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.

 r_squared wrote:


Indeed, if any newspaper was likely to promote a groundswell of support for the left, then you can rely on the DM.

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/04/19/daily-mail-crush-saboteurs-front-page-chilling-fascistic-hateful-deranged-oh-lenin-said-1918/

I mean that black front page with that weird staring, portrait of May, what is that all about? Are they trying to intimidate people? because if anything it's going to have the absolute opposite effect. No one is intimidated by the DM, but anyone who sees that front page is going to be motivated to tell them to shove their Brexit up their arse.

They aren't going to intimidate people that don't read the Daily Mail and realise what they are up to. However those that are already reading it could be swayed by such headlines and be intimidated by the fear it implies. Rather than have a rational discussion those that don't know they are being influenced will start believing that the people opposed are Saboteurs or enemies of the state and so on. The image of an overbearing May will then frighten them into thinking they are not doing their part and that May is watching. The problem is the words and language might lead people to, rather than vote,l take more extreme action against those they are being told are betraying the country and so forth. It's a type of brainwashing that has similarities (not exactly the same, but the psychological pressure being applied has the same basis) to propaganda used by terrorists to get people to do what they want.

On this Corbyn is correct, media should be taken to account to be more critical and neutral. We've already had one murdered MP, how long until a member of the public gets stabbed in the street because someone thought they were a saboteur because they support Remain.

On an aside I see Corbyn wants to give 4 more bank holidays. That's great, pity they are at carp times of the year. However I'm not sure we'll get much. The legislation currently means there is a minimum number of days off each year but that minimum includes bank holidays. If he ups the bank holidays and doesn't change anything else all that is likely to happen is we lose 4 days off our annual leave entitlement if you are employed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:
Yep.

Just going back to Vaktathis question about going through with, the other reason we can't go back on it is a sense of fair-play, British or otherwise.

If T May turned round tomorrow (after a moment of clarity during a stroll to the shops) and said 'sorry, I've though it through and it really is daft, let's call the whole thing off', then why would those who voted for Brexit ever take part in politics again. Sadly the fact it wasn't legally binding both wasn't pushed (or even mentioned, I don't think) by anyone in a position of authority beforehand, and has been so roundly ignored since that it may as well not be a fact at all at this point.

So, stiff upper lip, disengage higher cognitive functions, and forwards!

I don't think you could just call it off, that would be possibly worse. I think you'd have to go back the populace and state categorically that none of us were provided sufficient information to determine whether leaving or remaining was a good idea. I think they'd have to say look we'll negotiate in good faith and then come back to everyone so the populace can know exactly what they are voting for with (as I've stated before) three options (Remain, Leave and take the deal, Leave and go WTO). That way there could at least be an informed choice.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.

Also... doesn't a US-to-UK trade deal have to happen at, or right after the brexit?

Trade with the Uk will be quick to finalise, because its in both parties interest to do so. Th UK civil service is labyrinthine and backward, but it can move quickly and efficiently when it needs to, and the senior civil servants are motivated to do what they can.
Trade deals are still very lengthy things, but there is lengthy and there is EU lengthy. The EU is known for taking literal decades longer than just about anyone else when it comes to provision of agreements. Brexit itself is a sole exception because there is an internal clock and a dangerous situation.

Uk trade negotiations should technically begin after the UK leaves the EU, however much of the behind doors talks from the EU has long begun and the Uk is likely to consider what is good for them is good for us too. Talks will occur on an unofficial level to triggers after the Uk leaves the EU, and as we now have a timetable date this that it can be achieved.

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU. Possibly simultaneously too.

Also... doesn't a US-to-UK trade deal have to happen at, or right after the brexit?

Trade with the Uk will be quick to finalise, because its in both parties interest to do so. Th UK civil service is labyrinthine and backward, but it can move quickly and efficiently when it needs to, and the senior civil servants are motivated to do what they can.
Trade deals are still very lengthy things, but there is lengthy and there is EU lengthy. The EU is known for taking literal decades longer than just about anyone else when it comes to provision of agreements. Brexit itself is a sole exception because there is an internal clock and a dangerous situation.

Uk trade negotiations should technically begin after the UK leaves the EU, however much of the behind doors talks from the EU has long begun and the Uk is likely to consider what is good for them is good for us too. Talks will occur on an unofficial level to triggers after the Uk leaves the EU, and as we now have a timetable date this that it can be achieved.

There will have been quiet internal contingency and prior talks provably before the vote and ones before article 50 activated.
Nothing solid but just working out the what if, and steps people take if x action happens, making sure each side is ready to and able to act when or if required..

There will have been enormous amounts of private discussions supporting thr big showly public events that are gonna happen.
There has to be to even arange the public talks in the very first place.

 Darkjim wrote:
... Perhaps there will just be a Europe full of proud, nationalistic nations, living peacefully side by side for hundreds of years, like it used to be.

I'm not sure that's accurate tbf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

It's interesting to note the drop off in conflict in the latter half of the 20th century upto the present day. Almost as if something had changed, like a supra-national organisation, created to quell conflict had been created.

I think Darkjim may have been using sarcasm.

At least I hope so.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A trade deal with just the UK can be done in a fraction of the time it takes to do one with the EU.

Only if one of the parties bends over and relax.

Australia - Japan FTA (still not including most services) took seven years, and that's between two smaller actors.

 Jadenim wrote:
I think Darkjim may have been using sarcasm.

At least I hope so.

I was, and I shouldn't, sorry. It would be a logical fallacy (I think) to say the EU is the reason there have been very few wars in Europe since the EU appeared, but equally - lots and lots and lots of wars prior to the EU, then very few wars after it appeared - is certainly a factor I think worth at least considering when trying to decide whether to ditch the whole thing. Proud, nationalistic countries seem to have a pretty consistent record when it comes to warfare - they like it. And the press love it.

I've been reflecting on the whole GE AND Brexit phenomenon and tbf TM has actually played a blinder.
Firstly, gone are the consequences of those Tory MPS embroiled in the election funding scandal with the possible further loss of majority.
Secondly, if the Tories win a solid majority again,and trounce all opposition, she will have 5 years to sort things out and a huge mandate and support.
Thirdly if the Lib Dems or Labour do somehow manage to surprise us and take a few seats, or even for a coalition, she, and the political right, will have the perfect whipping boy for everything that goes wrong.

I'm now minded to maybe vote for the Tories to let them sort out the mess they've started. It's not likely to be a pretty economy over the next few years, and they would be carrying the can the whole way.

As has been mentioned before, the right wing need to see their policies and ideology fail, and tbh, Brexit is the perfect opportunity to watch their world view collapse.

Hmm, decisions decisions. (Made slightly easier by living in the safest of Tory seats, so in reality as long as I don't pop an X next to UKIP, I'm grand)

I may even put a few bets on to spice things up and console me when eventually, out of nowhere, Farage becomes PM.

Imagine the G7 talks with Farage, Trump and Le Pen.

 r_squared wrote:
I've been reflecting on the whole GE AND Brexit phenomenon and tbf TM has actually played a blinder.
Firstly, gone are the consequences of those Tory MPS embroiled in the election funding scandal with the possible further loss of majority.
Secondly, if the Tories win a solid majority again,and trounce all opposition, she will have 5 years to sort things out and a huge mandate and support.
Thirdly if the Lib Dems or Labour do somehow manage to surprise us and take a few seats, or even for a coalition, she, and the political right, will have the perfect whipping boy for everything that goes wrong.

I'm now minded to maybe vote for the Tories to let them sort out the mess they've started. It's not likely to be a pretty economy over the next few years, and they would be carrying the can the whole way.

As has been mentioned before, the right wing need to see their policies and ideology fail, and tbh, Brexit is the perfect opportunity to watch their world view collapse.

Hmm, decisions decisions. (Made slightly easier by living in the safest of Tory seats, so in reality as long as I don't pop an X next to UKIP, I'm grand)

I may even put a few bets on to spice things up and console me when eventually, out of nowhere, Farage becomes PM.

Imagine the G7 talks with Farage, Trump and Le Pen.

Lok that would be funny or the G20 as all 3 would be big economies and have fairly heavy say!

I think British politics is entering the realms of fantasy again.

As people know, I don't rate Corbyn, and yet, Corbyn, a man who is reluctant to push the red button and wipe of millions of people is deemed 'mad,' whilst Michael Fallon, on the radio, and justifying a pre-emptive first strike, is deemed to be the 'normal' guy...

It's a strange world we live in...

And to make clear on that, Fallon was arguing for Britain to have first strike rights.

It's all very well to have trident to deter aggressors, and to fire back, if God forbid, nuclear war break outs, but pre-emptive attacks?

Who is a threat to Britain these days? Nobody. Absolutely nobody...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Who is a threat to Britain these days? Nobody. Absolutely nobody...

I know! It's Britain, Britain is the greatest threat to Britain. The first strike is there in case we do something really stupid and then the government can just nuke ourselves and get the misery over and done with.

Alternatively they'll first strike if Scotland leaves the UK; Fallon: "See we told Scotland there would be consequences"

That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.

And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.

And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?

What he said, you don't know when a crazy mad hatter is going to get in charge.

Heck, last month Turkey was a democracy. Who knows what will happen next month?

If a NATO country gets nuked "nuking back", as it were, isn't a preemptive strike. Who are you going to launch at first (you know, what the "first use" doctrine is about in nuclear warfare theory) without ending civilization? The sheer arrogance it would take to gamble with billions of lives like that is astounding.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That's foolish and short sighted. We can't predict what the threats to Britain will be in 50 years, 25 years or even just in the next 10 years. People like to hype up Russia and Putin as a big bad bogeyman, and yet you think now is the right time to ditch our nuclear weapons? Once we ditch our nuclear arsenal, we can't easily replace it should the need arise. Its better to have it and not need it, I say.

That's true, but at the same time you can't also predict what the threats will be either. What happens if it is self replicating nanobots viruses that can slice you up from the inside or self made viruses if we discover how to start life ourselves. What happens if space defence lasers become reality and can vaporise a ballistic missile before it gets back into the atmosphere? We could find we are just sitting on an expensive piece of scrap.

And its idiotic to hamstring ourselves by ruling out pre-emptive strikes. Waiting until we've been nuked ourselves will be too late, the damage will be done. What if Russia begins nuking eastern European NATO members? Are we going to wait for a nuke to hit Britain before we launch?

This is already a retaliatory strike. It's acting because allies are being attacked. First strike means you attack because you *think* someone is going to get up to something naughty. It means killing potentially tens of thousands or millions of people (that's before you consider the retaliatory attacks) because of, in the end, a hunch.

There is an advantage of not having nukes, you just aren't a primary target. If anything should teach us about the world is that the more weapons you have the more people get killed.

Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?

Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...

Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.

But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.

Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?

Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...

I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.

But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.

Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.

Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.

If EU agree its secured our peoples status.

If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....

 jhe90 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?

Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...

I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..

I might take that if it meant I could avoid the obligatory (and boring) shopping trips....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.

But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.

Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.

Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.

If EU agree its secured our peoples status.

If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....

The EU have already stated they want to guarantee the rights of EU/UK citizens living abroad. It's already in their strategy for the negotiations.

The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to settle the status and situations at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be a matter of priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be enforceable and non-discriminatory.

It's our country that is dallying on the issue.

The point about offering a guarantee to current EU residents is that we need them in various areas of the economy. For instance, in the past couple of days, UK universities have warned that 18% of their academic staff and EU citizens they don't want to lose, and the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that 21% of their members are reliant on what are called medium skilled workers (bookkeepers, office managers, and so on) from the EU.

Without a guarantee, some of these people are going to up sticks, leaving two important sectors in the crap.

I agree with the head of Migrant Watch that the UK ought to be training and educating its own people to fill these jobs, but that doesn't happen overnight. Not to mention that universities and academia rely on cross-fertilisation of academics between different countries, it's part of how the system works.

The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point about offering a guarantee to current EU residents is that we need them in various areas of the economy. For instance, in the past couple of days, UK universities have warned that 18% of their academic staff and EU citizens they don't want to lose, and the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that 21% of their members are reliant on what are called medium skilled workers (bookkeepers, office managers, and so on) from the EU.

It's not just that for Universities. Most people will get a Visas or whatever to work in the UK. The big issue for science is that, excluding medicine, 50% of the funding now comes from the EU. A lot of the science is undertaken by postdocs and these are criminally underfunded by the UK, because in effect the EU provides so much money to fund such positions. Problem is that it's roughly a two/three year cycle, people now don't know whether they will be able to access this money. That's encouraging both EU and UK postdocs abroad so they can access these resources without fear. Additionally UK institutions are starting to be frozen out of being major players in EU bid proposals, in case in a couple of years it blows up because of the negotiations. This is all driving the temporary staff in the majority to look elsewhere for certainty and the most successful are leaving first.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Not to mention that universities and academia rely on cross-fertilisation of academics between different countries, it's part of how the system works.

They do.... where do I sign up

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Did we learn nothing from Watchmen?

Wasn't that walk around butt naked everywhere and people generally shoot at you?

I thought it was that women get annoyed when you clone yourself several times to get jiggy with her whilst you continue to work?

Yeah but that's not likely to result in the end of the whole world - even if the apocalypse does rain down on you locally...

I dunno.. You might think the end of the world came down upon you. That and you may end up on the sofa..

I might take that if it meant I could avoid the obligatory (and boring) shopping trips....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Labour are saying that would give all EU citizens here legal status before negotiations start. I did not understand the point of this. A reciprocal agreement up front, that's a very reasonable thing to offer the EU to begin things in good faith, especially as there are more EU citizens here then UK ones abroad.

But why outright guarantee citizenship and only then start looking for a reciprocal agreement? Why play your hand and then leave it entirely to the good faith of the EU to respond in kind? Offering a reciprocal agreement is far better, and you're not committing yourself to giving out freebies if they decide to give nothing back.

Labour should be seen to be looking after the interests of British people, at least on equal footing. But here, they want to guarantee citizenship to people from the EU, and leave our own people in limbo to the whims of the EU. And this is supposed to be a vote winner.

Aye.. Its a win win move for UK to offer that in effect.

If EU agree its secured our peoples status.

If NO. The EU looks bad as UK dis offer a fair and logical deal.
labour are looking out for EU citzens before there own people... Might I remind you who make up this countries voters....

The EU have already stated they want to guarantee the rights of EU/UK citizens living abroad. It's already in their strategy for the negotiations.

The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to settle the status and situations at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be a matter of priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be enforceable and non-discriminatory.

It's our country that is dallying on the issue.

Its a public game of blink first.
The real agreement on it was probbly made in private ages ago.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.

Solution seems to involve running the economy to the ground so that foreigners aren't needed any more.

A cunning plan worthy of Blackadder.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.

Britain will remain a migration destination for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the nationalists hope for. It is the only economy in Western Europe that is both modern and labour intensive. The mix of migrants is likely to change though. Without easy access to East European workers and free movement, low wage workers from Africa and Asia will become more attractive for employers.

 Antario wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The current record high employment rate argues that the UK economy is running out of labour force and needs more people not fewer.

Britain will remain a migration destination for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the nationalists hope for. It is the only economy in Western Europe that is both modern and labour intensive. The mix of migrants is likely to change though. Without easy access to East European workers and free movement, low wage workers from Africa and Asia will become more attractive for employers.

Which is one of the (many) things that has always bemused/annoyed me about the Brexit campaign; for all of this talk of "getting immigration down to 10s of thousands", ~50% of our immigration comes from outside of the EU and is entirely within our control. Yet we still have c.150,000 people coming in from the rest of the world because, funnily enough, our economy and social services need them!

Brexit is not the problem IMO. It was never the problem.

As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.

The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.

And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.

We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...

I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.

But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Brexit is not the problem IMO. It was never the problem.

As I've often said, the lack of vision, the grand plan, is the problem. Sadly our incompetent politicians, who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, are incapable of getting us going forward.

The nation is broken. When full time workers, working a 40 hours+ week, can't afford a roof over their heads without being propped up by the state, then something is horribly wrong with Britain.

And yet, has May or Corbyn, or Farron or even Sturgeon put forward a vision to address this? They tinker at the edges, they act as thought it were 2007, and not post-Brexit 2017.

We have been badly let down by our political leaders, betrayed even...

I'm lucky because the cause I believe in (Scottish independence) has a clear goal, even if you disagree with it.

But I feel sorry for dakka members in the rest of the UK. Personally, if I were a voter outside Scotland, I wouldn't waste my time voting on June 8th. None of these other parties and their leaders are worth a bucket of horsegak...

And here lies why I will forever be frustrated with the Brexit campaign, why is it necessary to leave the EU to fix these problems?