were leading the world in all sort of things in conjunction with the EU, and we're potentially throwing that away.
Inside the EU, we don't need to give away the Airbus, Nissan, Toyota, or BMW factories. We'd still be competing for and getting research grants and collaborating on projects. We'd still have a banking sector. And so on. Sure, automation will change the landscape but the same was said about steam and electrification. We've had 3 industrial revolutions so far and still have skilled, well paid jobs, just different ones from the past.
Kilkrazy wrote: Brexit was a stupid idea that the Tories made a referendum about to try and prevent their anti-EU wing from splitting off like lots of Tory voters already had defected to UKIP.
Having run and lost the referendum, the Tory government then screwed implementation by a series of bad moves:
1. Triggered Article 50 early and set a time limit.
2. Laid down the red lines which make it impossible to do a deal.
3. Held a general election to get national support for their Brexit programme -- and essentially lose it.
4. Generally muck around like silly schoolboys instead of getting stuck into solving the bad situation they had created.
But having said all that, the Labour Party aren't doing their proper job as Loyal Opposition.
I agree with every one of those points, but trouble is, you lot down south will vote for them by the millions come next election.
You continually lambast people for voting in the Tories no matter what they did to the country yet you yourself have admitted you voted and would again for Brexit no matter the cost to the country. How is this any different?
You forget your British history. Brexit is, and should be an issue that crosses the political spectrum. People forget that long ago, Labour was a socialist party, and not this cabal of Blairites and war criminals.
The main opposition to the EEC was the Left, Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner being notable examples. Back then, the Tories were EEC enthusiasts.
Hell, even the SNP were anti-EEC at one time. Changed days.
Did you read my post?
I didn't mention anything to do with parties support of Brexit. I was pointing out that you criticising people for voting for people no matter the consequences yet you yourself have done the same thing.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You effectively said it would be easy by saying we should have invoked article 50 the day after the referendum, completely ignoring all of the work that was required to prepare for the negotiations.
Considering the complete and utter feth up we've had from delaying A50 activation, I don't think it could have gone any worse. It might have sped up the process by focusing some minds. At any rate, the government should have been working at it hammer and tongs 24/7.
If you've any complaints as to why pre-referendum planning for a Leave vote didn't happen, then I suggest you direct them to one David Cameron.
Jadenim wrote: I will be worried until the day I see formal acceptance from the EU of a request to repeal our article 50 notification. Up to that point we are still at risk of crashing out and at the moment our government seem politically and intellectually incapable of making the request, never mind getting the EU to accept it.
It's a non-starter. Too much water under the bridge. And is any French politician going to stand up and say, sorry lads, those EU jobs we got from London. We have to hand them back.
Never going to happen.
Then its a good thing they don't have to agree. We can unilaterally rescind the A50 notification right up to the day we leave.
On a serious note, if we go back 2 years, anybody who claimed to be able to predict the next two years, was quite frankly, talking out their rear.
But negotiations, the damage and resulting clusterfeth are happening almost exactly like Remain and Remainers warned you (on here) before the referendum. We're not surprised at any of the reactions, but stunned at how much worse it is than we thought.
I've said before what I would do if I were in charge. EEA would be put on the table.
You've only come round to the EEA as a way to leave by the back door, once the threat of staying in appeared. That was maybe a month ago. For the 2 years proceeding that (correct me if I'm wrong) you've been banging on about going WTO and just walking away.
But I'm not in charge
You voted for it. You voted for the Tories to manage this clusterfeth. You shoulder 1/17,600,000th of the blame for the result. You can't vote for this and then claim it's not your fault or responsibility. That's a cop out and you know it.
I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
"When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do, sir?"
That's a famous Keynes quote, and one I endorse. The gross incompetence of the Tories has changed the facts of the situation, so I have adjusted accordingly.
I put my hand up and say I was in favour of an immediate activation of A50. But obviously, as outlined above, things are different.
I have decided to be flexible and pragmatic. If anybody is expecting me to fall on my kness, repent, don sackcloth and ashes and endorse the EU, then they've come to the wrong place.
That is my final position for the foreseeable future. You can take it or leave it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
"When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do, sir?"
That's a famous Keynes quote, and one I endorse. The gross incompetence of the Tories has changed the facts of the situation, so I have adjusted accordingly.
I put my hand up and say I was in favour of an immediate activation of A50. But obviously, as outlined above, things are different.
I have decided to be flexible and pragmatic. If anybody is expecting me to fall on my kness, repent, don sackcloth and ashes and endorse the EU, then they've come to the wrong place.
That is my final position for the foreseeable future. You can take it or leave it.
The facts haven't changed. You've just decided to start believing them.
And that despite the incompetence of the Tories and the damage brexit will do, you still want to do it, via some worst-of-both-worlds compromise, because you fear people will see sense and bring us back into the EU otherwise.
You also seem to ignore that the EEA option isn't going to satisfy most of your Brexit voting brethren.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
Something that is going to fly very well for the rest of your maybe possibly future partners in EFTA.
"We're just staying here for a few years, probably make a big mess of the balance of power in the organisation then leave you. Again".
The UK has always enjoyed a reputation for a reputable and dependable partner, but it's not going to last forever if they intend to pull these kind of games off.
And that despite the incompetence of the Tories and the damage brexit will do, you still want to do it, via some worst-of-both-worlds compromise, because you fear people will see sense and bring us back into the EU otherwise.
You also seem to ignore that the EEA option isn't going to satisfy most of your Brexit voting brethren.
You're forgetting facts as well. Let's pretend for a minute that Brexit never happened. We're still in the EU. We still have Cameron and Osborne running the show.
We'd still be looking at the HS2 debacle, the housing debacle, the Heathrow debacle, law and order going out the window, the armed forces getting run into the ground,
and a thousand other problems with education, roads, NHS, you name it. Staying in the EU wasn't some magic bullet either to the nation's woes.
But with Brexit, the system has been jolted. People will have to step up and solve our problems. There's no hiding place now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
Something that is going to fly very well for the rest of your maybe possibly future partners in EFTA.
"We're just staying here for a few years, probably make a big mess of the balance of power in the organisation then leave you. Again".
The UK has always enjoyed a reputation for a reputable and dependable partner, but it's not going to last forever if they intend to pull these kind of games off.
There is the option of making EFTA a true common market with some economic clout, if it's done properly. As I've said before, if we'd have stuck with a common market instead of a Juncker pipe dream, I doubt if Brexit would have ever happened. I blame Maastricht and Lisbon.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
"When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do, sir?"
That's a famous Keynes quote, and one I endorse. The gross incompetence of the Tories has changed the facts of the situation, so I have adjusted accordingly.
I put my hand up and say I was in favour of an immediate activation of A50. But obviously, as outlined above, things are different.
I have decided to be flexible and pragmatic. If anybody is expecting me to fall on my kness, repent, don sackcloth and ashes and endorse the EU, then they've come to the wrong place.
That is my final position for the foreseeable future. You can take it or leave it.
The facts haven't changed. You've just decided to start believing them.
We need a compromise now. I don't know if EEA would be acceptable to you. But I'm happy with it for the short to medium term.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But with Brexit, the system has been jolted. People will have to step up and solve our problems. There's no hiding place now.
This is demonstrably false. Everything is worse now and nothing suggests that it will get better in the future, only even worse.
We need a compromise now. I don't know if EEA would be acceptable to you. But I'm happy with it for the short to medium term.
No we don't. If you're given the choice of being left as you are or murdered, you don't go for being paralysed as some kind of compromise to appease the bloodthirsty mob who want you dead.
EEA does not solve any of the border issues. You can keep ignoring this but that doesn't make it go away and make EEA suddenly a brilliant compromise. It is still fatally flawed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I still support Brexit, and for tactical reasons, and playing the long game, I have swung in behind the EEA/EFTA option.
Something that is going to fly very well for the rest of your maybe possibly future partners in EFTA.
"We're just staying here for a few years, probably make a big mess of the balance of power in the organisation then leave you. Again".
The UK has always enjoyed a reputation for a reputable and dependable partner, but it's not going to last forever if they intend to pull these kind of games off.
There is the option of making EFTA a true common market with some economic clout, if it's done properly. As I've said before, if we'd have stuck with a common market instead of a Juncker pipe dream, I doubt if Brexit would have ever happened. I blame Maastricht and Lisbon.
So barging in like a bull on a china shop and basically taking over saying thank you for keeping the seat warm for us all these years?
I don't think the Norwegians or Swiss will be very happy about that.
And that despite the incompetence of the Tories and the damage brexit will do, you still want to do it, via some worst-of-both-worlds compromise, because you fear people will see sense and bring us back into the EU otherwise.
You also seem to ignore that the EEA option isn't going to satisfy most of your Brexit voting brethren.
You're forgetting facts as well. Let's pretend for a minute that Brexit never happened. We're still in the EU. We still have Cameron and Osborne running the show.
We'd still be looking at the HS2 debacle, the housing debacle, the Heathrow debacle, law and order going out the window, the armed forces getting run into the ground,
and a thousand other problems with education, roads, NHS, you name it. Staying in the EU wasn't some magic bullet either to the nation's woes.
But with Brexit, the system has been jolted. People will have to step up and solve our problems. There's no hiding place now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
All those were facts before Brexit, and yet you still trusted the government to be able to deliver the impossible.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You're forgetting facts as well. Let's pretend for a minute that Brexit never happened. We're still in the EU. We still have Cameron and Osborne running the show.
We'd still be looking at the HS2 debacle, the housing debacle, the Heathrow debacle, law and order going out the window, the armed forces getting run into the ground,
and a thousand other problems with education, roads, NHS, you name it. Staying in the EU wasn't some magic bullet either to the nation's woes.
But with Brexit, the system has been jolted. People will have to step up and solve our problems. There's no hiding place now.
And now you ve added ten thousand other problems on top of the thousand that were already there. All that time spent on brexit was time not spent on anything else. Congratulations?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
"When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do, sir?"
That's a famous Keynes quote, and one I endorse.
Never knew you did humour. You are immune to facts.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have decided to be flexible and pragmatic. If anybody is expecting me to fall on my kness, repent, don sackcloth and ashes and endorse the EU, then they've come to the wrong place.
Then you are neither flexible or pragmatic. Just an idealogue shouting.
jouso wrote:
So barging in like a bull on a china shop and basically taking over saying thank you for keeping the seat warm for us all these years?
I don't think the Norwegians or Swiss will be very happy about that.
Typical of the little Britain lobby really. Being part of a 'union' is great when you get to throw your weight around and tell everyone what to do, but the second it's a 'union of equals', then the temper tantrums start precisely becuase they can't just boss everyone around.
If gb was the only country in the eu with a veto, I guarantee,you those little britainers would be all for it.
All those were facts before Brexit, and yet you still trusted the government to be able to deliver the impossible.
This is Dinlt. He doesn't actually care 'how'. He's all about 'visions' and 'headlines' but doesn't give a damn about detail.
We'd still be looking at the HS2 debacle, the housing debacle, the Heathrow debacle, law and order going out the window, the armed forces getting run into the ground,
and a thousand other problems with education, roads, NHS, you name it. Staying in the EU wasn't some magic bullet either to the nation's woes.
But with Brexit, the system has been jolted. People will have to step up and solve our problems. There's no hiding place now.
Utter nonsense. Brexit doesn't remove any hiding places - Brexiteers have been pre-emptively blaming the EU for years and will do for years.
All of the things you mention are bad, but will get worse with Brexit, primarily because of the economic damage. Police/forces numbers will only go further down post Brexit, Heathrow/HS2 will cost a higher %age of our available budget. Any non-local components will cost more (Where are we getting the steel and rolling stock from?).
Brexit hasn't jolted any system. The same people are still in power, nothing is actually going to change except for the worse - those same people are in power but without the EU to slap them for inringing on human/environmental rights, for instance.
Honestly, what can you see getting better post Brexit?
I'd vote Labour immediately if they actually pulled their finger out and took an official position on Brexit by offering the EEA "Norway" solution.
Its true, it won't satisfy most Leavers. Its not a true, 100% withdrawal.
And it also won't satisfy most Remainers either, who wish to stay as a full member of the EU.
But what it does represent is a compromise, a halfway position that will allow us to defer the issue for another generation (or at the very least, another Parliament).
For Leavers, it will be a small victory that can be built on at a future date with a further push for full independence.
For Remainers, it will be damage control.
Just like Irish Republicans didn't achieve their full objective of Irish reunification, but they did achieve a small victory in Irish devolution etc. And for the Unionists, they got to remain a part of the UK. It deferred the issue of Irish reunification for another generation.
Typical of the little Britain lobby really. Being part of a 'union' is great when you get to throw your weight around and tell everyone what to do, but the second it's a 'union of equals', then the temper tantrums start precisely becuase they can't just boss everyone around.
If gb was the only country in the eu with a veto, I guarantee,you those little britainers would be all for it.
Its not and never will be a union of equals - there is no such thing especially where nations and politicians are involved..
All nations fight for their own interests in the EU - we have an official veto on some element - mostly because unlike most EU countries we were net contributors to the budget.
France and German had massive power for the same reason - eg the reason we are stuck with the dual parliaments is because of the French VETO.
If the other EU nations wanted equal say then they needed to contribute equally - otherwise they need to do what they already do, ally themselves to one of the big three to get what they want.
Women may have to give up work to look after elderly relatives unless EU care workers are given priority after Brexit, it has been reported.
The Daily Telegraph says that is the assessment made in a 37-page dossier drawn up by ministers on the impact of Britain leaving the EU.
The document allegedly warns that growing numbers of people, "especially women", could be forced to quit their jobs to give "informal care" to parents and grandparents.
Under the "worst case scenario", women living in Britain would likely plug the hole of 6,000 fewer doctors, 12,000 fewer nurses and 28,000 fewer care staff within five years.
Feth me, is that al the EU was to some people: just a source of cheap labour from Eastern Europe to be exploited?
The good old days of pre-2008, when farmers were buying up slum housing, the minimum wage wasn't being enforced, and you had 10 Poles and/or Lithuanians to a house or caravan.
How the hell can I, as a socialist, ever support that? God Almighty!
As I've said many a time until I'm blue in the face, there was a time when we weren't in the EU. And we won trade unions, and we got votes for women, and we abolished the death penalty, and we decriminalised same-sex relationships, and we had same sex marriage long before that beacon of progression called Germany.
History shows us that the British people, if they so choose, can fight for and build a better Britain. How do you think we got the NHS? Was a hard struggle.
It's not set in stone that tories will rule forevermore and we'll all be back down the coal mines
Do you know how those things were possible? People sitting down, examining the facts and making realistic plans for change. Putting in monumental amounts of effort and thought.
None of which you have done.
So stop calling on the actions of people in the past, who understood how change must be carefully examined and planned, in order to justify your reckless drive to leave the EU with no forethought to the consequences.
Fighting for a better future still requires following some kind of good plan and a lot of determination.
No amount of fighting will make brexit a good idea. Almost all of the people with the domain knowledge, or those we'll look to, to make a success of brexit, want to remain. No-one wants to take any credit for Brexit.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Feth me, is that al the EU was to some people: just a source of cheap labour from Eastern Europe to be exploited?
Since when we're doctors and nurses cheap Labour? You're really stretching that straw man.
The good old days of pre-2008, when farmers were buying up slum housing, the minimum wage wasn't being enforced, and you had 10 Poles and/or Lithuanians to a house or caravan.
How are any of those problems caused by the EU rather than UK government?
It's just plainly ridiculous now. Even when the writing is on the wall for the whole process and how much damage it will cause.
They are so completely deluded about the whole process or simply unwilling to admit they were wrong. Still at least Whitehall have it right
“Senior Whitehall sources” were also quoted by the Daily Telegraph on Monday saying that if the UK crashes out with no deal “we will make it clear whose fault it was”.
And that despite the incompetence of the Tories and the damage brexit will do, you still want to do it, via some worst-of-both-worlds compromise, because you fear people will see sense and bring us back into the EU otherwise.
You also seem to ignore that the EEA option isn't going to satisfy most of your Brexit voting brethren.
You're forgetting facts as well. Let's pretend for a minute that Brexit never happened. We're still in the EU. We still have Cameron and Osborne running the show.
We'd still be looking at the HS2 debacle, the housing debacle, the Heathrow debacle, law and order going out the window, the armed forces getting run into the ground,
and a thousand other problems with education, roads, NHS, you name it. Staying in the EU wasn't some magic bullet either to the nation's woes.
I would rather lose an arm and keep the rest of my faculties to fix the problem after these 's have gone than chop my other limbs off, in the insane hope that taking all of my ability
to change anything will some how mean that everyone rises up and goes NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE, despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite all the ability to do so,
and just expect everything will work out ok.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:EU still being blamed for being ‘stubborn’.
What a gak show this whole thing is.
Of course it is it won't work on remainers like you or me but on hardcore brexiters that don't listen to facts?
of course it will!.
Then when a no-deal brexit happens guess who they will blame?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'd vote Labour immediately if they actually pulled their finger out and took an official position on Brexit by offering the EEA "Norway" solution.
Its true, it won't satisfy most Leavers. Its not a true, 100% withdrawal.
And it also won't satisfy most Remainers either, who wish to stay as a full member of the EU.
But what it does represent is a compromise, a halfway position that will allow us to defer the issue for another generation (or at the very least, another Parliament).
For Leavers, it will be a small victory that can be built on at a future date with a further push for full independence.
For Remainers, it will be damage control.
Actually everything i have read suggest a majority of leave voters WOULD accept a Norway deal, farage even said he would during the referendum but that was because he needed more than the swivel eyed loonies to win so had to lie.
It's just plainly ridiculous now. Even when the writing is on the wall for the whole process and how much damage it will cause.
They are so completely deluded about the whole process or simply unwilling to admit they were wrong. Still at least Whitehall have it right
“Senior Whitehall sources” were also quoted by the Daily Telegraph on Monday saying that if the UK crashes out with no deal “we will make it clear whose fault it was”.
Yep and do you think the brexiter loonies will believe them?
The ones who are laughing at the idea of food shortages after a no-deal? presumably because we're GREAT BRITAIN
The moderates will, but that is why the tories are now courting the far right steve bannon et.al.
The moderates will, but that is why the tories are now courting the far right steve bannon et.al.
Indeed. The right wing in the UK is following the same trajectory of the Republican party in the US, where they have to resort to lies and trickery to sell their positions because none of them can be supported with evidence and research.
Brexit has brought this to the forefront but before that we had the utter failure of their austerity economics to even hit their own self-imposed goals and their support of the badger culls despite all the research saying it would not work (and again they failed to reach their own targets of animals slaughtered even after they reduced said target number), just to pick two off the top of my head.
Call for a ban on people eating dog meat in the UK
UK law says that you can't buy or sell dog meat, but if you humanely kill a dog you own, you can eat it.
.. I did not know that.
I read the first sentence and was confused. But when someone says dog meat that's what we call dog food.
So I was slightly confused that lots of people were tucking into a bowl of this before going to work...
Now I know how the Government are planning to ensure we have adequate food....
Then I read the second sentence and it made more sense. I suppose this applies to any animal that you 'own'. A pet, rabbit, hamster or parrot you could probably eat if you killed it humanely. I guess the only thing off the menu is human without fava beans...
Whirlwind wrote: I guess the only thing off the menu is human without fava beans...
Eh, livers regenerate as long as you don't take too much.
Human's tend to complain though if they are being continuously sliced and diced...the regenerative process is also quite long and they need to be fed too to allow such regenerative action to happen.
Whirlwind wrote: I guess the only thing off the menu is human without fava beans...
Eh, livers regenerate as long as you don't take too much.
Human's tend to complain though if they are being continuously sliced and diced...the regenerative process is also quite long and they need to be fed too to allow such regenerative action to happen.
Of course extension is going to require significant change like elections or refendum as eu already said. Simply asking because deal isn't progressing would be waste of time and as such unacceptable for eu
It seems to me that the UK has run out the clock and there are four choices:
1. Withdraw the Article 50 letter and remain in the EU under the current terms. This can be done unilateraly by the UK and doesn't require a vote by the EU27. This of course would allow the UK government to set up another Brexit Referendum, restart the whole process, and get it right the second time. (If there is a second leave vote, not trigger A50 immediately and so on.)
2. Request an extension of the Article 50 deadline. This requires unanimous approval by the EU27, which isn't impossible and both sides may see it as preferable to option 4 below.
3. Agree whatever terms the EU is prepared to offer in the few months left. There isn't time to enter into a massive lengthy negotiation. The easiest thing is to pick an "off the shelf" solution like membership of EFTA, though this has various drawbacks in itself.
If the tax evasion since 1980 had been even only one eighth lower than the actual one and the higher revenues had been earmarked for savings, the Italian public debt would currently be no higher than 70 per cent of GDP, 60 percentage points lower of the estimated value for 2017 (131.6 percent) and not much higher than that of Germany.
Someone in France just bothered to read the European Commission's Brexit plans, and noticed that Irish exports to the Continent would be going to Belgium and the Netherlands rather than France.
Spoiler:
An EU plan to exclude French ports from new shipping routes linking Ireland with the Continent after Brexit is “scandalous and unacceptable”, the leader of the northern French region said yesterday.
Xavier Bertrand, the president of the Hauts de France region that includes the ports of Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk, urged the European Commission to review its decision to ship goods via Belgium and the Netherlands instead of France.
The proposal adopted by the European Commission last week is intended to prevent Irish exports to the Continent from being delayed by UK customs checks if Britain can no longer be part of EU routes after Brexit.
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has rejected Theresa May’s proposals on customs. He has repeatedly warned that frictionless trade is impossible outside the EU’s single market and customs union, even if there is a UK-EU free trade agreement.
But French ports stand to lose billions of pounds in EU grants if Dublin and Cork are linked with mainland Europe via the Belgian ports of Zeebrugge and Antwerp and the Dutch port of Rotterdam.
The EU fears delays from striking French port workers if trade continues to run through Calais after Brexit The EU fears delays from striking French port workers if trade continues to run through Calais after Brexit CREDIT: AFP The European Commission is believed to be concerned about severe congestion in northern France if customs checks are introduced to cross the Channel, and from possible industrial action by French port workers.
“This is a scandalous and unacceptable decision,” Mr Bertrand told the Daily Telegraph.“The risk of traffic jams if new customs checks are introduced after Brexit is the same for France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Why discriminate against our ports? The European Commission should review this and the French government should react.”
Transport companies that now use Britain as a staging post to travel to Europe have been preparing for the new routes for months.
But the French government is facing increasing domestic pressure to block the EU’s proposed new routes. The plan cuts out major French ports such as Roscoff and Cherbourg that are closer to Ireland than Belgian or Dutch ports. French Channel ports would no longer qualify for extra funding from Brussels to upgrade their facilities.
Mrs May has ruled out a European Commission proposal to keep Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union, which would create a new border in the Irish Sea, if Britain’s preferred options of a free trade agreement or innovative technical border solutions fail.
I can kind of see why - presumably the Dutch/Belgian ports can handle the traffic better, and are less likely to strike if things go badly.
They should still be trying to route a lot of stuff through the French ports due to proximity alone though, even if they need to funnel stuff though an EU port (Roscoff being nearer) and a non EU port (Cherbourg). That should minimize any impact of Brexit on Irish shipping, and potentially means they can focus their funding on upgrading just Roscoff.
This is to do with Bozo's recent illegal Daily Telegraph article in which he pretended to be against banning the burqua while mocking Muslim women as bank robbers and postboxes.
He's gone Trump, IMO, and thinks it will win him the leadership of the Conservative Party.
I've already started on making my allotment to grow vegetables for when Brexit worsens. Granted I was already planning on the allotment prior to all this nonsense but I feel that I will be a God when I'm the only person with fresh vegetables and everyone else is using cats milk in their tea and using dogfood instead of pate on their toast.
Meanwhile, I'm planning on a trip to the continent in my car, maybe I should stock up on medicine, tinned goods and clothing before I return to the Fething Thunderdome that is the Dis-UK.
Herzlos wrote: I can kind of see why - presumably the Dutch/Belgian ports can handle the traffic better, and are less likely to strike if things go badly.
They should still be trying to route a lot of stuff through the French ports due to proximity alone though, even if they need to funnel stuff though an EU port (Roscoff being nearer) and a non EU port (Cherbourg). That should minimize any impact of Brexit on Irish shipping, and potentially means they can focus their funding on upgrading just Roscoff.
It makes sense if routes to Ireland no longer go through the UK. It probably saves money in shifting cargo around if you can just go to and from the major global European port and its subsidiaries instead of landing at smaller ports to then transfer it onto a truck and then just drive it back to another port. At least when they still went through the UK as a logistical depot they probably made more localized stops, which made closer ports more useful. From my line of work in import I can see how Brexit makes skipping French port work.
Wulfmar wrote: I've already started on making my allotment to grow vegetables for when Brexit worsens. Granted I was already planning on the allotment prior to all this nonsense but I feel that I will be a God when I'm the only person with fresh vegetables and everyone else is using cats milk in their tea and using dogfood instead of pate on their toast.
Meanwhile, I'm planning on a trip to the continent in my car, maybe I should stock up on medicine, tinned goods and clothing before I return to the Fething Thunderdome that is the Dis-UK.
Don't forget the barbed wire and electric fence to protect the food!
I also see the £ is barrelling downwards again because of fears over a no deal scenario.
This is to do with Bozo's recent illegal Daily Telegraph article in which he pretended to be against banning the burqua while mocking Muslim women as bank robbers and postboxes.
He's gone Trump, IMO, and thinks it will win him the leadership of the Conservative Party.
I'm not sure what is more worrying - that we have a politician that is happy to say vile things to get into power, or that he thinks, and that there might be, enough people that support such vile statements and want someone like that in power?
Herzlos wrote: I can kind of see why - presumably the Dutch/Belgian ports can handle the traffic better, and are less likely to strike if things go badly.
They should still be trying to route a lot of stuff through the French ports due to proximity alone though, even if they need to funnel stuff though an EU port (Roscoff being nearer) and a non EU port (Cherbourg). That should minimize any impact of Brexit on Irish shipping, and potentially means they can focus their funding on upgrading just Roscoff.
It makes sense if routes to Ireland no longer go through the UK. It probably saves money in shifting cargo around if you can just go to and from the major global European port and its subsidiaries instead of landing at smaller ports to then transfer it onto a truck and then just drive it back to another port. At least when they still went through the UK as a logistical depot they probably made more localized stops, which made closer ports more useful. From my line of work in import I can see how Brexit makes skipping French port work.
I think the assumption is that going via post-Brexit Britain will add a large/uncertain delay and it's therefor better for any goods destined for Eire/Mainland EU to go directly instead of via a 3rd party with it's own rules. I can totally understand that - British docks grinding to a halt with 20+ mile tailbacks to get through customs is gak enough for the stuff going to Britain and is entirely self inflicted. But you'd want to avoid putting anything through that clustergak (and potentially 2 additional customs checks) if you can avoid it.
I'm not familiar enough with import/export to understand the impacts on the French ports.
Along with every other scientific professional body.
And most non-scientific professional bodies. But Brexit has long surpassed any interest in experts. I don't think we're even at damage control anymore.
Herzlos wrote: I can kind of see why - presumably the Dutch/Belgian ports can handle the traffic better, and are less likely to strike if things go badly.
They should still be trying to route a lot of stuff through the French ports due to proximity alone though, even if they need to funnel stuff though an EU port (Roscoff being nearer) and a non EU port (Cherbourg). That should minimize any impact of Brexit on Irish shipping, and potentially means they can focus their funding on upgrading just Roscoff.
It makes sense if routes to Ireland no longer go through the UK. It probably saves money in shifting cargo around if you can just go to and from the major global European port and its subsidiaries instead of landing at smaller ports to then transfer it onto a truck and then just drive it back to another port. At least when they still went through the UK as a logistical depot they probably made more localized stops, which made closer ports more useful. From my line of work in import I can see how Brexit makes skipping French port work.
I think the assumption is that going via post-Brexit Britain will add a large/uncertain delay and it's therefor better for any goods destined for Eire/Mainland EU to go directly instead of via a 3rd party with it's own rules. I can totally understand that - British docks grinding to a halt with 20+ mile tailbacks to get through customs is gak enough for the stuff going to Britain and is entirely self inflicted. But you'd want to avoid putting anything through that clustergak (and potentially 2 additional customs checks) if you can avoid it.
I'm not familiar enough with import/export to understand the impacts on the French ports.
That combined with a lower amount of paperwork is the likely explanation. From my own sector, which is pretty general for the most part, we work on a spiderweb system. Rotterdam is our main storage hub. The bigger countries like Germany, France and the UK serve as regional hubs supplied by Rotterdam, but its cheaper and in cases faster now to ship through smaller port like Calais (for example) instead of Rotterdam for our cargo that goes to the UK (which distributes to Ireland). We also handle all the import paperwork for the EU so the regional hubs don't have to deal with any of that. But if the UK exits the EU then we would have to ship it out>in>out>in to get it to Ireland. As it now costs more money and time we're scaling down the UK hub and going directly through Rotterdam to Ireland, which makes it cheaper than French ports if we ship directly. Ireland won't expand storage capacity, but our estimate is that it would now be faster to top up the small Irish stock from the Netherlands instead of the UK.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That combined with a lower amount of paperwork is the likely explanation. From my own sector, which is pretty general for the most part, we work on a spiderweb system. Rotterdam is our main storage hub. The bigger countries like Germany, France and the UK serve as regional hubs supplied by Rotterdam, but its cheaper and in cases faster now to ship through smaller port like Calais (for example) instead of Rotterdam for our cargo that goes to the UK (which distributes to Ireland). We also handle all the import paperwork for the EU so the regional hubs don't have to deal with any of that. But if the UK exits the EU then we would have to ship it out>in>out>in to get it to Ireland. As it now costs more money and time we're scaling down the UK hub and going directly through Rotterdam to Ireland, which makes it cheaper than French ports if we ship directly. Ireland won't expand storage capacity, but our estimate is that it would now be faster to top up the small Irish stock from the Netherlands instead of the UK.
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense and I think the same will apply to anyone else who's supplying Eire via the UK now (which is the majority of EU->Eire trade as I understand it).
Which is both good for the UK (because there's less traffic to deal with) and bad (that traffic must have meant revenue and jobs somewhere, or at least economies of scale going to Rotterdam or Eire).
The Conservative government has ruled out 1-3, but Theresa May change her mind if she reckons it’ll keep her in the job,
May is just a bullet shield, always has been always will.
How many times do you think they could have removed her? after the election? after so many fails and scandals even recently, over chequers, they had Nearly enough to
remove her.
She changes her "mind" when they tell her to say something else then change her mind to what she should say.
Seriously what is her opinion on, well anything, except grammar schools?
She is a back bencher who somehow made it to home secretary, did such a terrible job that she was afraid of losing the position, so "supported" remain as cameron threatened them.
Spent the referendum hiding and complaining about the ECJ. Then found herself as a perfect patsy, someone who can "pretend" to bring the country together,
and when it all goes wrong?
SHE'S A REMOANER PLANT. SHE RUINED IT. WE COULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER!!
This is to do with Bozo's recent illegal Daily Telegraph article in which he pretended to be against banning the burqua while mocking Muslim women as bank robbers and postboxes.
He's gone Trump, IMO, and thinks it will win him the leadership of the Conservative Party.
johnson is a fool and always seems to go off half cocked. Look at his resignation, instead of meeting with the EU and Balkans(? He stood someone up but can't remember who)
he had a photo op. of him signing his resignation, making him look like a fool who was jumping on the bandwagon.
Quite frankly from what i have heard/ read since, and with my belief that the tories want a no-deal brexit, i think that sort of language WILL win someone the vote
Just not that tool.
Wulfmar wrote:I've already started on making my allotment to grow vegetables for when Brexit worsens. Granted I was already planning on the allotment prior to all this nonsense but I feel that I will be a God when I'm the only person with fresh vegetables and everyone else is using cats milk in their tea and using dogfood instead of pate on their toast.
Meanwhile, I'm planning on a trip to the continent in my car, maybe I should stock up on medicine, tinned goods and clothing before I return to the Fething Thunderdome that is the Dis-UK.
Good on you. Though i doubt a no-deal situation will last long, it's always good having a hobby and i have read gardening is really good at getting rid of stress.
BUT...BUT... WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY THAT WILL FLOW INTO THERE POCKETS WHEN THEY START STUDYING PROPER SCIENCES?
LIKE:- SOVERINGNTY
GREAT BRITAIN
NIGEL FARAGE
She'd probably get this wherever she went. The problem is that she tends not to advertise too many of these types of events (this one being more high profile). I wonder if she would actually get the message if she was booed everywhere or whether she is deaf, figuratively speaking, to the issues she is causing.
Still she is getting desperate now. Begging letters going out to all members trying to persuade them it is a good deal. Perhaps it should really read "Why you should keep me as a PM even though I'm incompetent"
Surely it is now clear that Borish Jonson would be a disastrous prime minister.
Let's hope his constituents will call for a recall vote on him. His majoiry in Uxbridge is far from unassailable in a by-election.
Alternatively, if May bites the bullet and withdraws the Conservative ship from Boris, he can't function as a Conservative MP and theferore would not be eligible to stand for election as leader of the party.
Alternatively, if May bites the bullet and withdraws the Conservative ship from Boris, he can't function as a Conservative MP and theferore would not be eligible to stand for election as leader of the party.
Despite all his idiocies in the Foreign Office she didn't throw him out of the cabinet. Her response was slow and forced on his latest bigotry. She won't throw him out because she knows he has too much grass roots support which would then abandon her.
And... unbelievably my textile Business this morning has been asked to take part in the Gov consultation on rules of origin so they can draw conclusions and try negotiate best deal with EU. NOW!! 40 years of rules now being collated, drawn up and apparently negotiated by March
... even better news, some are saying this in fact needs to be done by October, so it can be ratified in March.
I could perhaps suggest some items for the no deal agenda she is planning.
Theresa May's resignation (8th April 2019 - one day after all 'luxury' food supplies run out and country is limited to spam and turnips for every meal)
Hobbies to take up afterwards (being limited to something that she can f**k up without harming anything such as watercolour paintings of whitewashed walls; knitting would be by far too risky with those pointy needles)
Determining possible countries where she can live in retirement (these being those countries with the lowest number of British citizens to avoid very angry voters - An uninhabited island off Antarctica perhaps?)
The title of the inevitable biography "1000 days to screw over a country (13th July 2016 - 8th April 2019)"
Being granted citizenship from Russia for being a useful idiot.
She'd probably get this wherever she went. The problem is that she tends not to adv
Still she is getting desperate now. Begging letters going out to all members trying to persuade them it is a good deal. Perhaps it should really read "Why you should keep me as a PM even though I'm incompetent"
Please read the whole article to get the full details.
It's still very close though. After all within the likely errors, and despite all the calamity that is Wrexit, 50% still think leaving is the best idea.
Indeed. The south-west (specifically Newton Abbot in Devon) has the main headquarters of UKIP.
It is very much a Leaver stronghold, so it reaching the point where it has dropped to effectively 50/50 could be a sign that public opinion is changing.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's a specific region which was much more pro-Brexit two years ago.
It demonstrates a shift by Leave voters away from Brexit.
That one region is not the whole country, of course, but it's not unreasonable to extrapolate more widely.
It's a total of a 4% of a swing. 6% of those asked said they didn't know, 6% stated they wouldn't vote. Hence the errors are likely still a bit too large. I agree there is a general trend to support remaining (not exactly surprising given demographic changes). However I think I would advise caution stating that definitely things have changed in specific areas. For example the 6% who stated they don't know might all be supporting Leave but are too embarrassed by it all to admit it (the same goes for shy Tory voters etc).
This is to do with Bozo's recent illegal Daily Telegraph article in which he pretended to be against banning the burqua while mocking Muslim women as bank robbers and postboxes.
He's gone Trump, IMO, and thinks it will win him the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Please stop the zombie plague from spreading to the UK. Save yourselves!
And... unbelievably my textile Business this morning has been asked to take part in the Gov consultation on rules of origin so they can draw conclusions and try negotiate best deal with EU. NOW!! 40 years of rules now being collated, drawn up and apparently negotiated by March
... even better news, some are saying this in fact needs to be done by October, so it can be ratified in March.
But I thought Brexit was all about finally paying attention to the (portion of the) working class who are worried about immigration? Surely you're not suggesting that was just a cover for a toxic mix of ideology and disaster capitalist opportunism among the country's leadership and that in fact, they intend to go back to ignoring said portion of the working class like they do at all other times and on all other issues? I am shocked, shocked I tell you
The beauty of the Vote Leave campaign, and May's "Brexit means Brexit", is that neither meant anything specific so whoever disliked the EU for whatever reason could hold the belief their concerns were going to be addressed.
Of course we are now getting stuck in the mess and grit of practical reality, and things inevitably aren't going according to those magical thinking plans.
To be fair to the working class, the whole debate around immigration was done badly, and people weren't well informed about the benefits of immigration.
It was Blair's New Labour government in the late 1990s, which decided not to bother to implement the kind of registration system for EU citizens which Belgium for example uses. This led to the situation where the government was completely unable to say how many EU citizens were in the UK. The government however did know how many babies were born in 2003, and therefore how many primary school places would be needed in 2008, and failed to plan for the demand.
That said, the row over immigration numbers from 2010 onwards largely concerns the net immigration target. A couple of points about this...
1. If more UK citizens emigrate, it's easier to meet the target. In theory, 60 million Brits could emigrate in a year while 59 million French immigrated and we would blow the target into high orbit. That's an argument ad absurdam of course, to emphasise that the target is not rational.
2. For years, the number of non-EU citizens immigrating into the UK has exceeded the number of EU citizens. This gives no confidence that the target ever would be met even after being able to "throttle" the number of EU citizens entering.
Basically the target was pulled out of Cameron's arse to make a soundbite. It bears no relation to reality or practicality. Hence the situation now where the NHS is crying out of foreign doctors and nurses and can't get the visas for them. Hence the CBI pointing out that the UK needs foreign staff.
It was Blair's New Labour government in the late 1990s, which decided not to bother to implement the kind of registration system for EU citizens which Belgium for example uses. This led to the situation where the government was completely unable to say how many EU citizens were in the UK.
I don't really see the need for immigrants to be registered in this way. They should be able to run their lives with the same paperwork the rest of us do that were born as British. I actually support the stance of not registering people in this way - I don't think we should care where people come from and shouldn't have some form of 'labelling' system in this way. I think it is overly divisive and just costs significant amount of money to administer.
The government however did know how many babies were born in 2003, and therefore how many primary school places would be needed in 2008, and failed to plan for the demand.
That's not quite correct because school places isn't determined by national government (unlike say teachers pay, which is(was?)). Capital for new schools comes from a system called Section 106 Developer Contributions. When a new development appears then a local authority will make an assessment of the average number of children that 'house' will generate (for example a three bed they might calculate 1.5 children on average). The Council will then determine a cost per child for a new school (both primary and secondary) and at the time a Planning Application is submitted submit a claim (S106) for funding to support the development of a new school if it is needed and there isn't capacity at existing schools. There are disadvantages of the system though:-
You can pool funding however if the money isn't spent within a certain timeframe then the money gets handed back to the developers. If the development is small in an area where there might be some capacity then smaller developments might squeeze in without having to shell out or that not enough small developments come forward to make expanding a school viable - hence money is returned and that compounds the issue. It can also be seen as unfair on some developers because depending on when you get the planning permission can see you either need to pay nothing towards the school (there is capacity) or the later one might have to pay full whack (because the previous development gobbled up the capacity).
Two tier authorities (those with Districts and County Councils can also be partially hamstrung by the former not supporting the latter). In such areas a housing application goes to the District Council, the requirement for support towards schools (and libraries, waste sites, roads) is a County function. The County Council has no ability to challenge a District decision. Developers would play off a Districta against the Council, for example they might agree to part fund a swimming pool if they don't have to pay for school costs etc. Hence the local area might get some sports faciltiies that the District can brag about but the County loses the funding to support schooling in the area. Again the County has no ability to challenge (unless it really is acting illegally, but two Councils taking each other to court is almost unheard of). Admittedly this is almost an internal politics issue, but when you have two Councils with two political parties in control it can be quite common.
As such you can find that over time despite the development of new housing places for things like schooling become sparser. It is also a reason why some authorities have moved to "Sustainable Urban Extensions" because these are so large that it is much easier to stop the former issue.
New legislation was introduced called the Community Infrastructure Levy which was meant to replace S106 funding but never took off because it got even more mired in politics - Basically a per sq m of land resulted in a payment to the District Council but which was under no compulsion to distribute any of it to the County Council and could spend it on anything within the area. Districts started to spend the money on frivolous projects, too little money went to the County Councils to build roads, schools etc. Hence the developments couldn't be brought forward. Although nice in principle it collapsed because politicians are selfish at heart.
We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.
However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.
It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.
Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.
Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.
Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.
Isn’t that standard right wing cognitive dissonance? It’s about standard for the right to claim what they say, no matter how awful, is free speech and to try and stop any critical comments of them. I don’t think it’s alt right, it’s just normal standard conservative behaviour.
W're not seeing it from a lot of the rest of the party, though. We've actually seen strong criticism of Bozza from a number of high level party figures.
Kilkrazy wrote: We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.
However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.
It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.
Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.
Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.
Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.
That's because strategically they think it is a vote winner for them being both the next leader and winning the next election. Which shows something depressing about a significant minority in this country. The irony being that for the Labour party it would be a vote loser. It does say something about the respective parties and their support.
The criticism can be split into three basic groups:-
Those completely opposed to the comments (some in the Tory party)
Those that waited to see how the wind blew and might use it for politicial maneouvering (e.g. May's condemnation was muted, delayed and weak, however she has seen it as a potential option to silence Bozo although that seems to be backfiring, which is not surprising because May never makes sound judgements).
Those that think it is 'free speech'
One of the other things it exposes is the hypocrisy of both the nation, papers and the Tory party. If Corbyn or similar had made a 'joke' about the Kippah then you can bet your bottom dollar that the right wing papers/Tories (including people like Rees-Mogg/Bozo) etc would have been all over the anti-Semitism angle.
Strategically it is a vote winner for becoming the next leader. There is a pretty strong strain of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party membership, partly reflecting their greater average age.
This does not necessarily carry over to the country as a whole, however if Bozza can get a contest against May in the near future, we could potentially be saddled with him as PM until 2022.
Would anyone listen to him though? I mean Mays been pretty ineffective and doesn't seem to have achieved anything so far as PM. Why assume Boris would do any better?
Kilkrazy wrote: We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.
However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.
It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.
Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.
Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.
Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.
Bojo should be criticised night and day, and I've got plenty to say about him, none of it good.
Religious garments are also fair game in my book. I don't give any religion a free pass on that.
Does anyone have a link to an archived copy of the Boris Johnson article so I can judge his remarks first hand without relying on hear say or having to go through the pay wall?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.
Then he's an idiot who doesn't understand Free Speech. BoJo has the right to make these remarks, but people also have the right to criticise his remarks.
Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.
Meanwhile you're slinging around hyperbolic labels like "Alt-Right" with a straight face...That term really has become a bogeyman for the Left, hasn't it?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Does anyone have a link to an archived copy of the Boris Johnson article so I can judge his remarks first hand without relying on hear say or having to go through the pay wall?
That's difficult because, well you have to pay to get access it.
The Scum paper has perhaps a more comprehensive section on what he said:-
Mr Johnson wrote: "If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree.
"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
And he added that "a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber" he would ask her to remove it to speak to her.
Mr Johnson, who quit as Foreign Secretary last month over Brexit, said it was "sensible" to be able to read each others facial expressions and humans "must be able to see each other's faces".
He said that individual businesses or branches of Government should be free to enforce a dress code that enables their workers to best interact with customers - which could involve removing the veils.
In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want. It would actually be better for society if all of us wore clothes that showed no features, made us all equal height, made our voices all the same and so forth. It is one of human's worst natures is that too many judge simply on sex, colour of skin and so forth. Wearing certain types of clothes shouldn't condemn you to people thinking you look like a letterbox or a robber. It's the same type of thinking that is effectively racism or religious intolerance in that someone is being judged on what they wear rather then their actions.
Form my perspective it's absolutely ridiculous that a person should choose to go around looking like an upturned mop after wiping a dirty floor...but then at least one person does and I suppose that is his right.
Meanwhile you're slinging around hyperbolic labels like "Alt-Right" with a straight face...That term really has become a bogeyman for the Left, hasn't it?
Because it should be a bogeyman. Let's not forget that the Alt-Right was not coined by centre/left of society. It was dreamt up by those that wanted an umbrella for some very nasty, bigoted and racist views and to hide them under the guise of something more acceptable. This allows them to capture those that may be right leaning but would find some of the concepts appalling whilst inveigling those same principles slowly into those people.
There's a famous Tony Benn quote that goes every generation to fight the same battles of the previous generation.
So, despite centuries of religious bloodshed in Europe, a Spanish Inquisition, a powerful and dominant Catholic church and laws against blasphemy, all of which were radically curbed by the Enlightenment, here we are again with a man in trouble for criticising a religious garment.
Must we have to go through this bull again? It's depressing and it's even more depressing that I have to defend Bojo
Should Muslim women be able to wear these garments? Absolutely. I would be against a ban.
Should people be able to criticise these garments. Absolutely God damn right.
I will always defend people's right to worship how they please and dress how they please, but in a secular Britain no religion gets a free pass or special privileges for their beliefs. Never.
If you took that to its logical conclusion, everybody would demand all sorts of special treatment. You can't run a society like that.
@whirlwind. The other week, there was a Tory MP calling for people like yourself, EU supporters, to be done for treason because of your support for the EU.
Absolutely fething ridiculous. God knows I've had plenty to say about the EU recently, none of it good, but I would always defend people's right to support the EU through peaceful democratic means.
Do you see how precious free speech is and how censorship and calls for groups to be silenced can group from issue to issue at the drop of a hat?
By God, I wish we had the 1st amendment in Britain.
Whirlwind wrote: In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want.
Agreed. I don't like the Burka because I think its misogynist with regards to the religious and cultural pressures for Muslim women to cover up their flesh to prevent Men ogling them. Thats essentially shifting the onus for Men to not misbehave to Women covering up because Men just can't help it. Its victim blaming.
However, I don't want the Government to be in the business of banning and controlling what people can wear as I generally don't like intrusions into private life.
(except of course in very specific circumstances for reasons of security etc where one must show their face).
It would actually be better for society if all of us wore clothes that showed no features, made us all equal height, made our voices all the same and so forth. It is one of human's worst natures is that too many judge simply on sex, colour of skin and so forth. Wearing certain types of clothes shouldn't condemn you to people thinking you look like a letterbox or a robber.
You want to cover up and conceal Diversity? You're starting to sound like the Alt Right in reverse.
t's the same type of thinking that is effectively racism or religious intolerance in that someone is being judged on what they wear rather then their actions.
I don't judge Muslim Women for wearing Burkas. I blame the religious and cultural pressures that coerce Muslim women into wearing them (i.e. Men).
Because it should be a bogeyman. Let's not forget that the Alt-Right was not coined by centre/left of society. It was dreamt up by those that wanted an umbrella for some very nasty, bigoted and racist views and to hide them under the guise of something more acceptable. This allows them to capture those that may be right leaning but would find some of the concepts appalling whilst inveigling those same principles slowly into those people.
It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Does anyone have a link to an archived copy of the Boris Johnson article so I can judge his remarks first hand without relying on hear say or having to go through the pay wall?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.
Then he's an idiot who doesn't understand Free Speech. BoJo has the right to make these remarks, but people also have the right to criticise his remarks.
Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.
Meanwhile you're slinging around hyperbolic labels like "Alt-Right" with a straight face...That term really has become a bogeyman for the Left, hasn't it?
There was no incitement to violence in Bojo's words or any racism I could see. It was a man (a complete buffoon I grant you) criticising an item of clothing.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is. If people are offended that's their problem.
You can't operate a free society on the basis that some things can't be said in case people take offence. Voltaire would be spinning in his grave.
Whirlwind wrote: In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want.
Agreed. I don't like the Burka because I think its misogynist with regards to the religious and cultural pressures for Muslim women to cover up their flesh to prevent Men ogling them. Thats essentially shifting the onus for Men to not misbehave to Women covering up because Men just can't help it. Its victim blaming.
It is way more complicated than this. You are making out that the only reason women wear burka's is because they are pressurised by men from sizing them up. You could quite easily apply the same argument as to why any of us wear clothes in the first place. We could however just walk about butt naked everywhere because simply that is what clothes do - hide part of our bodies or to make a statement (and occasionally keep us warm).
Lots of clothes have historic routes and it becomes what we are 'comfortable' wearing. From what I've gathered Burkas originated from tribal times when tribes tend to raid other tribes for brides. During such raids the raiders tended to grab the more attractive women, hence burkas became established because it hid people from what they looked like. It doesn't however mean that same situation applies.
The assumption that all women that wear burka's are in some way all forced to wear them lacks any concept that they might want to or that is what they are most comfortable with. In effect this views a certain group of people as undertaking certain actions without considering the individual, which effectively has racist undertones (and is the issue that people oppose Bozos comments on) because it is limited to a certain group of people. It effectively comes down to "white man uncomfortable with a dress style therefore makes assumptions and assertions on the whole group without actually thinking of the individual circumstances".
There are almost certainly dominating men in society but that doesn't extend just to one group or another. It is prevalent throughout society, a type of clothing shouldn't be used as singling out one group or another
You want to cover up and conceal Diversity? You're starting to sound like the Alt Right in reverse.
But would it. The community would still be diverse, with opinions taken from around the world. It doesn't stop the people being diverse at all. What it does stop is a judgement being made because of your race, sex, religion and so forth and hence the diverse views are given equal weighting. That's why many job applications now remove all personal information before being assessed. You view the content, not the person. That doesn't restrict diversity - in fact it should increase it because no, human evolved, pre-judgement takes place.
I don't judge Muslim Women for wearing Burkas. I blame the religious and cultural pressures that coerce Muslim women into wearing them (i.e. Men).
I ask again how can you make this statement? I presume you blame UK religious and cultural pressures for us to wear suits and ties, do you blame religious and cultural pressures for people having to wear these - A tie is after all just a statement saying I have a big cock! Would you apply that same rationale to skirts, high heel shoes, bikinis, budgie smugglers etc etc. You make this statement as fact yet where is the evidence that every woman that wears a burka does it for this reason alone!
It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.
I think this is more of an excuse not to want to see it and a way of waving it away and ignoring it because it might make looking under the hood more 'difficult'. It's quite easy to wave away uncomfortable truths when you approach things like this.
There was no incitement to violence in Bojo's words or any racism I could see. It was a man (a complete buffoon I grant you) criticising an item of clothing.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is. If people are offended that's their problem.
You can't operate a free society on the basis that some things can't be said in case people take offence. Voltaire would be spinning in his grave.
So you woudl be quite happy for me to compare you to a paedophile because of the clothes you wear? There's a huge difference between free speech and making assertions about a group of people because of the clothes they wear. Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility to use that with discretion and sense.
It would have been OK to say "I find speaking to someone that has their face covered difficult because I use facial expressions to understand the impact of my statements"
It's not OK to say because someone wears a burka they look like a bank robber or letter box - this makes an assertion about a group of people and is the roots of racism and bigotry.
I ask again how can you make this statement? I presume you blame UK religious and cultural pressures for us to wear suits and ties, do you blame religious and cultural pressures for people having to wear these - A tie is after all just a statement saying I have a big cock! Would you apply that same rationale to skirts, high heel shoes, bikinis, budgie smugglers etc etc. You make this statement as fact
Read the links.
Do you deny that flogging a woman for refusing to wear a Burqa is misogyny?
yet where is the evidence that every woman that wears a burka does it for this reason alone!
Where is the evidence that it is not? Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice, and not because they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe its a religious mandate and they'd be bad Muslims if they don't? Do you seriously believe that Muslim women do not feel pressure from their communities and families to dress a certain way?
It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.
I think this is more of an excuse not to want to see it and a way of waving it away and ignoring it because it might make looking under the hood more 'difficult'. It's quite easy to wave away uncomfortable truths when you approach things like this.
I'm not waiving away anything. I don't doubt for a minute that genuine Far Right "Alt-Righters" exist. But they'e a tiny minority of the people who are labelled "Alt Right". The vast majority of people labelled "Alt Right" are simply ordinary Conservatives. Its become an absurd witch hunt blown out of all proportion.
I find it odd that the Left in the West gets so worked up over a religious garment that is used to oppress Women elsewhere in the world...
I don't want to ban the Burqa in the UK either, but lets not forget that it is inherently misogynist.
Because it is used a method of suppression in other countries does not mean it is used as a method of suppression in this country. Surely you can understand this basic difference?
It's not like we are perfect either. In some places if women turn up in the wrong clothes (high heels, blond hair) you don't get paid. In some ways we just allow the same actions to take place but rather turn a blind eye to it. But then I assume that this is perfectly OK because high heels and blond hair is not a cultural or religious norm...?
I find it odd that the Left in the West gets so worked up over a religious garment that is used to oppress Women elsewhere in the world...
I don't want to ban the Burqa in the UK either, but lets not forget that it is inherently misogynist.
Because it is used a method of suppression in other countries does not mean it is used as a method of suppression in this country. Surely you can understand this basic difference?
Yes, I can. In those countries, it is often mandated by Law. In this country, we (currently) have Laws to protect women from that kind of suppression. That might change one day if we don't stand up to defend our values and discourage that suppression here. Society is not immutable. It changes over time.
Surely you can forsee a day when it WILL be used as a method of suppression in this country?
It's not like we are perfect either. In some places if women turn up in the wrong clothes (high heels, blond hair) you don't get paid. In some ways we just allow the same actions to take place but rather turn a blind eye to it. But then I assume that this is perfectly OK because high heels and blond hair is not a cultural or religious norm...?
Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm for individual liberty. I want everyone to have the freedom to wear what they choose. I do not want to ban the Burqa.
The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.
Do you deny that flogging a woman for refusing to wear a Burqa is misogyny?
This doesn't happen in the UK, there are countries all over the world that punish you for not wearing the accepted clothing. It doesn't make it right. Are you saying that women wearing burkas in this country are being suppressed by other nation states?
Where is the evidence that it is not? Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice, and not because they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe its a religious mandate and they'd be bad Muslims if they don't? Do you seriously believe that Muslim women do not feel pressure from their communities and families to dress a certain way?
I do not know, however you are stating that it definitely must be. I've already accepted that there are those that oppress women across society and this should be dealt with on an individual basis through education, developing confidence and prosecutions where necessary. You are asserting categorically that everyone wearing a burka must be forced to do, where in all likelihood you probably don't know anyone in depth enough to know whether they are or not (and definitely can't say for all of them). You are categorising people simply because of a style of clothes based on a religious reason. That is the basis for racism and bigotry.
I'm not waiving away anything. I don't doubt for a minute that genuine Far Right "Alt-Righters" exist. But they'e a tiny minority of the people who are labelled "Alt Right". The vast majority of people labelled "Alt Right" are simply ordinary Conservatives. Its become an absurd witch hunt blown out of all proportion.
Then perhaps you should read up about all the elements Alt-right includes and apply that to some of the actions of the Tory party. Perhaps you might be surprised. Alt-right isn't just fascists and so forth. It is a group of people that in the end wave the flag from nationalism (mainly white based) all through to the Nazi's we all despise. It's a re-imagining of those hard right nutcases in a catch all term to both distance themselves from old nomenclature to make it more appealing to those that are simply nationalistic whilst allowing them to ever drawn towards the centre of what they really are.
Yes, I can. In those countries, it is often mandated by Law. In this country, we (currently) have Laws to protect women from that kind of suppression. That might change one day if we don't stand up to defend our values and discourage that suppression here. Society is not immutable. It changes over time.
OK, so it's tin hat paranoia time is it thinking that some day we might bring in capital punishment for what we wear.
Surely you can forsee a day when it WILL be used as a method of suppression in this country?
The only suppression I can see is from the likes of Bozo that the above types of daft sentiment bring forth to allow us to suppress groups from another religion because they "dress differently" and we *think* we know why . But I'm not sure that is what you were meant to be espousing.
Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.
I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here
The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.
Without evidence, but you seem categorically convinced you are right for no other reason than I can see other than "that's not how our women dress", right?
What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.
So you woudl be quite happy for me to compare you to a paedophile because of the clothes you wear? There's a huge difference between free speech and making assertions about a group of people because of the clothes they wear. Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility to use that with discretion and sense.
No, I wouldn't be happy, and I'd reply by telling you to feth off in such a hypothetical situation, but nor would I be calling for you to be locked up for saying it. We all know there is social interactions and norms that happen or don't happen in human society. You're free to walk up to a heavy weight boxer and call him a piece of bullgak, but you probably wouldn't because you'd expect a punch on the nose in return.
We all tend to self-regulate our words on a daily basis anyway. Well, most of us do in society.
If people said I look like X for the clothes I wear, that's no different IMO than laughing at a Scotsman for wearing a Kilt or saying Morris dancers look like idiots.
Criticising a Morris dancer's clothes and saying they are ridiculous is fine. Me calling for Whirlwind and Shadow Captain to go out and kill Morris dancers is obviously unacceptable.
That's how I see Bojo's comments. He has a God given right to say they look silly. He has no right to incite violence against them.
Whirlwind wrote: I do not know, however you are stating that it definitely must be. I've already accepted that there are those that oppress women across society and this should be dealt with on an individual basis through education, developing confidence and prosecutions where necessary. You are asserting categorically that everyone wearing a burka must be forced to do, where in all likelihood you probably don't know anyone in depth enough to know whether they are or not (and definitely can't say for all of them). You are categorising people simply because of a style of clothes based on a religious reason. That is the basis for racism and bigotry.
I'm not categorising anybody. I'm categorising a cultural and religious practice that pressures and coerces Women to dress a certain way, denying them the freedom to dress as they choose. That is the basis for misogyny.
I agree that you can't say for sure either way whether or not a person wears it out of choice or because of social pressure without knowing their heart, which is why I do not favour banning it. I am questioning whether they are truly making a free choice without being pressured or coerced from family, community, religious and cultural pressures.
Future War Cultist wrote: What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.
That's not what he said at all. He both commented it should be right for certain employers to ban it where they feel it doesn't facilitate interaction with customers (so hence the rights of an individual are lost for the profit of an organisation). He also stated that:-
"I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam."
So hence he doesn't like the banning of it completely because he just want's to avoid anything that will show him to be a racist a-hole. He is not opposed to the banning of it because a person's rights at all!
Future War Cultist wrote: What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.
Well said.
The other week on another forum, I was defending EU supporters against that Tory fethwit who wanted treason charges against them.
You all know how I feel about the EU, but I'd always defend their right to peacefully campaign to get us back in there, even though I'd happily tell Juncker to stick his project up his Khyber.
For me, free speech is all or nothing. You have to defend stuff you don't like. If you waver for a minute, you may as well call it a day, because they'll come for you next.
Whirlwind wrote: Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.
I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here
No you weren't, you were framing it as a Straw Man, suggesting that I personally hold a double standard. If that was not your intention, then frame your argument more clearly.
The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.
Without evidence, but you seem categorically convinced you are right
If I was categorically convinced that all Women are coerced against their will into wearing it, then I WOULD be arguing for a ban on Burqas. But I am not. Because I acknowledge the possibility that they're wearing it out of free will. And because I generally don't like that degree of Government interference in private life. I am arguing that there are too many cultural, religious and social pressures to wear a Burqa that any suggestion that "Women do it out of free will" should be treated with scepticism.
for no other reason than I can see other than "that's not how our women dress", right?
Again, you're making up a Straw Man. Please stop doing that, its rude. Stop making up my reasons, and start LISTENING to my reasons. I've already told you. Throughout the world, in the countries where this style of Islamic dress originates from, Women ARE compelled through religion, Law and social pressure to wear it. Just because they're not compelled to wear it here in Europe doesn't change the fact that in its original form and context, it was and continues to be a compulsory cultural practice. Just because British Law ostensibly protects Muslim Women here from that compulsion, does not mean that there are no people here who are seeking to make it compulsory.
And hell, its arguable that its not even an Islamic religious requirement, I've seen claims that it in fact pre-dates Islam. Don't many Islamic countries themselves ban the Burqa? Are THEY racist and bigots for banning it?
If people said I look like X for the clothes I wear, that's no different IMO than laughing at a Scotsman for wearing a Kilt or saying Morris dancers look like idiots.
Criticising a Morris dancer's clothes and saying they are ridiculous is fine. Me calling for Whirlwind and Shadow Captain to go out and kill Morris dancers is obviously unacceptable.
So you would then laugh at someone wearing a Kippah? Despite that fact it's not really any of your business what someone else wears. But you are quite happy to comment and criticise because of:-
a) being an arrogant a-hole?
b) because it gives my life meaning and I feel better for not wearing those clothes?
c) I like sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong?
d) I have a character flaw...
e) insert other option.
So again why would you call something ridiculous - what in your mind makes someone using a certain style of dress ridiculous?
No one in this country is talking about capital punishment for clothes, it's really a ridiculous argument. It is possible to use it as an excuse for 'acceptable' racism though.
No one in this country is talking about capital punishment for clothes, it's really a ridiculous argument. It is possible to use it as an excuse for 'acceptable' racism though.
You can't talk about Britain in a vacuum. By its very nature, the Burqa is an international cultural practice. It did not originate here. The fact that in other parts of the world the Burqa is punishable by Corporal (and Capital?) punishment is entirely relevant to the discussion.
Whirlwind, I tend not to go out and laugh at people or criticise them for no good reason anyway, and the vast majority of people in society won't deliberately go out to cause offence or upset people.
Like I said, we, as a society, tend to regulate ourselves at any rate with regard to social conventions. If you made an insult about somebody's clothes to their face, you'd obviously expect some sort of retaliation, which is why 99% of people have the good sense not to do it out of politeness, self-preservation or simply because they'd never do it anyway.
But you'd never stop people thinking or speaking it, and nor should you. We all have freedom of thought and action, whilst accepting there can be some consequences to our actions: if you murder, you go to jail, not being able to shout fire in a cinema etc etc
Whirlwind, I've told you that I do not wish to ban the Burqa, but I dislike it and explained my reasons why.
You think that makes me a racist. I think you're a misogynist, or at least when racism and misogyny intersect you care more about racism and are willing to turn a blind eye to misogyny.
I'm not sure any more productive discussion can be had between us so I'm out.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whirlwind, I've told you that I do not wish to ban the Burqa, but I dislike it and explained my reasons why.
You think that makes me a racist. I think you're a misogynist, or at least when racism and misogyny intersect you care more about racism and are willing to turn a blind eye to misogyny.
I'm not sure any more productive discussion can be had between us so I'm out.
Good call. Whirlwind will argue a point to death, then he’ll carry on arguing over its rotting corpse. Best to just get out early. The ignore button is there too btw.
Whirlwind wrote: Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.
I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here
No you weren't, you were framing it as a Straw Man, suggesting that I personally hold a double standard. If that was not your intention, then frame your argument more clearly.
You are quick to point out in other countries where someone might be punished for not wearing certain clothes and that is a reason why Bozo has a point leading to oppression in this country. The argument that the 'left' are defending these countries because of that oppression. Your argument that oppression in another country must mean oppression in this one without evidence and that in some way they are being controlled because of cultural and religious stereotypes. Yet failing to recognise that similar types of oppression happen in our own country based on cultural stereotypes. That your argument is invalid because both the countries you highlighted have different but fundamentally oppressive methods to control what women wear.
If I was categorically convinced that all Women are coerced against their will into wearing it, then I WOULD be arguing for a ban on Burqas. But I am not. Because I acknowledge the possibility that they're wearing it out of free will. And because I generally don't like that degree of Government interference in private life. I am arguing that there are too many cultural, religious and social pressures to wear a Burqa that any suggestion that "Women do it out of free will" should be treated with scepticism.
That to me sounds like you are convinced, but can't find the evidence to prove that you are correct.
Again, you're making up a Straw Man. Please stop doing that, its rude. Stop making up my reasons, and start LISTENING to my reasons. I've already told you. Throughout the world, in the countries where this style of Islamic dress originates from, Women ARE compelled through religion, Law and social pressure to wear it. Just because they're not compelled to wear it here in Europe doesn't change the fact that in its original form and context, it was and continues to be a compulsory cultural practice.
No it's a logical assertion based on what you are saying. In your own words
Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice
you state you don't understand why any woman would wear a burka based simply in our cultural 'norm' we don't and that in a country they may never have been to use it is a tool of oppression. You can't grasp that such clothing arise from before such countries even existed but because they exist now it must mean that it as an overlying oppressive influence. You can't get that someone might simply wear it because they want to in the same way we may choose to wear a tshirt, or trousers or suit and so forth. Hence it is correct to state that simply you can't understand why people might wear such attire because traditionally more women in the UK tend to not wear such clothing. It's your lack of concept and arguably narrow field of view that is preventing any alternative explanation.
It's probably for the best that I haven't met any of you in the flesh
But judging by the friendly and tolerant discussions we've had over the years, I tend to think that we're all gentlemen at heart. Yeah, we may disagree, but there's respect and politeness there.
I'm happy to criticise any religion or religious garment until the cows come home, but if I encountered a Muslim lady on the bus or in the street, and she was wearing such clothing, she'd never get any trouble from me, because I'm too polite and it's not the done thing to harass random strangers.
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
If anything, I'd probably leap to her defence if some fethwit was giving her agro, and I suspect that everybody else would be the same.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whirlwind, I've told you that I do not wish to ban the Burqa, but I dislike it and explained my reasons why.
You think that makes me a racist. I think you're a misogynist, or at least when racism and misogyny intersect you care more about racism and are willing to turn a blind eye to misogyny.
I'm not sure any more productive discussion can be had between us so I'm out.
You've yet to provide any evidence though that it is a misogynist practice in this country. I've also not called you a racist - if you check I've stated that making assertions about a group of people based on an arbitrary assessment of types of clothing is a path leading to racism and bigotry (the people in this group are obviously all oppressing their women). As I've pointed out before my view is you look at the actions of the individual and call them out. It doesn't make a difference whether that is oppression of a woman, man, muslim, christian, jew, sexual preference and so forth. It is easy to say well you are just putting race before sex first, but I disagree, because that depends on the action of the individual. If a man is suppressing a woman then fine and should be called out, but are men suppressing women because of a clothing choice that we have no evidence of other than gut scepticism? Are you sure that is because of being anti-misogynist. What happens if you are completely wrong and that every woman wearing such clothing does it because they want to. Who then becomes the misogynist when the wearing of such clothes is called out like Bozo did?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, I tend not to go out and laugh at people or criticise them for no good reason anyway, and the vast majority of people in society won't deliberately go out to cause offence or upset people.
Like I said, we, as a society, tend to regulate ourselves at any rate with regard to social conventions. If you made an insult about somebody's clothes to their face, you'd obviously expect some sort of retaliation, which is why 99% of people have the good sense not to do it out of politeness, self-preservation or simply because they'd never do it anyway.
But you'd never stop people thinking or speaking it, and nor should you. We all have freedom of thought and action, whilst accepting there can be some consequences to our actions: if you murder, you go to jail, not being able to shout fire in a cinema etc etc
That still doesn't answer the question as to why you think it should be acceptable? It's not as if we are even talking about someone thinking something and never speaking something. We are talking about Bozo who spoke these things in a national newspaper. So again, honestly, what makes you laugh at the way someone dresses and why? Why is that a reasonable thing to do?
If anything, I'd probably leap to her defence if some fethwit was giving her agro, and I suspect that everybody else would be the same.
Toleration is the cornerstone of our society.
However you've defended Bozo to say what he did despite in one column giving agro to thousands of women (and that's before some members of the public take it into their own hands based on the justification of what Bozo said).
Toleration only works when both sides stay away from rhetoric like Bozos that is skirting the edges of racism and bigotry. Otherwise we slowly end up tolerating racism, sexism, ageism and so forth. I'm quite happy to say I won't tolerate that.
We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
I think for most they are interchangeable. Boris' description sounds more like a niqab but I don't expect him to be correct about anything.
I think I've seen a few burkas in Egypt but I think it's mostly niqabs. I have to admit I had to Google the difference and I'm admittedly not sure about the cultural distinction.
I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
Regarding the comments from Boris; what capacity was he speaking In? Newspaper author? Foreign secretary? MP? I'd personally hold him to a higher standard than most because he's he has so much influence (rightly or wrongly).
He's allowed to express why he doesn't like them, but I don't think that extends to making fun of them in a national newspaper.
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
Heck, I have met a woman that was wearing a Betty Boop hijab.
She also has a hijab decorated with skulls wearing pink bows.
She was working in her father's halal grocery store, but somehow... I doubt that either hijab were of his choosing.
Sometimes clothing, cultural or not, is just clothing.
Herzlos wrote: I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
WHAT identical clothing? I can't think of any direct equivalents besides the styles of dress worn by Priests, Nuns and the like. But they are a tiny minority of adherents who wear clothing that the general population do not, so that would be a false equivalence.
Orthodox Judaism maybe, but I'm not sure its entirely accurate to describe Judaism as "predominantly white".
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
I think for most they are interchangeable. Boris' description sounds more like a niqab but I don't expect him to be correct about anything.
I think I've seen a few burkas in Egypt but I think it's mostly niqabs. I have to admit I had to Google the difference and I'm admittedly not sure about the cultural distinction.
I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
Regarding the comments from Boris; what capacity was he speaking In? Newspaper author? Foreign secretary? MP? I'd personally hold him to a higher standard than most because he's he has so much influence (rightly or wrongly).
He's allowed to express why he doesn't like them, but I don't think that extends to making fun of them in a national newspaper.
Boris was speaking in his capacity as an opinion columnist in the Daily Telegraph. However it must be borne in mind that he is a serving MP who has muslims among his constituents, and a prospective prime minister. For what it's worth, Boris shouldn't have been writing that column yet and broke the ministerial code by doing so.
Such a figure ought to be careful about how he expresses his views. Indeed, he ought to be careful about the views he chooses to express.
But the point is, Boris was being careful. He was carefully addressing the Islamophobic wing of the party, letting them know he is "one of them" and hoping to enlist their support if it gets to a leadership election.
He is helped in this by the fact that the Islamophobic wing has an overlap with the Eurosceptic wing -- as proved by the immediate support of Rees-Mogg and IDS. Boris of course is the leading light of Tory Brexiteers.
It's pretty obvious that this whole "burka" bollocks has very little to do with free speech, but is all about Boris Johnson and Steve Bannon.
Kicked from pulling Trumps strings, Steve is now trying to peddle his bs over here, and Boris is happy to follow his advice, because that'll get him elected PM.
It's so fething obvious, I'm astonished you've all been suckered into talking about it as if it's some big political masterstroke.
Boris, is, always has been and always will be a political worm, willing to do anything and say anything to get the top job. Even if that means pandering and divisiveness. Stop feeding the troll. This isn't about free speech, it's about Boris.
Carry on, and he'll be PM, and Rees-Mogg will be chancellor, and then we will all know misery.
fething get a grip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
This, so much. It's a dog whistle, and you've all perked up your ears and are barking like mad.
Anything Boris says or actions he takes are based on getting him the job as PM.
As such Brexit is now a busted flush for him and he is getting desperate, cue a meeting with the Nazi Bannon and him swerving even further right wing to be come trumps mini me.
I fully expect more articles like this one each being slightly less subtle in it racisim and bigotry. I would expect an attack on university's and students and young people at some point along with even more anti EU rhetoric. Likely also refugees and people on benefits maybe even the disabled since IDS seems to support Alex Piffle Johnson.
A few weeks ago a Tory MP sent me what appeared to be a genuine snuff video. It arrived without warning at 8.05 in the morning. It showed two men running out of a road tunnel pursued by a four-wheel drive vehicle. A passenger in the vehicle gunned down the men then ran them over. There was no accompanying message. Within a day the sender had returned to sending arguments in favour of a hard Brexit. We never spoke of this. What was there to say?
Having worked in parliament since 2005, it is hard to know what is normal any more. But just as the headlines get more hysterical, so MPs’ private behaviour seems to be getting more delirious. There was the MP who recalled the smell of burning skin while describing his vasectomy. Or the influential backroom Tory who, when asked about a story by a fellow journalist, replied by sending me a video of him interviewing his cat. He made a series of disobliging remarks about the hack while the moggie lay in silent assent.
Extreme behaviour did exist before the 2016 referendum earthquake, even though it feels as if it distorted all in its wake. For instance I was called by Michael Gove in 2011, the day after I wrote a story about him “messianically” calling for military intervention in Libya. Nervously, I answered. Rather than berating me he summoned his best Monty Python voice, declared “I’m not messianic, just a very naughty boy”, cackled and ended the call.
However, there is evidence that these are particularly bleak days in Westminster, a by-product of the pressure brought on by a sense of helplessness and drift. More MPs declare they have no future here, no longer keen on propping up the misguided and extremist tendencies of those at the top. They talk enthusiastically of triggering by-elections, if only someone would offer them a reasonable salary.
For Tories, the Brexit civil war is teetering on the edge of a full-blown culture war, and this week’s Boris episode captured that neatly. For centrists, whether Labour or Tory, what hurts most is the failure of big figures to articulate their position with confidence and skill. MPs despair as Tory high-ups neurotically control the smallest things but freeze when confronted with the bigger picture.
The image of party chairman Brandon Lewis evading TV cameras this week, seemingly having lost his voice over Mr Johnson, captured that failure. Labour centrists endure a mirror image of this, paralytically miserable at their inability to edge the party into a tougher position on antisemitism.
And who would be a Lib Dem? These are all symptoms of the same thing: the low wattage of those who reach the front rank of British politics. Culture wars are becoming easier to fight in Westminster because they obscure the true problem: the sheer lack of quality of those who lead, a topic that can never be discussed in public.
When I started in political journalism 13 years ago I decided not to vote in elections, telling myself this was a principled choice based on my job as a political correspondent. This decision has got easier every year.
Hmm. See, to me, that Times column reads an awful lot like the usual Centrist's Lament - everything I disagree with is madness, anyone who doesn't have the same priorities has none, and people who have an ideological stance other than "the status quo is pretty good to me, so must be pretty good in general and shouldn't change" is a swivel-eyed loon.
Normally I just roll my eyes at the pity-party and move on, but it's becoming dangerous now because the combination of complacent under-estimation of the people in charge and the false equivalence it paints between the Tories(in the final violent death-throes of an internal conflict decades in the making, while in power, while the country is at its most vulnerable since the second world war) and Labour(dealing with what should be a minor disagreement over the exact wording of some guidance, but a handful of centrist MPs and media hacks with an axe to grind are trying to blow it up beyond all proportion) just reinforces all the instincts among centrists that landed us in this hell-timeline in the first place.
The Tories are getting exactly what they always want out of this debacle no matter which way it goes - personal enrichment and new opportunities to enact their ideological agenda. Centrists always do this, every time; paint moderately left-wing as equivalent to swivel-eyed right-wing and declare they're all as bad as each other, refuse to work with any of the former unless they bend the knee and abandon any pretense of holding non-centrist opinions, and so open the door for the right to do as they like. Then of course once the Overton Window has shifted rightwards, "pragmatic" centrists will end up "dealing with reality" by allying with "moderate" elements of the right(which would previously have been considered fringe) for the sake of "stability", and the whole dance starts over again.
Honestly these days I can't figure out if avowed centrists are really just so monumentally thick that they genuinely do believe the leadership of the right are bumbling buffoons and multiple rightward shifts in politics over the last few decades happened spontaneously or by accident, or if the whole thing is an affect and they really are just "shy Tories" who will always end up backing the right in the end because they share too many fundamental beliefs but just want to be seen as a bit nicer about it(they'll cut your benefits, but feel really really bad for you; they'll indulge "concerns about immigration" for years and years, then express their shock and sympathy when you're the victim of a racially motivated assault; their hearts will bleed profusely for victims of famine and war abroad, but when the right and the defence industry agitate for another bombing campaign in some far away place they'll vote it right on through, though with great and solemn regret of course ).
For sure, Bojo's comments were a calculated move, but he had every right to say them. And I say that as somebody who despises the fether.
Having read his article, it's a fuss over nothing. It's been half amusing, half depressing to see the faux outrage against him. You could almost set your watch by it.
The usual keywords were bandied around: Nazi, Fascist, Holocaust, Beer Hall Putsh for feth's sake!
Feth me with a fish fork but does anybody seriously know what a Fascist is these days? The word is bandied around so often as to be worth nothing, as Orwell himself was saying 80 years ago. That is what passes for political discourse in the UK these days.
If you only ever read Remain supporting media, including twitter, you could be forgiven for thinking that Mosques and Synagogues have been burnt to the ground, and UKIP voters roam the streets looking for Polish plumbers to hang from a lamppost, and without the EU, we will all struggle to wipe our own backsides.
And the right-wing rags are just as bad: 10 million Muslims arrive on these shores every year, jihadis lurk behind every lamp post, and Corbyn is itching to open up a British version of Belsen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: Hmm. See, to me, that Times column reads an awful lot like the usual Centrist's Lament - everything I disagree with is madness, anyone who doesn't have the same priorities has none, and people who have an ideological stance other than "the status quo is pretty good to me, so must be pretty good in general and shouldn't change" is a swivel-eyed loon.
Normally I just roll my eyes at the pity-party and move on, but it's becoming dangerous now because the combination of complacent under-estimation of the people in charge and the false equivalence it paints between the Tories(in the final violent death-throes of an internal conflict decades in the making, while in power, while the country is at its most vulnerable since the second world war) and Labour(dealing with what should be a minor disagreement over the exact wording of some guidance, but a handful of centrist MPs and media hacks with an axe to grind are trying to blow it up beyond all proportion) just reinforces all the instincts among centrists that landed us in this hell-timeline in the first place.
The Tories are getting exactly what they always want out of this debacle no matter which way it goes - personal enrichment and new opportunities to enact their ideological agenda. Centrists always do this, every time; paint moderately left-wing as equivalent to swivel-eyed right-wing and declare they're all as bad as each other, refuse to work with any of the former unless they bend the knee and abandon any pretense of holding non-centrist opinions, and so open the door for the right to do as they like. Then of course once the Overton Window has shifted rightwards, "pragmatic" centrists will end up "dealing with reality" by allying with "moderate" elements of the right(which would previously have been considered fringe) for the sake of "stability", and the whole dance starts over again.
Honestly these days I can't figure out if avowed centrists are really just so monumentally thick that they genuinely do believe the leadership of the right are bumbling buffoons and multiple rightward shifts in politics over the last few decades happened spontaneously or by accident, or if the whole thing is an affect and they really are just "shy Tories" who will always end up backing the right in the end because they share too many fundamental beliefs but just want to be seen as a bit nicer about it(they'll cut your benefits, but feel really really bad for you; they'll indulge "concerns about immigration" for years and years, then express their shock and sympathy when you're the victim of a racially motivated assault; their hearts will bleed profusely for victims of famine and war abroad, but when the right and the defence industry agitate for another bombing campaign in some far away place they'll vote it right on through, though with great and solemn regret of course ).
Spot on about the Centrists.
Blairism has been nothing but poison for British politics these past 20 years in its red and blue form. They are utterly useless and feeble. They can't even bring themselves to defend their sacred cow the EU.
Even now they can't even make a case for the EU. They rely on demographics and voter's remorse to bail them out. Utterly, utterly, feeble stuff.
Is that the grand vision for a United Europe? Wait until the old people die off? No sweeping vision, no grand plan of peace and prosperity?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For sure, Bojo's comments were a calculated move, but he had every right to say them. And I say that as somebody who despises the fether.
And yet just like Wrexit when it all comes crashing down you stand there, trying to protest your innocence that you stood by watched and stating this isn't what you wanted whilst blindly ignoring what the implications of these actions. Quietly accepting what is being said because they can whilst trying to mutter that you don't disagree with.
You've still not explained why it should be anyone else's issue as to what someone wears, you seem to hide from this line of questioning.
Having read his article, it's a fuss over nothing. It's been half amusing, half depressing to see the faux outrage against him. You could almost set your watch by it.
So the increased attacks on people wearing such clothing is nothing then to you? That these have increased since the article came out? That it has inspired greater hatred of a group of people simply because of an item of clothing?
The usual keywords were bandied around: Nazi, Fascist, Holocaust, Beer Hall Putsh for feth's sake!
Feth me with a fish fork but does anybody seriously know what a Fascist is these days? The word is bandied around so often as to be worth nothing, as Orwell himself was saying 80 years ago. That is what passes for political discourse in the UK these days.
Facism, has a very broad scope. Perhaps you should tell us how you define it? There is a view that facism does include the exploitation of the fear of difference and this article by bozo very much does this. It's both clever and appalling as it focuses on clothes avoiding direct racism claims whilst targeting a group of people of whom the majority will be of one religion. It's feeding a fear in a element of society that he has obviously calculated runs strong in the Tory party and the reactions appear to show he is correct.
Blairism has been nothing but poison for British politics these past 20 years in its red and blue form. They are utterly useless and feeble. They can't even bring themselves to defend their sacred cow the EU.
Even now they can't even make a case for the EU. They rely on demographics and voter's remorse to bail them out. Utterly, utterly, feeble stuff.
Is that the grand vision for a United Europe? Wait until the old people die off? No sweeping vision, no grand plan of peace and prosperity?
You have it wrong. Those arguments are put forward to a younger generation that are more open and look at things more critically and realise the benefits of the EU. You, yourself have always stated that regardless of what argument you wouldn't support being in the EU. There is hence no point even putting the arguments to you as - you would be a waste of time and effort. Because you don't want to see the arguments put forward to younger generations you disdainfully wave them away as not having a 'grand plan'. Maybe there is but you are too closed off to see what others can see and agree with. That this is more common with older people and why is open to debate, whether that is education, fearing strangers, or just plain obstinacy that the British empire doesn't exist anymore is something to be chewed over by historians.
And to point out blairism really isn't a political ideology. It's a way of trying to denigrate a type of politics you don't agree with by using a politician that many people don't like, because in reality he took us to war on false pretences. No one person defines a political ideology - and in reality this shifted over his tenure as well.
MPs who bring prostitutes into parliament will face the sack under Westminster’s first code of conduct which lays down rules for politicians to follow.
The behaviour guidelines, introduced after a sex harassment scandal in parliament, ban MPs from paying for sex while “acting in their parliamentary capacity”.
This includes when the politicians are engaged in any activity connected with their role as an MP, whether in the UK or abroad.
The new complaints and grievance policy states: “Although it might not be illegal to pay for sex, in line with best practice it is considered unprofessional, inappropriate and a breach of the behaviour code.”
Breaches will trigger sanctions that will vary in severity according to the offence. These include suspensions, withdrawal of parliamentary passes and starting the recall procedure that can result in an MP having to fight a by-election in their constituency.
The Conservative MP Mark Menzies resigned as a ministerial aide in March 2014 after facing claims that he had enjoyed an 18-month fling with a Brazilian rent boy. Rogerio dos Santos Pinto, the £250-a-time escort, claimed that one seedy session had taken place at Westminster although Menzies denied that anything “untoward” had occurred on the parliamentary estate.
A working group was set up in November to look into creating a new grievance process after Westminster was hit by sex scandals. Two government ministers, Damian Green and Michael Fallon, resigned last year in a wave of controversy and other politicians on both sides of the House were investigated over claims of sexual misconduct.
The new policy was approved by MPs last month.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards will have powers to deal out low-level punishments such as calling for an apology, but more serious complaints could be passed to the standards committee — made up of seven MPs and seven lay people — who would be able to vote on more serious sanctions, including sacking.
MPs face sack for taking prostitutes to parliament
welll yeah.
I mean one would suggest that most people would lose their jobs if they, you know, hire and bring a prostitute.
....still I best check with HR just in case maybe.
.. there's probably an "honourable members" joke here but let's just pretend we've done that and move on.
I'm not really sure that the way to go about criticising an item of clothing as misogynistic is to mock the women wearing it.
Especially when the women wearing it are a minority group and the person doing the mocking is wealthy, male and white and born into circumstances giving him easy access to power.
Seems to me that if you want to criticise misogyny you should actually do that, not mock and belittle those who are supposedly the victims of it.
As someone who hopes to see the current conservative party booted from Govt for a generation, their ideology crushed, and their supporters wide eyed and aware of their ignorance and foolishness, I heartily endorse this plan.
MPs face sack for taking prostitutes to parliament
welll yeah.
I mean one would suggest that most people would lose their jobs if they, you know, hire and bring a prostitute
I doubt many companies have a specific clause, because it would probably be considered to be bringing the organisation into disrepute.
That they have to bring in a specific clause would suggest it is actually quite prevalent. This statement raises my eyebrows:- "Breaches will trigger sanctions that will vary in severity according to the offence. "
So there are levels of engagement it appears:-
Oral sex = suspension
Sex = Withdrawal of parliamentary passes
S&M = recall procedure
Any of the above posted live on the parliamentary twitter live feed (exepcially whilst a boring debate in parliament is ongoing) = slap on wrist.
Daily news has been a bit thin on the ground due to parliament deciding there's no pressing business they should be getting on with; so thank the stars for Jeremy Hunt, who took to a podium today to remind the EU Commission that the UK looks to be crashing out of the EU without a deal pretty soon, so if they wouldn't mind just bally-well changing their entire negotiating stance to appease us that would be just fine please thanks.
Essentially the Tory dream now is to cling on fight the GE in 2022 on a platform of "Everything is still the EU's fault and look at Corbyn the big daft racist" then reign over the ashes.
Whilst on the same day 35 people are killed in Italy because of a collapsing bridge. Going to show that more people die each year from our own internal controls (or lack thereof) than they ever do from terrorism. Yet controls against terrorism are always prioritised over those actions that generally save more lives (e.g. Grenfell tower etc).
Still a terrorist attack is definitely a good opportunity for a selfie isn't it?
I really wish they'd stop hyping up terror attacks and just treat it as the base crime - in this case attempted murder. It'd sell less papers but people would be less worked up about it, and that's kind of the point of terrorism.
As said - being injured/killed in a terrorist attack is awful, but it's mathematically insignificant compared to most other ways of being injured/killed.
Whilst on the same day 35 people are killed in Italy because of a collapsing bridge. Going to show that more people die each year from our own internal controls (or lack thereof) than they ever do from terrorism. Yet controls against terrorism are always prioritised over those actions that generally save more lives (e.g. Grenfell tower etc).
Still a terrorist attack is definitely a good opportunity for a selfie isn't it?
Hey, got to post something on Facebook, right? Otherwise no one will believe you were at the scene of a real terrorist attack! Coming up next, real ISIS terrorists posing with tourists for selfies.
This is the Mirror. Hardly a bastion of quality and fairness. Given what is in the background of their shot, and that it is peak tourist season, it’s probably that they just wanted a picture of themselves in front of the Palace of Westminster. This isn’t exactly the twin towers or tube bombings. I’d suggest that this is more about the faux outrage of tabloids and the righteous anger of people who get angry about anything. IE Mirror readers.
Steve steveson wrote: This is the Mirror. Hardly a bastion of quality and fairness. Given what is in the background of their shot, and that it is peak tourist season, it’s probably that they just wanted a picture of themselves in front of the Palace of Westminster. This isn’t exactly the twin towers or tube bombings. I’d suggest that this is more about the faux outrage of tabloids and the righteous anger of people who get angry about anything. IE Mirror readers.
Now I know some papers articles can be pretty biased one way or another, but the belief that the papers are now sending out their own staff to take pictures to make a story is rather delving into the paranoid tin-hat brigade. It is a bit crass to be taking photos when people could be seriously injured. Never mind that it could potentially result in delays of the emergency services getting to scene (e.g. an ambulance) where those few minutes delay could result in a life (or death). From my perspective and at a personal level I would have thought it was really a stupid thing to do. You have no idea whether it is an individual case or whether it is coordinated. If it could be the latter then you are putting yourself at greater risk as a crowd at a scene could make a tempting target.
If it was a genuinely dangerous thing to do, by blocking an ambulance or something, the police would have moved them on.
You've heard of the idea of "1st World Problems" -- things which you find a problem which are completely trivial compared to the kind of stuff people in the 3rd World have to deal with everyday? Typical example = crying baby on a flight, or no parking spaces available in station car park.
This is a 0th World Problem. It may even be a -1th World Problem.
Steve steveson wrote: This is the Mirror. Hardly a bastion of quality and fairness. Given what is in the background of their shot, and that it is peak tourist season, it’s probably that they just wanted a picture of themselves in front of the Palace of Westminster. This isn’t exactly the twin towers or tube bombings. I’d suggest that this is more about the faux outrage of tabloids and the righteous anger of people who get angry about anything. IE Mirror readers.
Now I know some papers articles can be pretty biased one way or another, but the belief that the papers are now sending out their own staff to take pictures to make a story is rather delving into the paranoid tin-hat brigade. It is a bit crass to be taking photos when people could be seriously injured. Never mind that it could potentially result in delays of the emergency services getting to scene (e.g. an ambulance) where those few minutes delay could result in a life (or death). From my perspective and at a personal level I would have thought it was really a stupid thing to do. You have no idea whether it is an individual case or whether it is coordinated. If it could be the latter then you are putting yourself at greater risk as a crowd at a scene could make a tempting target.
They don't need to. They just need to trawl twitter and see what they can find. What is worse? The tourists who are wanting their holiday snaps and may or may not know what is going on with the police, or the people who do know what is going on and take photos of the people taking photos so they can be outraged on twitter?
Kilkrazy wrote: If it was a genuinely dangerous thing to do, by blocking an ambulance or something, the police would have moved them on.
When it comes to blocking an ambulance it's not about being dangerous, it's about the additional delays (and potentially resources) required to manage them that results in delays. The same issues that arise when there are accidents on roads and people start rubber necking, it can cause more delays (and in the worst case results in more accidents). But then it probably is natural instinct. Trying to herd a crowd can be slow because 25% of the people do exactly what they are told; 50% mill about in abject confusion fror 2 minutes whilst the brain determines what they should be doing; and 25% only move as the absolute last resort.
one cannot claim to be a fan of or really understand the whole selfie culture, but I suppose it might help one remember if, say, you were somewhere laying a wreath or whatever.
That's the NZ beef and lamb trade association -- you know the guys who're going to fall over themselves to bring us cheaper food after Brexit or whatever -- do not like our current WTO quota "plan".
Theresa May considers plan to register 3 million EU citizens 'alphabetically' to cope with flood of applications
Theresa May's government is considering a plan to register EU citizens who wish to remain in the UK after Brexit alphabetically to cope with the flood of expected applications, sources tell Business Insider.
Alternative plans to register applicants sector by sector, or by geographical region, are considered politically sensitive.
The Home Office needs to register up to 3.6 million EU citizens before the UK leaves the EU.
EU citizens' campaigners voiced concerns about the "unprecedented scale and timeframe" for the scheme.
"The Government is still woefully unprepared for the huge task of registering EU citizens applying for settled status if we leave the EU," Labour's Stella Creasy told Business Insider.
...
Home Office officials believe that the plan to register EU citizens alphabetically would be the least politically sensitive of all those under consideration.
Figures within government believe two alternative plans to register applicants industry sector by sector, or by geographical region, could cause a backlash among those left at the back of the queue.
While banks and other big businesses are pressing the government for a sectoral scheme, one industry source said that a scheme could risk a political backlash if it was seen to favour big business.
The geographical scheme could be complicated and risk a hostile reaction from whichever regions were not selected for processing first, they said, especially if London and the southeast were among the first to be processed.
The Govt. having had such success with IT projects like this of course.
perhaps we could get them to form an orderly queue or something -- to show their true British spirit.
The UK pilots’ association has revealed that a recent member survey has shown that only one in ten pilots think Brexit will have a positive impact on the UK aviation industry.
Members of the British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) were asked whether they think Brexit will have a positive or negative effect on the industry. Half said they thought it would bring negative effects, with 39% saying it would have a neutral impact, and 2% saying they didn’t know. Just 9% think it will have a positive impact.
The survey of BALPA’s members, which is carried out by polling company ComRes, takes place every two years, and this year included the question on Brexit.
BALPA General Secretary, Brian Strutton, said:
“The feedback from our members is that a significant proportion are concerned that Brexit will be bad for UK aviation.
“While BALPA remained neutral on the referendum itself, we do find the slow pace at which negotiations are taking place concerning.
“We sincerely hope the Government is doing all it can to get us the best possible deal, but flights for March 2019 will go on sale in just two months and passengers are yet to have any clarity on exactly what agreements will be in place when they’re booking their tickets.
“We’re now seeing that the EU is considering emergency plans to keep the UK flying should there be a ‘no deal’ Brexit but we’re unsure of exactly what this looks like and what effect this will have on our £60 billion-a-year industry.
“We’d like assurances from the Government on the arrangements that will be in place and that UK aviation will be able to continue to operate as normal post-Brexit.”
but fret not though as , if you recall, people who have since stepped down have said everything will be fine so who needs to worry ?
They don't need to. They just need to trawl twitter and see what they can find. What is worse? The tourists who are wanting their holiday snaps and may or may not know what is going on with the police, or the people who do know what is going on and take photos of the people taking photos so they can be outraged on twitter?
So you are saying people are deliberately going to the scene to take pictures of other people taking pictures so they can be outraged??
They don't need to. They just need to trawl twitter and see what they can find. What is worse? The tourists who are wanting their holiday snaps and may or may not know what is going on with the police, or the people who do know what is going on and take photos of the people taking photos so they can be outraged on twitter?
So you are saying people are deliberately going to the scene to take pictures of other people taking pictures so they can be outraged??
No, people who are at the scene are outraged and take pictures to share on twitter to show their outrage and then people see those and get outraged and so on.
Home Office officials believe that the plan to register EU citizens alphabetically would be the least politically sensitive of all those under consideration.
The Govt. having had such success with IT projects like this of course.
perhaps we could get them to form an orderly queue or something -- to show their true British spirit.
I wonder whether they have considered that we are potentially talking about multiple alphabets though. It's not as if everyone in Europe uses the roman alphabet. There is at least the cyrillic and greek alphabet to consider? Where are these placed?
I can imagine the confusion in the home office now...
So you are saying people are deliberately going to the scene to take pictures of other people taking pictures so they can be outraged??
No, people who are at the scene are outraged and take pictures to share on twitter to show their outrage and then people see those and get outraged and so on.
Can I be outraged at those at the site not taking pictures of those taking pictures of the CCTV systems not taking pictures of the police not taking pictures of the public taking pictures at the location?
I have often thought that many people in the place to understand the demands of Brexit -- the better informed MPs and ministers, civil servants and so on -- have known from the beginning it was essentially impossible to get it all done properly in the time available, that they either thought it would get called off as sanity dawned on the nation, or just gave up under the impossibility of the task.
So you are saying people are deliberately going to the scene to take pictures of other people taking pictures so they can be outraged??
No, people who are at the scene are outraged and take pictures to share on twitter to show their outrage and then people see those and get outraged and so on.
Can I be outraged at those at the site not taking pictures of those taking pictures of the CCTV systems not taking pictures of the police not taking pictures of the public taking pictures at the location?
Kilkrazy wrote: I have often thought that many people in the place to understand the demands of Brexit -- the better informed MPs and ministers, civil servants and so on -- have known from the beginning it was essentially impossible to get it all done properly in the time available, that they either thought it would get called off as sanity dawned on the nation, or just gave up under the impossibility of the task.
That of course assumes that the nation and its leaders are 'sane' and there is very little evidence of either?
So you are saying people are deliberately going to the scene to take pictures of other people taking pictures so they can be outraged??
No, people who are at the scene are outraged and take pictures to share on twitter to show their outrage and then people see those and get outraged and so on.
Can I be outraged at those at the site not taking pictures of those taking pictures of the CCTV systems not taking pictures of the police not taking pictures of the public taking pictures at the location?
The UK pilots’ association has revealed that a recent member survey has shown that only one in ten pilots think Brexit will have a positive impact on the UK aviation industry.
The UK pilots’ association has revealed that a recent member survey has shown that only one in ten pilots think Brexit will have a positive impact on the UK aviation industry.
Well. That's rather optimistic of them actually!
The 10% are those wanting to live abroad and thinking the businesses will move them to sunnier climates....?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: It would be easier for some to just brush terrorism under the rug wouldn’t it? Helps avoid any awkward and uncomfortable questions.
The UK pilots’ association has revealed that a recent member survey has shown that only one in ten pilots think Brexit will have a positive impact on the UK aviation industry.
Well. That's rather optimistic of them actually!
I wonder how many of those 10% fit in to the members that won't be impacted directly...
Rule 7 MEMBERSHIP
7.1 Membership shall be open to any person who satisfies the definition of ‘Full Member’ or ‘Associate Member’ as defined below. In these Rules, any references to ‘member’ apply only to Full or Associate Members unless otherwise provided.
7.2 The NEC may create temporary grades of membership at its discretion.
7.3 Full Member: Subject to the provisions in Rule 10 and Rule 34, the following shall be eligible for full membership of BALPA, namely every person who falls within one or more of the following categories:
7.3.1 holds a current professional Pilot Licence issued by the UK or recognised by the CAA or EASA and is actively engaged in commercial flying and is based in the UK or is employed by a UK Company abroad;
7.3.2 holds a current Flight Engineers Licence issued by the UK or recognised by the CAA or EASA and is actively engaged in commercial flying and is based in the UK or is employed by a UK Company abroad;
7.3.3 is employed by any British company or organisation as Service Training or Contract Pilot, or is a pilot who is not required as a condition of employment to hold a current professional Pilots Licence issued by the UK or recognised by the CAA or EASA;
7.3.4 Helicopter Winchmen;
7.3.5 Weapons System Officers (WSO’s);
7.3.6 Ground Instructors, where they are part of a bargaining group which includes members in the categories set out in Rule 7.3.1, 7.3.2 or 7.3.3.
7.4 In cases of doubt, eligibility for membership shall be at the absolute discretion of the NEC, subject to a right of appeal under Rules 9.3 and 9.4.
Rule 8 ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
8.1 Any person who fulfils the requirement of any part of this Rule shall be eligible for BALPA Associate Membership. Associate Members are not permitted to vote or stand for election for the purposes of these Rules.
8.2 Class A Associates: The following are eligible as Class A Associates, namely every person who falls within one or more of the following categories:
8.2.1 who is a pilot/flight engineer serving in H.M. Armed Forces; or
8.2.2 who would otherwise be qualified for membership but for the fact that they are based abroad and is not employed by a UK Company; or
8.2.3 who holds a professional RPAS qualification acceptable to the NEC
8.3 Retired Associates: A person who is no longer eligible for membership of BALPA, but who has been a member of BALPA is eligible to join s a Class A Associate. Such members may participate in elections to establish the Retired Flight Crew Committee (RFCC) in accordance with Rule 31.
8.4 Trans-National Associates: A full member of another pilot association who is employed by a UK company or associated company and where a reciprocal membership agreement exists with the Association concerned.
6
8.5 Trainee Associates: A trainee pilot/flight engineer shall be eligible as a trainee associate at the absolute discretion of the NEC.
8.6 Honorary Associates: The NEC may admit as an Honorary Associate any person who it may think fit so to admit, irrespective of such person’s qualifications.
8.7 Unemployed Members: Members dismissed, made redundant, or having accepted a compromise agreement or otherwise having resigned who notify the NEC in writing within 2 months of their loss of employment may be eligible for unemployed membership for 1 year from the date of termination of employment. Unemployed members are not entitled to hold office or stand for election to any position unless otherwise decided by the NEC.
Also, one has to wonder what makes a weapons systems officer either diffrent to other people involved in HM forces, or where there are weapons systems officers that are not part of the forces...
Kilkrazy wrote: If it was a genuinely dangerous thing to do, by blocking an ambulance or something, the police would have moved them on.
When it comes to blocking an ambulance it's not about being dangerous, it's about the additional delays (and potentially resources) required to manage them that results in delays. The same issues that arise when there are accidents on roads and people start rubber necking, it can cause more delays (and in the worst case results in more accidents). But then it probably is natural instinct. Trying to herd a crowd can be slow because 25% of the people do exactly what they are told; 50% mill about in abject confusion fror 2 minutes whilst the brain determines what they should be doing; and 25% only move as the absolute last resort.
This. There was a very serious accident on the freeway in the Netherlands only last week, and a bunch idiots started filming, taking selfies to the point they were actually hindering the police and ambulances. I don't recall if someone died because of it, but regardless, it's respectless and dangerous. On the plus side, every single one of these spankers is now expecting a very hefty fine, as the police noted the licence plates of everyone doing this.
This. There was a very serious accident on the freeway in the Netherlands only last week, and a bunch idiots started filming, taking selfies to the point they were actually hindering the police and ambulances. I don't recall if someone died because of it, but regardless, it's respectless and dangerous. On the plus side, every single one of these spankers is now expecting a very hefty fine, as the police noted the licence plates of everyone doing this.
This is a good example of the sort of issues I have with these sorts of activities. I am less bothered about the actual photo taking (although, IMHO, is pretty crass), it's the potential to get in the way. On the other hand I do understand why people might do it, after all news outlets will pay several thousands for 'good' images of such incidents.
Future War Cultist wrote: It would be easier for some to just brush terrorism under the rug wouldn’t it? Helps avoid any awkward and uncomfortable questions.
You shouldn't brush terrorism under a carpet, your average household carpet will offer no protection in the case of explosives, and probably wouldn't stop a knife either, though you'd have to place yourself in a vulnerable position to suffer a knife attack through a laid carpet.
Future War Cultist wrote: It would be easier for some to just brush terrorism under the rug wouldn’t it? Helps avoid any awkward and uncomfortable questions.
You shouldn't brush terrorism under a carpet, your average household carpet will offer no protection in the case of explosives, and probably wouldn't stop a knife either, though you'd have to place yourself in a vulnerable position to suffer a knife attack through a laid carpet.
I'm not sure there has ever been any scientific tests on the issue. A thick shag pile carpet might resist quite a bit I can imagine especially any shapnel?
Former Carillion boss Mark Davies has been appointed as the managing director for the HS2 joint venture between Balfour Beatty and VINCI.
The project is one of the world’s largest construction projects with billions of pounds-worth of contracts put up for the first phase between West Midlands and London.
Davies joined Carillion in 2008 and rose to managing director of its UK Infrastructure business until the firm went bust in January 2018.
The liquidation cost hundreds of jobs and was the most drastic procedure in UK insolvency law, with liabilities of almost £7 billion.
MPs claimed the demise was down to “recklessness, hubris & greed”, with directors focusing on bonus pay-outs to senior executives even as the firm teetered on the brink of collapse.
But that hasn’t stopped Davies heading up contracts for Lot N1 and N2 of the HS2 project, between the Long Itchington Wood Green tunnel to Delta Junction / Birmingham Spur and from the Delta Junction to the West Coast Main Line tie-in.
Combined, these two contracts are worth approximately £2.5 billion.
The joint venture is also currently bidding for further railways systems packages and Old Oak Common station, together valued at £3.8 billion.
bodes well eh ?
MPs claimed the demise was down to “recklessness, hubris & greed”, with directors focusing on bonus pay-outs to senior executives even as the firm teetered on the brink of collapse.
Almost one in four HS2 employees are being paid more than £100,000 a year, it has been revealed.
The news comes despite the government insisting it is "keeping a tough grip" on the cost of the controversial project.
Some 318 people - out of the 1,346 employed on the new high-speed railway - are earning at least £100,000 in salary and perks, according to a information given to The Times under the Freedom of Information Act.
This number is an increase compared with the 155 who were paid six figures in 2015/16, the newspaper reported.
Some 112 people are receiving more than £150,000 annually and 15 have pay packets topping £251,000.
MPs claimed the demise was down to “recklessness, hubris & greed”, with directors focusing on bonus pay-outs to senior executives even as the firm teetered on the brink of collapse.
It probably was one of the questions the person got the job for which was
"How would plan on screwing the UK out of as much money as possible"
Answer: "Well I would undercut all other businesses in an unsustainable way whilst I raised our wage packets. We will then force a collapse of the project but the government not wishing to lose face will then double the amount they will pay to the phoenix company we generate afterwards"
"Congratulations - you have the job!"
Yes I saw the information on wage packets for HS2. Although it is a lot I imagine a lot is going to specialist lawyers with regards payment for land value. Although that might just be an argument that lawyers are paid too much!
haulage firms have accused Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, of failing to put in place any credible contingency plans for a 'no-deal' Brexit scenario, as well as "knowing nothing" about their industry.
Speaking to the Telegraph, industry leaders said they were left astonished in recent meetings with Mr Grayling where he appeared to be unaware that British lorry drivers would not be able to carry goods on the continent if the UK crashes out of the bloc.
They also claimed the Department for Transport was trying to "hang its hat" on a flawed contingency plan involving a major lorry park at the port of Dover, known as Operation Brock, and an antiquated permit system, which they said...
I understand that senior members of Britain's road haulage industry came out of a recent meeting with Grayling where they were astonished by his lack of grasp of the key detail on Brexit
One of them, Kevin Hopper, who runs a major firm up in Yorkshire, said that he tried to explain to Grayling that if there is no Brexit deal then UK haulage drivers won't be able to drive in EU as their papers will be invalid
Grayling, he says, "looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language."
Kevin, who has 40 years industry experience, then showed to Grayling a copy of the EU's notice to stakeholders from the Commission's website, which confirms exactly that: no deal, no recognition of UK drivers. This document:
Kevin says Grayling appeared to have never heard of this document but he insisted that "everything would be fine"
Grayling then said we "hope" there will be deal.
Kevin: "But what if there ISN'T a deal? Can you tell me, minister, what plans are there to remedy this situation?"
Grayling: "Well, could you suggest anything?"
Kevin: I can't believe this
Grayling: What do you expect from me?
Kevin: I expect clarity
Grayling: What do you mean?
Kevin: I mean I want clarity
Grayling: I can't give you that
This was infuriating for Kevin and colleagues because they have **already** been forced to turn down contracts with EU countries as they don't know if they will be able to do those jobs.
The Department for Transport, however, says it is confident that there will be a deal with the EU but that everything will be fine if there is no deal. And that there will be plenty of permits in deal scenario.
Illustrates just how frustrated and angry businesses are with UK handling of these talks, The government appears to be sleepwalking towards no deal while claiming it's fine and dandy because there will be deal. There is a serious disconnect between what it says and what it does
LONDON — A prominent pro-Leave Conservative MP and former Brexit minister has promoted and invested £70,000 in a financial services company that encourages the public to buy gold in order to avoid the negative impact of a no deal Brexit.
Steve Baker, who belongs to the Jacob Rees Mogg-led European Research Group of pro-Brexit Conservatives, is reportedly working on an "alternative" to Theresa May's Chequers plan, which will outline the "advantages" of leaving the European Union without a deal.
However, Baker, who resigned as a minister in the Brexit department earlier this year, is also a shareholder in the company Glint Pay Ltd, which has encouraged people to "buy, save & spend physical gold," as"financial insurance" against the potential economic impact of a hard Brexit.
Baker attended Glint Pay's launch earlier this year — two days after quitting the Department for Exiting the EU in protest against Prime Minister May's Brexit plan — and has repeatedly endorsed the company on his public Twitter account. He has shares in the company worth £70,000, according to an entry in his register of interests disclosed on June 22, 2017.
The London-based company, promoted by Baker, encourages potential customers to invest in gold in order to insure against the growing likelihood of a no deal Brexit, which it suggests could cause the pound to crash and economic growth to slow.
n a blog post published on August 9 , Glint Pay states that International Trade Secretary Liam Fox's recent claim that a no deal Brexit was increasingly likely "was leading to a drop in the value of the pound," adding that the recent fall of the pound had "been blamed squarely on the inability of the EU and the British government to agree a deal on Brexit."
The company also cites warnings that a no deal Brexit, which is currently being pushed by leading Brexiteers, will hurt the economy, individual pension funds and "be damaging for all parties, particularly the UK that could see growth shrink by up 8%."
On Wednesday, the pound fell for an 11th consecutive day against the dollar, its worst losing streak since the financial crisis. It traded at $1.27, it's lowest level in over a year.
Baker, the Conservative MP for Wycombe, is yet to respond to Business Insider's request for comment.
When the Daily Telegraph starts to report seriously on the problems of Brexit, it shows the wheels on the clown car are wobbling very dangerously indeed.
In related news, the previously 40/60 Remain/Leave constituency around Heathrow has had an over 12% flip and is now pro-Remain, according to latest polls.
Time for a referendum.
I was thinking of buying gold, and lots of tinned food.
Kilkrazy wrote: When the Daily Telegraph starts to report seriously on the problems of Brexit, it shows the wheels on the clown car are wobbling very dangerously indeed.
I'm not sure even the Telegraph would be able to hide Chris Grayling's incompetence - I doubt even they could spin the story of trains cancelled, delays everywhere to it's all rosy and the Tory's are great (although they are also probably preparing for a Tory leadership battle so metaphorically stabbing some of May's supporters probably doesn't do them much harm). I'm not sure why Grayling is even in the job anymore. Anything he looks at seems to go off the rails (literally and metaphorically). I can assume that he is so much of a yes person to May that she can't afford to lose him.
There's a small vindictive side of me that wants to see hard Wrexit because it would be so bad hopefully it will end the Tory's for a generation. The more rational side would like to see another referendum to hopefully chart a more rational course.
I was thinking of buying gold, and lots of tinned food.
There's definitely not any conflict of interest going on, at all with the Wrexiters is there...? If you made the tins out of gold then you can maximise storage space!
Yesteday was the 20th anniversary of the Omagh Bombing, the single largest loss of life of the troubles. I don’t hold much hope of the perpetrators ever answering for it.
Don't want to be pedantic, but Dublin-Monaghan was the largest. Either way, I feel sorry for the families and condemn the stupid fethers who planted the bomb. Along with the RUC and Gardaí who knew everything about it.
A series of government papers on a “no deal” Brexit, expected to be published from next week, will cover more than 80 specific subjects ranging from blood safety to fertilisers to driving licenses, according to a provisional list leaked to BuzzFeed News.
The list – drawn together from departments across Whitehall – underlines the scope of the potential disruption to British life if the UK crashes out of the European Union in March without a withdrawal agreement. And it starkly illustrates the extent of the challenge facing officials who have been ordered to prepare for such an outcome.
Some of the reports, judging by the subject headings, will be sweeping in scope – such as those covering financial services and climate – while others will be highly specific. One report, for example, is expected to be dedicated to how a no-deal Brexit would affect the ability of UK citizens to travel with their pets.
Under current plans, the reports will be published in batches, starting as early as next week and running through September, although the timetable could slip, people familiar with the documents said.
Last month, Theresa May told a parliamentary committee there would be around 70 “technical notifications” published to advise individuals and businesses on how to prepare for a no-deal Brexit.
But the number of reports to be published appears to have increased, according to the list seen by BuzzFeed News. The subjects they will cover are:
Spoiler:
Air services
Animal breeding
Aviation safety
Aviation security
Batch testing of medicine
Blood safety
Broadcasting
Chemicals regulation
Civil judicial cooperation
Civil nuclear
Climate
Commercial road haulage
Common Travel Area
Company law
Competition
Consumer protection
Cross-border gas trading
Customs and borders
Data
Driver licensing
Drugs
e-Commerce and geo-blocking
Electricity trading
Environmental standards
Equine movements
Erasmus
EU citizens in the UK EU programmes and structural funds
EU space programmes
European regional development fund
European social fund
Export control regulation
Fertilisers
Financial services
Firearms
Fisheries, fish and seafood
Fluorinated gases and Ozone depleting substances
Food labelling
Genetically modified organisms
Geographical indicators
Health and identification marks for products of animal origin
Horizon 2020
Imports of food and feed
Insolvency
Intellectual property
Life sciences
Live animals and animal products
Maritime security
Motor insurance
New car and van CO2 emissions
NGOs
Nuclear research
Objects of cultural interest
Oil and gas
Organic food production
Organs, tissue, and cells
Passports
Payments to farmers
Pesticides regulations
Pet travel
Plants and seeds
Procurement
Product regulation
Registration of veterinary medicines
Renewable electricity issues
Rural Development Programme for England
Seafarer certification
Services
State aid
Telecoms
Timber trade
Tobacco
Trade agreements continuity
Trade in endangered species
Trade remedies
Trans-European energy infrastructure
UK citizens in the EU UK LIFE projects
UK trade tariff
Upholding industrial emissions
VAT
Vehicle standards
Veterinary medicine products
Workplace rights
The reports are the product of a cross-Whitehall initiative ordered by the former Brexit secretary David Davis to ensure that the UK was prepared to leave the EU without a deal in the event that the Brexit negotiations broke down – and that its preparedness was visible.
Roughly half of the reports relate to matters overseen by either the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) or the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The Department for Transport also accounts for a significant number of the matters covered.
Some of the most challenging issues, relating to customs and borders, fall under the umbrella of HMRC.
BuzzFeed News understands that the reports have been carefully written in a neutral, factual tone. The government has been accused repeatedly of scaremongering when it has released materials to bolster its arguments on Brexit, and the preparations for leaving without a deal are already highly volatile politically.
Nevertheless, officials are worried that some of the detail in certain reports will come as a shock to the public.
Fears about gridlock at customs borders such as Dover have already been widely aired, but the officials are concerned that people will have given far less thought to, for example, whether they’ll be able to legally drive in the EU with a UK driving license or to transport their dogs, cats and ferrets without having them quarantined, if Britain doesn’t secure an exit deal.
The Sunday Times has reported that Britain will be hit by shortages of medicine, fuel and food within a fortnight if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, according to a scenario drawn up by DExEU. Supermarkets and facilities in more distant locations, such as Cornwall and Scotland, would be the hardest hit. The newspaper also reported that ministers have prepared plans to send in the army to deal with the shortages, and deliver food, medicines and fuel.
In publishing the documents now, the government hopes to re-frame the political debate about Brexit.
Eurosceptic Tories argue that Britain’s negotiating hand will be strengthened if Brussels believes that it is genuinely willing to walk away from the talks without a deal. Some even believe that a no-deal Brexit is preferable to the agreement May is pursuing. These Eurosceptics are angry that the government hasn’t done more to prepare for such an eventuality.
By showing the serious consequences that crashing out without a deal will have on so many aspects of British life, the government hopes to silence those critics. It will also pray that publishing its analyses gives some reassurance to businesses that have been demanding more clarity so that they can prepare contingency plans.
The reports come at a delicate time in the negotiations. The chances of a no-deal have shot up since Theresa May’s Chequers agreement last month. Latvia’s foreign minister recently put the odds at 50:50, while UK international trade secretary, Liam Fox, sees the chances of a no deal at 60%. Bank of England governor Mark Carney has described the possibility of a no-deal Brexit as "uncomfortably high."
A DExEU spokesperson said: “We don't comment on leaks or speculation. However, as we've already made clear, individual departments are preparing specific technical notices to help citizens, businesses and consumers to prepare for March 2019 in the unlikely event of a no-deal scenario. This is part of our preparatory work that has been underway for the past two years.
"These will be published in August and September and will be available on gov.uk in a centralised location that is easy for people to access and use. The secretary of state for exiting the EU [Dominic Raab] and the prime minister confirmed this in July.”
well sure we'll easily sort all of that out by March.
I've said before that my great fear is that Brexit will be so badly handled, chaos will ensue, and the Remain side will seize the wheel and have us back in the EU quicker than an MP reaching for an expense claims form.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
A gradual de-coupling, 10 years say, via EEA/EFTA. etc etc
But after reading about Chris Grayling and his meeting with the UK haulage industry chiefs, I'm lost for words. It's so bizarre, so utterly bizarre, that it has to be deliberate, right?
Nobody could be this incompetent right?
Grayling was under the impression that in the event of no deal with the EU, you could fill up any old HGV with anything: nuclear material, guns, illegal immigrants, fluffy toys, whatever,
and the EU would have absolutely no interest in what was in that HGV, and the HGV could drive merrily on its way across Europe...
And on the subject of MPs, I've been reading a lot of insider books about our MPs, and this goes for Remain and Leave supporters.
The vast majority of our MPs are: Incompetent, lack basic IT skills, spend most of their time in HoC bars, can't handle more than an A4 page of detail, are beholden to lobby groups and/or think tanks, and got elected in a safe seat because their face fitted, rather than because of any great ability or expertise...
And the old school tie that links MPs, newspaper jobs, think tanks, and lobbyists, is something to behold. There is a lot of truth in the Westminster bubble claim and it's revolving door.
Regardless of Brexit, I'm sorely tempted never to vote again for any of this shower.
So hands up those wanting to go back to the good old days of second hand smoke. Stupidly they also want a return of snus as well (which is, fortunately currently banned by the EU).
As a tool to reduce smoking, fine. Forcing it down the gullets of those that don't want it. No thanks.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
It’s interesting that, although not the literal definition, common usage of “treason” is “acting against the country’s best interests”. I think it’s pretty clear which side is not acting in the country’s best interests.
So he drove down from birmingham and then drove around central london for eight hours? Might just be that he fell asleep at the wheel.
The other thing that points not to being attack motivated on a religious basis is that no 'group' has claimed the attack. Usually such nutcase groups make bold and ridiculous claims yet this has been completely silent from what I've read/seen.
And is yet to explain why he wanted out so badly. Anything he’s argued has been debunked already.
Still waiting for Remainers like you to explain what meaningful reform in the EU looked like, what you wanted reformed, how long it would take, and how much it would cost.
I suspect I will be waiting for 100 years before I get an answer.
As an example, CAP accounts for 40% of the EU budget, employs 8% of the EU workforce, and accounts for 4.4% of the EU's GDP. In Britain, millionaire land owners get funded by CAP, Yeah, go figure.
It's a bloated mess, that's long overdue for reform.
Tony Blair, a man who probably loves the EU more than his own children, tried and failed...
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
It’s interesting that, although not the literal definition, common usage of “treason” is “acting against the country’s best interests”. I think it’s pretty clear which side is not acting in the country’s best interests.
I was defending Remain voters on here the other day when that Tory fethwit wanted EU supporters to be done for treason for supporting the EU.
I believe in free speech for everybody, not just for people I like. It's a shame the other side didn't think like that...
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
I was expecting Police to catch criminals, firefighters to put out fires, nurses and doctors to heal sick people, and MPs to act like politicians and deal with politics. You get the picture?
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
Who avoiding responsibility? Not me.
And who's accusing Remainers. of treason? Not me. Hell, I was defending you guys on twitter and every other forum I'm engaged with.
I believe in free speech for everybody, not just the people I like.
Have you not read my posts? I still back Brexit, have moved to an EEA/EFTA option and have written to my MP supporting this option.
That's the opposite of avoiding responsibility.
If I could click my fingers and have us swing into EEA/EFT mode, I would do it, right now. But you're mistaking me for T.May and 650 MPs.
Still waiting for Remainers like you to explain what meaningful reform in the EU looked like, what you wanted reformed, how long it would take, and how much it would cost.
still waiting for quitters like you to show the meaningful advantages to leaving that will replace and better what we had with the eu that ar not just delusional fantasies with no grounding in reality.
And Can you tell me of the meaningful reform we are now somehow guaranteed in the U.K. outside of the eu?
and MPs to act like politicians and deal with politics. You get the picture?
It's almost like brexit is an incredibly complicated mess, creates god knows how many other problems as a consequence, along with a massively negative fallout and you are still deliberately ignorant of it, and still unwilling to actually see that, and just want to thump your chest harder singing 'britannia rules the waves' even louder. 'Just' deal with it? Jesus Christ man, open your bloody eyes. I know you love headlines and hate those pesky details, but you don't 'just' deal with a mess this bloody big.
Oh give up. A few pages ago you were denying all responsibility, and trying to put the blame for this mess at the feet of the 'remain' campaign because they didn't win. Previous to that you were trying to wash your hands of any potential fallout from this in Northern Ireland, because according to you, it's not your problem or your concern.
You got what you wanted. And now you're trying to sneak out the back door. No sir, you do not get to do that. You won. This is 'winning', and all the problems, all the consequences and all the ruined lives - it's all yours and every one else's who voted 'leave'. Get over it
And is yet to explain why he wanted out so badly. Anything he’s argued has been debunked already.
Still waiting for Remainers like you to explain what meaningful reform in the EU looked like, what you wanted reformed, how long it would take, and how much it would cost.
I suspect I will be waiting for 100 years before I get an answer.
As an example, CAP accounts for 40% of the EU budget, employs 8% of the EU workforce, and accounts for 4.4% of the EU's GDP. In Britain, millionaire land owners get funded by CAP, Yeah, go figure.
It's a bloated mess, that's long overdue for reform.
Tony Blair, a man who probably loves the EU more than his own children, tried and failed...
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
It’s interesting that, although not the literal definition, common usage of “treason” is “acting against the country’s best interests”. I think it’s pretty clear which side is not acting in the country’s best interests.
I was defending Remain voters on here the other day when that Tory fethwit wanted EU supporters to be done for treason for supporting the EU.
I believe in free speech for everybody, not just for people I like. It's a shame the other side didn't think like that...
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
I was expecting Police to catch criminals, firefighters to put out fires, nurses and doctors to heal sick people, and MPs to act like politicians and deal with politics. You get the picture?
I still back Brexit, no regrets there, but I want it done properly.
I still don't understand what you were expecting to happen?
Of if you have any line where Brexit isn't worth it?
You are asking guy who has noted he would be willing UK to go back to rocks and stones if it means UK goes out of EU. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for UK. He wants Brexit and he wanted it happen day after vote.
It’s the start of the excuses and avoiding ownership. I feel sorry for anyone who voted leave and now changed their mind. Anyone who still backs it needs to take responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be. There are two or three options on the table. Whatever we can agree with the EU, no matter how good or bad, no deal or revoke A50. Any other option does not exist, and any slow withdrawal was off the table very early when leave attacked anyone who suggested anything other than 2 years. Leave supporters cannot hide behind “I would do something else” or “it was all the MPs fault” or “it’s be EU”. Own the outsome and accept responsibility or accept we are better in the EU that the deal we are being given.
It makes me angry that Leave are still trying to blame others and still dismissing any disagreement by claiming it is “project fear” or banging on about treason.
Who avoiding responsibility? Not me.
And who's accusing Remainers. of treason? Not me. Hell, I was defending you guys on twitter and every other forum I'm engaged with.
I believe in free speech for everybody, not just the people I like.
Have you not read my posts? I still back Brexit, have moved to an EEA/EFTA option and have written to my MP supporting this option.
That's the opposite of avoiding responsibility.
If I could click my fingers and have us swing into EEA/EFT mode, I would do it, right now. But you're mistaking me for T.May and 650 MPs.
So if it looks like we are going to crash out of the EU you will be willing to call for another vote on remaining in, or accept responsibility for the consequences if the likely predictions come true? Or will you want to push on with leaving the EU whatever and then point fingers at the government and the EU?
I have read plenty of your posts, and I have also seen you time and again try to shift blaim and refuse to answer direct questions.
tneva82 wrote: He has made it clear plenty times he doesn't want new votes. Nothing must get in way of wrexit. It must happen no matter what the end result is.
New vote? We still haven't implemented the result of 2016!
Still waiting for Remainers like you to explain what meaningful reform in the EU looked like, what you wanted reformed, how long it would take, and how much it would cost.
still waiting for quitters like you to show the meaningful advantages to leaving that will replace and better what we had with the eu that ar not just delusional fantasies with no grounding in reality.
And Can you tell me of the meaningful reform we are now somehow guaranteed in the U.K. outside of the eu?
and MPs to act like politicians and deal with politics. You get the picture?
It's almost like brexit is an incredibly complicated mess, creates god knows how many other problems as a consequence, along with a massively negative fallout and you are still deliberately ignorant of it, and still unwilling to actually see that, and just want to thump your chest harder singing 'britannia rules the waves' even louder. 'Just' deal with it? Jesus Christ man, open your bloody eyes. I know you love headlines and hate those pesky details, but you don't 'just' deal with a mess this bloody big.
Oh give up. A few pages ago you were denying all responsibility, and trying to put the blame for this mess at the feet of the 'remain' campaign because they didn't win. Previous to that you were trying to wash your hands of any potential fallout from this in Northern Ireland, because according to you, it's not your problem or your concern.
You got what you wanted. And now you're trying to sneak out the back door. No sir, you do not get to do that. You won. This is 'winning', and all the problems, all the consequences and all the ruined lives - it's all yours and every one else's who voted 'leave'. Get over it
The most important meaningful advantage to the UK is the ability of the British people to ultimately decide on the make up of the institutions and politicians that govern them.
Naturally, of course, I have banged that drum for a long time on dakka, but a lot of people seem to think that things like sovereignty, democracy, etc etc are vastly overrated.
Certain people also seem to be under the impression that things like legalising same sex relationships (1967) votes for women and working men (1918-25) trade unions (1890s -1920s) could not have been possible without the EEC/EU, despite us not joining until the 1970s...
Feth me, how did Britian ever survive without Europeans showing us the way? Hell, how does the rest of the non-EU world survive?
Look at poor New Zealand, only 4 million people, stuck thousands of miles away from Europe...
tneva82 wrote: He has made it clear plenty times he doesn't want new votes. Nothing must get in way of wrexit. It must happen no matter what the end result is.
New vote? We still haven't implemented the result of 2016!
A result tainted in so many ways it makes a lot of sense to run it again.
Those in charge of delivering Brexit can't. Those in charge of selling Brexit to the voters lied and broke the law whilst doing so. But most importantly: no one fething knows what "brexit" means, even two years down the line
You and everyone that voted the same option as yourself voted for a giant question mark draped in fancy buzzwords with little substance. The curtain is being slowly lifted and no one likes what's behind.
Look at poor New Zealand, only 4 million people, stuck thousands of miles away from Europe...
New Zealand gets almost 70% of their electricity by hydro and geothermal generation alone.
These are NZ exports:
Milk, meat, wool, wood, fruit, wine, aluminium, gold, etc.
Do you know how much surface (and mineral riches) it would take for the UK to provide for their 60 million? Some quick math, New Zealand has 60 million sheep for those 4 million people. Where is the UK going to put 900 million sheep?
tneva82 wrote: He has made it clear plenty times he doesn't want new votes. Nothing must get in way of wrexit. It must happen no matter what the end result is.
New vote? We still haven't implemented the result of 2016!
A result tainted in so many ways it makes a lot of sense to run it again.
Those in charge of delivering Brexit can't. Those in charge of selling Brexit to the voters lied and broke the law whilst doing so. But most importantly: no one fething knows what "brexit" means, even two years down the line
You and everyone that voted the same option as yourself voted for a giant question mark draped in fancy buzzwords with little substance. The curtain is being slowly lifted and no one likes what's behind.
And people like yourself were trying to convince us that we could stay in the EU and reform it. With reform never defined, never costed, or never timetabled.
As though Britain could unilaterally tell the other 27 nations that this is what we're going to do and you'd better accept it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And people like yourself were trying to convince us that we could stay in the EU and reform it. With reform never defined, never costed, or never timetabled.
Before we can propose costings and timetables, we need to actually know what it is that the leavers want reformed and why, what they'd like it to be reformed to.
As though Britain could unilaterally tell the other 27 nations that this is what we're going to do and you'd better accept it.
You just described what the Leave campaign sold Leave as.
jouso wrote: Do you know how much surface (and mineral riches) it would take for the UK to provide for their 60 million? Some quick math, New Zealand has 60 million sheep for those 4 million people. Where is the UK going to put 900 million sheep?
Maybe he plans to get rid of like 90% of population. Plenty of space then Plus less mouths to feed as well.
Look at poor New Zealand, only 4 million people, stuck thousands of miles away from Europe...
New Zealand gets almost 70% of their electricity by hydro and geothermal generation alone.
These are NZ exports:
Milk, meat, wool, wood, fruit, wine, aluminium, gold, etc.
Do you know how much surface (and mineral riches) it would take for the UK to provide for their 60 million? Some quick math, New Zealand has 60 million sheep for those 4 million people. Where is the UK going to put 900 million sheep?
Misses the point I was making by a light year. Sheep. Klingon Birds of prey or giant jelly beans. It matters not what New Zealand sell, make,grow, or buy. They are not in Europe, not in the EU, but are thriving and surviving.
And here's Britain, 65 million people, 5th/6th biggest economy in the world, a global giant of science, technology, culture, economics, history, for the last 300 years etc etc
= wouldn't be able to last 5 minutes outside the EU...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And people like yourself were trying to convince us that we could stay in the EU and reform it. With reform never defined, never costed, or never timetabled.
Before we can propose costings and timetables, we need to actually know what it is that the leavers want reformed and why, what they'd like it to be reformed to.
As though Britain could unilaterally tell the other 27 nations that this is what we're going to do and you'd better accept it.
You just described what the Leave campaign sold Leave as.
But I never wanted the EU reformed. I wanted out. What do I care what the EU does? I'm leaving it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And people like yourself were trying to convince us that we could stay in the EU and reform it. With reform never defined, never costed, or never timetabled.
Before we can propose costings and timetables, we need to actually know what it is that the leavers want reformed and why, what they'd like it to be reformed to.
As though Britain could unilaterally tell the other 27 nations that this is what we're going to do and you'd better accept it.
You just described what the Leave campaign sold Leave as.
But I never wanted the EU reformed. I wanted out. What do I care what the EU does? I'm leaving it.
Then stop moaning about how remain apparently never laid out a plan for EU reform despite leave never specifying what the issues it wanted reformed were or what the end state of those reforms was meant to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And here's Britain, 65 million people, 5th/6th biggest economy in the world, a global giant of science, technology, culture, economics, history, for the last 300 years etc etc
= wouldn't be able to last 5 minutes outside the EU...
Yeah...
You realise all of our professional bodies involved with science, technology, culture, economics etc. say that leaving the EU will be very bad? You feel like pointing us to your research that goes against what the actual experts involved in those fields have determined to be the outcome of leaving the EU?
Misses the point I was making by a light year. Sheep. Klingon Birds of prey or giant jelly beans. It matters not what New Zealand sell, make,grow, or buy. They are not in Europe, not in the EU, but are thriving and surviving.
As usual the point you are trying to make falls apart at the first examination of the actual facts and so you attempt to bluster out of it with your usual calls to the UK's past rather than actually address how the UK will move forward.
Look at poor New Zealand, only 4 million people, stuck thousands of miles away from Europe...
New Zealand gets almost 70% of their electricity by hydro and geothermal generation alone.
These are NZ exports:
Milk, meat, wool, wood, fruit, wine, aluminium, gold, etc.
Do you know how much surface (and mineral riches) it would take for the UK to provide for their 60 million? Some quick math, New Zealand has 60 million sheep for those 4 million people. Where is the UK going to put 900 million sheep?
Misses the point I was making by a light year. Sheep. Klingon Birds of prey or giant jelly beans. It matters not what New Zealand sell, make,grow, or buy. They are not in Europe, not in the EU, but are thriving and surviving.
And here's Britain, 65 million people, 5th/6th biggest economy in the world, a global giant of science, technology, culture, economics, history, for the last 300 years etc etc
= wouldn't be able to last 5 minutes outside the EU...
Yeah...
Except it does matter a lot what you make or sell, because you need other countries and companies in your local neighborhood to be willing to buy your products. You need a market. New Zealand exports most of its stuff to Australia and China, where they have real need of the kind of products produced in New Zealand, allowing New Zealand to make favourable trade deals. And even with that New Zealand has significant problems in being able to compete in the global market (due to its small size and remoteness), resulting in its trade industry being a lot lower than expected from a highly developed country, which in simple terms means that New Zealand isn't nearly as prosperous or rich as it could have been if it had been larger or located closer to China or Europe. This is why you see that New Zealand's exports are almost all low-value primary items like food or raw resources, rather than the much more valuable advanced machinery and technology that is produced and exported by similar developed countries such as Britain. Britain's primary market meanwhile is the EU (especially Germany and the Netherlands), but the problem here is Britain doesn't really make anything these EU countries also don't make. In other words, the EU could go without importing British products. By being in the EU, Britain has access to the common market, allowing British companies to freely compete with other EU companies and come out on top over other EU companies producing the same products, allowing them to export so much to EU countries. Outside of the EU, Britain will have to negotiate free trade agreements for its companies to have free access, and at that point EU countries are going to say "why would we import British products when already make those ourselves?". Basically, it would be very hard for Britain to get a favourable trade deal, and Britain will need to make massive concessions just in order to get access to its primary export market. Not to mention it will lose favourable trade deals with the US, China and other countries that could be made because the EU is the world's strongest economic power and has a very favourable negotiating position even with other giants like China and the US. Britain is not a global giant. Its economy and population are tiny next to the EU. The EU is the global giant, Britain is just a small island with an average population and industry. Britain will be able to survive outside of the EU, that is not in doubt. But Britain will not be as prosperous as it could have been inside the EU, simply because it has lost competitiveness in trade. And trade is much more important for big, industrialised, high-tech Britain economically than it is for small, isolated, agricultural New Zealand. The British economy will suffer a lot for the loss of trade. It is trade that once made Britain great, after all.
DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?
Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.
DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...
Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...
ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
It's almost like New Zealand is not the UK, does not have the same reliance on access to the EU as the UK etc. and so holding up New Zealand as some example of how the UK can be successful out of the EU is absolute rubbish.
You can try and pass that off as everyone else not getting your point but the fact is you don't have a point. You throw out some buzzwords and a headline and when actually confronted on it and asked to present actual details you pivot to appeal to the past rather than actually engage.
For the sake of giving you an opportunity to prove us wrong, tell us exactly how New Zealand, despite being a very different country to the UK with an economy based on very different sectors to the UK, not being a part of the EU has any bearing on the UK?
Cuba is not part of the EU or Europe either. Neither is Thailand. Or Chad. Or the Congo. Or Peru. Or Brazil. Or Israel. And those countries not being part of the EU and Europe have zero to do with the UK and the specific difficulties faced by the UK outside of the EU.
That's why we need sensible compromise, Iron Captain. And the blueprint for it is there: EEA/EFTA.
I don't mind changing my mind, and being pragmatic, trying something new, but I've yet to see it from the other side, and that's the big difference between me and them.
I'm happy to call out my own side when things go wrong: the Bojos, the Farages, Liam Fox, Weasel Gove etc etc
when reds8n posts an article about the British Jigsaw association or whatever, fearing for future exports, I don't disagree, because I want Brexit done properly.
When Juncker appointed his close friend, Martin Selmayr, to a plum EU job, the silence from Remain supporters was deafening. And I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on that, because they dig up articles from all over the place. They knew, they chose not to comment on it.
Similarly, when London tax dodging comes up, which is wrong, no questions there, Remain supporters rightfully attack it, as do I, but as far as they're concerned, it's as though Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Malta never existed.
They talk about Brexiteers wrecking everything, but on their own side: Blair (400,000 dead in Iraq) Clegg (shafted the students and made possible Tory austerity) and Cameron (Libya, referendum and austerity) are never attacked to the same extent as Brexit supporters are.
For two years, they bang on about non-binding referendums, and then call for a people's vote and for this new referendum to be respected.
They talk about democracy, but never stop trying to overturn Brexit in the courts. There's a new court case this week.
They accuse Brexiteers of racism, but say nothing about EU payments to Africa to keep black people out of Europe.
They talk of respect, dodgy money in the Leave campaign, and Britain in the dark ages, and say nothing about EU money to Erdogan, a man who has muzzled his courts, imprisoned journalists, and killed his opponents. And then of course there's the EU backing the putsch in Ukraine.
In other words, they are hypocrites. Hell, I'm one as well, but at least I can admit it.
The Remain side won't budge an inch, won't compromise, adhere to the EU as though it were some Middle-Ages religious dogma, and have been fighting tooth and nail in the court rooms to over turn the referendum at every opportunity. You will never meet a more anti-democratic bunch.
Despite all this, I spend 2 weeks of my life defending Remain supporters on Twitter against a Tory fethwit who wanted them done for treason.
But I'm the Fascist, apparently, even though I want free speech for everybody, even those I don't like.
I get blamed for murders in Ireland that have never happened yet, accused of being a Putin stooge, and apparently spend my time hunting down Polish plumbers to burn at the stake, and that's only when I've finished attacking Mosques and Synagogues.
And despite living and working in Europe for years, I hate the place apparently...
So, what was my crime? Mass genocide? A destructive war across Europe?
No, I voted peacefully to leave a peaceful trading bloc, and was naive enough to think that politicians would implement that result and that the opposition would respect it...
That's what being a Brexit supporter gets you in this day and age.
I'm only suprised I haven't been accused of causing those floods in India. But give it time...
DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?
Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.
DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...
Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...
ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
You're again missing the point, not sure if deliberately.
The point is the UK is not New Zealand or Hong Kong or Zimbabwe. The UK is the same UK whose economy was in the deep gak until they joined the EEC, re-aligned themselves to a services economy while inside the EU, and finally managed to catch up (and eventually outperform) on France, Germany, Italy, etc. while in the EU.
That boat took decades to steer, took vast swathes of the post-war British economy with them and great pains to significant sectors of the British population. And indeed people like Rees-Mogg are finally on record saying that the supposed benefits of Brexit will take place 50 years in the future. Well, that's ok but don't you think you could have said that earlier?
The most important meaningful advantage to the UK is the ability of the British people to ultimately decide on the make up of the institutions and politicians that govern them.
Park it .
when can I vote for the members of the House of Lords, and can you tell me when the next election is for the Queen?
Heck, I don't remember even getting a chance to vote for or against Teresa May in the Prime Minister run-off vote, or Primaries now that I think of it.
And again, there is always the little matter of our ability to vote in our members of the eu parliament.
It seems to me that any complaints against then EU, are nothing more than a hypocritical reflection of our own systems.
As for New Zealand doing ok, there are different circumstances at play. You might want to read some actual details, rather than your usual hysterical pronouncements and regurgitation of flashy headlines that don't have any foot placed in reality.
Dakka: They have lots of sheep.
DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?
Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.
DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...
Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...
ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
Almost like you have the concept in mind of making an argument, but when it comes to the actual details, and gist of the argument, there's nothing.
And when your point falls apart when faced with the facts, maybe you should consider your position...
When Juncker appointed his close friend, Martin Selmayr, to a plum EU job, the silence from Remain supporters was deafening. And I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on that, because they dig up articles from all over the place. They knew, they chose not to comment on it.
Unfortunately this shows that you are really looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. You are expecting others to know your mind and the issues you have with the EU. Like the above you point out events that have occurred in the past and then complained that no one else raises them on your behalf. The reason that no one complained that M. Selmayr was given a specific job is because the people you thought should, in the grand scheme of things, didn't see it as an issue. It's your issue, but you want to make it that it is others.
It lacks a type of responsibility. In a way you are happy to heckle from the back saying "It's not good enough" what X did in the past, but I'm not going to raise it at the time, only that others didn't later. I have an issue with the EU but it's for those that don't oppose it to solve the problems I have with it. If you don't agree with the proposal you just say "it's not what I want" - despite that it can never be what you specifically want. The EU, the UK and so forth is a democracy, it requires negotiation and finding common ground so that a reasonable compromise can be found.
You complain that others are horrified by some of the hate rhetoric and voice that opinion as is there right to do so as they also have freedom of speech. Yet you defend a person you state you don't like by supporting their right to say something; but which was never the issue. No one was advocating Bozo should be silenced. The right to free speech comes with responsibility and if someone fails to show that then others have a right to criticise and condemn that lack of responsibility. The approach you are taking is to hide behind something that people aren't complaining about, turning away and not standing up against the comments by 'hiding' behind a right that was never the issue. It's not rolling out the red carpet for someone, but it is turning away when other less desirables do so.
You want a compromise (EEA) only as stepping stone to get what you want (full Wrexit). That isn't a compromise at all. Why do you expect people to accept your compromise when it is nothing of the sort?
You complain that the EU gives money to African states and think that is a problem despite that sharing wealth will make the whole world better and will mean that people don't need to migrate because there life chances are as equal as anywhere in the world. Yes it means some of that money goes to people we prefer didn't get it. But sometimes you have to take sacrifices to improve the world.
This is the reason why you get 'frustrated responses'. You want others to have the responsibilities for the issues you have, yet fundamentally you are happy to complain about them after the event and worse that others didn't do so on your behalf.
monarda wrote: Is DINLT's argument that you can't support the EU unless it's either perfect or you personally have a reform plan to make it perfect?
Or to put it another way, that you can't support a flawed polity?
By the same logic though, you can't support a Brittan not part of the EU for many of the same reasons, but with British names rather than dirty foreign ones.
monarda wrote: Is DINLT's argument that you can't support the EU unless it's either perfect or you personally have a reform plan to make it perfect?
Or to put it another way, that you can't support a flawed polity?
I think contradictory approach would be a fairer representation. My interpretation is that it revolves around an ideological perspective in that "we are better off on our own". However this is then followed up by arguments that are easily shown to be flawed. These are we can do more trade with countries like China, India, New Zealand, US which is an economic argument; whilst being opposed to the customs union which all evidence suggests losing access to will costly us vastly more than we will ever gain from the slight increase in trade with these much more distant countries. The opposition to a coordinated military force, whilst advocating using our military/defence capabilities as a tool in the negotiations. It doesn't help that there is no evidence to any of the statements put forward, they are for the most part opinions (for example see the comment on Juncker placing someone he knows in a position of responsibility; there's no argument about why that is negative for the UK being in the EU).
So we end up in the same situation every 4/5 days or so. A statement is raised, it relatively quickly gets argued why the statement is not flawed, leading to increasing non-sensical further statements (which can lead to bizarre comments such as not liking Bozo for what he does and say, but supporting what he says). Until we get to a point that the contradiction is so extreme that we suddenly get silence. Then 4/5 days later it all starts again, rinse and repeat.
The only non-contradictory statement is the benefit to his own business for having access to free trade deals currently resisted by the EU (for whatever reason). In that I can understand the argument, by leaving the EU whether those individuals that benefit outweigh the overall impact on the country as a whole. Hence the ideological perspective. It's better for me, the rest be damned that's their issue, which many in the Tory party take to heart as well.
I had a rant yesterday. I embarrassed myself. I apologise for any offence caused to my fellow dakka members.
I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. I know that. I'm only human.
But I will say this. True sovereignty in this globalized world is impossible. I accept that. Even the EU has to take rules from the various UN bodies and WTO. The EU is there, it's not going anywhere, it's on our doorstep, we have to deal with it in some manner. There's no getting away from that. As an example, environmental problems that affect us all don't give 2 hoots for abstract lines on a map.
I've never had a problem with loose co-operation with the EU on defense or the environment.
From a purely, selfish, national interest, it makes sense. If there was a major environmental disaster in the English Channel, damn right you'd work with the French to sort it.
But there was a referendum. We're all democrats. We have to respect the result. And people are concerned about damage to business and the economy. And that is a legitimate concern in my book. No problem with that.
So we compromise, we become pragmatic, and IMO, we shift to a EEA/EFTA solution that satisfies the moderates on both sides. Nobody gets 100% of what they want, but we get pretty close and that's a good result in my book. I'd happily take 10-15 years of EEA/EFTA and weigh up the options at the end of it. See where the nation is. Then plan accordingly. Pure trade has always been my main focus. Feth me, if it had stayed a common market, I doubt we'd ever have heard of Brexit.
I am now a moderate and a pragmatist on this issue, and I would urge everybody else on here to take the middle ground as well. I obviously disagree with everybody on a lot of issues, but you lot are a fair and clever bunch at times, I respect your viewpoint (even though I disagree with it) and I confidently predict there is a pragmatic side to your nature and politics.
When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do sir? That's a famous quote which i mentioned before in my open letter, and having reviewed the situation, I'm adapting to the facts. We've had 40 years of EU integration. We won't de-couple in 5 minutes.
The problem is fanatics on both sides. With Leave, we have the fantasy politics of trading on WTO terms and taking any old bollocks of a trade deal from Trump. Spivs to a man and woman, the lot of them.
On the Remain side, they've been trying to re-run the referendum for 2 years, and now we have this people's vote bollocks. I mean, what were 33 million people doing in 2016 Vince? Having a fething raffle at a village fete? And you spent years telling us the EU was this benign entity, but now you're telling us it's so hard to leave because of the problems with trade, standards, and regulations? So what is the EU? Benign or complicated? You can't have it both ways.
We need to re-claim Brexit from the fanatics, take the middle ground, take the pragmatic solution, and best of all, a majority in the country and the commons would go for it.
This is a wargames forum, so our influence is obviously limited. But as I said, write to your MP, tell your friends and family of the compromise solution: EEA/EFTA. Spread the word.
It helps us trade with the EU, solves a lot of problems but still allows us freedom to maneuver on sovereignty on a lot of other issues, as much as a country can hope to do in a globalized world. And we can over time, start tailoring it to UK specific needs.
Damn May and her red lines!
Let's heal the wounds of the Dakka UK politics forum, take the middle ground, and remember why we're here: our love of miniature wargaming.
I'm increasingly busy with business and family matters these days. I may return in the Autumn/Winter, New Year.
Medicine is benign and very complicated. Most good things in the world require expertise, investment and motivated people to run them so that the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Military, economy, the electric grid, international trade, healthcare, science and just about everything that's managed or regulated by elected politicians are incredibly complicated to the layman.
It comes with the times, this is no longer the Renaissance.
Medicine is benign and very complicated. Most good things in the world require expertise, investment and motivated people to run them so that the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Military, economy, the electric grid, international trade, healthcare, science and just about everything that's managed or regulated by elected politicians are incredibly complicated to the layman.
It comes with the times, this is no longer the Renaissance.
ROFLMAO. DINLT went on new record on absurd statements. Benign can't be complicated? Ah if only life was so that all the good things were easy.
I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.
If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.
Reasons to have a second vote?
1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.
Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.
What's wrong with it? Result could change. That's why wrexiteers are so dead set against it. They know they can't win on fair vote with truth out so they are dead set against it.
Steve steveson wrote: I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.
If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.
Reasons to have a second vote?
1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.
Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.
You missed 4) Let the thousands of young people, who were ineligible to vote last time, have a say in the decision that has the most impact on them of all the population (as they’ll have to live with it the longest).
Steve steveson wrote: I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.
If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.
Reasons to have a second vote?
1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.
Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.
You missed 4) Let the thousands of young people, who were ineligible to vote last time, have a say in the decision that has the most impact on them of all the population (as they’ll have to live with it the longest).
I would generally agree but then, I cant help but wonder what the preteens who cannot currently vote will feel if these young people make 'the wrong decision' for their sibblings.
A solution that satisfies the moderates on both sides. Nobody gets 100% of what they want, but we get pretty close and that's a good result in my book. I'd happily take 10-15 years of EEA/EFTA and weigh up the options at the end of it. See where the nation is. Then plan accordingly. Pure trade has always been my main focus. Feth me, if it had stayed a common market, I doubt we'd ever have heard of Brexit.
I am now a moderate and a pragmatist on this issue, and I would urge everybody else on here to take the middle ground as well. I obviously disagree with everybody on a lot of issues, but you lot are a fair and clever bunch at times, I respect your viewpoint (even though I disagree with it) and I confidently predict there is a pragmatic side to your nature and politics.
When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do sir? That's a famous quote which i mentioned before in my open letter, and having reviewed the situation, I'm adapting to the facts. We've had 40 years of EU integration. We won't de-couple in 5 minutes.
You, like many leavers, seem to misunderstand what a negotiation is. Just because you backed down from something after realising it was a no goer does not mean that the other side has to give the same. Neither the EU or Remain has to change their demands just because you have. It’s like me coming to your house, demanding all of your stuff then calling you unreasonable because you won’t give me anything.
Apparently the Leave.EU campaign group is encouraging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in the hope of forming a voting bloc for a Hard Brexiteer in a possible leadership election in the late autumn.
Herzlos wrote: The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.
You want WW3?
'cuz this is how you get WW3.
WW3 is one way to go about it; but not by any stretch a good way. A single state should mean less conflict and robust frameworks for dealing with it. Common language, currency, movement etc would make life a lot easier. It's the natural evolution of states (city, country, country, bloc, continent, planet).
And a whole lot more rational than moving in the other direction.
For the record, I still believe in Brexit. But I want it done properly. I'm adopting the FDR approach to solving problems. Try something, and if it doesn't work, try something else. Flexible. Pragmatic. Exactly what we need right now. What we don't need is Ultras on both sides who will scupper the nation!
The Tories and May are clearly out of their depth, and the fantasy WTO option as offered by Mogg and Redwood is weapons grade bollocks.
Similary, sweatshop millionaires on the Remain side who offer up fantasies of People's referendums is pie in the sky nonsense.
People's referendum? As opposed to what? Does he think it was cats and dogs voting in the last one?
What do I want from Brexit? Trade and sovereignty, whilst recognising that in this globalised world that 100% of that is probably no longer realistic. But even the EU follows rules from somebody: UN bodies, WTO etc etc
As long as we can grab back as much as we can, that'll do me in the short to medium term. What I don't want is a minute longer of the EU's United States of Europe that they seem hell bent on adopting.
From a strategy viewpoint, we get back so much from EEA/EFTA and in the long term, we can properly strike an immigration deal with the EU, because even EU members recognise something has to be done.
We also get so much back from the compromise position: farming, fisheries, free from defence initiaitves, justice home affairs, and a lot of latititude to strike our own deals as we see fit. We can also tailor country specific protocols in the long term to suit us.
And if there's any nations such as Denmark, who have always been uneasy about the Euro and further integration, we can possibly get them to join us.
The UK could be a beacon for the sort of free trade we envisaged when we first helped create EFTA.
IMO, this deal would command a commons majority, a country majority, would solve problems, and calm business. And i say, 15 years time, if we ain;t happy, we plan from a position of strength.
Again, I say my great fear is a disaster crash next Spring, Remain take over, and we're back in the EU. I support the compromise deal, becuase half a Brexit is better than no Brexit, and any port in a storm.
Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.
Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?
We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.
Good luck to you all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Apparently the Leave.EU campaign group is encouraging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in the hope of forming a voting bloc for a Hard Brexiteer in a possible leadership election in the late autumn.
What sovereignty did we actually lose from being in the EU?
I agree a bad brexit will push us straight back into the EU; but the only options for Brexit are bad. It's just aboit chasing the least bad option.
I don't think the EEA will satisfy many people. Most don't understand enough about It, it doesn't address any of the concerns and doesn't fit with Mays red lines. It does the least damage though and May could say with a straight face that we left the EU.
As a serious remainer; I don't want a half measured fudge. If we still want to leave then we should do do properly. Once we realise how stupid that is, we can negotiate to get back in.
15 years after that you'd be willing to look at the evidence and reconsider? How generous of you, but we all know that until you are personally affected you'll think the hardest of brexit is the best option, so I'm sure we'll be having the same conversations then.
Since you now Want to take your time and do brexit properly (despite originally demanding a50 was triggered immediately), do you have an objection to staying in until we can figure out wtf we're wanting to do?
Herzlos wrote: What sovereignty did we actually lose from being in the EU?
Nothing, DINLT just keeps repeating the same "arguments" from lying Leave campaign.
To me, true democracy is asking the people what they actually want when knowing all that was said and done until the disastrous referendum, rather than forcing them to get the same wreckage road just because of a more than questionable result made years ago.
What DINLT is talking about is not democracy - it's just right wing desperate move to force the others, clearly more numerous voices to accept their wrong vision, and not caring about how much suffering it will inflict to them just for the benefit of a small number. As always.
Herzlos wrote: The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.
You want WW3?
'cuz this is how you get WW3.
Oh yeah, because the current hyper-individualistic tribalism won't lead to conflict at all...
Tribalism isn't going to go away just because you have a massive planetary-wide government. If anything, such massive, distant, centralised governments only tend to increase local nationalism, the EU and Brexit being a sad example. Basically, tribalism is going to lead to conflict no matter what, it is just inherent to our species.
Herzlos wrote: The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.
You want WW3?
'cuz this is how you get WW3.
WW3 is one way to go about it; but not by any stretch a good way. A single state should mean less conflict and robust frameworks for dealing with it. Common language, currency, movement etc would make life a lot easier. It's the natural evolution of states (city, country, country, bloc, continent, planet).
And a whole lot more rational than moving in the other direction.
Actually, the natural evolution of a state is to collapse again after growing large. States have a natural tendency to grow, but once they reach a certain threshold they get smaller again. That has happened to every empire, federation or union in history so far. Tribalism is inherent to our species. The more distant a government is from us, the more resistance it will meet. This happens even if the language and culture is the same, but when the language and culture of the government are different, resistance tends to skyrocket. People just really tend to hate being lorded over by those disgusting foreigners, whoever they may be. A planetary state is pure science fiction. It is a utopia similar to a world without conflict. Not something that will ever happen.
We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.
You only say that because the referendum ended with the result you wanted.
In a real democracy, people know what they vote for.
Heck it's been over 2 years and still no one really knows what "Brexit" actually means...
The only real democratic (and sensible) approach right now is to have a second referendum, once it's established how you are actually going to leave the EU, and what that means for the UK.
Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.
Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?
We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.
]
Please stop these ad hominem attacks. You are not the moderate. You are just trying to push for as much as you can now you accept that leaving the EU was a stupid idea. You are already trying to blaim someone else for messing it up, as if someone else would have been able to get a better deal faster, when this is exactly what Remain said would happen. The Tory’s are a mess at the moment, but they are not messing up the negotiation, they are asking for what they were told was impossible, but people like you ignored it and claimed it was project fear.
Actually, the natural evolution of a state is to collapse again after growing large. States have a natural tendency to grow, but once they reach a certain threshold they get smaller again. That has happened to every empire, federation or union in history so far. Tribalism is inherent to our species. The more distant a government is from us, the more resistance it will meet. This happens even if the language and culture is the same, but when the language and culture of the government are different, resistance tends to skyrocket. People just really tend to hate being lorded over by those disgusting foreigners, whoever they may be.
A planetary state is pure science fiction. It is a utopia similar to a world without conflict. Not something that will ever happen.
All previous empires have expanded beyond their ability to manage and eventually contracted, sure, but I think that's down to the implementation rather than concept. Most people don't want to be exploited by foreign overlords, so if you can avoid that (by allowing every local canton a say) it may be different. We are in the realms of fantasy though - were no where near ready for something like that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For the record, I still believe in Brexit. But I want it done properly. I'm adopting the FDR approach to solving problems. Try something, and if it doesn't work, try something else. Flexible. Pragmatic. Exactly what we need right now. What we don't need is Ultras on both sides who will scupper the nation!
But you're one of the Ultras. Your pragmatic approach is that since you fear a shock brexit will bring us straight back into the EU, you want to go EEA to try and sneak out later. You haven't changed anything based on any of the facts.
The Tories and May are clearly out of their depth, and the fantasy WTO option as offered by Mogg and Redwood is weapons grade bollocks.
Both known before the vote, except for the names of the proponents and proposals. Every "solution" is either hugely damaging or weapons grade bollocks"
Similary, sweatshop millionaires on the Remain side who offer up fantasies of People's referendums is pie in the sky nonsense.
What? Can you name a sweatshop millinaire on the Remain side? I know theres a few on the Leave side.
People's referendum? As opposed to what? Does he think it was cats and dogs voting in the last one?
Peoples vote, as in to express the will of the people rather than pressing on. It's a bit of a misnomer I know, but it needs to be called something.
What do I want from Brexit? Trade and sovereignty, whilst recognising that in this globalised world that 100% of that is probably no longer realistic. But even the EU follows rules from somebody: UN bodies, WTO etc etc
That sounds like a good argument for staying in. We get lots of trade and lots of sovereignty by being at the table where the decisions are made.
As long as we can grab back as much as we can, that'll do me in the short to medium term.
But we're throwing both away. There's no conceivable way we'll get more trade outside of the EU, and unless we go the North Korea route, we're not going to be gaining any new sovereignty - we'll be free to do what we're told.
What I don't want is a minute longer of the EU's United States of Europe that they seem hell bent on adopting
Why not? The United States of America work pretty well.
From a strategy viewpoint, we get back so much from EEA/EFTA and in the long term, we can properly strike an immigration deal with the EU, because even EU members recognise something has to be done.
Hows that going to work then?
We also get so much back from the compromise position: farming, fisheries, free from defence initiaitves, justice home affairs, and a lot of latititude to strike our own deals as we see fit. We can also tailor country specific protocols in the long term to suit us.
I'm not following this part either.
And if there's any nations such as Denmark, who have always been uneasy about the Euro and further integration, we can possibly get them to join us.
We're toxic now. No-one is going to want to join us. Denmark have been doing what we were, resisting this stuff from inside; they are perfectly happy in the EU. Just like we were.
The UK could be a beacon for the sort of free trade we envisaged when we first helped create EFTA.
With who?
The EU is decades ahead of us with free trade agreements, covering far more of the globe than we will. They get away with it because of their size and inertia. We're starting from less than nothing (since post Empire we've got a pretty bad reputation in a lot of the world).
IMO, this deal would command a commons majority, a country majority, would solve problems, and calm business. And i say, 15 years time, if we ain;t happy, we plan from a position of strength.
EEA? Every statement there is wrong. It won't command a majority anywhere because it's bollocks and doesn't satisfy anyone. It won't solve any of our problems (immigration, trade, Eire border, poor governance). We won't be in a position of strength either; whatever happens, 15 years on the EU will have recovered better than us and will be happy for us to rejoin on their terms.
Again, I say my great fear is a disaster crash next Spring, Remain take over, and we're back in the EU. I support the compromise deal, becuase half a Brexit is better than no Brexit, and any port in a storm.
But why is half out better? Are you only fearing Re-join taking over because you realise than the Brexit you want is a clusterfeth of epic proportions and you want to follow the frog boiling approach?
Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.
Why?
Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?
I doubt it. It's the current flavour for the Brexiteers, because it's a foot out the door, but it still solves no problems, makes noones lives better and costs us dearly.
We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.
If you actually want to be a democrat, then you should be jumping up and down for a 2nd referendum. It'll either cement people towards your destructive path, or kill the whole thing off (it could go either way - the cognative dissonance on the Leave side is phenomenal, now I appreciate how Hitler became so powerful). Hopefully it'll give the government a better idea of what people want and an actual mandate.
I think a "People's Vote" is a good name for the proposed second referundum.
It's being proposed and supported by the people, not by a dodgy Conservative government trying to win back UKIP voters.
There is clear and growing evidence from polls that the tide has turned against Brexit, for a number of reasons:
1. More people are now aware that Leave.EU told a lot of lies.
2. Plus, the campaign has become morally and legally tainted by its collusion with Russia, Cambridge Analytica, and illegal financial practices.
3. Every week brings new evidence of how Brexit will be detrimental to the economy and the UK's position in the world.
4. Worse still, all but the keenest Leavers have seen how incompetently the goverment has handled the whole business.
We need either a general election, or a second referendum (preferably both) before the Tories plunge the UK into chaos.
Any people's vote is doomed to fail for as long as it has the support of a certain war criminal by the name of Anthony Blair, the man who destroyed Libya (Call me Dave) and a weasel by the name of N.Clegg who used to hang around Sheffield and scrounge good money from an unsuspecting public.
For al the wretchedness of the Leave side, and as always I'm happy to attack my own side, we do have our share of spivs and speculators,
there's a world of difference between having your hand in the piggy bank for a few grand, and 400,000 dead in the rubble of Iraq.
Your allies are toxic. Ours are just dodgy. Big difference.
@Herzlos. I disagree with most of that. Pragmatism, not idealism, are my watchwords for the time being.
Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.
Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?
We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.
]
Please stop these ad hominem attacks. You are not the moderate. You are just trying to push for as much as you can now you accept that leaving the EU was a stupid idea. You are already trying to blaim someone else for messing it up, as if someone else would have been able to get a better deal faster, when this is exactly what Remain said would happen. The Tory’s are a mess at the moment, but they are not messing up the negotiation, they are asking for what they were told was impossible, but people like you ignored it and claimed it was project fear.
I'm attacking fanatics in the media on both sides, and not individual dakka members.
People are sceptical of my new stance, and to everybody i say, I understand that scepticism. I had a plan that I wished were implemented, but it never happened.
So I look at the reality of what's happening now, assess the facts, and plan accordingly.
It's FDR in the 1930s. Try something, if it doesn't work, try something new. I'm open, I'm prepared to be bold, I'm flexible, and I'm willing to work with the other side for a compromise that gives everybody something. None of us will get 100% of what we want, but that's the nature of compromise.
Again, I urge people to write to their MPs to show their support for EEA/EFTA and write letters to your local newspaper in support of it.
"Try something". If you don't have GOOD idea what works it's not worth trying something. Randomly abandoning what works for random stuff trying to work while wrecking country is something only fanatics would recommend.
But then again not surprised from somebody who openly has admitted he doesn't care if UK goes back to stone age as long as it leaves EU. Fanatics are fanatics.
tneva82 wrote: "Try something". If you don't have GOOD idea what works it's not worth trying something. Randomly abandoning what works for random stuff trying to work while wrecking country is something only fanatics would recommend.
But then again not surprised from somebody who openly has admitted he doesn't care if UK goes back to stone age as long as it leaves EU. Fanatics are fanatics.
I wouldn't say I have had a Damascus conversion, but I'm adopting a new approach based on facts and logic, rather than emotionalism.
reds8n might be on to something with his graphs and pie charts.
The past is the past, and we all had different views, and wanted different things. But that is then, and this is now. So we assess the situation and adapt and plan accordingly.
33 million people voted in 2016. A historic level. To say that the votes of either side don't matter and that we shouldn't implement the result, would damage British politics for decades.
The vast majority of British people, democratic to a man and woman, want to see the result implemented.
The Tories are not up to it. 2 years went up in smoke.
There are fantasists on both sides, Vince Cable and Nigel Farage to name two. The former acts as though the referendum never happened, the latter gives us a WTO kamikaze plan.
Both men are well served in their respective media outlets by a cabal of buffoons.
The result was narrow, 52/48, the nation needs a healing hand, let's calm business, and plan from a position of strength in EEA/EFTA, rather than with the sword of Damocles hanging over us.
With our very limited powers, let's write to our MPs and local newspapers. Spread the word.
Again, I extend the hand of compromise to my fellow members. Move off the extremes. Join me in the middle ground, the pragmatic solution.
In defeat defiance, in victory, magnanimity. I have chosen to be magnanimous to my fellow country men and women.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Any people's vote is doomed to fail for as long as it has the support of a certain war criminal by the name of Anthony Blair, the man who destroyed Libya (Call me Dave) and a weasel by the name of N.Clegg who used to hang around Sheffield and scrounge good money from an unsuspecting public.
Then support the gskking referendum and shut all those remainers up!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Any people's vote is doomed to fail for as long as it has the support of a certain war criminal by the name of Anthony Blair, the man who destroyed Libya (Call me Dave) and a weasel by the name of N.Clegg who used to hang around Sheffield and scrounge good money from an unsuspecting public.
Then support the gskking referendum and shut all those remainers up!
Too bad that is too democratic
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In other Brexy Bonus news, Ford and Maclaren have warned of the dangers of a no deal Brexit.
So. Some baddies are on the side of sanity. Alright then, nobody will want it then I'm sure.
Has anyone heard that the DUP recently declared a house would soon be available to rent...several days before threats to the occupant came from loyalist paramilitaries?
About two weeks ago.
That's toxic.
Let facts and logic be our watch words. Let's take off our Leave and Remain hats, and put our neutral hat on and assess a second referendum.
Where would the Parliamentry time come from? Even if they cut and pasted the last referendum bill, it would still take a few months to get through the Commons. March 2019 is obviously crucial.
Any referendum campaign would need at least 6 weeks to run. Are you going to do that during the cold and snow of a British Winter/Spring?
How would the EU react? What if Remain lose again? And finally, why would the parties support it? If May backs it, the Moggs will topple her.
I cannot see how a second referendum is practical on any level, even if I did support it, which I don't.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Any people's vote is doomed to fail for as long as it has the support of a certain war criminal by the name of Anthony Blair, the man who destroyed Libya (Call me Dave) and a weasel by the name of N.Clegg who used to hang around Sheffield and scrounge good money from an unsuspecting public.
Then support the gskking referendum and shut all those remainers up!
Too bad that is too democratic
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In other Brexy Bonus news, Ford and Maclaren have warned of the dangers of a no deal Brexit.
I wouldn't say I have had a Damascus conversion, but I'm adopting a new approach based on facts and logic, rather than emotionalism.
Not really. Facts and logic tell you than every Brexit option, down to EEA/EFTA is worse for the British public and the British economy.
The position you're now adopting is just damage control.
My option for sure, sees us lose a few percentage points in GDP, but hardly Weimar Germany. It's manageable for the UK, whilst recognising it won't be easy.
But we get time to re-group, plan, learn to govern again, and get this nation fighting fit for the future. And hopefully, eject this feeble and useless Tory government.
Greece organized a referendum on their bail-out in 8 days.
We don't need a campaign. The public have been watching the issues evolve for two years. It's increasingly obvious that Brexit is bad news, that's why the mood of the people has started to change.
Who would the Leave campaign be anyway? Their last attempt got a record fine for breaking electoral law, several of their staff are under streat of criminal charges, and others are under threat of comtempt of parliament. Their lead donor has a lot of questions to answer about why he's been dissembling so much about his collusion with the Russian government.
I agree about getting rid of the Tories. Without this we are likely to get bounced into the hardest of Hard Brexits.
Kilkrazy wrote: Greece organized a referendum on their bail-out in 8 days.
We don't need a campaign. The public have been watching the issues evolve for two years. It's increasingly obvious that Brexit is bad news, that's why the mood of the people has started to change.
Who would the Leave campaign be anyway? Their last attempt got a record fine for breaking electoral law, several of their staff are under streat of criminal charges, and others are under threat of comtempt of parliament. Their lead donor has a lot of questions to answer about why he's been dissembling so much about his collusion with the Russian government.
I agree about getting rid of the Tories. Without this we are likely to get bounced into the hardest of Hard Brexits.
Cameron was panicked into a referendum by Farage and UKIP.
Farage's return will send shockwaves through Tory top brass, and May will hold fast, because the Tories will put party before politics and not risk losing voters to UKIP.
The referendum is a non-starter, and hard Brexit looms on the horizon as a result.
As I've said repeatedly, hard Brexit is bad news for me, but ironically good news for Remain, because if there's disaster, Remain seize the wheel, and the EU will move so fast to offer a deal, we can expect to see Juncker on sick leave with whiplash.
MPs ask for expenses budgets to be raised to cover Brexit costs
MPs are asking for their expenses budgets to be increased to help them manage an increased workload resulting from Brexit, the parliamentary watchdog has revealed.
A poll last year of MPs and their staff by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said there had been demands from politicians and staff to give them more money to cover their higher costs.
“There were further requests to further increase MP staffing budgets due to their increasing workloads, some of which is the result of Brexit,” the report published last month said.
Responding to the revelation, Sir Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee on standards, told the Telegraph: “It is essential that Ipsa achieves value for money as we are all funded by taxpayers’ money.
“Requests for contingency funding should be judged individually on their merits but only awarded where the need is clear.”
Some 93 people responded to the 2017 survey – a sharp decrease from 366 respondents in the previous year. It is not known who or how many parliamentary staff made the request.
MPs are currently given a £150,900 annual staffing budget – increased to £161,550 in London.
The report also found that almost a quarter (24.1%) of respondents said they chose not to disclose an expense because of concerns it would be published.
Ipsa was set up in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal almost 10 years ago in an effort to increase transparency concerning pay and business costs.
The revelations of how much politicians were claiming sent shockwaves through Westminster and beyond, with details emerging of frivolous and excessive spending including a miniature island to house ducks in former Tory MP Peter Viggers’ duck pond.
MPs have seen a gradual increase in pay from £65,738 in 2010 to £77,379 this year.
Ipsa announced last year that it would no longer provide funding for new “connected parties” - spouses and family members employed by MPs - after last year’s general election.
The committee on standards in public life welcomed the changes, saying: “Although many provide an excellent service, it was considered that employment of family members was out of step with modern employment practice and not consistent with proper use of public funds.”
Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee, told the Telegraph: “Ipsa should be very cautious about raising budgets.
“It would be quite wrong to automatically agree an increase in the staff budget if there’s a danger some of it goes to improve the family income rather than as a service to the public ... All MPs’ positions should be subject to open competition.”
The referendum is a non-starter, and hard Brexit looms on the horizon as a result.
As I've said repeatedly, hard Brexit is bad news for me, but ironically good news for Remain, because if there's disaster, Remain seize the wheel, and the EU will move so fast to offer a deal, we can expect to see Juncker on sick leave with whiplash.
Brexit is bad news for everyone, hard brexit so much worse. If we do leave and rejoin, killing off the right-wing notion for another couple of generations, we'll have done irreparable damage.
So to say a hard brexit is good news for Remain is to fundamentally misunderstand Brexit. All of those jobs lost will not be coming back, our international reputation won't heal for generations, and so on.
Remain won't offer a deal; they'll be on a flight straight over to Brussels to ask about joining with any exemptions they feel like giving us. We'll then sit and stew whilst the EU votes on whether or not we're allowed in again.
A hard brexit will loom whether we have a 2nd referendum or not; as said the amount of time taken to do so is inconsequential compared to the amount of time we've wasted on showboating. As I understand it, we need to have largely reached agreement with the EU around October in order to get all of the agreements ratified by March. That's not going to happen until May decides which red lines she wants to violate.
The rational way to approach this is to rescind our declaration of Article 50. All that takes is an emergency motion in Parliament, followed by a letter to the EU. It would take a day.
This will give us the time to think about and decide what we want to do. It might involve a referendum, or a general election, an election followed by a referendum, followed by another declaration of Article 50, and anything else.
What we can't allow is the current situation in which a cabal of the DUP and Hard Brexiteers in the Conservatives are bouncing the whole nation against the wishes of the majority into a chaotic Hard Brexit.
Kilkrazy wrote: The rational way to approach this is to rescind our declaration of Article 50. All that takes is an emergency motion in Parliament, followed by a letter to the EU. It would take a day.
This will give us the time to think about and decide what we want to do. It might involve a referendum, or a general election, an election followed by a referendum, followed by another declaration of Article 50, and anything else.
What we can't allow is the current situation in which a cabal of the DUP and Hard Brexiteers in the Conservatives are bouncing the whole nation against the wishes of the majority into a chaotic Hard Brexit.
It's perfectly rational if you want to see the emergence of a far-right party that makes Nigel Farage look like Nick Clegg.
And they will have a ready made audience who will lap up their theme of betrayal, and stabbed in the back, if God forbid we see Brexit being aborted.
I will bang this drum for evermore: you cannot have the BIGGEST vote in British political history, tell people it's off, and not expect a backlash. It's fantasy politics.
You cannot tell people night and day, for 2 years, that their referendum victory was non-binding, then expect them to fall into line behind your people's referendum, and not expect a backlash. It's cloud cuckoo land stuff.
I say this with all sincerity to Remain voters. You never got us, and you never will. Brexit wasn't about economics for a lot of folk. You lot have too much head and not enough heart. That's why you lost, and that's why a monster would be unleashed if you persist down this path.
People say, you created this, you own it, and I am owning it as best I can. I've written to my MP and MSP, I've penned letters for to local newspapers, all in the cause of the compromise deal. And I hope you guys will do the same.
Alas, we've been hamstrung by Ultra Remainers who act as though a referendum never happened, and Ultra Brexiteers who will ironically kill off Brexit with their WTO no surrender to the EU, bollocks.
The debate has been horribly polarised, but not on Dakka thank God, which is one of the few places still civil for the vast majority of the time.
My thanks to fellow Dakka member for keeping it civil nearly all the time, and yeah, I've fallen off the wagon once or twice myself.
In the grand scheme of things there's little we can realistically do, I respect the fact that people care about the EU, and I understand why people on the Remain side would be reluctant to forgive or forget the last 2 years, but we are where we are.
But let's hope to God that some sensible compromise, that satisfies the moderates on both sides, sees the light of day, and that Ultras on both sides are frustrated.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's perfectly rational if you want to see the emergence of a far-right party that makes Nigel Farage look like Nick Clegg.
And they will have a ready made audience who will lap up their theme of betrayal, and stabbed in the back, if God forbid we see Brexit being aborted.
I will bang this drum for evermore: you cannot have the BIGGEST vote in British political history, tell people it's off, and not expect a backlash. It's fantasy politics.
We've already seen that when 17 million people were willing to vote for lies and/or racism and then expect those lies to actually be possible to achieve. The only fantasy politics here is from your side of the debate. The side which said that we held all the cards. The side that said this would be the easiest trade deal ever negotiated. The side which thought it could actually deliver those lies people were promised.
You cannot tell people night and day, for 2 years, that their referendum victory was non-binding, then expect them to fall into line behind your people's referendum, and not expect a backlash. It's cloud cuckoo land stuff.
But you can apparently tell them, for 2 years, that the UK will be stronger out, make trade deals with everywhere in no time, no longer have free movement, have access to EU projects without having to pay etc.
Tell us again about cloud cuckoo land.
I say this with all sincerity to Remain voters. You never got us, and you never will. Brexit wasn't about economics for a lot of folk. You lot have too much head and not enough heart. That's why you lost, and that's why a monster would be unleashed if you persist down this path.
A monster has already been unleashed. The monster of ignorance and demagoguery. Where the feelings of the mob are more important than the empirical truth in front of our own eyes.
People say, you created this, you own it, and I am owning it as best I can.
Bollocks. You've avoided responsibility at every turn. You still cling to the idea that EEA can actually work, ignoring the facts that it fails to fix the issues with customs and the Irish border.
I've written to my MP and MSP, I've penned letters for to local newspapers, all in the cause of the compromise deal. And I hope you guys will do the same.
Your compromise is no compromise. It does not solve the Irish border issue. It does not solve our customs checks issues. Your compromise is still blowing our head off, just with a smaller calibre bullet.
Alas, we've been hamstrung by Ultra Remainers who act as though a referendum never happened, and Ultra Brexiteers who will ironically kill off Brexit with their WTO no surrender to the EU, bollocks.
No, we've been hamstrung by brexiteers who either fell for lies or just plain didn't care about the impacts of the vote and somehow thought that their voice should be respected above those who actually know what they're talking about.
The debate has been horribly polarised, but not on Dakka thank God, which is one of the few places still civil for the vast majority of the time.
My thanks to fellow Dakka member for keeping it civil nearly all the time, and yeah, I've fallen off the wagon once or twice myself.
In the grand scheme of things there's little we can realistically do, I respect the fact that people care about the EU, and I understand why people on the Remain side would be reluctant to forgive or forget the last 2 years, but we are where we are.
But let's hope to God that some sensible compromise, that satisfies the moderates on both sides, sees the light of day, and that Ultras on both sides are frustrated.
There is no time left for any "sensible compromise" to be negotiated. If you are actually serious about not wanting the UK to crash out in a hard brexit then rescinding article 50 is the only guarantee of avoiding that.
I have to contest your point that this place, this thread, is civil. It’s not. How much abuse have you had to endure personally? As I recall, quite a lot.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's perfectly rational if you want to see the emergence of a far-right party that makes Nigel Farage look like Nick Clegg.
And they will have a ready made audience who will lap up their theme of betrayal, and stabbed in the back, if God forbid we see Brexit being aborted.
I will bang this drum for evermore: you cannot have the BIGGEST vote in British political history, tell people it's off, and not expect a backlash. It's fantasy politics.
We've actually had a party like this. It was BNP (British Nationalist Party) and the party died even before the referendum. The Tories might get a backlash because a significant fraction of the party membership (and voters based on the last election) would move back to UKIP (or wherever Farage hangs his hat). However we've seen previously that it only makes up about 15% of the population.
You cannot tell people night and day, for 2 years, that their referendum victory was non-binding, then expect them to fall into line behind your people's referendum, and not expect a backlash. It's cloud cuckoo land stuff.
I say this with all sincerity to Remain voters. You never got us, and you never will. Brexit wasn't about economics for a lot of folk. You lot have too much head and not enough heart. That's why you lost, and that's why a monster would be unleashed if you persist down this path.
There's two arguments here. Cameron, in his idiocy, decided to make EU membership a direct democracy issue which it should never have been. In reality then we should continue to have that choice because that is what democracy is. That implies a second referendum - even if it goes the other way then again we should continue to have referendums on the issue. This should continue until we get to a point where the statistical choice is so consistently one way or another that it is pointless to continue (so 70:30 in favour one way or another for three or so referendums). You are correct in the assertion that if we get another close result (possible, even likely) that should the remain camp then go quiet about another referendum then it would look hypocritical. We should also not exclude people that should be included. That includes British citizens abroad and permanent EU residents who all are impacted by such a decision. Too many people were excluded from the vote 'just because'. There is also an argument that 16 years old should also be allowed to vote.
Secondly people voted for Wrexit for a number of reasons, that very broadly you can put into the following camps (with more or less weighting for each person). These in my view were, anti-immigration, nationalism (take back control etc), and anti-establishment (from those screwed by the Tory government for years whilst the wealthy feast on their carcasses). Now the former group are unlikely to change their mind; some in the second group have changed their mind; and a lot in the latter group have changed their mind as they realised that they were shooting themselves in the foot. This is why I believe there has been a large swing in labour strong holds back to support. The simplistic messages have lost ground and now are realising that sticking something into the spokes of your bicycle is not a good idea.
I have to contest your point that this place, this thread, is civil. It’s not. How much abuse have you had to endure personally? As I recall, quite a lot.
This surely is a decision that DINLT can make and state himself?
I have to contest your point that this place, this thread, is civil. It’s not. How much abuse have you had to endure personally? As I recall, quite a lot.
As said, I’m sure DINLT can make call himself for what he has personally felt. For me, I think it has been civil. It has been heated and people have got angry, but there has been non of the name calling, personal abuse and threats that have existed elsewhere. Even though people have strongly disagreed we have not had that kind of behaviour. We have not had the kind of stuff you see in the US politics thread, which is take compared to most places politics is discussed. Overall it has been very civil, even if people think others views are totally wrong in general people have tried to counter them with facts and evidence, not by shouting them down or bullying the people involved. People may have been robust and forthright in their language, but mostly civil.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's perfectly rational if you want to see the emergence of a far-right party that makes Nigel Farage look like Nick Clegg.
And they will have a ready made audience who will lap up their theme of betrayal, and stabbed in the back, if God forbid we see Brexit being aborted.
I will bang this drum for evermore: you cannot have the BIGGEST vote in British political history, tell people it's off, and not expect a backlash. It's fantasy politics.
How many brexit voters do you reckon will feel betrayed at getting the wrong brexit?
I agree people will feel betrayed if May turns round and cancels brexit unless she makes a good job of explaining it. Rescinding A50 is only betrayal if the right wing lies about it we can always enact it again later if we can come up with any plan which might work.
@ Remain supporters: and who's going to overturn Article 50? Pro-EUMPs who've waved through every act of Parliament withdrawing us from the EU? They haven't lifted a finger to defend the EU in two years. Why do you expect them to find a spine now?
Are you banking on T.May? She'd be signing her own death warrant, and let's not forget that the Tory conference is in October, and that 75% of the Tory grassroots want Brexit.
The idea that May will roll up to the conference and propose that is utter nonsense. She'd be ran out of town.
Vince Cable? Hasn't got enough MPs to fill a phonebox. Corbyn? Anti-Semitism issue will rumble on until the New Year.
Who's going to be the Remain White knight? Bomber Blair? Clegg? or Dave, if you can find him.
@Whirlwind. The BNP got 1 million votes at one time. don't think for a minute that's gone away.
@Town Called Malus and Whirlwind. You questions the motives of the 17 million leave voters, but let's not forget 16 million Remain supporters.
Not for a minute do I think that they all had a portrait of Juncker above the fireplace or that they were ready to march the EU onto the Ural Mountains.
Their motivations are a mystery as well. I don't make sweeping statements about Remain. I think it's foolish to tar every Leave supporter with the same brush as a minority of rascists.
I think that's the problem. No one in charge has the spine or political neck room to do what everyone knows is the right thing. And this mess is all because the Tory party keep reverting to form.
I have to contest your point that this place, this thread, is civil. It’s not. How much abuse have you had to endure personally? As I recall, quite a lot.
If you knew the woman I used to be married too, then you'd know I can handle verbal abuse.
I appreciate the support. Thanks.
In all honesty, it's been pretty good most of the time on this discussion, and although there might have been one or two instances of below the belt hits, it's been pretty civil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I think that's the problem. No one in charge has the spine or political neck room to do what everyone knows is the right thing. And this mess is all because the Tory party keep reverting to form.
I forgot to post this the other day, but it follows on from what I said about our politics and what I've learned from reading books by Westminster insiders for a minute.
Forget Brexit, British politics has been in trouble since the 1990s.
We have this combination of media barons dictating policy, think tanks and lobbyists working behind the scenes, and MPs from safe seats selected on the basis of who they know. It's a toxic combination and David Cameron's rise to power was the culmination of all that.
Here's an example: it's a running joke in Brussels that if you want to keep something hidden from the British, post it on the EU website.
We never read it...
Even 10 years ago, before Brexit, Remain supporting MPs were clueless about how the EU actually worked.
Consider: the 
's have gone than chop my other limbs off, in the insane hope that taking all of my ability
.. I did not know that.
I apologise for any offence caused to my fellow dakka members.
