Hard Brexit

[Gorgiewave]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Knows I'm right, went for a glib FTFY post.

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

FA, it doesn't work.  You do this "hey, folks, I'm gonna be the contrarian in the corner" so much, that even you don't believe it.

 

Your Government is sinking into the mire, and dragging your Parliament with it.  Your national strategy seems to be to (i) try to give the middle finger to your nearest neighbours with whom you have the closest trading and political connections, (ii) hope to forge some kind of links with people further away who can't stand you, who have weaker economies, and who will rip you off at every opportunity, and then (iii) pray that either a bunch of hooray henrys or a throwback to yon Citizen Smith telly show will somehow find a way to wave a magic wand and turn your sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

When that is pointed out, in all its mind-boggingly ****witted glory, all you can do is point randomly at some point on the horizon and yell "LOOK!  OVER THERE!  WHAT ABOUT THAT?!?" at the top of your lungs.

 

It's horseshite masquerading as government, and it is sticking your fingers in your ears and making humming noises masquerading as political argument.

 

Did you vote to have Erdogan rather than Merkel?  Did you vote to bring in the Turks and keep out the Poles?  No you didn't, but that's what you're getting.  Good luck to you with that.

 

 

 

 

Also: did we vote for drug prices to suddenly get much higher? No, but that's what we're getting.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

 

I'm sure Francis dismissed this sort of thing as "scaremongering" a few pages back. Yes Franny: because when we do trade deals with countries much larger and more powerful than ourselves, of course they'll just do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

Strange how such a relentless cynic in all other areas suddenly turns into a delusional idealist on Brexit.

 

1 hour ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

The Irish strategy since 1922.

 

Have you seen Ireland's GDP per head any time recently? They're doing great. They've become a model country in many ways. And while they move forwards, we hurtle backwards.

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The divided kingdom? You mean the one that in Scotland's case voted by a larger majority than the UK vote to leave the EU voted to remain part of the UK?

(Reply to Space Mac a couple of posts ago)

 

He means the one in which:

 

- 45% of Scottish voters voted to leave the UK

 

- The No side said "Vote No to stay in the EU and protect the NHS!", only for us to leave the EU and hugely imperil the NHS

 

- Scotland and London are far and away the most liberal parts of the UK, and have increasingly little in common politically with large swathes of the rest of it

 

- Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and all major English cities voted to stay in the EU

 

- An enormous majority of those working voted to stay in the EU

 

- The EU referendum and general election oversaw extraordinary gulfs in opinion between the young and old, metropolitan and rural, educated and under-educated

 

- After a pack of lies and breaking electoral law all over the place, Leave won by a fraction... since when the government has behaved as though it won by a landslide, and described 48% of voters as "citizens of nowhere"

 

- Northern Ireland was ignored entirely during the referendum campaign, and the consequences of a Leave vote for Northern Ireland have continued to be ignored ever since

 

- UK policy is at the whim of a 40-year-long divide in the Conservative Party: which is loathed by the majority of UK voters

 

'Divided' doesn't even begin to cover it. Brexit appears increasingly likely to bring the UK down completely.

Edited May 16, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

He means the one in which:

 

- 45% of Scottish voters voted to leave the UK

 

- The No side said "Vote No to stay in the EU and protect the NHS!", only for us to leave the EU and hugely imperil the NHS

 

- Scotland and London are far and away the most liberal parts of the UK, and have increasingly little in common politically with large swathes of the rest of it

 

- Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and all major English cities voted to stay in the EU

 

- An enormous majority of those working voted to stay in the EU

 

- The EU referendum and general election oversaw extraordinary gulfs in opinion between the young and old, metropolitan and rural, educated and under-educated

 

- After a pack of lies and breaking electoral law all over the place, Leave won by a fraction... since when the government has behaved as though it won by a landslide, and described 48% of voters as "citizens of nowhere"

 

- Northern Ireland was ignored entirely during the referendum campaign, and the consequences of a Leave vote for Northern Ireland have continued to be ignored ever since

 

- UK policy is at the whim of a 40-year-long divide in the Conservative Party: which is loathed by the majority of UK voters

 

'Divided' doesn't even begin to cover it. Brexit appears increasingly likely to bring the UK down completely.

I could respond line by line to that pack of sweeping generalisations and hyperbole but I'll just ask ... name one democratic country in the world that isn't politically divided (indeed does not have by your assessment "extraordinary gulfs")  on all of the measures you list - generationally, demographically, by employment status, metropolitan vs rural, education.

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

FA, it doesn't work.  You do this "hey, folks, I'm gonna be the contrarian in the corner" so much, that even you don't believe it.

 

Your Government is sinking into the mire, and dragging your Parliament with it.  Your national strategy seems to be to (i) try to give the middle finger to your nearest neighbours with whom you have the closest trading and political connections, (ii) hope to forge some kind of links with people further away who can't stand you, who have weaker economies, and who will rip you off at every opportunity, and then (iii) pray that either a bunch of hooray henrys or a throwback to yon Citizen Smith telly show will somehow find a way to wave a magic wand and turn your sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

When that is pointed out, in all its mind-boggingly ****witted glory, all you can do is point randomly at some point on the horizon and yell "LOOK!  OVER THERE!  WHAT ABOUT THAT?!?" at the top of your lungs.

 

It's horseshite masquerading as government, and it is sticking your fingers in your ears and making humming noises masquerading as political argument.

 

Did you vote to have Erdogan rather than Merkel?  Did you vote to bring in the Turks and keep out the Poles?  No you didn't, but that's what you're getting.  Good luck to you with that.

 

 

Uly, if that is your idea of reasoned political argument I think I'll stick to being contrarian.

And while I think in your quaint Irish way you are using "you" as meaning "the UK", personally I didn't vote Leave.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[SE16 3LN]

20 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Incompetence on the part of the PM.    She's weak and virtually powerless to settle the squabbles within the Tory party regarding how Brexit is conducted.    Both extremes of the party are relatively happy for her to remain in post because they have a free reign to further their own agendas.    Both reluctant for leadership change in case the new leader hails from the opposite camp.

 

Negligence on the part of the entire party.     It's all a political,  philosophical game on their part.     The actual economical and social consequences do not appear to be much of a consideration.     Conducting the Tory Party's idea of a soft/hard/good/bad Brexit,    if an idea ever manages to surface,   isn't going to have much of an impact on the real world fortunes of the average Tory MP.

 

 

So you're solution is no Brexit

[SE16 3LN]

16 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There's so much gross incompetence and negligence, that in the event of no deal, private prosecutions should be brought for malfeasance in public office. I'm absolutely serious in that.

No deal will be the result of political difference I'm afraid. There will be no prosecutions for trying to implement the near impossible will of the people. 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

So you're solution is no Brexit

 

No.   My solution is the removal of the lame duck and for a coherent executive to implement whatever version of Brexit they decide upon.    To develop an actual strategy and negotiate with the EU in honest good faith.      The lame duck cannot get anything done because she's solely interested in keeping the wolves from the door.     Petrified to make actual policy and strategy decisions in case it brings about her demise.      She's overtly briefed against and can do nothing about it.

[Victorian]

Actually it has become so glaringly obvious that this government is heading towards an unmitigated shitfestBrexit that,  over and above a change of leadership,   the UK should call for a complete postponement and re-evaluation of the status of Brexit.     To basically say it's been grossly mismanaged and that we'll have to start from square one.

[shaun.lawson]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I could respond line by line to that pack of sweeping generalisations and hyperbole but I'll just ask ... name one democratic country in the world that isn't politically divided (indeed does not have by your assessment "extraordinary gulfs")  on all of the measures you list - generationally, demographically, by employment status, metropolitan vs rural, education.

 

Almost every other democracy in the developed world represents their differences within their governments. Because they have proportional systems. The minority cannot dictate to the majority; the winners cannot govern without the consent of the losers.

 

We, on the other hand, have unfairness and the tyranny of the minority built into our system. This leads to such awful policy (winners: about 40%; losers: about 60%) that our differences have been continually exacerbated. Leading directly to this mess now.

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Almost every other democracy in the developed world represents their differences within their governments. Because they have proportional systems. The minority cannot dictate to the majority; the winners cannot govern without the consent of the losers.

 

We, on the other hand, have unfairness and the tyranny of the minority built into our system. This leads to such awful policy (winners: about 40%; losers: about 60%) that our differences have been continually exacerbated. Leading directly to this mess now.

That is neither true nor an answer to my question.

 

There is another referendum taking place next week in a country you see as some sort of model. A referendum on a fundamental issue in which people will be asked to vote on whether or not to implement a partial step towards what  backward Britain (I say Britain advisedly) implemented 50 years ago. The gulf between generations, between metropolitan and rural, between rich and poor, between employed and unemployed, well educated and less well educated will I am pretty sure be at least as big and probably bigger than the equivalent gulf in the UK on Brexit.

 

Cue no doubt a Uly accusation of "whataboutery" ... but it is you that is claiming that the UK is exceptional and it is difficult to refute that without making comparisons.

[Thunderstruck]

An interesting article by Lionel Shriver in last week’s Spectator. In this she expressed the opinion that Britain leaving the EU is Europe’s problem and that the Irish border is Ireland’s problem (if, indeed, that is much of a problem as we saw last night with a comparison between the Norwegian, Swiss and Turkish borders with the EU).

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-irish-border-is-the-eus-problem-not-ours/

 

Big picture, the UK may have made an utter Horlicks of its putative withdrawal from the European Union because Britain should never have come to the EU with a begging bowl in the first place.

 

I voted “Remain” but can see a lot of merit in her view. 

 

Elsewhere in the same same edition the former Australian High Commissioner has suggested that the U.K. should leave properly and not in some half-a***d fashion as that will make dealing with the EU and the rest of the World more straightforward; a “customs union” would not be conducive to easy trading outside the EU. 

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

That is neither true nor an answer to my question.

 

There is another referendum taking place next week in a country you see as some sort of model. A referendum on a fundamental issue in which people will be asked to vote on whether or not to implement a partial step towards what  backward Britain (I say Britain advisedly) implemented 50 years ago. The gulf between generations, between metropolitan and rural, between rich and poor, between employed and unemployed, well educated and less well educated will I am pretty sure be at least as big and probably bigger than the equivalent gulf in the UK on Brexit.

 

Cue no doubt a Uly accusation of "whataboutery" ... but it is you that is claiming that the UK is exceptional and it is difficult to refute that without making comparisons.

 

The UK is exceptional, for the reasons I've provided. If we had a proportional system, Francis:

 

- Thatcherism wouldn't have run rife in the 80s

 

- There'd never have been a poll tax

 

- We'd never have gone to war in Iraq

 

- We'd never have allowed housing demand to overwhelm supply to such an incredible extent

 

- Austerity would never have been implemented in such an extreme way 

 

- We'd never have had an EU referendum

 

- We'd never have had a Scottish referendum either

 

FPTP forces both major parties to focus only on about 100,000 voters. Everyone else can go hang. The consequences for this in policy - giving the executive absurd amounts of power based frequently on less than 40% of those voting - are ruinous.

 

Our very system itself does not represent umpteen millions of voters. Our very system itself is what's led to such colossal alienation, disenfranchisement and hatred of most politicians. And our very system itself is breaking the United Kingdom apart.

Edited May 16, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The UK is exceptional, for the reasons I've provided. If we had a proportional system, Francis:

 

- Thatcherism wouldn't have run rife in the 80s

 

- There'd never have been a poll tax

 

- We'd never have gone to war in Iraq

 

- We'd never have allowed housing demand to overwhelm supply to such an incredible extent

 

- Austerity would never have been implemented in such an extreme way 

 

- We'd never have had an EU referendum

 

- We'd never have had a Scottish referendum either

 

FPTP forces both major parties to focus only on about 100,000 voters. Everyone else can go hang. The consequences for this in policy - giving the executive absurd amounts of power based frequently on less than 40% of those voting - are ruinous.

 

Our very system itself does not represent umpteen millions of voters. Our very system itself is what's led to such colossal alienation, disenfranchisement and hatred of most politicians. And our very system itself is breaking the United Kingdom apart.

I assume you have moved on from your earlier nonsense about "almost every other democracy in the developed world" having a proportional system but that you are not admitting you were inventing some "fact" to suit your argument. In fact about half of all democracies (over 63 out of just over 120) have first post the post systems including the world's  biggest in economic (USA) and population (India) terms.

 

You have moved on to a string of other assertions which suit your argument but have no solid basis whatsoever leading you to nonsensical conclusions.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

36 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I assume you have moved on from your earlier nonsense about "almost every other democracy in the developed world" having a proportional system but that you are not admitting you were inventing some "fact" to suit your argument. In fact about half of all democracies (over 63 out of just over 120) have first post the post systems including the world's  biggest in economic (USA) and population (India) terms.

 

You have moved on to a string of other assertions which suit your argument but have no solid basis whatsoever leading you to nonsensical conclusions.

 

 

The only other modern, developed countries which use FPTP or its equivalent are Canada and the US. That's it. It only works in two-party systems. But nice to see you've now started comparing us to Ethiopia or Tuvalu. How low can we sink here?

 

As for my "string of assertions" (which unlike you, focus on Britain, not whataboutery), the reason behind them is simple. If we had PR, we'd have more parties. The number of people who vote Tory and Labour would therefore fall; and voting behaviour in general would be completely different, because tactical voting wouldn't exist and there'd be no rotten boroughs won forever by a monkey in a blue or red rosette.

 

If you think a very right wing Tory Party and very left wing Labour Party represent the whole of UK public opinion, you're at it. They're simply a consequence of our ridiculous system. A similar consequence was Labour being forced rightwards under Kinnock, Smith and Blair - not because the majority of voters were on the right, but a plurality of about 40% (homeowners mostly) were. 

 

We'd even have much better politicians: because the system would force them to be consensual, not adversarial; and because it wouldn't lock out so many who can't afford to run for seats they have no chance of winning, as it does now. That's why so many of our politicians are drawn from the middle and upper classes, in a party system in which they must remain "on message" and doesn't allow compromise. 

 

Both Thatcher's Tories and Blair's Labour were rewarded with preposterously large majorities despite winning much less than a majority of the vote. Therefore, both were able to push through disastrous policies which a majority of the country and crucially, a majority of a fairly elected Parliament would not have supported. Since 2010, this has continued: under PR, there's no chance on Earth we'd have had ideological austerity, no chance on Earth we'd have exacerbated so many horrendous socioeconomic problems which helped cause Brexit. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Ulysses]

21 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

<<Bah humbug old before my time wishing I was young again and crying into my pint of mild>>

 

 

I'm bored whupping you worse than a red-headed stepchild.  Up your game or get off the pitch. 

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

And while I think in your quaint Irish way.....

 

Leave the sly digs about the Paddies to Gorgiewave.

 

As to the nation you come from, it's irrelevant whether you voted Leave or Remain.  Leave won, fair and square, and now you're all in this together.  A competent government would be kinda useful to you at this time.  Just saying.

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Leave the sly digs about the Paddies to Gorgiewave.

 

As to the nation you come from, it's irrelevant whether you voted Leave or Remain.  Leave won, fair and square, and now you're all in this together.  A competent government would be kinda useful to you at this time.  Just saying.

 

Yeah but yeah but, in the year nineteen oatcake, another country had an incompetent government too!  

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The only other modern, developed countries which use FPTP or its equivalent are Canada and the US. That's it. It only works in two-party systems. But nice to see you've now started comparing us to Ethiopia or Tuvalu. How low can we sink here?

 

As for my "string of assertions" (which unlike you, focus on Britain, not whataboutery), the reason behind them is simple. If we had PR, we'd have more parties. The number of people who vote Tory and Labour would therefore fall; and voting behaviour in general would be completely different, because tactical voting wouldn't exist and there'd be no rotten boroughs won forever by a monkey in a blue or red rosette.

 

If you think a very right wing Tory Party and very left wing Labour Party represent the whole of UK public opinion, you're at it. They're simply a consequence of our ridiculous system. A similar consequence was Labour being forced rightwards under Kinnock, Smith and Blair - not because the majority of voters were on the right, but a plurality of about 40% (homeowners mostly) were. 

 

We'd even have much better politicians: because the system would force them to be consensual, not adversarial; and because it wouldn't lock out so many who can't afford to run for seats they have no chance of winning, as it does now. That's why so many of our politicians are drawn from the middle and upper classes, in a party system in which they must remain "on message" and doesn't allow compromise. 

 

Both Thatcher's Tories and Blair's Labour were rewarded with preposterously large majorities despite winning much less than a majority of the vote. Therefore, both were able to push through disastrous policies which a majority of the country and crucially, a majority of a fairly elected Parliament would not have supported. Since 2010, this has continued: under PR, there's no chance on Earth we'd have had ideological austerity, no chance on Earth we'd have exacerbated so many horrendous socioeconomic problems which helped cause Brexit. 

Congratulations on getting the "whataboutery" accusation in before Uly!

You argue the UK is exceptional but any comparison with anywhere else is "whataboutery".

But then I suppose your argument such as it is needs all the help it can get.

[Francis Albert]

25 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Leave the sly digs about the Paddies to Gorgiewave.

 

As to the nation you come from, it's irrelevant whether you voted Leave or Remain.  Leave won, fair and square, and now you're all in this together.  A competent government would be kinda useful to you at this time.  Just saying.

It wasn't really a "sly" dig was it?

And of course we (those of us in the UK) are all in it together and of course a more competent government would be welcome ...

 

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Congratulations on getting the "whataboutery" accusation in before Uly!

You argue the UK is exceptional but any comparison with anywhere else is "whataboutery".

But then I suppose your argument such as it is needs all the help it can get.

 

I even showed you hard evidence of the UK's exceptional intergenerational inequality the other day. Your response was to deny intergenerational inequality was even an issue, and accuse those behind the research I showed you of having an "agenda". 

Edited May 16, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I even showed you hard evidence of the UK's exceptional intergenerational inequality the other day. Your respond was to deny intergenerational inequality was even an issue, and accuse the research I showed you of having an "agenda". 

No you showed me  a report from the Intergenerational Commission. I did not deny "intergenerational inequality" exists but did suggest that the "intergenerational Commission" may not be a wholly disinterested body and pointed out that you had rather selectively quoted from their report. As I recall the report did not include any evidence that the UK was exceptional in its intergenerational inequality but rather compared intergenerational inequality within the UK today with historical intergenerational inequality in the UK.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

No you showed me  a report from the Intergenerational Commission. I did not deny "intergenerational inequality" exists but did suggest that the "intergenerational Commission" may not be a wholly disinterested body and pointed out that you had rather selectively quoted from their report. As I recall the report did not include any evidence that the UK was exceptional in its intergenerational inequality but rather compared intergenerational inequality within the UK today with historical intergenerational inequality in the UK.

 

No, it compared it with other developed countries. Which is why the report is entitled "Cross countries: international comparisons of intergenerational trends".

 

 

[JamboX2]

48 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Congratulations on getting the "whataboutery" accusation in before Uly!

You argue the UK is exceptional but any comparison with anywhere else is "whataboutery".

But then I suppose your argument such as it is needs all the help it can get.

 

To be fair he's not wrong in that the electoral system being changed would inevitably lead to a more consensual system. Look at Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark for that - I use them as they are most like the UK in attitudes.

 

PR produces coalitions. Coalitions are invariably good as they moderate policy and they moderate the extremes. That has been shown to produce better long term strategies and policies than majority governments who look to the next public vote.

 

PR would be nothing but better for us as a nation. In Scotland we've got half way. I'd argue that we should go further to a full national list or the STV system of Ireland.

 

 

[jake]

So perhaps the resident know it all's can explain how a minority of violent people get to dictate the democratic wishes of the majority?

[Cade]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

So perhaps the resident know it all's can explain how a minority of violent people get to dictate the democratic wishes of the majority?

I believe that is called "monarchy"

[jake]

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

I believe that is called "monarchy"

Touche.

 

Although I think you know in this respect I was referring to the non stop media darlings warning us of the troubles returning because of brexit.

 

Just to clarify.

 

[jake]

On 16/05/2018 at 03:02, shaun.lawson said:

 

He means the one in which:

 

- 45% of Scottish voters voted to leave the UK

 

- The No side said "Vote No to stay in the EU and protect the NHS!", only for us to leave the EU and hugely imperil the NHS

 

- Scotland and London are far and away the most liberal parts of the UK, and have increasingly little in common politically with large swathes of the rest of it

 

- Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and all major English cities voted to stay in the EU

 

- An enormous majority of those working voted to stay in the EU

 

- The EU referendum and general election oversaw extraordinary gulfs in opinion between the young and old, metropolitan and rural, educated and under-educated

 

- After a pack of lies and breaking electoral law all over the place, Leave won by a fraction... since when the government has behaved as though it won by a landslide, and described 48% of voters as "citizens of nowhere"

 

- Northern Ireland was ignored entirely during the referendum campaign, and the consequences of a Leave vote for Northern Ireland have continued to be ignored ever since

 

- UK policy is at the whim of a 40-year-long divide in the Conservative Party: which is loathed by the majority of UK voters

 

'Divided' doesn't even begin to cover it. Brexit appears increasingly likely to bring the UK down completely.

My god .

Northern Ireland has a democratic out.

For feks sake the beauty of democracy is that we at least have a chance.

Yet you wish to ignore that and dismiss the votes you don't agree with as uneducated.

You are a fascist .

 

Oh can you tell me which academic qualifications you have that make you oh so better than the rest of us?

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

26 minutes ago, jake said:

Yet you wish to ignore that and dismiss the votes you don't agree with as uneducated.

 

   

 

No Jake, not "uneducated". "Under-educated". By whom I mean, those without university degrees or with lower level or no qualifications. The divide between them on the one hand, and the university-educated on the other, is enormous. 

 

In general, those without qualifications tend to be less intelligent than those with them. Not in all cases of course; but certainly a majority of them. That's why we have education in the first place. It exists to educate people as well as possible, which in turn benefits everyone. 

 

Are you against education too? Also, please explain what 'democratic out' Northern Ireland has.

Edited May 17, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[jake]

24 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

   

 

No Jake, not "uneducated". "Under-educated". By whom I mean, those without university degrees or with lower level or no qualifications. The divide between them on the one hand, and the university-educated on the other, is enormous. 

 

In general, those without qualifications tend to be less intelligent than those with them. Not in all cases of course; but certainly a majority of them. That's why we have education in the first place. It exists to educate people as well as possible, which in turn benefits everyone. 

 

Are you against education too? Also, please explain what 'democratic out' Northern Ireland has.

The people of Northern Ireland have the opportunity to leave the UK.

In fact even the Catholic people remain.

Doesn't suit your big divided picture.

 

No I'm not against education but it's as riddled by class as it ever was.

So your prognosis about voting habits is in my under educated opinion based on a snobbery .

 

Can you tell me your academic achievement?

[shaun.lawson]

16 minutes ago, jake said:

So your prognosis about voting habits is in my under educated opinion based on a snobbery .

 

No, it's based on facts.

 

*Jake's hypothetical kid gets sick*

 

Mrs Jake: "Jake, we have to take our child to the doctor's!"

 

Jake: "Sorry, I know as much about illness as the doctor. My opinion is equal to his. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

*Jake's hypothetical wife is looking for schools in the area*

 

Mrs Jake: "Where shall we send our child?"

 

Jake: "Nowhere. I know as much as any teacher. My opinion is equal to theirs. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

*Jake is organising his finances*

 

Mrs Jake: "Jake, this is all far too complicated for me. I think you should speak to a financial advisor".

 

Jake: "No. I know as much as any financial advisor. My opinion is equal to theirs. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

And on, and on, and on. 

 

PS. Your advice to Northern Ireland is noted. And predictably useless. 

 

[jake]

18 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

No, it's based on facts.

 

*Jake's hypothetical kid gets sick*

 

Mrs Jake: "Jake, we have to take our child to the doctor's!"

 

Jake: "Sorry, I know as much about illness as the doctor. My opinion is equal to his. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

*Jake's hypothetical wife is looking for schools in the area*

 

Mrs Jake: "Where shall we send our child?"

 

Jake: "Nowhere. I know as much as any teacher. My opinion is equal to theirs. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

*Jake is organising his finances*

 

Mrs Jake: "Jake, this is all far too complicated for me. I think you should speak to a financial advisor".

 

Jake: "No. I know as much as any financial advisor. My opinion is equal to theirs. Are you some kind of fascist for suggesting otherwise?"

 

And on, and on, and on. 

 

PS. Your advice to Northern Ireland is noted. And predictably useless. 

 

My goodness me .

 

Anyway what's your academic achievements ?

[jake]

Mrs Lawson needs a shit.

Where does her shit go?

 

Will Mr Lawson lay the drains.

 

Mr Lawson jumps on a bus

Mr Lawson needs to walk on a pavement.

All these uneducated skills take time to learn.

But these people according to you have no understanding of the world.

 

You my man are a snob.

[jake]

So what's your academic achievements Shaun that allows you to dismiss the right to vote?

[jake]

Shaun and Uly seem to think that the wise and wonderful should over ride the wishes of the plebs.

Because the wise and wonderful have done a fekin great job so far.

 

[jake]

Oh I await the pish wit of Uly.

 

He's obsessed dontcha know.

 

Like a shite Terry wogan

[jake]

And to clarify Shaun.

No I do not think education is a bad thing nor do I think it holds those who attain a good one of having more value than those who don't.

You going by your posts think that violence and certain socio economic groups should hold sway over others.

 

That's not democracy.

 

And that is the bottom line.

 

Goodness me you have wished to dismiss democracy because a handful of facebook trollsdared to face of a multi million pound political campaign.

 

So could you please tell me your academic achievements?

[SpruceBringsteen]

How was the pub, Jake?

[Cade]

"Strong and stable" PM May is planning to stuff the Lords with lots and lots of Tory peers so that they'll do what she wants and stop defeating her insane plans for Brexit.

 

Wasn't there some sort of moaning about "undemocratic EUSSR" at some point in the recent past?

[Doogz]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

   

 

No Jake, not "uneducated". "Under-educated". By whom I mean, those without university degrees or with lower level or no qualifications. The divide between them on the one hand, and the university-educated on the other, is enormous. 

 

In general, those without qualifications tend to be less intelligent than those with them. Not in all cases of course; but certainly a majority of them. That's why we have education in the first place. It exists to educate people as well as possible, which in turn benefits everyone. 

 

Are you against education too? Also, please explain what 'democratic out' Northern Ireland has.

 

There is a big difference between knowledge and intelligence. Is generalising people as more or less intelligent based on how long they stayed in formal education really a route we want to go down?  Westminster is full of career politicians who have degree's and all their collective "intelligence" hasn't done us much good.

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

How was the pub, Jake?

 

THIS 

[shaun.lawson]

17 minutes ago, Doogz said:

 

There is a big difference between knowledge and intelligence. Is generalising people as more or less intelligent based on how long they stayed in formal education really a route we want to go down?  Westminster is full of career politicians who have degree's and all their collective "intelligence" hasn't done us much good.

 

Sure. And that the divide is so enormous between degree-educated people and non-degree-educated people in the UK and US says an awful lot about how much the system has failed and abandoned so many.

 

However, when the UK takes a decision which astonished the onlooking world, will inevitably leave it poorer and geopolitically weaker, has resulted in two years and counting of the most shambolic governance imaginable - and those voting for it were mostly those without a degree-level education, you have to wonder. 

[Doogz]

5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Sure. And that the divide is so enormous between degree-educated people and non-degree-educated people in the UK and US says an awful lot about how much the system has failed and abandoned so many.

 

However, when the UK takes a decision which astonished the onlooking world, will inevitably leave it poorer and geopolitically weaker, has resulted in two years and counting of the most shambolic governance imaginable - and those voting for it were mostly those without a degree-level education, you have to wonder. 

 

..... and those managing the exit process so disastrously mainly have Uni degrees  - I just don't see much of a difference in the levels of intelligence between the voters and the MPs in this example. FWIW - I'm totally against Brexit but it was the lack of any reasoned intelligent debate in the Brexit/Remain campaigns that led us to this and again it's the educated "intelligent" politicians that should take the blame for that.

[shaun.lawson]

9 minutes ago, Doogz said:

 

..... and those managing the exit process so disastrously mainly have Uni degrees  - I just don't see much of a difference in the levels of intelligence between the voters and the MPs in this example. FWIW - I'm totally against Brexit but it was the lack of any reasoned intelligent debate in the Brexit/Remain campaigns that led us to this and again it's the educated "intelligent" politicians that should take the blame for that.

 

To an extent, I agree. However, I'm not sure there's much even decent politicians can do in the face of our appalling media. 

 

As for managing the exit process so disastrously: that's what happens when a campaign makes a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises which are impossible to keep. Any UK government would've found itself in this position. The problem is its relentless failure to be remotely honest with the people (or even itself) ever since the morning of 24 June 2016.

 

But of course, if it was honest, it'd be instantly accused of betrayal by that media I mentioned. So round and round and round we go.

[Doogz]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

To an extent, I agree. However, I'm not sure there's much even decent politicians can do in the face of our appalling media. 

 

As for managing the exit process so disastrously: that's what happens when a campaign makes a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises which are impossible to keep. Any UK government would've found itself in this position. The problem is its relentless failure to be remotely honest with the people (or even itself) ever since the morning of 24 June 2016.

 

But of course, if it was honest, it'd be instantly accused of betrayal by that media I mentioned. So round and round and round we go.

 

I have a bigger issue with the lack of honesty pre-24th June - particularly from the pro-Brexit camp as the exit process was always going to be a disaster: The idea that we could negotiate Brexit on "our" terms when the EU hold nearly all of the cards was simply crazy. How the Remain campaign failed to get this message successfully across to the voters is almost impossible to understand.

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, Doogz said:

 

I have a bigger issue with the lack of honesty pre-24th June - particularly from the pro-Brexit camp as the exit process was always going to be a disaster: The idea that we could negotiate Brexit on "our" terms when the EU hold nearly all of the cards was simply crazy. How the Remain campaign failed to get this message successfully across to the voters is almost impossible to understand.

 

Totally agree with that. The Remain camp, incidentally, was packed with staffers from the Labour and Lib Dem 2015 campaigns.  

And just by way of reminder...

 

 

   

[Francis Albert]

35 minutes ago, Doogz said:

 

I have a bigger issue with the lack of honesty pre-24th June - particularly from the pro-Brexit camp as the exit process was always going to be a disaster: The idea that we could negotiate Brexit on "our" terms when the EU hold nearly all of the cards was simply crazy. How the Remain campaign failed to get this message successfully across to the voters is almost impossible to understand.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Doogz said:

 

I have a bigger issue with the lack of honesty pre-24th June - particularly from the pro-Brexit camp as the exit process was always going to be a disaster: The idea that we could negotiate Brexit on "our" terms when the EU hold nearly all of the cards was simply crazy. How the Remain campaign failed to get this message successfully across to the voters is almost impossible to understand.

Not true. We had cards and if we had played then as suggested in the Lionel Shriver article quoted earlier rather simply discard them we might have had a more meaningful negotiation. We gave up immediatey on the divorce bill (which we had no obbligation to pay) the absence of which would have hurt the EU badly. We said "no deal is better than a bad deal" without conviction and rarely repeated it. The cliff edge would have been bad for the EU as well as the UK. Failure to do a trade deal might well hurt the EU more than the UK. But we made it vey clear by our actions that would not go off the cliff edge so the EU could cheerfully repeat ad nauseam its "no cherry picking, no having cake and eating it" mantra - you can leave the EU's political institutions but otherwise must accept virtually everything that goes with EU membership (not a condition attached to trade deals negotiated with other states). The Remainer majority have invented "Soft Brexit" as a near substitute for Remain and with a large majority in both the Commons (and a Lords daily flouting constitutional conventions to support Remain) know they will push it through as of course does our negotiating counter party.

In the meantime Project Fear, the strategy devised by the well educated which contributed greatly to the Leave win, continues relentlessly. It will apparently take at least until 2023 to put in place sensible border controls on say the Swiss model. About as long as it took the allies to win WW2 and more than half the time it took America to put a man on the moon

Edited May 18, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, jake said:

So perhaps the resident know it all's can explain how a minority of violent people get to dictate the democratic wishes of the majority?

The EU-phemisms cartoon  in this weeks Private perhaps answers this. "The Irish border issue is delicate and could cause untold strife". accompanied by one eurocrat in a Brussels office to another: "So we're definitely going to exploit it".

[shaun.lawson]

42 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not true. We had cards and if we had played then as suggested in the Lionel Shriver article quoted earlier rather simply discard them we might have had a more meaningful negotiation.

 

 

I've just read the Shriver article. It's monumental garbage. "We should've walked out immediately and adopted WTO rules", says man who has zero conception of what this would've meant. Adopting WTO rules is impossible when we'd have about a million and one tariffs to calculate yesterday. Unbelievably, he also effectively calls for the entire Good Friday Agreement to be redrafted - when Ireland is an EU member and Northern Ireland voted to do so as well! Astonishing arrogance.

 

Quote

We gave up immediatey on the divorce bill (which we had no obbligation to pay) the absence of which would have hurt the EU badly.

 

Paying it is a sign of good faith and meeting our obligations. Not paying it is an invitation for the EU to do whatever the heck it likes with us. Out of interest, did you support the Yes campaign when it said it wouldn't meet Scotland's obligations to the rest of the UK in the event of no currency union being granted? Or view it as the pathetic, petty threat it always was?

 

Quote

We said "no deal is better than a bad deal" without conviction and rarely repeated it.

 

 

It lacked conviction because it was a barefaced lie. A bad deal is much, much better than no deal at all.

 

Quote

The cliff edge would have been bad for the EU as well as the UK. Failure to do a trade deal might well hurt the EU more than the UK.

 

In other words, you advocate this:

 

 

Quote

But we made it vey clear by our actions that would not go off the cliff edge so the EU could cheerfully repeat ad nauseam its "no cherry picking, no having cake and eating it" mantra - you can leave the EU's political institutions but otherwise must accept virtually everything that goes with EU membership (not a condition attached to trade deals negotiated with other states).

 

 

Wakey wakey. Those other states are not members of the EU and therefore, none of them receive all the benefits which go with EU membership. 

 

Quote

The Remainer majority have invented "Soft Brexit" as a near substitute for Remain and with a large majority in both the Commons (and a Lords daily flouting constitutional conventions to support Remain) know they will push it through as of course does our negotiating counter party.

 

I'm not quite sure how many times you're going to repeat this gibberish. It's especially ironic coming from someone who always demands facts (then ignores any that don't suit him in true filibustering style).

 

'Soft Brexit' is a consequence of an entire campaign in which the detail of leaving was never discussed. "No-one is talking about leaving the single market", insisted Brexiter-in-Chief, Daniel Hannan. "We can have our cake and eat it", was the general message of Vote Leave: without which, it wouldn't have had a cat in hell's chance of winning.

 

It's also a consequence of a 52-48 majority for a Brexit, the nature of which most of that 52% completely disagree on. It's so nice to know that had it been 52-48 Remain, you'd have demanded we join the euro, sign up to Schengen, join a European Army and maybe even join a superstate called Europe - except you wouldn't have, would you?

 

Soft Brexit is about us emerging from this fiasco with some sort of future. A fiasco in which the Leave campaign and the UK government has lied, lied and lied some more. We can't have a "points based immigration system" while maintaining tariff-free trade with the EU. We can't leave the customs union without there being a hard border in Ireland. We can't leave the single market and customs union without creating a hard border in the Irish Sea. You can keep deluding yourself all you want; but them's the apples.

 

Quote

In the meantime Project Fear, the strategy devised by the well educated which contributed greatly to the Leave win, continues relentlessly. It will apparently take at least until 2023 to put in place sensible border controls 

 

Indeed it will. A consequence of us having had no plan for Brexit; the worst government in modern Britain's history; us having wasted 2 years advocating pie-in-the-sky nonsense; and the small matter of an utterly overwhelmed government and civil service. "Vote Brexit for smaller government and less bureaucracy", cried a bunch of goons who guaranteed much larger, more incompetent, much more bureaucratic government when Brexit won. 

 

In the days after the vote, some of us were warning this thing would take a decade. And so it's proving. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by shaun.lawson