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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03h3qqt
go the 1 minute mark.

Digby Jones in Jan 2016 :


"Not one job will be lost"
"German cars"
"We're that important"

really aging well huh ?

presumably there'll be a rush to hold him to account yeah ?

There's been an almost continuous demand since the election that those of us considered to be the "liberal elite" must understand why Leave voters supported Brexit. Here's an example of how one leave voter has absolutely no idea why people voted for remain.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/eu-endgame-is-political-unity-not-free-trade-argues-boris-johnson

The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU

Actually Boris, EU regulations are there exactly for those reasons, that's the whole point of them.

He's making the sovereignty argument as if we haven't heard it before, and discussed it many many times. If this is how he thinks he can unite the country, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
Much as I loathe the idea of Rees-Mogg, the non-thinking man's thinking man, I would sooner see him as PM than Johnson. The man is a weasel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03h3qqt
go the 1 minute mark.

Digby Jones in Jan 2016 :


"Not one job will be lost"
"German cars"
"We're that important"

really aging well huh ?

presumably there'll be a rush to hold him to account yeah ?

Obviously the reason it hasnt turned out as he wanted is because of remainers, not enough vision and talking Britain down etc etc.

If only RM, Boris and Gove were running the show, it'd all be awesome.

Actually, I genuinely believe that the best thing for this country was to hand Brexit to the Leavers. 2 reasons, first, they have no one to blame if things go wonky, it's all on them, second, their supporters might finally recognise what an absolute shower of lady clams their leaders actually are.
We'd be back in the EU within months.

- Firms on Caribbean island chain own 23,000 UK properties -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42666274

Here's something else that Brexit means. If we were staying in the EU, we would have had no way to ensure that the BVI and all the other tax hideaways could continue to operate as they do. That in turn might have meant, eventually, that Lord Rothermere (and no doubt, many of his friends) would have had to pay some tax. It's lucky he had the Daily Mail to help avoid this cruel possibility.

I think we can all agree that anything is worth avoiding such a distasteful outcome.

Tate & Lyle are strongly pro-Brexit due to some kind of financial advantage they will receive by getting out. I'm not clear on the details.

I have suspected for some time that a lot of people got keen when they realised the EU was starting to close in on off-shore tax havens, many of which are enabled by the UK.

 r_squared wrote:
The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU

Actually Boris, EU regulations are there exactly for those reasons, that's the whole point of them.

He's making the sovereignty argument as if we haven't heard it before, and discussed it many many times. If this is how he thinks he can unite the country, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
Much as I loathe the idea of Rees-Mogg, the non-thinking man's thinking man, I would sooner see him as PM than Johnson. The man is a weasel.

A few months ago I thought Rees-Mogg was a hard-right sad sack who at least had the courage of his convictions and the integrity to carry them, and I could credit his honesty even while disagreeing strongly with his viewpoint.

I have since found out that he was carrying the flag for the tobacco, mining and oil industries in parliament while failing to declare his strong financial interest.

This gak bag hypocrite is second most likely to be our next prime minister after Bozo the clown.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/12/police-outsource-digital-forensic-work-to-unaccredited-labs?CMP=share_btn_tw

The Met outsources digital forensics provision to a defence technology company, called Mass, which subcontracts casework to other private companies, some of which are unaccredited. City of London Police uses six external providers, three of which are not accredited.

Advertisement

Experts at five different companies told the Guardian they had serious concerns about the quality of digital evidence being admitted in courts.

One analyst, who specialised in defence work, said the prosecution sometimes “cherry-picked” text messages and images and did “as little work as possible up-front in the hope that [the defendant] pleads guilty”. Another analyst, from a different company, stated: “In many cases the prosecution evidence isn’t true.”

The head of a company that carries out prosecution work across the country, said laboratories were widely disregarding a requirement to disclose to courts if they were not accredited. “I would challenge you to find any report that does that,” he said. He added that, in his view, “99% of people who are charged are guilty as hell”.

how reassuring eh ?

Another triumph for privitisation.

This ‘digital evidence’ is getting to be a bit of a problem, what with these rape trials collapsing after the prosecution eventually admit there’s loads of text messages they didn’t think were worth mentioning before, while they conveniently support the defendant’s account.

You’d hope the good old days where the police only put forwards the evidence they needed to bang you up, because they were sure you were guilty, are long gone. They aren’t.

Bozza has just finished his much-trailed "Road to Brexit" speech. Any reactions?

I've read a bunch of anti-Bozo stuff, from the usual suspects, and I'm waiting for the Pro-Bo side to make their presence felt.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Bozza has just finished his much-trailed "Road to Brexit" speech. Any reactions?

I've read a bunch of anti-Bozo stuff, from the usual suspects, and I'm waiting for the Pro-Bo side to make their presence felt.

Reactions?

Even as a Brexit supporter, I thought that speech was weapons grade bollocks.

The usual Bojo claptrap of talking a lot without actually saying anything.

Juncker's reaction to it was equally as risible.

I'm sorry to say, that Western Politicians, of all shades of the political spectrum, just ain't up to the job.

Would we be better off with a Putin, a Duterte or an al-Assad in charge, do you think?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Bozza has just finished his much-trailed "Road to Brexit" speech. Any reactions?

I've read a bunch of anti-Bozo stuff, from the usual suspects, and I'm waiting for the Pro-Bo side to make their presence felt.

Reactions?

Even as a Brexit supporter, I thought that speech was weapons grade bollocks.

The usual Bojo claptrap of talking a lot without actually saying anything.

Juncker's reaction to it was equally as risible.

I'm sorry to say, that Western Politicians, of all shades of the political spectrum, just ain't up to the job.

Just stating something doesn't mean it is correct. This isn't adding anything to the conversation. Juncker was answering a specific query from the press, it wasn't part of a speech prepared. All he effectively said that Boris's claim that the EU is trying to take over is weapons grade rubbish and that Boris is effectively lying to the populace again. He specifically said that they were not trying to create a United States of the EU and highlighted that the EU was made up of 27 separate nations.

Boris on the other hand is trying to win favour back from half the populace who see him as a lying donkey-cave (which he is) because he wants more control (which has fallen very flat). If he thinks, that half (if not more) of the population think that after he has given them an almighty wedgy that they will fall in behind his wet dream vision of low social & environmental controls he is sorely mistaken. He's very goof at preparing speeches but as soon as he goes off track he starts talking gibberish for example this:-

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/963755157094850560

Where he thinks organic carrots as part of the solution to issues with Wrexit is both sensible and likely to achieve anything at all. It is also worrying that the trend seems to be for our politicians to think we should become some sort of agricultural nation which is not really going to pay the bills.

On the other hand I wouldn't mind a free trade on Turnips. We've got a lot of huge Turnips in Government and I'd be quite happy to trade them away for free.

Also slightly worrying is his statement that "Mr Johnson also said the result cannot be reversed..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045553

Because that is dictatorship aspirations. The point of a democracy is that the populace is allowed to change it's mind. Regularly if we want. Once people in control forget that they no longer support democracy (and surprise surprise are only interested in their own dictatorial control.

Still he might resign if we force the government into another vote, that would mean we'd stay in the EU!

@whirlwind.

I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.

This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.

We don't trust them, they don't trust us.

Anyway, it's rare that I agree with Peter Hitchens, but I read one of his old articles and IMO, he made one of the best points made to date about Brexit:

we should not have abandoned our constitution. There should have been no referendum.

EU membership should have been decided in a General Election with the question front and centre. The 52% could then have voted in a party that would have done the paperwork in The Commons and got us out of the EU with a bill passed by The Commons.

Foolishly, Cameron and Parliament fethed up by voting to hold a referendum, then dragging it out for months afterwards with the Supreme Court case.

But like I say, MPs do not reflect the people. If 52% of voters support Brexit, then 52% of MPs should back it. Because of this disconnect I mentioned earlier, the referendum was the only way for voters to decide.

We messed up our own constitution and MPs share a lot of the blame for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would we be better off with a Putin, a Duterte or an al-Assad in charge, do you think?

Of course not. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't settle for second best. Long ago, we had capable and compotent politicians with a strong sense of duty to the nation.

Sadly, they've been replaced by lobby fodder, time servers, spivs, buffoons and drunkards. The stories I could tell you about Scottish Labour MPs too drunk to vote.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@
But like I say, MPs do not reflect the people. If 52% of voters support Brexit, then 52% of MPs should back it. Because of this disconnect I mentioned earlier, the referendum was the only way for voters to decide.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a referendum is a straight numbers vote right? So is this one of the more obvious examples of someone railing against a system that they don't understand?

Or are your referendums done in the same way as you elect MPs over there

Then comes question should MP's be obliged to willingly hurt country or follow voters will? Voters generally don't vote for what's actually good for them. Just look how areas that are going to be hurt MOST by brexit voted for it.

Are MP's supposed to do what's right for country and best for people or not? Especially on edge cases(brexit vote was hardly clear win for leavers either)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.

This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.

We don't trust them, they don't trust us.

The alternative interpretation is that the MPs are aware of how ridiculously difficult trying to leave would be and how it can pretty much only result in great harm to much of the country and voted accordingly.

Same for immigration. Should MPs still introduce the limits many people are asking for if they know such limits will harm the country and, as a result, its people?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership

You could argue that voting for Brexit doesn't necessarily conflict with being happy with EU membership. The protest votes, the misunderrstanding, the lies about Brexit meaning EEA or staying in the single market. With a margin that thin it wouldn't take many to skew it.

Plus MP's have a duty to consider all of their constituents, not just the 1/3rd that voted to Brexit. That lots of MP's are against Brexit is undeniable, but it's also fairly obvious. The fallout of Brexit could be huge and could really negatively affect a lot of constituents, even those that wanted to leave.

Apparently there's a close correlation between Brexit votes and wanting a return of the death penalty. So by your logic, we should have 52ish % of MP's pushing to bring back the death penalty too? I mean, you think they should mirror the 'will of the people'.

Mob rule has never ended well though,a person is smart enough, but people get dumber the bigger the crowd is.

Herzlos wrote:

Mob rule has never ended well though,a person is smart enough, but people get dumber the bigger the crowd is.

Sir Terry Pratchett wrote:The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.

The UK is a representative democracy.

The same population who voted 52/48 for leaving the EU, voted for the parliament containing 70% pro-EU MPs to represent them and carry out the process of leaving the EU.

UKIP, the most anti-EU party, was the party that lost the largest number of votes at the election, their share collapsing from 13% to 3%.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Japan thinks Brexit is an 'act of self-harm', says UK's former ambassador

TL/DR: The Japanese think that EU membership increases the UK's economic and diplomatic clout, and leaving will be harmful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eurozone economy storms ahead in sharp contrast to Brexit-hit UK

On the other hand if you had taken the votes for brexit for each constituency, in the manner we do for parliament, you’d overwhelmingly have brexit seats in government. Remain votes were concentrated in places like London. This is why a lot of MPs find themselves in the awkward position of going against the majority of their constituents by opposing brexit.

I don’t think that saying the public voted for 70% pro-EU Parliament is that much of a big deal. Odds are that all serious candidates for many constituencies were pro-EU, so people didn’t have that much choice, and they weren’t voting on a single issue anyway - you vote on a best fit approach to represent you. Maybe you the candidate that best fits the majority of your beliefs is pro-EU, and that’s the only point on which you majorly differ. That you don’t vote UKIP because of that doesn’t mean you’ve changed your mind on brexit, it just means you don’t think brexit is the only factor that decides who you vote for MP.

Many Labour supporting areas, a pro-EU party, voted brexit. Which seems to prove that the public is happy to support Labour members on all but this issue. That they didn’t vote UKIP doesn’t mean there’s an aversion to Brexit, it just means they don’t like UKIP and don’t think Brexit is important enough to trump the entire manifesto of other parties. Lastly, ‘brexit means brexit’ so the electorate doesn’t need UKIP if parliament are going to follow through on the referendum result, which they said over and over that they would, so why would anyone vote UKIP now?

All that are good points, though at the same time it is supposition and (intelligent) guesswork as to what they actually mean.

Anyway, the constitution doesn't provide for binding referendums, nor does it provide for taking a vote at one time and refusing to take another vote at another time because people's opinions might have changed.

The UK is supposed to be governed by a representative parliament elected by FPTP. If we want to change that, we need a constitutional convention, which would be rather a lot to handle at the present time.

As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.

As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.

So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership

You could argue that voting for Brexit doesn't necessarily conflict with being happy with EU membership. The protest votes, the misunderrstanding, the lies about Brexit meaning EEA or staying in the single market. With a margin that thin it wouldn't take many to skew it.

Plus MP's have a duty to consider all of their constituents, not just the 1/3rd that voted to Brexit. That lots of MP's are against Brexit is undeniable, but it's also fairly obvious. The fallout of Brexit could be huge and could really negatively affect a lot of constituents, even those that wanted to leave.

Apparently there's a close correlation between Brexit votes and wanting a return of the death penalty. So by your logic, we should have 52ish % of MP's pushing to bring back the death penalty too? I mean, you think they should mirror the 'will of the people'.

Mob rule has never ended well though,a person is smart enough, but people get dumber the bigger the crowd is.

And a lot of Remain MPs supported the Iraq invasion (500,000 dead) and harsh benefit cuts that have hurt the poor people of our society. Suicides up

If you're going to go down the death penalty comparison then I can flag all sorts of dodgy acts Remain MPs have supported...

Supporting the EU doesn't give a moral 'superiority.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind.

I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.

This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.

We don't trust them, they don't trust us.

The alternative interpretation is that the MPs are aware of how ridiculously difficult trying to leave would be and how it can pretty much only result in great harm to much of the country and voted accordingly.

Same for immigration. Should MPs still introduce the limits many people are asking for if they know such limits will harm the country and, as a result, its people?

Back in the 1970s, the number of MPs supporting EEC membership reflected the support in the nation for EEC membership.

Back in the 1950s the British people backed the government's stance on Suez.

Back in the 1940s, the landslide for Labour reflected the huge support for the welfare state in the UK.

Back in the 1930s, the nation backed Baldwin and Chamberlin's appeasement approach. Had Chamberlain called an election after Munich, it would have been a landslide victory for him.

There's a pattern here


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Then comes question should MP's be obliged to willingly hurt country or follow voters will? Voters generally don't vote for what's actually good for them. Just look how areas that are going to be hurt MOST by brexit voted for it.

Are MP's supposed to do what's right for country and best for people or not? Especially on edge cases(brexit vote was hardly clear win for leavers either)

The majority of British people are against fox hunting, but Conservative MPs have been pushing for the ban to be lifted. David Cameron would have had a vote, but the SNP threatened to tip the balance and Cameron backed down.

The majority of British people are against more foreign interventions. Libya was another fiasco and Cameron tried to drag us into Syria.

Again, I say the disconnect between people and MPs on a lot of issues is a mile wide.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.

As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.

So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!

Would they have had the same opinion if they hadn't been given fabricated intelligence reports?

MP's making a bad decision then doesn't mean all MP's make bad decisions. I agree they rarely have the nations interests at heart though, but neither are they actually stupid.

Brexit will be a disaster for most of the Tory party, which is why May is so torn.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.

So it turns out that, unlike US intelligence told, there were no WMDs in Iraq.

How many of those pro-invasion MPs would have backed intervention if they had known their information is pure horsegak?

So, in light of the recent developments, which side in the Brexit divide is the one making made-up claims about mythical WMDs?

The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.

As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.

So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!

Would they have had the same opinion if they hadn't been given fabricated intelligence reports?

MP's making a bad decision then doesn't mean all MP's make bad decisions. I agree they rarely have the nations interests at heart though, but neither are they actually stupid.

Brexit will be a disaster for most of the Tory party, which is why May is so torn.

Despite the Iraq debacle, some of our MPs (Michael Gove famously backing Cameron on Syria) were itching to bomb Libya and Syria, so I don't think the faulty intelligience reports would have made a blind bit of difference.

Having watched numerous Syrian debates and Russian debates in The Commons, most of our MPs struggle to grasp basic geo-political realities.

For example, Russia has supported Syria for a long time and obviously, Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of interest.

Let's set aside what side of the fence you're on when it comes to these two issues: When Ukraine went for a pro-EU government, and Syria needed help, of course Russia was always going to get involved and back its ally and react to something happening on its doorstep.

So for some of our MPs to express surprise at this...

Words failed me at the time...

But if you're in a seat that is solid blue or solid red, and has been for decades, you don't need to be good. You just need cunning to get selected or the right connections to get parachuted in. That's one reason why I maintain that a lot of our MPs are just lobby fodder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.

Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.

So it turns out that, unlike US intelligence told, there were no WMDs in Iraq.

How many of those pro-invasion MPs would have backed intervention if they had known their information is pure horsegak?

So, in light of the recent developments, which side in the Brexit divide is the one making made-up claims about mythical WMDs?

I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.

As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?

Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...


...

An election that was called on the basis of returning the Conservatives with a strong and stable majority to ensure a strong bargaining position for Brexit, and resulted in a hung parliament.

Quite the ringing endorsement for "Brexit means Brexit!"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...

You mean both parties in what is essentially a 2-party state had Brexit manifestoes, and the result was a hung parliament.

You're lying if you claim to believe that Labour/Conservative got their votes due to Brexit. Lots of people voted Tory to stop Labour giving their money to the poor, and lots of people voted Labour to stop the Tories giving their money to the rich.

The only "Brexit" party was UKIP, which imploded (losing 10ppt and all of it's seats).

Lib Dem's lost out as well, but they'd lost all credibility after the Tory debacle.

So all we can actually take from that is that there was less support for Brexit between the referendum and the election.

This is such a good idea that we should have a referendum on it.