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.

 reds8n wrote:
James Dyson on a post Brexit UK: It should be easier to hire and fire and Corporation Tax should be eliminated.

You forgot the bit about:

I should be able to move manufacturing to Malaysia and have a free trade deal so I can manufacture cheaper with less worker rights whilst I sell at the same price and earn more profit! and

I should be able to make my devices as energy intensive as possible and damn the consequences to the environment's future.

The answer of course is obvious - don't buy anything from Dyson ever again...

Yeah I see what I did there. I forgot that it was Kilkrazy DINLT was talking to in the first place, so I thought that AlmightyWalrus was referring to another recent incident on confusion. I’m going to have to stop arguing in this thread on a phone as the screens way too small. Makes things like that happen. That and I’m only ever half paying attention too.
@ nfe

I could have sworn you backed remain. Apologies for getting it wrong.

I originally came in to say that I find the ECJ prone to judicial activism, likely to interpret the law in favor of more intergration while hoarding more power for itself. Then I got sidetracked.

After Johnson put his foot in it the other week Gove has said he ‘didn’t know’ what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff was doing in Iran but generously said if the husband said it was visiting family, then he’d accept it. Not exactly a great endorsement, wasn’t Gove told the government line on this? The more it goes on, the more confusion there seems to be, with people in government not leaping to her defence but saying ‘well I’ll agree with the husband as I’ve nothing else to go on’. Well great but why don’t they know it for themselves?

Maybe I’ve too much le Carré but I’m starting to think there’s perhaps something less innocent about this now after all. Obviously the security services would have been onto this and ministers have had reports on their desks with evidence of what she has been doing which should exonerate her, or at least be enough for ministers to defend her with confidence. At this rate, I’m wondering if she’s is on the payroll of the British government or something which is why they are struggling to defend her or supply evidence without letting some cat out a bag.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A common theme occurs time after time: British people will lose working rights, trade union rights, human rights, abortion rights, maternity rights, environmental rights, travel rights, Brexit will destroy the world, Ireland will float off towards America, Coca-Cola will stop selling Coca Cola to the UK, British cows will stop producing milk, grass will turn from green to blue, aliens will invade Brexit Britain, Polish plumbers will be burnt at the stake, Russia will invade Britain, Hadrian's wall will collapse, and so on and so on....

This is just irrational rambling. If you disagree with an article then you should highlight it and argue why it is incorrect. After the 7th one you are sounding more like someone with a billboard strapped to their neck and ringing a bell trying to just say people are wrong with no rational discourse.

As for the first 7

British will lose working rights (yes they are, their ability to work in any of the 28 nation bloc is being limited)
Trade union rights (I think the Tories have already shown us that the EU has no say over UK union rights)
Human rights (people will have less ability to travel anywhere they please without restriction, we are also more susceptible to right wing Tories!)
Abortion rights (again are you sure, take NI for example and their laws on abortion?)
Maternity rights (again human rights will be determined by the UK government. Are you sure you feel more comfortable with say Rees Mogg determining basic rights?)
Travel rights (free travel anywhere across the EU???)

As for aliens landing in the UK I don't think you should worry. Given our current issues with fears over immigration I'm fairly certain that another species, that will have come together to work towards large galaxy sized goals, will want to avoid the UK (and US) at all costs. I think they might take Germany if they had to land but more likely shake whatever goes for their heads and fly away very quickly...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
After Johnson put his foot in it the other week Gove has said he ‘didn’t know’ what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliff was doing in Iran but generously said if the husband said it was visiting family, then he’d accept it. Not exactly a great endorsement, wasn’t Gove told the government line on this? The more it goes on, the more confusion there seems to be, with people in government not leaping to her defence but saying ‘well I’ll agree with the husband as I’ve nothing else to go on’. Well great but why don’t they know it for themselves?

Maybe I’ve too much le Carré but I’m starting to think there’s perhaps something less innocent about this now after all. Obviously the security services would have been onto this and ministers have had reports on their desks with evidence of what she has been doing which should exonerate her, or at least be enough for ministers to defend her with confidence. At this rate, I’m wondering if she’s is on the payroll of the British government or something which is why they are struggling to defend her or supply evidence without letting some cat out a bag.

I think you are looking too deeply for a reason. It appears that Gove and Boris have buried the hatchet over the last PM fight. They seem to be getting on much better than before. My suspicion is that they have decided that if they want a hard Wrexiter in charge after May that they need to join forces and not fight one another. I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM (and to note given the people left in the Conservative club who will get a say you will almost certainly get a hard Wrexiter).

As far as I understand the situation, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU and the UK won't leave its jurisdiction by leaving the EU. Is there a parallel plan to leave the ECHR?

 Whirlwind wrote:
...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...

The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.

Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.

 r_squared wrote:
Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now?

Never underestimate the public's capacity to vote for an incompetent buffoon. It worked for the US...

If I had to choose I'd rather have Gove as PM than Boris. But then that's like being asked at gunpoint if I'd rather someone chopped off my arms or my legs.

 r_squared wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...

The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.

Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.

Sums up my thoughts on Gove. How the hell he got let into politics, I’ll never know.

 r_squared wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
...I guess they have probably decided to give each other good jobs when May shortly goes if either of them win the ensuing fight for PM...

The thought of either of those as PM is just, depressing.

Boris Johnson may have been a credible contender in the public imagination a good long while ago, but now? He'd be a disaster. We'd probably be genuinely better off with no leader at all.
Can't even entertain Gove as PM, it'd be like being led by a plate of watery blamange.

Have you seen the make up of the Tory party faithful though? I'm always suspicious that the reason Leadsom was turned on by the papers was because her hard Wrexit views would have swung the majority, elderly, of the conservative members. If It had been her vs May I suspect we would have Leadsom as PM...

I don't think this time there will be no vote, both the Remain/Leave sides will put forward their candidate they think will win the most. I suspect that a lot of the faithful don't really give a damn about Boris's idiocy (and half of them probably think he is right!).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As far as I understand the situation, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU and the UK won't leave its jurisdiction by leaving the EU. Is there a parallel plan to leave the ECHR?

One of the key drivers behind the argument that the EU is undemocratic, and one of the major reasons papers pushed for the referendum was the rulings of the court and them overruling the UK courts. May in her time as Home Office Minister was very critical of the ECHR and repeatedly called for a British bill of rights. What previously stopped this was the fact that it was linked to EU membership. It will not be long after leaving the EU that there are calls to leave the ECHR. I can see the DM headlines now the next time the ECHR tells the UK we can't deport someone... The only way I can see us staying a signatory of the ECHR is for it to be a requirement of some post brexit agreement. Otherwise the right wing press will be calling for us to leave within weeks of leaving the EU.

I do want to leave the ECHR and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. I'd prefer that such important laws as Human Rights be under the direct control of the British Parliament and Courts, and not be subject to a foreign court beyond the influence of the British Electorate.

Granted, I would prefer that the Labour party be the one to draw up and enact this Bill of Rights, not the Tories. But I think a Corbyn Government is inevitable anyway.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I do want to leave the ECHR and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. I'd prefer that such important laws as Human Rights be under the direct control of the British Parliament and Courts, and not be subject to a foreign court beyond the influence of the British Electorate.

Granted, I would prefer that the Labour party be the one to draw up and enact this Bill of Rights, not the Tories. But I think a Corbyn Government is inevitable anyway.

I'd rather keep the definition of human rights away from the british electorate, or indeed any single national government or population.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


I'd rather keep the definition of human rights away from the british electorate, or indeed any single national government or population.

Exactly. I especially want control of it to be kept away from someone who showed plenty of contempt for human rights as home secretary.

The only reason May wants to bring it under uk control is to water it down. I think we'll need to agree to adhere to it to get single marker access.

To be fair; I'd rather it was codified globally via the UN rather than being a European thing. A human should have the same rights everywhere on the planet.

We legalised same sex relationships before we joined the EEC/EU

We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU

We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU

Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU

Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU

and so on and so on

There's a definite theme going on here

The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.

The British people definitely, the Tories? Not so much

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU

Err, the end of the death penalty in the UK was the direct result of Jack Straw signing the 6th protocol of the ECHR in 1999.

That aside, whether we did x, y, or z before joining the EU is irrelevant if we can't be confident of their protection in future. Looking at your examples, we have a government striving to curtail trade unions, for instance.

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU

Err, the end of the death penalty in the UK was the direct result of Jack Straw signing the 6th protocol of the ECHR in 1999.

That aside, whether we did x, y, or z before joining the EU is irrelevant if we can't be confident of their protection in future. Looking at your examples, we have a government striving to curtail trade unions, for instance.

Jack Straw's actions abolished high treason against the crown - things like trying to blow up the Queen, selling secrets to the Russians etc etc that kind of thing.

I'm talking about the death penalty in your everyday law and order context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.

The British people definitely, the Tories? Not so much

In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.

No true Scotsman, eh?

I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.

Who wants to increase the time people can be held Iin police custody without charge? Secret hearings for terrorism? Deportation centres? Invasive Internet and communications monitoring? Outsourced policing?

That we did stuff before the EU is no assurance we'd do so again. Why scrap the human rights act if we just want to add stuff on top?

nfe wrote:
No true Scotsman, eh?

I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.

There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Who wants to increase the time people can be held Iin police custody without charge? Secret hearings for terrorism? Deportation centres? Invasive Internet and communications monitoring? Outsourced policing?

That we did stuff before the EU is no assurance we'd do so again. Why scrap the human rights act if we just want to add stuff on top?

Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We legalised same sex relationships before we joined the EEC/EU

We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU

We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU

Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU

Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU

and so on and so on

There's a definite theme going on here

The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.

We also opted out of the Working Time Directive, and there have been a number of criticisms made of human rights rulings by the ECHR, before the referendum.

Since the referendum we've seen the UK gutter press name the Supreme Court "enemies of the people" for upholding our current constitutional rights which PM May was trying to dodge.

We also know that immigration and the status of refugees (not wanting to have them here) was a major theme of Leave, so common sense doesn't seem to be as powerful as you may think.

Consequently I have no faith in the UK's ability to preserve a fully functional international human rights system by itself.

It's also worth noting that the European Declaration of Human Rights is derived from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was drawn up largely by British lawyers. If we leave the ECHR, we will still be bound by the UN Declaration, to which we are treaty members. The difference is our government will pay only lip service it wants to.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
No true Scotsman, eh?

I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.

There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.

You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.

https://order-order.com/2017/11/13/kensington-tories-ask-voters-important-grenfell/



classy there eh ?



Can't believe that one got approved.

Good grief.

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
No true Scotsman, eh?

I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.

There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.

You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.

And you're trying to put high treason on the same footing as a bar room brawl that went horribly wrong.

I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We legalised same sex relationships before we joined the EEC/EU

We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU

We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU

Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU

Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU

and so on and so on

There's a definite theme going on here

The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.

We also opted out of the Working Time Directive, and there have been a number of criticisms made of human rights rulings by the ECHR, before the referendum.

Since the referendum we've seen the UK gutter press name the Supreme Court "enemies of the people" for upholding our current constitutional rights which PM May was trying to dodge.

We also know that immigration and the status of refugees (not wanting to have them here) was a major theme of Leave, so common sense doesn't seem to be as powerful as you may think.

Consequently I have no faith in the UK's ability to preserve a fully functional international human rights system by itself.

It's also worth noting that the European Declaration of Human Rights is derived from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was drawn up largely by British lawyers. If we leave the ECHR, we will still be bound by the UN Declaration, to which we are treaty members. The difference is our government will pay only lip service it wants to.

Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.

As for immigration, I don't believe you can't stop people in this globalised age, and I'm not against it in principal, but I see no problem in the British people having the final say on immigration numbers.

After all, we all get to choose who enters our homes, so why should our country be any different?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.

when was the last time something was changed by marching on parliament?
What if the government making protesting illegal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.

If noone takes the Daily Mail seriously, how come it's still in print? People buying it for the lols?
A skim of the comments section on any online article shows how many people take it seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.

You must be able to admit how it looks to everyone though? Your statement was objectively wrong, you were corrected, instead of going "good point" you tried to move the goal posts.

Was the death penalty abolished before we joined the EU? No. There is no other answer to that question.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
No true Scotsman, eh?

I assumed when you said 'abolished the death penalty' that you meant exactly that, not 'abolished the death penalty for most offences prior to fully removing it from law as a result of the ECHR' which is really a very different statement.

There's a big difference between selling secrets to the Soviets, and your 'average' murder, not that I'm trying to downplay the seriousness of murder, which is a horrible thing.

You'd be more credible if you could just concede that you were wrong, or that you didn't actually mean what you said, rather than retrospectively adding qualifiers. The UK did not abolish the death penalty before joining the EU/EEC. That statement is false and it remains false irrespective of your addendum.

And you're trying to put high treason on the same footing as a bar room brawl that went horribly wrong.

Absolute nonsense. I've done no such thing (though I actually do think treason a far lesser crime than murder) and in any case it would be irrelevant. Was it legally possible for a sentence of death to be conferred by a UK court after joining the EEC/EU? Yes. Therefore, the death penalty was not abolished in the UK before joining the EEC/EU. Any argument to the contrary is ludicrous.

I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.

We're not disputing something subjective. You made a factually incorrect statement.

If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.

I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.

Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.

There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Everything you mentioned can be ended if the British people wish for it to be ended. Our history is full of people marching on parliament and changing things the hard way.

when was the last time something was changed by marching on parliament?
What if the government making protesting illegal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say. And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.

If noone takes the Daily Mail seriously, how come it's still in print? People buying it for the lols?
A skim of the comments section on any online article shows how many people take it seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I suppose, at the end of the day, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'll say no more on it.

You must be able to admit how it looks to everyone though? Your statement was objectively wrong, you were corrected, instead of going "good point" you tried to move the goal posts.

Was the death penalty abolished before we joined the EU? No. There is no other answer to that question.

There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.

As for the Daily Mail, that's just the blue rinse brigade stocking up on free wine vouchers. I wouldn't put too much into those viewing numbers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.

I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.

Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.

There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.

Good grief, man. You made a factually incorrect statement. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. Own it. There's no shame in saying 'I should have been clearer. That was a bit daft!'. There's plenty in trying to weasel out of being taken to task when you argue something that is blatantly false.