Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do love all the stamping of feet about concessions and the EU not playing fair.

If only someone had said they'd hold all the cards and pump us daft in the event of a leave vote, eh?

nfe wrote:
I do love all the stamping of feet about concessions and the EU not playing fair.

If only someone had said they'd hold all the cards and pump us daft in the event of a leave vote, eh?

Except they don't hold the cards, especially with yesterday's election result and the eastern Europeans causing disunity. As for being pumped hard, it remains to be seen, although I wouldn't be surprised if things take a decade to recover from whatever the fallout actually ends up being.

In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.

Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.

Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.

Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...

Let the implication of that sink in for a minute, and remember that before wondering why people like me voted to leave the EU...

Let's also remember that the reason the EU reacted was because part of the government was a party with roots in neo-Nazism. I'd damn well expect the EU, and anyone else, to tell the Austrians that Nazism is a Bad Idea.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

nfe wrote:
I do love all the stamping of feet about concessions and the EU not playing fair.

If only someone had said they'd hold all the cards and pump us daft in the event of a leave vote, eh?

Except they don't hold the cards, especially with yesterday's election result and the eastern Europeans causing disunity.

Half our government and most Brexiteer commentators constantly bemoaning the EU's disinterest in compromising and stubbornness in sticking to their progression limits suggests otherwise.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/notice-im-not-flying-to-you-says-juncker-20171016137532

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.

Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.

Ehm... No. It has elected a right wing, pro-European party in the mould of the CDU and member of the European People's party like most Christian Democratic parties.

You were thinking about the FPO there.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.

Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...

Could I suggest reading this about the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party and then compare to the current person that has just been elected...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.

Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.

Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.

Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...

Let the implication of that sink in for a minute, and remember that before wondering why people like me voted to leave the EU...

Kurz is pro-EU.

So, wandering away from Brexit, I'd like to talk about Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Or rather, what he represents.

See, he's a man of faith, and fair enough. But, politicians of his stripe always worry me, because they place their faith (which they're perfectly entitled to) as the be-all-and-end-all of morality.

That concerns me very deeply. And it's not because I'm an atheist myself, but because Britain is a multicultural, secular society. So whilst you're free to inform your own morality on the basis of the faith of your choice, that needs to be kept out of Parliament.

The days of religion informing and influencing policy needs to end (and yes, that includes ending their voice in The Lords), not enhanced.

Now, Mr Rees-Mogg may well be sensible in that regard, and get that because he can't do X, doesn't mean nobody else should, or that X should be illegal. I'm just using him as a particularly well know example of someone who sticks to their faith.

And that pushback needs to begin now. Not later. I don't want us to end up with a Religious Right like other countries have.

If you yourself are of a religious persuasion, consider how you'd feel if say, a Muslim or Jewish MP tried to hammer policy round their faiths. Is that something you or anyone should simply accept?

Again, I'm not some kind of militant atheist demanding entirely secular laws. Different faiths bring different view points, and all need to be included in rational debate. But when someone decides their faith is the only one to have it right, only trouble will come from it.

The thing is, Rees-Mogg isn't trying to push his faith on other people. He's said he accepts that Parliament and modern society has decided to allow abortion.

Which is why he's just an example here.

He's a bad example.

Its a tricky balancing act for sure. Religion can seem be a regressive force in many areas these days, but it can still do(and does) a lot of good. I guess as with most things in politics its all about having the right checks and balances to prevent things lurching to far to one extreme or the other.

As for Mogg, while I dislike nearly everything about him. At least he's being pretty honest about who he is and what he thinks.

He isn't driven by his faith, though. He uses it as justification for horrible, backwards views.

If he was following his religious teachings, he wouldn't be voting for wars, or reduction in disability benefits, and so on.

He's also a hypocritical; against abortion in all cases, but profits from sales of the morning after pill (via an investment portfolio, admittedly).


I'm not sure there are any politicians bringing any suggestions to the table because their holy book said so.

Obviously, Brexit isn't a contentious enough subject on its own, let's chuck a bit of religion in to spice things up.

Got to say, I'm not worried about a religious political coup.
Every politician of any stripe knows that it just won't fly over here. Other countries may have differing mileage, but in the UK, religious people make us uncomfortable, like a slightly racist grandparent, who gives you the occasional £5 on your birthday, and smells a bit damp. You're stuck with them, but tbh, you only pop in and see them a couple of times a year, and you're quite glad to have done your duty and can leave 40 minutes later.

We sent all our religious nutcases abroad to the colonies. Those of us who stayed were perfectly happy for them to practice the freedom of their religion, thousands of miles away, with an ocean in between us.

We need to get shot of the state church and its consequent Lords seats, but how can you take religion out of politics without banning religious individuals from politics? We have a representative democracy where we elect individuals to legislate (or oppose legislation) on our behalf. If someone's moral framework is built around their interpretation of their religion, then they're going to vote in accordance with (or informed by) that just as non-religious person will vote in accordance with their own moral ontology. Or at least both should - some will put it aside sometimes for various reasons.

It's not been an issue for bloody ages, why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over Lord snooty?
As has been pointed out, he's not a threat, and the bishops in the Lords are pretty harmless.

Seems like a waste of time fanning about worrying about a total nin-threat when we have bigger fish to fry. We're literally playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

 r_squared wrote:
Obviously, Brexit isn't a contentious enough subject on its own, let's chuck a bit of religion in to spice things up.

Got to say, I'm not worried about a religious political coup.
Every politician of any stripe knows that it just won't fly over here. Other countries may have differing mileage, but in the UK, religious people make us uncomfortable, like a slightly racist grandparent, who gives you the occasional £5 on your birthday, and smells a bit damp. You're stuck with them, but tbh, you only pop in and see them a couple of times a year, and you're quite glad to have done your duty and can leave 40 minutes later.

It never does any harm to stay aware though. In this country it's more the subtleties and bias's that can be brought forward that are more problematic. Theresa May admitted that if she is unsure she asks 'God' what to do and is guided by the response rather than go out and gather more evidence. In reality it has nothing to do with what God says but more how she has been brought up and what she has been told is the right thing to do by a specific religion. This can result in subtle biases that can grow into greater problems over time. It also allows people to pass the buck when things go wrong so if May believes that the election result is because "god is testing her" making her blind to the impacts she really is having on people. It's for the same reason that I don't believe religion should be taught in any school as children are more impressionable and at that age you need to be teaching them how to look at the world objectively and you simply can't do that if everything is led by a religious undertone. Churches/Mosques etc are places where religion can be 'taught' not schools.

In other news it appears that they are pressing on with trying to change the electoral boundaries and unsurprisingly it will benefit the Conservatives (though Boris may lose his seat). If there is ever a time when proportional representation is needed then it is now...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-set-to-lose-his-hillingdon-seat-to-labour-under-final-boundary-review-duncan-smith-spared-tory-majority-more-likely_uk_59e51634e4b0a2324d1cf88b?tw&utm_hp_ref=uk

And it appears that May's discussions with the EU have made great leaps forward.... They have agreed they need more talks which is really not a surprise to anyone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-and-jean-claude-juncker-agree-to-accelerate-stalled-brexit-talks_uk_59e512b4e4b02a215b324f15?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

jouso wrote:
And back to news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181

The US slaps a 200% tariff on Bombardier planes, the wings of which are made in northern Ireland employing 4.000 people.

Of course this was done at the behest of Boeing who have already reminded May they employ four times as many in the rest of the UK.

The people at Airbus are already cracking the popcorn open.

....and Airbus saves the day.

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/10/airbus-bombardier-cseries-agreement.html

By using the Airbus assembly facility in Alabama it will circumvent the Boeing-imposed tariffs. Airbus gains a 50% stake on a brand-new developed airliner without paying a single euro, and Bombardier keeps access to the US market.

Bombardier and Airbus win, Boeing loses.

Nice. We in belfast were concerned about that.

Just what I was thinking.

I wonder what the DP will have to say to the Tories about this?

To nobody's surprise, yesterday's Brexit meet up turned into another spectacular waste of time.

From what I've been reading the EU are still holding onto this kamikaze belief that the ECJ should hold sway over EU citizens in a post-Brexit UK.

No other nation on God's Earth would accept that. If the EU said that to the Americans, they'd get laughed out of Washington.

And of course, the money. Merkel's ally, Michael Fuchs, on the radio today was banging on about money.

Pull the plug on this

I agree, the EU will have plenty of other options to ensure their citizens rights post Brexit (for the few years we aren't a member).

They should just insist that any EU citizen currently in the UK should be entitled to a dual passport and have the sames rights as UK citizens.

Herzlos wrote:
I agree, the EU will have plenty of other options to ensure their citizens rights post Brexit (for the few years we aren't a member).

They should just insist that any EU citizen currently in the UK should be entitled to a dual passport and have the sames rights as UK citizens.

I'm OK with that. Ditto for any UK Citizens living in the EU.

But I doubt the EU will reciprocate...

According to Radio 4, the negotiations regarding the status of EU and UK citizens are well advanced and closest to successful completion.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I agree, the EU will have plenty of other options to ensure their citizens rights post Brexit (for the few years we aren't a member).

They should just insist that any EU citizen currently in the UK should be entitled to a dual passport and have the sames rights as UK citizens.

I'm OK with that. Ditto for any UK Citizens living in the EU.

But I doubt the EU will reciprocate...

As a British and EU citizen living in the UK (and hence the EU) I would be quite happy for them to give me a dual UK/EU citizenship passport.

I want a dual UK/EU passport too.

I would be very happy to pay for an EU passport. It will be massively useful for business.

Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.

I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.

Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41630943

Also creates more and more work for me. Hopefully enough to lead to overtime. Which in turn will help me pay off my credit card debt.

Selfish? Yep. But let's make hay while the sun shines, eh?

Low interest rates encourage people to spend too.