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 found this to be an interesting read, after trying to find something by Davis recently. Dated yesterday.

http://www.politico.eu/article/no-softening-of-uks-brexit-position-says-david-davis/

LONDON — Britain has not softened its position on Brexit and will “challenge” the EU over its calculation of the U.K.’s financial obligations to Brussels, Brexit Secretary David Davis said Tuesday.

After Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called the EU’s estimate of the so-called Brexit bill “extortionate,” Davis told the House of Lords’ EU committee that his department was analyzing the Commission’s proposals “line by line, almost by word” and said the U.K. could make a counter-proposal. The European Commission is reported to put the U.K.’s net obligations at around £60 billion.

He said the general election, in which Prime Minister Theresa May lost her parliamentary majority, had not fundamentally changed the U.K.’s Brexit stance, saying that the press had “overplayed any softening.”

However, he conceded that the British were “getting to the point of really dealing with practicalities” and indicated that securing an agreement on a transitional arrangement had become a priority.

“We understand the value of transition,” he told the committee, saying that he would prefer to have a deal on it by December, but that this might not fit the EU’s timetable.

“We will do it as quickly as we can but it’s a negotiation,” he said. “Unlike any other area of government where I can say, yes I’ll do this by December, which is what I would do if it was that, I can’t do that and I’ll say we’ll make best endeavors.”

Davis’ cabinet colleague, Chancellor Philip Hammond, has welcomed calls from business for a transition period during which the U.K. would stay in the EU single market and customs union for as long as it takes to agree a new free trade agreement. However, Davis indicated that he envisioned a transition period lasting only until 2021, two years after the U.K. leaves in 2019.

Securing a trade deal, he said, could be achieved by 2019, with the two-year transition acting only as an “implementation period” for what had been agreed.

Getting a trade deal done was “not a technical question, it’s a question of whether the political desire is there,” he said.

On the Brexit bill, Davis said the EU should expect “a process of challenge” from the U.K. He played down Johnson’s remarks and when challenged over the tone of the political discussion around Brexit in the U.K. said that Brussels officials should not read too much into U.K. newspaper reports.

“They read all the British newspapers and they take them, if anything, too seriously. It was a reason of humorous exchange between Jean-Claude Juncker and myself last time I saw him,” he said.

Davis said EU officials no longer fear that other EU countries may want to leave the bloc unless the U.K. is seen to suffer for Brexit, saying that no member countries were likely to follow Britain’s path.

“I don’t think anybody is likely to follow us down this route,” he said. “We’re a very different country. The nearest to us in terms of global reach is probably France and they’re not going to bail out of Europe.”

Cards quite close to the chest indeed. I find his perception of the value European officials place upon the influential power of the British press to be quite interesting. It certainly would explain their strategy thus far.

 Ketara wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

Meanwhile, your government still has no plan

I'm actually not entirely convinced of that.

Come on, they are unable to agree on one clear line about Brexit. Now there are more and more voices for a "softer Brexit", while they were all shut not so long ago. Over the months, you saw many times that they were completely unable to explain clearly what they were intending to do with the negotiations, no clear line to defend, not even the slightest debate about the very core of what will be in the negotiations.

Or didn't you hear what was said by your government during the election and even before it ?

Put simply, we've seen the strategy of the EU now. Demand everything, and leak everything with a negative spin to try and create public pressure, on the basis that domestic Remainers in the UK will automatically agree with whatever they say and hassle the Tories on it.

No, no. You didn't see their strategy. They don't demand anything. They just won't give UK what they think they would have without any effort. Your elites thought it would be a piece of cake once the refefrendum was made. It's not. EU doesn't really have to do anything - your people are already divided, and it was done by none other that your own government - with the referendum, the disastrous campaign for the rushed election and their daily show that they clearly have no clues about what to do and just improvise things as much as they can.

Try to blame EU as much as you want, the truth is the real damage was mostly done by yourself. EU never asked for a referendum, EU never asked for a new election. That was done by your Elites, who thought they were clever than they actually are.

The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis. That's the man ostensibly in charge of negotiations. It could be because he's clueless, senile, and sleeping in every morning before asking what he's minister of again. Alternatively, his strategy is very clearly a 'cards close to chest' one. One of those two things is the reason we've heard nothing. And I'm not quite convinced he's gone bonkers just yet.

I think you really should stop assuming people are competent because of their status. Having power, being born in one wealthy family and having money isn't a guarantee you're free from stupidity and human ignorance.

Actually, incompetence is much more common to meet. And sometimes, the explanation of why such a mess can be possible is really simple; because they are incompetent and just as clueless as you and me about what really to do.

You mentioned Trump. He is the living example than having lots of money and being a powerful businessman doesn't prevent you from that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Your post oozes contempt and hypocrisy. Colonial power? You're one to talk, your own country has a far darker colonial past than we do.

Of course we have. But as far as I'm concerned, Belgium is still in the EU trying to build something with the other countries. We know very well we can't work alone. Hell, we barely are able to deal with our own regions. Even our nationalists know that it would be a very, very bad idea to get out of EU.

 Sarouan wrote:

Come on, they are unable to agree on one clear line about Brexit. Now there are more and more voices for a "softer Brexit", while they were all shut not so long ago. Over the months, you saw many times that they were completely unable to explain clearly what they were intending to do with the negotiations, no clear line to defend, not even the slightest debate about the very core of what will be in the negotiations.

Or didn't you hear what was said by your government during the election and even before it ?

You're aware this is normal form for British politics, right?

No, no. You didn't see their strategy. They don't demand anything.

Oh? Was the repeated leaking of supposed discussions and impressions of various British officials, the sum of money they plan to ask for, their demand for European citizens to have additional rights, etcetc purely my imagination then? Do they have some super secret strategy ninjas swooping from the shadows with plans so devious we'll never see them coming?

Do they in actual fact, look like this?

Try to blame EU as much as you want, the truth is the real damage was mostly done by yourself. EU never asked for a referendum, EU never asked for a new election. That was done by your Elites, who thought they were clever than they actually are.

Blame the EU? When did I blame the EU for anything? This is turning into a bad parody now.

The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis.

I think you really should stop assuming people are competent because of their status. Having power, being born in one wealthy family and having money isn't a guarantee you're free from stupidity and human ignorance.

And in one sentence, you've very very clearly delineated how much you actually know, and how much attention should be paid to your political analysis.

David Davis was born to a single mum on a council estate in Tooting. He went to a grammar school, bootstrapped his way up, joined the TA, got a job with Tate and Lyle, was a Minister under John Major's government, and was good enough to be Cameron's main rival. He lost out because they wanted someone young to match Blair. He's not a toff. He didn't get anything he didn't fight for, and he was competent enough to rise to the forefront of British politics in not just one, but two administrations. He has more experience under his belt than any other Tory MP right now.

So.....yeah. Next time you rush to scoff, it might pay to actually spend five seconds on Wikipedia and learn who the main players are.

 Ketara wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.

We did indeed. Signed with the sadly defunct Imperial Government of China, who the current administration of China are in no way descended from. Different legal system, different territory controlled, etcetc. Frankly, the Government of Taiwan has as legitimate a claim as the lot sitting in Beijing. We would have been entirely justified in hanging onto it or giving it to the Kuomintang's descendants.

I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism, all in his desire to make a quick political buck out of him shaking hands with a Chinese bloke.

True. But what could we also do. Its right in there back yard.
Its dead centre of there influence zone.

We could of maybe kept but it would not have been easy if Beijing decided to lean on the City state.

And yes. Davis is not quite the normal Tory MP of the stereotype.

 Ketara wrote:


You're aware this is normal form for British politics, right?

That you find it normal or not is not the question here, and you know it. The point is, it was still done and you don't seem to find it of consequence. It's not a fatality, the people who are voting can say at one time "no". It happened in France, after all - those who were thought to be impossible to remove suddenly were thrown out without warning. Sure, they were replaced by someone not especially better, but ignoring the people's wrath is never a good idea.

Oh? Was the repeated leaking of supposed discussions and impressions of various British officials, the sum of money they plan to ask for, their demand for European citizens to have additional rights, etcetc purely my imagination then? Do they have some super secret strategy ninjas swooping from the shadows with plans so devious we'll never see them coming?

The sum of money was always there. What, you were thinking getting out of agreements was that easy? EU is just asking their money back, that's all. You thought it would be only one way ? UK was benefiting from EU's own treaties as well, it wasn't just "UK spending all their money for the lazy other members".

As for the rights, you know very well you have to deal with all the people working and suddenly finding out there is no legal background for their status anymore. Of course they have to set something clear for everyone.

But is EU really asking for Brexit? The answer is "no". Hell, they even say that if UK want to go back, they can. So if they want to go for Brexit, well yeah they have to negotiate the terms. But most of the EU's "demands" in that are just a way to say to UK "No, you won't have everything your way like this".

Blame the EU? When did I blame the EU for anything? This is turning into a bad parody now.

Well, what you wrote just a bit above certainly looks like you're blaming EU for this situation not to go your way - while I think the incompetence of your elites is doing a pretty good work by itself alone.

And in one sentence, you've very very clearly delineated how little you actually know, and how much attention should be paid to your political analysis.

David Davis was born to a single mum on a council estate in Tooting. He went to a grammar school, bootstrapped his way up, joined the TA, got a job with Tate and Lyle, was a Minister under John Major's government, and was good enough to be Cameron's main rival. He lost out because they wanted someone young to match Blair. He's not a toff. He didn't get anything he didn't fight for, and he was competent enough to rise to the forefront of British politics in not just one, but two administrations. He has more experience under his belt than any other Tory MP right now.

So.....yeah. Next time you rush to scoff, it might pay to actually spend five seconds on Wikipedia and learn who the main players are.

And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job. I work in the administration, I saw many people be my superiors, thrown on this job by...let's say various ways. Most of them don't know anything about the job once they're here, and they have a huge pressure on their shoulders because everyone expects them to succeed because of their qualifications, past jobs and social status. Incompetence isn't far when you're getting a bit too much self-confident and think a bit too great of yourself, while not listening to those who actually know the job and how it works.

The same can happen here to your guy, as pretty much anyone else. That's my point. That you think because he's at this power he won't fail, is being optimistic given the current situation of your country, right now.

 Sarouan wrote:

That you find it normal or not is not the question here, and you know it. The point is, it was still done and you don't seem to find it of consequence.

No, not really. Why would I find Bojo saying something dumb of consequence? He's been doing it twice a week for the last five years. There's a reason he got sent abroad.
With regards to not hearing much from Davis, well...that was kind of the point of my post at the top of the page? I mean, the Tories rarely act with one voice on anything more than a few years into an administration. It's part of the package. Too many egos, and not enough of them have actual access to information. The only ones who have something worth listening to with regards to the Government's position on Brexit are May and Davis (and maybe Hammond, but that's a maybe). And they've all kept their mouths shut for the most part.

The rest are just chaff yakking away giving imaginary headlines for the media. Who spend their time inventing faux-outrage and vastly inflated stories for the most part.

The sum of money was always there. What, you were thinking getting out of agreements was that easy? EU is just asking their money back, that's all. You thought it would be only one way ? UK was benefiting from EU's own treaties as well, it wasn't just "UK spending all their money for the lazy other members"......

Errrr.....I'm going to be frank here. What are you on about? You said the EU hasn't made any demands and I haven't seen their strategy. I indicated several of the EU's designated negotiating targets and their mode of leaking things thus far. Now you've said the above....and I'm clueless. Is this a language barrier, or are you genuinely just going off on a rant?

Well, what you wrote just a bit above certainly looks like you're blaming EU for this situation not to go your way - while I think the incompetence of your elites is doing a pretty good work by itself alone.

Sorry, could you link the bit where I've been blaming the EU for something? I mean, I've been ripping on their presumption for thinking that they can make EU courts pre-eminent in British affairs after we leave, but even then I've been qualifying that I don't think they're serious.

And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job.

No, you said the fact he was rich and blue blooded meant there was no guarantee. So I pointed out he was neither of those things.

Generally speaking, if a politician can hold ministerial positions in two cabinets twenty years apart, that's an indication of a certain level of competency. He worked his way up to being a senior executive at an international company (so he has pretty solid business experience), he has a degree in Molecular Science (so he's clearly got a brain) and so on. Like him or hate him, respect or disrespect him, but trying to make out that he's an idiot reflects more on you.

I repeat, five minutes on Wikipedia mate. Five minutes. Doesn't take long. You can even learn what bad things there are about him to try and argue about.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:


True. But what could we also do. Its right in there back yard.
Its dead centre of there influence zone.

We could of maybe kept but it would not have been easy if Beijing decided to lean on the City state.

If we'd kept it, they'd have harrumphed, and we'd have had another Gibraltar/Falklands scenario, where they make a bit of noise once every three years. So long as we took a referendum on what the people there wanted, I doubt anyone at home would have cared about trying to give it back, and so long as we're part of NATO, China would never have touched it militarily. As a port facility, there's not even a risk of a Berlin Airlift situation developing.

No, we could have kept Hong Kong easily. Or given it to Taiwan, or (better yet) negotiated an extension of the lease from Taiwan (since they're as legit as the Chinese Government). But no. Blair wanted to play International Statesmen, so now people get dragged off in the night.

Blair really was such a massive arsehole.

Blair really was such a massive arsehole.

No arguments here.

Ketara wrote:
Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.

The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.

We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.

We're dealing with different specific circumstances, yes. But, A) it's an example of one sovereign nation enforcing laws on another sovereign nation, which was being laughed at as an absurdity and B) we have no precedent whatsoever for Brexit and any example to make a point is always going to be 'closest fit'.

Ketara wrote:
I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism...

They were handed to a rotten, totalitarian regime, but not a communist one.

Ketara wrote:Why would I find Bojo saying something dumb of consequence? He's been doing it twice a week for the last five years. There's a reason he got sent abroad.

Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.

Hong Kong? Hong Kong was Blair's fault?

Funny, pretty sure it was Thatcher that agreed to giving it back?

Well spank my buns and call me cecil. It was Thatcher. Not Blair

 Sarouan wrote:


And like I said, this is no a guarantee he knows his deal about his current job. I work in the administration, I saw many people be my superiors, thrown on this job by...let's say various ways. Most of them don't know anything about the job once they're here, and they have a huge pressure on their shoulders because everyone expects them to succeed because of their qualifications, past jobs and social status. Incompetence isn't far when you're getting a bit too much self-confident and think a bit too great of yourself, while not listening to those who actually know the job and how it works.

The same can happen here to your guy, as pretty much anyone else. That's my point. That you think because he's at this power he won't fail, is being optimistic given the current situation of your country, right now.

It's called the Peter Principle - people that do well get promoted up until they are out of their depth / ability level. He might have worked hard and been good at lower level politics but he seems completely clueless now. Which isn't entirely his fault; he was vying for position in the party and has been landed with a job that's thankless and impossible.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.

Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.

That's clearly stated in the EU official position. Uk expats will get the same treatment.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hong Kong? Hong Kong was Blair's fault?

Funny, pretty sure it was Thatcher that agreed to giving it back?

Well spank my buns and call me cecil. It was Thatcher. Not Blair

Gosh, If only someone had spent 5 seconds fact checking on Wikipedia, just 5 seconds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510

The most significant legislative change in memory, and it looks like it should have been straightforward, but is going to devolve into a right cat fight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40592808

If only I could believe it's true, I feel a bit moist myself at the though of it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hong Kong? Hong Kong was Blair's fault?

Funny, pretty sure it was Thatcher that agreed to giving it back?

Well spank my buns and call me cecil. It was Thatcher. Not Blair

Half and half. Thatcher initiated it, Blair enacted it. The handover took place during his 'premiership'. Here he is on the stage for the whole thing;.



That being said, I wasn't aware of the extent of Thatcher's hand in the affair. My opinion of the woman just downgraded somewhat.

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.

Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.

That's clearly stated in the EU official position. Uk expats will get the same treatment.

Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.

I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing. His prominence shows how you can grease your way up in a party, networking and building a portfolio as you go, whilst being in no way responsible to the people who vote for you. You just need the right connections to get dropped into a safe seat, enough money to keep your face frontpage (so people recognise you), and enough political ability to not get trodden underfoot. If you have all those, you can be an absolute bastard and still reach the top.

It ties into what I said several pages back, about how MP's really aren't in serious way accountable to their constituents.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.

I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing.

Alas, the majority of voters don't care about politics, so the eccentric posh man with the absurd middle name and funny hair gets voted in as Mayor of the most multicultural city in the UK twice irrespective of being a paternalistic bigot.

nfe wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

Five years? Try thirty. He's a joke, but I think quite a pernicious and dangerous one. The casual racism and flat out lie-telling he gets away with - and has done for decades as both a journalist and poliician - because he's plays a whimsical posh clown character says an awful lot about the UKs love of the upper class: it's all very 'yeah, we'd castigate everyone else for calling Ghanaians watermelon-smiled cannibals but he's a funny posh man so it's ok!'.

I think it says more about the system than the people who live here. I've never met someone who actually cared about politics who had any respect at all for the man, left or right wing.

Alas, the majority of voters don't care about politics, so the eccentric posh man with the absurd middle name and funny hair gets voted in as Mayor of the most multicultural city in the UK twice irrespective of being a paternalistic bigot.

You also have to take into account the 'swing' of politics. People get bored of incumbents because they get into so many troubles and scandals of their own. I'm convinced a rabid catfish could have beat the lovely Ken Livingstone to be Mayor by 2008.

And frankly, I'm not convinced Boris is worse than Ken. He's a real git. Khan's definitely an improvement on the pair, even if he is a hypocrite.


On a separate note, I love how the Tories are now desperately trying to figure out how to appeal to young people since they were the difference between Corbyn getting utterly slammed and making a few gains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40569202

Just goes to show, the politicians really don't care about you until you vote as a large bloc. Then they're all over you. It makes me laugh though, that the only thing they can come up with is tuition fees.

Tuition fees is a huge topic, though.

 Ketara wrote:

Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.

We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.

Every major contract has a juristiction section that states which court has say over what. If it's not the ECJ it can perfectly be the ECHR. Or a purpose-built arbitration system like in many FTAs.

Forgive my ignorance, and it would be a supreme irony if it were possible, but if the UK is not happy with the EU's Brexit divorce bill, can we challenge it at the ECJ or the ECHR?

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.

We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.

We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.

Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.

 r_squared wrote:
I voted conservative in the last GE to keep UKIP out,and it worked, just. Just the other day I informed my MP, Matt Warman, exactly why he wouldn't be getting my vote this time as I cannot support the conservatives constant "party first" priority.

That was until I spotted a rumour that Paul "Eddie Hitler" Nuttal OBE, BSC, BSHTR might stand in my constituency. If that's the case, you may see me in the news hurling various kitchen waste products in his direction and swearing vigorously at him for forcing me to vote Tory, again.

He had plenty practice dodging projectiles when he was leading England into French crossbowmen at Agincourt so you've nae chance of hitting him.

 Ketara wrote:
...On a separate note, I love how the Tories are now desperately trying to figure out how to appeal to young people since they were the difference between Corbyn getting utterly slammed and making a few gains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40569202

Just goes to show, the politicians really don't care about you until you vote as a large bloc. Then they're all over you. It makes me laugh though, that the only thing they can come up with is tuition fees.

It's bizarre how Theresa May seems to think that the overriding reason that they lost the youth vote, is being priced out of buying their own home. She's so far out of touch, she might as well be another life form altogether.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.

This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?

I don't care how the rest of the country views the EU. They should have voted if they want to Remain. It was said numerous times in this thread during the General Election that you don't have the right to complain if you don't bother to vote. Well that applies to Brexit as well.

This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won.

Except, you know, the side with the most votes?

Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?

Are YOU sure the country favours your side? We don't know either way, because so many people couldn't be arsed to vote. And thats tough gak, they should have voted but chose not to so their wishes were not counted at the appropriate time. Cry me a river.

It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote.

No it was not a "50:50" split, it was a 52:48 split. A very close vote, but there was a one million vote majority in favour of Leave. And in our democratic system, thats all you need. Complaining after the fact that its a weak margin is moving the goal posts.

No it wasn't, it was 700,000 more people voted to leave because you are forgetting you have to reach 50% not 100%. Look at it this way, that's the approximate number of children in the last year that became eligible to vote and the approximate number of people and about seven tenths of the number of people that died in the last year. You are focussing on one point in time without really considering that any statistical sample always fluctuates over a day, a month, a year etc. You could have rerun the results every day for a month and the results would have been different on each of those days. This is where the statistics come in. The likelihood that we know the true view of the country from that one single event is hugely flawed because it's a small difference (the 2%) with a large uncertainty (the 30%). If you took this result to any numerate conference and stated that the result was definitive you'd be laughed out of the hall. The only thin you can say is that the result is unknown because the statistical uncertainty is too large.

Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving?

You don't know that. You don't know ANY of that. I don't care for this sort of hypothetical What If speculation. None of this is verifiable, none of this can be tested and challenged.

Actually that's not correct. You can do this from a statistical perspective; it's not possible to do it at a personal level but with a large population it is relatively easy to do. I could easily counter how you know that it isn't true? That's why you take statistical samples. You can be pretty confident when the result is 80:20, but when things are finely balanced then making decisions based on such information is highly questionable.

How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave.

lol, what a fething idiot. She probably shouldn't be voting. I have no sympathy for people like her. Should we apply this logic to General Elections and Governments too? "Oh no, there was a scandal in the first week of the new Government, I want to take back my vote".

Tough gak, thats not how democracy works. You don't get to just change your mind on a whim after the fact. You cast your vote, and you accept the consequences. We aren't playing Life Is Strange.

Your empathy for you fellow humans is outstanding. It appears that because you got the way you wanted the UK to Wrexit itself you are happy to ignore the feelings, desires or views of anyone else?

I don't care how the vote would go. We had a vote, we had a result. We don't get to keep on changing our minds on a him ad nauseam, that defeats the entire purpose of holding a vote in the first place. Do we get to change our mind after a General Election and recall the Government? No, so why should a Referendum be any different?

No decision should be made on statistically poor information. It's a good example of why referendums are a bad idea because unless they provide a statistically significant result then it actually leaves you with more uncertainty, rather than less. And yes we do get to change our mind about government. It happens every 5 years (barring foolish actions by a PM).

I'll remember this excuse the next time a party that I dislike wins an election and forms a Government. After all, one General Election result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.

That's not how our parliament works. We have MPs that represent the country, it is not a binary decision. The Government generally comes from the majority party but doesn't have to, and they still have to get anything they want generally approved by parliament,; although I see May wants to try and find other medieval ways of making sure she pushes through anything she wants...

To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."

Excuse me? A democratic vote in our political system, and especially a Yes/No Referendum, is a binary decision. You either get the Candidate or Referendum result you wanted, or you do not. It is by its very nature, an absolute.

 r_squared wrote:

It's bizarre how Theresa May seems to think that the overriding reason that they lost the youth vote, is being priced out of buying their own home. She's so far out of touch, she might as well be another life form altogether.

I think one of the main problems with the Tories is that they (in general) seem unable to grasp that their personal situation isn't normal across the population. How much does May or Johnson earn? How many doors were opened by family? Presumably one of her bigger concerns was buying her first house, rather than being able to afford to go to uni for instance?

There seems to be this Tory idea that poor people "just need to work harder" because that's what they feel they did. It's' easy to work harder when your dad gets you a job in an office. It's impossible to work harder if you're an out of work pattern maker and the shipyards don't exist anymore.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Sorry, could you link to where the EU explicitly said that British citizens living in the EU will be subject to British courts and law? I can't say I've seen it anywhere, but if it's entirely reciprocal, and the EU is explicitly offering to institute British law as being above EU law on the mainland in the same areas, I'm perfectly willing to retract everything I've said so far.

We're talking about citizen rights,, whether one court or another has final jurisdiction about certain matters is not a right.

We're talking about legal jurisdiction. That's the entire point. Saying 'British citizens in the EU have EU laws applicable to them' is not the flip side of 'EU citizens in Britain have EU law applicable to them'. That's the EU demanding we surrender legal primacy over their citizens in our country, but not offering the same in return. Saying that you'll permit your laws to apply within your own jurisdiction isn't a concession. That's the very definition of 'within your jurisdiction'.

Reciprocity would be 'British citizens in the EU have British laws applicable to them in the same areas EU citizens have EU laws applicable to them in Britain'. I repeat, has the EU offered this? If so and this can be demonstrated in a document from the EU (as you have asserted), I'm entirely willing to retract all my prior comments.

I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510

The most significant legislative change in memory, and it looks like it should have been straightforward, but is going to devolve into a right cat fight.

Perhaps if they hadn't decided that it was a good idea to pull out a piece of legislation enacted by Henry VIII to force through changes rather than go through the parliamentary process (anyone see echoes of article 50 here?) then perhaps she might have got more consensus. However MPs wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't argue against this and not just give the keys to make up what they want to May and Davis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40592808

If only I could believe it's true, I feel a bit moist myself at the though of it.

Pfft, don't be silly. The new people heading her team are just telling her this is what she needs to say, however I think I can fill in some blanks for her...

She did shed a tear when she realised she was going to go down as an even worse and incompetent PM than the last one.
She did shed a tear when she realised she was going to have to give a bung to those that supported a softer Brexit (not that they were homophobic/antiabortion crazys)
She did shed a tear when she realised she was not going to be able to dictate everything in parliament
She did shed a tear when she realised people were thinking Corbyn would make a better job of things than she is

of course

She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised that government delaying of fire safety standards caused the deaths of a hundred people
She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised nurses were having to use food banks
She *didn't* shed a tear when she realised her and conservative policies were making disabled peoples lives hell
She *didn't* shed a tear when homelessness was increasing

and so on....

Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.

What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state or under threat of military retaliation for not complying.

I mean, if you'd be cool with it, or you'd prefer to be under the ECJ, or you think European citizens should get special rights, that's fine and good for you, but kind of beside the point. Trying to dress it up as something it isn't though (which appears to be what you're doing -I could be wrong, I'm having trouble deciphering your precise meaning here-) as Jouso is above though, is just bizare.

Full reciprocal equivalency would entail British law, post Brexit, applying to British citizens resident within Europe, on the whatever areas of law the EU would like to be applied to their own citizens within Britain. That is an equivalent two way exchange. I repeat, if Europe is offering this reciprocally, then I will happily withdraw my remarks. I would appreciate a link to them offering precisely that though.

There's not really much else to be said on the matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.

Pointless tbh, you always run into the same types who say, parrot like, "we won, you lost, get over it." They're immune to argument, I know a few personally, and they're terrified of a rerun, because they think they'll lose.

Oh, and thinly veiled threats of civil unrest and riots on the streets by notables such as Jacob Rees-Mogg if the "will of the people" is denied. I'd love to see a brexiteer riot. Based on the demographics, A and E would be overwhelmed with fractured hips and high blood pressure victims within minutes of it kicking off. That's as long as they don't hold it on a Wednesday that is, got to get to the Post Office for the pension.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.

What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state or under threat of military retaliation for not complying.

I mean, if you'd be cool with it, or you'd prefer to be under the ECJ, or you think European citizens should get special rights, that's fine and good for you, but kind of beside the point. Trying to dress it up as something it isn't though (which appears to be what you're doing -I could be wrong, I'm having trouble deciphering your precise meaning here-) as Jouso is above though, is just bizare.

Full reciprocal equivalency would entail British law, post Brexit, applying to British citizens resident within Europe, on the whatever areas of law the EU would like to be applied to their own citizens within Britain. That is an equivalent two way exchange. I repeat, if Europe is offering this reciprocally, then I will happily withdraw my remarks. I would appreciate a link to them offering precisely that though.

There's not really much else to be said on the matter.

It depends, are British nationals resident in Spain still entitled to appeal the the ECJ? Can an American living in Spain do the same? If the Brit can, and the American cannot, then that looks like equivalency for out expats as they are able to access a level of Law that a fellow non-EU resident could. If you catch my meaning.

Personally, I'm not sure, hence the question.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.

What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state.

Extraterritoriality is the technical term. There's plenty of instances of it happening.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.

The problem is that even if you say, 'Okay, let's take the views of the Remainers' into consideration, it just dilutes the question further. Do they want a vote for continual full involvement in Europe? To remain but try and renegotiate specific aspects? And if you remain in anyway, how do you begin to accomodate that 52% of the vote who explicitly voted to leave?

No matter how many referendums you run, no matter how much you dilute the question in five directions, you actually can't please everyone. It's a clusterfeth of tremendous proportions. I think the way you can please the largest chunk of the country is to go with the 52% at this point, purely on the basis that 'Leave' is quite unequivocal. Even that gives you problems though, because then it breaks down to into 'Hard or soft Brexit', and you have to face the issue; is a soft Brexit more or less equivalent to staying in most regards?

I don't know. The country has split so far on this one, I think whatever happens, the result was going to be decried as an outrage. Which means we'll end up doing whatever the Government feels like doing, and they'll do whatever they think will them the most votes.

People tell Cameron off for holding the referendum, but it was clearly something a lot of people felt strongly about (or 52% wouldn't have voted to leave). Where he went wrong was being an ass, and not laying out a clear set of points on what results would lead to what steps by the government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think I'd stick with the ECJ and the EU. More robust and fairer on the populace... But anyway yes they have....they are offering all EU citizens the chance to fall under the ECJ. The UK falls under the ECJ at the highest level so hence they are offering the 'UK legislation' to those currently in the EU.

What you'd prefer to be under is entirely up to you. The point being made here however, is that the EU is demanding alternative legal rights and privileges for their citizens located in another independent nation (as that's what Britain will be), and for their courts/laws to take priority over that independent nation's in designated scenarios. This remains something which I've never historically heard of any nation ever granting to another unless they were a vassal state.

Extraterritoriality is the technical term. There's plenty of instances of it happening.

Aye. And virrtually all of them are either diplomats, specific scientific sites, vassal states, or states under threat of extreme military retribution if they don't go along with it. Not sure that's the sort of position we're in, and even if we were, it would be then be morally disgusting for the EU to be trying to replicate colonial style relations. There's not really a positive way of viewing this.

So to reiterate, why are EU citizens so super special they should get to stand aside from British law when in Britain?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Leave did win, they got more votes. I'd focus the argument on the fact that winning an advisory referendum with a narrow majority is a really shaky ground to claim a mandate on, especially when one of the alternatives are essentially "change the status quo" without specifying how.

That is exactly right. Every time some minister or so-called leader goes on the radio and says "We are carrying out the will of the people" I think, "No you're not, you're carrying out the will of half the people."

However, this is only to rehash the gakky stupidity of Cameron and the lies of the Leave campaigns. The best way to resolve it is to have a second referendum when the details of the Brexit proposal are clear.