automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.
Want to destroy human rights.
Worship Nigel Farage
Didn't know what they were voting for.
Are thick and didn't have a proper education.
Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...
And so on and so on and so on...
I'm not sure anyone has ever said this. It is true that there are a proportion of the population have from mild to worrying amounts of bigotry or plain racism (you only have to follow the BBC comments section to see how extreme peoples views on both sides can get). However my gut feeling is that this applies to about 15% of the population. Not only is it based on what UKIPs support was, but if we look at other countries the figure that follow the far right (either partially or fully) is about at the 15% mark. The problem is that the loudest and most obnoxious (not here) generally fall into this crowd. That therefore biases people's perceptions of the Leave camp, but then that is no different to any other issues (we only hear about complaints against faulty goods etc). However and I'd always state this, is that we must always take people as individuals not as part of a group. But you will always get tarnished by perception by supporting one side or another. In some ways you above comments reflect that - you are voicing some of the worst individual comments and mashing them into 'this is what people that support remain think of people wanting to leave'. it's best avoided because it infuriates the other side and can make divisions worse.
There is a large following of the Daily Mail. It's current readership is roughly 4million. If they don't believe it, they are unlikely to buy it. However just as in the Russian case by continually reading this you will get a perception that EU is always bad. Whether people want to accept it or not we are influenced by what we read and see (hence why there is always an argument over BBC bias). It is the reason why people on social media sites have to state whether they are being sponsored to advertise a certain product; otherwise the perfume the well known blogger talks about suddenly becomes the in thing without people realising it was a manipulation by the company. The same goes for Russian influence, if the posts all came with a "paid for by your friendly Russian president" people wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. The difference between the majority of the Leave papers is that they use exploitative headlines to get an emotional reaction "Enemies of the State" etc. Whereas remain papers generally are more broadsheets and have more information to allow you to make up your mind.
No one has ever said people voting leave are 'thick'. All evidence suggests that both educated (and young) people favoured remain but that doesn't make people thick for not having that education. We have had a discussion before and there is no consensus as to why educated people are more prone to wanting to remain. More research is needed on this issue.
The argument for not voting has always been that it should have been a parliamentary decision. People from both sides never had enough information on all EU aspects to make reasoned judgement and therefore such a decision is more susceptible to an emotional choice not a reasoned one.
Working class people are so stupid, they don't even know the Russians are telling them how to vote.
No one said 'working class' people at all. That's you own interpretation without reading the articles. We are all open to manipulation, what stops it is challenge of the information. It doesn't matter what your background if you don't question that you could be manipulated you leave yourself seriously open for that to open. It doesn't matter what 'class' you come from. And that is what the research shows when you read it.
Personally I know exactly what he's talking about, this situation makes me very, very angry. In particular when I'm told that I've got to "work extra hard to make Brexit a success"; why should I? I didn't want it, I know how ridiculously disruptive it's effects are going to be to my industry and if you wanted it, you go put the effort in to sort it out.
There is a lot to this. The younger in the majority favoured remaining. So did the educated (again that doesn't mean stupid). In the majority these will be the people that will have to haul the country's ass out of the fire. The problem is that it self defeating. If they do then a lot will say "see we told you so whilst reaping the rewards, such as pensioners), yet it will be this same group that have to 'suffer' the consequences of Wrexit. So there is a large question of why they should bother? I'm partially in this camp. Although I don't like to see people suffer I don't see why I should support the UK in it's own act of self mutilation and the plan is to get out to somewhere that is more supportive. That's a loss to the country simply based on the education that it has spent on me and the taxes it will lose, but then if the country isn't damned about at least trying to consider the views that want to remain then why should I give a damn about the country?
Deficit not due to be eliminated until 2031 -- that's just a mere 16 years or so after the Tories said it'd all be sorted by with "austerity politics".
- Growth below 2% in every forecast year for first time in modern history.
- Annual pay not due to return to 2008 peak until 2025.
And that's assuming that growth/the economy goes well and is upset by, say, Brexit -- even if that's only for a few years.
or, I dunno yet another war or whatever.
So we watched as the chancellor has to commit £3bn worth of extra funds to Brexit planning and only £2.8bn extra to the NHS.
And that's on top of the £700M we've already spent.
.. where's a bus when you need one eh ?
.. TBF the cough sweet gag was well played., I guess.
and the opposition ....
... credit where it's due Corbyn has improved immensely since.. well.. since the snap election started ... ?
But I still cannot quite sit through an entire one of his speeches ... and....
... hmm ..... I think maybe he might've "peaked" -- if you follow me -- maybe ?
... that said....
April 27 2015
November 22 2017
March 13 2015
October 12 2017
7 January 2012
27 August 2017
......
Cameron did win the election right ? Dr. Manhattan hasn't been fiddling with our continuity too has he ?
But remember folks, Labour can't be trusted with the Economy! Only the Tories have the expertise to put Labour policy into place 5 years, two elections and two leaders later!
OK, so like last time I've looked at the budget by 2019/20 and compared to the last two in terms of revenue.
Now there isn't too much movement, by 2019/20 there has not been much change. Those areas where there are a generally associated with moving money between departments (e.g Business to Education for University costs) and devolution (e.g. Scotland/Wales etc).
There's a few things to note...anyone remember the foreign aid pledge, well that seems to have fallen by the wayside as 0.9bn has been taken from this budget.
Compared to the 2016 budget (noting that this covered up to 19/20) there has been a £15.8bn decrease in public spending.
Any reserve they had has gone now so if the forecasts are wrong again that means a lot of pain. Hammond has eased some pressure by using this up.
The NHS is a classic. They have effectively given the NHS back what they took away in the Spring budget. It is hence questionable how they anticipate that this will improve things during the winter given that in reality they are going to get the same money as they were promised before last winter.
There has been a £0.6bn increase in education spending (it is difficult to determine whether this is up/down vs 2016 budget simply because of moving money around). However I'd question the goal of getting more maths teachers and computer scientists is really going to work at all. These can be some of the highest paid employees out there. The problem isn't training, it's retention. How do you expect someone with software skills to take on a £22-25k job, high stress job, when they can be earning £30-40k from day one is beyond me.
As for the stamp duty that is just a joke. It's not going to do anything but increase house prices as there will no longer be the pressure on sellers to keep things under £125k for the starter properties. If you have some money (good job/wealthy parents etc) then you will benefit. For those that have difficulty making ends meet because of rent it's not going to help at all (and in reality almost certainly make things less affordable as the sellers now know they can get the stamp duty instead). However all is good for the Tories as they will happily squash the poorest into the cities whilst protecting the green belt and the core voters that don't like new buildings anywhere near them. (edit it was still a stupid idea under Milliband). They need more houses not ways of allowing builders/home owners to squeeze more money out of the properties.
I think it was the Labour Shadow Chancellor who said about the Stamp Duty gimmick that GCSE economics will tell you that increasing the supply of money to buy a product while not increasing the amount of product available will simply increase the price of the product.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it was the Labour Shadow Chancellor who said about the Stamp Duty gimmick that GCSE economics will tell you that increasing the supply of money to buy a product while not increasing the amount of product available will simply increase the price of the product.
Yes you've got to wonder whether Hammond has tried to sell it as for the younger generation, whereas in reality what he is doing is giving more money to the home owners and businesses. Alternatively does he really believe this will help and he is just deluded? I'm sure the younger generation will be really happy to see prices spike over the next couple of years.
It suits a lot of interests that house prices continue to rise. More money for investors and banks, building/land occupiers, more costs for renting and an expanding rental market. Most people don’t want to rent long term; they’re forced to by housing stock being unaffordable. About a third of MPs are landlords and are therefore significant property owners. Says it all. No market controls.
If you just built more damn houses prices would come down and stamp duty wouldn’t be the issue it is. Investment firms sit on land and drag their feet building houses because they want a premium for that land. There needs to be a revolution in housing in this country that serves the British public first. Not foreign investors looking to hoard housing stock and rent it back to us at an inflated rate, not large investment groups wanting mass rental properties with sky high prices. I mean houses that give the opportunity for working people to put secure roofs over their heads - so that they aren’t trapped in a cycle of costly letting unable to save, living in homes where their security lasts as long as whim of the landlord not to refuse to renew the contract or sell the property from under them.
The right to affordable housing should be a basic one. Some people will be hit by negative equity but something as basic as creating homes for people should be the priority. I don’t like to blame older generations but they are the ones sitting on all the housing, endlessly fussing about their house prices or trying to block developments through NIMBYism. We need a serious house building programme in the UK or strict market controls to release housing stock at affordable rates to buy and rent.
Building houses is only the answer if sone of them are affordable. All the new builds up here have been luxury and thus too expensive for a lot of people. Like 5x DINK couples average salary, meaning they'd need a full salaries deposit and a bank willing to lend at 4.5x income these days
Automatically Appended Next Post: The stamp duty change will only benefit the kids of those who the Tories already benefit. Those first time buyers being gifted a colossal deposit by their rich parents.
It's important to note that I'm not accusing anybody on dakka of saying these things. If anything, dakka has been a beacon of polite, robust debate, which has been conducted in a friendly manner. Long may it continue.
But this is what I'll say. Ever since June 24th 2016, a narrative has developed in the Remain supporting media, and amongst prominent Remain supporters, and it goes like this:
Brexit supporters:
are racists and xenophobes.
automatically believe everything they read in The Mail, the Express, and The Sun.
Want to destroy human rights.
Worship Nigel Farage
Didn't know what they were voting for.
Are thick and didn't have a proper education.
Probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote in the first place...
And so on and so on and so on...
There's only so much you can take of that. And the amazing thing is, not amazing, it's sad If I'm honest, these are the EXACT same arguments used in the Victorian age to stop working class men and women from getting the vote.
People are saying Brexit has set this county back. I would argue that we never really progressed. The elites, the establishment, have never lost their disdain, fear, or contempt they have of the so called 'lower' orders. They'd take the vote off us tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.
These people love the EU. And they'll NEVER forgive people like me for voting for Brexit.
To cut a long story short, when this Russian influence argument gets wheeled out, I roll my eyes and think, here we go again.
Working class people are so stupid, they don't even know the Russians are telling them how to vote.
That is exactly what the establishment and the elites are thinking, and they cannot face the truth, and the truth is this:
Their campaign, and their arguments for remaining in the EU, were so worthless, so feeble, as to be fething useless.
Hell, I probably could have put up a better defence of the EU myself, than the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband.
The EU is gak, but change is risky. That was their message, the grand vision they tried to sell to the British people. And they lost.
And deservedly so.
And the irony here is that the winning margin was so narrow, they could have won that with a better campaign, and a bit more passion...
Someone should frame this post and add it to the straw man definition at the encyclopedia of their choice.
To get back to the budget, the reaction this morning is interesting.
It seems that Hammond had to try to assemble a budget that would contain a few crowd-pleasing headlines (e.g. Stamp Duty and increase in Income Tax Allowance) while more importantly managing not to piss off either wing of the Tory Party, which continues to be at civil war over Brexit.
It seems he succeeded. The Tories across the board are calling the budget "solid". Unfortunately it is not a budget that really will help the country much.
That said, Hammond's hands are substantially tied by the UK's poor economic outlook for several years as the Brexit situation resolves.
I don't there is much in the budget to do active harm. The Stamp Duty point for example will have a fairly minor (though harmful) effect. But it doesn't really address the deep problems the UK faces.
The Stamp Duty removal looks like it will help first-time-buyers to whom, when buying a house, £1500 is a huge deal. What it will actually do is push up house prices - which everyone who has a house (to sell or not) will like. Like business rates it's a subject that really needed wholesale reform.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to the budget, the reaction this morning is interesting.
It seems that Hammond had to try to assemble a budget that would contain a few crowd-pleasing headlines (e.g. Stamp Duty and increase in Income Tax Allowance) while more importantly managing not to piss off either wing of the Tory Party, which continues to be at civil war over Brexit.
It seems he succeeded. The Tories across the board are calling the budget "solid". Unfortunately it is not a budget that really will help the country much.
That said, Hammond's hands are substantially tied by the UK's poor economic outlook for several years as the Brexit situation resolves.
I don't there is much in the budget to do active harm. The Stamp Duty point for example will have a fairly minor (though harmful) effect. But it doesn't really address the deep problems the UK faces.
The fact the ruling political party is having to make an effort to keep it's own members happy, shows what a bloody mess this government is.
MarkNorfolk wrote: The Stamp Duty removal looks like it will help first-time-buyers to whom, when buying a house, £1500 is a huge deal. What it will actually do is push up house prices - which everyone who has a house (to sell or not) will like. Like business rates it's a subject that really needed wholesale reform.
Very much this.
It's entry-level economics. Sales taxes applied to auctions are ostensibly paid by the buyer, but are really paid by the seller, as without them, the buyer could afford to bid higher by the same margin. People buying houses currently bid what they can afford including stamp duty, once it is removed they will bid what they can afford excluding stamp duty. It has zero impact on the end cost to the buyer unless every potential bidder gets together and decides to reduce all their offers by 0.3%.
Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.
Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.
They must think we were born yesterday, if they're still trying this tactic.
Did you read the leaked report, or simply see the words Brexit and Guardian, and go all giddy?
It amounts to the EU saying ' the UK government is a bit of a mess right now isn't it' and says that a meeting billed as a Brexit discussion turned into a foreign policy discussion.
Do you think our government is particularly united or coherent in it's approach to leaving the EU?
In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.
Kilkrazy wrote: In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.
The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.
Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.
And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...
There's a touch of the Khmer Rouge to the EU with its year zero approach to European history and identity.
As far as the EU are concerned, if you're not in the EU, you're not in Europe, which may comes as a surprise to Switzerland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.
They're not even following their own rules. Again, it only confirms that voting to leave was one of the best decisions I ever made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thebiggesthat wrote: Did you read the leaked report, or simply see the words Brexit and Guardian, and go all giddy?
It amounts to the EU saying ' the UK government is a bit of a mess right now isn't it' and says that a meeting billed as a Brexit discussion turned into a foreign policy discussion.
Do you think our government is particularly united or coherent in it's approach to leaving the EU?
The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.
I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.
As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.
As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.
This is the core dichotomy of the negotiation.
That logic doesn't stand up when you consider that Norway, the non-EU Norway, has been involved in the past, and nobody batted an eyelid.
It's nothing more than petty bureaucracy from the EU
If that's their attitude, good riddance to Brussels. I'll take my chances with the Yanks.
Your default position seems to be everything EU does = good. Everything Britain does = bad.
And you appear not to read beyond the headlines of anything remotely related to the EU. With the occasional mental gymnastics and spinning for some added drama.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.
Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.
The leak is not from the EU, it's from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. If you read the article you linked to you'd see it's an internal document collating discussions with Irish diplomats. While it could have been deliberately linked it's probably wasn't created for that purpose. And it probably wasn't deliberately leaked since it contains direct attributed quotes which will damage the ability of Irish diplomats to do their jobs; the nebulous benefits will not outweigh the concrete harm to most of those who would have had access to it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.
Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.
And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...
This is for the 2023 European City of Culture.
As for how Bergen and Istanbul have held the title in previous years, here's the explanation from the European Commission:
European Commission wrote:Explaining the decision, a spokesman for the European Commission said: "As one of the many concrete consequences of its decision to leave the European Union by 29 March 2019, the UK cannot host the European Capital of Culture in 2023.
"According to the rules adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Decision 445/2014), this action is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries.
"Given that the UK will have left the EU by 29 March 2019, and therefore be unable to host the European Capital of Culture in 2023, we believe it makes common sense to discontinue the selection process now."
Norway is EFTA/EEA and Turkey is a candidate country.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the more subtle interpretation is that everything the EU does is in the interests of the EU and its member nations.
As the UK is not going to be in the EU any more, the EU is no longer interested in our individual national interests, except to the degree that satisfying them may also satisfy the EU's interests.
This is the core dichotomy of the negotiation.
That logic doesn't stand up when you consider that Norway, the non-EU Norway, has been involved in the past, and nobody batted an eyelid.
It's nothing more than petty bureaucracy from the EU
If that's their attitude, good riddance to Brussels. I'll take my chances with the Yanks.
The EU likes Norway, which is a member of the EEA. The EU at one stage was kind of liking Turkey, which was keen on joiing.
From this perspective the EU position makes perfect sense.
Your default position seems to be everything EU does = good. Everything Britain does = bad.
And you appear not to read beyond the headlines of anything remotely related to the EU. With the occasional mental gymnastics and spinning for some added drama.
And as always, you completely miss the point. The EU has been flagging up Turkish human rights abuses for years, and yet, 'candidate' cities from Turkey are unaffected in this contest.
Britain democratically votes to leave the EU, and the EU response is red tape. Spanish police start cracking open people's skulls in Catalonia, but I doubt if the EU commission will let that bother them with regard to cities of culture.
The EU can and does change the rules and ignore their own values when it suits them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.
Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.
The leak is not from the EU, it's from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. If you read the article you linked to you'd see it's an internal document collating discussions with Irish diplomats. While it could have been deliberately linked it's probably wasn't created for that purpose. And it probably wasn't deliberately leaked since it contains direct attributed quotes which will damage the ability of Irish diplomats to do their jobs; the nebulous benefits will not outweigh the concrete harm to most of those who would have had access to it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.
Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.
And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...
This is for the 2023 European City of Culture.
As for how Bergen and Istanbul have held the title in previous years, here's the explanation from the European Commission:
European Commission wrote:Explaining the decision, a spokesman for the European Commission said: "As one of the many concrete consequences of its decision to leave the European Union by 29 March 2019, the UK cannot host the European Capital of Culture in 2023.
"According to the rules adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Decision 445/2014), this action is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries.
"Given that the UK will have left the EU by 29 March 2019, and therefore be unable to host the European Capital of Culture in 2023, we believe it makes common sense to discontinue the selection process now."
Norway is EFTA/EEA and Turkey is a candidate country.
Naturally of course, the Republic of Ireland is NOT in the EU, and the Irish foreign office wouldn't be coordinating things with Brussels.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.
Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.
And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...
I agree, this one seems pretty off at first, but on some reading it's perfectly fair. How can we host an event only open to EU/EEA/Candidate nations when by the time it happens we will be none of those?
EU complaining about Turkish abuse is irrelevant here - they were a serious candidate with a pro-EU governemnt when they were nominated. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to enter now since as I understand it, they are no longer an active candidate.
We voted to leave the EU, so we can't really be surprised when we start getting excluded from things we need to be in the EU to be eligable for.
The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.
Can you break that down for people that don't understand "EU code"?
It's not mentioned or implied anyway, and the description seems pretty clear - the UK still doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing.
At least I'm willing to admit the British side is not perfect.
No-one has said the EU is perfect. But you must be able to concede that the UK is a lot further from perfect than the EU.
Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.
I've never had a problem with people being hypocrites if they'd be honest about it, the EU being a prime example.
Naturally, of course, EU apologists will wave away Catalonia and Turkey, and focus on the UK for having the temerity to want to leave.
If Brexit supporters had been brutalised by the police during the referendum, but Remain had won, the EU would probably throw us another couple of billion.
At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.
Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.
Will you just read the gakking article and try arguing based on the facts, and not your made up anti-EU propoganda? It's really tiring having to deal with.
Country leaving the EU = Can no longer use EU membership as eligability = no longer eligable.
Country that's a candidate for EU membership years before the human rights abuses = elibgable.
What part of that don't you get? The EU isn't picking on us, they are just trying to stop us wasting time bidding for something we decided to disqualify ourselves from.
On Catalonia, I'll ask for a 3rd time (knowing I'll get ignored). What do you think the EU should have done?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.
Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.
And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...
I agree, this one seems pretty off at first, but on some reading it's perfectly fair. How can we host an event only open to EU/EEA/Candidate nations when by the time it happens we will be none of those?
EU complaining about Turkish abuse is irrelevant here - they were a serious candidate with a pro-EU governemnt when they were nominated. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to enter now since as I understand it, they are no longer an active candidate.
We voted to leave the EU, so we can't really be surprised when we start getting excluded from things we need to be in the EU to be eligable for.
The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.
Can you break that down for people that don't understand "EU code"?
It's not mentioned or implied anyway, and the description seems pretty clear - the UK still doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing.
At least I'm willing to admit the British side is not perfect.
No-one has said the EU is perfect. But you must be able to concede that the UK is a lot further from perfect than the EU.
According to the official website, Hungary will be submitting bids, and good luck to them.
But when you consider the run-ins that Hungary has had with Brussels these past years, and not a cheep from the Commission on their cities bid...
It's hard not to conclude that the UK is being singled out for nothing more than the temerity of leaving.
Europe is not the EU, and although we are leaving a political union, geographically, we're going nowhere...
Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.
Will you just read the gakking article and try arguing based on the facts, and not your made up anti-EU propoganda? It's really tiring having to deal with.
Country leaving the EU = Can no longer use EU membership as eligability = no longer eligable.
Country that's a candidate for EU membership years before the human rights abuses = elibgable.
What part of that don't you get? The EU isn't picking on us, they are just trying to stop us wasting time bidding for something we decided to disqualify ourselves from.
On Catalonia, I'll ask for a 3rd time (knowing I'll get ignored). What do you think the EU should have done?
Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.
The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.
Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.
The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.
To be fair the EU still hasn't actually been told that we don't want to be in the EEA. The way things are progressing they are suggesting a Canada style deal, so this is in fitting.
I don't think the EU have dredged this up now to play politics with negotiations - who actually cares? I think more likely the next round in proceedings has started and someones asked "Will the UK actually be eligable by 2023?".
Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.
Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.
DINLT doesn't deal with detail. He makes grand sweeping generalisations and then ignores any call as to how they could possibly work.
Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.
DINLT doesn't deal with detail. He makes grand sweeping generalisations and then ignores any call as to how they could possibly work.
I've always been open and upfront about not being a numbers man. I prefer to focus on the bigger picture.
None the less, you, I, and everybody else on this forum are just ordinary joes who are in no position to implement these ideas or comments.
Yes, we may strongly disagree with each other from time to time, but the debates on this forum are generally pleasant, good natured, and respectful.
It's only a toy soldiers forum after all.
Despite my strong opposition to the EU, I still respect EU supporters on this forum, and hope that the friendly debate we have continues for a long time
At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.
Or the campaigns could have read the rules. Whether you think the rules are fair or not is completely irrelevant. They are what they are and they weren't a secret. A campaign for those rules to change and be open to any nation in Europe would probably be valid and worthwhile, but as the rules stand, there's nothing to see here.
I had no idea there was a European City of Culture. I should have anticipated it, but it isn't something that I think affects me.
On that subject, why on earth is it an issue that UK entrants are now no longer applicable. I'm almost certain that most bidding teams would have an inkling of the criteria and may have put brakes on their bidding process when 24th June 2016 rolled round.
At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.
Or the campaigns could have read the rules. Whether you think the rules are fair or not is completely irrelevant. They are what they are and they weren't a secret. A campaign for those rules to change and be open to any nation in Europe would probably be, but as the rules stand, there's nothing to see here.
In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.
If the EU had adopted that stance, I for one would have given them credit for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: I had no idea there was a European City of Culture. I should have anticipated it, but it isn't something that I think affects me.
On that subject, why on earth is it an issue that UK entrants are now no longer applicable. I'm almost certain that most bidding teams would have an inkling of the criteria and may have put brakes on their bidding process when 24th June 2016 rolled round.
I've always been open and upfront about not being a numbers man. I prefer to focus on the bigger picture.
But in order to be taken seriously as a big picture man, you need to have some rudementary understanding of the smaller details, like vaguely how it'd work. You can't just shout "We should have a UK Space station by 2019" and be done with it.
I do agree though, this is one of the most pleasant discussions on the subject, and I'd be happy for anyone on either side to buy me a beer
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.
1. If you make an exception, everyone else will want one
2. The competition is in 2023, 4 years after your 2019 cut off. We'll be long, long gone by then, and why would the EU want to upset the EU cities to humour us?
Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.
They must think we were born yesterday, if they're still trying this tactic.
Just to confirm, did you read the bit that it was a report by the Irish government? Where does it say that it was leaked by the EU. You do like jumping to conclusions and blaming the EU for anything and everything? It is a report by the Irish government on their perception of the EU talks. Lets not forget they have a vested interest to get the UK government to move to somewhere that isn't in make believe land. They are obviously concerned that the UK is about to implement some form of hard border which is not really good news for Ireland or stability in NI. What you should be more worried about is that this is not an EU report but a report by another government on their view of our negotiating strategy (and the exasperation with it).
In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.
If the EU had adopted that stance, I for one would have given them credit for it.
There is another possibility of course. The UK likely has to contribute funds towards the City of Culture process. If the UK has looked through the bill and decided that it doesn't want to support it anymore then the EU is entitled to withdraw that support to UK bids. The original bids were likely put forward because the government probably assured them that they weren't about to turn the negotiations into a farce.
This really just comes across as:-
Person supporting leave doesn't like EU and wants to go separate way
EU accepts this decision and starts pulling things from a country that wants to go its own way
Person supporting leave complains that EU is letting country go it's own way and won't fund things there anymore.
Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.
The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.
As the UK is still a member of the European Union, it is currently the country’s legal right to host the event. However, whether or not the event goes ahead after Brexit is dependent on the outcome of negotiations with the EU.
Michel Magnier, director for culture and creativity at the EU’s Director-General for Education and Culture, told the Irish News earlier this month that the 2023 event “could be a problem”.
“We have to prepare for the long period, five to six years, and it’s very difficult to see how it will work given that we have complete legal and political uncertainty over what we should be doing,” he said.
Launching the bidding process, a statement from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport warned local authorities that the title would be “subject to the outcome of those exit negotiations which could have a bearing on the UK’s participation”.
In December 2016, the UK government said the competition would "run as normal", but did warn bidders that it "may be subject to" the Brexit negotiations.
Ken Clarke has claimed David Cameron may have done "some sort of a deal" to win the support of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers in the run-up to the 2010 general election, culminating in senior executives at the Sun demanding the government introduce prison ships to the UK because the newspaper was running a campaign on the issue.
Clarke, who served as justice secretary in Cameron's first cabinet, said he found himself lectured by Rebekah Brooks, the former Sun editor who later became chief executive of the newspaper's parent company, on the need to put prisoners on ships off Britain's shores.
"Quite how David Cameron got the Sun out of the hands of Gordon Brown I shall never know," the veteran Tory MP said. "Rupert would never let Tony [Blair] down because Tony had backed the Iraq war. Maybe it was some sort of a deal. David would not tell me what it was. Suddenly we got the Murdoch empire on our side."
He continued: "We won in 2010 and I found myself justice secretary, lord chancellor. Within a week or two we had got Andy Coulson on board – I think he was Murdoch’s man, that was part of the deal I assume – as the press officer. I am not being totally indiscreet. Nobody seemed bothered by it very much."
Clarke made the comments earlier this month while giving evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into Murdoch's bid to take full control of the broadcaster Sky, but they have only just been released.
The Tory politician went on to describe efforts by senior management at Murdoch's UK news operation to introduce prison ships.
"Within a few weeks of taking over my prime minister arranged a meeting with Rebekah Brooks. Rebekah Brooks described herself as running the government now in partnership with David Cameron. I found myself having an extraordinary meeting with Rebekah who was instructing me on criminal justice policy from now on, as I think she had instructed my predecessor, so far as I could see, judging from the numbers of people we had in prison and the growth of rather exotic sentences.
"She wanted me to buy prison ships because she did accept that the capacity of the prisons was getting rather strained, putting it mildly, it was not the way I described it.
"She really was solemnly telling me that we had got to have prison ships because she had got some more campaigns coming, which is one of her specialities. I regarded this as a very amusing conversation and took not the slightest notice.
"As long as I was justice secretary we would not have any of this. I do not think my successor needed any promoting from Rebekah so it all went back to the norm."
Labour peer Lord Falconer, another former justice secretary who was also giving evidence to the investigation, expressed shock at the revelation and said he had been the subject of similar lobbying while in Tony Blair's government: "When I became the lord chancellor responsible for prisons I was rung up first of all by the prime minister, then by the chancellor of the exchequer, then by the home secretary, separately, all asking me why in the face of the prison crisis I was not considering prison ships. That was 2007.
"That is an amazing piece of information, the extent to which the Murdoch press was able to get, at least, for all the reasons that Ken said. Let me tell you prison ships are a very bad idea!"
At the hearing Clarke also mocked the idea that Murdoch would maintain existing standards at Sky News if he was allowed to take total control of the news channel.
"The idea that we allow the owner of Fox News to buy Sky News, assuming he will resist the temptation and be a changed man who will carry on running according to British broadcasting standards, entirely impartial ... Believe that, you believe anything.
"We do have a particularly low level, a ridiculous level, of public debate in this country at the moment. It does become ever more tempestuous, scandal ridden, shock horror crisis and all the rest of it. It would be a great thing if we could stop and protect objectivity."
A spokesperson for Rebekah Brooks declined to comment.
Really not surprised by this. I recall Prison Ships being touted at the time. A thoroughly strange notion.
At the time I was somewhat suckered into the possibility and the need for such ships. Asylum seekers were touted as possible residents on board as well.
What you have to wonder though. Is why Prison Ships are such big deal for Murdoch.
The head of the Design Council (or something) was on Radio 4 saying how important the City of Culture is to the winner. Liverpool doubled its tourism following its success in 2008.
However it's difficult to know what the European Commission would say to Bratislava or Annecy or Darmstadt if their bids for City of Culture were overlooked in favour of a city that's left the EU and is no longer allowed by the rules of the competition. (Yes, you were wrong about that too, DINLT.)
If Belfast wanted to stay in the competition they shouldn't have voted to leave. It is the definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Budget 2017: The endless living squeeze
What is the point of capitalism?
That might seem like a pretty big question, but one answer could be "to provide people the opportunity through work to become richer".
What, though, if the economy fails in that endeavour?
If the system leaves you - despite all your efforts - worse off in December than you were the previous January?
Or worse off now than you were a decade ago?
The whining about being barred from the city of culture bid has been non stop on the news and radio today. It's like the people who voted for Brexit don't even know what they voted for.... oh, wait a minute...
Kilkrazy wrote: In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.
Pfft. Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.
Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.
What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?
I like the fact there are clear rules on this European city of culture thing, but even though they have been explained, explained again, and laid out clearly so as to leave no grey area, a leave voter wants them to both break the rules of the competition, and then starts using it as a stick to beat the EU with. The rules for EU city of culture are petty because we (leaving the EU and not interested in being a part of it again) aren't now eligible?
All this having of cake and eating it is going to make for some rather tubby little Englanders.
I say, whack the rules up on a big red bus, that'll make it clear.
Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.
Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.
What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?
They are. Switzerland and Iceland are in the EEA, Serbia and Ukraine are candidate countries.
Which leaves out the UK, Belarus and Russia. If you count the Caucasus then Azerbaijan and Armenia (Georgia is a EU candidate so it would be eligible, too). It would be a colourful competition, that's for sure.
I found DINLT criticism of Turkey a bit amusing, considering the UK was the country that pushed the hardest for Turkish membership.
Kilkrazy wrote: Britain could run its own city of culture competition, so the five cities who have prepared bids can make use of the work done so far.
Of course it's a pity to miss out on the EU cash, but the DUP probably could get the government to stump up a few million if Belfast won.
We can give the winning city some of this massive pot of money we will save. After the NHS, Emergency Services, all those that relied on EU subsidies, there will be at least 73p left for culture!
People often accuse me of missing the point, but I would argue that others are missing the point, and the point is this:
Europe and the EU are not one and the same. Never have been, never will be.
Europe is a entity will be here long after the EU is gone.
Since June 23rd 2016, there have been a number of media articles bemoaning the loss of European identity and people no longer feeling European.
It's testament to the work the EU have done over the years in merging the two in people's minds.
The City of Culture set up is part of this culture war.
As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
IMO, everything before the treaty of Rome is seen as death, destruction and genocide, whilst everything after is the road to better things.
I'd never deny that Europe's history has its fair share of death and destruction, but it also gave us the Renaissance and Democracy amongst other things.
Similarly, even EU supporters would admit that since the 1950s, there have been plenty of wars and genocides worldwide, some of which sadly occurred in Europe
The break up of Yugoslavia being a prime example...
Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.
Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.
What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?
They are. Switzerland and Iceland are in the EEA, Serbia and Ukraine are candidate countries.
Which leaves out the UK, Belarus and Russia. If you count the Caucasus then Azerbaijan and Armenia (Georgia is a EU candidate so it would be eligible, too). It would be a colourful competition, that's for sure.
I found DINLT criticism of Turkey a bit amusing, considering the UK was the country that pushed the hardest for Turkish membership.
You're mistaking me for the UK government. I've always opposed Turkish membership of the EU on the basis that I see them as a Asian/Middle East country, and therefore, not European.
Admittedly, it makes strategic sense to have Turkey in NATO and I have no problems with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thebiggesthat wrote: I like the fact there are clear rules on this European city of culture thing, but even though they have been explained, explained again, and laid out clearly so as to leave no grey area, a leave voter wants them to both break the rules of the competition, and then starts using it as a stick to beat the EU with. The rules for EU city of culture are petty because we (leaving the EU and not interested in being a part of it again) aren't now eligible?
All this having of cake and eating it is going to make for some rather tubby little Englanders.
I say, whack the rules up on a big red bus, that'll make it clear.
All I'm saying is that a bit realpolitik and common sense could have prevailed. Bids submitted before 2019 could have stood as a one-off exception.
After all, when it comes to citizens' rights, nobody will object to 2019 being the cut off point.
All I'm saying is that a bit realpolitik and common sense could have prevailed.
Sums up Brexit as a whole, pretty aptly.
Bids submitted before 2019 could have stood as a one-off exception.
Yeah, they could. But why?
Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
This is really a non-issue. I bet that before this came up you didn't even know there was a European city of culture, and are just latching onto this for the EU bashing.
As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge,
.. which side was it again that disparaged "experts" and laid the blame at the feet of a "metropolitan elite ", whilst relying on massively erroneous propaganda, cults of personality around various failed/would/untrustworthy MPs and a staunch appeal to how things were in some mythical days of yore ?
All I'm saying is that a bit realpolitik and common sense could have prevailed.
Sums up Brexit as a whole, pretty aptly.
Bids submitted before 2019 could have stood as a one-off exception.
Yeah, they could. But why?
Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
This is really a non-issue. I bet that before this came up you didn't even know there was a European city of culture, and are just latching onto this for the EU bashing.
I bet that before this came up you didn't even know there was a European city of culture, and are just latching onto this for the EU bashing.
I was around when Glasgow won it back in the day
And, I drive down to Dundee from time to time, so I'm familiar with their work in the local media to promote it.
I feel sorry for the young Dundee people that put in a lot of hard work.
Probably best If I keep my Brexit support under wraps next time I'm down there.
As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge,
.. which side was it again that disparaged "experts" and laid the blame at the feet of a "metropolitan elite ", whilst relying on massively erroneous propaganda, cults of personality around various failed/would/untrustworthy MPs and a staunch appeal to how things were in some mythical days of yore ?
Even the metropolitan elite admit there is a metropolitan elite.
Although I concede, and have done before, that just because I supported Brexit, doesn't mean I agree with every key Brexiteer and every aspect of the campaign.
There was a lot of bullgak on both sides. Everybody on dakka would agree on that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
I'm just going to quote this again so everyone can see it and marvel.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
I'm just going to quote this again so everyone can see it and marvel.
Indeed. It is completely insulting to the millions of Cambodians who were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge to even consider comparing the two.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
I'm just going to quote this again so everyone can see it and marvel.
Indeed. It is completely insulting to the millions of Cambodians who were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge to even consider comparing the two.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
I'm just going to quote this again so everyone can see it and marvel.
I was referring to the cultural aspect, the relegation of a past that is deemed 'unwelcome', rather than the genocidal tendencies of the Khmer Rouge, but I suspect you already know that.
To make myself very very clear, IMO, the EU prefers to focus on events AFTER the Treaty of Rome and ignore inconvenient events BEFORE the Treaty of Rome, in a similar manner that the Khmer Rouge employed when they tried to IGNORE Cambodia's past until the moment they seized power.
By your logic, and your reaction, because Britain has a military, and because Nazi Germany had a military, therefore, if I compared the British military to the Nazi military, say structure and organization, I'm essentially saying that Britain and Nazi Germany are the same...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'
I'm just going to quote this again so everyone can see it and marvel.
Indeed. It is completely insulting to the millions of Cambodians who were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge to even consider comparing the two.
Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but do you have any examples of the EU trying to ignore events before 1957? What sort of events?
Is this another angle to the entirely discredited "EU is stealing our cultural identity" speil?
Or the "We survived fine before the EU, so we don't need it 60 years later"?
Yeah, wise words from Kilkrazy about everybody being polite.
Robust and reasoned debate is a good thing, but I think we all tend to get carried away from time to time.
I think part of the problem is the fact that we live in a 24hr news cycle, where things get reported instantly, and therefore, we somehow expect things to be sorted instantly.
Obviously, I believe that Brexit will be a success, but we really need to wait at least 10 years before we can make an accurate conclusion one way or another.
I'm only supporting Shadow Captain Edithrae in that.
To return to the topic, one of the difficulties with the situation is how to define success.
A lot of people voted for Brexit in order to be able to put more restrictions on EU citizens, and to remove the influence of the ECJ. That of course is very easily satified by resigning frm the EU and forming a completely 3rd party relationship such as Canada or Japan have.
This is what returning soverignty to the Westminster Parliament would be.
To me, though, such objectives are means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. I don't think soverignty is worth much if it results in us all shivering around the last can of beans warmed by a fire of EU environmental regulations. (Deliberately exaggerated example given.)
I hope we would all agree that there needs to be a very successful economic outcome to compensate for the damage of the last 10 years. In my view there also needs to be a lot of redistribution of wealth, so that the benefits of globalisation and free trade are available to the whole population, not just the top 10% or 1%.
My worry is that all the indicators are that leaving the EU is going to be somewhat or very damaging to the economy for several years. I have other concerns too, which I won't go into now.
I do think that we have to all pull together to make Brexit a success.
I know it sucks remainers, but throwing toys out of the pram isn't going to prevent said pram from going over a cliff into the dark abyss below.
People probably know that I voted to leave because I have issues with the EU, I have no problems with our cousins from across the channel, I just want the EU to be better than the God awful mess that it is. And I think that leaving was the only way to give it the kick it needed to improve. It's a corrupt cantankerous cancer that needs killing off. Despite its good intentions, it has been poorly led all the while screaming more integration!
welshhoppo wrote: I do think that we have to all pull together to make Brexit a success.
This gets said a lot, but what does it actually mean? How does the average man on the street have any meaningful impact on whether Brexit is a success or not?
I'm still going to go to work every day (hoping it's not going to impact my job any - working for an Indian IT company supporting an American cosmetics company, it probably won't much), pay my mortgage, buy groceries etc. I'd say I'd buy British, but, well, what the hell do we still make? I'd happily buy another Lotus if I could afford one, but right now that doesn't seem likely (and anyway while they're built here, they're owned elsewhere)... :(
I think all most of us can do is hope (against the increasing weight of evidence against it) that the politicians do a good job with the negotiations, and hope the cost of the stuff we buy doesn't go up too much or the companies we work for decide to move elsewhere.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....Obviously, I believe that Brexit will be a success, but we really need to wait at least 10 years before we can make an accurate conclusion one way or another.
Similarly, I believe that Britain will be a success despite Brexit. There's nothing like a "bit" of economic friction to really focus people's minds and give them some motivation.
To make myself very very clear, IMO, the EU prefers to focus on events AFTER the Treaty of Rome and ignore inconvenient events BEFORE the Treaty of Rome
So in a nut shell what you are saying is that the EU is looking to the future rather than the past. Whilst the UK is admiring the past whilst ignoring the future? I think I could agree on this...
I know it sucks remainers, but throwing toys out of the pram isn't going to prevent said pram from going over a cliff into the dark abyss below.
Nah, I think I'd prefer to get out the pram with the toys and find one that is being pushed in the opposite direction away from the cliff. Something I'm working very hard at doing. I think I would be healthier without the 2000ft fall off a cliff edge.
Tory Liam Fox has accused British companies of hampering his ability to cut Brexit trade deals because they don’t want to trade overseas.
“We’re still way behind where our economy needs to be. So, we need to think about how we can make our economy export ready, and more investment ready as well, and how we get more of our companies to think about exporting overseas.
“I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn’t do us any good.”
That should, of course, read as disgraced minister Liam Fox.
So now we're leaving the Eu so we can forge trade deals over several years which we apparently do not even want.
LONDON — One of Britain's best-known entrepreneurs has told Business Insider that Liam Fox is "utterly unfit" to be in office, after the International Trade Secretary accused British business of not putting in enough effort into exporting their products overseas.
Lord Bilimoria, best known as the co-founder of Cobra beer, was responding to Fox's claim that British businesses are making his job harder because they don't want to export their goods.
"I can agree as many trade agreements as I like, but if British business doesn’t want to export, then that doesn't do us any good," Fox told House Magazine this week.
Fox has previously claimed that many business people are "too fat and too lazy" and spend too much time playing golf, rather than doing their jobs.
Bilimoria told BI on Friday that Fox's comments amounted to an "insult" to British business people across the board and show he is "completely unsuited" for the office.
"He is completely unsuited and shown himself to be quite frankly utterly unfit for this office. It's an insult to business," the life peer said.
"When he made the remarks he did last year I along with several other leaders were furious. Who on Earth was he to call us lazy? He doesn't have a clue how hard it is to start a business from scratch, to grow it, to raise finance and to export. It is not easy.
"For him to say that was utterly shocking."
Bilimoria was keen to stress that he "really appreciates" the work done by the Trade Department as a whole and praised UK commissioners for their "helpful" and "fabulous" work helping British business on the world stage.
The problem, Bilimoria claimed, is Fox's leadership of the department.
"What Fox said shows that he completely doesn't understand business and international trade," he explained.
"The first thing is that across the board in business nobody has any respect for Liam Fox. Nobody takes him seriously. That's a fact. We do not expect anything from him, but we don't want him to insult us in this way either.
"At Cobra I've got exporting experience covering a quarter of a century and he's somebody who has never run a business in his life trying to say I'm not working hard enough. He's saying we are not working hard enough because he can't sign trade deals."
Bilimoria, who has previously said that he voted for Remain in the EU referendum, added: "50% of our trade is with the EU. Our biggest export markets are within the EU. On top of that, almost 20% of our trade is with 50 countries which have free trade agreements with the EU, including Japan.
"So, is Liam Fox trying to tell business and exporters like me that I want to sacrifice 70% of our trade worldwide to try and go after the 30%? They are in absolute dreamland — and business understands this."
"When Fox makes comments like this it doesn't surprise me, but it's why we can't take him seriously. We don't like being insulted by someone who hasn't a clue about business."
Prime Minister Theresa May today slapped down Fox for his remarks, with her spokesperson saying: "The UK has a good record for exports."
NEW: I’m told the Prime Minister has written to Mayor Andy Burnham to say govt will only pay “reasonable” costs spent by Manchester in response to May’s terror attack, NOT the full £17m.
Andy Burnham says the letter from the Prime Minister in response to the terror attack costs gives an “inclusive answer” to the money Manchester has requested but “gets no where near the sum we feel we need to cover our costs”.
.. well the cameras aren't there anymore and no one really votes tory in Manchester do they eh ?
Another triumph for the FO under Bojo !
state of this eh ?
Still I'm sure Labour will release a press bit that'll..
oh.
.... can we perhaps turn the country off and on again ?
This gets said a lot, but what does it actually mean? How does the average man on the street have any meaningful impact on whether Brexit is a success or not?
1. Use less government services whenever possible
2. Make do and mend foreign products, scrap and recycle British ones
3. Keep children to a maximum of 1 for the time being. sell any spares to foreign countries to eat into their economy/education budget instead, then re-import them when they're actually worth something.
4. use all your entertainment budget on GW products (or equivalent) - instead of American Recreational Electronics
5. live on Huel
6. Attract foreign tourists by discussing Neat Things in the UK online. For example, we have a disproportionate number of working steam engines, and the most recently constructed one at 9(?) years. One EU person I know is coming across due to my own personal efforts in this area
7. Find new oil wells
8. Don't take holidays in EU countries. Or indeed at all - money spent abroad is, effectively, money that leaves the economy.
9. Take up whisky/gin drinking instead of foreign import liquor
10. Stop smoking foreign tobacco products, but take up heavy smoking so you don't live too much longer than necessary - the NHS cost will be outweighed by pension savings in the long run, and inefficiency at work will lead to more people being employed to do the same job instead of one working and t'other on the dole.
11. Replace all your home electronics with Raspberry Pis
Well, I've got the gin and whisky drinking bit down pat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To get back to the topic, we cannot cooperate to strive for success unless we know what it is.
I know for some Brexiteers it means being outside the EU, the EEA and the EFTA, while for some Leavers it means being inside the EU, the EEA or the EFTA. There's no point discussing that side of things, as we can never agree.
But what about general goals of political economy and the UK's international standing?
I presume we would all prefer the UK to have a healthy growing economy. How do we want achieve that?
welshhoppo wrote: I do think that we have to all pull together to make Brexit a success.
This gets said a lot, but what does it actually mean? How does the average man on the street have any meaningful impact on whether Brexit is a success or not?
I'm still going to go to work every day (hoping it's not going to impact my job any - working for an Indian IT company supporting an American cosmetics company, it probably won't much), pay my mortgage, buy groceries etc. I'd say I'd buy British, but, well, what the hell do we still make? I'd happily buy another Lotus if I could afford one, but right now that doesn't seem likely (and anyway while they're built here, they're owned elsewhere)... :(
I think all most of us can do is hope (against the increasing weight of evidence against it) that the politicians do a good job with the negotiations, and hope the cost of the stuff we buy doesn't go up too much or the companies we work for decide to move elsewhere.
Basically, I think we need to get rid of the massive Politcal apathy that has built up over the years. People complain that the Tories only had 30ish percent of the vote and the Brexit referendum was only 37% of the total voting population, well guess what, they are that low because nobody gives a monkeys left nut about politics.
One of the main benefits of Brexit, one that we can all agree on, is that there is no EU scapegoat hanging around parliament anymore, because they've beaten that poor goat for decades now, both the Torys and Labour have done it when it suits them.
So hopefully post Brexit, we can have a new age of politics without the EU causing issues, and without people blaming the EU for their mistakes. If we can get the younger generation interested in politics, then it can be for the good of us all.
I can't even tell if that list is a parody or not.
I too want to know how I can make brexit a success? How do I prevent my kids being screwed over by brexit, without moving back to the EU.
Regarding the scapegoating; I can guarantee we'll still be blaming the EU for decades to come.
I'm not sure brexit has improved political interest. I think it's generating even more apathy due to all the vitriol and the fact our politicians aren't even pretending to be competent any more.
The political apathy has already been dispelled. The youth are mobilising and registering in large numbers. The Tory Party is the party of the old people. Labour is recruiting fast. I've just joined, and I've never belonged to any party before.
We need proportional representation ASAP. We should have another referendum with an open ended question and a proper royal commission to work out options to be referendumized later on.
We should break England into a number of regional parliaments, overthrow Westminster and introduce a federal system.
People who don't normally get involved with politics are getting involved with Brexit.
But politics will be stale until Brexit is over, labour won't do anything until it's over. They'll just hibernate and then pounce post Brexit to lay the smack down on them and Corbyn will rise like a 21st century Jesus to bring Britain to a new age!
Herzlos wrote: I can't even tell if that list is a parody or not.
That was sort of the idea; and it's something we should all be doing and asking; "How does the way I live affect the nation's economy?" and the one that could probably be applied to the nation as a unit : "How much of what I do is chosen because it's the path of least resistance?"
The split in the vote, i'd suggest, is because so many people found themselves with those questions, and genuinely never thought about it. In turn, the vacuum in established position could then be exploited.
British in Europe, which represents UK citizens on the continent, says it has issued "countless" requests to meet with the secretary of state, none of which have been accepted. They've met with Brandon Lewis, immigration minister, Robin Walker, parliamentary under secretary at the Brexit department, and David Jones, junior minister. But they've never been able to meet the man supposedly fighting for their interests in talks with Barnier. This is despite the fact that Brexit-supporting columnists regularly brag about their long phone calls with Davis.
The organisation wrote to Theresa May on the evening of her Florence speech asking to meet her and Davis. No luck. They contacted the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) several times. No luck, on any occasion. They tried to go through ambassadors and use side channels in Berlin and Luxembourg. No luck.
Michel Barnier is another story. Although he supposedly represents a threat to their interests, has met them twice: once on March 28th and again last Tuesday. They expect to meet him again early next year. But they have not been allowed to meet Davis.
Herzlos wrote: I can't even tell if that list is a parody or not.
That was sort of the idea; and it's something we should all be doing and asking; "How does the way I live affect the nation's economy?" and the one that could probably be applied to the nation as a unit : "How much of what I do is chosen because it's the path of least resistance?"
They also need to contrast it with "what's best for my own families interest?". The economy needs me to spend locally, but for me to weather the storm I need to try and save as much money as possible. So do I screw myself to try and prop up the economy or do I leave the economy to it and build a contingency?
Not that I have any money anyway, and how do I make sure I spend money with companies that pay their tax?
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
welshhoppo wrote:One of the main benefits of Brexit, one that we can all agree on, is that there is no EU scapegoat hanging around parliament anymore, because they've beaten that poor goat for decades now, both the Torys and Labour have done it when it suits them.
So hopefully post Brexit, we can have a new age of politics without the EU causing issues, and without people blaming the EU for their mistakes. If we can get the younger generation interested in politics, then it can be for the good of us all.
That won't happen. The UK and the EU will still be right next to each other and whatever one does will have some sort of influence or effect on each other (albeit the EU will have a bigger effect on the UK than the UK on the EU). If/when the UK leaves the EU it will just all be rephrased as the big bad EU being a bully instead of all the "who elected them, why do they have that power" talking points. It's already started, right now, during the negotiation. "Why won't the EU consider the UK's needs in the negotiations?" and so on (just read through the thread from the start for a few examples).
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
I think this partially comes down to voters not really understanding the consequences. The idea that basically everything will stay the same except that we aren't being controlled by those "damn dirty rats" that have secret plans to turn the EU into the Cambodia of the past...yet the nice things, the benefits that the EU bring the same people want to keep. The argument that we don't want to pay into the club but want to keep the things that those payments contribute to. I'd like to see how long we'd stay in the Eurovision song contest if we suddenly decided that it was run as dictatorship, wanted to 'take back control', and were withdrawing UK funding. It wouldn't stop being called the Eurovision song contest though.
Anyway given the way the Country wants to treat anyone that isn't from the UK I somehow doubt we'd be awarded a useful City of anything never mind City of Culture. Perhaps we could go in for "City of Isolationism", "City of Have Cake and Eat it", "City of Rotting Food in fields" or "City that dislikes the EU the most".
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
And if it is to be exclusive to EU/EEA etc members only, then they shouldn't call it a European City of Culture, they should call it what it is: an EU City of Culture.
And to be clear, I'm not whining. I don't want to "have my cake and eat it", I couldn't care less if we're not applicable for the EU City of Culture.
I'm just calling out something that I view to be petty and fundamentally dishonest.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
Edut: it's European capital of culture.
Then call it what it is, the EU Capitol of Culture. Stop being dishonest and pretending its a contest designed to promote European unity and solidarity, whilst excluding many European countries.
Kilkrazy wrote: The political apathy has already been dispelled. The youth are mobilising and registering in large numbers. The Tory Party is the party of the old people. Labour is recruiting fast. I've just joined, and I've never belonged to any party before.
We need proportional representation ASAP. We should have another referendum with an open ended question and a proper royal commission to work out options to be referendumized later on.
We should break England into a number of regional parliaments, overthrow Westminster and introduce a federal system.
You joined a Labour party that has a leader who's probably more opposed to the EU than I am?
I've been wondering for a while now how the Labour party will square that circle...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....Obviously, I believe that Brexit will be a success, but we really need to wait at least 10 years before we can make an accurate conclusion one way or another.
Similarly, I believe that Britain will be a success despite Brexit. There's nothing like a "bit" of economic friction to really focus people's minds and give them some motivation.
Good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
It took me 10 posts to say what you've just said in one sentence!
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
I think this partially comes down to voters not really understanding the consequences. The idea that basically everything will stay the same except that we aren't being controlled by those "damn dirty rats" that have secret plans to turn the EU into the Cambodia of the past...yet the nice things, the benefits that the EU bring the same people want to keep. The argument that we don't want to pay into the club but want to keep the things that those payments contribute to. I'd like to see how long we'd stay in the Eurovision song contest if we suddenly decided that it was run as dictatorship, wanted to 'take back control', and were withdrawing UK funding. It wouldn't stop being called the Eurovision song contest though.
Anyway given the way the Country wants to treat anyone that isn't from the UK I somehow doubt we'd be awarded a useful City of anything never mind City of Culture. Perhaps we could go in for "City of Isolationism", "City of Have Cake and Eat it", "City of Rotting Food in fields" or "City that dislikes the EU the most".
We know from recent Macron and Juncker speeches that a Remain vote would not have been a vote for the status quo
And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
Were you ok with the name when it only excluded Russia and Belarus?
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
Were you ok with the name when it only excluded Russia and Belarus?
As long as the oil keeps flowing through Belarus to the EU, then as far as Brussels is concerned, there are European values and then there's European values, and if they don't like them, then I'm sure they have others for sale.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
For being different or for not meeting the entry criteria? There's a very important distinction.
I find it kind of funny that people who wanted to leave a union are upset we don't get to take part in a union event.
It shouldn't be exclusive to European Union members in the first place - it excludes several European nations simply because they're not members of the elite club
And if it is to be exclusive to EU/EEA etc members only, then they shouldn't call it a European City of Culture, they should call it what it is: an EU City of Culture.
And to be clear, I'm not whining. I don't want to "have my cake and eat it", I couldn't care less if we're not applicable for the EU City of Culture.
I'm just calling out something that I view to be petty and fundamentally dishonest.
Herzlos wrote:Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.
For the best effect imagine the headlines about an UK city winning right next to ones about how gakky the EU is and how it should be dissolved for the good of everyone.
Its not called the "EU City of Culture", its called the "European City of Culture. And yet several European nations are excluded.
The EU =/= Europe.
Indeed. Can anyone play in the baseball world series or is most of the world excluded? Just because it says Europe doesn't mean it has to cover Europe. As I said; it's paid for and organised by the EU; they can set whatever eligibility criteria we want. Don't like it? You've got 16 months whilst our MEPs have a say about changing it.
Edut: it's European capital of culture.
Then call it what it is, the EU Capitol of Culture. Stop being dishonest and pretending its a contest designed to promote European unity and solidarity, whilst excluding many European countries.
So semantics then?
But fair enough, there are 50 countries in continental Europe, 28 including us presently are in the EU, there are 5 candidate countries, and a further 3 countries that are members of the EEA/EFTA. So that's only 36 countries eligible for entry into this "European" venture.
But hang on, those countries that are members of the EEA/EFTA or are candidates aren't actually members of the EU,so calling it the EU city of culture would be dishonest too.
What then should we call it? What about
"The city of culture for the EU, candidate member states, and European countries who are members of the European free trade association or European Economic Area"?
Yes, that fits and, it rolls of the tongue too.
Or, it could just be that the title broadly fits the venture, like the Eurovision song contest even if it has Israel and Australia in it, and you're just picking at this word to try and score a political point which is frankly pointless and no one gives a gak about?
Australia has criticised the UK's post-Brexit trade plans to split quotas of food imports from around the world.
EU rules allow for a certain amount of goods to be brought in from countries outside of the Union without charging full tariffs.
After Brexit, the UK and EU want to split these quotas, based on where the goods are mostly consumed.
But Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said it would impose unacceptable restrictions on their exports.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The point is that you have a choice about where you place your quota at the moment.
"Therefore, given that you could put it in the UK or you could put it into continental Europe, why would we accept a proposition that would see a decline in the quota available because of the Brexit decision?"
Dave Harrison, from Beef and Lamb New Zealand, agreed that its finances could be hit hard if they were not allowed to choose where to import more or less of their products.
He told Today: "We understand that Brexit causes a lot of difficulties for the European governments, but we don't think third countries should have to take a hit in terms of their negotiated legal rights as a result of that."
Shanker Singham, of The Legatum Institute, said the UK should talk to other countries about trade directly.
He added: "We should be going to them and saying we have the ability - once we take up our chair at the WTO [World Trade Organisation] - to do trade agreements with you that will include a certain amount of liberalisation, depending on what you are prepared to give us.
"But if you damage us on the way to reclaiming our seat on the WTO, we are not going to be able to do those deals with you."
The US, Brazil and Canada are also said to have their doubts about the new deal, believing it could hit them financially.
A spokesman for the UK's Department of International Trade told Today the government wanted to minimise disruption to trading relationships and would engage with other members of the World Trade Organisation in an "open, inclusive way".
Countryside impact
Meanwhile, Tory MP Neil Parish, who chairs the environment, food and rural affairs committee in Parliament, raised concerns that if the UK's exports to the EU were hit post-Brexit and more imports were coming into the country from further afield, it could affect industries on our shores.
Shadow international secretary of trade, Barry Gardiner, also said the wider implications could see an impact on the British countryside.
"As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks," he said. "That means you also affect the tourist trade.
"These are huge decisions that are being taken and we must protect our farmers to make sure that our countryside looks the way we want it to. "
What a shame that no one pointed all this out before eh ..?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
I certainly don't
It's a very good point. In the event of a remain win we would have been unlikely to have shocked the youth vote enough to mobilise, Jeremy Corby would continue to operate as leader whilst being attacked by Tories and his own party, and TM would have stayed as Home secretary.
Yuk.
However, considering the alternative, was it worth it? I don't know, only if there's a see change in politics and that a revitalised Labour actually sweeps to power would it even be vaguely worth it, because the alternative is what we have now, a gak storm of incompetence and polarised politics.
I'm very much on the fence on this one, without the Brexit vote people would not have believed the utter incompetence and self serving nature of the Conservative party, also how valuable and intricately intertwined our relationship with the EU is. I think it's opened a lot of eyes.
Socialism is fast losing its dirty word status, and the credibility of capitalism as the only way to run a country has been deeply shaken. That's probably the best outcome of this.
However, here's another one for you. Would Trump have happened if there was no Brexit?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...And people forget that a Remain vote would have enabled Cameron and Osborne to say on in power.
Does anybody, be they Remain or Leave, think the UK would be better off if Cameron was still PM?
I certainly don't
It's a very good point. In the event of a remain win we would have been unlikely to have shocked the youth vote enough to mobilise, Jeremy Corby would continue to operate as leader whilst being attacked by Tories and his own party, and TM would have stayed as Home secretary.
Yuk.
However, considering the alternative, was it worth it? I don't know, only if there's a see change in politics and that a revitalised Labour actually sweeps to power would it even be vaguely worth it, because the alternative is what we have now, a gak storm of incompetence and polarised politics.
I'm very much on the fence on this one, without the Brexit vote people would not have believed the utter incompetence and self serving nature of the Conservative party, also how valuable and intricately intertwined our relationship with the EU is. I think it's opened a lot of eyes.
Socialism is fast losing its dirty word status, and the credibility of capitalism as the only way to run a country has been deeply shaken. That's probably the best outcome of this.
However, here's another one for you. Would Trump have happened if there was no Brexit?
Regardless of Brexit, I think Trump would have happened anyway, for the simple reason that thanks to 20 years of anti-Hiliary Clinton propaganda in the right-wing US media, there are a lot of people in the USA who think she is the devil incarnate.
I'll be honest and say I wouldn't have voted for Clinton either, but that would be due to being against her foreign and economic policies, rather than her as a person. Some of the abuse thrown at Clinton is vile and disgusting and there's no need for that in politics
As to the Labour party and Corbyn, I'll say what I've said before, because it's a huge problem for Labour:
Corbyn has been anti-EU for decades, the youth vote of Labour is pro-EU.
Australia has criticised the UK's post-Brexit trade plans to split quotas of food imports from around the world.
EU rules allow for a certain amount of goods to be brought in from countries outside of the Union without charging full tariffs.
After Brexit, the UK and EU want to split these quotas, based on where the goods are mostly consumed.
But Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said it would impose unacceptable restrictions on their exports.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The point is that you have a choice about where you place your quota at the moment.
"Therefore, given that you could put it in the UK or you could put it into continental Europe, why would we accept a proposition that would see a decline in the quota available because of the Brexit decision?"
Dave Harrison, from Beef and Lamb New Zealand, agreed that its finances could be hit hard if they were not allowed to choose where to import more or less of their products.
He told Today: "We understand that Brexit causes a lot of difficulties for the European governments, but we don't think third countries should have to take a hit in terms of their negotiated legal rights as a result of that."
Shanker Singham, of The Legatum Institute, said the UK should talk to other countries about trade directly.
He added: "We should be going to them and saying we have the ability - once we take up our chair at the WTO [World Trade Organisation] - to do trade agreements with you that will include a certain amount of liberalisation, depending on what you are prepared to give us.
"But if you damage us on the way to reclaiming our seat on the WTO, we are not going to be able to do those deals with you."
The US, Brazil and Canada are also said to have their doubts about the new deal, believing it could hit them financially.
A spokesman for the UK's Department of International Trade told Today the government wanted to minimise disruption to trading relationships and would engage with other members of the World Trade Organisation in an "open, inclusive way".
Countryside impact
Meanwhile, Tory MP Neil Parish, who chairs the environment, food and rural affairs committee in Parliament, raised concerns that if the UK's exports to the EU were hit post-Brexit and more imports were coming into the country from further afield, it could affect industries on our shores.
Shadow international secretary of trade, Barry Gardiner, also said the wider implications could see an impact on the British countryside.
"As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks," he said. "That means you also affect the tourist trade.
"These are huge decisions that are being taken and we must protect our farmers to make sure that our countryside looks the way we want it to. "
What a shame that no one pointed all this out before eh ..?
Oh, hang on....
Serious question, because I genuinely don't know, and I don't know if you know, but what do we import from Australia in the grand scheme of things?
Apart from wine, which we buy from loads of other nations anyway, I can't really think of anything we get from Australia.
I know they export huge quantities of minerals and ores, but that all goes to China.
It's not just how much we import -- and mind it's not just Australia there but also the USA, Canada etc etc as well -- those ones we're going to deal a deal with super quickly and awesomely remember -- but the fact that if we did some magical deal to let in..... oh let's say all the NZ lamb and butter that was talked up so much during the campaign -- at a better rate than we currently get this will hurt/kill/whatever the UK producers who have just lost their good access to their biggest market .
The shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said Liam Fox had been warned about the danger of a dispute over the quota share deal. He also cautioned against accepting higher amounts of low-tariff imports of products such as lamb because of the impact it would have on UK farmers and the countryside.
“We warned the secretary of state, Liam Fox, about this a number of months ago and he said this was going to be very easy because it was not going to make any changes in the current total quota that the EU has,” he told Today.
Gardiner said the countries raising objections about the quota-sharing plan had a point and “this is something that is going to be a tougher negotiation than the government ever thought”.
He added: “We must not look at this simply as a matter of economics. It’s not simply about, ‘are we going to get cheaper lamb in the UK if we import a lot more from New Zealand?’ - the real issue here is what these things do to our wider economy and the landscape of this country.
“As you affect farming, so you affect the way our country looks, that means you also affect the tourist trade.”
Now TBf, if say you're already a rich land owner then the oppurtunity to buy up more land in the UK as the smaller farms go bust is great -- but I'm sure tax avoidance , rising interest rates and something akin to a firesale with regards to British assets is of no interest at all to many of the really rich people who pushed for Brexit safe in the knowledge that it won't affect them really at all.
.. and what have we got in our corner ..?
Liam bloody Fox ..?? !!
Sat there droning on about how he can do as many trade deals as he likes...
Number of trade deals he *has* completed: 0
Number of trade deals, with one of/the largest economies & /our closest neighbours that he's tearing up : 1
The government has admitted that it has yet to secure the agreement of dozens of countries to roll over preferential trade access for British companies after Brexit.
It came as the car industry bosses pressed the prime minister for clarity on post-Brexit arrangements in a meeting at Downing Street.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, said that his department had not yet reached agreement with about 60 countries, from South Korea to Switzerland, whose markets British exporters can reach on terms guaranteed through European Union trade deals.
Dr Fox and other senior figures had suggested previously that these countries’ EU trade agreements could be “rolled over” seamlessly to apply to the UK. However, under questioning from MPs on the the international trade committee yesterday, he said: “We haven’t had an indication from any of them that they don’t want to get bilateral access . . . it’s not quite as simple as rolling them over.
and we have Gove.. a man who was against the Good Friday as he thinks the SAS could've taken out the IRA
"A council has been called “cruel and callous” for proposing £1,000 fines to homeless people sleeping in tents in the city centre.
Stoke-on-Trent council in Staffordshire is consulting on a public space protection order (PSPO) that will make it an offence for a person to “assemble, erect, occupy or use” a tent unless part of a council-sanctioned activity such as a music festival.
Under such a scheme anyone who fails to pay their £100 on-the-spot penalty notice can be prosecuted and could be fined up to £1,000 in court."
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
The purpose of the idea is to encourage countries to be in the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Corbyn has been anti-EU for decades, the youth vote of Labour is pro-EU.
How do you square that circle? ...
Quite simply, Corbyn is the leader of the party, but he is not the Labour party. He's also a pacifist, which I vehemently disagree with, but there's enough about him that I do agree with that I'm prepared to vote for him.
Corbyn is coming around to the idea that the EU is better protection for workers' rights and well-being than the Tory government, also that Brexit is the great vulnerability of the Conservatives.
I think Corbyn is also quite happy to sit around and wait for the Tory party to implode, for Brexit to be deemed a failure, and for labour to emerge as saviours of the country.
Also, the purpose of the city of culture was to bring different cultures together. It wasn't about being in the EU, it was about accepting that other Europeans aren't that different from us. It's a shame that a lot of people think the EU is Europe at the end of the day.
But heck. If we are paying our dues in the divorce bill for the next few years, we probably deserve to keep our place in the city of culture. At least just vote behind our backs and kick us out that way.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
The parliament is full of people who's only interest is self interest. I think that it's not a case of selfish people being MPs, but being in that environment turns you into a selfish git 9 times out of 10.
I disagree. I believe a lot of MPs are there to serve their constitutents and the nation as a whole. It is the minority of gak bags -- I'm looking at you, Bozo -- who get big headlines and spoil the overall image.
Others have already addressed it but now people are complaining about the name of the contest instead of the rules? Is that really a hill worth dying on? "EU vs. Europe" in a name? "EU Capital of Culture" wouldn't even be correct because it allows cities to participate that are not yet part of the EU. It's a simple name, be happy it's not some sort of EU bureaucratic mess that would need three lines and half a minute to pronounce.
And the point about how it should be open to all European countries despite it being an EU funded project. Wasn't there a lot of whining from Brexiters about how the UK is paying more into the EU than it gets out. And now you want the EU to finance this thing for anyone, even countries that don't pay into the EU, really?
As someone who voted for Brexit, I pretty much agree, it's flogging a dead horse now, it feels completely like a thing to whine about.
If the British Government deigns it wants to spend money promoting a city over others for tourism, it's welcome to, that's up to them, or, in fact, us, if you care enough about the subject matter to write to your MP. If the various EU affiliated organisations want to make a pot for that, that's up to them.
Otherwise, who gives a monkeys, it's just a waste of electrons.
Compel wrote: As someone who voted for Brexit, I pretty much agree, it's flogging a dead horse now, it feels completely like a thing to whine about.
If the British Government deigns it wants to spend money promoting a city over others for tourism, it's welcome to, that's up to them, or, in fact, us, if you care enough about the subject matter to write to your MP. If the various EU affiliated organisations want to make a pot for that, that's up to them.
Otherwise, who gives a monkeys, it's just a waste of electrons.
I only care enough to bicker about it on Dakka Dakka.
welshhoppo wrote: I just find it kind of funny that an event designed to promote unity between nations by showing that we are all different but important kicked a bunch of cities out for being different.
The purpose of the idea is to encourage countries to be in the EU.
And how is that working out for them?
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent. And the V4 nations are right to be leery. The fear of the Big Bad Bear is what drove these countries into NATO and the EU to begin with, and Brussels treats them like they have them by the balls because of that (in addition to being rising economies that have enjoyed some of the economic benefits of EU membership). And finally, the V4 nations are watching the EU's attempts to "punish" Great Britain for having the gall to leave their little clubhouse. And many of them don't like what they see.
That is a big reason for the closer political/military ties with the U.S. under the NATO umbrella. Eventually, if things keep going as is, those nations may follow Britain's lead and leave the EU. With the European Union being in relatively secure position, their true colors and arrogance have come out in spades. Between a hypothetical threat from Putin's Russia and an increasingly antagonistic Turkey, and the dangerous subtle soft tyranny of the EUSSR, there are those that think that standing together in a separate V4 bloc is a better bet and decide to go it alone. If they decide to stay in NATO (which they likely will; and thanks to the dominance of the United States in the North Atlantic alliance, the EU can't do a damn thing about it), they could pull it off.
The EU isn't monolithic. And people in the member-states are getting tired of the BS steaming out of Brussels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the capital of culture; we're only paying into the eu until 2019. I'm sure if team brexit agreed to fund the capital of culture until at least 2023 (a) we'd still be able to enter and (b) there'd be outrage about us paying the eu.
It was nice of May to refuse to reimburse the cities for their wasted expendature. Like she's refused to pay for the Manchester terror costs.
Mario wrote: Others have already addressed it but now people are complaining about the name of the contest instead of the rules? Is that really a hill worth dying on? "EU vs. Europe" in a name? "EU Capital of Culture" wouldn't even be correct because it allows cities to participate that are not yet part of the EU. It's a simple name, be happy it's not some sort of EU bureaucratic mess that would need three lines and half a minute to pronounce.
And the point about how it should be open to all European countries despite it being an EU funded project. Wasn't there a lot of whining from Brexiters about how the UK is paying more into the EU than it gets out. And now you want the EU to finance this thing for anyone, even countries that don't pay into the EU, really?
I'm afraid you are coming across the "we want to keep the nice things, but don't want to pay". If we want to remain in the 'competition' then we would need to continue supporting the EU as it is an EU competition. If we don't contribute we don't get a say, it is simple as this. The argument that they shouldn't use the name Europe is only applied here but not to the things like UEFA's Euros (which includes countries not in Europe) and the Eurovision (likewise) and is also based on which countries support those organisations. In the end it is just EU bashing because they can.
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent.
I think you need to look into the EU a bit more and not just read the headlines. Populism is always to be resisted because it is exploitation by a few to get what they want regardless of the consequences. It's the peddling by such people of simple solutions (that to the untrained seemed reasonable) and that reinforces prejudices whilst using false information to argue against scientific and data based evidence. It's the politics of the 'mob'. It's what allowed the rise of fascism in Germany in 30's. The EU is a democratic organisation, everyone is elected at some level. And the proposals are to increase that to allow a greater democratic process. As for elitism that is a western world/money issue whether that be in the US/EU/China/Russia etc. As for their immigration policies, the question is whether we should turn our back on people that have (for no fault of their own) been thrown into the middle of a warzone with no infrastructure or basic supplies (water, food etc). The EU decided to open the doors but yes that has generated resentment among some parts of the EU populace that have in built prejudices against see their little area change. For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics.
On other news. Well this is going to go down like a lead balloon. The EU want the UK to remain committed to new rules during the transition period but without a say on them. I can understand the logic, to protect the EU form the UK introducing day one rules that allow a flood of cheap goods into the EU. However I don't expected the hard Wrexiters like Boris the Clown will like this at all. Still it was warned by leaving it was likely we would still have to comply even though we'd have no say.
The UK could be required to follow new rules implemented by the European Union during a transition period after Brexit according to leaked plans reportedly drawn up by Brussels’ chief negotiator.
The position set out by Michel Barnier would make the application of new EU rules a condition of a transitional deal, meaning Britain could be subject to further Brussels’ regulations for about two years after leaving the bloc.
Theresa May hopes to secure an implementation period between the UK’s formal exit date and the commencement of any post-Brexit trade deal in order to give businesses time to adjust to the new arrangements, but accepting the imposition of new rules could trigger a revolt by Eurosceptics.
It would also go against the approach to an implementation period set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech, where she said the “framework for this strictly time-limited period … would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”.
But the Independent obtained a presentation drawn up by Mr Barnier for representatives of the 27 remaining EU members which said a transitional deal would involve the “automatic application in the UK of new EU rules post-30 March 2019”.
It also makes clear that after leaving the bloc the UK would have “no institutional rights, no presence in the institutions” and “no voting rights” – indicating that the UK would have no say over rules it would have to implement in the period.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has already indicated that accepting further regulations from Brussels would cross a red line, the Press Association reported.
He told the Sun in September: “You heard the Prime Minister say very clearly in Florence that she envisages the transition period being run under existing arrangements – that was the phrase she used, ‘The existing rules’.”
The Prime Minister wants talks on a trade deal and an implementation period to be given the green light by EU counterparts at the European Council on December 14-15.
But she has been warned by European Council president Donald Tusk that while that was possible it would be a “huge challenge”.
He has given her until December 4 to make progress on issues including the Brexit divorce bill and the thorny problem of the Irish border.
It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
I have even seen Polish neo-nazis parading through the streets of Boston in protest of the rise of Islamification. Maybe it was some sort of exchange program?
Regardless, the right wing has been allowed to raise immigration to this status in the public imagination because the left wing has not done it's job properly. There were 12 million refugees from Syria, half the population. Doctors, receptionists, builders, schoolchildren who have fled the country temporarily until the war has finished. Most of the surrounding countries have taken their share, for example Turkey took 3 million.
The UK took 4500.
And of those there were reports of people demanding we check their dental records.
We need a fething kick up the arse, it's a fething disgrace that that is the best we can do, or are even prepared to do. And anyone who says we're too full or other bollocks could do with looking at what our grandparents managed to do. During the second world war we accepted 100'000 Jewish refugees, alongside the thousands of others from all over Europe and the commonwealth.
When our resources were most stretched during time of war, we still opened our doors and welcomed these people in. Now, we're just letting old gentlemen like Murdoch forge the narrative.
We need to take a long hard look at ourselves, these are people, not fething swarms.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
The same could be said for the UK though. That doesn't mean the majority of the population hold those beliefs. It's those on the border that have 'concerns' but aren't in the ultra nationalistic regime that really make or break such policies (effectively the conservatives that are becoming more conservative). If the more liberal types relocate then their voices are diminished relatively and hence there is no balance to the arguments as the politics becomes more polarised. That leads to emboldening of those with ultra right views and hence more often seen.
The reality is that this is only the beginning. As climate change starts kicking in we are going to see more migration/asylum (whether that is wars over resources or just lack of). No country will be able to avoid this regardless of how many walls it builds.
I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
All of which is true, in localized areas. Just look at how places like Tower Hamlets or Bradford have changed over the years.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
While 60K people is remarkable it's still a tiny minority.
Poland seems to be the country with the highest support for the EU even accounting for the refugee stuff. 6 points higher than Germany proper for example.
Whirlwind wrote: ... For the eastern European countries it is more pronounced because large numbers of younger more open population have moved to countries with better prospects allowing those with more closed/older view to gain a larger say in their local politics...
I don't think that's the case at all. The recent rally of 60'000 nationalists in Poland for example had a very wide age range and demographic including families, women and the elderly. I have also heard many say that of the Poles that have come to the UK, they don't like what they see here, and when they return they take back warnings of what a multi-cultural society entails.
While 60K people is remarkable it's still a tiny minority.
Poland seems to be the country with the highest support for the EU even accounting for the refugee stuff. 6 points higher than Germany proper for example.
The thing that made it noteworthy is the fact that the Polish government backed the rally while people walked around with banners reading "A white Poland for white people" and the like that is blatantly racist (in the classical, colonial-imperialist sense of the word). The Polish government really is proving to be more and more unhinged by the month.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Yeah, one of them being the Irish. The other being the Northern Irish.
Darkjim wrote: The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
You mean like the population of Northern Ireland?
I do wonder why there are many people who seem opposed to the idea of self determination when it comes to the population of NI.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
The Irish Government has got a bit more diplomacy and sophistication than I have presented in my brief outline of the situation.
I have come around to the idea that re-unification would suit the situation the best. It would complete the peace process, solve the border problem, give the Northern Irish their democratic wish to stay in the EU< and best of all, it would feth the DUP up the arse sideways with a pineapple and destroy the Tory Government.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's beginning to look as if the Irish Border Question could be what breaks Brexit and/or (hopefully) the Tory Government.
The Irish are increasingly concerned that the border will be closed which will wreck their economy, and do serious damage to the NI economy.
The solution is a customs union or EFTA membership. May has said they are off the table as regards the UK as a whole.
The solution to this is a customs union or EFTA membership for NI only. The DUP refuse to countenance this. The DUP are keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
The Irish government of course has the power to veto any deals the UK and EU might put together.
Right, but if the Irish government veto any deal, then the result is hard Brexit and they get a hard border anyway?
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
The Irish Government has got a bit more diplomacy and sophistication than I have presented in my brief outline of the situation.
I have come around to the idea that re-unification would suit the situation the best. It would complete the peace process, solve the border problem, give the Northern Irish their democratic wish to stay in the EU< and best of all, it would feth the DUP up the arse sideways with a pineapple and destroy the Tory Government.
And instantly restart The Troubles.
Do you think its worth another bloodbath just to feth over the Tories?
Are you sure? All of those that want NI to be part of the UK will be pissed.
I mean, it's the only option that seems like it'd work, but it's going to need a serious security presence for a decade or so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It was nice of May to refuse to reimburse the cities for their wasted expendature. Like she's refused to pay for the Manchester terror costs.
She's U-Turned again and is stumping up the entire £17bn (?) for the costs associated with the Manchester terror attack. Shame she needs to be shamed into doing the right thing.
Shows what you know. There’s a hardline loyalist element here who wouldn’t hesitate to start violently resisting rule from Dublin. It would be the troubles in reverse; Protestant loyalists fighting to reunite with Britain.
Shows what you know. There’s a hardline loyalist element here who wouldn’t hesitate to start violently resisting rule from Dublin. It would be the troubles in reverse; Protestant loyalists fighting to reunite with Britain.
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK, the English and Welsh simply don't give enough of a gak about the province, and certainly wouldn't want to be dragged back into it again no matter how many people the Loyalists kill.
Brexit is the best chance that the republicans have of gaining a unified Ireland, and the DUP can gnash and wail all they want, but they'll be sold down the river by the Tories the second it's expedient to do so.
The only saving grace is that the slippery slope that reunification leads for the Govt. Gibraltar & Cyprus, they could be next.
Just for reference this is Article 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. I've highlighted the relevant bit for this debate.
Bunreacht na hÉireann wrote:Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
This is the version adopted after the Good Friday agreement through the Nineteenth Amendment, with 94% support on a turnout of 56% (representing a straight majority of the entire electorate).
By my interpretation the UK can disown Northern Ireland if it likes, force it to be independent, but it can't surrender it to the Republic without the support of the populace in a democratic vote. Hopefully this will lay to rest some of the more outlandish notions being expressed.
Has anyone thought to actually ask the Northern Irish people?
We know that a significant majority voted to remain in the EU, but has anyone actually investigated the general public feeling towards reunification (i.e. not the opinions of the various partisan groups on either side)? Because if there’s significant popular feeling (opposition or support) that has considerable bearing. I genuinely haven’t seen anything in the media on this topic, it’s all been posturing from the various players.
People in Eastern European EU member-states are increasingly soured on the EU, with it's anti-populism/anti-democratic attitude, elitism, immigration policies, and perceived Franco-German bent. And the V4 nations are right to be leery. The fear of the Big Bad Bear is what drove these countries into NATO and the EU to begin with, and Brussels treats them like they have them by the balls because of that (in addition to being rising economies that have enjoyed some of the economic benefits of EU membership). And finally, the V4 nations are watching the EU's attempts to "punish" Great Britain for having the gall to leave their little clubhouse. And many of them don't like what they see.
That is a big reason for the closer political/military ties with the U.S. under the NATO umbrella. Eventually, if things keep going as is, those nations may follow Britain's lead and leave the EU. With the European Union being in relatively secure position, their true colors and arrogance have come out in spades. Between a hypothetical threat from Putin's Russia and an increasingly antagonistic Turkey, and the dangerous subtle soft tyranny of the EUSSR, there are those that think that standing together in a separate V4 bloc is a better bet and decide to go it alone. If they decide to stay in NATO (which they likely will; and thanks to the dominance of the United States in the North Atlantic alliance, the EU can't do a damn thing about it), they could pull it off.
The EU isn't monolithic. And people in the member-states are getting tired of the BS steaming out of Brussels.
This whole comment sounds like you get your information about the EU an Europe from the same type of "journalists" who also proclaim that Stockholm is the rape capital of the world because of Arabic immigration/refugees without any actual evidence at best, or fabricates bs at worst. And yes it's completely and totally plausible that those countries will try to align themselves with the USA like that's somehow the solutions to all problems in the world. I don't know where you got your info from (and I don't want to read that drivel) but it all sounds rather biases (to put it very, very mildly) and you just don't seem to care about, I don't know… reality as it is, and would rather confirm your own opinions and biases?
Whirlwind wrote:I think the difference between WWII and now is that people viewed asylum in WWII as intrinsically people with the same views moving in and hence there was less opposition. Current migration is from areas where people have the perception that have 'a different way of life' etc and that scares people because they think it will take over and remove 'the way of life' they currently live and are comfortable with.
World War II prompted the largest displacement of human beings the world has ever seen—although today’s refugee crisis is starting to approach its unprecedented scale. But even with millions of European Jews displaced from their homes, the United States had a poor track record offering asylum. Most notoriously, in June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust.
Government officials from the State Department to the FBI to President Franklin Roosevelt himself argued that refugees posed a serious threat to national security. Yet today, historians believe that Bahr’s case was practically unique—and the concern about refugee spies was blown far out of proportion.
The thing that made it noteworthy is the fact that the Polish government backed the rally while people walked around with banners reading "A white Poland for white people" and the like that is blatantly racist (in the classical, colonial-imperialist sense of the word). The Polish government really is proving to be more and more unhinged by the month.
It's a similar pattern everywhere. If you have left wing protests the police often ends up instigating violence (read about the recent G20 meeting in Hamburg, link in german) but blaming it all on the anarchists while protecting Neo-Nazi rallies against counter protests. Neo-Nazi protestors literary do things that are unlawful under German law and the police ignores it because the police is by default institutionally a right wing authoritarian organisation and also tends to include quite a few extremists itself. There were recent Neo-Nazi rallies in Germany and all that resulting violence and injuries weren't seen as being related to either Neo-Nazis or right wing extremism but if one person throws a brick through a window the hand-wringing about left wing violence begins.
Suddenly there's also a worry about Neo-nazis in the German police and military and questions about their motivation. I don't want to excuse that Polish rally (and I don't know any details about the Polish government) but we have the same stuff happening in every developed country, people have just ignored or downplayed right wing extremism and violence for a long time because it mostly didn't affect them yet.
monarda wrote: Just for reference this is Article 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. I've highlighted the relevant bit for this debate.
Bunreacht na hÉireann wrote:Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
This is the version adopted after the Good Friday agreement through the Nineteenth Amendment, with 94% support on a turnout of 56% (representing a straight majority of the entire electorate).
By my interpretation the UK can disown Northern Ireland if it likes, force it to be independent, but it can't surrender it to the Republic without the support of the populace in a democratic vote. Hopefully this will lay to rest some of the more outlandish notions being expressed.
I'm sure that they would be happy to amend that in the event of the UK deciding to dump the province. After all it is still their will to unite the Island of Ireland through peaceful means. At the time the inclusion of the vote was believed to be the only way it was seen that the UK could be split, and for unionists to sign up to the agreement. If the UK is willing, then I'm sure a way would be found around the voting.
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK
It's been a couple of generations already, and what would you do in the interim; ignore them or send I'm the army?
Giving both Ireland a vote on reunification and hoping the majority goes for it, stamping down hard on any extremism, sounds like the only option, but it's still going to involve bloodsed on all sides.
I get that, really I do. However, once it happened, it'd be over in a generation. There would be no mechanism or appetite to reunify the North with the rest of the UK
It's been a couple of generations already, and what would you do in the interim; ignore them or send I'm the army?
Giving both Ireland a vote on reunification and hoping the majority goes for it, stamping down hard on any extremism, sounds like the only option, but it's still going to involve bloodsed on all sides.
Whereas the easiest, less controversial solution would still be a border on the sea.
This poll seems to imply that the sea border gets a majority support even among Protestants and Leave voters. The quote refers to support about an Irish sea border (or east-west border as opposed to north-south border)
Overall, 64% agreed and 25% disagreed (with 11% undecided). But this time the relationship with certain critical groups was reversed. Support was strongest among supporters of nationalist parties (75%), Remain voters (73%) and Catholics (68%) – but it was also high among unionist supporters (56%), Leave voters (also 56%) and Protestants (60%).
If DUP gets his way it is against the will of the majority of their constituency.
I am proud to join both Democratic and Republican colleagues in Congress in reiterating our stance that there must be no hard border on the island of Ireland. On this point, the EU, Ireland, and USA stand united. @liamstack
He may not be everybody's cup of tea, but Robert Peston has been plugging his book these last couple of months, and some of his interviews contain a lot of sense.
Instead of branding Leave voters as racists/bigots/idiots etc etc
Peston has actually hit upon the novel idea of asking people why they voted Leave, and the answers were interesting.
One thing he has been banging on about is the productivity gap between London and the SE, and the rest of the UK, and boy, it's a shocker
The difference is like night and day.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Aye! Ireland should be unified under British control, and all those damnable rebels should leave the country.
That's what you meant, right?
Well either way really.
I presume we will fudge our way to something eventually that allows a deal on Brexit to proceed, too much at stake not to - but there still doesn't seem to be any solution that doesn't at least raise the risk of Irish politics returning to discussion by attaching things to cars.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Education and skills is needed for a high quality workforce, obviously, but energy supply is also needed, and Britain is well placed for wave and wind energy, but we seem to be fething it up
But yeah, growth and productivity are now my middle names
There is a lot of potential for various energy schemes, but they need to be planned and executed efficiently and effectively. The UK government often presents a good example of how not to do it.
The Hinkley reactor for instance, was commissioned very late, is already over budget, and will provide electricity at something like triple the market rate by the time it is finished, yet tax payers are locked into a 30 year contract.
Going to the other end of the scale, the grants for lagging your loft and similar individual household improvement projects have not been taken up because the initial cost to the householder is too high compared to the long term benefit.
We need to look at power generation and storage at macro and micro levels, plus the National Grid, and connections with the continent as we should be able to export and import power easily.. (There is a new cable link to Denmark coming.) We also need to improve energy efficiency wherever possible.
The best way out of this seems to be Irish reunification. Obviously there would be one or 2 groups not keen on the idea.
Aye! Ireland should be unified under British control, and all those damnable rebels should leave the country.
That's what you meant, right?
Well either way really.
I presume we will fudge our way to something eventually that allows a deal on Brexit to proceed, too much at stake not to - but there still doesn't seem to be any solution that doesn't at least raise the risk of Irish politics returning to discussion by attaching things to cars.
I have sudden, glorious visions of Mad Max, but with green hills instead of deserts. Immortan Foster and her War (orange) Boys. They've already got big enough drums.
But it seems to be going a bit far when various politicians seem to be thinking "well, it might cause a civil war in the country next door, but that's a small price to pay"
I try and tread carefully on the subject of Ireland, because I like the North and the Republic, and the Irish are a good bunch of lads, and I don't want to upset people,
but the Irish issue is a two way street IMO and not just limited to the Irish border.
Whatever your views of Brexit, be you leave or Remain, voter, in England, especially the Tory shires, might start thinking this:
We have voted in a free and fair referendum, and we democratically voted to peacefully leave the EU.
And now people in another sovereign nation are saying we could end up with trouble in Ireland because of that...
All it takes is for a Farage to come along and say - that's emotional blackmail, and we get a political backlash from the Home Counties Shires
The DUP need to tread carefully, because it's obvious to anybody that the hard core Brexit side value Brexit over Northern Ireland any day of the week.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Those robots ain't going to program and repair themselves. Not to mention design the stuff they will be building.
We have voted in a free and fair referendum, and we democratically voted to peacefully leave the EU.
And now people in another sovereign nation are saying we could end up with trouble in Ireland because of that...
Firstly, we democratically voted on precisely nothing. The question was meaningless, the result was inconclusive and the lies were rampant. But lets not waste another few pages on that.
Secondly, we voted to leave a free movement/trade block which overlaps a region which has had a history of border related problems. The EU is happy for there to be no border - they aren't the ones who want to do the split or add the restrictions.
So there's no way you can blame the EU for this - It was painfully clear for all before the referendum that leaving would cause border issues. We already know what the deal is with a border inside/outside the EU - it's a hard border.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Those robots ain't going to program and repair themselves. Not to mention design the stuff they will be building.
The numbers of highly skilled professional jobs programming, repairing and designing will be dwarfed by the number of unskilled/low skilled jobs that will be lost thanks to those Robots and AI.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Free? Absolutely, no arguments from me there. Fair? Nope. Not for either side. The clusterfeth started at the design stage.
You and I often disagree on facts and sources.
Fair enough, I respect that, but what is beyond dispute is this:
I'm obviously anti-EU, and yeah, I attack them often, but I don't hate the EU and I don't consider them to be the root of all evil. I'm glad we're leaving, but I'm not a fanatic in that regard.
There is however, a hard-core, fanatical, anti-EU group, with powerful allies in business and media. And there is no way on God's earth that their dream of Singapore on the Thames is going to be derailed by the Irish border issue.
We have voted in a free and fair referendum, and we democratically voted to peacefully leave the EU.
And now people in another sovereign nation are saying we could end up with trouble in Ireland because of that...
Firstly, we democratically voted on precisely nothing. The question was meaningless, the result was inconclusive and the lies were rampant. But lets not waste another few pages on that.
Secondly, we voted to leave a free movement/trade block which overlaps a region which has had a history of border related problems. The EU is happy for there to be no border - they aren't the ones who want to do the split or add the restrictions.
So there's no way you can blame the EU for this - It was painfully clear for all before the referendum that leaving would cause border issues. We already know what the deal is with a border inside/outside the EU - it's a hard border.
But other people don't debate as peacefully as we do on dakka, and they way not see it that way.
Like I say, there will be sections of society in England wondering why their vote to leave the EU could be potentially be derailed by events across the Irish sea.
I fully appreciate the Irish history issue here, but this is not the days of Cromwell or Elizabethan England
No offence to Irish dakka members, but in my experience of living and working in England for years, your average Englishman couldn't give two hoots if Northern Ireland stays or goes, or Scotland either for that matter, so they might start getting irritated at their Leave vote being potentially derailed by Ireland.
The biggest threat to Northern Ireland's unionists has always been English indifference.
There certainly is a fanatical anti-EU group. They are the ones pushing the UK to Hard Brexit, which is not what the referendum requires, advocates or authorises.
They've obviously got their hooks into May somehow, since she keeps reiterating the No Customs Union, No EFTA membership rule she made up after getting selected as PM.
My suspicion is that some of these people are high net worth individuals who are alarmed by the EU's growing clampdown on tax havens and want to get the UK out before their off-shore money bags get raided.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I try and tread carefully on the subject of Ireland, because I like the North and the Republic, and the Irish are a good bunch of lads, and I don't want to upset people,
but the Irish issue is a two way street IMO and not just limited to the Irish border.
Whatever your views of Brexit, be you leave or Remain, voter, in England, especially the Tory shires, might start thinking this:
We have voted in a free and fair referendum, and we democratically voted to peacefully leave the EU.
And now people in another sovereign nation are saying we could end up with trouble in Ireland because of that...
All it takes is for a Farage to come along and say - that's emotional blackmail, and we get a political backlash from the Home Counties Shires
The DUP need to tread carefully, because it's obvious to anybody that the hard core Brexit side value Brexit over Northern Ireland any day of the week.
But shouldn't people freely and fairly consider issues which are quite complex rather than just their own local interest?
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Those robots ain't going to program and repair themselves. Not to mention design the stuff they will be building.
The numbers of highly skilled professional jobs programming, repairing and designing will be dwarfed by the number of unskilled/low skilled jobs that will be lost thanks to those Robots and AI.
But their productivity will raise through the roof, which is what we were talking about.
If a robot manages to put the equivalent of 100 man-hours per week, and a single technician can keep 10 of those robots working make the math (let's exclude the very relevant capital costs for a second).
But of course in the real world the capital cost is what will prevent robots from just being put into everything, there are some jobs where it just will not make economic sense to sub a man for a machine. Not in 50 years time at least.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I try and tread carefully on the subject of Ireland, because I like the North and the Republic, and the Irish are a good bunch of lads, and I don't want to upset people,
but the Irish issue is a two way street IMO and not just limited to the Irish border.
Whatever your views of Brexit, be you leave or Remain, voter, in England, especially the Tory shires, might start thinking this:
We have voted in a free and fair referendum, and we democratically voted to peacefully leave the EU.
And now people in another sovereign nation are saying we could end up with trouble in Ireland because of that...
All it takes is for a Farage to come along and say - that's emotional blackmail, and we get a political backlash from the Home Counties Shires
The DUP need to tread carefully, because it's obvious to anybody that the hard core Brexit side value Brexit over Northern Ireland any day of the week.
But shouldn't people freely and fairly consider issues which are quite complex rather than their own local seeks interest?
Hand on heart I can honestly say that Northern Ireland was the last thing I was thinking about in June 2016 when I voted to leave.
Again, no offence to Irish dakka members, but
If Northern Ireland stays in the UK = me shrugging my shoulders
If Northern Ireland reunifies with the Republic = me shrugging my shoulders.
I suspect there are a lot of people with that level of indifference, and as I said, indifference from the rest of the UK is a deadly threat to Northern Ireland's Unionists...
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Those robots ain't going to program and repair themselves. Not to mention design the stuff they will be building.
The numbers of highly skilled professional jobs programming, repairing and designing will be dwarfed by the number of unskilled/low skilled jobs that will be lost thanks to those Robots and AI.
But their productivity will raise through the roof, which is what we were talking about.
If a robot manages to put the equivalent of 100 man-hours per week, and a single technician can keep 10 of those robots working make the math (let's exclude the very relevant capital costs for a second).
But of course in the real world the capital cost is what will prevent robots from just being put into everything, there are some jobs where it just will not make economic sense to sub a man for a machine. Not in 50 years time at least.
Productivity you say? Well hell, I'm sure that will be a great consolation to all the unskilled and low skilled workers who are now unemployed.
Hand on heart I can honestly say that Northern Ireland was the last thing I was thinking about in June 2016 when I voted to leave.
Would you have voted differently had you not been ignorant to the issue?
Or do you just mean you were indifferent to it then and are just as indefferent to it now?
I'm obviously anti-EU, and yeah, I attack them often, but I don't hate the EU and I don't consider them to be the root of all evil. I'm glad we're leaving, but I'm not a fanatic in that regard.
Sorry, but you're almost the definition of an anti-EU fanatic - you blame them for everything, even things they aren't responsible for, and want to leave immediately, in the hardest way possible, regardless of the damage.
But other people don't debate as peacefully as we do on dakka, and they way not see it that way.
The biggest threat to Northern Ireland's unionists has always been English indifference.
Agreed on both counts. We're pretty spoiled here with the level of debate, and ignorance is responsible for a lot of this mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: My suspicion is that some of these people are high net worth individuals who are alarmed by the EU's growing clampdown on tax havens and want to get the UK out before their off-shore money bags get raided.
Cameron called for the referendum a few days after EU plans to clamp down hard on tax evasion, so he's been heavily involved in whatevers going on as well.
I wonder how much tax the Cameron or May families have evaded that they don't want to pay back? It could be as simple as that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Productivity you say? Well hell, I'm sure that will be a great consolation to all the unskilled and low skilled workers who are now unemployed.
To be fair the same claim has been made with every other technical revolution - the printing press, the cotton mills, industrial machinery, and so on. What happens in the unskilled jobs move to other fields. What those fields will be has yet to be discovered.
The other aspect is that if no-one has any jobs or money, then there's nothing for the robots to make, and no money to pay for them, so they stop existing and need people to replace them (in a permanent cycle).
Yes, we've had a long discussion about this issue of the robot reveolution in the New Economy thread.
However, the actual problem that the UK faces at the moment is that rather than investing in robots or training, companies have been employing more low-skilled, low-paid and insecure workers.
I'm glad the government seems to have come around the idea of a business strategy, because boosting productivity, and boosting other UK regions should be a national priority.
Just don't ask me how it will be done
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
I agree with most of this, but labour is something I'm not sure about for the future, because who knows what will happen with robots and AI making stuff?
Those robots ain't going to program and repair themselves. Not to mention design the stuff they will be building.
The numbers of highly skilled professional jobs programming, repairing and designing will be dwarfed by the number of unskilled/low skilled jobs that will be lost thanks to those Robots and AI.
But their productivity will raise through the roof, which is what we were talking about.
If a robot manages to put the equivalent of 100 man-hours per week, and a single technician can keep 10 of those robots working make the math (let's exclude the very relevant capital costs for a second).
But of course in the real world the capital cost is what will prevent robots from just being put into everything, there are some jobs where it just will not make economic sense to sub a man for a machine. Not in 50 years time at least.
Productivity you say? Well hell, I'm sure that will be a great consolation to all the unskilled and low skilled workers who are now unemployed.
All of the history we have shows that automation has a damaging short term impact, but long term increases wages, employment levels and living standards. The last three industrial revolutions (The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production.) have done just that. Short term we have had job losses, but over the long term we have ended up in a better position. Every time the problem has been made worse by luddites who refuse to change. I don't believe we will see mass unemployment with more automation. We will see better paid, more skilled jobs. What will damage us is if the governments of the world allow big business to artificially control the tools. In the last three revolutions we have seen businesses come and go, but in the end the barriers to entry have gone up and up, so pooled resources in the hands of the few. This time it looks less likely to happen, but not if governments allow things like net neutrality to be taken away.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, we've had a long discussion about this issue of the robot reveolution in the New Economy thread.
However, the actual problem that the UK faces at the moment is that rather than investing in robots or training, companies have been employing more low-skilled, low-paid and insecure workers.
It is not just low-skilled, low-paid workers that suffer. Right the way across the spectrum, to all but the highest levels, we see companies across the UK refusing to train anyone. Time and again you see SMEs complaining about school and university leavers not being ready for the workplace. You see companies not replacing old equipment. You see them just expecting people to work more hours.
Saw this just now and I think its very relevant to the discussion about automation and skilled jobs replacing unskilled jobs.
Basically his premise is that a certain proportion of the population will never be suited to skilled jobs. So what are they supposed to do? Its not as simple as just asserting that they will all be trained to do the new skilled jobs (of which there aren't enough to go around anyway). Many of them aren't suited to higher skilled roles.
I would disagree with him and with the idea that there are not enough to go around. Not entirely, but in general. There are some people that are not able, through disability, not able cognitively to do anything but low skilled jobs. However I would argue these are few, and at the moment many people are underemployed, and we have a long way to go until we are at risk of there being an employment issue due to not having enough people to do the jobs who are capable. There will always be some unskilled jobs, but more automation and AI will increase the number of skilled jobs.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Saw this just now and I think its very relevant to the discussion about automation and skilled jobs replacing unskilled jobs.
Basically his premise is that a certain proportion of the population will never be suited to skilled jobs. So what are they supposed to do? Its not as simple as just asserting that they will all be trained to do the new skilled jobs (of which there aren't enough to go around anyway). Many of them aren't suited to higher skilled roles.
Technology also creates new low-skilled jobs.
A few decades ago just about every company dealing with actual physical goods had a number of people working as warehouse hands. Nowadays a small company will have a couple of people driving a forklift or electric pallet jacks while bigger companies will have more automated processed but still at the end of the day there will be actual people doing things (think those hangar-like Amazon logistics hubs)
Technology also allows these lower skill jobs to benefit from the multiplication factor or technology.
IIRC you are or were at some point employed driving a forklift right? Think for a while what the job was like 30 or 50 years ago. You are now easily doing the work of multiple men, with relatively minor training.
But also very dangerous, although I'm not sure if loading and unloading lorries could be done automatically.
But then if Musky gets his hands in it, we'll all be out of a job. Even retail, the good old place where low skilled smucks (like me) are hiring fewer and fewer people.
There was a discussion about retail on Radio 4 this morning.
The expert made the point that Black Friday seems to have failed, and just concentrates the "golden quarter" spending into a smaller time compass. Consumers have got used to the constant sales. They shop online because people don't like the hassle of going to shops -- the crowds, noise, difficulty and expense of parking.
The way for the "high street" to fight back against this is to play to its strengths, which are product knowledge and customer service. As an ex-retail manager I totally agree with this. It requires people skills and training, but it pays off in a better customer experience which makes the shop a fun and interesting place to visit.
The way for the "high street" to fight back against this is to play to its strengths, which are product knowledge and customer service. As an ex-retail manager I totally agree with this. It requires people skills and training, but it pays off in a better customer experience which makes the shop a fun and interesting place to visit.
Absolutely agree. I'm generally more than happy to buy anything and everything online, but if I'm buying AV stuff I will go out of my way to go to Richer Sounds. Everyone I ever deal with there is at least knowledgeable in their field if not a genuine expert, and their customer service and extended warranties are excellent.
I also happen to work for a large cosmetics company; and the training our counter staff go through, and the product knowledge they have at their fingertips, is insane. My wife always struggled to buy foundation - I took her to one of our counters, the girl there looked at her for literally half a second, said 'try this one' and it was perfect.
That's what the in-store retail experience needs to be like, but it costs money to get there so it doesn't often happen...
Personally I'd much rather buy stuff in store unless the price/convenience differential is too high. That said, we didn't buy anything in Black Friday that we weren't planning on getting anyway - some things were delayed and some brought forward.
Realistically, we're always going to have human customer service/facing jobs - waiters, cashiers, retail staff, contact centres, nurses, and so on. It's only really manufacturing and some stuff like driving and cleaning that'll be automated away.
I'll tell you: education, investment, labour mobility and reducing trade barriers.
Those are the tried and tested avenues to increasing productivity. There aren't many shortcuts really.
So pretty much the opposite of what the Tories are doing then. The first because they fail to get the right teachers because they don't want to pay more and the last three will all be worse because of Wrexit which the Tories currently seem to be aspiring to.. Maybe they should change the new industrial strategy abstract to "Wrecking the UK one step at a time"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Personally I'd much rather buy stuff in store unless the price/convenience differential is too high. That said, we didn't buy anything in Black Friday that we weren't planning on getting anyway - some things were delayed and some brought forward.
Just don't go to Leicester then on the Weekends/evenings before Xmas then. It is simply hell. I buy everything online because I simply cannot be dealing with that hell.
Realistically, we're always going to have human customer service/facing jobs - waiters, cashiers, retail staff, contact centres, nurses, and so on. It's only really manufacturing and some stuff like driving and cleaning that'll be automated away.
Are we sure though? We all already have supermarkets using self service desks, fuel stations with pay at the pump. Plenty of customer actioned phone calls are now dealt with through automated systems (the human part being the annoying cold callers). As the population gets larger things will need to become more streamlined simply to manage the numbers (which is a big reason to have self driving cars). The real question is whether this revolution will automate the simpler jobs (and even the more advanced ones) which previous revolutions have not been able to achieve.
Herzlos wrote: Personally I'd much rather buy stuff in store unless the price/convenience differential is too high. That said, we didn't buy anything in Black Friday that we weren't planning on getting anyway - some things were delayed and some brought forward.
Realistically, we're always going to have human customer service/facing jobs - waiters, cashiers, retail staff, contact centres, nurses, and so on. It's only really manufacturing and some stuff like driving and cleaning that'll be automated away.
I disagree. I have already seen robot waiters in Yo Sushi, self-ordering and payment systems in various Japanese eateries in Japan, and self-checkout systems in most UK supermarkets (Waitrose, Co-op, Sainsburies and Tesco.
From my OUP ELT experience I can say that AI systems for human language interaction are getting better and better within the relatively restricted area of specialism that a broadband provider for instance needs to cater.
These are all jobs that will increasingly easily be automated away, at the lower end. There will always be jobs at the higher end (posh restaurants, Harrods, and humans to handle the difficult cases in call centres.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: And all of those automated interactions are a serious source of frustration. People usually avoid them where they can.
That's true, so far, but on the one hand you can't avoid them. On the other hand they are going to get better.
You're right - for some smaller specialist areas robots will be able to take over human jobs satisfactorially (I've ordered sushi from a terminal as well), for others the humans will have no choice. But like we currently have insurance companies and banks advertising "UK call centres" as a feature, some will advertise "human call centres" etc as a feature.
I'm not sure how long they'll take to catch up technologically - the speech recognition in my 6 year old (so 12 year old tech) car is still awful, I usually give up on automated call centres. Most of the low end stuff is doing it via the cloud too, so I wonder if there will be privacy implications later about having all of your words transmitted to google to process.
There are plenty of things robots will be able to do - change tyres, collect bins, warehousing, brick laying, plastering, grounds keeping, road repairs and so on.
Just don't go to Leicester then on the Weekends/evenings before Xmas then. It is simply hell. I buy everything online because I simply cannot be dealing with that hell.
We just finished our Christmas shopping today. Feth going anywhere near a city centre on a December weekend.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tories announce a benefits freeze 21 minutes after the Royal Wedding announcement. It's quite a day to bury bad news; I wonder what else they'll sneak out?
No increase in benefits for anyone that doesn't have disability related costs as a factor. With 3% inflation that's quite a real-terms cut. Pensions unaffected with a 3% rise.
Herzlos wrote: And all of those automated interactions are a serious source of frustration. People usually avoid them where they can.
I don’t. I use self service and pay at pump when i can. Automated phone systems are only annoying when poorly designed. I prefer to avoid talking to people in supermarkets if I can and would rather get petrol over and done with as fast as I can.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Hand on heart I can honestly say that Northern Ireland was the last thing I was thinking about in June 2016 when I voted to leave.
Again, no offence to Irish dakka members, but
If Northern Ireland stays in the UK = me shrugging my shoulders
If Northern Ireland reunifies with the Republic = me shrugging my shoulders.
I suspect there are a lot of people with that level of indifference, and as I said, indifference from the rest of the UK is a deadly threat to Northern Ireland's Unionists...
And that is why referenda should not be used to get direction for enormous, state changing decisions. You, and the overwhelming majority of people like you, did not even care about one of the most fundementaly important parts of the question. Not only uneducated about it, but completely indifferent to the implications.
It is why we have a Parliamentary democracy, and why this "decision", should be thrown out altogether.
Another example of parliamentary democracy inaction -- Davis having finally sent the "dubious dossiers" of Brexit related analyis to the select committee for Brext, has redacted large amounts of information on the grounds it would be confidential.
The committee are very angry, and there are rumblings of Davis and the government being in contempt of parliament.
Even Rees-Mogg is annoyed. He has pointed out that the government should not be allowed to get away with misleading or ignoring parliament. "Everyone is in opposition eventually." He said the dossier situation is a constitutional crisis.
Yes, this what Brexit is all about, restoring the primacy of Parliament so our elected leaders can completely ignore it.
As with regaining control of our borders, which Brexit is clearly worth, except NI, where we absolutely will not take control of out borders, and if Ireland insist on doing so then they have to pay for it, said googly-eyed nutter Kate Hoey yesterday.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, this what Brexit is all about, restoring the primacy of Parliament so our elected leaders can completely ignore it.
As with regaining control of our borders, which Brexit is clearly worth, except NI, where we absolutely will not take control of out borders, and if Ireland insist on doing so then they have to pay for it, said googly-eyed nutter Kate Hoey yesterday.
Or unless someone (like India) asks for it as part of a trade package.
YK Sinha, India’s High Commissioner to the UK, warned that after Brexit it may take up to a decade for the two countries to negotiate a free trade deal and the “freer movement of people and professionals” would be a crucial component of it.
Darkjim wrote: Yes, this what Brexit is all about, restoring the primacy of Parliament so our elected leaders can completely ignore it.
As with regaining control of our borders, which Brexit is clearly worth, except NI, where we absolutely will not take control of out borders, and if Ireland insist on doing so then they have to pay for it, said googly-eyed nutter Kate Hoey yesterday.
Or unless someone (like India) asks for it as part of a trade package.
YK Sinha, India’s High Commissioner to the UK, warned that after Brexit it may take up to a decade for the two countries to negotiate a free trade deal and the “freer movement of people and professionals” would be a crucial component of it.
"So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months." - David Davis, 14 July 2016
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Hand on heart I can honestly say that Northern Ireland was the last thing I was thinking about in June 2016 when I voted to leave.
Again, no offence to Irish dakka members, but
If Northern Ireland stays in the UK = me shrugging my shoulders
If Northern Ireland reunifies with the Republic = me shrugging my shoulders.
I suspect there are a lot of people with that level of indifference, and as I said, indifference from the rest of the UK is a deadly threat to Northern Ireland's Unionists...
And that is why referenda should not be used to get direction for enormous, state changing decisions. You, and the overwhelming majority of people like you, did not even care about one of the most fundementaly important parts of the question. Not only uneducated about it, but completely indifferent to the implications.
It is why we have a Parliamentary democracy, and why this "decision", should be thrown out altogether.
But why should Ireland factor into my calculations, and again, no offence to Irish dakka members here.
The Ireland issue has been going on for centuries. The Republic is an independent, sovereign nation, and has been for nearly 100 years. They got their freedom, and deservedly so, but there's a touch of the want their cake and eat it element going on here from Dublin. As much as I like the Irish, they're not British. Yeah, I'm aware of the irony of me saying that.
But Britain has to act in its own interests here. The Republic are our friends, and yes, our interests often coincide.
But why should the British people be guilt tripped into not voting Brexit in case trouble breaks out at the Irish border? You can't run a country like that. That's sticking two fingers up to millions in Britain who voted Leave or Remain.
We voted to leave the EU. The Republic would have a point if we voted to invade Dublin, but we didn't.
If there's two things I've learned in all my decades on God's earth it is this:
1. Stay the hell away from Northern Ireland politics.
2. Stay the hell away from the Israel/Palestinian peace process.
Build a time machine and go forward 100 years into the future. I guarantee that those two issues will still be unresolved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darkjim wrote: Yes, this what Brexit is all about, restoring the primacy of Parliament so our elected leaders can completely ignore it.
As with regaining control of our borders, which Brexit is clearly worth, except NI, where we absolutely will not take control of out borders, and if Ireland insist on doing so then they have to pay for it, said googly-eyed nutter Kate Hoey yesterday.
I think a lot of people completely missed Kate Hoey's point.
Britain won't build border posts = zero money spent by Britain.
If the Republic want to install a border, that's their choice and would obviously have to pay for it themselves.
The Trump comparison is a nonsense, because Trump wanted the USA to build a wall and bill Mexico for the cost, which was completely different from what Hoey was saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Another example of parliamentary democracy inaction -- Davis having finally sent the "dubious dossiers" of Brexit related analyis to the select committee for Brext, has redacted large amounts of information on the grounds it would be confidential.
The committee are very angry, and there are rumblings of Davis and the government being in contempt of parliament.
Even Rees-Mogg is annoyed. He has pointed out that the government should not be allowed to get away with misleading or ignoring parliament. "Everyone is in opposition eventually." He said the dossier situation is a constitutional crisis.
Parliamentary democracy inaction?
It was Parliament that authorised the referendum in the first place and parliament that voted to activate A50.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But why should Ireland factor into my calculations, and again, no offence to Irish dakka members here.
Because we rely on people voting in referendums to have an understanding of all of the issues and not be entirely selfish. Just because the Irish border doesn't directly affect you (it will if it allows the restrictions to be so easily bypassed) doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it.
But why should Ireland factor into my calculations, and again, no offence to Irish dakka members here.
Because it is part of the United Kingdom? It is the only place where the UK has a land border with the EU? That many years were spent on a peace process and the possibility of a hard border could reignite the troubles, putting many people's lives at risk?
This is a real problem shown by so many. "Why should I care?" when it is 100% something you SHOULD care about. Especially when you are talking about the geopolitical future of your country.
An interesting report from the Social Mobility Commission shows that inequality of opportunity is spread around the country in a somewhat unexpected way.
Radio 4 this morning had an MP on who was saying it isn't rocket science to sort this out. These disadvantaged areas need education, jobs, and infrastructure.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But why should Ireland factor into my calculations, and again, no offence to Irish dakka members here.
Because we rely on people voting in referendums to have an understanding of all of the issues and not be entirely selfish. Just because the Irish border doesn't directly affect you (it will if it allows the restrictions to be so easily bypassed) doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it.
Like I said 10 pages back, it's just as well people like Christopher Columbus didn't worry about stormy seas, or Neil Armstrong didn't worry about tripping over Lunar rocks, otherwise mankind would still be banging rocks together in some cave.
Issues? Like I said earlier, Ireland and the Middle East peace process has been ongoing for centuries, and will be ongoing long after we're gone.
And a rational man is supposed to base his vote around that? Feth, I may as well have based my vote on a hypothetical North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Like I said 10 pages back, it's just as well people like Christopher Columbus didn't worry about stormy seas, or Neil Armstrong didn't worry about tripping over Lunar rocks, otherwise mankind would still be banging rocks together in some cave.
Columbus did worry about stormy seas. It's how he was able to plot of decent course and not end up at the bottom of the ocean. Armstrong (and NASA) did worry about tripping over lunar rocks, that's why they spent months picking the perfect landing spot and Armstrong didn't fall, rip his suit and have his eyeballs sucked from his skull. Careful consideration and worrying about potential issues allow for the best possible outcome. Jumping cavalier into something can work, but it also ends up in many a faceplant.
The lack of nuance in the referendum (whilst appealing to the simplistic black n'white thinking of many Brexiteers, displayed admirally by yourself in this thread) is what worries so many people.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Northern Irish peace process started about 20 years ago.
The history of trouble leading up to it has sadly, been ongoing for centuries.
People may think me heartless, but I really don't want trouble in Ireland, but neither do I want peace at any price, and if you tell millions of voters in Britain that they shouldn't vote on their country's future in case trouble breaks out in Ireland, well, you're effectively robbing these people of agency and causing resentment on both sides.
Like I said 10 pages back, it's just as well people like Christopher Columbus didn't worry about stormy seas, or Neil Armstrong didn't worry about tripping over Lunar rocks, otherwise mankind would still be banging rocks together in some cave.
Columbus did worry about stormy seas. It's how he was able to plot of decent course and not end up at the bottom of the ocean. Armstrong (and NASA) did worry about tripping over lunar rocks, that's why they spent months picking the perfect landing spot and Armstrong didn't fall, rip his suit and have his eyeballs sucked from his skull. Careful consideration and worrying about potential issues allow for the best possible outcome. Jumping cavalier into something can work, but it also ends up in many a faceplant.
The lack of nuance in the referendum (whilst appealing to the simplistic black n'white thinking of many Brexiteers, displayed admirally by yourself in this thread) is what worries so many people.
Careful planning is one thing, being paralysed into action because you're worried about what might go wrong, is another thing entirely.
An interesting report from the Social Mobility Commission shows that inequality of opportunity is spread around the country in a somewhat unexpected way.
Radio 4 this morning had an MP on who was saying it isn't rocket science to sort this out. These disadvantaged areas need education, jobs, and infrastructure.
Stephen Kinnock MP, is on that committee. The man is so pro-EU, that if you cut him open, he'd bleed blue and yellow. Hell, the entire Kinnock family is up to its necks in EU money.
And we're supposed to trust people like this not to leak sensitive information to Brussels?
if you tell millions of voters in Britain that they shouldn't vote on their country's future in case trouble breaks out in Ireland, well, you're effectively robbing these people of agency and causing resentment on both sides.
I didn't say that, nobody has said that. What has been said is; 'What will happen regarding the only place where the UK has a land border with EU, the political body that we are potentially voting to leave, which has free movement of people and essentially open borders" is something, that any sensible person, should have added into their evaluation when voting.
You are the one advocating ignorance and telling people that voting should should be based on cavalier guttural instincts.
if you tell millions of voters in Britain that they shouldn't vote on their country's future in case trouble breaks out in Ireland, well, you're effectively robbing these people of agency and causing resentment on both sides.
I didn't say that, nobody has said that. What has been said is; 'What will happen regarding the only place where the UK has a land border with EU, the political body that we are potentially voting to leave, which has free movement of people and essentially open borders" is something, that any sensible person, should have added into their evaluation when voting.
You are the one advocating ignorance and telling people that voting should should be based on cavalier guttural instincts.
The Irish border issue is only the thin edge of a very long wedge being deployed by the Remain side.
Remain are still fighting a rear-guard action to delay or stop Brexit.
First it was the Gina Millar court battle to stop Brexit, but that failed.
Recently, it was the Leave only won because Putin has a secret army of bots and hackers that brain-washed the home counties into voting leave, argument.
And now we have the Polly Toynbees of the world begging for the Irish border issue to delay Brexit.
It only confirms what I've been saying for months: Remain were bloody useless! Where was their argument, their bold vision to win over people to keep us in the EU?
Nowhere! It was feeble, wishy-washy stuff.
Read Tim Shipman's book, and you'll get a clue as to how useless Cameron was. Hell, Osborne of all people rolled up his sleeves and tried to make the Remain campaign work.
For feth's sake, you lost to Michael Gove!
Once we've moved on from the Irish issue, it'll be the Brexit is bad, because we didn't sign up to the EU's asteroid defence system, and Britain will be a magnet for giant asteroids, argument.
Ireland is not the issue here. It's Remain's last stand that's the issue here.
Britain won't build border posts = zero money spent by Britain.
If the Republic want to install a border, that's their choice and would obviously have to pay for it themselves.
err nope.
Again the actual facts of reality override your rhetoric.
Outside single market, UK is OBLIGED under WTO most-favoured nation rules to have controls at ALL border crossings, except with countries it has free-trade deals with.
"The Indian high commissioner has warned that an agreement [between Britain and India] might not be in place until 2030 — and said talks haven't even begun.
But but they said it was all going to be so easy ?!
But why should the British people be guilt tripped into not voting Brexit in case trouble breaks out at the Irish border?
Because the Irish in Northern Ireland are British, too.
And they'll leave the EU with the rest of us.
Sure they will, just like Scotland and London and other pro-remain areas.
A more extreme case will be Gibraltar, which voted 96% remain and will still be dragged out of the EU.
Is Brexit worth the very real economic and social disruption to those areas? You have stated that you didn't even take that into account when casting your vote, so it's up to the Irish to stand up for themselves and not get caught in the wave.
But why should the British people be guilt tripped into not voting Brexit in case trouble breaks out at the Irish border?
Because the Irish in Northern Ireland are British, too.
And they'll leave the EU with the rest of us.
Sure they will, just like Scotland and London and other pro-remain areas.
A more extreme case will be Gibraltar, which voted 96% remain and will still be dragged out of the EU.
Is Brexit worth the very real economic and social disruption to those areas? You have stated that you didn't even take that into account when casting your vote, so it's up to the Irish to stand up for themselves and not get caught in the wave.
Gibraltar can't have it both ways. They can't wave the Union jack one minute, and then complain about a vote made by the country they love, just because they didn't like it.
I voted for Scottish independence, the majority voted to remain. Obviously I don't like the result, but I respect the vote, hence why you never see me driving a armoured column to London.
Britain won't build border posts = zero money spent by Britain.
If the Republic want to install a border, that's their choice and would obviously have to pay for it themselves.
err nope.
Again the actual facts of reality override your rhetoric.
Outside single market, UK is OBLIGED under WTO most-favoured nation rules to have controls at ALL border crossings, except with countries it has free-trade deals with.
"The Indian high commissioner has warned that an agreement [between Britain and India] might not be in place until 2030 — and said talks haven't even begun.
But but they said it was all going to be so easy ?!
But why should the British people be guilt tripped into not voting Brexit in case trouble breaks out at the Irish border?
Because the Irish in Northern Ireland are British, too.
And they'll leave the EU with the rest of us.
Sure they will, just like Scotland and London and other pro-remain areas.
A more extreme case will be Gibraltar, which voted 96% remain and will still be dragged out of the EU.
Is Brexit worth the very real economic and social disruption to those areas? You have stated that you didn't even take that into account when casting your vote, so it's up to the Irish to stand up for themselves and not get caught in the wave.
Gibraltar can't have it both ways. They can't wave the Union jack one minute, and then complain about a vote made by the country they love, just because they didn't like it.
They can, and they will. Just like Ireland.
Leave voters and proponents need to look at the consequences of what voting leave entails. Not the rose-colored post-Brexit world of seamless trade with Europe, magic-eye-in-the-sky not-really-a-border with Ireland and quick free trade deals with favoured partners while keeping control version.
The Irish border issue is only the thin edge of a very long wedge being deployed by the Remain side.
It's a very, very serious issue and needs to be treated as such.
Remain are still fighting a rear-guard action to delay or stop Brexit.
As is our democratic right.
First it was the Gina Millar court battle to stop Brexit, but that failed.
Gina Miller ensured that Parliament had sovereignty, not that Brexit was stopped. She succeeded and you should be grateful.
Recently, it was the Leave only won because Putin has a secret army of bots and hackers that brain-washed the home counties into voting leave, argument.
No-one said that.
And now we have the Polly Toynbees of the world begging for the Irish border issue to delay Brexit.
Noone is saying that. We want the Irish border to be addressed properly before people start getting killed.
It only confirms what I've been saying for months: Remain were bloody useless! Where was their argument, their bold vision to win over people to keep us in the EU?
Nowhere! It was feeble, wishy-washy stuff.
Agreed. Both sides were useless.
Once we've moved on from the Irish issue, it'll be the Brexit is bad, because we didn't sign up to the EU's asteroid defence system, and Britain will be a magnet for giant asteroids, argument.
There are dozens if not hundreds of terrible side-effects of Brexit, and we'll need to address them all. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Ireland is not the issue here. It's Remain's last stand that's the issue here.
Like gak it is. If you're dragging us out of the EU against all reason, we're going to make sure you do it in as responsible manner as possible.
Let's wait 12 months before we start worrying about border posts and WTO rules.
In case you haven't noticed that's not an option.
As was pointed out wwaayy before we even had the referendum.
The usual suspects came out with their usual lies :
.. that aged well huh ?
Almost as well as his "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" BS.
It's perfectly fine for you or indeed any individual not to have thought or worried about this/that/other factors when voting -- one would say that no one , of either side, would or indeed could consider every issue or aspect.
Most people, one would imagine, focused on a few ( for them) key issues
But Govt's/countries cannot afford to be so cavalier. This is literally people#s lives that are being affected.
We haven't even left yet and already we're running into issues :
A hard Brexit will have a ‘catastrophic impact’ on the European meat industry, leading to job losses and price hikes, according to a stark new report.
‘Crisis - The EU Meat Industry in a Hard Brexit Scenario’ report, commissioned by Europe’s meat industry body UECBV, analyses the potential impact of a hard Brexit on the European and UK meat industry.
It found that a ‘no-deal’ outcome would lead to a collapse in trade, with a 90% drop in beef exports and 53% drop in lamb exports from the UK to the EU.
In this scenario, meat products would face greater burdens than almost any other sector.
According to the report, the industry would face higher WTO tariffs than any other sector, and face additional costs of veterinary checks, in addition to the customs checks faced by all goods.
It also warns of major disruption to supply chains, and chaos for just-in-time fresh meat delivery systems.
Conservative estimates in the report put exports from the UK to the EU falling by up to 90% for beef, 56% for pigmeat and 53% for sheepmeat.
UECBV explains that it would be "very difficult" for UK suppliers to find alternative markets for these products domestically, as the UK tends to export cheaper cuts not demanded locally. This will in turn hurt British farmers and businesses, leading to job losses across the UK.
'Massive price increase'
Similar reductions of meat imports from the EU will lead to shortfalls in the supply of beef, pork and sheep products, especially higher value cuts such as steak, bacon and leg of lamb.
The report warns that this will lead to "massive" price increases for British consumers on meat products, pricing traditional British meals out of reach for families.
The report finds that a hard Brexit will have a profoundly negative impact on the European meat market given the major trade flows between EU27 and UK. As the UK has a principal deficit meat market, it says the negative impacts will be felt throughout EU.
As meat-processing involves the disassembly of carcass to a myriad of consumer cuts and products, it thus has to find markets for all parts of the carcass and therefore the impact will be transmitted throughout the single market to affect all countries, even those with limited direct trade with UK.
The report warns that the magnitude of shock of a hard Brexit would be significantly greater than the industry crisis created by the Russian food import ban 2014, and it would be more difficult to find alternative markets for diverted products.
Solutions are given by the report, including a transitional period to allow businesses to adjust to new arrangements and a future trading relationship that creates minimal burden for business.
It also recommends a continued regulatory convergence between UK and EU and market support mechanisms, including increased market access, internationally simplified transit systems, and investment in port facilities.
Gibraltar can't have it both ways. They can't wave the Union jack one minute, and then complain about a vote made by the country they love, just because they didn't like it.
That's boarding on a "No True Scotsman" argument. Someone can love their country without agreeing with the vote. This is an argument used time and again by leave voters, but it does not hold.
I voted for Scottish independence, the majority voted to remain. Obviously I don't like the result, but I respect the vote, hence why you never see me driving a armoured column to London.
Yet the SNP keep going on about a second referendum, despite the fact that the vote was far less close, agreed as binding and all the evidence shows that there is now less support for independence.
Gibraltar can't have it both ways. They can't wave the Union jack one minute, and then complain about a vote made by the country they love, just because they didn't like it.
They can; it's almost the definition of a democracy.
And here's a snapshot of what an external border of the EU means.
Brexit queues: Turkey warns of traffic chaos at borders as UK faces same trade rules
Turkish Prime Minister says transport companies went to court because of 30-hour tailbacks due to Turkey's EU status
And that's with Turkey in a free trade union with the EU because:
The problems arise despite Turkey being in the EU customs union, because – like Theresa May’s plan for Brexit – it does not have free movement of people and is outside the single market.
(...)
Open-access road transport deals have been agreed with Norway and the other members of the European Economic Area (EEA), but Britain has insisted it will not join the group.
It’s also relevant to point out that the border is only an issue because we are being forced down a hard Brexit; the whole thing could be avoided if we stayed in the customs union or the free trade area, both of which are still options even if we leave the EU.
This was not part of the referendum question, which is a significant part of the problem a lot of us on the remain side have with the whole damn process. The remain position was very clearly defined, whilst the leave side was proposing a whole smorgasbord of wildly different (and often contradictory) ideas. There should have been a parliamentary commission (or similar) to actually work through this and develop a solid proposal for what leave would look like before it was presented to the public. That didn’t happen.
It should have been worked through and subject to parliamentary approval (or even another referendum) before we gave notice to leave. That didn’t happen.
And now the Brexiteers are desperately arguing we the public and possibly even parliament, shouldn’t be given a vote before we leave, even though that’s the only time it will be clear what the hell the whole thing actually means.
The core problem is that the government has decided to intepret the referendum result -- Leave the EU -- as an instruction not to join EFTA, or EEA, or have a customs union.
There may be justification for this but it is not the question that was debated and asked, so there isn't any democratic mandate.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Northern Irish peace process started about 20 years ago.
The history of trouble leading up to it has sadly, been ongoing for centuries.
People may think me heartless, but I really don't want trouble in Ireland, but neither do I want peace at any price, and if you tell millions of voters in Britain that they shouldn't vote on their country's future in case trouble breaks out in Ireland, well, you're effectively robbing these people of agency and causing resentment on both sides.
.
What if trouble in Ireland leads to bombs in Britain will you care then or British soldiers being deployed to the north again?
IMO any form of brexit that causes a border will start up trouble NI:
i) You have a hard border between the Republic and the North, not only will it cause economic problems to NI which will play right into dissident republicans hands, but as soon as you put someone manning a checkpoint on the border someone will end up taking a pot shot at them. All it takes is one or two events and the troubles could easily start up again.
ii) A border between the island of Ireland and Britain will only cause outrage among loyalist peoples and their paramilitary wings.
You say you don't want to get involved with Irish politics but if you're wiling to vote and debate about Brexit you can't ignore Irish politics!
It really is such a shame. All of these incredibly important issues being swept aside because of voter apathy and a minority of the British people got swept up in Daily Mail headlines about 'Bloody immigrants comin ova ere, stealin our jobs!"
On June 23rd 2016, the question on the ballot paper asked if Britain should stay in the EU.
It didn't ask if the British military should bomb Dublin and then invade and occupy the Republic of Ireland.
I, and millions of others had a peaceful vote on the UK's membership of a political and economic union.
And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Why the hell should I? Answer me that.
It's like the appeasers in the 1930s. Britain better not re-arm in case Hitler gets upset. This is where we're coming from here.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Yet responsibility for every bad thing that happens due to Brexit will be pointed right at you since it came about due to your vote. A lot of people aren't going to let your forget or wriggle out of it.
We told you it was a bad idea, we have old you why. You did it anyway because you don't care about the consequences. It can only be your fault.
The effects of voting go beyond national borders as many national issues also have consequences on the international stage. The easiest example is the US, whether you only care for a candidate's domestic policies, voting for them means also acknowledging your vote will have a profound effect on the wider world. In the end you couldn't care less about the wider world, but you're partly responsible as a voter for what happens after you cast your vote.
When it comes to Brexit, departure of the UK from the EU has put certain factors that are important in keeping relations in NI relatively harmonious on thin ice. A direct result of the decision that the winning side of voters in the referendum made.
I, and millions of others had a peaceful vote on the UK's membership of a political and economic union. Whilst being deliberately ignorant and uncaring of the consequences, and only being interfered in flashy headlines and scoffing at 'details' as they're someone else said problems.
And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
I'm Irish living in Scotland.
And You shouldn't have voted for brexit because it is a colossal act of stupidity. For me, Northern Ireland was a huge consideration. Anything less that giving it its due and proper understanding is insulting. From day 1, people pointed out the risks, problems and consequences of brexit in Northern Ireland. And is not the Irish 'killing each other'. Show some respect. To both sides. As much as many of the Catholics and republican-leaning folks up north consider themselves Irish, rather than British, there's plenty folks on the loyalist/unionist side than consider themselves British. And what's more, as a fellow scot, considering the huge links between the loyalists/unionists In Northern Ireland and the Scots (they're making off the same stock), I would have expected you to have some more understanding of the situation. This is not a case of barbarians you've got no links to on the edge of the empire suffering. These are your own people. They're your own kin, for the most part.
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
No, it's calling a spade a spade and holding you to account for your vote. It doesnt infantilise my people, it shows up your utter lack of understanding, comprehension and empathy of the situation. Par for the course really, considering your posts here.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Why the hell should I? Answer me that.
You voted for it. You don't get to shrug your shoulders and wash your hands of he consequences of your actions. That's why.
It's like the appeasers in the 1930s. Britain better not re-arm in case Hitler gets upset. This is where we're coming from here.
No, where you are coming from is your love of flashy headlines and big bold statements, your contempt for details and the understanding of the nuances of the big picture. It just feels like All you want is your beloved brexit, no matter the cost I need livelihoods or bodies - and then you have the utter cheek to claim you then you will never bear any responsibility and will wash your hands of the actions YOU YOURSELF helped set in motion. How dare you sir. How bloody dare you.
If you read the proclamation of the Easter Uprising of 1916, there's a passage in it that says the destiny of Ireland should be in the hands of the Irish people.
Sounds good to me. No complaints here.
The Republic of Ireland has been a sovereign nation for nearly 100 years, so are they independent or are they not?
Becuase they can't complain if another sovereign nation peacefully exercises its right to stay in or leave a political orginisation that they are both members of.
Not only does Dublin want to have its cake and eat it, it wants to eat every cake in the bakery.
As far as I'm concerned, that is extracting the urine.
As I said earlier, Dublin would have a point if we were attacking them with the army. but we're not. I honestly couldn't give a damn what they think. If they want to decide to stay in the EU, that is their God given right. If we choose to leave, that is our God given right. It's as simple as that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I think you're deliberately missing the point now.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Yet responsibility for every bad thing that happens due to Brexit will be pointed right at you since it came about due to your vote. A lot of people aren't going to let your forget or wriggle out of it.
We told you it was a bad idea, we have old you why. You did it anyway because you don't care about the consequences. It can only be your fault.
If a shopkeeper sells a knife to a customer, and the customer uses that knife to kill people, that's the shopkeeper's fault?
If a man gets drunk, and kills somebody with a Honda car, that's Honda's fault? Assume the car is 100% in working order.
If I vote to leave the EU, and a terror orginisation in Ireland kills somebody, that's my fault, becuase I told them to kill people, supplied the weapons, and absolved them of personal responsibility? Right?
I'm to blame? Is that the logic at work here?
No liberal, Western democracy can be run on that logic.
You voted for something that puts both Ireland in a really difficult situation. And you've said you don't care because it doesn't directly affect you. No amount of dodgy analogies is going to get you out of it.
Deadnight wrote:And what's more, as a fellow scot, considering the huge links between the loyalists/unionists In Northern Ireland and the Scots (they're making off the same stock), I would have expected you to have some more understanding of the situation. This is not a case of barbarians you've got no links to on the edge of the empire suffering. These are your own people. They're your own kin, for the most part.
Good point; what do you reckon will happen with the sectarian trouble in Glasgow (where DINLT and I live) if the troubles spark afresh? I've seen more red hands I'm peace time than I'd ever like to.
If you voted for Brexit you can't pick and choose which of the effects you would like to say had something to do with you. If there is trouble because of the border, which comes about because of brexit then the people who voted for brexit are in some way responsible, especially since its not exactly a secret that it might not go down well over here.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The effects of voting go beyond national borders as many national issues also have consequences on the international stage. The easiest example is the US, whether you only care for a candidate's domestic policies, voting for them means also acknowledging your vote will have a profound effect on the wider world. In the end you couldn't care less about the wider world, but you're partly responsible as a voter for what happens after you cast your vote.
When it comes to Brexit, departure of the UK from the EU has put certain factors that are important in keeping relations in NI relatively harmonious on thin ice. A direct result of the decision that the winning side of voters in the referendum made.
I do care about the world, but I'm not going to be blackmailed or held hostage by the idea that my vote in a free, fair, and democratic referendum to peacefully leave a trading bloc, somehow absolves other people of personal responsiblity. NEVER! Society can't function under those restrictions.
With all due respect, and no offence intended to you, but your point is nonsense.
If I tell you to murder somebody, is your defence in court going to be that somebody told you to do it?
I'm sure the judge will let you walk away a free person.
I'll just pipe up and say that if the Troubles do spark up again as a direct result of Brexit then I'd support any move to postpone Brexit until it can be resolved. Even indefinitely.
To me, Brexit is worth short term economic damage, but not bloodshed.
I want Brexit, but I have no faith in the ability of this Tory Government to deliver it. I'm starting to come round to the idea that Labour might be better suited to fulfill it.
I, and millions of others had a peaceful vote on the UK's membership of a political and economic union. Whilst being deliberately ignorant and uncaring of the consequences, and only being interfered in flashy headlines and scoffing at 'details' as they're someone else said problems.
And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
I'm Irish living in Scotland.
And You shouldn't have voted for brexit because it is a colossal act of stupidity. For me, Northern Ireland was a huge consideration. Anything less that giving it its due and proper understanding is insulting. From day 1, people pointed out the risks, problems and consequences of brexit in Northern Ireland. And is not the Irish 'killing each other'. Show some respect. To both sides. As much as many of the Catholics and republican-leaning folks up north consider themselves Irish, rather than British, there's plenty folks on the loyalist/unionist side than consider themselves British. And what's more, as a fellow scot, considering the huge links between the loyalists/unionists In Northern Ireland and the Scots (they're making off the same stock), I would have expected you to have some more understanding of the situation. This is not a case of barbarians you've got no links to on the edge of the empire suffering. These are your own people. They're your own kin, for the most part.
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
No, it's calling a spade a spade and holding you to account for your vote. It doesnt infantilise my people, it shows up your utter lack of understanding, comprehension and empathy of the situation. Par for the course really, considering your posts here.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Why the hell should I? Answer me that.
You voted for it. You don't get to shrug your shoulders and wash your hands of he consequences of your actions. That's why.
It's like the appeasers in the 1930s. Britain better not re-arm in case Hitler gets upset. This is where we're coming from here.
No, where you are coming from is your love of flashy headlines and big bold statements, your contempt for details and the understanding of the nuances of the big picture. It just feels like All you want is your beloved brexit, no matter the cost I need livelihoods or bodies - and then you have the utter cheek to claim you then you will never bear any responsibility and will wash your hands of the actions YOU YOURSELF helped set in motion. How dare you sir. How bloody dare you.
This is nothing more than a apology for violence and and the absolving of any responsibility for the individual actions of other people.
This is 2017. You'd have a point if I were voting to send Cromwell's army to Ireland, but it's not the 1650s, and I'm not.
The Irish people can't keep living in the past, and I'm not responsbile for William of Orange, the Battle of the Boyne, Wolfe Tone, Michael Collins, Ian Paisley, The Troubles, or any other action that happened either before I were born, or which I had no part of, if it happend during my lifetime.
It's NOT my problem if the Irish people can't live together in peace. Are they or are they not responsible for their own actions?
This is why I couldn't give a bucket of horsegak for Northern Ireland. I'm getting blamed for exercising my right to vote to peacefully leave a trading bloc.
Nobody voted Yes or No to occupy Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'll just pipe up and say that if the Troubles do spark up again as a direct result of Brexit then I'd support any move to postpone Brexit until it can be resolved. Even indefinitely.
To me, Brexit is worth short term economic damage, but not bloodshed.
I want Brexit, but I have no faith in the ability of this Tory Government to deliver it. I'm starting to come round to the idea that Labour might be better suited to fulfill it.
Don't you dare vote to leave the EU, or the Irish might start killing each other again.
Fething hell, society can't fuction like that.
It's sticking two fingers up to millions of voters in the rest of the UK, effectively holding them over a barrel.
I always knew that the Remain argument was bankrupt to its core, but using the threat of violence to stop Leave voters from exercising their right to peacefully vote to peacefully leave a trading bloc is a new low.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The effects of voting go beyond national borders as many national issues also have consequences on the international stage. The easiest example is the US, whether you only care for a candidate's domestic policies, voting for them means also acknowledging your vote will have a profound effect on the wider world. In the end you couldn't care less about the wider world, but you're partly responsible as a voter for what happens after you cast your vote.
When it comes to Brexit, departure of the UK from the EU has put certain factors that are important in keeping relations in NI relatively harmonious on thin ice. A direct result of the decision that the winning side of voters in the referendum made.
I do care about the world, but I'm not going to be blackmailed or held hostage by the idea that my vote in a free, fair, and democratic referendum to peacefully leave a trading bloc, somehow absolves other people of personal responsiblity. NEVER! Society can't function under those restrictions.
With all due respect, and no offence intended to you, but your point is nonsense.
If I tell you to murder somebody, is your defence in court going to be that somebody told you to do it?
I'm sure the judge will let you walk away a free person.
Apologies, the you as in "you couldn't care less about the wider world" was meant as a generalized you, not you personally, I should have worded the example better.
In the end its your choice if you take that risk, you shouldn't consider it blackmail, more of a risk estimation thing. There is a chance and everyone has to weigh for themselves how likely that chance is or if they care about the possible chance of risk involved. It doesn't absolve the others of responsibility, not in the slightest, but people's decisions did influence the buildup to possible consequences. Now if you should feel guilty? That's a tough question, on the one hand people know that there is a possible risk involved, on the other hand people aren't robots mindlessly driven by a single choice of someone else to commit terrible acts.
Actually the murder thing is a bit ironic, as that could literally be the trial of a hitman or any other planned murder by more than one individual. Doesn't absolve the murderer, but its probably dragging the other person down too.
It's almost like you don't understand what a hard border across Ireland means.
This isn't an excuse to remain, I'm just reminding you that your vote meant something and you wI'll be held to it. It was your decision to take that leap into the unknown. But when the things we warned you about start to happen you can't wash your hands of it.
You've already told us you want brexit at any cost and don't care about the Irish, and that's fine but you need to own it.
I, and millions of others had a peaceful vote on the UK's membership of a political and economic union. Whilst being deliberately ignorant and uncaring of the consequences, and only being interfered in flashy headlines and scoffing at 'details' as they're someone else said problems.
And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
I'm Irish living in Scotland.
And You shouldn't have voted for brexit because it is a colossal act of stupidity. For me, Northern Ireland was a huge consideration. Anything less that giving it its due and proper understanding is insulting. From day 1, people pointed out the risks, problems and consequences of brexit in Northern Ireland. And is not the Irish 'killing each other'. Show some respect. To both sides. As much as many of the Catholics and republican-leaning folks up north consider themselves Irish, rather than British, there's plenty folks on the loyalist/unionist side than consider themselves British. And what's more, as a fellow scot, considering the huge links between the loyalists/unionists In Northern Ireland and the Scots (they're making off the same stock), I would have expected you to have some more understanding of the situation. This is not a case of barbarians you've got no links to on the edge of the empire suffering. These are your own people. They're your own kin, for the most part.
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
No, it's calling a spade a spade and holding you to account for your vote. It doesnt infantilise my people, it shows up your utter lack of understanding, comprehension and empathy of the situation. Par for the course really, considering your posts here.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
Why the hell should I? Answer me that.
You voted for it. You don't get to shrug your shoulders and wash your hands of he consequences of your actions. That's why.
It's like the appeasers in the 1930s. Britain better not re-arm in case Hitler gets upset. This is where we're coming from here.
No, where you are coming from is your love of flashy headlines and big bold statements, your contempt for details and the understanding of the nuances of the big picture. It just feels like All you want is your beloved brexit, no matter the cost I need livelihoods or bodies - and then you have the utter cheek to claim you then you will never bear any responsibility and will wash your hands of the actions YOU YOURSELF helped set in motion. How dare you sir. How bloody dare you.
This is nothing more than a apology for violence and and the absolving of any responsibility for the individual actions of other people.
This is 2017. You'd have a point if I were voting to send Cromwell's army to Ireland, but it's not the 1650s, and I'm not.
The Irish people can't keep living in the past, and I'm not responsbile for William of Orange, the Battle of the Boyne, Wolfe Tone, Michael Collins, Ian Paisley, The Troubles, or any other action that happened either before I were born, or which I had no part of, if it happend during my lifetime.
It's NOT my problem if the Irish people can't live together in peace. Are they or are they not responsible for their own actions?
This is why I couldn't give a bucket of horsegak for Northern Ireland. I'm getting blamed for exercising my right to vote to peacefully leave a trading bloc.
Nobody voted Yes or No to occupy Ireland.
No one is trying to say you voted to invade Ireland or trying to blame you for things that happened in the past.
People are using violence as threat against you, they are using it as an argument as to why they believe brexit was a bad idea and that is that it is going to amplify feelings of tension between two communities Irish nationalists and British Unionists, this isn't going to just be a load of paddies killing each other. In the same way some are asking what is the economic risk worth for leaving europe at what body count will some say this wasn't a good idea.
Herzlos wrote: It's almost like you don't understand what a hard border across Ireland means.
DINLT peacefully cast a vote to peacefully leave a trading bloc of 28 independent nations.
Therefore, Herzlos has the right to kill 50 people with a machine gun. Herzlos is not responsible for Herzlos' actions.
It's DINLT's fault for voting...
That is the logic that people are trying to sell me, and I'm not buying it. Never in a million years
The fact that you keep exaggerating and wilfully miss-representing or miss-interpreting what people are saying to make them look unreasonable tells me you are out of reasonable points.
This is nothing more than a apology for violence and and the absolving of any responsibility for the individual actions of other people.
Nothing of the sort - this is a statement of the actual weltpolitik in Northern Ireland. And i find it ironic that you are the one talking about other people trying to absolve themselves of their actions.
This is 2017. You'd have a point if I were voting to send Cromwell's army to Ireland, but it's not the 1650s, and I'm not.
Ironic, a man talking about this being 2017, - earlier In this very thread it was you invoking the spirit of Britain from the past (including Cromwell as an example ) exceptionalism, never mind that damned war criminal Monty in your avatar.
And yes,I have a point despite your insistence on ignoring facts. It's 2017. It's might be not cromwell or the 1650 but don't be so damned delusional in your fanatical obsession with brexit to try and claim that brexit isn't a big bloody deal, not that it's not a whole host of unneeded And unnecessary problems for a particular part of the world that will do nothing more than create more problems and inflame the situation- and bear this in mind, as bad as the problems are in Northern Ireland (it's never far below the surface), things were generally not kicking off. With brexit, that changes, and that's on you and your fellow brexiteers who have callously and uncaringly voted for this. that would not have happened otherwise. That is not so far from you, geographically or culturally.
The Irish people can't keep living in the past, and I'm not responsbile for William of Orange, the Battle of the Boyne, Wolfe Tone, Michael Collins, Ian Paisley, The Troubles, or any other action that happened either before I were born, or which I had no part of, if it happend during my lifetime.
It's NOT my problem if the Irish people can't live together in peace. Are they or are they not responsible for their own actions?
Us 'living n the past'? Your the one with monty as an avatar, and constantly harkening back to supposed eras of British exceptionalism and empire.and no, it's got nothing to do with 'living in the past' - I merely understand the current reality on the ground - something your are plainly uncomprehending of. And you celebrate the fact which is more insulting.
And it's insulting to say how you are not responsible for any of this plainly are, AS YOU VOTED FOR BREXIT. Don't you dare shrug your shoulders or try and wash your hands of the consequences of your actions or you are nothing more than an appalling hypocrite.
And it very well might be your problem. Like I aid above, it's not 'the Irish people'. It affects the British too. You sir, are not too far away from it. Are they, or are they not responsible for their own actions. Sure, they pull the trigger, but you are responsible for the catalyst. Yours is the match that lit the bonfire, and it wouldn't have kicked off without that match.
This is why I couldn't give a bucket of horsegak for Northern Ireland.
And that's why your arguments are empty and devoid of any value. How DARE YOU not give any considerations to the consequences of your actions to other people. HOW DARE YOU. I grew up with this on my radio. Every day, listening to another murder, kneecapping, bombing, of Catholics and protestants. These days were thankfully behind us with a tenuous peace and understanding of all sides. Brexit has upended this. If these days come back, it's because people like you ignored the decades of hard work and sacrifices of those who built the peace process from nothing, and chose their own narrow minded petty and selfish concerns whilst ignoring the bigger pictures and all the warnings and concerns that were evident and in full view from day one.
I'm getting blamed for exercising my right to vote to peacefully leave a trading bloc.
You are getting blamed, quite rightfully for the consequences of your actions - it was never just about voting peacefully to leave a trading bloc. The world is bigger and more complicated than that. And please, don't be so simple minded to ever claim this was the case - you were told from day 1 that this was a problem, amongst a host of others. And that it was far bigger than just this. But you didn't want to deal with it. You don't care. People's lives are 'horsegak' to you. You just follow the big flashy headlines and slogans on a bus, and shrug your shoulders and claim a delighted ignorance and indifference to the details, difficulties and consequences of your very actions. Selfish. Short sighted. And Foolish. And we're the ones thst will have to deal with your bloody tantrum at the end of the day.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
We all have to bear the consequences of our actions whether for good or ill. Yes we cannot always control the actions of others, however we can be aware of the consequences of those actions.
If your drunk brother tries to drive away in a car you have two choices, either try and take away the keys or just turn a blind eye and "well I'm happy to keep drinking it's his responsibility" then you are correct in that assertion. However if your brother then kills someone in a car accident, then although your brother is still responsible you have to accept that you increased that probability by not taking action (and in principle if your action been successful prevented catastrophic damage to both sides). If you pay to go across a bridge and then find things delayed by someone wanting to jump off then your approach is to say "just get on with it" I've paid my £ and you are delaying me. The consequences to you are an inconvenience. The consequences to the other people are permanent (many who will just be in the middle)
The moment we stop worrying about the consequences for our actions is the moment, in my view, we become just base animals. We live in something called society because in principle society cares about what happens and that the actions we take if not carefully managed can lead to severe consequences even if we as individuals are not directly responsible for them.
The NI issue is tricky, wounds are starting to heal and people are getting use to a life where they don't have to worry about bombs under cars etc. However wounds are still fresh, it will take 3-4 generations to completely heal so that no one alive remembers the damage it caused, the parents/children lost. The question is whether putting all that at risk is worth what, in the end, is a political issue. You can still have your hard Wrexit in four generations but at least then the risk of violence and bloodshed should be lessened.
Can we just hide the old biddy away in a nice Hospice somewhere instead?
The problem is that she is basically just a sock puppet for the Hard Brexiteers in the Tory Party. We have to figure out how to replace Maybot with someone who isn't controlled by Bozo and chums.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In totally unrelated news, the Daily [Hate] Mail and Katie Hopkins have parted company after another expensive case of damages for her lies and libels,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On June 23rd 2016, the question on the ballot paper asked if Britain should stay in the EU.
It didn't ask if the British military should bomb Dublin and then invade and occupy the Republic of Ireland. ... ...
You don't half come out with some hyperbolic venting.
We can leave the EU, join the EFTA and have a soft border between NI and Eire. Problem solved.
Where is the difficulty?
The difficulty? The difficultty is that I, and millions of others, are being robbed of the right to peacefully chose the destiny of Britain's future, because another so called sovereign nation might get upset. Again I ask: is the Republic independent or not? Never in a million years would I dare dictate to the Republic if they should stay in or leave the EU, so I'll be damned if Dublin is laying down the law to us.
This is a textbook example of wanting to have their cake and eat it.
We can't choose to leave the customs union or single market, because people might start killing each other? .
That is blackmail. Political blackmail. If that's the best argument Remain have to offer, then they deserved to lose.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And we're being told we shouldn't have voted for Brexit because we don't trust the Irish not to start killing each other again...
That is emotional blackmail towards the people on both sides that voted, and it infantalises the Irish people, because it basically says they need to be watched and they can't be trusted not to start shooting and bombing people.
I cast a vote to peacefully leave a economic union. If groups of people start shooting each other again, then I bear ZERO responsibility for the actions of others.
I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero.
We all have to bear the consequences of our actions whether for good or ill. Yes we cannot always control the actions of others, however we can be aware of the consequences of those actions.
If your drunk brother tries to drive away in a car you have two choices, either try and take away the keys or just turn a blind eye and "well I'm happy to keep drinking it's his responsibility" then you are correct in that assertion. However if your brother then kills someone in a car accident, then although your brother is still responsible you have to accept that you increased that probability by not taking action (and in principle if your action been successful prevented catastrophic damage to both sides). If you pay to go across a bridge and then find things delayed by someone wanting to jump off then your approach is to say "just get on with it" I've paid my £ and you are delaying me. The consequences to you are an inconvenience. The consequences to the other people are permanent (many who will just be in the middle)
The moment we stop worrying about the consequences for our actions is the moment, in my view, we become just base animals. We live in something called society because in principle society cares about what happens and that the actions we take if not carefully managed can lead to severe consequences even if we as individuals are not directly responsible for them.
The NI issue is tricky, wounds are starting to heal and people are getting use to a life where they don't have to worry about bombs under cars etc. However wounds are still fresh, it will take 3-4 generations to completely heal so that no one alive remembers the damage it caused, the parents/children lost. The question is whether putting all that at risk is worth what, in the end, is a political issue. You can still have your hard Wrexit in four generations but at least then the risk of violence and bloodshed should be lessened.
So Britain can't leave the EU for at least 50 years in case people in Northern Ireland start shooting each other again?
No liberal democracy on Earth could function under those restrictions.
It's blackmail, pure and simple, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is.
So Britain can't leave the EU for at least 50 years in case people in Northern Ireland start shooting each other again?
No liberal democracy on Earth could function under those restrictions.
It's blackmail, pure and simple, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is.
No, you can vote how you want, but you still need to own any bloodshed caused by that vote. It's obviously a price you're willing to pay, so just be honest about it.
You never did answer the question: "how badly does brexit have to go for you to regret it? Whats your red line?"
So Britain can't leave the EU for at least 50 years in case people in Northern Ireland start shooting each other again?
No liberal democracy on Earth could function under those restrictions.
It's blackmail, pure and simple, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is.
Britain can leave the EU without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. Our government, however, has arbitrarily chosen the form of leaving which does.
So again, British people peacefully vote to leave customs union and single market, as is our divine right = terror groups have the green light to kill people again.
The IRA and the UFF may have pulled the trigger, but it was those damn Leave voters that flooded over to Northern Ireland and forced them to do it...
That's one hell of a justification. Never let it be said that the Irish don't have a sense of humour.
Feth me, and to think I'm the one accused of mental gymnastics!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Divorce bill predicted to be about £57bn.
So Britain can't leave the EU for at least 50 years in case people in Northern Ireland start shooting each other again?
No liberal democracy on Earth could function under those restrictions.
It's blackmail, pure and simple, and I'm not afraid to call it what it is.
No, you can vote how you want, but you still need to own any bloodshed caused by that vote. It's obviously a price you're willing to pay, so just be honest about it.
You never did answer the question: "how badly does brexit have to go for you to regret it? Whats your red line?"
The people who pull the trigger and plant the bombs are responsible. Not me. Never.
And if they try to blame Brexit for their actions, then it'll be weasel words from start to finish.
Herzlos wrote: You never did answer the question: "how badly does brexit have to go for you to regret it? Whats your red line?"
For me: bloodshed.
But as Kilkrazy pointed out, it is possible to Brexit without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. I'd prefer a soft Brexit if thats the only way to avoid The Troubles 2: Electric Boogaloo.
So again, British people peacefully vote to leave customs union and single market, as is our divine right = terror groups have the green light to kill people again.
British people voted not considering the stability of an unstable part of the country (NI is British, they have a vote, they chose to remain), and the British Government are pursuing an option that'll jepordize the stability of that unstable region.
Those starting the troubles again will be the ones directly responsible, but Leave voters bear some responsibility for potentially unravelling the agreement that kept a lid on things.
Not me. Never.
You can pretend not to be responsible all you want, but as a Brexiteer who's made it clear you don't care about Ireland, you're going to get the blame anyway, because you're still responsible in part. Hopefully either (a) we find an option that doesn't restart troubles and/or (b) brexit will be worth it.
I notice you quoted but didn't answer the question. Where's your red line?
On reflection, every single convicted rapist in Britain's jails should be let out tomorrow on the basis that they are not to blame for their crimes. Clearly, it's the woman's fault for wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or talking to them in a bar, etc etc
An apology should be issued to every Nazi convicted and hanged at Nuremburg, on the grounds that Jewish people didn't say hello to them in passing, or said bad words to them. The Nazis are not to blame. Jewish people were on their hands and knees begging to be sent to death camps.
On the 1st of September 1939, the Polish government sent a message to Berlin requesting that the German military invade Poland, kill Polish soldiers and civilians, and enslave its people.
And obviously, when terror groups in Ireland smuggle in weapons, and kill and maim people. it's not their fault. It's little old ladies in Devon voting for Brexit that's to blame...
The difficulty? The difficultty is that I, and millions of others, are being robbed of the right to peacefully chose the destiny of Britain's future,
The only thing that's being 'robbed' from you is the wool over your eyes that you put there yourself. Choose your path, by all means, but own the consequences. This, being one of them.
because another so called sovereign nation might get upset.
'So called'? How dare you sir. HOW BLOODY DARE YOU.
we're plenty sovereign. We are just grown up enough to realise we have more 'pull' as part of the bloc that is the EU than we do on our own - we have eight hundred years of your lot running roughshod over us when we were alone to attest to that. Here's the thing that all small nations understand - unless,you are a 'great power', you can't throw your weight around, and frankly, there's is safety and prosperity in groups. Otherwise you are prey for pretatory neighbours. And I'm sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but Britain isn't a great power either, and hasn't been for about sixty odd years. The time of empire is gone, and you're soon to find that you're just a small island off the edge of Europe that no one really bothers about.
And on a personal note, as 'one of them' - you know, an emigrant, I'm used to people with accents different to my own writing my laws and spending my tax money. It's not the worst thing in the world.
Oh, and Ireland joining the EU (eec back in the day) was the best thing to happen to our little island in the last hundred years. Other than the grand slams in the six nations.
Never in a million years would I dare dictate to the Republic if they should stay in or leave the EU, so I'll be damned if Dublin is laying down the law to us.
Pfft. If it promised you brexit you'd invade Ireland in a heartbeat and burn Dublin to the ground.
An here's the thing. In your fanaticism, you call it 'dublin laying down the law'. In the real world, we call it 'the other sides position and concerns '. Its not just about you. Get that into your head. It's not a simple slogan on a bus or a headline. This is serious, seriously important stuff here. The kind of stuff you foolishly scoff at and cheerfully (and foolishly) embrace ignorance of. There is a lot of nuance and ramifications. And It's a negotiation. Which involves multiple parties - i.e. Not just you brexiteers standing up, shouting and demanding everything. Both sides get a say in this -'it's not your fantasy of 'negotiations' being defines as Britain thumping its chest, shouting loudly and getting everything it demands and has to pay nothing. Other sides have huge and extremely valid concerns. The border area of Northern Ireland and the blood soaked history there being one. As much as you like to ignore facts and reason, other sides have a stake in this too. Despite your fanaticising, you don't just get to ignore them.
We can't choose to leave the customs union or single market, because people might start killing each other? .
Wouldn't have happened if you hadn't lit the bonfire. No different to two colonels complaining about the savages murdring each other, after they sold them the damned Lewis guns in the first place. But hey. at least in the firesale afterwards the super rich get to walk in and steal all the assets at bargain basement prices.
The truth is, despite your assertions otherwise, this is something you should have thought about. There's more to this than headlines and slogans on a bus. You know, those pesky details and lives of people you like to ignore as 'horsegak'.
So again, British people peacefully vote to leave customs union and single market, as is our divine right = terror groups have the green light to kill people again.
British people voted not considering the stability of an unstable part of the country (NI is British, they have a vote, they chose to remain), and the British Government are pursuing an option that'll jepordize the stability of that unstable region.
Those starting the troubles again will be the ones directly responsible, but Leave voters bear some responsibility for potentially unravelling the agreement that kept a lid on things.
Not me. Never.
You can pretend not to be responsible all you want, but as a Brexiteer who's made it clear you don't care about Ireland, you're going to get the blame anyway, because you're still responsible in part. Hopefully either (a) we find an option that doesn't restart troubles and/or (b) brexit will be worth it.
I notice you quoted but didn't answer the question. Where's your red line?
My redline? Never give into blackmail.
I repeat myself, but I voted to peacefully leave a trading bloc. I din't vote yes to British troops back at Dublin Castle.
Humans will use any justification for violence. God, Nazism, religion, Marxism, whatever.
Brexit is an excuse for people to absolve themselves of any personal responsibility for violent actions they themselves carry out.
I will never carry the can for that. Never. And nor should any Brexit voter.
Remain's cynical use of Northern Ireland is nothing but a morally and intellectually bankrupt argument for staying in the EU.
DINLT...just stop. Even I think you're embarrassing yourself now.
There are ways to fulfil Brexit without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. If that means a "soft Brexit", so be it. Thats infinitely preferable to me over the return of bombs to Irish streets.
Except there are ways to leave the EU without violating the Good Friday Agreement.
You just don't like them and are willing to gamble with people's lives to get what you want. And in doing so you reveal that you actually don't give a flying feth about the country. A country is not the land it occupies, it isn't the political institutions it is governed by. A country is the people, and as soon as you are willing to put those people at risk to further your own political ambitions, you no longer have any claim to love your country.
The difficulty? The difficultty is that I, and millions of others, are being robbed of the right to peacefully chose the destiny of Britain's future,
The only thing that's being 'robbed' from you is the wool over your eyes that you put there yourself. Choose your path, by all means, but own the consequences. This, being one of them.
because another so called sovereign nation might get upset.
'So called'? How dare you sir. HOW BLOODY DARE YOU.
we're plenty sovereign. We are just grown up enough to realise we have more 'pull' as part of the bloc that is the EU than we do on our own - we have eight hundred years of your lot running roughshod over us when we were alone to attest to that. Here's the thing that all small nations understand - unless,you are a 'great power', you can't throw your weight around, and frankly, there's is safety and prosperity in groups. Otherwise you are prey for pretatory neighbours. And I'm sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but Britain isn't a great power either, and hasn't been for about sixty odd years. The time of empire is gone, and you're soon to find that you're just a small island off the edge of Europe that no one really bothers about.
And on a personal note, as 'one of them' - you know, an emigrant, I'm used to people with accents different to my own writing my laws and spending my tax money. It's not the worst thing in the world.
Never in a million years would I dare dictate to the Republic if they should stay in or leave the EU, so I'll be damned if Dublin is laying down the law to us.
Pfft. If it promised you brexit you'd invade Ireland in a heartbeat and burn Dublin to the ground.
An here's the thing. It's a negotiation. Both sides get a say -'it's not your fantasy of 'negotiations' being defines as Britain thumping its chest, shouting loudly and getting everything it demands and has to pay nothing. Other sides have huge and extremely valid concerns. The border area of Northern Ireland and the blood soaked history there being one. As much as you like to ignore facts and reason, other sides have a stake in this too. Despite your fanaticising, you don't just get to ignore them.
We can't choose to leave the customs union or single market, because people might start killing each other? .
Wouldn't have happened if you hadn't lit the bonfire. No different to two colonels complaining about the savages murdring each other, after the soldier them the damned Lewis guns in the first place. But hey. at least in the firesale afterwards the super rich get to walk in and steal all the assets at bargain basement prices.
The truth is, despite your assertions otherwise, this is something you should have thought about. There's more to this than headlines and slogans on a bus. You know, those pesky details and lives of people you like to ignore as 'horsegak'.
That is blackmail. Political blackmail. If that's the best argument Remain have to offer, then they deserved to lose.
It's not blackmail. They're called consequences. Own them. Or lose any shred of respectability you have left.
Again, it's a long winded way of saying won't nobody think of the children.
I do use the term so called sovereign nation, because now you're moaning that another sovereign nation has peacefully voted to leave a trading bloc. You really do want to have your cake and eat it.
You got your freedom to stand on your own two feet and control your own destiny. That was an aim outlined in the 1916 Declaration.
Good luck to you. But how dare you tell another nation how they can and cannot vote in their own referendum on their membership of a trading bloc. You would have a point if we voted for British troops to return to Dublin castle. But we didn't.
it's 2017, not 1917. The Republic is not part of Britain. You have zero right to have a say on our destiny. You choose your path, let us walk ours.
By your logic, because the USA was part of Britain at one time, London should tell Washington to get rid of Trump.
Remain's cynical use of Northern Ireland is nothing but a morally and intellectually bankrupt argument for staying in the EU.
Nothing cynical about it, nor is it morally bankrupt or intellectually bankrupt. This is a genuinely, serious concern, with genuine serious life and death consequences andnpretty far from 'horsegak'. You are the one who is morally and intellectually bankrupt for even attempting to claim this. Again HOW DARE YOU.
If the bombs go off again in Northern Ireland as a direct consequence of the brexit you are so fanatically embracing, then the blood is on your hands too. You lit the fuse. Own it.
Again, it's a long winded way of saying won't nobody think of the children.
I do use the term so called sovereign nation, because now you're moaning that another sovereign nation has peacefully voted to leave a trading bloc. You really do want to have your cake and eat it.
.
Sovereign nation, not 'so called'. How dare you look down on us. And yes, we're complaining about your colossally stupid actions because they're causing needless complications and problems to us all. We all suffer. Why - do you wan us to do as you do, shrug our shoulders, thump our chests really loudly and shout 'amhrann na bhfiann' really loudly whilst ignoring reality? Grow up.
Good luck to you. But how dare you tell another nation how they can and cannot vote in their own referendum on their membership of a trading bloc. You would have a point if we voted for British troops to return to Dublin castle. But we didn't.
We're not telling you how you can and cannot vote. But we can damn well look you straight in the eye at the negotiation table and cal you out for your selfishness, short sightedness and demand assurances and solutions to the consequences of your actions. It's not just about the membership of a trading bloc. This issue s bigger. Get that fact into your head. At the end of the day, we have to live here on this island and share it, post-brexit. And that's fine. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn't light up a damned firestorm north of the border and in a way that I should acceptable to all sides.
it's 2017, not 1917. The Republic is not part of Britain. You have zero right to have a say on our destiny. You choose your path, let us walk ours.
Indeed. It's 2017. Not 1917. We are a sovereign nation. We are equals. We don't live alone. Chose your paTh by all means. But bear in mind, the date of your empire are gone - you don't get to ride roughshod over us, or anyone else any more. You don't get to throw your weight around, and demand everything without having to pay for it or take heed of consequences. It's time for Britain to grow the hell up and stop acting like a spoiled teenager and realise that there is more to this than just 'brexit uber alles'.
By your logic, because the USA was part of Britain at one time, London should tell Washington to get rid of Trump.
That's... it my logic at all. But im not surprised that in your skewed narrative where facts are meaningless and reality is distorted that you think like that. Come back to me when you're sober.
I would think that voting for a decision which affects the whole of the United Kingdom without considering the implications on the whole of the United Kingdom to be grossly negligent.
There are ways to fulfil Brexit without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. If that means a "soft Brexit", so be it. Thats infinitely preferable to me over the return of bombs to Irish streets.
If we go down the road you suggest, the road that says don't vote peacefully to peacefully leave a trading block, then we can never come back.
We will have rolled up the white flag to the threat of violence. 50 million people can't peacefully decide a peaceful future, because a few thousand Irishmen and women hate each other. I'll be damned if I have that hanging over me. And I'll be damned if I'm getting the blame for something that happened in 1690.
We've been here before. Give him the Rhineland, and he'll ask for no more. Give him Austria, and that'll satisfy him. Giving up the Sudetenland will finally give us peace in Europe...
There are ways to fulfil Brexit without breaking the Good Friday Agreement. If that means a "soft Brexit", so be it. Thats infinitely preferable to me over the return of bombs to Irish streets.
If we go down the road you suggest, the road that says don't vote peacefully to peacefully leave a trading block, then we can never come back.
We will have rolled up the white flag to the threat of violence. 50 million people can't peacefully decide a peaceful future, because a few thousand Irishmen and women hate each other. I'll be damned if I have that hanging over me. And I'll be damned if I'm getting the blame for something that happened in 1690.
We've been here before. Give him the Rhineland, and he'll ask for no more. Give him Austria, and that'll satisfy him. Giving up the Sudetenland will finally give us peace in Europe...
What's funny here is that back then it was Hitler who ignored the peace agreement but here you are, advocating we do the same because you don't care if people get killed so long as you have Brexit your way.
Remain's cynical use of Northern Ireland is nothing but a morally and intellectually bankrupt argument for staying in the EU.
Nothing cynical about it, nor is it morally bankrupt or intellectually bankrupt. This is a genuinely, serious concern, with genuine serious life and death consequences andnpretty far from 'horsegak'. You are the one who is morally and intellectually bankrupt for even attempting to claim this. Again HOW DARE YOU.
If the bombs go off again in Northern Ireland as a direct consequence of the brexit you are so fanatically embracing, then the blood is on your hands too. You lit the fuse. Own it.
If you want to blame me for actions that happen in a nation I've never visited, which were carried out by people I'll never meet, simply because I voted to peacefully leave a trading block, then go ahead and do it.
All I see here is excuse after excuse to justify violence.
You've been a sovereign nation for nearly 100 years. 100 fething years, but it's still Britain's fault.
Who in Britain is calling for an army to invade Ireland and wipe out the Catholic Church? Nobody.
Who in Britain is calling for the Black and Tans to head for Dublin? Nobody.
That puts the responsibility on the UK government to protect them. That can be with sending UK soldiers into Northern Ireland, or it can be through negotiating a Brexit which does not break the Good Friday Agreement. Which would you prefer, DINLT?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: . I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero
While I don't wish do dig directly at any individual on this, I do find this to be a recurring theme amongst Brexiteers. An obtuse refusal to accept responsibility for ones actions.
You voted for it, you got it. You might think the good out weighs the bad, you might still stand by your actions and say they are justified. Fine, we understand that. Now develop a backbone and take liability of the things you have wrought.
Edit: but then again, this is a poster who has suggested on numerous occasions that they think the best way to deal with the situation is to hand part of the UK over to a foreign country and deny those UK citizens living there, including a majority who consider themselves British, the right of self determination.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: . I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero
While I don't wish do dig directly at any individual on this, I do find this to be a recurring theme amongst Brexiteers. An obtuse refusal to accept responsibility for ones actions.
You voted for it, you got it. You might think the good out weighs the bad, you might still stand by your actions and say they are justified. Fine, we understand that. Now develop a backbone and take liability of the things you have wrought.
Stand by my actions? The Republic fought for centuries to gain its freedom, to walk its own path, and choose it's own destiny. Fine by me.
And yet, they complain when Britain, who they got their freedom from, does something they don't like. It's like the USA blaming Britain for NAFTA.
We're not talking about Britain attacking Ireland here, we're talking about leaving a trading bloc as a result of a peaceful vote.
Without a shadow of a doubt, this is history's greatest example of somebody wanting to have their cake and eat it.
That puts the responsibility on the UK government to protect them. That can be with sending UK soldiers into Northern Ireland, or it can be through negotiating a Brexit which does not break the Good Friday Agreement. Which would you prefer, DINLT?
I would prefer some personal responsiblity, rather than use any excuse to starting pulling triggers and planting bombs.
Feth me, this ain't the 1590s. Nobody in England gives two hoots about Ireland anymore or wants to send in the redcoats.
Who is persecuting the Irish here? Nobody! Fething nobody. They're doing it to each other. How is that our fault if we vote for Brexit.
I have hated every Tory government I have ever lived under. And yet, I never sent in the Panzers to kill Tory voters in Kent.
If we voted Remain, and trouble broke out because of the DUP's dodgy heating fund, or power sharing broke down, am I blame for not voting Brexit?
If these terror groups thought they could justify their actions by blaming a giant jelly bean in the sky, they would do it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: . I will not be blackmailed like that, and I will NEVER bear any responsibility for that if it does happen. Zero, Absolutely fething zero
While I don't wish do dig directly at any individual on this, I do find this to be a recurring theme amongst Brexiteers. An obtuse refusal to accept responsibility for ones actions.
You voted for it, you got it. You might think the good out weighs the bad, you might still stand by your actions and say they are justified. Fine, we understand that. Now develop a backbone and take liability of the things you have wrought.
Stand by my actions? The Republic fought for centuries to gain its freedom, to walk its own path, and choose it's own destiny. Fine by me.
And yet, they complain when Britain, who they got their freedom from, does something they don't like. It's like the USA blaming Britain for NAFTA.
We're not talking about Britain attacking Ireland here, we're talking about leaving a trading bloc as a result of a peaceful vote.
Without a shadow of a doubt, this is history's greatest example of somebody wanting to have their cake and eat it.
And I'm not afraid to call Dublin out on this.
Northern Ireland didn't vote to leave. Forcing a Brexit which is more likely to restart the bloodshed is not only unnecessary, it is also being done by the people who will not be having their friends and family murdered.
Forgive me for thinking that the people who would actually be at risk should be given the power to not be marched into nailbombs against their wishes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt, this is history's greatest example of somebody wanting to have their cake and eat it.
This may be the first truthful statement you've made in a while. The UK Brexiteers really are making a textbook demonstration of how to want to have your cake and eat it.
The Good Friday agreement is an agreement between two governments - the UK and Ireland - with great support from the international community. It was signed by representatives of both countries. Now one of those countries has put events into effect that dramatically alter the terms of the Good Friday agreement and the other country is supposed to... what? Just accept the new terms without having any say? Just take one up the arse because the other country had a hissy fit? No! One country is breaking the terms of the agreement. That country is responsible for breaking the contract. And you are partly responsible for the actions of that country.
Some people in this thread are on track for a warning and a holiday from the OT. A long one. Any further misrepresenting of the points people are making, hyperbolic over the top nonsense about how they are saying one side is blaming them for the Troubles/terrorism kicking off again which is not what these other users are saying, it's as bad as a "fixed that for you", because all you're doing is misrepresenting what other users have said. This is incredibly rude Keep that in mind as we go forwards
I wonder just how many people here actually lived through the troubles? And I mean that in a way that they were actively, cognitivly aware of what was going on?
Unless you are old enough I would ask that you not go slinging accusations about.
I honestly hope that there is not a reoccurence of the violence, because those were very dark days, very much reenacted with the persecution of minority muslims in other countries. However if there is, it is not the sole province of Brexiteers to take responsibility and blame for this. There are two parties to these negotiations and both sides need to take blame. Both parties need to take a long hard look at themselves. Notice has been served to leave the EU. It is then up to both parties to create a solution. Ireland and the EU sticking their heads in the sand saying that its up the the UK to find the solution is deluding themselves. Failure on their side to find that medium solutions puts the blame as squarely on their shoulders as those who voted for Brexit.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And yet, they complain when Britain, who they got their freedom from, does something they don't like. It's like the USA blaming Britain for NAFTA.
No, it's not at all. And at this point I honestly don't know if you understand why that's a load of crap or if you are actually deluded enough to think you made a good comparison there.
The UK was not a signatory of NAFTA, it was a signatory of the Good Friday agreement. That you can't even grasp this shows how out of your depth you are getting.
(disclosure for why this subject gets my goat: lived in Antrim for a year. I learned a lot in that time and have tried to stay educated on the subject since)
AndrewC wrote: I wonder just how many people here actually lived through the troubles? And I mean that in a way that they were actively, cognitivly aware of what was going on?
Unless you are old enough I would ask that you not go slinging accusations about.
I honestly hope that there is not a reoccurence of the violence, because those were very dark days, very much reenacted with the persecution of minority muslims in other countries. However if there is, it is not the sole province of Brexiteers to take responsibility and blame for this. There are two parties to these negotiations and both sides need to take blame. Both parties need to take a long hard look at themselves. Notice has been served to leave the EU. It is then up to both parties to create a solution. Ireland and the EU sticking their heads in the sand saying that its up the the UK to find the solution is deluding themselves. Failure on their side to find that medium solutions puts the blame as squarely on their shoulders as those who voted for Brexit.
Cheers
Andrew
But isn't the soft Brexit that those countries are looking for/other users are mentioning the middle ground? EU/Ireland would rather Britain have remained and been a functioning member. Brexit voters and Tories have decided they want out, in such a way that it breaks the Good Friday agreement. Isn't the desire to keep that agreement by keeping to a soft Brexit that middle ground? What is the middle ground you envision, EU/Ireland giving them the hard Brexit they want and also giving them a magical way to keep the Good Friday agreement that doesn't clash with the hard Brexit? That just seems like its more asking for the EU/Ireland to just render unto England whatever they want, rather than an actual middle ground.
AndrewC wrote: I wonder just how many people here actually lived through the troubles? And I mean that in a way that they were actively, cognitivly aware of what was going on?
Unless you are old enough I would ask that you not go slinging accusations about.
I haven't, I'm English. But my Dad's side of the family came from Belfast, and therefore had first hand experience.
A return to the Troubles is the one potential consequence of Brexit that I want to avoid at all costs. If that means downgrading Brexit from "hard" to "soft", so be it.
I honestly hope that there is not a reoccurence of the violence, because those were very dark days, very much reenacted with the persecution of minority muslims in other countries. However if there is, it is not the sole province of Brexiteers to take responsibility and blame for this. There are two parties to these negotiations and both sides need to take blame. Both parties need to take a long hard look at themselves. Notice has been served to leave the EU. It is then up to both parties to create a solution. Ireland and the EU sticking their heads in the sand saying that its up the the UK to find the solution is deluding themselves. Failure on their side to find that medium solutions puts the blame as squarely on their shoulders as those who voted for Brexit.
AndrewC wrote: I wonder just how many people here actually lived through the troubles? And I mean that in a way that they were actively, cognitivly aware of what was going on?
Unless you are old enough I would ask that you not go slinging accusations about.
I honestly hope that there is not a reoccurence of the violence, because those were very dark days, very much reenacted with the persecution of minority muslims in other countries. However if there is, it is not the sole province of Brexiteers to take responsibility and blame for this. There are two parties to these negotiations and both sides need to take blame. Both parties need to take a long hard look at themselves. Notice has been served to leave the EU. It is then up to both parties to create a solution. Ireland and the EU sticking their heads in the sand saying that its up the the UK to find the solution is deluding themselves. Failure on their side to find that medium solutions puts the blame as squarely on their shoulders as those who voted for Brexit.
Cheers
Andrew
People have often asked my age, well, I can tell you now that I was born in 1968. Oh yeah, I remember the 1980s, and the bombs...
I also remember the Falklands War. I don't recall anybody on the Falklands asking to be invaded...
And this is the problem. There appears to be no soft brexit available. We seem to have two opposing camps here, dont leave and hard brexit. In theory those two should meet somewhere in the middle, but being honest here I do not see anyway of those two divergent views being reconciled. Whether its because the Uk is trying to negotiate with 27 other parties via one person who cant actually pass proposals on in a time efficient manner for a meaningful response, or the UK is a complete shambles or a mix of both.....
The nett effect is a massive game of chicken where neither side can blink. The EU cant be seen as weak just in case it starts an exodus. Even the meerest hint could embolden fringe parties into a fracture. So they cant blink. May and the current government are hanging on by a thread and any weakness there could spell the end of them. So they cant blink either. So where does that leave us?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And yet, they complain when Britain, who they got their freedom from, does something they don't like. It's like the USA blaming Britain for NAFTA.
No, it's not at all. And at this point I honestly don't know if you understand why that's a load of crap or if you are actually deluded enough to think you made a good comparison there.
The UK was not a signatory of NAFTA, it was a signatory of the Good Friday agreement. That you can't even grasp this shows how out of your depth you are getting.
(disclosure for why this subject gets my goat: lived in Antrim for a year. I learned a lot in that time and have tried to stay educated on the subject since)
You've posted good stuff before, so I don't believe for a minute that you absolve people of personal responsibility if they choose to pull a trigger or plant a bomb by their own free will.
How many bombs did Gandhi plant? How many people did he shoot?
Clear in thread warning left to stop making these kinds of comparisons, it is rude to just completely ignore the points other people are making
In the interests of balance I'll mention Loyalist terror groups. Peter Taylor's trilogy on the troubles, which I would recommend, is on the book shelf next to me.
I'll flick through book 2: Loyalists. Here's a sad tale. A Catholic man walking home gets murdered Clear in thread warning left to stop making these kinds of comparisons, it is rude to just completely ignore the points other people are making
@DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.
That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.
And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.
Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.
Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.
DINLT. I would like to think better of you, but that's a cheap shot using a mans death.
And that applies to everyone. The troubles should not be used in that manner. Stop trying to use the deaths as some sort of points system. If you are going to refer to the troubles use them with relevance not as ammunition.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Can you all please just agree to disagree and move on? Motyak has already given a warning...
I agree, tbh, there doesn't seem to be too much more that can be constructively said regarding the issue in NI. Everyone has made their position known to differing degrees of effectiveness, and they aren't shifting from their opinions.
r_squared wrote: @DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.
That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.
And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.
Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.
Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.
So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.
AndrewC wrote: And this is the problem. There appears to be no soft brexit available. We seem to have two opposing camps here, dont leave and hard brexit. In theory those two should meet somewhere in the middle, but being honest here I do not see anyway of those two divergent views being reconciled. Whether its because the Uk is trying to negotiate with 27 other parties via one person who cant actually pass proposals on in a time efficient manner for a meaningful response, or the UK is a complete shambles or a mix of both.....
The nett effect is a massive game of chicken where neither side can blink. The EU cant be seen as weak just in case it starts an exodus. Even the meerest hint could embolden fringe parties into a fracture. So they cant blink. May and the current government are hanging on by a thread and any weakness there could spell the end of them. So they cant blink either. So where does that leave us?
Do you mean here on dakka or in the real world? If you don't mind me asking?
IMO, soft brexit - i.e membership of the efta etc., but not the eu, or something along the Norway model is about the best option to take. Though I a m an an ardent remainer (as an irishman, joining the eec/eu turned our country around and brought us into the 20th century and despite its flaws, i regard the Eu as fundamentally a good thing for Europe - better than us all slogging about solo, and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime) I have no huge hang ups issue soft brexit or 'norway' this an an approach - as an Irishman, I see it as about the best approach to take with regard to the uk's future relationship with Ireland too. And as I have family in Norway as well, I can appreciate how their relationship with the eu functions as well. There's no reason a relationship like this cannot work. And its mostly beneficial to all involved. Hard brexit unfortunately has too many consequences for it to be taken as anything other than a bloody parody by me.
The problem however as I see it is 'party over politics'. The maybot is a hostage is number 10, without an effective majority, and with a fanatical 'hard brexit' wing in her own party of about twenty, maybe thirty members that are determined to drive them over a cliff, come what may, and backed by the sectarian dup, who, despite Northern Ireland voting remain, are also determined to force a hard brexit, come what may, and against the mandate of Northern Ireland which voted to remain in the name of their own selfish sectarian interests. She has been pushed into a corner by them, and really has no room to manoeuvre. What's more, this was on top of a referendum with a significant-but-not-overwhelming turnout (like, say, the Scottish indy1 referendum) thst delivered the tiniest 'majority' towards leave, and takes no considerarion of the views of the 48% of the voters who said stay, or the nuanced views of the leavers who ranged from everything from blinkered 'brexit at any cost' to the more moderate views of 'leave, but keep a foot in the door'. IMO, a soft brexit should have been the only approach they would have gotten people behind, but no, May, and before her, Cameron played the bluekip card and leaned on their fanatics, to preserve their party, rather than the national interest, and interpreted the result as 'yes, harder, harder, now, oooooh'.
So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.
Didn't Belgium manage quite well for a year or two with no functional government a few years back?
Then again, if I remember right that was said by top gear's clarkson...
No no no and no. You've been gracious and I'll say I like responding to you because in the past I may have disagreed with your views but your posts have a history of being considered (Brexit aside). But I won't allow myself to be misrepresented.
I don't conflate your actions with those of the person carrying out the crime, nor are they used to justify the crime. I'm not ideologically minded in that way. I hope my input on the many gun threads that used to pop up shows that I'm capable of discerning that difference, and I respect that you've noted that.
But that is not what you are being taken to task for here. Nobody is saying that an individual act of violence will be your responsibility and I'm certainly not saying that because you voted exit that murder is justified. I will not be misrepresented like that. I however am saying that you are partly responsible for the UK looking like it will renege on its responsibilities in that agreement. And it is that agreement that has lead to the fragile peace we have. With no forethought, planning or any indication that anybody outside of those directly involved even care (and you've personally confessed to this no more than a page back), that fragile peace is endangered. You are partly responsible.
DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.
The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.
Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.
Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.
Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.
r_squared wrote: @DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.
That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.
And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.
Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.
Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.
So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.
Cheers
Andrew
I'm guessing thats a humourous point about the civil service? But yes, we have to rely on the integrity of our elected officials and their ability to make informed decisions, otherwise we end up with situations not unlike what we are facing now, unfortunately caused by those very same elected officials making a spectacularly poor decision to hold a referendum in the first place. The irony of my argument being defeated by the example of having a bunch of politcians with the integrity and wisdom of a pack of hyenas.
feth it, let's go back to feudalism, seems simpler now.
AndrewC wrote: Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.
Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.
Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.
What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?
nfe wrote: DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.
The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.
DINLT does not represent all of us.
Bottom line is...I don't like the quite blatant End-game of the EU, a closely integrated massive super-state. I want Britain to remain a distinct and independent political entity, even if that diminishes us on the "world stage". (God how I loathe that term). I view my country as being distinct in culture, traditions, law etc from Continental Europe, and I wish to keep it that way. Therefore I view the EU and its built in inherent ethos of "Ever Closer Union" to be a threat to that.
If the EU was purely an economic union, I would not have voted Leave. But there is too much political baggage that comes with that, so I voted Leave.
If others are happy with Britain becoming amalgamated into what I think will one day be a de facto United States of Europe, then fine. I respect that differing opinion. I just don't agree with it.
Deadnight wrote: Do you mean here on dakka or in the real world? If you don't mind me asking?
On Dakka its going to be another 15 pages at least in this thread. In the real world... Relying on the good graces of reformed 'paramiltary' types who used religion as an excuse for violence.
Didn't Belgium manage quite well for a year or two with no functional government a few years back?
Then again, if I remember right that was said by top gear's clarkson...
Get Clarkson to step in as lead negotiator? Or better yet use him to replace Boris. (Clarkson at least knows he's says stupid things)
Deadnight wrote: and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime)
What makes you think the EU won't be just as warmongering?
Big military industrial complexes once established need to find ways to justify their continued existence. And the EU like most Empires is expansionist. It is inevitable that the EU will find itself in conflict with other nations.
AndrewC wrote: Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.
Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.
Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.
See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.
What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one whose government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.
RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.
AndrewC wrote: Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.
Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.
Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.
What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?
So are you saying that the EU has no requirement to negotiate with the departure of the UK from the EU?
AndrewC wrote: Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.
Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.
Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.
What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?
So are you saying that the EU has no requirement to negotiate with the departure of the UK from the EU?
No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY
nfe wrote: DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.
The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.
DINLT does not represent all of us.
Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.
I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.
nfe wrote: See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.
What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one who's government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.
RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.
With individual vetoes holding sway there can be no compromise. And the Brexit deal, as far as I am aware, is not majority voting in the EU.
One side cant compromise, they can only concede. A compromise relies on both parties shifting their positions to meet somewhere in the middle. The EU wont shift positions, so the UK cant shift positions as stated earlier.
nfe wrote: DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.
The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.
DINLT does not represent all of us.
Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.
I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.
Jury trial for instance. The UK has traditionally had a stronger emphasis on Jury trials than Continental Europe. Though I am aware that it is declining even in the UK.
English Common Law is also something which I want to preserve and insulate against European influence.
I'm admittedly a layman on these matters (I got an E in A Level Law ). I'm just aware there are some key differences in legal tradition between the UK and continental Europe.
nfe wrote: See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.
What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one who's government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.
RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.
With individual vetoes holding sway there can be no compromise. And the Brexit deal, as far as I am aware, is not majority voting in the EU.
One side cant compromise, they can only concede. A compromise relies on both parties shifting their positions to meet somewhere in the middle. The EU wont shift positions, so the UK cant shift positions as stated earlier.
Can you suggest specific issues on which the EU could compromise, and the new positions they could shift to, that don't simply represent concessions?
nfe wrote: DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.
The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.
DINLT does not represent all of us.
Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.
I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.
Jury trial for instance. The UK has traditionally had a stronger emphasis on Jury trials than Continental Europe. Though I am aware that it is declining even in the UK.
English Common Law is also something which I want to preserve and insulate against European influence.
I'm admittedly a layman on these matters (I got an E in A Level Law )
We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems
No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY
Is it? The UK has tried to negotiate access to the EU markets since this started. And wanted to do so in conjunction with the Financial Settlement. Now to me the negotiation there and compromise there equates how much is paid against what access is retained. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
Yet the hard reality is that the EU want paid without discussing what that money actually opens up for us.
The EU has not compromised on anything so far.
Some people have lauded that approach, they feel that the EU has all the cards for this negotiation, and they may well be right. But you then cannot blame the others for refusing to play in a rigged game and walk away from the table.
No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY
I think this is a little disingenuous. There is always room for negotiation, for compromise. Whether an agreement can be reached on specific items, and whether it can be reached within a specific timescale are two separate things though.
To take a case in point, there's the European drug testing and approval body. Approached as a sole issue, there are many aspects to it which are negotiable. You could agree to synchronise certain aspects of the approval process, and leave alternative parts separate. You could agree to jointly fund specific testing laboratories to cut costs. Or not. And so on. On that single issue, I am sure that there are many hundreds of areas which two respective bodies could sit down and negotiate over, and likely come to an agreement on certain aspects pleasing to all, whilst leaving out that which displeases either. The end result would likely be that everybody got something of value that they wanted, even if they didn't get everything that they wanted.
That scenario multiplied many times over is how more far ranging trade and diplomatic agreements are made. They are lengthy and costly, but entirely feasible. They're how the EU and any other state conducts trade agreements with many sovereign nations around the world. They are usually carried out with due respect for both parties, and a willingness to discard propositions which might cross any 'red lines' that the opposing party has. You go as far as both parties will agree upon to try and build structures and rules which are of nothing but mutual value to both parties. There is usually a little give and take, but nothing extreme.
Observing the ongoing Brexit saga, I think it is safe to say that neither side is willing to compromise, and both wish to have their cake and eat it. The EU has made several thoroughly outrageous propositions whilst abandoning all diplomatic niceties, and the British stance has been reasonably vacuous and along the lines of 'Yes, we know that we're leaving, but can't we still keep the best parts?' The negotiation has, in other words, been the opposite of the usual approach to such affairs. Without speculating on the reasons behind either one (as they have been discussed to death already), I think it is a terrible shame that both sides of the table appear to be so beholden to those vested interests which agitate so fiercely as to cause this state of affairs.
nfe wrote: We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems
True, and thats why we have Devolution.
The difference is, I wish to draw a line at the English Channel. Others wish to be a part of a wider European Union.
Both sides of the debate have merits and flaws, its more a matter of preference I think.
There is no right or wrong answer here (except of course when it comes to the possibility of renewed bloodshed in Northern Ireland. That is something which I think we can all agree...bar one notable exception...should be avoided at all costs).
nfe wrote: Can you suggest specific issues on which the EU could compromise, and the new positions they could shift to, that don't simply represent concessions?
How about linking the financial settlement into the trade talks. How about the application of EU law on the unborn children of EU nationals who have yet to even get married to the nth generation.
All compromises can be termed concessions. Lets say that the UK agreed to pay £80billion as settlement, is that a compromise or a concession?
The point is this, the EU has refused to look at any other negotiations until EU rights, cash and Ireland is settled. The UK want to open it up completely. If the UK can see how good a deal they get elsewhere then they are more likely to change positions on the others. As it stands the EU could negotiate the first to their satisfaction and then walk away from the rest leaving the UK high and dry.
We should agree to a bill, but stipulate that it will only be paid on condition that we are able to reach mutually agreeable compromises on all other matters such as trade.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So in other words threaten to renege on payments you owe if you do not get a satisfactory compromise on other fields? That sounds a bit petty.
As petty as agreeing to a bill in good faith, only for the EU to bugger off leaving us empty handed once they have what they wanted out of us?
Note that I did say mutually agreeable. Not "give in to all our demands", which is the line of argument that the EU is taking.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So in other words threaten to renege on payments you owe if you do not get a satisfactory compromise on other fields? That sounds a bit petty.
Could be, but is it any pettier than asking to be paid just to discuss trade with no guarantees that you'll actually get any trade deals?
I really don't think the bill stands up as an example. Suggesting someone should only agree to pay what they owe to secure future deals is pretty outrageous.
I don't think there was a real need to settle it prior to beginning other negotiations - other than the fact that prominent and extremely influential members of government, one of whom had (has?) a real chance of being PM before the deal is done, we're adamant that we should just tell the EU to beat it.
Had the UK been saying 'of course well settle up, can we please negotiate other issues simultaneously?', I'd be on board with you.
.. where's a bus when you need one eh ?
I had to check that wasn't an onion story
