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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The referendum was an advisory vote for the populace to tell the government what they want.

The government doesn't have to follow the results of this, but it would be pretty politically bad for them. Unless things change drastically in the time before the article is triggered.

The only limit I know of is the 2 year one once the article is triggered.

Thanks for the explanation.

From my perspective, I'd just be wary of a political body doing something of this magnitude (or not!) when the result was so close...

Appears ya'll will have interesting times ahead.

Uncle Sam will be here to help.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The referendum was an advisory vote for the populace to tell the government what they want.

The government doesn't have to follow the results of this, but it would be pretty politically bad for them. Unless things change drastically in the time before the article is triggered.

The only limit I know of is the 2 year one once the article is triggered.

Thanks for the explanation.

From my perspective, I'd just be wary of a political body doing something of this magnitude (or not!) when the result was so close...

Appears ya'll will have interesting times ahead.

Uncle Sam will be here to help.

This what happens when you don't have a written constitution - they make things up as they go along...

It has its good points and its bad points. I can't figure out which side it mostly falls under.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


To answer your other points r_squared, IMO, all this talk about us not being ready is pure horsegak. What have they been doing these past 2 months? painting the Sistine chapel?

C'mon, if not now, when?

Likely trying to talk about terms(like no free movement of people and access to market as before which eu is dead set against) without triggering timer against which eu obviously says "dream on".

The moment timer kicks in uk is at disadvantage. No surprise they don't want to trigger it quickly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Kilkrazy

You're calling me pathetic?

Don't think for one second that because you're a mod I'll stand back and let you insult me for having different opinions.

I am calling it pathetic to claim that that tweet is evidence of the EU claiming GB gold medals. It very clearly is not.

You know what I think is pathetic? A mod breaking the #1 rule.

Edit: the twitter post in question included a graphic that very clearly stated that the European Union came first in the medals table. Did you honestly miss that part, or are you deliberately leaving that bit out? (Something which I also consider somewhat..."pathetic").

That's what I was saying about that graphic!

Damn, why did I apologise? That'll haunt me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Kilkrazy

You're calling me pathetic?

Don't think for one second that because you're a mod I'll stand back and let you insult me for having different opinions.

I am calling it pathetic to claim that that tweet is evidence of the EU claiming GB gold medals. It very clearly is not.

You know what I think is pathetic? A mod breaking the #1 rule.

Edit: the twitter post in question included a graphic that very clearly stated that the European Union came first in the medals table. Did you honestly miss that part, or are you deliberately leaving that bit out? (Something which I also consider somewhat..."pathetic").

Pointing out that the EU countries collectively have the most medals is not the same as taking credit for them.

 Whirlwind wrote:

So in effect you are saying Leave didn't have a plan, but Remain did they just didn't talk about it. So you are now agreeing with my point that started this which was "The Remain camp were at fault for using a flawed strategy (and in the end for not calling out the Leave group for not having an actual plan....")

Errrrr.....my original statement which I just reworded to try and get my point across, that this whole discussion devolved from was:-

"In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan, considering the alternative option to leaving was 'stay within an international entity that staggers from crisis to crisis like a drunk on early Sunday morning until it gets its crap together and unifies into a superstate'. There was no positive future for the EU portrayed because even the Government didn't think it could sell that."

I've already outlined why their 'future plan' was not positive, and pointed out that the future 'plan' for the EU isn't exactly theirs (coming from Brussels as it does). I'm not really sure what you're querying anymore, to be honest.

I think that is going to be another area where we disagree....This is just fear-mongering, there is no evidence that that this was the intent..

I think you're a much less cynical person than me, so we'll probably have to leave those two points (and a few others from later on in your post) there. I tend to believe practically everyone else is an incorrigible bastard who'll screw you over given the chance/appropriate motivation, and you'd be surprised how often it turns out to be case.

This is a supposition. It assumes that we know how things would have been if they had stayed out of the Euro. They may have kept out of the Euro, but because of whatever circumstances their economy collapsed and the overall outcome is that their overall economic shape was still worse than it is today. Conversely they may have stayed out, prioritised the development of something else (lets say asteroid mining as an extreme example), found one that had a butt load of gold and platinum and made themselves the richest country on Earth. But the point is that it is a fallacy to take what we know today apply a different initial condition and then assume things develop in the same way. It doesn't happen like this - the system in itself is chaotic (as in not predictable) so changing the initial conditions can result in widely different outcomes. Attempting to assume the same outcomes with a different set up is a poor methodology.

You know what? Fair point, but not entirely accurate. I was sloppy in my wording. I'll rephrase:- Had Greece simply joined the Eurozone but not the Euro (similar to Britain), it would have had the financial levers with which to stimulate their economy appropriately when the crash happened, and therefore not suffered the same extent of economic malaise it had to (and is still having to) as a result of having little central fiscal control.

To be fair one of the better Business Secretary's we've had in some time. Vastly superior to Sajid Javid who gave the impression of being pretty rudderless.

I liked Vince. I was shocked when he lost his seat, he was a good MP for many years.

I don't know I 'm pretty keen on my breakfasts.... Unless he predicted exactly when, where, how and who caused each specific crisis then I stand by the point I am trying to make...

He was pretty close actually. To steal a slice of one of his (many) articles back in the nineties:-

"A common currency is an excellent monetary arrangement under some circumstances, a poor monetary arrangement under others. Whether it is good or bad depends primarily on the adjustment mechanisms that are available to absorb the economic shocks and dislocations that impinge on the various entities that are considering a common currency. Flexible exchange rates are a powerful adjustment mechanism for shocks that affect the entities differently. It is worth dispensing with this mechanism to gain the advantage of lower transaction costs and external discipline only if there are adequate alternative adjustment mechanisms....

...The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe. I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Pointing out that the EU countries collectively have the most medals is not the same as taking credit for them.

Agreed and if we are going to slate the EU then we should also be howling at the moon for the same thing done by the Tory replacing countries with 'British empire' which doesn't exist anymore. It's either both or none. If we just pick on one or the other then it's a bit hypocritical as it then just a method to show how 'naughty' the other side are.

However on aside could I ask that if there are issues with language being used that these are taken up in pm's rather than here. Although we are having a heated debate it's one of the few places where it isn't turning 'nasty' and I for one would like it to stay that way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

I found this absolutely hilarious. Wonderful footage of Corbyn walking past several empty seats to record his 'sitting on the floor' shot and call for railways nationalisation due to packed trains like the one he's on. Let anyone who says Corbyn doesn't try and play the media with outright lies exit stage left.

Ah yes, Corbyn's train stunt. Hilarious.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Do_I_Not_Like_That

I'd love for a posse of Dakkanaughts to march on Parliament in the name of Brexit!

I've been looking for an excuse to go back to London anyway.

@ Kilkrazy

I got the wrong of the stick on the medals certainly, and I apologised for it.

But you were out of line. Nobody else here needed to resort to insults to make their point. Since you're a mod you should know better. And since your post has been edited, it looks like somebody else in authority thinks so too.

I don't expect you to apologise but don't expect me to let you walk all over me just because you're in a position of authority either.

Of course I apologise. "Pathetic" was in hindsight rather close to the bone and I withdraw the remark.

I would not dream of walking over you because I am a moderator.

I hope we can go forwards in a friendly open manner.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

I found this absolutely hilarious. Wonderful footage of Corbyn walking past several empty seats to record his 'sitting on the floor' shot and call for railways nationalisation due to packed trains like the one he's on. Let anyone who says Corbyn doesn't try and play the media with outright lies exit stage left.

We probably ought to renationalise the railways. The subsidies currently paid to the private franchise operators are larger than in BR days, ticket prices are far higher and the service doesn't ever seem to improve.

Sadly, whenever someone resorts to what amounts to lies to support an argument, it undermines it, because it looks like there isn't substance to the complaints.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Pointing out that the EU countries collectively have the most medals is not the same as taking credit for them.

Agreed and if we are going to slate the EU then we should also be howling at the moon for the same thing done by the Tory replacing countries with 'British empire' which doesn't exist anymore. It's either both or none. If we just pick on one or the other then it's a bit hypocritical as it then just a method to show how 'naughty' the other side are.

Who're you calling a hypocrite? I didn't know the Tories did that, and I don't agree with that either, its disrespectful to those countries.

However on aside could I ask that if there are issues with language being used that these are taken up in pm's rather than here. Although we are having a heated debate it's one of the few places where it isn't turning 'nasty' and I for one would like it to stay that way!

Agreed. In the spirit of keeping things civil, perhaps we could refrain from calling each other's opinions pathetic? Edit: I see that Kilkrazy and Future War have resolved the dispute.

 Ketara wrote:


Errrrr.....my original statement which I just reworded to try and get my point across, that this whole discussion devolved from was:-

"In all fairness, the Remain side were just as vulnerable to charges of not having a positive future plan, considering the alternative option to leaving was 'stay within an international entity that staggers from crisis to crisis like a drunk on early Sunday morning until it gets its crap together and unifies into a superstate'. There was no positive future for the EU portrayed because even the Government didn't think it could sell that."

And this statement came off the back of mine which was talking about that leave didn't have a plan. You then came in and said neither did remain have a positive plan. And the debate stemmed from there. Whether the remain plan is positive is subject to an individual's perception (and we obviously disagree here) but it remains that remain did have a plan, whereas leave did not (and that the remain camp should really have picked up on this and hammered it home).

I think you're a much less cynical person than me, so we'll probably have to leave those two points (and a few others from later on in your post) there. I tend to believe practically everyone else is an incorrigible bastard who'll screw you over given the chance/appropriate motivation, and you'd be surprised how often it turns out to be case.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing earlier whilst building beastmen. I suppose I am lucky or fortunate to have surrounded myself with people I can trust. I apply a few simple rules to relationships and it usually stands me in good stead as to how far I can trust them. Different life lessons I suppose

You know what? Fair point, but not entirely accurate. I was sloppy in my wording. I'll rephrase:- Had Greece simply joined the Eurozone but not the Euro (similar to Britain), it would have had the financial levers with which to stimulate their economy appropriately when the crash happened, and therefore not suffered the same extent of economic malaise it had to (and is still having to) as a result of having little central fiscal control.

.

It's still the same issue though because we simply don't know how competently they could have pulled those levers. If outside the Euro they grew by 100% and shrank by 10% then they are still worse off than if they grew by 300% but contract by 30% whilst in the Euro even if the pain is greater now relatively (note these are all arbitrary basic numbers for the point rather than reality). But we simply don't know and can be argued about until the cows come home because there is simply no way of answering the question (unless some designs a time machine and we can re run the experiment a few 1000 times). Whether they would have been better off or not in the euro is a moot point because we can never know.

I liked Vince. I was shocked when he lost his seat, he was a good MP for many years.

The LDs misread the publics mood and paid the price, I expect he'll be back in time.

He was pretty close actually. To steal a slice of one of his (many) articles back in the nineties:-

And is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There's no specific details. It's just a prediction things will go wrong and possible reasons for it. Statistically he's going to be right at some point because every currency has issues at some point whether it is tomorrow or 100 years from now eventually, it's a certainty from a probability perspective. Just as I can say the £ will suffer set backs in the future or we will be hit by an asteroid etc. It's just a clever statistical prediction that vindicates a theory when it happens. A better theory would to determine what tests are needed to determine whether such occurrence is about to happen, in what timescale, what the risks will be and how you can mitigate these risks. But this will be a lot more tricky to get right and you are much more exposed to getting it wrong. Keeping things Generic makes you right but doesn't actually help prevent it or manage the situation.

Of course I apologise. "Pathetic" was in hindsight rather close to the bone and I withdraw the remark.

I would not dream of walking over you because I am a moderator.

I hope we can go forwards in a friendly open manner.

Yes, me too. We were getting on well the insurance claim thread so I was just a little taken aback, but let's not fall out over it. Instead let's just forget about it and move on in a friendly open manner as you say.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Who're you calling a hypocrite? I didn't know the Tories did that, and I don't agree with that either, its disrespectful to those countries

No one in particular, more the community as a whole if we judged one and not the other if you see what I mean. I posted the link earlier but I've done so again below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37163416

The Remain "plan" was to carry on as before as a fully active member of the EU with the responsibilities and powers that entails, such as holding the presidency in turns, appointing ministers to the Council, commissioners to the commission, electing MEPs and putting them on committees, debating and haggling with other EU members, using the national veto when necessary, get on with business as usual, cope with crises to the best of our ability, etc. etc.

I really don't think this needed to be stated as a "plan". it is what has been happening for 30 years. Surely the point of the referendum was to discover if people agreed with the "plan" or not.

The problem is that you need a new plan before you can discard the current one.

It is only reasonable for the Remain voters to ask the Leave voters to present their plan. And of course it's obvious they never had one. The whole thing is a bloody mess that clearly will take years to sort out and most likely will leave us worse off.

IMO the only thing more irresponsible than this situation is to insist on leaping off the precipice RIGHT NOW BECAUSE NO REASONS!!!

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Who're you calling a hypocrite? I didn't know the Tories did that, and I don't agree with that either, its disrespectful to those countries

No one in particular, more the community as a whole if we judged one and not the other if you see what I mean. I posted the link earlier but I've done so again below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37163416

Don't be so quick to assume people are judging one and not the other, theyre probably just not aware of the latter. I myself certainly was not, this is the first I've heard of it. That Tory lady is an idiot.

Its disrespectful and misleading in both cases, and their agendas are transparent.

Getting back to practical matters, while I congratulate Team GB on an outstanding performance, it also must be recognised that the medals are the result of money poured into elite level sport, while grass roots sport continues to wither on the vine with for example the sale of 10,000 school playing fields since 1979 denying vast numbers of children the opportunity to engage in sports of many types.

It is all very well to inspire people to try to get into elite sport, but in my view, opportunities for healthy exercise by the everyday person are actually more important than scoring a high medal count every four years.

Grass roots sport also is an expensive business, considering the value of the land those playing fields used to sit on and the impossibility of restoring them, the cost of boats and boathouses for rowing (my sport) and similar examples in other sports (Olympic size pools, velodromes, etc etc.) let alone coaching and support which may be willingly done by parents but is useless without the basic facilities.

Karate is my sport. (10 months now, and I'm a yellow belt). If they make karate an Olympic sport I might actually start watching the Olympics.

I agree, the government has poured a lot of money into the Olympics. Its a national prestige thing I think. Bread and Circuses. When Argentina wants to distract the population from their domestic problems, they invade the Falklands. When our government wants to distract us, they splurge cash we can't afford on high profile sports.

Whats happened with the London 2012 Olympic venues? Are they still in use and serving a valid purpose and therefore justified the cost as the government promised, or have they been left to rot?

I think it'd be much wiser to permanently site the Olympics in Greece. Let them build permanent long lasting facilities that are actually fit for purpose with funding and support contributed by all the participating nations. It would be a huge boost to the Greek economy and possibly even help stabilise the country. And it'd be only fitting, with Greece being the spiritual home of the Olympics. What we have now is a never ending farce, with could tries scrambling to bid for the right to host the Olympics then splurging mountains of cash and scrambling to build the facilities in time, only for those facilities to be left to rot afterwards.

I keep reading how there was no plan for leave, but I think there was a plan, at least as much as the remain one.

Remain plan – stay in the EU as now, try to sway policy as much as possible and stop the EU from its intended aim of being a super state

Leave Plan – Leave the EU, strike a good negotiation with them, implement boarder controls and strike trade deals with the rest of the world that the EU has been unable to do.


These two plans seem fairly similar in the amount of detail as to how they would achieve what they wanted to me. You may argue that Leave didn’t say HOW it was going to make these trade deals, but then remain never said HOW it was going to stop the EU from integrating more and more.

And as for the remain side had a plan and leave didn’t – lets not forget that the remain side refused to allow any government department to do any planning for what might happen if we were to leave, whilst remain had the full government machine working to it’s plan – hardly surprising that leave couldn’t come up with a full plan considering it wasn’t allowed to use the resources of the people in the know to make said plan.

Yes, the Remain campaign was very short on detail on how they're going to put a stop to 'ever closer union'. There is no status quo here, a vote to remain is a vote for continued integration with Europe.

Stranger83 wrote:
I keep reading how there was no plan for leave, but I think there was a plan, at least as much as the remain one.

Remain plan – stay in the EU as now, try to sway policy as much as possible and stop the EU from its intended aim of being a super state

Leave Plan – Leave the EU, strike a good negotiation with them, implement boarder controls and strike trade deals with the rest of the world that the EU has been unable to do.


These two plans seem fairly similar in the amount of detail as to how they would achieve what they wanted to me. You may argue that Leave didn’t say HOW it was going to make these trade deals, but then remain never said HOW it was going to stop the EU from integrating more and more.

And as for the remain side had a plan and leave didn’t – lets not forget that the remain side refused to allow any government department to do any planning for what might happen if we were to leave, whilst remain had the full government machine working to it’s plan – hardly surprising that leave couldn’t come up with a full plan considering it wasn’t allowed to use the resources of the people in the know to make said plan.

Rubbish.

Leave couldn't come up with a plan because they are grumbling backbench malcontent euro-phobes, not leaders. They had plenty of experienced politicians and resources available, Farage was an MEP FFS, and had been for years, and should be thoroughly conversant with EU mechanisms and have an idea how we could extricate ourselves.
They didn't come up with a plan because it would have been enormously damaging to their campaign, because they would have been obliged to explain reality, not just bang on about immigration. Their message would have been diluted and torn to shreds by Remain, and they would have lost, badly.

A plan would have been too difficult for them to do, it's much easier to just shout OUT! OUT! OUT! Kick up a fuss, and let someone else sort out the mess afterwards. This has been proven by the actions of their "leadership" immediately following this campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, the Remain campaign was very short on detail on how they're going to put a stop to 'ever closer union'. There is no status quo here, a vote to remain is a vote for continued integration with Europe.

How about Britain's proven track record of vetoing and voting down these plans? How about looking at the latest declaration on security from France Germany and Italy? They stated categorically that now Britain has left, and our usual obstructionism is no longer a factor, they can crack on.
Britain was shaping the EU positively, and now we'll only be subject to their whims.

As it was Cameron had secured an exemption for Britain from ever closer union, however, this little fact was drowned out by the roar of anti-immigrant "border control" rhetoric and posturing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/17/david-camerons-end-to-europes-ever-closer-union-means-britain-sh/

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Karate is my sport. (10 months now, and I'm a yellow belt). If they make karate an Olympic sport I might actually start watching the Olympics.

You will be pleased to hear that Karate is going to be in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

I agree, the government has poured a lot of money into the Olympics. Its a national prestige thing I think. Bread and Circuses. When Argentina wants to distract the population from their domestic problems, they invade the Falklands. When our government wants to distract us, they splurge cash we can't afford on high profile sports.

The funding comes from the National Lottery, not from government funds.

Whats happened with the London 2012 Olympic venues? Are they still in use and serving a valid purpose and therefore justified the cost as the government promised, or have they been left to rot?

The regeneration project around the Lea Valley seems to have been a success. The venues are still in use. I don't agree with the deal involving West Ham's move to the main stadium, but at any rate the stadium is being used.

Yeah, last I read, the 2012 venues were one of the only examples in the world where a country has managed to successfully keep using them.

Where the games failed was in boosting grass roots sports involvement.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, the Remain campaign was very short on detail on how they're going to put a stop to 'ever closer union'. There is no status quo here, a vote to remain is a vote for continued integration with Europe.

Beyond the status quo of objecting to every single step of 'ever closer union'? I mean, there's not really anything to say there, nor was it ever an issue.

The Remain camp had a plain for remaining: maintain the status quo of trying to benefit from the EU without contributing.
The Leave camp had no plan either way, but had lots of soundbites about "taking back control" which they refused to elaborate on.

Remain had no plan for a Leave decision, because (1) they didn't support it (2) they thought leaving would be disasterous (3) they never thought the result would be leave and (4) surely it's up to those wanting to change the current plan to propose a new one? I mean, the SNP had a proper 670 page "white paper" plan for leaving the UK, published ahead of the vote. Why couldn't the Leave campaign put together a single page bullet list?

 whembly wrote:

From my perspective, I'd just be wary of a political body doing something of this magnitude (or not!) when the result was so close...

It's going to be an utter mess whatever actually happens, as at least half of the voting population will be unhappy with the outcome.
I actually think the safest thing in terms of voter rage is to reject the triggering of article 50 in parliament as not in the national interest. It'll upset almost all of the 51.9%, but if they manage to leave without kicking out those pesky foreigners they'll upset the 48.1% that wanted to stay, as well as some percentage of the 51.9% of leavers who want rid of foreigners. Is that going to be more than 1.8% of the voting population?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
They don't trigger it, they're liable to suffer a revolt in MPs or get kicked out at next election.

Alas, there's currently no actual opposition party - the only one that stood a chance (Labour) is too busy dealing with a civil war to get involved. The other parties are all minorities that'd only gain a majority with some massive coalition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where the games failed was in boosting grass roots sports involvement.

Where does/did the money for that come from? I was trying to figure out if any of it came from the EU but couldn't find much out.

The idea was the the popularity of the Olympics would boost grass roots involvement by a kind of trickle down effect of enthusiasm.

However actually to build new facilities and maintain old ones costs money.

There are EU funds available for grass roots sport. IDK how much UK based organisations access these funds.

Thanks. That's about as far as I'd gotten as well. I was sure the EU paid for some parks and sports centres local to me but I couldn't find any actual evidence.

I have been listening to Radio 4s discussion on Owen Smiths opposition to article 50 and it triggered some interesting discussion.
Between the 3 verhment Leave voters they couldn't agree on what Brexit actually meant. One old dear was practically in tears of frustration as she couldn't understand that leaving didn't just mean resetting the clock to pre-1970s Britain.
There were arguments over what we're actually going to do if the Govt comes back from negotiations with an agreement to stay in the single market but with concessions to free movement, about whether the Tories now have a mandate to bin all EU legislation such as the Human rights act etc.
Does Brexit mean we can just rip it all up? Is that what we have instructed the Tories to do? Because that didn't appear on the ballot paper.
What are your visions of a UK outside of the EU? How would you achieve that?