Future War Cultist wrote: So we stay in the eu, then what? What about all the issues surrounding it? The open boarders, the waste, the lack of accountability? What are we supposed to do then? Business would carry on as before and our complaints would be fobbed off because our bluff will have been completely called.
So what if Scotland stays in the UK, then what? What about all the issues surrounding it? The domination of London, the electoral system which sometimes leaves Scotland unrepresented in government, the ministers retiring into directorships of companies they gave contracts to? What are we supposed to do then? Business would carry on as before and our complaints would be fobbed off because Scotland's bluff will have been completely called.
Future War Cultist wrote: So we stay in the eu, then what? What about all the issues surrounding it? The open boarders, the waste, the lack of accountability? What are we supposed to do then? Business would carry on as before and our complaints would be fobbed off because our bluff will have been completely called.
So what if Scotland stays in the UK, then what? What about all the issues surrounding it? The domination of London, the electoral system which sometimes leaves Scotland unrepresented in government, the ministers retiring into directorships of companies they gave contracts to? What are we supposed to do then? Business would carry on as before and our complaints would be fobbed off because Scotland's bluff will have been completely called.
1) We do not have open borders. We are also not signed up to Schengen.
2) Read the Review of the Balance of Competencies. The overwhelming conclusion of that report is that the UK did very well within the EU.
Nobody was arguing the EU was perfect, but it is a joint effort of negotiations and collaborations between 28 *sovereign* governments (seriously, I wish someone would put this utter nonsense to bed) and like any negotiation it requires compromises and sacrifices to gain a common good.
3) The potential breakup of the union was discussed as a danger arising from Brexit.
We don’t have open boarders?...ok, so if a convicted killer from an eu country comes to ours, we can stop them at the boarder and send them back? And if they make it through anyway and we find out after the fact, we can still boot them out right?
Future War Cultist wrote: We don’t have open boarders?...ok, so if a convicted killer from an eu country comes to ours, we can stop them at the boarder and send them back? And if they make it through anyway and we find out after the fact, we can still boot them out right?
Is this convicted killer one who has served the sentence and been freed, or are they on the run?
I'm hoping to slip into the cinema whilst everyone is distracted between that and cup final day to finally watch Infinity War without the usual accompaniment of coke slurping and popcorn rustling.
And remember folks. This isn’t an attempt to overturn or frustrate Brexit. Instead, it’s the proper checks and measures being applied - and it’s pushing back against fanatics in the Parliamentary Tory Party, that seem to have mistaken a referendum as Carte Blanche to press all their wildest political five-knuckle fantasies.
My answer to that is that people reoffend, and we have enough of our own gak bags as it is.
Regardless of what happens, if this all results in the lords being abolished then there will be one small consolation.
Not everyone reoffends, especially with murder. We still retain the power to remove them if they offend again or don't get a job.
But you need to treat time served convicts as innocent if you want any form of rehabilitation to work.
The house of lords aren't going to be abolished no matter how much the daily mail rages against them.
Ketera once had a great idea for what the HoL should be. I can’t remember the specifics but it intended to take the politics out of the decision making.
Riquende wrote: I'm hoping to slip into the cinema whilst everyone is distracted between that and cup final day to finally watch Infinity War without the usual accompaniment of coke slurping and popcorn rustling.
You'll be lucky because that will probably be where everyone that couldn't care less about either football or the wedding will be heading.
I find it utterly bizarre that so many people are interested about the wedding of two random people that you will never know or otherwise care about. It would be like going to the wedding of Rupert Murdoch. Just why?
Future War Cultist wrote: Ketera once had a great idea for what the HoL should be. I can’t remember the specifics but it intended to take the politics out of the decision making.
I've got a great idea for HOL reform as well. It involves 600+ one-way tickets to British Antarctic territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Riquende wrote: I'm hoping to slip into the cinema whilst everyone is distracted between that and cup final day to finally watch Infinity War without the usual accompaniment of coke slurping and popcorn rustling.
It could be 25 degrees this weekend. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a cinema on a day like that.
Riquende wrote: I'm hoping to slip into the cinema whilst everyone is distracted between that and cup final day to finally watch Infinity War without the usual accompaniment of coke slurping and popcorn rustling.
You'll be lucky because that will probably be where everyone that couldn't care less about either football or the wedding will be heading.
I find it utterly bizarre that so many people are interested about the wedding of two random people that you will never know or otherwise care about. It would be like going to the wedding of Rupert Murdoch. Just why?
Some People like weddings
Some People like celebs
Some People like the Royal's
Some People will just use it as a excuse for a bit of a do with friends - party, BBQ etc
Many people like Prince Harry - who has actually served his country in the military
Many people like Megan - who seems nice, confident and a nice bridge between two countries.
Some people will be making money out of it
The News channels love it and hence its even being talked about on this thread.
Put all these together and lots of people will likely watch and enjoy.
Herzlos wrote: What would you then do to stop the Tories running roughshod over democracy?
They need reform, but exiling them isn't going to help anyone.
(the cinema could be pretty warm, but that means they'll be quiet & they sell ice cream. I'm probably spending the weekend doing landscaping work).
I would take a leaf out of the American book and have an elected Senate of sorts. Low number of members, 6 year terms, and a minimum age of say, 40 years.
In theory, this would allow them to take the long term, national interest view, and make clear headed decisions, free from party politics.
People would probably contest the age restriction, but you'd want retired teachers, doctors, judges, colonels, social workers etc etc filling the role, that kind of thing.
Herzlos wrote: What would you then do to stop the Tories running roughshod over democracy?
They need reform, but exiling them isn't going to help anyone.
(the cinema could be pretty warm, but that means they'll be quiet & they sell ice cream. I'm probably spending the weekend doing landscaping work).
I would take a leaf out of the American book and have an elected Senate of sorts. Low number of members, 6 year terms, and a minimum age of say, 40 years.
In theory, this would allow them to take the long term, national interest view, and make clear headed decisions, free from party politics.
People would probably contest the age restriction, but you'd want retired teachers, doctors, judges, colonels, social workers etc etc filling the role, that kind of thing.
So you end up with an equally unrepresentative group of people.
For a lot of the current lords this is what they get, because they are old enough to die in that time.
The important decision is how they are selected (elected?)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Steve Bell has been doing brilliant political cartoons for over 30 years, and there are still days when he nails it even better than the best.
To make it like the US senate, surely the way to do it is to run a vote strictly along geographic county* lines. A single 10 year term would suffice, and you could have 2 'lord' positions per county which are staggered so a vote happens every 5 years to coincide with a GE. You can't stand as an incumbent but could stand for the other county position after 5 years out.
Honestly the government should just dole out a certain amount of money (have them require a certain number of signatures from people in their riding as a filter) for each candidate, and that is all they get for their campaign. Not even allowed to spend out of pocket, or accept donations. Government would strictly oversee campaign finances, and any candidate that overspends is immediately disqualified regardless of backing.
Crazyterran wrote: Honestly the government should just dole out a certain amount of money (have them require a certain number of signatures from people in their riding as a filter) for each candidate, and that is all they get for their campaign. Not even allowed to spend out of pocket, or accept donations. Government would strictly oversee campaign finances, and any candidate that overspends is immediately disqualified regardless of backing.
In principle maybe, but in practice this is likely to force the influencing money underground. Keeping donations reasonably transparent at least allows voters to make a judgement on who their favourite politician is shilling for!
Crazyterran wrote: Honestly the government should just dole out a certain amount of money (have them require a certain number of signatures from people in their riding as a filter) for each candidate, and that is all they get for their campaign. Not even allowed to spend out of pocket, or accept donations. Government would strictly oversee campaign finances, and any candidate that overspends is immediately disqualified regardless of backing.
You want the GOVERNMENT to oversee and regulate political campaigning?
Yep. Great idea. Can't possibly go wrong and be abused by an authoritarian Government.
Have the judiciary oversee and enforce it, let government set reasonable spending limits on a per candidate basis, that is the same for all candidates regardless of riding, position, etc.
Though I suppose i didnt specify which part of government oversaw what, but obviously parliament isnt going to enforce parliaments 'get elected' budget.
Look's like Trump is asking for more British troops in Afghanistan, and it looks like our spineless government will roll up the white flag and agree.
The man who accused British intelligence of spying on him, and the man who was criticising us over the Iran deal, suddenly needs our help?
There should be a great big middle finger being directed towards Trump.
I was under this naïve belief that the US military, was the most powerful in the world.
As if a few hundred extra British troops will make a difference.
I've been arguing for months that British troops should be pulled out of there and deployed in the Baltic, in which doing so could win us brownie points with Baltic EU/NATO members.
Might have won us some allies in the Brexit talks.
I was opposed to the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 years ago, and I oppose it now.
You and me both.
I read somewhere that De Gaulle was never anything but rude and offensive towards the Americans, but they seemed to respect him more than the British who would agree to every request.
I find it utterly bizarre that so many people are interested about the wedding of two random people that you will never know or otherwise care about. It would be like going to the wedding of Rupert Murdoch. Just why?
Some People like weddings
Some People like celebs
Some People like the Royal's
Some People will just use it as a excuse for a bit of a do with friends - party, BBQ etc
Many people like Prince Harry - who has actually served his country in the military
Many people like Megan - who seems nice, confident and a nice bridge between two countries.
Some people will be making money out of it
The News channels love it..
If you like weddings become a wedding planner
Like celebs, in my view, is living your life through someone else's actions and distracting from your own.
How can you like the royals, people you have never met? That's a bit like saying you like the rail conductor on a train you've never been on. If you look at it from a perspective that they are just normal human beings no different to you or me then that statement makes no sense. They are not put there by some higher power and God definitely doesn't save the queen.
Why do you need an excuse to have a get together with friends on a nice weekend?
Lots of people have served their country in much more harrowing conditions than Harry will ever have had to do. Do we watch their weddings?
Again I point out how you like someone when you have never met them?
True people will fleece people for some daft tat but then that wouldn't exist except for those that actually follow some things.
You are correct about the news, WWIII could break out, there could be a huge asteroid impact and aliens could land and two random people getting married will still be top of the news.
I was opposed to the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 years ago, and I oppose it now.
These are two different issues. Iraq was always a dodgy decision based on the reasoning given. Afghanistan we are there at the behest of the government. From memory I think a lot of drugs were grown there and this was funding terrorists so hence being there does help potentially prevent attacks elsewhere in the world.
I do not disagree that May will again roll up the flag to Trump. It is not a good sign for the trade negotiations where we are willing to not challenge anything. In reality Trump wants to bring US troops home, he has no worries about replacing them with other country's people.
Still with Theresa May he doesn't need Stormy Daniels anymore. May is quite willing to bend over as far as Trump wants to pander to whatever fetish he dreams up.
Let down by feeble and incompetent politicians who probably think vision is a brand of window cleaner... ...
The system gives us poor politicians because they are taught how to spin for the best interests of their party. The U.K. Populace are unwilling to break the mould and have become 'territorial' in their voting patterns. It is inevitable.
The Americans are also sending more troops to Ganners.
Our policy is to support them with a 10% allocation. This not only to show support to the US, it is suppoting NATO/the Western Alliance in general and to encourage other allies such as France to do their bit.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Americans are also sending more troops to Ganners.
Our policy is to support them with a 10% allocation. This not only to show support to the US, it is suppoting NATO/the Western Alliance in general and to encourage other allies such as France to do their bit.
To me, the USA backing Israel has always made zero sense from a geo-politics perspective.
So if I'm criticising the Americans for that, then I have to be equally critical of Britain kamikaze foreign policy.
Afghanistan? Why? WHY?
In the days of the Raj, then yeah, makes perfect sense. But now? We don't trade with them, nor border them.
If that country falls to the Taliban tomorrow, then Britain has lost nothing in a geo strategic sense.
Maybe we could send our new aircraft carrier there?
I was opposed to the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 years ago, and I oppose it now.
These are two different issues. Iraq was always a dodgy decision based on the reasoning given. Afghanistan we are there at the behest of the government. From memory I think a lot of drugs were grown there and this was funding terrorists so hence being there does help potentially prevent attacks elsewhere in the world.
I do not disagree that May will again roll up the flag to Trump. It is not a good sign for the trade negotiations where we are willing to not challenge anything. In reality Trump wants to bring US troops home, he has no worries about replacing them with other country's people.
Still with Theresa May he doesn't need Stormy Daniels anymore. May is quite willing to bend over as far as Trump wants to pander to whatever fetish he dreams up.
Let down by feeble and incompetent politicians who probably think vision is a brand of window cleaner... ...
The system gives us poor politicians because they are taught how to spin for the best interests of their party. The U.K. Populace are unwilling to break the mould and have become 'territorial' in their voting patterns. It is inevitable.
If I were 20 years younger, I might be tempted to have a crack at parliament, do a Martin Bell and elected as an independent, and put the fear of God into them, but now?
I find it utterly bizarre that so many people are interested about the wedding of two random people that you will never know or otherwise care about. It would be like going to the wedding of Rupert Murdoch. Just why?
Some People like weddings
Some People like celebs
Some People like the Royal's
Some People will just use it as a excuse for a bit of a do with friends - party, BBQ etc
Many people like Prince Harry - who has actually served his country in the military
Many people like Megan - who seems nice, confident and a nice bridge between two countries.
Some people will be making money out of it
The News channels love it..
If you like weddings become a wedding planner
Like celebs, in my view, is living your life through someone else's actions and distracting from your own.
How can you like the royals, people you have never met? That's a bit like saying you like the rail conductor on a train you've never been on. If you look at it from a perspective that they are just normal human beings no different to you or me then that statement makes no sense. They are not put there by some higher power and God definitely doesn't save the queen.
Why do you need an excuse to have a get together with friends on a nice weekend?
Lots of people have served their country in much more harrowing conditions than Harry will ever have had to do. Do we watch their weddings?
Again I point out how you like someone when you have never met them?
True people will fleece people for some daft tat but then that wouldn't exist except for those that actually follow some things.
You are correct about the news, WWIII could break out, there could be a huge asteroid impact and aliens could land and two random people getting married will still be top of the news.
Ha I work in the wedding industry - you donlt often get that much time to enjoy them! And if you do its a different thing - making someones day special etc.
People like different things - neither of us have any right to tell them to want or like or not to like watching the royal wedding......?
People on this (like me) forum"waste" money and time on playing with toy soldiers not sure we are in any posiiton to judge.
How can you like any celebs - yeah they are just human beings - but if you know that and like watching pretty people is that such a bad thing.
Why need an excuse to meet up - thats life - its fun to have a reason - this is as good as any other
Lots of people have not served, I haven't - I respect people who have.
I like Kate Beckinsale - or at least her public persona - will I meet her - I might - fairly unlikely and do I even want to meet her - maybe not - the fantasy is fine. I have met film stars and royals and most have in fact been nice human beings - do i still like seeing interviews, programmes, phots of them - yep - and not alone - otherwise why do we have chat shows etc - Now the power of celeb may be too much now but is it all bad - not in my opinion.
News - people need something other than bad news otherwise a) people switch off and it actually has less impact in my view.
None of this is new - it was happening with Ceasar and Cleopatra and way before then and will be happening in the far future I expect.
Is it really such a bad thing? None of those reasons work for you but for hundreds of millions on Saturday they are more than enough.
lastly - well you don't have to take part or watch it do you ?
In that respect, it's like the World Cup or X-Factor. I don't give two hoots about football. And I actively loathe X-Factor and all it's ilk.
Yeah. Try actually avoiding them.
Dead easy. I've seen less than an hour of footage, all in all, of Big Brother, X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent, Pop Idol and every other "reality" series so far this millennium. I've been lucky in that I don't have to put up with anyone around me who does watch them, but actually avoiding the shows themselves is not a problem.
Seems profitable under national control. Maybe if privatisation didn’t involve shareholders and fat cat management trying to wring every penny for themselves rather than the good of the line, you’d get a better service. I suspect a lot of the problems in privately run public services come from individuals trying to get bonuses and quickly further their own career by making short term efficiency savings that cause long term damage.
In effect it seems that the East Coast line can make money, but only when held in the stultifying grip of public ownership and bureaucracy. Yet when run by efficient, agile modern private management, it's a dismal failure despite large government subsidies.
It is going to require a fair bit of cognitive dissonance to process this and come up with the solution that the railways should be privatised.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand why the North Eastern line can't make money.
It does; it’s running in profit even now. It’s just the stupid way that the franchises are awarded, which favours companies that make the largest promised payment to the government, rather than the ones with the most realistic business case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: In effect it seems that the East Coast line can make money, but only when held in the stultifying grip of public ownership and bureaucracy. Yet when run by efficient, agile modern private management, it's a dismal failure despite large government subsidies.
It is going to require a fair bit of cognitive dissonance to process this and come up with the solution that the railways should be privatised.
While I’m generally in favour of nationalisation, I do recognise that it isn’t perfect and can be inefficient; there can be a place for private companies. However I think that it works much better under a TFL style model, where you have a consolidated public organisation providing the point of service, i.e. the organisation says “we need three trains an hour between these two places” and then the private companies bid to provide that service under the banner of the public organisation. The second change I believe is needed is that rather than just looking at the relative costs of private company bids, there should always be a public bid too (i.e. what would it cost to do it ourselves). So in the cases where the private sector can find efficiencies and fund their profits from that, great, everyone wins, but where they’re just going to slap profits on top of public sector running costs, they can be told to get lost.
Of course that would require the Tories to admit that private enterprise isn’t always the best solution, which is never going to happen.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Seems profitable under national control. Maybe if privatisation didn’t involve shareholders and fat cat management trying to wring every penny for themselves rather than the good of the line, you’d get a better service. I suspect a lot of the problems in privately run public services come from individuals trying to get bonuses and quickly further their own career by making short term efficiency savings that cause long term damage.
The repeated insistence on reprivatising it is ideological not financial.
Yep. That happened here with Belfast City Council's waste collection service, even though it's still under public ownership. "Route Optimization" they called it. Designed to get the guys doing more work in their day and to save money on overtime and agency support. I was there, and last time I checked it cost the city an extra £1.5 million that year in hiring agency workers and hire lorries to cover the chaos it caused. Everything that could go wrong went wrong; letters warning people that their bin day had changed ended up in a skip because they cheaped out on the couriers and got some little mickey mouse operation to do it. So the squad would go around their route to find nothing out and thus they return to base after only two hours, but union rules said that having done that they were done for the day period and couldn't be made to go back out. So agency workers in a hired lorry (total cost per week per squad: £7000) had to be sent out to do it instead. And because they crammed too much stuff together into one route, some runs were impossible to finish in one day, thus requiring parts to be sectioned off to more agency workers, costing even more.
The guy they brought in to do this (at considerable cost) told them that the city (which is growing btw) would require an extra seven squads to get adequate coverage. But management wanted to do it with five less squads than they currently have. So they took his plan and chopped it up and messed it around. Then, when it failed, they tried to pin the blame on him. Only when he threatened to expose them (with proof) did they back down. Why hire somebody for consolation if you're going to ignore their advance? His plans worked three times before in other cities by the way, so he knows what he's talking about.
Despite all this, those managers where able to claim that they cut costs and improved efficiency, and thus they pocketed huge bonuses before doing a runner. And you know how? All those agency workers and hired lorries, the extra 1.5 million, were "off the record" and wouldn't show up in official spending reports. It has to be criminal. But then again, it's small fry when compared to the Renewable Heating Incentive. Northern Ireland is an incredibly corrupt place from top to bottom.
My point is, it's far too easy for management to make (incredibly) short term gains to claim massive bonus payments before running off before the inevitable consequences of their action hits. There must be a way to stop it.
Ha I work in the wedding industry - you donlt often get that much time to enjoy them! And if you do its a different thing - making someones day special etc.
People like different things - neither of us have any right to tell them to want or like or not to like watching the royal wedding......?
People on this (like me) forum"waste" money and time on playing with toy soldiers not sure we are in any posiiton to judge.
How can you like any celebs - yeah they are just human beings - but if you know that and like watching pretty people is that such a bad thing.
Why need an excuse to meet up - thats life - its fun to have a reason - this is as good as any other
Lots of people have not served, I haven't - I respect people who have.
I like Kate Beckinsale - or at least her public persona - will I meet her - I might - fairly unlikely and do I even want to meet her - maybe not - the fantasy is fine. I have met film stars and royals and most have in fact been nice human beings - do i still like seeing interviews, programmes, phots of them - yep - and not alone - otherwise why do we have chat shows etc - Now the power of celeb may be too much now but is it all bad - not in my opinion.
News - people need something other than bad news otherwise a) people switch off and it actually has less impact in my view.
None of this is new - it was happening with Ceasar and Cleopatra and way before then and will be happening in the far future I expect.
Is it really such a bad thing? None of those reasons work for you but for hundreds of millions on Saturday they are more than enough.
lastly - well you don't have to take part or watch it do you ?
I think you've taken the comments too literally. The point is that all of these can be done without going crazy over random people signing a piece of worthless paper. It is, in my view, a waste of precious hours watching someone else do something, living your life through the actions of others. I have no issue with people playing toy soldiers because they are living their life. If people don't do the same things for anyone else than that would imply other issues at play. My view, simplistically is that it these things are staged to reinforce loyalty to the state by the populace through psychological conditioning and to make people think they are part of something 'special'. In reality there is no difference to joe blogs' wedding and this one apart from the fact the state pays a lot of money to support the latter. For some reason the relatives of those people that stabbed, murdered or imprisoned there way to that position of power are given more consideration? To be fair that is what the state really uses the royal family for, a means to try and keep us in line and maintain their control - that's even seen in the national anthem where people sing about God save the old woman with the handbag.
Is he trying to say things would be more successful if we eradicated Wrexi?
.. well it's bound to be a success now then if
Spoiler:
curses !
Do you think people actually listen to themselves? It sounds like there is secret underground badger cells. Still if the government is being defeated by a group of wild animals it definitely shows up the quality of the government. If they are being given the run around by badgers you can imagine what the Wrexit negotiations are like.
the Tory party is concerned by the fall in their membership, so are coming up with ideas to make it more enticing :
Spoiler:
"We don't know how many businesses would want to take part..."
.. well that's one way of putting it eh ?
Barring my general concern about political parties trying to buy votes an support. Weather spoons might support it...probably a good fit. We'll take your money and in return you get a plate of ****.
I think you've taken the comments too literally. The point is that all of these can be done without going crazy over random people signing a piece of worthless paper. It is, in my view, a waste of precious hours watching someone else do something, living your life through the actions of others. I have no issue with people playing toy soldiers because they are living their life. If people don't do the same things for anyone else than that would imply other issues at play. My view, simplistically is that it these things are staged to reinforce loyalty to the state by the populace through psychological conditioning and to make people think they are part of something 'special'. In reality there is no difference to joe blogs' wedding and this one apart from the fact the state pays a lot of money to support the latter. For some reason the relatives of those people that stabbed, murdered or imprisoned there way to that position of power are given more consideration? To be fair that is what the state really uses the royal family for, a means to try and keep us in line and maintain their control - that's even seen in the national anthem where people sing about God save the old woman with the handbag.
Sorry i just don't feel as strongly about it as you evidently do. Today brought a lot of enjoyment to alot of people. I am happy with that.
I was impressed. Surprised how American they got, with the preacher and the gospel choir. Felt very different to the 'normal' royal wedding, in a good way.
I felt the American preacher went a fair way off topic during the "fire" bit of his sermon. I was reaching for the moderation buttons. However he got it all back to the core subject and actually it worked really well, and the gospel choir was great..
Meghan's dress was very well chosen. I liked her natural freckle look with very subtle make-up. The little page boys and bridesmaids were super-cute.
It was good to see a fleet of veteran Rolls Royces and so on deployed. Plus a number of regiments including the Ghurkas and the RAF Regiment.
Over all a very good show!
Once again it makes you think that no-one can put on a show quite like this except the British. A 900 year old castle. Army units older than many countries. The heraldry of a chapel of an order of knights dating to the 14th century.
My wife still hates Meghan and this feeling apparently is widespread among Japanese wives and mothers-in-law. Largely because she is a divorcee. Of course the Royal Family itself contains a lot of divorcees.
My own feeling is that Meghan and Harry will either turn into a disaster, or be a huge success. No middle ground.
Kilkrazy wrote: I felt the American preacher went a fair way off topic during the "fire" bit of his sermon. I was reaching for the moderation buttons. However he got it all back to the core subject and actually it worked really well, and the gospel choir was great..
Meghan's dress was very well chosen. I liked her natural freckle look with very subtle make-up. The little page boys and bridesmaids were super-cute.
It was good to see a fleet of veteran Rolls Royces and so on deployed. Plus a number of regiments including the Ghurkas and the RAF Regiment.
Over all a very good show!
Once again it makes you think that no-one can put on a show quite like this except the British. A 900 year old castle. Army units older than many countries. The heraldry of a chapel of an order of knights dating to the 14th century.
My wife still hates Meghan and this feeling apparently is widespread among Japanese wives and mothers-in-law. Largely because she is a divorcee. Of course the Royal Family itself contains a lot of divorcees.
My own feeling is that Meghan and Harry will either turn into a disaster, or be a huge success. No middle ground.
Don, t forget a Chapel on top of the Knights, home to the tombs of famous Tudour Kings, Cavalry regiments, horse drawn parades and all trappings of Royalty.
Theres carriages used in processions older than countries.
It reflects a strange... Static but reliable point.. There's somthing alot older than modern change around it.
I think you've taken the comments too literally. The point is that all of these can be done without going crazy over random people signing a piece of worthless paper. It is, in my view, a waste of precious hours watching someone else do something, living your life through the actions of others. I have no issue with people playing toy soldiers because they are living their life. If people don't do the same things for anyone else than that would imply other issues at play. My view, simplistically is that it these things are staged to reinforce loyalty to the state by the populace through psychological conditioning and to make people think they are part of something 'special'. In reality there is no difference to joe blogs' wedding and this one apart from the fact the state pays a lot of money to support the latter. For some reason the relatives of those people that stabbed, murdered or imprisoned there way to that position of power are given more consideration? To be fair that is what the state really uses the royal family for, a means to try and keep us in line and maintain their control - that's even seen in the national anthem where people sing about God save the old woman with the handbag.
Sorry i just don't feel as strongly about it as you evidently do. Today brought a lot of enjoyment to alot of people. I am happy with that.
Its a distraction for one day from countries woes. Plus the amount of revenue business in area made will be quite the tax payment.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You'd think the Left Wing on Dakka Dakka would be ecstatic over an international, interracial Royal Wedding.
Why? If Harry had married a white English woman nobody would have cared. Nobody really cares that she isn't white and is foreign, or not so that I've seen. All that matters is that the two people involved in a marriage are happy.
Now if anybody had complained about her not being white, or not being British, then that would have been something for the left to get excited about.
This leftie isn't ecstatic because I'm a republican and the filthy lot can go hang themselves.
I'm a leftie, I enjoyed it, but tbf I made sure I didn't start watching until a couple of minutes before 12 and did my ironing whilst doing so.
It was a spectacle, it went very smoothly, they seemed genuinely happy, the service might not be to my taste but it suited them and they seemed happy with it, the weather was pretty much perfect, it went without a hitch, she looked stunning, he was well turned out and obviously pleased, and it demonstrated a really positive image of the UK to the entire world.
Can't really say fairer than that.
The only downer of the whole event was my Facebook feed ended up being filled with people sharing their "facts" rather angrily in defence of, or attacking the royals. I can't be bothered with all that tbh, most of those people in my thread can be pretty tedious on both sides.
I'm also sure that Harry and Megan would not give the slightest toss, just like me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m more surprised that the right wing of Dakka haven’t kicked off about the spending of public money to fund a wedding for scroungers?
The royals can't be scroungers because they have buckets of money, it's okay to waste taxpayer money when the thing your're throwing it at doesn't need it.
I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.
Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?
I’m a republican, but have no beef with those actually in the Royal Family.
I don’t see why the public purse should fund them at all. They’re already quite wealthy, and own a poop load of land. Cut off public funding, let them fun themselves. Especially in a time of enforced and needless austerity. We can dig up £30,000,000 for this wedding, but not for fire proof cladding for a fraction.
We can continue to fund the royal family, but not the NHS.
It’s all just a nonsense to me. But again, I find it impossible to have an issue with the beneficiaries of that system.
My thoughts are that we can do the pomp and all the nonsense without a royal family.
Speaking of, I heard/read somewhere that being head of the commonwealth isn't hereditary, how would one go about applying to be head of the commonwealth if this was true?
They put more into the government purse than they take put. Albeit largely from land, so if we disbanded them and seized all their land we'd be in a better position unless they really do generate that much in tourism.
I'm a royalist; I like them. Couldn't give a gal about the wedding ceremony though.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.
Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?
Do you mean you would like a Scandi style monarchy, there in a constitutional way, and low key? The kind of king who cycles from the palace to open parliament, whose children have regular jobs as airline pilots and so on.
I wish the newlyweds well. As I always do at any wedding. And they both seem like decent enough people. But marrying a woman of colour doesn't magically turn a hereditary monarchy into a progressive institution.
I have no particular ill-will towards any individual royal, but if I had my way they'd all be evicted and forced to get real jobs, and their palaces turned into homeless shelters. If the prospect of Tony Blair as president didn't stop me being a republican, one royal wedding isn't going to do it either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m a republican, but have no beef with those actually in the Royal Family.
I don’t see why the public purse should fund them at all. They’re already quite wealthy, and own a poop load of land. Cut off public funding, let them fun themselves. Especially in a time of enforced and needless austerity. We can dig up £30,000,000 for this wedding, but not for fire proof cladding for a fraction.
We can continue to fund the royal family, but not the NHS.
It’s all just a nonsense to me. But again, I find it impossible to have an issue with the beneficiaries of that system.
As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.
Herzlos wrote: They put more into the government purse than they take put. Albeit largely from land, so if we disbanded them and seized all their land we'd be in a better position unless they really do generate that much in tourism.
I'm a royalist; I like them. Couldn't give a gal about the wedding ceremony though.
This is partially the issue with I have. It is basically a throw back to an outdated medieval method of government. It entrenches a class type system that historically is wealthy, has land because of rather brutal actions in that past. That this wealth came from its removal from other people through the forced use of arms. Those then born into that then just get an automatic privilege and I'm opposed to any position where a person is just entitled to something because X managed to knock up Y. Is partially why it always baffles me that when you look at it logically why as a country we are so willing to support this. And still think it is psychological conditioning of the populace to support the state.
However I'm not really a republican because I don't think we need an elected head of state as that would just end up with the Tories/Labour again. I think we should abolish the monarchy and replace it with something where we vote for a figure head that represents the country for a short period time (assuming they wanted to do it) - e.g. David Attenborough, Stephen hawking etc and so forth which allows anyone to become the representative of the U.K. Should they succeed but only being a figurehead and being completely apolitical.
We could then renationalise a lot of the state land and use it for better purposes like housing for example.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.
Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?
#Raises hand.
Yep. I’m also a liberal socialist who supports the monarchy and the House of Lords. The former because I think the Royal family is a much better head of state / symbol of unity than some other systems (meaningful glance west across the Atlantic). Also I read a while back that the Royals actually cost a bit less than the French president, in terms of travel, security, facilities, etc. Basically any head of state costs money, so getting rid of the monarchy isn’t going to save anything in the long run.
On the second point, I used to be a stauch abolitionist about the Lords, I mellowed somewhat when most of the hereditary peers were abolished and I became a stauch supporter when they stepped in to protect our democracy and civil rights from the draconian “anti-terror” bollocks that Blair tried to bring in. I think there needs to be a reduction in size, removal of the remaining hereditary positions and reconsider the presence of the bishops (either remove them or add representatives of other faiths, humanists, etc.). Fundamentally though, I’m now of the opinion that there is definite merit in a body of people who have been appointed because, generally, they have achieved something significant (i.e. they have proven capability) and don’t have to base their political decisions around pandering to whatever bs, knee jerk reaction is In the tabloids that week.
As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.
I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.
True, however we should also consider that the international TV rights sales brought in a ton of money. The 100,000 visitors to WIndsor will have spent a few million.
There are also intangible benefits; international PR for the UK, including a convincing demonstration of our progressive, multicultural society.
Also, the security forces need this kind of "live fire" exercise to keep them in good fettle for general anti-terrorism and big public event operations.
In terms of it being an outdated mediaeval government which supports a class system... Some of the most happy, equal and advanced countries in the world are monarchies -- Japan, Sweden, Norway, etc. While some of the most unequal and unhappy countries are republics and still manage to have obvious class systems.
True, however we should also consider that the international TV rights sales brought in a ton of money. The 100,000 visitors to WIndsor will have spent a few million.
But that only benefits those that already have money anyway. Most will have been spent in upmarket establishments. Little of it will trickle down to those people that really need it.
There are also intangible benefits; international PR for the UK, including a convincing demonstration of our progressive, multicultural society.
I think it has shown more of us light of if you have power/wealth you are OK. The ongoing wind rush saga has had bigger connotations for the world's perspective of our multiculturalism.
Also, the security forces need this kind of "live fire" exercise to keep them in good fettle for general anti-terrorism and big public event operations.
That's definitely a new excuse for having a wedding. Are we saying we actually would have liked a terrorist attack to have been attempted just to test our defences?
In terms of it being an outdated mediaeval government which supports a class system... Some of the most happy, equal and advanced countries in the world are monarchies -- Japan, Sweden, Norway, etc. While some of the most unequal and unhappy countries are republics and still manage to have obvious class systems.
Success is different from a idealogical policy though. Most of these countries have had centuries to develop their power and wealth to make a happy populace. They've got their because they have exploited other people or nations in the past. It depends on how these things are implemented. However in a modern world having a system where a head of state is simply determined by who a 'ginger head' decides to ejaculate semen into and who is lying on their back is not rational and entrenches a thinking that power and wealth is determined by the parents rather than provide everyone the same opportunity to exceed and become a representative for the country
As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.
I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.
I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....
The upmarket places the celeb guests use will be staffed by a small army of 'normal people' who will appreciate the work and tips. Waiters, room service, drivers and so on.
The thousands of people standing outside will have spent a lot of money in normal shops too. Those having parties at home will spend locally and so on.
Most of this money will get taxed, too.
I think the crown owns most of the land (and gives the government about £360m of the £400m income from the estates). We could always sell it off and give it back to the commonwealth where it'll end up in the hands of the foreign elite. It's almost communist in the state owning so much.
Some see royalty as huge privilege but I think most will view it as a curse. Like as Megan knows it is essentially over; she'll never act again and will spend most of her time doing pretty boring official stuff. I honestly don't envy any of them.
As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.
I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.
I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....
I remember that too. I remember being told that the money wasted on that, plus all the other issues surrounding it, wasn’t worth worrying about.
As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.
I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.
I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....
The two parliaments is a waste but I don't think it's much in terms of budget percentage.
I do love that video where Barnier goes off on one about "the biggest waste of EU funds is Mr Farages salary due to 3 consecutive years of non attendance at the fisheries commission.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.
Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?
Do you mean you would like a Scandi style monarchy, there in a constitutional way, and low key? The kind of king who cycles from the palace to open parliament, whose children have regular jobs as airline pilots and so on.
No. Issues with the misconduct of individual members of the Monarchy aside, I'm perfectly happy with the Monarchy as an Institution in it's current form. I don't want to replace our Head of State with an elected President, it would just become politicised and hyper-partisan like the American Presidency; and it wouldn't save money in the long term. In fact it would probably be much more expensive.
The United Kingdom has been the longest enduring, most stable Nation State in the world for 300 years. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.
On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.
A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France.
That can't be good for the environment. They expect the Nations and Peoples of Europe to go green (often at great expense), whilst shuttling a fleet of lorries, cars and trains between Brussels and Strasbourg every month.
I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....
Well if want to bring "whataboutism" into the argument then I'll play. So I raise you £2-3bn extra the UK Parliament is going to waste because a few don't want to retire anywhere other than the Houses of Parliament. And as they turned down all solutions the costs will go up
That's about 15-25 EU decamping between two locations. £200m would easily build you a suitable facility in the centre of the U.K. That would both make it more convenient and have better technology to provide services to its constituents. And this ignores the reduction in requirement for second homes, cheaper rental rates etc etc. From this perspective the specified EU waste (which it is, but then it is a democracy which is missed in this point) is minuscule compared to what our own parliament is wasting on a similar issue.
Some see royalty as huge privilege but I think most will view it as a curse. Like as Megan knows it is essentially over; she'll never act again and will spend most of her time doing pretty boring official stuff. I honestly don't envy any of them.
You could however had these people pay for all their own costs rather than at the tax payers expense. Some people might have earned a little extra, but the majority will go those that own the companies and escape the larger tax demands.
Also the above is why I don't see the marriage lasting beyond about 10 years. Unlike the other wedding where the parents effectively groomed a princess and did all they could for her to be one in this case I think after the gloss wears off there will be more and more yearning to be free.
Diana was future queen & wife and mother to future kings. Not that I think anything actually happened beyond an accident, and not that that would justify it if it had.
As big a spectacle as this was (apparently, I didn't watch it) I think it's probably the start of Harry moving out of the Royal limelight. In the mid 80s the upcoming nucleus of British Royalty was Charles, Diana, William and Harry; from a very young age all the focus was on "William and Harry" as a pair, which redoubled in '97.
Now we're a full generation on and all the attention will now be going to William & Kate, and whatever the kids are called, as they're the new nucleus of the Royals. Harry and Meghan will start to move into the sort of exposure and roles enjoyed by Andrew, Edward & Anne etc. They probably can't wait.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Grace Kelly was a bigger star and packed in acting and age ten years younger than Meghan has, yet it worked for thirty years until her death.
The princess of Monaco is much less restricted by media vultures and that was also the 1950s which is hardly a comparable time in both society and the the perception of women in society.
You know it was only to hide the fact that William and Harry weren't related to Charles right....?
Seriously it was drunk driver, a woman who couldn't get out of a marriage she despised, in love with another man, and constantly hounded by the press limited in her own free speech and actions she could undertake. It was likely inevitable, or if not that suicide.
I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....
Well if want to bring "whataboutism" into the argument then I'll play. So I raise you £2-3bn extra the UK Parliament is going to waste because a few don't want to retire anywhere other than the Houses of Parliament. And as they turned down all solutions the costs will go up
.
You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.
Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/21/support-for-brexit-falls-sharply-in-northern-ireland[Support for Brexit falls sharply in Northern Ireland.[/url]
The detailed picture is more nuanced, with varying attitudes of Protestants and Catholics to various issues.
Here's a little more detail about the results of that opinion poll in Northern Ireland (link to pdf). (It was been published by Queen's University Belfast and UK in a Changing Europe today.) The results show a significant fall in support for Leave. Northern Ireland voted 54% Remain to 46% Leave. Remain support has now risen to 69%.
They also show a significant risk of violent protests if there are border check either between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Peaceful protests in either scenario seem certain.
However, the people of Northern Ireland still want to remain British.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Grace Kelly was a bigger star and packed in acting and age ten years younger than Meghan has, yet it worked for thirty years until her death.
The princess of Monaco is much less restricted by media vultures and that was also the 1950s which is hardly a comparable time in both society and the the perception of women in society.
You know it was only to hide the fact that William and Harry weren't related to Charles right....?
Seriously it was drunk driver, a woman who couldn't get out of a marriage she despised, in love with another man, and constantly hounded by the press limited in her own free speech and actions she could undertake. It was likely inevitable, or if not that suicide.
I'm no member of the tin foil hat brigade, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions about Diana's death.
Diana was future queen & wife and mother to future kings. Not that I think anything actually happened beyond an accident, and not that that would justify it if it had.
As big a spectacle as this was (apparently, I didn't watch it) I think it's probably the start of Harry moving out of the Royal limelight. In the mid 80s the upcoming nucleus of British Royalty was Charles, Diana, William and Harry; from a very young age all the focus was on "William and Harry" as a pair, which redoubled in '97.
Now we're a full generation on and all the attention will now be going to William & Kate, and whatever the kids are called, as they're the new nucleus of the Royals. Harry and Meghan will start to move into the sort of exposure and roles enjoyed by Andrew, Edward & Anne etc. They probably can't wait.
Andrew and Edward? You mean Harry will be sitting on his rear for most of his life or hanging about golf courses, and my taxes will have to pay for it?
You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.
Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.
Which is "whataboutism". The issue is whether the money spent by the state on the wedding could be better spent and should have been paid for by the families involved. That they are no different from any other individual and that the state doesn't pay for part of anyone else's wedding.
Bring up the EU was a nakedly blunt attempt to to try and raw attention away from the discussion (and insert a spin an unsubtle attack on the EU to favour your own views) and compare it it to something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. That is simply "whataboutism" and was irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Nandos not that enthused about being seen as Tory supporting -- or indeed being affiliated with any political party.
Which is a reasonable, sensible even, enough position.
But does show that the people we're having represent us in the Brexit talks and future trade deals cannot make a deal with a fething chicken restaurant chain.
NEW: Dept of Transport announces new contingency plan for “serious disruption to cross-Channel transport” work to M20 between Ashford & Leeds Castle to create “form of contraflow system” for lorries to be “available early 2019” as an interim solution after planning app withdrawn.
.. hooray : Permanent Opeation Stack it is then.
Spoiler:
entire coastbound M20 between J8-9 - a 13 mile stretch between Maidstone & Ashford would be “used to hold HGVs” - 2000 lorry car park - while the Londonbound M20 would turn into a contraflow system of two lanes each, if £25m “Operation Brock” activated
You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.
Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.
Which is "whataboutism". The issue is whether the money spent by the state on the wedding could be better spent and should have been paid for by the families involved. That they are no different from any other individual and that the state doesn't pay for part of anyone else's wedding.
Bring up the EU was a nakedly blunt attempt to to try and raw attention away from the discussion (and insert a spin an unsubtle attack on the EU to favour your own views) and compare it it to something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. That is simply "whataboutism" and was irrelevant to the point being discussed.
.
You do realise that your post was an exact example of your own prejudices - similar to this disdainful "oh you just hate Europe" whilst ignoring any aspect of the statement in order to broadcast your own dogma.
Its hilarious that saying "oh the money could have been spent better" but only in this specific area whilst previously - "nope waste here is fine" its too small an amount to matter.
Money can always be spent differently - just because your bile was overflowing up at that point against anyone who enjoyed watching the wedding does not mean that it was wrong to spend it.
For clarity
person 1 says "Grrrr this wedding was an example of a waste of public money, anyone who watches it is stupid how can they waste all this money."
person 2 says "I think having two Eu parliment buildings is a waste of public money but you said no one should bother about such piffling small sums of money "
Person 1 says - "Whats that got to do wth anything"
Person 2 says - "Er its the same ?"
Person 1 says "You just hate the EU"
With the Grenfell inquiry opening and the anniversary of the Manchester arena bomb the news cycle has been damn grim today. So its nice of Ken to provide something a bit more cheerful http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44196298. Not that leaving the Labour party will stop him from opening his gob and letting the stupid out whenever some one puts a mic in his face.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They could have made a public statement on this anti-Semitism scandal had they chosen to expel him from the party themselves, at a much earlier date.
And they wonder why that accusation won’t go away.
You do realise that your post was an exact example of your own prejudices - similar to this disdainful "oh you just hate Europe" whilst ignoring any aspect of the statement in order to broadcast your own dogma.
Its hilarious that saying "oh the money could have been spent better" but only in this specific area whilst previously - "nope waste here is fine" its too small an amount to matter.
Sigh...I'm not even sure you know what it means...having a debate about whether it is useful to spend public funds for a wedding of two human beings is fine as a debate. Having a debate about whether it is appropriate for funds to be used to decamp the EU between two buildings is fine. It is not ok, and is clearly 'whataboutism' when you take one debate and try and compare it to a completely different issue using different funds with different sources. It was a crude attempt at trying to make a point and backfired because it was easily spotted for what it was.
Money can always be spent differently - just because your bile was overflowing up at that point against anyone who enjoyed watching the wedding does not mean that it was wrong to spend it.
No bile involved, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask why that money can't be provided by the two families rather than rely on the state to fund these costs. Your approach makes me think that you don't actually have a rational response to the argument and it is easier to try and deflect onto something else entirely (trying to make a failed point) which people tend to do when the question opens doors in the head that they prefer remain closed, locked and barred because of the potential possibilities it opens and is best left in denial...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They could have made a public statement on this anti-Semitism scandal had they chosen to expel him from the party themselves, at a much earlier date.
And they wonder why that accusation won’t go away.
This is actually quite common in business circles. When one party has not done quite enough to go against the rules. To fire/kick out someone leaves something permanent on their record but there is enough uncertainty that the other party could be taken to court over the issue. Basically neither party are 100% of their legal footing and hence it is easier and cheaper for both parties to walk away. No tarnished record and the organisation can close the case. Happens a lot more than you might think as both parties usually sign up to some form of NDA.
It turns out that punishing people into getting jobs doesn't work and has unintended negative consequences such as pushing them into "survival crime" instead.
I spent a year as a client of the Jobcentre system, and a year as an avoider, and I can confirm the following:
jobcentres were more focused on enforcing benefit rules rather than helping people get jobs, the study found.
some cases elected to sign off, foregoing rent support and tax credits, to avoid what they saw as constant, petty harassment from jobcentre staff.
OTOH the course I was sent on for job searching and so on was actually very good. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It would definitely have benefitted people without that experience, though.
much of the mandatory job search, training and employment support offered by Jobcentre Plus and external providers is too generic, of poor quality and largely ineffective in enabling people to enter and sustain paid work
It's also a huge waste of time for employers, having to deal with applications and interviews with people who are unsuitable or don't want the job but just have a quota to meet.
Making the system so horrible people leave the 'unemployed group', saving money (on paper) and making the figures look good, sounds like a tory wet dream, though.
Herzlos wrote: It's also a huge waste of time for employers, having to deal with applications and interviews with people who are unsuitable or don't want the job but just have a quota to meet.
Making the system so horrible people leave the 'unemployed group', saving money (on paper) and making the figures look good, sounds like a tory wet dream, though.
The Tories don't care about the effects on these people. They only care that I can promote their own twisted version of the figures to the Daily Fail and Scum newspaper which will be lapped up by the readers. They just hope they aren't in control when a Grenfell or Windrush saga arises because they know they will be shown the door for someone new and the cycle repeats.
Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]
And that every study I've seen done on the Royal Family suggests A) they bring in more money than they cost, B) Getting rid of them would require several replacements which would ultimately cost more and havn't exactly performed terribly well in the other countries that have them.
and C) Having a Royal family has never actually done the UK any harm in the modern Era. It's never damaged our democracy, done anything spectularly unpopular or hurt or international reputation.
Seems to be a case of, 'It ain't broke, but we want to fix it with something that's almost certainly worse and more expensive because 'Muh Principles', along with vague insinuations of death threats about 'Hanging' or 'Deporting', people who are effectively lifelong civil servants.'
Even some of the posts in this thread about it have bordered on the offensive/disgusting side of things.
So it’s just like the Japanese one; a green light to begin talks rather than something concrete. Let’s see how long it takes for them to actually do that. Is that hormone laced Australian beef going to be a stumbling block for example.
If people are genuinely interested in the workings of the EU, then I would recommend you read the farming sections of your local/regional newspaper. Assuming of course they have one.
Mine does, and over the last few months, I've learned about all sorts of interesting stuff. The Brazil trade deal with the EU being a prime example. Yeah, Brazil might have dodgy milk, but better to stick with the blind eye of the 'good' EU than get chlorinated chicken? Right?
Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.
The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc
So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.
The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.
It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.
Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.
The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc
So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.
The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.
It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.
The EU's approach is the one that makes the most sense for a very simple reason. Money. It costs a lot of money to scientifically determine if harm is caused by pesticides and herbicides, not to mention that such harm may only become apparent many years after exposure.
Regulatory services are not funded to adequately test every new pesticide and herbicide that is developed. So, instead the manufacturers can fund the research to prove that the risk of harm is within acceptable limits.
Also, the EU's approach does not violate the scientific method at all. Assuming that pesticides and herbicides could be extremely harmful and should be tested extensively before being allowed to be used is a reasonable position to start from.
If you go with the opposite approach then you can end up with repeats of instances like mass use of DDT.
DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.
Da Boss wrote: DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.
When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.
I think we're all agreed on that.
Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.
But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.
I'm reluctant to trust any side on this. Ordinary people at the bottom like us tend to be an after thought in billion dollar trade deals.
Don't fall into the trap of UK = bad EU = good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And another thing.
In trumpeting the fact that the EU has stolen a march on the UK with regard to Australia and New Zealand, have Remainers not committed the supreme irony and made the case for Brexit?
If Australia (30 million people) and New Zealand (4 million people) thousands of miles away on the other side of the world can get a win win trade deal
then why not Britain (65 million people) and on the EU's doorstep and the world's 5th largest economy?
The 500 million EU citizens should be able to blow away the 4 million New Zealanders when it comes to negotiating clout, right?
Herbicides and pesticides is another conflict between the EU and the UK.
The UK wants an evidence based approach to banning certain pesticides and herbicides which are bad for the environment, human consumption etc etc
So if X is shown to be harmful, the UK wants it banned, and who can argue against that? Not me.
The EU on the other hand, has flipped it: guilty until proven innocent, which goes against the scientific method, and a whole host of herbicides and pesticides are looking at being banned, regardless of what farmers want or the scientists say.
It's safety first, but I suspect if this is ever made a big deal, it will be used as a stick to bash the UK.
The EU's approach is the one that makes the most sense for a very simple reason. Money.
It costs a lot of money to scientifically determine if harm is caused by pesticides and herbicides, not to mention that such harm may only become apparent many years after exposure.
Regulatory services are not funded to adequately test every new pesticide and herbicide that is developed. So, instead the manufacturers can fund the research to prove that the risk of harm is within acceptable limits.
Also, the EU's approach does not violate the scientific method at all. Assuming that pesticides and herbicides could be extremely harmful and should be tested extensively before being allowed to be used is a reasonable position to start from.
If you go with the opposite approach then you can end up with repeats of instances like mass use of DDT.
Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.
Because a good deal to Australia is a bad deal to us. They sell stuff, we sell services.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus if you make everything legal until it's banned you end up with unscrupulous companies changing the composition of banned stuff so it's "totally not the same thing" and not banned anymore. Only allowing it when proven safe is a lot safer.
Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.
The solution to global warming is not to introduce untested chemicals into the environment.
You know all the Austrialian car manufacturers are closing down or have already closed down their home based plants? Even Holden. Australia seems to be turning into an importer of cars. We make cars. Quite a lot actually. More than we did in our supposed 1970s heyday. Take Holdens sister company Vauxhall for example.
Kilkrazy wrote: We will be making a lot fewer cars once we've cut ourselves off from the EU wide supply chain of car parts.
As well, Malaysia and Japan also make cars and they are a lot closer to Australia. So is the USA. India too.
Actually, when you look at it, the UK is just about the farthest away country in the world from Australia.
We're a tiny bit closer than the EU, but we don't have any deep water ports to tranship large cargoes, because all our stuff goes through Rotterdam.
Oh well!,
Oh yeah, the Rotterdam effect.
We should have started work on a deep water port by now. That I will give you. But distance never stopped the Japanese from getting their cars out there.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]
Interesting that you have strong opinions on something you were totally disinterested in. Why is that?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: ... we want to fix it with something that's almost certainly worse and more expensive because 'Muh Principles',
That sounds very similar to something else that happened recently.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: ...along with vague insinuations of death threats about 'Hanging' or 'Deporting', people who are effectively lifelong civil servants.'
Even some of the posts in this thread about it have bordered on the offensive/disgusting side of things.
Not noticed anything that like that on here, which posts are you talking about? I may have missed it, I occasionally skip over some things.
Da Boss wrote: DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.
When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.
I think we're all agreed on that.
Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.
But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.
We've been through this before.
Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.
Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]
Interesting that you have strong opinions on something you were totally disinterested in. Why is that?
I have strong views on the UK Government, too, but am excessively disinterested in what T.May has for breakfast or what trousers my local MP is wearing. Just because I am passionate about something doesn't mean every single thing they do I feel compelled to watch rather than participatingin a lifelong hobby.
Do I want a royal family? 110%
Do I care what dress one of them wore to a wedding once? ... No, not really. Would rather watch SEO Winters review the new Harlequin Codex.
You know, reading this, I’m coming around to the idea of the Norwegian model for brexit. I wasn’t keen on it at first but that was because I believed in the whole government by fax myth. It’s far from perfect, but I think it’s the compromise that could keep the most people happy. The only issue I can see is the immigration one. But...they do have a brake system in place. A system similar to the one which the EU supposedly gave us in those “negotiations” Cameron went into. Except this one wouldn’t require us to ask the others to use it (which they never would have btw.)
The Norway model offers something of a compromise that probably would please the majority of Leavers and Remainers.
Hard Brexiteers won't like it, of course.
The difficulty is that May ruled it out when she laid down her "red lines". Until that situation changes, we are stuck with the alternatives of Hard Brexit, and magical thinking on the customs problem.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Norway model offers something of a compromise that probably would please the majority of Leavers and Remainers.
I doubt it would unfortunately. At least not if proposed. The right wing papers will paint it as some sort of betrail, not leaving the EU at all etc. Your afraid leave voter in the street will read no more and be against it no matter what the facts or truth of the matter.
A teenager with bone cancer and a prosthetic leg has been told she's no longer eligible for her mobility car after she was told she's no longer disabled enough. In other news, the boss of Motability has just been criticised for his £1.7 million salary.
Da Boss wrote: DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.
When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.
I think we're all agreed on that.
Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.
But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.
We've been through this before.
Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.
Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.
The point I'm making is that the EU is turning a blind eye. You can have the best food standards in the known galaxy, but if nobody enforces them, then well...
And you're forgetting that EU food standards didn't stop a whole bunch of horse meat forming from the EU to the UK. That was pre-Brexit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I saw a trailer for a 3 part documentary on the inner workings of the EU. I think it starts tonight at 10pm, missed the channel.
I'd be happy with the Norway model, which means the most vocal brexiteers won't be.
I'm not actually sure that Norway are all too keen on the UK in EFTA. The UK might imbalance it.
But we were a founding member, so we have a claim of right I suppose
Global warming is making some pests and fungi difficult to eradicate, and new threats are moving north. The EU may be hard pressed to fight off lobbying from the farming industry if a new 'miracle' pesticide hits the market.
The solution to global warming is not to introduce untested chemicals into the environment.
The solution is to tackle global warming.
Long term, yeah, I agree, but it'll take time and a global effort to turn that ship around.
Short term? The political pressure to act may be to great, hence 'miracle' products on the market.
Da Boss wrote: DINLT: I think you're alright mate, but you've really not understood why the EU requires pesticides and herbicides to be proven to not be harmful before they are cleared.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle and quite the opposite of how you've characterised it, "scientists", if we can speak about a diverse group of people so generally, would overall be pretty in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to substances which are going to reduced freely into the environment. This is common sense: if something enters the food chain or environment and it is harmful, it is too late to prevent harm. We've had children born with birth defects, people poisoned or dramatically increasing their risk of cancer, or most recently, massive bee and insect die offs which threaten, and I am not being hyperbolic, human civilization as we know it. I would suggest that you don't know much about environmental science if you think the Precautionary Principle is an EU only thing or a stupid idea.
When it comes to food safety, nobody on this site, be they Remain, be they Brexit, wants dodgy food.
I think we're all agreed on that.
Is dodgy chicken a possibility with a deal with the USA? Possibly.
But from what I've been reading from the EU/Brazil trade talks, there is a lot there to be concerned about with regards to food standards in Brazil.
We've been through this before.
Brazilian food standards are meaningless because anything Brazil exports to the EU will be subject to EU food standards. Just like South African or Australian meats and, conversely, EU exports to the US being subject to US rules.
Back to agrochemicals, the allowed until proven otherwise is taken straight from the US book, which in turn is written by big (agro)pharma. I see their lobbying is already yielding good results.
The point I'm making is that the EU is turning a blind eye. You can have the best food standards in the known galaxy, but if nobody enforces them, then well...
And you're forgetting that EU food standards didn't stop a whole bunch of horse meat forming from the EU to the UK. That was pre-Brexit.
And the perpretators were caught and jailed. Enforcement is never a 100% measure, but it includes spot checks, sample checks, pre-clearing of manufacturing sites, etc. Moving meat around the world is quite a challenge. And in any case it was a mislabelling case, not a food safety one. The horsemeat was perfectly safe to eat, if it'd been labelled as such.
Compare that to trying to change the laws on the books to make it legal to bring substandard food to the UK.
In any case, if anyone's worried about eating Brazilian meat it is required to put country of origin on all meat products so you can easily pass just by looking at the label.
The British public has always had a love affair with the horse: Black Beauty, Shergar, Red Rum, Desert Orchid. Legendary names in British culture.
Add to that the great horse racing tradition in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten
That was why the horse meat scandal was a big deal. Such behaviour is frowned upon.
In reply to Jouso, I think we're all better off cutting back on meat anyway. Better for our health and better for the planet.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The British public has always had a love affair with the horse: Black Beauty, Shergar, Red Rum, Desert Orchid. Legendary names in British culture.
Add to that the great horse racing tradition in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten
That was why the horse meat scandal was a big deal. Such behaviour is frowned upon.
I'll take foal meat rather than beef any time. It ain't cheap though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten
Don't try to speak for everyone, I don't have an issue with horsemeat. As pointed out, it was safe to eat and sold in other countries, the issue wasn't with safety standards but with packaging.
Isn’t horse meat basically venison and thus better for you than beef?
And, to my earlier point, I really think EFTA is the way to go. I completely understand Norway’s reservations about us joining though. Which is why we should have started talking to them. I really think now that this is the way to square the circle. Remainers get the access to the single market they want, whilst leavers get the ‘ever closer union’ weight off their shoulders and a more flexible approach to the rules. We also get control of the fisheries back. It’s not perfect but it’s the next best thing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten
Don't try to speak for everyone, I don't have an issue with horsemeat. As pointed out, it was safe to eat and sold in other countries, the issue wasn't with safety standards but with packaging.
This is Britain. We cheer on horses at the Grand National. We don't stick them on our plates for Sunday lunch.
Nah. Deer are more closely related to cows (same Order - Artiodactyla) than horses. Deer are actually closer related to whales and dolphins than they are to horses.
Is it true that the horse was safe to eat? I had heard that the problem was that horses that are not going to be eaten can be given different antibiotics to animals that are going to be eaten which remain in the tissue and could cause some health impacts (probably nothing major in a small, one off dose) but perhaps that was just a worry that was reported as a fact?
Da Boss wrote: Is it true that the horse was safe to eat? I had heard that the problem was that horses that are not going to be eaten can be given different antibiotics to animals that are going to be eaten which remain in the tissue and could cause some health impacts (probably nothing major in a small, one off dose) but perhaps that was just a worry that was reported as a fact?
The horse meat was sold by a Romanian company correctly labelled as horse to a Cypriot company, who in turn sold it to a Dutch company then to a French company.
It was the French company that changed the labelling to beef setting the fraud in motion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: it's clear to see that British and Irish people don't take too kindly to our four legged friends being eaten
Don't try to speak for everyone, I don't have an issue with horsemeat. As pointed out, it was safe to eat and sold in other countries, the issue wasn't with safety standards but with packaging.
This is Britain. We cheer on horses at the Grand National. We don't stick them on our plates for Sunday lunch.
Is nothing sacred anymore?
If we supposedly cared about horses that much, we'd have dumped that race years ago for how many horses end up lame or killed by the end of it.
I do wonder if those hedges they jump over are necessary.
And I know I’m going on but I really feel that we need to go EFTA. I’d contact my MP but he’s in Sinn Fein and thus he doesn’t attend parliament so he’s a waste of space.
I have no core objection to eating horses, or dogs. I wouldn't eat a dog myself, though I would eat a horse. I wouldn't like to see other people eating dogs, like in Korea (though apparently it's declining.) In Peru people eat Guinea Pigs. Is there a law against eating dogs or Guinea Pigs in the UK?
However this isn't the point. The point is that people have the right to know the ingredients in the food they buy.
I doubt that membership of the EU increases the chance of dodgy labelling.
This is Britain. We cheer on horses at the Grand National. We don't stick them on our plates for Sunday lunch.
I've never even watched the Grand National, let alone cheered anyone on in it. Granted I've never eaten horse, let alone for Sunday lunch (preference is lamb) but I don't find the idea inherently repellent.
You make a lot of assumptions about Britain and the British, don't you?
And I know I’m going on but I really feel that we need to go EFTA.
I said (in work) the day after the referendum that nobody who felt strongly about it on either side was going to get what they wanted and we'd end up circling back to this Norway-style fudge (can we market that?) where we are in an objectively worse situation than the status quo.
From a pro-Brexit perspective it might also be the only thing that doesn't see fervent campaigns in 10 years for another chance to go back in, as we'll still have most of the benefits everyday people care about (mainly the free movement I guess) and hopefully it'll keep the economy from diving off a cliff.
Some might think that going EFTA is a fudge. It...is a little bit. But I’ve researched it and it does turn out that we’d have more autonomy than you might think. Crucially, and this is what sold it me, ever further intergration would be put to an end, and I wouldn’t have that dagger hanging over my head. It could lead to reduced costs in membership fees. Plus, we would gain control of the fisheries policy again and if I remember correctly there’s some flexiblity with the customs union too. Oh, and the immigration break without reliance on the others.
If the EFTA is the room outside the EU’s office then it makes sense to go there first rather than say...jumping out the window. Also, I understand that some of the EFTA members are not happy with the current arrangement. That is actually a good thing imo. There’s an opportunity there, if they’ll have us. Again, we’d have to persuade Norway to let us in, but I think that could be done.
I was looking at the EFTA option during the referendum but I fell for the government by fax myth. It’s not strictly true.
I said (in work) the day after the referendum that nobody who felt strongly about it on either side was going to get what they wanted and we'd end up circling back to this Norway-style fudge (can we market that?) where we are in an objectively worse situation than the status quo.
From a pro-Brexit perspective it might also be the only thing that doesn't see fervent campaigns in 10 years for another chance to go back in, as we'll still have most of the benefits everyday people care about (mainly the free movement I guess) and hopefully it'll keep the economy from diving off a cliff.
Yes. In my view as a Remainer I would prefer to be in the room and winning, since Britain is a playa in the EU, but it's certainly better to be sitting in the lobby with a right of consultation, than in the road outside pimping for rough trade.
But does the EFTA position solve the Northern Ireland border issue? My understanding is that there are customs checks at the Norway-Sweden border.
I think the trick is to still put the boarder in the Irish Sea. Since NI is our only land boarder we need to be flexible. It’s just a pity May give the DUP a big mouth in which to shout with. The ports can be configured to do customs checks there, and I don’t mind flashing my passport either.
Isn’t it telling that I, just sitting here on my iPad, figured this out better than the politicians and civil service? FFS.
There's a lot of politicians and civil servants who knew all of this all along, but a relatively small number of Hardcore Brexiteers in the Tory Party have been biasing the whole process.
It doesn't help that Hew Majesty's Loyal Opposition can see a clear way to oppose things.
That's why there is so much kickback from the House of Lords. They are doing the job the Commons is supposed to do.
Brexiters' favoured customs union proposal could cost businesses up to £20bn, the head of HM Revenues & Customs has warned.
And while Theresa May's preferred option would cost a fraction of that, it could take up to five years to implement.
Jon Thompson, chief executive of HMRC, confirmed that the new customs partnership - in which the UK collects tariffs on behalf of Brussels for goods that are travelling via the UK on their way to the EU - could take five years before it is up and ready.
The “maximum facilitation” option, which allows so-called “trusted traders” to cross the Northern Ireland and other EU borders freely after Brexit, aided by technology, could take three years to deploy.
Although there could be a functioning border by January 2021, but not "fully optimal" as foreign ports might not be ready, he told the Treasury Select Committee.
Another issue is that repayment mechanisms might not be in place, not least because businesses would want to wait for a while to see whether reclaiming money under the customs partnership proposal would be worthwhile.
Thompson said it was "quite difficult" to give an exact deadline for when a decision was needed on which option would be taken forward, although told chair Nicky Morgan: "The quicker we get a decision, the quicker we can implement what the government wants".
Jim Harra, deputy chief executive, pointed out that the options "do require third parties to start to act, and they will not do so just because a minister tells them to do so".
Working on the basis of 200m trade consignments each year, at £32.50 per customs declaration, the “max fac” system could cost business between £17bn and £20bn.
If the UK were to cut all tariffs on goods to zero, the maximum amount that British firms would have to pay would be £3.4bn, Thompson said.
The new customs partnership would cost would be £700m to set up, he said, although added that ultimately it could be cost-neutral because firms would get a refund.
However both options as currently envisaged have been rejected by Brussels, and there is no consensus even within Cabinet, where the deadlock has forced May to put forward a backstop solution of a temporary extension to the customs union.
Pro-Brexit MP Bim Afomlami said the figures should give ministers pause for thought.
"Leaving the customs union is the right policy, but whatever the solution we come up with must not be hugely costly and burdensome to British business. That would not be a good outcome," he told City A.M.
..so might cost us £20 Billion a year and will not be ready in time anyway.
Oh both ideas have already been rejected anyway.
Downing Street says HMRC estimate that max fac Brexit customs option could cost businesses £20bn is “speculation”.
.. welll yes, it is.
obviously.
So the Govt, which gave the tax dept. about £260M or so and 5,000 or so extra staff staff to explore this stuff…..doesn’t know what it’s talking about ?
But Boris Johnson -- of Garden bridge fame -- who has also done no research -- says this isn't true.
Just like he denies Carney's claim that we've all about £900 a year worse off already -- which is actually worse than the OMG ITS PROJECT FEAR 1111 numbers that were bandied about.
Son we're left with two systems Theresa May is considering to replace the customs union, one HMRC say would cost businesses up to £200bn over ten years, and the other ministers believe could be illegal.
Worst of all this info has been around since August, more or less, last year ... and not one minister has raised this issue ?
The EU Commission is asking for authority to open negotiations with WTO members on dividing post-Brexit agricultural tariff quotas between the UK and EU27
Whilst our pro brexit MEPS are busy doing..
Spoiler:
.. which is really quite something.
Some people might take some minor issues with things like those numbers being absolute gak -- that works out at about 6.3 million migrants a year.
Parliament and its Select Committees have contributed to delusions. They have made almost no serious investigation of what preparations to be a third country under EU law should be and what steps are being taken to achieve it.
A small faction of pro-Brexit MPs (which also nearly destroyed Vote Leave so they could babble about ‘Global Britain’ in TV debates) could have done one useful thing — forced the government to prepare for their official policy. Instead this faction has instead spent its time trying to persuade people that all talk of ‘preparations’ is a conspiracy of Brussels and Heywood. They were an asset to Remain in the referendum and they’ve helped sink a viable policy since. A party that treats this faction (or Dominic Grieve) as a serious authority on the law deserves everything it gets. (I don’t mean ‘the ERG’ — I mean a subset of the ERG.)
All this contributes to current delusional arguments over supposed ‘models’ (hybrid/max fac etc) that even on their own terms cannot solve the problem of multiple incompatible promises. ‘Compromise proposals’ such as that from Boles which assume the existence of ‘third country’ planning are just more delusions. It doesn’t matter which version of delusion your gangs finally agree on if none of them has a basis in reality and so long as May/Hammond continue they will have no basis in reality.
You can dance around the fundamental issues all you want but in the end ‘reality cannot be fooled’.
The Government effectively has no credible policy and the whole world knows it. By not taking the basic steps any sane Government should have taken from 24 June 2016, including providing itself with world class legal advice, it’s ‘strategy’ has imploded. It now thinks its survival requires surrender, it thinks that admitting this risks its survival, it thinks that the MPs can be bullshitted by clever drafting from officials, and that once Leave MPs and donors — you guys — are ordering your champagne in the autumn for your parties on 30 March 2019 you will balk at bringing down the Government when you finally have to face that you’ve been conned. Eurosceptics are full of gak and threats they don’t deliver, they say in No10, and on this at least they have a point.
This set of problems cannot be solved by swapping ‘useless X’ for ‘competent Y’ or ‘better spin’.
This set of problems cannot be solved by listening to charlatans such as the overwhelming majority of economists and ‘trade experts’ who brand themselves pro-Brexit, live in parallel universes, and spin fantasies to you.
This set of problems derives partly from the fact that the wiring of power in Downing Street is systemically dysfunctional and, worse, those with real institutional power (Cabinet Office/HMT officials etc) have as their top priority the maintenance of this broken system and keeping Britain as closely tied to the EU as possible. There is effectively zero prospect of May’s team, totally underwater, solving these problems not least because they cannot see them — indeed, their only strategy is to ‘trust officials to be honest’, which is like trusting Bernie Madoff with your finances. Brexit cannot be done with the traditional Westminster/Whitehall system as Vote Leave warned repeatedly before 23 June 2016.
Further, lots of what Corbyn says is more popular than what Tory think tanks say and you believe (e.g nationalising the trains and water companies that have been run by corporate looters who Hammond says ‘we must defend’). You are only at 40% in the polls because a set of UKIP voters has decided to back you until they see how Brexit turns out. You only survived the most useless campaign in modern history because Vote Leave killed UKIP. You’re now acting like you want someone to create a serious version of it.
Ask yourselves: what happens when the country sees you’ve simultaneously a) ‘handed over tens of billions for feth all’ as they’ll say in focus groups (which the UK had no liability to pay), b) failed to do anything about unskilled immigration, c) persecuted the high skilled immigrants, such as scientists, who the public wants you to be MORE welcoming to, and d) failed to deliver on the nation’s Number One priority — funding for the NHS which is about to have a very high profile anniversary? And what happens if May staggers to 30 March 2019 and, as Barwell is floating with some of you, they then dig in to fight the 2022 campaign?
If you think that babble about ‘the complexity of the Irish border / the Union / peace’ will get you all off the hook, you must be listening to the same people who ran the 2017 campaign. It won’t. The public, when they tune back in at some point, will consider any argument based on Ireland as such obvious bs you must be lying. Given they already think you lie about everything, it won’t be a stretch.
Yes there are things you can do to mitigate the train wreck. For example, it requires using the period summer 2019 to autumn 2021 to change the political landscape, which is incompatible with the continuation of the May/Hammond brand of stagnation punctuated by rubbish crisis management. If you go into the 2022 campaign after five years of this and the contest is Tory promises versus Corbyn promises, you will be maximising the odds of Corbyn as PM. Since 1945, only once has a party trying to win a third term increased its number of seats. Not Thatcher. Not Blair. 1959 — after swapping Eden for Macmillan and with over ~6% growth the year before the vote. You will be starting without a majority (unlike others fighting for a third term). You won’t have half that growth — you will need something else. Shuffling some people is necessary but extremely far from sufficient.
Of course it could have worked out differently but that is now an argument over branching histories for the history books. Yes it’s true that May, Hammond, Heywood and Robbins are Remain and have screwed it up but you’re deluded if you think you’ll be able to blame the debacle just on them. Whitehall is better at the blame game than you are, officials are completely dominant in this government, ministers have chosen to put Heywood/Robbins in charge, and YOU will get most of the blame from the public.
The sooner you internalise these facts and face reality, the better for the country and you.
Every day that you refuse to face reality increases the probability not only of a terrible deal but also of Seumas Milne shortly casting his curious and sceptical eyes over your assets and tax affairs.
It also increases the probability that others will conclude your party is incapable of coping with this situation and, unless it changes fast, drastic action will be needed including the creation of new forces to reflect public contempt for both the main parties and desire for a political force that reflects public priorities.
If revolution there is to be, better to undertake it than undergo it…
As always, credit to reds8n for digging this stuff up.
But I'll tell people one thing with my hand on heart: I feel vindicated by that statement from that vote leave guy.
I don't regret Brexit. I'd vote for it again tomorrow.
And for 2 years, I've probably bored people to death with my arguments that with some hard work and vision, Brexit could and should have been a success.
Instead, we have a parliament of minnows who have well and truly fethed things up.
The Brexit side have plotted and schemed for this for 40 years and they have fething nothing.
The Remain side have done nothing but try to sabotage the result for 2 fething years with legal challenges, court room battles, amendments, leaks, briefings, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 20 more referendums etc etc
They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
Their horsegak is as bad as the Brexit supporting horsegak.
How the feth can the country present a united front in crucial negotiations when half of parliament is rooting for the EU?
How the feth can a government negotiate when Remain MPs are trying to force it to accept any old horsegak from the EU by removing a no deal option?
So we have this perfect storm of sabotage and incompetence with the end result of Brexit going off the cliff.
Our MPS, ladies and gentlemen, are useless. Not fit for running a bath, never mind a country.
I get this horsegak that Brexit shouldn't have happened because of this incompetence.
Well, let's flip that, because even when we were in the EU, our MPs still fethed things up and didn't even know how the EU worked half the time.
I would finish by saying to fellow dakka members that Remain or Leave, our government is hopeless, has been for a very long time, and is unlikely to change unless the British Public gets off their rears and does something about it.
Does anyone genuinely believe there’s not going to be a second, better informed referendum?
I mean, seriously.
There’s dishonest campaigns, and there’s the EU exit campaigns.
But now, potential rammifications are beginning to crystallise. Now as a die hard Remainer, none of it is a surprise to me.
But not everyone that voted leave is a swivel eyed, mindless moron. Many are pragmatic. Leaving the EU is an ideal - but so is me successfully seducing Dani Divine, marrying her, and still enjoying a Certain Lifestyle Opposed To Monogamy.
We’re coming to crunch time. And frankly, given the closeness of the vote (remember, a third of the electorate didn’t vote at all) I think there’s a need for it.
Now get me wrong. I really, genuinely, deeply hope people come to their senses and see a rose tinted jingoistic pipe dream for what it is. But....but....if the result of said hypothetical second referendum is Leave? I’ll feel an awful lot better about the whole debacle. Because I cannot stand uninformed opinion - but I can respect an informed one, however much I may happen to disagree with it.
Seriously. Even if you voted Leave, don’t let a mere handful of the very worst the Tory Party run a close run thing roughshod. You stand up, and I’ll stand up. Let all of us demand an informed, non-binary vote.
If you win, you win. We’ll then all go down with the ship. But let’s not do it because Seaman Farage has sworn blind the iceberg up ahead is merely spectacularly dense fog, yeah?
Can I remind people of this fact: MPs voted by 6 to 1, 6 to FETHING 1 for a referendum.
Nobody pointed a gun at their heads, took their families hostage, brainwashed them, or paid them large sums of cash.
Free will. Free will. Free will ad nauseum.
So they asked the British people a question. And the British people said we want to leave the EU.
And the MPs cried and moaned and accused us of wrecking the country and tried to change the rules THEY wrote in the first place with horsegak about it being non-binding...
Honest to God, people, if they didn't like the answer, why did they ask the FETHING question in the first place?
And they could have stopped it. If they believed in the EU so much, if they believed Brexit was so bad for Britain, they could have shot down Article 50 by sticking to their principals and accepted defeat at the ballot box next election as a consequence. But they didn't because they are cowards. Cowards to a man and woman who choose money and comfort over their political beliefs.
You don't need or want people like that on your side. Remain supporters should bless the day we had a referendum because now you know the true colours of your allies. They are rats.
That's why Trump wins and the Tories have been in power in Britain for most of the last 100 years: the progressive, the liberals, they are fething useless. Feeble!
So they had two chances. The first by not having a referendum and the second by voting against A50. But they bottled it.
And this is what angers me and a lot of Brexit supporters: they had their chance to stop Brexit and they failed. And as a result, they should have got behind the nation and helped make Brexit work. They were duty bound to respect the decision. They're supposed to be democrats are they not?
I would have respected a Remain victory in 2016. I, the Brexiteer, would have respected and defended the Remain victory, even though it would have sickened me to do so.
And I don't give a damn about what Farage said if Leave only got 48%. The majority of the country, just like in Scotland 2014 would have respected the result and went home.
But what did we get? Stabbed in the back by cowards and saboteurs who used court room battles, press leaks, unelected peers, and sabotaging the government's negotiating position from day 1 because they didn't have the courage to stop Brexit themselves, so they got other people to do their dirty work for them, like the cowards they are.
If they bind the government to accepting a deal, any deal, then the EU can offer us any old gak and we'd have to accept it.
So again I repeat: we have useless Brexit MPs who have fethed this up and saboteur Remain MPs who hate the answer to a question they asked and the rules they wrote.
Angry? You're damn right I'm angry. The last 2 years have been a shambles.
If Brexit fails, I'm not carrying the can for it.
If you want to point the finger at somebody, point it at the House of Commons for a) not stopping it in the first place OR b) not having the ability to make it work.
It's like going into a restaurant, and you look at the menu, and the menu says pizza and ice cream, so you ask for pizza and ice-cream
and then the manager accuses you of disruptive behaviour and says the chef can't make pizza and ice -cream, and it's your fault, even though the manager created the menu in the first place and knew the chef didn't have the skill to make pizza and ice-cream.
MPs moan about customs union and single market not being on the ballot paper, even though they wrote the question.
They moan about leaving the EU, even though they campaigned on manifestoes that said we'll leave the EU.
They moan about Brexit being too hard, even though they freely stood as MPs and were elected to make these decisions.
It's like a fireman moaning about having to put out fires or a doctor moaning about sick people turning up to a hospital.
They accuse Brexit supporters of being thick and stupid, even though MPs have controlled British education for 300 fething years...
But it's all DINLT's fault for voting. Maybe I should have ripped up the polling card? Attacked the postman for putting it through my letter box? Or blown up my local polling station?
They asked me for an opinion and then they moaned because they didn't like what I said...
...never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
We absolutely have been trying to do the best thing for the country. The best thing for this country is to stay in the fething EU. It is better for our economy and industry. It is better for our position on the world stage. It is better for our health and education systems. It is better for our environment and it is better for the freedoms and opportunities it presents to us and future generations. I am a proud Britain and a proud European and I will not let you destroy everything this country has become for a bunch of jingoistic, rose-tinted, rabble rousing nonsense.
And if you succeed and drag us out of the EU and return us to the 1970’s, when we were a marginalised, bankrupt and decaying nation, riddled with division and unrest, you will own it. You brought this about and we will hold you to account. You cannot stand on your soapbox, professing what a great thing this will be and then try and slink away, when we are shown to be right and you have crippled our nation.
...never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
We absolutely have been trying to do the best thing for the country. The best thing for this country is to stay in the fething EU. It is better for our economy and industry. It is better for our position on the world stage. It is better for our health and education systems. It is better for our environment and it is better for the freedoms and opportunities it presents to us and future generations. I am a proud Britain and a proud European and I will not let you destroy everything this country has become for a bunch of jingoistic, rose-tinted, rabble rousing nonsense.
And if you succeed and drag us out of the EU and return us to the 1970’s, when we were a marginalised, bankrupt and decaying nation, riddled with division and unrest, you will own it. You brought this about and we will hold you to account. You cannot stand on your soapbox, professing what a great thing this will be and then try and slink away, when we are shown to be right and you have crippled our nation.
You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2016. You lost. You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2017 by electing a party that would have reversed the referendum. You lost.
2 fething chances. Two
Is this best of 5 or something?
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
Oh I forget, it was the Russians, the stupid people, the Klingons, and 1000 other reason why Remain lost.
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for Britain.
Did they do that? Did they hell.
They ran to the lawyers, they leaked to the press, they ran to the EU and vowed to support Brussels come what may. They blamed people like me for answering a question they asked and for following rules they wrote in the first place.
They complain about the 52%, even though they set the margin of victory at 50% + 1 vote.
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
They blamed the EU for decades for their own short comings, and then express surprise when people take them at face value.
They sent a leaflet to every British household saying they would respect the decision, and then they moan when people expect that decision to be honoured.
It's like going into a restaurant, and you look at the menu, and the menu says pizza and ice cream, so you ask for pizza and ice-cream
and then the manager accuses you of disruptive behaviour and says the chef can't make pizza and ice -cream, and it's your fault, even though the manager created the menu in the first place and knew the chef didn't have the skill to make pizza and ice-cream.
It's like going into a restaurant, and instead of looking at the menu (because it's got only a few unapalatable options) a weird donkey-jacketed salesman, unattached to the restaurant, has advised you about all the awesome things you could get in the restaurant. Caviar pizza, champagne smoothies and as much fish as you can handle.Then you ask for caviar pizza, champagne smoothies and all you can eat fish, and the actual restaurant owner says no, you've got a choice of just these things that aren't as good as you're used to. "But the caviar pizza!" you shout as you see the donkey-jacket and his mates leg it up the road. "No such thing" the owner says. "But maybe we can arrange a Norwegian platter?"
As to the Norwegian option with a border in the Irish Sea, it's certainly a start, and probably a little more realistic than some of the other guff that's been proposed.
It'll go down like a pint of cold puke with the DUP and the ERG though. So not a totally bad thing then really.
...never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
We absolutely have been trying to do the best thing for the country. The best thing for this country is to stay in the fething EU. It is better for our economy and industry. It is better for our position on the world stage. It is better for our health and education systems. It is better for our environment and it is better for the freedoms and opportunities it presents to us and future generations. I am a proud Britain and a proud European and I will not let you destroy everything this country has become for a bunch of jingoistic, rose-tinted, rabble rousing nonsense.
And if you succeed and drag us out of the EU and return us to the 1970’s, when we were a marginalised, bankrupt and decaying nation, riddled with division and unrest, you will own it. You brought this about and we will hold you to account. You cannot stand on your soapbox, professing what a great thing this will be and then try and slink away, when we are shown to be right and you have crippled our nation.
You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2016. You lost. You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2017 by electing a party that would have reversed the referendum. You lost.
2 fething chances. Two
Is this best of 5 or something?
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
Oh I forget, it was the Russians, the stupid people, the Klingons, and 1000 other reason why Remain lost.
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for Britain.
Did they do that? Did they hell.
They ran to the lawyers, they leaked to the press, they ran to the EU and vowed to support Brussels come what may. They blamed people like me for answering a question they asked and for following rules they wrote in the first place.
They complain about the 52%, even though they set the margin of victory at 50% + 1 vote.
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
They blamed the EU for decades for their own short comings, and then express surprise when people take them at face value.
They sent a leaflet to every British household saying they would respect the decision, and then they moan when people expect that decision to be honoured.
There's a name for that: Sabotage!
Please explain why I would vote for the party that sold me up a river in 2010 as a student going to university?
And you're doing that thing again where making sure things go through the British democratic motions, is somehow undemocratic and sabotage?
Also something about Farage talking about rerunning it if remain won by a couple of percent, but it's sabotage when remainers suggest it.
The Remain side have done nothing but try to sabotage the result for 2 fething years with legal challenges, court room battles, amendments, leaks, briefings, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 20 more referendums etc etc
Can you reference any actual sabotage rather than daily mail headlines about sabotage?
They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
They've accepted the result which is why so much time has been spent trying to find a way it could actually work. Not charging ahead with it is what's best for the country.
Now, the referendum should have been done better but no-one actually thought people would be stupid enough to leave.
How the feth can a government negotiate when Remain MPs are trying to force it to accept any old horsegak from the EU by removing a no deal option?
No deal has never actually been an option and everyone knew it. We're running out of time so we need to stop wasting it on dead end options.
You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2016. You lost. You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2017 by electing a party that would have reversed the referendum. You lost.
Everyone lost.
You already know the referendum was essentially a draw.
The Tories also lost places so badly from their brexit stance they need the getting DUP to hold them up, with such king maker's in play Brexit becomes so much harder.
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
40 years of economic success made the case for being in the EU. Remain didn't campaign very well and made bad assumptions about the voters, but it's hard to campaign against an emotive campaign of anti-intellectualism. Everyone listens to the lie and has forgotten by the time it's corrected.
What could remain have actually done to convince a movement that was "sick of experts?
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for
As they say; you shat the bed, you clean it up. There's no unity over this and if you want us to fix it by doing something other than cancelling it, give us something to work with. Like a plan or something.
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
You get corrected about the EU constantly on here; it's clear you've got no interest in being better informed.
I think at this stage a second referendum is unavoidable. Hopefully it would be a three choice question:
Remain
Leave to join EFTA (I think any deal they give will be pretty much the equivalent).
Leave everything.
With a mechanism to prevent a situation were option 1 wins even though options 2 and 3 received more votes.
I also have this (sinking) feeling that we will end up remaining in the end. And if it does, all us with concerns about the EU will just be swept aside and they’ll just carry on with further intergration and increasing budgets and no accountability with the help of the entrenched establishment here whilst we’ll be fobbed off, again.
I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.
Thank you Future War Cultist, that is exactly the kind of pragmatic compromise that we need. Unfortunately our government are beholden to the extreme Brexit minority, who are blocking any hint of such a compromise.
It's like going into a restaurant, and you look at the menu, and the menu says pizza and ice cream, so you ask for pizza and ice-cream
uh huh.
Odd how none of this continues to be on your shoulders.
A more accurate description would be you were told -- by a bunch of liars and weasels -- that inside the restaurant there was free food, pizza that makes you lose weight, ice cream that makes you richer and scientists will be able to make cigarettes that not only don't cause cancer but give you longer and harder erections.
.. some people, traitorous moaning types -- pointed out prior to going into the restaurant that all of the above was absolute crap and all that actually was there was a group of menacing men with big knives, hammers and a mincing machine.
.. And then -- once the screaming, harrowing and disemboweling begins -- endless complaints that the scientists -- who said all along they couldn't actually make a cigarette that's good for you in oh-so many ways and pointed out that even writing that on the side of a bus doesn't make it come true -- haven't made the impossible thing that they were lied to about in the first place happen
And somehow that's not the fault of those who lied to them or those of them who fell for the lies, but the fault of those people who've been stood there all along saying this is what would happen.
On the plus side we can stop calling ourselves "remoaners"/whatever and just go with "see?wetoldyathisishowit'dbes" instead.
Personally, as I have said should have been done for the original vote, we should also look for an absolute majority / super majority support of whichever option in that vote (i.e. endorsed by 50%+1 of eligible voters. On a 70% turnout this works out around 65% in favour). A single transferable vote should work, so people’s second choice can be counted.
An idle curiosity (not intended to start a debate), I wonder how many who would vote Leave-EFTA in that scenario would then chose to remain as second choice?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Honest to God, people, if they didn't like the answer, why did they ask the FETHING question in the first place?
Tory civil war.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And they could have stopped it. If they believed in the EU so much, if they believed Brexit was so bad for Britain, they could have shot down Article 50 by sticking to their principals and accepted defeat at the ballot box next election as a consequence. But they didn't because they are cowards. Cowards to a man and woman who choose money and comfort over their political beliefs.
It's not cowardly. They're following through on the will of the people by leaving the eu. Rejecting the vote out of hand would put the lie to democracy more tha canything else.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You don't need or want people like that on your side. Remain supporters should bless the day we had a referendum because now you know the true colours of your allies. They are rats.
That's why Trump wins and the Tories have been in power in Britain for most of the last 100 years: the progressive, the liberals, they are fething useless. Feeble!
Lots of emotion, very little substance. And that's why trump won. People's anger and fear was weaponised, and populists pointed to someone they didn't like.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And this is what angers me and a lot of Brexit supporters: they had their chance to stop Brexit and they failed. And as a result, they should have got behind the nation and helped make Brexit work. They were duty bound to respect the decision. They're supposed to be democrats are they not?
It's almost like it's an incredibly complex issue to solve, rather than just jumping off a cliff. You'd know this if you ever bothered to read past your sensationalist headlines and looked at the details.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I would have respected a Remain victory in 2016. I, the Brexiteer, would have respected and defended the Remain victory, even though it would have sickened me to do so.
No, let's do it like for like. If remain had won, it would not be enough for you to merely 'respect' the outcome. You'd have had To get behind the EU 100% and accept everything about it with no concessions or compromise, and willingly embrace the hardest eu possible. And I genuinely doubt you have the moral courage to do what you insist other people should do for you. You're The coward.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And I don't give a damn about what Farage said if Leave only got 48%. The majority of the country, just like in Scotland 2014 would have respected the result and went home.
Really?. So not a peep from you or shadow about the evil eu, ever again? Lol.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But what did we get? Stabbed in the back by cowards and saboteurs who used court room battles, press leaks, unelected peers, and sabotaging the government's negotiating position from day 1 because they didn't have the courage to stop Brexit themselves, so they got other people to do their dirty work for them, like the cowards they are.
We got people holding the government to account. You know. Democracy. The thing you apparently claim to support.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If they bind the government to accepting a deal, any deal, then the EU can offer us any old gak and we'd have to accept it.
Almost like no deal is a seriously stupid idea. Which you'd know if you read beyond the headlines.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Angry? You're damn right I'm angry. The last 2 years have been a shambles.
In my experience angry people are incapable of thinking rationally.
And it's almost like brexit was a bad idea if it was such a shambles. Not that you have the moral courage to consider such things.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If Brexit fails, I'm not carrying the can for it.
If brexit fails, it reinforces the fact it was a terrible idea. And No, you do not get to play this walk away card. You voted for it, you wanted it, you own it. Brexit is your baby dinlt. You don't just get to knock over the chess pieces, gak on the board and walk away. This is your mess.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
Oh I forget, it was the Russians, the stupid people, the Klingons, and 1000 other reason why Remain lost.
How could they, when people were never interested in listening to the good things about the eu, and argued in bad faith. Remember, people were sick of experts. Add in 40 years of anti eu hysteria from the gutter rags, who can never be accused of anything remotely intellectually stimulating or accurate, and there you go.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for Britain.
Maybe they are. Maybe you should consider that your car crash cliff edge brexit is maybe a. Bad idea, and the best thing forward I said some kind of muddle like Norway, which most moderates on both sides would be reasonably happy with as the best of both worlds.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
People had enough of experts,remember? People like you are not interested in being informed, just having your skewed narratives and bias reinforced.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They blamed the EU for decades for their own short comings, and then express surprise when people take them at face value.
Almost like it's more complicated than oyu make out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They sent a leaflet to every British household saying they would respect the decision, and then they moan when people expect that decision to be honoured. There's a name for that: Sabotage!
They respected the decision - we are leaving. Thryre still entitled to think it's a stupid idea. Had remain won, would you have gotten behind the eu? I think not.
Jadenim wrote: Thank you Future War Cultist, that is exactly the kind of pragmatic compromise that we need. Unfortunately our government are beholden to the extreme Brexit minority, who are blocking any hint of such a compromise.
The majority of MPs support the EU. 70%. 70 fething percent!
How can they be beholden to a minority of Brexiteers?
Because they're cowards. They could stop Brexit tomorrow if they wanted to, but they have chosen MPs' salaries over their principals.
...never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
We absolutely have been trying to do the best thing for the country. The best thing for this country is to stay in the fething EU. It is better for our economy and industry. It is better for our position on the world stage. It is better for our health and education systems. It is better for our environment and it is better for the freedoms and opportunities it presents to us and future generations. I am a proud Britain and a proud European and I will not let you destroy everything this country has become for a bunch of jingoistic, rose-tinted, rabble rousing nonsense.
And if you succeed and drag us out of the EU and return us to the 1970’s, when we were a marginalised, bankrupt and decaying nation, riddled with division and unrest, you will own it. You brought this about and we will hold you to account. You cannot stand on your soapbox, professing what a great thing this will be and then try and slink away, when we are shown to be right and you have crippled our nation.
You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2016. You lost. You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2017 by electing a party that would have reversed the referendum. You lost.
2 fething chances. Two
Is this best of 5 or something?
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
Oh I forget, it was the Russians, the stupid people, the Klingons, and 1000 other reason why Remain lost.
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for Britain.
Did they do that? Did they hell.
They ran to the lawyers, they leaked to the press, they ran to the EU and vowed to support Brussels come what may. They blamed people like me for answering a question they asked and for following rules they wrote in the first place.
They complain about the 52%, even though they set the margin of victory at 50% + 1 vote.
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
They blamed the EU for decades for their own short comings, and then express surprise when people take them at face value.
They sent a leaflet to every British household saying they would respect the decision, and then they moan when people expect that decision to be honoured.
There's a name for that: Sabotage!
Please explain why I would vote for the party that sold me up a river in 2010 as a student going to university?
And you're doing that thing again where making sure things go through the British democratic motions, is somehow undemocratic and sabotage?
Also something about Farage talking about rerunning it if remain won by a couple of percent, but it's sabotage when remainers suggest it.
Who cares what Farage thinks. He is not and was never an MP. He has as much power as you and I. None!
Personally, as I have said should have been done for the original vote, we should also look for an absolute majority / super majority support of whichever option in that vote (i.e. endorsed by 50%+1 of eligible voters. On a 70% turnout this works out around 65% in favour). A single transferable vote should work, so people’s second choice can be counted.
An idle curiosity (not intended to start a debate), I wonder how many who would vote Leave-EFTA in that scenario would then chose to remain as second choice?
And who's fault is it that there wasn't a 66% vote needed clause built into the Brexit referendum?
Is it my fault? The man with no power? Or the 650 MPs who make the rules?
I played by the rules, but the people who wrote the rulebook blame people like me for following the rules...
It's like going into a restaurant, and you look at the menu, and the menu says pizza and ice cream, so you ask for pizza and ice-cream
uh huh.
Odd how none of this continues to be on your shoulders.
A more accurate description would be you were told -- by a bunch of liars and weasels -- that inside the restaurant there was free food, pizza that makes you lose weight, ice cream that makes you richer and scientists will be able to make cigarettes that not only don't cause cancer but give you longer and harder erections.
.. some people, traitorous moaning types -- pointed out prior to going into the restaurant that all of the above was absolute crap and all that actually was there was a group of menacing men with big knives, hammers and a mincing machine.
.. And then -- once the screaming, harrowing and disemboweling begins -- endless complaints that the scientists -- who said all along they couldn't actually make a cigarette that's good for you in oh-so many ways and pointed out that even writing that on the side of a bus doesn't make it come true -- haven't made the impossible thing that they were lied to about in the first place happen
And somehow that's not the fault of those who lied to them or those of them who fell for the lies, but the fault of those people who've been stood there all along saying this is what would happen.
On the plus side we can stop calling ourselves "remoaners"/whatever and just go with "see?wetoldyathisishowit'dbes" instead.
I never sat in the House of Commons and voted to hold a referendum. I never sent a leaflet to every household in Britain, and I sure as hell didn't run a Remain campaign that was one of the worst in British political history.
They asked me a question, I and 17 million people gave an answer.
I suppose it was naïve of us to assume that it might have occurred to them that Brexit might have won and that they would plan for this and act accordingly?
When MPs sign up for the job, is it wrong for me and you to assume that these MPs are aware that they might have to make difficult decisions? Life or death?
Now I'm getting told that I shouldn't have voted for Brexit because our MPs are gak.
By that logic nobody should ever vote because our MPs are incapable of doing anything, even if we stayed in the EU.
No, we’re saying you shouldn’t have voted Brexit, because you were sold a pack of lies. By liars with neither the means nor intention of following through on them.
You shat the bed. You change the sheets. Spit-spot.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think at this stage a second referendum is unavoidable. Hopefully it would be a three choice question:
Remain
Leave to join EFTA (I think any deal they give will be pretty much the equivalent).
Leave everything.
With a mechanism to prevent a situation were option 1 wins even though options 2 and 3 received more votes.
I also have this (sinking) feeling that we will end up remaining in the end. And if it does, all us with concerns about the EU will just be swept aside and they’ll just carry on with further intergration and increasing budgets and no accountability with the help of the entrenched establishment here whilst we’ll be fobbed off, again.
I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.
If there is another referendum, and they don't put 3 questions on the ballot, you and I will probably get blamed for other people who couldn't do the jobs they are paid to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No, we’re saying you shouldn’t have voted Brexit, because you were sold a pack of lies. By liars with neither the means nor intention of following through on them.
You shat the bed. You change the sheets. Spit-spot.
By that logic, we shouldn't stay in the EU either, because history has shown us that our MPs have no idea how the EU works and make bad decisions even when we were in.
Remember David Cameron's campaign to stop Juncker getting the job? Cameron believed there was wide opposition and lo and behold, Cameron ended up being the only man to oppose Juncker's appointment.
The Remain side have done nothing but try to sabotage the result for 2 fething years with legal challenges, court room battles, amendments, leaks, briefings, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 20 more referendums etc etc
Can you reference any actual sabotage rather than daily mail headlines about sabotage?
They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
They've accepted the result which is why so much time has been spent trying to find a way it could actually work. Not charging ahead with it is what's best for the country.
Now, the referendum should have been done better but no-one actually thought people would be stupid enough to leave.
How the feth can a government negotiate when Remain MPs are trying to force it to accept any old horsegak from the EU by removing a no deal option?
No deal has never actually been an option and everyone knew it. We're running out of time so we need to stop wasting it on dead end options.
You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2016. You lost. You had your chance to stay in the EU in 2017 by electing a party that would have reversed the referendum. You lost.
Everyone lost.
You already know the referendum was essentially a draw.
The Tories also lost places so badly from their brexit stance they need the getting DUP to hold them up, with such king maker's in play Brexit becomes so much harder.
Remain supporters had 40 years to make the case for the EU. 40 years. If the EU is so great, why didn't Remain win?
40 years of economic success made the case for being in the EU. Remain didn't campaign very well and made bad assumptions about the voters, but it's hard to campaign against an emotive campaign of anti-intellectualism. Everyone listens to the lie and has forgotten by the time it's corrected.
What could remain have actually done to convince a movement that was "sick of experts?
And like the good democrats they are, did Remain say, oh, let's accept the result and put national unity first. Let's not confuse or muddy the waters. Let's unite and help get a good deal for
As they say; you shat the bed, you clean it up. There's no unity over this and if you want us to fix it by doing something other than cancelling it, give us something to work with. Like a plan or something.
They moan about people not knowing enough about the EU, but don't lift a finger to inform people.
You get corrected about the EU constantly on here; it's clear you've got no interest in being better informed.
All I see is a load of excuses from people who wrote the rulebook and then complain when the rulebook is followed, and complain about the answer to a question that they asked in the first place.
If only someone had warned you ahead of time that this was a colossaly bad idea.
If only...
Brexit happened because there was a large pressure from people wanting it to happen. Without that pressure the referendum would never have happened. Own your feth-up and stop blaiming others for your mistake.
In an earlier post, Herzlos said the referendum result was a draw.
Really? In a first past the post referendum where 50% + 1 vote is the winning margin.
But it's Brexiteers' fault for following the rules which they didn't write, which were drawn up by a Parliament where 70% of the MPs support the EU.
We can't fething win can we?
I was accused by another poster of not listening to arguments or facts about the EU.
But when DINLT posts article and videos about the President of France talking about an EU military and EU expansion, or the President of the EU commission saying the same
What's the reaction?
Don't be silly, DINLT. The President of France has no power. he doesn't mean it. He's only doing that because he has nothing better else to do. He's a drunk guy down the local pub.
The President of the EU commission is the guy that empties the bins and sweeps the floors. He's a nobody. Move along, nothing to see here...
The majority of MPs support the EU. 70%. 70 fething percent!
How can they be beholden to a minority of Brexiteers?
And thus 30% don't.
The Tories are holding onto power by a margin so thing they need the gakking DUP to stay in. They are 6 seats short of a majority, once you factor out Sinn Fein who don't attend. DUP has 10.
So even with the DUP onside (not guaranteed), it'd only take 5 Tory MP's to vote against them for the Tories to start losing stuff.
All I see is a load of excuses from people who wrote the rulebook and then complain when the rulebook is followed, and complain about the answer to a question that they asked in the first place.
The rulebook was written by a Tory PM bent of fighting a fire within his own party.
Said fire in turn started by decades of mostly tory ministers (some labour too) shifting the blame to the EU whenever they needed a convenient scapegoat, and aided by a relentless media machine who found a new faceless enemy to throw mud at.
Anyone wanting to educate themselves was a google or twitter search away from making a more educated guess at what was better for Britain. The whole remain ruined the campaign so deal with it smells exactly like she dressed provocatively.
Really? In a first past the post referendum where 50% + 1 vote is the winning margin.
Sure, 50% + 1 counts as a "win", but a result of 51.9/48.1% is as about as indecisive as you can get. What the gak is anyone meant to do with an almost 50/50 split, even if one side "won" if you squint hard enough. MP's need to consider all of their constituents, including those that didn't or couldn't vote.
I agree there should have been some qualified majority, but there wasn't.
We can't fething win can we?
With Brexit? Not without some sort of actual plan for how it could work, no. You voted for an undefined almost impossible action, with no plan, based on lies, to be executed by incompetents. How the gak are you expecting to turn that into a victory for anyone?
Brexit is a losing situation for literally everyone. There's no end game that doesn't upset someone.
I was accused by another poster of not listening to arguments or facts about the EU.
You don't. Most things you've been corrected on here, you've been corrected on more than once. You make a big thing about being all about big ideas and not caring about the details, but the details are important.
The majority of MPs support the EU. 70%. 70 fething percent!
How can they be beholden to a minority of Brexiteers?
And thus 30% don't.
Which pretty much aligns with those with higher education voting 2-to-1 for remain. People tend to elect those they think are better prepared so graduates are disproportionally represented in the Parliament.
Sure, 50% + 1 counts as a "win", but a result of 51.9/48.1% is as about as indecisive as you can get. What the gak is anyone meant to do with an almost 50/50 split, even if one side "won" if you squint hard enough. MP's need to consider all of their constituents, including those that didn't or couldn't vote.
To get back to the point, a three question referendum as suggested by Future War Cultist is a very good idea. Make it first preference AV voting so the result can be absolutely clear.
The difficulty is exactly what to put as the middle option. There's no middle option on the table at this stage. The government has so far wasted nearly two years not getting anywhere near to a position they want us to be in.
There is also a lot of difficulty in getting Parliament to think about this, and execute the whole thing, and also it needs to consider what the EU will think about it and there is a lot of time pressure.
The one thing I think all of us can agree on is that the entire situation is a shambles. No-one, not even the Hard Brexiteers, has got what they want.
You voted for an undefined almost impossible action, with no plan, based on lies, to be executed by incompetents. How the gak are you expecting to turn that into a victory for anyone?
Crime happens every day in the UK and has been for centuries. Should we abolish the British police because they don't catch every criminal and solve every crime?
People die in hospital every day. Should we scrap the NHS?
MPs ask me if we should stay in the EU or leave. I say leave.
And then the MPs turn around and say we don't know what to do, and it's your fault for answering the question. We didn't think people might want to leave.
Shall I phone the fire service and ask them if they know anything about putting out fires?
Should I expect MPs to make decisions and do job they are paid for? Is that too much to ask?
But, DINLT they're incompetent. So by that logic, let's not have a government at all, because they make mistakes all the time and have done so for 300 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to the point, a three question referendum as suggested by Future War Cultist is a very good idea. Make it first preference AV voting so the result can be absolutely clear.
The difficulty is exactly what to put as the middle option. There's no middle option on the table at this stage. The government has so far wasted nearly two years not getting anywhere near to a position they want us to be in.
There is also a lot of difficulty in getting Parliament to think about this, and execute the whole thing, and also it needs to consider what the EU will think about it and there is a lot of time pressure.
The one thing I think all of us can agree on is that the entire situation is a shambles. No-one, not even the Hard Brexiteers, has got what they want.
I agree it is a shambles. I apologise to Remain supporters for giving them flak, but I'm just as mad with my own side.
They've plotted and schemed for 40 years to leave the EEC/EU. Forty fething years, and they don't have a clue or a fething plan! !
I think we'd be all better off by sweeping the whole damn lot of them into the Thames.
All I see is a load of excuses from people who wrote the rulebook and then complain when the rulebook is followed, and complain about the answer to a question that they asked in the first place.
The rulebook was written by a Tory PM bent of fighting a fire within his own party.
Said fire in turn started by decades of mostly tory ministers (some labour too) shifting the blame to the EU whenever they needed a convenient scapegoat, and aided by a relentless media machine who found a new faceless enemy to throw mud at.
Anyone wanting to educate themselves was a google or twitter search away from making a more educated guess at what was better for Britain. The whole remain ruined the campaign so deal with it smells exactly like she dressed provocatively.
Have you read Tim Shipman's 'All out War.' The inside story of the referendum?
I have and let me assure you that the Remain campaign was a fething shambles from start to finish.
Here's David Cameron's priorities for the Remain campiagn:
1. Survival of the Tory party.
2. Survival of the Tory party.
3. Survival of the Tory party.
4. Survival of the Tory party.
37. Err, we'd better stay in the EU...
They deserved to lose with a gak campiagn like that.
I never sat in the House of Commons and voted to hold a referendum. I never sent a leaflet to every household in Britain, and I sure as hell didn't run a Remain campaign that was one of the worst in British political history.
They asked me a question, I and 17 million people gave an answer.
Actually -- as you've stated over an over again -- your mind was made up quite some time prior to any referendum or vote -- evidence and reason be damned.
What you chose to do is side with the venal liars and oppurtunists as you saw a chance and now refuse to accept any responsibility for the consequences.
MPs ask me if we should stay in the EU or leave. I say leave.
And then the MPs turn around and say we don't know what to do, and it's your fault for answering the question. We didn't think people might want to leave.
no, once again you're wrong.
MPs -- and the whole Govt. and every worthwhile economist said it was a bad idea -- few lines above you're claiming that 70% of MPs support/want to be in the Eu -- a few loud mouths and lairs said otherwise and you fell for it.
You're refusing to point the finger off blame at Remain.
I didn't run a gak Remain campaign, and I'm not a coward like those 70% of Remain MPs who could have stopped Brexit two years ago but chose an MP's salary over their 'love' for the EU.
You need to ask your own side some hard questions...
Sure, 50% + 1 counts as a "win", but a result of 51.9/48.1% is as about as indecisive as you can get. What the gak is anyone meant to do with an almost 50/50 split, even if one side "won" if you squint hard enough. MP's need to consider all of their constituents, including those that didn't or couldn't vote.
You just made my point for me.
Point of clarity, I said 50%+1 of eligible voters. In the referendum you got 34%. That why I further clarified that on a 70% turnout, it works out at about a 70%* in favour (i.e. a super-majority); you got 51%.
This is why, despite voting in favour of the Alternative Vote, I have never publically moaned about that decision, because it was a very clear majority (72% against, IIRC).
*I'm aware in my earlier post I said 65%, but I was working from memory and I just had time to actually crunch the numbers
My greatest issue with the EU is the "Ever closer union" principle that it was founded on. I see it as a threat by its very nature to the continued independence of Britain as a Nation State. (And yes, I acknowledge that its consensual. But I still oppose it).
If the EFTA/Norway model puts the brakes on political integration, and gives us more control over immigration (i.e. the freedom to pick and choose based on skills/education etc vs open door mass immigration) then I'm all for it. I've only ever wanted economic union with Europe, not political union.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think at this stage a second referendum is unavoidable. Hopefully it would be a three choice question:
Remain
Leave to join EFTA (I think any deal they give will be pretty much the equivalent).
Leave everything.
With a mechanism to prevent a situation were option 1 wins even though options 2 and 3 received more votes.
I also have this (sinking) feeling that we will end up remaining in the end. And if it does, all us with concerns about the EU will just be swept aside and they’ll just carry on with further intergration and increasing budgets and no accountability with the help of the entrenched establishment here whilst we’ll be fobbed off, again.
I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.
I'd be in favour of a 2 stage vote or something an in/out stage 1 and then a multi option stage with the options succinctly explained, the you'd also get a better view of what kind of Brexit people actually want, instead of "Brexit means Brexit" and "I've decided upon some hard lines, because Brexit means Brexit"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: My greatest issue with the EU is the "Ever closer union" principle that it was founded on. I see it as a threat by its very nature to the continued independence of Britain as a Nation State. (And yes, I acknowledge that its consensual. But I still oppose it).
If the EFTA/Norway model puts the brakes on political integration, and gives us more control over immigration (i.e. the freedom to pick and choose based on skills/education etc vs open door mass immigration) then I'm all for it. I've only ever wanted economic union with Europe, not political union.
Yeah, but we get to annoy the French by being able to Veto stuff and that's always a worthy cause.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Why would we point the finger of blame at the minority?
Or does the will of those who voted remain only matter when they can be used as a scapegoat?
I think the best solution would be for the government to repeal the great reform acts, suffrage acts, etc etc
and stop people like me from voting.
They ask a question and then moan at me for giving the 'wrong' answer.
They offer the chance of Brexit and then moan when I vote for Brexit...
They stand for Parliament and then moan at people for voting them in and expecting them to do their jobs...
You realise that every time the Conservatives get voted in there is a large section of the country that moans about how they didn't get what they wanted?
This is democracy mate, most of it is moaning about how you didn't get your way.
You're refusing to point the finger off blame at Remain.
How dare they not convince people whose minds were already made up prior to the campaign.
How dare they assume some basic economic literacy.
What they should've done is appeal to the lowest common denominator, of course.
You need to ask your own side some hard questions...
It seems much more likely it's about substantial parts of the population we need to be asking questions about
My greatest issue with the EU is the "Ever closer union" principle that it was founded on. I see it as a threat by its very nature to the continued independence of Britain as a Nation State. (And yes, I acknowledge that its consensual. But I still oppose it).
See, I disagree here but that's fair enough.
It's certainly better than the EU is the New Pol Pot or lies about how we'll all be better off.
They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.
Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.
But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.
Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...
Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc
You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...
When faced with the choice of to campaign or meet a dodgy donor for cash for the Tory party, Cameron chose the donor.
That's not my fault. It's not your fault.
Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.
The Remain campaign was gak. But so was the Leave campaign, just in a different way. They were deliberately unclear about what the consequences would be and made out that everything would be much easier than it would be in reality.
They lied (so did the Remain campaign, I'm just pointing out that Leave was gak too). They had no plan for what would come next, even though they had decades to come up with one. Prominent members showed that they did not understand the status quo let alone any future arrangement. And of course, it was equally led by a bunch of careerist gobshites from a very limited group of people that are drastically over represented in the upper echelons of British society.
They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.
Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.
But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.
Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...
Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc
You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...
When faced with the choice of to campaign or meet a dodgy donor for cash for the Tory party, Cameron chose the donor.
That's not my fault. It's not your fault.
Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.
Best would be cancel brexit so...
They could cancel it tomorrow but they won't, but I get the blame for their cowardice.
They had three chances to stop Brexit:
1. Win a referendum. They lost.
2. Campaign on a General Election platform to take us back into the EU. They did that and they lost.
3. Refuse to vote for Article 50. They voted for it but it's somebody else's fault that they voted for it...
What if I disagreed with the rest of the platform the LibDems were running on?
But not voting for article 50 would have been an act of sabotage because 157% of MP's all want to become European commissioner and would have subverted the will of the people. (per the edit) It's almost like people voted for Brexit, so yes it is someone else's fault they voted for it remember?
Sure, 50% + 1 counts as a "win", but a result of 51.9/48.1% is as about as indecisive as you can get. What the gak is anyone meant to do with an almost 50/50 split, even if one side "won" if you squint hard enough. MP's need to consider all of their constituents, including those that didn't or couldn't vote.
You just made my point for me.
Only because you're missing it. The RAW was crap, and the result was meaningless. Had you won it 55/45 or greater (outside of statistical error) then you'd have a point. You're being disingenuous if you regard the referendum result as being anything beyond "dunno". But we've done that one to death.
You voted for an undefined almost impossible action, with no plan, based on lies, to be executed by incompetents. How the gak are you expecting to turn that into a victory for anyone?
Crime happens every day in the UK and has been for centuries. Should we abolish the British police because they don't catch every criminal and solve every crime?
Again you're missing the point. Police (and the rest of your examples) have plans which they work to, rules and checks and all that. They aren't perfect but you know roughly what they are going to do.
But Brexit - we had no idea what it actually meant in the referendum, and we still don't know what it actually means. The campaign was full of populism, rhetoric and xenophobia, but no actual details on what it would be. What'd happen. What we actually want.
You're getting the blame here (some of which is deserved, some not) because you've admitted that regardless of how bad the campaign was, how badly we handle it or how badly we suffer, you'd vote for it anyway. You're then trying to deflect the blame for Brexit on everyone else, even though you voted for it. We can't let the people who voted for Brexit off the hook for the damage they've done, just because they whine about it later. Brexit is your fault (at least 1/17,000,000th) because you voted for it despite knowing it'd be a disaster.
I'm not carrying the blame for you, nor will I fix your mess. Because me fixing your mess would be sabotage, apparently.
I'm sure everybody is probably bored of my ranting by now
So I'll leave this final post before I head off:
If Remain MPs had stood up and said, damn the will of the people. Brexit is bad for Britain. I'm sticking two fingers up to activating Article 50, and if you're not happy then feth off and vote me out at the next General Election.
I would have been angry as hell, but I would have respected their principals.
But with the notable exception of Ken Clarke, none of them did that.
And for that they are unprincipled weasels and to Remain dakka supporters I would say you don't want people like that on your side.
You claim to have such respect for people like the founders of the US, or Bismark. Great statesmen. But your actual approach to politics is more akin to Trump than any of those great statesmen.
If the MP's had said that Brexit was a bad idea and voted against it you'd be in outrage and calling them traitors.
But lets be fair here; without knowing what a Brexit is, it's unfair to decry MP's to vote to allow it to start. For all they knew May, Davis and co had a workable plan. I doubt many of them would have voted to trigger A50 if they knew what a mess it was going to be.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @reds8n.
They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.
And the leave campaign was built on lies, utopian pipe dreams and xenophobia. (And in fairness to shadow and cultist, there was some honest folks amongst the deluded daemagogues who wanted to leave on principle, whether being against a United States of Europe etc - I disagree with it, but I will acknowledge it)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @reds8n.
Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.
But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.
Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...
Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc
You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...
It's hard to win an argument when the other side isn't interested in facts, playing fairly and is essentially arguing in bad faith from the word go. Remain had all that, and leave had lies, damned lies and a bus. They also had forty years of populist fear mongering from arch brexiteer gutter media, general gak stirring and good old fashioned xenophobia.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @reds8n.
Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.
You truly are the king of deflection. Never mind leaves lies, and unrealistic expectations. Never mind lack of a plan. Never mind the weaponised fear and xenophobia of folks goaded along by special interest daemagogues and populists. It's not leaves fault at all apparently! I am gobsmacked at the calculated indifference, bloody minded cheek and sheer brazen neck for you to come along , try and wash your hands of this and say 'really it's the remainers fault that leave won and that's we are in this disaster'. You voted to leave. You won. Own it, own your lies and deceit and damned well get over it. This is your bed. Lie in it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @reds8n.
They could cancel it tomorrow but they won't, but I get the blame for their cowardice.
Their cowardice? You hypocrite. We are leaving the eu. And they're trying to do it whilst causing the least amount of national pain possible (and lets face it, if they make a poor play, the uk is in for one hell of. Terrible time).
They are not cowards.
You are.
You are the coward here by trying to deflect and lay the blame for the consequences on everyone else but yourself.
That wasn’t the first time I suggested a three option referendum, but last time I didn’t realise that EFTA was a viable option. I knew of it but I thought it wasn’t enough, but for me at least it is. There was a time, when things were getting particularly bitter, that I then reneged on the idea. We won, I thought. We were promised that the result would be honoured. Nobody said anything about a rerun, so feth that. But, you have to be realistic. It’s about getting on.
I have learnt a lot during the last two years. I never knew that previous treaties were ratified in parliament, which is particularly embarrassing for me as I’m a history major. My excuse for that is, I’ve been neglecting my reading. And I forgot to fact check once and became convinced that Denmark was in the euro. Doh.
With the current set up, I still think that power is too removed from the voter. It’s not unique to the EU, but it’s like this; the Eurocrats only have to convince the PM and their party to their plans and they happen, regardless of what we lower types think. It’s only due to Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the Euro for example. And had we joined, there’d be no going back. And that’s a key issue with the EU to me; it only goes in one direction. At least at the national level we can nationalise and privatise and then renationalise again as we see fit. This is more a problem with our system to be honest but feth don’t the Eurocrats exploit it.
By leaving the EU to join EFTA I’d be saying no more. No more intergration, no more going over our heads to inact your little plans. No more Lisbon treaties and letting new countries join with no breaks on immigration in place and no more euro threat hanging over our heads and planing to turn our country into a mere province within your super state. This point right here is far enough...if this makes sense.
Nobody said anything about turnout or eligibility or 66% clauses or you had to wear a purple coat when you were voting or your vote doesn't count.
The people who wrote the rules didn't say anything about this pre-referendum.
But now they're complaining about rules they wrote.
That's not quite correct though. The rules agreed by parliament was that it was a non-binding vote, effectively taking the pulse of the country's view on the EU. It, however, is being treated as a binding vote and that the vote meant it had to be taken in a specific way to close all the doors, lift the drawbridge and so forth. If it had been put forward as a binding vote then parliament may have required more stringent controls on what a vote would mean and that a statistical certain result was required. Your complaining that we aren't following the ground work rules but at the same time not requiring the opposite side to hold to those same principles. That't not particularly reasonable.
What really annoys me though is how it is 'Remoaner's' fault that it is a right mess. It's the same principle that leave took after winning the referendum when they were asked "now what" and the response that was given back was "that's for the other side to tell you". That by highlighting the issues all the way through they are now being used to claim that the reason it is failing is because of this side. The reality being that the issues highlighted were always the same, that there is not a unpainful solution to achieving it and in some ways is completely impossible. Yes the reality of that does not sink in for some and it is easier to bale the other side for not pulling their ass out of the fire.
I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.
My advice would be don't wait. If you have the opportunity try it. You can always come back. Too many people look back and regret not giving themselves the opportunity. If it doesn't work out, that's fine. If you are making a decision on politics then I'd say you were crazy (in a friendly way). You don't want to get to 60, look back and think I wonder where I might have been if I took that opportunity? Just remember to give your self two years to settle because you will be homesick for a while...that is normal for pretty much everyone. That's also why I'm a firm believe in freedom of movement as it gives people the best opportunity and not being simply constrained by a line on a map.
I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.
My advice would be don't wait. If you have the opportunity try it. You can always come back. Too many people look back and regret not giving themselves the opportunity. If it doesn't work out, that's fine. If you are making a decision on politics then I'd say you were crazy (in a friendly way). You don't want to get to 60, look back and think I wonder where I might have been if I took that opportunity? Just remember to give your self two years to settle because you will be homesick for a while...that is normal for pretty much everyone. That's also why I'm a firm believe in freedom of movement as it gives people the best opportunity and not being simply constrained by a line on a map.
Just remember to keep as much paperwork as you can, so that the Home Office decide they can't prove you're a UK citizen and kick you out years after you return.
I'm a Remainer. Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. I don't merely think that we're somewhat better off in than out. I'm strongly pro-EU. Pro-ever-further-integration. Pro-United States of Europe as an eventual goal (as was a certain Winston Churchill of all people). I and my family live between the UK and France, and any sort of 'hard' Brexit has the potential to seriously screw us over.
And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.
When some poor sap gets conned out of all his savings by a charming sociopath, we might sigh and roll our eyes and reassure ourselves rather sanctimoniously that we'd never be so stupid. But we don't say that the victim deserves more blame than the conman. No, the conman is the criminal. He is not morally equal to his victim.
And in the case of the whole Brexit Referendum fiasco, the conmen are the MPs of both Leave and Remain flavours who voted to hold the referendum without ensuring it had any mechanism to ensure a qualified majority for such a major constitutional change; without ensuring it gave sufficient weight to the specific concerns of different parts of the UK (nobody even thought about poor bloody Gibraltar, did they?); without ensuring the government had a plan for what to do in the event of a Leave vote; and then told the people that this advisory referendum was going to be treated as 100% binding even though that's not how it works in our democratic system.
DINLT is absolutely right to point out that Remainer MPs could have stopped this whole mess in its tracks by voting against holding the Referendum in the first place. Or against invoking Article 50. I mean, if you really think Brexit is absolutely guaranteed to be an utter disaster, you have a duty as an MP to stop it by whatever legal/political means you can, and take the potential of being voted out by an angry electorate as something that comes with the job. If you can't put the survival of the country above holding on to your seat in Parliament, then you've no business being an MP.
Remainers who joined May's Brexit-at-all-costs government are the worst of the lot.
I actually have a bit more respect for the Leave members of the cabinet. People like Davis and Fox are merely incompetent and wrong about everything. They're making a total mess of Brexit because they're not capable of anything better (and, yeah, making an actual success of Brexit is almost certainly impossible and always would have been). But I've no reason to think they're being disingenuous or not trying their best for the country.
But what the hell are people like Hammond and Bradley and May herself doing? They told the people before the Referendum that Brexit would be a disaster, and now they're... driving the country full steam ahead into said disaster because "Will of the People". They're desperately hoping to keep their jobs by appearing to side with the 51.9%, even while they genuinely believe that the policy they're pursuing is harming the country. It's despicable.
I don't have much time for the Labour shadow-cabinet and their cowardly refusal to stand up against Brexit, either. It's clear they want Brexit to go ahead but be a disaster so the Tories get the blame and Labour can take advantage in the next election. Again, despicable.
While we indulge ourselves in this campaign of self-flagellation, let's remember that every time anyone has stood up for Remain in any way shape or form -- businesses, private citizens, the Supreme Court, MPs, the select committee, and the Lords -- they have been condemned by Hard Brexiteers as enemies of the people, traitors, and rebels, in a highly hypocritical abandonment of the constitutional principles of the UK that hard Brexiteers profess themselves so concerned to preserve that wrecking the economy with a Hard Brexit is more than worth it. (And which a lot of them voted for. I'm looking straight at you, Rees-Mogg and Bozza.)
So I would not jump down the throat of the House of Commons. You may be tempting fate.
As push comes closer to shove, the rather large, fairly soft centrist cross-bench grouping of MPs are gradually growing more balls and in the end they may really revolt and vote the feth out of everything, just like the Lords and the Select Committee.
And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.
I agree entirely. With the exception of people like DINLT who's made it clear he decided to leave before the lies, and despite of everyone pointing out how bad it'd be. Knowing how bad it'll be, he'd still do it again. So he's not been conned.
I do feel for those that genuinely thought Brexit would be good for them/the country based on lies from the Leave campaign.
Duskweaver wrote: I'm a Remainer. Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. I don't merely think that we're somewhat better off in than out. I'm strongly pro-EU. Pro-ever-further-integration. Pro-United States of Europe as an eventual goal (as was a certain Winston Churchill of all people). I and my family live between the UK and France, and any sort of 'hard' Brexit has the potential to seriously screw us over.
And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.
When some poor sap gets conned out of all his savings by a charming sociopath, we might sigh and roll our eyes and reassure ourselves rather sanctimoniously that we'd never be so stupid. But we don't say that the victim deserves more blame than the conman. No, the conman is the criminal. He is not morally equal to his victim.
And in the case of the whole Brexit Referendum fiasco, the conmen are the MPs of both Leave and Remain flavours who voted to hold the referendum without ensuring it had any mechanism to ensure a qualified majority for such a major constitutional change; without ensuring it gave sufficient weight to the specific concerns of different parts of the UK (nobody even thought about poor bloody Gibraltar, did they?); without ensuring the government had a plan for what to do in the event of a Leave vote; and then told the people that this advisory referendum was going to be treated as 100% binding even though that's not how it works in our democratic system.
DINLT is absolutely right to point out that Remainer MPs could have stopped this whole mess in its tracks by voting against holding the Referendum in the first place. Or against invoking Article 50. I mean, if you really think Brexit is absolutely guaranteed to be an utter disaster, you have a duty as an MP to stop it by whatever legal/political means you can, and take the potential of being voted out by an angry electorate as something that comes with the job. If you can't put the survival of the country above holding on to your seat in Parliament, then you've no business being an MP.
Remainers who joined May's Brexit-at-all-costs government are the worst of the lot.
I actually have a bit more respect for the Leave members of the cabinet. People like Davis and Fox are merely incompetent and wrong about everything. They're making a total mess of Brexit because they're not capable of anything better (and, yeah, making an actual success of Brexit is almost certainly impossible and always would have been). But I've no reason to think they're being disingenuous or not trying their best for the country.
But what the hell are people like Hammond and Bradley and May herself doing? They told the people before the Referendum that Brexit would be a disaster, and now they're... driving the country full steam ahead into said disaster because "Will of the People". They're desperately hoping to keep their jobs by appearing to side with the 51.9%, even while they genuinely believe that the policy they're pursuing is harming the country. It's despicable.
I don't have much time for the Labour shadow-cabinet and their cowardly refusal to stand up against Brexit, either. It's clear they want Brexit to go ahead but be a disaster so the Tories get the blame and Labour can take advantage in the next election. Again, despicable.
Some very good points - given what happened after the expenses scandal its not easy to get rid of MPs anyway so most would have had little worry about on that score.
There were however (are?) far too many deeply unpleasant people making threats or similar to anyone who spoke against the result - and that may have been a consideration for some, I dislike and distrust the EU as an institution but the behaviour of many was (and is) disgusting.
Some may have believed that in an area that voted for Brexit then they were representing their constituents?
The person I blame the most for the whole fiasco is Cameron - he was a coward - he pledged to steer the country "whatever happened" and then went straight back to the nearest feeding trough after seeing all his mates got a big fat bonus - nauseating. he and his cronies refused to plan for anything other than victory and again that arrogance was I feel part of the reason for his defeat.
The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.
Jadenim wrote: The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.
I agree. The leave option and remain option should have been determined first so everyone knew what they were voting for specifically; whether it included freedom of movement, remaining part of the customs union and so on. Instead we ended up with a definitive we know what have and on the other side a group of shysters who basically told anyone that was listening what they wanted to hear and never give any sensible though as to how it might actually work. In the end everything about the referendum was about political gain on all sides and nothing to do with what was best for the people of the country.
Kilkrazy wrote:While we indulge ourselves in this campaign of self-flagellation,
Nope. I'm flagellating our useless, cowardly shyster MPs, not myself or anyone else here. I prefer to reserve my contempt for those with power who failed to use it to protect the country they profess to serve.
let's remember that every time anyone has stood up for Remain in any way shape or form -- businesses, private citizens, the Supreme Court, MPs, the select committee, and the Lords -- they have been condemned by Hard Brexiteers as enemies of the people, traitors, and rebels
MPs should be doing their jobs regardless, acting in what they see as the best interests of their constituents and the country, not merely trying to hang onto their seats. Getting stick from the newspapers comes with the job. When did our elected representatives become so pathetic that they cringe and cower and fall into line just because the Daily Mail calls them names?
So I would not jump down the throat of the House of Commons. You may be tempting fate.
As push comes closer to shove, the rather large, fairly soft centrist cross-bench grouping of MPs are gradually growing more balls and in the end they may really revolt and vote the feth out of everything, just like the Lords and the Select Committee.
Then where will you be?
Yes, it is possible that they'll fail to stop Brexit and instead merely scupper any deal with the EU and guarantee a chaotic hard Brexit. That would suck. But that's not a reason for me to stop criticising them for failing to stand up and stop Brexit.
Herzlos wrote:I agree entirely. With the exception of people like DINLT who's made it clear he decided to leave before the lies, and despite of everyone pointing out how bad it'd be. Knowing how bad it'll be, he'd still do it again. So he's not been conned.
Sure. He's the exception that proves the rule. But I'm not even angry at people like him. He's allowed to be wrong and to vote for wrong things. He did his part in our democratic system by voting for what he honestly believed to be right. The Remain campaign failed to convince him otherwise. That's fine.
What's not fine is people who know Brexit is wrong but are either going along with it to keep their jobs or avoid being slammed by the pro-Brexit press, or undermining it in small and sneaky ways while pretending to go along with it. If you think it's wrong and disastrous, then bloody well stop it by whatever means you can. Don't pussy-foot around pretending that you "respect the Will of the People" while doing things that are more likely to lead to us crashing out without a deal than in actually stopping Brexit.
We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There was no reason to even have the Brexit Referendum other than Cameron was trying to get the ERG nutjobs to shut up and go away so he could continue to pretend he was leader of the Tory Party. As DINLT said, Remain MPs should really have been against holding the Referendum in the first place. They knew a successful Brexit was flat-out impossible. But no. Most of them voted for the Referendum. Then when Remain lost, most of them collectively shrugged and went from "Brexit would be a horrible disaster" to "Oh well, the People voted for it so it must be done".
They hold up "Will of the People" as a magic talisman, as though it will save them and make Brexit all work out somehow. Why can't any of them have the courage to stand up and say "No, the People are actually just wrong on this. What you asked for isn't deliverable. You were lied to. We're sorry."
To vote to put an issue to a public referendum is to imply that either result of said referendum would be a reasonable outcome. If you are 100% convinced that one of the two possible outcomes would be an utter disaster for the country, then why in hell would you vote to put the question to the people in the first place?
The Brexit Referendum was like asking your kid what they want for Christmas, telling them they can have whatever they like... but neglecting to tell them that there's a £10 budget because the family is skint. You have misled your child into believing they have a wider range of choice than they in fact have. It's entirely understandable that the child that confidently asked for a pony is feeling somewhat aggrieved now the truth about the family finances is coming out.
And even the Remain campaign told Brexit-voters like DINLT that they would get what they voted for (just that it'd be bad), so in that sense he was conned. The responsible, honest thing to say would have been more like "Brexit is not an achievable goal anyway, so it doesn't matter which way you vote. Voting for Brexit will just lead to a two-year nightmare followed by some clunky fudge that amounts to Brexit-in-name-only." But then why hold the Referendum at all, right?
Mr Morden wrote:Some may have believed that in an area that voted for Brexit then they were representing their constituents?
MPs need to remember how a representative democracy is supposed to work. You're supposed to act in what you believe are the best interests of your constituents and to be honest with them about your policies. Not merely do whatever they say they want on any given day while lying about whether it's a good idea or even realistically achievable. It's not the job of your constituents to know enough about every issue to always make the best decisions for themselves and the country. That's your job as an MP. Your constituents then get to decide every 4-5 years whether they think, overall, you've done a good job of representing them, and to keep you in or kick you out accordingly. That is intended to insulate the decision-making from the vagaries of short-term popular opinion and the sort of ignorant prejudice whipped up by the Sun and the Mail.
The person I blame the most for the whole fiasco is Cameron - he was a coward - he pledged to steer the country "whatever happened" and then went straight back to the nearest feeding trough after seeing all his mates got a big fat bonus - nauseating. he and his cronies refused to plan for anything other than victory and again that arrogance was I feel part of the reason for his defeat.
Holding the Referendum in the first place was the main cause of his defeat. It misled people into thinking Brexit was a reasonable option that at least had a chance of working out to the country's benefit. Putting the question to the people was a big flashing neon sign saying "This is totally a thing you can vote for!" At that point, the claim that it would actually be a disaster of Biblical proportions was never going to be taken seriously.
Has there ever been a case in any other country of the guy calling the Referendum also leading the campaign for the status quo vote? Referenda in representative democracies are supposed to be for getting public backing for a change you think will be good. Not to get support for maintaining the status quo. You don't need a referendum for keeping things the same. The whole thing was a con-job. One that backfired spectacularly.
Jadenim wrote:The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.
At the very least, it should have required a majority in all four major parts of the UK (England, NI, Scotland and Wales) to avoid the prospect of the Union shattering due to Scotland feeling like it was being yanked out of the EU against its will, or NI deciding that joining Ireland might be a better solution than ending up with a hard border with the Republic.
But a better option would have been not holding the Referendum at all. Why ask a question to which one answer is utterly unthinkable?
And for the record, I wasn't conned. I knew exactly what I was voting for.
My opposition to the EU has always been ideological, not economical.
I don't want ever closer union with the EU or a United States of Europe.
If they want to go down that road, good luck to them, but my pro-Brexit stance has not wavered an inch.
Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.
I made the choice years ago, and I'm far too stubborn to change my mind, so please don't waste your valuable time trying to convince me otherwise.
I can't see why anybody would choose Remain, but I respect their choice and would always argue for them to have their voice heard in our democracy, even though I disagree with them.
Happy to trade with the EU, happy to be in NATO with other EU members, but count me out of ever closer union.
Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.
DINLT I hate parts of the UK enough that if I had the chance to do it, nothing would remain but a radioactive wasteland. And *I* think you need to dial it back.
And for the record, I wasn't conned. I knew exactly what I was voting for.
My opposition to the EU has always been ideological, not economical.
I don't want ever closer union with the EU or a United States of Europe.
If they want to go down that road, good luck to them, but my pro-Brexit stance has not wavered an inch.
Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.
I made the choice years ago, and I'm far too stubborn to change my mind, so please don't waste your valuable time trying to convince me otherwise.
I can't see why anybody would choose Remain, but I respect their choice and would always argue for them to have their voice heard in our democracy, even though I disagree with them.
Happy to trade with the EU, happy to be in NATO with other EU members, but count me out of ever closer union.
Well this just seems to suggest you have zero respect for anyone else in the UK, really.
Kind of makes me want to take you even less seriously than before, and question why you even post in this thread.
If your attitude is seriously, 'I'd rather turn the country into the stone age and let everyone else live in unimaginable poverty because muh principles' then I think even the Hardcore Brexiteers would give you funny looks. Do you have kids? Loved ones? Any respect for anyone?
Are we really heading into economical ruin because of people like you? Are people like you representative of the British people?
Gosh. This post has actually made me geninuely sad.
Part of living in a democracy like ours with free speech, rule of law, free press et al
is having to tolerate opinions and viewpoints you don't like. That is the price of a free society.
I've despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under, which is most of my life, but you'll never see me leading an armoured column on London.
Maastricht was a black day for me, but I accepted the result.
Scotland voting No in 2014 was another low point, but I accepted the result, cursed my luck, and peacefully got on with things.
Had Britain voted Remain in 2016, I probably would have drowned my sorrows with cheap booze from Tesco...
but respected the result and got on with things as I always do...
I can sympathise with Remain voters here, because I know what it's like to lose a crucial referendum, but what other system or society do you advocate?
Why are we not celebrating the greatest day in British democracy? And I don't mean the result...
I'm talking about the fact that more people voted for or against the EU than any other issue in 300 years of British history.
75% turnout
And let's nor argue again about Russians, Daily Mail, 350 on Red buses, Cameron's World War III, Osborne's punishment budget etc etc
That's been done to death...
What is often overlooked in the massive engagement that the British public had with their democractic system...
That's worth celebrating is it not? Because it spilled over into the next general election, and we're forever moaning about low turn outs in elections...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Part of living in a democracy like ours with free speech, rule of law, free press et al
is having to tolerate opinions and viewpoints you don't like. That is the price of a free society.
I've despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under, which is most of my life, but you'll never see me leading an armoured column on London.
Maastricht was a black day for me, but I accepted the result.
Scotland voting No in 2014 was another low point, but I accepted the result, cursed my luck, and peacefully got on with things.
Had Britain voted Remain in 2016, I probably would have drowned my sorrows with cheap booze from Tesco...
but respected the result and got on with things as I always do...
I can sympathise with Remain voters here, because I know what it's like to lose a crucial referendum, but what other system or society do you advocate?
Why are we not celebrating the greatest day in British democracy? And I don't mean the result...
I'm talking about the fact that more people voted for or against the EU than any other issue in 300 years of British history.
75% turnout
And let's nor argue again about Russians, Daily Mail, 350 on Red buses, Cameron's World War III, Osborne's punishment budget etc etc
That's been done to death...
What is often overlooked in the massive engagement that the British public had with their democractic system...
That's worth celebrating is it not? Because it spilled over into the next general election, and we're forever moaning about low turn outs in elections...
Quite frankly, if your ilk don't turn out to vote at the next election, I'd be quite happy.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted, than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted
I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.
than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.
I agree. Remain voters are terrible...
Jokes aside, and getting serious here, you and I both believed we had the nation's best interest at heart with our respective votes.
I voted in good faith and I honestly beleive that Remain voters on dakka voted in good faith. I don't agree with their views, but I obviously respect their right to have it.
And that's the heart of the matter: what other system do you advocate? Disenfranchise vast swathes of British people?
If you think I'm bad, my uncle is probably more hard Brexit than I am...
But he was a taxpayer for decades and did years in the British army and obviously guarded this nation from its enemies i.e The Warsaw Pact countries...
Could we seriously advocate taking the vote from peole like him just because we don't agree with them?
And I'm at odds with him on a lot of non-Brexit issues...
Tolerance and respect for our political opponents is the only system that works in our democracy...
I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.
And I thought that Games Workshop could contradict itself in the same paragraph.
Ok, I have to ask at this point, how is being in the EU WORSE than having British civilization reduced back to the stone age (your earlier reference). Because it sounds like some ego maniacal BS that *I* might spew on a bad day.
or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.
The truly funny/sad part here if you recall was how he kept insisting that he was the visionary wanting to lead us out of the stone age etc etc if you remember.
TBH it seems you don;t have any real principles as such, just feelings.
Appalled that @foreignoffice signed away our British rights to war compensation in 1990 upon German reunification. What a travesty and one which I intend to challenge in Commons.
.... war reparations from Germany .... uh huh.
... remind me, how did that work out after WW I ?
And is this really the best time to remind, say, about 1/3rd of the globe that perhaps some of our actions in the past might perhaps be resolved with a swift exchange of large amounts of money.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted, than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted
I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.
I find that hard to comprehend, since you've admitted you'd rather plunge the nation into the stone age than be part of the EU. I can't square the circle where that's in the nations best interests.
In my view, Remain was in the nations best interests (backed up by a lot of experts), but then I'd rather see us take the Euro and speak German than for us to take the best-case hit we're going to get from Brexit.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about hoping you don't vote because you did it with what seems to be a complete disregard of the issue. You've admitted that you'd vote Brexit again, and that nothing would change your mind. That's a dangerous way to vote.
He's not talking about hoping you don't vote because you had the wrong opinion. There's nothing wrong with people coming to a different conclusion if they are willing to look at the evidence and make a judgement which might be open to change. I don't believe you can do that.
reds8n wrote: And is this really the best time to remind, say, about 1/3rd of the globe that perhaps some of our actions in the past might perhaps be resolved with a swift exchange of large amounts of money.
If the UK would like to resolve the treatment of my people at the Treaty of Paris, you remember, when the dagger was sunk deeply in our backs regarding leaving us hung out to dry with the US? Yeah, thinking about three billion might cover that to reopen trade with us.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted
I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.
I find that hard to comprehend, since you've admitted you'd rather plunge the nation into the stone age than be part of the EU. I can't square the circle where that's in the nations best interests.
In my view, Remain was in the nations best interests (backed up by a lot of experts), but then I'd rather see us take the Euro and speak German than for us to take the best-case hit we're going to get from Brexit.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about hoping you don't vote because you did it with what seems to be a complete disregard of the issue. You've admitted that you'd vote Brexit again, and that nothing would change your mind. That's a dangerous way to vote.
He's not talking about hoping you don't vote because you had the wrong opinion. There's nothing wrong with people coming to a different conclusion if they are willing to look at the evidence and make a judgement which might be open to change. I don't believe you can do that.
In regards to what I was talking about, you are entirely correct.
Interestingly this came about despite the apparent interference by American Evangalist anti-abortion groups.
Also interestingly, the mentions on social media of the two opposing slogans were 10:1 in favour of the pro-choice campaign. I think this partly reflects the fact that a lot of anti-abortion voters are going to be older and less active on social media.
I'm not interested in the economic case for or against Brexit. It's the democratic case that made the vote the way I did.
I believe that it's in Britain's best interests for its citizens to determine their own future, come what may and not outsource that decision abroad.
My argument has always been for national sovereignty, the preservation of the nation state etc etc
Your argument is obviously the economic case. And I respect that, but the economics has never been a factor for me...
I think I'm 'right.' You think you're 'right.'
That's why we must always have respect and tolerance for the other side in our democracy and respect the decisions when their made...
People might say I'm being two faced for calling MPs saboteurs or whatever, but it's my God given right to call our politicians whatever I want, although I never cross the line by insulting their families or using abusive language or death threats.
But calling Nick Clegg a two faced traitorous wretch? Clegg's fair game and he knew that when he signed on the bottom line...
And he actually said that himself a few years back...
On the other hand, I never insult fellow voters or ordinary citizens, becuase obviously I am one . It's unhelpful and calling Remainers traitors or Brexit supporters racists or Nazis or whatever, is no good to either side.
My best friend voted Remain. But we're still best friends...
We talk about everything bar the EU
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes. It's difficult to argue with that margin.
Interestingly this came about despite the apparent interference by American Evangalist anti-abortion groups.
Also interestingly, the mentions on social media of the two opposing slogans were 10:1 in favour of the pro-choice campaign. I think this partly reflects the fact that a lot of anti-abortion voters are going to be older and less active on social media.
I'm pro-choice myself, so this is a welcome victory.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted, than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.
Who are these paragons of vitrue?
Exactly. Democracy isn't perfect, can be bad at times, but it's the best system we've got...
My argument has always been for national sovereignty, the preservation of the nation state etc etc
You... do realize that the collapse of the nation state in general is on the way, right? That humanity at large is going to relegate them to the dustbin of history in all likelyhood? Why on earth would you try to preserve something that most likely will drag you down with it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not interested in the economic case for or against Brexit. It's the democratic case that made the vote the way I did.
Heh. Maybe that's why I find it relatively easy to respect your position, DINLT. Not that I don't care about the economic case for Remain, but it's of secondary importance to the philosophical, even moral, case for me. I voted Remain primarily because I believe in the European 'Project'. I don't want Europe to go back to being a bunch of completely independent countries, because that gave us centuries of horrific bloodshed. I dont care about national sovereignty, or even about democracy to be brutally honest*, as much as I do about keeping Europe as a bloc, acting in the overall best interests of all its citizens, whether they be English, French, Poles, Walloons, Basques or whatever. Like Churchill, I want a United States of Europe to ensure that Europe always has a say in world affairs, with a status on the same level as the USA and China, and to prevent war from ever coming to this continent again.
* I'm fundamentally a technocrat. Democracy is just a means to an end as far as I'm concerned. Democracy is the best system humanity has yet devised for restraining governments from getting too authoritarian and trampling the rights of minorities. But I'm fine with the "Will of the People" being ignored when the People are clearly wrong, just as long as the politicians are honest about doing that and are willing to accept the electoral consequences. I'm not a believer in the old saying that the problems of democracy can be solved with more democracy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Ireland abortion referendum result is out. 69% in favour of changing the clause in the constitution which forbids abortion. (To put it simply.)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not interested in the economic case for or against Brexit. It's the democratic case that made the vote the way I did.
Heh. Maybe that's why I find it relatively easy to respect your position, DINLT. Not that I don't care about the economic case for Remain, but it's of secondary importance to the philosophical, even moral, case for me. I voted Remain primarily because I believe in the European 'Project'. I don't want Europe to go back to being a bunch of completely independent countries, because that gave us centuries of horrific bloodshed. I dont care about national sovereignty, or even about democracy to be brutally honest*, as much as I do about keeping Europe as a bloc, acting in the overall best interests of all its citizens, whether they be English, French, Poles, Walloons, Basques or whatever. Like Churchill, I want a United States of Europe to ensure that Europe always has a say in world affairs, with a status on the same level as the USA and China, and to prevent war from ever coming to this continent again.
* I'm fundamentally a technocrat. Democracy is just a means to an end as far as I'm concerned. Democracy is the best system humanity has yet devised for restraining governments from getting too authoritarian and trampling the rights of minorities. But I'm fine with the "Will of the People" being ignored when the People are clearly wrong, just as long as the politicians are honest about doing that and are willing to accept the electoral consequences. I'm not a believer in the old saying that the problems of democracy can be solved with more democracy.
That's a viewpoint I can respect even though I obviously don't agree with it, and I admire your honesty.
I've called Jean-Claude Juncker every name under the sun for years, but at least he's always been honest about EU expansion.
Not accusing anybody here of this, but it's Remain types in the media who try and convince us that the EU is nothing more than this benign entity only concerned with allowing people easy access to holidays in Europe and cheap wine from France and Italy that makes my blood boil...
You can't have fiscal union without political union and a blind man could see that the Euro was a step towards a U.S.E
Feth me, if I were building a European project you're damn right I'd be binding people in via a shared currency. It's the logical thing to do...
There's this wonderful scene in the HBO John Adams series, where Alexander Hamilton tells Jefferson how he's going to bind the new States to the Federal Government by means of debt, banks and credit.
My argument has always been for national sovereignty, the preservation of the nation state etc etc
You... do realize that the collapse of the nation state in general is on the way, right? That humanity at large is going to relegate them to the dustbin of history in all likelyhood? Why on earth would you try to preserve something that most likely will drag you down with it?
The nation state has been on the go for nigh 400 years - there's still life in it yet. This Star trek utopia of one world government is not about too happen any time soon, if it ever will.
I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted
I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.
than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.
I agree. Remain voters are terrible...
Jokes aside, and getting serious here, you and I both believed we had the nation's best interest at heart with our respective votes.
I voted in good faith and I honestly beleive that Remain voters on dakka voted in good faith. I don't agree with their views, but I obviously respect their right to have it.
And that's the heart of the matter: what other system do you advocate? Disenfranchise vast swathes of British people?
If you think I'm bad, my uncle is probably more hard Brexit than I am...
But he was a taxpayer for decades and did years in the British army and obviously guarded this nation from its enemies i.e The Warsaw Pact countries...
Could we seriously advocate taking the vote from peole like him just because we don't agree with them?
And I'm at odds with him on a lot of non-Brexit issues...
Tolerance and respect for our political opponents is the only system that works in our democracy...
You Might be able to lie to yourself so but in reality you voted for uk to burn and become insignificant economical wreck where poor will suffer most. That's not good of country.
Only people who can benefit from this are filthy rich billionaires.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Not accusing anybody here of this, but it's Remain types in the media who try and convince us that the EU is nothing more than this benign entity only concerned with allowing people easy access to holidays in Europe and cheap wine from France and Italy that makes my blood boil...
They annoy me too, though obviously for the opposite reason. It's been that lily-livered playing down of what the EU really is and of what it could one day be by 'my' side of the argument in the UK that allowed the reactionary nutjobs like Farage and the Daily Mail to win over public opinion. When we're unwilling to actually go out and confidently sell the idea of a united Europe, it makes it very easy for us to be portrayed as being up to no good. During the Referendum campaign, we Remainers often sounded like we couldn't even convince ourselves the EU was a good thing, so it's hardly surprising we failed to convince anyone else. "The alternative would be even worse" is hardly a persuasive argument!
You can't have fiscal union without political union and a blind man could see that the Euro was a step towards a U.S.E
Hardly a day passes since the Brexit Referendum that I don't curse Gordon Brown for persuading Tony Blair to keep us out of the Euro, and Tony Blair for giving into him on that of all issues. Joining the Euro back then would have guaranteed we could never have left the EU.
There's this wonderful scene in the HBO John Adams series, where Alexander Hamilton tells Jefferson how he's going to bind the new States to the Federal Government by means of debt, banks and credit.
And which of the two would you say has been vindicated by history? The strong central government established by the Hamiltonian Federalists meant that slavery was eventually abolished in the US, schools in the South were desegregated, the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the US is the world's sole superpower. Meanwhile, what sort of people in the US still shout about "States' Rights" today? Jefferson is mostly remembered for raping his slaves. The modern Democratic Party is so embarrassed by Jefferson these days that several state parties have even renamed their annual Jefferson-Jackson dinners...
Well in that case, thank god for Brown. Never thought I’d say that.
You’ve also highlighted a key gripe I have with the current set up. The near irreversible decision as to what currency to use being left to one easily bribed, sorry, influenced person who won’t have to answer for their stupidity.
You’ve also highlighted a key gripe I have with the current set up. The near irreversible decision as to what currency to use being left to one easily bribed, sorry, influenced person who won’t have to answer for their stupidity.
Gordon Brown loved the Euro.
But being a control freak, his opposition to the Euro stemmed from the fact that he wouldn't be in charge. If the EU had offered to put him in charge, you'd wouldn't have seen the guy for dust...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
During the Referendum campaign, we Remainers often sounded like we couldn't even convince ourselves the EU was a good thing, so it's hardly surprising we failed to convince anyone else. "The alternative would be even worse" is hardly a persuasive argument!
Part of me wishes we were on the same side, becuase I agree 100% with that comment.
I feel vindicated that a EU supporter is saying it, because that's what I've been saying for 2 years.
Rather than blame the Russians or the working classes, or the Klingons or the Vulcans for losing, it's refreshing to see somebody on the Remain side call out their campiagn for the gak it was. I could ran a better campiagn.
The EU is gak, but change is risky. That was the Remain message and they deserved to lose. And yes, the Brexit campaign was a load of horsegak as well...
I've said this 100 times already to people, but please, please, please buy, beg, borrow or steal a copy of Tim Shipman's 'All out war' the story of the EU referendum...
Your jaw will hit the floor when you read how bad our political class is and how inept and incompetent they actually are...
Cameron was an utter disgrace, and George Osborne of all people was the only man on the Remain side to treat the campaign with any real seriousness or urgency...
Honest to God people it was like the Judean People's Front fighting the People's Front of Judea...
Yes, I've read All Our War. It's a very good read and revealing of the various forces involved in the different campaigns.
Corbyn also was useless.
Of course it doesn't cover the illegal activities the different Leave campaigns indulged in because these were not yet discovered at the time the book was written.
However, with all said and done, just because Remain ran a weak campaign and Leave ran a strong con-job, it doesn't actually mean that it's a good idea to leave the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, I've read All Our War. It's a very good read and revealing of the various forces involved in the different campaigns.
Corbyn also was useless.
Of course it doesn't cover the illegal activities the different Leave campaigns indulged in because these were not yet discovered at the time the book was written.
However, with all said and done, just because Remain ran a weak campaign and Leave ran a strong con-job, it doesn't actually mean that it's a good idea to leave the EU.
Corbyn has long been a follower of Tony Benn Socialism, and had he not had to balance factions in the Labour party, I think we would have seen the real Corbyn on the streets, and probably burning the EU flag. His record for decades has been anti-EEC/EU
Corbyn's heart was never really in Remain, just as May's heart will never be in Brexit.
The nation state has been on the go for nigh 400 years
And before the nation state the most commonplace sort of state was the city. And before cities, villages had wooden palisades and looked after their own affairs. Go back far enough and you'll find primitive people fighting the inexorable ever-closer-union of the cave system; with one diehard banging rocks in the depths, cursing the elites of "upper cave with view of forest". It's almost as if with ever increasing cross-cultural exposure and speedier methods of communication humans naturally amalgamate into ever larger societies.
The nation state has been on the go for nigh 400 years
And before the nation state the most commonplace sort of state was the city. And before cities, villages had wooden palisades and looked after their own affairs. Go back far enough and you'll find primitive people fighting the inexorable ever-closer-union of the cave system; with one diehard banging rocks in the depths, cursing the elites of "upper cave with view of forest". It's almost as if with ever increasing cross-cultural exposure and speedier methods of communication humans naturally amalgamate into ever larger societies.
For once, I agree with you
but I think that you, and a lot of other people, underestimate how strong the lure and pull of Nationalism is. It is a very potent ideology, and probably one of the strongest and influential -isms we've ever had.
It will not disappear over-night, if it ever does...
The nation state has been on the go for nigh 400 years - there's still life in it yet. This Star trek utopia of one world government is not about too happen any time soon, if it ever will.
I doubt that Utopia will ever happen at all. But given the rise in global issues that effect all mankind and require a unified policy, if I may, it's one world government, or one world graveyard. I know which I'd pick.
but I think that you, and a lot of other people, underestimate how strong the lure and pull of Nationalism is. It is a very potent ideology, and probably one of the strongest and influential -isms we've ever had. .
Indeed, I've seen it make beasts of men, and war criminals, racists, and other forms of scum. The sooner it dies, the better for mankind.
I flew over to Dublin for the abortion vote, I'm absolutely thrilled. I didn't think we would win by that much. I hope the US evangelicals spent LOTS of money on this campaign
I'm not interested in the economic case for or against Brexit. It's the democratic case that made the vote the way I did.
You can't pay the bills with democracy or sovereignty. If we damage our economy too badly then life will suck for all but the richest.
I also reckon brexit is going to result in less democracy, being that we've handed more power to politicians who don't want democracy, and less sovereignty, because we're still economically tied to the EU and it's rules but without any way. We'll have a lower quality of life and less rights too.
Can you think of any case the EU courts overruled Westminster that you didn't agree with?
Plus for someone who's all about democracy you seem happy for May to subvert it and seem annoyed that people like Gina Miller forced May to uphold parliamentary majority.
So whilst I don't mind brexit in theory, in practice it's a losing prospect in every way. I'd much rather we got on with this ever closer union and kept our place at the top table.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have to be honest, I don't care enough about the referendum to read a book on it. Both sides were garage (though not equal).
I'm much more interested in what we do now, and how we repair our credibility on the world stage.
whembly wrote: So...what's the story with this Tommy Robinson reporter? Do I have this right? No one is allowed to report in that grooming gang rape trial??
o.O
No not quite (by some margin). You are allowed to report on the facts of a case. What you can't do is act in a way that potentially jeopardises the court case. E.g act in a way that may be deemed as intimidating to witnesses of either side or the jurors and so forth. It's to try to ensure trials are as fair as possible. In this case they deemed his 'reporting' methods as not being appropriate.
Da Boss wrote: I flew over to Dublin for the abortion vote, I'm absolutely thrilled. I didn't think we would win by that much. I hope the US evangelicals spent LOTS of money on this campaign
They don’t like it when Russians and other foreigners get involved in their elections. But a referendum in a country that has nothing to do with them? That’s fair game to pour money into one campaign and bombard social media with propaganda.
Da Boss wrote: I flew over to Dublin for the abortion vote, I'm absolutely thrilled. I didn't think we would win by that much. I hope the US evangelicals spent LOTS of money on this campaign
They don’t like it when Russians and other foreigners get involved in their elections. But a referendum in a country that has nothing to do with them? That’s fair game to pour money into one campaign and bombard social media with propaganda.
In fairness there's a difference between investing money in campaigning for a cause and trying to sabotage an election by throwing up endless walls of misinformation and rubbish. I don't know what the US involvment in the Irish vote looked like so I can't comment on it, but a large chunk of the issue with Russia's involvment in the US election isn't just that they were involved but the fact that they systematically tried to strangle any reasoned debate and increase polarization in US society through outright lies.
whembly wrote: So...what's the story with this Tommy Robinson reporter? Do I have this right? No one is allowed to report in that grooming gang rape trial??
o.O
Tommy Robinson isn't a reporter. He's the ex leader of the EDL, a group that drapes the english flag over itself, gets drunk and wanders around shouting at muslims.
Da Boss wrote: I flew over to Dublin for the abortion vote, I'm absolutely thrilled. I didn't think we would win by that much. I hope the US evangelicals spent LOTS of money on this campaign
I wasn't able to vote as I've been a resident in Scotland for too long at this point, but thank you for going home to vote. Like you, I'm thrilled with the result, and proud as punch of my homeland.
TL/DR: Microbiologists at the University of Southampton has discovered that the US chlorine washing technique banned by the EU, does not remove bacterial contamination from food, it only makes it impossible to detect with standard lab tests.
Anne Milton hasn’t met the IfA’s apprentice panel in its first year
The skills minister has still not met with the Institute for Apprenticeships’ panel of apprentices – more than 12 months after it was established.
The panel, which first met last April, is made up of current or recent apprentices who discuss issues from the learner’s perspective and raise with the main IfA board.
Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden lodged a written parliamentary question on April 16 asking about meetings Anne Milton had held.
“I am hoping to meet with the panel of apprentices in the near future,” replied the minister yesterday, who claimed she had attended a meeting of the full IfA board “by telephone” last December.
“The panel of apprentices is particularly important to help the IfA improve the quality of apprenticeships, as it reflects the importance of apprentices’ experiences across a broad range of different occupational routes.”
Mr Marsden was not impressed.
“It’s frankly ludicrous that this reply – which finally came after DfE officials had clearly struggled with how to answer my question – admits that not only has the minister not met the apprentices’ panel, but also she wasn’t at the IfA’s last board meeting other than ‘by telephone’,” he said.
“With the IfA just having taken on a daunting set of new responsibilities for technical skills, isn’t it crucial that the minister does get face to face personal feedback rapidly, both from the apprentices panel and its board?”
IfA responsibilities include overseeing development and approval of new apprenticeship standards and assessment plans, advising employers on government funding for standards, and quality-assuring the delivery of apprenticeship end-point assessments.
It will also oversee T-levels, the government’s new technical qualifications, which will appear starting from 2020.
Ms Milton’s predecessor as minister Robert Halfon was an advocate of the panel of apprentices’ potential to allow learners to exert a positive influence on decisions affecting them.
There were initially fears that the IfA may not have any apprentice representation at all during the early stages of its development.
Mr Marsden and the NUS president Shakira Martin, who was then the union’s vice-president for FE, wanted apprentices to take up places on the board itself – but the government would not commit to the idea.
However, in December 2016, Mr Halfon confirmed that the IfA would “invite apprentices to establish an apprentice panel, which would report directly to the board”.
The National Society of Apprentices expressed fears last summer that his successor Ms Milton was less interested in the panel.
“We heard Anne Milton talk about wanting to listen to as many voices as possible so we hope that she backs her words up with action,” a spokesperson said at the time.
This bodes well for the government's plan to establish "T Levels" for technical training, which as far as I can see is a plan to re-establish the day release technical training for City & Guilds, etc which apprentices used to have.
whembly wrote: So...what's the story with this Tommy Robinson reporter? Do I have this right? No one is allowed to report in that grooming gang rape trial??
o.O
Tommy Robinson isn't a reporter. He's the ex leader of the EDL, a group that drapes the english flag over itself, gets drunk and wanders around shouting at muslims.
God I hate that guy. He's from the town where I live and made a video once where he drove through Bury Park, one of the streets notable for a strong Asian/Muslim community to highlight how dangerous it was ("I couldn't walk down here, I'd get battered. I'd never make it out again"). Thing is, at the time the gaming club I went to was at one end of that road, and we used to walk down it weekly to get food, never had any issues. But there he is, telling the world we've got dangerous 'no-go areas'.
But yeah, he's not a reporter. Former leader of a far-right group of thugs who hides behind a pseudonym (his real name is Stephen Lennon) and tries to stoke divisions in society and make sure it's all captured on camera and online, trying to make it seem like it's some massive injustice when he's stopped.
... cannot wait to have them working in all those hospitals and care homes...
a cynical person might think they're, I dunno, making this stuff up as they go along !
On reflection, that might not be a bad idea. Obviously, certain types of criminals like sex offenders should be kept miles way from these places.
But minor and petty criminals when they serve their sentence, often end up re-offending and are back in jail within 18 months.
If they can be integrated back into society with a job and support, the chances of them re-offending are halved, and that would free up valuable prison space.
Once a prisoner has re-paid their debt to society, we're supposed to forgive and let them back in? Right?
Says the man, me, who is usually calling for hang 'em high
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This bodes well for the government's plan to establish "T Levels" for technical training, which as far as I can see is a plan to re-establish the day release technical training for City & Guilds, etc which apprentices used to have.
I would like to see polytechnics make a return. I think some of them made a mistake by upgrading to universities when they would have been better served sticking to what they know best.
There are times when I wish British society was more like other nations and respected skilled craftsmen rather than city spiv, winner takes all types...
whembly wrote: So...what's the story with this Tommy Robinson reporter? Do I have this right? No one is allowed to report in that grooming gang rape trial??
o.O
Tommy Robinson isn't a reporter. He's the ex leader of the EDL, a group that drapes the english flag over itself, gets drunk and wanders around shouting at muslims.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They don’t like it when Russians and other foreigners get involved in their elections. But a referendum in a country that has nothing to do with them? That’s fair game to pour money into one campaign and bombard social media with propaganda.
Who exactly is "they" here? Because there is likely to be almost zero overlap between the Americans who are upset at the Russians maybe helping Trump get elected and the Americans who tried to help the No side of the Irish referendum.
Kilkrazy wrote: This bodes well for the government's plan to establish "T Levels" for technical training, which as far as I can see is a plan to re-establish the day release technical training for City & Guilds, etc which apprentices used to have.
Every time you say “T levels” I get visions of a zombie apocalypse breaking out...
It's called 'slave labor' and generally does not turn out a quality product.
Once sentenced it is pot luck as to what a convict (UK) is able to achieve within what is supposed to be a reliable system of rehabilitation.
Excluding prisoner attitudes there is a wide swing between the best and worst prisons, educational providers, probation services and other external organisations.
A lot of successful programmes to get ex offenders into work receive no funding and have no contact with CPS, probabtion or other agencies. Relying on pure hard graft to change attitudes.
I found the Tommy Robinson arrest curious because there was nothing about it all on the BBC.
A court ordered lock-down on information about his case is a very curious thing to me as an American.
amanita wrote: I found the Tommy Robinson arrest curious because there was nothing about it all on the BBC.
A court ordered lock-down on information about his case is a very curious thing to me as an American.
Riquende wrote: God I hate that guy. He's from the town where I live and made a video once where he drove through Bury Park, one of the streets notable for a strong Asian/Muslim community to highlight how dangerous it was ("I couldn't walk down here, I'd get battered. I'd never make it out again"). Thing is, at the time the gaming club I went to was at one end of that road, and we used to walk down it weekly to get food, never had any issues. But there he is, telling the world we've got dangerous 'no-go areas'.
But yeah, he's not a reporter. Former leader of a far-right group of thugs who hides behind a pseudonym (his real name is Stephen Lennon) and tries to stoke divisions in society and make sure it's all captured on camera and online, trying to make it seem like it's some massive injustice when he's stopped.
He might be exaggerating about the no-go area. But he's not lying when he says that its a dangerous area for him. He gets attacked regularly. His family gets hounded and threatened.
I generally fall on the Free Speech side of the argument, but Tommy fethed up when he filmed inside a court building and was rightfully convicted. But if he is to be jailed, then it should be in protective custody. The last time Tommy Robinson was sent to jail, he was locked in a room with a gang of Muslim inmates who had previously issued threats against him. They beat him to a pulp.
amanita wrote: I found the Tommy Robinson arrest curious because there was nothing about it all on the BBC.
A court ordered lock-down on information about his case is a very curious thing to me as an American.
That’s because we try to avoid trial by media.
I hear that The trial was already over. They were found guilty, and he was reporting on their sentencing. So hardly a trial by media.
When a Gammon feth knuckle like Tommy ‘not his real name, not that the prick has something to hide’ Robinson rocks up, spewing their pathetic vitriol, it risks a trial collapsing - even when the evidence is solid.
But the prick that Tommy ‘Free Speech Is Only For Me’ Robinson’s clearly racist reporting endangered said fair trial.
When a Gammon feth knuckle like Tommy ‘not his real name, not that the prick has something to hide’ Robinson rocks up, spewing their pathetic vitriol, it risks a trial collapsing - even when the evidence is solid.
But the prick that Tommy ‘Free Speech Is Only For Me’ Robinson’s clearly racist reporting endangered said fair trial.
No it didn't. He was reporting on the sentencing.
You can't prejudice a jury when the defendants have already been convicted.
amanita wrote: I found the Tommy Robinson arrest curious because there was nothing about it all on the BBC.
A court ordered lock-down on information about his case is a very curious thing to me as an American.
That’s because we try to avoid trial by media.
Apologies if I caused any confusion, I wasn’t trying to comment on the specific case (I don’t know anything about it), but this kind of lock down is fairly common in the UK for controversial cases and I was just trying to explain why, as it might seem strange to non-British. We don’t have televised courts and anything involving underage suspects, particularly gruesome or inflammatory crimes, etc. tends to have further restrictions, to prevent influencing the jury and/or protect the identity of those involved (i.e. innocent until proven guilty, which can become difficult if the media are reporting every detail of a case).
When a Gammon feth knuckle like Tommy ‘not his real name, not that the prick has something to hide’ Robinson rocks up, spewing their pathetic vitriol, it risks a trial collapsing - even when the evidence is solid.
But the prick that Tommy ‘Free Speech Is Only For Me’ Robinson’s clearly racist reporting endangered said fair trial.
No it didn't. He was reporting on the sentencing.
You can't prejudice a jury when the defendants have already been convicted.
Well that’s what he has been charged with, again, so I’m guessing the Police have good reason and the CPS have accepted the evidence they have. No garentee he will be convicted or that he is guilty, but that’s what the charges are.
"Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, had claimed that verdicts were due on Friday but court officials confirmed that the trial of nine defendants is ongoing."
He can still be seen to be intimidating people after sentencing, and antagonizing things by likely framing it as a pc stitch up or calling for a harsher sentence with at least a few mentions of Muslims and terrorists.
This is a guy who's tried reporting at a few scenes about Islamic terrorist attacks that turned out to be house fires etc.
He'll have been warned a couple of times before being attested too, so he'll have known he was in the wrong.
amanita wrote: I found the Tommy Robinson arrest curious because there was nothing about it all on the BBC.
A court ordered lock-down on information about his case is a very curious thing to me as an American.
That’s because we try to avoid trial by media.
Apologies if I caused any confusion, I wasn’t trying to comment on the specific case (I don’t know anything about it), but this kind of lock down is fairly common in the UK for controversial cases and I was just trying to explain why, as it might seem strange to non-British. We don’t have televised courts and anything involving underage suspects, particularly gruesome or inflammatory crimes, etc. tends to have further restrictions, to prevent influencing the jury and/or protect the identity of those involved (i.e. innocent until proven guilty, which can become difficult if the media are reporting every detail of a case).
It’s not specific to this case, it is all court cases. There are very strict rules on what and how trials can be reported on. It is part of the way we try and ensure all are equal in the eyes of the law. There is some things that can be reported, but it is limited to objective facts. Names, charges things like that.
To flip the view, we Brits are often astonished at the amount of reporting around US trials which could be highly prejudicial to the jury's verdict.
To get back to UK politics, a new analysis says that if a referendum on EU membership were to be held now, Remain would win because of the demographic changes since the first one. That is, the fact that old people voted Leave and are dying, while young people voted Remain and there are more of them now.
I don't 100% agree because I think it will take a couple more years to create a decisive gap, but this study also points to 14 recent opinion surveys out of which 13 gave Remain the win.
Nay-sayers will point to the opinion polls that preceded the actual referendum, which gave Remain a good gap. I would point out that the polls moved in the
last couple of weeks before voting day, and started to predict a much closer result.
I wonder how long it will be before someone who currently supports a completely open Irish border to start arguing that they’d conveniently now be comfortable with strong border restrictions, once women in NI start going south for abortions.
Really the situation in NI is an embarrassment upon the UK, that we’ve allowed them a situation where they can maintain such backward laws. Even a judge in their own court has said their abortion law is in conflict with the Human Rights act and still they do nothing. But we know nothing will happen in Westminster because Theresa May needs to suck up to be DUP or her government falls apart. Another wonderful consequence of her weak governance.
In my view it's constitutionally right to leave the decision to the NI Assembly. It's a devolved power, and there's already enough aggro going on with the Tories trying to seize back devolved powers under cover of Brexit legislation.
You will rightly say there hasn't been an NI Assembly for 16 months because the DUP and Sinn Fein can't agree how to form one.
Of course it's also in May's interest to placate the DUP, and there are no Sinn Fein MPs in Westminster to push the issue the other way.
If the people of Northern Ireland find this situation unacceptable they need to stop voting for Sinn Fein or DUP candidates and get some new political parties to represent them and get stuff done.
The UK government’s preparations for a “no deal” Brexit in March 2019 have largely ground to a halt, making it almost impossible for Theresa May to walk out of negotiations with the EU in the next 10 months, according to people with close knowledge of the situation.
As the prime minister prepares for what is arguably the trickiest phase of the Brexit talks, the government’s official position is that it can reach an accord with the EU — but that it is also preparing contingencies for “no deal” if Brussels tries to strike too hard a bargain.
However, Whitehall officials are privately conceding that preparations for a “cliff edge” Brexit next March are nowhere near the level they need to be if a threat by Mrs May to walk away from the talks were to be credible.
“Our preparedness for no deal is virtually non-existent,” said one senior British official working on Brexit. “Our ability to deliver a ‘no deal’ outcome recedes with every week that passes.”
Other officials preparing for the possibility of Britain leaving the EU without a deal say they are being discouraged from taking on projects that might only be needed should there be no agreement on customs and regulatory co-operation by next March.
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, observed in a speech in Glasgow last week that the UK had still not set up the independent regulatory bodies that would be needed in the event of a “no deal” Brexit next year.
“If we want . . . genuinely to go it alone . . . then we have to be going full tilt in developing that regulatory capability at huge speed,” he said. “The fact that, in so many areas, we are obviously not doing that . . . is yet another reason why the EU side has long since concluded that the UK would not walk out.”
Another former mandarin indicated that the failure to set up independent regulatory bodies in the event of a “no deal” next year was causing most concern.
“How many years does it take to set up a medicines agency?” he said. “Or chemicals approval? Or civil nuclear-safety standards? Or a new state aid policy? Where is the legislation? Where are the skilled staff coming from?”
In last December’s Budget, Philip Hammond, the chancellor, allocated £1.5bn for “Brexit preparedness”, which covers all aspects of Brexit planning, including a “no deal” scenario.”
However, government officials concede that the new money only became available in the financial year starting in April and that it is still too early to make a judgment on how it might be spent.
A further £1.5bn has been set aside by Mr Hammond but this is only being earmarked for the financial year after March 2019 when the UK is formally due to leave the EU.
On Sunday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leading Conservative Brexiter, urged Mrs May to revive her threat to leave the EU without a deal if Brussels takes an uncompromising approach in the Brexit negotiations.
He told the BBC that Mrs May should threaten not to pay the £40bn “divorce bill” agreed with the EU in December. “We should say quite clearly: ‘If we don’t get the trade deal we want, you don’t get the money.’ That’s a very strong negotiating position.”
But hardline Brexiters, both in cabinet and on the Conservative backbenches, claim that Mrs May, Mr Hammond, cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood and Olly Robbins, the chief Brexit negotiator, have conspired to avoid serious “no deal” planning for next March to such an extent that it is no longer a realistic option.
Dominic Cummings, one of the masterminds of the pro-Brexit referendum campaign, wrote last week: “The Treasury argues . . . that given the actual outcome of the negotiations will be abject surrender, it is pointless wasting more money to prepare for a policy that has no future and therefore even the Potemkin preparations now under way should be abandoned.”
A Number 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister is committed to getting the best possible Brexit deal, one that works for the UK and the EU. The government is committing extensive resources as part of our preparations for leaving the EU — whether in the event of a deal or not, and at the autumn Budget the chancellor allocated £3bn specifically for our exit preparations.”
Howard A Treesong wrote: Really the situation in NI is an embarrassment upon the UK, that we’ve allowed them a situation where they can maintain such backward laws.
Wow.
"That we've allowed" does not demonstrate an overwhelming level of respect for one of the constituent nations of the UK and devolution of power.
Not that I agree with the DUP on very much, but that's a heck of an attitude.
However, Whitehall officials are privately conceding that preparations for a “cliff edge” Brexit next March are nowhere near the level they need to be if a threat by Mrs May to walk away from the talks were to be credible.
“Our preparedness for no deal is virtually non-existent,” said one senior British official working on Brexit. “Our ability to deliver a ‘no deal’ outcome recedes with every week that passes.”
Which Whitehall officials? Which senior British official?
Naturally, no names are being mentioned of course. The media will say that their keeping their sources private, but it has been known for them to make bullgak up, because if you don't put names to statements, then any old journalist can make up any old bullgak and attribute it to a faceless and nameless official.
That's an old journalism trick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: To flip the view, we Brits are often astonished at the amount of reporting around US trials which could be highly prejudicial to the jury's verdict.
To get back to UK politics, a new analysis says that if a referendum on EU membership were to be held now, Remain would win because of the demographic changes since the first one. That is, the fact that old people voted Leave and are dying, while young people voted Remain and there are more of them now.
I don't 100% agree because I think it will take a couple more years to create a decisive gap, but this study also points to 14 recent opinion surveys out of which 13 gave Remain the win.
Nay-sayers will point to the opinion polls that preceded the actual referendum, which gave Remain a good gap. I would point out that the polls moved in the
last couple of weeks before voting day, and started to predict a much closer result.
No disrespect Kilkrazy, but waiting to win a political argument i.e return to the EU, on the back of the other side dying off, has to be one of the most morally and politically bankrupt arguments I have ever seen in all my years on God's earth.
For pure cynicism, it's up there with the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact.
And to be fair to you, it's not just you, because I've heard it a lot from other Remainers in the media.
?
I am gobsmacked at the calculated indifference, bloody minded cheek and sheer brazen neck for you to come along , try and wash your hands of this and say 'really it's the remainers fault that leave won and that's we are in this disaster'. You voted to leave. You won. Own it, own your lies and deceit and damned well get over it. This is your bed. Lie in it.
