I'm also reading descriptions of the vehicle as a 4x4 which strikes me as odd because when the vehicle in photos is a crossover. 4x4 in America is a pickup truck with a 4' x 4' bed. I guess those aren't as popular in the UK as I never see pictures with them in the background somewhere. I assume 4x4 in the UK is just your term for all wheel drive?
I'm hearing on the radio that he isn't middle eastern. He's Jamaican descended Brit who converted to Islam. He's been involved with "radical" Islam groups since at least 2006.
Whilst the deaths and injuries are tragic I think we have to take the positive that we have had no major incidents like we have seen in other countries, and hope that this kind of attack, relying on a car and a knife, is a sign that the support networks to plan major attacks has been sufficiently disrupted in the U.K.
I'm also reading descriptions of the vehicle as a 4x4 which strikes me as odd because when the vehicle in photos is a crossover. 4x4 in America is a pickup truck with a 4' x 4' bed. I guess those aren't as popular in the UK as I never see pictures with them in the background somewhere. I assume 4x4 in the UK is just your term for all wheel drive?
A little off topic, but not exactly. 4x4 is generally used for any all wheel drive car designed (or with pretensions of) being an off road vehicle. Normally something with good ground clearance, low range and locking diffs (except land rovers, which are always called land rovers). Sometimes 2WD SUVs are called 4x4 by people who know no better, but an Audi Quattro would never be called a 4x4 (except the Q models). They would be called all wheel drive or four wheel
No warning, and despite the death toll, relatively little damage done. Two killed by the car, one officer killed, and the attacker.
Remember, they security forces have to be lucky all the time - the other guys, just once in a blue moon.
I am not scared. I am not worried. I am not impressed.
I agree. These guys are not terrorists. They are idiots. They managed to do nothing more than an accident. More reason to fear crossing the road than fear people like this. The ones I feel sorry for are the Muslims who will now be at risks from racist scum.
Please don't try and find offence by wilfully misrepresenting what i said and taking a single sentence out of context. It's really not needed and inappropriate.
It's arrogance to assume you can affect the march of events to that degree. You think that not only can you select the 'relevant' warning signs from history, you think that doing so will somehow permit the aversion or mitigation of some great unknowable event in the future? Real life does not work like Noah's Ark.
Sigh..., we've been down this argument before and I'm not sure anyone wants us both to ramble over the same old ground again. Simply you put everything into the bracket that nothing in the past foretells the future from a historical perspective. But from my perspective that is a useless and pointless approach. Scientific method, which is my preferred approach, is to assess the information to hand and make predictions for the future and the potential outcomes as that is more useful. We are nothing more than machines, albeit complex ones following physical and chemical laws. We are hard wired in a certain way and therefore under similar pressures are inclined to act in the same way. The idea that we have free will is a fallacy based on our desire to have meaning to life and that we aren't just the universe going through the natural entropy laws. In some ways both our reactions are different responses to the same global pressures. Once folks get over this then as we are bound by the same physical rules then there is an inevitability that we will repeat the past (both good and ill). Even the terror attacks are predictable to some extent, if not the exact nature of them, as they have happened historically too, it might be slightly different causes but the underlying generics of exploitation and so on are similar - that results in some people 'boiling over'.
No warning, and despite the death toll, relatively little damage done. Two killed by the car, one officer killed, and the attacker.
Remember, they security forces have to be lucky all the time - the other guys, just once in a blue moon.
I am not scared. I am not worried. I am not impressed.
It's a statistical certainty there a big attack will go through at some point hence why we are on such a high alert. It only takes one thing to be missed or the attacker to have a wider imagination. For example how long until someone works out that an attack on a substation near a school and then on the school at rush hour would cause much more damage. The substation attack would knock out mobile phone signals and power giving enough time to cause the atrocity. This attack was ill conceived and poorly executed, at some point terrorists will work out that attacks on high profile areas will have little impact because they are high profile, well protected areas, there are much 'softer' targets. We have been lucky so far...
I agree. These guys are not terrorists. They are idiots. They managed to do nothing more than an accident. More reason to fear crossing the road than fear people like this. The ones I feel sorry for are the Muslims who will now be at risks from racist scum.
Which is exactly what the terrorists want. Cause more racial abuse and that drives more people to extremism because of that abuse.
I agree. These guys are not terrorists. They are idiots. They managed to do nothing more than an accident. More reason to fear crossing the road than fear people like this. The ones I feel sorry for are the Muslims who will now be at risks from racist scum.
Which is exactly what the terrorists want. Cause more racial abuse and that drives more people to extremism because of that abuse.
Exactly; it's to provoke an overreaction that'll radicalize the victimized Muslims.
It doesn't make the incident any less tragic but it's important to remember what the goal is.
The cop has passed away too, may he rest in peace.
I'm also reading descriptions of the vehicle as a 4x4 which strikes me as odd because when the vehicle in photos is a crossover. 4x4 in America is a pickup truck with a 4' x 4' bed. I guess those aren't as popular in the UK as I never see pictures with them in the background somewhere. I assume 4x4 in the UK is just your term for all wheel drive?
Over here 4x4 means a car with 4 wheels, 4 of which are powered. Most people use it interchangeably with SUV which may or may not have power to all 4 wheels.
Sigh..., we've been down this argument before and I'm not sure anyone wants us both to ramble over the same old ground again. Simply you put everything into the bracket that nothing in the past foretells the future from a historical perspective. But from my perspective that is a useless and pointless approach.
Whoever said things had to have a 'point'?
Scientific method, which is my preferred approach, is to assess the information to hand and make predictions for the future and the potential outcomes as that is more useful. We are nothing more than machines, albeit complex ones following physical and chemical laws. We are hard wired in a certain way and therefore under similar pressures are inclined to act in the same way.
Then you should understand the basic flaw in trying to assess causation when the evidence is so terribly, terribly incomplete for testing and verification purposes.
To put it in a scientific analogy (your preferred approach), you're attempting to figure out how to build a watch based upon a description of a single watch cog by a bloke who never actually saw it, but compiled his description by sifting through the descriptions of loads of other people about different kinds of machinery. Most of those people never saw a single watch cog either, and those that did didn't call it that and only saw it from far away at a funny angle. If you're really lucky, you might get equally flawed descriptions of one or two more cogs! But that's your lot.
Whatever sort of watch you build out of that will be so irreparably flawed as to bear no actual resemblance to what you were trying to build in the first place. So standing up and talking about how you totally think it must be theoretically possible to build it has nothing to do with the practical reality of the situation. It's why contemporary economic theory is disproved every ten years despite their vastly complicated mathematic modelling. You can never replicate laboratory conditions in real life, where new people, new thoughts, new technology, and new possibilities are constantly generated over and over.
Not unless you reduce and simplify things down to pointless absurdity anyway.
I agree. These guys are not terrorists. They are idiots. They managed to do nothing more than an accident. More reason to fear crossing the road than fear people like this. The ones I feel sorry for are the Muslims who will now be at risks from racist scum.
Which is exactly what the terrorists want. Cause more racial abuse and that drives more people to extremism because of that abuse.
Yep. We all need to be ready to stand up and say "they are not us", be that islamists or racists. Those peddlers of hate on both sides do not represent us. We are all just normal people trying to get on with our lives and our nabours, whatever colour race or religion they may be, and today one of those hate peddlers took three of us and injured many more, and tomorrow more hate peddlers will try and destroy more lives, either through actions or words. Different banner, differ words, same hate.
I'm ashamed to say I'll have to eat my own words today. I have been busy planting Gladioli Bulbs all week and haven't had much time to keep track of the news, I thought my day was bad having stomach cramp all morning and then getting intermittently rained off in the afternoon. Whilst waiting for the weather, I was sitting in my colleagues tractor with him and we had by then run out of much to say, so I asked him if he'd seen the news this morning as I hadn't. Turns out we both hadn't so I shrugged and said 'well I guess nothing important will happen today anyway'. Then a bit later we heard some of the news on the radio and I now feel a little guilty.
We will have to wait for the official report to confirm who the attacker was, but I will still be annoyed if he was one who 'slipped the net' on the government radar as a known threat. No matter how hard any government can prepare to stop attacks a terrorist can still break through. If there is any positive to what happened today, its that the emergency services were prepared and a hospital was right near by. I guess that the deceased policeman's role may in future by done by two people or one armed officer. Lets all hope the injured make good recoveries.
Then you should understand the basic flaw in trying to assess causation when the evidence is so terribly, terribly incomplete for testing and verification purposes.
To put it in a scientific analogy (your preferred approach), you're attempting to figure out how to build a watch based upon a description of a single watch cog by a bloke who never actually saw it, but compiled his description by sifting through the descriptions of loads of other people about different kinds of machinery. Most of those people never saw a single watch cog either, and those that did didn't call it that and only saw it from far away at a funny angle. If you're really lucky, you might get equally flawed descriptions of one or two more cogs! But that's your lot.
So? Science started on the basis of terribly incomplete information. If you work on the principle that we should apply any theory of causality because of lack testing and verification then we would still be in the stone age.
Also you are misrepresenting scientific theory. You take the data you have to hand and make a prediction. You then see how that prediction pans out with more data (time). Whether you make a correct or incorrect you now take this additional data and then make another prediction and so. The cog analogy you've used is wrong because it assumes you can't test the theory. What really happens is that you get the data for how people saw a cog and then you predict one that should work based on this data. If it doesn't work then you can gather more data, more perspectives and take what you have learnt yourself from building the cog and re-predict one that might work and repeat. It is an active iterative process, research, theorise, design, build, test and repeat. It's not a simple case of looking through historical data and trying to work out which bits are relevant and which aren't.
It's why contemporary economic theory is disproved every ten years despite their vastly complicated mathematic modelling. You can never replicate laboratory conditions in real life, where new people, new thoughts, new technology, and new possibilities are constantly generated over and over.
It's only disproved because there is not enough data. I've noted this before but I can't tell you how individual particles move in a box but I can tell you what pressure those particles exert on the box. It's just having enough data to allow you to create more accurate predictions. Over time you will find those economic predictions will improve, it's just that the economic cycle takes decades (and we don't know whether there may be very long term trends yet unseen). You are arguing on the basis of a humans lifetime, it can take much longer than that to achieve enough data to start making decent predictions where there are long cycles. As for replicating laboratory conditions in real life, yes you can, the same processes apply. You are confusing that lab conditions control a lot of factors to test individual effects, so you can determine what the cause and effect are. In real life you have a lot of these lab conditions all applying at once so you have a complex system. But multiple lab tests can tease these apart over time. This is how we have to got to the relatively accurate forecasts we have now (though in this case lab generally means computer simulations)
So? Science started on the basis of terribly incomplete information. If you work on the principle that we should apply any theory of causality because of lack testing and verification then we would still be in the stone age.
Science has to have the ability to repeat tests under controllable circumstances. Otherwise it can't prove anything. Good luck proving the molecular composition of water when all you have to go on is a thirdhand hundred year old account of what it looks like.
Also you are misrepresenting scientific theory. You take the data you have to hand and make a prediction. You then see how that prediction pans out with more data (time). Whether you make a correct or incorrect you now take this additional data and then make another prediction and so. The cog analogy you've used is wrong because it assumes you can't test the theory.
And with that recognition you've pointed out the glaring flaw in trying to treat history like science. The simple fact that history can't be tested. You can't generate new data, or new studies, because it's already happened, and only happens in that precise context with those precise factors once. And you don't even have a fraction of the data from that one occurrence.
It's only disproved because there is not enough data. I've noted this before but I can't tell you how individual particles move in a box but I can tell you what pressure those particles exert on the box. It's just having enough data to allow you to create more accurate predictions. Over time you will find those economic predictions will improve, it's just that the economic cycle takes decades (and we don't know whether there may be very long term trends yet unseen). You are arguing on the basis of a humans lifetime, it can take much longer than that to achieve enough data to start making decent predictions where there are long cycles. As for replicating laboratory conditions in real life, yes you can, the same processes apply. You are confusing that lab conditions control a lot of factors to test individual effects, so you can determine what the cause and effect are. In real life you have a lot of these lab conditions all applying at once so you have a complex system. But multiple lab tests can tease these apart over time. This is how we have to got to the relatively accurate forecasts we have now (though in this case lab generally means computer simulations)
The wonderful thing about history is that additional time passing makes less data available. Not more. Eyewitnesses die. Original documents are lost. Terrain changes, governments meddle. Artifacts disintegrate. So actually, you tend to lose data as opposed to gaining it. Meaning your 'multiple lab tests' are working off less and less data as time goes on.
For example, Frederic Manning wrote a biography of William White back in the 1920's. He had access to all White's personal papers, interviews with people who knew him, and so on. I, meanwhile, am sitting here much later on trying to tease out White's relationship with Armstrong many years later, and I have none of those things. All I have to work off is what Manning bothered to include. Which he could have misunderstood or misread. He also could have left less flattering bits out. The fact that I have a greater contextual knowledge than Manning goes some way to redressing the balance, but ultimately? I'm performing the same lab test (assessing White's character) with a hundredth of the data. Whoever comes after me in another fifty years will probably have less still.
Good luck generating new data to test a hypothesis under those conditions!
History is all about interpretation based on evidence. No one can ever know the exact details of the past, even with the huge amount of data generated in modern circumstances because everything is filtered through the human experience. The scientific method struggles in this environment.
However, Whirlwind is broadly right in that historical events can be useful as indicators of possible trends. You are correct that the precise conditions will never exist again, but that hardly matters when you're talking about broad trends.
Having seen a recent rise in extreme political ideals in the recent past, it's not implausible that people will be alert to identifying things that look, and feel, similar happening again, even though there is the most tenuous link.
However, Whirlwind is broadly right in that historical events can be useful as indicators of possible trends. You are correct that the precise conditions will never exist again, but that hardly matters when you're talking about broad trends..
The broad trends are drawn from those fallible histories though. To draw back to my earlier example with regards to pre-war jingoism, someone sitting in Whirlwind's seat can sit there and draw his theories for contemporary policy out of broad trends such as those. Learning the lessons of the past, and all that malarkey.
But when the actual existence of those historical trends themselves are thrown into question due to the inherent fallibility and interpretative nature of historical writing, where does that leave your application of them to contemporary events?
I'll throw out another example I've referred to before. British declinism. Several aspects from a drop in British share of world trade to the growth of America. Very strong historical basis, dozens of books mutually supporting the concept. Lots of British politicians read many of them, referred to the idea in speeches regarding policy they were making. It's even sunk in as a cultural belief now to an extent.
But now? Enough historians have gone 'hang on a second' and disproved so many great chunks of it that the entire concept is now a historical laughing stock. It was a classic self-reinforcing paradigm (to throw Kuhn, the master of scientific process out there) strung through general histories.
This in turn means that all those politicians basing their policies and world view on that historical concept....were wrong. And there is no 'right' answer to replace it with, because any existing piece of scholarship is equally likely to be thrown out in a hundred years, and the more time goes on the harder it becomes to have any bloody clue what happened in the first place.
Unless you're going to talk in the most simplistic and obvious of causative historical terms (something like 'Generally people have been more likely to murder people they hate than those they love'), you're wasting your time mining the past for 'lessons'. I don't deny that the idea holds attraction, and superficially (or even to a more medium depth) the idea seems to hold water. It's only once you start dissecting the epistemological roots of the matter that it becomes obvious just how flawed the concept is.
They're struggling to recruit teachers again. I'm not surprised, funnily enough, while being told what an easy, holiday laden, well paid job it is, recruitment and retention are terrible! And schools pay large amounts of their budgets into supply staff meaning they have less resources for the school.
They seem to think the solution is making it more attractive, but however big the bursary to train it doesn't change how hard and under valued the job is. One person comments on the BBC that 'they're constantly on strike because they have to do a day's work, bless them'.
I typically work 8-4, my day is filled mostly with teaching lessons, some admin tasks and answering various 'urgent' emails, occasional meetings, and an hour of break times. The lesson planning and marking is largely done on top of that because I've only a couple free periods during the working week. I usually go home, and work to 8 or later. Once you take out breaks and travelling, I probably still do a 45-50 hour week before things like parents evening where I stay until 7.30. I can't physically do all the marking and planning, I already give up evenings and part of weekends and some stuff never gets done. If only I did 'a day's work' I'd be much happier.
If you're outside the London area, a starting teacher does all that for £23K, before tax. Ready for that? That why something like half of new teachers have packed it in within 2 years. If only it were as easy as politicians, the newspapers and ignorant public tell us.
Teaching has never been a super-easy job. My Mum was a teacher in the 70s and 80s, and I can remember her bringing marking home even then, though it absolutely wasn't every evening or even every week. It's gotten much worse since then. I don't know anyone teaching in any sector of education who manages to fit everything into a 40-hour week.
For a few years I wanted to be a teacher but I've gone right off the idea. It's a lot of hard thankless work. It would depend on what school you're at of course but I think it would be a horrible job these days.
They're struggling to recruit teachers again. ... ...
If you're outside the London area, a starting teacher does all that for £23K, before tax. Ready for that? That why something like half of new teachers have packed it in within 2 years. If only it were as easy as politicians, the newspapers and ignorant public tell us.
To put £23K salary in perspective, you are entitled to about £150 a month in social security if you're on that low a salary.
Minimum wage over 40 hours a week is about £14.5k. And you can do that anywhere, potentially get a staff discount and don't need to supply your own pencils or only holiday when the kids are everywhere.
I think I'd probably like teaching, but would I feth do it for that money.
If you're outside the London area, a starting teacher does all that for £23K, before tax. Ready for that? That why something like half of new teachers have packed it in within 2 years. If only it were as easy as politicians, the newspapers and ignorant public tell us.
And it's even worse for the STEM fields as most good graduates in these fields will be able to find jobs at a higher starting salary (or simply train as accountants!).
Personally I can only think of one reason to train as a STEM teacher...to leave the country and find one that appreciates that individual more.
Science has to have the ability to repeat tests under controllable circumstances. Otherwise it can't prove anything. Good luck proving the molecular composition of water when all you have to go on is a thirdhand hundred year old account of what it looks like.
That's not a problem at all. All you need is a starting point so you can formulate the first test, the rest of the data comes from the *tests* not the historical reference(s). In Astronomy some of the data is billions of years old, that doesn't stop scientists theorising how it effects the universe now and testing them.
And with that recognition you've pointed out the glaring flaw in trying to treat history like science. The simple fact that history can't be tested. You can't generate new data, or new studies, because it's already happened, and only happens in that precise context with those precise factors once. And you don't even have a fraction of the data from that one occurrence.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. An analogy here is the weather which also can't generate new data because it has the same linear timeframe (you can't repeat the past and you can't exactly predict the future because the of those 'precise' factors. Yet you can still make predictions as to what the weather will do. You might not be able to predict exactly how much rain will fall, where the April showers will occur and so on - simply because we do not have enough data to predict this. It's the same with history, you can consider the human race as the weather, with different precise factors apply at different times. However we are still subject to physical, chemical and by association biological laws. That we can't predict with much certainty what will happen next is a lack of data to be able to refine the theories to allow further testing. You gain that by creating a theory and then testing it to get the new data you need. New data is not going back to old data and reviewing it in light of the theory as that leads to selective biases. All studies of social sciences (so how people react in a crisis for example) is 'historical and the individual circumstances are unlikely to be repeated - however you can still make predictions about what people might do in similar circumstances and then test those theories.
The wonderful thing about history is that additional time passing makes less data available. Not more. Eyewitnesses die. Original documents are lost. Terrain changes, governments meddle. Artifacts disintegrate. So actually, you tend to lose data as opposed to gaining it. Meaning your 'multiple lab tests' are working off less and less data as time goes on.
This happens in science too, it's not the data that is important it is the theories that are because they are the ones that are tested (for example a lot of Newton's data is surely lost, but his theories remain and is still testable) - as long as the theory remains the data is largely irrelevant because you want to go and gather new evidence to prove or disprove it. Most scientist's data is lost to time, yet the theories remain. Your example is largely irrelevant because it's just reviewing historical events but isn't particularly relevant for future predictions (other than perhaps the frequency of such people living). All you are doing is reviewing what has happened. It makes no prediction for the future to test and gain actual new data and that's where the scientific evidence/method has the advantage.
That doesn't matter in the slightest. An analogy here is the weather which also can't generate new data because it has the same linear timeframe (you can't repeat the past and you can't exactly predict the future because the of those 'precise' factors. Yet you can still make predictions as to what the weather will do. You might not be able to predict exactly how much rain will fall, where the April showers will occur and so on - simply because we do not have enough data to predict this.
Firstly, before anything else, I like this. It's inaccurate when you consider the matter in depth (it doesn't take account for the thirdhand nature of the data gathered to formulate the theory), but I like it as a visualisation. I might rework it slightly and steal it for some undergrad classes in the future. Cool stuff. Ta.
That's not a problem at all. All you need is a starting point so you can formulate the first test, the rest of the data comes from the *tests* not the historical reference(s). In Astronomy some of the data is billions of years old, that doesn't stop scientists theorising how it effects the universe now and testing them.
.... It's the same with history, you can consider the human race as the weather, with different precise factors apply at different times. However we are still subject to physical, chemical and by association biological laws. That we can't predict with much certainty what will happen next is a lack of data to be able to refine the theories to allow further testing. You gain that by creating a theory and then testing it to get the new data you need. New data is not going back to old data and reviewing it in light of the theory as that leads to selective biases. All studies of social sciences (so how people react in a crisis for example) is 'historical and the individual circumstances are unlikely to be repeated - however you can still make predictions about what people might do in similar circumstances and then test those theories.
This happens in science too, it's not the data that is important it is the theories that are because they are the ones that are tested (for example a lot of Newton's data is surely lost, but his theories remain and is still testable) - as long as the theory remains the data is largely irrelevant because you want to go and gather new evidence to prove or disprove it. Most scientist's data is lost to time, yet the theories remain. Your example is largely irrelevant because it's just reviewing historical events but isn't particularly relevant for future predictions (other than perhaps the frequency of such people living). All you are doing is reviewing what has happened. It makes no prediction for the future to test and gain actual new data and that's where the scientific evidence/method has the advantage.
I get everything you're saying here, but you've not addressed the fundamental issue which I keep pointing out, and which sabotages the entire argument. Namely, the fact that your theory itself is entirely predicated upon what I've demonstrated as being interpretative and flawed grounds. You can come up with your grand theory of what causes the rise of dynastic government, but if the evidence upon which you came up with theory is completely flawed, you effectively have no theory beyond 'I made a random connection'.
It's a bit like me theorising that the reason apples fall to the ground is due to worm infestation, because someone told me that they read about how someone else dropped an apple and it had a worm in it. Or because it was coloured red. Or because it had a stalk of exactly 32cm. All of these are theories, but utterly useless, and none of them would get us anywhere near to the reason why that apple falls to the ground. It's just correlating random facts based off of a thirdhand description.
Likewise for these 'lessons' drawn from history. You're pulling random facts out of a thirdhand account to formulate your theory. You don't know if those 'facts' are even true. You're just saying 'I read a book by some dude who said that he thinks that something happened seventy years ago, and because of that I'm formulating a theory about manking generally to apply to society today'.
I mean, yeah, great for you, but if you think you're going to create a theory worth a damn or of any sort of potential real life application, you're just kidding yourself. You're no closer to the 'truth' than the kid who says that the reason facist governments rise is because they're wearing brown coloured shirts.
Think most people could figure the car one out no ?
Or if they didn't they could, say, read about it in a newspaper or that papers' website maybe ?
One could even say that if you were really shocked by this information it might be a bad idea to let people know this information is out there ..?
I would be more suspicious of the motives. Google is not the Daily Fails friend. It provides easy access to the other forms of news. It effectively argues for control and censorship over the internet over what the public can see by trying to turn the public against such freedom of access to information. That then puts more power into the hands of the such papers and reducing the ability to challenge what they say. Google is being attacked because of this would be my view (I'm sure you could do the same search on Yahoo, bing or whatever) , but they fail to point out is that if you Google "How to become a charity worker" or "how to bake a cake" you would get equally accurate results.
Firstly, before anything else, I like this. It's inaccurate when you consider the matter in depth (it doesn't take account for the thirdhand nature of the data gathered to formulate the theory), but I like it as a visualisation. I might rework it slightly and steal it for some undergrad classes in the future. Cool stuff. Ta.
Glad to be of some help.! Just a point to note, there is still a lot of thirdhand data in weather forecasting though. It particularly applies in areas where events are seen less frequently. For example the "mini ice-age in Europe" type of events, large volcanic eruptions and their impacts, the 1859 Carrington effect and impacts on the weather, potential long term solar cycles, even long term trends in the El Nino effect etc. All lot of this data is all third hand because a lot is from perceptions and reports from the those times. Yes in the last 30 years or so our ability to collate and analysis vast amounts of data has been impressive, but the long term trends are still very much reliant on such third party information.
I get everything you're saying here, but you've not addressed the fundamental issue which I keep pointing out, and which sabotages the entire argument. Namely, the fact that your theory itself is entirely predicated upon what I've demonstrated as being interpretative and flawed grounds. You can come up with your grand theory of what causes the rise of dynastic government, but if the evidence upon which you came up with theory is completely flawed, you effectively have no theory beyond 'I made a random connection'.
It's a bit like me theorising that the reason apples fall to the ground is due to worm infestation, because someone told me that they read about how someone else dropped an apple and it had a worm in it. Or because it was coloured red. Or because it had a stalk of exactly 32cm. All of these are theories, but utterly useless, and none of them would get us anywhere near to the reason why that apple falls to the ground. It's just correlating random facts based off of a thirdhand description.
Likewise for these 'lessons' drawn from history. You're pulling random facts out of a thirdhand account to formulate your theory. You don't know if those 'facts' are even true. You're just saying 'I read a book by some dude who said that he thinks that something happened seventy years ago, and because of that I'm formulating a theory about manking generally to apply to society today'.
This doesn't actually matter. It's a testable theory that is important, not the accuracy, or validity of the previous data. The examples you provide are all testable. For example finding an apple without a worm infestation to see whether they fell to the floor. The initial data you could have could be from someone that viewed the event and just made it up that the apple was infested for example. The initial data is completely wrong (and perhaps made up) but that doesn't stop you testing it. You could run tests and gather new data on thousands of non-infested and infested apples to either prove or disprove the theory (and the third-hand account). It's not the accuracy (or correctness) of the data that you base you initial assumptions on, it's the ability to produce a testable theory that is the strength of scientific theory. If the evidence was made up or inaccurate then by testing it you just prove it was wrong, but that doesn't stop you making then a new theory based on this newly gathered data to refine the theory.
UKIP's Douglas Carswell is quitting the party to become an independent MP and says he is doing so "amicably".
The party's only MP defected from the Conservatives to UKIP in 2014.
Former leader Nigel Farage recently called on Mr Carswell to quit accusing him of "actively working against UKIP".
A spokesman for UKIP donor Arron Banks, who had suggested he would stand against Mr Carswell, said a by-election should be called and the Clacton MP had jumped before he was pushed.
Andy Wigmore said: "The net has been closing in - there is a UKIP National Executive Committee meeting on Monday and he knew he was for the chop, so jumped.
"He should call a by-election and Arron will stand against him."
Mr Banks, who previously indicated he could stand against Mr Carswell at the next election, did so amid a long-running feud over the party's future direction and strategy.
Writing on his blog, Mr Carswell said: "I switched to UKIP because I desperately wanted us to leave the EU. Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have decided that I will be leaving UKIP.
"I will not be switching parties, nor crossing the floor to the Conservatives, so do not need to call a by election, as I did when switching from the Conservatives to UKIP. I will simply be the Member of Parliament for Clacton, sitting as an independent.
"I will leave UKIP amicably, cheerfully and in the knowledge that we won."
Mr Carswell said: "I will be putting all of my effort into tackling some of the local problems affecting the NHS in our part of Essex... Local comes first."
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Carswell declined to comment on where his decision left UKIP, saying there was a "political cartel" in the UK and he wanted to be part of "far-reaching change" as an independent MP.
Mr Carswell, 45, first entered the Commons in 2005 as MP for Harwich, defeating Labour's candidate by just 920 votes. By 2010 he defeated the same opponent by 12,000 votes - although boundary changes had seen the seat renamed Clacton.
After defecting to UKIP he stood down to seek re-election in a by-election, which he won by 12,404 votes in October 2014. At the general election in 2015, he retained the seat with a 3,437 majority.
UKIP MEP Bill Etheridge said he was "delighted" at the announcement.
"It's a lovely, sunny day and someone I believe was not genuinely interested in representing UKIP in Westminster but has been the focus of serious infighting in the party has gone.
"But I think he needs to step down and call a by election... He was elected twice on a UKIP ticket, with UKIP resources and the hard work and shoe leather of UKIP activists."
Speaking earlier this month, Mr Carswell had vowed to "absolutely" fight the next general election as a UKIP candidate.
He was speaking after UKIP leader Paul Nuttall urged senior figures to "stick together". Mr Nuttall, who unsuccessfully stood at Stoke by-election, said he needed time to sort out the "mess" his party was in.
It is a mess isn't it? Carswell is an opportunist 'Politcial cartel' indeed.
We're pulling out the EU, Farage is gone, preferring to swan around US chat shows.
Eddie Hitler is on the ropes and widely discredited after his Hillsborough comments, and now Carswell is jumping ship.
Plus the main party donor has declared war on his own party
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.
I've met some UKIP voters in my time, and for the most part (odd idiot aside) they are a decent, normal bunch, and not the 'loons' some sections of the media portray them as.
They're just ordinary people with normal concerns.
This doesn't actually matter. It's a testable theory that is important, not the accuracy, or validity of the previous data. The examples you provide are all testable. For example finding an apple without a worm infestation to see whether they fell to the floor. The initial data you could have could be from someone that viewed the event and just made it up that the apple was infested for example. The initial data is completely wrong (and perhaps made up) but that doesn't stop you testing it. You could run tests and gather new data on thousands of non-infested and infested apples to either prove or disprove the theory (and the third-hand account). It's not the accuracy (or correctness) of the data that you base you initial assumptions on, it's the ability to produce a testable theory that is the strength of scientific theory. If the evidence was made up or inaccurate then by testing it you just prove it was wrong, but that doesn't stop you making then a new theory based on this newly gathered data to refine the theory.
Sadly, I still disagree. To keep going with the apple analogy, the reason why running fresh tests is impossible isn't just because you don't know if the original data was a lie or not. The problem also lies within the fact that you don't know when doing your new test if what you're testing is actually an apple, as you're unaware of all relevant current contemporary factors. You have no idea if the fruit/scenario in your hand is the same as that which was involved in the previous thirdhand occurrence. That in turn means that you can't trace with any real precision the outcome of the test, as your limited perspective and unawareness of all contemporary factors even after the test means that the apple may well only be falling at your perspective. In reality, the apple might well be levitating if you had more knowledge of the scenario/a broader field of vision.
Essentially, you don't know if the apple existed (thirdhand account), you don't know if any of the data contained in the original story is true (interpretation), you can't tell if what you're testing is actually an apple or identical to the one in the story (too many unknown contemporary factors/variables), and you can't really gauge what the 'result' of your test was afterwards (did the apple land or fly off into space?). It's like Schrodinger's cat (or apple) squared.
There is nothing stopping you coming up with a hypothesis and attempting to test it out, but I maintain that it leaves you essentially groping in the dark, mistaking correlation for causation, and so heavily subject to the interpretations of you and everyone else involved that anything that comes out of it will be by pure random chance instead of design.
We're pulling out the EU, Farage is gone, preferring to swan around US chat shows.
Eddie Hitler is on the ropes and widely discredited after his Hillsborough comments, and now Carswell is jumping ship.
Yeah, they're done. Nuttall couldn't win with a good edge on his side, they've no money, no MP's, no real reason to exist, and therefore no hope of really carrying on.
What will be interesting to see is which way the UKIP voters will flood.
We're pulling out the EU, Farage is gone, preferring to swan around US chat shows.
Eddie Hitler is on the ropes and widely discredited after his Hillsborough comments, and now Carswell is jumping ship.
Plus the main party donor has declared war on his own party
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.
I've met some UKIP voters in my time, and for the most part (odd idiot aside) they are a decent, normal bunch, and not the 'loons' some sections of the media portray them as.
They're just ordinary people with normal concerns.
They deserve better than this shambles...
They were a one issue party that achieved its party, and is now struggling to find its own niche.
I'm not sure what people were really expecting from UKIP really. There is no place for a another major party until one of the big two Labour or Tories collapses and creates a power vacuum. Ideally I want both of them to collapse to make way for new parties, they're both out of touch and no longer represent their traditional voter bases.
I don't like the lib dems but they could fill the void left by one of the other parties should they collapse.
As for Carswell, my low opinion of him has only been confirmed. He's a self serving opportunist who wanted to be a big fish in a little pond, and joined UKIP thinking he would be allowed to take over as leader, being the party's only MP. He used UKIP for his own ends then ditched them when they wouldn't play ball.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah
, they're done. Nuttall couldn't win with a good edge on his side, they've no money, no MP's, no real reason to exist, and therefore no hope of really carrying on.
What will be interesting to see is which way the UKIP voters will flood.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather abstain than vote for any of the fethers in Westminster. Theresa May is at least trying to fulfill Brexit, but I still don't like the rest of her partys policies.
Plans to address gaps in the capability of the civil service are not keeping pace with the growth of the challenges the civil service faces, according to the National Audit Office. Government needs to prioritise its projects, activities and transformation programmes and stop work on those projects it is not confident it has the capability to deliver.
Government is asking the civil service to manage important reforms even though it has reduced in size by 26% since 2006 and with smaller budgets. At the same time there has been no reduction in the overall workload of the civil service, an increase in the number of infrastructure and capital projects, increasing demand for digital projects and the decision to leave the European Union. Responding to these challenges requires new skills, particularly in managing transformation.
Departments know they do not have the specialist capability they need and are seeking more senior leaders with specialist expertise to achieve their objectives. They require greater strength in project planning, benefits realisation and contract management. Departments also reported that they would need around 2,000 additional staff in digital roles within five years’ time, although those responsible for government’s digital skills believe this is an underestimate.
Government is seeking to deliver a challenging portfolio of major projects, including Hinkley Point C, High Speed 2, and the Trident renewal. While the civil service has skilled people, many of these projects draw on the same pool of skills. For example, in rail projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink, skilled civil servants have performed a number of project roles or have been moved to fill skills gaps for new priorities or projects. While the NAO has recently seen improvements in how some departments manage projects, it continues to regularly report on troubled projects.
Traditionally, government’s workforce planning has focused on the number of people in posts and tended to treat these as generic. As a result, it has not assessed the skills of the current workforce in a comparable or structured way. This means they do not know what skills they have, whether these are in the right place and what additional skills they need. Government has acknowledged that it needs to do more on workforce planning and has committed all departments to producing workforce plans by March 2017. The ten drafts that the National Audit Office has seen show considerable improvement on previous attempts, but remain focused on staff in post and contain only a high level view of how staffing requirements are likely to change.
Government has a plan to fill its capability gaps, based on growing skills in the civil service, developing clear career paths and encouraging a talent ‘pipeline’. It is seeking to develop specialist capability through the cross-government areas of specific expertise that provide professional support and services to departments – known in government as ‘functions’. According to the NAO, however, greater urgency is needed as these initiatives will take time to mature, and the pace of change will not match the growth in the challenges government is facing. Government also needs to integrate the work of these specialist functions more effectively with that of departments, so that skills development in departments is strongly supported.
In addition, people with the skills required to carry out highly-technical projects are scarce in the economy in general and the NAO found that government does not fully understand the private sector’s capacity to supply skills. Today’s report found, for example, that around one in four senior recruitment competitions run by the Civil Service Commission in 2015-16 resulted in the post not being filled.
In addition, the Cabinet Secretary has referred to the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the EU as ‘the biggest, most complex challenge facing the civil service in our peacetime history’. It will create new capability needs across the civil service and will affect most departments. The immediate impact was the creation of two new departments. Government has also started to identify and plan for the capability needs of exiting the EU across the other departments. Departments which have had large amounts of EU-derived funding and legislation, for example, will need legal, economic and sector experts to deal with the implications of leaving the European Union, and will have to do so using their remaining staff while also seeking to achieve pre-existing priorities. As of February 2017, the civil service has created more than a thousand new roles in the new departments and elsewhere to prepare for exiting the EU and negotiating new trade agreements; two-thirds of the roles have been filled.
Notes for Editors
£405bn
Whole-life cost of projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio (September 2015)
26%
Reduction in the number of civil servants since 2006 (in full-time equivalents)
2.1
Average score (out of five) departments gave themselves for their current capability in workforce planning
3
Main areas where the civil service needs to increase its capability
11
Functions in government: areas of expertise that provide professional support and services to departments
14,100 – 47,000
The range of estimates of the total number of civil servants in the commercial, digital, data & technology, and project delivery functions, 2016
25
Professions in government that develop capability standards and training
2,000
Additional staff with digital skills needed within five years
£145 million
Minimum annual cost of these additional digital staff
22%
Of posts unfilled for senior recruitment competitions chaired by the Civil Service Commission in 2015-16
The new departments are the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade
Press notices and reports are available from the date of publication on the NAO website. Hard copies can be obtained by using the relevant links on our website.
The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 785 people. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of £1.21 billion in 2015.
Great, we've trimmed the civil service so much we cannot in fact even shoot ourselves in the foot anyway.
Unfortunately I knew we were going to get this same impasse we've had before on this issue!
To keep going with the apple analogy, the reason why running fresh tests is impossible isn't just because you don't know if the original data was a lie or not. The problem also lies within the fact that you don't know when doing your new test if what you're testing is actually an apple, as you're unaware of all relevant current contemporary factors. You have no idea if the fruit/scenario in your hand is the same as that which was involved in the previous thirdhand occurrence. That in turn means that you can't trace with any real precision the outcome of the test, as your limited perspective and unawareness of all contemporary factors even after the test means that the apple may well only be falling at your perspective. In reality, the apple might well be levitating if you had more knowledge of the scenario/a broader field of vision.
Essentially, you don't know if the apple existed (thirdhand account), you don't know if any of the data contained in the original story is true (interpretation), you can't tell if what you're testing is actually an apple or identical to the one in the story (too many unknown contemporary factors/variables), and you can't really gauge what the 'result' of your test was afterwards (did the apple land or fly off into space?). It's like Schrodinger's cat (or apple) squared.
I can only repeat that the veracity of the original data doesn't matter, it's the ongoing application of scientific method that matters. You can take the examples of Haruko Obokata and the stem cell research or Andrew Wakefield and the 'anti-MMR' results. These data from these were either poorly executed or even fabricated. That still didn't stop scientists using this data as a basis of further studies which in the end found both original tests to be complete hokum (or badly implemented). the same goes with the apple. If the historic records show that 'bob' reported that a red apple fell upwards and there was a grub in it doesn't stop anyone hypothesising that "red apples fall upward with grubs in them". You can then test this (e.g by letting go of red apples with grubs in them). From these results you then reformulate a new theory if the data doesn't corroborate the first, or you plan another test to further test the theory (lets say you test just red apples with no grubs to see whether the redness makes a difference). In some ways science moves forward because of *not* being correct and not having 'correct' data (though in most cases this is due to lack of precision/accuracy) rather than being made up
Trying to determine the validity of the original data is using it to make historically accurate. It does not however stop you theorising and testing on that data regardless of whether it is correct or not.
There is nothing stopping you coming up with a hypothesis and attempting to test it out, but I maintain that it leaves you essentially groping in the dark, mistaking correlation for causation, and so heavily subject to the interpretations of you and everyone else involved that anything that comes out of it will be by pure random chance instead of design.
I think you are missing that the scientific method though is about a continuous method of test and theorise. Yes you might have one incident and another that aren't related and occur from chance, but that's why you then test it again and again and again and so on. It's the weight of being able to reaffirm the theory and revise it that gives scientific theory its strength.
For example suppose I theorised based on a 1930s interpretation that "Financial woes of a country increase anti-immigration feelings in the populace/government". OK so it *might* have happened in the 1920s/1930s in Germany depending on the historical records. Current financial woes might be increasing the anti immigration rhetoric. The current data supports the hypothesis but doesn't prove it. Now you have to test and test again. 2 such incidents could just be random chance. If the same happens three times then it might still just be chance, but what happens if the same thing happens a hundred or thousand times as you keep testing the theory -at that point the statistics do point to a causality, but you don't stop there, you keep testing, keep refining the theory. Yes it may take hundreds of years to build up the statistical weight of evidence. What you don't do however is go back into the historical records to find evidence as that's not new data and can be prone to unknown biases (i.e. only financial collapses with associated anti-immigration rhetoric were recorded and not the ones where there was a financial collapse and no anti-immigration rhetoric.
If the original data was flawed all it that actually happens is that the theory is likely disproved earlier (but noting you still need enough statistical evidence, if two incidents show different things then that could be the statistical fluke rather than the 'norm'). But then that allows you to produce a new theory and you start retesting and so on.
As you know, I voted leave, but I was never a UKIP supporter. None the less, I'm not that ungrateful in overlooking the part they played and giving them credit for panicking Call me Dave into holding the referendum. For that reason, their place in British history is assured, but to be brutally honest, I really can't see where they go from here. They're a single issue party, and that issue has been brought to a successful conclusion. Their civil war will only splinter them further and marginalize them even more.
I suspect a lot of their supporters will drift back to the Tories, but I don't blame you for not supporting Con/Lab/Lib. They are a wretched bunch...
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Ketara.
Like I said to Shadow Captain, I suspect that UKIP supprters will drift back to the Blue side, although there is talk of making UKIP more 'left' and the champion of the working classes, as they feel they can take on Labour here, but I can't see it myself.
Thing is though, some UKIP supporters either left the Tories or were pushed out, as the feeling was they were considered the 'lunatic fringe' of the Tories. Cameron's infamous comment springs to mind.
If they go backto the Tories, , bed in, influence Tory policy at the local level/councils, and add that to the fact that the Tories look like they will run Britain for at least 10 years, due to the feebleness of Labour,
She's correct about a great many things. The preoccupation of the left wing with popularist identity politics in place of supporting the working classes, the mindset many Londoners have over the rest of the UK. Spot on.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Just found this on Youtube, seems interesting. Haven't watched all of it myself yet, I'm off to Karate.
If you haven't watched it, why post it? Whats the gist of the video? Looks like some conservative conference slagging off the left, no surprise there.
[Edit]
I've just watched it through, she starts off well with her analysis about London and the rest of the UK, and it sounds promising, but then disappears up the Tory spout pretty quickly, and inconsistently. For example, whilst recognising that driverless cars are likely to make many thousands of low skilled individuals redundant, she criticises the RMT for defending it's workers against increased automation. Blaming them for somehow taking jobs from the "driverless" industry. Unfortunately the video then stops without resolving that argument. Does anyone know who she is, perhaps we could find out what she was saying at the end?
EDIT after a little research I found the video with an ending, and the last part is telling about what this speech is about. It has nothing to do really with BREXIT but more to do with;
"We will have lost an entire generation who will never vote conservative, which is why we cannot afford to fail."
The general gist of the video is that London is out of touch with the rest of England.
As for why I haven't watched all of it, I found it 5min before I left for karate and didn't have the time to watch a 12 min video. I posted it because I thought it'd be of interest to people here.
Howard A Treesong wrote: She's correct about a great many things. The preoccupation of the left wing with popularist identity politics in place of supporting the working classes, the mindset many Londoners have over the rest of the UK. Spot on.
Ehm, you realize that "supporting the working classes" is in itself identity politics, right?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The general gist of the video is that London is out of touch with the rest of England.
As for why I haven't watched all of it, I found it 5min before I left for karate and didn't have the time to watch a 12 min video. I posted it because I thought it'd be of interest to people here.
Watch to the end, it's revealing.
EDIT after a little research I found the video with an ending, and the last part is telling about what this speech is about. It has nothing to do really with BREXIT but more to do with;
"We will have lost an entire generation who will never vote conservative, which is why we cannot afford to fail."
It's also incredibly amusing that, as a Tory App designer in London she is actually the definition of "Liberal London Elite". I'm not sure how she thinks a cabbage picker in rural Lincolnshire is going to embrace the "Tech IT revolution" once automation has negated their role altogether.
Howard A Treesong wrote: She's correct about a great many things. The preoccupation of the left wing with popularist identity politics in place of supporting the working classes, the mindset many Londoners have over the rest of the UK. Spot on.
Ehm, you realize that "supporting the working classes" is in itself identity politics, right?
She is a bit all over the place with identity politics, criticising the left for focusing on diversity to the detriment of class, for example. Basically it's just right wing guff that sounds like it's going somewhere, but is just about trying to keep the party together against the threat posed by a failure of Brexit which she believes, and rightly so, will be blamed on the tories.
They really should divest all interests in companies before they fill positions like this. Otherwise you have to question who exactly they are working for (and not even in asubtle way)
Seriously, the Walter Mitty group are British military and intelligence vets who spend their time hunting down military charity scammers and fake military veterans. They do good work. If she's shrugging them off as associates of Russian hackers making up 'fake news' about her, it says more about her then it does them. I mean, even the legal firm she's employed, Carter-Ruck, are the ones always employed by dodgy politicians and businessmen to go after Private Eye (who correspond so regularly with them they have their own ruder name for the firm based on a letter change).
Carter-Ruck are sleeze. These are the people that got a super injunction to prevent newspapers reporting on a report about Trafigura dumping toxic waste. And then when it was mentioned in the House of Commons, then told papers that they'd be in contempt of court if they repeated what was said there, despite it being on public record!
Political Sex Pistol: Johnny Rotten backs Brexit and Trump!
Godfather of punk, anarchist and former Sex Pistol John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten, was on the show this morning promoting his limited edition new book Mr Rotten's Songbook. Having built a career on his anti-establishment views, he didn't shy away from talking about todays political landscape.
Lydon came out in support of Brexit claiming the working class had spoken and that he would stand by them. He also claimed he could see a possible friendship in Trump, praising his ability to terrify politicians. Rotten himself inspired a generation of anarchists.
Watch the full interview in the link posted above.
Political Sex Pistol: Johnny Rotten backs Brexit and Trump!
Godfather of punk, anarchist and former Sex Pistol John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten, was on the show this morning promoting his limited edition new book Mr Rotten's Songbook. Having built a career on his anti-establishment views, he didn't shy away from talking about todays political landscape.
Lydon came out in support of Brexit claiming the working class had spoken and that he would stand by them. He also claimed he could see a possible friendship in Trump, praising his ability to terrify politicians. Rotten himself inspired a generation of anarchists.
Watch the full interview in the link posted above.
This reminds me of an article in the Spectator criticizing this punk magazine for posting another article telling its readers how they can cope with the emotional trauma of Brexit. Brexit is the most punk thing to happen in years. It's a brick through the window of the establishment.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Carter-Ruck are sleeze. These are the people that got a super injunction to prevent newspapers reporting on a report about Trafigura dumping toxic waste. And then when it was mentioned in the House of Commons, then told papers that they'd be in contempt of court if they repeated what was said there, despite it being on public record!
Thats as much a reflection on the Court and Judge that granted the injunction.
This reminds me of an article in the Spectator criticizing this punk magazine for posting another article telling its readers how they can cope with the emotional trauma of Brexit. Brexit is the most punk thing to happen in years. It's a brick through the window of the establishment.
Ah! Yes! Hammering a safety pin through your own nose!
John Lydon is *mostly* just saying whatever will get most attention to sell his book. Controversy has worked pretty well for him for 40 years, after all.
Ian Sturrock wrote: John Lydon is *mostly* just saying whatever will get most attention to sell his book. Controversy has worked pretty well for him for 40 years, after all.
To quite a few people it helps alot. It tends to be a good way to generate publicity's.
Kilkrazy wrote: Farage very fortunately has a German wife, so he can always go and live over there if the gak hits the fan in the UK.
TBF, he's actually only saying what some of us are preparing to do anyway. I live in the East Midlands, and it is likely that Westminster is going to end up screwing us into the ground, hard. It's predominantly agricultural, and we can't even persuade government to invest in anything but the most derisory infrastructure improvements.
Fortunately I have skills, and a degree, and more importantly I can get Irish citizenship for me and my family, so we have an out. If Brexit starts fething the country over, we can sell up and start fresh somewhere else.
Kilkrazy wrote: Farage very fortunately has a German wife, so he can always go and live over there if the gak hits the fan in the UK.
TBF, he's actually only saying what some of us are preparing to do anyway. I live in the East Midlands, and it is likely that Westminster is going to end up screwing us into the ground, hard. It's predominantly agricultural, and we can't even persuade government to invest in anything but the most derisory infrastructure improvements.
Fortunately I have skills, and a degree, and more importantly I can get Irish citizenship for me and my family, so we have an out. If Brexit starts fething the country over, we can sell up and start fresh somewhere else.
Yeah, but were you a major political force in driving through the situation that results in said screwing over? Its bloody disgraceful that Farage is basically saying "This is best for the country! But er.. if it isn't I can just jump ship like a rat and swim for another shore. So long, chaps". Sadly not particularly unexpected.
Also, I doubt he would go to Germany when he has been courting Trump so hard. I think he is lining up some nice cushy circuit in the US to keep his pockets lined.
Haighus wrote: Also, I doubt he would go to Germany when he has been courting Trump so hard. I think he is lining up some nice cushy circuit in the US to keep his pockets lined.
He'll probably only be welcome there as long as Trump is running the show, and if that starts going down the pan too, he'll be fresh out of friends and places to go.
Besides, I think he's vaguely alluding to the fact that the longer he stays in Britain, the higher the chances are that someone is going to kick him in his foetid ball sack. I know that given the opportunity, I wouldn't mind making his eyes water, the
Think most people could figure the car one out no ?
Or if they didn't they could, say, read about it in a newspaper or that papers' website maybe ?
One could even say that if you were really shocked by this information it might be a bad idea to let people know this information is out there ..?
If someone needs an online instruction book to figure out how to kill people with a car... I think there probably more of a danger to themselves then anybody else
Kilkrazy wrote: Farage very fortunately has a German wife, so he can always go and live over there if the gak hits the fan in the UK.
Didn't he already get into trouble for lying about being a German resident in his application papers for residency? Using his wifes cousins address or something.
Bear in mind disaster for his is very different to a disaster for us.
Think you'll find he was just another Malcolm McLaren stooge in a manufactured group.
First recognisably UK Punk Single? New Rose. The Damned.
Though I do laugh when people claim Brexit is a victory against the Establishment.....did you not see who was backing it and funding it? Ex-Pat multimillionaire media magnates. Nigel 'privately educated stock broker' Farage. NUMEROUS CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS, WHO PROMPTLY DID THEIR BEST TO STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACK.
This is what worries me about Brexit. Not the possibly repercussion, but the blatantly revisionist nonsense already happening. The majority of Leave's promises lie broken and denied. Yet we're told it's all OK. 'Oh, nobody is wanting a Hard Brexit'.....HARD BREXIT AHOY!
And the swivel eyed leavers want people who voted remain to be branded traitors? Seriously?
Yeah. Brexit is not going to significantly reduce immigration because half the economy depends on it. So that's one major thing that Leave voters are not getting, that most wanted.
And it's not going to significantly reduce the tyranny of EU rule for ordinary people because that didn't really exist. It will make big businesses, especially multinationals, a bit more profit because most of those pesky EU rules about things like safe food will no longer be a worry.
So -- it's a big win for US businesses who will find it easier to trade with Britain.
It's a big win for back-slapping nationalists who have convinced themselves that we can now finally free ourselves of the shackles of peace and prosperity, that for all these years stopped us from serving beer in pints or measuring distances in miles as is our God-given right as free Englishmen.
It's a big win for the old, also engaged in self-delusion, who are convinced that leaving the EU will magically turn back the clock to the 1950s, getting rid of feminism, gay marriage, racial equality, rebellious teenagers and the Beatles in one fell swoop.
It's a big lose for all my EU colleagues and friends who are suffering an increase in racist abuse and attacks, alongside the real risk of midnight deportations. But it's worth it for all the bendy bananas, right?
It's a big lose for most farmers, fishermen, and lots of other Leave-supporting communities, most of whom will see no particular benefit from this and will suffer significant financial losses instead.
It's a big lose for the young, who often identified as more European than British, and who will lose overnight the right to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Question Time last night was an utter car crash of a show.
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
Sturgeons legs are the only reason I vote SNP,
Just a note I hate the SNP, hard brexit ahoy it's going to be wonderful.
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
We only have ourselves to blame for the current state of UK politics. Brexit is the only thing that has made people get beyond tut tutting the latest shambolic offerings from Westminster's finest.
We have a long haul if we expect politics to be any different within the next 5-10 years.
Think you'll find he was just another Malcolm McLaren stooge in a manufactured group.
So, a bunch of slightly naïve folks, who want to rebel against something, are exploited by some very dodgy geezers in The Great Brexit Swindle.
Yup. Brexit is the most punk thing to happen to British politics in ages. And in true punk tradition, the band is likely to split up acrimoniously, to either pursue solo careers or join a folk band with one of the old band members who left ages ago...
Think you'll find he was just another Malcolm McLaren stooge in a manufactured group.
So, a bunch of slightly naïve folks, who want to rebel against something, are exploited by some very dodgy geezers in The Great Brexit Swindle.
Yup. Brexit is the most punk thing to happen to British politics in ages. And in true punk tradition, the band is likely to split up acrimoniously, to either pursue solo careers or join a folk band with one of the old band members who left ages ago...
On the plus side, the films and any documentary made on the subject is likely to be first class.
Sid and Nancy, the Gary Oldman classic, is a damn good film and of course, the great rock and roll swindle is also good filmmaking.
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
We only have ourselves to blame for the current state of UK politics. Brexit is the only thing that has made people get beyond tut tutting the latest shambolic offerings from Westminster's finest.
We have a long haul if we expect politics to be any different within the next 5-10 years.
If it goes wrong, the only long haul will be the long haul flights made by Farage and Bojo to escape the country
The Pistols were far from the be all and end all of Punk.
Dozens of far, far better bands out there, covering all parts of the political spectrum (though naturally one doesn't partake of the far right punk stuff. That stuff is scary).
Seems May is finally backing away from the nonsensical 'no deal is better than a bad deal' rhertoric on account it's clearly nonsense.
I'm expecting an outpouring of Daily Express rage any moment.
Seems May is finally backing away from the nonsensical 'no deal is better than
It was clearly spun out as a negotiating tactic as opposed to a serious proposal. One which might have been effective until Davis ruined it on a tv debate. Slip of the tongue on his part there. Slight red face and a awkward conversation with Mrs May subsequently I should imagine.
Seems May is finally backing away from the nonsensical 'no deal is better than
It was clearly spun out as a negotiating tactic as opposed to a serious proposal. One which might have been effective until Davis ruined it on a tv debate. Slip of the tongue on his part there. Slight red face and a awkward conversation with Mrs May subsequently I should imagine.
It was a stupid tactic. One that would only lead to 'well, cheerio bye tata, enjoy your collapsing economy'.
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
On the eve of the Scottish parliament voting to back another independence referendum, the defenders of Union see fit to wheel out...Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans to stand up for the UK!
And then the Daily Mail runs a piece about Nicola Sturgeon's legs!
Are they serious about defending the UK? Making the case for Scotland to stay?
It's a mad, mad, world...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its cowardice, pure and simple. He should not have stood down as leader of UKIP, he certainly should not be emigrating.
First David Cameron abandoned ship, then Farage. Country is going to the dogs...
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
Which dogs, though? I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't called for a boycott of German shepherds .
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
It's not a question of resisting change. It's a question of people refusing to accept cold, hard facts.
And the facts are these:
NHS going down the pan
1 in 6 British roads badly damaged by potholes
The failure of privatization in rail and utilities
Prisoners running the prisons.
Gangs of marauding criminals roaming the streets with impunity.
Education going up the spout.
Corrupt politicians (Fox) and incompetent buffoons (Bojo) running the country.
I could go on all night with this...
The past wasn't perfect, but there's definitely been a steep decline in my lifetime...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
That's surely an assumption. UKIP was 'started' in 1991 which is near enough 30 years, and it has taken that long to persuade (aka lie) to the populace to persuade enough that leaving is a good idea rather than some form of bizarre ritual suicide of the country. in 30 years time the majority of us here are likely to be the next generation of old farts (or getting that way) and therefore more likely to vote. If enough of the younger generation take forward that 'grudge' into the future (just like UKIP did) then we might just as well be in the same place as we are now. Although hopefully rationality will come sooner to politics than that and ultra right wing conservatism gets flushed down the toilet to the sewers where it (and always has) deserved to belong!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
It's not a question of resisting change. It's a question of people refusing to accept cold, hard facts.
And the facts are these:
NHS going down the pan
1 in 6 British roads badly damaged by potholes
The failure of privatization in rail and utilities
Prisoners running the prisons.
Gangs of marauding criminals roaming the streets with impunity.
Education going up the spout.
Corrupt politicians (Fox) and incompetent buffoons (Bojo) running the country.
I could go on all night with this...
The past wasn't perfect, but there's definitely been a steep decline in my lifetime...
And in the sixties we had the cuban missile crisis, the emergence of recreational drugs into the mainstream, the Profumo Affair, feminism (which many thought was a bad thing), and so on.
In the seventies, the economy crashed, the Unions went out of control and practically dominated the country, public services fell apart from strikes, and so on.
In the eighties, we had Thatcher, and everything that went with her.
The nineties were full of Tory sleaze for the first half.
Last decade had the Iraq war, the financial crash, and so on.
Seriously, everyone views the past with rose tinted glasses. They're always political f' ups, there's always turmoil in the Middle East, there's always busts and booms, and there's always degradations in international relations with one country or another. Yet somehow, the place keeps on ticking along. There'll be cuts until the budget is balanced and the country makes more, at which point some idiot like Blair will come along and jack up spending for another 'golden decade' which the following two will pay for. There'll be a recession every twenty years, the longer any government is in power the greater the odds of it falling into infighting and corruption, and we'll pick a fight with someone or another every ten years. Sometimes it'll be diplomatic, sometimes it'll be military.
But the clock keeps on ticking and in the 2040's, when we're busy grousing about the new SNP/Liberal government coalition, the great pharmaceutical crash of 2039, and the right wing nut who just got elected President of France and vowed to destroy his political rival who just made EU President? Nobody will remember or care about most of the crap we complain about today. You'll try mentioning Brexit to the freshly adult 18 year olds in 2035, and they'll view it in the same way they do older people spitting venom about Thatcher now; with mild boredom and complete detachment.
Then they'll go back to playing COD LXII on the PS10, and complaining fondly about their intolerant grannies who refuse to use the word 'xie' and keep talking about the good old days of segregated toilets.
Which dogs, though? I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't called for a boycott of German shepherds .
The German Shepherds will probably get off lightly. They might be promoting the ritual sacrifice to the Devil of Scottish Collies before the year is out the way they are going!
Ketara, many of the problems you highlighted were external problems beyond our control (Cuban Missile crisis)
my focus is on the areas we do have control of: schools, NHS, prisons, roads, the economy etc etc
I believe in empirical evidence, and that evidence is showing a marked decline that is accelerating at a rate of knots.
One example, wages and wealth distribution in the UK.
There has always been a gap between rich and poor in the UK, but since the 1970s that gap has become a chasm, an ocean, and it gets worse and worse with each passing year.
We have hard evidence of this. It's only going to get worse, and nobody is tackling it. That's decline in my book.
Which dogs, though? I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't called for a boycott of German shepherds .
The German Shepherds will probably get off lightly. They might be promoting the ritual sacrifice to the Devil of Scottish Collies before the year is out the way they are going!
It's only a question of time, but I expect the Daily Mail's rebuild Hadrian's wall campaign to be launched any day now.
Any time I see people complaining about how things were so much better in their day, usually accompanied by complaints about out-of-control-youths, I want to share this:
So there you go. Mostly we get more and more nostalgic and conservative as we get old. It's worth fighting against that. It's probably one of the most rubbish and inevitable of the many cognitive biases. But you can do your level best to at least be aware of it.
Britain is very prosperous right now. But so much of that prosperity is tied up with international projects, international trade, etc.
The one big area where most people are significantly less prosperous than previously is home ownership. But that's down to two main factors -- the 80s Tory council house selloff, and the general tendency of property prices to rise over time in a well-off country. Fortunately Brexit will kind of address the latter... but only by making us poorer.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Any time I see people complaining about how things were so much better in their day, usually accompanied by complaints about out-of-control-youths, I want to share this:
So there you go. Mostly we get more and more nostalgic and conservative as we get old. It's worth fighting against that. It's probably one of the most rubbish and inevitable of the many cognitive biases. But you can do your level best to at least be aware of it.
Britain is very prosperous right now. But so much of that prosperity is tied up with international projects, international trade, etc.
The one big area where most people are significantly less prosperous than previously is home ownership. But that's down to two main factors -- the 80s Tory council house selloff, and the general tendency of property prices to rise over time in a well-off country. Fortunately Brexit will kind of address the latter... but only by making us poorer.
I'm not some angry man shouting at a cloud. Hard evidence tells us that the wage gap is real, and has been getting bigger since the 1970s.
This is from the top of my head, so I could be wrong, but in the 1970s, for every £1 created in wealth, 30 pence went to the working classes.
In 2017 it's something like 5 pence in the pound is going to the working classes
The average wage has risen by 5%. Bosses wages have risen on average of 832% in the same time
This is a real problem, a growing problem, and a failure to tackle it will only lead to more votes like Brexit.
Top economists have been warning about this for years, but their voices are not heeded.
But then living standards of the poor are vastly improved from the 70's as well; more people have cars, TVs, microwaves, and things like phones/computers that didn't exist then.
The wage gap is certainly obscene, but in reality I don't think the 70's would be much better for anyone than now, and a return to the 70's would help no-one.
Not that we shouldn't be doing more to improve things, but until we get rid of the Tories it just ain't going to happen.
The wage disparity is real, and we do need to act on it, but most working people are still better off than they were in the 70s and 80s, in terms of happiness and overall standard of living. And again -- Brexit won't address the wage disparity; if anything it will make it worse. The main beneficiaries will be the ultra-rich.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
Yes its a well documented phenomenon. But that doesn't mean its not true.
I would argue that Britain's international standing and reputation took a severe blow after the scandal of the Iraq war. Our reputation and foreign relations are objectively worse than before.
Our military is being cut to the bone, we're losing experience and its operational effectiveness is objectively worse than before. Can we still project the same amount of sea power today as the fleet that liberated the Falklands?
The NHS is in a permanent crisis. Funding is being squeezed, privatization has been a disaster. It is objectively worse than say a decade ago.
When I say the country has been going to the dogs for three decades, I mean that we've had 5 successive incompetent and sometimes corrupt governments that have mismanaged the country, probably going back to Major. That's not to say that the 80s were any better, but I was born in 1991 so I'm limiting my argument to the span of my own lifetime. Any further back in time than that is beyond my ability or remit to judge.
Sarah Vine -- wife of Gove -- outlines the Scottish independence options.
.. one assumes that when you hit a certain level of income -- much like that guy from the House of Lords with the silver staircase -- you lose all sense of proportionality and any ability to detect irony.
think this would be bigger news :
remember all those stories we were told about how the EU wanted to break up the UK into regions and etc etc blah blah.
.. and it's UKIP and the torys who do it after all.
Ian Sturrock wrote: Yeah. Brexit is not going to significantly reduce immigration because half the economy depends on it. So that's one major thing that Leave voters are not getting, that most wanted.
And it's not going to significantly reduce the tyranny of EU rule for ordinary people because that didn't really exist. It will make big businesses, especially multinationals, a bit more profit because most of those pesky EU rules about things like safe food will no longer be a worry.
So -- it's a big win for US businesses who will find it easier to trade with Britain.
It's a big win for back-slapping nationalists who have convinced themselves that we can now finally free ourselves of the shackles of peace and prosperity, that for all these years stopped us from serving beer in pints or measuring distances in miles as is our God-given right as free Englishmen.
It's a big win for the old, also engaged in self-delusion, who are convinced that leaving the EU will magically turn back the clock to the 1950s, getting rid of feminism, gay marriage, racial equality, rebellious teenagers and the Beatles in one fell swoop.
It's a big lose for all my EU colleagues and friends who are suffering an increase in racist abuse and attacks, alongside the real risk of midnight deportations. But it's worth it for all the bendy bananas, right?
It's a big lose for most farmers, fishermen, and lots of other Leave-supporting communities, most of whom will see no particular benefit from this and will suffer significant financial losses instead.
It's a big lose for the young, who often identified as more European than British, and who will lose overnight the right to live and work anywhere in the EU.
Still. Beer in pints! Eh!
I remember beer in pints, and road signs in miles, and bendy cucumbers, and New Zealand butter, and yellow car headlights.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: [
Mate, the country has been going to the dogs for the last 3 decades, are you seriously only must now know noticing?
The 80's were that good?
Everyone always believes their country is getting worse. Well documented phenomena. Truth is that people just don't like change. Some things get better, some things get worse, and which is which usually depends on the person looking at it. In thirty years time, everyone will be screaming about the corruption in our elected second chamber, our tearing up a trade agreement with America, our third invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever. Brexit will have long ceased to be something anyone cares about.
I suspect in 30 years we will be applying to re-join the EU. I hope I live long enough to see that highly amusing day.
I suspect in 30 years we will be applying to re-join the EU. I hope I live long enough to see that highly amusing day.
I doubt it'll last that long. And if it does, it'll be a rump state of the more prosperous, western/northern member states, not Eastern Europe and Greece.
The point is the EU is unlikely to survive in its up current form in the long term. The only way it can is by ejecting the weak Eastern economies that are holding it back, and shoring up its border security to stem the huge flow of migrants and refugees. How many more years of 1 million+ immigrants can Germany endure, for instance?
I'm using "immigrant" as a loose term here, meaning ANYONE that comes to live in a country, whether they be economic migrants or genuine refugees. Do I have to start citing dictionary definitions?
There is no confusion here on my part, so stop projecting.
What confusion? Refugees are a form of immigrant. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Refugess are a type of migrant yes. But when people say migrant, they usually mean economic migrant, which is quite a different situation to a refugee. It is generally unhelpful to put the two together.
What confusion? Refugees are a form of immigrant. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Refugess are a type of migrant yes. But when people say migrant, they usually mean economic migrant, which is quite a different situation to a refugee. It is generally unhelpful to put the two together.
Granted. I'm simply using "Immigrant" in the most basic definition of the word "someone who comes to live in a country, often permanently". If you have a better alternative that doesn't trigger Mad Doc, I'm all ears.
Northern Ireland might have the right to leave the UK and join the Republic but there should be vote on both sides. Because I don't want to join the republic and I'm not sure the republic wants us either.
How popular is the idea of reuniting Ireland in Northern Ireland anyway? I can't imagine it's overwhelmingly popular otherwise it would have been done already.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How popular is the idea of reuniting Ireland in Northern Ireland anyway? I can't imagine it's overwhelmingly popular otherwise it would have been done already.
It's really hard to tell. See I suspect that many Unionists would have voted to remain in the EU for things like the farm subsidies and to avoid awkward questions about the boarder (which is why the result here was 52-48 in favor of Remain) but if asked now if they'd vote to leave the UK and join the Republic they'd say no. And not every Catholic is going to be up for doing so either. I'm one of them. I didn't vote to leave the EU only to end up in a country even further bogged down in it.
Also, I know one thing that'll make the Republic hesitant to take us...Loyalist Paramilitaries. It'll be the Troubles in reverse...UDA and UVF gunmen killing Irish soldiers and Gardi, fighting to rejoin the UK or even create a country of their own. Make no mistake, they aren't fething around when they say no surrender. A few years ago the decision was made to not fly the Union flag 365 days a year over Belfast City Hall...and soon enough, there was widespread riots with the cops being shot at and everything. If they'll go that crazy over a flag, how crazy will they go over the reunification of Ireland?
Co'tor Shas wrote: How popular is the idea of reuniting Ireland in Northern Ireland anyway? I can't imagine it's overwhelmingly popular otherwise it would have been done already.
It's really hard to tell. See I suspect that many Unionists would have voted to remain in the EU for things like the farm subsidies and to avoid awkward questions about the boarder (which is why the result here was 52-48 in favor of Remain) but if asked now if they'd vote to leave the UK and join the Republic they'd say no. And not every Catholic is going to be up for doing so either. I'm one of them. I didn't vote to leave the EU only to end up in a country even further bogged down in it.
Also, I know one thing that'll make the Republic hesitant to take us...Loyalist Paramilitaries. It'll be the Troubles in reverse...UDA and UVF gunmen killing Irish soldiers and Gardi, fighting to rejoin the UK or even create a country of their own. Make no mistake, they aren't fething around when they say no surrender. A few years ago the decision was made to not fly the Union flag 365 days a year over Belfast City Hall...and soon enough, there was widespread riots with the cops being shot at and everything. If they'll go that crazy over a flag, how crazy will they go over the reunification of Ireland?
Christ, I didn't realize it was still so heated over there, I assumed it had mostly died down.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How popular is the idea of reuniting Ireland in Northern Ireland anyway? I can't imagine it's overwhelmingly popular otherwise it would have been done already.
It's really hard to tell. See I suspect that many Unionists would have voted to remain in the EU for things like the farm subsidies and to avoid awkward questions about the boarder (which is why the result here was 52-48 in favor of Remain) but if asked now if they'd vote to leave the UK and join the Republic they'd say no. And not every Catholic is going to be up for doing so either. I'm one of them. I didn't vote to leave the EU only to end up in a country even further bogged down in it.
Also, I know one thing that'll make the Republic hesitant to take us...Loyalist Paramilitaries. It'll be the Troubles in reverse...UDA and UVF gunmen killing Irish soldiers and Gardi, fighting to rejoin the UK or even create a country of their own. Make no mistake, they aren't fething around when they say no surrender. A few years ago the decision was made to not fly the Union flag 365 days a year over Belfast City Hall...and soon enough, there was widespread riots with the cops being shot at and everything. If they'll go that crazy over a flag, how crazy will they go over the reunification of Ireland?
Christ, I didn't realize it was still so heated over there, I assumed it had mostly died down.
Still just organised crime with a thinly veiled 'religious' excuse. Same old, same old.
Which means May will have some new struggles in negotiating, in that it'll call into doubts anything she promises which may be withdrawn should Scotland split.
Which means May will have some new struggles in negotiating, in that it'll call into doubts anything she promises which may be withdrawn should Scotland split.
Interesting times, indeed.
Backed. But not cleared by Westminster.
Also if ran minus it as a non binding version m, it would come to some tricky debates over who pays for it, campaigning, if the parties in London chose to ignore it. Fight it etc. It would be somewhat difficult situation.
Just alot of political issues tied to it in general.
Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Yeah, fething hilarious.
Ultimately, there is nothing you or I can do about it.
Today, Brexit day?
Leaving the largest single marked in the world to step into a world of great bilateral deals.
It appears that the EU will present to UK a bill about 60 billion Euro. That's a lot.
1. Westminster rejects Scottish Independence 2: EU Boogaloo
2. UK leaves EU 3. EU continues to have countries leave it
4. EU collapses
5. Scotland leaves UK after being denied the second referendum but has no EU to join
6. Delicious freedom
Soon Scotland be free of the Sassenach oppressors.
wuestenfux wrote: Today, Brexit day?
Leaving the largest single marked in the world to step into a world of great bilateral deals.
It appears that the EU will present to UK a bill about 60 billion Euro. That's a lot.
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Yeah, fething hilarious.
Ultimately, there is nothing you or I can do about it.
May as well try and be light hearted about it IMO
Afraid that's not going to happen. I'm viewing this as a subject that is not really deserving of a "light-hearted" disposition.
The only thing that would be mildly amusing is if Donald Tusk sent the letter back with a post it note on the front saying, "come back when you've sorted out who we're actually dealing with."
But even then it wouldn't raise a smile on my face.
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Yeah, fething hilarious.
Ultimately, there is nothing you or I can do about it.
May as well try and be light hearted about it IMO
Afraid that's not going to happen. I'm viewing this as a subject that is not really deserving of a "light-hearted" disposition.
The only thing that would be mildly amusing is if Donald Tusk sent the letter back with a post it note on the front saying, "come back when you've sorted out who we're actually dealing with."
But even then it wouldn't raise a smile on my face.
Apologies If I'm mistaking you for somebody else, but did you not mention you had the Irish passport option? That's a plan B I suppose if Brexit goes belly up.
With another Scottish independence referendum on the way, I suppose I have a potential plan B as well.
Afraid that's not going to happen. I'm viewing this as a subject that is not really deserving of a "light-hearted" disposition.
We're completely gakked anyway, so we may as well have a laugh about it whilst trying to figure out what we're supposed to try and do next.
Leave. Flee the country. It's what I'm doing. I'm marrying my Norwegian lady and moving out. I'll be watching ya'll from the top of the world when whatever may does eventually come.
I'm not leaving quite yet; I'm in Scotland so there's a chance we'll leave anyway, and failing that I can still move to Europe (Spain/German/Denmark) before my kids start school.
I quite like it here though, so it'd be good if I didn't have to move.
Freed from the shackles of Brussels, and with an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS, blue passports, and straight bananas...
Let the good times roll
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Yeah it's been rejected again by Westminster, at least in a "not until Brexit is done" which is their party line.
However, can May make a Brexit deal involving Scotland, if Scotland is then going to pull out of the UK afterwards? Would the EU agree to that? Is she hoping that Scotland will be bound by any agreements that the UK makes with the EU?
It would be funny if Tusk returned the letter to Sir Tm Barrow and said now is not the time
Yeah, fething hilarious.
Ultimately, there is nothing you or I can do about it.
May as well try and be light hearted about it IMO
Afraid that's not going to happen. I'm viewing this as a subject that is not really deserving of a "light-hearted" disposition.
The only thing that would be mildly amusing is if Donald Tusk sent the letter back with a post it note on the front saying, "come back when you've sorted out who we're actually dealing with."
But even then it wouldn't raise a smile on my face.
Apologies If I'm mistaking you for somebody else, but did you not mention you had the Irish passport option? That's a plan B I suppose if Brexit goes belly up.
With another Scottish independence referendum on the way, I suppose I have a potential plan B as well.
No, you're right, it is me. I've already started putting things in place, and getting our affairs sorted out, and put out a couple of feelers for job options elsewhere. By the time the UK actually leaves, we'll be ready to make our final decision whether or not to tough it out, or participate in our own small, personal British Exit.
If May manages to pull off a miracle situation whereby we keep the benefits of the EU, then we'll probably hang about. If not, then we'll see.
Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
It sucks having no foreign relatives, the closest I had was a German/Ukrainian godmother and she died a few years ago so I'l have to go through the whole process.
That German girl on my uni course just became a ten to a lot of students
From the Independent, so eh, but apparently Brexit can be stopped after Article 50 is triggered. Wouldn't pay too much attention to it though, because May going against what the referendum said is going to get her the boot come 2020.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
There's very little stopping us rejoining the EU in the future.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
An Anti-Brexit government would probably still leave the UK anyway, otherwise they would probably get the boot come 2025, unless they made extremely beneficial progress for the UK in terms of immigration (which was the concern of a majority of Leave voters).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
This seems to be the basic strategy of the EU officials participating in the Brexit negotiations. Potential follows should see that staying is better than leaving.
I turned on BBC news and was confronted by the spectacle of a half-cut Nigel Farage, sitting in a Westminster pub, pint glass in hand, banging on about German car companies!
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
It has to be better to be inside the EU than outside, otherwise everyone else would leave. I don't think they'll be too difficult with us, won't punish us, but also won't be able to give us a better deal than we already had.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I turned on BBC news and was confronted by the spectacle of a half-cut Nigel Farage, sitting in a Westminster pub, pint glass in hand, banging on about German car companies!
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
Deterrent as in we'll make sure the UK bears the full cost of Brexit so prospective leavers know the real cost of leaving.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
Deterrent as in we'll make sure the UK bears the full cost of Brexit so prospective leavers know the real cost of leaving.
So no sweetheart deals or special relationships.
>This is the bitter face of our EU "partners"
Glad we're leaving. I'm sure France and Germany will grow tired of supporting countries like Spain soon enough.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
Deterrent as in we'll make sure the UK bears the full cost of Brexit so prospective leavers know the real cost of leaving.
So no sweetheart deals or special relationships.
>This is the bitter face of our EU "partners"
Glad we're leaving. I'm sure France and Germany will grow tired of supporting countries like Spain soon enough.
The UK is the one choosing to leave of its own accord, that it should bear the costs of its unilateral decision should not be controversial.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
Deterrent as in we'll make sure the UK bears the full cost of Brexit so prospective leavers know the real cost of leaving.
So no sweetheart deals or special relationships.
>This is the bitter face of our EU "partners"
Glad we're leaving. I'm sure France and Germany will grow tired of supporting countries like Spain soon enough.
The UK is the one choosing to leave of its own accord, that it should bear the costs of its unilateral decision should not be controversial.
I have no problem with Britain having to pay a bill to leave. We have a duty to honour our treaty obligations and should pay whatever amount is owed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Maybe a stupid question, but you guys have your next election in 2020. I get the plan is to leave in two years (so 2019-2020). But what would happen if it (inevitably) takes longer and an anti-brexit government comes to power? Could they sabotage it? What would the effects of that be?
Logically, Article 50 has to be irreversible, otherwise, every EU member would use the threat of it to shake down more concessions from the other members.
If no deal is struck, we leave on WTO trade terms.
The chances of a anti-Brexit government being elected are extremely remote, as the opposition parties in Britain make Trump look like FDR
EU officials already said that the Brexit should be deterrent to potential followers.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
Deterrent as in we'll make sure the UK bears the full cost of Brexit so prospective leavers know the real cost of leaving.
So no sweetheart deals or special relationships.
>This is the bitter face of our EU "partners"
Glad we're leaving. I'm sure France and Germany will grow tired of supporting countries like Spain soon enough.
The UK is the one choosing to leave of its own accord, that it should bear the costs of its unilateral decision should not be controversial.
I have no problem with Britain having to pay a bill to leave. We have a duty to honour our treaty obligations and should pay whatever amount is owed.
Andy Coulson hired as Telegraph PR adviser
Journalists said to be shocked as ex-News of the World editor jailed over phone hacking gets job to promote truthfulness of papers
Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World who was jailed following the phone-hacking scandal, has been hired to do PR for the Telegraph Media Group (TMG).
His public relations firm, Coulson Chappell, has been awarded a contract to improve the standing of the company’s publications, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. His main brief is thought to be to promote the papers as truthful and authoritative.
The appointment was overseen by TMG’s chief executive, Murdoch MacLennan, who is regarded as one of Coulson’s most loyal friends. He gave evidence on Coulson’s behalf at his trial.
MacLennan confirmed the appointment, saying: “We have a good working relationship with Andy, who has written for us a couple of times. We feel his company will add value to the business.”
Journalists working for the Daily Telegraph were said to be shocked and saddened by the decision to recruit such a controversial figure. One said: “This cannot do anything but harm to our brand. It will deliver a severe blow to the credibility of our journalism.”
Coulson, who was sentenced to 18 months in jail for conspiracy to intercept voicemails, was twice spotted recently at the Telegraph’s offices in Victoria, central London. For Coulson, the contract marks a significant step on the road back from the dark days of his imprisonment.
Convicted Murdoch phone hacker hired as PR adviser for Telegraph...
2017 gets better and better !
the is going on ?!
..still least that's the daftest thing we'll read toda
... not a good sign when the Germans are laughing at us -- with our own humour too !
On the plus side if someone told you 10 years ago you'd like James Blunt as person more than Morrissey & John Lydon you'd have laughed in their face.
So basically making it so difficult that nobody is allowed to leave? If your club is that great why do you need to treat your member states like enemies?
This sounds great in the mind of a EU-rophile...
This is just a ridiculous sentiment with some thought. If you drive a car with RAC breakdown cover then you get the benefits of having that breakdown cover. If you decide to Leave because of "taking back control" your recovery of the vehicle or saving the £35 per week bill then that's your decision. It seems like some people still expect the RAC to come out an rescue the car when they breakdown, run out of fuel, get a flat type or otherwise decide to drive the car off the side of the cliff (highly likely) whilst screaming "its not fair its all RACs fault for not giving the same level of service as those still in the club" as the flaming car hurtles to the bottom of the very deep (and painful bottom).
The only thing the Dis-UK is doing by leaving is putting up a big sign saying "We're with Stoopid" for the rest of the world to look at and laugh at (except Trump who lives in some weird fascism land anyway). The DUK is likely to be more a kin to Dr Zoidberg from Futurama, looked at with disdain, laughter and a fair bit of pity.
I rather amused at the passion aroused by the roughly one quarter of one percent of UK GDP that net UK contributions to the EU comprised in order to both operate in and have a major voice in political and economic matters of the largest market on the planet.
Several interviews in Sunderland, the fastest-growing digital economic area in the UK for the past few years.
3:2 vote for Leave.
Digital economy starting to collapse because of Brexit.
Scottish Leavers saying they voted Leave because the UK doesn't need several tiers of government. They didn't vote for the EU Parliament (only the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments, etc...)
For my family's sake I hope it doesn't all go south as quickly as it seems to be doing, but at least I will have the compensation of schadenfreude (foreign language term soon to be outlawed for "sovereignty".)
Several interviews in Sunderland, the fastest-growing digital economic area in the UK for the past few years.
3:2 vote for Leave.
Digital economy starting to collapse because of Brexit.
Scottish Leavers saying they voted Leave because the UK doesn't need several tiers of government. They didn't vote for the EU Parliament (only the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments, etc...)
For my family's sake I hope it doesn't all go south as quickly as it seems to be doing, but at least I will have the compensation of schadenfreude (foreign language term soon to be outlawed for "sovereignty".)
To be fair for once Boris the Clown was right. It really is going to be a 'Titanic success'....
I really hope they take a second look at that bill. I don't want to give away more money to an organisation that probably won't survive the decade. And I think they've gotten enough money out of us over the years away.
Vaktathi wrote: I rather amused at the passion aroused by the roughly one quarter of one percent of UK GDP that net UK contributions to the EU comprised in order to both operate in and have a major voice in political and economic matters of the largest market on the planet.
Because the passion came from decades of lies and spin by a right wing media determined to do whatever it takes to foist their world view on the nation, and people fell for it, and here we are.
At the next GE, if we're still in the country, I'm voting Lib dem, and I dont give a monkeys if it turns out that Tim Farron spends his weekends skinning kittens, and setting fire to orphanages.
Basically, even though our local Tory MP is a nice, charming, hard working, ethical young man, I wouldn't vote for the conservatives again if someone held a gun to my head.
The EU should not considered to be a colony from the UK point of view.
You give something you get something.
Think about the 800,000 polish people working in the UK. They have jobs Englishmen usually dont take.
Think about the car industry in UK. More than 60% of the parts come from the EU outside of UK. And the UK has no industry for making those parts.
So I woke up this morning and the sky was still there. I was surprised given the panic you fellers seem to live with and promote.
Also divorce bill; the UK will take a proportional share of the treasury/assest too one assumes, this should off set what is a relatively small sum if it is agreed as valid.
I doubt there will be a large lump sum payment by the UK to settle obligations. That's too politically sensitive for the Tories. Probably the UK government will agree take over pensions for retired British staff of EU institutions and take over finance for current investments from EU funds in UK infrastructure.
notprop wrote: So I woke up this morning and the sky was still there. I was surprised given the panic you fellers seem to live with and promote. ...
Remain never claimed the sky would fall, however they did claim there would be serious financial repurcussions, and they're in the post.
It's also not "Panic" to have serious misgivings about monumental constitutional change. Only the arrogant, rich, or monumentally ignorant should not be watching events with cautious concern.
Yeah we'll most likely agree to pay our commitments as they happen, so we'll be dripping money into the EU for decades, on top of whatever we're paying in to help run it. It'll be easier to hide £2bn/year forever than a £60bn lump sum.
It is interesting, but not surprising. The generation that fought in the second world war, created the NHS and dragged Britain out of the mire by its bootstraps and created a Great Britain for their children, voted to join Europe for peace and prosperity.
Their children, the baby boomers, the most "selfish fethed up brats they spawned to replace themselves" ( Welsh, 1993) have sucked the teat dry of every advantage and spent the last 40 years trying to sabotage, through their own wilful ignorance and greed, everything their parents created.
feth them. When they're gone, we'll still be paying for their legacy, as will their grandchildren. Article 50 is just the latest thing that they've done to feth over the country to suit themselves.
Lloyd's of London says it will establish a new European subsidiary in Brussels to avoid losing business when the UK leaves the EU.
The 329-year-old insurance market confirmed the plan as it released its latest annual results.
"A subsidiary office will be opened in Brussels with the intention that it will be operational for the January 1 renewal season in 2019," it said.
The company's continental business generates 11% of its premiums.
Lloyd's of London's chief executive Inga Beale told the BBC's Today programme Brussels had certain key attractions: "What we were after was some jurisdiction that had a really robust reputation for regulation, we also wanted to be able to access talent and we wanted really good accessibility.
"Brussels came out top of our list."
However, she stressed that the Brussels office was an additional base, simply an EU subsidiary, and that the number of jobs affected was less than 100.
The company has around 700 London employees, but the market it runs involves more than 30,000.
Other financial institutions have also said they are thinking of moving some business within Europe.
'Challenging' conditions
Several investment banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, and Morgan Stanley are considering relocating staff to Dublin. Frankfurt, Madrid and Amsterdam are also likely to benefit. HSBC is expected to move significant numbers of employees to Paris.
Lloyd's of London also announced it had made a profit of £2.1bn in 2016, the same as for the year before.
It said conditions over the course of the year had been "extremely challenging". There were £2.1bn of major claims - the fifth highest since the turn of the century - which was due mainly to Hurricane Matthew and the Fort McMurray Wildfire in Canada.
However, the company added that its results had been helped by "significantly improved" investment returns.
Lloyd's, one of Britain's oldest institutions, is the world's leading insurance and reinsurance market.
It focuses on specialist markets, such as marine, energy and political risk, but also branches out into more unusual areas, such as insuring comedian Ken Dodd's teeth.
Well, the financial institutions only do their job.
The situation will get worse if there is no trade deal between UK and EU within two years.
Then the UK drops off and they will trade according the WTO rules. If you ever looked at these rules, they are really bad. Tariff will be almost everywhere.
Well, for the next two years, everything is up in the air. Whilst the talks are happening, the rest of the nation sits with its thumbs up our rears, and then in two years time, the deal will probably be shot to pieces by Tory backbenchers anyway!
Lloyd's of London says it will establish a new European subsidiary in Brussels to avoid losing business when the UK leaves the EU.
The 329-year-old insurance market confirmed the plan as it released its latest annual results.
"A subsidiary office will be opened in Brussels with the intention that it will be operational for the January 1 renewal season in 2019," it said.
The company's continental business generates 11% of its premiums.
Lloyd's of London's chief executive Inga Beale told the BBC's Today programme Brussels had certain key attractions: "What we were after was some jurisdiction that had a really robust reputation for regulation, we also wanted to be able to access talent and we wanted really good accessibility.
"Brussels came out top of our list."
However, she stressed that the Brussels office was an additional base, simply an EU subsidiary, and that the number of jobs affected was less than 100.
The company has around 700 London employees, but the market it runs involves more than 30,000.
Other financial institutions have also said they are thinking of moving some business within Europe.
'Challenging' conditions
Several investment banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, and Morgan Stanley are considering relocating staff to Dublin. Frankfurt, Madrid and Amsterdam are also likely to benefit. HSBC is expected to move significant numbers of employees to Paris.
Lloyd's of London also announced it had made a profit of £2.1bn in 2016, the same as for the year before.
It said conditions over the course of the year had been "extremely challenging". There were £2.1bn of major claims - the fifth highest since the turn of the century - which was due mainly to Hurricane Matthew and the Fort McMurray Wildfire in Canada.
However, the company added that its results had been helped by "significantly improved" investment returns.
Lloyd's, one of Britain's oldest institutions, is the world's leading insurance and reinsurance market.
It focuses on specialist markets, such as marine, energy and political risk, but also branches out into more unusual areas, such as insuring comedian Ken Dodd's teeth.
...don't waste much time do they eh ?
Money never sleeps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: So I woke up this morning and the sky was still there. I was surprised given the panic you fellers seem to live with and promote.
Also divorce bill; the UK will take a proportional share of the treasury/assest too one assumes, this should off set what is a relatively small sum if it is agreed as valid.
It's easy for you to say that, sitting in your ivory tower in the USA. We've got to live with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I really hope they take a second look at that bill. I don't want to give away more money to an organisation that probably won't survive the decade. And I think they've gotten enough money out of us over the years away.
I don't like handing anymore money to the EU either, but we signed the treaties in good faith, and national honour dictates that we honour those treaty obligations.
Our reputation would go down the pan if we started reneging on debts.
To be fair they've (and the other trading banks) been threatening to do so since the referendum was announced. This should hardly be a surprise that they'll move operations in order to maintain 11% of their revenue (and ~£321m annual profit if it's linear). That's money we knew we'd lose.
May's letter to the EU contained a blatant threat saying that when the UK will not get a good trade deal, the UK will not support the EU in terms of security issues (since UK has a good security service).
wuestenfux wrote: May's letter to the EU contained a blatant threat saying that when the UK will not get a good trade deal, the UK will not support the EU in terms of security issues (since UK has a good security service).
Surely that is the sort of thing you only pull out in the critical point of the negotiations right in their most heated, not as an opening salvo of "feth you guys".
Or you could say that we're being straight with them right from the start. Also, I think it's bare faced cheek to expect us to continue protecting them without receiving anything back in return.
And who was it who was saying that they're going to make this as difficult as possible as a warning to anyone else who's considering leaving? The EU aren't on the moral high ground here either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why, it's almost as if we live in an age of unparalleled communication, and threatening to give them the silent treatment isn't such a good move?
Who was it said they'll make it as difficult as possible? Why, 'Farage in a wig' Marie Le Pen I believe?
The security services are expensive to operate. We can't expect to be whipping boy to the EU and give them everything.
The utter two faced nature of pro-EU Europeans is astounding. Raging at us one minute, crying the next. Pathetic.
I'm putting out the lunacy of the vote to leave, and the exceptional dishonesty that lead to it (£350m to the NHS! ARRGH MIGRANTS (oh wait, they're Syrian refugees)...you know, the outright porky pies yeah? The claims about bendy bananas (false) and various other EU laws which aren't EU laws, but may have been raised at one point then laughed out and voted down by the European Parliament.
Sadly, just feeding into the general perception Leavers are lunatics with no handle on the truth, instead blinded by bigotry and nonsense.
So... you're saying that it's not in our interests to stop terrorists, because they're waaaaaaay over there. And won't come here. Nope. And wouldn't be likely to co-operate with any domestic terrorists who we might have kicking about, for example in the EU country we have a land boarder with. Who might start getting very tempted to kick off soon.
No, better to just let them get on with it. War's brewing. The mountains are fair teaming with Goblins. Well it's none of our concern what goes on beyond our borders. Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you.
wuestenfux wrote: May's letter to the EU contained a blatant threat saying that when the UK will not get a good trade deal, the UK will not support the EU in terms of security issues (since UK has a good security service).
Quid pro quo.
"Those who would give up essential safety for a better trade deal deserve neither".
Medium of Death wrote: Top Lad ARE Nige. Trigger Warning for Europeans and Remoaners - Nasty, Lying, Spineless, Bigoted Fantasist
There. I think that's a more accurate description of Mr Toad, no?
Remember....he's happy to emigrate if Brexit is a disaster (and it's kind of looking like one)
Last sentence of NF: ''No deal for us is better than the deal with the EU''.
This is purely a lie. If there is no deal, the UK has to follow the WTO rules, and then it will get rough.
Graphite wrote: So... you're saying that it's not in our interests to stop terrorists, because they're waaaaaaay over there. And won't come here. Nope. And wouldn't be likely to co-operate with any domestic terrorists who we might have kicking about, for example in the EU country we have a land boarder with. Who might start getting very tempted to kick off soon.
No, better to just let them get on with it. War's brewing. The mountains are fair teaming with Goblins. Well it's none of our concern what goes on beyond our borders. Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you.
'The TE-SAT 2016 outlines two worrying developments: the overall threat is reinforced by the substantial numbers of returned foreign terrorist fighters that many Member States now have on their soil, and the significant rise in nationalist (xenophobic), racist and anti-Semitic sentiments across the EU, each resulting in acts of right-wing extremism.
The report brings to light the fact that a significant percentage of all foreign terrorist travellers in Syria/Iraq are now female.
On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence to date that terrorist travellers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed. The investigations into the 13 November Paris attacks revealed however that two of the attackers had entered the EU through Greece as part of the large influx of refugees from Syria.'
Conclusions to draw from this: There is a risk from insurgents travelling from OUTSIDE the EU. They are using Refugee streams in limited cases - refugee's by nature are protected by UN, not EU laws. The existence of the EU fails to have any impact on refugees attempting to travel. They would be seeking access to the region regardless.
One of the biggest concerns comes from Xenophobia as a future risk...
Now what has not helped the situation, unlike in previous refugee crisis (Break down of USSR, Yugoslavia breakdown) which have had similar levels of refugees travelling to Europe, the governments themselves have been very unwilling to actually come together through the EE council and come to a practical solution. If you look into the range of work surrounding Sweden's issues of struggling to process the arriving refugees, the main issue is no other state has provided any kind of assistance. Like many political crisis, of governments actually sat down and worked out a logical solution rather then pandering to the media of one orientation or anther, solutions could quite easily be found.
Graphite wrote: Ok. So mainland Europe ends up brimming with terrorists, from whatever source. Not helping to catch them helps us because.....?
Much as disagree with many things on Europe mantianing links between the security services and defending against enemy attack is pretty vital, combined they rperesent a massive wealth of resources and information. secondly we even if leave are still NATO allies and should mantain our comitment to that. .
If I wanted guarantee the uk joining the European Union in 10-15 years time, this pretty much what I'd do:
1) hold a referendum on membership
2) lose it badly, greatly cheering the nationalist parts of my government and getting them out of the woodwork
3) let said elements get a crap deal for the country
4) watch economic decline and subsequent drop in support for nationalism/nationalist political figures
5) ride back into power on wave of public support and rejoin the EU
Co'tor Shas wrote: A "mere" 42 years ago, this is what was.
Sort of interesting how things have changed.
Well no gak. The EU has changed, it is no longer what it was when we joined. Hell, it didn't even exist back then.
Lots of people who wanted to join the EEC back in the 70s don't like the ways in which it changed and morphed into the EU. They voted for one thing, which they liked, but it changed over time into another thing, which they do not like. I dont like the ways the EU has changed and I was only born in 1991.
There's no double think there, its not a U Turn. Its a response to changing circumstances, and deciding that you no longer like the organisation that you once eager to join.
That was the days of the common market. For the record, I think the common market was a good idea. Then they went too far. Back then people were told that it was only a trading bloc and would not involve giving up any political control. So that was a lie.
Incidentally, old Ted Heath was given the Charlemagne Prize for helping the UK join up. That came with a big cash prize. Sorry, did I say big cash prize? I meant bribe.
The majority of the EUs powers come from a case back in the 60s called Van Der Loos, which was a case over free trade.
But it has morphed into something that it wasnt designed to be, and as a result it has turned into a massive mess of a system. Tying together the economies of 28 vastly different states was going to be a bad idea, the fact that they ignored basic background checks on the stability of several economies (Greece being a prime example) shows they can't be trusted with economies and yet they want greater integration over the budgets. (As per the Five Presidents Report)
I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.
welshhoppo wrote: I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.
A little correction:
We did not join a Superstate.
We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.
What's the deal with hating on the superstate? It works for the US, it works for Russia (though perhaps works isn't the right term there) and generally speaking it worked for the Empire.
Does it not make long term sense to bring people closer together? Not so long ago Wales, Scotland and England were all separate states that made war on one another. Then a 'superstate' or union was formed and the wars stopped...
Why would this be a bad thing for Europe (and that includes us)?
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.
Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).
No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.
Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z
Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?
Optio wrote: Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?
There is no single moment for me, it's been the cumulative drip drip of events and developments over the last 2 decades.
Our politicians have known for years the public haven't liked the direction of the EU, but when every major party is broadly going along with the same direction the public don't have much alternative. That's why treaties were signed away from the cameras, like Brown did with Lisbon treaty. If they're all so proud of the EU and the agreements made, why is there this constant impression of obfuscation and avoidance when it comes to the decisions made?
welshhoppo wrote: I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.
A little correction:
We did not join a Superstate.
We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.
I know, I was writing from a mobile so I shortened my way of saying it and it didn't come across entirely correct.
As for why it doesn't work like the US? You've have 250 years to make that system work and it works reasonably well. You have a system in place to give each state a say without being based on population. Under the EU model it uses Population. Imagine the annoyance the middle of the US was have if it was basically controlled by the massive population centres at both coasts.
Also, the EU is a good place for politicians to get cushy jobs once they leave politics on a national level. It is beneficial to them to keep the EU around because it increases the job market. But at no point was joining any of the treaties ever put on a national level to the extent that they should have been. The Lisbon Treaty was huge, but I don't remember anyone taking about it here.
Optio wrote: Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?
I sat down a month before the election, crunched a lot of figures, read a lot of history, and grudgingly drew an opinion. That opinion was that I wished the EU and our own government had done their own jobs well enough I wasn't sat there having to do those things. As a taxpayer, I pay them to take care of this stuff in a semi-competent fashion, y'know?
I mean really, all they had to do was go on lubricating trade and throwing each other expensive champagne diplomatic dinners like all Western governments do. Not that challenging.
Instead they decided to do a load of continual obfuscation and extension of powers to the point where it was obvious what they were driving at. And they didn't even have the decency to do it competently so it would look like things would turn out alright. So I voted out. I resent the feckers for putting me in that spot though, because I didn't want to.
welshhoppo wrote: I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.
A little correction:
We did not join a Superstate.
We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.
I know, I was writing from a mobile so I shortened my way of saying it and it didn't come across entirely correct.
As for why it doesn't work like the US? You've have 250 years to make that system work and it works reasonably well. You have a system in place to give each state a say without being based on population. Under the EU model it uses Population. Imagine the annoyance the middle of the US was have if it was basically controlled by the massive population centres at both coasts.
Also, the EU is a good place for politicians to get cushy jobs once they leave politics on a national level. It is beneficial to them to keep the EU around because it increases the job market. But at no point was joining any of the treaties ever put on a national level to the extent that they should have been. The Lisbon Treaty was huge, but I don't remember anyone taking about it here.
Thing is the EU doesn't work like that because (A) each country has a veto and (B) directives only get made into law at the national level.
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.
Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).
No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.
Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z
Yes it does, because that's representative democracy in action. It's the whole point of our parliamentary system, otherwise we should have a referendum for everything not specifically on a manifesto, all the time.
Optio wrote: Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?
I sat down a month before the election, crunched a lot of figures, read a lot of history, and grudgingly drew an opinion. That opinion was that I wished the EU and our own government had done their own jobs well enough I wasn't sat there having to do those things. As a taxpayer, I pay them to take care of this stuff in a semi-competent fashion, y'know?
I mean really, all they had to do was go on lubricating trade and throwing each other expensive champagne diplomatic dinners like all Western governments do. Not that challenging.
Instead they decided to do a load of continual obfuscation and extension of powers to the point where it was obvious what they were driving at. And they didn't even have the decency to do it competently so it would look like things would turn out alright. So I voted out. I resent the feckers for putting me in that spot though, because I didn't want to.
So instead we get T Maygube and the 3 brexiteers installing a quasi-dictatorship and winding the clocks back a couple of hundred years.
So a better question is when did the avarage leaver sit down and think you know what I get way to much paid holiday, don't work enough hours in a week, get paid too much, don't need sick pay, or maternity/paternity leave. Also I really would like to see my children grow up with a poor education and little accesss to further education with only short term menial labour to look forward to.
The only silver cloud is at least suffrage was before [MOD EDIT - No expletive filter workarounds, please. - Alpharius] remit so at least women can still vote, there otherwise screwed though given all equality laws are about to vanish.
Honestly if the "great repeal bill" was rolled out in most 3rd world countries the terms coup and bananna republic would get used as it allows our new Furherr cate blanche to rewrite 40+ years worth of legislation however they like without having to do anything so crass as abide by our democracy and pass.through the commons or lords.
R Squared
Then why are you all complaining about how unfair and undemocratic Brexit is? The Tories won the last election fair and square, and according to you they have the prerogative as elected representatives to enact Article 50.
Hell, they even have direct consent with over 50% of the electorate (those who could be bothered to vote that is) voting for Leave.
Things being run by faceless bureaucrats and career politicians I didn't vote for in Brussels? Or things being run by faceless bureaucrats and career politicians I didn't vote for in London?
IMO part of the problem has always been the relative lack of attention given to the EU parliament by the media in this country. Combined with the general apathy for democracy its helped to make the EU parliament feel remote and unconnected to the real world.
SeanDrake wrote: [Also I really would like to see my children grow up with a poor education and little accesss to further education with only short term menial labour to look forward to.
Been trying to persuade my son to apply for university in Denmark, but a lot depends on when they close off access to free education for UK students. It's free for EU and EEA students, but who knows how long we are going to be in either club....
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.
Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).
No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.
Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z
Yes it does, because that's representative democracy in action. It's the whole point of our parliamentary system, otherwise we should have a referendum for everything not specifically on a manifesto, all the time.
Even after the referendumb I have still yet to find a single brexiter that actually even knew what the EU was and how it worked. The fact that we had way to many Kippers as mep's shows that. The complaint about EU corruption and waste and the UK not having a voice was because we sent halfwits like idle nige and his kremlin kippers as our mep's, who turned up just enough to get paid and fiddle.there exspenses without actual doing anything to help the UK.
Aghhhh I give up with this my european employers have confirmed they will honour EU level employment laws no matter what the tories do so I am sorry for people without this protection. Unless they voted to leave innwhich case feth em I hope they enjoy working for foxconn 60hrs a week for less than the current minimum wage
Vaktathi wrote: Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?
You don't get it, do you?
Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.
I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.
Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).
No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.
Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z
I would counter that not everything government does needs to be or is a central campaign issue. Representatives are elected to act on behalf of the people in all matters, not just central campaign planks, those are simply central focuses but are not all encompassing of their duties, powers, responsibilities and issues. Governments make major changes, decisions and implementations all the time that arent direct central campaign issues.
The people of the UK elected the representatives that made these decisions and had elected representatives at the EU through the whole thing, with some rather large exceptions and carveouts to prove it.
Again, I can get the idea that one doesnt like the superstate concept, but to portray the EU/UK relationship as an undemocratic hoodwinking is false, unless one thinks that direct plebiscite is the only way to grant legitimacy to any government decision, which undermines the entire theory of *representative* democracy and is not held to in the overwhelmingly vast majority of government actions.
I regarded the EU as a pretty good addition to the checks and balances already in place in UK governmental structure. While we were still in the EU, although the Tories could feth over the poor in a variety of unpleasant ways, there were certain things they couldn't mess with, like how many hours we can work each week, and the fact that we get paid holiday and such. I really don't want to go to a more US, employer-centric system, which seems likely under May and her cronies.
I'm sorry but i believe there are certain issues that should ONLY be decided through direct plebiscites.
Particularly major constitutional changes like signing international treaties that commit the UK into a European political union that by definition undermines a country's national sovereignty and independence (I think we can all agree that Scotlands independence and sovereignty was undermined when it entered into a union with England, yes?).
I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm sorry but i believe there are certain issues that should ONLY be decided through direct plebiscites.
Particularly major constitutional changes like signing international treaties that commit the UK into a European political union that by definition undermines a country's national sovereignty and independence (I think we can all agree that Scotlands independence and sovereignty was undermined when it entered into a union with England, yes?).
Or Scottish independence from the UK.
Or the Establishment of a written constitution.
To be fair, the political union of the EU is nowhere near as close as the UK and its constituent nations.
I get where you are coming from there, and to some degree I can sympathize, but, and this isnt specific to just you, more of a general observation with this stance, that had the EU treaties been ratified by referendum, it wouldnt have made much difference in the attitudes of either side, and the discussion of direct plebiscite vs representative action are incidental to the greater idea of what the EU represents to different people.
Future War Cultist wrote:I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.
The EU isnt perfect. No political entity is. There will always be issues. Some people lose sometimes. On the whole however, the EU does more good than harm, and having a common economic framework with shared political infrastructure does a lot to push growth and reduce conflict in the long run.
Can you imagine the US as a mix of 50 distinct nations? Can you imagine what kind of bloodshed we'd have seen or potentially be currently embroiled in were that so? Having to deal with all those borders, currencies, worldviews, transportation systems, governments, etx. Having a common framework of national government does tend to have its advantages.
Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.
The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.
The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.
welshhoppo wrote: Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.
well, most were dead of smallpox and such before we moved westward, otherwise we probably wouldnt have been able to
That said, in some ways sure, but there are also internal tensions and differences that could absolutely explode into conflict without an overarching authority. And have on many occasions (though none recently, but look at "Bloody Kansas" mid 18th century for example). If the US didnt have an overarching federal govt, how likely would it be that the states of the US in the current political climate wouldnt lash out at each other, even if just to distract from internal issues? Divisive kind of rhetoric is commonplace here as much as anywhere (e.g. NY Liberal, Commiefornia, the South being looked at as a giant cesspool, etc).
The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.
In many ways that is true, though I dont believe that changes the ultimate issue, if just makes it harder to sort everything out to get to the end point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.
hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.
I think the downfall starts and ends with the Euro monetary policies.
A common market is all well and good... but, foisting the Euro on those 26 European countries can only exacerbate the "haves" and "have-nots" in the whole grand scheme of things simply by virtue of how diverse these countries are regionally.
Also, not having an official/common language could be a barrier in achieving that ideal 'EU Superstate' imo.
Future War Cultist wrote: I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels.
Yeah, Spain and Greece were so much better off before the EU, in the 1970s, under brutal fascist dictatorships, right?
If anything the UK (which backed the fascists in Greece at the end of WWII, and ignored the rise of fascism in Spain in the 1930s) is probably more to blame for the problems of both countries than the EU is.
Future War Cultist wrote: The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.
hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.
Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.
Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)
The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.
Future War Cultist wrote: I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to the Euro is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)
This about sums up the entire problem with the Referendum campaign, people were so busy pointing fingers at the EU they were too busy to find the actual causation of any one of the situations that was supposedly instigated by the EU.
Well, Churchill ordering his operatives in Greece to support the fascists in executing the communist ex-partisans at the end of WWII would definitely be "our" fault, particularly because the communists had been fighting alongside British commandos against the Nazis for some time at that point, whereas the fascists had been the enemy, as is right and proper.
Spanish Civil War is less clearcut -- you could make an argument that the UK should avoid interfering in foreign conflicts... It's not an argument I'd be comfortable with in this specific case, but I can see its philosophical validity.
Anyway. The point is that the EU, despite its flaws, has been a highly effective force for peace, and against extremism, for many decades. Without studying history it's easy to forget how messed up so much of Europe was until the 1970s.
Future War Cultist wrote: I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to it is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)
Oh I don't deny that they brought upon themselves. But, the EU was happy to look the other way for political reasons. Look at us, growing everyday!
And now that the gak has hit the fan, they're incapable of doing anything about it because they're in the straight jacket of the Euro.
Future War Cultist wrote: The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.
hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.
Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.
Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)
The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.
they are, but they are seen as integral parts of a single whole, rather than independent members of a voluntary association as they were seen in the early days.
Future War Cultist wrote: I've asked this before but why do so many people defend the EU? Look at the effects of it's policies on countries like Spain and Greece, who thanks to the Euro are doomed to permanently high unemployment levels. Not to mention how much money they piss away moving between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Greece and Spain did that to itself. Both countries went on a massive spending spree with a whole load of borrowed money, and then boom! 2008 recession and suddenly people don't trust they can actually pay the bills... The currency being used really is a mute point. The only real blame that can be attributed to it is the fact it was quite cheap to borrow. On the other hand its the failure of the government and its financial team to not spend money it does not have (in the case of Greece it was because they forgot people actually need to pay taxes for the government to get money...)
Oh I don't deny that they brought upon themselves. But, the EU was happy to look the other way for political reasons. Look at us, growing everyday!
And now that the gak has hit the fan, they're incapable of doing anything about it because they're in the straight jacket of the Euro.
Sigh... 3 Bailouts is totally looking the other way... You have followed the Greek elections right and seen the complete incompetency of the government they have managed to elect? There is an issue with the implementation of the Euro, it's not centralized properly and certain nations (Germany, France) are able to undercut. This was very much an historical issue, pre-dating the forming of the Euro. Even the economists will point their fingers in every direction. Check out this article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-08-10/greece-blame-crisis Bottom line though, and I think this qoute sums it up nicely:
'Greece is only not responsible to the extent that an alcoholic is not responsible for drinking.'
Future War Cultist wrote: The US grew almost organically from 13 original colonies to 50 states. The EU is trying to take 28 (now 27) countries and artificially mash them together into 1 state. That's the difference.
hrm, only sort of. The original plan was very much 13 distinct nations, and some states saw themselves as such for many decades, we had to have a bloody civil war to be seen as one coherent nation.
Eh... I wouldn't see it that way.
Certainly the power of the Federal government grew post-Civil War. But, the greatest growth at the Federal government started around the Great Depression eras. (where's lordofhats' historical perspective when you need him!)
The 50 states *are* semi-autonomous, with 50 distinct governance that works in tandem with the Federal entities.
they are, but they are seen as integral parts of a single whole, rather than independent members of a voluntary association as they were seen in the early days.
The EU added a good chunk of those nations alot faster than the USA who took a good century to fully gain most of the states.
The EU has differ issues. USA has a federal over arching level. Europe has a similar combined currency but lets other nations exacute own policy in regards to tax. Debt and finances.
Same with diplomacy. If they take migrants or not. And many other things decided at a natinal level.
Now. However peaceful. This is not good for a curency.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.
That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.
That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.
Agreed. Greece needs to leave EU currency block if ever stands a chance at recovery. The debts unpayable, thr country is in a right state and they seriously need to admit they fethed up badly.
However the present situation will not help them have a exit plant from trouble.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.
That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.
The people voted along that path, then the government decided to just ignore the result they had campaigned for and accept the bailout.
Well, the problem with Greece was that it never should have been let into the Euro in the first place in the state it was in. There was fraud on all sides and the big players aren't accepting their culpability in that. There were other concerns that drove that decision which in hindsight were probably not particularly wise. However, at this point there are ways to fix that within the Euro framework, but the big players that allowed the Greek entry to happen need to do their part and not just punt little Greece all over the place just because they can. Unfortunately that doesn't look terribly likely, but at the same time, if Greece was at the mercy of the IMF alone without the Euro, while she may have more room to maneuver she also wouldn't have the leverage she does in negotiations with many of these entities that share the Euro currency so I'm not sure she'd be much better off.
Greece needs to get its gak together and the Euro nations need to accept their part in enabling some of the Greek issues.
As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe where asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.
Future War Cultist wrote: As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe where asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.
One would have to ask then, how is that different from Westminster doing what it does relative to local UK issues? Surely the Scottish nationalists looking to leave the EU would have nearly identical arguments, and in fact advanced just such arguments (and I thought the Indyref was a poor idea then too just as I thought Brexit was). That kind of thing exists everywhere. It's not an EU specific thing. It happens at all levels of government. It's a facet of representative government. Ultimately, the EU has democratically elected representatives to vote for these kinds of issues on their behalf, it goes back to being a representative democracy, as putting every crisis to a direct plebiscite just isn't practical. It would paralyze any attempt to do anything, and quite frankly most people don't understand complex finance & monetary issues, which is why we have elected officials with advisors and experts and commissions and inquiries and the like.
When people don't understand those issues, that's how we end up with people thinking that Brexit would bring hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to the NHS every week that weren't really there.
Direct plebiscites have their place. They are absolutely necessary in some instances. However, we also have representatives for a reason, and every EU member state has democratically elected EU representatives to carry their voice to that assembly.
Future War Cultist wrote: As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe wehre asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.
This little 'cabal' are the 28 democratically elected government leaders of the member states. If you want to stop them then vote them out of their own offices. Sounds to me you realistically have an issue with the national governments! I return to my earlier statement, find the route of the issue. The german government was most keen for the bailout, they fronted the cash and knowing their banks would do well from it. If the German people resent this, they can vote that government out - fact is, the German people in the long run will probably benefit, even if it's at the expense of Greece. We then return to the example of Greece, the elected government were given a mandate they campaigned for, then caved in. These are issues with national governments - not the EU! Yes the EU failed to properly implement the Euro for a number of reasons, ones which we now have the foresight they did not have to spot the definite issues. It is national governments that are playing the system though.
welshhoppo wrote: I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.
A little correction:
We did not join a Superstate.
We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.
It was its stated goal from day one. So much that the UK and other nations with similar interests pushed the EFTA.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: R Squared
Then why are you all complaining about how unfair and undemocratic Brexit is? The Tories won the last election fair and square, and according to you they have the prerogative as elected representatives to enact Article 50.
Hell, they even have direct consent with over 50% of the electorate (those who could be bothered to vote that is) voting for Leave.
Can you point out the post where I said Brexit was unfair and undemocratic?
I've said that I think that Brexit is a stupid idea, that the referendum was poorly executed and implemented, and I've criticised the Tories a fair bit, but I've not said that it was unfair ahd undemocratic. I think you may be confusing me with someone else, although I'm not sure who on here that might be.
welshhoppo wrote: Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.
The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.
Possibly the best argument for the EU there could be, and it's worked so far too.
The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.
I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.
That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.
Not really if they drop out there toast the contry would be beyond bankrupt, the fact nobody seemed to have bothered paying any tax for a decade saw to that.
The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.
I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.
With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.
NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.
German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.
These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.
The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.
While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.
The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.
Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.
The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.
I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.
With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.
NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.
German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.
These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.
The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.
While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.
The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.
Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.
True, to an extent, but many of the factors leading to war between France and Germany such as: colonial tension, ultra nationalism, German militarism etc etc
died in the ruins of Berlin 1945. Plus, like I said, France lost its great power status, plus your nation would have stepped in and put an end to any future wars...again!
The truth is, Europe started two world wars, but Europe is no longer the centre of the world when it comes to power.
The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.
I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.
With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.
NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.
German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.
These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.
The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.
While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.
The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.
Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.
True, to an extent, but many of the factors leading to war between France and Germany such as: colonial tension, ultra nationalism, German militarism etc etc
died in the ruins of Berlin 1945. Plus, like I said, France lost its great power status, plus your nation would have stepped in and put an end to any future wars...again!
The truth is, Europe started two world wars, but Europe is no longer the center of the world when it comes to power.
Power is not absolute but relative. And to try and place any part of the world as the center is a bit of a folly when its a sphere wonky shape (I get what you mean I just could not resist the opportunity ).
Yugoslavia was a perfect example of the tensions the EU is trying to avoid amongst it's member states. Ethno-nationalism, power vacuums and concerns of being swallowed up by relatively larger powers. The whole aim of freedom of movement is to diffuse populations and over TIME, decrease the tensions between various ethnic/nationalist and religious groups. The problem with politics is everyone forgets the time part and get impatient when it does not happen overnight, or just cannot except some processes take generations. Unfortunately those forces are starting to return in force, ironically, it is the outside influence of ethnic groups from outside the EU that have brought the whole debate forward (Hungary I am looking at you and your complete overreaction).
If you put a frog in boiling water, it jumps out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it will sit there and boil to death without noticing. Looking at the reality of Britain's EU predicament now, just a couple days into Article 50, everything feels a million miles away from where we were even a few weeks ago. It bears no comparison whatsoever with the fevered optimism of the referendum campaign.
Back then, the Brexiters promised free unicorns to everyone and a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. There'd be more money for the NHS, more control for the British people, everyone would know their neighbours again and a friendly bobby would stroll on every street. Today, the conversation is, at the very best, about minimising the negative repercussions of Brexit. It has gone from a solution to everything to a problem for everyone.
Once upon a time Boris Johnson implied Europe needed us more than we needed them. David Davis told us that we would go to individual member states to strike up trade agreements. Liam Fox told us he would finalise trade deals with non-EU countries while we were conducting Brexit negotiations.
All of that is false. Today's draft guidelines from Donald Tusk at the Council of the European Union showed that Europe is in complete control of the negotiation process. Britain is barred from holding bilateral talks with EU member states on Brexit during negotiations and it cannot negotiate trade deals with other countries at the same time either.
The balance of power is evident throughout. The British demand that talks on the divorce run in parallel with talks on the future trade relationship are dismissed. Instead, "the European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase". The wording tells you everything about the dynamics of the negotiation. They are in control. They decide when they are ready to move to the next stage.
Davis' vision of a UK-German trade deal was always fantasy, but it's now clear even bilateral meetings on Brexit are ruled out. "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual member states and the United Kingdom," the paper reads.
The attitude to the thorny budget issue, in which the EU is demanding around £50 billion for financial items and pensions, seems unchanged. "A single financial settlement should ensure that the Union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations undertaken before the date of withdrawal," it reads. This refers to promises in the current seven-year financial period, which lasts to the end of 2020. It therefore means we're on the hook for seven quarters after our March 2019 exit. Then it says: "The settlement should cover all legal and budgetary commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities." That seems to refer to pensions. No discernable movement on any of these issues.
May has been speaking for months about British firms ability to have "access to and operate within" the single market. We've heard it so much from her that it almost trips off the tongue. That gets very short shrift here.
"Preserving the integrity of the single market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach," the draft guideline says. Any future free trade agreement could not "amount to participation in the single market or parts thereof". It is remarkable to see months of prime ministerial rhetoric dismissed with a flick of the pen in Brussels.
May spoke of agreeing the final terms of the free trade deal during the Article 50 window, then getting it ratified across the EU, before initiating an "implementation period" for it coming into force. That gets short shrift too.
The EU only envisages "preliminary and preparatory discussions" towards a trade deal. This second phase of negotiation, which starts when it is satisfied with the Budget issue, would only create an "overall understanding on the framework of the future relationship". The deal would only be "finalised and concluded" once the UK is out the EU. Transitional arrangements must be "clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms". And when a future trade deal is signed, "it must ensure a level playing field in terms of competition and state aid, and must encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, fiscal, social and environmental dumping". That suggests Britain will still not have control over its environmental standards, state aid rules and other issues, even outside the EU, despite having lost any voice in formulating them.
There are positives in the document. The EU commits to trying to avoid a chaotic no-deal scenario, although it says "it will prepare itself to be able to handle the situation also if the negotiations were to fail". It reiterates that it wants the UK as a close partner in future. It says it intends to "reduce uncertainty" and "minimise disruption". It commits to "flexible and imaginative solutions" to avoid a hard border in Ireland. And it wants a deal on EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU as "a matter of priority".
But generally this is a cold splash of water in the face for the May team. It shows how quickly their rhetoric falls apart in the face of a stronger negotiating partner. All those optimistic promises from Brexit campaigners and government ministers disappear as soon as the European position emerges.
Britain is now the junior partner in a negotiation which will define its economic future. It is operating to a timetable set by the larger partner, according to rules imposed by them, with an end-result that they have decided without us and which contradicts the stated aims of the UK government. If people were asked whether they wanted this nine months ago their answer is unlikely to have been particularly encouraging. Put the frog in boiling water and it jumps out. But if you raise that temperature bit by bit, if you degrade expectations steadily, it hardly notices what is happening.
This is the reality of what taking back control entails. Two more years to go.
My views and support of Scottish indy are well known on this forum, but in all honesty, if the EU want to play hardball, then the UK should play hard ball back.
If it were me in 10 Downing Street, I would:
Upgrade Gibraltar to having the same status as any other part of the UK.
Back Morocco's claims against Spanish enclaves in North Africa
Pull British troops out of Eastern Europe. See how Estonia and Latvia like that. Perhaps Tusk could pick up a rifle and defend Estonia
Pull the plug on Brexit talks and revert to WTO terms
Refuse security co-operation with the EU. The five eyes agreement includes no EU member anyway.
And if the Spanish get grouchy over Gibraltar, send in the Royal Navy and threaten to withdraw from NATO if need be. I'm sure that would focus minds in Brussels and Washington.
In no way am I advocating that the UK should actually do this, but if the EU continue their nonsense about Gibraltar, the UK may have to take the gloves off.
This belligerant tone from the EU is in nobody's interests. They really haven't thought this through.
A mature, grown up discussion was promised weeks ago, and yet, here we are with the EU trying to lay down the law.
They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...
WTO terms are bad.
For instance 24% on car parts and the U.K. car companies need 60% (for some car 75%) of the car parts from abroad.
A large price increase would come in.
When it comes to international relations, I've always suported a sensible, realpolitik approach.
A measured, mature deal on Brexit, with both sides having to give and take was never a problem for me.
That is the nature of these talks.
And yet, here we are, with the EU dropping the Gibraltar bombshell, knowing the UK won't budge an inch on this, with the end result of two NATO members locking horns, at a time when British troops are heading for Eastern Europe to support EU countries, and with a man in the White House who doesn't give two hoots for NATO.
Honest to God, what are they playing at?
The EU is talking about a European army, well it's a non-starter without the UK. France and Britain Western Europe's only two nuclear armed states.
And at a time when terrorist attacks are occuring across Europe, the EU wants to alienate the UK with GCHQ and its world class intelligience services...
Not for a minute was I expecting the EU to give Britain everything it wanted, but neither was I expecting this madness...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: Well, Trump wants good deals, no win win situations.
As it stands, I'd take a Trump deal over any bullgak that seems to be coming out of Brussels.
I say we should we enacting an "Eye for an Eye, Quid Pro Quo" policy here.
Not for a minute was I expecting the EU to give Britain everything it wanted, but neither was I expecting this madness...
You underestimated the petty spitefulness and idealogical dogmatism of the EU. These people do not care about Real Politik, they do not care about pragmatism.
No, they care about preserving the European Project no matter the cost, and if that means they have to cut off their nose to spite their face by punishing and threatening Britain for daring to undermine that project by seceding, so be it. They want to contain and quarantine the contagion of Brexit, and deter other member states from also leaving.
I wouldn't be surprised if theres a push to repeal Article 50 at some point in the next decade or so. Article 50 was never supposed to be used, it was an afterthought invented to appease and assuage concerns over national sovereignty. "If you don't like ever closer union, you can always choose to leave". Well, a member state has chosen to leave. The EU will need to correct that oversight. One day, the EU will be so integrated, and the "Ever Closer Union" will become so great, that member states will no longer have the right or the power to leave, just like the USA.
There's a pretty famous quotation about what "Eye for an eye" leads to. It isn't good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My views and support of Scottish indy are well known on this forum, but in all honesty, if the EU want to play hardball, then the UK should play hard ball back.
If it were me in 10 Downing Street, I would:
Upgrade Gibraltar to having the same status as any other part of the UK.
Back Morocco's claims against Spanish enclaves in North Africa
Pull British troops out of Eastern Europe. See how Estonia and Latvia like that. Perhaps Tusk could pick up a rifle and defend Estonia
Pull the plug on Brexit talks and revert to WTO terms
Refuse security co-operation with the EU. The five eyes agreement includes no EU member anyway.
And if the Spanish get grouchy over Gibraltar, send in the Royal Navy and threaten to withdraw from NATO if need be. I'm sure that would focus minds in Brussels and Washington.
In no way am I advocating that the UK should actually do this, but if the EU continue their nonsense about Gibraltar, the UK may have to take the gloves off.
This belligerant tone from the EU is in nobody's interests. They really haven't thought this through.
A mature, grown up discussion was promised weeks ago, and yet, here we are with the EU trying to lay down the law.
They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...
A mature, grown up discussion requires both sides to know where they stand. This statement makes that clear, in contrast to all the rubbish which has come from our national government.
The issue of Gibralter is not a massive 'bombshell' or a vengeful streak. It is simply the EU being pragmatic. It is opening the doors for Britain and Spain to negotiate, and if they can then a deal could be put forward to the council that Spain will not veto. If, however the talks broke down, Gibralter will just be straight out and the EU will not get dragged into a bilateral disagreement it really wants no part in.
All the EU has done is place the ball into the courts for Spain and the UK to sort out between themselves.
Optio wrote: The issue of Gibralter is not a massive 'bombshell' or a vengeful streak. It is simply the EU being pragmatic. It is opening the doors for Britain and Spain to negotiate, and if they can then a deal could be put forward to the council that Spain will not veto. If, however the talks broke down, Gibralter will just be straight out and the EU will not get dragged into a bilateral disagreement it really wants no part in.
All the EU has done is place the ball into the courts for Spain and the UK to sort out between themselves.
Optio wrote: The issue of Gibralter is not a massive 'bombshell' or a vengeful streak. It is simply the EU being pragmatic. It is opening the doors for Britain and Spain to negotiate, and if they can then a deal could be put forward to the council that Spain will not veto. If, however the talks broke down, Gibralter will just be straight out and the EU will not get dragged into a bilateral disagreement it really wants no part in.
All the EU has done is place the ball into the courts for Spain and the UK to sort out between themselves.
Gibraltar? Gibraltar? Who gives a flying about Gibraltar!?
No disrespect to Gibraltar or dakka members from there, but I cannot see where the EU is coming from on this. I would have thought they had enough problems on their plate with:
ISIL fighters returning to Europe.
Syria and the refugees.
Turkey looking shaky.
Greece is a mess.
A possible peace in Cyprus being jepordised if the UK, which is a backer with Greece and Turkey, pulling out.
Italy and its banks.
And of course the economic problems in the clubmed members.
Plus Brexit talks.
And yet, instead of having a fair set of talks with the UK, with both sides giving and taking to reach a fair deal for everybody, they drop Gibraltar into the mix, and could thus cause a crisis in NATO...
Future War Cultist wrote: Spain needs to be told in no uncertain terms that Gibraltar is British. They voted to stay British, twice. It's over.
Sure, we can tell them that. The EU has just prevented it being an issue in the main deal. Sure, it sucks for Gibralter, but as NI and Scotland have already discovered, voting remain means nothing.
The EU is being about as Real Politik as anyone else is. If the EU were really as dead set on ruining the UK as badly as some people make it out like they are, things would be far more ugly. Stuff like British banks being denied financial passporting rights, hard insistence on WTO trade rules with no negotiation, protectionist tariffs, nonreciprocation of residency status stuff, etc.
That said it should also be recognized that it is the EU that holds the better hand in the negotiations, and is absolutely going to use it, and that nobody seemed to really think about that when voting for Brexit. It's going to hurt. The UK is going to have to deal with a ton of things it didnt think would come up, and nobody did even minimal planning on what any of these would actually mean, both internal and external issues.
Even if one is all for Brexit for whatever reasons one may have, the way the UK government has handled this, and then insisted on pushing through anyway once it realized it wasnt prepared, should be appalling. It's like the angry kid that declares they're moving out on their 18th birthday and has burned their bridges, but suddenly realizes that they have no plan and no place lined up and their birthday is in two days. Can they make it work? Yeah sometimes. Was that wise? Perhaps a plan would have helped.
Future War Cultist wrote: Spain needs to be told in no uncertain terms that Gibraltar is British. They voted to stay British, twice. It's over.
Sure, we can tell them that. The EU has just prevented it being an issue in the main deal. Sure, it sucks for Gibralter, but as NI and Scotland have already discovered, voting remain means nothing.
Ah yes, you are referring to those two regions of the U.K. That are not countries and yet people always bring up as if they are. Unfortunately the UK is not a federation of states, it is a single state. Until such time that we are a federation, what Scotland and NI have to say about anything when taken as a whole is a mute point. The U.K. Voted to leave, not just England and Wales.
As opposed to Gibraltar, which is an overseas territory and that voted 99% to 1% against having dual citizenship with Spain.
No disrespect to Gibraltar or dakka members from there, but I cannot see where the EU is coming from on this. I would have thought they had enough problems on their plate with:
What you and everyone else commenting so far have missed, is that this is pure realpolitik. It's basic negotiating strategy. Literally textbook.
I'll elucidate. It comes down to three essential points.
The first is morale related. When the other chap thinks he got the best of you on something, he's more likely to feel good about whatever deal is eventually made, that he is in control. So by throwing something you know is one of their red lines on the table and then subsequently withdrawing from it, you make them feel good, and be more likely to swallow whatever you got out of the negotiation to your advantage.
The second is the 'quid pro quo' instinct. You begin every negotiation by naming something vastly out of proportion to what you expect to get. That way, when you withdraw from it, you can prompt the other fellow to give something back in your favour. You never have any real intent of getting what you initially name, the point is that you can say, 'well, we're willing to concede on this, but then you need to concede on something too'.
The final point is misdirection. By throwing out the hook related to a red line early, it distracts attention from other more important negotiating objectives of yours, which might be almost as unpalatable to the other side. But they're so focused on that first hook that they don't notice the rest of them inserted into the water subsequently.
The EU doesn't give a damn about Gibraltar. This is just the first of what will be several salvoes back and forth across the channel. I've no doubt that May will throw something equally ridiculous back at some point. There'll be much frothing and newspaper headlines and frenzies over the next few years relating to this sort of thing, and nobody actually sitting in the negotiations will be taking it seriously. So nobody else should either. Grab a drink, and tune back in in 20 months when something of substance might actually be being aired.
No disrespect to Gibraltar or dakka members from there, but I cannot see where the EU is coming from on this. I would have thought they had enough problems on their plate with:
What you and everyone else commenting so far have missed, is that this is pure realpolitik. It's basic negotiating strategy. Literally textbook.
I'll elucidate. It comes down to three essential points.
The first is morale related. When the other chap thinks he got the best of you on something, he's more likely to feel good about whatever deal is eventually made, that he is in control. So by throwing something you know is one of their red lines on the table and then subsequently withdrawing from it, you make them feel good, and be more likely to swallow whatever you got out of the negotiation to your advantage.
The second is the 'quid pro quo' instinct. You begin every negotiation by naming something vastly out of proportion to what you expect to get. That way, when you withdraw from it, you can prompt the other fellow to give something back in your favour. You never have any real intent of getting what you initially name, the point is that you can say, 'well, we're willing to concede on this, but then you need to concede on something too'.
The final point is misdirection. By throwing out the hook related to a red line early, it distracts attention from other more important negotiating objectives of yours, which might be almost as unpalatable to the other side. But they're so focused on that first hook that they don't notice the rest of them inserted into the water subsequently.
The EU doesn't give a damn about Gibraltar. This is just the first of what will be several salvoes back and forth across the channel. I've no doubt that May will throw something equally ridiculous back at some point. There'll be much frothing and newspaper headlines and frenzies over the next few years relating to this sort of thing, and nobody actually sitting in the negotiations will be taking it seriously. So nobody else should either. Grab a drink, and tune back in in 20 months when something of substance might actually be being aired.
If it were a dispute between the UK and the EU over straight bananas, then I'd share your confidence. But it's not.
People talk about the EU being united, but Euro skepticism is alive and well in the EU and emboldened by the UK's withdrawal. Brussels knows this and is trying to keep a lid on it.
They have to make an example of the UK or the jig is up for the EU superstate.
Did anyone read what I said? This was a move of pragmatism. It has prevented Spain having any ammunition over the final deal. Yes it sucks, Gibralter has been sacrificed as a pawn, such is politics. The logic is cruel but it is clear, it will benefit most of us too!
Vaktathi wrote: The EU is being about as Real Politik as anyone else is. If the EU were really as dead set on ruining the UK as badly as some people make it out like they are, things would be far more ugly. Stuff like British banks being denied financial passporting rights, hard insistence on WTO trade rules with no negotiation, protectionist tariffs, nonreciprocation of residency status stuff, etc.
That said it should also be recognized that it is the EU that holds the better hand in the negotiations, and is absolutely going to use it, and that nobody seemed to really think about that when voting for Brexit. It's going to hurt. The UK is going to have to deal with a ton of things it didnt think would come up, and nobody did even minimal planning on what any of these would actually mean, both internal and external issues.
Even if one is all for Brexit for whatever reasons one may have, the way the UK government has handled this, and then insisted on pushing through anyway once it realized it wasnt prepared, should be appalling. It's like the angry kid that declares they're moving out on their 18th birthday and has burned their bridges, but suddenly realizes that they have no plan and no place lined up and their birthday is in two days. Can they make it work? Yeah sometimes. Was that wise? Perhaps a plan would have helped.
London is Europe's financial capital and has been the merchant banker of the EU for years. Hurting the UK would only hurt them and they know it.
And with the UK pulling out, there is a massive black hole in the EU's balance sheet. We are the 2nd biggest contributor. I doubt if German and Dutch taxpayers will be happy at footing the bill to plug the shortfall.
Optio wrote: Did anyone read what I said? This was a move of pragmatism. It has prevented Spain having any ammunition over the final deal. Yes it sucks, Gibralter has been sacrificed as a pawn, such is politics. The logic is cruel but it is clear, it will benefit most of us too!
Eh? The Spanish have a veto on this. Senior EU sources talk about backing the member state i.e Spain
And, even if Gibraltar was off the table, every three man parish council in the EU from France's Atlantic coasts to the Polish border have a veto on the final deal.
Cue Flanders pulling the plug when the T's aren't properly crossed.
And today I read that there are over 12,000 bits of EU regulation in British law!!!!
12,000 Regulations!!! Holy horsegak!
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see the back of this bureaucratic montrosity.
Vaktathi wrote: The EU is being about as Real Politik as anyone else is. If the EU were really as dead set on ruining the UK as badly as some people make it out like they are, things would be far more ugly. Stuff like British banks being denied financial passporting rights, hard insistence on WTO trade rules with no negotiation, protectionist tariffs, nonreciprocation of residency status stuff, etc.
That said it should also be recognized that it is the EU that holds the better hand in the negotiations, and is absolutely going to use it, and that nobody seemed to really think about that when voting for Brexit. It's going to hurt. The UK is going to have to deal with a ton of things it didnt think would come up, and nobody did even minimal planning on what any of these would actually mean, both internal and external issues.
Even if one is all for Brexit for whatever reasons one may have, the way the UK government has handled this, and then insisted on pushing through anyway once it realized it wasnt prepared, should be appalling. It's like the angry kid that declares they're moving out on their 18th birthday and has burned their bridges, but suddenly realizes that they have no plan and no place lined up and their birthday is in two days. Can they make it work? Yeah sometimes. Was that wise? Perhaps a plan would have helped.
London is Europe's financial capital and has been the merchant banker of the EU for years. Hurting the UK would only hurt them and they know it.
Aye, and that's why the EU is not going out of its way to be outright punitive with the UK on every possible count, but that doesnt change the fact that the EU has the better bargaining position by far, and that the UK's planning and execution has been...well, appallingly inadequate, shifting futher favor to the EU.
And with the UK pulling out, there is a massive black hole in the EU's balance sheet. We are the 2nd biggest contributor. I doubt if German and Dutch taxpayers will be happy at footing the bill to plug the shortfall.
sure, and that is another card in the UK's favor, the UK does have some, but the UK has made it clear that it is leaving, that EU funding will be gone and the power it allows the UK to wield will be gone with it, and the EU will have to adapt either way so its value in the negotiations wont be terribly outstanding for the UK.
Vaktathi wrote: The EU is being about as Real Politik as anyone else is. If the EU were really as dead set on ruining the UK as badly as some people make it out like they are, things would be far more ugly. Stuff like British banks being denied financial passporting rights, hard insistence on WTO trade rules with no negotiation, protectionist tariffs, nonreciprocation of residency status stuff, etc.
That said it should also be recognized that it is the EU that holds the better hand in the negotiations, and is absolutely going to use it, and that nobody seemed to really think about that when voting for Brexit. It's going to hurt. The UK is going to have to deal with a ton of things it didnt think would come up, and nobody did even minimal planning on what any of these would actually mean, both internal and external issues.
Even if one is all for Brexit for whatever reasons one may have, the way the UK government has handled this, and then insisted on pushing through anyway once it realized it wasnt prepared, should be appalling. It's like the angry kid that declares they're moving out on their 18th birthday and has burned their bridges, but suddenly realizes that they have no plan and no place lined up and their birthday is in two days. Can they make it work? Yeah sometimes. Was that wise? Perhaps a plan would have helped.
London is Europe's financial capital and has been the merchant banker of the EU for years. Hurting the UK would only hurt them and they know it.
Aye, and that's why the EU is not going out of its way to be outright punitive with the UK on every possible count, but that doesnt change the fact that the EU has the better bargaining position by far, and that the UK's planning and execution has been...well, appallingly inadequate, shifting futher favor to the EU.
And with the UK pulling out, there is a massive black hole in the EU's balance sheet. We are the 2nd biggest contributor. I doubt if German and Dutch taxpayers will be happy at footing the bill to plug the shortfall.
sure, and that is another card in the UK's favor, the UK does have some, but the UK has made it clear that it is leaving, that EU funding will be gone and the power it allows the UK to wield will be gone with it, and the EU will have to adapt either way so its value in the negotiations wont be terribly outstanding for the UK.
Yeah, I have to agree with you - the planning has been gak poor.
Our last Prime Minister, David Cameron, abanodoned ship the day after the referendum, and is now making £10,000 a speech on the lecture tour.
A lot of people in the UK laugh at America for electing Trump, but quite frankly, we're in no position to do so as the people we elect these days are not worth a bucket of horsegak!
I find it slightly bizarre that there seem to be a lot of people moaning about Brexit even though they supported the idea of leaving. It really is time to wake up now. The EU now no longer needs to consider the UK's best interests only for those countries remaining. As such it does not have to mediate between Spain and UK on Gibraltar. The EU will just support Spain. The EU does not need to think of the UKs best interest in the upcoming negotiations, if an area that is in the EU turns down the proposal then that is just tough cheese for the UK. That banks and the gaming industry are looking at shifting abroad and not be in the UK is just tough cheese for the UK. I'm not sure whether the anger against the EU for doing what is in its best interests is really directed at the EU or peoples own anger at themselves as they wake up to the fact that what was warned about is coming to fruition and that it is easier to blame the EU rather than ourselves for the mess we are getting into and the big hole we are digging for ourselves.
So to repeat the EU does not have to give a damn about the UK anymore if doesn't want to. If you voted to Leave then you have to recognise and accept this. Whinging that the EU is out to get us is completely ridiculous - the only thing they are doing is looking out for the EU's own interests. If we had remained then the EU would have looked out for our own interests to.
And today I read that there are over 12,000 bits of EU regulation in British law!!!!
Since the mid 1940s that makes up about 10% of the UKs regulation (and that's not considering amendments). It really is insignificant in reality compared to the number the UK has put into place during the same period.
Yeah...the whole Trump thing...is equally appalling, 2016 was not a great moment for US politics in general
And yeah, Cameron using a Brexit referendum as a canard for domestic purposes and then cutting and running when it blew up on him should have resulted in drawing and quartering
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My views and support of Scottish indy are well known on this forum, but in all honesty, if the EU want to play hardball, then the UK should play hard ball back.
If it were me in 10 Downing Street, I would:
Upgrade Gibraltar to having the same status as any other part of the UK.
Make Gibraltar part of the UK, subject to the same laws and regulations (especially tax policy) and you'll hear champagne popping all over the foreign ministry.
That's what the whole thing is about.
Why do you think Gibraltar, a place with above average British national identity, voted 96% remain? They're not any more europhile than the Cotswolds but knew what was coming, and that they would be sacrificial lambs on the Brexit altar.
And with the UK pulling out, there is a massive black hole in the EU's balance sheet. We are the 2nd biggest contributor. I doubt if German and Dutch taxpayers will be happy at footing the bill to plug the shortfall. sure, and that is another card in the UK's favor, the UK does have some, but the UK has made it clear that it is leaving, that EU funding will be gone and the power it allows the UK to wield will be gone with it, and the EU will have to adapt either way so its value in the negotiations wont be terribly outstanding for the UK.
Not just that. The UK has drawn several lines. One is no financial contribution, other is no free movement.
There's not much room for negotiation in that case. If you don't want to pay club dues anymore you can't expect the club to let you use the swimming pool for old times' sake.
Whirlwind wrote: I find it slightly bizarre that there seem to be a lot of people moaning about Brexit even though they supported the idea of leaving. It really is time to wake up now. The EU now no longer needs to consider the UK's best interests only for those countries remaining. As such it does not have to mediate between Spain and UK on Gibraltar. The EU will just support Spain. The EU does not need to think of the UKs best interest in the upcoming negotiations, if an area that is in the EU turns down the proposal then that is just tough cheese for the UK. That banks and the gaming industry are looking at shifting abroad and not be in the UK is just tough cheese for the UK. I'm not sure whether the anger against the EU for doing what is in its best interests is really directed at the EU or peoples own anger at themselves as they wake up to the fact that what was warned about is coming to fruition and that it is easier to blame the EU rather than ourselves for the mess we are getting into and the big hole we are digging for ourselves.
So to repeat the EU does not have to give a damn about the UK anymore if doesn't want to. If you voted to Leave then you have to recognise and accept this. Whinging that the EU is out to get us is completely ridiculous - the only thing they are doing is looking out for the EU's own interests. If we had remained then the EU would have looked out for our own interests to.
Bingo, have a cookie.
I think the scales will be falling from the eyes of the 52% quite quickly over the next few years.
But, i think there will still be some who will blame the EU for everything, even after we've been out for 10 years.
It's just become a big boogie man to blame for everything gak that happens, and that's a tough habit to break.
But the the only one I want to see destitue and peniless is that smug Rees-Mog. That would be ace
Maybe he's being tongue in cheek but he's still a drunken idiot.
Oh, and to organize all those tax breaks for multi-nationals whilst PM of Luxembourg, only to turn around and attempt to punish Ireland for doing something similar once? feth you Drunker.
The Gibraltar issue always was recognised as yet another fly in the Brexit ointment, though a small one among many much larger ones.
However I agree, if the EU is going to vindictively pauperise the UK for the temerity of leaving, we really are better off out.
On a more practical note, there are only 30,000 people in Gibraltar. Its true value to the UK is a highly strategic location that was key to the various European and world wars the UK fought between from the late 17th century onwards. Given our current state of armed forces, trying to dig themselves out of a £10 billion hole, perhaps we cannot afford to maintain the fortress any more.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...However I agree, if the EU is going to vindictively pauperise the UK for the temerity of leaving, we really are better off out.
In that case you'll be pleased with this...
to accusations the EU will punish Britain, Tusk hit back. He said: ‘The EU27 does not and will not pursue a punitive approach.
‘Brexit in itself is already punitive enough.’
Kilkrazy wrote: On a more practical note, there are only 30,000 people in Gibraltar. Its true value to the UK is a highly strategic location that was key to the various European and world wars the UK fought between from the late 17th century onwards. Given our current state of armed forces, trying to dig themselves out of a £10 billion hole, perhaps we cannot afford to maintain the fortress any more.
It is the gateway to the Mediterranean and was very useful in days gone by, it's strategic importance is not so great these days. However, military commitment to Gibraltar is very light. A couple of patrol boats, some light infantry and an infrequently utilised airfield.
You'd save more by bumping off a couple of retired Admirals.
And today I read that there are over 12,000 bits of EU regulation in British law!!!!
12,000 Regulations!!! Holy horsegak!
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see the back of this bureaucratic montrosity.
So what? Is that a lot? Is it relatively little? If this is the best reasoning you can come up with, you're in for a tough time ahead indeed.
Probably because back in the 1970s, the UK was sold the dream that the EEC was a loose trading alliance. Since then, it has morphed into this centralised, bureaucratic monstrosity, a paradise for every spiv lobbying group out there, with tentacles reaching into areas previously unheard off.
When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Gibraltar issue always was recognised as yet another fly in the Brexit ointment, though a small one among many much larger ones.
However I agree, if the EU is going to vindictively pauperise the UK for the temerity of leaving, we really are better off out.
On a more practical note, there are only 30,000 people in Gibraltar. Its true value to the UK is a highly strategic location that was key to the various European and world wars the UK fought between from the late 17th century onwards. Given our current state of armed forces, trying to dig themselves out of a £10 billion hole, perhaps we cannot afford to maintain the fortress any more.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why they want to provoke antagony between two NATO members over such a strategic location...
God forbid, May could end up using Gibraltar to bolster her support in much the same way Thatcher did with the Falklands...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: I find it slightly bizarre that there seem to be a lot of people moaning about Brexit even though they supported the idea of leaving. It really is time to wake up now. The EU now no longer needs to consider the UK's best interests only for those countries remaining. As such it does not have to mediate between Spain and UK on Gibraltar. The EU will just support Spain. The EU does not need to think of the UKs best interest in the upcoming negotiations, if an area that is in the EU turns down the proposal then that is just tough cheese for the UK. That banks and the gaming industry are looking at shifting abroad and not be in the UK is just tough cheese for the UK. I'm not sure whether the anger against the EU for doing what is in its best interests is really directed at the EU or peoples own anger at themselves as they wake up to the fact that what was warned about is coming to fruition and that it is easier to blame the EU rather than ourselves for the mess we are getting into and the big hole we are digging for ourselves.
So to repeat the EU does not have to give a damn about the UK anymore if doesn't want to. If you voted to Leave then you have to recognise and accept this. Whinging that the EU is out to get us is completely ridiculous - the only thing they are doing is looking out for the EU's own interests. If we had remained then the EU would have looked out for our own interests to.
And today I read that there are over 12,000 bits of EU regulation in British law!!!!
Since the mid 1940s that makes up about 10% of the UKs regulation (and that's not considering amendments). It really is insignificant in reality compared to the number the UK has put into place during the same period.
The key difference here is that British laws and regulations were enacted by MPs elected by the British people.
