Jump to content

Hard Brexit


Bridge of Djoum

Recommended Posts

Francis Albert
2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Perhaps. Who's to say the SNP would've got a majority if their policy was to seek independence once elected? They'd failed to win majorities of seats before 2011 on that basis. A referendum was an insurance policy for voters.

 

The Tories have shown how minor the Brexiteers are in terms of seats after the vote. Also no Tory party leader advocated withdrawal as a major or key party policy up to the referendum defeat. And even during that referendum a majority in cabinet backed continued EU membership.

 

We now have a government lead by folk who aren't convinced by Brexit and are negotiating to have it. An utter mess.

 

We live in a representative democracy. Simply put politicians should have the courage of their convictions to bring forward their intentions to the people at each election. If Brexit is that, make it a key pledge. If it's Indy, same thing. And if they succeed or fail at the ballot box, we move on.

 

 

Disagree. Emotive and irrational consideration do not lead to good decisions. Busses and billboards, tv studio debates do not make informed voters on such hugely conplex issues.

 

Informed debate, controlled and moderated, with a variety of committees, reports and studies feeding into debate and a decision then made by those representatives do make good decisions or less emotionally charged ones.

 

It's why we have parliaments and courts. Otherwise it's a slope to mob rule.

Why did we hear nothing about how awful referenda were when we voted to stay in the EU. Why did all these representatives who we should rely on to make "good decisions and less emotionally charged ones" vote by a majority of six to one to hold the referendum? Six to one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Francis Albert

    409

  • jake

    306

  • Boris

    252

  • Ulysses

    219

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Why did we hear nothing about how awful referenda were when we voted to stay in the EU. Why did all these representatives who we should rely on to make "good decisions and less emotionally charged ones" vote by a majority of six to one to hold the referendum? Six to one!

 

If you're talking about the vote in 1976 then I agree. I wouldn't have used that either. Nor for devolution in 1979. 

 

They have become political tools to try and avoid hard choices. Wilson used it to keep his party united between the then leavers: Benn, Foot etc, and his remainers: Williams, Healey etc. 

 

Because it was a key government policy at an election. Then some in Labour got into bed through fear of being seen to be against people voting. In effect, they did what a representative democracy should do. Enact what was pledged.

 

The issue for me is in our system there are less rigorous checks on funding and running referendums. In Ireland the electoral commission can force redactions on points proven to be falsehoods and the two campaigns must be a-political.

 

But in the end, I think these referendums are not great for making good decisions. We all want a fairer electoral system, but that was defeated in a vote because of falsities over the cost and complexities of change. Some people would back a return to the death penalty and repeal of the Humans Right Act. Just because the majority want to do something doesn't make it the best choice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I don't give much cares on flags. 

 

But when you have two groups of competing nationalisms - scotnats v britnats or remoaners v brextremists - then shite like this gets air time and fans the flames.

 

Mind the blue passport crap? The National ran a series of "why does it matter?" peices. Then it eas shown a year or two earlier they'd been selling passport covers so you could put your maroon UK passport in a blue cover with "Scottish Passport" on it and the unicorn and saltire.

 

Utter hypocritical nonsense. The ulsterfication of Scottish politics is being created by both sides.

No, its people like Forsythe and Mundell who are hypocrites. Talking about raking back powers from the EU as if WM is some devolved Parliament. Then deny Scotland independence or don't give them their powers. Scum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

If you're talking about the vote in 1976 then I agree. I wouldn't have used that either. Nor for devolution in 1979. 

 

They have become political tools to try and avoid hard choices. Wilson used it to keep his party united between the then leavers: Benn, Foot etc, and his remainers: Williams, Healey etc. 

 

Because it was a key government policy at an election. Then some in Labour got into bed through fear of being seen to be against people voting. In effect, they did what a representative democracy should do. Enact what was pledged.

 

The issue for me is in our system there are less rigorous checks on funding and running referendums. In Ireland the electoral commission can force redactions on points proven to be falsehoods and the two campaigns must be a-political.

 

But in the end, I think these referendums are not great for making good decisions. We all want a fairer electoral system, but that was defeated in a vote because of falsities over the cost and complexities of change. Some people would back a return to the death penalty and repeal of the Humans Right Act. Just because the majority want to do something doesn't make it the best choice!

The bit you highlighted in bold was about the recent EU referendum not the 1979 one. The representatives we elected to make decisions on our behalf voted 6 to 1 to hold the referendum.

Is there evidence that places which use referenda more are less well governed? Switzerland and California for example.?

Is it democratic that people who wanted to leave the EU had no option but to vote Ukip in a general election and thus 52% of the electorate were in effect disenfranchised?

By what route could Scotland (or Catalonia) ever gain independence other than by a referendum?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

No, its people like Forsythe and Mundell who are hypocrites. Talking about raking back powers from the EU as if WM is some devolved Parliament. Then deny Scotland independence or don't give them their powers. Scum

Didn't Scots deny Scotland independence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
7 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Find me one economist of unbiased standing that talks of a successful Brexit.

 

And these jobs losses and the fact that we went from the best performing G8 nation to the worst in a matter of months are only the early precipitators to the process.  There's another two years to go ...

Google "economists for Brexit". Of course the many you find will not in your view be of "unbiased standing".

If you are referring to the job losses you quoted earlier, they were forecasts (no doubt by economists of "unbiased standing"!) not actual job losses. And you can't take a snapshot of one quarter GDP growth and say it is down to Brexit, any more than you could take a quarter where we were outperforming the rest of G8 as evidence that Brexit is a success.

As you say there is a long way to go. So far all that can be said with certainty is that the dire predictions of those of "unbiased standing" of the immediate economic impact of a Leave vote have proved to be spectacularly wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Didn't Scots deny Scotland independence?

No, unlike the EUref foreigners were not prohibited the vote. EU , rUK and ROW over a million voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Google "economists for Brexit". Of course the many you find will not in your view be of "unbiased standing".

If you are referring to the job losses you quoted earlier, they were forecasts (no doubt by economists of "unbiased standing"!) not actual job losses. And you can't take a snapshot of one quarter GDP growth and say it is down to Brexit, any more than you could take a quarter where we were outperforming the rest of G8 as evidence that Brexit is a success.

As you say there is a long way to go. So far all that can be said with certainty is that the dire predictions of those of "unbiased standing" of the immediate economic impact of a Leave vote have proved to be spectacularly wrong

Is the EU not just a bigger more equal UK with federation? What's not to like for unionists. Because they're not unionists, they're British Nationists who are trying to eradicate the EU and now Scotland is with this UJ obsession on Scottish goods, while the keep their stolen Italian symbol of St George on theirs. When is enough, enough.

Sorry for bringing Indy up, but this disgraceful behaviour surrounding devolved powers is the reason for it. Just remember who put the poll tax on Scots, Mr Forsyth, before quoting Rabbie Burns. Ya prick.

 

End rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

No, its people like Forsythe and Mundell who are hypocrites. Talking about raking back powers from the EU as if WM is some devolved Parliament. Then deny Scotland independence or don't give them their powers. Scum

 

So one form of nationalism versus another then?

 

No one but the electorate of Scotland 'denied' independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

I googled "economists for brexit"

 

The first five names:

 

Patrick Minford - Lifelong Euro Sceptic, how could his opinion ever be considered as unbiased?

 

Gerard Lyons - "Brexit would depress the economy in the short-term" and would " pose(d) ... a risk to long-term growth"

 

Roger Bootle - He "believes" "considers" "thinks" that Brexit will be a success.  Incidentally, he writes for a pro-Brexit newspaper.

 

Jonathan Portes - "No EU trade deal is better than a bad deal?  Don't bet on it, Theresa May"

 

Simon Wren-Lewis - "Mystified at what the UK is doing" "The leave campaign abused democracy before the vote with lies" "the hallmark of a functioning democracy is that the original vote is challenged and voters have a chance to vote again"

 

-

 

 

And of course you can take a snapshot of a functioning economy if it goes from top to bottom in months especially if it happens on the back of a constitutional question.  What else could be the reason?  Coincidence?

 

It's going to be a disaster, the next two years are going to destroy the fabric of the country.

 

Well done. Marvellous selective quotes. Now can we dismiss the views of economists who are remainers and/or who write for Remain-supporting media in the same way you dismiss leave supporters? It would only be fair wouldn't it?

 

How many times do we vote again? I am guessing that the hallmark of a functioning democracy would quickly disappear if the vote went the right way (and would never have surfaced if the vote had gone the right way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

No, unlike the EUref foreigners were not prohibited the vote. EU , rUK and ROW over a million voters.

What is your definition of Scottish? I along with hundreds of thousands maybe millions of Scots who live outside Scotland did not get a vote. Which is fair enough. But why should people living in Scotland not get a vote? Wouldn't it be a teeny bit racist to exclude them, especially given Scots supposed tolerance and welcoming approach to "foreigners" who choose to live in Scotland?

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The bit you highlighted in bold was about the recent EU referendum not the 1979 one. The representatives we elected to make decisions on our behalf voted 6 to 1 to hold the referendum.

 

Because they stood to win their seats by saying they'd hold a vote or were subsequently convinced of the merits of a vote (wrongly imo) and then enacted a law to do that. In effect they acted as representatives.

 

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Is there evidence that places which use referenda more are less well governed? Switzerland and California for example.?

 

No. But they have a longer history of popular democracy as the basis of their politics. We don't. For 90% of our time as a democracy we opted to be a purely representative democracy. I don't see why that needs to change. 

 

I also doubt a Swiss cabinet minister goes about in busses with false promises or calls for time on listening to experts like we had here. In many EU nations media laws are tighter meaning a greater plurality of ownership and views. Which in turn prevents monopolosation of the media narrative as we've seen with the hard right press and their papers.

 

There needs to be greater government openness, more different voices across the spectrum and a tough set of rules regarding referendums in order for them to work better here.

 

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Is it democratic that people who wanted to leave the EU had no option but to vote Ukip in a general election and thus 52% of the electorate were in effect disenfranchised?

 

Yes. That is democratic. You can vote for UKIP to deliver a hard Brexit if you want. But your point misses out on actual % voting figures from 2015. The electorate voted for:

 

Tories - 37%

Labour - 30%

LibDem - 8%

SNP - 5%

UKIP - 13%

Green - 4%

 

So 13% of voters pre-Brexit backed UKIP in 2015. UKIP got 0 seats because FPTP hurts smaller parties. But interestingly the rest all voted for pro-EU parties by a huge majority. In effect Brexit wasn't a vote winner at an election.

 

Once it became a one issue vote people approached it differently but that debate lost a lot of context and merged with an immigration issue which didn't really exist and it's been shown since that UK govts can limit EU migration and throw folk out - but before they never did so.

 

Your argument is more for fairer and more open voting than for Brexit imo.

 

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

By what route could Scotland (or Catalonia) ever gain independence other than by a referendum?

 

 

A government elected which had independence front and centre of its agenda could vote - if it holds a majority - to seek to begin talks with the UK with a view to independence. 

 

The mandate to do so comes from their manifesto commitment to do so.

 

If Labour win an election pledged to increase NHS funding they don't need a referendum to do that- it's a manifesto commitment. Same with this, if the SNO can get a majority of MSPs to vote to back independence then they've a democratic mandate to go ahead with it. Simple as that.

 

The mechanics of leaving is open to debate and negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Fair point (in bold) but you'll always have those that will vote for party before politics.

 

Some. But increasingly not all. I don't cast all my votes to Labour in a PR election  (list or STV). I'm open to others. But your point misses the wider issue: if people want independence first and foremost they'd back that SNP manifesto and vote for it at an election. If not then they won't.  That's democracy.

 

3 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Your beloved party has a massive pro-EU movement following the Corbyn surge even though the party is all over the place when it comes to a definitive position on Europe.  If Corbyn was to follow his own inclinations, it'd leave (reportedly) around 60%+ of the party members in limbo given that Corbyn is going nowhere during Brexit.  They would never back the tories, the lib dems are gone for a few generations as a force ... There is nowhere to go, they are blindly backing their leader in the hope and expectation.  But you say this is cool because he has a mandate as party leader?

 

No I don't think its cool. He does have a leadership mandate, but unlike your beloved SNP (to borrow a phrase) there is checks within Labour on party policy: i.e. the NEC and conference votes. If Corbyn split with the membership on Brexit there'd be a huge backlash and possibly a new party founded.

 

The thing keeping most members together is the softer and softer approach being eeked out. Today on Marr Corbyn didn't rule out EFTA for one. So there's options on Labour's table.

 

I think he should move to a softer stance and argue a pro-access to SM line much faster. 

 

But if Labour's leadership fails to listen to members then there'll be a backlash against it sooner or later. That I have no doubt about.

 

3 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Emotive and irrational thoughts don't lead to good decisions, I never said they did.  I said that they unfortunately accompany referenda , but framing a constitutional question in that form is necessary otherwise we'd be following a tory agenda for generations given that they're unlikely to fall out of power.

 

Don't grasp this. This Tory government is on the verge of imploding. May leads a divided cabinet and a party trying to hound her out of office. The London local elections in May are predicting a huge Tory wipeout. If that happens and May falls we may well see an election soon after.

 

Constitutions are too important to be framed by raw emotions on single issues. They need to be framed by informed and reasoned debate. More informed and reasoned debate would show up the inadequacies of government atm and likely result in the end of May and the Tories for a very long time 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
17 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Because they stood to win their seats by saying they'd hold a vote or were subsequently convinced of the merits of a vote (wrongly imo) and then enacted a law to do that. In effect they acted as representatives.

 

 

No. But they have a longer history of popular democracy as the basis of their politics. We don't. For 90% of our time as a democracy we opted to be a purely representative democracy. I don't see why that needs to change. 

 

I also doubt a Swiss cabinet minister goes about in busses with false promises or calls for time on listening to experts like we had here. In many EU nations media laws are tighter meaning a greater plurality of ownership and views. Which in turn prevents monopolosation of the media narrative as we've seen with the hard right press and their papers.

 

There needs to be greater government openness, more different voices across the spectrum and a tough set of rules regarding referendums in order for them to work better here.

 

 

Yes. That is democratic. You can vote for UKIP to deliver a hard Brexit if you want. But your point misses out on actual % voting figures from 2015. The electorate voted for:

 

Tories - 37%

Labour - 30%

LibDem - 8%

SNP - 5%

UKIP - 13%

Green - 4%

 

So 13% of voters pre-Brexit backed UKIP in 2015. UKIP got 0 seats because FPTP hurts smaller parties. But interestingly the rest all voted for pro-EU parties by a huge majority. In effect Brexit wasn't a vote winner at an election.

 

Once it became a one issue vote people approached it differently but that debate lost a lot of context and merged with an immigration issue which didn't really exist and it's been shown since that UK govts can limit EU migration and throw folk out - but before they never did so.

 

Your argument is more for fairer and more open voting than for Brexit imo.

 

 

A government elected which had independence front and centre of its agenda could vote - if it holds a majority - to seek to begin talks with the UK with a view to independence. 

 

The mandate to do so comes from their manifesto commitment to do so.

 

If Labour win an election pledged to increase NHS funding they don't need a referendum to do that- it's a manifesto commitment. Same with this, if the SNO can get a majority of MSPs to vote to back independence then they've a democratic mandate to go ahead with it. Simple as that.

 

The mechanics of leaving is open to debate and negotiation.

In a general election you can't vote on a single issue. If you want to leave the UK your only option was to vote for UKIP. But despite the liberal consensus most Leave voters are not racist arseholes so a vote for UKIP was not really an option.

 

And in what way does the "immigration issue" not really exist? The denial that it was an issue contributed to the success of the Leave vote.

 

Hasn't a party which has independence front and centre of its agenda had a majority in Scotland, both at Holyrood and Westminster? Why have Alex and Nicola not begun talks with "the UK" with a view to independence?

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

In a general election you can't vote on a single issue. If you want to leave the UK your only option was to vote for UKIP. But despite the liberal consensus most Leave voters are not racist arseholes so a vote for UKIP was not really an option.

 

You can vote single issue if you want. If saving the whales is your main consideration vote for the save the whales party. If it's the NHS find a party that most closely aligns to your views on the NHS and vote for that.

 

If it's the UK's EU membership vote for a euroskeptic candidate or party. If that's UKIP then go for it. It's an issue they hold uppermost. 

 

Part of the problem - you rightly allude to - is that we have 4 major parties. Within those are a lot of different views. Look at Holland or Germany. They have a PR system and have a hard left, a centre left, greens, a liberal tory party and Thatcherite tory party and a UKIP style party. We need more not less choice and I agree on that.

 

But I don't think that point necessarily follows to needing referendums.

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

And in what way does the "immigration issue" not really exist? The denial that it was an issue contributed to the success of the Leave vote.

 

Not an issue in that there are powers open to the UK now to take a different approach to it in the EU. It just never used them due to the cost in doing so.

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Hasn't a party which has independence front and centre of its agenda had a majority in Scotland, both at Holyrood and Westminster? Why have Alex and Nicola not begun talks with "the UK" with a view to independence?

 

Because their msnifestos commit them to a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

You can vote single issue if you want. If saving the whales is your main consideration vote for the save the whales party. If it's the NHS find a party that most closely aligns to your views on the NHS and vote for that.

 

If it's the UK's EU membership vote for a euroskeptic candidate or party. If that's UKIP then go for it. It's an issue they hold uppermost. 

 

Part of the problem - you rightly allude to - is that we have 4 major parties. Within those are a lot of different views. Look at Holland or Germany. They have a PR system and have a hard left, a centre left, greens, a liberal tory party and Thatcherite tory party and a UKIP style party. We need more not less choice and I agree on that.

 

But I don't think that point necessarily follows to needing referendums.

 

 

Not an issue in that there are powers open to the UK now to take a different approach to it in the EU. It just never used them due to the cost in doing so.

 

 

Because their msnifestos commit them to a referendum.

The figures you quoted earlier demonstrate the silliness of the proposition that people should just choose the single issue they care most about and vote accordingly. 52% for leave and 13% for UKIP. Why? Because even if I was strongly for Leave I would never vote for a bunch of extreme right fruit loops. In any event why do you assume that for Leave voters EU membership was or should have been their main consideration in UK parliamentary elections?

 

In fact over the past two decades and more people have by a large majority voted for parties whose manifesto included a commitment to control and reduce net levels of immigration and then seen those levels rise inexorably.

 

Your idea of having a much more fragmented and varied range of parties also doesn't work. Those who sneer at May's weak position seem to gloss over the fact that three months after an election Germany still doesn't have a government. And that the government and its policies if and when one emerges will not reflect what anyone voted for but whatever the politicians can stitch together. How many Lib Dem voters wanted a coalition with the Tories? Not many, as is reflected in the Lib Dems subsequent electoral fortunes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The figures you quoted earlier demonstrate the silliness of the proposition that people should just choose the single issue they care most about and vote accordingly. 52% for leave and 13% for UKIP. Why? Because even if I was strongly for Leave I would never vote for a bunch of extreme right fruit loops. In any event why do you assume that for Leave voters EU membership was or should have been their main consideration in UK parliamentary elections?

 

In fact over the past two decades and more people have by a large majority voted for parties whose manifesto included a commitment to control and reduce net levels of immigration and then seen those levels rise inexorably.

 

Your idea of having a much more fragmented and varied range of parties also doesn't work. Those who sneer at May's weak position seem to gloss over the fact that three months after an election Germany still doesn't have a government. And that the government and its policies if and when one emerges will not reflect what anyone voted for but whatever the politicians can stitch together. How many Lib Dem voters wanted a coalition with the Tories? Not many, as is reflected in the Lib Dems subsequent electoral fortunes. 

 

That's just the nature of politics with the Lib-Dems. They got screwed by the Tories on voting and Lords reform. If they'd had won those two fights I think they'd have held their own.

 

The Germans still have a government and the nation hasn't politically imploded - unlike May's zombie administration and the chaos on what the government wants from Brexit.

 

France has a multi-party government. So does Holand. Denamrk. Finland. Norway. Iceland. New Zealand. Wales. We've had a few coalitions in Scotland. More choice is great for voters. It's also good for politics as more compromise needs to happen so extremes are mitigated and major reforms have a broad backing from many parties rather than one. Germany and Holland have had much more economic stability and built a more equal nation over time than we have.

 

PR after Brexit would be good - give the people what they want: greater choice at an election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

That's just the nature of politics with the Lib-Dems. They got screwed by the Tories on voting and Lords reform. If they'd had won those two fights I think they'd have held their own.

 

The Germans still have a government and the nation hasn't politically imploded - unlike May's zombie administration and the chaos on what the government wants from Brexit.

 

France has a multi-party government. So does Holand. Denamrk. Finland. Norway. Iceland. New Zealand. Wales. We've had a few coalitions in Scotland. More choice is great for voters. It's also good for politics as more compromise needs to happen so extremes are mitigated and major reforms have a broad backing from many parties rather than one. Germany and Holland have had much more economic stability and built a more equal nation over time than we have.

 

PR after Brexit would be good - give the people what they want: greater choice at an election. 

The UK has" politically imploded" and our Government is a "zombie administration". It is difficult to argue with such clichéd nonsense. I have always voted for a more equal society but to suggest that equality is a test of how democratic a country is seems to me a bit problematical. The communist states of Eastern Europe were (apart from a tiny elite) more equal than the west. It didn't make them more democratic. Nor did it make their citizens better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

The UK has" politically imploded" and our Government is a "zombie administration". It is difficult to argue with such clichéd nonsense. I have always voted for a more equal society but to suggest that equality is a test of how democratic a country is seems to me a bit problematical. The communist states of Eastern Europe were (apart from a tiny elite) more equal than the west. It didn't make them more democratic. Nor did it make their citizens better off.

 

Well... what's May doing other than put out fires from her squabbling ministers? Where's the major initiatives or the bold vision? Why are Bojo and Hammond knocking lumps out each other?

 

The government is weak and divided. The opposition is also divided behind a thin screen of unity. To argue otherwise is odd to me - even the Mail and Telegraph think this is a bit of a lame duck government.

 

I just don't see an offering from it on much at all. It's zombie like. Lurching from crisis to crisis. 

 

Germany is adhering to it's written constitution on forming a government. If no coalition can be formed then a minority government will be attempted failing which a new election. There's a process being enacted. What we had was May chucking cash at the DUP and appeasing one wing of her party as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What is your definition of Scottish? I along with hundreds of thousands maybe millions of Scots who live outside Scotland did not get a vote. Which is fair enough. But why should people living in Scotland not get a vote? Wouldn't it be a teeny bit racist to exclude them, especially given Scots supposed tolerance and welcoming approach to "foreigners" who choose to live in Scotland?

Just pointing this out. (If EU citizens could've voted at the EUref remain would have won by over 1m votes) But It didn't seem to be a problem with the EUref, did it? But if it's brought up with Indy, it's racist. A bit hypocritical.

 

Anyway Brexit will happen as voted for. The only thing causing problems is the UK government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

So one form of nationalism versus another then?

 

 

I'm now so glad Brexit is happening. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
8 hours ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Not quite.  I googled what you recommended, the list appeared and I took the first 5, searched for their name in google and added Brexit.  The quotes mentioned were taken from the first article(s) available on the page.

 

You stated that reputable economists were talking positively about the Brexit process, I followed your instructions in an attempt to find one even using the search term "Economists for Brexit" and all it returned were those against.  You made a spurious claim, your bluff was called.

No bluff. The list at the top of the page is just of economists associated in some way with Brexit (including for example the pro-EU Governor of the Bank of England). Nevertheless two of the five you quoted were positive about Brexit  but of course they didn't count for you because one was a long term Eurosceptic and one had written for newspapers you don't approve of. Without much effort you would find on the rest of the Google results page references to groups of economists who are pro-Brexit and think it will be a success (together with many refutations of their position by other economists and commentators). To say that no reputable or qualified economist supports Brexit or thinks it will be positive is clearly not true. To say as you did that "every single person with professional credentials thinks Brexit  will be a disaster" is so far off the wall as to be laughable. If you said the majority, even the vast majority are opposed to Brexit I would not argue. Time will tell whether the majority are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Robert Peston

6 hrs · Facebook Creator · 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Angela Merkel naughtily poked fun at Theresa May, in a secret briefing for journalists. 

Here's what transpired, according to those there. 

Merkel said that when she asks Mrs May what she wants the shape of the UK's relationship with the EU to be, Mrs May says "make me an offer". 

To which Mrs Merkel says, "but you're leaving - we don't have to make you an offer. Come on what do you want?

To which Mrs May replies "make me an offer".

And so, according to Mrs Merkel, the two find themselves trapped in a recurring loop of "what do you want?" and "make me an offer". 

At its telling, the hacks laughed uproariously - though I am not sure this is so funny for the UK. 

Merkel and May’s comedy skit reflects a deep and uncomfortable truth for the government and country - which is that Theresa May and her cabinet haven’t yet decided what our future trading relationship with the EU should look like, because (to state the bloomin’ obvious) ministers are at loggerheads over this. 

But good news! The negotiations that matter start in earnest this week: not between the UK and Brussels, or even the UK and Germany, but between the erstwhile Remainers Hammond, Rudd and Clark on the one hand and the arch Brexiteers Gove and Johnson on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
2 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

Robert Peston

6 hrs · Facebook Creator · 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Angela Merkel naughtily poked fun at Theresa May, in a secret briefing for journalists. 

Here's what transpired, according to those there. 

Merkel said that when she asks Mrs May what she wants the shape of the UK's relationship with the EU to be, Mrs May says "make me an offer". 

To which Mrs Merkel says, "but you're leaving - we don't have to make you an offer. Come on what do you want?

To which Mrs May replies "make me an offer".

And so, according to Mrs Merkel, the two find themselves trapped in a recurring loop of "what do you want?" and "make me an offer". 

At its telling, the hacks laughed uproariously - though I am not sure this is so funny for the UK. 

Merkel and May’s comedy skit reflects a deep and uncomfortable truth for the government and country - which is that Theresa May and her cabinet haven’t yet decided what our future trading relationship with the EU should look like, because (to state the bloomin’ obvious) ministers are at loggerheads over this. 

But good news! The negotiations that matter start in earnest this week: not between the UK and Brussels, or even the UK and Germany, but between the erstwhile Remainers Hammond, Rudd and Clark on the one hand and the arch Brexiteers Gove and Johnson on the other.

****ing tory *****. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

This will cheer you up :lol:

 

 

May's oot on her ear next week. Boris has seized control. :rofl:

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
36 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

This will cheer you up :lol:

 

 

Actually, here's a thought. Why don't the remainers pay the same as they do now & let the brexiteers make up the difference? They'll be in clover, anyway.

 

Everybody is happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Sausage

As has been mentioned above, my issue isn’t so much with the absolute bag of shit that May has been left with (albeit I doubt she could’ve messed it up more if she had tried). 

 

My issue is more around the utter contempt with which both sides, but Leave in particular, treated the voting public. The proven fallacy of the finances that Leave provided for the vote have left us right up shit creek. 

 

Where people have knowingly campaigned  on false figures, they should be held to account. As it is, leading figures have actually climbed further into the power nest as a result. It’s absolutely disgusting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Has it anything to do with Brexit?

No.

But that doesn't stop the likes of the guardian.

And it won't stop space.

 

 

Brexit-3-650.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
23 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Has it anything to do with Brexit?

 

22 hours ago, jake said:

No.

But that doesn't stop the likes of the guardian.

And it won't stop space.

 

 

Brexit-3-650.jpg

 

Wasn’t it mentioned that the new Rool Britannia/Land of Hope n Glory passports were going to be made in.... Germany? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

Wasn’t it mentioned that the new Rool Britannia/Land of Hope n Glory passports were going to be made in.... Germany? 

Couldn't care.

I don't flag wave.

That's you that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

Wasn’t it mentioned that the new Rool Britannia/Land of Hope n Glory passports were going to be made in.... Germany? 

 

Germany & France were both mentioned as being a possibility and only a possibility as far as I know, but why would the printing be switched from the UK in the first place as they are printed here as it is.

De La Rue currently holds the contract and I haven't heard of any reasons why they will not bid for and probably stand a very good chance of retaining the contract, especially considering that De La Rue also supply passports to 40 other countries, so have a well proven track record.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
37 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

Wasn’t it mentioned that the new Rool Britannia/Land of Hope n Glory passports were going to be made in.... Germany? 

It was mentioned as a possibility by some Brexiteers and of course gleefully by many Remainers. If we are still in the EU when we make the switch then we will  have to offer the contract to Germany and other EU members as part of the EU policy for public tendering. I don't think the UK has ever promoted tariff barriers between the UK and the EU - unlike the EU it has simply not made the absence of tariff barriers conditional on the "free movement of people" and so on. In practice a non-EU UK would be free to outsource the manufacture of passports to Germany or elsewhere (in the EU or out of the EU) if it was cheaper than keeping it "in-house". Just as the UK currently outsources many things to non-EU countries for the same reason.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the new charging arrangements for passports which is a decision for the UK government driven it is claimed by moving more of the costs from general taxation to those who actually have passports and reducing the burden on those who don't. That may be good policy or not but it has nothing to do with Brexit or the EU.

Nor of course has a move to "Rool Britannia/Land of Hope and Glory" passports. I assume the EU style passports are "Ever Closer Union" passports.  

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/01/2018 at 20:30, jake said:

No.

But that doesn't stop the likes of the guardian.

And it won't stop space.

 

 

Brexit-3-650.jpg

Cognitive bias may lead to psychosis. Or it may be the reverse like your mate in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Cognitive bias may lead to psychosis. Or it may be the reverse like your mate in Canada.

Not got a clue what you are on about.

 

But I suspect a bit of pot and kettle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jake said:

Not got a clue what you are on about.

 

But I suspect a bit of pot and kettle

Brexit, 9/11, moon landings, and various other CTs. You take your biased opinion and use whatever shite  you find to back it up. It's an illness if it becomes severe. 

 

Yes I'm very biased when it comes to Indy. You voted yes, but are willing to vote no because of some bias against the EU, what you perceive as corrupt. It's a trade block just like the USA.

Tell me jake, are you against an Indy Scotland being part of the single market and customs union. It brings free trade and freedom of movement of people, finance, goods and labour. 

It means we can trade with everyone. Tell me you're not against it.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
43 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Brexit, 9/11, moon landings, and various other CTs. You take your biased opinion and use whatever shite  you find to back it up. It's an illness if it becomes severe. 

 

Yes I'm very biased when it comes to Indy. You voted yes, but are willing to vote no because of some bias against the EU, what you perceive as corrupt. It's a trade block just like the USA.

Tell me jake, are you against an Indy Scotland being part of the single market and customs union. It brings free trade and freedom of movement of people, finance, goods and labour. 

It means we can trade with everyone. Tell me you're not against it.

The EU is not "a trade block just like the USA". That is the aspiration of the Europhiles or Hard Remainers -  ever closer union and a United States of Europe (but on all evidence so far with nothing like the level of democratic accountability that the USA enjoys).

 

And as Space Mackerel's link in the post after yours makes clear being part of the single market and customs union does not bring free trade and the rest "with everyone". It is a closed shop which prohibits members for doing free trade deals with anyone outside the club.

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The EU is not "a trade block just like the USA". That is the aspiration of the Europhiles or Hard Remainers -  ever closer union and a United States of Europe (but on all evidence so far with nothing like the level of democratic accountability that the USA enjoys).

 

And as Space Mackerel's link in the post after yours makes clear being part of the single market and customs union does not bring free trade and the rest "with everyone". It is a closed shop which prohibits members for doing free trade deals with anyone outside the club.

 

Utter bollox. So Norway... the EU negotiates all trade deals for them? Really.

 

Does the EU have the same power over WM that WM casts over Scotland. But hey the UK trade block is just jolly spiffin. 

 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The EU is not "a trade block just like the USA". That is the aspiration of the Europhiles or Hard Remainers -  ever closer union and a United States of Europe (but on all evidence so far with nothing like the level of democratic accountability that the USA enjoys).

 

And as Space Mackerel's link in the post after yours makes clear being part of the single market and customs union does not bring free trade and the rest "with everyone". It is a closed shop which prohibits members for doing free trade deals with anyone outside the club.

 

Do u look forward to US chicken and their destruction of our food regulations. Especially Scotland's ban on GM products. But hey good auld uncle Sam's oor pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Why on earth would you leave a free trade deal with 600 million to pursue a trade deal with 350 million in the US?

 

The whole Brexit thing has been about English Nationals wanting to pull up the drawbridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Do u look forward to US chicken and their destruction of our food regulations. Especially Scotland's ban on GM products. But hey good auld uncle Sam's oor pal.

 

You think UK farmers will be competitive with those in the US?

 

Some people on here are away with it mate.

Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You think UK farmers will be competitive with those in the US? :rofl:

 

Some people on here are away with it mate.

The opposite space mack. We'll be force fed American products. Stuff that wouldn't pass a drugs test.

A race to the bottom, its the US way. Our farmers and fishermen will be fecked. But hey it's hard to have any sympathy.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

The opposite space mack. We'll be force fed American products. Stuff that wouldn't pass a drugs test.

 

I was been satirical. US farmers would wipe the floor with Scottish producers. 

 

But hey ho, as long as we have a wee blue passport at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You think UK farmers will be competitive with those in the US? :rofl:

 

Some people on here are away with it mate.

I fail to see what your statement has to do with what I said.

You're right about your second bit. Mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
Just now, ri Alban said:

I fail to see what your statement has to do with what I said.

You're right about your second bit. Mate!

 

Nothing to do with you at all, meant at FA and jake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

I was been satirical. US farmers would wipe the floor with Scottish producers. 

 

But hey ho, as long as we have a wee blue passport at the end of the day.

Exactly.

Apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...