# Post EU referendum thoughts / concerns / hopes



## cheechy

So to keep everyone contented here's the thread to discuss the aftermath of the vote to leave the EU.

Moans / groans / concerns / plans / hopes in here please. Anything and everything up for discussion.


----------



## cheechy

Will kick off:

- what do leave / remain want to see most post brexit.
- do you believe we'll get a good deal from europe
- concerns about economy
- how to heal a very divided nation
- the scotland / NI debate


----------



## Shug750S

My thoughts (no doubt some / many will disagree) but still my thoughts..

- what do leave / remain want to see most post brexit. 
1. the leave politicians actually having a plan. 
2. All that money they said would go into the NHS actually landing there
3. Not getting totally buttfecked by the rest of Europe in the next two years

- do you believe we'll get a good deal from Europe
No

concerns about economy
Looks pretty Fubar at the moment, although time will tell.

- how to heal a very divided nation. 
It was divided before, just different now, seems from BBC and Sky that it was the old and the lower income areas that got out and voted and made it for the leave camp.

- the scotland / NI debate
This is the big one. sturgeon & co believe that if they vote to leave the UK they will get into the EU. Don't they realise there is a queue and lots of conditions to pass to gain admission, some of which they don't hit at present. Currently they are leaving with the rest of us (London included that voted no and I am pretty sure has a larger economy, and a GDP about 50% higher) so would be out when the cut happens


----------



## NickG

Shug750S said:


> It was divided before, just different now, seems from BBC and Sky that it was the old and the lower income areas that got out and voted and made it for the leave camp.


Which is especially concerning as it's the young who have to live with this decision the longest. This says it all really...










That being said my Dad couldn't decide either way, so asked me what i'd like the most for my future, which i thought was an extremely kind gesture. 8)


----------



## 3TT3

Full analysis here on Brexit fallout, with some input from the Italians 






Ok so its a bit tongue in cheek, but we here in Ireland (The Irish ) are in debt for 42% of of the european banking crash in 2008 with like .1% of the economic activity of Europe as a whole.We were refused the ability to write off bonds (essentially mainland european banks Germany etc investing in our banks(which werent allowed to fail) to cover their asses.Hence we get to pay a large proportion of the european banking debts with our powerhouse economy :lol: 
Europes no1 whipping boy..be a good European and youll get some dosh to tide you over 
Of course some of it is our own fault. One thing I do remember and which isnt talked about much ,is that UK gave us a billion on a friendly v low interest loan , just like being a good neighbour kinda deal and the UK at the time wasnt in great shape either.

_When looked at per person , Ireland is the second worst in the world for national debt. According to figures for 2014, with debt of $60,356 (€53,863 )per person, Ireland is second only to Japan ($99,725) in a list of 58 countries.
This means that Irish people carry the second largest debt burden per capita in the world, second only to Japan, and ahead of countries such as the US ($58,604) in third place; the UK in 9th ($38,938) and in 12th place, Greece ($38,444)._


----------



## cheechy

A friend brought this story to my attention this evening.

Basically talks about the impact of the leave vote caused by what the article stated was "english nationalists". Hopefully the sentiment in here will calm / blow over but given the context of renewed low level noises of irish nationalism in Northern Ireland once more this may I guess provoke bad feeling and additional tensions.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rn-irish-peace-sacrificed-english-nationalism


----------



## 3TT3

The sinn fein/irish nationalists are P ing into the wind.. whatever about Scotland.
Its a bit complicated to get into and most here wont give a toss about Irish politics,but we in the south dont want the north anymore.
They have baggage and are used to eu and more especially UK support funds.
Southern Irish economy is the EU recovery miracle :lol: ..thats from an awfull low start base and is heavily dependent on a artificially low corporation tax base.
We are in effect the corporation tax haven of easy access to europe ,a burden of a drain like the North of Ireland would send us down the toilet again.

50 or even 70(WWII) years ago when the north was the engine of Ireland and Churchill dangled the prospect of "reunification" if we would allow use of ports which had been handed back to the Irish republic(or free state as it was then known) only a few years before, might have made sense.

Now.. not gonna happen. Yes if UK had remained in ,eventually the state of Ireland like a state in the USA might have assimilated together ,not much point in having 2 state parliaments for a 5 mill island population in a United States of Europe eh? 
Then again Europe had/has np in doubling up functions for civil service.

I saw some Scottish dude..snp I suppose moaning about the reason Scotland voted to stay in the UK was guaranteed membership of the EU.
I think it was actually "if you fo to form your own country you will have to try and get in to the EU on your own" :0
Some of the subleties get lost in translation.
What about the 38% of the scottish population who wanted to get out of the EU anyway.. f them along with the the british weirdos?.

Even here (Irish republic) theres whinging about the UK "betraying" the european dream.Whose dream?
Ive said before. Farage strikes me as a bit of a bleachers kid.Thats like someone who peers up hoping to catch a panty glimpse while the game is going on.Just my opinion , tho without him vote might not have been carried.

I would suggest. dont take any sheet from eurocrats,Ive seen some UK guy near crying and "I cant believe it" , but weel respect the will of the people.
Continue on the "you need us more than we need you " mindset rather than "mea culpa,what is my pennance father" attitude and itll be good..I hope.

We in southern Ireland have had the "spank the naughty schoolboy, until he gets it right" condescencion..thas 4-5 million..you guys are now 65 million,up half million in a year .. dont take any sheet.

EU expansion.. what is that? ..We, Ireland when we joined the EEC back in the 70's it was purely for cash gain, mainly guaranteed farmer prices .
What do newer members want? same thing.Being uber cynical.. the eec graduating to the EU is like a giant dole payout .
We(in Ireland have sucked it dry to the extent were now a contributor even with our massive pesonal debt per capita.

German reunification(if anyone can remember that far back) was EU/eec financed to a large extent....

hopes /aspirations n so on.

nm its late and Im rambling on.. as the post is so long most wont read half of it . 
Im proud of our neighbours,dont take any sheet, from hissy fit USE dreamers and go for the eec as it was originally..Norway and Switzerland pay to be allowed in the "trade club".. maybe the UK should be paid by the 'trade club of whingers" now?

best of british !


----------



## cheechy

Hearing Moodys have downgraded credit rating to negative for uk. This new more than cancels out what we pay into the union.

Uncertainty being touted as the backdrop to this.

Murmurings also from the mayor of Calais that the migrant camps will be dismantled and effectively France will let the uk manage its own border..so all those that want to get across and declare asylum will now be able to do so in theory.

I'm desperately scrambling around just now to find some plus points on the back of Brexit just now to try and come to terms with the vote but it just seems that so far all the scaremongering by remain was factual info


----------



## 3TT3

I dont think theres anything that has occured yet, that wasnt expected by both sides.
Down to cases, youve now got the "long goodbye" or the "short goodbye"

Most EU politicians seem to favour the "short goodbye" why ? cos they wanna get some payback and keep their own sheep in line by trying to come down hard and appear tough. Zat vill teach ze stupid British a lesson, watch them come crawling back on their knees ,mais oui ,bien sur.
Unfortunately for them the EU escape clause has a built in 2 year timeframe from activation.I wouldnt wait too long before activating it tho.

Our own(Irish) "contingency plan" sheesh, has been leaked .. whats it consist of?
1. Begging the EU negotiators to consider Irelands situation when working out UK's terms of exit. Wow 
2. Hoping that if things drag out long enough maybe they wont leave at all (actually stated).

ie our contingency brexit master plan is : The kick the can down the road, shut your eyes n hope itll go away and bury your head in the sand option.

Just to give you some idea of the type of folks youll be dealing with and the mindset.. some guy on channel 4 news, I think it was last night was interviewing. eu politicians and ex politicians in Brussels .
These were the only 2 I saw being interviewed.

Belgian big knob ex president of some EU thing: "get em out now, like tomorrow" I dont want to see their faces again,how dare they kind of thing.. and all lit up with anger almost spitting also complaining about Cameron riding off into the sunset.

Polish eu commisioner or some such, almost exact quote "There wont be any polish pilots coming to rescue Britain again"
Straight off the bat .wholly jeebus.. .
EU diplomacy my chapeau
Forgetting the fact that UK went to war with Germany cos they had a defense treaty with Poland,Poland would no longer exist as a country without the UK the polish pilots didnt bring their biplanes with them and had nowhere else to go. That to me exemplifies the reaction of the EU, not the people of the countries but the politicians .
These are the "good europeans" youll be dealing with , not saddened and concilliatory but outraged, mad and vengefull .
Liberal no, extremist yes .
Personally if given a choice here again, I wouldnt want to be part of their gang either.


----------



## 3TT3

Im a member of another marque motoring forum, also UK based..oh no say it isnt so 
Its a less exclusive forum.. marque.. not people 
The referendum threadings on it are like 75% hurrah at the result and 25% boo.
Shrug.

Going forward..assuming (dangerous) , that the UK referendum result isnt diluted by the minority.

We in Ireland will be fighting to maintain all trading relations with the Uk /in Europe as is.
Wth? why.
Self interest.
Uk is our largest trading partner and compliant tho we are  we wont want to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Many EU and further afield mainland european countries may not care too much and in fact many will want to be mean to UK if they can get away with it( but really cant afford to).
Your economy is too big and you have too many people to have "now you see what happens when you mess with the EU dons" payback.
This wont be admitted of course.

Perhaps if we "got an offer we cant refuse" such as . "We will funnel all financial services and trading to Dublin that we can, away from London if you agree to be nasty to the UK too and no financial services tax and weel forget about demanding you equalise your EU corporation tax for now" we might suck it up as usual.
Wouldnt surprise me to be honest, but since all 27 will have to agree to be mean to "naughty UK",just to save face , I dont see it happening.
Our financial well being,especially since were now a contributor, like UK has been for 40 years (not 20 billion per annum in and 12 billion back tho  ).
I dont see it happening even in our worst EU behind kissing moments.
Until instantaneous matter transmission becomes a reality , we in Ireland should for our well being and the Uk's(mainly ours) be the part of pro UK EU section.
Anything else(mho)would be self defeating.

It probably sounds strange and Ive no particular interest in an Ireland UK love in, but we could become bestest buddies (If our govt have some cahonies) to block any UK shafting which btw would shaft us too.


----------



## miTTzee

Hi de Hi 3TT3 - I concur with you - nice posts and articulate. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] 
You seem to be a knowledgeable [smiley=book2.gif] and have a better understanding
than a lot of people I have met and spoken to on the subject.

Ireland will always have a great deal of affection from the British,
just hope your weather is a bit better than ours at the moment.
Good Luck
miTTzee :wink:


----------



## 3TT3

Ho de ho ..and allo allo 
Thats more of course "what I hope will happen" for both our countries.
I dont think Enda (our pm) did either of us any good by saying at some meeting of EU ministers "Scotland shouldnt be dragged out of EU if it doesnt want to go".
The reasoning behind that I cant follow..
I mean it wont be helpfull 
Perhaps :
Hes trying to show Scotland that Ireland will be batting for all of the UK interests + our own in negotiations for brexit deal but I dont think anyone(the other 26) give a toss about Irelands "special relationship" with the UK.
The statement cant have helped Cameron any.. tho I suppose that doesnt matter much atm. It did apparently p off the Spanish and The French "All les rosbeefs out together , if some part wants to breakaway and join later fine "

I hope our guys (Irish) dont start overplaying our very small hand and start muddying the waters

We(Irish) want the best deal possible for UK in terms of European trade ,I mean market as is the stumbling point is freedom of movement /take economic migrants in EU countries and the fear of mass EU exit from "extremists" if UK gets off easy.
I find it a little ironic that the european member state politicians refer to a possible 50% + of their voting populations as extremists but hey thats another story.

Of course single market / no trading tariffs , whatever you want to call it vs economic migration within whats known as the EU is only one part of things but of the 27 countries who will be voting (or whatever ) on brexit terms. Ones who would or definitely should be on UK's side Malta.. more for historical reasons. Ireland (for personal gain)  of the others.. I suppose it will become clear Germany appears to have softened a lot France .. not yet but may well do for economics.Italy seems hardline and so on.
Sfunny ftse is back up where it was pre referendum already.
Im not singing 'allways look on the bright side of life" in a Life of Brian way but more accentuate the positives .


----------



## j8keith

3TT3 your excellent posts are always thought provoking and good read ---- thank you.
I just wonder, and it is only a thought, if all this stamping of feet by the EU Commissioners and EU MEPs is because someone dared to start removing the rails in front of their "gravy train".


----------



## Shug750S

Interesting that Boris lead the leave campaign and then doesn't want to stand for PM as bottled it and seems too worried about being blamed for pressing the button and invoking article 50.


----------



## 3TT3

I think(yes another Irish guy interfering in UK politics  that Boris had no choice.
heed expected backing from Gove.Goves "youre an idiot" statement and Im gonna run even tho I said I wouldnt kicked him in the nether regions.
Gove (I think) now has handed it to yer woman.. Teresa, who would vote for a backstabber?
Teresa with her statements and most especially no general election before 2020(when UK will be "out") should have it sewn up ,from an outsiders point of view.
Very smart mover (unless of course she reneges on her pre election promises..when has that ever happened in politics :lol: )
Mainly tho its Boris hairstyle or lack of.. looks too much like a younger Trump


----------



## 3TT3

j8keith said:


> 3TT3 your excellent posts are always thought provoking and good read ---- thank you.
> I just wonder, and it is only a thought, if all this stamping of feet by the EU Commissioners and EU MEPs is because someone dared to start removing the rails in front of their "gravy train".


goodness me that sounds , a tiny bit cynical  n thx for the post
It is funny that eu representatives elected by member states are supposed to disregard their "national interest " and work for the EU as a whole and yet when going for election(at home), this is never mentioned.

Nm  Im biased , a eurosceptic for the most part ie I voted no in our eu treaty referendums, even in the 'get your mind right" reruns ,so take my posts as such


----------



## Spandex

3TT3 said:


> goodness me that sounds , a tiny bit cynical  n thx for the post
> It is funny that eu representatives elected by member states are supposed to disregard their "national interest " and work for the EU as a whole and yet when going for election(at home), this is never mentioned.
> 
> Nm  Im biased , a eurosceptic for the most part ie I voted no in our eu treaty referendums, even in the 'get your mind right" reruns ,so take my posts as such


The only people 'elected back home' are the MEPs and they're supposed to act in their member states best interest, not those of the the EU as a whole. The roles which are supposed to work in the interest of the EU are chosen by the member states, not by public elections in those states.


----------



## 3TT3

Perhaps some do strive for national interest join the Gaulist grouping?,I suppose youd never have expected Nigel Farrage to be pro "government from Brussels" still he did stay there,as an MEP I mean. Ive seen the "expenses" gravy train in action "sign in on your time sheet' (queue of MEP's with their roller suitcases and airline luggage) in a rush to catch the flights home but making sure they got their EU attendance Dosh.
One "Kathy Sinnott" (Irish) who was caught red handed and didnt have the sense/nowse to shield her face/wave the cameras away like the others was dumped right quick the next "election".

Anyway thats most likely past for UK ..in a bit 
I was surprised at the vitriol hurled (by the nice people) at anyone who voted leave, even by the media. Effectively "senile old codgers" or "ignorant working class pond scum"

Hopes:I think with Theresa May(just my opinion the next Tory leader)the UK will get what would have carried the referendum in the first place .Same Trade /financial services as now ,no "uncontrolled immigration"no more officials"representatives" off in Europe full time and as long as the EU lasts in its present form,I expect UK will be providing a trade tax(formerly known as UK's budgetary contribution).
If the figures that have been provided are correct.. ie UK pays 20 bill a year and gets back 12 at present.Something in the 5-10 bill a year (trade tax) , depending on how tough Germany wants to be  .
Total sayonara purely in a ,Govt from the continent sense, around late 2019.

Concerns.For me would be Ireland sticking their finger in and lousing things up (against their own interest).
Weve been happy enough to shine EU booties up to now. Now(imo) would be a bad time to start trying to isolate and antagonise England for some kind of Celtic utopia.
It also would be bad to try and "poach" some financial services to Dublin away from London , just cos Europe doesnt want to listen to our special case considerations.
eg the proposed european financial services tax proposed awhile back . We dont want that either, but were happy enough to keep quiet about it and let UK shoot it down.

When UK equalises its relationship with the continent I wouldnt like "Saurons eye" :lol: to swivel back towards us and "Now what were you saying again ?"

Shame on you as an Irishman !.. Hey we all wanna be good europeans and have friendly relations with our neighbours +without the UK flyover landbridge  we need to do whats right (sorry lapse into politic speak there  )


----------



## uncle nick

Can someone please explain why the UK should have to pay to trade with Europe and accept 'sanctions' as part of the deal?

Surely we sell them stuff and they sell us stuff, in (very) roughly the same amount, the two should cancel out.

It seems like having to pay an entry fee to shop at Tesco? :?


----------



## bobclive22

It started as a trading block, that`s how it should have remained unless there were other forces at play at the begining.


----------



## uncle nick

Exactly! The Common Market. Nothing to do with an extra layer of expensive government making unnecessary laws for countries who don't want or need them!


----------



## les

A good article on the referendum result and why Brexit means Brexit by Nigel Evans MP.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... mp-it.html


----------



## John-H

Hi Les,

The only bit I thought worth quoting from that was where it says, "(From *Les* Miserables.)" Now I thought you were happy :lol:

Seriously though, half the country are not happy and the number will likely increase:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36962059

And nothing has actually happened yet!

As for "Brexit means Brexit" do you know what it means yet? What's the plan?


----------



## bobclive22

Cost pressures reached a three
month high in July,  and the second
strongest in over two years. 
This was linked to salaries, fuel, food prices and 
the impact of the weaker sterling exchange rate. 
That said, inflation remained weaker than the long
-run survey average. Although costs rose more 
sharply, prices charged by service providers 
increased at the slowest rate in five months.
UK service providers e
xpect business activity to 
rise over the next 12 months. That said, the 
strength of sentiment  deteriorated to an 
unprecedented degree over the survey history, 
and was the weakest since February 2009. Where 
activity was expected to fall, this was linked to 
'Brexit' uncertainty.

Fuel has come down at Sainsbury`s today, inflation is at 0.5% and the price of my Shredded wheat is still £2.18p a box at Tesco, house building has slowed as predicted after the tax hike on buy to let purchases and all the doom and gloom has made people cautious of spending, other than that every things the same.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Hi Les,
> 
> The only bit I thought worth quoting from that was where it says, "(From *Les* Miserables.)" Now I thought you were happy :lol:
> 
> Seriously though, half the country are not happy and the number will likely increase:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36962059
> 
> And nothing has actually happened yet!
> 
> As for "Brexit means Brexit" do you know what it means yet? What's the plan?


Yep the plan is to get the hell out of it and of course half the country is not happy what did we expect. Am not happy and won't be till we are out of the corrupt EU. Some people will never be happy like yourself.. ..maybe. However "the plan" as you put it is being worked on as we speak as you know. Don't fret John the plan as with all things committees and departments in the government are working on will be revealed when ready. Just be patient we had over 40 years to get into the situation we did with the EU a few years waiting to get out wont harm. Good things come to those who wait


----------



## les




----------



## John-H

:lol: do you know, that's the first time you've admitted on here that there isn't a plan! Good that you have faith in committees to come up with one though Les! That's also quite funny :wink:

Hilarious to commit ourselves to something without knowing what it is :?


----------



## les

John-H said:


> :lol: do you know, that's the first time you've admitted on here that there isn't a plan! Good that you have faith in committees to come up with one though les! That's also quite funny :wink:


I like your warped sense of humor John but don't give up your day job :wink: 
I am admitting nothing till I have seen my lawyer.  
The problem is Cameron and his government had no plan B for Brexit as we all know. The buffoon was so up his own arse and convinced he could con the electorate to stay he completely fecked up and assumed there was no need for a plan B. Now you know you can't force a government to come up with a plan B when they don't want a plan B...until that is. It's due to an inept conceited government that they made a right cock up of everything :lol: However they are now being forced to come up with a plan B. :roll: if they hadn't have been so cock sure of themselves then things could/would happen far quicker
.Now relax John you can rest assured the same people who backed stay are going to sort it all for us apart from poor old Boris of course :lol: 
Now what's really funny is the polls were wrong and those who backed them :lol:


----------



## John-H

Nothing has happened yet and when they have worked out the choice of reality and with the passage of time and poor outlook perhaps nothing will, to popular relief.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Nothing has happened yet and when they have worked out the choice of reality and with the passage of time and poor outlook perhaps nothing will, to popular relief.


How can anything happen when article 50 has not been implimented
? The government is doing all it can behind the scenes before pulling the trigger and even then there is another 2 years to go before we are out. Don't be so impatient and trust in your government you know those who failed with the referendum you know you can trust them to bring home the bacon :roll:


----------



## Spandex

I think a lot of Leave supporters are thinking of this like a football match - their team won, now let's go celebrate. That's not what happened though. The government asked the public what they wanted and 52% said they wanted to leave while 48% said they want to stay. So unfortunately for the Leavers, the government can't just ignore 48% of voters (especially when a lot of the people who voted this government in are probably in that 48%). So the end result of all this is never going to be exactly what the Leavers wanted. In fact, we could end up leaving the EU but staying in the common market with the associated costs, regulations, EU laws and open borders. Wouldn't that be hilarious? I mean, techically that's what you voted for, right?


----------



## jamman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36976528

More great news no doubt doddery bob will have some backward blinkered "that's great news" take on it....


----------



## John-H

les said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing has happened yet and when they have worked out the choice of reality and with the passage of time and poor outlook perhaps nothing will, to popular relief.
> 
> 
> 
> How can anything happen when article 50 has not been implimented
> ? The government is doing all it can behind the scenes before pulling the trigger and even then there is another 2 years to go before we are out. Don't be so impatient and trust in your government you know those who failed with the referendum you know you can trust them to bring home the bacon :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm a vegetarian Les! :lol:

Actually, have a listen to this it's very funny - Teresa May from about 3:02 mins and Boris Johnson at 15:30:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ks4m2

In fact it's all good.


----------



## cheechy

Looks like the degree of uncertainty we're in now is building.

Interest rates cut as a panic measure to try and reduce the slowdown impact but in reality interest rates were already very low so don't really see what difference its going to make - but then what else can they do.

I had come to terms with the output of the referendum to a degree (well no choice right) but when you see the state of the economy already it doesn't half get me depressed. Why did we do this to ourselves??

We are literally decades from signing all the required trade deals needed to replace the EU agreements in place just now and in the interim do we put down our hats and start busking?


----------



## jamman

cheechy said:


> Looks like the degree of uncertainty we're in now is building.
> 
> Interest rates cut as a panic measure to try and reduce the slowdown impact but in reality interest rates were already very low so don't really see what difference its going to make - but then what else can they do.
> 
> I had come to terms with the output of the referendum to a degree (well no choice right) but when you see the state of the economy already it doesn't half get me depressed. Why did we do this to ourselves??
> 
> We are literally decades from signing all the required trade deals needed to replace the EU agreements in place just now and in the interim do we put down our hats and start busking?


My thoughts exactly


----------



## les

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016 ... ject-fear/


----------



## John-H

Has the blame game started already? :lol:


----------



## Shug750S

Interesting the article states: Britain suffers from long-term challenges linked to the state of the international market, challenges that would be there with or without the EU referendum.

So maybe it was a total coincidence the £ has collapsed against the $, the € and most other currencies ever since the referendum?

Unlikely, but I'm sure some of the out supporters will be along to confirm soon.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Has the blame game started already? :lol:


Started before the referendum John :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

Exactly Les, after all the months of talking the UK down before Brexit Carney had to do something to save face, he will now have a get out of jail card and be able to say he saved the the UK economy after Brexit by his actions.


----------



## les

All those with their £150k plus mortgages must be crying at the low interest rates the the quicker its up to 5 or 65 plus the better hey :roll:


----------



## jamman

You just don't see what's coming, blinkered or just plain "bob"


----------



## John-H

Bob and Les ...


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Bob and Les ...


Now you have taken it to a whole new lower level John so not to be outdone, tell me how do you and your cronies manage do this so often and within the one (maybe 2) threads.


----------



## John-H

That's a bit rude Les. From the last thread on the EU, your final post at page 42 out of 92 was...



les said:


> We have been in the EU 43 years and to get to the point the UK electorate has had enough of it. It won't be that long before the country is up and running and being more prosperous than many other EU countries as we are the 5th largest economy in the world. I hear the people of France are now calling fo a referendum. I wonder if what's left of democracy will allow a referendum.
> Guys time to stop bitching the country has spoken. Get behind the country or fall on your sword the grass is greener in the other countries in the EU for you...maybe.
> There is no more to be said the decision has been made. Let's build a better UK and go forward together and stop this end is nigh stuff.
> 
> As far as i am concerned this thread is now dead and run it's course, the question has been answered. If people want to start a thread about the aftermath then so be it you are free to do so.


Well we did and the aftermath isn't looking so good. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> That's a bit rude Les. From the last thread on the EU, your final post at page 42 out of 92 was...
> 
> 
> 
> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been in the EU 43 years and to get to the point the UK electorate has had enough of it. It won't be that long before the country is up and running and being more prosperous than many other EU countries as we are the 5th largest economy in the world. I hear the people of France are now calling fo a referendum. I wonder if what's left of democracy will allow a referendum.
> Guys time to stop bitching the country has spoken. Get behind the country or fall on your sword the grass is greener in the other countries in the EU for you...maybe.
> There is no more to be said the decision has been made. Let's build a better UK and go forward together and stop this end is nigh stuff.
> 
> As far as i am concerned this thread is now dead and run it's course, the question has been answered. If people want to start a thread about the aftermath then so be it you are free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we did and the aftermath isn't looking so good. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

There will be no real "aftermath" until we leave. While we wait to leave of course the money people will be edgy. Nothings going to get better until the trigger is pulled we all know that and it was all predicted. The end of the world is not happening and I have always said it would get worse before it got better. Rome wasn't built in a day. The government know that shame those who voted to remain can't seem to understand it. Those of us who voted to leave certainly did. We have at least 2 years before we leave then it might even get worse (for some ) before it gets better. All been said many times but you just want to ignore it and keep predicting the UK is going to sink into oblivion. Now take a deep breath and get somebody to hold your hand and wait and see. I am prepared to wait 4 or 5 years maybe more but not 40 plus as we have had to endure. All this doom and gloom and the governments done next to nothing so far.


----------



## les

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... Article-50


----------



## bobclive22

Britain must focus on developing economic ties with the rest of the world to sign as soon as the country is freed from Brussels' shackles, the EU law expert said.

He insisted these must be of greater concern and importance than implementing a deal with the 27 remaining EU member states, even if that means walking away with no deal.

The underlined says it all.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... yment-rate

According to the above there doesn`t appear to be many job losses attributed to Brexit, it appears most are just getting on with life as they did after the 2008 financial crash.


----------



## John-H

les said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit rude Les. From the last thread on the EU, your final post at page 42 out of 92 was...
> 
> 
> 
> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been in the EU 43 years and to get to the point the UK electorate has had enough of it. It won't be that long before the country is up and running and being more prosperous than many other EU countries as we are the 5th largest economy in the world. I hear the people of France are now calling fo a referendum. I wonder if what's left of democracy will allow a referendum.
> Guys time to stop bitching the country has spoken. Get behind the country or fall on your sword the grass is greener in the other countries in the EU for you...maybe.
> There is no more to be said the decision has been made. Let's build a better UK and go forward together and stop this end is nigh stuff.
> 
> As far as i am concerned this thread is now dead and run it's course, the question has been answered. If people want to start a thread about the aftermath then so be it you are free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we did and the aftermath isn't looking so good. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no real "aftermath" until we leave. While we wait to leave of course the money people will be edgy. Nothings going to get better until the trigger is pulled we all know that and it was all predicted. The end of the world is not happening and I have always said it would get worse before it got better. Rome wasn't built in a day. The government know that shame those who voted to remain can't seem to understand it. Those of us who voted to leave certainly did. We have at least 2 years before we leave then it might even get worse (for some ) before it gets better. All been said many times but you just want to ignore it and keep predicting the UK is going to sink into oblivion. Now take a deep breath and get somebody to hold your hand and wait and see. I am prepared to wait 4 or 5 years maybe more but not 40 plus as we have had to endure. All this doom and gloom and the governments done next to nothing so far.
Click to expand...

You are twisting and turning like a twisty turney thing Les :roll:

First it's - everybody shut up we won job done, stop moaning, it's over, I'm not playing anymore, start another thread about the aftermath. So we did and pointed out that despite nothing having happened yet investment was down and desperate measures were being taken to sure up the economy so imagine what it will be like if we eventually do leave when there's no plan yet still - then it's Les saying - this isn't really the aftermath as that won't be until two years after triggering article 50, what's happening now doesn't count, I always said it would get worse and I might wait four five years to see it change.

So now you are saying this was part of the plan Les, to make things worse for four or five years?

That sounds a great plan.

I saw a woman on the telly the other night who seriously thought that "now we were out of the EU" the main thing we would likely start to see as a consequence was bent cucumbers because the EU made them all straight.

Do you want to let her know?


----------



## les

What is it you don't understand that the down turn in the economy was expected and as I have said before. However as pointed out far from entirely due to the result of the referendum again as shown to be the case. So just what have you seen reduce your living standards due to the referendum then? Has your mortgage increased your stocks and shares hit the deck, just your investments slowed or are you upset the big banks and money men are having a hard time of it.... Maybe it's because your mate Cameron failed to reward you with his honours list along with his coneys. Whatever it is DON'T PANIC MR Mainwaring don't panic. The end of the world is not neigh. Tighten your belt, shoulders back stiff upper lip show your Britishness :lol:










Maybe I should start a thread called something like Doom and gloom post Brexit and all you moaners can get on complaining to one another just how poor you have all become post EU even if you have hardly seen any changes what so ever apart from an interest rate cut in your mortgage. It's all getting rather boring in truth with the same old same old esp given it will be a few years yet before anybody really knows exactly what the outcome WILL be of Brexit, the truth of the pudding and all that. There is nothing you can do about it apart from maybe do a runner to France or other EU country, there will be NO second referendum after all.


----------



## John-H

Ooh it's fine again I can't see any problem ...


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Ooh it's fine again I can't see any problem ...


I knew you would come round and see sense sooner or later. There is no real problem until there is a problem.  
I still don't understand how that nice man Cameron didn't award you something in his honours list.  I guess he had too many others to reward who backed his loosing horse. Sham on him I feel like writing to him and telling him how much you deserve a knighthood at least. Shheeeshh the nerve of the man :evil: Now this is REALLY getting boring :roll:


----------



## John-H

Errr . . Jeremy Corbin supported remain as did half the country. You numpty :roll:

Well I suppose we'll have to wait five years then Les. We'll just ignore all the bad things that happen along the way.

Reminds me of a song...





I think I saw you in an ice cream parlor ...


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Errr . . Jeremy Corbin supported remain as did half the country. You numpty :roll:


In fact if you research it he doesn't support the EU at all he went along with it John, that's not quite the same at all :lol: He deserted his own supporters you and ended up in a right mess you pillock :lol: (bit if tick for tat there seeing you started it)



John-H said:


> Well I suppose we'll have to wait five years then Les. We'll just ignore all the bad things that happen along the way.{/quote]
> and the good things hey :wink: It will be what it will be 2 years or 5 years just a short term given the 43 years of the EU and it's dictatorship ways.


Reminds me of a song just for you.


----------



## les

You see where Cameron went wrong is he should have imposed limits on who qualify to vote which if he could have got away with he surely would, things like, your not legible to vote unless you are earning at least £40k a year, you are not on PAYE tax, you have investments and shares in some dodgy offshore group or other, you can't vote if you are on some sort of benefits, you can only vote of you have an ology. You know that kind of thing and am sure you can think of many others. Now if only hey as there would have been a landslide victory for the remain side. :rollamn those poor working class whoever decided they should have any kind of vote at all, they don't know what's good for them. :evil:


----------



## John-H

Jeremy Corbin voted remain according to what he was advocating in his campaign. He's an honorable man and I believe his doubts about the EU only amounted to 3/10 so he supported remain on a 7/10 reasoning. You are incorrect again Les :roll:

Now, "numpty" I believe to be a mildly irreverent rebuke reserved for friends and said with a wink and a chuckle. You numpty!

It's a shame the poor always end up worse off and as you seem to be saying somewhat ironic.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Jeremy Corbin voted remain according to what he was advocating in his campaign. He's an honorable man and I believe his doubts about the EU only amounted to 3/10 so he supported remain on a 7/10 reasoning. You are incorrect again Les :roll:
> 
> Now, "numpty" I believe to be a mildly irreverent rebuke reserved for friends and said with a wink and a chuckle. You numpty!
> 
> It's a shame the poor always end up worse off and as you seem to be saying somewhat ironic.


In reality Corbin is anti EU membership he never got behind the remain campaign with any conviction at all as we all know, He was trying to please all the people all of the time. Had he known the vote would be out then he would have been behind the remain side of course, There had clearly no heart in the remain unlike the remain politicians, it was so obvious even you SHOULD see that John. The man was stuck between a rock and a hard place even you must see that John. Corbin put is trust in the polls like so many blew it,,,,mostly even many of his on MPs want him out now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/p ... 93f7f640ae


----------



## Spandex

les said:


> In reality Corbin is anti EU membership he never got behind the remain campaign with any conviction at all as we all know, He was trying to please all the people all of the time. Had he known the vote would be out then he would have been behind the remain side of course, There had clearly no heart in the remain unlike the remain politicians, it was so obvious even you SHOULD see that John. The man was stuck between a rock and a hard place even you must see that John. Corbin put is trust in the polls like so many blew it,,,,mostly even many of his on MPs want him out now.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/p ... 93f7f640ae


In reality Corbyn was campaigning pretty relentlessly for Remain, but the mainstream press didn't cover any of it. Admittedly, Corbyn is pretty rubbish at engaging with the press (not a bad trait really, although one that will always work against him given how our political system works these days) but a large part of the Labour party were already trying to smear him (which is why it's easy to find articles based on interviews with Labour Party members which slate Corbyn) and were manipulating the press to give the impression Corbyn was doing very little.

In fact, his only real fault was that he was honest. Instead of pretending that the EU was perfect, he openly admitted that there was no perfect answer, but on balance remaining in the EU was better for the UK than leaving. Personally I appreciate that kind of genuine approach, but a lot of people prefer a black and white view of everything - which is how most people in *both campaigns* painted it.

Let's face it, Corbyn managed to get an almost identical Labour remain vote to the SNP. If that's him 'not trying' then fair play...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Britain must focus on developing economic ties with the rest of the world to sign as soon as the country is freed from Brussels' shackles, the EU law expert said.
> 
> He insisted these must be of greater concern and importance than implementing a deal with the 27 remaining EU member states, even if that means walking away with no deal.
> 
> The underlined says it all.
> 
> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... yment-rate
> 
> According to the above there doesn`t appear to be many job losses attributed to Brexit, it appears most are just getting on with life as they did after the 2008 financial crash.


You do realise that link only references data up to May 2016?


----------



## les

Quote "We should celebrate our departure from an institution defecating on internationalism through economic vandalism which has resulted in Greek youth unemployment soaring to 51.8 per cent this January. Democratisation are evident when scrutinising the Common Agricultural Policy's (CAP) effects on African economies. Brian Denny, spokesman for Trade Unionists against the EU, exposed how CAP suffocates African farmers' business prospects. Denny writes:

The criminal £30bn-a-year subsidy regime allows the EU to dump thousands of tons of heavily subsidised food into Africa every year. As a result, local producers can't export their products because they can't compete with the lower prices made possible by CACAP also hits British consumers at home: "Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal have been hit by cheap, subsidised imports from Europe while the £30 paid to British farmers for every ton of wheat they produce inflates the price of breakfast cereals, bread and other goods in Britain." Like the crushing of Syriza's mandate, this isn't a "mistake": if a friend asks for a Flake and I buy a Snickers, that's a mistake; causing Mozambique to lose more than a £100m a year through contrived importing restrictions is neo-colonialism.

We voted to leave a bureaucracy whose law-makers worsen living standards by imposing neoliberal prescriptions. Britain hadn't fallen for Remainers' malicious conflation of the institutions with Europe's cultural beauty.

In retaliation, Remainers accused an older generation of ruining their future, as if they weren't entitled to a vote and hadn't lived to see outrages like Ireland forced to accept the Lisbon Treaty after rejecting it.

Cultural exchange and co-operation will continue outside the EU's anti-democratic framework through bilateral agreements. We should celebrate the rejection of an organisation that is determinedly trampling over Europeans' quality of life." Unquote.


----------



## Spandex

The full opinion-piece Les is quoting from, for anyone insterested:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as- ... 78451.html

I'm sure Bob will be along any moment now to say, "Rudi Abdallah who??" Unless of course he's actually a bit of a hypocrite.


----------



## bobclive22

> You do realise that link only references data up to May 2016?


Here is the predicted data,

The forecast for - United Kingdom Unemployment Rate - was last predicted on Monday, August 8, 2016..

If Brexit was the catastrophic scenario envisaged by the remain camp I would have expected the predicted unemployment rate to be considerably higher.

United Kingdom Labour Unemployment Rate, Last (4.9), Q3/16 (5.1), Q4/16 ( 5.0), Q1/17 (5.1), Q2/17 (5.2), 2020 (6.7)

The graph shows historical unemployment levels.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... e/forecast


----------



## jamman

When someone does or says something "really" ignorant or stupid I call it "doing a Bob", it's caught on and Bob has now
replaced Mr Trump as our benchmark of ignorance and stupidity.

Both the Bulgarian and Albanian electrical engineers refuse to believe he exists and have asked for an address for proof lol


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Here is the predicted data...


Don't like statistics, don't like experts, don't like polls, but you're quoting 'predicted data' at me? You're an enigma wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a weirdo, Bob.

Not that any of this matters, because we haven't left yet so I'm not sure what you hope to prove. And if unemployment goes down you'll claim a win for brexit. If unemployment goes up you'll do what Les just did and claim it's all down to the uncertainty (which is all blamed on grumpy Remain supporters of course).


----------



## bobclive22

> Don't like statistics, don't like experts, don't like polls, but you're quoting 'predicted data' at me? You're an enigma wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a weirdo, Bob.
> 
> Not that any of this matters, because we haven't left yet so I'm not sure what you hope to prove. And if unemployment goes down you'll claim a win for brexit. If unemployment goes up you'll do what Les just did and claim it's all down to the uncertainty (which is all blamed on grumpy Remain supporters of course).


As you appeared to have believed all the dire predictions of project fear, why are you so upset with the employment predictions I posted, they are just more of the same but not as dire, they are for you Spandex.

I am a skeptic and take most things with a pinch of salt, especially the opinion of experts with vested interests.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As you appeared to have believed all the dire predictions of project fear, why are you so upset with the employment predictions I posted, they are just more of the same but not as dire, they are for you Spandex.
> 
> I am a skeptic and take most things with a pinch of salt, especially the opinion of experts with vested interests.


I'm not upset with the employment predictions. I just don't really understand what point you think they prove, and I'm amazed at your bare-faced hypocrisy when it comes to choosing which pieces of 'expert' information you deem reliable. If I'd posted unemployment predictions showing a negative impact from the referendum, you know you'd be sitting there telling me we can't trust predictions or experts (I imagine you'd use the polls as an example, as you often do. not that you're predictable or anything).


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm not upset with the employment predictions. I just don't really understand what point you think they prove,


They don`t prove anything but they do show that the scenario of project fear which you obliviously accepted without question was just propaganda aimed at scaring the s**t out of the British public.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> They don`t prove anything but they do show that the scenario of project fear which you obliviously accepted without question was just propaganda aimed at scaring the s**t out of the British public.


Ok, a number of points:

1. How do you know I 'obviously' accepted every claim from the Leave campaign? I can answer this for you - you don't know.
2. The leave campaign, as far as I remember, simply said unemployment would increase. They didn't give any actual figures. So which bit of the predicted rise do you think proves the Leave campaigns claim was was incorrect?
3. This is the important one - the Leave campaign made claims about what would happen if we left the EU, but WE HAVENT ACTUALLY LEFT YET so right now you can't prove any of their claims wrong.

And for the love of god can you please stop saying 'project fear'. People who repeat tabloid headline catchphrases like 'project fear' or 'broken Britain' just sound like a simpletons who can't think for themselves.


----------



## jamman

Spandex said:


> People who repeat tabloid headline catchphrases like 'project fear' or 'broken Britain' just sound like simpletons who can't think for themselves.


Yep that's Bob.


----------



## longodds

Perhaps 'best of british !' is going the way of 'Made in England' not for long and then no more.


----------



## longodds

Governments consist of politicians and politicians are not known for possessing cahonies, or much else for that matter. If I remember correctly the big C stated he thought he would make a good PM- he didn't and where's he now? Sulked off to continue his life sucking on his fathers tit and all it provided.


----------



## les

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691229 ... it-doom-EU


----------



## John-H

Yes that article is pretty stupid isn't it Les :lol: . As we've both been saying - nothing has happened yet! - We are still in the EU so that article saying _everything is fine so leaving the EU had no effect so the IMF were wrong_ is a complete load of tripe :roll: . Nobody but a complete idiot would take it seriously. Well it is the Express and we know who runs that. Good spot - gave me a laugh :lol:


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Yes that article is pretty stupid isn't it Les :lol: . As we've both been saying - nothing has happened yet! - We are still in the EU so that article saying _everything is fine so leaving the EU had no effect so the IMF were wrong_ is a complete load of tripe :roll: . Nobody but a complete idiot would take it seriously. Well it is the Express and we know who runs that. Good spot - gave me a laugh :lol:


Yep they are all a laugh. I put it up to strike a ballance :lol: 
It must be true I read it in the papers. Now lets get the hell out of this EU state of poor corrupt affairs ASAP.


----------



## les

les said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that article is pretty stupid isn't it Les :lol: . As we've both been saying - nothing has happened yet! - We are still in the EU so that article saying _everything is fine so leaving the EU had no effect so the IMF were wrong_ is a complete load of tripe :roll: . Nobody but a complete idiot would take it seriously. Well it is the Express and we know who runs that. Good spot - gave me a laugh :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep they are all a laugh. I put it up to strike a ballance :lol:
> It must be true I read it in the papers. Now lets get the hell out of this EU state of poor corrupt affairs ASAP.
Click to expand...

Here's another one for you to have a good laugh at John :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/10/economist ... s-6059846/

Of course if it's bad news being posted it got to be true :lol:


----------



## John-H

les said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that article is pretty stupid isn't it Les :lol: . As we've both been saying - nothing has happened yet! - We are still in the EU so that article saying _everything is fine so leaving the EU had no effect so the IMF were wrong_ is a complete load of tripe :roll: . Nobody but a complete idiot would take it seriously. Well it is the Express and we know who runs that. Good spot - gave me a laugh :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep they are all a laugh. I put it up to strike a ballance :lol:
> It must be true I read it in the papers. Now lets get the hell out of this EU state of poor corrupt affairs ASAP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another one for you to have a good laugh at John :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/10/economist ... s-6059846/
> 
> Of course if it's bad news being posted it got to be true :lol:
Click to expand...

What we were laughing at before was the Express not knowing the meaning of the word "logic" - i.e. they were claiming the IMF's negative prediction for the the UK economy after leaving the EU had been proved wrong when we haven't left yet.

This new Metro article is quoting another forecast that the UK economy will not do well after we leave the EU but it's not claiming it's proved wrong or right - so no basic logical error.

It does however consolidate some of the previous predictions by inclusion of developments that had been predicted and denied:



> Leaving the EU could cost Britain a whopping £70 billion a year.
> 
> The gloomy forecast comes after senior European politicians made it clear Britain can't keep its membership of the single market unless its makes sizeable contribution to the EU budget and allows the free movement of EU workers.


Not much to laugh at there - especially if it comes to pass if we do leave the EU.


----------



## les

John-H said:


> What we were laughing at before was the Express not knowing the meaning of the word "logic" - i.e. they were claiming the IMF's negative prediction for the the UK economy after leaving the EU had been proved wrong when we haven't left yet.
> 
> This new Metro article is quoting another forecast that the UK economy will not do well after we leave the EU but it's not claiming it's proved wrong or right - so no basic logical error.
> 
> It does however consolidate some of the previous predictions by inclusion of developments that had been predicted and denied:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving the EU could cost Britain a whopping £70 billion a year.
> 
> The gloomy forecast comes after senior European politicians made it clear Britain can't keep its membership of the single market unless its makes sizeable contribution to the EU budget and allows the free movement of EU workers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to laugh at there - especially if it comes to pass if we do leave the EU.
Click to expand...

Plenty to laugh at with both until something is proved and of course I expect the remainers to to favour the gloom and doom of those who predict it and go along with it when the fact is nobody really knows. IMO, and as I have said, I expect a dip in the economy due to the money men but then as the UK bounces back, which I expect, then they will have to bite their lip and put their money where the strength is. I trust nobody least not the corrupt bankers and EU that's for sure. am looking at a minimum of 2 years after we leave before we see an upsurge in the economy. Hold fast and don't panic.


----------



## les

Not the Mail or the Express this time. Just one mans experience and thoughts etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... nes-money/


----------



## Spandex

That article assumes two things:

1. The government will have the same amount of money available after we leave as was given in subsidies.
2. The government will spend that money more wisely than the EU did.

Even brexiters have to accept that we will suffer financially in the short term at least (while 'remainers' believe it will continue into the long term too) so point 1 isn't true. And given that you can't trust any of our politicians (from any party) to follow through on their promises when elected, I'm not sure anyone could say point 2 is true either.

So once again, brexit ends up being a self-proclaimed leap into the unknown with a very real risk that we will end up in a worse situation than before.


----------



## les

Here is another to get you chuckling along.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -brexit-s/


----------



## John-H

Perhaps it's a result of people realising that nothing has actually happened and common sense will ensure nothing will happen - to protect the economic interest :wink:


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Perhaps it's a result of people realising that nothing has actually happened and common sense will ensure nothing will happen - to protect the economic interest :wink:


Perhaps this perhaps that then again perhaps the other :wink:


----------



## Spandex

les said:


> Perhaps this perhaps that then again perhaps the other


Wasn't that the leave campaign slogan? [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## A3DFU

I think I might be in not such a terrible situation myself as I have English *and* German pensions and while the £ Sterling still falls it means I'm getting a better exchange rate for my German pension :? 
However, friends and one of my sons (some contractors some in steel industry) struggle to find work atm


----------



## les

That will do very nicely....for some. 
http://financefeeds.com/110-million-one ... es-brexit/


----------



## cheechy

les said:


> Here is another to get you chuckling along.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -brexit-s/


Yup you'll notice they only predict into 2016!!

Definitely trying to sway the argument by not looking very far ahead.


----------



## bobclive22

> les wrote:
> Perhaps this perhaps that then again perhaps the other


_Spandex, Wasn't that the leave campaign slogan? [smiley=book2.gif] _

YouGov poll: No evidence of regrets after Brexit vote

http://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/ ... exit-vote/

and that was before this,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... e-referen/


----------



## John-H

Does nobody understand logic :lol:


----------



## les

John-H said:


> Does nobody understand logic :lol:


You mean like the logic that there was a referendum and the majority of the voters voted to leve the EU and now is the time to stop the wo is me posts and get on with it ....that logic. No wouldn't that be something. :?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> and that was before this,
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... e-referen/


You know, it's pretty hard to take an article seriously when they start off by misquoting *themselves* (!!!) before deliberately missing the point entirely. They say:



> Campaigners such as former Chancellor George Osborne warned that a vote to leave the EU would cause "a profound economic shock"


And in that sentence, they link to their own old article which actually says:



> George Osborne will today warn that Britain leaving the EU would trigger a "profound economic shock" in Scotland


So, let's ignore the fact that they decided to miss off the bit where he says he was talking about Scotland, because more importantly they completely changed it from a prediction about what would happen if we *left the EU* to a prediction about what would happen if we simply *voted to leave the EU*. A pretty fundamental difference, and I find it hard to believe they accidentally changed the meaning of the quote.

This is how papers manipulate people (like Bob). They frame things in a misleading way, but people (like Bob) don't apply any critical thought when reading things that agree with their view of the world.


----------



## John-H

les said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does nobody understand logic :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the logic that there was a referendum and the majority of the voters voted to leve the EU and now is the time to stop the wo is me posts and get on with it ....that logic. No wouldn't that be something. :?
Click to expand...

That's not logic that's blind optimism. I'm talking about the logic of cause and effect.

All the economic experts and authorities said leaving the EU (cause) would be bad for the UK economy (effect).

Yet, people keep linking newspaper commentary that says "Gloom and doom experts proved wrong over Brexit" - when clearly there can be no proof of the expert prediction (effect) yet because we are still a full member of the EU (lack of cause).

People who link to these articles in the vain optimistic hope that they mean something are as silly as the people who write the articles :roll:


----------



## les

John-H said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does nobody understand logic :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the logic that there was a referendum and the majority of the voters voted to leve the EU and now is the time to stop the wo is me posts and get on with it ....that logic. No wouldn't that be something. :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not logic that's blind optimism. I'm talking about the logic of cause and effect.
> 
> All the economic experts and authorities said leaving the EU (cause) would be bad for the UK economy (effect).
> 
> Yet, people keep linking newspaper commentary that says "Gloom and doom experts proved wrong over Brexit" - when clearly there can be no proof of the expert prediction (effect) yet because we are still a full member of the EU (lack of cause).
> 
> People who link to these articles in the vain optimistic hope that they mean something are as silly as the people who write the articles :roll:
Click to expand...

Well Mr Project Fear the logical ( meaning sensible under the circumstances. )thing is to get behind the country grow some and just think your friends the economists might just have over reacted... out of self interest maybe. Wouldn't exactly be the first time now would it. Fact is the immediate claims of the remain side have all but failed to happen. What happened to the emergency budget I wonder following the leave vote along with all the other immediate doom and gloom forecasts. There are going to be some very disappointed remainers if the economy doesn't collapse along with a hefty rise in unemployment etc etc. Still there is a long way to go and I haven't changed my opinion that it will get worse before it gets better but don't expect a total collapse as others would like us to believe it seems.

Here is another article you so dislike to read you can have a laugh at.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oject-fear

and I thought he was dead. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

les said:


> but don't expect a total collapse as others would like us to believe it seems.


Les, what do you define as 'total collapse' in this scenario?


----------



## les

More bad news 
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/7 ... -continues


----------



## John-H

les said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the logic that there was a referendum and the majority of the voters voted to leve the EU and now is the time to stop the wo is me posts and get on with it ....that logic. No wouldn't that be something. :?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not logic that's blind optimism. I'm talking about the logic of cause and effect.
> 
> All the economic experts and authorities said leaving the EU (cause) would be bad for the UK economy (effect).
> 
> Yet, people keep linking newspaper commentary that says "Gloom and doom experts proved wrong over Brexit" - when clearly there can be no proof of the expert prediction (effect) yet because we are still a full member of the EU (lack of cause).
> 
> People who link to these articles in the vain optimistic hope that they mean something are as silly as the people who write the articles :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Mr Project Fear the logical ( meaning sensible under the circumstances. )thing is to get behind the country grow some and just think your friends the economists might just have over reacted... out of self interest maybe. Wouldn't exactly be the first time now would it. *Fact* is the immediate claims of the remain side have all but failed to happen. What happened to the emergency budget I wonder following the leave vote along with all the other immediate doom and gloom forecasts. There are going to be some very disappointed remainers if the economy doesn't collapse along with a hefty rise in unemployment etc etc. Still there is a long way to go and I haven't changed my opinion that it will get worse before it gets better but don't expect a total collapse as others would like us to believe it seems.
> 
> Here is another article you so dislike to read you can have a laugh at.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oject-fear
> 
> and I thought he was dead. :lol:
Click to expand...

I thought there was more fear of immigration being pushed by the leave lot :roll: As for the emergency budget - the chancellor lost his job so we'll never know but the BOE have taken action to boost the economy.

Yet again you keep mixing the post EU vote with post EU exit.

*WE HAVE NOT LEFT YET* (This will be the case for at least two years - perhaps always)

And before you twist and turn yet again to claim you've been saying that all along - I put it to you that this is merely a result of you making contradictory statements.

If we ignore the obviously predictable immediate market jitters and your ley prediction that things will get worse over the next few years, all the recognised expert/body predictions related to AFTER we leave the EU and they all thought it was a bad if not disastrous idea. But we haven't left yet!

Yet again you try to dismiss expert opinion by misdirecting the focus of their statements and further invoke conspiracy theories and make hints about corruption.

You are a dear old mate and all that Les but why should I choose to believe you over this matter when you are not an economist, haven't got, nor can point to a plan, keep contradicting yourself and seem to struggle with the application of logic to the meaning of the word "fact" in relation to an EU exit (when it's not happened yet) - you are not the only one from reading the articles you keep posting!

As an aside, where do you stand on the following conspiracy theories?

* Man didn't land on the moon 
* but Hitler escaped in a V2 and is living there.
* The twin towers were brought down by the CIA.
* The earth is hollow and inhabited by aliens 
* Chinese agents are deliberately driving slow on our roads to cause congestion and slow down our economy.

Go on, let's talk about something more interesting :wink:


----------



## les

John-H said:


> I thought there was more fear of immigration being pushed by the leave lot :roll: As for the emergency budget - the chancellor lost his job so we'll never know but the BOE have taken action to boost the economy.
> 
> Yet again you keep mixing the post EU vote with post EU exit.
> 
> *WE HAVE NOT LEFT YET* (This will be the case for at least two years - perhaps always)
> 
> And before you twist and turn yet again to claim you've been saying that all along - I put it to you that this is merely a result of you making contradictory statements.
> 
> If we ignore the obviously predictable immediate market jitters and your ley prediction that things will get worse over the next few years, all the recognised expert/body predictions related to AFTER we leave the EU and they all thought it was a bad if not disastrous idea. But we haven't left yet!
> 
> Yet again you try to dismiss expert opinion by misdirecting the focus of their statements and further invoke conspiracy theories and make hints about corruption.
> 
> You are a dear old mate and all that Les but why should I choose to believe you over this matter when you are not an economist, haven't got, nor can point to a plan, keep contradicting yourself and seem to struggle with the application of logic to the meaning of the word "fact" in relation to an EU exit (when it's not happened yet) - you are not the only one from reading the articles you keep posting!
> 
> As an aside, where do you stand on the following conspiracy theories?
> 
> * Man didn't land on the moon
> * but Hitler escaped in a V2 and is living there.
> * The twin towers were brought down by the CIA.
> * The earth is hollow and inhabited by aliens
> * Chinese agents are deliberately driving slow on our roads to cause congestion and slow down our economy.
> 
> Go on, let's talk about something more interesting :wink:


I sit not stand on any of your conspiracy theories John, but YOU can blame Brexit on all of them even if some happened before the referendum.

Immigration is an issue like it or not and the government knowledges it as so along with the majority of the country but don't fool yourself into thinking that's the only reason the majority voted to leave, far from it my friend. You just like to play the racial card.

The chancellor loosing his job has nothing to do with the need or otherwise to have an emergency budget to SAVE the country from the results of the referendum as we were told and I think you really know that hence your red herring John.

Most of your economy friends predicted gloom and doom immediately after the a leave vote not in 2 years or whatever time scale when we do in fact leave leave maybe longer at this rate. The fact is in reality there has been little change 2 months on. In fact you may even have more money in your pocket due to low mortgage rates, blame that also on Brexit if you will.

Of course I don't expect you to believe me over your economy friends yes the same the ones who would rob your grandmother in front of you while pretending its good for her.

Well only time will tell what the outcome will be but I can't see those with the biggest invested interest cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Greed know no bounds for them.

However I do agree there are Quote " Go on, let's talk about something more interesting "
Just agree most of this is folly until ..at a guess in 4 or 5 years time when we have left. (It will be 2 or 3 years before we leave EU ). Only then can we really see what the results of Brexit will have had on the economy and living standards but again people didn't vote to leave just about those either.


----------



## John-H

les said:


> I sit not stand on any of your conspiracy theories John, but YOU can blame Brexit on all of them even if some happened before the referendum.
> 
> Immigration is an issue like it or not and the government knowledges it as so along with the majority of the country but don't fool yourself into thinking that's the only reason the majority voted to leave, far from it my friend. You just like to play the racial card.


Immigration has got nothing to do with race unless someone chooses it to be.



les said:


> The chancellor loosing his job has nothing to do with the need or otherwise to have an emergency budget to SAVE the country from the results of the referendum as we were told and I think you really know that hence your red herring John.


The Bank of England have taken fiscal measures along with the treasury to boost the economy have they not? Are you ignoring this?



les said:


> Most of your economy friends predicted gloom and doom immediately after the a leave vote not in 2 years or whatever time scale when we do in fact leave leave maybe longer at this rate. The fact is in reality there has been little change 2 months on. In fact you may even have more money in your pocket due to low mortgage rates, blame that also on Brexit if you will.


Not true. The predictions were in relation to having left the EU not just the vote. Yes two months have gone by and not a lot has happened, apart from the BOE fiscal boost and we are doing Ok. What did you expect when we are still in the EU and the winks are that we are not going to cut off our noises to spite our face?



les said:


> Of course I don't expect you to believe me over your economy friends yes the same the ones who would rob your grandmother in front of you while pretending its good for her.
> 
> Well only time will tell what the outcome will be but I can't see those with the biggest invested interest cutting their noses off to spite their faces.


Well yes. The biggest interest is the country and economy by the way.



les said:


> However I do agree there are Quote " Go on, let's talk about something more interesting "
> Just agree most of this is folly until ..at a guess in 4 or 5 years time when we have left. (It will be 2 or 3 years before we leave EU ). Only then can we really see what the results of Brexit will have had on the economy and living standards but again people didn't vote to leave just about those either.


Well I wouldn't disagree with that.


----------



## les

Problems with quotes here so I have given my reply in bold esp as they are more important than yours :wink:

Immigration has got nothing to do with race unless someone chooses it to be.

*Correct but many try to play the a race card as I think you also know. 
*

[The Bank of England have taken fiscal measures along with the treasury to boost the economy have they not? Are you ignoring this?

*Thats not an emergency budget and you know it, it's you who are ignoring that.*

Not true. The predictions were in relation to having left the EU not just the vote. Yes two months have gone by and not a lot has happened, apart from the BOE fiscal boost and we are doing Ok. What did you expect when we are still in the EU and the winks are that we are not going to cut off our noises to spite our face?

*Sorry is true and it never happened just like the emergency budget never happened. 
*

Well yes. The biggest interest is the country and economy by the way.

*Again your choosing to focus on one issue rather than the many reasons/concerns etc about the country. Of course the country (whatever you mean by that) and the economy are important and for some the most important for others immigration, sovereignty and so on and so on.
*
*BTW I thought you wanted to stop and talk about something ellse ..apparently not :? . However I will make this my last post on the subject ..that is until the country goes to the dogs (which it was before the referendum) or we see an upturn, either way we might both be waiting quite some time*. :wink:

*Now go on have the last word you know you want to. I won't revisit this page again anyway so you can't have a right old rant if you wish*. :lol:


----------



## cheechy

les said:


> Well Mr Project Fear the logical ( meaning sensible under the circumstances. )thing is to get behind the country grow some and just think your friends the economists might just have over reacted... out of self interest maybe. Wouldn't exactly be the first time now would it. Fact is the immediate claims of the remain side have all but failed to happen. What happened to the emergency budget I wonder following the leave vote along with all the other immediate doom and gloom forecasts. There are going to be some very disappointed remainers if the economy doesn't collapse along with a hefty rise in unemployment etc etc. Still there is a long way to go and I haven't changed my opinion that it will get worse before it gets better but don't expect a total collapse as others would like us to believe it seems.
> 
> Here is another article you so dislike to read you can have a laugh at.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oject-fear
> 
> and I thought he was dead. :lol:


I'd love to get behind the country Les - seriously. I just wish I had something to get behind. I didn't vote exit but its being imposed on me so the least I can ask for is for someone who did vote exit what I need to get to do to get "behind the uk" please and I'll do it.

I need more than the power of positive thinking by the way.

The country has voted itself into the unknown and I'm a little tired of the comments being chucked at "remoaners" saying accept it / get on with it / dont be negative. I dont understand the decision made so can someone please explain it so I can understand.

All I can see is the country battoning down the hatches waiting for a storm coming. No plans on how to get ourself out of this position just blind faith.

Its truly terrifying that people cant see these facts alone and not be worried about out country's long term future.


----------



## A3DFU

cheechy said:


> Its truly terrifying that people cant see these facts alone and not be worried about our country's long term future.


Never a truer word spoken!


----------



## bobclive22

> All I can see is the country battoning down the hatches waiting for a storm coming. No plans on how to get ourself out of this position just blind faith.


Went to view a Barrett new build Sunday, was informed that prices would rise end of August due to market influences, but hey this is in the world north of the M25.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> All I can see is the country battoning down the hatches waiting for a storm coming. No plans on how to get ourself out of this position just blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Went to view a Barrett new build Sunday, was informed that prices would rise end of August due to market influences, but hey this is in the world north of the M25.
Click to expand...

Would guess the market influences are material cost increases caused by the falling pound as a result of the brexit vote?

But sure you'll revert that I'm being negative and have a really good quote from somewhere to prove otherwise


----------



## jamman

bobclive22 said:


> All I can see is the country battoning down the hatches waiting for a storm coming. No plans on how to get ourself out of this position just blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Went to view a Barrett new build Sunday, was informed that prices would rise end of August due to market influences, but hey this is in the world north of the M25.
Click to expand...

I expect during conversation you gave the impression you were a bit dumb and the salesman thought he might close the deal telling you that.


----------



## Shug750S

jamman said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can see is the country battoning down the hatches waiting for a storm coming. No plans on how to get ourself out of this position just blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Went to view a Barrett new build Sunday, was informed that prices would rise end of August due to market influences, but hey this is in the world north of the M25.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I expect during conversation you gave the impression you were a bit dumb and the salesman thought he might close the deal telling you that.
Click to expand...

Best post for weeks. PMSL


----------



## 3TT3

I havent been on thread in awhile 
My own outlook /upbringing was more English than Irish even tho I didnt go to England till the 80's.
For the result , I think the Uk as a whole is more independence minded than the Irish ! :lol:

To get back to my outlook..
There was a programme on last night "it was all right in the 70's".This didnt apply to me so much ,more it was all right in the 80's onwards , but I can empathise .
Here we had RTE (radio telefis eireann) the state broadcaster ,and anyone outside of the east coast up until the turn of the century had to put up with just that.
Even now 15 years later Rte runs an allmost continuos tag line "rte supporting the arts" . Back in schooldays we had a variation on that ,something along the lines of "RTE smelling of f**ts". Very mature.

Point is we on the east coast were very english, we had all the bbc/itv stuff and the local station sucked badly.
Not in their own eyes or printed media of course.

Censorship can be nebulous , I think . .English tv watchers were naughty.. groan and only the "oldies " watched irish tv before goin to bed and saying their prayers.
I mean to us mid 80's Uk tv was as liberal as you could imagine!
The programme last night showed stuff that was going in the 70's and was still goin in the 80's/90's ,but only got censored in the UK in the noughties and since, I think. Things about ..poofters and the like.. what were they?
There was a panel of neo liberals and pansies  (with dementia) expressing shock at the ancient mores but thas what we and they grew up with ,( its ok if you know what they are in the first place :lol: ) and I suppose a lot of you guys grew up with it too.

In essence I think the anti eec/eu feeling grew with a resentment of imposition of pc correctness.
Bend over and take it ,to be good europeans with correct size bannanas , not the hope to revive "the empire".
Of course the fact that England didnt qualify for the 74 world cup after joining the EEC didnt help .

Could it not just be ,'the majority of the UK population want to be English rather than European everyman/woman.
Laugh at the froggies, if the mood takes em and or do their own thing.
If the extraction isnt painless,so be it?


----------



## Spandex

3TT3 said:


> Could it not just be ,'the majority of the UK population want to be English rather than European everyman/woman.
> Laugh at the froggies, if the mood takes em and or do their own thing.
> If the extraction isnt painless,so be it?


I don't think anyone really knows what the majority of the population wants, but the majority of voters in June certainly seemed to think that was the choice in front of them. Why they think we can't be both, I don't know.

Anti EU sentiment can almost entirely be traced back to the press and nothing else. Most people have no other source of information and most people trust what they read in the papers, despite knowing that they shouldn't. Take the bananas you mention - The EU never told us how big or straight our bananas had to be, but a huge proportion of the population earnestly believe they did, even now. Stories like that don't make someones mind up individually, but if they hear enough of them it builds into a sense of bitterness and resentment that's so entrenched, nothing can shake it. Facts had no bearing on them forming their opinion so facts won't change their opinion. As you saw during the referendum campaigning, even if you line up highly qualified experts as far as the eye can see, people will still find ways to justify their position which is based on nothing more than reading the papers and talking to their mates down the pub.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> Anti EU sentiment can almost entirely be traced back to the press and nothing else.


This is so true!


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti EU sentiment can almost entirely be traced back to the press and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> This is so true!
Click to expand...

Yes, it's hard to think what other source of this misinformation exists. The only other times I've come across it on TV and radio is in the odd comedy sketch but they were not trying to be taken seriously and were more of an ironic reflection of the biased press. The internet of course now reflects every opinion and it's not hard to find reflections of these distortions but that's more recent. What came first and has ingrained anti EU attitudes into the British public was uniquely the British press. If you remember watching Yes Minister back in the 80's you can recall references to wine lakes, straight bananas and the like but this was satire and a reflection of the butt of humor and scorn that was already out there and familiar to the public. The internet was only just starting to gain popularity then with Compuserve - far from the all pervasive social media and multiple providers of today. So yes, the press are to blame for starting this and have since been constantly fueling the fire which has inevitably spread and created division. I think it's very wrong for a constantly biased influence to be allowed to affect our democracy with no checks and balances. The EU referendum in its simplicity of binary choice, with no legal requirement on campaigners not to mislead (unlike in a general election where it's an offence), has left us with a perverse outcome of popular opinion that the mantra of "democracy" leaves MPs uncomfortable to question but which common sense will ultimately decide.


----------



## John-H

Interesting interview with Manfred Weber covering Angela Merkel's issues and Brexit - how we appear to our neighbors:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0480bsz


----------



## A3DFU

Unfortunately I think the people who ought to listen (on the Brexit bit) won't [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## datamonkey

A3DFU said:


> Anti EU sentiment can almost entirely be traced back to the press and nothing else.


This is true of a lot things, well said. The masses are manipulated by the media.

Anyway have always maintained Brexit isn't going to happen so buy your sterling now while it's dirt cheap and pay me a thankyou commission when I'm proved right!


----------



## A3DFU

datamonkey said:


> buy your sterling now while it's dirt cheap and pay me a thankyou commission when I'm proved right!


Gladly but my problem is that I'll need to but Euros soon while the Sterling is ever so low [smiley=behead.gif]


----------



## A3DFU

Carrying on from my post above:

Happy holidaying abroad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37538459


----------



## John-H

I think a lot of people in the markets have been thinking that article 50 will get kicked into the long grass, so the forthright hard Brexit talk from May has spooked them somewhat. Of course she needs to sound that way to keep the Brexit lot sweet. The question is what actually is going to happen regardless of whether she is serious or not.

We've got a high court judicial review of the legality of the government's use of Prerogative powers to trigger article 50 on October 13 and 17 which is likely to end up in the supreme court.

Teresa May announcing a repeal of the European communities act is just window dressing as it can not legally go against our treaty obligations which is why she's admitted it won't take effect until after the two year period following article 50 being triggered.

Meanwhile the eruptions are starting within her party over hard and soft Brexit with implied loss of the single market and with the likelyhood of companies announcing moves or canceling investment and with such a slender party majority you have an extremely uncertain outcome in the offing. Cameron used the referendum to shut up the Brexiteers. The party pressures are still there and will likely erupt again.

It's interesting that Britain sells more to Belgium than it does to China and India combined and Belgium does more trade with India than Britain does. The numbers don't add up for the idea that the UK can forget about Europe, switch and look to trade with the far east and the commonwealth.

With the chancellor abandoning his deficit targets and openly saying we are going to be damaged by Brexit - how much damage will there be and how long will it take to realise that democratic decisions like any other processes are only as good as the information used to make them. Rubbish in gives rubbish out.


----------



## A3DFU

And Sterling keeps falling and falling...


----------



## John-H

Movement in sterling and markets can be transitory but the bigger worry is investment decisions for the longer term.

Apparently the Parisian authorities have been inundated with enquiries from UK companies asking about relocation possibilities.

What are we doing?


----------



## John-H

Today has reported on TheCityUK estimate of the effects of a hard Brexit without passporting. These are the jobs no longer able to function and directly and indirectly affected. The estimate is a total of 70,000 jobs with a £10 billion tax take.

The industry is responsible for an international trade surplus of £22.8bn, more than 40% of which comes from European Union trade.

Brexit minister David Davis was reported to be "comfortable" with the numbers.

Teresa May met with the bosses of several US banks last week where she was warned that investments would start to flow from the UK to the EU.

So it seems the traditionally pro business Tories are now prepared to see the economy trashed. Is that because they have secured their own personal retirement positions for when they get voted out?


----------



## A3DFU

As far as I can remember, no politician has ever stuck fast to their promises they made before they've been elected into power. Having a very secure pension as soon as anyone has become a MP or, even better, a PM surely goes a long way to do as they please once in power.
MPs (PMs) are so far detached from the day-to-day worries and living of Joe&Jane Bloggs as can be and I have my serious doubts any of them understands the very real concerns of the electorate.


----------



## 3TT3

As long as its done n dusted before the next general election,youre good

Something that just occured to me today, in the sense that UK has been takin it up the A for years for being "naughty" and keeping sterling.
Yes I know not all eu/eec members are in the eurozone but its smacks for those who arent.

The euromillions or european lottery if you like. 
Some might say.. bah whats that, just a soother for the masses with dreams of becoming rich but: the cost increased recently to 2.50 euro per play and 2.50 pounds I think? fine so what.

Before brexit vote and while play price was still 2 euro or 2 pounds for UK people..
Lets say pound to euro exchange rate was 1 euro=.75 pounds or hey say 1 euro =.80 pounds over a longer period to be fair.

The european millions jackpot say its 100 million euro one draw.
Leaving aside the fact that UK people would have contributed more per losing play to build up this jackpot over time.

Uk player x buys 8 random plays , euro country player buys 10 random plays for the same cost ,so has a 20% higher chance of winning for the same outlay.Of course this is on a teeny tiny base chance anyway but I still think its a point.

The ticket price increase thing in general,more money for good causes.. as the song says"cmon baby pull my wire".

Even now with sterling dropping against the euro its a bit of a statistical rip off..doesnt worry me of course, I get the cheapo euro win chance :lol: , 
If I was to waste my money on "bread and circuses".


----------



## John-H

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


And on a related note, the man who wrote article 50 has confirmed that it's not binding - so during the 2 year 'leaving process' we can still change our minds...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-37852628

I can still dream, right?


----------



## John-H

I am extremely concerned about the future of our country following the referendum result.

The High Court constitutional ruling that the Government can not use prerogative powers to leave the EU to enact article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is entirely correct as this would arbitrarily take away the rights of citizens granted to them by an act of Parliament. These rights must first be debated and repealed by Parliament before this happens. The government can not act as monarch. This is a fundamental principal of our democracy dating back to 1610 and 1689 that Parliament is sovereign. It is only right that MPs in our representative democracy should represent the people and on their behalf and in all consciousness, act in the people's best interests and the interest of the country as a whole. If prerogative powers were all that were needed then MPs might as well go home and just leave everything to the self appointed few in cabinet.

I must also say that there has been a distinct lack of support by the Lord Chancellor over the scandalous treatment of the judges by the gutter press. The comments were shameful and seek to undermine the rule of law. The judges need the support of everyone interested in upholding our democracy.

What does this mean regarding Brexit?

The electorate voted to leave the EU by a 52:48 % of votes cast. This was only 37% of the (46.5M) electorate and 29% of the UK population (64M). Although in our simple majority referendum this was a narrow win for leave it should be borne in mind that a vote to remain would have involved no change to the UK population whereas a leave vote potentially involves a huge and damaging effect to the vast majority who did not vote for this change. Therefore there is a great onus of responsibility involved in carrying through this decision and duty of care in its imposition on them as well as on those who did vote for it.

If it becomes clear that leaving the EU will likely be damaging to the country, resulting in reduced standard of living, hardship and loss of rights should we in all consciousness go through with it? Should we even take the gamble? Who do you think will be blamed in a few years time when we are suffering from a lack of investment, lack of trade and forced to make cuts in public spending? Good luck to anyone who tries to blame the public for "their decision". The public will simply say our MPs should have known better than to let this happen - they are supposed to act in our best interests - we were not given a chance to think again.

The referendum was only advisory, has no legal effect and is only of political importance. The public were misinformed about Brexit by a biased and xenophobic press. A democratic decision like any other decision process is only as good as the information used to make it. Rubbish in gives rubbish out.

Capital punishment is never put to the public and MPs are given a free vote in conscience over the issue even though it is known that the public would likely vote for it. Whilst at present many MPs may feel uncomfortable about going against the "will of the people" over Brexit, public opinion is however changing even now as the difficult reality of Brexit starts to become clear. A recent poll now suggests a narrow lead for remain if the referendum were to be repeated. People are realising there is no plan and our actions are in desperation.

I urge everyone therefore to ensure that the House of Commons properly scrutinises proposals for Brexit in a full and open manner before there is any consideration to invoke article 50 and that this should only be done by act of Parliament when Parliament is sure that the country will not be worse off as a result. Not some gamble or wishful thinking leap into the unknown based on overblown confidence and a lack of information. Consider the following options:

"Hard Brexit"

The numbers don't add up for the idea that the UK can forget about Europe's single market, switch and look to trade with the Far East and the commonwealth and world trade markets. It's interesting that Britain sells more to Belgium than it does to China and India combined and Belgium does more trade with India than Britain does. The EU has been trying to get a trade deal with India for nine years and is nowhere near because India's tarrifs are very high and they would require too much in return for them to be removed. To drop out of our existing relationships and expect to re-create trade with the rest of the world is folly and creates a huge risk with our balance of payments. Companies needing EU access will leave the UK unless they receive government compensation. TheCityUK estimate alone is a total of 70,000 jobs with a £10 billion tax take, a trade surplus of £22.8bn, more than 40% which comes from the EU. This all means less income and investment for the rest of our manufacturing and service industry and less in the treasury for the NHS and public services and infrastructure. We will likely become much poorer as a nation. Nobody will be happy with that.

"Soft Brexit"

This initially sounds like a better idea with access to the EU single market, service passporting and continued investment attraction with no loss of businesses relocating to mainland Europe. With that however comes payments into the EU (no nonsense £350M saving!) and free movement of people. The UK is not going to receive a sweetheart deal otherwise other countries will want one. Potential trade deals with the EU will also bear the risk that even just one state could scupper a deal as we saw recently with the seven year long negotiated Canadian trade agreement. We risk not agreeing any deal in two years so drop out with nothing and what we are more likely to agree will extract a high price - worse off than we are now in economic terms and with the "reasons" for leaving abandoned as we will still have to accept free movement, EU payments and having to accept the rights of EU law in agreement - not dissimilar to what we have now under treaty. So how are we better off? Again we will be poorer and having achieved nothing to allay perceived public demands at the time of the referendum - demands which will change anyway.

Remaining in the EU

As a result of the uncertainty in the UK Germany is already considering concessions over free movement regarding social security - i.e. migrants would need a job first - if the UK stays within the EU. There are moves to put this to the UK with the German Council of Economic Experts calling for "constructive negotiations to prevent an exit", despite concluding that Britain will be hit hardest by leaving.

The EU will evolve to accommodate the pressure in the long run and if the political problems are overcome we risk no loss of trade or damage to our economy. Is this not the best option worth waiting for - change the EU from within as David Cameron first attempted?

I trust MPs will act in all our best interests for the future of the UK as their conscience will allow.


----------



## John-H

I'd advise stocking up now ...










http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/8/13560 ... nge-brexit


----------



## alantt

The more I hear from the Brussels eurocrats the more I want to leave, they are even thinking of punishing us if we do a trade deal with the U.S., they are desperately trying to keep their failed project together


----------



## John-H

That's funny because the more it becomes evident how much work is needed to replace the markets, the loss of trade and investment and likely impoverishment, the monumental amount of work involved with replacement of 42 years of legislation which will go on for years and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny which will result from that process by a government that hasn't got a clue how it's going to do it all (which is why they refuse to be open about it and tell us what the non existent plan is) - the more it becomes obvious that the simplistic binary choice to leave is entirely disconnected from and gives no guidance or authority for where we are supposed to be ending up. In that disconnect it denies us any decision in our destiny and is undemocratic and unconstitutional in its effect.

Listen to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081lkmf

Read this:
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/article ... _1_4754772


----------



## Shug750S

alantt said:


> The more I hear from the Brussels eurocrats the more I want to leave, they are even thinking of punishing us if we do a trade deal with the U.S., they are desperately trying to keep their failed project together


I was / am a remainer, but recently my view has changed a bit. I still feel that the result was the wrong one but we have to accept it, get behind the government and make the most of it. Moaning won't solve anything.

The problem (as I see it) was the original concept was a free trade zone, which made sense, but this morphed into a much larger beast and started to try to manage everything.

Also don't like the way the Eurocrats keep calling it a project. It's reality, not an experiment.

Not sure The Donald is the right person to govern either, but compared to the Hilary they didn't really have a great choice. One of my US friends made the comment about holding his nose whilst voting...

Also the thawing of relationship between the US and Germany may put more pressure on the whole project, so everything might unravel before we leave at this rate.


----------



## John-H

Get on with what exactly to end up with what and who said that's what we want?


----------



## Shug750S

John-H said:


> Get on with what exactly to end up with what and who said that's what we want?


Fair response. Problem is the vote was to leave but no-one had any clue on how to leave and what to try to keep or lose compared with previous.

Does seem that the rest of Europe want to hurt us for even thinking about leaving.

One thing I don't get, if we can't start talking to others about deals, how can the EU have meetings about it without us present as we haven't activated article 50, so officially we haven't left / aren't leaving unti, we do. We are still a ful member until the government formally notify of article 50...


----------



## John-H

We are still a full member indeed but I notice Boris Johnson's support of Trump prevents him from attending an EU meeting to discuss the implications of the US election. No doubt the UK government are also desperate to keep their options open with the US as it draws up the drawbridge but in doing so act against our closest neighbors and existing market who are trying to persuade us to stay - not punish us as we haven't left yet. Arguably the article 50 process is designed to encourage members to stay and retain the EU's strength. Out on our own we take a huge risk with the government's unknown and confused direction.

As regards what our MPs should be doing right now with the threat of global change I would suggest is to minimise risk and not take a monumental gamble.by sticking to the outcome of an advisory referendum, the results of which are rapidly becoming out of date.

Are they incapable of doing their job and thinking for themselves as opposed to of themselves? I'm sure they all have fat pensions so whatever happens they will be fine but what about the rest of us?

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." (Edmund Burke 1797)


----------



## John-H

I see Boris Johnson had a spat with his Italian college who was insulted at him saying Italy would grant Britain access to the EU's single market "because you don't want to lose prosecco exports". to which the Italian said 'OK, you'll sell less fish and chips, but I'll sell less prosecco to one country and you'll sell less to 27 countries.'" That's perspective :lol:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 20706.html

Shambles :roll:


----------



## Shug750S

Found this yesterday. Would be funny if not so true:


----------



## John-H

If people voted that two and two make five would we still be trying to respect and implement the will the people? This is not wise leadership but blowing in the wind of popularism all whipped up over the years by offshore tax exile millionaire newspaper owners e.g Exptess, Mail, Telegraph grrrrrr.....


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 0283,d.d24


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOgazLhbPQAhXKshQKHVnoDVkQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-37986591&usg=AFQjCNFLBFdfQJqsTyg5WwhHm6kIIOQvYA&sig2=02pxk4E7_COXyojjemKWtg&bvm=bv.139250283,d.d24


You couldn't make it up, could you... after months of bleating on about sovereignty and democracy, the government are now doing everything they can to circumvent or abbreviate the democratic process...


----------



## Spandex




----------



## John-H

Far more realistic numbers on the side of that bus!

Unfortunately we seem to have entered post truth . . .

*The age of the oaf*










(Representatives of the common man? - Billionaire property tycoon Donald Trump pictured next to Millionaire ex-stock broker Nigel Farage in a solid gold lift. Going down.)

Post truth - where well researched facts are dismissed as just opinions by so called experts and oafish opinion is a valid fact because it's simple common sense and my right to say it and if you challenge it you are anti-democratic and censoring free speech with over complicated reality.

Puffing away on a cigarette Nigel Farage was asked - back on the **** Nigel? To which he replied dismissively, "The doctors have got it wrong."

So, take no notice of experts, science and research. If you have a complicated issue to solve or a worrying ailment, don't goto an expert or bother doing any research, don't goto a doctor. Just find an oaf in the pub who will quickly give you an off the cuff common sense simple answer. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Spandex

To be fair, Bob has already explained that we can't trust doctors because Harold Shipman was a doctor. You really can't argue with that.

Although I think both Bob and Fred West used to be builders, so we can't trust them either.


----------



## bobclive22

> To be fair, Bob has already explained that we can't trust doctors because Harold Shipman was a doctor. You really can't argue with that.


I think that comment was more to do with educated types believing that if they deleted and reformatted hard drives this destroyed all the data on those drives. Shipman just altered his.
So Spandex you believe everything a so called expert tells you, good luck mate.

As for prescribed drugs, after a severe heart attack some 20 years ago I was prescribed statins, couldn`t walk more than a 100 yards without chest pain after taking that drug, to counter this I was prescribed an angina spray, read on the net about side effects of that statin drug, came off both both and have never looked back.

My wife has just broken her wrist, NHS want her to have a bone scan for bone density, the only cause of action for fragile bones in older people is a drug called Foxamax or similar used and recommended by the NHS, she decided not to have the scan.

https://www.drugwatch.com/fosamax/
https://saveourbones.com/the-end-of-bis ... effective/


----------



## bobclive22

> You couldn't make it up, could you... after months of bleating on about sovereignty and democracy, the government are now doing everything they can to circumvent or abbreviate the democratic process...


The first past the post is our electoral system, proportional representation is I believe more democratic, so what is your gripe.
We had one person one vote and the remainer`s lost, the question was IN or OUT, no soft or hard Brexit, the question was framed to go hand in hand with project fear, Cameron thought he could do a Scotland on the Brit`s.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You couldn't make it up, could you... after months of bleating on about sovereignty and democracy, the government are now doing everything they can to circumvent or abbreviate the democratic process...
> 
> 
> 
> The first past the post is our electoral system, proportional representation is I believe more democratic, so what is your gripe.
> We had one person one vote and the remainer`s lost, the question was IN or OUT, no soft or hard Brexit, the question was framed to go hand in hand with project fear, Cameron thought he could do a Scotland on the Brit`s.
Click to expand...

My gripe is that we have a *parliamentary* democracy (not a direct democracy, hence why the referendum is more akin to an official opinion poll, rather than the epitomy of democracy you seem to believe it is), but the government is doing everything it can to circumvent parliament because it wants to implement brexit in a particular way without the inconvenience of allowing our democratically elected MPs the chance to vote on the conditions of our exit.

Yes, the question was indeed IN or OUT, no soft or hard brexit, so how the government think they have a mandate to do a hard brexit after a referendum that didn't ask that question is beyond me. I'm glad we agree on that at least.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I think that comment was more to do with educated types believing that if they deleted and reformatted hard drives this destroyed all the data on those drives. Shipman just altered his.
> So Spandex you believe everything a so called expert tells you, good luck mate.
> 
> As for prescribed drugs, after a severe heart attack some 20 years ago I was prescribed statins, couldn`t walk more than a 100 yards without chest pain after taking that drug, to counter this I was prescribed an angina spray, read on the net about side effects of that statin drug, came off both both and have never looked back.
> 
> My wife has just broken her wrist, NHS want her to have a bone scan for bone density, the only cause of action for fragile bones in older people is a drug called Foxamax or similar used and recommended by the NHS, she decided not to have the scan.
> 
> https://www.drugwatch.com/fosamax/
> https://saveourbones.com/the-end-of-bis ... effective/


I understand that these stories are significant to you, but surely you realise that this doesn't make them statistically significant.

Beyond that I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. If you're just pointing out how big pharma is evil, I won't disagree. Have a read of Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> You couldn't make it up, could you... after months of bleating on about sovereignty and democracy, the government are now doing everything they can to circumvent or abbreviate the democratic process...
> 
> 
> 
> The first past the post is our electoral system, proportional representation is I believe more democratic, so what is your gripe.
> We had one person one vote and the remainer`s lost, the question was IN or OUT, no soft or hard Brexit, the question was framed to go hand in hand with project fear, Cameron thought he could do a Scotland on the Brit`s.
Click to expand...

Just one point Bob. There was no threshold set to define winners and losers in the referendum act. The referendum was advisory only. You might want to read this:

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/article ... _1_4789695


----------



## Spandex

An important point you (Bob) maybe haven't thought about (or are possibly willing to ignore if it gets you the result you want) - the reason we have a parliamentary democracy is so that everyone's views and best interests are represented, not just those who happened to vote for MPs whose party formed the government.

In a general election we vote for our local MP, not for a government and not for a prime minister. Once a government is formed, that government does not have the power to make sweeping changes that only benefit the minority of the population who voted for them - they must vote within parliament, with all of *our representatives*. This fundamental process ensures that decisions are made in the best interests of the country, not just a subset of us on the 'winning side'.

For the exact same reason it is vital that parliament debate brexit and all of the decisions associated with it. To implement brexit based solely on a referendum would actually be undemocratic. I know you will find that unbelievable because you think that a simple vote is the very definition of democracy, but it's not how democracy works (or has ever worked) in Britain, and for good reason. Only 52% of 72% of registered voters chose to leave the EU - that leaves a very large majority of the population whose views must be represented by parliament, even if the government would like to pretend they don't exist.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> To be fair, Bob has already explained that we can't trust doctors because Harold Shipman was a doctor. You really can't argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that comment was more to do with educated types believing that if they deleted and reformatted hard drives this destroyed all the data on those drives. Shipman just altered his.
> So Spandex you believe everything a so called expert tells you, good luck mate.
Click to expand...

Well, I got some spare time so found your original post about Shipman:



> Lord Acton stated: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
> 
> The doctor Harold Shipman illustrated Acton's view on human nature by murdering a number of his patients over many years. Doctors have our utmost trust, but also - as Shipman proved - absolute power over life and death. So should we really put our lives in the hands of these experts? Isn't it dangerous to trust them?


So, nothing to do with hard drives or Shipman altering data - just your explanation as to how a single doctor murdering his patients should be taken as evidence that we can't trust any doctors, or by association any experts in any field.

I think your obviously derogatory use of the term 'educated types' is telling. It's clear you see being educated as a bad thing, or something to be mocked because you believe you know more than them whilst (presumably) not classing yourself as educated.


----------



## Shug750S

Wonder how many of the leave voters realised that we still have to pay to play. Or let free migration happen.

Could end up with a similar bill to being a member, without any say in the rules

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942


----------



## John-H

Shug750S said:


> Wonder how many of the leave voters realised that we still have to pay to play. Or let free migration happen.
> 
> Could end up with a similar bill to being a member, without any say in the rules
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942


I think that's what Spandex said when this whole debate kicked off.

What was that about cake?


----------



## bobclive22

Perhaps you should actually read the pamphlet.

The last page states,

THIS IS YOUR DECISION. THE GOVERNMENT WILL IMPLEMENT WHAT YOU DECIDE, NO HARD OR SOFT EXIT ONLY IN OR OUT, WHAT PART OF THAT DON`T YOU UNDERSTAND SPANDEX.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... the-uk.pdf


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you should actually read the pamphlet.
> 
> The last page states,
> 
> THIS IS YOUR DECISION. THE GOVERNMENT WILL IMPLEMENT WHAT YOU DECIDE, NO HARD OR SOFT EXIT ONLY IN OR OUT, WHAT PART OF THAT DON`T YOU UNDERSTAND SPANDEX.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... the-uk.pdf


That's not what MPs voted on Bob - that's spin from the executive.



> MPs were told in Briefing Paper 07212 on June 3 2015, before debating the European Referendum Bill, that the referendum was only advisory and consultative and therefore non-binding (section 5); and they were alerted to the fact that if there were any question of the referendum being other than merely consultative and non-binding, that 'a simple plurality of votes' (that is, an ordinary majority) would not be enough (section 6).
> http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... _1_4754430


----------



## bobclive22

The majority of the voting public voted leave, this latest bi-election in Winchester shows clearly a remain bias in the vote, Winchester will be back in Tory hands after the next election when article 50 has been implemented.

Winchester
Remain
42,878 (58.9%)
Leave
29,886 (41.1%)
Turnout
81.2%

If the majority of politicians decided to ignore the will of the people a repeat of Winchester would be likely and their political careers would be swiftly cut short but, as has been shown with the expenses and house swapping scandal many of these politicians are greedy self-serving troffers so I am confident they will vote for themselves and Brexit which will occur sooner than later.

It now appears UKIP is getting it`s act together and as it is the only party that actually guarantees an exit from the EU the next election if article 50 has not been implemented before then should be interesting especially in the Brexit voting constituencies.


----------



## John-H

I think it tells you that the will of the people is changing now people are realising they are going to end up with something they don't want. Perhaps the politicians are starting to realise that too. Will you? Or are you going to stick with a referendum whose result gave no direction and is rapidly becoming out of date?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you should actually read the pamphlet.
> 
> The last page states,
> 
> THIS IS YOUR DECISION. THE GOVERNMENT WILL IMPLEMENT WHAT YOU DECIDE, NO HARD OR SOFT EXIT ONLY IN OR OUT, WHAT PART OF THAT DON`T YOU UNDERSTAND SPANDEX.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... the-uk.pdf


You do realise you're agreeing with me, right??? Just to be absolutely clear:

I am saying we were *only* asked if we wanted to leave or not. We agree on that, yes?

I am saying that we *weren't* asked if we wanted hard or soft brexit (or any of the specifics that could make up one of those). We agree on that, yes?

So, what do you think I don't understand, or what is it that you think we're disagreeing about?


----------



## bobclive22

> I think it tells you that the will of the people is changing now people are realising they are going to end up with something they don't want. Perhaps the politicians are starting to realise that too. Will you? Or are you going to stick with a referendum whose result gave no direction and is rapidly becoming out of date?


John, watch last weeks question time, you will begin to understand that hard or soft doesn`t concern most voters north of the M25. What does concern them is mass immigration severely effecting their way of life, waiting times at doctors surgery's, because of mass immigration, driving miles for a school place because of mass immigration, lack of housing because of mass immigration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... e-01122016


----------



## bobclive22

> I am saying that we weren't asked if we wanted hard or soft brexit (or any of the specifics that could make up one of those). We agree on that, yes?


You were not asked because that question did not exist until after the result, it was not considered prior because Cameron was advised he could not loose.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I think it tells you that the will of the people is changing now people are realising they are going to end up with something they don't want. Perhaps the politicians are starting to realise that too. Will you? Or are you going to stick with a referendum whose result gave no direction and is rapidly becoming out of date?
> 
> 
> 
> John, watch last weeks question time, you will begin to understand that hard or soft doesn`t concern most voters north of the M25. What does concern them is mass immigration severely effecting their way of life, waiting times at doctors surgery's, because of mass immigration, driving miles for a school place because of mass immigration, lack of housing because of mass immigration.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... e-01122016
Click to expand...

I listened to this week's Any Questions and the biggest round of applause was for Tommy Shepard who said we didn't vote for hard Brexit and we should embrace people who come to live here and benefit our society.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b083r9xf


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I am saying that we weren't asked if we wanted hard or soft brexit (or any of the specifics that could make up one of those). We agree on that, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> You were not asked because that question did not exist until after the result, it was not considered prior because Cameron was advised he could not loose.
Click to expand...

Does it matter why it wasn't asked? The point is that is wasn't asked so there is no mandate for the government to do hard or soft brexit. This is why it needs to be debated and voted on by parliament.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, watch last weeks question time, you will begin to understand that hard or soft doesn`t concern most voters north of the M25. What does concern them is mass immigration severely effecting their way of life, waiting times at doctors surgery's, because of mass immigration, driving miles for a school place because of mass immigration, lack of housing because of mass immigration.


Then they're idiots. They're idiots for allowing the media and the government to convince them that all these problems are caused by immigrants, and not caused by underfunding. They're idiots for voting in successive governments that seek to cut funding further to these already underfunded services and they're idiots for voting us out of the EU into an uncertain future that will reduce the available funds even further.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> watch last weeks question time, you will begin to understand that hard or soft doesn`t concern most voters north of the M25. What does concern them is mass immigration severely effecting their way of life, waiting times at doctors surgery's, because of mass immigration, driving miles for a school place because of mass immigration, lack of housing because of mass immigration.


Interesting view Bob, just had a search on the internet and found the following (fairly typical but quote below is from the Daily Mirror article)

"Immigration map of Britain: Where do foreign migrants choose to live in the UK?
London remains by far the most popular destination, with 2.85 million living in the nation's capital, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
The South East has also proved a popular destination for foreign migrants with 1,011,000 currently calling the region home. The area with the third-highest proportion of migrants was the East with 635,000 of its 5.9 million residents (11%) born abroad."

So you quote voters north of the M25, but office of national statistics reckons largest migrant numbers in the M25 and South East...

???????


----------



## John-H

Live stream of the Supreme Court proceedings from 11:00 am today:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court- ... dium=email

5 to 8 Dec 2016
Start times: 5 Dec - 11:00 | 6 Dec - 10:15 | 7 Dec - 10:30 | 8 Dec - 10:15

The case:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html

In addition:

People's Challenge written case:
http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/xr3uaaiqnale3d.html

Scottish governments written case:
http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/xr3uaajj3ale3d.html

Welsh governments written case:
http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/xr3uaakbjale3d.html

Informant workers union of Great Brain written case:
http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/b91a3fhilbale3d.html

Lawyers for Britain Limited written case:
http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/b91a3fhjdrale3d.html

Catch up Supreme court hearing sessions video:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html?


----------



## Spandex

To be honest, there's not much point watching. It's just a government PR stunt - they never expected to win, but they had to be seen to try because it's better for them to blame the courts than to admit they made a fundamental mistake.


----------



## John-H

You mean the government's surprising decision to appeal the High Court ruling is a PR stunt?

I presume you are not thinking the government secretly actually don't want to leave the EU? Rather they do but are so badly prepared and disorganised in the face of overwhelming difficulty and negative consequence, that they are making a pigs ear of the process - for fear of parliamentary scrutiny. They know this but are trying to appeal to the leave camp "popularity" by appearing to "try their best" to give them what they want.

There are those who think that Teresa May played a clever hand by handing the poison chalice to the Brexiteers with the jaw dropping decision of Johnson for foreign Secretary - how best to screw it up? That's a possibility but so to is that she doesn't care because whatever happens she'll still be comfortably off and is just riding the power train. I don't know the answer to that.

I do think that the "popular" view is changing as reality looms starkly into view.

I also think that the Supreme Court outcome is important because not only may it uphold the decision the High Court made but may yet go further in consideration of devolved governments.

There is also a point of EU law regarding the rescinding of notice that "must" be referred to Luxembourg - where there is doubt. So far the parties have agreed notice can not be rescinded. Some say this is unclear however.

Regardless, it is the biggest constitutional case since the bill of rights. Excuse me, it's nearly on :wink:


----------



## Spandex

The appeal isn't the PR stunt... the appeal is just the big finish. They knew they'd lose the High Court case and they know they'll lose this one. If you read the actual High Court judgement in full you see how open and shut this case was - there's no way the governments lawyers would have been under any illusions about possibly winning. That leaves just one explanation for this fiasco.

The reality is the major political parties, the government included, are scared of brexit voters. Politicians are having to walk on eggshells, terrified about upsetting them by saying something they don't like, because they know that brexit voters are politically fickle - they're like a dog with a bone and they'll vote for whichever party that gets them out of the EU fastest.

So imagine the headlines in the Daily Racist Express if the Tories dropped the case and admitted they made promises they Could never keep when calling the referendum. The end result, legally, would be the same, but the Government would suddenly look like maybe they're not as committed to brexit as they claim to be. And that would be political suicide.


----------



## John-H

Thanks for the clarification. I don't disagree but they are changing tack in their arguments.... I must get back ...


----------



## John-H

So far the government are arguing that the prerogative powers are not archaic but modern and necessary and used to enact international treaties and therefore they create the rights of UK individuals by doing so in tandem with the subsequent necessary creation of domestic acts of parliament to enshrine those treaty obligations into domestic law. The subsequent act in itself can not create the rights without the existence of the international treaty obligation. Further, that if parliament where so to wish that the rights could not be taken away by prerogative power then it would specifically say so in the act and that given it does not the right of government to exercise prerogative power to rescind the act is accepted, in the same way as it would be accepted that other governments or the EU could act to take away those rights without the necessary prior repeal of UK legislation.

They've broken for lunch ...


----------



## Shug750S

A couple of interesting posts above.

Always wondered if the Conservatives were trying to be clever here, and guessed that the courts may decide an open debate is needed in parliament and then if it goes against invoking article 50 they will always say they tried and were stopped by the courts...

Also does seem that even some leave voters are now realising cake and eat it aren't in the same sentence


----------



## mighTy Tee




----------



## Spandex

mighTy Tee said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-DHqFikHoA


I'm sure that presenter (and some listeners) thought she was being really clever, but surely that's just a spectacular case of missing the point?

I't s pretty ironic that in trying to make a 'clever' point about the referendum, the presenter has actually highlighted exactly why a 2nd referendum isn't such a bad idea - with parliamentary elections, we get to re-visit the choice every 4 years at the very least. With the referendum, despite being significantly more important, we apparently should just shut up and never discuss the result again.

So what Sarah Olney should have said when asked when the 2nd by-election was happening is, "whenever Theresa May calls a general election, you idiot".


----------



## John-H

mighTy Tee said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-DHqFikHoA


The interviewer/presenter has previously made it clear that she is strongly opposed to a referendum on the terms of Brexit. Stating personal opinion is not the job of an interviewer - more that of a political columnist.

The tone of that interview is one of a planned ambush to make a political point and hardly impartial.

Clearly the interviewee was taken aback but the point at which the interview ended, made by Julia Hartley-Brewer - that the leave campaign had clearly campaigned to leave the single market - was incorrect! This is just misinformation.

I certainly remember interviews where it was argued by leave that we could retain membership of the single market despite leaving the EU because the Germans would not want to lose car sales to the UK etc. But we'd save £350M p/wk for the NHS. Lots of cake and eating it!

More recently Boris Johnson made the same point to an Italian EU minister saying that they would not want to lose sales of Bruschetta to the UK so would want the UK to retain single market access - to which the Italian said as a reciprocal point - Ok we sell Bruschetta to you and you may lose sales of fish and chips but we will lose sales to one country whereas you will lose sales to 27.

I think that puts the point into perspective and people are starting see the truth despite the bias and now wanting the chance to change their minds. The narrow referendum result is fast becoming out of date.


----------



## bobclive22

> "Immigration map of Britain: Where do foreign migrants choose to live in the UK?
> London remains by far the most popular destination, with 2.85 million living in the nation's capital, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
> The South East has also proved a popular destination for foreign migrants with 1,011,000 currently calling the region home. The area with the third-highest proportion of migrants was the East with 635,000 of its 5.9 million residents (11%) born abroad."
> 
> So you quote voters north of the M25, but office of national statistics reckons largest migrant numbers in the M25 and South East...


The increase in the share of foreign-born workers in employment in the UK has been highly differentiated across occupations and sectors. Although foreign-born workers have been and remain employed in a wide range of jobs, *the growth in employment shares of foreign-born workers in recent years has been fastest among lower-skilled occupations and sectors. *In 2002, there was only one low-skilled occupation (food preparation trades) in the list of top ten occupations with the highest shares of foreign-born workers. As shown in Table 1, there are now at least five low-skilled occupations on this list (i.e. elementary process plant, process operatives, cleaning and housekeeping managers, elementary cleaning, food preparation and hospitality).

In 2015, 42% of workers in elementary process plant occupations (e.g. industry cleaning process occupation and packers, bottlers, canners and fillers), 36% of workers process operatives (i.e food, drink and tobacco process; glass and ceramics process operatives; textile process operatives; chemical and related process operatives; rubber and plastic process operatives; metal making and treating process and electroplaters) and 35% in cleaning and housekeeping managers and supervisions were foreign-born. The increase in the share of migrant labour has been greatest among process operatives (e.g. food, drink and tobacco process operatives, plastics process operatives, chemical and related process operatives) up from 8.5% in 2002 to 36% in 2015. As discussed by Aldin et al. (2010) a significant share of relatively skilled recent migrants have taken up employment in less-skilled occupations in the UK.

This has led to lower wages, an increase in Zero rate and 7 hour per week contracts and all the other social problems associated with mass immigration, this is felt more north of the M25 as the referendum result showed.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u ... -overview/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/


Just to make it clear for anyone reading Bobs post above, as he has made no effort to do so himself, the last paragraph is written by him and is not taken from the article he links to.

There is significant research available regarding the economic impact of migrants, particularly on wages, and the evidence points to this impact being relatively small. In contrast, wages in lower paid jobs have been massively impacted by the decline in trade union power and advances in manufacturing and technology. But some people are easily lead and will just blame whoever they're told to blame.


----------



## bobclive22

> Just to make it clear for anyone reading Bobs post above, as he has made no effort to do so himself, the last paragraph is written by him and is not taken from the article he links to.
> 
> There is significant research available regarding the economic impact of migrants, particularly on wages, and the evidence points to this impact being relatively small. In contrast, wages in lower paid jobs have been massively impacted by the decline in trade union power and advances in manufacturing and technology. But some people are easily lead and will just blame whoever they're told to blame.


Utter rubbish Spandex,

If everyone was happy with their lot why vote leave, I`m sure the Government pamphlet coupled with project fear should have convinced the electorate that the status quo was the way to go.

The unions bang on regarding all the workers rights the EU has delivered yet stay silent on short /zero rate contracts.

The migration factor

*Polling suggests discontent with the scale of migration to the UK has been the biggest factor pushing Britons to vote out*, with the contest turning into a referendum on whether people are happy to accept free movement in return for free trade.

Public unease has been fuelled by a failure to prevent immigration from piling pressure on jobs markets and public services, and a refusal by politicians to acknowledge the sheer numbers of Europeans making new homes in the UK after the EU's expansion east in 2004 and 2007.

Cameron promised before the 2010 election to bring migration down to the tens, not hundreds, of thousands. However, his failure to live up to his promise, repeated in 2015, has undermined trust in his leadership and contributed to a sense that UK politicians are powerless to lower migration from the EU.

The leave camp tried to make the arguments for Brexit more about the economy and sovereignty than immigration, but quickly found that "taking back control" over immigration was the most resonant message. They also linked immigration to *shortages of primary school places, difficulty in getting a GP appointment, and depressed wages.*

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... pean-union

But Hey, it`s OK in my backyard.


----------



## bobclive22

> *Then they're idiots. *They're idiots for allowing the media and the government to convince them that all these problems are caused by immigrants, and not caused by underfunding. They're idiots for voting in successive governments that seek to cut funding further to these already underfunded services and they're idiots for voting us out of the EU into an uncertain future that will reduce the available funds even further.


*Agency workers at Shirebrook*

Shirebrook is the 800,000 square foot warehouse of Sports Direct, which was built on 
the reclaimed Shirebrook Colliery site (which operated until 1993). At Shirebrook, Sports 
Direct pays an estimated £50 million per year to two agencies, The Best Connection and 
Transline, to supply staff to work in the warehouse.

Transline is a temporary work agency, 
founded in 1989, which provides workers to 100 sites in the UK, as well as operations in 
Ireland, Eastern Europe, Canada, Thailand, and Dubai.

The Best Connection started 
trading in 1991, and provides flexible workforces to industrial, driving, retail and 
warehouse and distribution sectors.

*The workers typically paid, just above the minimum 
wage, are predominantly from Eastern Europe
*
The employment structure at the warehouse in Shirebrook involves Sports Direct, 
the agencies, and the agency workers. It is a triangular relationship: the agency worker 
signs up with one of the agencies, with whom the worker has a contract, and then works 
for the agencies' client, Sports Direct. Under their contracts, the agency workers agree to 
certain restrictions relating, for example, to periods of work when no suitable work may 
be available and the necessity to accept assignments.

The majority of agency workers are 
employed on contracts guaranteeing work for only 336 hours a year (that is, seven weeks' 
work if the working week is 48 hours). In practice, workers are typically engaged on 40 
hours' work a week for nine weeks at the start of the year, and subsequent to this period 
have no contractual rights to any guaranteed weekly hours and therefore to the associated 
payment of wages. This arrangement effectively leaves the workers on zero-hour contracts 
for the vast majority of the year.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 19/219.pdf

Perhaps that`s why these people (idiots as you call them Spandex ) voted leave.


----------



## Spandex

People voted leave because they were conned into believing the EU was the source of all their problems.

As for the polls, I'm sure they do suggest discontent with the scale of migration, but frankly, so what? It doesn't mean migration is actually causing the problems, it just means people believe it is. In fact, polling has shown that people who live in areas with low migration levels are more likely to perceive migration as a problem - that's why UKIP has traditionally done well in rural areas where there are relatively few immigrants.

As I've said before, the data shows that immigrants are net financial contributors to this country - i.e. they pay in more than they take out - so if schools and hospitals can't cope, where is that extra money going? The migrants are more than paying for the additional schooling and healthcare so if these can't cope it's because someone (hint, it's the government) is holding back funds and crippling vital services. They do this for ideological reasons because they want public services to fail so they can use the manufactured failure as an excuse to privatise.

And how do you think they can get away with this? That's right, they invent a scapegoat so that people like you won't question why their healthcare system is dying on its arse.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps that`s why these people (idiots as you call them Spandex ) voted leave.


Pretty sure I've already explained why the idiots voted leave, but thanks for repeating the same single example over and over again. No ones getting bored of that one at all.


----------



## bobclive22

> Pretty sure I've already explained why the idiots voted leave, but thanks for repeating the same single example over and over again. No ones getting bored of that one at all.


Do you include the following in your list of idiots.

*I was wrong about Brexit!' Britain's most influential historian Niall Ferguson says he made a mistake in backing the Remain campaign and says the EU 'deserved' the result*

This is not about GDP, it is* principally* about the *complete loss of control of the EU's external border and what that implies for our country's future.*

The article appears in the mail this does not denigrate the article or the authors opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... esult.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Do you include the following in your list of idiots.
> 
> *I was wrong about Brexit!' Britain's most influential historian Niall Ferguson says he made a mistake in backing the Remain campaign and says the EU 'deserved' the result*
> 
> This is not about GDP, it is* principally* about the *complete loss of control of the EU's external border and what that implies for our country's future.*
> 
> The article appears in the mail this does not denigrate the article or the authors opinion.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... esult.html


Possibly... I've not read the details of his argument so can't say for sure, but if he's saying that immigrants are responsible for failures in our health, education and housing then yes, he's an idiot.

That being said, he's an 'expert', so I assume you don't value his opinion anyway.


----------



## bobclive22

> Possibly... _I've not read the details of his argument _so can't say for sure, but if he's saying that immigrants are responsible for failures in our health, education and housing then yes, he's an idiot.
> 
> That being said, he's an 'expert', so I assume you don't value his opinion anyway.


Can`t you read,

He is a world class historian that just changed his mind, for that Spandex brands him an idiot.
It appears our Spandex believes anyone who has opposing views to his own is an idiot.

Is Lord Donoughue an idiot.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/en ... 0obsession


----------



## John-H

At least nobody is calling anyone here such things despite any qualification they or anyone else may perceive. We can just disagree politely.

Funniest moment so far at the supreme court. Lady Brenda Hale, who has been sporting different insect broaches every day, asked Lord Pannick when he introduced his next point about De Keyser (he pronounced "De-Keizer"), "Have I been mis-pronouncing that case all my adult life?"

Lord Pannick replied, "Would your ladyship like to tell me the correct ...?" Hale: "De Keyser" ("De Key-ser"). Lord Pannick graciously responded, "I will call it De-Key-ser".

Lady Hale commented, "I don't know I may be wrong, I'm often wrong", To which Lord Pannick said, "You say De Key-ser I say De-Kei-ser". (much judicial chuckling ensued). (24min 20 seconds into : https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc- ... 16-am.html)

They decided it wouldn't much matter in the transcript as the spelling wouldn't indicate how it was pronounced.

On a more serious note Lord Pannick acting for Gina Miller made many points including that the 1972 ECU Act had only been amended previusly by statute provision to include new EU treaties and it therefore made no sense that the whole of the act could subsequently be set at naught by use of the royal prerogative, rendering a huge body of legislation meaningless as to its EU treaty referenced obligations and rights of citizens.

The point was raised in examination that the 2015 EU referendum act being passed, implied that parliament was accepting and seeding the ground that authority was given to the people and it was therefore for the government to enact that decision through the use of the prerogative. That the point being put to him was that the referendum act revived the prerogative power which had been fetered by the 1972 EC act.

Lord Pannick developed in response that the referendum was only advisory and if parliament had intended to allow the executive to use prerogative powers then it would have expressly said so as some other past referenda had done. This was not such a referendum model.

Lord Nicholas Wilson clarified that Lord Pannick was saying that it is more likely that parliament, having decided to call an advisory referendum, was likely to expect the decision to be left to them rather than transfer the right of decision to the executive. Lord Pannick made the point that the 2015 referendum act was silent on that matter and it could not be inferred that, and there was no evidence for, the division of responsibility to be affected by the act. It would be fundamentally wrong for the court to infer such an intention.

Lord Robert Reed made the point that the court was therefore being asked to compel the government to introduce an act into parliament which would be novel to say the least and if the government were then to introduce a lesser bill they would have to say - that's not good enough it would have to be a full act of parliament. Lord Pannick said that the court has to look at the language of the 2015 act and there was simply nothing there to create the prerogative power, it was entirely neutral on this issue so normal convention and precedent must prevail regarding the sovereignty of parliament.

The Northern Ireland and Scottish representatives later developed the arguments that imposing prerogative powers that took away their EU membership was unconstitutional by convention (re Sewel convention). Furthermore that the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement gave sovereignty to the people independently of the UK government and set up obligations regarding its relationship with Southern Ireland in accordance with EU treaty principals which were enshrined into the agreements which became statute. Therefore to strike them to naught was unconstitutional.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Can`t you read,


Evidently I can, but that 'article' doesn't explain his reasoning in any kind of detail, it simply focuses on his change of mind.


bobclive22 said:


> He is a world class historian that just changed his mind, for that Spandex brands him an idiot.
> It appears our Spandex believes anyone who has opposing views to his own is an idiot.


I bet before he changed his mind you thought he was an untrustworthy expert. Thank goodness you've coincidentally just now discovered he's world class.

While we're on the subject of being able to read, how did you manage to come to the conclusion that I "branded him an idiot"?


bobclive22 said:


> Is Lord Donoughue an idiot.
> 
> https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/en ... 0obsession


Someone give Bob a nudge... his record has stuck again. Global warming, stomach ulcers, shirebrook... Let's hope santa brings Bob a new conversation for Christmas.


----------



## John-H

Banks readying to leave the city of London as predicted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646


----------



## bobclive22

> Banks readying to leave the city of London as predicted:


Well coming from the BBC it must be true.


----------



## bobclive22

Parliament endorses Brexit: what does the vote mean?

In the end, Mrs May will present MPs with a binary choice on an Article 50 bill: are you for or against Brexit? Labour officials suggested that after much huffing and puffing, Mrs May will get her legislation in mid-March, just in time to meet her deadline of March 31 2017 for starting Brexit.

https://www.ft.com/content/851f6814-bd2 ... b81dd5d080


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Banks readying to leave the city of London as predicted:
> 
> 
> 
> Well coming from the BBC it must be true.
Click to expand...

Sigh... how about if it's reported in your beloved Daily Fail?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rexit.html


----------



## John-H

Just a snippet from today that impressed me:

Manjit Gill QC today made the point that those EU citizens living in the UK, children and carers residing here under provision of the immigration act referencing EU law. That if the royal prerogative power were used to annul UK EU membership it would render those citizens here without leave and committing a criminal offence.

The 1610 Case of Proclamations has it that "...the King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence, by his proclamation, which was not an offence before, without parliament."

He further made the point that it is not enough to say that legislation will subsequently be introduced to correct this situation. It might not.

On the point that parliament can stand up for itself but has not over who should trigger article 50 in the 2015 referendum act - _why should Parliament have to say anything? Why should it have to react to what could be politically mischievous conduct by a usurping executive?_

_"Whilst I accept Lord Reed's point that the notion of flexible constitution can be useful. This case is about something far far more fundamental than that. The court may be facing certain amount of pressure - it's an eleven bench court - this is no time to turn a flexible constitution into a slippery one and let go of its bedrock fundamentals." _

- - -

But don't think that the government have definitely lost again in this appeal at the Supreme Court. They have changed tack in their argument. They accept that the prerogative cannot be used to take away rights granted in common law or statute but they now say that the 1972 EC act was a "conduit" through which rights came into force by use of the prerogative on the international plane by the signing of treaties. Using the prerogative to un-sign those treaties does not, they say, take away rights granted by the 1972 act as the rights would still exist "from time to time" as the act puts it depending on how the provisions of the treaties apply. It was accepted that the prerogative can be used to create and take away rights where it does not affect common law or statute and they are not changing the statute but only the treaties.

Judgement will likely be handed down in January.

Proceedings can be watched here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html


----------



## bobclive22

> Sigh... how about if it's reported in your beloved Daily Fail?:


Watch the video, relate this to Brexit, this is where ordinary citizens get their information.


----------



## bobclive22

> Just a snippet from today that impressed me:


It won`t make any difference, get over it John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Sigh... how about if it's reported in your beloved Daily Fail?:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the video, relate this to Brexit, this is where ordinary citizens get their information.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I managed less than a minute of that video. By the way, who are the 'ordinary' citizens? And who are the other citizens? Are they extraordinary?

I'm not really sure what point you're even trying to make (although perhaps I'm being too optimistic there). You've provided a number of Daily Mail links to back up your nonesense in the past, so I provided a Daily Mail link to you in the belief that you felt they were reliable, where the BBC are not. If you *don't* think they're reliable, do us a favour and stop posting their articles, because I'm sure we'd all feel better if we never had to read another thing they wrote.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just a snippet from today that impressed me:
> 
> 
> 
> It won`t make any difference, get over it John.
Click to expand...

It makes a massive difference. The problem is, you only care about one thing (brexit), so you aren't capable of understanding the importance of this court case beyond that single aspect.

As I said before - like a dog with a bone.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a snippet from today that impressed me:
> 
> 
> 
> It won`t make any difference, get over it John.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes a massive difference. The problem is, you only care about one thing (brexit), so you aren't capable of understanding the importance of this court case beyond that single aspect.
> 
> As I said before - like a dog with a bone.
Click to expand...

This would also make a massive difference:

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexi ... dium=email


----------



## John-H

I see Lady Hale and Lord Pannick's exchange on De Keyser - "You say De Key-ser I say De-Kei-ser". (24min 20 seconds into : https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc- ... 16-am.html) has been made into a charity T-shirt :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Honestly, I managed less than a minute of that video. By the way, who are the 'ordinary' citizens? And who are the other citizens? Are they extraordinary?


If you had watched it`s entirety you would understand where the ordinary citizens now get their information.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Honestly, I managed less than a minute of that video. By the way, who are the 'ordinary' citizens? And who are the other citizens? Are they extraordinary?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had watched it`s entirety you would understand where the ordinary citizens now get their information.
Click to expand...

And if you had read what I wrote, you'd know that wasn't the bit I didn't understand. :wink:

I understand exactly the point you're trying to make without having to watch the video (you're a fairly single-minded, predictable kind of guy). I also understand why it's complete bollocks, but there is honestly no point getting into a discussion with you about that because you deliberately live in an echo chamber, where your only measure of media impartiality is how much you agree with their stories.

And that's what it comes down to. You (and a minority of others, not *all* the 'ordinary' citizens you imagine) choose an alternative news source that only presents one side of an argument and completely omits any stories which might not agree with your world view, and then you smugly pronounce all mainstream media as biased whilst immersing yourself in an equally biased non-mainstream media. Ridiculously, this alternative media is just as manipulated and corrupted by big corporations as the worst of the mainstreams, but they've packaged themselves well for a particularly gullible portion of the population who don't like to analyse what they see or read too deeply, and like to massage their own egos by feeling like they're part of a select group 'in the know' while all the sheeple stumble around in the dark.


----------



## A3DFU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146


----------



## John-H

I noticed this in your link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38319338

... which I think we knew but in light of the extended uncertainty, now obviously to take even longer, it only increases the pressure for exodus of the city.

We are causing immense self inflicted damage to ourselves without even a real mandate to do it. Many polls show there has been a shift to remain since the referendum so the 28% of the 37% of the 52% are now even smaller. As the years tick by during this damaging uncertainty the demographic will also change with more younger pro-EU voters replacing the expiring leavers.

The case for revisiting this "decision" will only get stronger.


----------



## bobclive22

> Many polls show there has been a shift to remain since the referendum


Is this from the same pollsters that predicted a remain win. :lol: :lol:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... ld-trumps/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Many polls show there has been a shift to remain since the referendum
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the same pollsters that predicted a remain win. :lol: :lol:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... ld-trumps/
Click to expand...

You think the materialising state of shambles regarding the lack of a plan, the predicted delays and veto warnings about a deal, the resistance from the EU to give the UK a jolly good deal, the UKs weak position, the cries from the city, farming, manufacturing, even fisheries, that we need single market access, the drop in the pound (even before anything has happened) - favour the same outcome? Who are you trying to fool? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Many polls show there has been a shift to remain since the referendum
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the same pollsters that predicted a remain win. :lol: :lol:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... ld-trumps/
Click to expand...

Have you noticed Bob, that whenever you post a link that supports the leave campaign, people will generally try to debate the points raised in the article. But when someone posts a link supporting the remain campaign, you almost invariably attack the source and dismiss the author as unreliable.


----------



## John-H

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other



> Naturally, they suspect "the establishment" is conspiring to overturn the referendum result. This is why their pious exclamations about respecting the will of "the people" never extend to granting "the people" the privilege of changing its mind. No matter how bad the condition of Britain becomes, they allowed us the one vote and that was that.


And on a related note...

People who deny science and evidence in favor of their own personal beliefs or self interest are not the sort of people who should be in charge.

When the evidence doesn't match the model a good scientist will change the model to better reflect reality and in that way improve the science. Someone with a closed mind rejects the evidence, sees developing science as proof that science is wrong and is not therefore the sort of person best capable of understanding reality.


----------



## bobclive22

> Have you noticed Bob, that whenever you post a link that supports the leave campaign, people will generally try to debate the points raised in the article. But when someone posts a link supporting the remain campaign, you almost invariably attack the source and dismiss the author as unreliable.


Did the same pollsters get it right or wrong, I believe they got it wrong, what`s to debate?


----------



## alantt

It's just like the Trump ,Clinton thing, the majority has decided that we go in a certain direction , that's democracy, there is no point moaning about it , live with it and let's all move forward. At voting time my head said remain but my heart said leave so I voted remain, but I am over it now and happy with the result as that's what the majority of my countrymen and women wanted.


----------



## bobclive22

> And on a related note...People who deny science and evidence in favor of their own personal beliefs or self interest are not the sort of people who should be in charge.
> 
> When the evidence doesn't match the model a good scientist will change the model to better *reflect reality* and in that way improve the science. Someone with a closed mind rejects the evidence, sees developing science as proof that science is wrong and is not therefore the sort of person best capable of understanding reality.


John, as you quote from the Guardian you have probably drunk the greenade, Obama stated that there is No greater threat to future generations than climate change, this statement is *totally based on computer models*(CGM`s) that *do not agree with any empirical evidence,* the actual science, yet billions have been spent on trying to stop a none event, ( 0.8c rise in temps since 1860 and no rise from 1998 till 2016 even though CO2 was increasing. The hottest years are still the 1930`s), the BBC and the Guardian like to quote the hottest year ever but never give the actual temps, that`s because those increases are smaller than the margin of error, President elec Trump *does agree* with the science and intends to reduce or remove climate funding to the UN and pull the teeth of the damaging EPA. likewise there is *no empirical evidence* that leaving the EU will decimate the UK economy, only assumptions made from the same lot that vociferously argued for the UK to join the euro and thought it good for Greece, and the same lot that push global warming. Follow the money, you actually based your decision on the advice of this lot :lol: :lol: :lol:

June 2016

Among many, it was self-evident that Britain should join the euro. Some of the most influential politicians in the 1990s and 2000s were fervently pro single currency. From Danny Alexander and Paddy Ashdown, to Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke, alongside Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, and Chris Patten. At the same time, supposed key dispensers of financial and business wisdom in the country such as the Financial Times and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) were also making the case for the euro.

In 2001, the Financial Times predicted that Greece in particular was set to draw huge benefits from Eurozone membership. "With Greece now trading in euros, few will mourn the death of the drachma," it predicted.

At the time, it was those opposed to Britain joining the monetary union that were portrayed as lacking any economic sense. Writing in the Independent in 2003, Johann Hari wrote, "the anti-Europeans want to hum Land of Hope and Glory as they nuke the British economy."

Those who were the most fervent European integrationists have now been proven wrong, while those who leaned more to the sceptical side were vindicated as correct. This patchy record on the economy upsets the whole idea that the Remain camp is the side of economic wisdom: had we listened to them ten years ago, Britain's economy would be in a greater mess than we could imagine. Perhaps we should not be so quick to assume the Remain camp are to be most trusted when it comes to the economic implications of the UK's EU membership.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rem ... 59326.html

April 2004

The Eurosceptics have screamed their dishonest argument every day at the British people in accessible, often witty chunks of political propaganda.

The result has been disastrous. British people are consistently found in opinion polls to be the most anti-European of all the EU states. Downing Street's private polling shows how successful the Eurosceptic disinformation campaign has been. A majority of people think signing the new European constitution would require Britain to join the euro, sign away an independent foreign policy, place the British Army under European command, *and lose control of our borders. All lies.*

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 56912.html

22 Sep 2011

Now let's turn to the BBC. In our Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Guilty Men, we expose in detail how the BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate - all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality.

For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme.

But this was not the worst of the unfairness. The Eurosceptics were too rarely given time to state their reasons for favouring sterling. Their position was too often covered through a paradigm of deep, "explosive" splits within the Conservative Party rather than the merits of the policy argument. Again and again the BBC led its news coverage on scare stories that failure to join the euro would lead to *economic or industrial disaster*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... indle.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Have you noticed Bob, that whenever you post a link that supports the leave campaign, people will generally try to debate the points raised in the article. But when someone posts a link supporting the remain campaign, you almost invariably attack the source and dismiss the author as unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the same pollsters get it right or wrong, I believe they got it wrong, what`s to debate?
Click to expand...

Don't be a tit. You're well aware that pollsters have also got things right, but as I said, your only intention is to attack the source. You clearly don't care if your attack makes any kind of sense, you're happy to just lob it over the wall and run away before anyone questions it.


----------



## bobclive22

> You're well aware that pollsters have also got things right,


Examples please.


----------



## John-H

alantt said:


> It's just like the Trump ,Clinton thing, the majority has decided that we go in a certain direction , that's democracy, there is no point moaning about it , live with it and let's all move forward. At voting time my head said remain but my heart said leave so I voted remain, but I am over it now and happy with the result as that's what the majority of my countrymen and women wanted.


It's not a game of no importance that can be shrugged off IF you care about the consequences or believe them to be highly significant. If you hold strong views about it before hand you are still going to be of the same mind after regardless off the result. Only if you were of two minds or of no strong opinion would you accept 28% of the population dictating to the majority that their future should be fundamentally changed - on the strength an advisory only opinion poll with no legal effect.

The strategy following the second world war to stop the likelihood of further madness was to bring Europe together in an economic and political union with human dignity, freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights. Breaking it up is not a good idea. Do you know when Franco's fascist government came to an end in Spain? 1975. Not that long ago is it?Things can quickly change. I've not even touched on the economy and how we will lose 27 easy access markets and they will lose one. But don't worry about it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, as you quote from the Guardian you have probably drunk the greenade, Obama stated that there is No greater threat to future generations than climate change, this statement is *totally based on computer models*(CGM`s) that *do not agree with any empirical evidence,* the actual science, yet billions have been spent on trying to stop a none event, ( 0.8c rise in temps since 1860 and no rise from 1998 till 2016 even though CO2 was increasing. The hottest years are still the 1930`s), the BBC and the Guardian like to quote the hottest year ever but never give the actual temps, that`s because those increases are smaller than the margin of error, President elec Trump *does agree* with the science and intends to reduce or remove climate funding to the UN and pull the teeth of the damaging EPA. likewise there is *no empirical evidence* that leaving the EU will decimate the UK economy, only assumptions made from the same lot that vociferously argued for the UK to join the euro and thought it good for Greece, and the same lot that push global warming. Follow the money, you actually based your decision on the advice of this lot


So Bob, given that you are (clearly) no scientist and given that you don't trust any experts, what has caused you to go against the findings of 97% of climate scientists?

I mean, I get that they _could_ all be wrong, that they _could_ all be corrupt, but wouldn't that conclusion require some pretty weighty evidence? And how would you, a complete non-expert in this field, be able to analyse this evidence to any significant degree? How could you know if it was any more trustworthy than the climate scientists evidence?


----------



## bobclive22

> If you hold strong views about it before hand you are still going to be of the same mind after regardless off the result.


 Rubbish!

James Lovelock was once one of the leading voices of climate alarm. See: 2006 Climate Shocker: Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic'

How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion, MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/04/23/ ... years-ago/

I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4TVVkRK00


----------



## bobclive22

> So Bob, given that you are (clearly) no scientist and given that you don't trust any experts, what has caused you to go against the findings of 97% of climate scientists?


Your not siting that old chestnut.

The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

* Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)*

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... at-is.html

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/ ... nding.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/ ... l-warming/


----------



## A3DFU

alantt said:


> It's just like the Trump ,Clinton thing, the majority has decided that we go in a certain direction , that's democracy, there is no point moaning about it , live with it and let's all move forward.


The thing is that in case of the American election the consequences will last 4/8 years while in case Brexit will get enacted upon the consequences will last for a generation and possibly even longer.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So Bob, given that you are (clearly) no scientist and given that you don't trust any experts, what has caused you to go against the findings of 97% of climate scientists?
> 
> 
> 
> Your not siting that old chestnut.
> 
> The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
> 
> * Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)*
> 
> The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
> 
> http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... at-is.html
> 
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
> 
> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/ ... nding.html
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/ ... l-warming/
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you're missing the point. I'll spell it out for you: Why do you believe one set of experts over another?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> If you hold strong views about it before hand you are still going to be of the same mind after regardless off the result.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish!
> 
> James Lovelock was once one of the leading voices of climate alarm. See: 2006 Climate Shocker: Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic'
> 
> How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion, MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/04/23/ ... years-ago/
> 
> I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4TVVkRK00
Click to expand...

Bob, I was talking about the referendum result not your off topic subject of climate change :roll:

The thing that might make me change my mind, running with your conflation of my previous point about good scientists, would be accepted evidence to the contrary that changes the accepted rational consensus - not some opinion poll of the non expert and badly informed prior to anything actually happening. But such evidence won't be here for a while if at all.

So, it's not rubbish unlike your understanding of my comment which is in error.

As for your choice to believe a minority opinion rather than the majority of experts when you are not qualified to judge the subject; that I'm afraid does not inspire me with confidence in what you say or who you choose to quote.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> As for your choice to believe a minority opinion rather than the majority of experts when you are not qualified to judge the subject; that I'm afraid does not inspire me with confidence in what you say or who you choose to quote.


And this is exactly why I asked him how he decides which group of experts to believe. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how he decides, I'm just curious what reason he will invent in order to cover up the real reason. :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, I was talking about the referendum result not your off topic subject of climate change
> 
> (1) If you hold strong views about it before hand you are still going to be of the same mind after regardless off the result.
> 
> And on a related note...
> 
> (2) _ People who deny science and evidence in favor of their own personal beliefs or self interest are not the sort of people who should be in charge.
> 
> When the evidence doesn't match the model a good scientist will change the model to better reflect reality and in that way improve the science. Someone with a closed mind rejects the evidence, sees developing science as proof that science is wrong and is not therefore the sort of person best capable of understanding reality._


John Relate this to (1) http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/br ... ted-leave/

I sited the climate change example, it could have been any other example, a firmly held opinion on Brexit is no different to a firmly held opinion on any other subject, the difference with Brexit is there is NO scientific basis for stating the economy will be trashed if we leave. The only evidence you have is from the same lot that supported monetary union and the global financiers that almost destroyed the banking system. In the climate change example Lovelock changed his mind because the science was overwhelmingly contrary to his earlier belief`s ( your example (2)). So John, where is the science and where is the evidence for the doomsday scenario if we leave.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John Relate this to (1) http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/br ... ted-leave/
> 
> I sited the climate change example, it could have been any other example, a firmly held opinion on Brexit is no different to a firmly held opinion on any other subject, the difference with Brexit is there is NO scientific basis for stating the economy will be trashed if we leave. The only evidence you have is from the same lot that supported monetary union and the global financiers that almost destroyed the banking system. In the climate change example Lovelock changed his mind because the science was overwhelmingly contrary to his earlier belief`s ( your example (2)). So John, where is the science and where is the evidence for the doomsday scenario if we leave.


That article is ridiculous.. a man whose conviction is so weak that he changes his mind about his vote because he doesn't really like the company that puts him in, rather than what he thinks is best for the country? Very principled.

You do realise that the vast majority of economists stated we'd be worse off (not 'trashed') if we leave? Given that you probably have no clue what most of those economists opinions were about monetary union, how on earth are you making this stupid claim? You just call them the 'same lot' and hope no one questions it. I imagine you can probably even offer up one or two examples, as if one or two makes a dent in the huge number of voices warning us about leaving.

As for Lovelock, if you ignore the obvious spin, you'll see that he only changed his mind about the _severity and speed of the effect_ of climate change, not the cause of it. But that's all it takes in your mind, isn't it... Wrong about one thing = wrong about everything.

Incidentally, it's spin like that that's also used to deny the consensus - they change the search criteria to filter out large numbers of papers that agree with man-made climate change, or they include papers that don't offer an opinion on the cause of climate change in the 'no contribution' group, rather than removing them from the review altogether. Basically, they deliberately use flawed statistical techniques, because they know their target audience won't question something that sounds a bit scientific and agrees with their views.


----------



## bobclive22

Spandex,



> John-H wrote:
> As for your choice to believe a minority opinion rather than the majority of experts when you are not qualified to judge the subject; that I'm afraid does not inspire me with confidence in what you say or who you choose to quote.
> 
> Spandex said And this is exactly why I asked him how he decides which group of experts to believe. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly how he decides, I'm just curious what reason he will invent in order to cover up the real reason. :wink:


_And this is exactly why I asked him how he decides which group of experts to believe._

Reply,

Consensus science is bad science.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein

Here are examples of consensus science, No 4 is recent.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/th ... -theories/

This is how and where I obtain my information.

https://climateaudit.org/2010/03/05/phi ... ilability/

Phil Jones : We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

https://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we- ... this-work/

I would suggest you view this video, then ask yourselves, do I have confidence in expert opinions just because the opinionators state they are experts.
http://vid446.photobucket.com/albums/qq ... /Jones.mp4

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html (just check the facts in this piece forget who wrote it).

By the way Greece, Portugal and Spain were poor when they joined and are still poor, that`s 30 years for Spain and Portugal and 35 years for Greece, doesn`t appear to have done these 3 countries much good.


----------



## bobclive22

> Incidentally, it's spin like that that's also used to deny the consensus


Scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote. It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodletting was of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice.

Freeman Dyson: 'In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.'

Albert Einstein said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning." So why do so many people insist the science is beyond dispute and that there's nothing further to discuss?

http://noconsensus.org/what-is-consensus.php

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 ... 3341239688


----------



## Spandex

Missing the point really is a hobby for you, isn't it... no one is suggesting that the validity of the science is decided by 'majority vote'. That's just your poor interpretation of the meaning of 'consensus'. The validity of the science is judged by scientists attempting to independently repeat the results - we have nothing to do with that, because we're not scientists. The 'majority vote' becomes important when doing a meta-analysis on the resulting scientific papers (remember, this isn't a judgement on the science, it's a statistical analysis of the results) and none of these things suggest (or demand) that further scientific analysis isn't required. On the contrary, climate scientists on all sides are continuing to refine their understanding, which kind of proves that you've misunderstood the purpose of consensus.

You hold up examples where science got things wrong as evidence that science *must* therefore be wrong this time too - surely you can see how ridiculous that argument is? Nothing about it makes sense. In fact, I'm certain even you will admit to having made mistakes in the past - I suppose that can be taken as cast iron evidence that you're mistaken now?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Consensus science is bad science.


By that sentence you show you completely misunderstand the scientific process Bob.

To highlight this you then quote some great scientific thinkers at the point where they start to change the consensus:



bobclive22 said:


> It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodletting was of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice.
> 
> Freeman Dyson: 'In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.'


The consensus changed because other scientists examined the claims experimentally or observationally and found the claims to be correct, thus the consensus of scientific understanding and knowledge evolved.

That's how science works by learning new things.

You seem to be criticising and dismissing science for not knowing all the answers to start with.

You conveniently choose the moment of time to highlight your point to be just before an idea is accepted when most disagree rather than after it has become accepted and everyone agrees. One doesn't learn by going backwards in time Bob. More people improve their understanding as time goes by and after discoveries are made not before.

You're not a creationist are you? How old do you think the Earth is?


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> You conveniently choose the moment of time to highlight your point to be just before an idea is accepted when most disagree rather than after it has become accepted and everyone agrees.


Nail on the head...

It's an argument that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever - in fact it contradicts itself completely:

1. The only reason science can be shown to have got things wrong is because science has continued looking at the world and eventually got it right (as far as we *currently* know. Things could change again, because that's what science does)

2. In order to argue that science has been fundamentally wrong in the past, Bob must first believe that their current understanding about that subject is now correct (how can you say they were wrong if you don't know what's 'right'?). Which means Bob *does* trust scientists about a vast number of things.

So we come back to my question; how does Bob choose which group of experts to believe? He doesn't mind going with the consensus when he believes that the earth orbits around the sun... I presume he also wouldn't be up for any bloodletting if he got the flu - because he trusts the current consensus view.

I believe Bobs decision process hinges on two questions. Does the scientists conclusion personally inconvenience me, and is there any disagreement in the scientific community that I can leverage in order to limit that inconvenience. If those two situations exist, Bob is happy to go with the minority view.


----------



## John-H

Undoubtedly correct.

Here's a Christmas cracker joke:



> Why was Nigel Farage's Christmas lunch so bad?
> 
> He banned brussels and there was no turkey despite Nigel insisting it would be admitted to the table any minute


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... kuenssberg

I will go with our Queen.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/26/queen-did-back-brexit-run-up-to-referendum-laura-kuenssberg
> 
> I will go with our Queen.


Well, if you won't listen to experts...


----------



## bobclive22

> Well, if you won't listen to experts...


You need a brain to sort the wheat from the chaff, this is an expert I do trust, this example may be about climate change but the science is the same, show the evidence that a hard Brexit will tank the economy, not conjecture from so called experts that have never got it right in the past.






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thier.html

As John stated, It`s all about the science based around the evidence.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well, if you won't listen to experts...
> 
> 
> 
> You need a brain to sort the wheat from the chaff, this is an expert I do trust, this example may be about climate change but the science is the same, show the evidence that a hard Brexit will tank the economy, not conjecture from so called experts that have never got it right in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thier.html
> 
> As John stated, It`s all about the science based around the evidence.
Click to expand...

Are you working on the assumption that there's one group of unreliable 'experts' who thought diesel was ok, and another, completely separate group of 'experts' who worked out it wasn't? Is that how the world of science works in your little brain? Good vs evil. Con men vs brave consensus-fighting science warriors.. :lol:

And how on earth do you think they can produce 'hard evidence' about brexit before something happens? They can only make predictions, although obviously that will never be enough for someone like you. And I'm going to have to ask you to back up your nonsense claim of "so called experts that have never got it right in the past' too - please show how you know that every single economist who predicts a negative effect from brexit 'never got anything right in the past'.

P.s. Awww, don't worry bob. I don't really expect you to back up the stupid things you say. :wink:


----------



## John-H

I see the UK's ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, has resigned. So we've bullied and lost our most experienced EU man as negotiator. You can see the Brexiteers congratulating themselves not realising they've just shot themselves in the foot. I expect reality will eventually have it's bottom biting moment ...


----------



## bobclive22

> So we've bullied and lost our most experienced EU man as negotiator.


Didn`t do very well regarding Cameroons negotiations did he, probably didn`t even try as he obviously considered as did Cammeroon that the Brit`s could be hoodwinked like the Scott`s and vote remain, good riddance.

I wonder which one of Spanexes experts suggested this scheme,

*UK Taxpayers Face £1 Billion Bill over Green Energy Scandal*

A study in 2014 found that biomass may in fact be worse for the environment than fossil fuels, as the wood pellets used are often imported from North America, creating a bigger carbon footprint and contributing to deforestation in the United States.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01 ... y-scandal/


----------



## bobclive22

> 'experts' who thought diesel was ok,


John it isn`t rocket science, I ran a heating boiler, the first one ran on 32 sec oil, it needed servicing every 6 months, I ran another boiler on 28 sec oil, after 6 years it ran just as clean as the day I installed it with no servicing.

Diesel is less refined than petrol hence the particulate problem which is killing tens of thousands a year in the UK alone, CO2 is a plant food, workers breath it in at 1200ppm when working in industrial green houses and in submarines, it`s harmless to humans and essential to all life on this planet, the EU experts pushed diesel as they believed CO2 a trace gas was *bad *, those same experts believe rising CO2 in the atmosphere is causing rising global temperatures, this according to the latest satellite data does not appear to be correct, it`s all about evidence based science.

Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a *statistical tie, 
*
People have been conned by the EU EXPERTS into believing CO2 is bad and diesel good, in fact diesel is a seriously nasty fuel. Is it worth killing your kids for a few extra miles per gallon.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/ ... -by-0-02c/


----------



## John-H

Bob, you are confused, I didn't mention diesel.

Regarding Sir Ivan Rogers; the phrase, "Don't shot the messenger", springs to mind, along with can we surround ourselves with "Yes men" instead so we don't have to face up to reality :roll:

Of course they have a problem now because they need to appoint someone with EU experience. It's going to be Tim Barrow apparently. The cat is out of the bag however - muddled thinking with no agreed objectives. Fabulous.

As for your scientific points - either you agree that the accepted expert view is correct or you are in the minority and you and they are unable to convince the majority of experts and the rest of us.


----------



## bobclive22

> Regarding Sir Ivan Rogers; the phrase, "Don't shot the messenger", springs to mind, along with can we surround ourselves with "Yes men" instead so we don't have to face up to reality :roll:


As Tim Shipman reveals in his unrivalled referendum book All Out War, Cameron's aides blame Rogers for blocking them from seeking a better deal on immigration and the ECJ:

http://order-order.com/2017/01/03/farew ... an-rogers/

The reason a key role for Sir Ivan was a non-starter in the Brexit talks to come is that he was one of the central figures involved in David Cameron's appalling renegotiation with the EU, which was a dismal failure.

Indeed, on re-reading Tim Shipman's magnificent account of Brexit (All Out War, of which more in another piece later) * Sir Ivan emerges as one of the unwitting heroes of the whole business, if you voted to Leave.* Brexiteers should give thanks for his efforts, because he and like-minded souls - unintentionally - made Brexit more likely by being far too cautious during Cameron's renegotiation, (brilliant). :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://reaction.life/farewell-sir-ivan- ... rexiteers/

Interesting read,

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... its-errors


----------



## John-H

I don't think you have seen an appalling renegotiation yet but if our unelected government is allowed to continue you will.


----------



## John-H

Interesting discussion about banker's predictions on the Today programme this morning. General points made were that they are good at making predictions in a stable environment but not so good when there's a shock to the system.

The reasons are that they may fail to take account of influential reactions to the shock e.g. the Bank of England reducing interest rates and taking fiscal measures to sure up the economy. Also the unpredictable/irrational reaction of the population spending on the high street as if all was well.

I would add to that the fact that most predictions of a leave vote were based on article 50 being triggered the day after. But of course nothing has happened yet and whether it will is still unclear as in fact is whether it can be withdrawn.

Add to the uncertainty; what the heck Brexit actually means - single market or not, customs union, Norway or Canada deal, world trade model? Who knows what the idiots in castle May are thinking?

So given all of that uncertainty you'd be a fool to predict what will happen because we don't even know the objectives! Is it any wonder then that institutions are making contingency plans but have not yet acted - that the dire predictions have not yet happened? We have inflation in the way due to the drop in sterling though - we already know that.

Making predictions about definite policy decisions like abandoning the single market is a different matter, once we know what they are.

George Monbiot on Farming Today said that on our current course, leaving the EU was going to be chaotic and a shock - like a drunk being ejected from the pub after an altercation with the landlord, with a kick up the backside ending face down in the gutter asking what the Hell happened?


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't think you have seen an appalling renegotiation yet but if our unelected government is allowed to continue you will.


Ok, We Have Cameron, who scared the Scott`s into voting remain, and believed the Brit`s would be just as easy to con, his negotiator Sir Ivan a staunch euro-file who probably considered the Brit`s like the Scott`s would also cave in and vote remain, these two would have made this clear to the EU negotiators, this being the case the EU would have needed to do nothing, they threw a few crumbs to Cameron just to make it look as if negotiations had actually taken place.


----------



## bobclive22

> George Monbiot,


That clown has never got anything right ever, is he one of your experts, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Edinburra

bobclive22 said:


> I don't think you have seen an appalling renegotiation yet but if our unelected government is allowed to continue you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, We Have Cameron, who scared the Scott`s into voting remain, and believed the Brit`s would be just as easy to con, his negotiator Sir Ivan a staunch euro-file who probably considered the Brit`s like the Scott`s would also cave in and vote remain, these two would have made this clear to the EU negotiators, this being the case the EU would have needed to do nothing, they threw a few crumbs to Cameron just to make it look as if negotiations had actually taken place.
Click to expand...

Who are the "Scotts"? Spell checker not functioning tonight? :?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> George Monbiot,
> 
> 
> 
> That clown has never got anything right ever, is he one of your experts, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

You don't have to be an expert to recognise that *Brexit means botch-up!*

We appear to be in the £350M pw blunder-bus being driven off the cliff by a bunch of tory anarchists ...


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> We appear to be in the £350M pw blunder-bus being driven off the cliff by a bunch of tory anarchists ...


It's the 'Young Ones' all over again


----------



## John-H

I picked this up from Donald Trump's news conference this morning - just after all the accusations of slease, corruption and impropriety in business, personal life and politics, to which allegedly he is under threat of blackmail and with his campaign team have been working with the Russians to engineer his presidency. You couldn't make it up but he complains it's all lies - the following:



TRUMP said:


> I want to bring the greatest people into government, because we're way behind. We don't make good deals any more. I say it all the time in speeches. We don't make good deals anymore; we make bad deals. Our trade deals are a disaster.
> We have hundreds of billions of dollars of losses on a yearly basis -- hundreds of billions with China on trade and trade imbalance, with Japan, with Mexico, with just about everybody. We don't make good deals anymore.
> So we need people that are smart, we need people that are successful and they got successful because generally speaking, they're smart. And that's what I'd put, I'm very proud of the Cabinet, I think they're doing very well.


So, following Teresa May's shaky start over ambassador Farage and Boris Johnson saying Trump wasn't fit to hold office. How will we get on being invited to the front of the queue for a trade deal I wonder?

I did hear someone mention the word "impeachment", so it seems the Americans may have a way of reversing a damaging voting decision. Early days yet but some lessons to be be learnt there perhaps?


----------



## bobclive22

> I picked this up from Donald Trump's news conference this morning - just after all the accusations of slease, corruption and impropriety in business, personal life and politics, to which allegedly he is under threat of blackmail and with his campaign team have been working with the Russians to engineer his presidency. You couldn't make it up but he complains it's all lies - the following:


John, do you actually believe all you hear from the British Bullshit Corporation and read in the mainstream press.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/bbc-real ... fake-news/

Bit like Orwells 1984.

How to make Big Brother invariably right, never wrong, particularly as time goes by. It's hard work, but with the right technology, it can be done.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, do you actually believe all you hear from the British Bullshit Corporation and read in the mainstream press.
> 
> https://inews.co.uk/essentials/bbc-real ... fake-news/
> 
> Bit like Orwells 1984.
> 
> How to make Big Brother invariably right, never wrong, particularly as time goes by. It's hard work, but with the right technology, it can be done.


1984? You really are a massive drama queen.

When you reach the point where you're worried that facebook's 'news' is going to be made unreliable by the BBC, how do you honestly expect people to take you seriously??


----------



## bobclive22

> When you reach the point where you're worried that facebook's 'news' is going to be made unreliable by the BBC, how do you honestly expect people to take you seriously??


Spandex, I am not worried, there is no difference between them, both junk news if you can call it that.

This is an interesting piece,

http://www.nothingtofear.co.uk/single-p ... n-Europe-1

You can check the data in references.

*Office for National Statistics *

Does the UK export or import more motor vehicles?

The UK motor vehicle manufacturing industry has become more integrated in the global economy since 1998, with both exports and imports increasing over the period 2008 to 2014. The value of UK motor vehicle imports has consistently been higher than the value of exports and therefore runs a trade deficit, which stood at £5.5 billion in 2014, *the highest deficit since 2007 (£8.7 billion).*

*The majority of the UK's motor vehicle imports are from the EU,* consistently accounting for over *85% of total motor vehicle imports each year since 1998*. Imports from the EU have grown from £14.3 billion to £31.3 billion between 1998 and 2014, whereas imports from non-EU countries have grown from £2.2 billion to £4.0 billion over the same period.

In 1998, a broadly similar composition to imports existed for UK exports; exports of motors vehicles to the EU accounted for three quarters of total motor vehicle exports. This has changed noticeably, with exports to non-EU countries growing at a faster rate than exports to EU countries. Consequently, the *share of total motor vehicle manufacturing exports to the EU has fallen to 40%. *Exports to non-EU countries have grown from *£2.9 billion to £17.9 billion* from 1998 to 2014, whereas exports to EU countries have grown from *£8.0 billion to £11.9 billion* over the same period. The strong demand for exported UK cars is widely reported by car manufacturing trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

You believe the economy will tank by leaving the EU and you also believe the EU will impose tariffs on UK vehicles imported into the EU, it won`t happen.

https://www.ft.com/content/f6cda050-20b ... 8b2169cf79


----------



## Spandex

So you dismiss the BBC as 'junk news' (been watching Donald Trump too much? You're starting to sound like him) then post a link from a site which is openly biased? Seriously, do you think that is a sensible place to get your information? When you say that the BBC can't be trusted because they're biased, then go straight to an even more biased 'news' source, you just make yourself look foolish. It becomes obvious you don't mind bias one bit, as long as that bias agrees with you.

As for the data used, why is this data ok yet any data which people post to support a remain argument isn't? Do you even know you're constantly being hypocritical, or is it so automatic now that you never see it for what it is? Every time I point it out to you, you ignore it and post another article containing 'experts', 'predictions' and bias and all the other things you claim to hate.

But let's look at the article. It makes a lot of assumptions, and funnily enough they all work out in our favour. It assumes the non-eu export market will simply increase. It assumes the U.K. market will also increase (amazingly despite all of our spending power being diminished due to rising prices of goods). It assumes parts and raw material costs are completely unaffected by leaving the EU and finally, it assumes the car manufacturers won't simply up-sticks and relocate their factories to cheaper countries to service the non-EU market. Where did these assumptions come from? Bias maybe?


----------



## Spandex

And by the way, whilst the _share_ of exports to the EU vs non-EU has decreased, the overall exports to the EU have still increased - just not as fast as non-EU. But according to that article we should be glad to throw that market away just because it's not our biggest market and it's not growing as fast.

A trade deficit for the whole country can be a bad thing. A trade deficit for one specific regional market in one specific industry doesn't tell us anything. It certainly shouldn't inform whether or not to stay in the EU.


----------



## bobclive22

> just not as fast as non-EU.


Exactly and that`s without being able to negotiate our own trade deals.

The like`s I showed you are from the Financial times (probably your bible and the Office of national statistics) I don`t believe I have cherry picked articles from the skeptic point of view.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> just not as fast as non-EU.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly and that`s without being able to negotiate our own trade deals.
> 
> The like`s I showed you are from the Financial times (probably your bible and the Office of national statistics) I don`t believe I have cherry picked articles from the skeptic point of view.
Click to expand...

So because it's not our fastest growing market, we can afford to lose it?? That's insane.

Yes, we'll be able to negotiate our own trade deals, but there's no reason to assume these will be any better for the car industry overall than the current situation - and even if they are better, they need to be *significantly* better just to break even from the loss of the European market (which is still a huge chunk of our exports and is growing all the time).

Your whole argument seems to be an attempt to show that we will survive outside the EU - I'm sure we will, but that's not really the issue, is it. The question we need to answer is "will we be better off", and at the moment all I can see is a load of assumptions with no real explanation as to where they're coming from.

How can you say that you've not cherry picked articles, when the one you linked to is from an openly pro-leave website which was set up just prior to the referendum, and contains nothing but articles about leaving the EU (specifically how we would be better off and have 'nothing to fear' from doing so)? Do you honestly think that's the sort of place you'll find unbiased views?

And you seem to think that as long as the data is reliable, the conclusions drawn from that data must also be reliable. This is complete nonsense. The data is based on what we know has happened - it is historically verifiable. The conclusions are based on a combination of the data, assumptions, predictions and opinion. That doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but neither does it mean they're right. What you would want to see is some sort of consensus (sorry :-* ) among experts in that field before you could start to trust the predictions based on the data.

But you don't like consensus. Because why would you need lots of people to agree on something when you've already found a handful who think the same way you do? Although I'm fairly sure that you'd suddenly have no problem with consensus if that consensus agreed with you.


----------



## John-H

The chairman of Toyota has said they will have to examine how their industry can survive following the UK leaving membership off the single market.

HSBC are moving 1,000 curry jobs to Paris Swiss bank are to follow to Frankfurt and Spain. That alone is billions in trade and a significant tax take for the exchequer.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> HSBC are moving 1,000 curry jobs to Paris


It just goes to show that the banks think of everything...Lucky old Paris :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> HSBC are moving 1,000 curry jobs to Paris
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show that the banks think of everything...Lucky old Paris :lol:
Click to expand...

 :lol: The curry mile and the city mile are easily confused


----------



## silkman

Just watched the Brothers Grimsby.

This is what happens when you let chavs vote on matters such as the EU referendum :lol:

Sorry for the flame. :roll:


----------



## John-H

This is absolutely brilliant and so funny if it wasn't so sad - Which EU law are you looking forward to losing:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... to-losing/


----------



## jamman

John-H said:


> This is absolutely brilliant and so funny if it wasn't so sad - Which EU law are you looking forward to losing:
> 
> http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... to-losing/


Words fail me John....


----------



## Shug750S

John-H said:


> This is absolutely brilliant and so funny if it wasn't so sad - Which EU law are you looking forward to losing:
> 
> http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... to-losing/


Bet Bob will be along soon to put us right on this... [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

Here is one of them,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... olicy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... sible.html

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/somerset008.pdf

:wink: :wink:


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> Here is one of them,
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... olicy.html
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... sible.html
> 
> http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/somerset008.pdf
> 
> :wink: :wink:


He shoots, he scores... :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Excellent. More links that Bob doesn't bother to research because he has absolutely no reason to doubt anything on the internet that backs up his ill-informed opinion. Ok. Let's do this!:



bobclive22 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... olicy.html
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... sible.html
> 
> http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/somerset008.pdf


Not true. The EU Water Framework directive *does not* ban dredging. It *does not* state that dredged silt cannot be spread in other areas (unless the silt is contaminated, but I think we can all agree spreading hazardous material around would be bad). And finally, the Birds and Habitats Directives have specific exemptions where lives or property would be at risk, so they could not be used to 'enforce' flooding of populated areas.

On top of this, the EU requires member states undertake flood risk assessments of all coasts and waterways, requires that they map those risks and requires that they provide information to the public. The EU will also provide funding for flood defences (which we are in receipt of) and when severe flood damage occurs there is a system in place whereby member states can request funding to cover some of the costs.

So, the EU have nothing to do with increased risk of flooding. The only people you can blame are the government - hmmm... I wonder who came up with the idea to shift the blame to the EU? Whoever it was must have some friends at the Torygraph. And aren't they lucky that half the fecking population are as gullible as Bob?


----------



## John-H

What have the EU ever done for us? :roll:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/vid ... r-us-video


----------



## Spandex

One of Bobs fellow freedom fighters:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/03/que ... ht-banana/


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> One of Bobs fellow freedom fighters:
> 
> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/03/que ... ht-banana/


But quite happy to shop in Aldi (German owned). Wonder if this was the conspiracy from the foreign owned supermarkets to bring these straight bananas in and swing the discerning voter? :lol:

Can't wait to see Bob argue the toss on this one


----------



## bobclive22

> Not true. The EU Water Framework directive does not ban dredging. It does not state that dredged silt cannot be spread in other areas (unless the silt is contaminated, but I think we can all agree spreading hazardous material around would be bad). And finally, the Birds and Habitats Directives have specific exemptions where lives or property would be at risk, so they could not be used to 'enforce' flooding of populated areas.
Click to expand...

So you are the expert Spandex,

The Environment Agency's response to an enquiry as to why the Thames has also not been properly dredged since 1996 reveals that this was because the new EU waste regulations of that year made regular dredging 'uneconomical'.

*They made disposal of silt dredged from rivers by local landowners so complex and expensive that it became much more attractive to take advantage of the 'financial incentives' given to 'conservation schemes'*. This was exactly what those farmers had found on the Somerset Levels.

In other words Spandex, *the EU directive made it to expensive for the farmers to dredge.
*
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inst ... add-water/


----------



## bobclive22

> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/03/
Click to expand...

She was probably a BBC plant, have you considered why the EU would waste time discussing the shape of a Banana in the first place.


----------



## Spandex

Ok, you asked for it. Prepare to be bored.

Before the relevant directives were drafted, dredging industry bodies lobbied pretty extensively to ensure their views were represented and by all accounts they were relatively happy with the directive as issued because it included an exclusion which meant most of it wouldn't apply to them. But EU directives, for better or worse, tend to be fairly loosely drafted and open to interpretation and somehow when DEFRA interpreted the EU directive to create U.K. law they tied that exclusion to an exemption which basically meant the exclusion only applied to specific scenarios. The result of this is that dredging is a much more complex and expensive operation than it needs to be, and this is entirely the fault of DEFRA and the EA - which makes their FOI response even more ludicrous.

I've even found a UKIP article (!) that (grudgingly) admits it's not the EUs fault:

http://www.ukipdaily.com/flooding-responsibility-lie/

Like I said, the EU is the scapegoat once again.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/03/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was probably a BBC plant, have you considered why the EU would waste time discussing the shape of a Banana in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the most likely explanation. :roll:

The EU, as they like to do, created a means of classifying fruit/veg. They didn't, contrary to populist belief (see what I did there? :-* ), prescribe what classifications could be sold in our shops - the supermarkets did that because they realised us idiots preferred our fruit and veg not to be wonky.


----------



## John-H

I think there should be a regulation against Bob's wonky logic.

I also think this is so good it needs posting again:


----------



## bobclive22

Another EU directive, you will like this Spandex.

Smart meter rollout

The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so. This smart metering and smart grids rollout can reduce emissions in the EU by up to 9% and annual household energy consumption by similar amounts. To measure cost effectiveness, EU countries conducted cost-benefit analyses based on guidelines provided by the European Commission. A similar assessment was carried out on smart meters for gas.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/m ... and-meters
https://takebackyourpower.net/smart-met ... -revealed/

Lloyd's of London EXCLUDES liability coverage for harm from RF-EMFs/wireless radiation

http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/lloyds-of ... ionrf-emf/

As smart meters transmit every 3-4 seconds why won`t Lloyds give cover for harm if they are deemed safe.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Another EU directive, you will like this Spandex.
> 
> Smart meter rollout
> 
> The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so. This smart metering and smart grids rollout can reduce emissions in the EU by up to 9% and annual household energy consumption by similar amounts. To measure cost effectiveness, EU countries conducted cost-benefit analyses based on guidelines provided by the European Commission. A similar assessment was carried out on smart meters for gas.
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/m ... and-meters
> https://takebackyourpower.net/smart-met ... -revealed/
> 
> Lloyd's of London EXCLUDES liability coverage for harm from RF-EMFs/wireless radiation
> 
> http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/lloyds-of ... ionrf-emf/
> 
> As smart meters transmit every 3-4 seconds why won`t Lloyds give cover for harm if they are deemed safe.


Bob. I'm an electronic engineer and I happened to be involved in the roll out of smart metering and the technology behind it and I have to say that I have never heard such a load of clap trap. I'm afraid it just shows you believe anything that you think backs your argument without even a modicum of effort to understand and check what you believe to be facts. Good grief! :roll:


----------



## Shug750S

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another EU directive, you will like this Spandex.
> 
> Smart meter rollout
> 
> The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so. This smart metering and smart grids rollout can reduce emissions in the EU by up to 9% and annual household energy consumption by similar amounts. To measure cost effectiveness, EU countries conducted cost-benefit analyses based on guidelines provided by the European Commission. A similar assessment was carried out on smart meters for gas.
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/m ... and-meters
> https://takebackyourpower.net/smart-met ... -revealed/
> 
> Lloyd's of London EXCLUDES liability coverage for harm from RF-EMFs/wireless radiation
> 
> http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/lloyds-of ... ionrf-emf/
> 
> As smart meters transmit every 3-4 seconds why won`t Lloyds give cover for harm if they are deemed safe.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob. I'm an electronic engineer and I happened to be involved in the roll out of smart metering and the technology behind it and I have to say that I have never heard such a load of clap trap. I'm afraid it just shows you believe anything that you think backs your argument without even a modicum of effort to understand and check what you believe to be facts. Good grief! :roll:
Click to expand...

Probably the underwriter at LLoyds is a BBC plant...


----------



## John-H

:roll:


----------



## Spandex

The thing is, even if you accept the conspiracy theory bollocks in Bob's links, none of it explains how the EU is responsible. Sure, it states that the EU are pushing the roll out, but the people trying to microwave/spy on us are apparently our own government and some 'global corporate cabal' ( :roll: ) - both of which presumably would still roll out smart meters without the EUs help once we leave.

In other words, this is yet another nonsense attempt to blame the EU for something.


----------



## bobclive22

> The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so.


I believe this is fact Spandex, please don`t tell me you have a smart meter installed.

Then there is the drive for diesel,

The European auto industry ramped up diesel engine production. *Under EU pressure*, 
We did not sleepwalk into this. To be totally reductionist, you are talking about *killing people today* rather than saving lives tomorrow, he means saving the planet from that dreadful CO2.

To my knowledge increased levels of CO2 have never harmed any living creature on the planet ever and plants can`t get enough of it yet diesel vehicles mainly private cars cause 40,000 premature deaths each year in the UK, *If the might of the EU as a whole had not misguidedly pushed for diesel our major cities would not be polluted.*

I lived in the days of burning coal as a fuel, this was solved by smokeless fuel and pollution in our towns and cities was no more, now we have diesel the hidden killer.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pollution

I own three cars, a petrol Merc, petrol TT and a Petrol Porsche, no dirty diesel in my fleet.

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-i ... tid=355221

Mark Watts, executive director for the C40 group of cities championing climate action, added: "We need radical and rapid action to tackle the twin issues of air pollution, *which is killing urban citizens*, and climate change, which threatens millions of lives today and in the future."

Well it used to be known as Global warming, that is *until it stopped warming in 1998*, it`s now known as climate change, well the climates always changing so there is no problem there, if there is no problem why are we killing our citizens with NOX.

As for climate change, Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), he answered this question,

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, *the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?*

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and *not statistically significantly different from each other. *, that being the case CO2 is a none problem, we are killing people for a none problem *pushed by the EU.
*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob. I'm an electronic engineer and I happened to be involved in the roll out of smart metering and the technology behind it and I have to say that I have never heard such a load of clap trap. I'm afraid it just shows you believe anything that you think backs your argument without even a modicum of effort to understand and check what you believe to be facts. Good grief!


So there is no such thing as pulsed RF, perhaps you should read this.

http://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.c ... hey-do.php


----------



## Spandex

In the 'post-expert' world, Bob the builder and his furious googling should be more believable than an electronics engineer with direct experience of the device in question, right? :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is fact Spandex, please don`t tell me you have a smart meter installed.
Click to expand...

Did you even read my previous post bob? I didn't disagree with the claim about the EUs aims (mainly because I've no interest in even reading up on them). I simply pointed out the massive flaw in the logic of blaming the EU, when the conspiracy theories assert that our own government and some global corporate cabal are trying to kill/spy on us using these meters - in which case leaving the EU won't have any impact on whether or not we get smart meters.


----------



## Shug750S

Maybe Bob's a BBC plant too?

Or a remain plant to discredit the leave camp?


----------



## John-H

Bob and his crack pot websites :lol:

This one is true Bob - everybody knows bees can't fly scientifically right? Well here's how they do it and you can too with a special standing platform that could take you aloft with the Cavernous Structures Effect (CSE).

http://www.keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm










It must be true - it's on a website! I expect the aircraft industry are killing rival bees to keep us all paying for flights when we could get a real buzz out of doing it for free. It's like the ever lasting light bulb and the perpetual motion engine. Everyone knows there's a conspiracy and they've all been hushed up so the oil companies continue to make huge profits. Or was it the EU?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So there is no such thing as pulsed RF, perhaps you should read this.
> 
> http://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.c ... hey-do.php


You know what bob, I'm going to give you some latitude here because you're not remotely qualified to understand the technical issues involved (to be fair, I'm not an electronics engineer either, although many years ago I did get a degree in broadcast engineering and have worked in related technical fields ever since).

I started vaguely looking at that page, and very soon came to the graph which they claim represents a 30 minute 'capture' of smart meter activity (they credit the graph to an EPRI document), showing a number of RF pulses over that time. Now, to you, that might have looked nice and technical and believable, but to me it just looked plain weird. So I went through the source document till I found the graph. What it actually is is a spectrum analysis of the 900Mhz band - so, it's basically an instantaneous snapshot of frequency against amplitude. There's no mention of a 'half hour' view of transmissions, which means the people who wrote that page and pasted in that graph are either idiots, or deliberately trying to mislead people. My money would be on the former, but that's just gut feel.

Now, if I could be arsed to go through it, I suspect I'd find numerous similar mistakes/lies but honestly life is too short for that.

Oh, and seeing as these idiots brought up the EPRI document (which they seem to trust as they're referencing it as a source to back up their claims), do you want to know what they said about the health risks? They calculated a duty cycle ranging between 0.001% and 4.74%, with an average of 0.11% (because the high end of that range was very rare). When measuring power output they found "Even at very close distances, such as one foot directly in front of the meter, with an unrealistic assumption that the transmitters operate at 100% duty cycle, the resulting exposure is less than the FCC MPE (maximum permitted exposure)".

So basically, the authors of that site referenced a study that completely disagrees with their theory, purely because they wanted a technical looking graph to stick on their web page to fool the sort of people who don't even bother to look at the axes of a graph when it's presented to them. That's their target audience. That's the company you keep.


----------



## John-H

Sorry, Spandex you've got more patience than me. Pulsed RF fields are all around us in our digital world, from home Wi-Fi and ADSL broadband in installed cabling to the broadcast of radio and TV and of course mobile phone GSM cellular networks with a 2.5 Watt phone transmitter we hold close to our head and carry in our pockets all day.

There was a paper produced by a Dr Robert Highland some time ago that claimed biological cellular damage due to pulsed RF fields in experiments. It was speculated that the field disruted the inter cellular messaging and defeated an organism's anti cancer defence ect.The industry took a precautionary stance to limit exposure. In all the intervening time nobody managed to reproduce the Highland results and the underlying health problems have not emerged. The claims by non scientific people picking up on the background discussion continues to feed wild claims that have no basis in fact.


----------



## Spandex

Well, after I wrote all that, I carried on scanning through Bobs link and realised how stupid I was being by trying to actually analyse it sensibly. The whole thing is utter bollocks. I'm just adding oxygen to the fire by engaging with it.

Bob, if you genuinely believe everything on that link then I can honestly see why you would want to leave the EU. Because frankly, all the lies told about how bad the EU is are *way more* plausible than that drivel...


----------



## bobclive22

Well John as you are involved in the roll-out of smart meters, I presume you lead by example and have already had these meters installed in your house, that being the case please enlighten me as to how I can save more on my fuel bills by having a smart meter as to not having one. If the benefit is marginal why would I want more RF in my house than I already have, at least WiFi is useful to me. These meters are connected to the house wiring circuit which means it`s all over the house.

The other point is LLoyds of London will normally take on any risk but not on this occasion, forget about studies funded by companies linked to this global roll-out, *if LLoyds won`t take the risk why should the consumer be forced to.
*
Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... k/?page=42

Read the responses to the above.

*
Lloyd's of London excludes any liability coverage for claims,*

"Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." (Exclusion 32)

This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd's of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology:

This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd's:

"'The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage."

Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions -Page 7 of policy):

Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise."

This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.


----------



## bobclive22

> In the 'post-expert' world, Bob the builder and his furious googling should be more believable than an electronics engineer with direct experience of the device in question, right?


If it`s safe *Spandex* LLoyds would insure it, if it`s useful to me and safe I may accept it, if it`s neither and spy's on me It`s not for me.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/privacy/s ... ng-on-you/
http://www.naturalnews.com/045608_smart ... ances.html


----------



## John-H

Bob, you are referring people to clap trap again - especially linking people to comments from a roused rabble of fellow believers of misinformation, misinterpretation and mischief.

Let me try to help you. [smiley=book2.gif] Here is a simple document explaining some facts (that's true things other people who understand science accept) about smart meters and their compliance to radio frequency exposure standards:

http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-con ... s_2015.pdf

Note what it says about the transmission being similar to a Wi-Fi network but it's on for less than 5% of the time at most typically 1%. Not like your 100% on Wi-Fi. Also note that the peak power transmission is 1W not the 2.5W of GSM in your mobile phone which you hold next to your head. Note also that it ways:



> ... there are no established health effects below recommended exposure limits. Numerous national public health agencies have concluded that the radio signals used by smart meters do not pose a health risk and that there is no scientific basis to decline having a smart meter installed.


Note further that the strength of field falls with the inverse square of distance. If you measured 1W/m^2 at 1m the level would be 0.25W/m^2 at 2m, 0.11W/m^2 at 3m, 0.0625W/m^2 at 4m etc.










See here for an explanation: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... s/isq.html

So even if you slept with your head resting on the meter to be sure to catch the brief moments that it's transmitting you'd still not pick up as much peak or average exposure as using your mobile phone. But do you live under the stairs or in your meter cupboard? It doesn't come up your mains wires to jump off your alarm clock and meddle with your brain whilst you are in bed. Now go to sleep and stop worrying or trying to worry others









P.S. Lloyds have refused to insure mobile phone manufacturers over non ionising radiation since 1999. They won't cover Wi'Fi either so you'd better turn off your computer. You can read what Lloyds actually say here rather than rely on the interpretation of mischievous misfits with axes to grind about smart meters: https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/r ... 202010.pdf
It's more to do with the pervasive nature of RF devices in society and the long term nature of potential health changes coupled with legal precedent turning rapidly (such as happened with asbestos) affecting future liability. It's an ultimate risk for them of being wiped out which they wish to avoid even the tiny risk of. They agree there is no current evidence of risk.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> If it`s safe *Spandex* LLoyds would insure it, if it`s useful to me and safe I may accept it, if it`s neither and spy's on me It`s not for me.


You're conflating two separate points. Just because lloyds won't insure against illness caused by EM radiation doesn't mean that smart meters produce EM radiation in sufficient doses to cause illness. I gave you some leeway with the electronics stuff, but this is basic reading comprehension and logic.

The problem is bob, you don't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudo-science. You don't critically analyse information and data put in front of you. Your idea of 'analysis' is simply googling for articles that agree with your viewpoint.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> So even if you slept with your head resting on the meter to be sure to catch the brief moments that it's transmitting you'd still not pick up as much peak or average exposure as using your mobile phone. But do you live under the stairs or in your meter cupboard?


I found a photo of bob in bed...


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> The problem is, you don't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudo-science. You don't critically analyse information and data put in front of you. Your idea of 'analysis' is simply googling for articles that agree with your viewpoint.


And that is exactly the way how many people came to the conclusion England would be better off out of the EU. A shame those people didn't make an effort to find out before voting leave that: 
England will be a tiny fish in a huge ocean with no real say on world affairs
Has no guaranteed freedom of speech
Will have to pay hefty tariffs if it wants to trade with countries where it's free at present
Standard of living will go down for the vast majority of people in this country as prices of goods go up
England wants to pally up and be the junior partner of a nation who's leader endorses water boarding and other torture
Etc, etc.

Sorry to distract from the Bob discussion.


----------



## Spandex

Its ridiculous really. Around 30% of the uk population lives on the edge of poverty, and even the brexiteers admit that leaving the EU will have at least a short term impact on the economy, which will push a large number of the worse off families over that cliff. And 'short term' in the context of trade agreement negotiations could be 10 years, by which time a lot of the idiots who put us in this position will be dead, after living a comfortable retirement while the rest of the country suffered.

And they think history will judge them as heroic freedom fighters? Just a bunch of selfish old fools with delusions of grandeur.


----------



## A3DFU

You're too right Spandex.

I hope the leave voters will have the guts to look the young generation, who will ultimately have to pay the price for what's happening at the moment, into the eyes when the consequences of their action are all too apparent. My suspicion is though that a lot of them will only mumble "sorry, we didn't know" with their eyes closed.


----------



## Spandex

A3DFU said:


> My suspicion is though that a lot of them will only mumble "sorry, we didn't know" with their eyes closed.


I think you're giving them way too much credit. They won't ever admit to themselves that they made a mistake, let alone someone else. If we're worse off in 10 years time they'll just blame the politicians/remoaners for not 'making brexit work'.

Bob can't even admit when he's wrong on here about EU regulations. He just changes the subject and posts a load of links to the next argument he thinks he can win using google.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> My suspicion is though that a lot of them will only mumble "sorry, we didn't know" with their eyes closed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're giving them way too much credit. They won't ever admit to themselves that they made a mistake, let alone someone else.
Click to expand...

You may be right there. Admitting fault doesn't come easy to some but only if that happens can positive change occur.


----------



## bobclive22

> P.S. Lloyds have refused to insure mobile phone manufacturers over non ionising radiation since 1999. They won't cover Wi'Fi either so you'd better turn off your computer.


John, I take a chance driving my car, my car is usefull to me and I enjoy it, I use my computer for the same reasons, I understand RF may be hazardous, that is why all mobile phone manufactures warn against using the mobile to close to the body, that said I use a mobile because it is useful to me.

*John, I take it you don`t lead by example, no smart meter in your house then.*

Why would I want a smart meter installed in my house that gives *NO benefit to me*, emits pulsed RF 24/7 and transmits my private usage data back to the supplier.

https://smartgridawareness.org/2013/06/ ... formation/

*Will I pay more for energy?*

Energy firms will soon offer new "time of use" energy deals although it is likely that traditional tariffs will still remain.
On these tariffs, householders will pay more for watching television, charging gadgets and running the washing machine during morning and evening "rush hours".
This is because smart meters transmit information about when you use most energy to suppliers, giving them the power to *increase bills at busy times, just like paying off-peak and peak time travel.*
Time-of-day pricing could save money if you can programme your dishwasher or washing machine to run at night, for instance, or if you have storage heating that is switched on overnight.
*But it could potentially lead to higher prices for essential energy use, such as cooking in the evening.*
*
It will lead to higher prices for essential energy use, such as cooking in the evening*

Slippery slope John, but hey same as Brexit, I`m alright Jack.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> *Will I pay more for energy?*
> 
> .


Guess so, as £ dropped against $ € and all major currencies and oil price rising again so double whammy. Plus many more price increase on the way as supply chain cost increase start working through the system.

But that's probably nothing to do with Brexit vote is it. More likely a BBC plant idea


----------



## bobclive22

> John-H wrote:
> So even if you slept with your head resting on the meter to be sure to catch the brief moments that it's transmitting you'd still not pick up as much peak or average exposure as using your mobile phone. But do you live under the stairs or in your meter cupboard?


Wide Area Network (WAN) technologies

Almost all the smart meters currently on trial in the UK all use a form of RF WiFi/Zigbee/Z wave or similar inside the house for the Home Area Network (HAN) and a mobile phone network card for contact back to the electricity company over the Wide Area Network (WAN), using public mobile phone networks (GSM, 3G and 4.
A few remote reading meters use proprietary RF communications when interrogated by a meter reading vehicle in the neighbourhood.

The future use of *MESH network connected meters *(as mainly used in the USA and Canada) and 
Power Line Carrier (PLC) connected meters (which communicate along the existing power cables 
as done in Germany and France) *has not been ruled out*,[/b] though allowing PLC meters in the UK 
would require a change in legislation due to the way the electricity supply industry was 
privatised.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/do ... 016-09.pdf

*Mesh network connected meters may talk to one another 24/7 (I wouldn`t like my head next to that meter John) *

*What Are Smart Meters?*

Smart Metes are digital meters which record electrical, gas, and water usage. The data is then transmitted wirelessly to the utility companies. Smart meters are currently installed throughout California, many other states and eventually in all 50 states as well as in Canada.

These Smart Meters are referred to as *access points*. How the process works is, the information from individual meters or access points is sent to utility access points, which act as data collection points before forwarding the data to the utility company. The utility access points are commonly located on power poles and street lights. The entire system is referred to as a mesh network allowing for continuous connections around broken or blocked meters or data pathways. Smart Meters provide real-time data to the utility provider and in the future to the consumer in the proposed real-time smart grid.

There are various technologies in use to transmit the data: (A) Wired via cables such as fiber-optic, copper phone lines, or cable; (B) Wired via power lines such as power line communication or broadband over power lines; and (C) Wireless via antennas (e.g. GPRS, GSM, ZigBee, WiMax). In California and many other states a wireless network was chosen.

The installation of Smart Meters is only the first phase. In the second phase, individual appliances will communicate with the Smart Meter. This provides information on when and how much electricity a particular appliance utilizes. The information will then be available to the consumer to make "smart" choices regarding their electrical usage. The communication between appliances and Smart Meters will occur wirelessly. This communication system is referred to as the home area network or HAN.

Measurements conducted outside at a one-foot distance from a Smart Meter.

The largest peaks are in the -20dB range. *This constitutes a 100,000 fold increase in the power density (signal strength)*. as against the case for a standard meter with in house wi-fi.

http://www.emfrf.com/exploring-the-trut ... lth-risks/

A new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012 says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation). The Report reviews over 1800 new scientific studies. Cell phone users, parents-to-be, young children and pregnant women are at particular risk.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/media/press-releases/

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp- ... sition.pdf

As I said John, why would anyone want one in their home.


----------



## jamman

Can we put a collection together for Bob's wife ?


----------



## Spandex

Bob, will you please research these bloody links before you post them. A quick google of the Bioinitiative Working Group report shows that it was self-published with no peer review whatsoever. It has been heavily criticised by the scientific community. If that's the standard of evidence you're basing your 'opinion' on then that's a bit tragic.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how many times you post this rubbish - there is no conclusive evidence that there are any health implications from RF at the levels being described. And repeatedly saying "pulsed RF 24/7" in the hope you can make it sound worse than the actual 45s per 24hrs that these devices have been shown to transmit just makes it look like you're trying to con people, rather than inform them.

Basically, man up and stop being a drama queen.


----------



## Spandex

jamman said:


> Can we put a collection together for Bob's wife ?


She knew what she was getting into...


----------



## Shug750S

jamman said:


> Can we put a collection together for Bob's wife ?


Presumed still living at home....

And playing on the computer when no one is supervising.... :lol:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> P.S. Lloyds have refused to insure mobile phone manufacturers over non ionising radiation since 1999. They won't cover Wi'Fi either so you'd better turn off your computer.
> 
> 
> 
> John, I take a chance driving my car, my car is usefull to me and I enjoy it, I use my computer for the same reasons, I understand RF may be hazardous, that is why all mobile phone manufactures warn against using the mobile to close to the body, that said I use a mobile because it is useful to me.
> 
> *John, I take it you don`t lead by example, no smart meter in your house then.*
> 
> Why would I want a smart meter installed in my house that gives *NO benefit to me*, emits pulsed RF 24/7 and transmits my private usage data back to the supplier.
> 
> https://smartgridawareness.org/2013/06/ ... formation/
> 
> *Will I pay more for energy?*
> 
> Energy firms will soon offer new "time of use" energy deals although it is likely that traditional tariffs will still remain.
> On these tariffs, householders will pay more for watching television, charging gadgets and running the washing machine during morning and evening "rush hours".
> This is because smart meters transmit information about when you use most energy to suppliers, giving them the power to *increase bills at busy times, just like paying off-peak and peak time travel.*
> Time-of-day pricing could save money if you can programme your dishwasher or washing machine to run at night, for instance, or if you have storage heating that is switched on overnight.
> *But it could potentially lead to higher prices for essential energy use, such as cooking in the evening.*
> *
> It will lead to higher prices for essential energy use, such as cooking in the evening*
> 
> Slippery slope John, but hey same as Brexit, I`m alright Jack.
Click to expand...

Yes we know you are alright Jack and don't care.

Bob, you were wrongly misleading people against smart meters over health concerns. Admit it. Can you not see the hypocrisy of now saying Wi-FI and mobiles are fine as far you are concerned just because you find them convenient? Why are you not warning people about mobile and Wi-Fi health issues with equal vigor?

Oh hold on, you're back on the smart meters being dangerous again :roll:

Yes it is a slippery slope. You shot off the Bob sleigh slope a long time ago and are now bouncing amongst the trees like a mad ball in a massive pin ball game kicking up snow and doing your nut in. There's no telling where you'll end up next :lol:


----------



## John-H

I've quite rightly had it pointed out that we have gone somewhat off topic or at least we are struggling to see what the current argument has to do with the EU and more importantly I'd add - the bigger picture - and what we now think about the direction we are heading under this government. This is the bigger debate.

There has been a major speech on the subject by ex Prime MinisterTony Blair. This speech directly confronts the issues concerned with the subject of this thread.

I'd ask and challenge responders to keep to the issues raised by the speech and not go off topic with other issues related to the man making it, rather than the subject. This thread is to do with our thoughts following the referendum result. Let's stick to it.

Here's the speech including the introduction and Q&A session following:


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, you were wrongly misleading people against smart meters over health concerns. Admit it. Can you not see the hypocrisy of now saying Wi-FI and mobiles are fine as far you are concerned just because you find them convenient? Why are you not warning people about mobile and Wi-Fi health issues with equal vigor?


Dear me John this is utter stupidity, mobiles are not fine, I use my mobile only occasionally and then only to drop call, I have warned people to the fact that LLoyds won`t insure against RF damage, that aught to be warning enough, the stupidity of your link is the fact that you are promoting equipment that the consumer has no need of (smart Meter), may well harm their health, wont benefit them in any way and which you won`t have in your house.
The con in the UK is that you get a monitor showing your usage, they don`t provide that monitor in any other EU country because they don`t believe their citizens will sit in front of it waiting for little Jonny to sneak his computer on out of hours.

The only way to save electric is to use less powerful equipment or switch it off, you don`t need a smart meter for that.

http://www.wifi-in-schools-australia.or ... dwide.html
http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... irish.html
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/ ... 61vw27.htm


----------



## bobclive22

> Here's the speech including the introduction and Q&A session following:


Shame on you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Here's the speech including the introduction and Q&A session following:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you.
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol:

Bobs highly selective obsession with democracy. It's funny, because he's devoted a lot of time to mocking opinion polls, but for some reason the referendum poll is the epitome of democracy at work.


----------



## John-H




----------



## A3DFU

This is something that needs to be distributed to every household, every shop, every pub and restaurant and it needs to be plastered on every notice board. Maybe, just maybe people will start realising that their country is heading for a massive sale-out.


----------



## bobclive22

> A quick google of the Bioinitiative Working Group report shows that it was self-published with no peer review whatsoever. It has been heavily criticised by the scientific community. If that's the standard of evidence you're basing your 'opinion' on then that's a bit tragic.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how many times you post this rubbish - there is no conclusive evidence that there are any health implications from RF at the levels being described. And repeatedly saying "pulsed RF 24/7" in the hope you can make it sound worse than the actual 45s per 24hrs that these devices have been shown to transmit just makes it look like you're trying to con people, rather than inform them.


Documents from the 1930s and 1940s reveal that many asbestos manufacturers were aware of the serious health issues surrounding asbestos, *but kept the information secret from workers and from the public *(Paul Brodeur's "The Cruel Saga of Asbestos Disease").

Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full

Don`t start banging on about peer review or do we call it Pall review.

*Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals*

The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? *Such a review is vanishingly rare.*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"The case against science is straightforward: *much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.* Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and *flagrant conflicts of interest, *together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... -is-false/

*A bogus scientific paper about a new anti-cancer compound was accepted by more than half of 300 scientific journals *it was submitted to in the past year, despite having obvious and serious scientific flaws.

CBC Radio's The Current explores what that means about the peer review and science publishing system, and what the implications are for public confidence in science.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bogus ... -1.2054004

"some scientists would prefer &#8230; that results are announced only after they have passed peer review, ie been checked by experts and published in a reputable journal.

There are many reasons why this will no longer wash. Those days of deference to patrician authority are over, and probably for the better. We (*some of us Spandex*) no longer take on trust what we are told by politicians, experts and authorities. There are hazards to such scepticism, but good motivations too. Few regret that the old spoonfeeding of facts to the ignorant masses has been replaced with attempts to engage and include the public.

But science itself has changed too. Information and communications technologies mean that not only is it all but impossible to keep hot findings under wraps, but few even try. In physics in particular, researchers put their papers on publicly accessible pre-print servers before formal publication so that they can be seen and discussed, while specialist bloggers give new claims an informal but often penetrating analysis. This enriches the scientific process and means that problems that peer reviewers for journals might not notice can be spotted and debated. Peer review is imperfect anyway - a valuable check but far from infallible, and notoriously conservative."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-science


----------



## Spandex

FFS bob. Use your brain. How does any of the above prove your point about the health risks of EM radiation? Seriously, just answer that one question (using your own words and without posting a link to someone else's thoughts).


----------



## John-H

And Bob please be aware of the subject of this thread. Your posts are severely off topic and are detracting from the purpose of this thread - "review: Post EU referendum thoughts / concerns / hopes ".

Whilst this is a free speech forum there are rules and whilst we allow a certain leeway you are going too far off topic. If you want to start a thread about smart meters or science methodology you are welcome but would you mind starting your own thread and discussing it there rather than here please?


----------



## stuff1

What's next, ban people who voted Leave?


----------



## John-H

stuff1 said:


> What's next, ban people who voted Leave?


Certainly not. If the thoughts are related to the subject of this thread then they would be entirely relevant and we can discuss them


----------



## John-H

New data sheds light on voting trends:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

The one thing I would take from this is that it is important for the consequences to be honestly explained in a way that everybody can trust as we go forward to and find out about the destination, the losers and the beneficiaries.


----------



## bobclive22

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034


John we are leaving, give it a rest.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
> 
> 
> 
> John we are leaving, give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Welcome back to the subject of the thread Bob! [smiley=mexicanwave.gif]

It's not going to happen by the way :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> It's not going to happen by the way


You`ve been to your local tarot reader then John.

Tarot reading - Brexit futures?

https://paulhughesbarlow.com/tarot-read ... t-futures/ :lol: :lol: :lol:

Remember Y2K.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> It's not going to happen by the way
> 
> 
> 
> You`ve been to your local tarot reader then John.
> 
> Tarot reading - Brexit futures?
> 
> https://paulhughesbarlow.com/tarot-read ... t-futures/ :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Remember Y2K.
Click to expand...

No. I leave it to you to look up the dodgy websites :wink: but as long as it's EU related that's the main thing so well done


----------



## bobclive22

Note the mention of name calling.

Here is an expert.

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... alarmists/

You can check every statement he makes. Pity the *EU *didn`t do that before they decided to go for diesel.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU
> 
> Note the mention of name calling.
> 
> Here is an expert.
> 
> https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... alarmists/
> 
> You can check every statement he makes. Pity the *EU *didn`t do that before they decided to go for diesel.


I thought you didn't trust experts Bob.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU
> 
> Note the mention of name calling.
> 
> Here is an expert.
> 
> https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... alarmists/
> 
> You can check every statement he makes. Pity the *EU *didn`t do that before they decided to go for diesel.


How is that related to the EU bob? You can't disguise being off topic like that :roll:



bobclive22 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
> 
> 
> 
> John we are leaving, give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Oh, perhaps you are referring to me being in the minority 48% who wish to remain in the EU and therefore the underdog berated by the mainstream, not the accepted majority view who wished to leave.

Oh hold on, by your own arguments I must be right then. Thanks Bob - point expertly made!


----------



## cheechy

Jeez whats happened to this thread?

I never realised we'd start talking about leccie meters :lol:

Anyhow here we are - much as I'd hoped to see it we will be invoking article 50 without the ability to back out as it seems the far right are dictating exit terms and the recent by election triumphs for the tories have put a rubber stamp on that ...all be it the result shouldn't have really been a surprise (Labour in a total and utter mess just when we needed to see an effective opposition holding the government to account).

So it seems that the 48% are being completely ignored and the age old belief in consensus is being binned to keep the tory right in check.

Its not so much the fact now that we're leaving its this fact around no compromise and the hate politics of the right that really disturbs me.

In effect the 48% are being bullied and alas it seems to be working. So much for the enlightened democracy that is the leading light to the world. Don't agree with bashing the bosch? How undemocratic and anti British you are. Go away and live somewhere else!

Just like in the US the right are still in full campaign mode to keep the support running.

Where next? I guess we wait and see the gradual decline of the UK once the dust settles for me. I'm not being pessimistic I just don't subscribe to the massively over optimistic claptrap that the brexit campaign is _still_ churning out.

I've now given up hope of seeing any common sense and compromise on this and despair for our quality of life given any trade deals we seem to be clinging onto will be desperate in nature and rely on even more immigration form the like of India - so therefore won't be signed.

In short its total madness.


----------



## A3DFU

While I have no hope that sanity will win through, there is still much you can do; if not to effect change but at least to let MPs and Lords know what you think. I've taken the following from _The New European_ newspaper (three times British media awards nominee), which is apparently the email that will make Lords battle Hard Brexit:



> Dear Lord Strasburger***;
> 
> I'm writing to you as a British citizen to ask for your help.
> We are in a situation that I would not have thought possible a year ago. We have an unelected, near-dictator as PM who is doing her utmost to evade Parliamentary scrutiny and an Opposition not worthy of the name.
> MPs are openly stating that Brexit will be a disaster, yet lack the moral fibre to oppose Government. Former Remain MPs are widely choosing to hide behind the "Will of the People" mantra, while conveniently ignore the advisory nature of the referendum. Similarly, the fact that we live in a Parliamentary democracy that mandates MPs to act in the country's best interests, to show judgement and leadership and not simply function as delegates, gets brushed aside.
> Our PM insists that the outcome of the referendum was clear when in truth it was anything but; the country was almost equally divided and the Leave campaign has openly admitted its narrow win was only achieved by lying to the electorate, a situation which Mrs May seems happy to overlook.
> In pursuing the hardest of hard Brexits, at whatever cost to the nation, Mrs May is demonstrating that she puts loyalty to the Party above loyalty to the country. She insists -wrongly- that the whole nation is united behind her and that she has a mandate for what she is doing. In this she is grossly mistaken; it is utter propaganda.
> Mrs May asserts that we will leave the Single Market and that this is what we voted for. This is fabrication; the question on the ballot paper made no reference to the Single Market and indeed both Vote Leave and the Conservative manifesto promised we would stay in the Single Market.
> Likewise, we did not vote to leave the Customs Union, nor did we vote for WTO rules. This is an interpretation imposed upon us by the Government alone.
> Moreover, we did not vote to destroy our currency to lose Sterling's reserve status and to lose our Triple A rating.
> We did not vote to become a tax haven and see our employment rights destroyed, to see the few gain at the expense of the many and to witness the destruction of the NHS.
> We did not vote to break up the United Kingdom, nor did we vote for EU citizens living in Britain to be used as "bargaining chips" and be subject to racists abuse.
> We did not vote for our Government to cosy up to dictators and threaten to remove our human rights, nor did we vote in see our environmental rights whittled away.
> We did not vote for Government policy to be dictated by our rabid, tax-avoiding tabloid press.
> We did not vote for the Government to treat us all, but especially our academics, scientists, business leaders and experts, with utter contempt.
> Mrs May, as you are doubtless aware, threatens to destroy anything that has the audacity to question her authority. She is out of control.
> I implore you, as a member of the Upper Chamber, to do your duty to save the country from this insanity, and amend, delay and block Article 50 where at all possible.


*** Use Lord's name as appropriate.

You'll find the email addresses of the Lords on the government website.

Also, Remainers can take to the streets of London on 25th March. Check out:

http://www.uniteforeurope.org/

And of course you can still write to your MP (or all of them - email addresses are on the government site) and/or you can visit their surgery.

And there's The New European as a hard copy in shops and online:

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/home


----------



## bobclive22

Dear ,

As you know, on 24 January the Supreme Court judges made an important decision about Brexit. Our independent judiciary - a vital part of Britain's democracy - decided that Parliament must vote before the Government can trigger Article 50.

A clear majority voted in the referendum for the UK to leave the EU. Parliament now has a responsibility to respect the result and people expect the Government to get on with the job of delivering Brexit.

If the EU Referendum had been a general election, the 'Leave' party would have a majority of 166 seats. If the House of Lords ignores the outcome of this vote, many - not just those who voted to leave - will feel that democracy has been damaged.

The House of Lords plays an important role as a revising chamber to improve and refine legislation that arrives from the Commons. It is at its best when it allows talented people with experience outside politics to contribute to the legislative process and to help hold the Government to account. However if the House of Lords were to vote against Article 50, or to use the parliamentary vote to try and delay or even block Brexit, in my opinion this would strengthen the case for reform of the chamber and help those who would like to see the House of Lords abolished.

Will you therefore vote to support the Government's European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill without amendment?

I understand that you may have income or a pension from the European Union due to your work there in the past on behalf of the UK. Will you therefore also commit to declare any financial interest before you speak in the debates on the passage of the Article 50 legislation through the House of Lords?

Best wishes,

Your Name
Your Postcode
Your Email Address

https://www.changebritain.org/petition/lords/

*SIR James Dyson last night unveiled plans for a pioneering new research centre in Britain in a major vote of confidence following the Brexit vote.
*
The billionaire inventor is to transform a former RAF base in Wiltshire into a global technology hub, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs. Theresa May welcomed the plans as a 'vote of confidence in our modern industrial strategy'.

'Dyson's exporting strength and commitment to creating jobs in Britain is a real success story that demonstrates the opportunity that our plan to create a truly global Britain can present,' she added.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4a51MKyyp

*Dyson to increase UK base tenfold as it buys ex-RAF base to satisfy expansion plans 
*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... expansion/


----------



## John-H

Glad that you are on topic Bob. Is that proposed letter all your own or should it be attributed to someone else? Not being funny but it seems familiar.

I think it's rather contrived as a counter to genuine concerns to try and make up for the lack of a reasoned argument on the vote leave side. It's sort of a retaliatory letter having seen a real one. It just seems to counter and twist.

The somewhat vengeful point about abolishing the Lords if they dare speak out against the vote leave mantra just smacks of someone shouting "shut up!" when someone expresses a contrary opinion. It fails to recognise the role of the Lords as a revising chamber with vital experience, able to scrutinise and suggest wise amendments often catching legal blunders in commons draft legislation. You'll be calling Judges "The enemies of the people" next if they get in your way during article 50 process but again this would fall to recognise the checks and balances on which our democracy is based.

You mention "clear majority" in an attempt to take the moral high ground but this is flawed.

It is incorrect to say that "The people have spoken in a clear majority." In fact it was only 17.4 million citizens out of around 64 million who actually voted to leave which is only about 27% of all "citizens". A minority.

You may actually mean "majority of the electorate" but even that would be untrue because the electorate numbered 46.5 million and the 17.4 million who voted leave only amounted to 37% of the electorate total which is well less than half. Again a minority.

Of course if the electorate is gerrymandered to exclude 3.3 million EU citizens and 15 and 16 year olds then it is wholly unreliable and disingenuous to rely on and bandy about the _marginal_ advisory referendum result to indicate and insist on knowledge of the "will of the people" with any accuracy.

People were duped. Not the majority as we have already established but enough to tip a 50% split in opinion by 2% - just over 600,000 would have done it. That's not much is it?

Can you safely say, that such a small number of people were not swayed by the 350 million per week to the NHS lie? Can you safely say that the Tory manifesto promise to stay in the single market did not give many a false sense of economic security in which they could safely exercise a by-election like protest vote?

It is of course an indication of the motives of those happy to have this situation persist that they don't want the Lords to vote for amendments to ensure parliament maintains its sovereignty and even give the people a chance to have a say on the final deal. I wonder why? Perhaps they are actually afraid of the will of the people and do not wish to put it to the test when the reality of the situation becomes clear?

They have their desired answer and don't want any chance for the people to think again in the light of new information. Sounds a bit like a religion stuck in a doctrine of the past. Public opinion flows. Two years is an _extremely_ long time in politics!

I leave you with a speech made in the House of Lords by Lord Liddle:



Lord Liddle said:


> "I want to address my brief remarks to my own benches. Whatever our differences on our response to last year's referendum, we are all with few exceptions pro Europeans, including the many members whom I am proud to call friends on our front bench in this House.
> 
> Internationalism has always been a core socialist and social democratic belief. Interdependence in our globalised world today makes what was always a moral value, an economic and security imperative as well.
> 
> Today we are debating this miserable measure to trigger the process of detaching the UK from the most successful peace project in history.
> 
> I hang my head in shame that the leaders of this country and this party were not able to win a majority for Remain last June. It will live with me to my dying day.
> 
> There are many Guilty Men and some women too.
> 
> The failure of successive governments, including I regret to say our own, to present a consistent case for our EU membership.
> 
> A collective weakness in going along with the idea of a referendum - "a device of dictators", as Clem Attlee once so accurately quipped.
> 
> And of course David Cameron's miscalculated opportunism.
> 
> But let us be frank and I say with the deepest sadness: the debilitation of our own party contributed to the BREXIT disaster. We have a Leader, who, unlike the vast majority of Labour members, including those who joined up to support him, has never been a European true believer.
> 
> In the referendum he failed the key test of democratic politics - to cut through media cynicism and a mass of seething public discontents - with a compelling positive case for Europe that forced voters to listen.
> 
> And now there is no clarion call for the fight: only a three line whip in the Commons to force Labour MPs to troop through the lobbies alongside a right wing Tory government dancing to Iain Duncan Smith's tune, even on Third Reading when all the amendments containing our so-called "red lines" had been rejected.
> 
> Of course we must live with the referendum result. But public opinion is not fixed for ever in the same place.
> 
> There could have been a national consensus behind Brexit. A government determined to establish that could have proposed a different approach that would have taken account of the 48% and not given top priority to the ideologues of the Tory right.
> 
> That would have been a Brexit based on continued membership of the single market and the closest possible political and security ties with our EU partners.
> 
> But in January we had the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech which prioritises sovereignty and immigration over jobs and living standards. The British electorate did not vote for that.
> 
> The referendum result cannot mean that Parliament is bound to accept whatever withdrawal deal Mrs May cobbles together.
> 
> If her terms are contrary to the national interest, then there must remain open at least the possibility that Brexit might be reversed.
> 
> But sadly there is no sign the current Labour leadership is ready to fight for the national interest in this way.
> 
> The remnants of the 1970s Hard Left still hanker after some tattered old version of 'socialism in one country'. A leading adviser to Ed Miliband opines that "Brexit opens the door for a new and exciting programme - from regional industrial strategy to the end of the power of the City of London". I have to say: knocking down those £70bn of City tax revenues would be a great way of starting a big regional investment programme!
> 
> And then of course there are the Blue Labour intellectuals, who think that drastic cuts in immigration are the only way to restore Labour's relationship with its so called 'core' working class vote. Their analysis is highly questionable; their policy unimplementable without unacceptable cost.
> 
> John Curtice's analysis of the British Election Study shows that even in Labour held constituencies that voted Leave, 57% of 2015 Labour supporters voted to Remain.
> 
> And as for cutting low skilled migration, there is no possibility of achieving this without huge damage to our NHS and social care or any chance of finding in the next five years the workers Britain needs to build the houses and infrastructure we all want to see.
> 
> It is time for Labour to tell the truth. The biggest losers from Brexit are going to be working families and the poor. As the devaluation of the pound forces up prices while benefits are frozen, a sharp rise in child poverty is the inevitable consequence.
> 
> And on sterling, I warn you - we have seen nothing yet, as Mrs May teeters on her infamous cliff edge.
> 
> I venture that our internationalist forefathers would be shocked by our present state.
> 
> Keir Hardie, who left school at 8, bravely condemned racism in South Africa, backed independence for India and fought to build solidarity with social democratic parties in Europe (particularly Edouard Bernstein of the German SPD) in the hope of averting the catastrophe that became the First World War. He never flinched in face of the jingoists and imperialists of his day, many of them of course in the working class electorate.
> 
> The same was true of Ernest Bevin in opposing Nazism and Munich in the 1930s.
> 
> And I say this, if all Labour leaders in the past had bowed the knee to populism, would the great Labour governments of Harold Wilson with Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, ever have abolished hanging, legalised homosexuality or introduced the first laws on racial equality?
> 
> Labour faces two choices on Brexit. Accept the Hard Brexit that looms and be driven by the present leadership like lambs to the slaughter. Or expose it for the multiple deceits that it represents, and campaign for public opinion to shift.
> 
> I know where I stand. As a proud member of the Labour party, I will fight for the internationalist, egalitarian and pro European convictions I have held for 45 years".


----------



## bobclive22

> I think it's rather contrived as a *counter to genuine concerns to try and make up for the lack of a reasoned argument on the vote leave side.* It's sort of a retaliatory letter having seen a real one. It just seems to counter and twist.


So the *only* reasoned argument the Lords put forward is that we should protect *foreign workers rights* to remain in the UK but leave Brit`s living and working in the EU to their *own devices.* Lord Tebbit made that same statement in the debate,

So, if we are to be concerned about the rights of anybody after Brexit to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, it should be concern for the rights of *British people* to live freely and peacefully in those other parts of Europe.

"*Somehow or other, today, we seem to be thinking of nothing but the rights of foreigners.*"

Despite the gasps all around him, Lord Tebbit added: "Why is everybody here today so excited about an amendment which *looks after foreigners and not the British.
*
Is he right or wrong John.


----------



## John-H

I would say to Lord Tebit and the like - As for EU citizens living here - some have lived here contributing, to society, paying taxes, settled with homes and families for thirty years or more and are now subject to ill treatment by the xenophobic amongst us with racist abuse but also those who wish to use them as a bargaining chip at the risk of turning them out of their homes and splitting up their family. Have you no sympathy or humanity? That is no way for a civilised country to behave. I note you call them "foreigners" when they are in truth settled citizens with as much right to live here as you or I.


----------



## A3DFU

A brilliant speech by Lord Foulkes:



> Speech to the House of Lords by Rt. Hon. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock on the 20th February 2017
> 
> Second Reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
> My Lords, compared with when we started nearly seven hours ago, we are a bit thin on the ground. However, we make up for it in quality, tenacity and, of course, fortitude. Let me put my cards on the table: I remain totally opposed to Brexit. I am not going to throw in the towel: if we go ahead, it will be a total disaster economically, socially and in every other way, and it was sold on a false prospectus. I will oppose it by any legal and constitutional means. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, we have a long, long way to go. I say to the Ministers on the Front Bench in particular-and I am not threatening them in any way because all six of them are good friends of mine; I hope that does not do them any harm-you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> We are just at the beginning of the beginning. We still have the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading, and then, of course, we have the great repeal Bill and, I am told, at least 7,500 statutory instruments to be dealt with as a result of that. That is going to keep this House busy with a lot of scrutiny, and I am sure that we will do it properly. Of course, there are a lot of hurdles ahead: we have heard about Northern Ireland; no one has mentioned in detail the problems relating to Scotland. I know there are one or two members of the Front Bench who know some of the problems there. We have heard about the need for approval by 27 national parliaments and the European Parliament. It is a long, long way to go, and there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
> 
> Today, however, I just want to concentrate on one thing very seriously, and that is our form of parliamentary democracy. I was in the other place for 26 years, so I am very sensitive about our parliamentary democracy. Winston Churchill said:"We believe Members of Parliament are representatives, and not delegates". He also said: "We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the nation". Therefore, Governments should give the lead. I liked a quotation from Edmund Burke, to the effect that,"a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and &#8230; most seriously to consider", the opinion of his constituents. But, "authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,-these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land".
> 
> That was Edmund Burke. That is our parliamentary democracy. We do not have a direct democracy here in the United Kingdom; we have a parliamentary democracy. That is why I was disappointed in the debate in the House of Commons, where they ought to know better. I was going to mention that someone said, "This Brexit is going to be a total disaster, but I'm going to vote for it". Incidentally, I have the greatest of respect for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, outed that person earlier on, so I cannot be blamed for doing that. However, when these Members of the House of Commons took the decision, did they think about their judgment and their conscience, or did they just feel that they had to do what they believed the referendum told them to do?
> 
> Let us look at that referendum. First, as others have said, it was advisory. All pre-legislative referenda are advisory. The only one that has not been advisory is the AV referendum, post-legislation, where we knew exactly what we were voting for, and thankfully, we voted it down. In addition, 16 and 17 year-olds were not allowed to vote, as they were in Scotland. Some of them are 18 now, and all of them will be 18 if we finish these negotiations. Some of the old cod-oh! I am chair of Age Scotland, so I had better be careful. I should say some of the elderly people who voted against remaining are, sadly, no longer with us. That is one of the ironies. EU citizens, who work in this country in the health service and the financial sector, were not allowed to vote. They are taxpayers. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"? They are being taxed, but they were not able to say anything.
> 
> On the threshold, which my noble friend Lord Rooker, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Norton, raised on earlier occasions when we discussed this, it was 40% in the first Scottish referendum, yet this referendum was supported by only 37% of the electorate. It would not have got through if we had had the Cunningham amendment. Even-the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will know this very well-for Muirfield golf club to admit women, it has to have a two-thirds majority. We are making a major change to the United Kingdom constitution, not just a question of admitting women.
> 
> Finally, there were the lies on which Brexit was sold, not just different interpretations of the facts which we get at general elections, but manifest lies. I will not go into that in more detail. I will finish with a little story, which goes back to my original point about parliamentary sovereignty. Many years ago, when I was an MP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we were having a vote in the House of Commons to change the law on abortion. I am not a religious person and I did not feel strongly about it one way or another. I therefore went to my constituency party-we had a large turnout, with more than 100 people-and I told them that I did not feel strongly about it and asked them for their advice. We had a fantastic debate, which lasted over two hours, and it was about 50:50. However, they resolved unanimously to leave it to me, their elected representative, to listen to the arguments and decide how to vote. That is parliamentary democracy for you. If we do not stick to that, not just the House of Lords will be redundant but the House of Commons as well.


----------



## John-H

Very good points. We expect a duty of care from our politicians for the job that we entrust in them and for which we can not and should not attempt to do ourselves.

What a ridiculous thing the referendum was - making the ley public vote for consequences that nobody knows even now and for the next two years.

If they had negotiated a potential deal first and then put that and its consequences to the public, that would have been a more sensible question but they made us flip the coin before knowing what the stakes where.

As it stands at the moment we've been tricked into voting that two and two make five. That does not make it so and reality will bite hard. At that point we'll need a reverse gear and expect our politicians to have put one in place.

Strange that certain vested interests seem to be doing their damndest to deny us the option. I wonder why?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So the *only* reasoned argument the Lords put forward is that we should protect *foreign workers rights* to remain in the UK but leave Brit`s living and working in the EU to their *own devices.* Lord Tebbit made that same statement in the debate,
> 
> So, if we are to be concerned about the rights of anybody after Brexit to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, it should be concern for the rights of *British people* to live freely and peacefully in those other parts of Europe.
> 
> "*Somehow or other, today, we seem to be thinking of nothing but the rights of foreigners.*"
> 
> Despite the gasps all around him, Lord Tebbit added: "Why is everybody here today so excited about an amendment which *looks after foreigners and not the British.
> *
> Is he right or wrong John.


That all makes no sense at all. The Lords are discussing a *UK bill*. The bill can't force the governments of other countries to do anything, but it can force our government to do things - so, the only aspect that needs to be discussed relative to this bill is what our government should do for EU citizens living here because that's the only bit that is within the Lords influence. It's nothing to do with priorities or putting one group before another, it's just common sense.

Obviously the government will (I should hope) attempt to negotiate favourable rights for UK citizens in Europe as part of the article 50 negotiations, but that has nothing to do with the House of Lords or this bill.

As I've said numerous times on here, please bob, think things through before you post them.


----------



## bobclive22

> so, the only aspect that needs to be discussed relative to this bill is what our government should do for EU citizens living here because that's the only bit that is within the Lords influence. It's nothing to do with priorities or putting one group before another, it's just common sense.


We are leaving the EU, our government are prepared to allow the *3.2 million* EU residents to remain in the UK yet the EU will not agree to guarantee the *900,000 Brits* residing in the EU the same status, it is the EU that is using these people as part of the negotiations not the UK. Are you naive enough to believe that France and Germany would offer the same guarantee without some further concessions from the UK once article 50 is triggered, head in the sand comes to mind.

Perhaps they might wont to claw back this in return,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 69896.html


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> so, the only aspect that needs to be discussed relative to this bill is what our government should do for EU citizens living here because that's the only bit that is within the Lords influence. It's nothing to do with priorities or putting one group before another, it's just common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> We are leaving the EU, our government are prepared to allow the *3.2 million* EU residents to remain in the UK yet the EU will not agree to guarantee the *900,000 Brits* residing in the EU the same status, it is the EU that is using these people as part of the negotiations not the UK. Are you naive enough to believe that France and Germany would offer the same guarantee without some further concessions from the UK once article 50 is triggered, head in the sand comes to mind.
> 
> Perhaps they might wont to claw back this in return,
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 69896.html
Click to expand...

Actually Bob, I don't think we are leaving until Auntie Theresa actually pulls the trigger on article 50 and tells them we intend to leave.

The issue is that no one ever expected anyone to leave, so there is no process or policy in place for such an event. Basically both sides are making it up as they go

Unfortunately we are in March so maybe she will do this soon.


----------



## Gewdraa

Fyi
There has always been an agreement between EU countries to let people work where they want to.
I have been in Belgium since 1986.
There was never a problem to work here.
There are plenty of expats here.
I am now dual nationality so in or out , no worries
All my family voted out, no worries.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> We are leaving the EU, our government are prepared to allow the *3.2 million* EU residents to remain in the UK yet the EU will not agree to guarantee the *900,000 Brits* residing in the EU the same status, it is the EU that is using these people as part of the negotiations not the UK. Are you naive enough to believe that France and Germany would offer the same guarantee without some further concessions from the UK once article 50 is triggered, head in the sand comes to mind.
> 
> Perhaps they might wont to claw back this in return,
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 69896.html


So, your proposal is to give up all our principals? If we suspect the EU might use our citizens as a bargaining chip, we have to use their citizens too, whether we believe it's right or not? You really are a class act Bob.

Some of the Lords are trying to protect people living here because that's the right thing to do. Because, unlike you Bob, there are people in the world who will do the right thing up front, without waiting to see what the other side does first.

The Lords job isn't to ensure our idiot government have more ammunition in a stupid fight they started.


----------



## A3DFU

I had many good replies from Lords. The one below is from Lord Judd:



> Dear Mrs Unwin,
> 
> Thank you for writing. As one who campaigned and voted to Remain I share many of your views and frustrations about the referendum and I am very sorry to learn of your concerns and anxieties about the future. My own sister is in a similar "limbo" position in France. I shall certainly be supporting amendment 9b this afternoon and shall be listening carefully and sympathetically to many of the other amendments which will be put before the House.
> 
> Frank Judd


Regards your post Gewdraa, I missed applying for British nationality while I was still living in Berlin as I thought this would never be a problem and I would always be able to move, live and work anywhere within Europe. 
Once I moved to the UK in 1985 and no longer had a seat of residence over there, I would have had to give up my German nationality if I wanted to get the British one. So unfortunately for me, I can have one or the other but not both :?


----------



## Gewdraa

I think in 2014 the rules about dual nationality changed.
Anyway if push comes to shove I will give my Belgium on back.


----------



## A3DFU

Gewdraa said:


> I think in 2014 the rules about dual nationality changed.


No. Not for German/British nationality.

If a German national without residence in Germany applies for a different nationality, he/she/I will automatically have to give up German nationality. That was the case in 1995 when I first applied for British nationality assuming I'd keep my German one. But no, Germany insisted I would have to give up my German nationality if I became a British subject. I never followed that through.

However, if I'd applied for British nationality while I was still living in Germany, there wouldn't have been a problem: I would have dual nationality now.

So, as I said, in my case I can be German or British but not both.


----------



## Gewdraa

Ah never mind.
I brought my tt in oberhausen a few weeks ago.
Will be working in Munich this summer, can't wait.


----------



## A3DFU

Nice 

Greetings to Munich. Been there many times on my way to Austria for skiing


----------



## Gewdraa

Going a bit off topic me thinks. 
Did you get a chance to visit bmw museum?
Are you in the UK, are you worried about getting thrown out?


----------



## John-H

I'm sure a little less so for now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39200658


----------



## John-H

Who said this?



> INTRODUCTION
> 
> First, welcome to Lancaster House for the launching of this "Europe Open for Business" campaign.
> 
> It is the first step along the path of preparing Britain's companies to take the opportunities presented by completion of the Single Market in the European Community in 1992.[fo 1]
> We must get this right. Too often in the past Britain has missed opportunities.
> 
> How we meet the challenge of the Single Market will be a major factor, possibly the major factor, in our competitive position in European and world markets into the twenty-first century.[fo 2] Getting it right needs a partnership between government and business.
> 
> The task of government is two-fold: -to negotiate in Brussels so as to get the possible results for Britain; -and then to make you the business community aware of the opportunities, so that you can make the most of them.[fo 3]
> 
> It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
> 
> Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers-visible or invisible-giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power[fo 4] of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
> Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
> 
> It's not a dream.[fo 5] It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real. And it's only five years away.
> 
> COMPLETING THE SINGLE MARKET
> 
> You might say: weren't we supposed to have a common market already? Wasn't that the reason we joined Europe in the first place?[fo 6] Weren't we promised all this in 1973?
> 
> It's a fair question to ask. And the truthful answer is: Europe wasn't open for business. Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries.[fo 7]
> Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insiduous ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts.
> 
> Now that's going to change. Britain has given the lead. [There was a tendency in Europe to talk in lofty tones of European Union.[fo 8]
> That may be good for the soul. But the body-Europe's firms and organisations and the people who work in them-needs something more nourishing.]
> 
> We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action.[fo 9]
> 
> Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate[fo 10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community.
> All this is what Europe is now committed to do. In 1985 the Community's Heads of[fo 11] Government gave a pledge to complete the single market by 1992. To make sure that it was not just a pious hope, they made that pledge part of the Treaty, as the Single European Act.
> 
> So it's going to happen. Indeed the barriers are already coming down. Monsieur Delors, the President of the[fo 12] Commission, and our own Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, deserve a lot of credit for the way in which they are keeping up the momentum.
> 
> THE CHALLENGE
> 
> So far Britain hasn't done nearly well enough in trade with Europe. True, the direction of our trade has been[fo 13] transformed. Half of it is now with the European Community.
> 
> But the balance is nothing like satisfactory, especially in manufactured goods. The fact is that although we haven't done very well in Europe, Europe has done very well in Britain.[fo 14]
> Our national failure to make the most of the opportunities when we joined the Community was part of a much more general failure.
> 
> In those days, Britain was in the forefront of those resisting change, in fighting to preserve the barriers.
> 
> Some in Britain still see it that way, but they are getting fewer and fewer.[fo 15]
> 
> The difference is that now we can look forward with confidence to sweeping away the barriers. We have a highly successful economy. We have had seven years of growth. Job creation in this country is unmatched anywhere else in Europe.
> We have a climate in Britain in which business[fo 16] wants to succeed and can succeed. We have a chance to be world leaders again.
> 
> The task now is to harness that spirit of enterprise to tackling the challenge of the Single Market.
> 
> THE RESPONSE
> 
> But five years isn't long.[fo 17] Indeed it barely takes you into the next Conservative government! It means that business needs to prepare itself quickly. Starting right now.
> 
> You have shown by coming here today that you recognise the challenge and are aware of what needs to be done. But the message needs to be spread much[fo 18] more widely. Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service[fo 19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
> 
> And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety.
> 
> We know a lot about the obligations of Community membership.[fo 20] Now it's time to seize the opportunities too.
> 
> We in government will do our part. David Young will be leading a major five-year campaign to take the message to every part of the country. Today's conference will be followed by twenty regional conferences and more detailed seminars throughout the country.[fo 21]
> 
> You too can help by spreading the message throughout British business.
> 
> But awareness is only the start of the battle. Companies need to identify the new opportunities and go out and seize them.
> 
> By 1993 Europe will be our home market. That means that we won't just be exporting[fo 22] to eleven other countries. We will be doing business in a single domestic market.
> 
> Getting to grips with that basic proposition will mean a major re-think, for companies of every size: -it means looking afresh at all your plans and priorities:[fo 23] -it means searching out opportunities to sell to new customers, and develop new products; -it means looking at what your competitors are doing, both British and in the other Member States; -it means considering all the options[fo 24] for doing business, including joint ventures, acquisitions, establishing local outlets, as well as exporting in the traditional sense.
> 
> Above all, it means a positive attitude of mind: a decision to go all out to make a success of the single market.


----------



## A3DFU

I let some others guess :wink:

I had a very interesting email from one of the MPs a few minutes ago.



> Just a quick update on the EU. I continue to campaign on the issue - and spoke at a xxx event on the subject just this week. It was astonishing not to hear Brexit covered in the Budget given the disastrous economic impact it will have. The Lords have been debating the Bill, with Labour's contribution led by Baroness Angela Smith.
> 
> The Government were defeated on two very important amendments and agreed that:
> 
> 1. That the status of EU Nationals in the UK must be guaranteed; and
> 2. That Parliament must hold a 'meaningful' vote on Theresa May's final deal.
> 
> These were important defeats for the Government and the Bill will now return to the Commons on Monday. I will again be voting against triggering Article 50 as I did last time. I am not prepared to hand a blank cheque over to this masochistic Government or to vote for anything which will significantly narrow the life chances and opportunities of people in our community.
> 
> I will continue to update you as the Bill develops. In the meantime, thank you for your overwhelming support on this issue.
> 
> Best wishes,


----------



## John-H




----------



## Shug750S

Don't worry, I'm sure Bob will be along soon with some tasty quotes to show you are wrong and this is all a BBC plant :twisted:


----------



## John-H

Probably. The thing that amazes me is the lack of knowledge amongst MPs over the legalities of what they are debating. My own MP didn't know. MPs are too bound up in politics but the law trumps all in our democracy.

The government has already been defeated in the Supreme Court over who is sovereign - the government or parliament and yet the government are trying to deny parliament a final say - despite what the Supreme Court ruled.

The article 50 Lisbon treaty once triggered requires a two year discussion process prior to final leaving terms being agreed and also includes insertion of our own constitutional requirements to enact leaving. They are that parliament must decide as sovereign - so it can't decide now, it must wait for the terms. If they are not acceptable then article 50 notice can be renegotiated or withdrawn. The two - UK constitutional law and EU treaty law are bound together.

Theresa May and her executive will have no power to remove us from the EU in a "hard Brexit" if there is no deal, without a "meaningful vote" in primary legislation with the say so of parliament.

The whole thing will end up back in court in two years time unless the Lords amendments are passed tonight or the job to be done properly - Mark my words - see here:

View attachment Three_Knights_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf


----------



## bobclive22

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/0 ... -response/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 28071.html

Onwards and upwards John.


----------



## Shug750S

Told ya...

:lol:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 28071.html
> 
> Onwards and upwards John.


Thank you Bob for a relevant argument to the "Three Knights" opinion, which admits it is not conclusive but merely casts doubt - doubt which is based on the "bullet from the gun" augment put forward by Lord Pannick in the Supreme Court Miller case - and holding that as an admission that triggering article 50 leads to the taking away of rights come what may.

That convenient argument was given on the basis of both parties agreeing that triggering article 50 was irreversible. That suited both parties then as it expodited the case, avoided the intervention of Luxembourg on a point of EU law and allowed the case to be heard.

In actual fact, as explained by the "Three Knights" opinion, this is not the case - article 50 was never meant as a one way irreversible trap. It was always set as the means of negotiation of departure leading to a final agreement. It left open the possibility of failure to agree. That could, in the two years statutary requirement be equivalent to a change of government to reverse any decision or any other influence. Importantly it required the member state's constitutional requirements to be followed.

Therein lies the nub. The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary sovereignty prevails over the executive in the decision to take away rights enacted by parliament and once you realise that triggering article 50 does not take us out of the EU but merely starts the negotiation it follows that the decision to leave can only occur at the end of the article 50 process and decision can only be made by parliament at the time of the conclusion of the required treaty process. That's why an executive attempt to decide by itself at that time will go back to court - both here in the UK and to Luxembourg on a point of EU law which the government was desperate to avoid for political reasons.

Nice try :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary sovereignty prevails over the executive in the decision to take away rights enacted by parliament and once you realise that triggering article 50 does not take us out of the EU but merely starts the negotiation it follows that the decision to leave can only occur at the end of the article 50 process and decision can only be made by parliament at the time of the conclusion of the required treaty process.


The conclusion of the required treaty process is up to 2 years I believe, the next election is due May 2020, or earlier if Mrs May considers she can win another term, if that is the case I don`t see a problem.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary sovereignty prevails over the executive in the decision to take away rights enacted by parliament and once you realise that triggering article 50 does not take us out of the EU but merely starts the negotiation it follows that the decision to leave can only occur at the end of the article 50 process and decision can only be made by parliament at the time of the conclusion of the required treaty process.
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion of the required treaty process is up to 2 years I believe, the next election is due May 2020, or earlier if Mrs May considers she can win another term, if that is the case I don`t see a problem.
Click to expand...

Except for the damage that will be done in the mean time.

I find it incredible (yet unsurprising) to hear David Davies admit that the government has not yet costed the effect of a "hard brexit" - dropping out onto WTO terms in the event of no EU deal. Yet that is what they are suggesting may happen having already ruled out membership of the single market. My MP tried to tell me EU talks would be tough and WTO won't be so bad if they fail :roll: They seem already trying to smooth over the embarrassment and prepare people for the outcome. The question is are they incompetent or is this what they really want? Who gains?


----------



## John-H

Here's a problem - damage caused and we all know why...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rd-numbers

Michael Heseltine was on Any Questions and made a very good point - if Mrs May says the Scots can't have a referendum now because we don't know the result of the EU negotiations yet - as it would be unfair to make people decide now without knowing - then how come the UK has decided to leave the EU without knowing the deal and how is that fair and for us not to be allowed to think again once we see what's on offer? He got a huge round of applause.

Another point made by a friend of mine in relation to the admission by David Davies that no costing had been made of no EU deal was:

*"and no deal is better than a bad deal, even though we don't know what the bad deal is yet and no-one has bothered to calculate the impact of no deal, so they basically said, this unknown is better than that unknown, is there any other job where that would be acceptable? "*

Yes, it's only the well-being of the country - who cares? :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

John,

Remainers like yourself fort the referendum on the economy with project fear and lost. You appear to still be traveling down that same road, it was uncontrolled mass immigration that won it, the world is our oyster not the EU.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> John,
> 
> Remainers like yourself fort the referendum on the economy with project fear and lost. You appear to still be traveling down that same road, it was uncontrolled mass immigration that won it, the world is our oyster not the EU.


I agree to the extent that I think the economy is important as it affects all of us but that some like yourself think it isn't important (apparently ) or don't accept that there is a risk to it by leaving the EU so voted accordingly. We'll see who is correct in time.

You are dealing in fallacies however if you think you will control immigration by leaving the EU. Most wasn't EU. Of those, if you take away students and EU immigrants coming here under British recruitment for a job (i.e. net contributors) then you are left with about 12% who come here speculatively and end up in catering and hospitality mostly in London - so stopping it is hardly the size or the control you imagine - unless you fall for the Rupert Murdoch, Aaron Banks and Paul Dacre bile.

You have had the effect (even though we haven't left the EU yet) of making EU people feel unwelcome to the extent that the number of EU nationals registering as nurses in England has dropped by 92% since the Brexit referendum in June: https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rd-numbers

The NHS is in crisis and that does not help. The effects on the economy from a "Hard Brexit" will be worse. You want us to be forced into a low tax economy and sending us and the NHS off up the river Trump without a paddle?


----------



## John-H

Next week the government are going to trigger article 50.

The Government have promised to deliver "the exact same benefits" after Brexit as we enjoy now. They've set the tests to measure Brexit against themselves: no damage to the economy or any jobs at risk.

Remember that.


----------



## A3DFU

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That wouldn't be the first promise any government breaks :?


----------



## John-H

This one is no manifesto detail. It's fundamentally extensive and has greater potential to go wrong with extemes of consequence.


----------



## bobclive22

> You have had the effect (even though we haven't left the EU yet) of making EU people feel unwelcome to the extent that the number of EU nationals registering as nurses in England has dropped by 92% since the Brexit referendum in June: https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rd-numbers


The reason for this if it is true, is the propaganda spewed out daily by the MSM, especially the BBC, the UK has and always will embrace all immigrants who posses the skills needed for our economy to flourish. It is the unending stream of unskilled workers that are not welcome.

As for the economy, remember what happened to all those loyal companies that *put all their eggs in one basket *and agreed to work solely for M&S.


----------



## John-H

"unending stream"? Was that a quote from the Sun, Express or Mail? That's nonsense and even more nonsenseical to imagine the EU is responsible and the situation as you imagine it will be improved by leaving - it won't.

Attempting to divert the responsibility of blame for the damage done to NHS recruitment over to responsible media outlets when the cause is the effects from negative attitudes to "immigrants" pedaled by the gutter press and their supporters with their unwelcoming xenophobic message which puts off needed "workers" is disingenuous to say the least. Those who pushed to leave the EU should take responsibility for their decision and their expressions - or change it and them and try to make amends.

As for the economy, here are some real quotes from those who will be held responsible with the real evidence of their promises:

https://twitter.com/Open_Britain/status ... 0322558976

That's right - government ministers, including the Prime Minister, have promised that Britain will get the "exact same benefits" in trade with the EU after Brexit, despite their decision to take the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Since the referendum, David Davis told MPs that the Government's aim is to negotiate "a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement" with the European Union, "that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have." Liam Fox said we will have "at least as free a trading environment as we have today." Theresa May said the Government's mission is to ensure "maximum freedom" for British companies to trade with Europe, and Philip Hammond said "the British people did not vote on June 23rd to become poorer."

The effects of this will dominate all else and they and their supporters should be held to account.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> The effects of this will dominate all else and they and their supporters should be held to account.


Bob has demonstrated on here time and time again that it's impossible to hold a leave voter to account because they just move the goalposts every time. He will never admit the basic premise is flawed, and can never be proved wrong because there's always the option to blame the _implementation of the plan_ in order to defend the plan itself. Ultimately, if everything goes wrong, Bob will just blame the politicians for messing up.

Look at all the arguments put forward before the vote regarding the deal we'd get with Europe - Leave voters kept repeating the mantra, "they need us more than we need them". But now the government are hedging their bets with statements like "'no deal' is better than a bad deal" and Leave voters just accept it, no questions asked. None of them are saying, "hold on. Why would we not get a good deal??".


----------



## bobclive22

> Look at all the arguments put forward before the vote regarding the deal we'd get with Europe - Leave voters kept repeating the mantra, "they need us more than we need them"


I believe Spandex that the economy was the focus point of the remain camp and the slogan (get back control) was the focus of the leave camp, that`s what won it.

*The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are *the United States ($54.7B), *Germany ($39.5B),* Switzerland ($32.5B), China ($27.6B) and the Netherlands ($23.9B). *The top import origins are Germany ($93.9B)*, China ($62.8B), the United States ($44.8B), the Netherlands ($44.4B) and France ($37.6B).

If they stick on 10% and we do the same,

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ...
> If they stick on 10% and we do the same,
> 
> http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/


Then cars will become 10% more expensive for us to buy and we'll lose our car industry as it will become uncompetitive compared to shifting production to EU mainland Europe. Car exports represent about 10% off our total exports and 10% off our total imports.

That sounds like a great plan Bob - make things 10% more expensive and give ourselves a 10% pay cut at the same time. Fabulous :roll:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Look at all the arguments put forward before the vote regarding the deal we'd get with Europe - Leave voters kept repeating the mantra, "they need us more than we need them"
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Spandex that the economy was the focus point of the remain camp and the slogan (get back control) was the focus of the leave camp, that`s what won it.?
> 
> *The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are *the United States ($54.7B), *Germany ($39.5B),* Switzerland ($32.5B), China ($27.6B) and the Netherlands ($23.9B). *The top import origins are Germany ($93.9B)*, China ($62.8B), the United States ($44.8B), the Netherlands ($44.4B) and France ($37.6B).
> 
> If they stick on 10% and we do the same,
> 
> http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're on about Bob, other than beautifully illustrating my point that leave voters believe the EU need us too much to give us a bad deal.

I know we're an important trading partner with many EU countries, but clearly there is a serious risk of getting a 'bad deal' because our own government have started telling us that, even before article 50 has been triggered. The leave campaign didn't once say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' before the vote, did they? Yet now they feel it's important to prime the public for a possible bad deal. Why do you think that is? And as I said before, why are people like you not even remotely concerned at this change of message?

You need to consider some key points too.

1. The EU need to be firm with us to ensure other, less economically strong countries can't risk following our path. They will likely be willing to take a deal that's bad for them (and us) in order to do that.

2. The EU is made up of lots of countries, some of whom don't do as much trade with us - and these negotiations will need to be agreed by *all*members. So it may not really matter if certain countries really want a great deal.

3. Us putting a high tariff in revenge for them putting a high tariff?? That's your solution? We end up with expensive exports *and* expensive imports?? Great result Bob! I mean, we'll be economically screwed, but we'll have really showed Johnny Foreigner who's boss, right? They don't like it up 'em!


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the arguments put forward before the vote regarding the deal we'd get with Europe - Leave voters kept repeating the mantra, "they need us more than we need them"
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Spandex that the economy was the focus point of the remain camp and the slogan (get back control) was the focus of the leave camp, that`s what won it.?
> 
> *The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are *the United States ($54.7B), *Germany ($39.5B),* Switzerland ($32.5B), China ($27.6B) and the Netherlands ($23.9B). *The top import origins are Germany ($93.9B)*, China ($62.8B), the United States ($44.8B), the Netherlands ($44.4B) and France ($37.6B).
> 
> If they stick on 10% and we do the same,
> 
> http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what you're on about Bob, other than beautifully illustrating my point that leave voters believe the EU need us too much to give us a bad deal.
> 
> I know we're an important trading partner with many EU countries, but clearly there is a serious risk of getting a 'bad deal' because our own government have started telling us that, even before article 50 has been triggered. The leave campaign didn't once say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' before the vote, did they? Yet now they feel it's important to prime the public for a possible bad deal. Why do you think that is? And as I said before, why are people like you not even remotely concerned at this change of message?
> 
> You need to consider some key points too.
> 
> 1. The EU need to be firm with us to ensure other, less economically strong countries can't risk following our path. They will likely be willing to take a deal that's bad for them (and us) in order to do that.
> 
> 2. The EU is made up of lots of countries, some of whom don't do as much trade with us - and these negotiations will need to be agreed by *all*members. So it may not really matter if certain countries really want a great deal.
> 
> 3. Us putting a high tariff in revenge for them putting a high tariff?? That's your solution? We end up with expensive exports *and* expensive imports?? Great result Bob! I mean, we'll be economically screwed, but we'll have really showed Johnny Foreigner who's boss, right? They don't like it up 'em!
Click to expand...

You forgot that nearly all our imports are or soon will be 15-20% more expensive soon, due to drop in GBP vs all major currencies.

I work with a lot of manufacturers and nearly all are looking at when they increase prices. Their existing stocks / raw materials are now used up, and future products will include newly purchased / higher priced components. Up until now most have been absorbing increased costs in fear of being the first to blink and losing sales to competitors. Plus retailers are bsorbing some of the increases for the same reason. It won't stay like this for much longer and once one ups prices they others will follow.

Wonder how many of the leave voters will be happy to find price increases of 20% on most purchases later in the year?


----------



## Gewdraa

Just on my way to pick up tax free LHD car in UK.
Gbp falling saved me €1200 on the initial order price.


----------



## John-H

An interesting perspective from our Elizabethan past - when the Pope cut off England's trade with Europe and how we coped:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1w6g

Of course how we coped would be considered unethical now and most of our exports are services for which trade deals are much more difficult to make than for goods.


----------



## bobclive22

> You forgot that nearly all our imports are or soon will be 15-20% more expensive soon, due to drop in GBP vs all major currencies.


Interesting read below, I might remind you it was mass immigration that won it, we leave voters will take a chance on the economy, the pound has been up and down over the decades and we are still the fifth largest economy.

The Effects Of Currency Fluctuations On The Economy | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fo ... z4ckKkmYe7

Devalue the pound to 'transform' economy, says Labour's biggest donor *( 24 Mar 2014)*, well before the referendum I believe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... donor.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You forgot that nearly all our imports are or soon will be 15-20% more expensive soon, due to drop in GBP vs all major currencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting read below, I might remind you it was mass immigration that won it, we leave voters will take a chance on the economy, the pound has been up and down over the decades and we are still the fifth largest economy.
> 
> The Effects Of Currency Fluctuations On The Economy | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fo ... z4ckKkmYe7
> 
> Devalue the pound to 'transform' economy, says Labour's biggest donor *( 24 Mar 2014)*, well before the referendum I believe.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... donor.html
Click to expand...

Well bob, you can't know what "won it" without believing polls, and you don't believe them, do you? Or is this yet another example of your hypocrisy, believing information sources only when they agree with you? :wink:

As your article says, devaluing the pound isn't necessarily a bad thing (and isn't there necesarily a good thing). It's arguable that the pound has been over-valued for many years. But that's not what we're talking about when we say that brexit will screw the economy. Losing free trade and getting a bad deal (as is looking increasingly likely) will destroy the economy in a way that leaves us wishing it was just a drop on the pound.

But that's ok, because you'll have stopped those dirty foreigners coming in and stealing our jobs - those jobs will have disappeared when those companies went out of business, but it's the principal that matters, right? If we can't have those jobs, no one can...


----------



## Spandex

And by the way, "you leave voters" aren't an organised group with shared beliefs, any more than remain voters are. There will be a LOT of leave voters who would be very surprised to hear that you're happy to "take a chance on the economy" because they're not in a financial position to take any chances. But you old farts with guaranteed incomes for the rest of your short lives know what's good for them, right?

Unfortunately I don't think you'll ever realise how selfish you are.


----------



## John-H

A friend sent me this from the Huffington Post:



> " When YouGov did a survey earlier this year, it asked British voters what they would most like to see 'brought back' once Brexit had happened. Top of the list was 'hanging'. Second was 'dark blue passports'. Third was 'selling goods in pounds and ounces'. Fourth was the cane in schools."


As my friend said - you couldn't make it up :roll:


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> You forgot that nearly all our imports are or soon will be 15-20% more expensive soon, due to drop in GBP vs all major currencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting read below, I might remind you it was mass immigration that won it, we leave voters will take a chance on the economy, the pound has been up and down over the decades and we are still the fifth largest economy.
> 
> The Effects Of Currency Fluctuations On The Economy | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fo ... z4ckKkmYe7
> 
> Devalue the pound to 'transform' economy, says Labour's biggest donor *( 24 Mar 2014)*, well before the referendum I believe.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... donor.html
Click to expand...

Bob, I haven't scanned the internet for quotes, I've just made an observation.

The question to you is how many leave voters will be happy paying 20% more for everything in a few months time?

I accept that currencies fluctuate, but the most recent (and dramatic) drop does appear to be down to the leave vote. Although I'm sure you will find a quote somewhere that says otherwise.

I do recall in a much earlier post that you suggested you weren't that bothered as your investments meant you were okay. I'm looking at the bigger picture, nit just one leave voter though


----------



## Benwaa

I find the concept of a leave voter suggesting they've "won" anything curious to be honest. There's no prize for screwing up the nation, encouraging mass division and handing the Tories god knows what extra powers of dictatorship


----------



## Benwaa

also, SERIOUS QUESTION : when we've "got back control" - where is it going to be kept ? seriously - where ? the brexit-bunch s***-the-bed at the idea the Courts had any jurisdiction (Gina vs Theresa), were appauled to learn the House of Lords has a part to play when it comes to Sovereignty (Hezza can f***** do one the people have spoken), and were delighted when Theresa effectively managed to side-stepped the Commons ("opposition party" - somebody remind me what one of those that is again ?) - so what they gonna do when all of a sudden they find themselves drowning in all this control and need to keep it somewhere ? in a spare shoebox under the stairs ? back of a kitchen-cabinet under the sink ? next to the wank-socks and jazz-mags in the bottom-draw by the bedside ? WHERE ?


----------



## John-H

Well the Brexit talks are off to a good start aren't they? May slapped down over parallel trade talks. David Davis now saying that when he promised we'd get the "exact same benefits" with the single market - it was more of an "aim" - backsliding already! Continued membership of the single market was a conservative manifesto pledge! These jokers are as slippery their own grip on reality as the law of unexpected consequences bites over Gibraltar and they realise how impossible bettering the UK's current arrangement will be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39451479


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> Well the Brexit talks are off to a good start aren't they? May slapped down over parallel trade talks. David Davis now saying that when he promised we'd get the "exact same benefits" with the single market - it was more of an "aim" - backsliding already! Continued membership of the single market was a conservative manifesto pledge! These jokers are as slippery their own grip on reality as the law of unexpected consequences bites over Gibraltar and they realise how impossible bettering the UK's current arrangement will be.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39451479


The politicians will still convince the Bobs of this country that Brexit will be the best thing since the invention of milk :?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> A friend sent me this from the Huffington Post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " When YouGov did a survey earlier this year, it asked British voters what they would most like to see 'brought back' once Brexit had happened. Top of the list was 'hanging'. Second was 'dark blue passports'. Third was 'selling goods in pounds and ounces'. Fourth was the cane in schools."
> 
> 
> 
> As my friend said - you couldn't make it up :roll:
Click to expand...

2,000 British 'adults' are *not* a great sample of the millions who voted out. Also note, there's a fair few remoaners in there voting for the same.


----------



## John-H

Unfortunately 2,000 is a representative sample. If you use this calculator here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/

Then with a population of 32M voters and a 95% confidence, for a sample size of 2,000 you get about a 2.2% margin of error.

Given the huge differences between the leave and remain responses I'd say it was representative of the general differences in attitude between the two groups.

Given that hanging was top of the list in both groups it shows the folly of using referenda to determine policy. A warning there about abandoning the principal of a representative democracy and it being better to leave decisions to those whose job it is. Oops too late :?


----------



## bobclive22

> The politicians will still convince the Bobs of this country that Brexit will be the best thing since the invention of milk


I think you mean the invention of sliced bread mate, I don`t think milk was invented.

I voted out to get back control of our borders,that`s it, I take my chance on the economy, I have lived through an inflation rate of 24% and here we are now.

It appears that diesel cars may be on the way out, something to do with the *EU commissions air pollution directive*.

Hopefully for diesel owners (I am not one of them) we will be out before then.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I think you mean the invention of sliced bread mate, I don`t think milk was invented.


Come on bob. It's not rocket surgery.



bobclive22 said:


> I voted out to get back control of our borders,that`s it, I take my chance on the economy, I have lived through an inflation rate of 24% and here we are now.


That's odd, because a long time ago you pretended that you were doing this for your grandkids future. Now it turns out you're actually willing to gamble with their economic future just so you can enforce your xenophobic views on the rest of the country. Have you let them know yet?



bobclive22 said:


> It appears that diesel cars may be on the way out, something to do with the *EU commissions air pollution directive*.
> 
> Hopefully for diesel owners (I am not one of them) we will be out before then.


Haven't you complained numerous times in this very thread about how polluting diesel is?? But if the EU try to tackle the issue, you're suddenly pro-diesel? So you don't care about the grand children's economic future and you don't care about the air they breath... did they miss you off the xmas card list last year or something?


----------



## Spandex

Oh and by the way, I *do* own a diesel. I bought it so I could drive up and down outside your house in 1st gear, wearing a gas mask.


----------



## Roller Skate

Spandex said:


> Oh and by the way, I *do* own a diesel. I bought it so I could drive up and down outside your house in 1st gear, wearing a gas mask.


 :lol:

I've read quite a bit of this thread now and im not shocked to say the least.

However, Brexiteers ... you do understand that you followed Boris, Nigel and Michael into this don't you? Three people I wouldn't let have the remote for my tv. 
Think about that for a second. Digest it. :lol:


----------



## Stiff

Some very valid points here. Worth a watch...


----------



## John-H

Doesn't seem to contain any factual points, lots of opinion, but mainly seems to argue that he's won and anyone who disagrees with him should not be allowed to speak freely or express an opinion any more. That's not how democracy and free speech works.


----------



## Spandex

Have you seen his other videos? It's like someone has uploaded the whole of the Daily Mail website into the empty human-shaped sausage link and given it a youtube account.


----------



## Roller Skate

Spandex said:


> Have you seen his other videos? It's like someone has uploaded the whole of the Daily Mail website into the empty human-shaped sausage link and given it a youtube account.


I actually thought it was a thumb wearing a pair of glasses being dubbed by James Whale.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> I think you mean the invention of sliced bread mate, I don`t think milk was invented.


And that post from Bob sums it up nicely.

Rest of us all got what he was saying... pretty sure he realised it when he posted.

DOH!


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Have you seen his other videos? It's like someone has uploaded the whole of the Daily Mail website into the empty human-shaped sausage link and given it a youtube account.


Yes I did. I think he hoisted himself on his own petard :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Some very valid points here. Worth a watch...


Well I think that is a fair assessment of the situation, Brilliant.


----------



## bobclive22

> That's odd, because a long time ago you pretended that you were doing this for your grandkids future.


Yes Spandex, that`s why I chose a petrol Merc instead of a diesel one, It was obvious to me that a less refined fuel would kick out more shit than petrol.


----------



## John-H

"Tory ministers appear stunned and unprepared when obvious issues arise." as city warned of 100,000 Euro clearing job losses and billions lost in tax revenue.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ber-brexit

They didn't see Spain's veto over Gibraltar coming either. Looks like Theresa May is caught between a rock and a hard currency :roll:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> That's odd, because a long time ago you pretended that you were doing this for your grandkids future.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Spandex, that`s why I chose a petrol Merc instead of a diesel one, It was obvious to me that a less refined fuel would kick out more shit than petrol.
Click to expand...

Do you hear a whooshing noise every time someones comment goes over your head, or are you completely oblivious?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Some very valid points here. Worth a watch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think that is a fair assessment of the situation, Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Really? He barely mentioned immigration at all, yet previously you've pronounced (using Bobs Magic 8 Ball™ - the source of all your opinions) that 'it was immigration that won it'.

Unfortunately, I think the guy in that video has fallen into the "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" trap - Or in his case, "just because they're being condescending doesn't mean you're not a moron".


----------



## bobclive22

Another day another expert.

How we were hoodwinked by a green zealot: Ideologist behind the dash for diesel called C02 'worse than terror'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l#comments


----------



## John-H

Would you like to start a new thread Bob? This one is about the EU.


----------



## bobclive22

> Really? He barely mentioned immigration at all, yet previously you've pronounced (using Bobs Magic 8 Ball™ - the source of all your opinions) that 'it was immigration that won it'.


He didn`t need to, here is the second part.

Second part removed. Please do not post racist material liable to bring this site into disrepute.


----------



## bobclive22

> Second part removed. Please do not post racist material liable to bring this site into disrepute.


Sorry I thought it was about religion not race, the same religion that showed it`s ugly face in London recently.

Is this one acceptable.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Really? He barely mentioned immigration at all, yet previously you've pronounced (using Bobs Magic 8 Ball™ - the source of all your opinions) that 'it was immigration that won it'.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn`t need to
Click to expand...

Bob, you said "I think that is a fair assessment of the situation". You didn't say "all the things *he didn't say because he didn't need to* are a fair assessment of the situation".

Stop talking bollocks. If you can't manage that, then just stop talking.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Second part removed. Please do not post racist material liable to bring this site into disrepute.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I thought it was about religion not race, the same religion that showed it`s ugly face in London recently.
Click to expand...

The distinction is irrelevant:

Incitement to religious hatred - sections 29B-29G Public Order Act 1986
s.29E - distributing/ showing/playing a recording intended to stir up religious hatred.

Incitement to racial hatred - sections 17-29 Public Order Act 1986
s.21 - distributing/showing/playing a recording of visual images or sounds that are threatening/abusive/ insulting with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred.


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... olm-sweden

Thank goodness we are on our way out of the EU and it`s ill thought-out open boarder directive.


----------



## bobclive22

> The distinction is irrelevant:
> 
> Incitement to religious hatred - sections 29B-29G Public Order Act 1986
> s.29E - distributing/ showing/playing a recording intended to stir up religious hatred.


Twenty-five years after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, Vanity Fair writer Paul Elie hears from Rushdie himself and authors including Stephen King, Ian McEwan, E. L. Doctorow, Gay Talese, and Martin Amis, as well as editors from Viking and Penguin, the book's respective U.K. and American publishers, about how the prophetic and provocative book made its author a hunted man and unleashed a fury around the world. Bombs exploded in bookshops in the U.S. and the U.K.; the book's Japanese translator was shot and killed, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Turkish translator was attacked, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and two clerics in Saudi Arabia and Tunisia who spoke out against the fatwa were shot and killed. In total, Elie writes, more than 60 people died in the controversy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is 400 years since the prospect of people being put to death for blasphemy or heresy was a fact of life in Europe.

But in the minds of those behind the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, the motivation was exactly the same.

The magazine's publishing director and cartoonist, Stéphane Charbonnier, better known as "Charb" - was on an al-Qaeda "wanted" list and lived under police protection.

That a cartoonist could be under threat of death is testament to the incendiary reaction satirical depictions of the man revered in Islam as the mouthpiece of God have elicited.

Salman Rushdie said that satire must be defended as a "force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity".

"'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion'," he said.

"Religions, like all other ideas, *deserve criticism*, satire, and, yes, our *fearless disrespect.*"

http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad-cartoons.htm

This is religious hatred John but hey just turn the other cheek and move on.


----------



## John-H

Do you want to start another thread Bob? This one is about the EU. Seriously, you've been warned enough. Desist.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/truck-crashes-in-central-stockholm-sweden
> 
> Thank goodness we are on our way out of the EU and it`s ill thought-out open boarder directive.


Are you really that stupid??


----------



## bobclive22

Call to ban unskilled migrants for five years after Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39545074
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... 000-a-year

Conservative former Cabinet minister Owen Paterson, a member of Leave Means Leave, said the "overwhelming majority of Britons feel absolutely no resentment towards workers or students from overseas".

But he added: *"Mass migration at its current level has fostered resentment, depressed wages and placed an excessive burden on our public services."
*
A reasonable person can`t argue with that statement.

The UK does not need any more unskilled migrant labour for unskilled British jobs, that`s unless the employers only interest is to drive wages down and get a pool of cheap labour, foreign temporary seasonal labour excepted.

Conservative MP Anna Soubry said, Leave Means Leave clearly don't understand why British business relies on migrant workers.

*Well they don`t,* If they pay a fair weeks wage for a fair weeks work with a fair contract employers will have all the workers they need.

Sports direct like many other UK employers (especially supplied by employment agencies) paid below the minimum wage and often together with Zero rate contracts, This was encouraged by Blair and Brown and allowed to continue by successive governments, it was backed up by the unions who turned a blind eye to the Zero rate issue. These same unions now bang on about workers rights and the EU but appear to believe it is right for a large section of our workforce to live under the threat of not knowing when their next days pay will be forthcoming. Once we are out of the EU and immigration is drastically reduced there will not be an abundance of cheap labour for these profit hungry companies to draw from, they will be forced to pay reasonable wages with fair contracts, if some workers are happy with Zero rate contracts then these types of contracts could still be offered, workers should not be forced to accept them.

This is rather sad,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

D00MED, London, United Kingdom, 5 hours ago

This will be quite lowdown on the BBC s news coverage. But who cares what happens to Christians anymore? We're far too busy protecting sensitivities of certain other religions....

geoff096466, Alicante, Spain, 6 hours ago

This was on the BBC news earlier and the word Christian was not mentioned once.


----------



## Spandex

Firstly bob, repeatedly posting articles then copying and pasting sections from them is really really annoying. We all have access to the internet. We can all read. You're adding nothing to this discussion by doing this.

Secondly, posting reader comments from articles is about as dumb as you can get. Posting them without bothering to check if they're remotely correct (hint: they're reader comments - they won't be correct) is beyond moronic. Go look at the BBC coverage of the attack. I won't bother posting a link BECAUSE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AND YOU CAN READ.


----------



## John-H

Yes, I heard it on BBC news first which disproves your assertion. Also Bob, I think it's been pointed out many times that leaving the EU is very unlikely to have much effect on immigration :roll:


----------



## A3DFU

Perhaps we should start a new thread on the EU referendum/thoughts/concerns/hopes and not tell Bob about it. It would make sense :roll:


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> (hint: they're reader comments - they won't be correct)


Really? And you know this how? A little judgemental aren't we. Whilst the majority of reader comments (on _any_ subject) may well be hogwash, there are occasionally a few intelligent and knowledgeable folk that make factual and valid points. Of course, if *you* don't agree with them then they're wrong, aren't they :roll:


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> (hint: they're reader comments - they won't be correct)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? And you know this how? A little judgemental aren't we. Whilst the majority of reader comments (on _any_ subject) may well be hogwash, there are occasionally a few intelligent and knowledgeable folk that make factual and valid points. Of course, if *you* don't agree with them then they're wrong, aren't they :roll:
Click to expand...

Bob picked them so the sample is no longer random but presumably reflects what Bob thinks :wink:


----------



## Stiff

Fair point.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> (hint: they're reader comments - they won't be correct)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? And you know this how? A little judgemental aren't we. Whilst the majority of reader comments (on _any_ subject) may well be hogwash, there are occasionally a few intelligent and knowledgeable folk that make factual and valid points. Of course, if *you* don't agree with them then they're wrong, aren't they :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bob picked them so the sample is no longer random but presumably reflects what Bob thinks :wink:
Click to expand...

Add to this the fact that NO sensible person posts comments in the Daily Mail.

But to answer your question Stiff, yes I am a little judgemental.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> Add to this the fact that NO sensible person posts comments in the Daily Mail.


Actually, that's another fair point. I rescind my earlier comment forthwith.


----------



## A3DFU

Some interesting thoughts by Sonia Sodha:



> Changing people's minds is a non-negotiable part of achieving social change. There is a longstanding body of psychological evidence that shows that lecturing people that they are wrong, listing a bunch of facts that conclusively demonstrate that, and busting the myths spread by irresponsible political opponents not only fails to change minds, it makes people more fixed in their views.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ange-minds


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, I heard it on BBC news first which disproves your assertion. Also Bob, I think it's been pointed out many times that leaving the EU is very unlikely to have much effect on immigration


How much air time John,

*Sweden joins Europe-wide backlash against immigration.*

In Maria's high-rise suburb of Almgården an astonishing one in three voted for Sweden Democrats, a party dubbed "racist and neo-Nazi" and led by Jimmie Åkesson, the new young darling of the European far right.

The reason is plain. Maria pointed across the dual carriageway to the neighbouring housing scheme of Rosengård, known locally as "the ghetto".

It is home to almost 20,000 immigrants, overwhelmingly Muslim, almost half of them jobless.

Even in the jungles of Africa, they don't know where Sweden is, but they know they can come here, get money and not need to work.

Does this strike a cord John.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/ ... ght-asylum.

What did you say John, leaving the EU and having control over our borders is very unlikely to have much effect on immigration, looks like Sweden is stuffed then.


----------



## bobclive22

> Changing people's minds is a non-negotiable part of achieving social change. There is a longstanding body of psychological evidence that shows that lecturing people that they are wrong, listing a bunch of facts that conclusively demonstrate that, and busting the myths spread by irresponsible political opponents not only fails to change minds, it makes people more fixed in their views.
> 
> That's the bad news for campaigners on the left, who tend to be some of the most enthusiastic adopters of such approaches.The good news is that there's usually a sizeable group of people who are persuadable, at least to some degree, on a particular issue.


Not on this issue.

What a laugh, the remainers with their longstanding body of psychological evidence did just that then wondered why they lost. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## A3DFU

Woosh


----------



## bobclive22

It appears President Trump was correct regarding his comments relating to immigration and Sweden, as I said earlier, it`s a bloody good job we have the English channel between the EU and ourselves.

Written in 2014.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Changing people's minds is a non-negotiable part of achieving social change. There is a longstanding body of psychological evidence that shows that lecturing people that they are wrong, listing a bunch of facts that conclusively demonstrate that, and busting the myths spread by irresponsible political opponents not only fails to change minds, it makes people more fixed in their views.
> 
> That's the bad news for campaigners on the left, who tend to be some of the most enthusiastic adopters of such approaches.The good news is that there's usually a sizeable group of people who are persuadable, at least to some degree, on a particular issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Not on this issue.
> 
> What a laugh, the remainers with their longstanding body of psychological evidence did just that then wondered why they lost. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

I love this. It really does show how bob sees the world, and it's hilarious. The fact that he assumes any 'longstanding body of psychological evidence' must somehow be a 'remainer' thing is so telling. :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/

Written in 2014, it appears Trump was correct regarding Sweden, what has the MSM been hiding all these years.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Yes, I heard it on BBC news first which disproves your assertion. Also Bob, I think it's been pointed out many times that leaving the EU is very unlikely to have much effect on immigration
> 
> 
> 
> How much air time John
Click to expand...

Bob, the bollocks that you quoted said that the word "Christian" wasn't mentioned once on the BBC. Clearly it was mentioned a number of times, so your bollocks quote has been shown to be bollocks. What has 'air time' got to do with it, other than being a pathetic (and obvious) attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your bollocks quote was actually bollocks?

Top Tip: reasearch the bollocks you quote instead of just believing it because you want it to be true.


----------



## John-H

Bob, that's so funny :lol: and as already had been said "woosh"


----------



## bobclive22

> I love this. It really does show how bob sees the world, and it's hilarious. The fact that he assumes any 'longstanding body of psychological evidence' must somehow be a 'remainer' thing is so telling.


Left wing activists protest in east London and Edinburgh against Brexit vote.

No Spandex it`s a *leftist thing,* the whole article was from a leftist point of view, anything that questions the EU is classed by the left as RIghtwing. The article was in the Guardian not known for it`s rightwing leanings. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can`t debate leftists as they believe they are never wrong only stupid in this case.


----------



## bobclive22

Quite an articulate comment Spandex, the time on air indicates the importance the BBC gave the atrocities.


> Bob, the bollocks that you quoted said that the word "Christian" wasn't mentioned once on the BBC.


It all depends when the commenter heard it so you can`t say it`s bollocks.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Quite an articulate comment Spandex, the time on air indicates the importance the BBC gave the atrocities.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, the bollocks that you quoted said that the word "Christian" wasn't mentioned once on the BBC.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends when the commenter heard it so you can`t say it`s bollocks.
Click to expand...

Yes bob, I understand what the 'time on air' would indicate, I just failed to see how that related to whether or not the comment you quoted was correct. The commenter said it was not mentioned once - therefore, the comment is incorrect if the word 'christian' was mentioned once. The amount of air time (however you want to define or measure it) is irrelevant. It is an attempt at distraction.

True, it does depend when the commenter heard it, but consider the following:

1. The BBC, like all news broadcasters, don't have the time or budget to generate multiple unique news reports. They replay the same ones throughout the day with minor tweaks as more info comes in.

2. Even if point 1 wasn't true, are you SERIOUSLY saying that the most likely explanation is that the commenter just happened to hear the only BBC broadcast that DIDNT mention the religion of the victims or the type of church that was attacked?? That strikes you as more likely than him just being wrong?

And to top off this ridiculousness, the fact is, by the time you pasted that stupid comment into your post, the BBC were clearly mentioning the word 'Christian' in all of their articles and broadcasts, which seriously brings into question either the amount of research you did, or your motives for posting it if you knew it was not correct.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I love this. It really does show how bob sees the world, and it's hilarious. The fact that he assumes any 'longstanding body of psychological evidence' must somehow be a 'remainer' thing is so telling.
> 
> 
> 
> Left wing activists protest in east London and Edinburgh against Brexit vote.
> 
> No Spandex it`s a *leftist thing,* the whole article was from a leftist point of view, anything that questions the EU is classed by the left as RIghtwing. The article was in the Guardian not known for it`s rightwing leanings. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> You can`t debate leftists as they believe they are never wrong only stupid in this case.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think you read the article. If you did, you clearly didn't understand it.

As for not being able to 'debating leftists', would you say it's possible to debate with you?


----------



## bobclive22

> As for not being able to 'debating leftists', would you say it's possible to debate with you?


Well Spandex all the slurs appear to be in one direction from you to me, you know how it goes, if you can`t win the argument attack the man, or in your case attack the man anyway.

Britain is using Brexit to try to wriggle out of its *EU-driven renewable energy targets*, says Bloomberg, quoting an anonymous insider.
Under its current status as an EU vassal state, Britain is committed to suicidal, unaffordable "clean" energy targets based on the green religious prejudices and junk-science-driven scaremongering of *unelected, unaccountable, borderline-Commie technocrats in Brussels.*

We all know how that little nugget has increased our energy bills,

The UK has power from wind turbines but only when the wind blows, power from solar panels (not at night though or when it`s cloudy) power from burning wood pellets shipped in from US and Canada, (that`s until all the trees have been burnt) even the greens are against that. We also have Shale gas which could make the UK self sufficient in energy but the* leftists Greens and the EU don`t want that, ( Friends of the Earth is calling for fracking to be banned in the UK).

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Notice solar at 1.35% and CCGT at 52.19%, Biomass (wood pellets) at 3.98% the EU want to stop fracking, I wonder why.
*
*That`s another reason to get out.*


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> As for not being able to 'debating leftists', would you say it's possible to debate with you?
> 
> 
> 
> Well Spandex all the slurs appear to be in one direction from you to me, you know how it goes, if you can`t win the argument attack the man, or in your case attack the man anyway.
Click to expand...

'Winning the argument'? What on earth gave you the impression I'm trying to win an argument with you?? I spend half my time just making fun of you. You're a lost cause bob. A dinosaur. An irrelevance.

But seeing as you avoided it, I'll answer the question for you - no, it's not possible to debate with you (which is why I'm not really trying), and your previous post is a perfect illustration of why. You were asked a straight question and you ignored it, made some unrelated comment, then posted YET ANOTHER LINK AND COPIED/PASTED TEXT. And if someone replies, pointing out errors or countering that post, you won't respond to anything they say, you'll just post a different link. You're a spambot. You don't debate because you're not capable. You just post article after article in the hope that the authors of those articles do the job for you.


----------



## John-H

Spambot :lol:










We have countermeasures :wink:


----------



## A3DFU

Bye bye Britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39613888


----------



## bobclive22

> Winning the argument'? What on earth gave you the impression I'm trying to win an argument with you?? I spend half my time just making fun of you. You're a lost cause bob. A dinosaur. An irrelevance.


There you go again Spandex you can`t help yourself can you, I was on the winning side though, :lol:

This should make you happy, that`s if you haven`t drunk the green aid, it just keeps on getting better. 
Because of all the idiotic bull s**t from the EU we have the diesel fiasco solely because the EU believe CO2 is dangerous. They try to ban a plant food and replace it with NOX, at least now we are out the UK can start to ignore this man made global warming nonsense and all the EU directives that go with it.

Modern Solar Grand Maximum Ends, Little Ice Age' Cooling On The Way

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/10/a-sw ... global-coo






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ooker.html

*At Last: Britain Preparing To Scrap EU Renewables Targets As Part Of A Bonfire Of Red Tape After Brexit*

http://www.thegwpf.com/at-last-britain- ... er-brexit/


----------



## bobclive22

> Bye bye Britain


Bloody good riddance, please explain how this shambles of a bank has helped the economy.

*28 July 2016 • 9:44am*

Lloyds Banking Group is chopping another 3,000 jobs and closing a further 200 branches in a bid to save money and meet customers' increasing enthusiasm for online banking.

Those cuts come on top of 9,000 job losses and 200 branch closures that were announced two years ago.


----------



## John-H

Completely wrong Bob. Your posts just add to the evidence of why leaving the EU is such a bad idea - because in this regard some people (such as yourself) see it as a good reason to relax environmental protection and poison us all. Also you seem to support loss of revenue. Thankfully, most people disagree with you and you will be on the losing side as reality plays out


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Winning the argument'? What on earth gave you the impression I'm trying to win an argument with you?? I spend half my time just making fun of you. You're a lost cause bob. A dinosaur. An irrelevance.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again Spandex you can`t help yourself can you, I was on the winning side though, :lol:
Click to expand...

No bob, you really weren't.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Because of all the idiotic bull s**t from the EU we have the diesel fiasco solely because the EU believe CO2 is dangerous.


So Bob, can you explain your position on diesel. You've explained in previous posts that do you think its emissions are bad for our health so what, if anything, do you believe should be done about that?

And please try to post your own opinion, rather than pasting links to articles.


----------



## Shug750S

And now the games begin

Wonder if any party will go with a new Brexit referendum in the hope that they clean up and get into power?

Maybe SNP will field candidates all over the UK?


----------



## John-H

Well, perhaps with all the negative and ultimately self destructive rhetoric from the divisive and gloating EU haters amongst us it might be refreshing to hear a more inclusive mutually beneficial and neighborly message to aspire to 

There is certainly no mandate for a hard Brexit which will make us all poorer. Perhaps now the Brexit lies and greedy self interest of those who stand to gain from it, coupled with the hopeless negotiating position of the government pushing in that direction has been exposed we will gain a little more common sense, pragmatic decision making and representation.


----------



## bobclive22

> So Bob, can you explain your position on diesel. You've explained in previous posts that do you think its emissions are bad for our health so what,* if anything,* do you believe should be done about that?
> 
> And please try to post your own opinion, rather than pasting links to articles.


Spandex, there is no solution other than the phasing out of diesel cars and light vans (it`s been shown that diesel cars and light vans are the main cause the pollution problem) and stopping all production of those vehicles. The only other time there was this level of pollution in the UK was when pretty much every household burned coal for heating. Coke, refined from coal was then mandated to be used to tackle the problem. Petrol is more refined than diesel and has less pollutants, it`s not rocket science, CO2 is not a pollutant and until the EU accept that, the problem will persist,* If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?*,

I purchased a petrol Merc recently therefore I have done my bit.

http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_green ... rowth.html

A scrappage scheme aimed at older vehicles, that`s supposedly pre 2012 cars (the worst polluters so they say) which are owned by the less well off is senseless, how will these people be able to purchase a similar new vehicle with £1000, if they could afford a new vehicle I am sure they would already have one.

Here is one for John the smart meter man.


----------



## bobclive22

> No bob, you really weren't.


We will see on June 8th Spandex, I want to keep my English way of life, I want to keep my Englishness, that`s the most important thing to me.


----------



## bobclive22

> Completely wrong Bob. Your posts just add to the evidence of why leaving the EU is such a bad idea - because in this regard some people (such as yourself) see it as a good reason to relax environmental protection and poison us all.


Well John you are obviously a true believer, you are aware there has been no statistically measurable global temp rise in 20 years while CO2 is still on the increase, these so called climate scientists believe they can measure global temps to within 0.01 of a degree, what nonsense, if you believe that you must also believe the moon is made of cheese. I don`t see NOX being used in glasshouses to promote plant growth, now that is a pollutant. :roll:

The EU have done a great job of protecting the environment by persuading the public to purchase the diesel car and encouraging the bird chomping wind turbines. They are also quite happy to encourage burning wood in power stations while trying to ban fracking, read the Booker piece and do some research.


----------



## John-H

Bob, in my opinion your smart meter link is nonsense and irrelevant to this thread. Your lack of any global warming assertion is nonsense - see here:










Source NASA

Let that be an end to it on this thread and before you go any further, the fact is you are welcome to start another thread about smart meters or global warming in Off Topic - feel free - but not on this thread. This is about the EU.

The EU react to accepted science and jointly decide policy via a democratic parliamentary process accordingly, amongst state representation. What other process could be better? The science itself is decided amongst scientists and peer review and adjusted accordingly as evidence steers our understanding and perception of reality. If you have an argument with the science then that has nothing to do with the EU and any further posts will be removed. You have been warned about this already. Stop posting links and comments about fake science here.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So Bob, can you explain your position on diesel. You've explained in previous posts that do you think its emissions are bad for our health so what,* if anything,* do you believe should be done about that?
> 
> And please try to post your own opinion, rather than pasting links to articles.
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex, there is no solution other than the phasing out of diesel cars and light vans (it`s been shown that diesel cars and light vans are the main cause the pollution problem) and stopping all production of those vehicles. The only other time there was this level of pollution in the UK was when pretty much every household burned coal for heating. Coke, refined from coal was then mandated to be used to tackle the problem. Petrol is more refined than diesel and has less pollutants, it`s not rocket science, CO2 is not a pollutant and until the EU accept that, the problem will persist,* If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?*,
> 
> I purchased a petrol Merc recently therefore I have done my bit.
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_green ... rowth.html
> 
> A scrappage scheme aimed at older vehicles, that`s supposedly pre 2012 cars (the worst polluters so they say) which are owned by the less well off is senseless, how will these people be able to purchase a similar new vehicle with £1000, if they could afford a new vehicle I am sure they would already have one.
> 
> Here is one for John the smart meter man.
Click to expand...

But, you've also claimed that the EU are now anti-diesel. Surely that means you agree with them?

As for CO2, the reasons why your comment about greenhouses is laughable are not for this thread, but the belief that CO2 is a risk to the environment is hardly an EU invention, so I fail to see the connection. You're hunting around for sticks to beat the EU with and you end up clutching at straws. And if you want to show that being in the EU has damaged us, then you need to show that we would have done things differently were we not in the EU. Our government made the choice to tax petrol cars more heavily than diesel, not the EU, so what makes you think it would have been any different outside the EU?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> No bob, you really weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> We will see on June 8th Spandex, I want to keep my English way of life, I want to keep my Englishness, that`s the most important thing to me.
Click to expand...

Missed the point once again Bob. The reason you weren't on the winning team is because leaving the EU isn't winning.

That has to be the most tragic explanation for voting 'leave' I've ever heard. Basically you and your kind have condemned us to years of austerity in order to preserve a way of life that hasn't really existed for decades and is only important to a bunch of people who will be dead soon anyway. Slow hand clap for bob and all the other miserable pensioners who can't cope with change...


----------



## A3DFU

Just a quick question to satify my curiosity,
is this thread about post EU referendum thoughts / concern / hopes or Bob's ideas/concerns about diesel cars, smart meters etc?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just wondering ...... :?


----------



## 3TT3

Aha, I see where the new Bob thread came from .

This election you guys are having . Its not a maybe weel change our minds election is it?
More a case of youre going and its up to the electorate to either give a "strong negotiating hand" or not.
ie were leaving anyway so its up to you the public to vote Con so we can get the best deal possible and hopefully give Sturgeon a knock too,all we need is a couple of Con seats to shut her up about a referendum.
Moral blackmail perhaps , but seems like a smart move , unless the opinion polls are wrong,but when are they ever :lol:


----------



## John-H

Nothing has happened yet. We are still in the EU and have not yet seen the consequences of leaving. High street prices are about to rise due to the fall in Sterling however which reflects the market's reduced expectation of the UK's prospects but even that may come too late to convince enough of the public that leaving the EU to May's Tory hard Brexit plan is a bad idea. Wait until we have really left to find out about that but then it will be too late.

May can't be trusted to put the country first. She believed remaining in the EU was best for the country prior to the referendum. Nothing has changed but she has changed her direction. Not a politician of conviction then but one of opportunity. Her own and her party's best interests are what counts for her as can also be seen by her seizing the opportunity to go against her word and call a general election, due to the Tory lead in the polls.

Don't believe her stated reasoning that an increased majority strengthens her hand with EU negotiations. The EU will still act in the EU's best interest. That won't change. May is seizing a tighter hold of the reigns of power in the UK to consolidate her position. She realises how impossible achieving the promised "exact same benefits" as we currently enjoy will be and wants to be in a position to overcome any opposition to the Hard Brexit she is heading towards.

Apparently her manifesto commitments are going to be an end to Free Movement, leaving the Single Market and ending the influence of The European Courtof Justice.

Stand by for loss of jobs, business failures and a huge reduction of income to the treasury due to migration of the service industry and jobs to the EU.

With the shrinking coffers will come cuts in public spending with the future of the NHS in doubt and likely privatisation and sale to US health companies through a one sided trade deal following the distasteful holding of hands with Donald Trump. Theresa May could become very unpopular in the long run but she's a rich lady with a gold plated pension so has her own insurance to fall back on after her game of power is over. It's the rest of us that will suffer.

So how do we stop this? Vote tactically to keep the Tories out seems the best option. This will at least weaken May's position. She could well have miscalculated badly.

Most Labour seats are safe despite the Tory lead in the polls which won't affect their outcome. The influence will come in the marginal seats but there are a lot of conservative voters who disagree with a Hard Brexit and could be, and perhaps already are persuaded to switch their vote, treating this election as a one issue campaign which it mostly is. The Liberal Democrats seem likely to take a lot of pro EU votes this time due to their uncompromising stance in support of the Europe.

In the coming weeks the message of how bad and dangerous a Hard Brexit will be and how likely it is to happen must be driven home to the public and targeting of support for parties that can beat the Tories in marginals must be enacted. Open Britain has taken a lead on this.

With any luck we could end up with a sensible coalition as representatives that can put a stop to a disastrous Hard Brexit and bring about a change in direction. Don't forget article 50 notice can be withdrawn.


----------



## Spandex

Whilst it would crack me up if May actually ended up with a smaller majority, or even a coalition, I can't see it happening. But that still leaves the question of why she's doing this at all and as John says it's not got anything to do with Brexit negotiations. That's just a convenient lie to get all the old farts out in force again to vote Conservative because they've been conned into thinking it's the only way to make sure Brexit happens.


----------



## Shug750S

I still think the SNP got a lot of votes last time from people who didn't want Scotland to leave the UK in their previous referendum, but wanted to show their support for Scotland, so tactical voting last time that could revert to previous pattern at this election.

Will be interesting to see if the SNP lose a few seats. They can't really win many more anyway, so no win for them whatever..

Liberals could be back in the game a bit more after this, but they will lie (like most politicians) to get into power, like they did over the Uni fees.


----------



## John-H

And although the Tory tabloids dismiss Jeremy Corbin as a lame throw back to the 70's he's well connected on social media - a platform the traditional polls haven't quite mastered. There could be some surprises yet but a proper focus of support for the EU still needs development. I hear the Greens criticising Labour today for not backing a second EU referendum (actually third being pedantic) and pushing a tactical vote policy but Labour saying they have not ruled out one on the final deal - queue the Liberal Democrats alliance. There is everything to play for.


----------



## bobclive22

> Missed the point once again Bob. The reason you weren't on the winning team is because leaving the EU isn't winning.


It all depends what winning means to each individual Spandex, your motives for voting remain are different to my motives for voting leave, I am sure the UK fishermen believe they are on the winning side. Each individual had their own reasons for voting the way they did, that`s democracy (government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system).

Get over it and move on.


----------



## John-H

A Tory MP Charlie Elphice said to me "move on" and support the government. I said to him, I totally disagree with your assertion that we should "move on". If the conservatives won a general election you wouldn't expect Labour supporters to support and vote Tory from then on - don't be ridiculous! :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It all depends what winning means to each individual Spandex, your motives for voting remain are different to my motives for voting leave, I am sure the UK fishermen believe they are on the winning side. Each individual had their own reasons for voting the way they did, that`s democracy (government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system).
> 
> Get over it and move on.


I'm sure almost everyone who voted 'leave' believes they're on the winning side. It's very easy to believe you're on the winning side when you're at least two years away from the final whistle.

Get over it and move on? What does that mean exactly? Does it mean "don't cry yourself to sleep over it"? Ok, done - I'm not in a low paid job, so I shouldn't suffer too much when the economy tanks. Does it mean "suddenly start believing the opposite of what you believed last year, despite no actual evidence to the contrary"?. Not so easy.

I'll get over it if it turns out I'm wrong and the country is economically better off outside the EU. I'll even be happy to be wrong. But if we're worse off (and everything still points to that being the case) then I don't see why I should ever get over what you and your kind have done. And I hope people remember in the next ten years or so who they should blame, because I know the leave voters will be trying to pin it on the politicians when it all goes wrong - suddenly all their rhetoric about "supreme power exercised by the people" will disappear because they will want to put as much distance between themselves and the outcome as possible.


----------



## John-H

Well we've seen several organisations launch tactical voting initiatives aimed at the marginals.

http://www.open-britain.co.uk/

http://www.britainforeurope.org/

https://euromove.org.uk/we-need-your-su ... -movement/

http://bestforbritain.org/

The Lib Dems have stood aside to avoid splitting the vote in Caroline Lucas's Green seat and others will follow but the main effort is to organise a tactical vote to ensure a cross party predominance of MP's willing to stand against a Hard Brexit when it's time to vote, for or against the deal which will make us all poorer - for that it will surely do.

The EU 27 are united in ensuring that being a member of the club has benefits and being outside does not. That's entirely understandable.They will protect their own interests and the interests of those who wish to remain and those who wish to join.

They have opened talks over a united Ireland because the one land border with the UK and imposition of tariffs and controls is resisted on both sides so strongly. This could lead to a break up of the UK before Scotland.

The ridiculous claim that voting for Theresa May will strengthen her hand in negotiations has been dismissed by the EU as irrelevant - their policy is dictated by the 27 alone. The UK is such a small part of their market but they are most of ours puts things in perspective. We will lose out clearly. So why is Theresa May pushing so hard?

This election is all about domestic power and privilege.

The election has been called before the impending judgement over the 30 MPs under criminal investigation for electoral fraud which would decimate a slender majority for one thing.

But why hasTheresa May turned from being pro remain to pro leave? Clearly it's about power - turning to suit the outcome of the referendum and becoming more "UKIP" to absorb their support and remove backbench rebellion - even if the deal with the EU will be a bad one. She needs a bigger majority to stifle the opposition and push it through. But won't that be bad further down the line? How is she going to handle the economy?

I think there is much to Jeremy Corbin's claim that Theresa May intends to turn this country into a low company tax offshore island. There is already interest from rich investors some of whom own newspapers and have already prepared the way with EU bashing commentry over the years and one of whom claims to have chosen every British Prime Minister in recent times and expects us all to play follow my leader.

It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.










Strong and bunker leadership . . . Don't ask too many questions!


----------



## A3DFU

You forgot to mention a very important issue John, the NHS. 
That has been something the UK could be very proud of for, basically, it's hard to find a match in other country. However since 23rd June 2016 one of the icons of this country is suffering, and suffering badly, with longer and longer waiting lists even for important health interventions. I do hope the NHS is not going to be scaled down into what can only amount to very basic health care :?


----------



## John-H

A few posts back I mentioned the NHS - that with the shrinking tax coffers from the reduction of the city services moving to the EU mainland and the reduction of the UK's leading position, will come cuts in public spending with the future of the NHS in doubt and likely privatisation and sale to US health companies through a one sided trade deal with Donald Trump.

Already we are seeing a downturn in consumer spending leading to reduced growth. I'm sure some will be making money out of the whole thing but as usual the people will suffer.

The NHS is starved of resources and being forced into a cost cutting spiral that the drug companies have warned may mean they will abandon the UK.

The NHS is currently operating at 95% capacity as opposed to the continental norms of 80%. You can see why we constantly firefight and struggle with bed blocking and treating patients in corridors. It's a civilised nation's scandal.


----------



## bobclive22

> A few posts back I mentioned the NHS - that with the shrinking tax coffers from the reduction of the city services moving to the EU mainland and the reduction of the UK's leading position, will come cuts in public spending with the future of the NHS in doubt and likely privatisation and sale to US health companies through a one sided trade deal with Donald Trump.


Didn`t I here prior to Brexit that the EU`s TTIP with the US wil destroy the NHS as we know it by making the UK Government powerless to stop privatisation, or at least make it impossible to reverse privatisation.

The Commission has already missed its end of year deadline to conclude trade talks with the US.* It will now have to continue negotiations with whoever succeeds Obama as US President.
*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 01691.html

Yesterday,

Closing post: GDP Day is over

Economists and investors are catching their breath after a busy day dominated by growth figures from the eurozone, the UK and America.
There's some disappointment that *Britain, the United States and France* all grew slower than expected in January to March. But there's *no panic.*

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live


----------



## John-H

No I believe you are mistaken.

Your quoted article also says:



> American GDP is expected to rebound this quarter, while the UK seems to be settling into a period of slower growth due to the pick-up in inflation, and some Brexit uncertainty.


I guess this.won't help:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-summit



> ... the British government will be told it needs to resolve the key divorce issues of citizens' rights, the estimated €60bn (£51bn) divorce bill and the Irish border before any talks on a future trade deal can begin.


Apparently it took about one minute for the unanimous agreement.

Do you really think Theresa Me with her strong and bunker mentality will do well in talks? I think reality is slowly dawning.


----------



## poplepit

Spandex said:


> I'm sure almost everyone who voted 'leave' believes they're on the winning side. It's very easy to believe you're on the winning side when you're at least two years away from the final whistle.


Almost everyone who vote believes he is on the winning side. No matter what side, everyone is just assured he is right.


----------



## bobclive22

> Apparently it took about one minute for the unanimous agreement.


John, what did you expect.

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." - *Jean Monnet, 'Founding Father' of the EU*

In 1943, Monnet became a member of the National Liberation Committee, the would-be French government in exile in Algiers. During a meeting on August 5, 1943, *Monnet declared to the Committee:*

"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty&#8230;. The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation&#8230;." *Jean Monnet*

Continue, continue, There is no future for the people of Europe other than in union." - *Jean Monnet*

Nothing is possible without men; nothing is lasting without institutions." - *Jean Monnet*

When we leave the house of cards will collapse.


----------



## John-H

Do you live in the same galaxy as Theresa Me Bob? Your misquotes seem to be from an alternative reality.



> deluding herself" and "living in another galaxy"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Or is that all fake news too? At least it's up to date and not based on a 50 year old misquote.


----------



## bobclive22

> I'm sure almost everyone who voted 'leave' believes they're on the winning side. It's very easy to believe you're on the winning side when you're at least two years away from the final whistle.


I think the final whistle has already been blown, good deal or no deal it appears we will leave anyway.


----------



## bobclive22

> The article said that, after last week's dinner, ]Mr Juncker was shocked at Mrs May's suggestion that a deal on citizens' rights could be achieved so quickly.





> ]
> The German newspaper report also suggested Mr Juncker said there would be no trade deal between the UK and the rest of the EU if the UK failed to pay the "divorce" bill which it is expected to be asked for.



*
Mr Juncker was shocked at Mrs May's suggestion that a deal on citizens' rights could be achieved so quickly*

*Why.*

* If the UK failed to pay the "divorce" bill *

*So it`s all about money then.*


----------



## John-H

Bob, you've got your history all wrong and believe in too many conspiracy theories. You seem to have a poor grasp of reality if you think the UK can walk away from its obligations.

It was Churchill that said _*"We must build a kind of United States of Europe"*_ in partnership with Truman in an effort to build a strong and stable peace in Europe. Not one built on a bunker mentality that gets is all into trouble in which you seem to inhabit. (Full text here: http://www.churchill-society-london.org ... onish.html)

We are talking old quotes. History has moved on but some people have not. The modern quotes are more relevant to our present predicament.

It is clear that the talks with our biggest trading partner are not going well. I did expect that. Perhaps you don't care?


----------



## bobclive22

> Your misquotes seem to be from an alternative reality.


Are you referring to the Monett quotes.













> We are talking old quotes. History has moved on but some people have not. The modern quotes are more relevant to our present predicament.


No John, the actual goal has always been a united States of Europe, an EU army is mentioned frequently in the second BBC video.


----------



## bobclive22

> It was Churchill that said "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" in partnership with Truman in an effort to build a strong and stable peace in Europe. Not one built on a bunker mentality that gets is all into trouble in which you seem to inhabit. (Full text here: http://www.churchill-society-london.org ... onish.html)


Actual Churchill Quote.

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a *kind of United States of Europe*.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.
There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. *We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations.* These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support.

*And why should there not be a European group* which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?

*So John it appears that Churchill was NOT suggesting that we should be part of that United states of Europe.*


----------



## John-H

Bob, he didn't suggest we should not either. We had a huge trade going with the commonwealth then and arguably we didn't need it but we gave countries their independence back and things moved on. We wanted the same civilising effect for Europe that trade and cooperation engenders. What's wrong with that?

As I said the quotes are very old and historic and of their time. Things have moved on but principals remain the same.

More recently it was Thatcher that championed the single market as a great opportunity for the UK but you seem to be happy to abandon it. That's more recent and more relevant now because they are now our biggest trading partner. Are you not concerned about causing us a huge economic cost in tariffs and loss of trade, loss of tax revenue, loss of jobs?

Do you think like some old Tories that we can get the empire back?


----------



## bobclive22

It`s the Germans John.


----------



## bobclive22

> More recently it was Thatcher that championed the single market as a great opportunity for the UK but you seem to be happy to abandon it.


She didn`t champion a political union or open borders.

Despite being branded as anti-Europeanist, she firmly believed in and endorsed a Europe of nation-states based on co-operation and trade. That is why she supported the Single European Act and the completion of the Common Market - a space for free trade, peace and security. *She simply did not support the idea of Europe becoming a "super-state"* and a "Social-Democratic" counterweight to American capitalism.

*A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat* printed Sept 2004

In their powerful exposé, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history." In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d'état in the Americas.

The "European project," as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a "free trade" agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, "slow-motion" political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market.'"

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching "community" independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as "integration," "harmonization," and "convergence." In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain's major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. "Twenty years ago, when the process began," he wrote, "there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press - which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

• Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

• Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction - from the member states to the central government.

• Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

• Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens - including terrorists - to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe - much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

• Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

• Destroying agriculture. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

• Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

• Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish &#8230; an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU - "integration," "harmonization," "convergence" - to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan - or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."

Monetts quote below,

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." - Jean Monnet, 'Founding Father' of the EU

https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/a ... soviet.htm

------------------------


----------



## Shug750S

Someone has too much time on their hands.

Certainly too much for most to bother to read there. Not sure all of it is true. Especially about the mass arrests of grocers. I still get a pint in my local, so maybe there's scope for discussion and it comes down to how our officials enforce it rather than the 'letter of the law'...

I'll leave it to others to continue this debate, as can't be bothered to help keep this thread going


----------



## John-H

Bob, You are welcome to express your own opinion. Please do engage in reasoned argument and discussion - that is what a forum is for.

Your one personally expressed point - that Thatcher only went as far as trade - is a fair point. It does not however detract from my point that you seem not to care about destroying our economic base that she championed in her encouragement of the single market.

You instead proceed to say that she did not champion the things that came after, regarding harmonisation and a larger political union. Well of course not - it was not on her watch. As I said things have moved on and that was a quote from the past. What happens now is the important thing - not raking over history. That's what held Northern Ireland back for so long - case in point!

That's where your argument ends however. You then go on to paste a lot of . . . well .. text of which you are not the author.

Just cutting and pasting large screeds of text puts people off clearly and can be considered as spam I should warn you.

On this one occasion; briefly skimming through your paste reveals so many untruths and factual errors (and the source is so clearly dubious) you should have realised it only detracts from your argument. Did you not check the facts? How embarrassing 

It really works best if you yourself construct the framework of your arguments and most of the guiding words are your own. If you say little and paste someone else's agenda it only leaves you open to ridicule.


----------



## bobclive22

> Your one personally expressed point - that Thatcher only went as far as trade - is a fair point. It does not however detract from my point that you seem not to care about destroying our economic base that she championed in her encouragement of the single market.


John, I for one do not want Germany of France having a major say in my life, for me the referendum was about the immigration issue, since researching the subject I have come to the conclusion that the federal intentions of the EU are far more dangerous.Seems trade is up this month, destroying our economic base, that`s defeatist talk, there is always EFTA, it appears UK gets free trade with EU with no EU court of justice and no open borders maybe.

https://www.ft.com/content/1a9e5444-029 ... b07f5c8e12


----------



## bobclive22

> That's where your argument ends however. You then go on to paste a lot of . . . well .. text of which you are not the author.
> 
> Just cutting and pasting large screeds of text puts people off clearly and can be considered as spam I should warn you.
> 
> On this one occasion; briefly skimming through your paste reveals so many untruths and factual errors (and the source is so clearly dubious) you should have realised it only detracts from your argument. Did you not check the facts? How embarrassing


*Spam*
Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc. unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet.

John you obviously have no idea of what constitutes spam.

Perhaps you can post one or two of the factural errors in the last few posts of mine.

If you are referring to the post, A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat watch the BBC doc`s.


----------



## 3TT3

edit
"dont mention the war"
Classic Fawlty towers episode.
It looks like the UK are successfully defending against the Junkers(coincidentally audi,auto union powered) again not to mention the Heinkels and the Merkels .
:twisted:
Forgetting about people movement cars are a big deal in this, prices/import tariffs etc 
Itll be interesting to see what happens to the European law :If a rhd model by any european manufacturer is offered for sale in any market ,(any european country market) it has to be available to order in rhd in any European market .
Eh what?

An example was the renault laguna coupe ceased being offed in 2013 I believe in the UK but was for sale new here thru 2014/early 2015.
ie by european law renault would have had to supply a new laguna coupe to anyone in the UK who wanted one in that time period (no doubt with mucho customer shafting in price).
I think.. tho Id have to check on that to be sure that if any european car manufacturer offers a car for sale in EEC or EU if you like,that it has to be available in rhd or lhd form.

With the UK gone I wonder what will happen there.
Its the only sizeable rhd car market in Europe. Ireland in EU parlance "f em" , Malta "Oh Henri you make the joke"
It makes you wonder: "our Irish Govt is making noises about the special relationship, Irish border with NI and so on , but of course we cant negotiate direct with UK, we have to trust our Brussels buddies and kiss ass cos were small and have loans to pay cos we bailed out German bondholders n so on.

As Clint would say ""Im all broke up about that guys rights".. EU.. got steamroller, will travel.
Hey maybe theres some nice spare rhd trabants ready to go from more eastern european areas..happy clappy.


----------



## bobclive22

Who is demanding 100 billion as the exit fee, the slimy French who the UK helped regain their county during both world wars and the Germans who the UK defeated in both those wars, who`d of thought it.

The EU (France and Germany) is trying to manipulate our election and the left wing press are willingly supporting them, or is this another case of false news.


----------



## Shug750S

Bob, you've forgotten to mention Agincourt or Crecy...

Or maybe it's all down to Sean Bean? He played Sharpe and gave those damned Frenchies a good thrashing...


----------



## j8keith

Shug750S said:


> Bob, you've forgotten to mention Agincourt or Crecy...
> 
> Or maybe it's all down to Sean Bean? He played Sharpe and gave those damned Frenchies a good thrashing...


Just don't mention about "Hastings" :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you can post one or two of the factural errors in the last few posts of mine.


Ok, a quick scan (I'm not wasting my whole lunch hour on this crap), and just sticking to the bullet points for simplicity:



> • Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.


No one was 'arrested'. Some market traders were taken to court. Frankly though, who cares? We went metric years ago so it was ridiculous to have this dual standard situation for as long as we did. The only people who want us to carry on with imperial measurements are old farts like Bob who can't cope with change.
As for 'EU dictates' on the shape of cucumbers, this has been shown to be bollocks many times. The EU simply classifies food products. They don't dictate which ones we can buy - our stupid supermarkets do that because they think that we'll pay more for a straight cucumber than we would for a normal one.



> • Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.


Well this is an easy one. It's been over 12 years since that piece was written and we still have trial by jury. Job done.



> • Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens - including terrorists - to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe - much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.


Russia and Turkey joining the EU? 12 years later, and neither of these things have happened or are any more likely to happen.



> • Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.


VAT isn't 'dictated' by the EU. There is a minimum VAT level of 15% and countries are free to choose any level above that. Which we've done. Also, direct tax on individuals? 12 years later and that doesn't seem to have happened. Another easy one.



> • Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.


I'm not sure this even qualifies as a claim, given how vaguely it's phrased. "if the Eurocrats have their way"? I mean, I could state that "if my dog had her way she'd be eating roast chicken for dinner every night" but I don't fancy her chances. Anyway, 12 years later and no EU army has appeared and we'd have veto on it anyway (well, we would if we hadn't stormed off in a huff).


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Your one personally expressed point - that Thatcher only went as far as trade - is a fair point. It does not however detract from my point that you seem not to care about destroying our economic base that she championed in her encouragement of the single market.
> 
> 
> 
> John, I for one do not want Germany of France having a major say in my life, for me the referendum was about the immigration issue, since researching the subject I have come to the conclusion that the federal intentions of the EU are far more dangerous.Seems trade is up this month, destroying our economic base, that`s defeatist talk, there is always EFTA, it appears UK gets free trade with EU with no EU court of justice and no open borders maybe.
> 
> https://www.ft.com/content/1a9e5444-029 ... b07f5c8e12
Click to expand...

If you want to trade with Germany and France you will have to abide by EU law. As for immigration, leaving the EU won't make any difference. Less than half is from the EU anyway and that part is mostly made up by people with job, or students, that we want to come and work and learn here. This may explain the confusion: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/conten ... -tabloids/

What ruling by the EU court of justice has ever effected you that we wouldn't want implementing because it was a good idea anyway?

I see Spandex has been kind enough to point out the errors in your paste.

Incidentally, on the subject of metrication, that had nothing to do with the EU. Metrication was first discussed in parliament in 1818 and we are still implementing it's gradual change. Decimilisation of our currency was in 1971 before we joined the EU and again nothing to do with it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrica ... ed_Kingdom

Oh and by the way, I deal with spammers all the time. One trait they have to fool us into thinking they are genuine is to create an account and then post copied text that is at best only vaguely touching the thread subject, often completely off topic, making no sense and having read it you wonder if you are dealing with a robot.


----------



## John-H

Something more interesting and up to date for you. This is a translation into English of "that" article the press have been talking about in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - the dinner meeting between Juncker and May. It makes for very interesting reading:

https://medium.com/@20sthredhead/i-tran ... c5f952b92e


----------



## John-H

I think May has lost the plot :roll:


----------



## John-H




----------



## Spandex

It's a pretty mental statement.. You can bet if someone in the EU disagreed with something Labour said, the Tories would be over the moon with them 'meddling'.

But it's symptomatic of the whole election really. The conservatives are trying to sell the idea that a government with no opposition is a good thing. It doesn't matter if that opposition comes from Labour, the Lib Dems or the EU, it's a bad thing. They want us to think that its in our best interests if our government isn't questioned on the things they do or say.


----------



## John-H

Let June be the end of May!


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Let June be the end of May!


I see the red flag flies in a strong wind of discontent down here or could it be a piece of loo roll on a stick in a farty toilet :lol:


----------



## Roller Skate

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let June be the end of May!
> 
> 
> 
> I see the red flag flies in a strong wind of discontent down here or could it be a piece of loo roll on a stick in a farty toilet :lol:
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let June be the end of May!
> 
> 
> 
> I see the red flag flies in a strong wind of discontent down here or could it be a piece of loo roll on a stick in a farty toilet :lol:
Click to expand...

If you are talking public conveniences then yes indeed - it is a flag of convenience. Red, Amber - Yellow/Orange, Green etc who cares? As long as we get rid of the Tory/UKIP merger which is taking us all down the pan!

See what I did there? :lol:


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

Today's   result not so good for you then John.


----------



## John-H

I know it's not a good sign for the general election or our collective future but you don't appreciate that Bob. If the conservatives do win strongly in June it won't make any difference to the EU stance and the failure to deliver UK prosperity will become a poison chalice for May. We just need to get people to realise this over the next few weeks and vote for people who are willing to challenge May's plan to fail and the result that will have.


----------



## Spandex

An interesting article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/worl ... 00257&_r=0


----------



## 3TT3

Does anyone who was dismayed by the referendum result really think the statements by Junckers are helping things ?
Seems like a total vindication for eurosceptics
it was him who originally released news of the "fu , no fu and the horse you rode in on" meeting with May.

"our friends" ze British made the wrong decision now zey shall pay . zere silly language is irrelevant in Europe .
Incidentally a backhand swipe at Ireland who used to use "the only english speaking euro member" as a selling point to US etc.
Maybe he thinks the Welsh all speak welsh and the Scottish all speak scottish.
Hes either a total imbecile, an arrogant imbecile , or just plain stoopid.

Every time he opens his mouth it would appear to garner more conservative votes , I cant see another variation .
Unless he somehow imagines ze british will be all scared and vote green party en masse .
Even Merkel,our foreign affairs minister and others are telling him to keep his gob shut and making noises that hes only a peripheral player, some other guy will be doing the actual negotiations. 
(yeh right and his attitude will be entirely different).
It sure looks promising for "special consideration" being given to Irish UK borders/ NI and free travel /trade between the countries being left the same as it was, or even prior to joining the eec!. 
From past experience the concerns of our little country to the EU have all the influence of a fart in a thunderstorm , and since were in "the gang" we can no longer negotiate direct with the UK.


----------



## Spandex

I'd say it's actually vindication for Remainers. Eurosceptics are the ones who were convinced 'they need us more than we need them' - hardly the sentiment that's pouring out of Europe at the moment. Remainers have always said that the EU will have to take a hard line with us to show that it's not a bed of roses out there. The more we lash out, the more they will have to push back - that's why May's idea of being 'bloody difficult' is just going to dig us further into a hole.

But of course the brexiteers will jump up and down, crying "look how awful that EU is!", whilst conveniently ignoring all the vitriolic anti-EU rhetoric they've been spouting for years that has caused this ill feeling. They want to call them every name under the sun, then act all hurt and outraged when they're not our friends anymore.


----------



## 3TT3

Thatd be a no then?


----------



## John-H

Something very disturbing and very connected. It's a long article below but I've pulled a few key quotes.

This is what the electoral commission have been looking into regarding electoral fraud during the referendum. Two companies Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ and links between Cambridge Analytica, Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, AggregateIQ, Leave.EU and Vote Leave.



> It was with AggregateIQ that Vote Leave (the official Leave campaign) chose to spend £3.9m, more than half its official £7m campaign budget. As did three other affiliated Leave campaigns: BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the Democratic Unionist party, spending a further £757,750. "Coordination" between campaigns is prohibited under UK electoral law, unless campaign expenditure is declared, jointly. It wasn't.





> More money was spent with AggregateIQ than with any other company in any other campaign in the entire referendum.





> Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale.





> Finding "persuadable" voters is key for any campaign and with its treasure trove of data, Cambridge Analytica could target people high in neuroticism, for example, with images of immigrants "swamping" the country. The key is finding emotional triggers for each individual voter.





> "The capacity for this science to be used to manipulate emotions is very well established. This is military-funded technology that has been harnessed by a global plutocracy and is being used to sway elections in ways that people can't even see, don't even realise is happening to them,"





> "We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That's a very worrying situation."





> Documents detail Cambridge Analytica is involved with many other right-leaning billionaires, including Rupert Murdoch.





> Nigel Farage and Bannon [former vice-president of Cambridge Analytica, now a key adviser to Donald Trump] have been close associates since at least 2012. Bannon opened the London arm of his news website Breitbart in 2014 to support Ukip





> The Electoral Commission has written to AggregateIQ. A source close to the investigation said that AggregateIQ responded by saying it had signed a non-disclosure agreement. And since it was outside British jurisdiction, that was the end of it. Vote Leave refers to this as the Electoral Commission giving it "a clean bill of health".





> Article 50 has been triggered. AggregateIQ is outside British jurisdiction. The Electoral Commission is powerless. And another election, with these same rules, is just a month away.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... picks=true

Also related on Panorama tonight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qgbc3


----------



## Spandex

Things like this should terrify us all, no matter what we voted for.


----------



## bobclive22

> Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale.


I thought it was us oldun`s that won it, isn`t it the youngun`s that do facebook, then again lets blame it on the Russians.


----------



## Spandex

Come on bob. Put the brain in gear... old farts weren't the only people voting leave, they just made up a large proportion of them.

Firstly, the people using Facebook might seem young to someone as ancient and technophobic as you, but a large portion of their users are between 35 and 55. Plenty of 'typical' leave voters there. Secondly, the result was very close and actually came down to about 600,000 votes. When a vote is that close, it's won or lost in the margins, and with over 35 million Facebook users living in the uk, it's as good a place as any to find 600,000 floating voters.


----------



## bobclive22

> Come on bob. Put the brain in gear... old farts weren't the only people voting leave, they just made up a large proportion of them.


Well Spandex it appears the leave side were a bit more tech savvy than the remain side, instead of knocking on doors they did it on facebook [smiley=gossip.gif].
Don`t forget the £9 million Cameron spent on those remain leaflets, you lost mate get over it.


----------



## Spandex

(unfortunately) I live in the same country as you, so we all either win or lose together in this. We have a long wait to see which it is. If voting with the majority in a referendum makes you feel like a winner, then good for you though. You probably need it more than me.


----------



## John-H

Looks like your side cheated Bob.


----------



## bobclive22

> (unfortunately) I live in the same country as you, so we all either win or lose together in this.


Well Spandex, please pay a visit to Mansfield where I live and walk through the Town centre, after that visit you may understand why so many voted leave, it appears you have not been effected by the mass influx of cheap Eastern European labour.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> it appears you have not been effected by the mass influx of cheap Eastern European labour.


Not true. In fact, it's made it much cheaper getting the moat around my country manor dredged.


----------



## bobclive22

> Looks like your side cheated Bob.


John I`m baffled here, before this storey in the Guardian appeared I had never heard of this company. Please show me how they influenced my vote.


----------



## bobclive22

Dyson seizes victory in European courts over Brussels vaccum cleaner rules

The billionaire entrepreneur argued that the tests are only relevant to vacuums with their dust bags empty and do not cover them when they are full, as they would typically be in normal use. A full vacuum would typically use more energy.

Bit like the EU diesel scandal, they didn`t know more power is used in real world tests when air is sucked through a filling dust bag, or was the EU trying to block Dyson products.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... m-cleaner/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Dyson seizes victory in European courts over Brussels vaccum cleaner rules
> 
> The billionaire entrepreneur argued that the tests are only relevant to vacuums with their dust bags empty and do not cover them when they are full, as they would typically be in normal use. A full vacuum would typically use more energy.
> 
> Bit like the EU diesel scandal, they didn`t know more power is used in real world tests when air is sucked through a filling dust bag, or was the EU trying to block Dyson products.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... m-cleaner/


An excellent example of the European courts working in our favour yet again. Thanks for posting.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dyson seizes victory in European courts over Brussels vaccum cleaner rules
> 
> The billionaire entrepreneur argued that the tests are only relevant to vacuums with their dust bags empty and do not cover them when they are full, as they would typically be in normal use. A full vacuum would typically use more energy.
> 
> Bit like the EU diesel scandal, they didn`t know more power is used in real world tests when air is sucked through a filling dust bag, or was the EU trying to block Dyson products.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... m-cleaner/
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent example of the European courts working in our favour yet again. Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...

And Dyson was the only vacuum cleaner manufacturer supporting EU regulations over power limits on vacuum cleaner motors - some good EU support from Mr Dyson there too. Thanks Bob.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Looks like your side cheated Bob.
> 
> 
> 
> John I`m baffled here, before this storey in the Guardian appeared I had never heard of this company. Please show me how they influenced my vote.
Click to expand...

Do you use FaceBook?


----------



## bobclive22

> Do you use FaceBook?


Does it matter, just tell me what the message was.

BBC Yorkshire news at 6.00pm yesterday.

Immigrants from Eastern European countries now form 43% of Doncaster`s population, maybe this is why the leave vote won the day.


----------



## bobclive22

> An excellent example of the European courts working in our favour yet again. Thanks for posting.


Some other examples please.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Some other examples please.


Erm... Ok, here's one you'll love, seeing as those dirty foreigners coming over here wind you up so much: The ECJ ruled last year that the UK has the right to withhold welfare payments from EU nationals who don't have the right to reside here.

And a list taken from another site, of rulings that protected the UK from unfair treatment by other EU nations:



> Cowan v Trésor Public (Case 186/87): the ECJ held that Mr Cowan, who was the victim of a violent attack when visiting Paris as a tourist, was entitled to the same compensation from the French Government as a French citizen.
> 
> Ministre de l'Economie v De Ruyter (Case C-623/13): the ECJ held that France was not entitled under EU law to require people not resident in France to pay social security contributions on rental income from their French properties, when they could not make social security claims in France. Brits who were wrongly taxed by the French government will get their money back.
> 
> Commission v France (Case C-1/00): the ECJ held that France was obliged to end its unlawful ban on imports of British beef after the BSE crisis.
> 
> Commission v Spain (Case C-12/00): the ECJ held to be unlawful Spanish legislation prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products from being marketed as "chocolate" if they contained vegetable fats other than cocoa butter (as UK chocolate often does).
> 
> Commission v France: (Case C-265/95): the ECJ held that France was obliged to take steps to stop violent demonstrations by French farmers against imported agricultural products.
> 
> Commission v France (Case C-200/08): the Advocate General (whose job is to advise the ECJ on what he or she thinks is the right answer to cases before the ECJ) advised that France was in breach of EU law by refusing to recognise UK snowboard instructor qualifications (the case settled before the ECJ gave judgment).
> 
> UK v European Central Bank (Case T-496/11): the General Court of the EU (the part of the ECJ that hears first instance appeals against decisions by EU institutions) struck down discriminatory treatment by the ECB of UK clearing houses.


Not that any of this matters - because of you and your buddies, we're leaving the EU now. So all of those rulings that worked in our favour can be completely ignored because they only applied to us while we're members. They'll be free to ignore our snowboarders qualifications, our chocolate will have to be called "chocolate flavoured vegetable fat" and they can block our agricultural products every time their farmers have a hissy fit. Good work Bob.


----------



## bobclive22

> Erm... Ok, here's one you'll love, seeing as those dirty foreigners coming over here wind you up so much


Spandex don`t talk such utter garbage, the population of Doncaster is now 43% eastern European, that`s happened in 9 years, what is the percentage in your area.
*No one other than you has linked immigrants to dirt*. These immigrants are overwhelming society in that area and many other areas across the UK, that is why the leave vote won the day. It`s about the large numbers of unskilled EU workers coming to the UK in such a short time and undermining wages, services and housing, if project fear had not been unleashed by Cameron the 52% would probable have been nearer 65% in favour of leave, but you know that.


----------



## bobclive22

> And Dyson was the only vacuum cleaner manufacturer supporting EU regulations over power limits on vacuum cleaner motors - some good EU support from Mr Dyson there too. Thanks Bob.


Here is the real reason John,

Dyson produces the *most efficient vacuum cleaner on the market*, the EU driven by their climate change religious belief have placed power limits on all vacuum cleaners sold to consumers across the EU, many of these consumers want to purchase the most efficient electrical goods because of the rising cost of energy. Now the efficiency of those goods is displayed in letter ratings, the best I believe is AAA. Now in real world usage Dyson`s bagless vacuum cleaners are more efficient than standard bagged cleaners and deserve a* higher rating which equates to higher sales*, ie* A* rating for bagbless as against* B* rating for bagged, the *EU chose to rate bagged and baggless the same,* any wonder Dyson was annoyed.

That`s why I believe Dyson was the only vacuum cleaner manufacturer supporting EU regulations over power limits on vacuum cleaners, *he knew his machines were more efficient and because of this would sell in larger numbers, it appears the EU didn`t want that to occur therefore they rated dyson`s cleaners the same as all the rest.
*
Seven different ratings from A to G will measure performance on hard floors and carpets, as well as how much dust is emitted from the machine itself, but because manufacturers are allowed to perform these measurements themselves and the results aren't corroborated by a third party, *they are ripe for manipulation. An empty machine may score an A rating, and although it may perform significantly worse once part- or fully-filled with dust, a manufacturer could take the initial result and use that for its EU energy label.*

"Performance in the home is different to that in the lab: bags and filters will clog with dust as the machine is used, leading to a loss of suction and a drop of performance. As suction drops, energy is wasted. The label currently ignores this." - Dyson statement.
Company founder James Dyson compared the current system to how carmakers test fuel efficiency in an opinion piece on the Telegraph, with "Sellotaping door joints, cutting out air con, and lobbing batteries out of the car" all "part of the game".


----------



## bobclive22

> our snowboarders qualifications, our chocolate will have to be called "chocolate flavoured vegetable fat" and they can block our agricultural products every time their farmers have a hissy fit.


UK chocolate flavoured vegetable fat, just put more cocoa in same as Belgium 36%, it tastes better anyway.

block our agricultural products every time their farmers have a hissy fit, we block theirs and get out of the common agricultural policy.

Hard to know how good UK qualifications are when we don`t have much snow, perhaps it`s all about safety.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> our snowboarders qualifications, our chocolate will have to be called "chocolate flavoured vegetable fat" and they can block our agricultural products every time their farmers have a hissy fit.
> 
> 
> 
> UK chocolate flavoured vegetable fat, just put more cocoa in same as Belgium 36%, it tastes better anyway.
> 
> block our agricultural products every time their farmers have a hissy fit, we block theirs and get out of the common agricultural policy.
> 
> Hard to know how good UK qualifications are when we don`t have much snow, perhaps it`s all about safety.
Click to expand...

Genius...


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex don`t talk such utter garbage, the population of Doncaster is now 43% eastern European, that`s happened in 9 years, what is the percentage in your area.


Well, I'd love to tell you the percentage in my area, but the only data I can find for non-English born population figures by city are from the 2011 census - but that's not the data you're using, because the census puts the figure for Doncaster at 8.4% for ALL non-English born (so that includes Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc), not 43% for Eastern European alone.

So, to make this an accurate comparison you need to tell me where you got your figure from, so I can use the same data set.


----------



## John-H

Perhaps Bob has a FaceBook account and was targeted with all this rubbish because of his profile?


----------



## Spandex

Well amusingly, according to the census, where I live now (only been here 2 years) had a slightly higher non-English born population than Doncaster, but where I used to live before had around 6 times more immigrants. So we were above Bobs 43% even back then. Strangely, it didn't turn everyone into massive racists...

But that data is 6 years old, so I'll give Bob the benefit of the doubt till he says where he's getting his information from.


----------



## bobclive22

> So, to make this an accurate comparison you need to tell me where you got your figure from, so I can use the same data set.


BBC new at six Yorkshire edition. probable see it on BBC Iplayer.


----------



## bobclive22

> An excellent example of the European courts working in our favour yet again. Thanks for posting.


John, comment on my Dyson post, right or wrong.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> So, to make this an accurate comparison you need to tell me where you got your figure from, so I can use the same data set.
> 
> 
> 
> BBC new at six Yorkshire edition. probable see it on BBC Iplayer.
Click to expand...

Well bob, I'm going to call bollocks on this one I'm afraid. It's more likely that thay said 4.3% and you misheard it. Did you have your hearing aid switched on?

Finding recent data is almost impossible, but I did find some from 2014 that put the migrant population in Doncaster at 9%. In 2011 it was 8.3%. It is simply not possible for it to have increased to 43% for *Eastern Europeans alone* when it was 9% for every nationality only 3 years earlier.

Oh, and by the way... in 2014, when the migrant population in Doncaster was 9%, it was 13% for the UK as a whole.


----------



## John-H

I was going to suggest a mishearing or misreading of the decimal point. :lol:



bobclive22 said:


> An excellent example of the European courts working in our favour yet again. Thanks for posting.
> 
> 
> 
> John, comment on my Dyson post, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Bob, what a lot of unnecessary detail you've posted that I thought was obvious. The point I was making that I don't think you appreciate is that Dyson supported the limits and made use of a member state manufacturer to lobby the EU. It seems somewhat ironic that he, like you, if successful in removing the UK from the EU will not have much say in future EU regulations and somewhat hypocritical to cite support of the EU as a victory over it. You crack me up :lol:

Now answer my question - yes or no - do you use FaceBook?


----------



## Spandex

Ok, I've found data for 2015 now... the same source as the 2014 data - the ONS:

2015 data: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-are-migra ... ur-area-2/
2014 data: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-are-migra ... your-area/

Amusingly, by 2015, the non-U.K. born population in Doncaster had fallen to 7% from 9% the previous year.


----------



## John-H

Bob how can you post that almost half the population of Doncaster is eastern European without thinking for a moment that something doesn't sound right? Just a trip down to the shops should confirm that and common sense.


----------



## 3TT3

I see that Gordon Brown has crawled out from under his "ironic" rock again to urge voters to STOP Teresa May .Master of misdirection.. Would there even be a "brexit" without Gordo and labour ignoring people ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... endum.html
May , from an outsiders view, even tho she was "stay" isnt ignoring the majority who voted leave.
Should there have been an analagous referendum .. like amputate a foot to save a toe no I dont think so but Brown appearing.. sheesh.
You can blame the Irish if you like, we rejected the treaty but were then cajoled to vote again "the right way this time" with "commitments " from other european leaders that would be included in the next treaty(unwritten commitments to provide an excuse to revote) .
These verbal agreements , like Chamberlain ensuring peace in our time were of course a croc of sheet.We got the sheet and no croc. The commitments were never heard of again nor will they be.
Like I say , Im an outsider, but having Gordon Brown, who imho , orchestrated brexit or at least allowed the conditions for it would'nt encourage me to vote labour.

How many do you think of the polled people in 2007 were still around in 2016 ..enough to sway the leave eu even tho its extreme(cos we never got the promised referendum)? It wouldnt surprise me if that, and that alone swung it


----------



## bobclive22

> Amusingly, by 2015, the non-U.K. born population in Doncaster had fallen to 7% from 9% the previous year.


The facts appeared on BBC local news.


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob how can you post that almost half the population of Doncaster is eastern European without thinking for a moment that something doesn't sound right? Just a trip down to the shops should confirm that and common sense.


*BBC local news*


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, what a lot of unnecessary detail you've posted that I thought was obvious. The point I was making that I don't think you appreciate is that Dyson supported the limits and made use of a member state manufacturer to lobby the EU.


John, it was business, He had the most efficient cleaner and wanted to sell more, he used to his advantage a proposed EU directive. The EU rated DYSONS CLEANER as no more efficient than the bagged ones which was not correct, now Dyson has overturned that. It was the EU that suggested the limits not Dyson, he was smart enough to take advantage of it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Amusingly, by 2015, the non-U.K. born population in Doncaster had fallen to 7% from 9% the previous year.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts appeared on BBC local news.
Click to expand...

Yeah bob, I think you've misunderstood. We're not saying the BBC got it so wrong, we're saying you completely misheard it.

But I guess there are three possibilities:
1. There was a completely unprecedented five-fold increase in the immigrant population of one city in two years.
2. The BBC misread the statistics and not one of them thought it was odd that there was a five-fold increase in the immigrant population of one city in two years.
3. An old man misheard something on the news.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure options 1 and 2 are technically possible, if vanishingly unlikely. But let's face it, option 3 does tend to stand out as the most likely one by a country mile.


----------



## Spandex

I'm actually starting to wonder now if *all *of Bobs outrage at the world is caused by constantly mishearing things on the news.


----------



## John-H

Pardon? How many?


----------



## John-H

On a more serious note. This is more shocking and deserving of a public enquiry::

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... igns#img-4


----------



## bobclive22

> Yeah bob, I think you've misunderstood. We're not saying the BBC got it so wrong, we're saying you completely misheard it.


I tried to check but unfortunately even though BBC Iplayer lists this program there is no watchable copy, that being the case I will concede to the notion that I must have misheard it.


----------



## bobclive22

> On a more serious note. This is more shocking and deserving of a public enquiry::


Follow the data: *does* a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?

It does not say A LEGAL DOCUMENT LINKS BREXIT CAMPAIGN TO US BILLIONAIRE does it.

If they have the document why not show a copy?

Get over it John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Yeah bob, I think you've misunderstood. We're not saying the BBC got it so wrong, we're saying you completely misheard it.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to check but unfortunately even though BBC Iplayer lists this program there is no watchable copy, that being the case I will concede to the notion that I must have misheard it.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, and it happens to us all, but what worries me is that your impression of immigration levels in your area is so out of whack that you didn't once question the figure. And you don't even trust the BBC, but you instantly trusted the 43% because it backed up all your worst fears.

If someone told me that 43% figure for my town, I'd think they were on drugs, and my town has a higher level of non-UK born people than Doncaster. So why, when I see more immigrants on a daily basis than you, do I not overestimate their levels by a massive degree?

This is actually a good example for the Guardian article about Facebook data mining. All it would take is a few made up articles about 43% of the population being Eastern European immigrants and lots of people like you - people who genuinely believe they're sensible people who don't fall for lies - become increasingly anxious about immigration. Then the Vote Leave campaign comes along and says "you're right to feel anxious. Vote for us and we'll look after you". They're manipulating you.


----------



## bobclive22

> If someone told me that 43% figure for my town, I'd think they were on drugs, and my town has a higher level of non-UK born people than Doncaster. So why, when I see more immigrants on a daily basis than you, do I not overestimate their levels by a massive degree?


I tell you what mate, come up and experience it. Your like a dog with it`s favourite bone, I have said I may have misheard, let that be it and move on. What`s your town by the way.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> If someone told me that 43% figure for my town, I'd think they were on drugs, and my town has a higher level of non-UK born people than Doncaster. So why, when I see more immigrants on a daily basis than you, do I not overestimate their levels by a massive degree?
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you what mate, come up and experience it. Your like a dog with it`s favourite bone, I have said I may have misheard, let that be it and move on. What`s your town by the way.
Click to expand...

Experience what? Immigrants? I used to live in Ealing, with about 6 times the non-U.K. born population of Doncaster. I 'experienced it' every day. 2nd largest Polish community outside Poland.

As for where I live now, I think I'll keep that to myself thanks.

You still haven't explained why you believed a figure that was 4 times the actual one. I instantly didn't believe it (which is why I did more research) despite you saying it was on the BBC news. You need to think long and hard about why you instantly trusted it.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Yeah bob, I think you've misunderstood. We're not saying the BBC got it so wrong, we're saying you completely misheard it.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to check but unfortunately even though BBC Iplayer lists this program there is no watchable copy, that being the case I will concede to the notion that I must have misheard it.
Click to expand...

Respect to Bob











bobclive22 said:


> On a more serious note. This is more shocking and deserving of a public enquiry::
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the data: *does* a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?
> 
> It does not say A LEGAL DOCUMENT LINKS BREXIT CAMPAIGN TO US BILLIONAIRE does it.
> 
> If they have the document why not show a copy?
> 
> Get over it John.
Click to expand...

I don't think electoral fraud is the sort of thing you can get over. The referendum result was only decided by 600,000. The whole point about declaring coordination between campaign groups is to ensure a level playing field.



> Leaked emails published in February last year appeared to reveal a plan to break spending laws by creating different campaigns and covertly coordinating them. Steve Baker, Conservative MP for Wycombe, wrote to colleagues: "It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities each of which could spend £700k: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum."





> Other outlets found discrepancies. Buzzfeed published a story about how Vote Leave had given a 23-year-old fashion student, Darren Grimes, a gift of £625,000 in the week before the election, - which was spent on the BeLeave social media campaign - as well as a further £50,000 from another third party donor. Vote Leave and Grimes both claimed there was no coordination between campaigns. Grimes, the Observer has learned, had previously worked with Chris Wylie, a Canadian political strategist, who introduced AggregateIQ to Cambridge Analytica.
> 
> The returns showed that Vote Leave donated a further £100,000 to Veterans for Britain - which then spent exactly that amount of money with AggregateIQ. Both campaigns denied any "coordination". Nor was there coordination, Vote Leave said, with the Democratic Unionist Party, which spent a further £32,750 with AggregateIQ.


Vote Leave of course is on record as spending half its official campaign budget with Aggregate IQ through Cambridge Analytica.










They have not published the whole legal document but a part of it:










The article explains how this links vote Leave to *Robert Mercer*, the American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump and also explains that the agreement includes a non competition clause - and that basically means that they are to the same purpose.



> AggregateIQ had a non-compete clause. Leave.EU announced in November 2015 it was working with Cambridge Analytica which means that AggregateIQ must have had explicit permission to work with Vote Leave.


You might want to read this too:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gel-farage

A couple of quotes...



> Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook 'like', he said, was their most "potent weapon". "Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring."





> "It is creepy! It's really creepy! It's why I'm not on Facebook! I tried it on myself to see what information it had on me and I was like, 'Oh my God!' What's scary is that my kids had put things on Instagram and it picked that up. It knew where my kids went to school."
> 
> They hadn't "employed" Cambridge Analytica, he said. No money changed hands. "They were happy to help."
> 
> Why?
> 
> "Because Nigel [Farage] is a good friend of the Mercers. And Robert Mercer introduced them to us. He said, 'Here's this company we think may be useful to you.' What they were trying to do in the US and what we were trying to do had massive parallels. We shared a lot of information. Why wouldn't you?" Behind Trump's campaign and Cambridge Analytica, he said, were "the same people. It's the same family."
> 
> There were already a lot of questions swirling around Cambridge Analytica, and Andy Wigmore has opened up a whole lot more. Such as: are you supposed to declare services-in-kind as some sort of donation? The Electoral Commission says yes, if it was more than £7,500. And was it declared? The Electoral Commission says no. Does that mean a foreign billionaire had possibly influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent? It's certainly a question worth asking.


A foreign national influencing the campaign would of course be illegal.


----------



## bobclive22

> Respect to Bob Image


The thing is John no one other than a few remainers like yourself appear to care.

If the remainers had not shown their hand like Labour MP`s stating they would sabotage the parliamentary vote when it comes back for the final vote of acceptance knowing the majority of their constituents voted leave, when the Lib Dems and Scottish nationalists stated they would form an alliance with labour to enforce their will on the final vote Mrs May probably would not have called an early election. If she now gets a large majority on June 8th then shooting ones self in the foot comes to mind.


----------



## bobclive22

> I used to live in Ealing,


*16 reasons Ealing is the best place to live in London*

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/02/16-reason ... on-5728935

Seems like a typical remain area Spandex.



> As for where I live now, I think I'll keep that to myself thanks.


Pathetic.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I used to live in Ealing,
> 
> 
> 
> *16 reasons Ealing is the best place to live in London*
> 
> Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/02/16-reason ... on-5728935
> 
> Seems like a typical remain area Spandex.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it would matter what place I used to live. You'd always find a reason why my observations weren't relevant (even if that reason is as moronically flimsy as "seems like a typical remain area").


bobclive22 said:


> As for where I live now, I think I'll keep that to myself thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Errr... Why? Because you were hoping to make more of your idiotic judgments, and now you can't? Oh no!!

Personally, I like to keep my online presence as anonymous as possible so that it's harder for companies to monetise my personal data. If you think it's pathetic not to share info about yourself with the world then more fool you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *16 reasons Ealing is the best place to live in London*
> 
> Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/02/16-reason ... on-5728935


Surely that's my whole fecking point. I never said it wasn't a nice place to live. The point is, it's a nice place to live *and* it has around a 50% non-UK born population - it's almost as if immigrant's aren't the problem.

As for Doncaster, have you considered the possibility it's just a shithole, regardless of the nationality of its residents?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Respect to Bob Image
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is John no one other than a few remainers like yourself appear to care.
> 
> If the remainers had not shown their hand like Labour MP`s stating they would sabotage the parliamentary vote when it comes back for the final vote of acceptance knowing the majority of their constituents voted leave, when the Lib Dems and Scottish nationalists stated they would form an alliance with labour to enforce their will on the final vote Mrs May probably would not have called an early election. If she now gets a large majority on June 8th then shooting ones self in the foot comes to mind.
Click to expand...

You mean your thing is. I don't think you define things properly in general and you are not a good judge of others.

Case in point - you state that the majority of Labour voters voted leave. Here's the Yougov breakdown:










https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

As you can see most voted remain.

As for shooting yourself in the foot: Who is going to get the poison chalice? Did you see mentioned in the news that the ECJ ruled that all nations would each have to ratify any future trade deal? *Link* With your powers of analysis and prediction would you care to predict how it will go and whose foot will end up shot?

P.S. Looks like 5% of UKIP voters were just as confused.


----------



## Nyxx

I voted to remain.

I lost, simple as that.

So let's get out of the EU asap and move on.

It's like all the cry baby's in the USA " I did not want Trump to win [smiley=bigcry.gif] , so am going to cry and protest about it" it's pathetic. You lost....get over it.

Win or lose. Shake hands move on. It's that simple or it should be.

But then again when some people lose a vote they never get over it do they!


----------



## Spandex

I'm pretty certain the people in the US are protesting about things Trump, specifically, has done, rather than just protesting about 'losing' a vote. I'm sure though, that you're not suggesting that public protest about something you disagree with is pathetic.

But really, the issue is that this isn't over. This isn't a five-a-side match, with a final whistle, where you can draw a line under a bad result and 'move on'. There are many many years of decisions that *our *politicians will be making on *our *behalf and it would be ridiculous to just say to them "52% of the country chose to leave the EU, so we'll let you sort out the details. Just let us know once it's done because we've moved on and no longer have an opinion on it all. Oh, and don't worry what the other 48% think - they lost, so they don't count any more".


----------



## Nyxx

As normal you try to twist words to suit your needs.
They were protesting in the USA from day one. Even some over here within a week. :lol:

As for the 48%.
It was the first time I can remember that every single voted counted unlike the vote we have next month.

I was one of the 48% but I lost. Does not matter if it was close or not I lost.

In this country next month a party might lose with 20-25% of the people voting for them, what say will that party have when they lose? none. But at least they will expect they lost.

Aspect that you lost. Or just keep [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=baby.gif]

Even olympians who run the 100m and come second by 0.10 seconds expect it. Would be funny to watch them crying and demanding a re-run " because I only lost by a small amount"


----------



## John-H

No, as ever with big and complicated things the answers are actually big and complicated too but the non expert ley public naturally simplify the issue to one or two issues that mean something to them. Naturally also in the case of this EU referendum, once the binary decision was made, the tendency again is to take the simple view that the politicians and experts need to do their job now and sort it all out, now we've given our uneducated answer, because we don't want to think about the complexity and it's not our job. Get on with it. But get on with what? That was never explained.

One has to ask why the public were asked the question in the first place. Shouldn't it be the politicians and experts that decide what's good for the country? That's their job isn't it? It was less of a problem joining as the effect was incremental. Leaving is monumental and far reaching however.

So what would be the responsible thing for the experts and politicians to do now, so the public don't end up worse off?

What happens if we can't get a good EU trade deal with tariffs being imposed or no deal at all and a WTO nightmare.

Given the general election is upon us isn't our best interest to elect politicians with an open mind who are prepared to change direction? Or do we just put our foot down, close our eyes and hope for the best because we've made a decision and we are going through with it come what May?


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> As normal you try to twist words to suit your needs.
> They were protesting in the USA from day one. Even some over here within a week. :lol:


They were protesting against things he'd done and said _before_ he was elected. I'm not sure when you think 'day one' was, but he did exist before the inauguration.



Nyxx said:


> As for the 48%.
> It was the first time I can remember that every single voted counted unlike the vote we have next month.
> 
> I was one of the 48% but I lost. Does not matter if it was close or not I lost.
> 
> In this country next month a party might lose with 20-25% of the people voting for them, what say will that party have when they lose? none. But at least they will expect they lost.


They'll have a say that's directly proportional to the number of seats they win in the election, of course. That's the whole point of our democracy - the elected government still has to take into account the people who didn't vote for them because the opposition parties represent those people. It's specifically designed not to be a 'win/lose' situation because that wouldn't be true democracy.

But for some reason you're happy not to have anyone represent you after you lost the referendum? We need politicians to stand up for all viewpoints, otherwise if becomes an autocracy, not a democracy. And the politicians need to hear the people in order to represent them. Just rolling over and saying "they won" before all the actual decisions have been made is like shaking hands and leaving the pitch just because there's only ten minutes left and you're 2 goals down.




Nyxx said:


> Aspect that you lost. Or just keep [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=baby.gif]
> 
> Even olympians who run the 100m and come second by 0.10 seconds expect it. Would be funny to watch them crying and demanding a re-run " because I only lost by a small amount"


See above. Olympians don't stop running just because they're in 4th place.


----------



## Nyxx

You are so funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:-* :-* :-*

If you both are voting Labour.......you're not are you?, I will look forward to that post. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dropped another [smiley=bomb.gif]

bye......(_slips out the door never to return_.....)


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah bob, I think you've misunderstood. We're not saying the BBC got it so wrong, we're saying you completely misheard it.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to check but unfortunately even though BBC Iplayer lists this program there is no watchable copy, that being the case I will concede to the notion that I must have misheard it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fair enough, and it happens to us all, but what worries me is that your impression of immigration levels in your area is so out of whack that you didn't once question the figure. And you don't even trust the BBC, but you instantly trusted the 43% because it backed up all your worst fears.
> 
> If someone told me that 43% figure for my town, I'd think they were on drugs, and my town has a higher level of non-UK born people than Doncaster. So why, when I see more immigrants on a daily basis than you, do I not overestimate their levels by a massive degree?
> 
> This is actually a good example for the Guardian article about Facebook data mining. All it would take is a few made up articles about 43% of the population being Eastern European immigrants and lots of people like you - people who genuinely believe they're sensible people who don't fall for lies - become increasingly anxious about immigration. Then the Vote Leave campaign comes along and says "you're right to feel anxious. Vote for us and we'll look after you". They're manipulating you.
Click to expand...

50% Kurds in Surrey!

Well I was in the barbers last week, and the guy cutting my hair was an Iranian Kurd. So 50% of the people in the barbers were immigrants.

Proves that 95% of stats are made up :lol:


----------



## John-H

Nyxx said:


> You are so funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> :-* :-* :-*
> 
> If you both are voting Labour.......you're not are you?, I will look forward to that post. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Dropped another [smiley=bomb.gif]
> 
> bye......(_slips out the door never to return_.....)


And you're off again. That's a shame. Explaining the complexity of the situation via sports game analogy really helped to simplify the argument and put everyone's mind at rest. If only we all realised there was no need to be so concerned :roll:


----------



## 3TT3

John-H said:


> .....
> 
> Case in point - you state that the majority of Labour voters voted leave. Here's the Yougov breakdown:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/
> 
> As you can see most voted remain.
> 
> P.S. Looks like 5% of UKIP voters were just as confused.


Strange I thought this referendum was in 2016?

Ive seen loads of UK sites which quoted shock facts like  omg most leave voters voted that way cos they thought remain was sure to win , like they wanted it to seem close? :lol: 
Lets rerun!
Even the poll figures , if accurate show most people of above average education voted leave.
Whether the characterised "dumbass grumpy older folk section " vs the "unigoing young recently postgrad lefty liberals " section swung it one way or the other doesnt really matter , does it?

Weve been on the recieving end of "bad news eec/eu results " ( for some) poll analysis in the past and cobbled together ..this is how you get the sheep to vote the right way breakdowns.For us nothing worked like "the stick" .
Oh woe .. we are consigned to to never seeing the face of brussels, our ministers shall go around to all member states and apologise personally for the childrens bad behaviour.. etc.
Even the polish pope at the time got in on the catholic guilt trip act.. theres loads of poles with their flights booked..dont let them down etc 
However it really came down to ..youll have to pay more cash or you wont get x eec money/bailout cash 

You guys dont have that problem so Id suggest like in the Shawshank redemption
get busy living or get busy dying


----------



## Spandex

3TT3 said:


> Strange I thought this referendum was in 2016?


Ok... look at it again, and have a little think before posting this time.. :lol:


----------



## 3TT3

Just to assure everyone that my previous post was before the Manchester atrocity and the last bit was in no way a cynical reference to it ! .


----------



## John-H

In sure nobody thought that. Thoughts to all concerned.


----------



## bobclive22

> Case in point - you state that the majority of Labour voters voted leave. Here's the Yougov breakdown:


The vote on June 8th should show whether yougov is correct or not.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The vote on June 8th should show whether yougov is correct or not.


Don't you mean May 8th?


----------



## bobclive22

> Don't you mean May 8th?


 May 8th, wasn`t that VE day.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Don't you mean May 8th?
> 
> 
> 
> May 8th, wasn`t that VE day.
Click to expand...




bobclive22 said:


> See you May 8th.


You were supposed to come over for tea!!


----------



## A3DFU

An appropriate way to get a message across wouldn't you say :roll:


----------



## John-H

Very true. Apparently she didn't use that phrase in the live debate last night on Sky/Ch4 and she drew titters from the audience when she implied such. I think people are starting to see through the May facade . This poster appeared in a few places and featured in the NE by artist Jeremy Deller - with a nod to The Royal Family and Ricky Thomlinson.


----------



## John-H

The European Council, meeting as 27 member states without the UK, authorises the opening of Brexit negotiations with the UK and formally nominates the Commission as EU negotiator. The Council also adopts negotiating directives for the talks.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press ... irectives/


----------



## A3DFU

Well lets see what comes of it. I may still have to sell up and give up life here in England after being a resident of the UK for 32 years, leaving my family behind ....

Who knows what happens. I'm sure it's all for the best - strong and stable :roll:

Errr, John, remember you need a new TTF Rep if I'll get kicked out of this country :lol:


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> Well lets see what comes of it. I may still have to sell up and give up life here in England after being a resident of the UK for 32 years, leaving my family behind ....
> 
> Who knows what happens. I'm sure it's all for the best - strong and stable :roll:
> 
> Errr, John, remember you need a new TTF Rep if I'll get kicked out of this country :lol:


Errr, we let's hope when faced with a choice to our disadvantage we have the sense to avoid it and the consequences


----------



## A3DFU

Hm. I have not much hope with the Bobs and the Lindas of this country. You better start looking for a new TTF rep now.


----------



## John-H

Well with the promise of "the exact same benefits" under any new arrangement I'm expecting that if that can't be achieved then the only decent thing is to rescind the notice to leave rather than making us all worse off. Who would want to be made worse off and poorer?


----------



## A3DFU

Oh yeah. As if. Have you never listen to this song :roll:






Currently No 1 on youtube but all major radio stations have agreed not to broadcast it. I wonder why?


----------



## A3DFU

The UK now the worst-performing advanced economy in the world after post-Brexit vote slump

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 66286.html


----------



## John-H

"Let all the poisons that lie in the mud hatch out." - Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" - Henry II


----------



## John-H

> the UK will need to renegotiate more than 759 treaties with 168 non-EU countries on leaving the EU just to replicate existing agreements.


https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372 ... 23f8c0fd2e

This guy is a Tory but has reservations about what we are doing:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/may- ... -p9lt8j35j

A Labour perspective but with insight as an MEP:

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/theresa-in-wonderland/

If you think we may be heading in the wrong direction then let's keep our options open. Vote tactically to avoid a Tory landslide and disastrous hard Brexit which no principals May could well take us into because she'll still be well off whatever happens.

Here are two cross party on line tools to help ensure pro-EU candidates are selected to offset the Tory/UKIP direction. Just enter your post code:

https://bestforbritain.org/

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/uk ... rt_loc_cp/


----------



## Nyxx

John-H said:


> Vote tactically to avoid a Tory landslide and disastrous hard Brexit which no principals May could well take us into because she'll still be well off whatever happens.


Jeremy Corbyn rakes in £130k and he will still not be well off? :lol: 
You would sooner have a Spineless leader that will not even condone the IRL, Spent all his life voting against his own party, Want's a no shot to kill police force. I could go on.... 
How can anyone want Diane Abbott in charge of anything. Another IRL supporter in the past. 
John McDonnell brandished a letter he signed calling for the disbandment of MI5 & the police armed response units.
Brexit.....is very low on the list of problems we would have.

How many times have Labour themselves tied to get rid of Corbyn. How many members of his own staff have resigned because they have no wish to work for him.

Labour last time bankrupted the country and left in the chancellor's draw the famous note " Don't look in here these is nothing left lol" yer very funny!

You would have all this because you feel you would get a better Brexit? I would sooner vote for Trump than Corbyn.

Don't really want to vote for anyone this week but am sure as hell will not vote for that bunch. Even if I thought it would bring a better Brexit. I voted to stay in but happy to espect I lost.


----------



## Spandex

To be fair, 2010 was just after the global recession and prior to that the deficit was below its current level after many years of labour government. It would be incredibly misleading to simply imply that economic/employment figures from 2010 can be fairly compared to those of today. Of course, I'm sure whoever compiled that graph wouldn't want to mislead anyone


----------



## John-H

:lol: Well that only goes to show that Dave would be quite happy to walk off the cliff as long as the carpet is blue. Completely missing the danger signs :roll:


----------



## Nyxx

Am a labour voter, voted for them all my life........ring a bell John?

I've voted Con, labour and lib dem John, am not a mindless red voter or blue though and though person.

You walk of your Red carpet of the chiff John the difference is am not blinded by any colour.

I said many times this time am not voting for who I want to win but I sure as hell will not vote for a man who will not show respect for fallen english soldiers or even wear a poppy as a mark of respect. But was happy to attend IRA rallies. You vote for him John.

Talk about seeing red :roll: :wink:

:roll:

O and if Labour do win I won't cry about it for years.


----------



## Nyxx

I've had second thoughts.

Its pointless talking about The merits of parties when people just vote for who they have voted for all their lives regards of the state of that party.

As my Dad said never talk about religion or politics it always ends badly.

I will leave you to It _wouldn't want to mislead anyone_

More on topic. I think Brexit would have been so different if both side had not been so shameful, or in a nutshell, it's the end of the world as we know it or Immigration! Both sides should hang their heads in shame.


----------



## John-H

Sorry, I thought you were a true blue follower for some reason Dave. I must be thinking of someone else. I could say the same as you however regarding my history of voting and I will be voting tactically in this election to prevent a Tory landslide and in that way support the progressive side. This for me is not a party issue other than the fact that two parties in particular have disproportionate content that have driven us into this mess.

I agree with your later words about the shameful way the referendum was handled but for that same reason and the point that we don't know what we are going to end up with I think we need MPs in a balance that collectively are willing to make a sensible decision as our "representatives" for our own good - and that is for us not to end up poorer.

If you were buying a house, got mislead by the estate agent and when you had a good look around and after a survey you found out it was rubbish and was going to cost you a packet - don't you think you should be able to change your mind? If you employed an agent don't you think they should do that for you? That is the job of the MPs.

I just think we need to be prepared to change direction and not bring about our own demise for ideological reasons or some misplaced idea of how our democracy is supposed to work. If it looks bad for us we need people there to do the right thing on behalf of all of us.


----------



## Nyxx

As you know I voted to stay.

But I hated and still do that we cannot have our own laws, some case being taken to the european court of justice. :evil:

The thing with Brexit was for the first time and unlike tomorrow every vote counted. The campaign was imo a scandal. I do see your point on the "estate agent" but for me I was 60% for staying 40% for leave.

Leave won and now it's time for whoever to get us out of it the best they can. Be glad when tomorrow is over with.

Then who ever gets the job to deal with it, good luck, as europe will be like a scorned wife in a divorce. :twisted:



John-H said:


> Sorry, I thought you were a true blue follower for some reason Dave..


No, I voted for Tony, voted for Nick. This time it will be May as sadly I feel the Labour party is a joke. Call me cynical but I don't believe diane abbott is ill, I think Labour told her to shut the f*** up and stay at home.


----------



## John-H

Ah yes, there may have been a subliminal colour suggestion there to explain it :lol:

You make a good point though that in the referendum every vote counted. About time we had proportional representation. I hear the frustration of people in a "safe" seat with a useless vote.



Nyxx said:


> Then who ever gets the job to deal with it, good luck, as europe will be like a scorned wife in a divorce. :twisted:


Also agree, but that's my main concern. It's obvious that the EU will not allow us the same benefits as we had from the single market whilst members of the club - otherwise what's the point of joining?

Whilst May blusters "strong and stable" she also pitches for a battle (for the home market consumption) but she has a weak hand and has appeared "weak and wobbly" during the election campaign which will have been noted.

Much is made of the Germans wanting to sell Audi's in the UK but they are one of the 27. Any of the other member states could veto any such deal. The EU is half of the UK's export market but the UK is only 10% off the EU's. We have no hand to play as we were only only ever one in the 28. We had some sway as a bridge to the US but if we remove ourselves from the EU the US will not see us as a bridge and go direct instead. Our international influence will decline. This is folly.

Other parties have a more conciliatory line towards negotiations with the EU as partners rather than see them as the enemy but even they will likely see the same logic evolve - you are out of the club so don't expect the same benefits. So it probably won't matter who is negotiating.

Whichever party is in control after the election they are going to have to put a bad deal that makes us all worse off to the public.

It's at this point we need to decide what to do - not back last year when we didn't have a clue what the full picture was.

My worry is that rich politicians with gold plated pensions won't really care what happens to most of us. They have a secure future come what may.

We need politicians to represent the majority of us as "representatives" of the real people, to decide what to do in our best interest regardless of whatever stupid decision we made when being hoodwinked by millionaire stockbroker Nigel Farage, BoJo the clown Johnson or Gove wanabe PMs, or the constant drip of tax exile newspaper barons who boast their influence is so strong they have chosen every PM and want to see the UK turn into a tax haven for them.

We need politicians with a sense of public duty in a representative democracy to make the decision. Politicians with an open mind who will do what's best for us.

That's why I'm voting tactically regardless of party or leader - it depends what that MP candidate thinks. I want someone that best represents me and everyone else.


----------



## John-H

May's latest weak wobble under pressure over her record is her threat to rip up the Human Rights Act (which is nothing to do with the EU). She desperately calculates this will be seen as strong and the opposition will appear weak if they complain - when the authorities say they don't need changes to the law but more money to recruit instead.

May has been criticised over her record of cutting police resources when she was home secretary but do people realise May also tried to cut the police budget further than it was done but was overruled by the treasury - so we would have been worse off and less secure had she got her way. She and the treasury have been challenged to confirm this by releasing the information. She's desperate to avoid this coming out which is when she threatened ripping up the HRA to divert attention.

And expanding on the point - what human rights laws are a problem when dealing with terrorists? None - it's sound bite nonsense. Here's an analysis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40176990

As explained, Teresa May also got rid of the Labour government's Control Orders and replaced them with her own watered down version - her outcry "Enough is enough" in reality suggests she'd only be getting rid of her own actions by reversing this change! Nothing to do with the HRA. The woman has no scruples and can't be trusted in my opinion. I wouldn't trust her to make any further decisions over the EU on my behalf.


----------



## A3DFU

Every country gets the leader she deserves. People voting for Conservatives seem to want to be gagged, controlled and have their freedom curtailed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 77136.html

People I know working in IT have decided to leave this country should TM be next PM and the signs are on the horizon that tech companies will do the same.


----------



## Shug750S

Just to balance the above, what's everyone's views on Labours garden tax?

Does seem unfair to tax people on property every year that they have worked hard to buy, paid stamp duty on (at higher rates if property cost more then x) paid income tax on the money they earnt to buy it in first place etc.

Looks like a bit of an anti-south or anti property owners tax. Especially as properties cost more down south generally.


----------



## Shug750S

John-H said:


> May's latest weak wobble under pressure over her record is her threat to rip up the Human Rights Act (which is nothing to do with the EU


Agree 100% that we should have a human rights act. I travel globally extensively for work and the UK is generally viewed (by the people I meet at least) as one of the fairest and most inclusive places.

Problem with the human rights act, if that in some cases it applies to those who least deserve it.

Saw a few things in papers and on the news lately where people were against certain initiatives like Prevent as they focussed too much on certain sections of the community. That'll be the same communities where possibly the recent terrorist attackers come from.

Same with knife crime. I was stopped a couple of months back coming out of a South London tube station, as the police were checking for knives. I stopped when asked and let them check my bag, asked the copper why I had been selected as I guessed I didn't fit the demographic for a gang member who might have a knife (mid 50's, IC1, business suit and tie, laptop bag, etc.) and cop said they had to get the quota up to avoid being classed as racist. Interesting I stopped with no probs, yet many people who fittted the more likely demographic were kicking off big time when approached.

Bit of a ramble above and hope this is not seen as inciting racial hatred. It is what happened.


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> Just to balance the above, what's everyone's views on Labours garden tax?
> 
> Does seem unfair to tax people on property every year that they have worked hard to buy, paid stamp duty on (at higher rates if property cost more then x) paid income tax on the money they earnt to buy it in first place etc.
> 
> Looks like a bit of an anti-south or anti property owners tax. Especially as properties cost more down south generally.


Labour have stated emphatically that they will not be implementing a land value (or 'garden') tax:

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/spla ... 0wodP0YBww

The fact that the right wing's tabloid attack dogs are still talking about this like it's an actual labour policy is an indication of the level of misinformation voters are bombarded with.

Incidentally, aren't we already taxed every year on property we've 'worked hard' to buy when we pay council tax?


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> Problem with the human rights act, if that in some cases it applies to those who least deserve it.


But isn't the fundamental point of human rights that *all humans* deserve them? Once you start working out who 'deserves' them most, they stop being human rights.

Human rights laws should not create loopholes that allow guilty people to avoid punishment, or that allow innocent people to have their rights violated. If either of these things are happening then the human rights laws should be looked at, but scrapping them so that you can avoid the first loophole at the expense of the second is a very dangerous path to take.


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> May's latest weak wobble under pressure over her record is her threat to rip up the Human Rights Act (which is nothing to do with the EU)


She's not going to rip up the human rights act :lol:


----------



## Nyxx

I know but just read up :lol:

_"People voting for Conservatives seem to want to be gagged, controlled and have their freedom curtailed."_

Do you really think that or are you on strong meds?

Human rights? Well Spandex that depends if you consider someone that waits outside a concert area and blows up woman and children "Human"

Personally I think there f****** animals and should be treated like one.

Anyway you all vote for IRA supporters and people who want to do away with shot to kill for the police. After watching the news last night of how fast the police took down the 3 in london. If you think they should have p*** around trying not to kill them then wake up. 
Give them a medal and thank then for there fast brilliant work, killing f****** animals that need putting down. Human rights! please.....

There are lines that when people cross they should not have Human rights, like if you break into my house I will kick you head in and I don't care if you're running away at the time. You should not have broken in at that point you lost your right, But Human right say....O no you cannot do that! 
And don't even start me of on Political correctness.

But The labour leader is a perfect e.g of a spinless waste of a space. He said the other day violence never solved anything? What stopped the Germans in WW2 then?


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> people who want to do away with shot to kill for the police.


People like you are easy pickings for media manipulation...

Corbin has never said that he opposes shoot-to-kill for the police during terror attacks. The BBC interview which is always cited as evidence that he opposes it was criticised by the regulator for being misleading. The interview shows him answering a completely different question, but was edited to appear that he was opposing shoot-to-kill. For some reason the BBC have not removed or re-edited the interview despite the regulators ruling.

Corbin has since clarified his position (although he wouldn't have had to if the BBC hadn't twisted the original interview):


> Our priority must be public safety and I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March





Nyxx said:


> Human rights? Well Spandex that depends if you consider someone that waits outside a concert area and blows up woman and children "Human"


I honestly can't work out what point you think you're making. Do I think they should have human rights? Yes, I do. Do I think those human rights should protect them from prosecution (if they'd survived) or from being shot by the police to prevent them carrying out an attack? No, I don't. But clearly, existing human rights laws don't prevent either of these things happening, so what's the issue?

That's the thing about human rights. They're not there to protect people from justice. We don't have to make a choice between protecting ourselves and having human rights laws. People like you like to twist the debate so that it becomes an either/or question. It's not. We can do both.


----------



## Nyxx

When it comes to twisting thing Spandex you have a Masters in it. 
That's all you do. You love it with a passion.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> When it comes to twisting thing Spandex you have a Masters in it.
> That's all you do. You love it with a passion.


Err.. thanks?


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to balance the above, what's everyone's views on Labours garden tax?
> 
> Does seem unfair to tax people on property every year that they have worked hard to buy, paid stamp duty on (at higher rates if property cost more then x) paid income tax on the money they earnt to buy it in first place etc.
> 
> Looks like a bit of an anti-south or anti property owners tax. Especially as properties cost more down south generally.
> 
> 
> 
> Labour have stated emphatically that they will not be implementing a land value (or 'garden') tax:
> 
> http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/spla ... 0wodP0YBww
> 
> The fact that the right wing's tabloid attack dogs are still talking about this like it's an actual labour policy is an indication of the level of misinformation voters are bombarded with.
> 
> Incidentally, aren't we already taxed every year on property we've 'worked hard' to buy when we pay council tax?
Click to expand...

Think they actually said they won't be taxing people's gardens. Saw Corbyn on TV last week and pretty certain he said he was going to tax 'the rich' with big houses to rebalance wealth. Same strategy, different name!


----------



## Shug750S

Nyxx said:


> I know but just read up :lol:
> 
> _"People voting for Conservatives seem to want to be gagged, controlled and have their freedom curtailed."_
> 
> Do you really think that or are you on strong meds?
> 
> Human rights? Well Spandex that depends if you consider someone that waits outside a concert area and blows up woman and children "Human"
> 
> Personally I think there f****** animals and should be treated like one.
> 
> Anyway you all vote for IRA supporters and people who want to do away with shot to kill for the police. After watching the news last night of how fast the police took down the 3 in london. If you think they should have p*** around trying not to kill them then wake up.
> Give them a medal and thank then for there fast brilliant work, killing f****** animals that need putting down. Human rights! please.....
> 
> There are lines that when people cross they should not have Human rights, like if you break into my house I will kick you head in and I don't care if you're running away at the time. You should not have broken in at that point you lost your right, But Human right say....O no you cannot do that!
> And don't even start me of on Political correctness.
> 
> But The labour leader is a perfect e.g of a spinless waste of a space. He said the other day violence never solved anything? What stopped the Germans in WW2 then?


^ +1

Human rights only apply to humans, not animals who attack kids at a concert or people out for a drink with friends


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Corbin has since clarified his position (although he wouldn't have had to if the BBC hadn't twisted the original interview):
> 
> 
> 
> Our priority must be public safety and I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March
Click to expand...

This might be all well and good for domestic security with threats of terrorism and action needed to neutralise but he certainly sidestepped National security,refusing to answer the question everybody fears,that being a nuclear attack.
His answer being mediation which is laughable when the ICBM'S are flying overhead...too late then.

He's weak and his party despise him.He's an emphasier towards the unions and will have us back in the good old days of three day working weeks and national strikes.Public sector workers have a massive axe to grind at present and they'll be expecting some comeuppance for voting him in,if he gets in of course.

It will be a massive backstep for our Country which will be in huge financial ruin with the proposed plans Labour are proposing,but then I walk the blue carpet so no doubt will fall on deaf ears ...


----------



## Shug750S

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corbin has since clarified his position (although he wouldn't have had to if the BBC hadn't twisted the original interview):
> 
> 
> 
> Our priority must be public safety and I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This might be all well and good for domestic security with threats of terrorism and action needed to neutralise but he certainly sidestepped National security,refusing to answer the question everybody fears,that being a nuclear attack.
> His answer being mediation which is laughable when the ICBM'S are flying overhead...too late then.
> 
> He's weak and his party despise him.He's an emphasier towards the unions and will have us back in the good old days of three day working weeks and national strikes.Public sector workers have a massive axe to grind at present and they'll be expecting some comeuppance for voting him in,if he gets in of course.
> 
> It will be a massive backstep for our Country which will be in huge financial ruin with the proposed plans Labour are proposing,but then I walk the blue carpet so no doubt will fall on deaf ears ...
Click to expand...

I quite like the idea of Corbin negotiating with ISIS or other terrorist / extremist groups.

I'd happily start the ticket fund off with £20 or so for his flight, or could donate some Air Miles towards his flight to meet with them


----------



## Nyxx

Spandex said:


> Nyxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights? Well Spandex that depends if you consider someone that waits outside a concert area and blows up woman and children "Human"
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly can't work out what point you think you're making. Do I think they should have human rights? Yes, I do.
Click to expand...




Spandex said:


> I honestly can't work out what point you think you're making.


Well if it really needs explaining??????? someone like that has no right to be called a "Human" let alone the luxury of having "Human rights" But really did I need to explain that? did I? Really????



Spandex said:


> Do I think they should have human rights? Yes, I do.


I dont have the words......................

Am just glad he killed himself and not just got injured or with your/his "Human rights" he would have a lawer next to him as he would spent weeks saying " No comment" get locked up with guards. A doctor on call 24/7, 3 meals a day.....etc. How nice! 
If he said anything else it would probably be "I have my human rights" and p*** himself laughing at you at the same time.



Shug750S said:


> I'd happily start the ticket fund off with £20 or so for his flight, or could donate some Air Miles towards his flight to meet with them


+ £20


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> I dont have the words......................


I got my hopes up for a second there..


----------



## John-H

The last time I looked, so called ISIS and other terrorist groups didn't possess ICBMs. I think you'll find they belong to USA, Russia, China, UK etc :roll: and Corbin's comment about diplomacy was solely related to the question of these states coming to war - he was making the point that diplomacy between these states would be used to prevent Armageddon and if it ever got to the stage of launching ICBMs then diplomacy would clearly have failed. It was nothing to do with terrorists and certainly not relating to when the ICBMs were in mid flight - how silly would anyone look suggesting such?

I saw the Question Time debate and the best comment was someone from the audience, after certain elements had had their jibes about being quite prepared to launch a first strike, simply remarking that now we have all finished talking about killing each other can she ask a more civilised question - she got the biggest round of applause for pointing out the obvious!


----------



## John-H

Oh, I forgot to point out - this is NOT the flame room so could further posts please avoid the need for moderation?


----------



## A3DFU

Right wing press may have broken the law

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/exc ... my-corbyn/


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> The last time I looked, so called ISIS and other terrorist groups didn't possess ICBMs. I think you'll find they belong to USA, Russia, China, UK etc :roll: and Corbin's comment about diplomacy was solely related to the question of these states coming to war - he was making the point that diplomacy between these states would be used to prevent Armageddon and if it ever got to the stage of launching ICBMs then diplomacy would clearly have failed. It was nothing to do with terrorists and certainly not relating to when the ICBMs were in mid flight - how silly would anyone look suggesting such?


You're forgetting North Korea who is good as a terrorist organisation with an unstable nutcase for a leader :roll:

I saw the same programme and Corbyn refused to be drawn in about pressing the button and kept intimating that talk was the only solution much to the astonishment of the audience.Corbyn has previous with the anti nuclear war movement and it's fair to assume should anything ever happen resembling an attack that by the time he had dithered over the situation then we'd end in a pile of ash without retaliation.

There's no need to worry though as he and his army of thick heads won't get a look in anyways...That's a relief then


----------



## John-H

> how silly would anyone look suggesting such?


Well there you go :lol:


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Whilst it would crack me up if May actually ended up with a smaller majority, or even a coalition, I can't see it happening. But that still leaves the question of why she's doing this at all and as John says it's not got anything to do with Brexit negotiations. That's just a convenient lie to get all the old farts out in force again to vote Conservative because they've been conned into thinking it's the only way to make sure Brexit happens.


I expect you are laughing now 

Looks like June is the end of May.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I can't see it happening.
> 
> 
> 
> I expect you are laughing now
> 
> Looks like June is the end of May.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's nice to be proved wrong. :lol:


----------



## ProjectMick

Would be interested to see a breakdown of voter age groups - it seems as though more "young" people have been out to vote this time. Suggests they may have learned their lesson the hard way on the Brexit vote and realised they have to participate if they want their voice to be heard.

No matter what your Brexit view though this is not a good result - we are going to have huge problems negotiating now.


----------



## Spandex

ProjectMick said:


> No matter what your Brexit view though this is not a good result - we are going to have huge problems negotiating now.


Well, I think we were going to have huge problems anyway. I honestly don't think this new government will get screwed over any more than the previous one would have. The end result is going to be the same.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Now we have a proper opposition and a more proportional representation in the Commons, not all bad


----------



## Spandex

A brilliant tweet earlier today:



> To be fair Theresa May warned of coalition of chaos propped up by extremist terrorist sympathisers. She just didn't say she'd be leading it.


----------



## bobclive22

> Would be interested to see a breakdown of voter age groups - it seems as though more "young" people have been out to vote this time. Suggests they may have learned their lesson the hard way on the Brexit vote and realised they have to participate if they want their voice to be heard.


Nothing to do with Brexit, the young voted for the money (who can blame them) I,e no more £30,000 plus tuition fee`s. What actually caused May to loose was her idiotic so called dementia tax, immediately after that tax was announced she lost half of her lead over Labour, she also refused to implement Cameron`s £78,000 limit. Her Uturn was irrelevant, the damage had been done even more so when she refused to state the level of her proposed cap. The young if they were astute enough should have taken that proposed dementia tax into account when they cast their vote, it was far more damaging to them as that proposed tax would have wiped out their entire inheritance, no more bank of mum and dad, I have not heard one comment from the young regarding this, short sighted I would say.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Nothing to do with Brexit, the young voted for the money (who can blame them) I,e no more £30,000 plus tuition fee`s. What actually caused May to loose was her idiotic so called dementia tax, immediately after that tax was announced she lost half of her lead over Labour, she also refused to implement Cameron`s £78,000 limit. Her Uturn was irrelevant, the damage had been done even more so when she refused to state the level of her proposed cap. The young if they were astute enough should have taken that proposed dementia tax into account when they cast their vote, it was far more damaging to them as that proposed tax would have wiped out their entire inheritance, no more bank of mum and dad, I have not heard one comment from the young regarding this, short sighted I would say.


Yep, if you want to know about how young people think, what their priorities are and how they view politics, ask a pensioner...


----------



## ashfinlayson

bobclive22 said:


> Would be interested to see a breakdown of voter age groups - it seems as though more "young" people have been out to vote this time. Suggests they may have learned their lesson the hard way on the Brexit vote and realised they have to participate if they want their voice to be heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with Brexit, the young voted for the money (who can blame them) I,e no more £30,000 plus tuition fee`s. What actually caused May to loose was her idiotic so called dementia tax, immediately after that tax was announced she lost half of her lead over Labour, she also refused to implement Cameron`s £78,000 limit. Her Uturn was irrelevant, the damage had been done even more so when she refused to state the level of her proposed cap. The young if they were astute enough should have taken that proposed dementia tax into account when they cast their vote, it was far more damaging to them as that proposed tax would have wiped out their entire inheritance, no more bank of mum and dad, I have not heard one comment from the young regarding this, short sighted I would say.
Click to expand...

Correction, under the current care system - If you go into permanent residential care then your estate is means tested; If you're deemed to have assets (including your family home) over the value £23,500 (after mortgage etc and based on the current value of your home - 10%) then you will have to pay for your own care however the overall amount that you could be charged for your care is capped at £72,000. If you do not have the cash to pay for the care then the sum will be taken from your estate when you die.

What the Tories are planning is to raise the cap so that in the event your care costs more than £72,000 you will be expected to pay for it out of your estate. They said that they will introduce a higher cap but haven't said what it is for the same reason they didn't cost their manifesto - They don't know what GDP will be post Brexit and don't want to promise what can't be delivered. Labour however costed their manifesto but would have come undone in the event GDP is lower, which it probably will be.

Also worth pointing out that the average time spent in residential care is 1.4 years and costs on average of £41,000 so most cases don't actually reach the cap, it's just the extreme cases where the inheritor gets stung.

Totally agree with your first point though @bobclive22, the young electorate voted for free stuff


----------



## Shug750S

ashfinlayson said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be interested to see a breakdown of voter age groups - it seems as though more "young" people have been out to vote this time. Suggests they may have learned their lesson the hard way on the Brexit vote and realised they have to participate if they want their voice to be heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with Brexit, the young voted for the money (who can blame them) I,e no more £30,000 plus tuition fee`s. What actually caused May to loose was her idiotic so called dementia tax, immediately after that tax was announced she lost half of her lead over Labour, she also refused to implement Cameron`s £78,000 limit. Her Uturn was irrelevant, the damage had been done even more so when she refused to state the level of her proposed cap. The young if they were astute enough should have taken that proposed dementia tax into account when they cast their vote, it was far more damaging to them as that proposed tax would have wiped out their entire inheritance, no more bank of mum and dad, I have not heard one comment from the young regarding this, short sighted I would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction, under the current care system - If you go into permanent residential care then your estate is means tested; If you're deemed to have assets (including your family home) over the value £23,500 (after mortgage etc and based on the current value of your home - 10%) then you will have to pay for your own care however the overall amount that you could be charged for your care is capped at £72,000. If you do not have the cash to pay for the care then the sum will be taken from your estate when you die.
> 
> What the Tories are planning is to raise the cap so that in the event your care costs more than £72,000 you will be expected to pay for it out of your estate. They said that they will introduce a higher cap but haven't said what it is for the same reason they didn't cost their manifesto - They don't know what GDP will be post Brexit and don't want to promise what can't be delivered. Labour however costed their manifesto but would have come undone in the event GDP is lower, which it probably will be.
> 
> Also worth pointing out that the average time spent in residential care is 1.4 years and costs on average of £41,000 so most cases don't actually reach the cap, it's just the extreme cases where the inheritor gets stung.
> 
> Totally agree with your first point though @bobclive22, the young electorate voted for free stuff
Click to expand...

I've always voted Tory, but this dementia tax made me step back and think. Could easily cost me >£2m if not capped.

Me and SWMBO have already discussed moving on to Scotland when we get older as fees don't apply there. AFAIK?

Paid in all my life and now they want me to keep paying when I get old. 
Should just pi55 it all up the wall as if I don't have any money or a house when I get ill will all be free...


----------



## ashfinlayson

If you trust your children to look after you, give them all your s*** >7 years before you croke it and you wont have to pay a penny


----------



## TFP

ashfinlayson said:


> If you trust your children to look after you, give them all your s*** >7 years before you croke it and you wont have to pay a penny


Can you gift your house to them?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Providing it is not within 7 years of your death yes, otherwise part of its value will fall back into your estate


----------



## John-H

I received this today and have to say I agree with every word for our economy for all our sakes and to preserve the best future for those of our children.



> At the beginning of the General Election campaign Theresa May said she was seeking a mandate to negotiate her sort of Brexit; the result denies her that mandate.
> 
> The Prime Minister's version of Brexit was set out in the Conservative election manifesto; it said that sovereignty was a red line, and concluded that Britain must withdraw from both the Single Market and the Customs Union. In doing so it threatened our economic interests, and funding for our public services.
> 
> At a time when many families have seen no improvement in their living standards for more than a decade, and public services are grappling with rising demand and squeezed budgets, voters concluded that these priorities were simply perverse and refused to endorse them.
> 
> The European Movement believes it is now for Parliament to play its proper role. The government may claim executive privilege in the Brexit negotiations, but Parliament should require ministers to explain, one by one and day by day, how each proposal which emerges from the negotiations serves Britain's national interest.
> 
> *Why is it in our interests for research funding to be redirected towards continental universities? Why is it in our interests for new manufacturing investment to be redirected to locations within a customs union of which Britain is not a member? Why is it in our interests for regulation of European pharmaceuticals to be relocated out of Britain? Why is it in our interests for the City of London to be denied passporting rights for financial services across the continent? Why is it in our interests to make Britain less open to the best and brightest minds in the world? Why is it in our interests to undermine our global competitiveness in pursuit of short term party political advantage?*
> 
> More broadly, why is it in our interests to stand apart from the European reaction to President Trump's decision to withdraw the USA from the Paris Climate Change Treaty? Why is it in our interests to stand apart from arrangements for exchange of security information under the Schengen Treaty?
> 
> It is time to reverse the burden of truth. Instead of assuming it is better to stand apart, we should expect the government to show why it is not in our interests to deepen our relationship with continental neighbours with whom we have common economic and political interests as well as a shared commitment to liberal democratic values.
> 
> When the present Prime Minister speaks of the "promise of Brexit", we should remind her that John Major regards Brexit as "an historic mistake" - and millions of us agree with him. It is for ministers to show where any promise lies and MPs to require ministers to explain themselves.
> 
> That will require Parliamentarians to maintain an open mind; they will need to question the negotiating mandate developed by ministers and they will need to make it clear to ministers that they cannot take support for granted at the end of the negotiating process. Most importantly, despite anything the Prime Minister may say, it is essential that Parliament maintains for itself the option of voting for Britain to remain a member of the EU if it becomes clear that this is the best way to secure Britain's national interest.
> 
> Against the background of the 2016 referendum a conclusion that Britain's interests would be best served by remaining within the EU would of course have to be endorsed by the British people. But to rule out that option now would be to give the government a blank cheque.
> 
> The message to the negotiators would be "do your best, but we'll endorse it anyway".
> 
> That would be craven and contemptible.
> 
> For centuries, Parliament has been the guarantor of the interests of the British people. We are entitled to look to the new Parliament to insist that the conclusions of the Brexit negotiations are properly scrutinised, and if ministers cannot show that they serve our national interests, the conclusions should be rejected and voters should be given the opportunity to change their mind.
> 
> If you agree with us please encourage your friends and neighbours to join us, and to join our campaign to safeguard our open and liberal society.
> 
> Stephen Dorrell
> 
> Chair, European Movement UK


There's also a 38 Degrees petition that negotiations should now be carried out by a multi party committee to ensure that our national interests are best represented:


----------



## barry_m2

ashfinlayson said:


> If you trust your children to look after you, give them all your s*** >7 years before you croke it and you wont have to pay a penny


My parents have done this. Their house was signed over to me and my sisters. They done it after my nan went into a home and her house was sold, proceeds of which are paying for her care, something like £5k a month I think, while others in the same care home are being paid for by the government.


----------



## Shug750S

barry_m2 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you trust your children to look after you, give them all your s*** >7 years before you croke it and you wont have to pay a penny
> 
> 
> 
> My parents have done this. Their house was signed over to me and my sisters. They done it after my nan went into a home and her house was sold, proceeds of which are paying for her care, something like £5k a month I think, while others in the same care home are being paid for by the government.
Click to expand...

That's what really gets my goat.

Having paid higher rate tax for the best part of 25 years, I've never claimed a penny off the state, but if I get get old and frail my kids could lose their inheritance (wasn't planning on leaving them much cash, as hope to have a long retirement enjoying life, just the properties), unless I take measures to avoid.

Whereas some people have just lived off the state all their lives, never contributed, and get the same for free. I am not rich. I have worked damn hard since I left school, often having two or three jobs when younger, and now am comfortable as I have a good disposable income and enjoying myself.

We need a new political party, representing people who work hard, are prudent and save for retirement.


----------



## ashfinlayson

The better off pay more and that will always be the way of it. There were lots of anti wealth slurs in this campaign which got a lot of people from the most deprived areas out and voting again, typically the most deprived areas vote Labour (check the trusty graph) but the Tories could easily quash that by investing in those areas.










Have to say though the idea that the wealthy should pay more is a bit preposterous when you consider that the top 1% already pay 15% of the total collected by the exchequer and if you're already paying 50% of what you make in tax then what incentive is there to go out and invest in new business. Good old Corbs attempting to stamp out aspiration just like Ozbourne did with his stamp duty reforms :lol:

I do agree though that with people living longer we need to do something about elderly care. Everything has a price and you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more and have a quality end of life, cared for my people happy in their jobs rather than people that are overworked and underpaid, after all these people will be feeding me, dressing me and wiping my backside.


----------



## Shug750S

In line with the philosophy of a 'free' NHS, well free at point of use and totally free for those who don't pay tax or NI, how about a basic level for all and you top it up / upgrade if you want to?

Think some at the non contribution level forget it is those 'rich' people who work and pay tax that pay their benefits, fund their care, despite having to pay for their own themselves!

Similar to my company provided private health insurance. Basically means I have opted out of using NHS for anything other than emergency (A&E) care. Any routine ops or issues will be dealt with privately, at no cost to NHS.

And for relieving the NHS of that burden, the government tax me 45% of the premium as benefit in kind. Win/Win for the government


----------



## ashfinlayson

If you start using the freemium model for the NHS it is only a matter of time before there is no NHS. The only way I see to keep the NHS functioning is to keep it free (at the point of use) for all and deliver certain services through private sector suppliers and service providers.


----------



## bobclive22

> Similar to my company provided private health insurance. Basically means I have opted out of using NHS for anything other than emergency (A&E) care. Any routine ops or issues will be dealt with privately, at no cost to NHS.


You are lucky millions are not in your position, *thanks for helping*, by the way, if you personally pay for private health care the older you get the more you pay, these insurance companies are not fools.


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> Similar to my company provided private health insurance. Basically means I have opted out of using NHS for anything other than emergency (A&E) care. Any routine ops or issues will be dealt with privately, at no cost to NHS.
> 
> 
> 
> You are lucky millions are not in your position, *thanks for helping*, by the way, if you personally pay for private health care the older you get the more you pay, these insurance companies are not fools.
Click to expand...

Bob, you missed the point.

My company provide private cover, and only so if I need an op I'm back at work quicker. As a result I am taxed at 45% on the value of the cover for basically saying I won't use the NHS.

I always think it's funny when people say I'm lucky. The harder I work the luckier I seem to get.

Cheers


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> I always think it's funny when people say I'm lucky. The harder I work the luckier I seem to get.


No luck involved. You will have been born in an NHS hospital, looked after by staff whose wages, training and education was paid for by others, you'd have been educated at the states expense, then gone to work in companies that wouldn't exist if not for other people who all owed *their* health and education to other tax payers. Maybe you drive to work down roads paid for by others, in a car built by people who are all a product of tax payers money.

A nice tweet from Irvine Welsh before the last election:


> When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others


----------



## Shug750S

Agree, in part.

born in an NHS hospital, looked after by staff whose wages, training and education was paid for by others, *including my parents who paid tax and NI all their lives until retirement*

you'd have been educated at the states expense, *state gets the money to fund from people like me, the taxpayer*

then gone to work in companies that wouldn't exist if not for other people who all owed their health and education to other tax payers. *including my contributions every month for last 39 years*

Maybe you drive to work down roads paid for by others, in a car built by people who are all a product of tax payers money. *including my contributions every month for last 38 years*

State has virtually no funds, all of the funding for hospitals, schools, benefits etc. are from taxpayers.

I have been paying tax for 38+ years, as many others clearly have.

I am not lucky (as Bob put it) I have worked hard. 
I left school at 16 with 9 O levels, and got an apprenticeship. So worked 4 days each week for 5 years, with a day at college and two nights each week there as well. Also worked as a bike mechanic at weekends to supplement income.
Next job I worked 5 days a week, plus 3 evenings a week at a different place, and weekends in another job to save money for the future. Tax paid on all income.

Had kids and moved twice to different region of U.K. to keep job and earn enough to support family. Including extra jobs at weekends when money was tight.

Then worked globally for next 20 years, but still based from U.K. and paying tax.

Made redundant in 2013, paid >100k in tax on redundancy payment and didn't / couldn't claim any benefits whilst unemployed for 5 months, so did voluntary work at a hospice. Worked since in same business (different company) as previously, and regularly do 14 days solid including travelling, and still paying higher rate U.K. tax.

Yep, as Bob says, I've been lucky...


----------



## Spandex

Your contribution, large as it may seem to you, is just a drop in the ocean. Look at car tax - over 38 years you'd have paid what, £10k? £15k? a few hundred quid a year will barely have filled in some potholes and replaced some signs. Maybe you've bought us a few metres of kerb. You could ask the council to put a blue plaque up on it? "Shug grudgingly bought this kerb and has complained about it ever since - 2017".

I know you think you've achieved all these things though hard work but ultimately, without both an element of luck and the taxes of other people you wouldn't have been in the position where your hard work could pay off so much. Other people work just as hard and get nowhere - so hard work alone is no guarantee of anything. There must be other factors at play.

Personally I've not had to use the NHS for anything for years (I also have private health insurance through work, although fortunately haven't needed that either) but I'd gladly pay more NI in order to fund the NHS better. I'd also be fine with higher taxes to pay for better schools (despite not having any kids in school myself).

It's easy to imagine that private medical care is somehow superior to NHS, but really you're just paying for a nicer room and a shorter waiting list. The doctors are the same as you'd get in the NHS (and lets not forget that the NHS trained those doctors, so we've *all *paid for the doctor that treats you when you convince yourself that you're paying for it out your own pocket). And remember, all that only works if the NHS exists. As soon as the NHS is privatised away to nothing, those nice private hospitals will be just as overcrowded as the NHS ones were. Waiting times will go up and you won't be getting your own room, wifi and TV anymore. Not with your bog-standard company health policy, anyway. Maybe the rich can pay for better coverage with shorter waiting times? Sounds lovely.


----------



## Spandex

Just to keep this vaguely on topic, and tying into the NHS discussion, figures out today show a 96% drop in applications from EU nurses to work here.








(Health Service Journal (HSJ))

So, the demographic most likely to get ill and need nurses in the next 10 years are the same demographic most likely to have voted to leave the EU. I'm sure though, Predictabob will be along shortly to tell us that it will only be the unskilled migrants that get blocked - ignoring the fact that even with open borders right now, most of them simply don't want to come here anymore.


----------



## ashfinlayson

I remember reading a study recently that said statistically speaking (obviously there are many individual extreme cases) individuals tend to cost the state the same over their lifetimes regardless of wealth/upbringing.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> Just to keep this vaguely on topic, and tying into the NHS discussion, figures out today show a 96% drop in applications from EU nurses to work here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Health Service Journal (HSJ))
> 
> So, the demographic most likely to get ill and need nurses in the next 10 years are the same demographic most likely to have voted to leave the EU. I'm sure though, Predictabob will be along shortly to tell us that it will only be the unskilled migrants that get blocked - ignoring the fact that even with open borders right now, most of them simply don't want to come here anymore.


Applications from EU nationals to work in the UK has dropped dramatically across the board not just nurses.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Applications from EU nationals to work in the UK has dropped dramatically across the board not just nurses.


True, but I think even the most ardent brexiteer would struggle to put a positive spin on having less nurses. Particularly when we all seem so intent on voting in governments that have no intention of increasing clinical staff salaries (and seemingly no one would be willing to pay more tax to fund them anyway), so there's not much chance of replacing the 'missing' EU nurses with UK born applicants.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Immigration from the EU has declined because people don't know whether or not they will be able to stay come 2019 and it's not worth relocating for potentially only 18 months. Once the right of EU nationals living here to stay on have been confirmed they will start flocking back in. In the meantime we just have to hope there are enough Locums about to plug the gap.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Immigration from the EU has declined because people don't know whether or not they will be able to stay come 2019 and it's not worth relocating for potentially only 18 months. Once the right of EU nationals living here to stay on have been confirmed they will start flocking back in. In the meantime we just have to hope there are enough Locums about to plug the gap.


That's the best possible interpretation, and one that doesn't explain the statistically significant surge in EU nationals leaving the UK after the referendum.

But you'd have to be pretty optimistic to believe we'll get a good enough deal that makes this country an attractive place to live and work. And a visa system that doesn't put people off completely when there are 26 other countries they can move to with no friction at all - there isn't anything about the last year of politics in this country that gives me cause for that level of optimism.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration from the EU has declined because people don't know whether or not they will be able to stay come 2019 and it's not worth relocating for potentially only 18 months. Once the right of EU nationals living here to stay on have been confirmed they will start flocking back in. In the meantime we just have to hope there are enough Locums about to plug the gap.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the best possible interpretation, and one that doesn't explain the statistically significant surge in EU nationals leaving the UK after the referendum.
> 
> But you'd have to be pretty optimistic to believe we'll get a good enough deal that makes this country an attractive place to live and work. And a visa system that doesn't put people off completely when there are 26 other countries they can move to with no friction at all - there isn't anything about the last year of politics in this country that gives me cause for that level of optimism.
Click to expand...

Did you not see what happened to the pound after the exit vote? those that were over here working and sending money home are no longer incentivised to do so. Even out of the EU the UK is still an enticing place to live and work, the UK has the best combination of cheap health care, low income tax good wellfare compared to most other EU countries. The dust just needs to settle.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Did you not see what happened to the pound after the exit vote? those that were over here work and sending money home are no longer incentivised to do so. Even out of the EU the UK is still an enticing place to live and work, the UK has the best combination of cheap health care, low income tax good wellfare compared to most other EU countries. The dust just needs to settle.


Again, you're assuming the pound will recover to pre-referendum levels after brexit. You're assuming EU nationals moving here after we leave will be able to enjoy the same benefits as UK citizens. You're assuming the visa program will make any of it worthwhile. You're assuming the UK will be an enticing place to live and work after we leave, based purely on the fact that it is now.

I understand that all of these things are _possible_, but where does the optimism come from to believe they're likely?


----------



## Gewdraa

Even worse
All the expats are coming home, we won't have a job in the UK.
Your going to have to support us  
I'm too old to get a job, nobody wants a 55 year old expat.
Here we come


----------



## Spandex

Gewdraa said:


> Even worse
> All the expats are coming home, we won't have a job in the UK.
> Your going to have to support us
> I'm too old to get a job, nobody wants a 55 year old expat.
> Here we come


Don't suppose you fancy retraining as a nurse?


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Gewdraa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse
> All the expats are coming home, we won't have a job in the UK.
> Your going to have to support us
> I'm too old to get a job, nobody wants a 55 year old expat.
> Here we come
> 
> 
> 
> Don't suppose you fancy retraining as a nurse?
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gewdraa

Keep smiling 
Here we come
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not see what happened to the pound after the exit vote? those that were over here work and sending money home are no longer incentivised to do so. Even out of the EU the UK is still an enticing place to live and work, the UK has the best combination of cheap health care, low income tax good wellfare compared to most other EU countries. The dust just needs to settle.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're assuming the pound will recover to pre-referendum levels after brexit. You're assuming EU nationals moving here after we leave will be able to enjoy the same benefits as UK citizens. You're assuming the visa program will make any of it worthwhile. You're assuming the UK will be an enticing place to live and work after we leave, based purely on the fact that it is now.
> 
> I understand that all of these things are _possible_, but where does the optimism come from to believe they're likely?
Click to expand...

Well we can be optimistic and crack on as normal or we can sit here and have a good whinge and moan about it until the cows (expats) come home.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Well we can be optimistic and crack on as normal or we can sit here and have a good whinge and moan about it until the cows (expats) come home.


There's a third option which I'm personally going for - having a good whinge and moan about it whilst cracking on as normal.

None of these options will change the outcome though.


----------



## Gewdraa

Well yep plenty of whinging 
Can't you all just take one for the team and get on with it.
:?


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> Your contribution, large as it may seem to you, is just a drop in the ocean. Look at car tax - over 38 years you'd have paid what, £10k? £15k? a few hundred quid a year will barely have filled in some potholes and replaced some signs. Maybe you've bought us a few metres of kerb. You could ask the council to put a blue plaque up on it? "Shug grudgingly bought this kerb and has complained about it ever since - 2017".
> 
> I know you think you've achieved all these things though hard work but ultimately, without both an element of luck and the taxes of other people you wouldn't have been in the position where your hard work could pay off so much. Other people work just as hard and get nowhere - so hard work alone is no guarantee of anything. There must be other factors at play.
> 
> Personally I've not had to use the NHS for anything for years (I also have private health insurance through work, although fortunately haven't needed that either) but I'd gladly pay more NI in order to fund the NHS better. I'd also be fine with higher taxes to pay for better schools (despite not having any kids in school myself).
> 
> It's easy to imagine that private medical care is somehow superior to NHS, but really you're just paying for a nicer room and a shorter waiting list. The doctors are the same as you'd get in the NHS (and lets not forget that the NHS trained those doctors, so we've *all *paid for the doctor that treats you when you convince yourself that you're paying for it out your own pocket). And remember, all that only works if the NHS exists. As soon as the NHS is privatised away to nothing, those nice private hospitals will be just as overcrowded as the NHS ones were. Waiting times will go up and you won't be getting your own room, wifi and TV anymore. Not with your bog-standard company health policy, anyway. Maybe the rich can pay for better coverage with shorter waiting times? Sounds lovely.


Fair enough. Everyone knows car tax is nothing to do with roads anymore, it all drops into the same pot.

You're clearly the expert, I'm just very lucky.

Last post on this forum for me, after 5 years, can't be arsed when people make it personal.

Bye


----------



## John-H

Well I think we have all contributed to our community one way or another.

Talking about our larger community, the EU are expecting visitors from the UK by half past nine in the morning on the due Monday for the start of negotiations and don't want further obfuscation.

Meanwhile the Queen's speech is being delayed because of the desperate UDP negotiations but also for a few days further due to the need to "have it transcribed onto vellum parchment" which is traditional :lol:

What a sad shambles. The rest of Europe must be really impressed :roll:

I only hope we don't build up too much resentment with our long term partners.


----------



## Gewdraa

They just said on the news here (EU) that the queen has to wait because the ink will not be dry for a few days.
The DUP, hmm could be worse, they could have asked shinn Fein for there advice!
Before you all reply, I'm from northern Ireland.
Served on the streets of Belfast in early eighties (army) and the empire has been going down hill since.
I'm happy for Brexit just pull together and it will be great again,


----------



## John-H

I think the pulling together will happen when the consequences become clear.


----------



## John-H

> Britain: The End of a Fantasy
> 
> Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there's almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance &#8230;
> 
> The Brits want what they can't possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration - except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn't have to make messy compromises with foreigners. To take power, May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible dreams. And that led her to embrace a phoney populism in which the narrow and ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be re-imagined as "the people" &#8230;
> 
> May's appeal to "the people" as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn's appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny, but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phoney populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalised that they had something to come out and vote for.
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10 ... P=ema-3239


----------



## bobclive22

> figures out today show a 96% drop in applications from EU nurses to work here.


The pay is so poor we are told that many nurses are leaving, maybe it is the poor pay. You see Spandex correlation is not causation, if the pays bad you wont attract skilled workers, nothing to do with Brexit.

*NHS staff 'quitting to work in supermarkets because of poor pay. *

Trust leaders tell us that seven years of NHS pay restraint is now preventing them from recruiting and retaining the staff they need to provide safe, high-quality patient care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... f-poor-pay


----------



## bobclive22

> I think the pulling together will happen when the consequences become clear.


Do you mean this John.

Thinking the unthinkable on Germany going nuclear.

https://www.ft.com/content/277695dc-ec5 ... 9a44939bb6


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> figures out today show a 96% drop in applications from EU nurses to work here.
> 
> 
> 
> The pay is so poor we are told that many nurses are leaving, maybe it is the poor pay. You see Spandex correlation is not causation, if the pays bad you wont attract skilled workers, nothing to do with Brexit.
> 
> *NHS staff 'quitting to work in supermarkets because of poor pay. *
> 
> Trust leaders tell us that seven years of NHS pay restraint is now preventing them from recruiting and retaining the staff they need to provide safe, high-quality patient care.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... f-poor-pay
Click to expand...

Did their pay suddenly change in June last year then?


----------



## John-H

Bob would claim black was white over this issue and should beware about zebra crossings from now on :roll:

More cheery news - evidence that the Tories have become more caring and supportive with social care - *new bnefits*.


----------



## John-H

Competition time!

Who said?



> "the economic arguments are clear".





> "I think being part of a 500m trading bloc is significant for us. I think one of the issues is a lot of people invest here in the UK because it's the UK in Europe."





> "I think if we were not in Europe, there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say do they need actually to develop a mainland European presence rather than a UK presence."





> "No country or empire in world history has ever been totally sovereign".


And went into say that Nation states have to make a trade off between agreeing to cede some sovereignty



> "in a controlled way" to prevent a greater loss of sovereignty in an uncontrolled way, such as "military conflict or economic decline".


Also that while a Brexit Britain would still share intelligence,



> "that does not mean we would be as safe as if we remain".


Helpfully pointing out that a Britain outside the EU would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which allowed it to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years.

Also distinguishing between the EU's freedom of movement rules, and border checks, declaring:


> "Some people say the EU does not make us more secure because it does not allow us to control our border. But that is not true."


Warning that Scots are more likely to be in favour of the EU than voters in England and Wales:



> "If Brexit isn't fatal to the European Union, we might find that it is fatal to the Union with Scotland,"





> "I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."


Warning also that outside the EU:



> "There would be little we could do to stop discriminatory policies being introduced, and London's position as the world's leading financial centre would be in danger."


Adding that Britain would have to replace 36 existing trade agreements with non-EU countries:



> "While we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as we enjoy now."
> 
> "The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market. We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined."
> 
> "It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy."


Any idea who said that? Could be a few people... But who?


----------



## Stiff




----------



## Spandex

That's not a wave...

THIS is a wave:


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

Ha Harrr! You've guessed it , Mrs Strong and Stable herself - queen the U turns Theresa May. We done :lol:


----------



## A3DFU

It would be good if Joe Bloggs would hear about this!


----------



## John-H

This made me laugh!












> I stand here to speak to you after what has been a tumultuous vote, after an election many described as unnecessary, an election which cost £130M, an election I called seeking an overwhelming Brexit mandate.
> 
> In the circumstances I think the word that is needed above all is sorry.
> 
> So here I am waiting patiently for you the British electorate to say sorry.
> 
> You need to say sorry for not voting in the way you were clearly told to.
> 
> You need to apologise for ignoring me in favor of Jeremy Corbin and his coalition of chaos, which was so chaotic they didn't even bother to fashion a selection of three word sound bytes for every occasion.
> 
> And above all you need to say sorry for making me the candidate everyone was laughing at at my constituency count and not Lord Buckethead.
> 
> You people need to have a good hard look at yourselves and think about what you've done.
> 
> It seems to me that you the voters of the UK are woefully out of touch and staggeringly arrogant and frankly I'm glad I spent the whole five weeks of the campaign totally avoiding you.
> 
> 
> Dead Ringers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tgljh


----------



## A3DFU

Yes. That would sound right. Even though I didn't vote I'm so very sorry not to side with your Holiness, Mrs May


----------



## John-H

France's new President and Germany's finance minister have confirmed that the UK can change its mind on Brexit which legal opinion had already indicated - that Article 50 notice can be reversed. Now we know we have a way out of this nightmare which even the chancellor says would be a disaster!

Petition:
*Click now to say no deal means no Brexit*


----------



## bobclive22

> France's new President and Germany's finance minister have confirmed that the UK can change its mind on Brexit which legal opinion had already indicated - that Article 50 notice can be reversed. Now we know we have a way out of this nightmare which even the chancellor says would be a disaster!


Well John it appears you will sell your soul for a hand full of silver to the German dominated EU, Hope your children and grandchildren appreciate your reluctance to support the democratic vote. Just remember the thousands that died in two world wars to keep this great country of ours free, you should be ashamed.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well John it appears you will sell your soul for a hand full of silver to the German dominated EU, Hope your children and grandchildren appreciate your reluctance to support the democratic vote. Just remember the thousands that died in two world wars to keep this great country of ours free, you should be ashamed.


Says it all Bob. The world has moved on, yet you can't.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> ... your reluctance to support the democratic vote.


One little point here. It wasn't 'a democratic vote', it was just 'a vote'.

In fact, there was very little that was democratic (in the British sense of the word) about that vote. It was unlike anything that we would typically refer to as democracy. Yes, our government at the time agreed to uphold the outcome of the vote, but lets not go waving the 'democracy' flag around in the hope that it makes the decision somehow more precious or sacred than it is.

If the British people lose their appetite for leaving, we can simply choose not to leave. If the British people decide certain aspects of being in the EU are worth keeping, we can try to keep them. The referendum was a snapshot in time, not a stone tablet brought down from the mountain. Don't try to dress it up as something it wasn't.


----------



## John-H

Yes that does say it all. It's my daughter's bright future that is being stolen by some of the older generation clinging onto the prejudice and dark imagery of the past. A past logic which they project inappropriately onto the now and the future it seems. But the world has moved on. She is exercising her democratic right, as am I, to express our opinion and vote accordingly to bring about the change of direction that takes account of today's unfolding reality as the UK heads towards the cliff edge of an island mentality.

The EU has been consolidated. The embarrassing and self destructive car crash that is Brexit has been exposed fior what it is. Nobody else wants that to happen to them. Support for the EU amongst the people of member states is as a result at a new high.

The EU is set to maintain the standard of civilised cooperation in the wake of Trump in the US and the UK's unstable confusion and wobbling chaos. We are in danger of being left behind. Populism is an uneducated busted flush. We just need reality to spell out the choice. I only hope we can read.


----------



## Nyxx

Spandex said:


> it was just 'a vote'.


Call it whatever you like but every voted counted and leave won.

Unless like Jeremy Corbyn you lost and still think you won. :roll:

Leave won because of mainly Immigration, European court of laws overruling our own courts.

The Stay campaign was run like Theresa May ran the General Election, shamefully arrogant , thinking you would have to be simple in the head to vote for corbyn and she was right, but they did not care to explain in a simple way so everyone could understand the ramifications of leaving. So don't explain in a way "everyone" understands or just think no one would be that silly!.................and see what happens :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> Call it whatever you like but every voted counted and leave won.
> 
> Unless like Jeremy Corbyn you lost and still think you won.


Excellent analogy. Leave won in exactly the same way that the Tories won - Unconvincingly, with a majority so slim that it's anyone's guess what happens next... :wink:


----------



## Nyxx

only you Spandex....only you. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Listening to the radio on the way home, I had to laugh when they said that May had announced that she was looking "to build the widest possible consensus" on Brexit. Poor Bob must have been apoplectic...


----------



## Gewdraa

Nyxx
Nice statement
"Leave won because of mainly Immigration, European court of laws overruling our own courts."
I believe this too, not only for the UK
I hope the rest of the EU pays good attention to the UK`s opinion on policy.


----------



## John-H

Nyxx said:


> ...
> Leave won because of mainly Immigration, European court of laws overruling our own courts. ...


Can you name a single EU law that you oppose?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 00806.html

As regards the referendum having decided things that's clearly not the case as far as general public opinion goes as more people now support a second referendum on the terms of any deal as the realisation dawns that we've screwed up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95591.html

And don't presume that all those who don't want anoter referendum support Brexit. Many including myself don't think referenda are the correct way to govern a country. Our MPs are supposed to be representatives and the referendum was only advisory. If they think it will do the country harm (as shown already) then they shouldn't follow the advice.

At the end of that article I read the following excellent comment:



> I for one do not think asking the public to vote on anything other than their local councillor or MP is sensible. Offering referendums on complex issues such as the EU, Scottish independence, the voting system is all beyond most of the the electorate. This is not because they haven't the intellect to understand it but because they have neither the time or inclination to bother with it. As a result these votes are made on the basis of emotion, or incomplete information due to the paucity of the debates. Finally if you have a referendum that indicates the country is split fairly evenly on the matter, which the Brexit referendum showed. Embarking any course of action that will have ramifications for generations and not just one or two parliaments, is an act of arrogance and stupidity. For Brexit to be a success the vast majority of the population has to be behind it. The result showed that this is not the case. Calls for unity and getting behind Brexit from the winning side is as about as sensible as asking Jeremy Corbyn to vote Tory. It's not going to happen.


----------



## Nyxx

Bear in mind I voted stay John as you know.

I forget how many times someone got there case taken to the European court and got let off, over ruling our own courts.

John Dont start me off on this as you will be pressing my buttons and you know what happens when I turn green. 

Sorry even as a stay voter I hate the UK laws can be overturned by the EU.

Also you are missing the point, I was pointing out imo the two main reasons people voted to leave. Immigration was by far the #1 reason for the the leave vote.

You will like this fact John but you probably already know it.
Out of all the EU countries there are more brits living in other EU countries than any other country, what a bunch of hypocrites us brits are.

When it comes to Immigration, I think AUS have it perfect, "you can come live here as long as you have a job, live like we do and live to our rules not yours. Don't like it? don't come."


----------



## Gewdraa

I live in the EU but don't like a lot of the EU policy either.
On the other hand free trading is great
Grass is always greener on the other side.


----------



## John-H

Nyxx said:


> Bear in mind I voted stay John as you know.
> 
> I forget how many times someone got there case taken to the European court and got let off, over ruling our own courts.
> 
> John Dont start me off on this as you will be pressing my buttons and you know what happens when I turn green.
> 
> Sorry even as a stay voter I hate the UK laws can be overturned by the EU.
> 
> Also you are missing the point, I was pointing out imo the two main reasons people voted to leave. Immigration was by far the #1 reason for the the leave vote.
> 
> You will like this fact John but you probably already know it.
> Out of all the EU countries there are more brits living in other EU countries than any other country, what a bunch of hypocrites us brits are.
> 
> When it comes to Immigration, I think AUS have it perfect, "you can come live here as long as you have a job, live like we do and live to our rules not yours."


Dave, before you turn green I think you might be confusing the European Court of Human Rights which is not part off the EU with the European Court of Justice which is part of the EU.

The ECHR has ruled several times against the UK government on human rights grounds - but we are signed up to the Human Rights convention internationallyas a civilised nation and have no intention to abandon the principal.

The ECJ gives rulings on EU law which we agree to be bound by whilst in the EU as a member. It's this court that nobody seems to be able to identify a complaint about when pressed to cite an example and it's the only one that we would no longer come under if we leave the EU.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Many including myself don't think referenda are the correct way to govern a country.


Yep, I agreed wholeheartedly.



John-H said:


> If they think it will do the country harm (as shown already) then they shouldn't follow the advice.


But surely this begs the question - Why ask for the advice in the first place if it's not going to be heeded and will just be rescinded if the decision isn't to their liking? It makes a mockery of the whole affair from start to finish.


----------



## John-H

I agree - it was a stupid idea to hold a referendum. It was done for party reasons and Cameron bears much of the responsibly for the damage done.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> But surely this begs the question - Why ask for the advice in the first place if it's not going to be heeded and will just be rescinded if the decision isn't to their liking? It makes a mockery of the whole affair from start to finish.


The whole affair invites mockery.

It was supposed to be a non-event. The Euro-skeptics in the Tory party were demanding that we leave the EU. Instead, Cameron (in a similar display of strategic talent to May announcing a general election) said to them "I'll give you a referendum and in return you give me your loyalty no matter what the result". He assumed that the British people would never vote for such a massive risk, so he thought it was win-win for him. It was never supposed to be a serious question, so no one ever really thought through the campaigns properly on either side. No one could tell us what would happen if we left. One year on and still no one can tell us.

The brexiteers are jumping around acting like they've won the competition, but they're still not sure if the prize is a golden egg or a kick in the nuts.


----------



## Nyxx

So now John you saying.
Give everyone a chance to have a say/vote and if the outcome is not to your liking you want another one or in retrospect of losing you want "us" to not have a say/vote. Really!



Stiff said:


> But surely this begs the question - Why ask for the advice in the first place if it's not going to be heeded and will just be rescinded if the decision isn't to their liking? It makes a mockery of the whole affair from start to finish.


Agree totally, but John thought better to replying to that bit.



John-H said:


> Many including myself don't think referenda are the correct way to govern a country. Our MPs are supposed to be representatives and the referendum was only advisory. If they think it will do the country harm (as shown already) then they shouldn't follow the advice.


Mrs May should not have called for a General Election then as it was only advisory, done more harm than good as it not? But here we are.
O it's all Cameron's fault now. Not the 52% of the voter's that thought different to you and me?


----------



## Nyxx

Spandex said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> But surely this begs the question - Why ask for the advice in the first place if it's not going to be heeded and will just be rescinded if the decision isn't to their liking? It makes a mockery of the whole affair from start to finish.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole affair invites mockery.
> 
> It was supposed to be a non-event. The Euro-skeptics in the Tory party were demanding that we leave the EU. Instead, Cameron (in a similar display of strategic talent to May announcing a general election) said to them "I'll give you a referendum and in return you give me your loyalty no matter what the result". He assumed that the British people would never vote for such a massive risk, so he thought it was win-win for him. It was never supposed to be a serious question, so no one ever really thought through the campaigns properly on either side. No one could tell us what would happen if we left. One year on and still no one can tell us.
> 
> The brexiteers are jumping around acting like they've won the competition, but they're still not sure if the prize is a golden egg or a kick in the nuts.
Click to expand...

Wow......I cannot believe I am going to say this. Deep breath...
I totally agree 

The same as anyone thinking the americans were never going to vote Trump in? Power to the people!....O wait a minute......Sh*T...... [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## John-H

It's good to agree 

Out of interest the EU are reporting daily on proceedings here:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/polic ... eferendum/

For example on 20th discussions included relocation of the European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority from the UK to mainland Europe.

Donald Tusk said that some of his British friends asked him if the decision could be reversed and whether he could _imagine_ an outcome where the UK stays in the EU. He replied that the EU was built on dreams that no-one thought would happen. He said that some may think he's a dreamer but he's not the only one.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> Wow......I cannot believe I am going to say this. Deep breath...
> I totally agree


I knew if I was right often enough someone would agree with me eventually...


----------



## Nyxx

Spandex said:


> Nyxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow......I cannot believe I am going to say this. Deep breath...
> I totally agree
> 
> 
> 
> I knew if I was right often enough someone would agree with me eventually...
Click to expand...

Very good


----------



## Toshiba

...that cooler heads will prevail and the EU and UK will reach a deal to keep all sides happy while remaining IN the EU.
However I'd wager that ship sailed when Cameron returned without the concession he asked for.


----------



## A3DFU

Toshiba said:


> the EU and UK will reach a deal to keep all sides happy while remaining IN the EU.


Lets hope you're right Tosh


----------



## bobclive22

> Out of interest the EU are reporting daily on proceedings here:


It`s project fear EU style especially for the remainers. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It`s project fear EU style especially for the remainers. :lol: :lol:


Do you ever worry that you're so desperate to have a dig at the EU and 'remainers' that you forget to think through what you're actually saying? :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

We are more Eurosceptic than ever, with long term trends in Euroscepticism continuing to 
rise after the referendum in June 2016.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149 ... _final.pdf


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> We are more Eurosceptic than ever, with long term trends in Euroscepticism continuing to
> rise after the referendum in June 2016.
> 
> http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149 ... _final.pdf


Given that the data there only goes up to 2016, I'm not sure it supports any meaningful interpretation of peoples attitudes *after* the referendum, but it's interesting enough I guess.

It certainly backs up the theory that the primary motivation for leave voters was a strong authoritarian attitude to all political issues rather than, for example, a general disenchantment with politics or a specific issue with the EU itself.

The fact that there is a continuing trend in Euroscepticism isn't surprising, I suppose. There is still uncertainty about the nature of brexit or even if it will happen at all, so the right wing media is still pushing 'project fear' as hard as it ever was before the referendum.


----------



## bobclive22

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07 ... hink-tank/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

Over half of Brits believe Brexit must happen and three-quarters think the UK's immigration policy is too open according to a new study by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

The continuing support for Britain leaving the European Union (EU) is revealed in a *poll conducted for former Prime Minister Tony Blair's own think tank.* It comes just days after he told Sky News it is "absolutely necessary" to stop Brexit.

Even more remarkably, despite just 25 per cent of respondents in the poll saying they disagreed with the statement "Brexit must mean Brexit", Blair said at the weekend that be believed stopping Britain leaving the EU remained possible because "*I think public opinion is moving on it".*

http://institute.global/sites/default/f ... .07.17.pdf

Read page 24 of report, 56% want hard brexit, 25% against, 19% didn`t Know.

It appears Blair doesn`t even believe the results of his own think tank.


----------



## John-H

Bob, that's Brightbart and the Daily Mail :roll: A more balanced interpretation of the polling results seems to be this and as reported elsewhere:

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/07/14/e ... ment-says/

:: The Luntz Global Partners poll surveyed 3,026 British, German and French nationals in May and June, weighting the survey to represent 1,000 from each country.

- Polling which suggested 70% of Britons would support free movement if it was reformed to mean EU citizens would not have an automatic right to move to a country without a job offer, and if there were stricter controls on welfare.

German and French voters would favour similar controls, the polling suggested.

That's why Tony Blair said EU leaders would be willing to compromise on free movement.

Of course if you (or your sources) pull out individual questions and interpret them in isolation you (their intended audience) miss the bigger picture.

Did you not think, oh that's odd - why would Mr Blair say the opposite to his own poll - opposite to what you read in the Mail and whose interpretation is being repeated in a number of Brexit places?

You are wrong on your numbers too only about 41% support a hard Brexit and about 59% supporting soft Brexit and a second referendum. Page 27 not 24 in the report.

As regards public opinion shifting in the UK - rest assured it is shifting - but not the way you want.

For instance - two studies that show the majority of leave voters would support relenting on free movement in exchange for single market access:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... P=ema-3239

That's hardly "most support a hard Brexit" now is it? In fact that's not much different to where we are now apart from giving up the right to have a say in the EU rules - so less sovereignty.

Even over a month ago polls showed the majority of people supported another referendum on the final terms with only a minority supporting the "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 95591.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... le-rethink

And that was before the latest round of laughter at our expense at the shambles that we are engaged in:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... te-orange/

























I could go on but I'll let reality slowly dawn.


----------



## bobclive22

Q: Regardless of how you voted in the referendum, 
some people have argued that 'Brexit must mean 
Brexit' and that Britain should leave the European 
Union, even if no deal or trade agreement has been 
struck with the EU.

The question is straight forward and *totally unambiguous.*

*Agreement with 'Brexit must mean Brexit'*

(a) Do you strongly agree, Somewhat agree, *56%* 
(b) Neither agree nor disagree, *19%*
(c) Somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this? *25%*

The pollsters asked a simple question with no qualifications and got an answer they did not expect, nothing to do with media spin, the answer is in the report on page 25 open your eyes and get over it John.



> You are wrong on your numbers too only about 41% support a hard Brexit and about 59% supporting soft Brexit and a second referendum. Page 27 not 24 in the report.


No John the actual question was asked on page 25 ( Agreement with 'Brexit must mean Brexit ), what part of 56% don`t you understand.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Q: Regardless of how you voted in the referendum,
> some people have argued that 'Brexit must mean
> Brexit' and that Britain should leave the European
> Union, even if no deal or trade agreement has been
> struck with the EU.
> 
> The question is straight forward and *totally unambiguous.*
> 
> *Agreement with 'Brexit must mean Brexit'*
> 
> (a) Do you strongly agree, Somewhat agree, *56%*
> (b) Neither agree nor disagree, *19%*
> (c) Somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this? *25%*
> 
> The pollsters asked a simple question with no qualifications and got an answer they did not expect, nothing to do with media spin, the answer is in the report on page 25 open your eyes and get over it John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong on your numbers too only about 41% support a hard Brexit and about 59% supporting soft Brexit and a second referendum. Page 27 not 24 in the report.
> 
> 
> 
> No John the actual question was asked on page 25 ( Agreement with 'Brexit must mean Brexit ), what part of 56% don`t you understand.
Click to expand...

 :lol: Bob, you are doing the same thing again - taking one question out of context and interpreting it the way you want and ignoring (or getting wrong) the rest of the report.

What the hell does "Brexit" mean? I could interpret that question as most people believe it should mean something and are complaining that it's too ambiguous! You seem to think it means "hard Brexit" but as I say, you've got your numbers wrong.



bobclive22 said:


> Read page 24 of report, *56% want hard brexit*, 25% against, 19% didn`t Know.


That's what you wrote Bob.

Page 24 says: "Europe and Brexit" - it's a title page

The 56% on page 25 refers to people thinking "Brexit must mean Brexit" whatever that means.

You said "Hard Brexit" but if you look at page 27 that's where it mentions "Hard Brexit" and only 41% support that with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum".

Just accept it Bob - you've got it wrong - as have the Mail and Britebart.


----------



## doctor_b

Why are some people against BREXIT?

When we leave the EU all the secrets they've been keeping from us will be ours!

Did you know that Brussels has the secret of unlimited free power from perpetual motion, but won't let us have it? After Brexit, we'll have free electric!

Did you know that Brussels has huge oil reserves on the moon, worth trillions of euros and some of that is ours? Enough to give everyone in the UK approximately £20million each when we leave!

The Beatles are still together and John Lennon is still alive and living in Brussels. He still makes records but the EU won't let him release any of them. After Brexit, we can hear them!

UKIP actually won the election, they had enough votes for a massive landslide, but secret agents of the EU's secret intelligence service, altered millions of ballet papers before they got to the count, by pretending to be local council officials, this was confirmed when some people said people staffing their local polling stations had German accents!

Hitler is still alive and lives in Strasbourg and secretly tells the judges of the ECJ what decisions to make!

Paul Nutall really dose have a PhD, was at Hillsborugh, did play professional football and was going to be the next Doctor Who, but the EU deleted all of his university records, wiped peoples memories and forced the BBC to cast a woman instead!


----------



## A3DFU

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

28 laughs as the UK is still a EU member state


----------



## bobclive22

> Page 24 says: "Europe and Brexit" - it's a title page
> 
> The 56% on page 25 refers to people thinking "Brexit must mean Brexit" whatever that means.
> 
> You said "Hard Brexit" but if you look at page 27 that's where it mentions "Hard Brexit" and only 41% support that with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum".
> 
> Just accept it Bob - you've got it wrong - as have the Mail and Britebart.


I suppose the experts writing in the Left wing Guardian and the defunct Independent must be correct.

This comment on another blog seems apt here,

In the case of "guessing" the future, some people actually are worse than others. In large part these people are called *"Experts"*. When "Experts" have been found to be wrong in the past, their odds of being wrong in the future are substantially increased. That is what makes them "Experts". You can rely upon the accuracy of their predictions to help shape your own predictions.

*Fear and Brexit in Tech City:*

Last week, I met up with a friend who is the head of software for a large, well-known British technology company. Like a lot of the Remainers in the tech press, he was complaining that he had to do most of his recruitment abroad - such as from Eastern Europe. So I asked him what levels of salaries he was offering. The answer, it turned out, was £25k a year for junior roles. I was quite shocked. In the very early 1990s I was briefly employed as a junior coder and was paid about the going rate back then: *£19k.* Since those days, general compound inflation has been approximately *100 per cent,* and rents have increased approximately *200 per cent.*

When I asked why they were offering *so little,* my friend replied that with the EU's mandatory freedom of movement, the owners of the company "*know that they can get away with it"*.

There you go John, it`s working its way down to you, 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/3 ... ut_brexit/


----------



## John-H

As usual Bob, you won't admit when you are wrong and post a load more clap trap to try and cover up addressing the fact.

You seem to be someone who twists evidence and claims black is white despite being quoted the stark evidence of your own words.

You twist and turn like a twisty turney thing :roll:


----------



## 3TT3

Wish you guys would get the finger out n go already :lol: 
Then if things go toilet bound here we can have a referendum to get out too cos were now net contributors(with our future mortgaged to German Bank speculators ).
EEC was fine .. why they had to prat around making the "united states of europe" thru our backdoors I dont know .
What'll we do now lads ? weve set up all these institutions. we have meetings n stuff but we need more central control lets keep pushing it
"Politicians dreams of making skid marks on history from fermented brussels sproutings "
Remember Dunkirk..something like remember the alamo?


----------



## John-H

The United States of America seem to do Ok. Perhaps there's something to be said for pooling resources and working together in union.

As for going it alone, I see travelers have been getting less than one Euro for a Pound at airports. German car manufacturers have said that their most important market is the EU not the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit. The banks are transferring jobs and tax take to the EU. The IMF has downgraded UK growth and revised up the EU. And we haven't even left yet. How many more alarm bells do we need before we put a stop to this nonsense?

This week, 60 prominent members of Scottish society wrote a public letter condemning the government's approach to Brexit and demanded it be halted.



















Sign a petition against a Hard Brexit and walking away with no deal:

http://www.open-britain.co.uk/theresa_m ... ard_brexit


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit


Well I will say that I'm not too pleased that due to last year's referendum the IT job market in the UK has changed dramatically and as a result my own family is now breaking up with one of my sons relocating to Zürich/Swizzerland as of 1st October 2017 and that's not out of choice (which wouldn't be too bad) but out of necessity. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## 3TT3

John-H said:


> The United States of America seem to do Ok. Perhaps there's something to be said for pooling resources and working together in union.
> 
> As for going it alone, I see travelers have been getting less than one Euro for a Pound at airports.


Voluntary joining of a superstate is one thing.
Annexation by "shepherds" is another.
The exchange rate, see 2008 or January this year , just be thankfull you guys dont have to pay to save money in banks


----------



## John-H

3TT3 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America seem to do Ok. Perhaps there's something to be said for pooling resources and working together in union.
> 
> As for going it alone, I see travelers have been getting less than one Euro for a Pound at airports.
> 
> 
> 
> Voluntary joining of a superstate is one thing.
> Annexation by "shepherds" is another.
Click to expand...

I think that choice of words is more to do with the mind-set of hose involved.


----------



## Edinburra

John-H said:


> The United States of America seem to do Ok. Perhaps there's something to be said for pooling resources and working together in union.
> 
> As for going it alone, I see travelers have been getting less than one Euro for a Pound at airports. German car manufacturers have said that their most important market is the EU not the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit. The banks are transferring jobs and tax take to the EU. The IMF has downgraded UK growth and revised up the EU. And we haven't even left yet. How many more alarm bells do we need before we put a stop to this nonsense?
> 
> This week, 60 prominent members of Scottish society wrote a public letter condemning the government's approach to Brexit and demanded it be halted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sign a petition against a Hard Brexit and walking away with no deal:
> 
> http://www.open-britain.co.uk/theresa_m ... ard_brexit


Seriously, do you believe one word of their report? Cobbled together be people who think they know better, they are all yesterdays men/women. [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## John-H

Edinburra said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America seem to do Ok. Perhaps there's something to be said for pooling resources and working together in union.
> 
> As for going it alone, I see travelers have been getting less than one Euro for a Pound at airports. German car manufacturers have said that their most important market is the EU not the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit. The banks are transferring jobs and tax take to the EU. The IMF has downgraded UK growth and revised up the EU. And we haven't even left yet. How many more alarm bells do we need before we put a stop to this nonsense?
> 
> This week, 60 prominent members of Scottish society wrote a public letter condemning the government's approach to Brexit and demanded it be halted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sign a petition against a Hard Brexit and walking away with no deal:
> 
> http://www.open-britain.co.uk/theresa_m ... ard_brexit
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe one word of their report? Cobbled together be people who think they know better, they are all yesterdays men/women. [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=argue.gif]
Click to expand...

What report? It's not a report it's an open letter from 60 prominent members of society across a broad spectrum who can read the news and witness what's going on as can we all. They are calling for a re-think of our direction as a consequence of the damage that we are doing to our country from this ideologically led folly. They are saying, as do I, that democracy did not end with last year's referendum and it is vital to continue to scrutinise and debate the issue as more information about the consequences unfold. It would be negligent to ignore what's happening now and allow a decision that was made when the consequences were unknown, to dictate our direction, if it becomes clear that the choice we made was wrong.

None of us voted to be made poorer, damage our economy and our standing in the world. Or should ideology be allowed to deny the truth and stifle debate? I think democracy continues and it's best for all of us if it does and that includes the right to change our minds.

You don't start a car journey with the intention of only allowing yourself one turn of the steering wheel prior to events unfolding among the way. What is this - decision made, foot down, close your eyes and hope for the best? We don't even know where we are heading.


----------



## 3TT3

60 "legends in their own minds" .maybe ex snp MOP's.
"talking heads" on the road to nowhere.. at least you can now decide as a country where you wanna go.
Theres a point :lol: its your country not mine..I better shut up now 
Irishman(still able to say that for now  ) signing off


----------



## bobclive22

> As usual Bob, you won't admit when you are wrong and post a load more clap trap to try and cover up addressing the fact.


Well John, it`s not me that`s blinkered, I thought it was the poor working class north of the M25 that was being effected by the EU`s free movement of cheap labour, it now appears according to Andrew Fentem (the inventor of the touch screen) this cheap labour has migrated further south into your neck of the woods I believe.


----------



## bobclive22

> What report? It's not a report it's an open letter from 60 prominent members of society across a broad spectrum who can read the news and witness what's going on as can we all.


They look like Scotts that voted remain to me, so they can read the news and see what`s going on, so can I.
Do they actually believe the same economists that have got it so wrong in the past.

You can`t have free trade without free movement of labour so it`s a hard Brexit I believe.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well I will say that I'm not too pleased that due to last year's referendum the IT job market in the UK has changed dramatically


*How.*


----------



## Danny1

A3DFU said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say that I'm not too pleased that due to last year's referendum the IT job market in the UK has changed dramatically and as a result my own family is now breaking up with one of my sons relocating to Zürich/Swizzerland as of 1st October 2017 and that's not out of choice (which wouldn't be too bad) but out of necessity. [smiley=bigcry.gif]
Click to expand...

So are you really saying the referendum has broken your family up??? How can you say its not by choice??


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Read page 24 of report, *56% want hard brexit*, 25% against, 19% didn`t Know.


You got the page number wrong - it should tobe page 27 of the report which shows only 41% supporting "Hard Brexit" with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum". You made an incorrect and misleading statement I'm afraid.

A few articles for you to read Bob. An eye opener to what is happening:

Article 50 author calls for Brexit to be halted [Financial Times]

Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, has written an open letter, together with dozens of prominent Scots, urging a UK-wide debate about halting Brexit and changing our minds about leaving the EU. In the letter to the Financial Times, he argues that the "disastrous consequences" of Brexit are becoming clearer every day.

The Brexit bill: a pensions nightmare [politics.co.uk]

This article gives a glimpse of why the Brexit bill is so difficult to resolve, by focusing on the thorny question of pensions. How much does the UK owe the EU and how should it pay for these liabilities? The word "mind-boggling" springs to mind - and pensions is just one element of the Brexit bill&#8230;

We need an exit from Brexit, says Vince Cable [Sky News]

The newly appointed Lib Dem leader, Sir Vince Cable, has said the Lib Dems would work with like-minded individuals in other parties to fight to keep the UK in the single market and customs union and continue collaboration on research with European partners; and that the British public must be consulted at the end of the process with a vote.

UK "sleepwalking" into post-Brexit future of insecure, unsafe and increasingly expensive food supplies, warn academics[Guardian]

A report by influential academics attacks complacency after years of stable food supplies and prices and says the government has little idea how it will replace decades of EU regulation on the issue.

How to interpret the EU Referendum vote [InFacts]

A new YouGov poll illustrates the difficulties in interpreting the referendum mandate. The fundamental flaw in the referendum was that, by asking a simple leave/remain question, the ballot did not force voters to confront the trade-off between control over immigration and single market access. As a result, people with incompatible visions have voted for a prospect they are not willing to pay for.

The menus on offer from the EU [The Economist]

The EU has insisted that future relations with the UK must follow one of a number of fixed-price menus, from full membership to trading under WTO rules. Each menu has its advantages and disadvantages and this article is a helpful guide to the options. It concludes that those who said that a referendum would take the EU off the agenda have been proved utterly wrong.

The question isn't if Brexit is going to damage the UK's financial services industry. It is: how bad will that damage be? [Guardian]

According to this Guardian article, the UK financial services sector employs 7.3% of the UK workforce and, the year before the Brexit vote, contributed a record £71.4bn in taxes, almost 12% of total government tax yield. It therefore matters that the banking exodus which certain Brexiteers said would not happen is now taking place, with Morgan Stanley being the latest financial institution to announce that Frankfurt will become its post-Brexit EU hub. Just how bad will the damage to the UK's financial services be?

The Lords warn that the UK is unprepared for a cap on immigration [Telegraph]

A Lords committee has warned that the government's flagship policy to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 per year "runs the risk of causing considerable disruption". They say that the current system for counting movement into and out of the UK is inadequate and the government must have reliable statistics on migration before it formulates new policy, otherwise it will be making crucial decisions in the dark. Companies across the country are also unprepared for a sharp drop in immigration, and policy goals such as house-building, which is likely to need migrant workers, could be imperilled by a tight and inflexible migration target.

A Brexit annual review [Richard Corbett MEP]

Richard Corbett MEP looks back at the Brexit lows of Theresa May's first year and maintains that the government is woefully underprepared for the scale, complexity and consequences that leaving the EU would involve. He feels that the only certainty that the first anniversary of Theresa May's premiership has given us is not that Brexit might be a disaster, but that it will be. He concludes that the public mood is increasingly looking as though it would like to be given the opportunity to change its mind on Brexit.

Brexistential crisis [Irish Times]

A House of Lords report published this week warns that Brexit is already damaging political stability in Northern Ireland, reports the Irish Times. Read the article (English)


----------



## bobclive22

> You got the page number wrong - it should tobe page 27 of the report which shows only 41% supporting "Hard Brexit" with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum". You made an incorrect and misleading statement I'm afraid.


No, the question was on *page 25.*

*Q: Regardless of how you voted in the referendum, 
some people have argued that 'Brexit must mean 
Brexit' and that Britain should leave the European 
Union, even if no deal or trade agreement has been 
struck with the EU. Do you strongly agree, somewhat 
agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, 
or strongly disagree with this?*


----------



## Roller Skate

bobclive22 said:


> You got the page number wrong - it should tobe page 27 of the report which shows only 41% supporting "Hard Brexit" with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum". You made an incorrect and misleading statement I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question was on page 25.
> 
> *Q: Regardless of how you voted in the referendum,
> some people have argued that 'Brexit must mean
> Brexit' and that Britain should leave the European
> Union, even if no deal or trade agreement has been
> struck with the EU. Do you strongly agree, somewhat
> agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree,
> or strongly disagree with this?*
Click to expand...

Have you murdered Spandex Bob? Are you one of these people that will do anything to have the last word?


----------



## John-H

Perhaps if it's all together it will help Bob...



bobclive22 said:


> Read page 24 of report, *56% want hard brexit*, 25% against, 19% didn`t Know.





bobclive22 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the page number wrong - it should tobe page 27 of the report which shows only 41% supporting "Hard Brexit" with 59% supporting a "Soft Brexit" and/or "Second Referendum". You made an incorrect and misleading statement I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question was on *page 25.*
> 
> *Q: Regardless of how you voted in the referendum,
> some people have argued that 'Brexit must mean Brexit' ....*
Click to expand...



No Bob, that question was entitled "People agree that 'Brexit must mean Brexit'". It's actually in your quote - I stopped it short at the key phrase in _that_ question and coloured it in red white and blue for you and to add meaning :wink:

Now pay careful attention.... are you sitting comfortably?

Here's the question about *"Hard Brexit"* on *Page 27* and I've highlighted it for you:


----------



## A3DFU

Danny1 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will say that I'm not too pleased that due to last year's referendum the IT job market in the UK has changed dramatically and as a result my own family is now breaking up with one of my sons relocating to Zürich/Swizzerland as of 1st October 2017 and that's not out of choice (which wouldn't be too bad) but out of necessity. [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you really saying the referendum has broken your family up??? How can you say its not by choice??
Click to expand...

That's pretty obvious I thought:

If one works for a big international company and that company moves jobs abroad because of the uncertain situation here in the UK after the referendum the person working for that company has no choice but to move abroad as well (or find a different job here in the UK which pays a fraction of the job aboard). Seems a no brainer to me that people are moving abroad with their jobs.

Just go and check what big banks like citi bank or big insurance companies are doing: they are moving over to the continent as a result of the referendum and those institutions employ a huge IT force.


----------



## Danny1

A3DFU said:


> the UK where job losses will inevitably follow as a result of Brexit
> Well I will say that I'm not too pleased that due to last year's referendum the IT job market in the UK has changed dramatically and as a result my own family is now breaking up with one of my sons relocating to Zürich/Swizzerland as of 1st October 2017 and that's not out of choice (which wouldn't be too bad) but out of necessity. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


So are you really saying the referendum has broken your family up??? How can you say its not by choice??[/quote]
That's pretty obvious I thought:

If one works for a big international company and that company moves jobs abroad because of the uncertain situation here in the UK after the referendum the person working for that company has no choice but to move abroad as well (or find a different job here in the UK which pays a fraction of the job aboard). Seems a no brainer to me that people are moving abroad with their jobs.

Just go and check what big banks like citi bank or big insurance companies are doing: they are moving over to the continent as a result of the referendum and those institutions employ a huge IT force.[/quote]

Ah, so not forced to move, chosen to move for money, so your son has chosen to break your family up for money/career reasons and not the referendum I see. I wonder if you have complained to him about him breaking the family up?


----------



## bobclive22

> Now pay careful attention.... are you sitting comfortably?


The original question was on page 45. the responders stated a hard Brexit by 56%, they did that as they were aware that to get a free trade deal would mean accepting free movement, the whole point of the leave vote was to stop free movement.

I simplified the question

Q:* should we leave the European
Union even if no deal or trade agreement has been
struck with the EU.

Do you strongly agree, somewhat
agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree,
or strongly disagree with this?*

*That question is clear and unambiguous.*

*That`s the question 56% voted for a hard Brexit.*

The page 57 you refer to and the 41% was an entirely different question and rather vague, probably to try to get the answer the pollsters wanted.

*A middle way that sees us remain in the free trade area in return for some compromises* on immigration and access to benefits, etc. (what compromises and access to what benefits), vague to say the least.

Of course some of the 56% wanted a softer Brexit who in there right mind wouldn`t, to get this though the UK would have to accept free movement, therefore the vote on page 45 is the defining vote by the responders, the other votes are just answers to different scenarios. Up to the present time the EU have totally refused to even discuss relaxing free movement therefore the questions on page 57 are meaningless, it`s just an if and but question.


----------



## John-H

Bob, give it a rest. You say, _"I simplified the question"_ ???? They all answered your question did they? :lol: Stop making up stuff. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? I've posted the definitive question and result in the survey referring to "Hard Brexit" - it's there in black and white. What's the matter with you? :lol:


----------



## John-H

You might like to reconcile this result too from the same report:










Doesn't fit with your "Hard Brexit" support nonsense really does it? :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> I've posted the definitive question and result in the survey referring to "Hard Brexit" - it's there in black and white. What's the matter with you? :lol:


No John *the definitive question is on page 45*, its a clear and concise question which got a clear and concise answer.

The respondents were fully aware what a so called hard Brexit meant when they answered that question on page 45, they have been bombarded with scare tactics since the referendum, see below.










The above video`s show leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for.

*IDS: Haven't left the EU if you don't leave single market *






Brexit: 'No Deal' is a Nightmare for the EU, not the UK, Says Hungarian Government


----------



## bobclive22

> You might like to reconcile this result too from the same report:
> 
> Stronger_Together.jpg
> 
> Doesn't fit with your "Hard Brexit" support nonsense really does it? :roll:


I presume the question was relating to post Brexit, *what relationship with the EU should we have in the future*.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> its a clear and concise question


Just for the record BobBot it's a really badly written question that, because of how it's worded, could actually mean either:

1. "Do you agree that brexit must mean brexit?"
2. "Do you agree that some people have argued that brexit must mean brexit?"

As survey questions go, it's pretty awful. I mean, _I know_ what they must have meant but seriously, it's pretty poor.

Anyway, I didn't think you trusted polls and surveys. You seem to trust this particular bit of this particular survey though. The bit that (possibly) agrees with your viewpoint. Coincidentally.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I've posted the definitive question and result in the survey referring to "Hard Brexit" - it's there in black and white. What's the matter with you? :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> No John *the definitive question is on page 45*, its a clear and concise question which got a clear and concise answer.
> ...
Click to expand...

 :lol: There is no page 45 Bob - the report only has 44 pages.

Here's the "Hard Brexit" question on page 27 which you keep trying to ignore.

Q. ... Which of the following is closest to the result you would most like to see?
A. 
'Hard' Brexit
'Soft Brexit'...
Second referendum.


----------



## John-H

Here's some more polling Bob won't like.

The government's two red lines in the negotiations hinge on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and immigration.

The government is backtracking on the ECJ already, leaving immigration and it's control as one of the major drivers of Brexit.

The government has already commissioned a report on the effects of EU immigration regarding workforce and the economy. It also wants to give business a say.

This polling looks at the latter and focuses on people's perception of citizens rights and opportunities.





































These options are available to us whilst remaining in the EU so you have to question the point of leaving.

This polling was taken in June and shows how people don't conform to the caricature presented by some politicians and the right wing press. People's understanding of what leaving the EU will actually mean regarding loss of rights and opportunities as well as the damage to our economy is growing as the consequences become clearer and the call to bring a halt to the self harm grows louder that *"No Brexit is better than a bad Brexit"*

https://blog.bestforbritain.org/index.p ... ad-brexit/


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Here's some more polling Bob won't like.


And therefore the BobBot's firmware will file this into the category of "polls we can't trust".


----------



## John-H

You don't think? ... no can't be ... hmmm ....

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5122504


----------



## Roller Skate

John-H said:


> You don't think? ... no can't be ... hmmm ....
> 
> http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5122504


No way. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

Car repair bills to rise:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ard-brexit

Japan's biggest bank and others to move out of London:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bank ... -skhh7x5qq

Britain's biggest budget airline Easyjet has announced its post-Brexit EU base: Vienna:

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 40461.html

Brexit: Race to host EU agencies relocated from London

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

How much more damage to the economy are we going to stack up before someone with some sense calls a halt to this nonsense?


----------



## John-H

*"Brexit is going to be far worse than anyone could have guessed" [Independent]*
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 58586.html

There's a must listen to phone in with James O'Brien proving just how stubborn one Brexiteer is over the EU










The main article - A former British EU negotiator says that the Government has ignored its own experts at Whitehall, who have told Ministers about the unprecedented level of complexity which Brexit involves. In the face of the Government's "appalling dereliction of duty" in facing up to the detrimental effects of Brexit, this expert believes that Brexit must be stopped. And soon.

*Chlorination chicken: a US trade deal looks distinctly unappetising [Times]*
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chlo ... -qbtr9356w

It has taken the recent trip to the US by the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, and the discovery that Americans' chickens are routinely washed in chlorine to bring home to us what post-Brexit foreign trade deals might mean: a lowering of standards, which UK consumers, and our farmers, might not actually want. This Times leader sets out the issues very clearly. Those much criticised EU health and environmental regulations sound like a very sensible idea after all.

*How it has gone wrong in the past:* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40732185

*22% Food tarrifs:* https://www.ft.com/content/7f0c732c-93b ... d69f323a8b

*Increased import costs:* https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9563

*Customs checks a catastrope for UK shipping:* http://www.shippingherald.com/post-brex ... rade-body/










*Impact of Brexit on the soft fruit industry:* http://www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/me ... Report.pdf









*Tories block ban on bee harming pesticides:*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... pesticides


















*Cadbury to increase prices or shrink product after Brexit:* 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ter-brexit



















https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/stat ... 4873143296

*We can't let Liam Fox negotiate post-Brexit trade deals behind closed doors [New Statesman]*
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... ind-closed










Do you trust him? Did you know that MPs do not have the power to guide any Brexit trade talks which Liam Fox will undertake? Neither can MPs set red lines, amend or stop an eventual deal. Even the most basic information about trade meetings is apparently so sensitive that it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This article argues that this archaic method of negotiating trade deals without scrutiny must be overturned in Parliament.

*Maltese PM is starting to believe that Brexit will not happen [Guardian]*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... m-malta-pm

The Maltese Prime Minister, whose country holds the EU presidency, sees signs that the tide is turning against Brexit and doubt is creeping in. He thinks it would be good if a political leader in Britain were to show courage and fight for a referendum on the terms of the country's exit deal with the EU.

*We can't get cold feet now - we've booked the caterers! [Guardian]*
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ritain-eec

Is it possible that our nation will ruin itself through sheer embarrassment? That it will decide that, having gone to the trouble of voting to leave the EU and in spite of the mounting evidence of the economic, diplomatic and strategic devaluation which Brexit will entail, a change of heart would just be too awkward? Rafael Behr argues in the Guardian that, as Dunkirk shows us, whilst retreat is nobody's favourite manoeuvre, sometimes it is the best one available.

*There is a sense of sunlit uplands ahead&#8230;..for the eurozone [Evening Standard]*
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme ... 96606.html

A hard-hitting editorial from the Evening Standard about the state of the UK economy, which has had the weakest first six months of the year in half a decade. This is in contrast to the eurozone economy, which is finally looking up. The editorial comments that not so long ago the eurozone was seen as a basket case, while Britain's economic growth led advanced nations: how quickly times change. It concludes that we must remain in the single market and customs union unless and until we agree an equally comprehensive bilateral arrangement for selling our goods and (crucially) services into the EU.

*Where has political leadership gone? [Guardian]*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sadiq-khan

Sadiq Khan argues that Brexit could be legitimately stopped if the Labour party included a pledge in an election manifesto or committed to a second referendum. However, it seems, rather disappointingly, that Labour is not prepared to lead the way, but is waiting for a change of heart from the public. Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, admitted: "MPs haven't changed their mind on Brexit. Most of them are weeping. They want to stay in Europe because they think this is going to be really damaging."

*Brexit transition would be a massive car crash in slow motion [Politico]*
http://www.politico.eu/article/vince-ca ... ow-motion/

Whilst there seems to be some consensus in the cabinet about the need for a transition period before leaving the EU, Vince Cable has said that this would mean that "instead of having a massive car crash, we have a massive car crash in slow motion". He feels that a transition deal would just "kick the can down the road for two more years" - unless a transition would mean putting off Brexit until it never happens.

*Post-Brexit border checks could cost more than £1bn a year [Guardian]*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ard-brexit

A study by a leading economic consultancy warns that new border checks imposed after Brexit could mean that Britain would be hit by huge border delays, require vast lorry parks in the south-east and suffer more than £1bn a year in economic damage. And that, they say, is just a conservative estimate.

*The Irish border and Brexit [InFacts]*
https://infacts.org/bordering-on-delusional/

How much thought did Brexiteers actually give to the problem of how to deal with the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic when advocating leaving the single market and customs union? This InFacts article deals with the issues with devising border controls and mentions a recent House of Lords report which concluded that "the Brexit debate has undermined political stability and exacerbated cross-community divisions".

*People leaving the UK*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -cant-stay

*Nicky Morgan requests assessment of City's readiness for hard Brexit*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ard-brexit

*No Dunkirk Spirit Can Save Britain From Brexit Defeat [New York Times]*
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opin ... P=ema-3239

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/home









*Steve Coogan: 'Alan Partridge would have voted Brexit'*
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5124497


----------



## leopard

Not sure about the issue regarding Chlorinated chicken.It sounds like hyperbole to me,afterall we consume Chlorine every day of our lives with drinking water.

It probably also means that there is less risk of Salmonella.

Quote:

"Chlorine is the most widely used disinfectant in the home. It is also disinfectant used by the water industry to maintain hygienic conditions within the public water supply network of pipes. At the very low levels used in drinking water it is perfectly safe."

Don't kid yourself that Europe has the best standards as there alot of things that America has banned that is deemed safe over here...


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Not sure about the issue regarding Chlorinated chicken.It sounds like hyperbole to me,afterall we consume Chlorine every day of our lives with drinking water.
> 
> It probably also means that there is less risk of Salmonella.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "Chlorine is the most widely used disinfectant in the home. It is also disinfectant used by the water industry to maintain hygienic conditions within the public water supply network of pipes. At the very low levels used in drinking water it is perfectly safe."
> 
> Don't kid yourself that Europe has the best standards as there alot of things that America has banned that is deemed safe over here...


There are thousands of cases of chicken-related salmonella in the US, vs virtually none here. This is because they are not required to vaccinate their chickens against it, and simply rely on disinfecting and refrigerating eggs. Over here, chickens are vaccinated and there is no need to disinfect or refrigerate eggs - they're safer because the entire food chain is regulated better. In the US they try to make things safer by just disinfecting everything at the last stage, but this allows people further up the chain to become complacent about hygiene or disease.

So, it's not a concern over the chlorine itself, it's a concern over the fact that the entire food chain is much less regulated and the chlorine wash before it's sent to the shops is supposed to make up for that, but doesn't.


----------



## leopard

The Americans like a relationship with their fowl 

http://phlabs.com/the-strange-way-chick ... salmonella


----------



## John-H

Yes, also the bleach chicken thing is only one example of how we are likely to downgrade our standards to secure a trade deal. There are many other things we'll have to compromise on. GM is another big one. If we allow GM in foodstuff we then have a problem exporting to the EU. There are many unforeseen consequences.

Here's more:

"Prime Minister Theresa May will be responsible for suffering among cancer patients if her Brexit plans go through.

Some patients receive cancer treatments that use radioactive substances. These substances are made by Euratom in reactors on the European main-land. But Mrs May wants the UK to leave Euratom because it is overseen by the European Court of Justice.

Has this caused any patient a problem? Ever? No.

Euratom oversees the peaceful use of nuclear power and co-ordinates nuclear research across the EU.
It also seamlessly supplies members in the Customs Union crucial radioactive materials used to diagnose and treat cancer.

Leaving Euratom would be expensive. The EU insists we have a new regulatory system. And we'd need new supply contracts for nuclear fuel - without Euratom's greater bargaining power.

The truth is that Hard Brexit will lead at least to delays in supplies. And that means people in pain and dying. But that's not all. Leaving the Customs Union means that the UK must first establish a new customs IT system.

If the UK leaves the EU's Open Skies Agreement then airlines like easyJet would need to set up in the EU27 and Ryanair might move its planes to EU27 countries.

If the UK leaves EU aid programmes then charities such as Oxfam will not be eligible for EU grants post-Brexit. This will hit many UK companies as well as large and small charities.

*All in all there are 35 regulatory agencies in the EU. We need them to ensure safe use of nuclear materials, safety in the air, safe medicines and so on.*

A UK outside the EU would have to duplicate all these agencies. Costs shared by 28 countries would fall on just one country - ours.

If we burn all this "red tape", think of the consequences.

The Grenfell Tower inferno is what happens when building regulations get out of date.
Has Mrs May got all these matters in hand?

The answer is No. Her Euratom Minister Richard Harrington ignored completely the danger to cancer patients of leaving Euratom plus the Customs Union."

View attachment Risky Times 7.pdf


----------



## bobclive22

So the EU isn`t protectionist.

Developing countries have a gun pointed at their chest - either they sign or their market access to the EU is restricted,"

Worried that their domestic markets would be flooded with European goods, many African countries resisted the EPA. May says: "EU imports could compete with domestic industries [such as] dairy, agriculture; those products from Europe could be subsidised in different ways at the European end."

There are major concerns that this agreement would, in fact, stand in the way of development. Andrew Mold, the UN's economic analyst for east Africa, has said: "African countries cannot compete with an economy like Germany's. As a result, free trade and EU imports endanger existing industries, and future industries do not even materialise because they are exposed to competition from the EU."

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... u-pressure

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publicati ... -tomorrow/

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/the ... -1-8679630


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You don't think? ... no can't be ... hmmm ....
> 
> http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5122504


Well there's been no denials up to now


----------



## A3DFU

> "Brexit uncertainty hitting pay negotiations"
> 
> "business confidence is lower than it ought to be"
> 
> "At the moment, prices are rising 2.6% while wages are rising just 2%.
> When prices rise faster than wages, we get poorer on average every day"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40811712



> "Forthcoming rises to the National Living Wage may need to be delayed because of uncertain growth in the economy"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40824937


----------



## A3DFU

And:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40842017


----------



## John-H

*A second Brexit referendum? It's looking more likely by the day: [Guardian]*

Vernon Bogdanor, who taught David Cameron at Oxford and who is now professor of government at King's College London, argues that the recent general election (the 'revenge of the remainers', as he puts it) changed everything. There is probably no Commons majority for May's version of Brexit and there may be no majority for any of the forms of Brexit on offer. With a deadlocked Parliament, a second referendum on the government's deal may be the only way out of the impasse.

*The ridiculous fantasy that Britain's Brexiteers have sold the nation [New York Times]*

The Brexiteers argued that Britain needed to be released from being shackled to a moribund, bureaucratic group of nations to become a proud, swashbuckling, dominant, richer country again. In this excellent but sobering piece, the Times columnist Jenni Russell warns that we don't have the skills, the manufacturing base, the drive or the productivity we would need to take off as an independent nation. Britain's inadequacies, which have for years been compensated for by its EU membership, will become painfully apparent if we leave the EU.

*Brexit bill will remove right to sue government: [Times]*

Britons will lose their right to sue the government for breaking the law under Brexit plans that could allow ministers to escape censure over air pollution:

*Cheap pound fails to boost economy: [Times]*

Hopes that the cheap pound will spur a long-awaited rebalancing of Britain's economy towards exports and manufacturing have suffered a disappointing setback

*Britain's trade is already global - helped, not hindered, by being part of the Customs Union:
[Guardian]*

The crossbench peer Andrew Adonis comments that the UK has not negotiated an international trade deal in decades and simply lacks the trade negotiators, experience and time to negotiate bespoke deals. So it's not a question of whether the government wants to stay in the customs union and single market after March 2019 - it lacks the capacity to negotiate anything much else.

*We already have control of immigration 
[Guardian]*https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-back-control-immigration-eu-directive-brexit

The crossbench peer Karan Bilimoria sets out in a Guardian article how we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after 3 months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves.

*The fishing industry and the Brexit paradox: [Bloomberg]*

The fishing industry is keen to leave the EU in order to boost their industry, hit by competition from foreign fleets and quotas on catches during 44 years of EU membership. However, they also want to retain the benefits of the single market with no return to borders, tariffs and bureaucracy when shipping their goods to the continent. A tall order for Britain's negotiators.

*What the single market actually is - and what will happen if we leave it: [Richard Corbett MEP]*

Richard Corbett MEP points out that few people voted for Brexit-at-any-cost; indeed they were told it would save money which could go to the NHS. If it turns out to be a costly exercise, damaging the economy, they will be entitled to feel let down. Many would say that these costs, and the loss of British influence over decisions that will affect us anyway, are too high a price to pay for Brexit

This is all taking up a lot of time and resources and damaging our economy -and we haven't even left yet. So why are we still allowing our politicians to go ahead with this? Shouldn't they be doing what's best for us? How can we let them know?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 80696.html

*24th September Brighton Labour party conference march*

*1st October Manchester Conservative party conference march*









http://www.britainforeurope.org/fight_brexit_war_chest
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/fight-brexit-war-chest/


----------



## A3DFU

The Democrats

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40897927


----------



## John-H

We could do with an injection of common sense.


----------



## bobclive22

This Huge New Study Reveals What The British Public Really Want From Brexit

The researchers have *published their detailed methodology* and original data on the LSE's website, that`s good science John.

A groundbreaking project by the London School of Economics and Oxford University surveying more than 3,000 people reveals that when the British public are asked in detail what they want from the negotiations, there is *more support for harder Brexit options because Leavers and a significant number of Remainers back them.*

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/08/1 ... ey-issues/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/rema ... .jrMokodD5

By the way John this study in independent unlike your Best For Briton ( Gina Miller ) slightly biased poll.

*Gina Miller*.

In my view the vote to Leave the EU was a mistake but that was the democratic outcome of the Referendum. The public decided to leave and we must respect that. However, it is in their interest and all our interest that this is done in a way to minimise the damage to our country, and in particular, to the prospects of our young people. There also needs to be a reclaiming of common sense.


----------



## Spandex

In the LSE article they're clear that:

"What we caution readers to avoid, however, is looking at these numbers as raw measures of support for particular features (as in conventional public opinion polling). This they are not. At no point did we ask respondent to evaluate individual features - they were only asked to make judgments of bundles of outcomes."

And in their conclusions they state:

"(Remain voters) also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a "no deal" scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market."

So I'm not really sure how Buzzfeed managed to come to the conclusion they did, which seems to contradict the analysis by the people who designed the poll.

Although, once again, it should be noted that despite the BobBot's history of slating polls and 'experts', he immediately trusts one that he thinks backs up his views. :wink:


----------



## ProjectMick

Seems a little like being asked type of death would you prefer - to be drowned or stoned to death.

"I'd prefer not to die thanks"

"Sorry that isn't an option anymore"

"Oh ok, well drowning then"

"Aha! So you DID want to die all along!"

"No, not really - you just told me my original vote of not dying didn't count anymore"

"But you chose to be drowned - along with 60% of others who voted not to die - meaning that most people really wanted to be drowned all along"

Well actually, out of the three options, most people preferred not to die at all"

"Why do you keep bringing that up? We all CHOSE TO DIE"

Maybe death is too strong an analogy but you get my drift.


----------



## John-H

The LSE survey seems to be an attempt to baseline each option by removing the usual connections between them by constructing different groups of options as choices where the components of each grouping consist of random options. No real scenarios were presented.

That's a clever technique to try and isolate the popularity of each choice.

It does however remove the reality of the trade offs between one thing and another which people usually consider and governments definitely will (that was the idea) and as such creates a "have cake and eat it" viewpoint tendancy.

In reality therefore, I'm not sure how useful it is. It removed those important real world realities.

As for Buzzfeed and Bob's echoed summary - I think they have done exactly what the LSE report summary advised them not to do :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Although, once again, it should be noted that despite the BobBot's history of slating polls and 'experts', he immediately trusts one that he thinks backs up his views.


You don`t get any nicer do you Spandex, perhaps it`s because you are at the bottom of the pile, still hear the sha**ing through the paper thin party walls next door.

The study was unbiased and independent and all the data relating to the study were published, that`s why it is more believable than John`s link to Gina Miller`s Best for Britain. The studies conclusions appeared reasonable.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> You don`t get any nicer do you Spandex, perhaps it`s because you are at the bottom of the pile, still hear the sha**ing through the paper thin party walls next door.


Once again BobBot, there's no point trying to insult me when you have to invent the thing you're insulting me with... Or are you planning on trying absolutely everything in the hope of striking a nerve. Jesus, we're going to be here a while. You're not the most imaginative fella in the world.



bobclive22 said:


> The study was unbiased and independent and all the data relating to the study were published, that`s why it is more believable than John`s link to Gina Miller`s Best for Britain. The studies conclusions appeared reasonable.


Sure, but numerous independent polls have been posted in the past and your reaction to each is so predictable, it's a bit of a joke - if it agrees with you, you marvel at how accurate it is and if it disagrees with you, you accuse it of being completely biased. Do you really not realise you're doing it??


----------



## bobclive22

> Once again BobBot, there's no point trying to insult me when you have to invent the thing you're insulting me with..


Don`t you live in an old Victorian terrace with thin walls then, must have misread your post when discussing insulation on the outside of houses.


----------



## bobclive22

> Sure, but numerous independent polls have been posted in the past and your reaction to each is so predictable, it's a bit of a joke


Were they independent, remind me.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Don`t you live in an old Victorian terrace with thin walls then, must have misread your post when discussing insulation on the outside of houses.


I do live in a Victorian terrace... I think you must have optimistically invented the thin walls. The insulation was in an extension I built. Anyway, keep trying BobBot. It speaks volumes. :wink:


----------



## John-H

Back on topic here are two very good articles. The first from the times with an overview of the Brexit shambles:

View attachment TimesEUarticle190817.pdf


And the second from the Guardian predicting the inevitable:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

The longer this goes on the more obvious things are becoming. It's just very unfortunate that we are all going to be damaged in the mean time waiting for our political class to realise the same and feel brave enough to tell us.


----------



## John-H

100 letters of shame. Do we trust the idiots responsible for the mess that is Brexit? The Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in the UK, telling them they were liable for "detention".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> 100 letters of shame. Do we trust the idiots responsible for the mess that is Brexit? The Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in the UK, telling them they were liable for "detention".
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41027671


Makes one feel really relaxed living in the UK as a EU citizen [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

Ted tape holds the nation together. We are good at that so well be Ok won't we??? :?





https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 019006348/


----------



## John-H

A withering article about Bojo the clown....



> In this country, Labour has finally joined the argument about the implementation of Brexit, but the foreign secretary is nowhere to be seen in that debate. Having fooled the United Kingdom into voting to leave the European Union, by promising that it would mean an additional £350 million a week for the NHS, he has no realistic idea of what Brexit should entail. He suggests the policy should be to have our cake and eat it and that other EU countries can "go whistle" for UK payments, as if this were some kind of public school game rather than a negotiation on which the future of the nation depends. Again, there is an inability or an unwillingness to think through the long-term consequences of his position


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -7707q0z66


----------



## Shug750S

All seems to be going a bit 'tits up' at the moment.

£ dropped quickly against all other major currencies, as expected, and seem to look like staying that way for foreseeable future.

Seems a lack of strategy from Brexit Secretary, and at present doesn't even seem to be able to agree where to start negotiations with the EU. Plus similar from EU team who have different agenda. This could turn into another version of the North / South Korea peace talks where the first few years were about who sat where in the conference room and how big each flag should be on the table.

More politicians suggesting 'interim' arrangements needed to retain immigration and trade, so what's the point of leaving? If we were to leave let's leave, not get stuck in limbo where we've left, been screwed for leaving, but still have to have EU laws and payments. (I voted remain btw)

Think main issue is there was never an exit rule when we joined. If I join an organisation or whatever, normally there are agreed exit terms at the end, but none here so both sides are making it up as they go along. All getting a bit Game of Thrones, with John Snow looking for a truce, Cersi agreeing but then double crossing him, and no one has any idea who gets killed off next. In the meantime everyone suffers...

Sad times.


----------



## John-H

Tick tock ... or do you wish it could be Tock tick ... :wink:


----------



## A3DFU

Things are getting ridiculous

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-leave-uk


----------



## A3DFU

Hello BoJo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030635


----------



## Danny1

A3DFU said:


> Hello BoJo
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41030635


Simple fix for NHS, stop giving it to people that havnt paid a penny in tax, any new recruits the country gets should have to pay tax for 2 years before getting NHS. No NHS to anyone with smoking, drinking or eating problems. Or just make it private, lower the tax for us all to compensate and we all take private health care insurance.


----------



## John-H

I don't agree with privatisation of the NHS nor rationing it according to means. The points you make would make little difference to NHS funding.

It's like the idea of charging to see your GP. It will make little difference to the NHS bill. Doctors don't support the notion either. It's just another badly thought out Tory idea that won't work.
Interesting how health service management costs vary country to country as a percentage of the total funding:
USA 8%
France 6%
Germany 5%
World average 4.5%
UK NHS 2.5%

Our NHS is actually very efficient compared to other developed countries. The one thing that brings it down is that it's working at well over 90% capacity all the time causing queues, delays and crisis. This simply shows that not enough resources are being allocated to it by central government.

France and Germany have their hospitals operating at around 80% capacity but the UK a ridiculous 95%.
You can see who has been efficiency driven to the bone and also starved of resources for the job done.

The effect of Brexit starving it of workers and cash because the government tax take will diminish will make privatisation more likely an outcome if Brexit happens of course :?


----------



## Spandex

It's easy to imagine that scrapping the NHS and moving to private healthcare would result in a wonderful service, but that's simply not how it would work. The only reason private healthcare is able to offer such short waiting times and nice stuff like private rooms, etc. is because 90% of the population aren't using it.

And as John points out, the NHS is already incredibly efficient compared to other countries, so what exactly would privatisation achieve? I guess it ultimately comes down to people selfishly thinking "I don't want to pay for anyone else", except that's exactly what insurance is. So by moving everyone to health insurance you just change the middle man. Instead of the government taking our money, putting it in a pot and paying for treatment, an insurance company will take our money, put it in a pot and pay for treatment. Except they'll also skim some profit off the top. And they won't try to keep treatment costs down because they'll be in bed with the service providers. That's why the US system is so inefficient - _because inefficiencies mean money is leaving the system and going into someone's pocket._


----------



## John-H

"The promise of new trade deals with countries around the world is starting to look like yet another broken Brexit promise.", says Labour.

Ministers now want to copy and paste trade deals rather than forging their own

"We can't do 40 FTAs (free trade agreements), we haven't got the capacity to do that." admits government.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/b ... r_Politics










Talks stall as negotiators trade verbal blows.

UK and EU appear no closer to any deal after latest talks while Tory whips in Westminster try to discourage newly emboldened rebels.

"Britain wants to adopt its own standards and regulations, but also to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. This is simply impossible. You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order &#8230; The single market, the EU capacity to regulate, to supervise, to enforce our laws, must not and will not be undermined by Brexit."

"There are extremely serious consequences of leaving the single market and it hasn't been explained to the British people," Michelle Barnier:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... P=ema-3239










Tweet of the week

LBC's James O'Brien on the leave camp's enraged reaction to Barnier's comments on "educating" people about the single market:

*Brexit latest: People who don't know much about the ramifications of leaving the EU furious at suggestion that more knowledge would be good.*
- James O'Brien (@mrjamesob) September 4, 2017










Britain's aerospace industry set to be priced out after Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... P=ema-3239


----------



## Shug750S

None of the above should really be a shock, it's what many expected to happen unfortunately.

There is no incentive for the EU to negotiate anything that would be in the U.K.s interest as that basically doesn't work for their existing members.

Why should they give us any preferential trade deals if we aren't a member of their 'experiment' (as they call it)?

If they give us similar deals to their own members where's the incentive for others to stay?

Problem is also that the other nett contributors, Germany, France, Netherlands etc will have to pay more when we leave, and/or the nett takers will receive less.

UK basically has no negotiating leverage.

Future looking bleak. Or this the UK government playing a double bluff, where they want it all to look so bad that they have to go back to the country and be clear about how bad it will be, to get a rerun of the original vote?


----------



## John-H

Well there's a thought - or perhaps they need persuading that was their intention all along?

Brexit dominates all the other issues. We will all be poorer and the NHS and all the other society's needs will suffer massively if we continue down the road to the cliff edge.

Don't think any compromise deals are an acceptable outcome either - they will all make us poorer as trade suffers and costs rise.

Currently we have a political class pushed by media moguls, led by individuals interested in themselves and their personal position. They have hoodwinked enough of the voting population into voting as they misdirected but now the tides are turning.

The longer this goes on the more news is coming out about how ridiculous and self destructive our course is for the country as a whole. The population are joining the dots together and seeing the bigger picture.

We need to be behind this and campaign to stop the madness and raise the issue of changing our minds on Brexit because it will have the biggest effect. Reversing this decision will have the biggest boost for our NHS, our economy and our prosperity.

The majority of politicians are too scared and frightened to say what they really think because they fear the accusation of not respecting the referendum. But democracy did not end in 2016. Democracy continues and as we see the consequences of Brexit unfold we need to do what's best for all of us and let politicians know we are behind them for a change of direction.

Stop the destruction of our part of the European project that we designed to bring peace, stability and prosperity for all - backed by Winston Churchill no less. Why should we allow ourselves to be denied and give away our part of this inheritance 45 years in the making?

The longer we leave it, the more damage we will suffer before the inevitable change of direction as reality bites. It's best we sort this sooner rather than later.

I'm going on the Manchester March to the Tory conference and there are several other marches at the party conferences.

You might also want to sign this:

https://bestforbritain.org/

And support this:

http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/2t9bgzianale3f.html

There's also this petition to force the government to release the findings of 50 Brexit impact studies it has decided to keep secret:

http://www.europeanmovement.co.uk/relea ... _id=134522


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

The EU repeal bill is a power grab by ministers. The myth of "take back control" actually has resulted in taking away the authority of our sovereign parliament and our elected MPs by handing control to the executive through the use of Henry VIII powers. Our rights and interests are at stake leading us to an unpredictable conclusion but undoubtedly worse off, unless we persuade our MPs to stand up for democracy and resist.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -t5f8t02qh

The European Union Withdrawal Bill - previously called The Great Repeal Bill

What does the EU Withdrawal Bill do?

Three main objectives: repeals the European Communities Act 1972 converts EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law creates powers to make secondary legislation

Point 1 simply 'cancels' the ECA (as that is about joining)

Point 2 aims to avoid a sudden massive change or a complete lack of legislation

Point 3 aims to enable and facilitate necessary corrections At first glance, this seems sensible. However, Points 2 & 3 hide a lot of potential problems

What are the potential problems with the BIll? - it withdraws from the Fundamental Charter on Human Rights:

We will lose some human rights - it gives Government Ministers the right to:

Change the law without a vote in parliament: this is a massive loss of democratic power and parliamentary oversight. it makes some areas particularly vulnerable - in future legislation: it will be easier to change workers' rights and protection, environmental protection, consumer protection, human rights financial regulation

What about Government's commitments to safeguard rights?

Despite the above, the Government has been reiterating that it is 'committed' to protect rights. However, this is not reassuring because: Commitments do not have any legal worth. Governments do have an excellent mechanism to show they are 'committed' : it is legislation. If they really want something to happen, they pass the necessary laws. Even if the current government were truly committed, there is absolutely no guarantee subsequent ones will honour those same commitments.

In short it removes laws built up over many years that protect us and replaces them with trust in the government. There will be no way back unless a future government could be persuaded to give is our laws back. Fat chance.

For more info: White paper prior to Bill:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... hite-paper

Bill itself and supporting info/docs:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... rawal.html

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... ments.html

Gov. explanations:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... epeal-bill


----------



## John-H

A powerful piece by Stephen Dorrell explaining how we are being badly served:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 29421.html

Evidence of the effects of our sleepwalk along the cliff path from someone who should know:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 58586.html

We are being let down by our political class. Not only has Teresa may paid 1Bn of public money to the DUP to prop up her failing and corrupt government but now.....

"One of the Northern Irish MPs propping up Theresa May's government accepted holidays worth £100,000 from a country he is now helping to secure a post-Brexit trade deal, "










It's rabid Brexiteer Ian Paisley Jr. shown here with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner, in Parliament this week, come to discuss a post-Brexit trade deal. I expect they will discuss holidays too. Funny, he didn't register the little £100k perk with the MPs register of interests but now he's been found out.

Read about it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... rade-deal/

This lot need removing from their position. They are exploiting the chaos they have inflicted upon us for their own ends.


----------



## John-H

And now it's being reported that TERESA May struck a deal with the DUP not only to support the government for financial and defence reasons - we all knew this was to hang onto power - but now it's been revealed that the plan was also to force through a government majority on all the select committees to railroad through any objection to legislative changes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 37081.html

So not only are they employing Henry Vlll powers to take away parliamentary scrutiny and control but they are rigging the select committees too.

They have no mandate for this as they don't have a majority from the election but seem too arrogant to accept this and instead believe the public made a mistake not voting for Teresa May's "give me a mandate" appeal so are instead setting about things like they think the results should have been.

Did you know that the EU withdrawl bill not only includes providing Henry Vlll powers to the executive to introduce perpetual right to change laws now and in the future without parliamentary scrutiny but also gives the right to the government to change the EU withdrawl bill itself without involving parliament in the future?

This is a "power grab" without doubt. What is the point of our democracy any more? We are all being manipulated over Brexit. It just seems to be a way of introducing dictatorship and rich backer cronyism under the guise of a system of universal suffrage manipulated to dig the drains up over the EU to create an exploitable chaos.

So much for the people taking back control :roll: . It stinks!


----------



## John-H

Great news I've just found out 

*Today the High Court has decided that the challenge to the "votes for money" agreement between the Government and DUP must be heard initially by the Divisional Court on October 26th.
*
This is a case accusing the government of breach of the Good Friday agreement and the bribery act in relation to the passing of £1Bn of public funds to secure votes in parliament. It is highly significant that the court has directed that this be heard in the divisional court as was the article 50 case because it is of such constitutional importance.

You can read more and contribute to the crowd funded action here:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenge-dup-deal/

Thankfully the judiciary are still independent.


----------



## John-H

Please sign and pass on this petition against the government's select committee power grab:

https://link.38degrees.org.uk/dontrdc2c

Please write to your MP (takes seconds)

On Monday, MPs will vote on the parliamentary timetable for the EU Withdrawal Bill. The Government wants to give us just eight days to scrutinise one of the most important Bills in British history.

We need your help to stop the Government railroading this undemocratic bill through the House of Commons. Will you write to your MP calling on them to vote on Monday against the Government's timetable?

It's pre filled in, you can edit, takes seconds...

http://www.open-britain.co.uk/email_you ... _source=in


----------



## John-H

Sign here before midnight:

https://bestforbritain.org/


----------



## John-H

A worthy cause:

https://www.gofundme.com/thepeopleschal ... dium=email


----------



## bobclive22

> So not only are they employing Henry Vlll powers to take away parliamentary scrutiny and control but they are rigging the select committees too.


I believe Sir James Dyson might enjoy this, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... erim-deal/


----------



## bobclive22

> This is a "power grab" without doubt. What is the point of our democracy any more? We are all being manipulated over Brexit.


John the majority voted out and Mrs May is intent in delivering that result, that is democracy, Sir James dyson and Lord Bamford decided out was in the best interest of the UK, so did the ordinary Brexit voter, stop whining, you lost get over it and move on.


----------



## ashfinlayson

bobclive22 said:


> This is a "power grab" without doubt. What is the point of our democracy any more? We are all being manipulated over Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> John the majority voted out and Mrs May is intent in delivering that result, that is democracy, Sir James dyson and Lord Bamford decided out was in the best interest of the UK, so did the ordinary Brexit voter, stop whining, you lost get over it and move on.
Click to expand...

Dyson and Bamford voted out because it was in the best interest for them and theirs, that's all; Nothing to do with the ordinary Brexit voter. I did vote out but agree with John that we are being miss-represented in the commons. Better representation would have been for May not to have done a dodgy deal with the DUP; A proper hung parliament would have represented the population far better, but then no political party would go without a coalition if they have the option, not even Mr Holier-than-thou Corbyn.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> This is a "power grab" without doubt. What is the point of our democracy any more? We are all being manipulated over Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> John the majority voted out and Mrs May is intent in delivering that result, that is democracy, Sir James dyson and Lord Bamford decided out was in the best interest of the UK, so did the ordinary Brexit voter, stop whining, you lost get over it and move on.
Click to expand...

Democracy, Bob, did not end in 2016. It carries on. You seem to have a problem with the concept.

As more people don't like the look of the way things are turning out and see how the ones pushing for this change are serving their own financial and political interests by exploiting the chaos they are creating, regardless of the damage they are doing to the national interest and the majority of the population, don't you think voters have a right to express further opinion to their representatives and through the ballot box?


----------



## Danny1

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a "power grab" without doubt. What is the point of our democracy any more? We are all being manipulated over Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> John the majority voted out and Mrs May is intent in delivering that result, that is democracy, Sir James dyson and Lord Bamford decided out was in the best interest of the UK, so did the ordinary Brexit voter, stop whining, you lost get over it and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy, Bob, did not end in 2016. It carries on. You seem to have a problem with the concept.
> 
> As more people don't like the look of the way things are turning out and see how the ones pushing for this change are serving their own financial and political interests by exploiting the chaos they are creating, regardless of the damage they are doing to the national interest and the majority of the population, don't you think voters have a right to express further opinion to their representatives and through the ballot box?
Click to expand...

So, how many votes do we need to do until your happy? I guess when the outcome is what you want you will stop posting petitions and funding pages for people to sign?


----------



## Spandex

Danny1 said:


> So, how many votes do we need to do until your happy? I guess when the outcome is what you want you will stop posting petitions and funding pages for people to sign?


Do you get annoyed when they have a general election every 5 years? Or do you accept that it's not actually undemocratic for the country to have an opportunity to change its mind after its seen the outcome of its previous decision?

To be fair, John's not suggesting a series of 'leave/remain' referendums until we get the result he wants. He's saying that we've voted to leave, but at some point we will have an actual picture of everything that leaving will entail - then we should vote to say whether this is acceptable. For example, if the government chose to leave the EU but pay a large fee to remain in the common market and keep free movement, I suspect a lot of leave voters wouldn't be happy and would actually look forward to a vote on those terms.


----------



## John-H

Danny1 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John the majority voted out and Mrs May is intent in delivering that result, that is democracy, Sir James dyson and Lord Bamford decided out was in the best interest of the UK, so did the ordinary Brexit voter, stop whining, you lost get over it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy, Bob, did not end in 2016. It carries on. You seem to have a problem with the concept.
> 
> As more people don't like the look of the way things are turning out and see how the ones pushing for this change are serving their own financial and political interests by exploiting the chaos they are creating, regardless of the damage they are doing to the national interest and the majority of the population, don't you think voters have a right to express further opinion to their representatives and through the ballot box?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how many votes do we need to do until your happy? I guess when the outcome is what you want you will stop posting petitions and funding pages for people to sign?
Click to expand...

 So how long do you and Bob want to put democracy on hold and stop anyone with an opposing view expressing an opinion on this subject? Long enough for it to be too late? :roll:

I am very concerned with the direction this government is taking this country and I happen to know individuals and businesses who are planning on re-locating to Ireland or mainland Europe in order to stay in the EU. That will make us all the poorer in the UK. I also know a new deal with the EU will be worse than the one we have and the cost of leaving is huge. The businesses and individuals are holding off at the moment to see what happens. Two I know have left already. So I'm not to express concerns and try and do something about it? Nobody is forcing you to read anything.

This is a free speech forum and I and any other member can express opinions on a subject relating to a thread as much as we like. Bob knows he's free to express his opinions don't you Bob? As we've seen. People can argue and debate or ignore.

Debate is what this forum is all about but why is it you tell those with an opposing view to stop expressing their opinion? Is it that you realise the tide of public opinion is turning? Is it that you see the chaotic and precarious state of the government and think that there might be another general election or referendum on this important issue and you fear that as people know more about the consequences they may change their minds? By trying to supress information and kerb debate and deny further democratic process are you not being anti democratic?


----------



## John-H

"Brexit has dealt Britain an economic blow and will drive inflation higher, Mark Carney said yesterday, as he signalled that interest rates will have to rise shortly."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -jk2g0p8b7

"It is quite shocking to find out that the only official assessments of the economic consequences of Brexit to have been made public are two papers produced by the Treasury during the EU referendum in 2016. It appears that Whitehall has carried out internal assessments, including an analysis of what a range of Brexit negotiating outcomes would mean for more than 50 sectors of the economy. However, Whitehall has refused to date to publish these. One former mandarin says it is extraordinary that parliamentarians have not complained more vociferously at how poorly informed they are, and that the assessments are critical "if you want to judge whether the UK should really be leaving the EU at all"."

https://www.ft.com/content/ff48e924-9a0 ... e3f882dd7b

"The Cabinet appears to be trying to hammer out its position on Brexit through newspaper articles, slapdowns and anonymous briefings at the moment.
It is scandalous that Mrs May triggered Article 50 without having reached a settled view within Cabinet on the final outcome and it is incompetent that six months down the line she is still incapable of imposing any form of discipline" - or is Boris Johnson about to quit?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/b ... r_Politics

"This Infacts article maintains that, if voters really do change their minds, then the legitimacy conferred by last year's referendum will surely have ended. We'll be able to spot such a shift, for example, via opinion polls, attendance at rallies and lobbying of MPs, but we'll only be able to validate it by a new vote. Pro-Europeans should be putting the lion's share of their energy into changing public opinion."

https://infacts.org/democracy-people-free-change-minds/


----------



## John-H

Latest poll shows a majority now want to remain in the EU:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60226.html


----------



## Shug750S

Government is now realising what a stupid idea this was.

Looks like now they want a transitional arrangement, costing us billions a year, whilst we leave, but actually stay in, and are still subject to all of the rules that the Brexit people wanted us to get rid of.

No one will be happy with this. The Brexit ones because we won't be leaving for a few years, if ever, and the remainers as we are still leaving but no one knows when, so we're getting shafted for the foreseeable future

Worst of both worlds


----------



## ProjectMick

Unfortunately a percentage of voters wanted to leave based on an outcome that was never likely to become a reality.

Without wishing to stereotype, my parents are a good example. Dad is 75 Mum is 62. Both have VERY different views on what "Brexit" actually is. To the point where my Mum now pretty much regrets voting leave. I personally voted to stay in but accept the outcome and hope we can get a soft Brexit where we protect our financial services etc.

However the result is far too simplistic and if there were say, three options - remain - soft brexit - hard brexit - then I would be very surprised if remain didn't win out as the majority vote.

Ultimately we are left in a situation where we can't do what's best for the "majority" as they have wildly different aspirations within their own group.

It is a bit of a nightmare to be honest.


----------



## John-H

I've just been involved campaigning for the pro EU #StopBrexit march Sunday 1st October - a week tomorrow in Manchester.

We had a positive response to our stall with plenty of people taking leaflets and car stickers, some saying they regretted their vote to leave now and wishing the whole situation could be reversed, some remainers depressed that it was too late to do anything, some now thinking it wasn't going to happen because it was turning into a complete mess. There were some who said they voted leave and still believe they were right - like the lady who believed the economy was fine and the devaluing of the currency and our credit rating was, "just our opinion" :roll: to one guy to whom I am grateful:

He accused us of being undemocratic and objected to rule by unelected European bureaucrats in Brussels. I pointed out that they were like our civil servants, but we can elect our MEPs. I asked if he agreed with the government taking Henry VIII powers to bypass parliament. He said that's how it should be and if he had his way the Royal family would be in charge because "they are incorruptible." This guy was not in the twilight of his autumn.

That will be the German Saxe-Coburg- Gotha descendant queen married to a Greek then? From British only democrat to European royalist in one sort conversation. Ohhh kaaayyy !
.... I am grateful. One of the few leavers to stop and speak.

The day did have it's amusements. Overall the tide is turning. The government are already kicking things into the long grass because they realise how difficult it all is. Let's try and stop this madness sooner rather than later before too much damage is done.


----------



## Shug750S

Get the Vaseline out after Mays' speech


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

The International Monetary Fund said that sterling was overvalued by somewhere between 5% and 15% in 2015. Just before the referendum, the IMF put the over-valuation slightly higher, saying that sterling was overvalued by between *5% and 20% in 2015.* Other experts, like the former governor of the Bank of England and the IMF, have agreed that sterling was overvalued.

Sterling has already dropped by *nearly 20 per cent against the dollar since the UK voted to leave the EU,* becoming the world's worst-performing currency in October and many economists suspect the pound may have even further to fall in the months ahead.

Sterling strengthened to as much as *$1.3456*, up over half a percent on the day. _28th Sept 2017_

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/28/reuters ... talks.html

What else has happened John.


----------



## John-H

Alistair Campbell played the bag pipes and led the crowd in a song to Boris Johnson.

(Rude language warning!)






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjnHG4j ... ata_player


----------



## John-H

Some more pictures from the day taken by my daughter mainly. We all had a great time...

(Framed photos by Bryony Handford - click for full resolution)














































Professor A C Grayling and Alastair Cambell amongst others give inciteful and impassioned speeches.






































































































































































































































































An obliging policeman poses and pulls a face for a selfie..




























Alba Whitewolf (Madeleina Kay) sang at the street party in Cathedral gardens with her excellent song "Strong and Stable" which you can listen to here: https://m.facebook.com/albawhitewolf










Vince Cable and Stephen Dorrell amongst the speakers at the Cathedral gardens street party...




























The Mancunion press report:

"If Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister, it would "probably finish off the Tories and probably finish off Brexit."

http://mancunion.com/2017/10/01/thousan ... xit-march/

BBC News:

European Movement chairman Mr Dorrell told the rally that people should be given the "opportunity to change their minds".
Quoting his former boss Sir John Major, Mr Dorrell said Brexit would be a "historic mistake".
He said: "Many people say to me I'm flying in the face of democracy. What is undemocratic about changing your mind?"
Sir Vince said there was a "civil war" going on at the Tory conference between the prime minister and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Broadcaster Terry Christian hit out at "spineless" Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham for refusing to oppose the Brexit process.
Chief Superintendent John O'Hare, who is leading the conference policing operation, said, "The vast majority of people exercised their democratic right to protest and did so in the spirit of their causes. 
"No arrests were made during the marches and this is a testament to those who attended and the organisers who took responsibility for the events and worked closely with us to ensure a safe and successful operation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41462576

European movement report:

http://www.europeanmovement.co.uk/manch ... roeu_rally


----------



## John-H

Electoral Commission to be challenged in Judicial review over £625,000 payment by Vote Leave campaign in 2016 to a student which eventually found its way to Canadian company AggregateIQ to run a targeted pro-leave FaceBook ad campaign - and whether this breached electoral rules regarding joint spending rules under a common plan amongst other leave campaign groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... P=ema-3239

The crowd funded legal case is being brought by barrister Jo Maugham QC. Read his case page for the astonishing allegations of the manipulation of our democracy and how you can help:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/did-v ... ng-limits/

Meanwhile and not unrelated - the DUP who also received funding as a leave campaign group stand accused of spending £282,000 on an advertising campaign that did not run in Northern Ireland:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... commission

Meanwhile, Vote Leave chief repays charitable grant used to fund anti-EU dossier:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... commission

As previously reported - how our democracy was hijacked:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy

Also allegedly implicated - Cambridge Analytica in Brext and Trump elections

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-trump


----------



## bobclive22

> Alistair Campbell played the bag pipes and led the crowd in a song to Boris Johnson.


So John you have aligned yourself with that scu*bag, what a sad looser.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Alistair Campbell played the bag pipes and led the crowd in a song to Boris Johnson.
> 
> 
> 
> So John you have aligned yourself with that scu*bag, what a sad looser.
Click to expand...

Actually Bob but whichever way things turn out I think you will end up a loser if you support Brexit. What's a "looser" by the way? You never did answer the question: Are you the Bob who writes into the New European every week and never gets his letters published. It seems too much of a coincidence.


----------



## Nyxx

I love you blame the Conservatives for brexit? :lol: Why? because David thought people would not be that stupid. So it's there fault. :lol:

Nothing to do with the majority of voters. Unlike the General election for the first time I can remember every voted counted.

Love it when people lose and cry about it. Seems like democracy goes out the window if the result does not fit for some.

Personally I think Boris aligned himself with Brexit because he thought that was the mood of the voters. He was right. If he thought it was going to be a Stay win for sure he would have aligned himself differently. He may be many things but stupid is not one of them.

It's a huge mess i agree on that, but it will be nothing to the mess we will be in if Labour (Farther Christmas),wins the next General election. It will make Brexit look like a light hearted joke. But that's democracy.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> It's a huge mess i agree on that, but it will be nothing to the mess we will be in if Labour (Farther Christmas),wins the next General election. It will make Brexit look like a light hearted joke. But that's democracy.


If Labour win the next general election and make a mess out of everything, we can vote them out at the next one. With Brexit, we're stuck with it forever.

As for it being 'democracy', I think that's open to debate. In order to have a democratic vote (as opposed to 'just a vote'), the people need to at least know what they're voting for. I don't think anyone can claim that was the case, given that we're still all arguing about what brexit actually means over a year later. Sure, everyone who went into a polling station and voted 'leave' had an idea in their head about what they wanted, but clearly every brexit voter didn't go in there with the *same* idea in their head.

For a general election, parties have to produce a manifesto. A series of promises about what they will do if we put them into power. These usually go into great detail about their plans and how they will fund them. What did we get from the leave campaign (some lies on the side of a bus don't really count)? What did you vote for? You didn't vote to close our borders (because that wasn't on the ballot, and there was no manifesto promise), so in theory we can leave the EU and then make a trade deal that requires us to throw our borders open to anyone in the world - would that be democracy in action? Would the 52% be happy with that, because all they wanted was to leave the EU?

That's why it's not democratic. No one told people what they were voting for because no one really knew. We still don't know.


----------



## Nyxx

Yep I see your point, it was a disgrace of a campaign from both sides.

Not sure you still cannot say the vote was by its name was not democratic. But then again I voted stay :?



Spandex said:


> If Labour win the next general election and make a mess out of everything, we can vote them out at the next one. With Brexit, we're stuck with it forever.


We might never be able to get out of the mess they would put us in. We probably will we bankrupt. Given he wants everyone to have a pay rise, buyback railways Elc etc, build all the houses we need. Anyway it's off topic really.


----------



## Spandex

Nyxx said:


> Yep I see your point, it was a disgrace of a campaign from both sides.
> 
> Not sure you still cannot say the vote was by its name was not democratic. But then again I voted stay :?


Because democracy doesn't just mean 'having a vote'. The reason we have a representative democracy in this country is so that the people who didn't 'win' (i.e. the people who didn't vote for the party which formed the government) still have a voice. Your local MP is still in parliament representing his constituency even if they don't belong to the party in power. For some reason though, leave voters seem to be under the impression that the views of the 48% should now be completely ignored because 'they lost'. Ironically, that's a pretty undemocratic view.

But even ignoring the complexities of true democracy, it's impossible to call a vote 'fair' (and fairness must surely be the foundation of any democratic process) if the people who are voting aren't given accurate information on what they're voting for.



Nyxx said:


> We might never be able to get out of the mess they would put us in. We probably will we bankrupt. Given he wants everyone to have a pay rise, buyback railways Elc etc, build all the houses we need. Anyway it's off topic really.


That all sounds a bit melodramatic. The Labour party are gambling on a long term benefit justifying a short term hit - even if it doesn't work out that way, it's not going to fall so short that we can't recover from it. Realistically, if it doesn't work out, the conversation is more likely to be along the lines of, "oh well, it was a nice idea" than, "OMG WE'RE ALL DOOOOMED!"


----------



## John-H

The idea that Brexit is all about the possibility of something better when it could equally (actually more likely) be something worse because we have no idea what Brexit means, was a pretty good reason to vote remain but as you point out Spandex, every leave voter had their own reason in their mind.

It's all Dave's fault - not you Dave - I mean Cameron. We know he took the gamble to shut up the UKIP leaning element in his own party, putting party before country, but it didn't work. You can blame the voters for voting that way but some voted as a protest because of their personal situation, some believed the lies of more money for the NHS, some thought sovereignty (whatever that means) and some thought immigration (whatever that means) and.... well, the list goes on and that's the point really. The idea of change when it's undefined plays to feelings of hope for some individual thing appealing to you that could be made better, with no perspective on things that might go wrong.

What was certainly not explained was the monumental drains up effect on everything else - which we are are only just now starting to realise.

The remain campaign were at a disadvantage from the start, campaigning for no change and status quo - where's the hope in that? It doesn't appeal to anybody in dire straights or wishing for something better.

Those who were content may not have wanted a change but also don't have full perspective so perhaps thought everyone else would think the same, so were not so motivated to campaign and persuade.

There were rich individual's personal business interests too who certainly were motivated to campaign and persuade - those capable of exploiting the chaos that a vote leave result would bring, some of whom tried and succeeded to influence the vote it seems. Thankfully it is being investigated.

Really Cameron should have thought all this through but thought a few dire warnings of the consequences of leave would suffice. Over confidence - probably after the Scottish referendum result. Utter shock at the result, Cameron left to go on holiday, and now they are still split on what they want and in a totally self interested squabble for the top job and to retain power and even prepared to bribe the DUP with £1bn from the magic money tree to stay there. What a shambles!

Well, we know the result of the referendum now but it was still a close call with only 600k voters swinging it. Only 37% of the electorate and 28% of the population voted leave and seem to be dictating the result to the majority. It could so easily have swung the other way and then we wouldn't be in this mess.

You then start to ask, what about the millions of 16 and 17 year olds who were disenfranchised along with the millions of EU citizens, many of whom have lived here for 30 years or more and also the millions of OAPs who will no longer be with us when (IF) Brexit happens and you start to ask what does democracy actually mean?

What I'd say it meant, simply put, was for the population to determine its own future. Without manipulation and on a basis of full and honest information. That's the only fair basis. It's also very true that democracy is a continuous process. It did not end in June 2016. As we find out more we should have an ongoing choice, whether that be through our representative MPs or a direct choice on the outcome of any deal our present government comes up with.

Don't forget, as AC Grayling pointed out in Manchester - there has been no vote in parliament to leave the EU. Triggering article 50 only triggers two years of negotiations, at the end of which we can accept or reject. What happens then is either nothing (we are still in the EU) or requires a further vote in parliament to actually leave.

The most thoughtful poster Bryony captured I think is this one:


----------



## bobclive22

> What I'd say it meant, simply put, was for the population to determine its own future. Without manipulation and on a basis of full and honest information. That's the only fair basis.


So all it took was a slogan on the side of a bus to undermine remains project doom.


----------



## bobclive22

> New European


Never heard of it John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> What I'd say it meant, simply put, was for the population to determine its own future. Without manipulation and on a basis of full and honest information. That's the only fair basis.
> 
> 
> 
> So all it took was a slogan on the side of a bus to undermine remains project doom.
Click to expand...

It's quite sweet that you think the only lie they told was the one on the side of the bus..


----------



## bobclive22

> I love you blame the Conservatives for brexit? :lol: Why? because David thought people would not be that stupid. So it's there fault. :lol:


No Cameron thought he could scare the sh*t out of the Britt's as he did the Scott`s, remember project fear which is still ongoing.


----------



## bobclive22

-Adam Creighton, *The Australian*

In a sign sluggish wages and higher power prices are starting to bite, the new financial year has seen the biggest fall in retail sales since 2009&#8230;

The Australian dollar fell back towards US78c yesterday after the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed retail sales had fallen 0.6 per cent between July and August, *defying economists' expectations they would rise modestly.*

"Households are facing several headwinds, including record low wage growth, record levels of debt, slowing house price growth, and, importantly, sharply higher energy bills," said ANZ economist Jo Masters. The drop in retail sales by a cumulative 0.8 percentage points over the two months to August, the biggest two-month decline since 2009, comes as consumers receive their first round of power bills after prices went up more than 20 per cent since July."

Ring any bells John.


----------



## John-H

No. The only bells ringing are ones at your end Bob. I can only hear the clock ticking here.

Have you never thought? - Nobody has yet explained what the advantage of leaving the EU are. It's a very strange omission

Why on earth are we doing this when the only tangible things we can see are disadvantages?

Only yesterday an agreement that the WTO beef import/export allocation could be shared between ether EU and the UK, was rejected by the USA and Canada. So much for being first in the queue and receiving favorable deals. Before that we had Bombardier.

Someone once said that trade deals were all about leverage. Out of the EU we will be very small and insignificant. Don't expect much.

Do we really have to damage the country to prove Brexit is a bad idea to those still thinking it's a good idea? That's like allowing your next door neighbor to build a bonfire next to your house and waiting for your house to burn down just so you can prove him wrong to have built it there.

We need to complain and make a fuss now to make a stand so politicians seeing our protests are motivated to show some actual leadership in response and put an end to the nonsense that we are supposedly heading towards.


----------



## John-H

One of the more interesting articles I've seen for a while:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu

How the advent of some common sense can be hurried along:

https://www.gofundme.com/thepeopleschal ... ign=upd_n#


----------



## John-H

Alistair Campbell has written a good article in the New European. He says about Boris Johnson:



> When he was lying his Way through the referendum campaign, we knew little about what Brexit Britain Would look like. Now we are beginning to know more. The pound Worth less - because of Brexit. Rising prices - because of Brexit. Our falling standing in the World - because of Brexit. From the top of the G7 growth league to the bottom - because of Brexit. The investors making plans to move - because of Brexit. EU workers leaving our NHS and our schools and universities, not welcome - because of Brexit. Fruit unpicked in East Anglia - because of Brexit. The Irish border question unresolved and imperiling stability and peace there - because of Brexit. The rights of millions uncertain - because of BreXit. The most complex negotiations imaginable in the hands of a cabinet incapable of meeting for five minutes Without splurging their differences through the media to the other side of the negotiating table. A foreign secretary driven by ego alone; a Prime Minister too Weak to deal with it.


Read the full piece here:

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5223752


----------



## bobclive22

> Alistair Campbell has written a good article in the New European. He says about Boris Johnson


Do you mean this Alistair Campbell Known as Mr plagiarism Campbell,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orism.iraq


----------



## John-H

Back to 2003 for that one Bob? Why not write a letter about it to the New European? I'm sure they won't publish it along with all the other lettes they don't publish from Brexiteer Bob :wink:

Surely you don't support Boris Johnson?


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Do you mean this Alistair Campbell Known as Mr plagiarism Campbell,
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orism.iraq


Do you remember BobBot, the numerous times you've proclaimed that attacking the source rather than the argument itself is a sign that you've lost the debate?

Have you noticed how you do *exactly that* every time anyone quotes something contrary to your views? You immediately try to discredit the source, whether that's a person, an organisation, a company or a media outlet. You're a hypocrite.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, try actually responded to the points raised by other people, instead of desperately looking for reasons why that person should be ignored outright. You don't look intelligent, you look desperate.


----------



## bobclive22

> Have you noticed how you do exactly that every time anyone quotes something contrary to your views? You immediately try to discredit the source, whether that's a person, an organisation, a company or a media outlet. You're a hypocrite.


Spandex, he is a world class spin doctor, lying comes naturally to the man, if the article I posted is crap say so.

What does Lord Bamford say regarding Brexit, I believe his opinion is worth a little bit more than this scoundrels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ng-talent/


----------



## 3TT3

Maybe if catalan caexits , ,as it would automatically if it went independent, and had to renegotiate EU entry or .. not. it might light a fire .
Under the brexit speed of negotiations that is :lol: 
Is there a word about eu implications of the "spanish crisis"..not that Ive seen.
Its the 3 monkeys time.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I believe his opinion is worth a little bit more than this scoundrels.


Yes BobBot, we've covered this before. Opinions you value are ones that agree with you. Opinions you dismiss are ones that disagree with you. It really is as simple as that. Your head is an echo chamber - an analogy that works on a few levels :wink:


----------



## John-H

3TT3 said:


> Maybe if catalan caexits , ,as it would automatically if it went independent, and had to renegotiate EU entry or .. not. it might light a fire .
> Under the brexit speed of negotiations that is :lol:
> Is there a word about eu implications of the "spanish crisis"..not that Ive seen.
> Its the 3 monkeys time.


Yes, the Spanish government rejected the independence result as illegal. So that's how to simply dealt with it :lol:

Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes BobBot, we've covered this before. Opinions you value are ones that agree with you. Opinions you dismiss are ones that disagree with you.


I don`t know where that came from Spandex, if you want to tie your flag to this mans mast your welcome, at least Lord Bamford actually produces world beating British products and employs thousands of British workers, how does (economical with the truth) Campbell actually benefit the British economy.


----------



## bobclive22

> Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in


I would bet if the result had been the other way round it would have been.

The mess is in your dreams John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I don`t know where that came from Spandex, if you want to tie your flag to this mans mast your welcome, at least Lord Bamford actually produces world beating British products and employs thousands of British workers, how does (economical with the truth) Campbell actually benefit the British economy.


'Tie my flag to his mast'?? Did I say I agreed with him? Did I say I disagreed with him? Or have we reached the stage with your arrogance that you no longer need the other person to say anything - you'll just use your savvy builders intellect to work out what they would have said, then respond to their imagined comments. It's an interesting approach BobBot, I'll give you that.

You find someone whose opinion you like, then you find ways to justify why their opinion is worth more than the opinion of people you don't like. And you do that over and over and over. The only person you're fooling is yourself. If the owner of a successful UK company, employing thousands, were to say that brexit was a bad idea, you'd come up with reasons why we shouldn't listen to him (in fact I'm certain you've done exactly that in the past here). When Bamford says it's a good idea, we're supposed to trust him. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then you're beyond hope.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> 3TT3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if catalan caexits , ,as it would automatically if it went independent, and had to renegotiate EU entry or .. not. it might light a fire .
> Under the brexit speed of negotiations that is :lol:
> Is there a word about eu implications of the "spanish crisis"..not that Ive seen.
> Its the 3 monkeys time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Spanish government rejected the independence result as illegal. So that's how to simply dealt with it :lol:
> 
> Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in :roll:
Click to expand...

It wasn't that act of holding the UK referendum that wasn't legally binding. The UK gov tried to get around UK law (still unacceptable) in order to serve the democratic result. Spain is the opposite scenario, they're trying to use law to suppress democracy. But then a lot of that sort of thing goes on under the EU's nose and UK politics is fairly mild in comparison to much of Europe.

Changing the subject slightly but I don't understand all this nonsense about the divorce bill holding up proceedings when they've already agreed a transition period. I Wonder why no one has suggested coming out in 2020 when all financial commitments have been made and benefited from and the bureaucrats have had some more time to sort their lives out. The mind boggles :?


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in
> 
> 
> 
> I would bet if the result had been the other way round it would have been.
> 
> The mess is in your dreams John.
Click to expand...

You seriously trying to claim we are not in a mess?  :lol:

I don't suppose you can hear the alarm bells when your head is in the sand :roll:

By the way, it was Sir Robert Armstrong who said "economical with the truth" under the Thatcher government over the Spycatcher affair - nothing to do with Alistair Campbell.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3TT3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if catalan caexits , ,as it would automatically if it went independent, and had to renegotiate EU entry or .. not. it might light a fire .
> Under the brexit speed of negotiations that is :lol:
> Is there a word about eu implications of the "spanish crisis"..not that Ive seen.
> Its the 3 monkeys time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Spanish government rejected the independence result as illegal. So that's how to simply dealt with it :lol:
> 
> Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't that act of holding the UK referendum that wasn't legally binding. The UK gov tried to get around UK law (still unacceptable) in order to serve the democratic result. Spain is the opposite scenario, they're trying to use law to suppress democracy. But then a lot of that sort of thing goes on under the EU's nose and UK politics is fairly mild in comparison to much of Europe.
> 
> Changing the subject slightly but I don't understand all this nonsense about the divorce bill holding up proceedings when they've already agreed a transition period. I Wonder why no one has suggested coming out in 2020 when all financial commitments have been made and benefited from and the bureaucrats have had some more time to sort their lives out. The mind boggles :?
Click to expand...

Well I was being flippant but although you correctly point out that the UK government tried to invoke Article 50 notice using prerogative powers which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court I was in fact referring to the fact that the June 2016 referendum was only advisory on parliament and the result was never legally binding.

It is interesting to date that no legislation has been passed that would cause us to leave the EU.

It is also interesting that Downing Street have received legal advice on revoking article 50.

Regarding the transition period - that's only been a suggestion. An agreement would require ratification by all 27 member states.

Tick tock ...


----------



## ashfinlayson

All good points John, I know a referendum is only advisory but the Commons took the advice and here we are. As amusing as it would be to see article 50 revoked, I don't see it happening unless old Vince get's in and that's about as likely as my lottery numbers coming in. But then I'll be driving an RS so swings and roundabouts :lol:


----------



## John-H

We'll see. A week is a long time in the shifting sands of politics and this argument is going to run and run whilst our island wealth, investment and reputation gets chipped away far as they dare. It's a game of power in a member state for home consumption. Can you really see our government crashing out with no deal, all the airspace grounded, tarifs imposed, trade dropping of a cliff, huge drop in tax take, no budget for the NHS, medicine and nuclear supplies halted, standards agencies suddenly invalid, social services and any other programme you care to mention unfunded?

The amusing thing this week has been the Brexiteers demanding from the treasury that billions are spent in preparation for "no deal" - hold on, weren't we supposed to be saving £350 million p/w for the NHS? Or are they budgeting in the drop in the wage bill because of the 95% reduction in EU recruitment and their plan to sell the NHS to the USA insurance industry in a privatisation programme because we can't afford it ourselves.

Sorry, that's going too far..... , or is it, would they dare? What choice would they have if they were backed into a perceived corner because they fear a public backlash and of losing their seats? Not the ones who have guaranteed wealth of course and can exploit the chaos and let us all suffer to no detriment to themselves.

If you care, limit the damage by demanding an end to this nonsense. Show your MP that they have support to bring this to an end sooner rather than later.


----------



## ashfinlayson

The idea that everything will come to a standstill in 2019 is total nonsense John, our economies are intertwined and any sudden halt to goods and services in the UK would have economic repercussions across Europe. Juncker is obviously all hoity-toity, happy to cut off his beak-nose to spite his face regarding post-Brexit trade relations, we don't have a trade imbalance with Luxemburg, but it won't wash with the rest of the EU, not the countries that matter anyway.

No doubt certain markets in the UK will suffer with the changes Brexit brings about but others will thrive, as is standard practice in 21st century economics.


----------



## bobclive22

> You seriously trying to claim we are not in a mess?  :lol:
> 
> I don't suppose you can hear the alarm bells when your head is in the sand :roll:
> 
> By the way, it was Sir Robert Armstrong who said "economical with the truth" under the Thatcher government over the Spycatcher affair - nothing to do with Alistair Campbell.


_it was Sir Robert Armstrong who said "economical with the truth" under the Thatcher government _

That may be the case but lying is lying no matter how you dress it up.

_You seriously trying to claim we are not in a mess?_

The Pound is one of the 'most overvalued currency in the world', analysts claim *26 Dec 2015*

The pound is one of the most overvalued currencies in the world and will suffer next year as the Government ramps up spending cuts *and uncertainty about Britain's future in the EU weighs on growth*. Analysts at Deutsche Bank warned that the Bank of England may not be able to raise interest rates "at all" if Britain's recovery slows.
It believes the pound *could fall as low as $1.27 next year and $1.15 in 2017 *

Sterling is overvalued and could hold back UK recovery, warns IMF *28 Jul 2015*
Sterling is overvalued and its strength could hamper Britain's recovery, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned.
The IMF said on Tuesday the pound was between *5pc and 15pc* "above the level consistent with fundamentals and desirable policy settings" at the end of 2014.

*Pound Dollar Exchange Rate (GBP USD) October 12, 2017 is 1.32 to Dollar.*

Where is the mess John other than in your head, by the way these are the experts you appear to trust.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> The idea that everything will come to a standstill in 2019 is total nonsense John, our economies are intertwined and any sudden halt to goods and services in the UK would have economic repercussions across Europe. Juncker is obviously all hoity-toity, happy to cut off his beak-nose to spite his face regarding post-Brexit trade relations, we don't have a trade imbalance with Luxemburg, but it won't wash with the rest of the EU, not the countries that matter anyway.
> 
> No doubt certain markets in the UK will suffer with the changes Brexit brings about but others will thrive, as is standard practice in 21st century economics.


Yes I agree it is total nonsense but because our government won't likely let it happen because we will be the most directly affected.

The idea that Europe needs us more than we need them is nonsense as I think we are coming to realise. They are 27 we are one, go figure!


----------



## 3TT3

John-H said:


> 3TT3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if catalan caexits , ,as it would automatically if it went independent, and had to renegotiate EU entry or .. not. it might light a fire .
> Under the brexit speed of negotiations that is :lol:
> Is there a word about eu implications of the "spanish crisis"..not that Ive seen.
> Its the 3 monkeys time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Spanish government rejected the independence result as illegal. So that's how to simply dealt with it :lol:
> 
> Ours wansn't legally binding either and look at the mess were in :roll:
Click to expand...

I wonder would that have been the reaction to the scottish referendum , if it had gone a different way?
Arrest Salmon, enemy of great Britain !
"democracy is good as long as you agree with the vote"
Subventing the will of the voters cos theyre "dumb" is cool ?

Of course in Spain for example.. no one in the spanish govt is in touch with the EU.
"Its purely a matter for Spain" :lol: 
"Hey pedro!.. take a strong line , we dont want this crap spreading".. which is more likely?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that everything will come to a standstill in 2019 is total nonsense John, our economies are intertwined and any sudden halt to goods and services in the UK would have economic repercussions across Europe. Juncker is obviously all hoity-toity, happy to cut off his beak-nose to spite his face regarding post-Brexit trade relations, we don't have a trade imbalance with Luxemburg, but it won't wash with the rest of the EU, not the countries that matter anyway.
> 
> No doubt certain markets in the UK will suffer with the changes Brexit brings about but others will thrive, as is standard practice in 21st century economics.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree it is total nonsense but because our government won't likely let it happen because we will be the most directly affected.
> 
> The idea that Europe needs us more than we need them is nonsense as I think we are coming to realise. They are 27 we are one, go figure!
Click to expand...

Yes I think whomever said they need us more than we need them is talking utter twaddle, but then even with no deal, we will still continue to use each others goods/services, they will just cost a bit more for all parties, then it'll be up to the next generation of entrepreneurs to start producing more of what we currently import. We've already dealt a blow to the German motor industry lately by slapping a massive tax bill on cars over £40k


----------



## John-H

Which begs the question, why are we doing this? Nobody has explained what advantage we gain - it's all negative as far as I can see. Let's make us all poorer - what a great plan.


----------



## ashfinlayson

It's a difficult one to understand... Tariffs will undoubtedly cost our consumers and eu consumers more but they will also put more into the public purse. As for the new car tax, it's bound to make a lot of purchasers look at other marques and make some car manufactures start throwing options in under threshold. Will probably boost the second-hand market too, I guess we'll see soon enough.


----------



## John-H

It's not a zero sum gain though. That's too simple an analysis. It ignores the sustained advantages we have had through free trade. If you think of the start of the 70's before we joined the EU and even later before the single market and then compare that to now you can see how we've changed from the "sick man of Europe" to what was, until just now, a respected rich enterprising nation ranking 5th in world economies. If you want to see what cutting yourself off from the rest of the world gets you look at North Korea or Cuba. Ok we won't be going that far but stepping in that direction. We will be placing barriers in front of our exporters and barriers in front of our importers. That will make what we buy and sell more expensive and put the cost up to government in providing service and infrastructure in public spending. Only this morning I heard an exporter saying that their orders were down to Europe because buyers were already looking to the future and securing supply before our prices become uncompetitive. Many supply chains operate "just in time" and customs checks will wipe out their business so their only option is to move abroad. The damage is happening already and we haven't even left yet.


----------



## bobclive22

> Which begs the question, why are we doing this? Nobody has explained what advantage we gain


Start here John.

Lord Bamford.

His letter states: "I voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975. I did not vote for a political union, I did not expect us to hand over sovereignty to the EU.

"I certainly did not expect unaccountable leaders in Brussels to govern over us.

"So do I wish to remain in an EU of diminishing economic importance as it moves towards ever closer union? Or do I want us to pull out of the EU, reclaim our sovereignty and regain control of how we trade with Europe and the world?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36485985


----------



## Spandex

Out of interest BobBot, have you told Lord Bamford you love him? It's not good to keep these things bottled up. You never know, he might feel the same way.


----------



## John-H

Lord Bamford, in his misunderstanding of how the EU and trade deals work back in 2016, I'm sure could afford the over £200 p/m figure but would he pay for Bob too?










Bob, you should read this:

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5218037

And these are very interesting too:

https://www.stopbrexitmisconduct.org.uk/links


----------



## ashfinlayson

The Bamfords sell more JCBs globally than in the EU and leaving the EU would mean greater demand for their Daylesford meats with less european produce available - obviously they're going to vote out, and like most other major business leaders, use their influence to convert their employees to the same line of thinking.


----------



## bobclive22

> http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5218037


Just his opinion John, by the way everyone of voting age had the opportunity to vote, probably most of those absent voters were disenfranchised and would obviously have voted the same way as the Mansfield voters.


----------



## bobclive22

> The Bamfords sell more JCBs globally than in the EU and leaving the EU would mean greater demand for their Daylesford meats with less european produce available - obviously they're going to vote out, and like most other major business leaders, use their influence to convert their employees to the same line of thinking.


Bill Gates,

It will be harder to find and recruit the best talent from across the Continent; talent which, in turn, creates jobs for people in the UK. * 2016*

*Bill Gates: Why Britain can still lead world in science and tech after Brexit * *2017*

The problem has always been the number of unskilled workers NOT skilled workers coming onto the UK, skilled workers have and always will be welcome. If they don`t come from the EU they will come from the rest of the world, especially India.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> The Bamfords sell more JCBs globally than in the EU and leaving the EU would mean greater demand for their Daylesford meats with less european produce available - obviously they're going to vote out, and like most other major business leaders, use their influence to convert their employees to the same line of thinking.


Exactly. Business leaders will choose what's good for their company, and some companies would certainly be better off if we were outside the EU.


----------



## ashfinlayson

bobclive22 said:


> The Bamfords sell more JCBs globally than in the EU and leaving the EU would mean greater demand for their Daylesford meats with less european produce available - obviously they're going to vote out, and like most other major business leaders, use their influence to convert their employees to the same line of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates,
> 
> It will be harder to find and recruit the best talent from across the Continent; talent which, in turn, creates jobs for people in the UK. * 2016*
> 
> *Bill Gates: Why Britain can still lead world in science and tech after Brexit * *2017*
> 
> The problem has always been the number of unskilled workers NOT skilled workers coming onto the UK, skilled workers have and always will be welcome. If they don`t come from the EU they will come from the rest of the world, especially India.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the tech industry, it's already difficult to hire talent from the continent because there isn't much talent. Increased difficulty in hiring won't be down to Brexit, it will be down to what approach is taken to emigration and border controls, it could be made quite easy for people to apply to work here.

It's important to realise that people from the continent will still want to come the UK to live and work, they just won't have a right to.


----------



## Spandex

Made me laugh...


----------



## John-H

If we crash out of the EU onto WTO rules we will lose four to five times as much through extra trade costs as the money we save from stopping payments to the EU. That's between £48.6 billion and £58 billion (as opposed to £12 billion to the EU) - the equivalent of between £741 and £884 per person.

The effects in more detail:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/w ... r_Politics

International trade secretary Liam Fox predicted that a free-trade deal with the EU, giving us continued access to EU markets after Brexit, *"should be one of the easiest in human history"
*. His fellow Tory, the hardline Eurosceptic John Redwood said, *"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation."
*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... P=ema-3239

The Brexit secretary has been threatened with legal action over his refusal to publish 50 secret studies commissioned on the impact of Brexit. The Good Law Project has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover the costs of judicial review proceedings which it is planning to bring jointly with the Green party MEP Molly Scott Cato. Scott Cato said, "The European referendum was all about taking back control but how can our democratic representatives make decisions in our interests when the government is withholding vital information?".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-impact


----------



## John-H

Shock and relief at Teresa May's speech:



> I am no longer willing for the delusions of the few to dictate a strategy for the many, when so much is at stake.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nt-be-done


----------



## Shug750S

Just wait until after Christmas when the prices start rising.

Talking with some large retail analists recently and they all reckon 15-20% price increases coming early in the new year.

Looks like all major retailers are absorbing increased costs due to GBP dropping at the moment, either because they have already purchased goods on long term orders at fixed rates, or they are scared to be the first to increase retail prices as first one to crack will lose loads of seasonal custom. Post Christmas nothing to lose, so prices to jump.

Will mood change from some who want out then, as their pockets get hit?


----------



## John-H

The tide is turning. I just read this:

The nicotine stained man-frog declared in April that standing for election in Clacton-on-Sea would be _"a very easy win for me, a personal vindication to get into the House of Commons after all these years of standing in elections"._

Oddly brave Nigel neglected to do so, but we finally got a test of the former UKIP leader's popularity in the Essex seaside town last weekend, when he brought his one-man show to the local Princess Theatre. As of the day before the gig, he'd sold a whopping179 of the 802 available tickets.

Of course, this is no indication that Farage's popularity is waning. As manager Ian Faith explained in _This is Spinal Tap_, it must just be that his _"appeal is becoming more selective"_.


----------



## bobclive22

> Just wait until after Christmas when the prices start rising.
> 
> Talking with some large retail analists recently and they all reckon 15-20% price increases coming early in the new year.
> 
> Looks like all major retailers are absorbing increased costs due to GBP dropping at the moment, either because they have already purchased goods on long term orders at fixed rates, or they are scared to be the first to increase retail prices as first one to crack will lose loads of seasonal custom. Post Christmas nothing to lose, so prices to jump.
> 
> Will mood change from some who want out then, as their pockets get hit?


Perhaps they will use the opportunity to pay down their credit cards, they might even attempt to save a bit, or maybe not.


----------



## John-H

I'm sure Lord Bamford would suggest they could just sell a painting :wink:


----------



## John-H

Something to digest... Jo Maugham has received a "report from HM treasury" on the effects of dropping out onto WTO rules. He's reported it here in a series of Tweets:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/statu ... 1692205057


----------



## John-H

Further to that and constitutionally extremely significant there is considerable doubt whether Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has actually been triggered.

Put simply; the 2016 referendum was only "advisory" legally and has never been ratified by parliament - MPs have never debated and voted to agree the result. All that happened was the passing of The EU (notification of withdrawal) bill - which only gave permission to the Prime Minister to trigger notice of a decision to leave. But legally, there had never been any decision to leave. Therefore the trigger which the Prime Minister subsequently gave was _false_.

Article 50 provides:

(1) _Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements._

(2) _A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention._

In the Miller case before the Supreme Court the court ruled that our constitutional requirements required an act of parliament of primary legislation to make that decision and to make notification lawful. The court said:



Supreme Court Miller v. Secretary of State - Judgement - said:


> A notice under article 50(2) could no doubt be very short indeed, but that would not undermine its momentous significance. The essential point is that, if, as we consider, what would otherwise be a prerogative act would result in a change in domestic law, the act can only lawfully be carried out with the sanction of primary legislation enacted by the Queen in Parliament.
> 
> View attachment uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf


This was of course presuming, as both parties in the case agreed this common ground, that once Article 50 was triggered the UK would inevitably leave the EU (which we now know is not the case) but it underlines the fact that a "decision" to leave requires an act of parliament - which there has not been.

Without legal certainty over triggering Article 50 the whole Brexit process could be ruled invalid at any time.

There is a crowd funded campaign to get this brought before the court:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

Quite why ratification of the 2016 referendum result was omitted from the EU withdrawal bill is remarkable. It could have simply said "This bill ratifies the 2016 referendum result and gives notice ..." etc. but it simply gave permission for the Prime Minister to give notice. Did the government think parliament might have rejected making the "decision" and thought it safer to refer to the decision having already been made? But the "decision" hasn't therefore been made. How is it that government lawyers missed this? They were warned about it. Did they think the legal omission was an insurance policy to negate the process perhaps? Perhaps they had already worked out that notice could be rescinded but were keeping quiet. Who knows?

Whether Article 50 (2) notice can be given without a constitutionally valid "decision" (1) first having been made is arguable. Certainly if a country "decides" then it "shall" notify (this is therefore mandatory) - but what if the "constitutional requirements" in (1) were never met? The ECJ would have to rule if subsequent negotiations under (2) were valid but even if they were, what if a country did not agree the terms of withdrawal in the article 50 process and under its constitution could not therefore enact a "decision" to leave at the end of the process?



Three Knights Opinion said:


> Since, according to our Constitution, Parliament alone can legislate to remove existing rights, or give effect to new rights, it must be for Parliament to consent to the terms of any withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and the changes to domestic law and existing rights that will necessarily follow from that decision. Only Parliament can give legal effect in the United Kingdom to any such agreement and it can do so expressly only when the parameters of that decision are known, in particular when it is clear which rights will be affected.
> 
> Therefore, if Parliament were to refuse to give legal effect to the terms of a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union, or were to refuse to authorise withdrawal in the absence of any agreement, the notification given by the United Kingdom of its intention to leave the European Union could be treated as having lapsed (since the constitutional requirements required to give effect to that intention had not been met), or could be unilaterally withdrawn. Article 50 cannot have the effect of ejecting a Member State from the European Union contrary to its own constitutional requirements.
> 
> (they argue that notice could be given of the form
> 
> *'We have decided to withdraw and here is our notice under Article 50. However, since withdrawal will involve a fundamental change to our laws and will inevitably amend or abrogate individual rights, the terms of withdrawal, in so far as they have such a consequence, can be given effect under our constitution only by an Act of Parliament, and our decision to withdraw is therefore subject to approval of the terms of withdrawal by our Parliament.'*
> 
> View attachment Three_Knights_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf


So, either we have not given notice and are not leaving the EU anyway, or in the event of no deal or a bad deal we can decide to rescind Article 50 notice and stay put. The latter seems to be agreed by the EU already. The Prime Minister seems to have received the same legal advice too.


----------



## John-H

Thoughtful:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -gxp2qcdt5


----------



## John-H

Quiz time. Who said in 2014?



> *"time and time again information is withheld from the public for no good reason other than to spare the blushes of the powerful."*


http://www.europeanmovement.co.uk/release_the_studies


----------



## bobclive22

> Given that leaked figures have shown that the NHS could be short of 40,000 nurses by 2026, it is imperative that the government opens up about the impact Brexit will have across the fifty other sectors it has researched so far."
> 
> - Dr Rob Davidson, Director of Healthier in the EU


Has the government stopped nurses from the EU working in the UK *NO*
Is the UK going to stop skilled workers from the EU filling vacant skilled nursing jobs that can`t be filled by UK workers *NO*
Might it be that the workload and the salaries paid to nurses are to low to attract those skilled nurses from the EU *YES*

Very little to do with Brexit John.

*Nurses And Midwives Leaving Profession In Droves, New Data Reveals
*
This goes beyond the concerns over Brexit - worrying though they are.
*The reduction in numbers is most pronounced among UK registrants. And it is particularly disappointing to see so many of our younger nurses and midwives choosing to leave."*
She said a new staff retention programme will offer support to those NHS trusts with the highest leaving rates.
However, until we address the underlying issues driving retention problems, including the pay cap and the unsustainable workplace pressures, these approaches will only have a limited impact.

Of *4,544* people surveyed in the last year on reasons for leaving, just under half said they were not retiring.

Among this group, top reasons for leaving were working conditions (for example staffing levels and workload), cited by 44%, a change in personal circumstances (such as ill health), cited by 28% and disillusionment with the quality of care provided to patients, cited by 27%.
Other reasons included leaving the UK (18%) and poor pay and benefits (16%).PA

The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives called on the Government to scrap the pay cap to stem the numbers leaving the profession

Of *247 EU leavers, 32% said Brexit had encouraged them to work outside the UK.*

It appears that out of *4544* surveyed *247* were EU leavers, only *32%* of that small group were leaving because of Bexit.

That`s 5.4% out of 4544 nursing staff where Brexit had encouraged them to work outside of the UK, a higher salary and less stress might also have been part of that decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/n ... 37bb7f3483


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Has the government stopped nurses from the EU working in the UK *NO*
> Is the UK going to stop skilled workers from the EU filling vacant skilled nursing jobs that can`t be filled by UK workers *NO*


You're doing it again. You don't know what border controls will be in place after we leave, so stop making statements about it based purely on your own beliefs about what would be sensible.

Surely the whole point of them saying "*could* be short of 40000 nurses" rather than "*will* be short of 40000 nurses" is because there is uncertainty and they're reporting on what *could* happen. By saying 'could', they're qualifying their statement. Something you should try occasionally.


----------



## John-H

Wrong again Bob. It was David Davis.

Oh you've give off topic. What you are talking about is what we all know - the NHS is underfunded. The article you link to says the effect of underfunding "goes beyond Brexit - worrying though this is" It doesn't set out to let Brexit off the hook like you do.

So you seem to be saying that the more the government underfund the NHS the less we'll notice the effect of Brexit - that staffing applications from the EU are down 92% since the referendum.

That's fantastic Bob. You should run the country with fantastic policies and logical thinking of such quality. :roll:

Unfortunately all the government idiot, buffoon and I'm alright Jack posts are taken.


----------



## Spandex

An interesting look into the psychology of Brexit (and other populist movements):

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 102317.php


----------



## Shug750S

bobclive22 said:


> Might it be that the workload and the salaries paid to nurses are to low to attract those skilled nurses from the EU *YES*
> 
> Very little to do with Brexit


Might it be that the 20% drop in the pound following brexit vote has meant salaries are no longer worth the move to the UK?

Now that would have something to do with Brexit...


----------



## Spandex




----------



## bobclive22

> You're doing it again. You don't know what border controls will be in place after we leave, so stop making statements about it based purely on your own beliefs about what would be sensible.
> 
> Surely the whole point of them saying "could be short of 40000 nurses" rather than "will be short of 40000 nurses" is because there is uncertainty and they're reporting on what could happen. By saying 'could', they're qualifying their statement. Something you should try occasionally.


I recollect one of the main reasons for Brexit was to reduce immigration of low skilled and no skilled labour coming from eastern European EU member states which forced down wages of British lower paid workers and increased the volume of zero rate jobs. Immigration of higher skilled workers from the EU will not to my knowledge be reduced until the need for those workers has been met.



> _Surely the whole point of them saying "could be short of 40000 nurses" rather than "will be short of 40000 nurses" _


Most of that shortage is not down Brexit, read the article Spandex.


----------



## bobclive22

> Might it be that the 20% drop in the pound following brexit vote has meant salaries are no longer worth the move to the UK?
> 
> Now that would have something to do with Brexit...


The leaving group of nurses in the article stated Brexit was a factor not the reason, the lower pound might be the reason for nurses coming if they were intending to work here temporarily, sending most of their salary home, if they actually wanted to move to the UK permanently the exchange rate should surely not be an issue.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Immigration of higher skilled workers from the EU will not to my knowledge be reduced until the need for those workers has been met.


To your knowledge? You don't have any knowledge of what they will do. None of us do. I'm not entirely convinced our government really know what will happen.


bobclive22 said:


> _Surely the whole point of them saying "could be short of 40000 nurses" rather than "will be short of 40000 nurses" _
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that shortage is not down Brexit, read the article Spandex.
Click to expand...

The article says that for the first time in recent history, more than half of leavers are uk born nurses. That doesn't mean that more than half of the 'shortage' will be caused by uk nurses leaving, because that shortage won't be solely down to vacancies created this year.

And even if half the vacancies are due to uk nurses leaving, that doesn't mean we can just ignore the other half, or pretend that the other half must have left for the same reason as the uk nurses.

You need to engage your brain a bit when you read these things instead of jumping to conclusions just because you think it supports some argument you're making,


----------



## bobclive22

> The article says that for the first time in recent history, more than half of leavers are uk born nurses. That doesn't mean that more than half of the 'shortage' will be caused by uk nurses leaving, because that shortage won't be solely down to vacancies created this year.
> 
> And even if half the vacancies are due to uk nurses leaving, that doesn't mean we can just ignore the other half, or pretend that the other half must have left for the same reason as the uk nurses.
> 
> You need to engage your brain a bit when you read these things instead of jumping to conclusions just because you think it supports some argument you're making,


The overall shortage of 30,000 nurses is* not a shortage caused by the Brexit vote*. The chronic shortage of nurses is the *result of years of short-term planning and cuts to training places*. A sustainable, long-term approach to workforce planning is desperately needed."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN193246

This is the first sign of a change following the EU referendum and it is our responsibility as the regulator to share these figures with the public," said Jackie Smith, chief executive of the NMC.

However, she stressed that it was *not possible to link the fall in registrations with Brexit "definitively".*
There are almost 700,000 nurses currently registered in the UK, of which 84.8% are British, 5.6% from the EU and 9.6% from the rest of the world.

Other reasons that could explain the decline include the toughening of the English language test in 2016, or the sharp decline of the pound, which has *cut wages in euro terms.*

If this is the case these nurses are working in the UK just for the money, the IMF in 2015 stated the UK exchange rate was up to 20% to high therefor Brexit is not a reason for EU nurses leaving, money is.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/health ... st-brexit/


----------



## Spandex

I don't think anyone claimed Brexit was entirely responsible. But if it's responsible for a portion of the vacancies, that's a bad thing, right?

You don't have to defend everything about Brexit BobBot. It *will* have some negative effects, and if you sit there trying to justify every single one, you're going to end up looking even more mental than usual.


----------



## John-H

Is this you Bob?






This isn't you ... yet:






Not new but worth a reminder about the sort of character much of Brexit was based on:


----------



## Shug750S

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604

Wonder what Bob's take on this one is?

75,000 jobs and a lot of tax disappearing


----------



## bobclive22

> I don't think anyone claimed Brexit was entirely responsible. But if it's responsible for a portion of the vacancies, that's a bad thing, right?
> 
> You don't have to defend everything about Brexit BobBot. It will have some negative effects, and if you sit there trying to justify every single one, you're going to end up looking even more mental than usual.


What about the weather :wink: :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> The Bank of England believes that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost in financial services following Britain's departure from the European Union.


There is that word again (*could*).

The Bank of England has warned for the first time that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave the EU in next month's referendum.

Mark Carney, the Bank's governor, warned that the risks of leaving "could possibly include a technical recession".
Prime Minister David Cameron said the warning amounted to "a very clear message" of the dangers of Brexit.

Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's chief economist, said there was a "disconnect" between political warnings about Brexit and the "remarkably placid" state of the markets, adding that the worst predictions may turn out to be "just scare stories".

The Bank of England's chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote.


----------



## bobclive22

> Not new but worth a reminder about the sort of character much of Brexit was based on:







Have you read the comments John.


----------



## John-H

So was it you Bob?



bobclive22 said:


> The Bank of England believes that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost in financial services following Britain's departure from the European Union.
> 
> 
> 
> There is that word again (*could*).
> 
> The Bank of England has warned for the first time that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave the EU in next month's referendum.
> 
> Mark Carney, the Bank's governor, warned that the risks of leaving "could possibly include a technical recession".
> Prime Minister David Cameron said the warning amounted to "a very clear message" of the dangers of Brexit.
> 
> Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's chief economist, said there was a "disconnect" between political warnings about Brexit and the "remarkably placid" state of the markets, adding that the worst predictions may turn out to be "just scare stories".
> 
> The Bank of England's chief economist has admitted his profession is in crisis having failed to foresee the 2008 financial crash and having misjudged the impact of the Brexit vote.
Click to expand...

Bob, the prediction was about the effect of leaving. You don't seem to realise that we haven't left yet :roll:

Here's the way public opinion is heading rather than Bob's:












bobclive22 said:


> Not new but worth a reminder about the sort of character much of Brexit was based on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the comments John.
Click to expand...

I don't take much notice of the comments Bob as they are too often written by idiots.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyYoL9ngtE
> Have you read the comments John.


Genius. If you want the BobBots view of the internet summed up in one sentence, this is it. :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

MPs have tonight voted to force the government to release the 58 Brexit impact studies. Well done to all those who helped to put pressure on their MPs.

In other developments Aaron Banks is to be investigated for breaking spending limits in the referendum.

Tick Tock ...

Some scandalous reports:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... d-vast-loo

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/09/18/16188/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... estigated/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 99046.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... estigated/


----------



## FJ1000

Shug750S said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604
> 
> Wonder what Bob's take on this one is?
> 
> 75,000 jobs and a lot of tax disappearing


Just to make it clear - Finance jobs leaving the UK is not a hypothetical, it has already started. My old team at Goldman has moved roles to Frankfurt and Dublin, and a friend of mine is on a task force that has been setting up the licences and infrastructure to support much bigger staff moves to Frankfurt.

Some quick maths, if GS does indeed move 1000 jobs: assuming the average salary is £75,000, at 32% tax and NI, that's £24M lost to the treasury per year just from one employer. Not to mention the lost tax from those people's spending.

Also keep in mind, GS's UK presence is multiples smaller that other banks.

If 75,000 jobs go - that's £1.8bn lost per year. 75k jobs is higher than some estimates I've seen, but even at half that rate, it's the best part of £1bn. Plus lost VAT, stamp duty etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

> Mr Bradshaw asked Theresa May at Prime Minister's Questions: "With today's news that the Electoral Commission is investigating Arron Banks, the main financial backer of Brexit , along with the significant British connections being uncovered by the American Justice Department's special counsel Robert Mueller, investigating Russian interference in the US presidential election, will you assure me that the UK Government and all its agencies are co-operating fully with the Mueller investigation or will do so if asked?"


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/l ... r_Politics


----------



## John-H

Looks like the Times is catching up:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/worl ... -qtmnrb5fm

Given that the result was so narrow (600k) and Aaron Banks statement, *"artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'"*. Can we trust and should we continue to accept the result resulting from this manipulation?

Will of the people or will of the Kremlin plus the rich elite and US backers?










This man maybe revealing, some connections:


----------



## bobclive22

> Given that the result was so narrow (600k) and Aaron Banks statement, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'". Can we trust and should we continue to accept the result resulting from this manipulation?
> 
> Will of the people or will of the Kremlin plus the rich elite and US backers?


Just seems a bit odd John.

According to a report in the Guardian, billionaire financier Robert Mercer, who helped bankroll Donald Trump's campaign for the presidency, "directed his data analytics firm to provide expert advice to the Leave campaign on how to target swing voters *via Facebook *

Now *88% of facebook uses are in the 18 to 29 age group.*

It is thought that more than* 70% of young voters chose to remain in the EU. *

I believe it`s called clutching at straws, what about the governments remain pamphlet, surely that had a bearing on the remain vote, perhaps if a leave pamphlet had been delivered at the same time the leave result might have been even greater.

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/new-s ... /#facebook
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ce-as-high

And so, a domino effect is apparent. If the campaigns had focused more on engaging younger audiences, perhaps more would have felt inclined to vote, which could have led to a potentially different result. This is especially pertinent for the Remain campaign, as 75% of voters aged 18-24, who did in fact vote, chose to stay in the EU. *Yet, only one piece of targeted content was created by #StrongerIn.*

If you don`t engage you don`t get any results, whose fault was that John.

https://thinkasone.co.uk/blog/brexit-th ... n-politics


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Given that the result was so narrow (600k) and Aaron Banks statement, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'". Can we trust and should we continue to accept the result resulting from this manipulation?
> 
> Will of the people or will of the Kremlin plus the rich elite and US backers?
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems a bit odd John.
> 
> According to a report in the Guardian, billionaire financier Robert Mercer, who helped bankroll Donald Trump's campaign for the presidency, "directed his data analytics firm to provide expert advice to the Leave campaign on how to target swing voters *via Facebook *
> 
> Now *88% of facebook uses are in the 18 to 29 age group.*
> 
> It is thought that more than* 70% of young voters chose to remain in the EU. *
> 
> I believe it`s called clutching at straws, what about the governments remain pamphlet, surely that had a bearing on the remain vote, perhaps if a leave pamphlet had been delivered at the same time the leave result might have been even greater. ...
Click to expand...

They weren't targeting the young. They were targeting the margin they calculated they could influence and recruit covertly to influence others using intelligence technology. Robert Mercer allegedly did the same thing in the Trump campaign and the anti Hilary messages virally reached half the US population.

Our laws to govern fairness of leaflets and political broadcasts in elections are a little out of date when up against this technology but it is still unlawful for foreign influence to interfere.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Now *88% of facebook uses are in the 18 to 29 age group.*


You know what BobBot, I genuinely enjoy reverse engineering your gibberish to find exactly how you managed to cock it up so spectacularly. Invariably though, the common theme is you completely missing an obviously wrong number, because you read what you want to be true, not what's actually in front of you. Anyway, let's get to work.

If you ever use Facebook it's quite clear that it's not really a young persons platform anymore. The idea that 88% of its users are below 29 is obviously wrong without even having to look up the numbers. So where did the BobBot get this figure? A quick google brings this up:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/s ... date_0-02/

Any idiot can see (ok, not _any_ idiot. One idiot missed it) that it's actually saying that 88% of 18-29 year olds use Facebook. Not even remotely the same as what you said, is it BobBot? The actual demographics show that the a large number of Facebook users are over 35. It's hard to get exact figures, but it is well known that older people are flocking to Facebook, while younger people tend to use other social media platforms.

And you want us to trust your analysis of climateology or economics, yet you make basic mistakes when trying to read simple statistics?


----------



## bobclive22

> Robert Mercer allegedly did the same thing in the Trump campaign and the anti Hilary messages virally reached half the US population.


John, it appears Hilary wasn`t liked even by the Dems, it also appeared she screwed Bernie Sanders chances plus the little thing regarding her private email server.

*How Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump*

Read the comments, it doesn`t appear any anti Hilary messages were necessary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05256.html


----------



## bobclive22

> If you ever use Facebook it's quite clear that *it's not really a young persons platform anymore.* The idea that 88% of its users are below 29 is obviously wrong without even having to look up the numbers. So where did the BobBot get this figure? A quick google brings this up:


Yes Spandex, it should have been age group.

*Facebook age demographics
*
In the same breath declaring that users are leaving Facebook, people love to exclaim that young people are leading the way. However, the numbers paint a different picture:

82 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds online use Facebook
79 percent of 30 to 49-year-olds online use Facebook
56 percent of online users ages 65 and up use Facebook

The largest demographic on Facebook, those aged 25 to 34, is also the prime target demographic for most marketers. With this Facebook statistic alone, it's clear that your business should undoubtedly have a presence on the platform.

https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-demographics/

Both sides must have known this but it appears only leave took advantage of it.


----------



## bobclive22

> Given that the result was so narrow (600k) and Aaron Banks statement, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'". Can we trust and should we continue to accept the result resulting from this manipulation?


Is this what you mean John.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> In the same breath declaring that users are leaving Facebook, people love to exclaim that young people are leading the way. However, the numbers paint a different picture


The numbers actually don't paint any picture. Firstly, they give no indication of actual numbers of users (as they refer to a percentage of an unquantified figure) and secondly they are a snapshot, therefore don't show a trend. So no, those numbers don't paint a different picture.

But let's not gloss over the point here - you keep on getting basic things wrong because you're terrible at reading and analysing statistics. To compound this general uselessness, you do all your 'research' by furiously hunting for things that demonstrate a particular point - which means you don't bother looking into anything in any depth once you think it fits the bill.

You thought you were making a point that 88% of Facebook users are under 29 - let's not pretend you still have a point now you know they're not.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Given that the result was so narrow (600k) and Aaron Banks statement, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'". Can we trust and should we continue to accept the result resulting from this manipulation?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you mean John.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. You don't seem to understand - I'll be polite and presume deliberately.


----------



## FJ1000

Looking for data to back your predetermined views is a common phenomenon - referred to as confirmation bias.

Getting stats wrong, representing them incorrectly, or just plain making them up is also a well known phenomenon but it wouldn't be polite to point out some descriptive words for that!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Just seems a bit odd John.
> 
> According to a report in the Guardian, billionaire financier Robert Mercer, who helped bankroll Donald Trump's campaign for the presidency, "directed his data analytics firm to provide expert advice to the Leave campaign on how to target swing voters *via Facebook *
> 
> Now *88% of facebook uses are in the 18 to 29 age group.*
> 
> It is thought that more than* 70% of young voters chose to remain in the EU. *
> 
> I believe it`s called clutching at straws


While we're here, looking at numbers, let's address your wider point here BobBot. Firstly, we've covered your statistics cock up, but here's some actual numbers:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/507 ... nd-gender/

If you add them up, there are significantly more (something like 6 million more?) facebook users over 35 than under. Oh, and there are actually more people in the 35-44 group than in the 18-24s, which backs up the idea that young people often choose other forms of social media. Anyway, here are a few things you seem to have missed:

1. As explained above, there are plenty of older people to target Leave campaign ads at on Facebook.
2. If 70% of young voters chose to remain, that means 30% chose to leave and any number of them could have been partially influenced by online ads. You can't just ignore them because they're not typical of that demographic. Stupid old farts may have made up the bulk of Leave voters, but they'd still have lost if it wasn't for that 30% of young people - 88% of whom are on Facebook.
3. These are *targetted* ads (that's the whole point) based on psychological profiling. So realistically, you can't look at the demographics of facebook as a whole and use that to make sweeping statements about whether or not something could have influenced the vote - these ads weren't seen by a representative cross-section of the users, they were seen by individual people who were identified as undecided, but easily manipulated - then they were bombarded with shock-tactic ads.

This was the Leave campaigns own project fear. They did it covertly and insidiously, in the tabloids and in dodgy facebook newsfeed manipulation.


----------



## bobclive22

> These are targetted ads


Perhaps you can place a link to one of them, do they actually exist.



> This was the Leave campaigns own project fear.


If that was the case it would appear to have evened up the debate.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps you can place a link to one of them, do they actually exist.


Sorry BobBot, are you actually saying this didn't happen, or just being an irritating tit?


bobclive22 said:


> If that was the case it would appear to have evened up the debate.


Hmm... so you _do_ accept it happened. Looks like you've answered my question above.


----------



## bobclive22

> Sorry BobBot, are you actually saying this didn't happen, or just being an irritating tit?


Spandex, just asking for an example of a Brexit targeted add on facebook, it appears there are NO examples of these adds on the internet, not that I can find anyway, there are some Tory black adds targeting Corbin though. If the adds can`t be produced where is the evidence they actually existed?.

Now it appears the Bastion of free speech can give an example of a Tory black add but not a Brexit one.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-election

*Brexit is most probably settled.*

http://pmd.cdn.turner.com/money/big/tec ... 24x576.mp4


----------



## John-H

You don't know why Arron Banks said, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'" do you Bob?


----------



## bobclive22

> You don't know why Arron Banks said, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'" do you Bob?


Where are the adds John, without the adds it`s all bull, fake news I believe it`s called, Arron Banks is probably taking the p*** knowing nothing can be done about it even if it was true which it probably isn`t. Don`t you think the Guardian would have an example if it existed.


----------



## bobclive22

bullsh**, bit odd this John I seem to hear FCUK on the TV most weeks.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> You don't know why Arron Banks said, "artificial intelligence won it for 'leave'" do you Bob?
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the adds John, without the adds it`s all bull, fake news I believe it`s called, Arron Banks is probably taking the p*** knowing nothing can be done about it even if it was true which it probably isn`t. Don`t you think the Guardian would have an example if it existed.
Click to expand...

 :lol: You are so predictable Bob. So, perhaps you can help explain why Arron Banks and others in the alleged joint enterprise paid so much money to Aggregate IQ? That was all for nothing was it? No reason ... nothing expected in return?

If you don't want it to be true then it's a bit like the psychology of climate change...


----------



## FJ1000

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, just asking for an example of a Brexit targeted add on facebook, it appears there are NO examples of these adds on the internet, not that I can find anyway


The thing is BobBot, there don't have to be examples saved online for it to be true, and there don't even have to be examples saved online for it to be proven to be true. All you're doing is setting meaningless challenges because you feel obliged to defend every aspect of Brexit and the leave vote. If you have to see an actual advert before you're convinced then maybe you're destined to remain unconvinced. I don't really see why I should care about that though.


----------



## John-H

FJ1000 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, the payments (£3.9m) by Vote Leave to Aggregate IQ are on record, as are the payments by other leave groups. The common purpose is under investigation in relation to our somewhat inadequate electoral laws.


----------



## John-H

Well worth watching to dispel a few myths:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhKXtoK ... 0u6HygBir5

https://www.reasons2remain.co.uk/


----------



## bobclive22

> The thing is BobBot, there don't have to be examples saved online for it to be true, and there don't even have to be examples saved online for it to be proven to be true.


Are you saying Spandex, you don`t need evidence for the accusations to be true, if you don`t have any examples how do you know who sent what and who received what.


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, the payments (£3.9m) by Vote Leave to Aggregate IQ are on record, as are the payments by other leave groups. The common purpose is under investigation in relation to our somewhat inadequate electoral laws.


Change the law for next time.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Yes, the payments (£3.9m) by Vote Leave to Aggregate IQ are on record, as are the payments by other leave groups. The common purpose is under investigation in relation to our somewhat inadequate electoral laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Change the law for next time.
Click to expand...

The law against common purpose and spending limits already exists. That's what's being investigated with a view to prosecution right now. The electoral commission are also being taken to judicial review for a lack of action on this regard.

If you mean that a new law should be introduced following careful consideration given to balance regarding psychological techniques and covert advertising on social media and its influence on the public - as careful consideration was originally given to the then new idea of party political broadcasting on television - trying to ensure balance and fairness for all to see - then yes we need new laws to reflect the current rapidly developing situation.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well worth watching to dispel a few myths:


If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny.

In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together.

*Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations,* mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well *must be the friends and sponsors *of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

I believe that clearly indicates Churchill was intent on helping Europe not joining Europe.

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/NHR.html

*Mr Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich I9th September 1946.*

http://www.churchill-society-london.org ... onish.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The thing is BobBot, there don't have to be examples saved online for it to be true, and there don't even have to be examples saved online for it to be proven to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying Spandex, you don`t need evidence for the accusations to be true, if you don`t have any examples how do you know who sent what and who received what.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly of course you don't need evidence for the accusations to be true - they're either true or they're not. Proving they're true is a different matter. Which brings us onto the second point: examples of the adverts are just one piece of evidence, but I don't really see how the entire burden of proof hinges on that one piece of evidence.

Basically, what's happened is this: You've gone on google and searched for examples of the adverts and not found any. So, you've figured that this is a good way to argue that the whole thing is made up - you demand to see examples, no one finds any and you announce that it must all be bollocks.

Unfortunately, you don't get to chose some arbitrary bar which has to be reached in order to prove something is true.


----------



## bobclive22

> Yes, the payments (£3.9m) by Vote Leave to Aggregate IQ are on record,


If that`s the case what did they get for their money, without evidence that the adds actually existed nothing will happen surely.

On 29 March, the day article 50 was triggered, I called one of the smaller campaigns, Veterans for Britain. Cummings's strategy was to target people in the last days of the campaign and Vote Leave gave the smaller group £100,000 in the last week. A small number of people they identified as "persuadable" were bombarded with more than a billion ads, the vast majority in the last few days.

More than a billion adds and not one surfaces.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -democracy


----------



## bobclive22

> Basically, what's happened is this: You've gone on google and searched for examples of the adverts and not found any. So, you've figured that this is a good way to argue that the whole thing is made up - you demand to see examples, no one finds any and you announce that it must all be bollocks.


Well the whole of project fear was made up, the problem here Spandex is that remain didn`t think of targeting facebook first, (if that actually happened) or they would have done it, they thought their propaganda pamphlet would do it.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well the whole of project fear was made up, the problem here Spandex is that remain didn`t think of targeting facebook first, (if that actually happened) or they would have done it, they thought their propaganda pamphlet would do it.


So, just to be clear. Your 'argument' is that it probably didn't happen and if it did happen, it's ok because the Remain campaign would have done it if they'd thought of it?

So not only are you a liar, you also think cheating is fine as long as you do it before the other side think of it. You're all class BobBot.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Yes, the payments (£3.9m) by Vote Leave to Aggregate IQ are on record,
> 
> 
> 
> If that`s the case what did they get for their money, without evidence that the adds actually existed nothing will happen surely.
Click to expand...

You really have no morals, do you BobBot? You're not concerned about whether or not this happened, you're just trying to work out if they can get away with it.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Well worth watching to dispel a few myths:
> 
> 
> 
> If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
> 
> The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny.
> 
> In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together.
> 
> *Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations,* mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well *must be the friends and sponsors *of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.
> 
> I believe that clearly indicates Churchill was intent on helping Europe not joining Europe.
> 
> http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/NHR.html
> 
> *Mr Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich I9th September 1946.*
> 
> http://www.churchill-society-london.org ... onish.html
Click to expand...

Well you'd be wrong Bob. You are quoting Churchill there (a little confusingly as if they are your own words). Your words Bob are:



> I believe that clearly indicates Churchill was intent on helping Europe not joining Europe.


You obviously didn't watch the video properly. If you had you would have seen that four months after he congratulated the formation of the common market in a speech in July 1957 in Central Hall Westminster, Churchill said that he welcomed the formation of the "common market" by the six provided that, "the whole of free Europe will have access" and added that "we genuinely wish to join.."

Churchill said,



> *
> "We genuinely wish to join a European free trade area - and if our continental friends wish to reach agreement, I am quite sure a way can be found and that reasonable adjustments can be made to meet the essential interests of all."*


Along with other disreputable Brexiteers you are attempting to misquote and misinterpret Churchill's intentions to be against, instead of his actual support for, a "United States of Europe" which he passionately advocated to ensure peace through trade and in later life, after Britain lost its empire and commonwealth, wished to join.

In 1963, two years before Churchill died, He said, "The future of Europe if Britain were to be excluded is black indeed."

You should read this article by Jon Danzig exposing the lies and deception employed by some leave campaigners in relation to Churchill:

https://m.facebook.com/JonDanzigWrites/ ... 08890568:0

Also this article by Stuart Wilks-Heeg:

http://theconversation.com/what-churchi ... rope-36613


----------



## bobclive22

> You obviously didn't watch the video properly. If you had you would have seen that four months after he congratulated the formation of the common market in a speech in July 1957 in Central Hall Westminster, Churchill said that he welcomed the formation of the "common market" by the six provided that, "the whole of free Europe will have access" and added that "we genuinely wish to join.."


_Churchill said that he welcomed the formation of the "common market and we genuinely wish to join_"

I don`t see political union mentioned anywhere.



> We genuinely wish to join a European free trade area - and if our continental friends wish to reach agreement, I am quite sure a way can be found and that reasonable adjustments can be made to meet the essential interests of all."


A European free trade area yes, are you seriously suggesting Churchill`s (reasonable adjustments) meant giving away sovereignty when hundreds of thousands of lives had been lost in two world wars protecting it, your in cuckoo land John.

On 11 May 1953, Churchill did said:

"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition "with" but not "of"-we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire."

In August 1961, Churchill wrote:

"I think that the Government are right to apply to join the *European Economic Community.*.."


----------



## Spandex

Why do we actually care what Churchill said 60 years ago? Or is this just because your average brexiteer considers him a minor deity?


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Why do we actually care what Churchill said 60 years ago? Or is this just because your average brexiteer considers him a minor deity?


Well, Bob along with other Brexiteers do keep incorrectly bringing up Churchill in support of their arguments and quoting him out of context. If they respect Churchill then perhaps if correctly informed they may realise their arguments are flawed.



bobclive22 said:


> A European free trade area yes, are you seriously suggesting Churchill`s (reasonable adjustments) meant giving away sovereignty when hundreds of thousands of lives had been lost in two world wars protecting it, your in cuckoo land John.


Bob, you've still not watched the video or read the articles I provided to you. Had you done so you should not again be posting incorrect statements about Churchill with regard to the purpose of the EU or what Churchill thought about the sharing of sovereignty. Yes I am seriously staying that Churchill accepted this and I'll provide his words on the subject. It is you who are cookoo for not checking your facts - even when they are provided to you! :roll:

The whole purpose of the European Union was political from the start - to ensure peace. Trade was only the vehicle used to achieve this which was why it was called the Common Market.

The quote you have provided is out of context as at that time Britain still had an Empire and Commonwealth. Churchill was being practical - there was no principled objection.

Since you keep failing to read what's provided I will quote some of Jon Danzig's article here so you have no excuse. I'll even highlight Churchill's words about sovereignty and whether he thought joining the EU was the correct decision.



> In 1950, Churchill explained to Parliament why he didn't "at present" foresee Britain being, "a member of a Federal Union of Europe." This was primarily because of Britain's position, "at the centre of the British Empire and Commonwealth", and, "our fraternal association with the United States of America."
> 
> It was clear that Churchill's opposition was not a principled one, but a practical one.
> 
> Crucially, in answering the question 'Are you prepared to part with any degree of national sovereignty in any circumstances for the sake of a larger synthesis?' Churchill responded:
> 
> *'We are prepared to consider and, if convinced, to accept the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards&#8230; national sovereignty is not inviolable, and it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all men in all the lands finding their way home together.'
> *
> Everything was to change during the course of the 1950s and 1960s, when it became clear that Britain's Empire had finished and its Commonwealth was diminished.
> 
> In March 1957 the six nations of France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg founded the European Economic Community (later to be renamed the European Union).
> 
> Four months later Churchill gave his last speech on Europe at Central Hall, Westminster. He welcomed the formation of a 'common market' by the six, provided that, "the whole of free Europe will have access." He added, "we genuinely wish to join."
> 
> In August 1961, Churchill wrote: *"I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community..."
> *
> Churchill supported the 'welding' of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg into 'an organic whole', which he described as a "happy outcome" of the European Economic Community. Churchill added:
> 
> "We might well play a great part in these developments to the profit of not only ourselves, but of our European friends also."
> 
> And in 1963, just two years before he died, Churchill wrote, "The future of Europe if Britain were to be excluded is black indeed."


Now, are you going to apologise Bob and admit you were wrong?


----------



## Spandex

It was interesting watching BobBots man-crush, James Dyson on the Andrew Marr Show this weekend... I wanted to see if he'd explain his reasoning for supporting brexit, and indirectly he did - he basically said that the majority of his overseas sales are outside Europe. In other words, he doesn't really care about how it will affect businesses that deal primarily with Europe, because that's not his problem. He'll be alright.

He then went on to explain how he wanted a more 'flexible' workforce (i.e. zero hours contracts) because it costs him money keeping permanent staff on when orders can go up and down, and he wants it to be easier to hire and fire people. Still his number one fan BobBot? Are your morals flexible enough that you can overlook anything as long as someone supports brexit?

He also thinks corporation tax should be dropped so he's not taxed on his profit. So, to summarise all of his views, he want's everything to change to allow him to make more money. Not an unexpected view for a business leader, but a good example of why we shouldn't ask business leaders what they think is best for the country - they'll just tell you what's best for their business.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/12/james-dys ... e-7073226/


----------



## 3TT3




----------



## Spandex

Pffft... More like:


----------



## FJ1000

Haha - that's great, I'm pinching that!

Thanks Spandex - we need some humour while this slow train wreck continues...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

Being serious for a moment. You won't have seen this document that was passed to me:

View attachment Taking-a-terrible-gamble.pdf


It's a report on the banking and insurance sector risk of £20T of cross border unassigned derivatives held by UK business in the EU and a similar amount in reverse that could be at risk from the government's great idea of fixing the EU exit date in the withdrawal bill. To say this could cause a banking crisis is an understatement.

Not only that but the effect on UK motor insurance with the possibility that a quarter of motor policies could become unenforceable before the leave date with owners becoming liable for losses.

With one MP yesterday proposing an amendment that the leave date time should be changed by an hour so it becomes British time rather than EU time - you start to wonder - Have they got a clue?


----------



## bobclive22

> It's a report on the banking and insurance sector risk of £20T of cross border unassigned derivatives held by UK business in the EU and a similar amount in reverse that could be at risk from the government's great idea of fixing the EU exit date in the withdrawal bill. To say this could cause a banking crisis is an understatement.
> 
> Not only that but the effect on UK motor insurance with the possibility that a quarter of motor policies could become unenforceable before the leave date with owners becoming liable for losses.
> 
> With one MP yesterday proposing an amendment that the leave date time should be changed by an hour so it becomes British time rather than EU time - you start to wonder - Have they got a clue?


Michael Bloomberg, the businessman and former New York mayor, said *London will remain a global financial capital after Brexit.*

He told the BBC that the UK's departure from the EU would probably slow the capital's growth, but *would not see it eclipsed by a European rival*, BBC wrote.

London's benefits were its culture and the English language, Bloomberg said.

Recently he called Brexit the 'single dumbest thing' a country has ever done.

Bloomberg, whose data terminals are used by many dealers and bankers, last week *opened a new European headquarters in London *between the Bank of England and St Paul's Cathedral.

The 3.2 acre site has more than one million square feet of office space.

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today program if he would have gone ahead with the major development had be known about the Brexit decision, Bloomberg said:* "There's just no question in my mind, [we] absolutely would have because London is always going to be the financial center of Europe for the foreseeable future."*

It`s not all bad then.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ...
> 
> It`s not all bad then.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: [smiley=bigcry.gif]

Well at least you seem to agree that most of it is bad at last.


----------



## bobclive22

> Well at least you seem to agree that most of it is bad at last.


Only in your mind John


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Well at least you seem to agree that most of it is bad at last.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your mind John
Click to expand...

To be fair BobBot, you did just say "it's not *all* bad then" after pointing out *one* thing that you thought wasn't bad. If you didn't mean to imply that it was mostly bad, it's hardly johns fault you're not very good at English.


----------



## John-H

Here's some good news for Bob

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42055523


----------



## John-H

The more I hear the details of Brexit the more concerning it becomes.

I've just listened to a legal blog about the EU withdrawal bill highlighting the fact that the government have removed the "rule in Francovich"



> Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union member states could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the member state's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law.


This is very important as it highlights how we are losing our rights. We will not be able to hold the government to account as we can at present.

Basically, the government are transposing EU law into UK law in this bill but they are removing a clause that would allow UK citizens or companies to hold the government to account for failure to implement the transposed law - there is no equivalent to the rights we have at present in EU law.

For example, at the moment, if you believe the government is not implementing pollution laws properly you can complain free of charge to the EU commission. They will ask the member state what's happening and they have the powers to organise a study, take as long as they need and ultimately take enforcement action through the ECJ. That's great for the citizen.

What they are replacing it with is nothing.

There will be no equivalent right created to take the government to task over the transposed laws in the UK. All we will have is is possible action under our system of judicial review. This is costly however and time limited once started so there's little scope for studies to be ordered and If you lose you'll pay the government's costs. The system also doesn't fit well when the injured party is the environment. It's not an equivalent or adequate safeguard.

So much for the UK safeguarding standards.


----------



## John-H

Well at least the frog man is happy:



> Nigel Farage admits he will keep his £73,000 EU pension, saying 'why should my family suffer?'


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/n ... 0-11632204


----------



## Shug750S

Confused. Maybe the experts on here can explain the current issues?

So, regardless of personal views we're leaving the EU. As no customs integration etc., there will be border controls between UK and EU.

But the government is suggesting no controls between Northern Ireland and Eire. So does this mean we will have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? So we could have to show passports to travel within the UK?

If not anyone in Eire could pop across the border to N Ireland and then into UK without checks, so surely the whole border control thing is a farce?

Extension on this, no need for any trading agreements, as UK just transports all incoming / outgoing goods through Belfast and then over the non controlled border into Eire, and hey presto, it's free trade...

Am I the only one who sees the rediculous situation here?


----------



## John-H

You are not the only oe to spot the paradox. Many have been pointing it out for a long time. How can you have different regulations either side and no control over cross border trade with the danger of bypassing of tax and customs rules and at the same time have free unhindered movement of people and goods? They have talked about cameras and number plate recognition but they would become a target - then what? Station a guard there to look after it? Then they become targets. You can see where that's going. So it has to be an open border for the Good Friday peace agreement which governments have signed. So there has to be equal rules either side to ensure that no border controls are needed. But that's incompatable. Maybe move the border to the Irish sea? But then that's reunifying the island of Ireland which would be objected to. But but....

Only last week DUP senior menber Sammy Wilson upon hearing the first signals of a breakthrough agreement between the UK and the EU - no hard border achieved through regulatory equivalence - said that this would be totally unacceptable as it would mean coming under EU rules and having Dublin represent them in future EU proceedings and dictating trade terms to Northern Ireland.

So what happened between then and the collapse of the talks when the PM took that phone call torpedo from DUP leader Arlene Foster? Was the form of words in the agreement which Dublin had already agreed to so complicated that it took the DUP that long to work it out? Or where they told last minute in the hope of railroading them through or deliberately having them object?

So now the can of worms opens with Scotland and Wales also asking for special arrangements and the contradictory promisses of the Brexiteers meeting with cold reality and being exposed. And we've still not started the far more complicated trade talks.

Cake anybody?


----------



## Spandex

I do wonder what it would take for the average Leave voter to demand a 2nd referendum themselves. If Brexit ended up meaning us leaving the EU but staying in the common market, keeping open borders and keeping a load of other stuff, would anyone be happy with that? Would they all still be saying "it's the will of the people" when it looked nothing like what they wanted when they voted to leave? When it looks nothing like what *any* leave voter wanted, despite still technically being exactly what they ticked on that ballot paper.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Shug750S said:


> Confused. Maybe the experts on here can explain the current issues?
> 
> So, regardless of personal views we're leaving the EU. As no customs integration etc., there will be border controls between UK and EU.
> 
> But the government is suggesting no controls between Northern Ireland and Eire. So does this mean we will have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? So we could have to show passports to travel within the UK?
> 
> If not anyone in Eire could pop across the border to N Ireland and then into UK without checks, so surely the whole border control thing is a farce?
> 
> Extension on this, no need for any trading agreements, as UK just transports all incoming / outgoing goods through Belfast and then over the non controlled border into Eire, and hey presto, it's free trade...
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the rediculous situation here?


There is a hard border between NI and mainland UK, it's called the Irish Sea.


----------



## Shug750S

ashfinlayson said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confused. Maybe the experts on here can explain the current issues?
> 
> So, regardless of personal views we're leaving the EU. As no customs integration etc., there will be border controls between UK and EU.
> 
> But the government is suggesting no controls between Northern Ireland and Eire. So does this mean we will have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? So we could have to show passports to travel within the UK?
> 
> If not anyone in Eire could pop across the border to N Ireland and then into UK without checks, so surely the whole border control thing is a farce?
> 
> Extension on this, no need for any trading agreements, as UK just transports all incoming / outgoing goods through Belfast and then over the non controlled border into Eire, and hey presto, it's free trade...
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the rediculous situation here?
> 
> 
> 
> There is a hard border between NI and mainland UK, it's called the Irish Sea.
Click to expand...

Last few times I flew to /from Belfast didn't have to show any ID. Had my driving license as was hiring a car over there, but defo no checks on passports etc as same as flying LGW to Bradford or Glasgow..


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> There is a hard border between NI and mainland UK, it's called the Irish Sea.


Similar to the hard border between England and the Isle of Man or Scotland and the Isle of Arran?


----------



## Spandex

A handy list of who to blame for Brexit not going well:










(shamelessly stolen from David Schneider)


----------



## John-H

According to an analysis by a team of four economists affiliated to the Centre for Economic Policy Research, the Brexit vote has already inflicted a hit of almost £20bn on the UK economy, or around £300m for each week since the referendum was held.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81841.html


----------



## bobclive22

> Our approach to determining the costs of the Brexit vote uses the same intuitive idea, but it formalises the approach in a statistical sense. We let an algorithm determine which[/b] combination of other economies matched the evolution of real GDP in the UK before the Brexit vote


http://voxeu.org/article/300-million-we ... rexit-vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81841.html

*The mathematical equation that caused the banks to crash. *

It was the holy grail of investors. *The Black-Scholes equation,* brainchild of *economists Fischer Black *and Myron Scholes, provided a rational way to price a financial contract when it still had time to run. It was like buying or selling a bet on a horse, halfway through the race.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... dit-crunch

They never learn GIGO.


----------



## John-H

> Dear Member of Parliament,
> 
> Please support amendment 7 to clause 9 and preserve Parliamentary sovereignty.
> 
> This is very important. The government has negotiated an agreement with the EU that there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland achieved through "full alignment" of regulations with the rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union and that this also applies to the whole of the UK.
> 
> So effectively we retain the benefits of the single market and customs union, which we will continue to pay for and are still subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ but we no longer have a say in the rules and policy of the EU. So, how does this benefit us? Are all parties happy and how stable is the peace?
> 
> This is a fudge as it kicks the can down the road deferring the difficult decisions and clarifications to a later date. It allows ambiguity to continue in an effort to keep all sides thinking they are in the same boat. However, the boat may sink at any time if someone pulls the plug and we don't even know where we were heading regarding trade so where will we be left stranded? This is legally dangerous.
> 
> We need the safety of amendment 7 to clause 9 to continue throughout and guarantee our economic survival. If the only deal the EU is prepared to offer is unacceptable we need the accepted legal option of withdrawing Article 50 notice and retaining existing arrangements (see attachment - Three_Knights_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf).
> 
> Crashing out without a deal is not an option as it would be illegal under international treaty law rendering the UK a pariah state that abandons its treaty obligations. Who would trust us with a new trade deal then? We also have £20T of cross border unassigned derivatives held by UK business in the EU which could become legally unrecoverable without an encompassing treaty (see attachment - Taking-a-terrible-gamble.pdf). To say this could cause a banking crisis is an understatement. That's also why writing a leaving date into the withdrawal bill is so dangerous.
> 
> If we enter a transitional arrangement (presuming that this is even legal under EU law) it is vital for the same reason that this is covered by an Article 50 (3) extension giving the UK the option to rescind Article 50(2) notice should a final agreement be unobtainable or undesirable for whatever reason.
> 
> Nobody voted to be made poorer. MPs took an oath to act in the country's best interest and in order to do that they are responsible for retaining full decision making capability. Any attempt to take away parliament's right to decide would be unconstitutional and open to legal challenge.
> 
> Please support amendment 7 to clause 9 and preserve Parliamentary sovereignty in the interests of the country and all its citizens.
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> They never learn GIGO.


So you're drawing parallels between an equation that, used incorrectly, contributed in part to the global financial crisis, and the equations used to calculate the cost of Brexit so far? I'm impressed BobBot. That takes some serious mathematical and economic know how. I didn't think you had it in you, but fair's fair - credit where credit's due.

Unless.. oh... ah, I see... did you actually just think "they're both economic algorithms! They must both be equally wrong!"?

You really are a simple fella, aren't you BobBot.. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

Walking the fine line between funny and tragic, the latest Express headline:


> Brexit SHOCK warning: Britain will be WORSE OFF out of the EU under ALL Brexit scenarios


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/8...update-UK-economy-gdp-EU-European-Union-video

A shock? Really?? If only someone had warned them this could happen...


----------



## bobclive22




----------



## bobclive22

> So you're drawing parallels between an equation that, used incorrectly, contributed in part to the global financial crisis, and the equations used to calculate the cost of Brexit so far?


No Spandex, it appears there always was a flaw in the model, you have also got to be absolutely sure the correct paramiters are used as inputs (GIGO) in these models, that`s the reason past financial forcasts have been no better than guesses.

_The correlation coefficients and the marginal default distributions build the input for a copula function which
delivers the multivariate distribution of all random variables as output. A significant weakness of the general
model by Li is the assumption that the estimated correlation pairs remain constant over time and that all
the input correlation information can easily be condensed into one final parameter which measures the overall
default risk (cf. Brigo et al. [2010a] and Forslund and Johansson [2012])._

*An astonishing record - of complete failure*

https://www.ft.com/content/70a2a978-ada ... 4bdda92ca2

*Why we should not trust World Bank forecasts*

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... 342777.ece

_While accepting the Nobel prize for economics, Friedrich Hayek made an astonishing admission. Not only were economists unsure about their predictions, he noted, but their tendency to present their findings with the *certainty of the language of science was misleading *and "may have deplorable effects"._

_One of the problems with economic forecasting is that a *small change in a few variables* can make predictions almost impossibly complex._

Remember Spandex GIGO.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... ience-data


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> that`s the reason past financial forcasts have been no better than guesses.


*All* past financial forecasts have been no better than guesses? A bold claim BobBot. One you've presumably just made up.


bobclive22 said:


> Remember Spandex GIGO.


Yes, I remember you saying that a number of times. Like a politician, repeating it over and over in the hope you can subconsciously associate it with pretty much any forecast you disagree with. You don't need to actually prove they're wrong, do you... you just post some links that show _some other_ forecasts were wrong, then say "GIGO!" A few times and job done. Point proved, right? :roll:


----------



## Spandex




----------



## John-H

Like it!

Theresa May's government has suffered a humiliating defeat defeated by 309 votes to 305 in the House of Commons after MPs backed an amendment to her flagship Brexit bill, limiting the powers it will grant to ministers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

Best news this Christmas so far. Thanks to everyone who wrote to their MP in support of amendment 7 to clause 9


----------



## FJ1000

FFS

BobBot - you are clearly clueless, and just like to google search articles that look like they'll confirm your views (most likely acquired from reading shitty tabloids I assume), without having a clue what the article is about.

Black-scholes is an option pricing model. It is not anything to do with economic forecasts.

Also, pointing to B-S as the cause of the financial crisis, is frankly stupid. And yes that means I wholeheartedly disagree with that Guardian piece. There were much more fundamental failures:

- Sloppy lending practices that allowed people to take out debt they couldn't afford - sometimes fraudulently

- Borrowers that were willing to take on massive debts

- Rising US interest rates before the crash

- The creation of the CDO market - which packaged up sub-prime loans with others in a pool, which the banks didn't bother to delve into to understand the full risks. There were even things called "CDO-squared" - a CDO on a pool of CDOs. You could argue that use of B-S was a contributing factor to banks not understanding the risks in CDOs - but there were plenty of other issues. More fundamental was just not knowing the exposure to poor credit quality loans, not having a good understanding of the effect of rising default rates, loose assumptions on correlation between loans etc etc

- The credit rating agencies were willing to rubber stamp these CDOs with excellent credit ratings without really understanding them - giving credibility to these monstrosities

- Regulators were fine with banks having billions I these instruments, and demanded very little in the way of capital being held against them

- Investors wanted to buy CDOs! There were state pension plans buying exotic derivatives. In one case, a fund representing nuns buying them! They had no idea what they were buying (and these funds have investment teams) - they just liked the yield

- The US government, in trying to expand home ownership, forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to backstop sub-prime issuance, and did nothing to stop predatory lending and all the failures I've outlined above. This is important, as without the backstop there wouldnt have been as much sub-prime lending, and these mortgages wouldn't have made it into the CDOs

For the record, the CDO market is pretty much dead now. Black scholes is not - it is still used to price share and index options for example- but it'd be considered a fairly basic model these days. There are lots of ways to price an option, B-S is just one - a option trader at a bank wouldn't use it as their primary pricing source for example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

Below is a pretty sensible explanation of why referendums are a bad way to make complex decisions. What makes it notable though is that it was said in 2002 by David Davis (yes, *that* David Davis) in the House of Commons:



David Davis said:


> There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee-who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes-famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
> Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
> 
> We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htm

Although they were discussing a completely different referendum question at the time, it is spooky how accurately that quote applies to the Brexit campaigns and referendum.

So despite fundamentally disagreeing with the method used to come to the decision, he still accepted the job of implementing it. Massive hypocrite? Spineless sycophant? All of the above?


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Below is a pretty sensible explanation of why referendums are a bad way to make complex decisions. What makes it notable though is that it was said in 2002 by David Davis (yes, *that* David Davis) in the House of Commons:
> 
> 
> 
> David Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee-who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes-famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
> Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
> 
> We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htm
> 
> Although they were discussing a completely different referendum question at the time, it is spooky how accurately that quote applies to the Brexit campaigns and referendum.
> 
> So despite fundamentally disagreeing with the method used to come to the decision, he still accepted the job of implementing it. Massive hypocrite? Spineless sycophant? All of the above?
Click to expand...

That's an apposite quote which I've not seen - how did you come across that? I think I might circulate that a little :wink:


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> That's an apposite quote which I've not seen - how did you come across that? I think I might circulate that a little :wink:


Someone tweeted it and it got picked up by The Poke:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/12/14/da ... a-plonker/

A quick google brought up the link to the source on parliament.uk.


----------



## bobclive22

> FFS
> 
> BobBot - you are clearly clueless, and just like to google search articles that look like they'll confirm your views (most likely acquired from reading shitty tabloids I assume), without having a clue what the article is about.
> 
> Black-scholes is an option pricing model. It is not anything to do with economic forecasts.


FJ1000, It`s a computer model, economic forecasters use computer models and you know how accurate those forcasts have been.

Odd that the best finacial brains on the planet used this Black-scholes model, by the way you are commenting after the event. You can`t blaim the financial sector, they were led to believe the system was robust.

_It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" - so goes the saying. The same applies to *economic modelling. *This is not just the trite point that it is hard to make predictions about things that are uncertain, though you'd be surprised how many economic models are expressed as *deterministic,* that is, without probability bounds. Pindyck makes the valid point that key inputs are often chosen arbitrarily; even the best model *spits rubbish out if you pump rubbish in*_

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/ ... -future-2/


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000, give up now. The BobBot is convinced all computer models must be wrong. When pressed to prove it, he will just hunt down 1 or 2 bad ones out of the millions of computer models in existence. In his 'mind' this will prove that they're *all* wrong.

Basically, he's an old man that got left behind by technology and is now slightly fearful of it all. He thinks WiFi makes you ill. :lol:


----------



## John-H

Also, really annoyingly, he cuts and pastes other people's material without clearly indicating it's a quote but then intermingles his own words - so it looks like his post is well written and possibly knowledgeable but when you break it down and Google what he posts the truth is revealed: A few of his posted words are his (generally the hyperbole codswallop) most of his words are someone else's (either out of context or from some dodgy website), he never interacts directly with a logical discussion (because he can't) and laughingly he expects us to take him seriously :lol:

Am I being too cruel? No, I've given him a chance and now I'm fed up with the never ending nonsense - more with the global warming thread but now with this one too.


----------



## FJ1000

This is hilarious!

So Bob the builder thinks all computer models are basically the same!?

Bob - let me put it in terms you may understand. It'd be like me saying bathroom sanitary-ware and bags of sand are the same thing - because they both get transported in the back of vans. Get it?

Asking an economist what he knows about black-scholes would be like asking a sparky to calculate what size RSJ you need.

Asking an option trader, or a quant, or a risk manager (who all would use black-scholes) to make economic forecasts would be like asking your structural engineer to re-wire a house.

Out of interest Bob, do you read the Sun, or Daily Mail?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000 said:


> Out of interest Bob, do you read the Sun, or Daily Mail?


The BobBots official line is that he avoids the mainstream media because it's biased, but what he actually means is that he avoids any media that isn't biased towards what he already believes (or isn't biased enough - I suspect the Daily Fail is a bit too wishy washy and PC for him).

Basically, he's a low-rent Donald Trump. Doesn't agree with you? Fake news!!


----------



## bobclive22

> The BobBots official line is that he avoids the mainstream media because it's biased


Are you saying the MSM has been pro UK Spandex.

*Britain should give the EU £20 billion extra as an act of charity*

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/br ... f-charity/
.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> The BobBots official line is that he avoids the mainstream media because it's biased
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the MSM has been pro UK Spandex.
Click to expand...

That surely depends on which of the mainstream media you read and what your views are. Someone with left wing views will think the guardian is pro UK and someone with right wing views will think the telegraph is pro uk.

Your problem is that you're so convinced your way of seeing the world is right that it doesn't occur to you that this might actually be a subjective question.

Look at all the Daily Fail articles about judges and Tory rebels. I would argue they are distinctly anti UK, in that they seek to undermine fundamental aspects of the UKs parliamentary democracy and independent judiciary. The average grunting Daily Fail reader will see those headlines as patriotic and pro UK though.

I suspect to you, any media that isnt positive about the UKs future outside the EU is automatically anti-UK


----------



## A3DFU




----------



## John-H




----------



## Shug750S

So, looks like Brexit going well..

Pound dropped by around 20% 
Paying loads to EU to leave
NHS another getting the cash promissed by the leave camp
Trade deal still way off and most likely to be bad for us

But, Home Office announces we're getting Blue Passorts!

Bet the leave camp are having a parade for this


----------



## bobclive22

> But, Home Office announces we're getting Blue Passorts!
> Pound dropped by around 20%


Something bigger at play here.






Pound boosted by stronger-than-expected GDP figures lifting interest rate hike hopes (25 October 2017)
sterling jumped 1pc against the dollar to above $1.3250

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... h-figures/

GBP to USD Chart
*22 Dec 2017* 12:45 UTC - 23 Dec 2017 12:50 UTC
GBP/USD close:*1.33616* low:1.33567 high:1.33882

2014 July The International Monetary Fund has warned that sterling is between 5 and 10 per cent overvalued and that this is making it harder to rebalance the UK economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 34382.html

Analysts at Deutsche Bank warned that the Bank of England may not be able to raise interest rates "at all" if Britain's recovery slows.

It believes the pound could fall as low as $1.27 next year and $1.15 in 2017 from about $1.485 today if the US Federal Reserve continues to tighten monetary policy and the Bank of England leaves interest rates on hold.

*(26 Dec 2015) * We have various different ways of looking at currency valuations and what we find is that sterling is the most expensive currency out there at the moment - even including the dollar," said Oliver Harvey, foreign exchange strategist at Deutsche Bank. Earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund said the pound was between 5pc and 15pc overvalued.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/curr ... claim.html


----------



## John-H

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42702065


----------



## Stiff

Probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in a long time (and I've read a few)...


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> Probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in a long time (and I've read a few)...


Don't you believe in democratic freedom then? So we are not allowed to change our minds when we find out new information?

We should be very careful about making the correct decision in the first place then and find out all the important facts first don't you think?

So how come half the voters voted one way and half the voters voted the other way? They both can't be right. Sounds like a dubious decision to me. The evidence on which to base the decision can't have been very clear for the result to be so undecided. 74% of "the people" didn't even vote for this outcome either.

A puzzle for you.

A card dealer deals you three cards face down. Two jokers and an ace, but you can't tell which. If you choose the ace you win £100,000. If you choose a joker you win a potato.

You point to a card and the dealer asks you, are you sure? And before turning over your chosen card, turns over one of the other two face down cards revealing a joker. Good job you didn't choose that one!

There are now two face down cards. The one you chose or the other face down card. He now asks you if you want to change your mind or stick to your original decision. What should you do?


----------



## FJ1000

I thought this was interesting...this poll indicates that the "Leave" contingent are stubbornly sticking to their guns (as per anecdotes earlier in the discussion), but there are a lot less "don't knows" than June 2016 - and they seem to favour remain. This is what the leavers are of course worried about.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000 said:


> This is what the leavers are of course worried about.


And that's the problem with this whole thing. 'The will of the people' is either important, or it's not. It can't be important on the 23rd of June 2016, then not important a year and a half later.

But ultimately, I doubt many leave voters will care about the hypocrisy. They've got the result they wanted and they don't want anyone to have an opportunity to reverse it. All the bluster about 'democracy' and 'the will of the people' is just an attempt to stifle debate about that result - they only care about the will of the people when it's agreeing with them.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Don't you believe in democratic freedom then?


Of course I do.



John-H said:


> So we are not allowed to change our minds when we find out new information?


Of course we are. Whether we can act on that decision though is a different matter entirely. It was a 'democratic' referendum and we were told that the outcome would be final.



John-H said:


> So how come half the voters voted one way and half the voters voted the other way?


They voted on who they listened to. Some listened to one side and some listened to the other. I thought that would be pretty easy to work out?



John-H said:


> They both can't be right.


On the same note, they both can't be wrong either.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, (or the other one) I have no *real* prejudice either way. We _probably_ are better of remaining and had that been the outcome, then fine. But months down the line, if the brexiteers had shouted out for another referendum I would have been the first to say "Whoa there, that's not how it works".
Also as I mentioned earlier, a decision like this should not have been put to a public vote where the *vast* majority had no idea of the colossal implications that were involved (myself included).



Spandex said:


> And that's the problem with this whole thing. 'The will of the people' is either important, or it's not. It can't be important on the 23rd of June 2016, then not important a year and a half later.


^ This ^ in a nutshell.



Spandex said:


> But ultimately, I doubt many leave voters will care about the hypocrisy. They've got the result they wanted and they don't want anyone to have an opportunity to reverse it. All the bluster about 'democracy' and 'the will of the people' is just an attempt to stifle debate about that result - they only care about the will of the people when it's agreeing with them.


Now change that term 'leave voters' to 'remain voters' and the exact same thing would be applicable had the decision gone the other way.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here, just playing devils advocate.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> But ultimately, I doubt many leave voters will care about the hypocrisy. They've got the result they wanted and they don't want anyone to have an opportunity to reverse it. All the bluster about 'democracy' and 'the will of the people' is just an attempt to stifle debate about that result - they only care about the will of the people when it's agreeing with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Now change that term 'leave voters' to 'remain voters' and the exact same thing would be applicable had the decision gone the other way.
> 
> I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here, just playing devils advocate.
Click to expand...

That's possible, although not guaranteed - deciding to remain in the EU is, by its nature, a non-binding decision. We would effectively be saying "we're not leaving now", which means leaving in the future is entirely possible. I don't think any Remain voters would ever believe the question shouldn't be asked again in the future.

But whether you believe that or not, the point is it's wrong to claim that the will of the people is important, then in the same breath say that a second referendum is wrong. It doesn't really matter who is saying it, but currently it's Leave voters saying it so they're the ones who are being hypocritical. Saying "yeah but Remain voters would do the same" distracts from that point.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> it's wrong to claim that the will of the people is important, then in the same breath say that a second referendum is wrong.


I see where you're coming from and it's a very valid point. But it's a little paradoxical. A second referendum would render the original 'will of the people' _un_-important. And where does it end? Another referendum 18 months down the line if there's enough outcry from the losing camp?
I'm all for it if I'm being honest but I really can't see it happening.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe in democratic freedom then?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are not allowed to change our minds when we find out new information?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we are. Whether we can act on that decision though is a different matter entirely. It was a 'democratic' referendum and we were told that the outcome would be final.
Click to expand...

Well someone should have questioned that.

To be a "final" decision it would rule out any further democratic input which would be somewhat dictatorial.

In fact another referendum would be a third referendum on staying in the EU. The first one was in 1975, two years after joining, where some 67% of voters voted to remain. It was a good few years ago but then the vote was a super majority.

The 2016 referendum was by comparison hardly decisive and you have to ask; is it sensible to rip up 45 years of harmonisation and integration, peace and prosperity for so slender a margin?

It seems entirely legitimate, given the lack of information and misinformation presented in 2016, that now we are discovering the reality of how dangerous, complex and disadvantageous leaving the EU is, that we have the right and the duty, as do our representative MPs, to reconsider this decision in the interests of us all.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> I see where you're coming from and it's a very valid point. But it's a little paradoxical. A second referendum would render the original 'will of the people' _un_-important. And where does it end? Another referendum 18 months down the line if there's enough outcry from the losing camp?


Well, of course the 2016 referendum result was important at the time. Important enough to trigger the leaving process. But I don't see how it can be undemocratic to ask people during that process if they still want to leave, if you believe that the referendum that started all this was democratic. The will of the people isn't static, so it would be wrong to assume that a 2 year old decision should be given the same importance as a decision made this year.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> Well, of course the 2016 referendum result was important at the time. Important enough to trigger the leaving process. But I don't see how it can be undemocratic to ask people during that process if they still want to leave, if you believe that the referendum that started all this was democratic. The will of the people isn't static, so it would be wrong to assume that a 2 year old decision should be given the same importance as a decision made this year.


And then in another 18 months we ask the people again? Like I say, where does it end? Keep going until you get the decision you want and then say "That's it now."
Here's a thought. If there _were_ another referendum and the vote was 'leave' again (even if just by a tidgy margin), would that settle it? Or do we keep pushing until it eventually reaches a 'remain'?
See where I'm heading with this? There's two camps here (well three if you include the likes of me that are on the fence) so there's always going to be one half of the country (near as damn it) that are going to be disgruntled with whatever outcome and are going to disagree with that decision believing it to be wrong. 
It is what it is.


----------



## John-H

Democracy doesn't end. It's a continuing process. It's not a case of asking people over and over until you get the answer you want and then stop there. That would be undemocratic.

We had a landslide referendum result for remain in 1975 but yet we had another referendum in 2016. It's a case now of asking people what they think of new information - the deal and whether they are prepared to accept the effect it will have on us all. We didn't know that back in 2016.

If following that there's another major new piece of relevant information to consider then yes in principal that may be important enough for another decision.

It would be be new information that triggers a new vote. It's not the same question.

Really though, these complex decisions should be researched and decided upon by parliament. That's their job and what we pay them for. The government still don't seen to have a clue yet.


----------



## FJ1000

To my mind, the natural point at which there should be another referendum is when we actually have a deal agreed and laid out for the public to see. Something concrete to vote on.

That would be a material change in the facts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

FJ1000 said:


> To my mind, the natural point at which there should be another referendum is when we actually have a deal agreed and laid out for the public to see. Something concrete to vote on.
> 
> That would be a material change in the facts.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quite right. There is a danger though that certain ideological Brexiteers will try and push the government through the divorce process before the deal has been finalised e.g. a transition treaty deal having left the existing treaty with no way back and another looming cliff face in another couple of years. That could mean we lose our existing opt outs and rebates as suddenly that's all up for negotiation again and by then we will be over a barrel because then it really will be take what's on offer or face no deal.

At the moment we are still in the EU under the existing treaty arrangements and with the powerful option to rescind Article 50(2) notice and stay put under existing terms.

For that reason it would be important that any transitional arrangement, by agreement with the EU, should be under an extension of the Article 50(3) process and still retain the ability to rescind notice under Article 50(2).

Whether the EU 27 would agree to that extension is a debatable point and the rabid Brexiteers wouldn't want it because it would be to attractive an option.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> And then in another 18 months we ask the people again? Like I say, where does it end? Keep going until you get the decision you want and then say "That's it now."
> Here's a thought. If there _were_ another referendum and the vote was 'leave' again (even if just by a tidgy margin), would that settle it? Or do we keep pushing until it eventually reaches a 'remain'?
> See where I'm heading with this? There's two camps here (well three if you include the likes of me that are on the fence) so there's always going to be one half of the country (near as damn it) that are going to be disgruntled with whatever outcome and are going to disagree with that decision believing it to be wrong.
> It is what it is.


We're asked who we want to run the country again and again... revisiting the same question is hardly an unusual concept in a democracy. In fact, not having an opportunity to change our mind is pretty undemocratic.

The point you're ignoring is that the Leave process is continuing. We're not talking about resetting the clock every time we get a Leave result so it never actually happens even if we want it to. So, if we had a 2nd referendum and the result was the same then it's unlikely that there would be an opportunity to ask the question again, unless something else changed dramatically, because we'd have left. But in the mean time, while we're still in the EU, I can't see how anyone can honestly complain about being asked "still sure you want this?" as the process unfolds and we get a better idea of what the deal will be.

And if we decided to remain, I'd have no problem, with revisiting the question whenever something changed within the EU that affects us although those referendums would need to be done properly, as opposed to being asked a meaningless question with no information like we were in 2016.


----------



## John-H

And the government should be producing some proper impact studies to see what the effect will be. It beggars belief that they haven't done this. It's not governance it's neglect.


----------



## Stiff

Actually, I pretty much agree with most of what's been said by the three previous commentators (FJ1000, John-H and Spandex). There's a lot of sense in those arguments that I don't think anyone can deny. Let's hope something can be done.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Let's hope something can be done.


I doubt anything will be done. But either way, I just wish all those Leave voters would at least realise the hypocrisy of claiming that leaving the EU is the will of the people, then demanding that we don't have another referendum just in case the will of the people has changed.


----------



## Shug750S

At what point might MPs realise that the UK is going to be in a far worse place by leaving the EU than staying?

They missed the £ dropping like a stone - straight after the vote, will they realise that almost everything we import will be more expensive after we leave, and exports will be less attractive to others due to tarrifs?

Or will it be when financial sector jobs start to get lost in their thousands, reducing GDP, inflow of trade, and losing millions in tax from the thousands who work in financial services.

Or will Maybot get to a point where she grows a pair and starts to question the logic of the original vote.

The vote should have been a straight call leave under x terms (hard or soft, but defined) with x, y, z likely impact, or stay with a, b, c likely impact. No claims on sides of buses about hundreds of millions per week into the NHS, blue passports being better and Johnny Foreigner getting kicked out. A sensible immigration system, with benefit payments paid after a qualifying period or some suitable solution...

At present we have the prospect of a transitional deal, where we keep paying to be a member, but are not a member as we have no say in the rules.

I fear that the MPs who are elected to make decisions for the good of the country have failed unless they start to do something to stop this madness.


----------



## John-H

Shug750S said:


> At what point might MPs realise that the UK is going to be in a far worse place by leaving the EU than staying?
> 
> They missed the £ dropping like a stone - straight after the vote, will they realise that almost everything we import will be more expensive after we leave, and exports will be less attractive to others due to tarrifs?
> 
> Or will it be when financial sector jobs start to get lost in their thousands, reducing GDP, inflow of trade, and losing millions in tax from the thousands who work in financial services.
> 
> Or will Maybot get to a point where she grows a pair and starts to question the logic of the original vote.
> 
> The vote should have been a straight call leave under x terms (hard or soft, but defined) with x, y, z likely impact, or stay with a, b, c likely impact. No claims on sides of buses about hundreds of millions per week into the NHS, blue passports being better and Johnny Foreigner getting kicked out. A sensible immigration system, with benefit payments paid after a qualifying period or some suitable solution...
> 
> At present we have the prospect of a transitional deal, where we keep paying to be a member, but are not a member as we have no say in the rules.
> 
> I fear that the MPs who are elected to make decisions for the good of the country have failed unless they start to do something to stop this madness.


We are being failed by our political class - our MPs who, in a representative democracy, all took an oath to do what's best for the country but too many of them are either too blinkered within their own doctrinal prejudices or have their own self serving reasons for pushing us over the cliff. Thankfully most know the reality. However they are constrained within party political posturing to not be seen as going against "the will of the people" (based on 26% of the population!). They want to see public opinion shift further before they will feel confident enough to reverse the decision on our behalf or give us the cop out of another referendum Some are heroically outspoken already. We have a year to convince the rest.

Next up, the Lords, and without a party majority and so the Salisbury convention no longer applying, the bill can be amended and passed back and forth with the commons indefinitely. The arguments will be thrashed out further, the drip feed of disadvantageous news about the consequences will continue as will the campaigning. See you at a street stall soon!


----------



## bobclive22

John said,



> In fact another referendum would be a third referendum on staying in the EU. The first one was in 1975, two years after joining, where some 67% of voters voted to remain. It was a good few years ago but then the vote was a super majority.


http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/p ... .htm#front

Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work constructively within the EEC.

Industry Secretary Tony Benn, who had come under criticism from the prime minister during the campaign, said: "When the British people speak everyone, including members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision and that's certainly the spirit with which *I accept the result of the referendum."*


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact another referendum would be a third referendum on staying in the EU. The first one was in 1975, two years after joining, where some 67% of voters voted to remain. It was a good few years ago but then the vote was a super majority.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/p ... .htm#front
> 
> Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work constructively within the EEC.
> 
> Industry Secretary Tony Benn, who had come under criticism from the prime minister during the campaign, said: "When the British people speak everyone, including members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision and that's certainly the spirit with which *I accept the result of the referendum."*
Click to expand...

So you're hoping to draw an equivalence between a 67% majority and a 52% one? It hasn't occurred to you that perhaps that difference is important?

Of course it hasn't. You want this to be a simple win/lose situation. Not only that, you also think the 'winning team' should then be in charge of everything to do with the Leave process. It must have come as quite the surprise to you when you realised that democracy carries on even after you 'won'.


----------



## bobclive22

> So you're hoping to draw an equivalence between a 67% majority and a 52% one? It hasn't occurred to you that perhaps that difference is important?


The 67% voted for a common market I believe, not a political union, anyway the winner takes all no matter how small the majority.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files ... ration.pdf


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> anyway the winner takes all no matter how small the majority.


Lol. Good luck with that. :lol:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> So you're hoping to draw an equivalence between a 67% majority and a 52% one? It hasn't occurred to you that perhaps that difference is important?
> 
> 
> 
> The 67% voted for a common market I believe, not a political union, anyway the winner takes all no matter how small the majority.
> 
> http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files ... ration.pdf
Click to expand...

Bob, we've discussed this already. It was never just trade but always included a political union. Look back to where I've quoted what Winston Churchill said. How can you have trade in the common market without a mutual agreement to accept a system to regulate? That, as Churchill said involved a partial sharing of sovereignty and of course the original purpose of the EU was to ensure peace in Europe through mutual trade. Stop trying to pedal your fantasy that it was trade only without any of the above. We wanted to join the club as the empire was no more and by then we were the poor man of Europe. Get real.


----------



## Spandex

So the governments own leaked report shows that in all the analysed scenarios, including a free trade deal, we will have slower economic growth outside the EU than we would inside it. You couldn't have predicted it... oh... hang on...

Maybe people like The BobBot feel better knowing that the reason there are no jobs is because of stupid old British people, rather than because of immigrants. Maybe that's what patriotism has morphed into these days - being shat on by a British person is preferable to a foreigner farting near you.


----------



## John-H

> Back then the Mogg was having difficulty persuading even his own side that this would be democratic when people would have no idea what they were actually voting for. He responded that a first referendum would be on the principle of a complete 'renegotiation' of Britain's membership of the EU. He continued: *"You can have two referendums. And as it happens it might make more sense to have a second referendum after the renegotiation."*


http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... -1-5368969


----------



## bobclive22

*Jacob Rees-Mogg: Britain Beyond Brexit*

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01 ... more-35768


----------



## bobclive22

> So the governments own leaked report shows that in all the analysed scenarios, including a free trade deal, we will have slower economic growth outside the EU than we would inside it. You couldn't have predicted it... oh... hang on...
> 
> Maybe people like The BobBot feel better knowing that the reason there are no jobs is because of stupid old British people, rather than because of immigrants. Maybe that's what patriotism has morphed into these days - being shat on by a British person is preferable to a foreigner farting near you.


*The Guardian*

*Economic forecasts are hardwired to get things wrong*

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ec ... ings-wrong
*
Why economic forecasts get the impact of Brexit wrong*
Prof Philip Booth 5 April 2017

https://iea.org.uk/why-economic-forecas ... xit-wrong/


----------



## bobclive22

> Bob, we've discussed this already. It was never just trade but always included a political union.


I actually voted to remain in the common market Not a political union.

Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain's entry into the Common Market, January 1973



> _There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, *are completely unjustified*._


http://campaignforanindependentbritain. ... ges-group/

http://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre ... -of-deceit


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *The Guardian*
> 
> *Economic forecasts are hardwired to get things wrong*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/ec ... ings-wrong
> *
> Why economic forecasts get the impact of Brexit wrong*
> Prof Philip Booth 5 April 2017
> 
> https://iea.org.uk/why-economic-forecas ... xit-wrong/


It wasn't an economic model BobBot it was simply a report based on what each scenario would mean for our ability to make money from trading but thanks for the desperate, yet predictable attempt to discredit anything negative about Brexit.

I would suggest you try using your brain instead of just relying on google, but I suspect that's not an option for you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I actually voted to remain in the common market Not a political union.


Heh. The BobBot has form when it comes to misunderstanding what he's voting for in referendums... :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *Jacob Rees-Mogg: Britain Beyond Brexit*
> 
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01 ... more-35768


Yes BobBot. Jacob Rees-Mog is looking after the poor people. Famous for it.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jacob Rees-Mogg: Britain Beyond Brexit*
> 
> https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01 ... more-35768
> 
> 
> 
> Yes BobBot. Jacob Rees-Mog is looking after the poor people. Famous for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the minister for the 19th century wants to deregulate everything including data protection get rid of tariffs like Weathered spoon Tim Martin with the simplistic and deluded view that imports will be cheaper with no disadvantages :roll:

He talks about the UK in its new found freedom becoming a rule maker rather than a rule taker. Another deluded view. At the moment we agree with 27 other states what the rules should be to our joint advantage from a position of strength as the world's biggest trading block when dealing trade agreements with other countries. With the UK on its own we'll end up taking the rules. The man is a posh swivel eyed loon.


----------



## bobclive22

*Lets get back to the 1975 referendum,*

In 1972 Edward Heath said that the EU was only a COMMON MARKET. "There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. *These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.* Thus he deceived the UK into joining the EU. He was lying and he knew perfectly well at the time he was lying.

Daily Telegraph 7.1.2001).

A 1971 Foreign Office memo warned'&#8230;.the Community is a process of fundamental political importance implying progressive development towards a political union.' This document was suppressed for thirty years.

Despite all these, and many other warnings, Heath persisted in telling the British people the direct opposite. In his White Paper to parliament and in a pamphlet to the nation he wrote 'There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty.' In the same pamphlet he asserted that 'The British safeguards of habeas corpus and trial by jury will remain intact. So will the principle that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty'. Both of these reassurances were lies.

Heath knew that the British people were opposed to the Common Market. A Tory poll found that 53% of voters were against joining with 32% in favour. Further, 62% of all voters and 59% of Tory voters wanted a referendum before making a decision. The results of this poll were suppressed.

In order to give the illusion of support Heath used the Information and Research Department of the Foreign Office in a campaign of misinformation. A programme of only pro-European letters were published in The Times. Only favourable European stories were presented in the 'Today' programme, 'World at One', ITN news and 'News at Ten'. It is alleged that Jack Di Manio, a popular presenter on the 'Today' programme, was sacked because he disagreed with this propaganda campaign.

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/edward-heat ... fice-1972/


----------



## bobclive22

> It wasn't an economic model BobBot it was simply a report based on what each scenario would mean for our ability to make money from trading but thanks for the desperate, yet predictable attempt to discredit anything negative about Brexit.


Whitehall's leaked Brexit forecasts are clearly based on outdated *trade models*

You do understand what a model is in forcasting terms don`t you Spandex.

http://brexitcentral.com/whitehalls-lea ... de-models/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> *Lets get back to the 1975 referendum,*


Why? Because you realise Mogg's arguments are full of holes?



bobclive22 said:


> In 1972 Edward Heath said that the EU was only a COMMON MARKET. "There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. *These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.* Thus he deceived the UK into joining the EU. He was lying and he knew perfectly well at the time he was lying.


Yours are too I'm afraid Bob. He wasn't lying, he was just saying there is nothing to fear.

It's certainly true that signing up to the common market involved some sharing of sovereignty - we've been through this regarding me correcting you about Winston Churchill quotes when he said exactly the same thing :roll: - but now you try to twist quotes of Heath to try and make the same point  :roll:

Bob, do you not understand that signing up to any trade deal involves a loss/sharing of sovereignty? How do you otherwise agree to resolve disputes? You need a treaty agreement that enshrines an arbitration process which you agree to abide by.

WTO rules are an example - much talked about: "Oh we'll just drop out to WTO rules..... " . Well they are rules you have to conform to if you want to trade on that playing field with the protections it provides for your home producers through tariffs - or do you want to have no agreements and trade like a pirate on the high seas? Well you'll expose your home industries and producers to ruin through dumping and non conformity of goods.

Or did you want to sign a trade agreement with rules to abide by - oops you've just lost sovereignty!

We know the rich US interested elite are eyeing our NHS with a view to buy parts of it when our government can't afford any more investment following Brexit - You no doubt have heard the allegations that Robert Mercer (who bankrolled the Trump campaign) and others put money into the UK Vote Leave campaign through Aaron Banks allegedly, which is currently under investigation by the Electoral Commission? :roll:

Can't you see you are being manipulated and mislead over this sovereignty issue into a position of losing more of it? And I'm not talking about our EU partners who have our common interest but to rival foreign states who have their own.

India are going to want to have a trade agreement that includes free movement of its people.

China are going to want to own large parts of our infrastructure.

The USA will be running our NHS.

To be frank Bob. I'd far rather stay in our club where we've been the last 45 years rather than leap off the cliff with you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Whitehall's leaked Brexit forecasts are clearly based on outdated *trade models*
> 
> You do understand what a model is in forcasting terms don`t you Spandex.


I do indeed. Just so we're clear, by showing us that some economic models have been wrong, you're hoping you can then claim any model you don't like must also be wrong? Idiot.


----------



## John-H

Here would be one of the consequences of Mogg:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds


----------



## Spandex

Of course, in order to worry about things like this, you would have to first consider the possibility that our government would make worse decisions on its own than it would as part of the EU. This possibility genuinely hasn't occurred to the BobBot.

The BobBot is still inexplicably convinced that 'regaining our sovereignty' means that we *have *to be materially better off because, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he believes our government will look after us better than the EU ever would. That's what this all comes down to really - the belief that the EU can't have our best interests at heart but our government does. But in order to believe this, you have to be the sort of credulous fool that falls for all the anti-EU propaganda that tries to convince us that all our governments bad decisions are somehow the EUs fault.


----------



## bobclive22

> I do indeed. Just so we're clear, by showing us that some economic models have been wrong, you're hoping you can then claim any model you don't like must also be wrong? Idiot.


It`s all about getting *major* forecasts *correct* before the event, How many times has that occurred Spandex,name a few, they all appear to be using the same models that`s probably why they invariably get it wrong.

*The problem with predictions*

https://www.worldfinance.com/comment/th ... dictions-2


----------



## bobclive22

> There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.


Have we sacrificed independence and sovereignty John, if we had not there would have been no need for the Brexit referendum.



> Yours are too I'm afraid Bob. He wasn't lying, he was just saying there is nothing to fear.


*Sovereignty, What Sovereignty*?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew ... 36756.html


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I do indeed. Just so we're clear, by showing us that some economic models have been wrong, you're hoping you can then claim any model you don't like must also be wrong? Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> It`s all about getting *major* forecasts *correct* before the event, How many times has that occurred Spandex,name a few, they all appear to be using the same models that`s probably why they invariably get it wrong.
> 
> *The problem with predictions*
> 
> https://www.worldfinance.com/comment/th ... dictions-2
Click to expand...

BobBot, it doesn't matter how many times you do it, it's not going to suddenly stop being dumb. You can't predict the effectiveness of one model by looking at the effectiveness of other completely unrelated models.


----------



## John-H

And on the case of the pro Brexit lot - having nothing more than wishful thinking as a model to go by.

Oh, and you completely miss the point about sovereignty Bob (again) the only way you completely remain in charge of your own affairs with no concessions is to become an isolationist. But no, you want to have your cake and eat it by following Mogg :roll:


----------



## Spandex

An interesting article from the Times. Sorry about the image link, but at least it gets round the paywall. Click for full size.:










I look forward to the BobBot frantically googling the author in in an attempt to find some dirt on him that means he can dismiss everything he says without actually having to address the points he raises.


----------



## John-H

And to go with it by way of partial explanation....


----------



## John-H

The government are trying to go in both directions at once, as usual.

Not preparing for chaos: 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dela ... -8n8hmjhb2

...but promising it: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42938672

Mogg is slinging made up mud and May is trying to herd cats.

I thought this comment could be significant:

"Phillip Lee, a justice minister, was reprimanded by Julian Smith, chief whip, after tweeting that if the figures in the leaked assessment were "anywhere near right", there should be a "serious question" about the approach to Brexit."

With a legal background a realisation that a prime minister knowingly damages the country despite the advice, could be ringing alarm bells about malfeasance and misconduct.

Dominic Grieve gives warning and advice:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93106.html

'Be optimistic': Andrew Adonis launches his drive to reverse Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum


----------



## bobclive22

> "Phillip Lee, a justice minister, was reprimanded by Julian Smith, chief whip, after tweeting that if the figures in the leaked assessment were "anywhere near right", there should be a "serious question" about the approach to Brexit."


IF John, if if if if, what has been said about economic forecasts, no better than playing roulette.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> "Phillip Lee, a justice minister, was reprimanded by Julian Smith, chief whip, after tweeting that if the figures in the leaked assessment were "anywhere near right", there should be a "serious question" about the approach to Brexit."
> 
> 
> 
> IF John, if if if if, what has been said about economic forecasts, no better than playing roulette.
Click to expand...

But it's just you who keeps saying it. And to illustrate it, you find articles about completely unrelated models and hope that no one questions their relevance.


----------



## Spandex

The report is out in full now, and it's clear that BobBot and all the other turkeys that voted for Christmas are going to get just that. Even the government aren't disagreeing with the numbers (despite BobBots completely made up claims about their reliability), they're just flapping around telling anyone who'll listen that their 'preferred' option isn't included in the figures - what they fail to mention is the likelihood of them actually getting their preferred option.

I mean, my preferred option for Brexit involves BobBot, a steel toe cap boot and a good run-up, but that doesn't mean I'll get what I want.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> The report is out in full now, and it's clear that BobBot and all the other turkeys that voted for Christmas are going to get just that. Even the government aren't disagreeing with the numbers (despite BobBots completely made up claims about their reliability), they're just flapping around telling anyone who'll listen that their 'preferred' option isn't included in the figures - what they fail to mention is the likelihood of them actually getting their preferred option.
> 
> I mean, my preferred option for Brexit involves BobBot, a steel toe cap boot and a good run-up, but that doesn't mean I'll get what I want.


Perhaps BobBot will put his bottom where his mouth is? You never know.


----------



## bobclive22

> Perhaps BobBot will put his bottom where his mouth is? You never know.


John, if you have nothing an extra 18% of nothing is still nothing.

The sad thing is people like yourself John have thrown their hat in with Soros who appears to have funded Miller, judging by his past actions only a fool would believe that man has the UK`s best interest at heart.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Perhaps BobBot will put his bottom where his mouth is? You never know.
> 
> 
> 
> John, if you have nothing an extra 18% of nothing is still nothing.
> 
> The sad thing is people like yourself John have thrown their hat in with Soros who appears to have funded Miller, judging by his past actions only a fool would believe that man has the UK`s best interest at heart.
Click to expand...

If you honestly think the people in the poorest parts of the UK have nothing to lose, you're an even bigger fool than I thought you were.


----------



## John-H

http://www.europeanmovement.co.uk/_tran ... e=euromove

Extract below is apparently from UK Government's proposal for the transition period - Feel for the poor civil servant who had to write these sentences one after another all in one paragraph!










It seems to be special pleading to be able to have cake and eat it.

Given that this negotiation seems to be so exploratory and uncertain and given all the connections between the UK domestic law and EU institutions and agencies, 750 international EU agreements etc etc that will be severed by repeal of the UK 1972 EC act, they need to link in to law a transitional arrangement and then repeal those links and link in a new eventual magic unicorn free trade agreement and all the rest, ..... it's no wonder the government want Henry VIII powers to alter law on the fly.

I think they've got problems. The leaked impact statements (which Davis mislead everyone about) say we are going to be far worse off and all the EU need to say is no, you are not having your magic unicorn free trade agreement and then the government are stuffed.

The Japanese are already saying they will pull out of the UK unless there is frictionless tariff free trade with the EU. There's the Irish border and all the promises of the exact same benefits etc.

If the government continues to push this through I can see them in court for malfeasance.

The signals are getting more fractious. I think it won't be long now.


----------



## Spandex

All the really rabid brexiteers like BobBot are too blinkered to care. They not remotely interested in the details. The only thing that matters to these people is getting out any way they can. BobBot can and will ignore ANYTHING negative about Brexit simply because he doesn't care _how_ it happens, or who suffers because of it, as long as it _does_ happen.


----------



## bobclive22

> If you honestly think the people in the poorest parts of the UK have nothing to lose, you're an even bigger fool than I thought you were.


Spandex, if you live within the poorest areas of the UK and those areas have remained as such for decades do you accept the status quo or try something different, the Brexit referendum gave those voters the opportunity to try something different, project fear did not sway them, neither will project fears continuation bring about a change of mind.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex, if you live within the poorest areas of the UK and those areas have remained as such for decades do you accept the status quo or try something different, the Brexit referendum gave those voters the opportunity to try something different, project fear did not sway them, neither will project fears continuation bring about a change of mind.


Yes, I understand people chose an alternative to the status quo. But what if that alternative turns out to be worse for them than the status quo was? People like you, who have more than enough money to live out the last few years of your life, can take the chance, can't you. You don't mind taking chances with other people's futures in order to grab a few years of your little nostalgic fantasy before you keel over, but other people will have to live with the outcome long after you're gone.

The poorest definitely still have more to lose. If they lose any of it because of Brexit, I hope (but won't hold my breath) that you have enough decency left in that bitter, twisted old brain of yours to admit some degree of responsibility.

The real problem with what you unimaginatively call 'project fear' isn't it's accuracy, it's that it gave people like you a get-out clause. You no longer feel that you have to face the question of whether or not we'll be better off outside the EU, you just think you have to show we'll be better off than the worst case scenario put forward by the Remain campaign. But that's not true, is it. If we're not better off out than in, we shouldn't be leaving. Constantly banging on about 'project fear' just shows that you're not comfortable addressing the real issue.


----------



## John-H

Look its your friend Bob!


----------



## bobclive22

Hello John,


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Hello John,


I didn't bother with the first one Because it's so out of date. The second one is more interesting but the title of the video is a complete reversal of the actuality. Lord Adonis had by far the more convincing logical points in argument whereas Jacob Rees Mogg, as the interviewer put it, would be at the centre of some irony if he were to try and threaten the Lords and stop parliamentary due process between the commons on the revising chamber, a parliament for which he had argued to bring back control to - all in an hypocriticaleffort to prevent due process to get his way and prevent parliament and the public having a say on the final deal.

Mogg is bankrupt of argument since arguing himself for a second referendum over final terms back in 2011. He's a charlatan and a blinkered idealog clinging onto a failed argument.


----------



## Spandex

I do love how BobBot is so desperate to find credible people who still actually think brexit is a sensible move that he's willing to throw all his 'underdog', 'common man', 'forgotten millions fighting the political elite' shtick out the window and side with someone like Rees-Mogg. He's the very definition of the Old Etonian, Oxbridge elite that the BobBot would normally hate, but now he finds himself having to pretend to like him.


----------



## John-H

Says quite a lot that we all know..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -tr32j8z5x

Oh and as for Mogg ...


----------



## bobclive22

> I do love how BobBot is so desperate to find credible people who still actually think brexit is a sensible move that he's willing to throw all his 'underdog', 'common man', 'forgotten millions fighting the political elite' shtick out the window and side with someone like Rees-Mogg.


And your credible people Spandex.

The Ad Hominem Argument ,
The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition's intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation,


----------



## John-H

I think we dismissed his arguments first Bob. If you hear someone argue dismissable points over and over you draw conclusions about them


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I do love how BobBot is so desperate to find credible people who still actually think brexit is a sensible move that he's willing to throw all his 'underdog', 'common man', 'forgotten millions fighting the political elite' shtick out the window and side with someone like Rees-Mogg.
> 
> 
> 
> And your credible people Spandex.
> 
> The Ad Hominem Argument ,
> The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition's intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation,
Click to expand...

Except I haven't attacked your boyfriend at all, have I. I just find the fact that you're having to side with someone like him hilarious.


----------



## John-H

The race to the bottom begins....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... P=ema-3239


----------



## John-H

> BREXIT 2016: The streets will be paved with gold.
> BREXIT 2017: It won't be as bad as they warned.
> BREXIT 2018: We got through two World Wars. We can do this.
> BREXIT 2020: It would have been great if Remoaners had helped.
> BREXIT 2030: This rat tastes funny. Pass the mint jelly.
> - Alex Andreou (@sturdyAlex) February 13, 2018


----------



## cheechy

Its the Bob bot Spandex show. Just spent a while here catching up.

I wish I could say I learned something but no - aside from the fact that Bob doesnt appear to subscribe to the same magazines as me.

A lot of magazines differences there for me.

Would be good in all seriousness at this point to get a poll of where people are thinking now some 20 months on from the vote.

Would you vote the same way or differently and why?

Do you think we're being picked on by those nasty unelected EU chaps or are they simply doing what they need to do to keep the rest of the EU happy?


----------



## FJ1000

cheechy said:


> Do you think we're being picked on by those nasty unelected EU chaps or are they simply doing what they need to do to keep the rest of the EU happy?


It's entirely reasonable that the EU would look after their own interests. The UK represents a small percentage of their exports (I think the number was 4% from memory). Also, if the UK leaves with a bad deal, it only makes it better for Frankfurt and Paris as they pick up market share in the finance industry from the City.

All of this is entirely predictable. And in fact, yes, it was predicted!

Only an idiot would've thought the EU would bend over backwards for the UK...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ethicsgradient

I think we will be fine providing the UK can break it's long term dependancy on food and shelter .


----------



## John-H

Probably the most significant step since amendment seven to clause nine.










http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43186005

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43163354


----------



## John-H

This woman's grip on reality seems to have changed:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 83%2F&_rdr


----------



## A3DFU

"the prime minister had finally bidden farewell to "cakeism", admitting that we couldn't both leave the single market and have unchanged access to it. "Life is going to be different," she warned.

But the speech also suggested that Brexit could end up rather like my strop at Little Chef. We would put ourselves and the rest of Europe through a great ordeal, only to end up with an arrangement rather like the one we could have had anyway, all for the sake of feeling in control. Except that, in this case, the end result would be both inferior to, and much more costly than, the dish originally on offer."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rexit-mess


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> "the prime minister had finally bidden farewell to "cakeism", admitting that we couldn't both leave the single market and have unchanged access to it. "Life is going to be different," she warned.
> 
> But the speech also suggested that Brexit could end up rather like my strop at Little Chef. We would put ourselves and the rest of Europe through a great ordeal, only to end up with an arrangement rather like the one we could have had anyway, all for the sake of feeling in control. Except that, in this case, the end result would be both inferior to, and much more costly than, the dish originally on offer."
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rexit-mess


And without the democratic shared control that we have now.

She's pushed by the Brexiteers and being propped up - *"... caught between the devil and the DUP"* as the article cleverly puts it. But the predicament is of her own making. "Strong and stable my arse"

Keeping the party together should not be the priority - it should be what's best for the country.


----------



## John-H

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 49%2F&_rdr


----------



## John-H

Only just read it but it made me laugh...



> Well done @DavidDavisMP @BorisJohnson @michaelgove - we "took back control" today by
> - agreeing to become a rule taker for 21 months
> - handing over the cash you said was for the NHS
> - risking a hard border in the Irish Sea
> - providing zero clarity on our long term future
> - Will Straw (@wdjstraw) March 19, 2018


----------



## John-H

It's all coming out now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hmir-sanni


----------



## John-H

So, with the basis of the referendum result being fraudulent how can the government justify continuation of the Brexit process?

Despite that obvious flaw, how honest have the government been about what Brexit will achieve? Here are 11 broken promises they have quietly dropped:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... ly-dropped

And how honest is the prime minister being with her extra money for the NHS as a dividend of leaving the EU?

She's trying to make an apparent reality out of Boris Johnson's big red bus £350m for the NHS lie but it's a con - where is the money coming from? - when her own impact studies show that UK GDP will be down between 3% and 16% depending on an EU free trade deal or no deal and to put that in perspective; the banking crisis in 2008 caused only a 2% drop in GDP and 10 years of cutbacks and austerity.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-anal ... om-brexit/


----------



## John-H

Dear MP,

*Brexit GDP and available funding*

Prime minister Theresa May has said, *"Of course when we leave the European Union, we'll no longer be spending vast sums of money, year in and year out, sending that money to the European Union, so there will be money available here in the UK to spend on our priorities like the NHS and schools."*. She is trying to make an apparent reality out of Boris Johnson's big red bus £350m for the NHS misinformation but it's a con - where is the money coming from?

There will be _less_ money not more. The government's own impact studies show that UK GDP will be down between 3% and 16% depending on whether the EU agree a free trade deal or not and to put that in perspective; the banking crisis in 2008 caused only a 2% drop in GDP and 10 years of cutbacks and austerity. How dare the prime minister mislead the country with this fantasy.

*Electoral fraud and manipulation*

Allowing a simple majority to decide a referendum when opinion is equally divided has exposed the country to the danger of manipulation of the referendum result by those with vested interest, especially considering that our electoral law dates from a long time before the invention of the internet and sophisticated covert cyber techniques developed for exploitation of user data.

With the revelations of whistleblowers Shahmir Sanni and Chris Wylie regarding the activity of Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ - where allegedly, electoral spending rules were broken and excess funds transferred between Leave.EU, Vote Leave, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP for co-ordinated use by Aggregate IQ - the situation is quite shocking, involving now senior government aides and could even involve cabinet ministers - did they know?

Before the referendum a leaked memo from Steve Baker in Vote Leave, which has been widely reported, suggested the creation of separate legal entities, each of which could spend up to £700k, allowing them to, _*"spend as much money as is necessary to win"*_. Vote Leave's finance director, Antonia Flockton, told a parliamentary committee after the referendum _*"when it became obvious that we were in surplus funding, we chose to donate to other campaigns".*_

Following the referendum, Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings stated on AIQ's website: _*"Without a doubt, the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of Aggregate IQ. We couldn't have done it without them."*
_ 
Since then Facebook have been increasing the estimated number of users' data that was exploited by Cambridge Analytica from 50m to 87m with over a million UK users exposed. This data was harvested not only through a personality test app which also accessed the "friends" of users of the app without consent but further data loss through development tools and other lax control exploits means that all Facebook users could potentially have had their data "scraped" it is now realised.

This manipulation is under investigation by the Electoral Commission but even if no strict breach of their outdated rules occurred, possibly because payments were declared as "donations", this misses the point that the donators knew that money directed to Aggregate IQ from any of the leave organisations was to a common cause - what else was the company to do with it? The messages sent over social media using their psychological techniques are targeted to a large number of profiled individuals in order to, for example, raise levels of anxiety about immigration etc. or any other perceived anti-EU message whether true or not. This is all about the amount of targeted messages to a general cause and its effectiveness rises with the total amount spent. If the total funding for this exploit can be increased by making extra "donations" to be spent to the same common purpose through different groups then clearly our democracy is vulnerable to manipulation by someone with deep enough pockets - the very reason for which spending limit rules exist.

The Electoral Commission are investigating but may not conclude for some time. Facebook have suspended Cambridge Analytica and now Aggregate IQ from using their platform. Meanwhile the validity of the referendum result is in question. Clearly the marginal result is unsafe and therefore so is current government policy regarding Brexit.
*
Proportionality*

In 1975 we had a referendum where 67% decisively voted to remain in the EC/EEC with a clear super majority, but even had we voted to leave we would only have had to reverse the effect of two years membership. That would not have been so drastic a change.

With the 2016 referendum result splitting the country down the middle and with such a slim margin resulting from a 2% (600k) swing, the advisory result is in reality one of "not sure". The 2% swing is within the error margin of most opinion polls and yet this slight 2% tilt to leave, instead of resulting in a slight proportionate and safe distancing from the EU or re-appraisal, is being used to justify a complete divorce as if everyone was in agreement.

Ripping up what is now 45 years of integration is an enormous change and completely ignores the wishes of 48% of voters. In fact 74% of the UK population who either voted to remain, abstained or had no vote, are being dictated to by only 37% of the electorate (26% of the population) who voted to leave, so how can this be seen as "the will of the people"? The phrase is dishonest nonsense, and implementing what will now be a devastating change from such a small marginal indication, the validity of which is now in question, is wholly disproportionate and dangerous.

Clearly a super majority should be required for such a major constitutional change so the country is united in direction and the result is clear and safe but given no margin was set as the referendum was advisory, the responsibility falls to parliament to ensure it acts with due care in the best interests of the country.

Most informed people including MPs know Brexit should be stopped and the decision reversed for the good of the country. If this doesn't happen we will have been failed by our political class who took an oath to put country above party and self interest. The government should manage the country's real needs rather than servicing the illusions of the ideologues within its own ranks. Please put a stop to this mismanagement and stop this unsafe Brexit before any more damage is done.

Regards,


*
Major petition:*

*Vote leave cheated. Sign this petition to kick up a stink and demand a fair Brexit vote:
*
https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/brexit_fraud_loc/

Latest news on this broke today:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -zbg57n3ph


----------



## John-H

*Project cheat*












> The Information Commissioner's Office is investigating Leave.EU and its donor Arron Banks over possible breaches of the Data Protection Act.
> 
> The ICO has issued "information notices" against both Leave.EU - the referendum campaign headed by Nigel Farage - and its director, Banks.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -analytica

Also......


----------



## bobclive22

*Leaked EU files show Brussels cover-up and collusion on Putin's Gazprom abuses*

The report suggests that Germany has been enjoying a sweetheart deal with Gazprom, gaining a competitive advantage in gas costs at the expense of fellow EU economies and leaving front line states at the mercy of Moscow's strong-arm tactics.

Nothing new there then.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... s-gazprom/


----------



## John-H

You implying our democracy is also being manipulated by Russia too as well as all the major cheating going on then Bob and by other means too?

That EU investigation report you highlight (actually not new and a report by the commission about Gazcom) will be acted on now no doubt but if the EU have been manipulated how will we manage with on our own with less economic clout if we leave the EU? Lucky we are not so dependent on gas but what about other things?


----------



## John-H

'People's Vote' campaign group launched










http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43774200

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 05981.html


----------



## Spandex

So BobBot, no comment on the whole Cambridge Analytica/AIQ fiasco? Nothing to say about the numerous people coming out the woodwork to expose cheating by the Leave campaign, funneling money into those companies via different groups to get round funding rules?

It's odd, because I remember you being quite vocal about it a year or so ago, when you thought no one would dig up any evidence to substantiate the claims. You've gone strangely quite now though.

I'm genuinely curious how you'd manage to spin this. I've put together some typical BobBot head-in-the-sand responses to help you out though:

1. Say they're all lying. It didn't happen (this response works well for the Russians, so maybe it'll work for you too?)
2. Say it doesn't matter that they cheated because people would have voted the same way regardless (this response involves pretending that AIQ received almost £4m for achieving nothing. It's a stretch, but say it with a straight face and hope no one questions it).
3. Say something random about a bad thing the EU did in the hope you can distract people and avoid the question entirely. Post a few links too. It doesn't matter if no one reads them, they're only there to pad out the smokescreen.


----------



## John-H

_*Project cheat*_

Following Arron Banks and Nigel Farage of Leave.EU being served information notices by the ICO in an investigation over use of data by Cambridge Analytica - More damming evidence that Vote Leave, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, cheated implicating senior aids in Downing street -



> Vote Leave broke spending limits on industrial scale


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -gettleson?

Here is the legal opinion on the evidence submitted:

View attachment Background paper - 2016 Referendum Expenses Opinion - Matrix Chambers.pdf


----------



## Spandex

The BobBot only understands jingoistic tabloid catchphrases. We need to start calling it "Project Cheat", or something, so he can get his head around it.


----------



## John-H

I like "Project cheat". It has a certain ring to it 

It's worth repeating:










The reason being the complete forensic annihilation of the government's border plans by the EU:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -solution/

After the massive defeat in the Lords over the customs union and a commons vote being forced on the issue next week it note looks likely the government will have to back down.


----------



## John-H

I find this absolutely shocking but in some ways expected:

Potentially half the UK electorate had their data compromised in the EU referendum campaign.

Reported in the Guardian: Brittany Kaiser, an ex-director of Cambridge Analytica, gave evidence to the parliamentary select committee that Aaron Banks asked Cambridge Analytica to combine data from different sources in order to profile and then target voters in the European referendum:

*"He asked us to design a strategy where we could work with Leave.EU, Ukip and Eldon Insurance"*

Eldon insurance owned by Banks had access to the data of 24.9 million UK citizens (half the electorate) through Moneysupermarket.com:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -analytica?

Eldon insurance call centre staff actually worked on the EU referendum according to her testimony:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-mps-told?

Far more than 87 million Facebook users data was compromised - (there was more than one app):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -analytica

I am so glad this is now being exposed. It compromises the validity and certainty of the referendum result which was swung by only 600k votes. This is unsafe and can't be relied on any longer.


----------



## John-H

I've been given permission to quote this reply:



> There has been a massive exodus of EU workers from the NHS, fruit pickers, fishermen and other occupations where UK people are unwilling to replace the existing workforce. Many migrants have gone because of the devaluation of the pound. Crops will rot in the fields-replaced by dear imports of foreign junk including chlorinated chicken, irradiated meat saturated with antibiotics. Polish people who man the fishing boats off Scotland have gone. There are no replacements for them or others who do backbreaking arduous work of harvesting our crops for poor wages.
> 
> The referendum was an uninformed choice between Operation Fear and Operation Lies. I said so at the time. No side or voter got the truth eighteen months ago of what Brexit means. There's been no economic collapse and we can all go whistle for the £350million a week for NHS. But those were the scares on which we voted.
> 
> The awful truth is being revealed horror by horror, day by day. Before we jump into a Brexit sinkhole of economic chaos, it's time for second thoughts. Every Independent study has said that NO Brexit is better than any Brexit. We have had our guess in the dark uninformed Advisory Referendum. We need a second well-informed Confirmation Referendum.
> 
> Here is an article I wrote for the House Magazine in April 2017:
> *Snap election leaves no chance to address concerns about voter manipulation
> The EU referendum proved that the Electoral Commission's obsolete tools for monitoring cyber manipulation will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it at the election, writes Labour MP Paul Flynn.
> *
> 
> Not since the 1880 reforms have our systems for election and referendums been in greater peril. The single thunderous lesson from the EU Referendum is that new technology trumps long-established democratic safeguards. Clandestine artificial intelligence, algorithms, and invisible money sources can overwhelm surface democratic rules.
> 
> PACAC's report Lessons learned from the EU referendum gained considerable attention for highlighting the possibility that foreign governments interfered with the referendum.
> The voter registration website crashed last June threatening disenfranchisement of thousands, forcing the government to extend the registration deadline. The committee reported that the crash had indications of a botnet attack on the voter registration website.
> 
> The crash may well have been the result of an attack designed to influence political outcome. Worryingly there is no chance to address these concerns before Theresa May's opportunistic snap election.
> 
> As we enter this election campaign period an alarming narrative is emerging of online voter targeting, calculated to cause mass interference and influence. An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, their behaviour having untold and unquantifiable effects. Whilst the plot reads like that of a comic book this cyber manipulation is no fiction and played a role in both the EU referendum and President Trump's election.
> 
> Exceptional investigation work by journalist Carole Cadwalladr has exposed the wide reaching implications of the issue including the probity of June's General Election.
> 
> Billionaire Robert Mercer is Donald Trump's biggest donor. He is also reported to be an owner of Cambridge Analytica, a company specialising in election strategies and involved in both the Trump and Brexit campaigns.
> 
> The company proved to be instrumental to Leave.EU and taught the campaign how to build profiles, target people and gain data from Facebook profiles.
> 
> When interviewed by Cadwalladr, Leave.EU's communications director, admitted, _*"Facebook was the key to the entire campaign. A Facebook 'like' was their most "potent weapon". Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring."*_
> 
> So worrying is Cambridge Analytica's actions that the Information Commissioners Office has launched an investigation into their reported use of personal data.
> 
> There is contempt for the electoral process they are manipulating. Leave.EU have not declared Cambridge Analytica's work as services in kind to the electoral commission. Arron Banks of Leave.EU has since declared *"I don't give a monkey's about the Electoral Commission."*
> 
> In June the Electoral Commission is expected to deal with tomorrow's problems. The referendum proved their outdated tools will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it.
> 
> Broadcast advertising is subject to controls. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from online activity which lacks regulation.
> 
> Sir Tim Berners Lee has condemned the disgusting practice of selling private citizens online data. He summed up the problem best: *"We've lost control of our personal data&#8230;it's too easy for misinformation to spread on the web" and "Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding."
> *
> 
> Lobbyists and Billionaires are manipulating media and public opinion in defiance of transparency regulations.
> 
> We are in the disturbing era where lobbyists can weaponise fake news for the highest bidder. They can track voters' personal data and manipulate public opinion. All of this they can do under cover of anonymity and without regulation or oversight.
> 
> The EU Referendum was a battle of dishonesty. It was won by the side with the means to distribute the most plausible lies.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Paul Flynn
> 
> M.P for Newport West,
> A.S dros Orllewin Casnewydd


----------



## A3DFU

That's brilliant John! Thanks for sharing.

I just read this which is no big surprise really:



> Immigration rules are hampering the ability of the NHS to recruit doctors, health leaders are warning
> NHS bosses say increasing numbers of doctors are being refused permission, worsening rota gaps and the waits patients face for treatment.
> It comes amid a row after visas for 100 Indian doctors were refused.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969


----------



## John-H

Moment of light relief:

I just found out that an anagram of "Jacob Rees Mogg" is "Bojo cream eggs"


----------



## A3DFU

I hate cream eggs [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## John-H

Brexit is failing across all fronts and the chances are Brexit won't happen:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -every-day










A very full explanation of all that has happened. How taking the simplifications of Brexiters and trying to turn them into the complex realities of policy represents a major failure of political leadership by the Prime Minister and her government, writes Professor Chris Grey:

https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com/2 ... ssion=true


----------



## John-H

Something else to investigate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... SApp_Other


----------



## A3DFU

Thanks for posting, John

Time that all of it is coming out.


----------



## Spandex

The question is, how much dodgy stuff would have to come out about the Brexit campaign in order to change the mind of someone who was strongly in favour of leaving? Honestly, I just don't think they would ever care. All these revelations are an inconvenience because they have the potential to affect their chances of getting what they want, but that's as far as their interest goes.

The BobBots of this world honestly wouldn't care one bit if it was conclusively proved that the Brexit campaign cheated. It's simply not a concern for them.


----------



## John-H

I agree. I met a die hard leaver the other day who said he didn't care if we were all made poorer. But some people say such things without a care for the consequences to others or how selfish it makes them look by saying it. He was retired and basically showing how stubborn he was. He had a minder though and his wife took him away. No possibility of persuading him otherwise.

More balanced or open minded individuals are capable of taking on new information and reappraising the situation. There were a lot of people in the middle of the debate who think they were lied to and mislead about how simple it would all be and a lot of MPs looking for a ladder to climb out of a hole they have managed to dig themselves into.


----------



## John-H

So Cambridge Analytica have filed for bankrupsy. Gone now?

"EmerData"

Have a look here on this Company's House record:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... 8/officers

You may recognise the surnames of two females MERCER, Jennifer and MERCER, Rebekah Anne - 
daughters of the the billionaire Robert Mercer who bankrolled Trump's election campaign and founded Cambridge Analytica along with Steve Bannon..

Also NIX, Alexander James Ashburner - suspended director of Cambridge Analytica. He resigned from Emerdata on 28th March the same day as the Mercers joined.

TAYLER, Alexander Bruce, Dr is acting director for Cambridge Analytica(UK) also appointed to Emerdata on 28th March.

Both Cambridge Analytica and EmerData are part of SCL Elections and the SCL group.

EmerData's stated activity is "Data processing, hosting and related activities"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gel-farage

http://uk.businessinsider.com/cambridge ... ata-2018-3


----------



## Yashin

What an absolute farce this has become. I voted Remain yet throughout the campaign leading up to the Referendum it seemed to be a continuous stream of poor decisions from the remain side of things. This vote should of been a walk in the park - the last vote in 1975 was practically a landslide victory for remain, and since then we have had 40 odd years to integrate even further into the EU and to be more and more Pro EU.

What was this Project Terror nonsense about? Why wasn't the benefits of being in the EU like free trade and free movement etc not the sole aim of the Remain camp, instead of some hysterical looking attempt to counter the Brexiteers movements arguments with all the delivery of a tin foil fanatical flat earther. Tony "Dodgy Captain Spin" Blair throwing his support behind Remain that naturally went down like a dog poo sandwich, Project Terror making us look weak as if the "little" UK needs the EU to survive getting backs up, it was ridiculous. At one stage it was being said that the economy will plummet if Brexit was voted for so taxes would have to go up - in this day and age did they they really think that Joe public was that uneducated and ignorant to how Countries economies work?

It was shambolic to say the least and had a lot to do with how things worked out, it wasn't just the "Brexit Bus" coming down the road like a remixed Vengaboys pop video.

So where do we go from here?


----------



## A3DFU

Yashin said:


> So where do we go from here?


Down the sinkhole if it doesn't get stopped.


----------



## Yashin

How likely is that though? If that is to happen it needs to be sooner than later and the clock is counting down to the deadline.

After we leave it would be pointless to try and rejoin because you can imagine what the conditions for re-joining would be from the EU -

1. None of our existing EU Rebates 
2. Scrap the Pound and take on the Euro for currency
3. Be our Bitch.


----------



## John-H

I think the Brexiteers are planning on a rejoin scenario being easier to object to than the good deal we have now.

Video of the day

Arch-Brexiter (and former Tory cabinet minister) John Redwood outright refuses to engage with OFOC's Femi Oluwole on whether it's "official Tory policy to harm the country".

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/9 ... 7580694528


----------



## John-H

*Project cheat*

How did Aaron Banks provide £12m of services to Leave.EU when spending limits were only £700k?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... to-leaveeu


----------



## Spandex




----------



## John-H

*Project cheat - official. *
Aaron Banks's Leave.EU fined the maximum allowed by the Electoral Commission for multiple breaches of electoral spending rules and the campaign chief referred to the police for criminal offences.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum

With that vindication of only some of the complaints over electoral fraud so far and allegedly breaches of data regulations regarding half the electorate through an insurance database accessed by Banks's own insurance company according to evidence given to a parliamentary select committee, and huge funds spent with Aggregate IQ praised for swinging the referendum, and court action due on 19th June regarding Vote leave - how can this referendum result based on a marginal 600k swing be trusted?
Add to that Theresa May's decision to split her cabinet to argue it out over customs arrangements which is hardly presenting a united front and could split her party - are we starting to see the unraveling of the Brexit project? Have a good weekend.
Cheers,
John


----------



## Danny1

70 pages in and still John cant deal with Brexit, you dont have to support it but 70 pages of moaning and posting every link you can find regarding how bad it all is is getting long in the tooth..... :lol:


----------



## John-H




----------



## PlasticMac

Tell Barnier & Co to go away, adopt WTO tariffs across the board. Wait for EU to come back with a better offer. They need us, especially our money and our EU imports more, or at least as much, as we need the EU.


----------



## John-H

PlasticMac said:


> Tell Barnier & Co to go away, adopt WTO tariffs across the board. Wait for EU to come back with a better offer. They need us, especially our money and our EU imports more, or at least as much, as we need the EU.


I presume you are being ironic :lol:

You tease. I wouldn't know where to begin!


----------



## PlasticMac

No irony intended. What I thought would happen if us Brexiteers won. Which we did, but it didn't. The EU should tell us what's their best offer, not keep asking what we want, then saying you we can't have it when we do!


----------



## John-H

Oh dear. The subject of this tweet wasn't being ironic either :roll:










I don't think I want to do any of that!

Here's how it's going so far...










The best deal the EU has on offer is to stay in the EU obviously. It's the UK that has announced it wants a new relationship apparently. Why on earth should it then be up to the EU to tell us what we want when all the other options they can see leave us worse off? Apparently we thought it was a good idea (well actually only 37% of those who voted did - 74% of all the people didn't). You say you won? That was after "Project cheat" wasn't it? So how can you be sure about that? It's not a game anyway as the effect on people's lives are going to be huge. We are all £900 worse off already to where we should be if we hadn't decided to leave and we haven't even left yet!

The fact that our inept government is arguing with itself and can't think of a plan that isn't going to cause immense damage so keeps trying to kick the can down the road should be telling us all something. Tick Tock . . .


----------



## leopard

The way Italy is going,there might not be an EU to stay in anyway.
Might the 'condescenders' of the pro remain brigade explain what they are going talk about when it all falls apart


----------



## Spandex

PlasticMac said:


> No irony intended. What I thought would happen if us Brexiteers won. Which we did, but it didn't. The EU should tell us what's their best offer, not keep asking what we want, then saying you we can't have it when we do!


Yeah, the EU should make it easier for us to do the thing they don't want us to do!

Honestly, if someone voted to leave without taking into account the incompetence of our government and the inflexibility of the EU then I have zero sympathy. Neither of these things were hard to predict.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> The way Italy is going,there might not be an EU to stay in anyway.
> Might the 'condescenders' of the pro remain brigade explain what they are going talk about when it all falls apart


Nah. That's only the Euro and the issue was not put to the electorate anyway. There's no call to leave the EU. The demise of the Euro has often been predicted but it carries on. Also, if there is a Euro crisis do you really think the UK would be isolated from the effects if we were no longer in the EU like it won't affect us? We can't even leave in a planned and civilised manner for fear of the consequences. It would serve our interests better to give support if it came to that. In any case the Euro is not the EU. The world's largest trading block is still going to be the world's largest trading block even without the Euro. What? Suddenly all the state's would no longer want to trade with each other? That's totally unrealistic.


----------



## John-H

I was sent this this morning which relates to the above:

Brexiters think Donald Trump is our best buddy. He's actually a bully.

The US president has slapped 25% tariffs on European steel and 10% on European aluminium. That's a new fact for the post-Brexit world, unknowable at the time of the 2016 referendum vote. And it's a particularly unwelcome fact for the 31,000 workers employed in the UK steel industry.

Trump is bringing the US to the brink of a trade war with its closest allies - Canada and Mexico will also be hit. The EU is already threatening retaliatory tariffs on Harley-Davidson motorcycles, bourbon whiskey and Levi jeans.

Emmanuel Macron has called Trump's move an "illegal decision". Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, has promised "dollar for dollar" retaliation.

And the response from the UK? Liam Fox says limply that it would be "a great pity if we ended up in a tit-for-tat trade dispute with our closest allies".

The trade secretary must be worried that the fantasy deal he promised to clinch with the US straight after Brexit will go up in smoke if he attacks Trump. But if these tariffs show anything it's that, in any pact we get with America, we'll be bullied.

Fox can afford his weak response because the EU is doing the muscle flexing for us. It's much more effective at this because its market is bigger than America's.

If we want to be a proud nation then the only way to deal with bullies is stand up to them. Self-imposed Brexit isolation will make that almost impossible.


----------



## PlasticMac

I don't see that UK leaving the EU is isolating UK. Quite the reverse, it gives UK an independent voice. We're still a G7, UN etc member (which the EU us not), just we can express our views, and have our policies, rather than tow the EU line. What Trump does is have an independent voice, albeit, one that isn't always rational. Trade is and always was commercial, not political, despite what politicians (and remainers) would have us believe!


----------



## Spandex

'Express our views' and 'have our policies'. Great. Because that was what was really holding us back, right? Stopping us from... err.. well, you know. Stopping us from doing all those amazing things we wanted to do but couldn't. So many amazing things. Can't think of one right now, but there are definitely loads of them.


----------



## John-H

PlasticMac said:


> I don't see that UK leaving the EU is isolating UK. Quite the reverse, it gives UK an independent voice. We're still a G7, UN etc member (which the EU us not), just we can express our views, and have our policies, rather than tow the EU line. What Trump does is have an independent voice, albeit, one that isn't always rational. Trade is and always was commercial, not political, despite what politicians (and remainers) would have us believe!


Of course it's isolating the UK. By leaving something you are isolating yourself from something. You can't possibly claim you are more connected to something by leaving it.

You conflate "isolation" and "independence" with "influence" quite wrongly.

If we leave the EU we will clearly have a much smaller voice and influence than the EU which is far bigger. If the UK retains its position within the EU we retain our position as a driver of EU policy and beneficiary of its achievements. Outside we have no such rights and a much smaller voice in comparison on the World stage.

For your information the EU is represented on the G7 since 1981and the UN since 1974 as an observer state for its 28 member states. In fact the EU hosted the 40th G7 summit when Russia was expelled from the G8. Participants: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, European Union.

You seem to be trying to play down the significance of the EU which is the World's biggest trading block and exaggerate the UK's ability to influence the World when isolated from the body that has amplified it's voice for the last 45 years. This makes no sense to me.

You also say trade is commercial and not political. What? You think the action of Trump playing to the rust belt and imposing tariffs isn't political? Such a view I think is "isolated" from reality. Or should that be "independent" from reality :wink:

Anyway, something far more interesting. Have a look at this government document from 2015



> *What happens if we leave?
> *
> Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
> The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.
> Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.
> But the Government's judgement is that it would be much harder than that - less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.
> No other country has managed to secure signifcant access to the Single Market, without having to:
> • follow EU rules over which they have no real say
> • pay into the EU
> • accept EU citizens living and working in their country
> A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now - including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada's deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.





> *The benefts of EU membership*
> 
> The UK is part of the EU,
> a group of 28 countries which exists to promote economic security, peace and stability. The EU operates as a single, free trading market, without taxes between borders.
> The UK has secured a special status in the EU. The UK has kept the pound, will not join the euro and has kept control of UK borders. We have ensured that no UK powers can be transferred to the EU in the future without a referendum. The UK will
> keep full access to the Single Market, with a say on its rules. For every £1 paid in tax, a little over 1p goes to the EU. The Government judges that what the UK gets back in opportunities, job creation and economic security from EU membership far outweighs the cost.
> Opportunities for you and your children
> EU membership means you and your family have the right to live, work or study abroad in any of the 27 other member
> countries. It also guarantees many employment rights.
> The UK as a leading force in the world
> The UK is a strong, independent nation. Our EU membership magnifes the UK's ability to get its way on the issues we care about. EU action helped prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and the EU is leading the world on tackling climate change.


Well it's all coming to pass as predicted. It's a pity not enough people believed it and the debate was taken over by xenophobia, misrepresentation distortion and lies by Project cheat.

Have a read of the document here:

View attachment why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-.pdf


----------



## A3DFU

Excellent post John. Thanks.


----------



## John-H

Farage re-writes history











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002472366629322752


----------



## John-H

We appear to be at No.5 "Very choppy" following Nigel Farage's comments above ...










ARE YOU MARCHING FOR A PEOPLE'S VOTE ON JUNE 23? SIGN UP *HERE*. 











The pro-European Tory ranks in Parliament have swelled to as many as 15 since 11 rebelled back in December, according to *recent reports*. More Conservative MPs would do well to join them. *Nick Kent* recently gave five reasons to do so in InFacts. Time is short, business is suffering and failure to back the Lords' changes will leave May at the mercy of her Brextremist backbenchers.

The most important amendment is probably to secure a truly meaningful vote on May's Brexit deal by MPs sometime in the autumn. It's at this point that Parliament can demand a People's Vote on the final terms. With Brexit in such a mess, and so many of Leavers' 2016 promises broken, it's only right that the public get a say on the real deal.

Time to march. Because now it's the Brexiters who are afraid - Polly Toynbee:









https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -will-vote










Here's an important point being made by *Peter Mandelson:* the way Brexit is going, the UK will not be able to negotiate a meaningful deal with the EU by the time of the key parliamentary votes on Brexit this autumn. The onus is therefore on MPs to reject a "blind Brexit", said the former Labour minister and EU commissioner.

This, of course, would be the perfect time for MPs to demand a People's Vote on May's final deal - whatever state it's in.


----------



## A3DFU

I've had my marching orders so I'll be there on 23td June


----------



## Stiff

Just out of curiosity, what will the march do? Or rather, what will it achieve?


----------



## Shug750S

Will give a few cops some decent overtime pay....


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> Just out of curiosity, what will the march do? Or rather, what will it achieve?


Good question. I suppose like all these things if only a handful turn up nothing - but the more people involved the bigger and the more political impact - that people are not happy with the way things are going for whatever reason. It'll be in the news and MPs will take note. It all adds to the argument. They say that each letter to an MP is equivalent to the opinion of 200 constituents so enough letters has an impact. In a similar way a big march represents a large body of national opinion.

The purpose of the march is to promote a People's vote on the final deal now we have more knowledge of what's on offer and what's possible. It might not end up like that as MPs may feel emboldened due to the protests to vote against any bad deal for the country anyway but if a fudge is attempted and the compromises on offer; that both honour the 2016 referendum result and try to give some protection to he UK economy and people are also nonetheless, still going to be damaging to the UK and make us worse off (remember Labour's six tests), then it's at that stage when parliament might well decide that politically they have to involve the people again - only this time with a far more informed choice.


----------



## Yashin

What would the people's vote be?

Do you accept the deal the government has agreed with the EU or do we leave with no deal?


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> What would the people's vote be?
> 
> Do you accept the deal the government has agreed with the EU or do we leave with no deal?


Another good question. It would be up to parliament to decide.

It could be those options but that's a choice between a deal that could leave us all worse off (to a lesser or greater extent depending on the deal) and the nightmare scenario where everything grinds to a halt. It could include a third option to remain on current terms.

It could be a simple yes/no on the deal and parliament decides on what to do in the event of rejection of the deal.

They may not even decide to put it to the people but take the protest as a reason to depart from the current course.

One thing is for sure - if you are not happy with the way things are going, don't sit back and give up. Demand a say!


----------



## leopard

Another nail in the coffin for the remainers 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Another nail in the coffin for the remainers
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035


Rubbish. :lol:

Rather than face defeat, the government caved. It agreed to accept a proposal by Dominic Grieve, who has led the charge for the meaningful vote, as the basis for a "structural discussion" on a new version when the legislation returns to the House of Lords next week.

Have a read:
https://infacts.org/may-caves-on-meanin ... ip-hooray/


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another nail in the coffin for the remainers
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish. :lol:
> 
> Rather than face defeat, the government caved. It agreed to accept a proposal by Dominic Grieve, who has led the charge for the meaningful vote, as the basis for a "structural discussion" on a new version when the legislation returns to the House of Lords next week.
> 
> Have a read:
> https://infacts.org/may-caves-on-meanin ... ip-hooray/
Click to expand...











He,he gotcha. :lol:


----------



## John-H

I see :wink: Well that's good just in case anyone else got the wrong idea and got depressed


----------



## leopard

No need to get depressed but I'd feel weary carrying the burden of all those that pin their hopes and dreams of a Brexit that will never happen upon your shoulders


----------



## John-H

Not just me, thankfully. We've filled our first 48 seater coach to the march and are filling our second. That's just or local group.


----------



## John-H

Brexiters bail on Britain like rats fleeing sinking ship - Rees-Mogg shifts his investments to Ireland, Lawson applies for French citizenship, Wigmore moves to Belize and Farage says he'll go if it's a disaster and said he never promised we'd be better off.

https://infacts.org/brexiters-bail-on-b ... king-ship/










And we're off again - this time there'll be less trust over government concessions:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44482652
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -amendment

By the way. Have a read of this: 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oft-brexit

I pick out one very well observed paragraph of *Supreme* importance:



> This is the selfsame issue about parliament's law-making authority over prerogative powers on which the supreme court ruled authoritatively in the Gina Miller case in 2017. Jacob Rees-Mogg's feudal insistence that MPs must not be allowed to control the final deal with the EU is both an attempt to overturn the Miller judgment - which is not going to happen - and a recognition that he is in the parliamentary minority on these issues.


Remember this? _"Rolls-Royce Brexit exodus? British icon considers move to Germany"_ reported even in the Express:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/ ... eu-exit-uk

_Derby's Rolls-Royce is considering moving the design approval process for its large jet engines from the UK to Germany to avoid disruption caused by Brexit._
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/b ... ny-1493127

Then...










Rolls-Royce announces 4,600 job cuts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44479410


----------



## A3DFU

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H




----------



## A3DFU

> "The Prime Minister has the cheek to claim there will be a Brexit dividend"


What she failed to add it that the dividend will go to her and her faithful ministers only.


----------



## John-H

So what just happened? Whilst it's disappointing not to have a clearer meaningful vote amendment written into the EU (Withdrawal) bill, the future of the bill and our eventual EU status is still not settled.

In making the latest concession to avoid defeat on the "meaningful vote" May has kicked the can down the road again by putting the decision in the hands of the speaker - he will decide whether the bill is amenable in the event of no deal at that time. This allows May to claim when going into EU negotiations that she's still in control (at the moment). Let's hope the speaker doesn't get run over by a bus or become the victim of a smear campaign.

The government whips tried to take advantage of sick and elderly Labour MPs in a desperate bid to win this Brexit vote but had to concede with only hours to go - according to Lib Dem MP Layla Moran.

You need a good imagination to believe that the EU don't know what's going on. The idea that we hope they believe that we have a _"Strong and stable"_ PM who is mad enough to shoot ourselves collectively in the head by playing the no deal card without the threat of intervention by parliament to cause further concessions or about turns requires an equally good imagination.

Another concession the government made on the bill was _"no infrastructure"_ on the Northern Ireland border. That could force us to stay in the customs union and single market.

There are several more significant opportunities for a government defeat such as over the customs union. Of the eight pieces of Brexit legislation needed to be passed to leave the EU there are still five to go.

To actually leave the present EU treaty and adopt a new treaty which could include a transition period for example, requires the passing of yet another bill - the _"Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill"_ (WAI Bill).

This bill would need to be passed once an agreement has been made and if parliament hasn't asked the speaker to intervene to make the present EU withdrawal bill amendable and then amend it. Even if they don't ask for such an intervention, if parliament fails to pass the WAI bill in both houses to give the EU withdrawal bill legal force under a new treaty, it's my understanding that the whole thing fails and we stay in the EU under the present treaty and article 50 lapses.

The reason for this comes back to the Gina Miller case where the Supreme Court ruled that, whereas the government executive can negotiate international treaties under prerogative powers on the international plane, parliament is sovereign and only parliament has the authority to enact them and change domestic law and rights of citizens.

If parliament fails to enact the WAI bill the government argue this means we crash out with no deal.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-8321

But that is side-lining parliament. If the government tried this however this is when it would likely be taken back to court for not having the authority as reminded here:

https://thepeopleschallenge.org/2018/06 ... le-of-law/

*The government's Brexit stance is riddled with legal confusion (Helen Mountfield):*



> "In debating what might happen next, it is vital to remember what is still legally possible. It is politically, as well as constitutionally important to understand that the deed is not yet done. We are not yet tied to leaving the EU; and in fact the prime minister does not yet have power to take us out. If parliament votes against the terms of whatever deal the prime minister can obtain, then the default fallback position is not that we crash out of the EU, but that we remain in."
> https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... -confusion


The constitutional procedures are explained here:

*Parliament and the withdrawal agreement: What does a 'meaningful vote' actually mean? (Jack Simson-Caird of the Constitutional unit) *

https://constitution-unit.com/2018/02/1 ... #more-6491

As explained under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAGA), the House of Commons has the power to delay ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement repeatedly. This gives it time to do what it wants by raising any new bill to change direction. Ultimately it needs to pass legislation to enact the leaving the EU otherwise nothing changes.

On a different note you may want to check this out too:

https://goodlawproject.us15.list-manage ... 30092b0ef5

Which could be highly significant. It depends on a few sequential "ifs" happening but if eventually the electoral commission decide that the referendum was won by cheating - it's then incumbent on parliament to annul the referendum.

As reported in The Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/951bbd80-73c ... 23e4384287

While Brexit's biggest bankroller was splashing the cash on the referendum, his insurance company was making a loss of £32 million and notes that Arron Banks has "failed to clarify the provenance of at least £9m in Leave campaign donations", and the electoral commission is investigating "whether he is the true source of loans and other funds given to the Leave.EU campaign group".

Happy thoughts.

John


----------



## John-H

Theresa's Brexit fudge video. Hilarious :lol:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 0593816777


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Theresa's Brexit fudge video. Hilarious :lol:
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 0593816777


Yeah,it's hilarious [smiley=sleeping.gif] 

Re the march today,where was Jezza your leader ? The BBC managed to find two low ranking MP's on the news tonight but credit where credit's due they did find one from opposing sides.A bit of a damp one :lol:


----------



## John-H

"Where's Jeremy Corbyn?" was one of the chants on the march - to a familiar tune :wink: I wouldn't describe him as my leader although I may follow but only if the direction is right. It's all about tactics you know.

I saw the BBC aerial photographs. Here's the one if the main march:









There was an opposing march, corralled by three policemen, with a few hundred who seem to think no deal is a good idea:










They were best summed up by one poster I saw on our march saying "Who needs Airbus when we have our spitfires" - out of touch with the modern world.

Anyway, some pictures from the march:




























Someone had even painted their poster in oils 





































Thanks to everyone who came to join us on the *People's Vote on the final deal march *in London on Saturday. If you couldn't make it and/or haven't yet signed the NEW petition to give the people a say in what affects all our futures please sign here:

*https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition*

Please forward the link to as many people as you can and ask them to do the same!


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Anyway, some pictures from the march:


She must have ran home very quickly for a new sign. Either that or it's photo-shopped. Why would they do that?


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, some pictures from the march:
> 
> View attachment 2
> 
> 
> View attachment 1
> 
> 
> 
> She must have ran home very quickly for a new sign. Either that or it's photo-shopped. Why would they do that?
Click to expand...

Up till late the night before painting both sides of a double sided poster 










Thanks to everyone who came to join us on the People's Vote on the final deal march in London on Saturday. If you couldn't make it and/or haven't yet signed the NEW petition to give the people a say in what affects all our futures please sign here:

*https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition*

Please forward the link to as many people as you can and ask them to do the same!


----------



## John-H

If you want to see the shear scale of this march have a look at this 48 second aerial video taken from a helicopter in a single panning shot - even then it couldn't get the entire march:

https://news.sky.com/story/at-least-100 ... l-11414462

The organisers were hoping for 100,000 and said they had exceeded it but the MET police put the estimate at nearer 500,000 according to Tony Robinson:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tony_Robinso ... 4923617281

A poll three days ago said that if the 2016 referendum was re-run now the result would be 47% leave 53% remain and a poll two days ago said those supporting a People's Vote on the final deal outnumbered those against by two to one.

Thanks to everyone who came to join us on the People's Vote on the final deal march in London on Saturday. If you couldn't make it and/or haven't yet signed the NEW petition to give the people a say in what affects all our futures please sign here:

*https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition*

Please forward the link to as many people as you can and ask them to do the same!


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Up till late the night before painting both sides of a double sided poster


Ah, now that makes sense. 'Occam's Razor' I guess


----------



## leopard

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up till late the night before painting both sides of a double sided poster
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now that makes sense. 'Occam's Razor' I guess
Click to expand...

Occam needs to sharpen his razor,it's starting to lose it's edge after 72 pages


----------



## John-H

*Thanks* to everyone who came to join us on the *People's Vote on the final deal march * in London on Saturday. If you couldn't make it and/or haven't yet signed the NEW petition to give the people a say in what affects all our futures please sign here:

*https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition*

Please forward the link to as many people as you can and ask them to do the same!


----------



## A3DFU

Done all three:

Went on the march (great atmosphere and most impressive seeing all those people thee plus excellent speakers!)
Signed the petition
Forwarded the email to half of my address book


----------



## leopard

Quote:

" I have signed the People's Vote Petition to demand a vote on the Brexit deal. We, the people, have the democratic right to determine our own future: "

The vote,an attempt to disrupt and delay the inevitable.

We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Here's a question: the Lib Dem's pledged in their election manifesto to hold a refurendom on the final deal. If the pollsters were right and 53% of the population would vote to remain this time, and everyone and his mother is protesting in Westminster for another referendum, why didn't the Lib Dem's win the election? :?


----------



## Yashin

I voted Remain but between a choice of a Hard no deal Brexit or putting the Lib Dems in power I would pick Hard Brexit every time. There is uncertainty with Brexit but with the Lib Dems in power you can be guaranteed the Country is Fooked a lot quicker than Brexit.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:


Just curious, did you refuse to vote in the last general election because it was undemocratic?

It seems that even though we had a general election in 2015, no one questioned the democratic legitimacy of holding another one only two years later. No one claimed it was circumventing the will of the people from 2015. In fact, people seem to be perfectly happy with the notion of 'changing our minds' as part of the democratic process.

So what's different now? Why does the idea of changing our minds about this get everyone jumping up and down shouting about democracy and the will of the people? What do people think democracy means?


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, did you refuse to vote in the last general election because it was undemocratic?
> 
> It seems that even though we had a general election in 2015, no one questioned the democratic legitimacy of holding another one only two years later. No one claimed it was circumventing the will of the people from 2015. In fact, people seem to be perfectly happy with the notion of 'changing our minds' as part of the democratic process.
> 
> So what's different now? Why does the idea of changing our minds about this get everyone jumping up and down shouting about democracy and the will of the people? What do people think democracy means?
Click to expand...

The legitimacy of holding a general election by the political party that was voted in,in the first place is irrelevant and wasn't through the decision of the general public but by the leader of the said voted in party to secure a longer term to see that Brexit would be carried through.A gamble that paid off,just.

If we could just change our minds ad-hoc during a government's term where would that leave us ? Changing our minds every time we don't like something as evidenced by the mid term local elections would get us no where with little stability.To keep on voting until the losing side gets it's own way is hardly democratic,more akin to verging on the autocratic.

Mrs May anticipated this farce of the losing side wanting a further vote and no doubt a further vote still by the people that would disapprove of a majority decision i.e to leave Europe.Undemocratic in its own right...a sort of re-run that the Irish were browbeaten into.

I'm sure you can retort about unfairness,lack of information,fudging figures etc etc pre Brexit election but the fact is that there was a majority and majoritys' win in a democratic environ...They just do.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, did you refuse to vote in the last general election because it was undemocratic?
> 
> It seems that even though we had a general election in 2015, no one questioned the democratic legitimacy of holding another one only two years later. No one claimed it was circumventing the will of the people from 2015. In fact, people seem to be perfectly happy with the notion of 'changing our minds' as part of the democratic process.
> 
> So what's different now? Why does the idea of changing our minds about this get everyone jumping up and down shouting about democracy and the will of the people? What do people think democracy means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legitimacy of holding a general election by the political party that was voted in,in the first place is irrelevant and wasn't through the decision of the general public but by the leader of the said voted in party to secure a longer term to see that Brexit would be carried through.A gamble that paid off,just.
> 
> If we could just change our minds ad-hoc during a government's term where would that leave us ? Changing our minds every time we don't like something as evidenced by the mid term local elections would get us no where with little stability.To keep on voting until the losing side gets it's own way is hardly democratic,more akin to verging on the autocratic.
> 
> Mrs May anticipated this farce of the losing side wanting a further vote and no doubt a further vote still by the people that would disapprove of a majority decision i.e to leave Europe.Undemocratic in its own right...a sort of re-run that the Irish were browbeaten into.
> 
> I'm sure you can retort about unfairness,lack of information,fudging figures etc etc pre Brexit election but the fact is that there was a majority and majoritys' win in a democratic environ...They just do.
Click to expand...

You've lost me. You're saying changing our minds via general elections is ok because the general public don't get to choose when they happen? So by that logic you think it would be ok to have a 2nd EU referendum as long as the government choose when we have it?


----------



## A3DFU

leopard said:


> Quote:
> 
> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:


*Before* any of the impact of leaving the EU was explained or even known!


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> You've lost me. You're saying changing our minds via general elections is ok because the general public don't get to choose when they happen? So by that logic you think it would be ok to have a 2nd EU referendum as long as the government choose when we have it?


Seriously lost or just being obtuse ?

Reread the post.

Its the Government's prerogative to hold a general election when they want within the Statute 5yr term.

Its then up to the voter with their cross on the voting slip if they don't like what's happening.

Nothing was mentioned that inferred a 2nd EU election would be OK if the Government chose so :roll:


----------



## leopard

A3DFU said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before* any of the impact of leaving the EU was explained or even known!
Click to expand...

Its a dilemma but most elected Government's are voted in on false promises.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> You've lost me. You're saying changing our minds via general elections is ok because the general public don't get to choose when they happen? So by that logic you think it would be ok to have a 2nd EU referendum as long as the government choose when we have it?


I'm trying to be impartial with all of this but I know where he's coming from and it makes perfect sense. The people are given a vote and more people vote to leave (regardless of whether rightly or wrongly). You can't just turn round and say "Not fair, vote again!" It just doesn't work like that (rightly or wrongly).



A3DFU said:


> *Before* any of the impact of leaving the EU was explained or even known!


But this ^ is also a very valid point.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. A decision like this should *never* have gone to a public vote where the vast majority have no possible idea of the ramifications involved. It's madness.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously lost or just being obtuse ?
> 
> Reread the post.
> 
> Its the Government's prerogative to hold a general election when they want within the Statute 5yr term.
> 
> Its then up to the voter with their cross on the voting slip if they don't like what's happening.
> 
> Nothing was mentioned that inferred that a 2nd EU election would be OK if the Government chose so :roll:
Click to expand...

But the government that called the referendum isn't in power anymore. When a new government is formed, their mandate is based on their manifesto, not on what the previous government promised. Even when the same party wins.

So as far as I can tell, there would be nothing undemocratic about having a 2nd referendum, or a referendum on the deal. It might be unpalatable to some, but it's perfectly logical.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be impartial with all of this but I know where he's coming from and it makes perfect sense. The people are given a vote and more people vote to leave (regardless of whether rightly or wrongly). You can't just turn round and say "Not fair, vote again!" It just doesn't work like that (rightly or wrongly).
Click to expand...

The point is, it DOES work like this. It always has.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> The point is, it DOES work like this. It always has.


But where does it end? Best of three?


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be impartial with all of this but I know where he's coming from and it makes perfect sense. The people are given a vote and more people vote to leave (regardless of whether rightly or wrongly). You can't just turn round and say "Not fair, vote again!" It just doesn't work like that (rightly or wrongly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, it DOES work like this. It always has.
Click to expand...

Only in the context of a local/general election.

The Referendum was a once only occasion and not an exercise in pontification thankfully.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously lost or just being obtuse ?
> 
> Reread the post.
> 
> Its the Government's prerogative to hold a general election when they want within the Statute 5yr term.
> 
> Its then up to the voter with their cross on the voting slip if they don't like what's happening.
> 
> Nothing was mentioned that inferred that a 2nd EU election would be OK if the Government chose so :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the government that called the referendum isn't in power anymore. When a new government is formed, their mandate is based on their manifesto, not on what the previous government promised. Even when the same party wins.
> 
> So as far as I can tell, there would be nothing undemocratic about having a 2nd referendum, or a referendum on the deal. It might be unpalatable to some, but it's perfectly logical.
Click to expand...

Correct, and the current government doesn't believe there should be a second referendum, nor does its opposition. So if you want a second referendum, you and 99,999 of your friends, should petition the government to debate the prospect of a second referendum in parliament. If that fails, you should use your democratic right to vote for party that agrees with you at the next election.


----------



## John-H

There's a fixed tern parliament act you know. That means Mrs May or whichever governing party leader is in place can't just decide to call a general election - parliament has to agree to it and as parliament represents the people then effectively the people (via their representatives) authorised it when it was voted for.

There then seemed to be no problem having another vote mid term. There wasn't a great clamour of complaining objectors boycotting the polling booths objecting to the opportunity of another vote to re-define the mandate before the original one had run its full term. Nobody said that was undemocratic.

In the same way I don't hear any Brexiteers complaining that the 1975 referendum with its 67% vote to remain was unfairly being usurped by the 2016 referendum with its marginal 2% swing to leave.

So given the 45 years of integration and the damage now being done and the consequences being realised due to tearing us out of Europe, in the effort to avoid damage to the country, I find it somewhat anti-democratic to insist that there can be no more democracy on the subject. Isn't that a somewhat dictatorial standpoint? Democracy didn't end.

Have we really bought the propaganda put out by those with deep pockets who stand to gain from the chaos caused?


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, it DOES work like this. It always has.
> 
> 
> 
> But where does it end? Best of three?
Click to expand...

It ends if/when we leave, presumably. After that I suppose people could be given a referendum on joining the EU again, but I doubt there would be enough support for that.

Leaving is a process that takes time and the end result becomes clearer as time passes. So it makes sense that people might want to change their minds as they see what that end result will be, but there is still a clock ticking. I don't see any issue with checking if 'the will of the people' has changed given the amount of time that will have passed it was last gauged. It's not 'best of three', or 'keep asking till you get the result you want' - it's just ensuring people still want to go before it's too late, and once they have a good idea of what they're actually getting.

What I don't understand though, is people claiming the 'will of the people' is the most important thing, whilst simultaneously saying "don't ask them again in case they've changed their mind!"


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Correct, and the current government doesn't believe there should be a second referendum, nor does its opposition.


Some of them do, some of them don't, but it wasn't a manifesto promise _not to_ have some form of referendum on the deal itself or even on leaving at all, so it wouldn't be undemocratic for them to offer one - which is the point I'm making.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> So given the 45 years of integration and the damage now being done and the consequences being realised due to tearing us out of Europe, in the effort to avoid damage to the country, I find it somewhat anti-democratic to insist that there can be no more democracy on the subject. Isn't that a somewhat dictatorial standpoint? Democracy didn't end.


Only you and your chums view on the remain side though.

Newsflash:

Parliament has voted in favour of a third runway for Heathrow.There are already rumblings about the opinions that wern't expressed due to time constraints for the opposition to the runway before the vote tonight.

No doubt you'll be telling us that this will need a second vote :lol:


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> It ends if/when we leave, presumably. After that I suppose people could be given a referendum on joining the EU again, but I doubt there would be enough support for that.
> 
> Leaving is a process that takes time and the end result becomes clearer as time passes. So it makes sense that people might want to change their minds as they see what that end result will be, but there is still a clock ticking. I don't see any issue with checking if 'the will of the people' has changed given the amount of time that will have passed it was last gauged. It's not 'best of three', or 'keep asking till you get the result you want' - it's just ensuring people still want to go before it's too late, and once they have a good idea of what they're actually getting.
> 
> What I don't understand though, is people claiming the 'will of the people' is the most important thing, whilst simultaneously saying "don't ask them again in case they've changed their mind!"


Fair point, well made.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given the 45 years of integration and the damage now being done and the consequences being realised due to tearing us out of Europe, in the effort to avoid damage to the country, I find it somewhat anti-democratic to insist that there can be no more democracy on the subject. Isn't that a somewhat dictatorial standpoint? Democracy didn't end.
> 
> 
> 
> Only you and your chums view on the remain side though.
> 
> Newsflash:
> 
> Parliament has voted in favour of a third runway for Heathrow.There are already rumblings about the opinions that wern't expressed due to time constraints for the opposition to the runway before the vote tonight.
> 
> No doubt you'll be telling us that this will need a second vote :lol:
Click to expand...

You are not in the "Who needs Airbus when we have our Spitfire" fraternity are you? "The best deal is no deal" ??? :wink: Are you really happy to see such damage?

As for the runway, there will be a general election only one year after work is due to start in 2021 for completion in 2028 and Labour have said they will stop it happening if in power. I wonder if the private money will be forthcoming in those circumstances?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given the 45 years of integration and the damage now being done and the consequences being realised due to tearing us out of Europe, in the effort to avoid damage to the country, I find it somewhat anti-democratic to insist that there can be no more democracy on the subject. Isn't that a somewhat dictatorial standpoint? Democracy didn't end.
> 
> 
> 
> Only you and your chums view on the remain side though.
> 
> Newsflash:
> 
> Parliament has voted in favour of a third runway for Heathrow.There are already rumblings about the opinions that wern't expressed due to time constraints for the opposition to the runway before the vote tonight.
> 
> No doubt you'll be telling us that this will need a second vote :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not in the "Who needs Airbus when we have our Spitfire" fraternity are you? "The best deal is no deal" ??? :wink: Are you really happy to see such damage?
> 
> As for the runway, there will be a general election only one year after work is due to start in 2021 for completion in 2028 and Labour have said they will stop it happening if in power. I wonder if the private money will be forthcoming in those circumstances?
Click to expand...

I'm not a member of the Gammon fraternity just yet if that's what you mean :wink:

I am of the opinion that nobody knows what the damage will be as it's mostly overhyped speculation until it happens,it's just that the remainers are more vociferous about this.


----------



## A3DFU

leopard said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> We've already displayed the democratic right to determine our future by voting to get out. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before* any of the impact of leaving the EU was explained or even known!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a dilemma but most elected Government's are voted in on false promises.
Click to expand...

The referendum was not about electing a government under false promise rather it was asking the people about a mandate to change a situation without knowing the consequences of that change.


----------



## A3DFU

> Cancelling Brexit might spark a hard right backlash. But delivering Brexit definitely will.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... ing-brexit


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> I am of the opinion that nobody knows what the damage will be as it's mostly overhyped speculation until it happens,it's just that the remainers are more vociferous about this.


Well, the logical conclusion of that is that you are a gambler then - prepared to gamble with all our futures for some reason.

Given that a vote to remain would have kept the status quo and changed nothing immediately - but we would have had our veto and our influence to shape the EU future - look at so much agreed EU legislation as an example of that - - you instead voted to leave (apparently).

So you gamble to leave, double or nothing on the outcome, perhaps imagining that the odds (incorrectly) are 50:50 in that plunge?

Or is this just opposing banter on this forum for the sake of opposing?

I'd like to think the latter. You must surely agree that in the absence of the proper facts in 2016, voting for stability and joint control with a veto for anything you don't like by remaining, is a more stable situation than no control and a better outcome than now playing Russian roulette with a gun where all the chambers are loaded !
[smiley=rolleyes5.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]


----------



## leopard

A3DFU said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a dilemma but most elected Government's are voted in on false promises.
> 
> 
> 
> The referendum was not about electing a government under false promise rather it was asking the people about a mandate to change a situation without knowing the consequences of that change.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

It wasn't meant in the literal sense but was analogous in it's comparison.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that nobody knows what the damage will be as it's mostly overhyped speculation until it happens,it's just that the remainers are more vociferous about this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the logical conclusion of that is that you are a gambler then - prepared to gamble with all our futures for some reason.
> 
> Given that a vote to remain would have kept the status quo and changed nothing immediately - but we would have had our veto and our influence to shape the EU future - look at so much agreed EU legislation as an example of that - - you instead voted to leave (apparently).
> 
> So you gamble to leave, double or nothing on the outcome, perhaps imagining that the odds (incorrectly) are 50:50 in that plunge?
> 
> Or is this just opposing banter on this forum for the sake of opposing?
> 
> I'd like to think the latter. You must surely agree that in the absence of the proper facts in 2016, voting for stability and joint control with a veto for anything you don't like by remaining, is a more stable situation than no control and a better outcome than now playing Russian roulette with a gun where all the chambers are loaded !
> [smiley=rolleyes5.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]
Click to expand...

There is no logical conclusion,just your opinion.
Foie gras comes to mind...oops do the lefties even know what this is ? :lol:

Edit:

I've just re-read your musings about the runway again.

Confident overtones about Labour here,keep your fingers crossed :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that nobody knows what the damage will be as it's mostly overhyped speculation until it happens,it's just that the remainers are more vociferous about this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the logical conclusion of that is that you are a gambler then - prepared to gamble with all our futures for some reason.
> 
> Given that a vote to remain would have kept the status quo and changed nothing immediately - but we would have had our veto and our influence to shape the EU future - look at so much agreed EU legislation as an example of that - - you instead voted to leave (apparently).
> 
> So you gamble to leave, double or nothing on the outcome, perhaps imagining that the odds (incorrectly) are 50:50 in that plunge?
> 
> Or is this just opposing banter on this forum for the sake of opposing?
> 
> I'd like to think the latter. You must surely agree that in the absence of the proper facts in 2016, voting for stability and joint control with a veto for anything you don't like by remaining, is a more stable situation than no control and a better outcome than now playing Russian roulette with a gun where all the chambers are loaded !
> [smiley=rolleyes5.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no logical conclusion,just your opinion.
> Foie gras comes to mind...oops do the lefties even know what this is ? :lol:
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I've just re-read your musings about the runway again.
> 
> Confident overtones about Labour here,keep your fingers crossed :lol:
Click to expand...

I said that remaining was safer than leaving.

Explain to everyone at Airbus, BMW, Siemens and my own very concerned company how that isn't a fact.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I said that remaining was safer than leaving.
> 
> Explain to everyone at Airbus, BMW, Siemens and my own very concerned company how that isn't a fact.


Self preservation is a strong instinct and very understandable.Might this not play a little part in your reasoning on this subject.Companies don't stand still,
they learn to adjust with the times,same for employees,there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

Being a little Newtonian on the subject of company success always brings to the fore the companies that will do well,so for your three examples there are the likes of Vodafone,ABF and 3i who will benefit...and so forth and so on,you get the gist :wink:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that remaining was safer than leaving.
> 
> Explain to everyone at Airbus, BMW, Siemens and my own very concerned company how that isn't a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Self preservation is a strong instinct and very understandable.Might this not play a little part in your reasoning on this subject.Companies don't stand still,
> they learn to adjust with the times,same for employees,there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
> 
> Being a little Newtonian on the subject of company success always brings to the fore the companies that will do well,so for your three examples there are the likes of Vodafone,ABF and 3i who will benefit...and so forth and so on,you get the gist :wink:
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't (are unable) to answer my question about risk.

So with Vodafone moving out of the UK and 3I and Primark pension taking a dive - all because of Brexit - what do you mean by "benefit". Losing mobile phone roaming rights is not going to benefit the public either and neither is the loss of associated jobs.

The Heathrow operator is moving out of the UK now too I've just noticed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44614352

This morning we heard that investment in the UK car industry has halved.

How much more bad news do you need to convince you that Brexit will make us worse off?

You imply my reasoning may be impaired as Brexit may affect me. I was against it long before I considered my own position but tell me, why don't you care about other people's jobs and livelihoods? Don't you think it may make you worse off and your family, friends. What about them? What about young people who will lose the simple right to education, travel, life, love and work anywhere on the EU, who will have to live with the consequences? The truth is it will affect us all profoundly. It's just that not everybody realise that yet or won't admit it.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I notice you didn't (are unable) to answer my question about risk.
> 
> So with Vodafone moving out of the UK and 3I and Primark pension taking a dive - all because of Brexit - what do you mean by "benefit". Losing mobile phone roaming rights is not going to benefit the public either and neither is the loss of associated jobs.


I didn't realise you were asking me a question about risk.I'm just dodging the hailstorm of "remainers rhetoric" that you're spouting out atm :lol:

Here's one example for example 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 26426.html


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Companies don't stand still, they learn to adjust with the times,same for employees,there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.


It's an unusual sales pitch... "You'll be ok as long as you learn to adjust to losing your job and having less money!" :lol:


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies don't stand still, they learn to adjust with the times,same for employees,there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an unusual sales pitch... "You'll be ok as long as you learn to adjust to losing your job and having less money!" :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep,that's the private sector for you


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies don't stand still, they learn to adjust with the times,same for employees,there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an unusual sales pitch... "You'll be ok as long as you learn to adjust to losing your job and having less money!" :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep,that's the private sector for you
Click to expand...

Is it? You really need to get a better job...


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an unusual sales pitch... "You'll be ok as long as you learn to adjust to losing your job and having less money!" :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep,that's the private sector for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it? You really need to get a better job...
Click to expand...

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding at it's finest :lol: but it's nice to see that you can share the finer points and entertain at the same time in this heat...
Cheers


----------



## Spandex

Well if you're going to completely avoid the point, I'm buggered if I'm going to try to stick to it.


----------



## John-H

I think he must be retired :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I think he must be retired :wink:


Cobblers :lol:

... and sitting around in my string vest and undies fixing my Spitfire :roll:


----------



## John-H

I suppose the heat may explain it.

You need a cup of tea


----------



## leopard

[smiley=drummer.gif] :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

You really aren't doing yourself any favors. Perhaps you should listen to this:


----------



## leopard

Oh Dear,I thought you might have done better.

I'm not wading through 44mins worth of this drivel,got to attend to the Spitfire :lol: :wink:


----------



## John-H

Shame.


----------



## Spandex

The US embassy's take on Brexit:

https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/ ... wsrc%5Etfw

Regardless of what you think of the US politically, the people in the embassy are pretty independent when it comes to Brexit - their job is to work out what the most likely outcome is and work out how it affects the US. They don't have any reason to talk up either side.


----------



## John-H

I found one positive thing. This picture:










I'm second from the back on the left :wink:


----------



## John-H

This stuff is really entertaining:

James O'Brian:

Three things





Confused electrician





Worse off





Northern Ireland





Theresa May good job?





Bins





Fishing





Van driver customs reality





£65


----------



## leopard

So is this ...

https://www.change.org/p/global-remove- ... n-from-lbc


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> So is this ...
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/global-remove- ... n-from-lbc


It's funny how fascists want to suppress discussion of ideas they don't agree with rather than engage in the intellectual debate. Ironic that there is a warning sign about the symptoms to look out for.

The creator of that petition falls into that category of not liking challenge to their perceived world order 'We've won a marginal vote now fall into line and shut up. Dissenters and further discussion isn't allowed'. Isn't that what happened in the 1930's - fascism.

Good to see that there are zero signatures.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is this ...
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/global-remove- ... n-from-lbc
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how fascists want to suppress discussion of ideas they don't agree with rather than engage in the intellectual debate. Ironic that there is a warning sign about the symptoms to look out for.
> 
> The creator of that petition falls into that category of not liking challenge to their perceived world order 'We've won a marginal vote now fall into line and shut up. Dissenters and further discussion isn't allowed'. Isn't that what happened in the 1930's - fascism.
> 
> Good to see that there are zero signatures.
Click to expand...

Oh I see,so the people who don't fall in line with your way of thinking are fascists.

The examples that you have posted are hardly intellectual debates,just smugness and easy game for a phone in show.He is so up himself that he's come out with some crazy ideas that have fallen flat on their face....Registration numbers on high viz jackets :lol: 
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... wont-work/

I assume the only reason you hold O'Brien in high reverence is because he's sharing the same ideology as yourself,a crusade that Europe is the be all and end all and nothing else is possible.Anybody that gets in the way of that thinking is a fascist and we've all got to toe the European line :roll: Would you feel the same if his views were the opposite and he was ridiculing pro-remainers on his show instead ?

Have a look on the news,Germany looks like It might close it's borders to refugees any second now.Just like Italy. Where does that leave your hallowed Shenghen Zone.Europe could fall like a deck of cards before we leave with Germany being the Architect :lol:

Oh,407 signatures last time I looked...


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Oh I see,so the people who don't fall in line with your way of thinking are fascists.


Well John's disagreeing with your way of thinking without calling you a fascist, so what do you reckon?

The author of that petition was calling for censorship of the media purely because he disagreed with the message. Calling him a fascist might be a bit of a leap, but he's clearly a dick. I'd think the same about someone who started a petition to get Farage off LBC too.



leopard said:


> He is so up himself that he's come out with some crazy ideas that have fallen flat on their face....Registration numbers on high viz jackets :lol:


He's so up himself that readily he admitted that idea wouldn't work when the police officer explained why? And he's so full of his own self-importance that he then asked the officer what he thought they should do about the issue? The arrogance of the man!

I don't listen to him that often, but when I have, the people on his show that have ended up being ridiculed have been saying spectacularly dumb things. I've never heard him ridiculing someone *just *for voting Leave. In fact, I've heard him being pretty sympathetic to some of the more rational Leave voters that have called in, even though he has explained why he thinks they've made a mistake. But when you get some knob calling in who says they voted out because of the rules that the EU enforces, then can't think of a single rule they don't like, why should he sugar coat it? I'd be a bit disappointed if a presenter just said "fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinions".


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I see,so the people who don't fall in line with your way of thinking are fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> Well John's disagreeing with your way of thinking without calling you a fascist, so what do you reckon?
Click to expand...

I take it you two are back in bed together after the elephant smashed the greenhouse up :lol: 
I'm sure John can stand up and answer for himself. :roll:



leopard said:


> He is so up himself that he's come out with some crazy ideas that have fallen flat on their face....Registration numbers on high viz jackets :lol:





Spandex said:


> He's so up himself that readily he admitted that idea wouldn't work when the police officer explained why? And he's so full of his own self-importance that he then asked the officer what he thought they should do about the issue? The arrogance of the man!


Quite he had to be pulled off his high horse by somebody who knew what they were on about.



Spandex said:


> I don't listen to him that often, but when I have, the people on his show that have ended up being ridiculed have been saying spectacularly dumb things. I've never heard him ridiculing someone *just *for voting Leave. In fact, I've heard him being pretty sympathetic to some of the more rational Leave voters that have called in, even though he has explained why he thinks they've made a mistake. But when you get some knob calling in who says they voted out because of the rules that the EU enforces, then can't think of a single rule they don't like, why should he sugar coat it? I'd be a bit disappointed if a presenter just said "fair enough, we're all entitled to our own opinions".


These callers don't get to ring in and speak direct...how naive,they're most likely selected for entertainment value by the phone answerer's producer at the time.

I suggest you look him up .He's on Newsnight occasionally and comes over as an arrogant,impatient 
Prick on there.Trying to emulate a lesser Prick that is 
Paxman.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is this ...
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/global-remove- ... n-from-lbc
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how fascists want to suppress discussion of ideas they don't agree with rather than engage in the intellectual debate. Ironic that there is a warning sign about the symptoms to look out for.
> 
> The creator of that petition falls into that category of not liking challenge to their perceived world order 'We've won a marginal vote now fall into line and shut up. Dissenters and further discussion isn't allowed'. Isn't that what happened in the 1930's - fascism.
> 
> Good to see that there are zero signatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see,so the people who don't fall in line with your way of thinking are fascists.
Click to expand...

No you don't see if you believe that. I'm saying that the suppression of free speech and discussion is what the fascists did in the 1930's. Such people want to cut down people with dissenting views - a tendency of your petitioner - rather than engage in debate which is what democracy and free speech are all about.

I hear it all the time, 'You lost - get over it - shut up!'. I've got no problem at all debating with someone with opposing views which I often do even on this forum you may have noticed but I think telling someone to shut up and trying to deny them the opportunity to express a view is undemocratic and with a dictatorial tendency.

They should instead come up with better arguments. James O'Brien invites people to ring up and discuss things. He puts back to them researched facts to challenge their point of view. It's up to them to either come up with a reasoned argument to explain and justify or fail to explain and justify, in which case it's entirely reasonable for James to press them to accept that they are wrong. When they lose the point though they try to go off on a tangent. He drags them back.

I put it to you that the reason why some people are trying to close off such debates is because they can't justify their arguments because the facts don't exist to back up what they are saying.



leopard said:


> The examples that you have posted are hardly intellectual debates,just smugness and easy game for a phone in show.He is so up himself that he's come out with some crazy ideas that have fallen flat on their face....Registration numbers on high viz jackets :lol:
> https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... wont-work/


They are reasoned debates, although some of them have more reason on one side and are entertaining for that reason. They are often a challenge to the intellect of the caller as indeed they often try to challenge him.

I listened to your link. It's a case in point. As Spandex said, James congratulates him on a well reasoned and explained point and asks for suggestions. That doesn't back up what you are claiming but it does back up what I'm saying about making a better argument and having facts to back it up.



leopard said:


> I assume the only reason you hold O'Brien in high reverence is because he's sharing the same ideology as yourself,a crusade that Europe is the be all and end all and nothing else is possible.Anybody that gets in the way of that thinking is a fascist and we've all got to toe the European line :roll: Would you feel the same if his views were the opposite and he was ridiculing pro-remainers on his show instead ?


I used to listen to Alan Beswick on late night Radio Lancashire I think it was, in the 70's/80's. He used to have fascinating intellectual debates and challenges. In his case quite often you got late night drunks and they often ended in insults and being cut off as they had a two second delay to cut out the obscenity.

So I've always been interested in debate. I only came across James O'Brian in the last year or so - since the 2016 referendum. His debates are civilised, logical and well argued. He seems to have come to the same conclusions I did. Yes I think his debates are relevant to my issue of interest. If he argued the other way I believe he wouldn't get anywhere as he's have less facts to back up his arguments. Farage is on LBC too. I don't call for him to be removed but what he says isn't as logical or based on fact - more prejudice and poisonous ideas in my opinion. So I don't look forward to listening to him but he turns up.

It's interesting James O'Brien calls Brexit a Ponzi scheme. He says he comes across many regretful leave voters (e.g. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... -tear-son/) but the papers don't want to publicise it because the last thing the people running the scheme want is for regretful members to talk to the others.



leopard said:


> Have a look on the news,Germany looks like It might close it's borders to refugees any second now.Just like Italy. Where does that leave your hallowed Shenghen Zone.Europe could fall like a deck of cards before we leave with Germany being the Architect :lol:
> 
> Oh,407 signatures last time I looked...


Merkel is trying to get an EU wide solution. Talk of the EU demise has been going on amongst dissenters for years but the EU is still growing.

I'm not surprised there are some who wish to suppress debate when they fail to win an argument.. :wink:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I take it you two are back in bed together after the elephant smashed the greenhouse up :lol:
> I'm sure John can stand up and answer for himself. :roll:


Year 8 level bants... Nice.



leopard said:


> Quite he had to be pulled off his high horse by somebody who knew what they were on about.


You have a weird definition of 'up himself' if it includes "having an idea, then accepting his idea wasn't going to work". It's almost as if you're just scrabbling around for things to try to pin on him.



leopard said:


> These callers don't get to ring in and speak direct...how naive,they're most likely selected for entertainment value by the phone answerer's producer at the time.


Or in other words, you just misunderstood what I wrote and jumped to a stupid conclusion that I didn't understand how radio call in shows work.

But you're arguing against yourself there anyway. If you're saying he is more likely to be put through to people with 'entertaining' dumb points to make, then you have to accept that his apparent eagerness to ridicule his callers is actually a function of his production teams choice of caller. He isn't necessarily arrogant, he's just being presented with a disproportionate number of morons to talk to.

So on that, I think we agree.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I listened to your link. It's a case in point. As Spandex said, James congratulates him on a well reasoned and explained point and asks for suggestions. That doesn't back up what you are claiming but it does back up what I'm saying about making a better argument and having facts to back it up.


I think it does.He opens his mouth before thinking and then gets corrected by somebody who has a higher understanding on the subject.There is another example on the link,this time with a female caller and again he has to back down too.It doesn't come across well imo being corrected when highly opinionated but if you enjoy this sort of thing who am I to stop you.



John-H said:


> I put it to you that the reason why some people are trying to close off such debates is because they can't justify their arguments because the facts don't exist to back up what they are saying.


They're not debates though are they,more of the same bias thats not dissimilar to the attitude that's displayed on this Off Topic thread,namely that if anybody disagrees with your rhetoric a barrage of derision ensues.Bobbot being one example.

The guy with the petition

Quote:

" James O'Brien is divisive, patronising, bullying and repetitive."

At least four reasons to let him go here...


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you two are back in bed together after the elephant smashed the greenhouse up :lol:
> I'm sure John can stand up and answer for himself. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Year 8 level bants... Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite he had to be pulled off his high horse by somebody who knew what they were on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a weird definition of 'up himself' if it includes "having an idea, then accepting his idea wasn't going to work". It's almost as if you're just scrabbling around for things to try to pin on him.
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> These callers don't get to ring in and speak direct...how naive,they're most likely selected for entertainment value by the phone answerer's producer at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or in other words, you just misunderstood what I wrote and jumped to a stupid conclusion that I didn't understand how radio call in shows work.
> 
> But you're arguing against yourself there anyway. If you're saying he is more likely to be put through to people with 'entertaining' dumb points to make, then you have to accept that his apparent eagerness to ridicule his callers is actually a function of his production teams choice of caller. He isn't necessarily arrogant, he's just being presented with a disproportionate number of morons to talk to.
> 
> So on that, I think we agree.
Click to expand...

Lots of fun to be had here but I can't be arsed talking to you,it's too hot atm...sorry


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Lots of fun to be had here but I can't be arsed talking to you,it's too hot atm...sorry


We've discussed your job before.. You really need to get one where they'll pony up for air conditioning. Think of all the fun you're having to miss out on.


----------



## John-H

Reminds me of the debate over Hi-Fi interconnect cables where despite scientific and practical proof that they make no difference to the sound, faith and belief of a particular doctrine for some is the important factor, overcoming I'd say the most obvious logic and even the physical reality of a practical demonstration.

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1162521

I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to argue their point however I'd just debate the facts and points of the argument. That's free speech and an open forum/democracy. In the end the truth will out.

I only hope we don't have to demonstrate the practical results of Brexit.

I expect it will be a bit of both - unfortunate job losses and lack of investment this year and the realisation amongst Brexiteers that the "deal" will leave us worse off. I hope we will have the collective realisation that we can't let the economy "tank" and there is no dividend, so it's best to cancel the idea of leaving.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Reminds me of the debate over Hi-Fi interconnect cables where despite scientific and practical proof that they make no difference to the sound, faith and belief of a particular doctrine for some is the important factor, overcoming I'd say the most obvious logic and even the physical reality of a practical demonstration.
> 
> https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1162521
> 
> I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to argue their point however I'd just debate the facts and points of the argument. That's free speech and an open forum/democracy. In the end the truth will out.
> 
> I only hope we don't have to demonstrate the practical results of Brexit.
> 
> I expect it will be a bit of both - unfortunate job losses and lack of investment this year and the realisation amongst Brexiteers that the "deal" will leave us worse off. I hope we will have the collective realisation that we can't let the economy "tank" and there is no dividend, so it's best to cancel the idea of leaving.


What conceited guff you spout here,that's the truth outed.

Quote:
" I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to argue their point however"....delusional grandeur here :roll:

Reminds you of the debate about the Hi-Fi interconnects...Your cheap lash up and reasoning prooved nothing apart from self contentment with your own flawed view and ignorance in the confines of a car forum.

Walter Mitty eat your heart out :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the debate over Hi-Fi interconnect cables where despite scientific and practical proof that they make no difference to the sound, faith and belief of a particular doctrine for some is the important factor, overcoming I'd say the most obvious logic and even the physical reality of a practical demonstration.
> 
> https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1162521
> 
> I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to argue their point however I'd just debate the facts and points of the argument. That's free speech and an open forum/democracy. In the end the truth will out.
> 
> I only hope we don't have to demonstrate the practical results of Brexit.
> 
> I expect it will be a bit of both - unfortunate job losses and lack of investment this year and the realisation amongst Brexiteers that the "deal" will leave us worse off. I hope we will have the collective realisation that we can't let the economy "tank" and there is no dividend, so it's best to cancel the idea of leaving.
> 
> 
> 
> What conceited guff you spout here,that's the truth outed.
> 
> Quote:
> " I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to argue their point however"....delusional grandeur here :roll:
> 
> Reminds you of the debate about the Hi-Fi interconnects...Your cheap lash up and reasoning prooved nothing apart from self contentment with your own flawed view and ignorance in the confines of a car forum.
> 
> Walter Mitty eat your heart out :lol:
Click to expand...

You still sticking to Hi-Fi interconnects make a difference to the sound? Despite the proof that they don't? I'll demonstrate it to you or anyone else prepared to listen - I still have the equipment. But I think this is going a little off topic.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Reminds you of the debate about the Hi-Fi interconnects...Your cheap lash up and reasoning prooved nothing apart from self contentment with your own flawed view and ignorance in the confines of a car forum.


I know you love it when I agree with John, so...

I've worked with a number of electronics engineers (including some who designed amps for Tag McLaren Audio) and they all agree with Johns conclusions about interconnects. In those sorts of circles it's not really a contentious claim.

It's mainly just the chumps that have wasted money on expensive interconnects that don't like it.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds you of the debate about the Hi-Fi interconnects...Your cheap lash up and reasoning prooved nothing apart from self contentment with your own flawed view and ignorance in the confines of a car forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you love it when I agree with John, so...
> 
> I've worked with a number of electronics engineers (including some who designed amps for Tag McLaren Audio) and they all agree with Johns conclusions about interconnects. In those sorts of circles it's not really a contentious claim.
> 
> It's mainly just the chumps that have wasted money on expensive interconnects that don't like it.
Click to expand...

Tag McLaren Audio is nothing to get excited about.
The company was bourne out from Audio Lab,wirery thin sounding amplification with a low end price tag to match.

Tag McLaren tried to make this sorry state into something resembling the high end.It failed and the company shut down,so shouting it's engineers from the roof tops like they're an authority is no great shakes on your or their opinions..both mislead.


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Tag McLaren Audio is nothing to get excited about.
> The company was bourne out from Audio Lab,wirery thin sounding amplification with a low end price tag to match.
> 
> Tag McLaren tried to make this sorry state into something resembling the high end.It failed and the company shut down,so shouting it's engineers from the roof tops like they're an authority is no great shakes on your or their opinions..both mislead.


Lol... keep clutching at those straws..

Does it help that these guys also worked on satellites and F1 cars? No, probably not. You still think you know more than them, then have the brass balls to claim other people are having delusions of grandeur.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tag McLaren Audio is nothing to get excited about.
> The company was bourne out from Audio Lab,wirery thin sounding amplification with a low end price tag to match.
> 
> Tag McLaren tried to make this sorry state into something resembling the high end.It failed and the company shut down,so shouting it's engineers from the roof tops like they're an authority is no great shakes on your or their opinions..both mislead.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol... keep clutching at those straws..
> 
> Does it help that these guys also worked on satellites and F1 cars? No, probably not. You still think you know more than them, then have the brass balls to claim other people are having delusions of grandeur.
Click to expand...

But this is where your understanding fails you.
These Audio engineers didn't work on satellites and F1 cars or rockets or whatever else you want to come up with to save face....seriously :lol:

And to bring it down to your level,a vid showing the differences of different makes of Guitar cables.Why should this be any different to that of any other analogue cable ?


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> These Audio engineers didn't work on satellites and F1 cars or rockets or whatever else you want to come up with to save face....seriously :lol:


Heh. Doubling down on stupidity.

Just to confirm, you've now just sunk to the level of claiming I'm lying about these guys previous jobs in order to maintain your little fantasy? If it helps, I'm pretty certain a first year engineering student knows more about this stuff than you, so I don't need to invent jobs in order to make them more convincing.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> These Audio engineers didn't work on satellites and F1 cars or rockets or whatever else you want to come up with to save face....seriously :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. Doubling down on stupidity.
> 
> Just to confirm, you've now just sunk to the level of claiming I'm lying about these guys previous jobs in order to maintain your little fantasy? If it helps, I'm pretty certain a first year engineering student knows more about this stuff than you, so I don't need to invent jobs in order to make them more convincing.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you happy but I'll finish here with one last comment as we're seriously off topic.

I know for certain that Audio circuit design has absolutely no relationship to F1 engine design or even F1 telemetry which would come in as the nearest discipline to this.In fact TAG McLaren Audio was just a branding exercise and the company was run under Ron Dennis's leadership ( TAG Electronic Systems ) that originally designed ECU's for the low volume specialist car market.

In fact the majority of the engineers came from Cambridge Systems Technology from back In the day.

So get your facts correct and yes,I do know more than
a first year student :roll:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> So get your facts correct and yes I do know more than
> a first year student :roll:


Get my facts right about two people I worked with for years?? Can you hear yourself?



leopard said:


> I know for certain that Audio circuit design has absolutely no relationship to F1 engine design or even F1 telemetry which would come in as the nearest discipline to this.


You're just making gibberish up now. Who said F1 engine design?? Jesus Christ. They're electronics engineers, not mechanical engineers (or audio engineers, as you referred to them earlier, for some weird reason).

If you think it's incomprehensible that someone can work on F1 electronics, satellites and audio amplifiers during their career, it's going to blow your tiny mind to hear that one of them now works as a cabinet maker :lol: . How is that possible?? How can someone be good at more than one discipline?? Fake news!!! :roll:

Get over yourself. Probably best that you're not commenting anymore because you're making a fool of yourself.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So get your facts correct and yes I do know more than
> a first year student :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Get my facts right about two people I worked with for years?? Can you hear yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know for certain that Audio circuit design has absolutely no relationship to F1 engine design or even F1 telemetry which would come in as the nearest discipline to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just making gibberish up now. Who said F1 engine design?? Jesus Christ. They're electronics engineers, not mechanical engineers (or audio engineers, as you referred to them earlier, for some weird reason).
> 
> If you think it's incomprehensible that someone can work on F1 electronics, satellites and audio amplifiers during their career, it's going to blow your tiny mind to hear that one of them now works as a cabinet maker :lol: . How is that possible?? How can someone be good at more than one discipline?? Fake news!!! :roll:
> 
> Get over yourself. Probably best that you're not commenting anymore because you're making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

I can see the froth at the side of your mouth,you're getting wound up like an exasperated child and grappling for meaningfulness [smiley=dunce2.gif] 
Might the cabinet maker probably be a cabinet maker because TAG went bust lol

That's it for me,I'm off topic and out of here for now


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> I can see the froth at the side of your mouth,you're getting wound up like an exasperated child and grappling for meaningfulness [smiley=dunce2.gif]
> Might the cabinet maker probably be a cabinet maker because TAG went bust lol
> 
> That's it for me,I'm off topic and out of here for now


If the only thing you have left to hope for out of all this is that I might be 'getting wound up' then I think that tells us all we need to know about the odds of you actually making a reasoned point any time soon.

Not that it's relevant, but he left Tag while it was still in business and worked at a few other companies, including the one I was at. What is truly baffling though is that you didn't even question the idea that someone could be an electronics engineer AND a cabinet maker, yet the notion that someone could be an electronics engineer across a few different industries was so far fetched to you that you assumed I must be lying. What is going on in that little head of yours??

Back on topic, this is exactly the issue John was highlighting when he brought up the interconnects. People like you that have no actual facts to use in the discussion just end up ranting about everything else. Like trying to pick faults in James O'Briens personality rather than address any of the actual points he makes about Brexit. As if his arrogance, or lack of it, or whatever, has any relevance to whether or not the points he makes are correct.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> Back on topic, this is exactly the issue John was highlighting when he brought up the interconnects. People like you that have no actual facts to use in the discussion just end up ranting about everything else. Like trying to pick faults in James O'Briens personality rather than address any of the actual points he makes about Brexit. As if his arrogance, or lack of it, or whatever, has any relevance to whether or not the points he makes are correct.


But why take notice of John...
https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 9&start=15


spandex said:


> Your posts are looking more and more like BobBots every day. Multiple links to biased source material, links to videos that no one will watch, conspiracy theories...


Cherry picking when it suits :lol:

More fun to follow.....


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic, this is exactly the issue John was highlighting when he brought up the interconnects. People like you that have no actual facts to use in the discussion just end up ranting about everything else. Like trying to pick faults in James O'Briens personality rather than address any of the actual points he makes about Brexit. As if his arrogance, or lack of it, or whatever, has any relevance to whether or not the points he makes are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> But why take notice of John...
> https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 9&start=15
> 
> 
> spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts are looking more and more like BobBots every day. Multiple links to biased source material, links to videos that no one will watch, conspiracy theories...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cherry picking when it suits :lol:
> 
> More fun to follow.....
Click to expand...

Yes, John does tend to do the above. When he's not doing that, and is putting together well reasoned posts such as the one on interconnects, I'm happy to give those posts the time of day. If you want to mistakenly call that 'cherry picking' then go for it. It won't be the dumbest thing you say today, I'm sure.

<edit> Hang on a second... 'more fun'?? Isn't it too hot outside to be having fun? Did you persuade your boss to buy you a fan?


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> <edit> Hang on a second... 'more fun'?? Isn't it too hot outside to be having fun? Did you persuade your boss to buy you a fan?


 :lol: you sweet talking idiot.

I am the Boss's Boss.

I showed my two director's your drivel and they were in stitches,we're all in agreement that you're a Class A
(get it) potato.

So much so I gave everybody the afternoon off from 1200hrs including the canteen staff.

Security will lock up for me.

Have a good weekend


----------



## Spandex

Spandex said:


> It won't be the dumbest thing you say today, I'm sure.


Well that was quicker than I thought.


----------



## John-H

In the case of Hi-Fi interconnects you are quite wrong Mr Leopard. That's not just an opinion but a physically demonstrable fact that can be repeated any time. Just say the word but I know you won't do that because you "believe" otherwise with an insurmountable faith. Ok it's a free cosmos.

Well, to try and bring this back on topic I'd suggest that much of the debate over Brexit is also a case of faith overruling objective thought despite the available evidence which gets ignored, dismissed or ridiculed.

I speak to many people about the subject and it's interesting to see their train of thought.

Some who voted to leave will discuss in a rational manner and explore the facts around an issue and provided the evidence is presented and explained will agree a point before bringing up another issue. In this way rational progress can be made in the discussion and a conclusion drawn. The best outcomes are when people agree to have a think or find out more. Some even are persuaded.

Some don't do this and instead when presented with evidence that challenges their belief will ridicule it or the person presenting it and immediately change tack and bring up another tangential issue to obfuscate. In this way little progress is made. The discussion becomes a series of unexplored claims with little rationale, discovery or understanding. Often such a person tries to stop the other from getting a word in edgeways - another example of closing down a debate by preventing the other from talking. Closed minds.

I find James O'Brien's debates excellent examples of debate. As I said before it's a shame those with opposing arguments don't come up with better ones. I don't think they can and that's why they want to shut him up instead.


----------



## John-H

Brexit: EU leaders say single-market access for goods a nonstarter

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other


----------



## John-H

National Crime Agency examines Russian link to Arron Banks

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -962cct78b


----------



## A3DFU

I'm not subscribing to The Times


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> I'm not subscribing to The Times





> The leaked communications show that Banks was offered three Russian business deals during the Brexit campaign - two more than previously thought - including a gold mine venture in Guinea, west Africa, and a lucrative stake in the privatisation of Alrosa, Russia's state-controlled diamond miner.
> 
> One of the gold deals came from the director of a bank closed in 2014 amid suspicions of Russian money-laundering.
> 
> Banks said he did not take part in any of the deals. But an investment fund partly owned by Jim Mellon, his business partner and fellow Brexit donor, did secure a stake in Alrosa, below the market rate.
> 
> The NCA is understood to have questioned witnesses and is liaising with MI5 and US prosecutors, led by Robert Mueller. The former FBI director's team is examining Russian attempts to subvert the 2016 presidential elections.


----------



## A3DFU

[smiley=thumbsup.gif] Thank you


----------



## John-H




----------



## A3DFU

I've gone off fudge years ago. Does that mean I've gone off Brexit? Not that I ever agreed with Brexit you see :roll:


----------



## John-H

I was in the gents at work today and tried to turn on the hot tap that doesn't work (I forgot), when someone piped up - "Ahh you tried to use the Brexit tap!" :lol:


----------



## John-H

*Vote Leave cheated*

The official Brexit campaign is expected to be found guilty of four charges of breaking electoral law, the BBC has been told.

" there was a "common plan", and therefore the law was broken."

* Made an inaccurate return of campaign expenditure

* Is missing invoices and receipts

* Failed to comply with a statutory notice, and

* Exceeded its spending limit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561


----------



## John-H

> Quote of the day
> 
> "If I'm forced to go out because we don't have the right deal, then we have to close plants here in the UK and it will be very, very sad."


"Britain's biggest carmaker, Jaguar Land Rover, has warned that a hard Brexit will cost £1.2bn a year in trade tariffs and make it unprofitable to remain in the UK."

"He said the company needed a deal that secured free and frictionless trade with Europe, unrestricted access to the single market and the ability to hire talented employees from overseas.

"Nobody asks for a deal that at the end of the day increases bureaucracy, and reduces the productivity and competitiveness of the UK industry," he said.

Mr Speth said uncertainty over Brexit was already putting off electric car experts from joining the business. In interviews, the first question candidates always asked was about Brexit, and whether they would be able to work in the UK, he added."

https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-7f8 ... daf11b720d










If you don't have an FT subscription Google seems to. Just paste this text in quotes into Google:

"Britain's biggest carmaker, Jaguar Land Rover, has warned that a hard Brexit will cost £1.2bn a year in trade tariffs and make it unprofitable to remain in the UK."

Then scroll down for the FT website result. Click it and enjoy the full article :wink:


----------



## John-H

*Do these two look guilty to you?*










*Project cheat *- We now know the Electoral Commission believes that Vote Leave, the "official" leave campaign, broke the law. This comes in the wake of its conclusion that Arron Banks's Leave EU broke the law.

The Electoral Commission's findings mean it's beyond doubt that there is no proper mandate to leave the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... commission


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Quote of the day
> 
> "If I'm forced to go out because we don't have the right deal, then we have to close plants here in the UK and it will be very, very sad."
> 
> 
> 
> "Britain's biggest carmaker, Jaguar Land Rover, has warned that a hard Brexit will cost £1.2bn a year in trade tariffs and make it unprofitable to remain in the UK."
> 
> "He said the company needed a deal that secured free and frictionless trade with Europe, unrestricted access to the single market and the ability to hire talented employees from overseas.
> 
> "Nobody asks for a deal that at the end of the day increases bureaucracy, and reduces the productivity and competitiveness of the UK industry," he said.
> 
> Mr Speth said uncertainty over Brexit was already putting off electric car experts from joining the business. In interviews, the first question candidates always asked was about Brexit, and whether they would be able to work in the UK, he added."
> 
> https://www.ft.com/content/d077afaa-7f8 ... daf11b720d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have an FT subscription Google seems to. Just paste this text in quotes into Google:
> 
> "Britain's biggest carmaker, Jaguar Land Rover, has warned that a hard Brexit will cost £1.2bn a year in trade tariffs and make it unprofitable to remain in the UK."
> 
> Then scroll down for the FT website result. Click it and enjoy the full article :wink:
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing one way or the other re tariffs, free trade is definitely easier, _but_, isn't the whole point of tariffs to encourage the consumer to buy local? e.g. A £2,000 surcharge on top of a £40,000 Jag would encourage the Germans to buy a Merc instead of a Jag, but on the flip side, it would also encourage the brits to go for a Jag instead of the Merc which would receive the same price increase, ergo, is it really going to noticeably affect the car market? and is it going to affect the car market any more than the recent tax hikes on luxury vehicles, I doubt it.


----------



## Spandex

I think the issue with the car market isn't so much about the end product (although this will likely be affected) but about the movement of parts across borders. Car manufacturers are mostly car _assemblers_, with the parts bought in from suppliers across the continent. In some cases, parts arrive from one country, have some manufacturing process applied to them and then head to another country for further work, then come back again to be fitted to a car. This will obviously become significantly more complicated and potentially more expensive if we are no longer in the EU.

Not that I agree with the "let them eat cake" solution where everyone just has to buy a Jaguar.


----------



## John-H

Yes, we have a distributed shop floor in Europe reliant on zero delay at the border within the block. Add delay to that and you disrupt production. Add tariffs and you decimate profits. Add both and say goodbye.

On another subject I remember one or two comments way back in this thread about our fishing fleet and how this was important to the UK and was unfairly being abused by the EU.

Two things; firstly, apparently so I remember but don't have a link - to put things in perspective, florists contribute more to the UK GDP than fisheries.

Secondly, whilst there may be sympathy for any hard working sector it's even more disturbing that those under pressure are being hoodwinked by false promises. Just read this:

https://infacts.org/goves-fishy-party-trick/


----------



## Graham H

Hi , my worry is we can't go back to the days when lorries were sat at borders for one to two , three days waiting for clearance to get through prices will rocket , also I blame the governments of the 70s , 80s, and 90s for letting Europe get to powerful , when we voted to go in it was for trade , not to be governed by Europe cheers Graham H :wink:


----------



## John-H

You remember the time when we were not integrated. That's what we may return to with no deal. Even the Swiss with their partial deal have delays, as a famous van driver demolished Mogg on a recent phone in.

It was never a trade only membership though. When Churchill and Roosevelt set up the start of the EU after WW2 the main motive was peace in Europe through a political union with trade as the incentivising vehicle to hold it together. It worked.

In 1958 in a speech in Westminster Hall Churchill called for the UK to join the union and said that some pooling of sovereignty was a price worth paying so that "all men may come home together". This was when the Empire was lost and the UK was becoming the poor man of Europe of course.

It wasn't until 1972 that we joined under Heath following years of De Gall's resistance. We've grown since.

Thatcher increased trade with the single market but harmonised standards and laws was an essential part of that.

It means for example if you make beer in the UK it is legal for sale anywhere in the EU - no extra approvals needed, no tariffs, no delays at customs etc.

Without the political union and harmonised standards and laws it won't work and your beer would need testing, approval and clearance at every port of entry.

That's the single market and customs union.

If we lose that you can see the consequences. It's even worse for multiple process manufacturing distributed across member states for the car makers, Airbus and the like.

As for "sovereignty" much played by the Brexit press (whose offshore interest based owners stand to gain from us leaving) look at the alternatives to trade:

With half our present trade through the EU and much more with the rest of the world through EU negotiated trade deals (80 odd if I remember correctly) we would be forced, with no deal, to replace these deals with new ones we would need to negotiate ourselves.

But we are far smaller that the EU (the world's biggest trading block), so the deals we are likely to be able to negotiate will likely result in us giving away sovereignty by accepting changes to our laws on all sorts to suit the other partner.

The US would demand we accept the much talked of chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef. Don't think it would end there. We know there was influence from players in the U.S. with an interest in buying parts of the NHS. There's money to be made from the chaos of Brexit. That's likely to be part of any trade deal too. Take back control???

Our cut and pasted high EU standards would be compromised and abandoned as we desperately try to restore our balance of trade to make up for loss of all the advantageous ones we currently enjoy. This would be the biggest loss of sovereignty - to bend over backwards to gain trade deals with the likes of Trump and China etc..

We currently have common standards and laws agreed by equal partners, each with a veto to anything new but with a common interest at present within the EU - our closest neighbors who are most like us with shared needs and ideals. It's folly to turn our backs on our shared history.

Peace in Europe, political strength and success through trade. That's how it's been. Why should we abandon that and start again from a self inflicted disadvantage?


----------



## John-H

Facebook is to be fined £500,000, the maximum amount possible (pre GDPR), for its part in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the information commissioner has announced in what they described as the most important investigation they have ever undertaken.

"In 2014 and 2015, the Facebook platform allowed an app developed by Dr Coughlan &#8230; that ended up harvesting 87m profiles of users around the world that was then used by Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 presidential campaign and in the referendum."

It has led to a criminal prosecution of SCL Elections, Cambridge Analytica's parent company which has since declared bankruptcy. The investigation also found that Aggregate IQ, a Canadian electoral services company, had "significant links" to Cambridge Analytica and has been served an enforcement notice to stop processing UK citizens data.

Asked on BBC Radio 4 Today programme - "Is the regulation different if it's about persuading me to back a campaign or vote in a particular way compared with buying a holiday or a car?" Elizabeth Denham of the Information Commissioners Office replied:



> *"We believe it is. A lot of us have become used to behaviourial advertising in the commercial sector, to buy trainers to buy cars, to buy holidays - we are used to that targeting. But when it comes to our electoral system, when it comes to campaigning, when it matters in marginal races in politics and in campaigning we think the impact is significant."*
> Elizabeth Denham - Information Comissioners Office


"Many people will be shouting at the radio - too late this was the most important vote in our history." We need the system fixing now.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ca-scandal


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> *"...we think the impact is significant."*


See, that's where I have issues with statements that try to convince people that something is true when, as far as I'm concerned, '_think_' doth butter no parsnips.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"...we think the impact is significant."*
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's where I have issues with statements that try to convince people that something is true when, as far as I'm concerned, '_think_' doth butter no parsnips.
Click to expand...

Well Facebook can _think_ about the affect on its reputation and _think_ about the new GDPR rules which would now apply and MPs can _think_ about how a 10% overspend in the Vote Leave budget stands with a 2% swing in the referendum result. Not to mention the £12.4m Banks put into Leave.EU before the £700k cap applied that was largely spent with Aggregate IQ. We can all _think_ about that.


----------



## John-H

Thoughts turn to reality.....
















*
Project cheat... It's official.
*
The official Brexit campaign group Vote Leave fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove has been fined £61,000 and referred to the police after an Electoral Commission probe said it broke electoral law. The investigation found "significant evidence of joint working" between the group and another organisation BeLeave - leading to it exceeding its spending limit by almost £500,000.



> "We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a commonplan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits. These are serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992


----------



## John-H

Please sign this petition -

*"Rescind Art.50 if Vote Leave has broken Electoral Laws regarding 2016 referendum"* - which they just have been found guilty of!

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729

It's already over 10,000 signatures so will get a statement from the government.

Pass it on!


----------



## Spandex

I suspect The BobBot stopped reading this thread long ago, but in case he still drops by:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... CMP=twt_gu

The BobBot was one of the people professing on this forum that one of the dangers of staying in the EU was that Turkey were going to join soon. He got that inaccurate information from the Leave campaign, and refused to listen to anyone saying otherwise.

The trouble is, I think for people like BobBot it really doesn't matter how many of the things they believed turn out to be lies. They're just the convenient props he uses in an argument, but his fundamental beliefs don't require facts or evidence to survive. He would maintain his position even if every piece of available evidence proved him wrong.

He could be hobbling around a post-apocalyptic landscape, hunting rats for food and hiding from cannibalistic death squads after Brexit destroyed the country, and he'd still be explaining to everyone he met how we're definitely better off now we're out the EU.


----------



## John-H

*"Project cheat..."*

Senior Tory calls for Brexit referendum to be re-run given Vote Leave's 'cheating'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... itics-live?


----------



## John-H

Time for MPs to get real about protecting democracy

IF CHEATING AND LAW BREAKING IS REWARDED, DEMOCRACY IS A SHAM
The Electoral Commission has decided that the rules laid down by Parliament to protect the fairness of the referendum were deliberately and seriously breached. And that there was very significant overspending.

The Government is a member of the Venice Commission which said, in its Code of Good Practice on Referendums, that:

_*"if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled."
*_

It was The Good Law Project that called a judicial review to force the Electoral Commission to re-investigate the case against Vote Leave that it had previously dropped. Here's their petition to get parliament to address this issue and not ignore it:

https://goodlawproject.org/petition/vot ... -petition/

Please sign and pass on. Ask your MP to sign and support this too.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Please sign and pass on. Ask your MP to sign and support this too.


Why ? :roll:

(Awaits barage of abuse)


----------



## Stiff

leopard said:


> (Awaits barage of abuse)


It's ba*rr*age


----------



## leopard

:lol: Quite right

You caught me naping


----------



## Stiff

leopard said:


> You caught me naping


You're doing it on purpose now


----------



## leopard

Intentionaly,you meen...


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please sign and pass on. Ask your MP to sign and support this too.
> 
> 
> 
> Why ? :roll:
> 
> (Awaits barage of abuse)
Click to expand...

I'll leave that to your imagination :wink:


----------



## John-H

This might help:



> Raab to flood businesses with 'no-deal' Brexit advice


https://www.ft.com/content/3200e1b6-8ab ... 71d5404543
(Just put "ft.com" and the quoted text into Google and click the hit.

I wonder if the advice is about building shelters or preparing Rat-o-van (presuming there's enough petrol for vans to drive over rats) - or are we supposed to put a paper bag over our heads? I don't think it will help.


----------



## Spandex

2016: "Brexit will improve your lives."
2018:


----------



## Spandex

And to top it all off Rees Mogg, one of the most enthusiastic brexiteers, has said that we may not see the benefits of brexit for the next 50 years. So not only will the majority of Leave voters be long dead by then, their grand children might be collecting their pensions before it happens. Freedom fighters, my arse.

But at least they'll have the important things in life, like blue passports and adequate food.


----------



## John-H

I heard they were arguing what color the ration cards should be :roll:


----------



## Shug750S

Think Ronnie summed it up well near the end of this clip. 1:15 in...
Embarassing, F'ing embarrassing


----------



## Spandex

We've now entered Stage 9:


----------



## John-H

Where did Aaron Banks get his money to find Brexit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politi ... -to-russia


----------



## John-H

What kind of government leads us to a situation where we might starve?

https://mobile.twitter.com/5_News/statu ... 7229561856

Just look at her eyes.


----------



## Yashin

UnderSteering away from Leftie Brexit bashing and back to debate -

It's looking likely after today the EU is pushing for the UK to stay in the Customs Union as it's "Red line" so to speak, by rejecting the free trade area proposal. I presume by doing so the U.K. would have to pay into the EU still and would have an effect on trade deals elsewhere so can't see this keeping afloat. Obviously it would solve the Irish Border problem though. What do you think the compromise will be?


----------



## John-H

I actually think the worse thing would be a compromise that's accepted by the EU because then we leave and become a vassal state as Rees Mogg would say (Only in that would I agree with him). It would also be unstable because there would be further pressure by the Brexit extremists to push further.

Far better is that there's stalemate in parliament and the only Brexit possible is a no deal Brexit - for which there is no majority in parliament. That's when things get interesting - Article 50 gets extended or rescinded and either through a parliamentary or a People's Vote the whole failed project gets knocked on the head and put out of it's misery.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I caught an interview earlier this month with John Cleese, of Monty Python and Faulty Towers fame. Evidently he's had it with the UK and is heading off to live out his days on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean. Must be nice to have that kind of money!

As an American, this whole Brexit thing does make sense. Sovereign nations should be managed by the people who live there and ruled by the government they vote for. No one, not Germany, not Brussels, should be telling you guys what to do, or how to do it. Having said that, I can appreciate the EU harmonizing standards across all European countries. One only need look at electrical outlets to understand the simple advantage of a single plug you can use everywhere in Europe. But beyond that, they should stay the hell out of your lives.

Considering America had Brexit 1.0 back in 1776, I have to say although it had rough start, it worked out well for us in the long run. Not sure King Charles was so thrilled about it any more than Theresa May, but yeah, upwards and onwards I say! 
.


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> I caught an interview earlier this month with John Cleese, of Monty Python and Faulty Towers fame. Evidently he's had it with the UK and is heading off to live out his days on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean. Must be nice to have that kind of money!
> 
> As an American, this whole Brexit thing does make sense. Sovereign nations should be managed by the people who live there and ruled by the government they vote for. No one, not Germany, not Brussels, should be telling you guys what to do, or how to do it. Having said that, I can appreciate the EU harmonizing standards across all European countries. One only need look at electrical outlets to understand the simple advantage of a single plug you can use everywhere in Europe. But beyond that, they should stay the hell out of your lives.
> 
> Considering America had Brexit 1.0 back in 1776, I have to say although it had rough start, it worked out well for us in the long run. Not sure King Charles was so thrilled about it any more than Theresa May, but yeah, upwards and onwards I say!
> .


Agreed with your sentiment,although the British plug is the safest in the world so harmonization isn't always the best policy along with alot of other things that people here would otherwise have you believe...

I think Cleese is hedging his bets,Nevis is still a sovereign state,so there is still some Blighty connection with good 'ol Liz at the healm


----------



## John-H

The meaning of sovereignty seems little appreciated when it comes to international trade.

If you have a trade agreement, part and parcel of that agreement is an agreement to change domestic law in order to allow products made in one country to meet the standards of another by changing them. Who does the bulk of the changing is down to who has the biggest clout and how much a country wants the trade.

One country allowing its laws and standards to change to meet the demands of another country is a loss of sovereignty. In order to do that trade you need to trade sovereignty too and agree to legal oversight and regulation in courts above your own national courts in order to resolve disputes. That's what you have with WTO and trading blocks like the EU. It's complicated and that's why trade deals take a long time to negotiate.

When the UK had an empire it could go around imposing it's sovereignty onto other countries but with independence and when the trade with the "commonwealth" diminished it was Churchill himself in 1958 who wanted to join the then EC and said that the giving away of some sovereignty was a price worth paying so we could gain improvements in trade and enjoy the stability of the union in Europe - a project he with Roosevelt started after WW2 to ensure peace and prosperity through trade and political union.

It's incorrect to say that Germany or Brussels tells the UK what to do. The UK decided to join the club of the EU quite willingly and as an equal partner we have a say in making any new laws and a right of veto.

So, in light of all of that, how much sovereignty do you think little UK, having left the EU, would have to lose as it desperately tries to replace lost trade by doing a trade deal with the much larger USA under Trump? Who would lose the most sovereignty in that relationship as we have to change our standards and laws to accept chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef to name but two tradables?

Harmonisation of electrical standards is a good thing as it means that anything with an EU mark will work in any member state, although the plugs remain different because it was too costly to replace them all - but the grid voltages were tweaked and product requirements improved to ensure functionality and safety to a common standard.

Yes, as an engineer I think the UK plug is a robust design with a fuse. It would be wrong for us to impose the cost of adopting our design on other member states however - it would get vetoed if we tried. Just as they don't impose things on us - everything is done through negotiation of equals within a framework of shared democratic sovereignty.


----------



## leopard

It's not just trade though...


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"One country allowing its laws and standards to change to meet the demands of another country is a loss of sovereignty._" - Nonsense! How is the harmonizing of industrial standards a loss of national sovereignty? I'm also an engineer and believe me, harmonizing BS with DIN, or TÜV with UL makes perfect sense and benefits everyone. No one one in France or Spain or Germany has any less freedom because just they've agreed to use a common plug. In fact just the opposite is true. All three countries can sell electrical products to each other which means consumers in those countries have even more freedom of choice and selection in the products they buy.

Why do you think electrical appliances are dual voltage? Why do you think automotive tires have common sizes? Or common spark plug threads? Do you seriously believe you need a one-off product no one else in the world can use just so you have a sense of national sovereignty? Yes, I get that you have an old plug design and I'm sure there's a really good reason you have it and of course, changing it now would be problematic.

Sticking a fuse in a plug might make it 'safer', but it doesn't make the design very marketable outside the UK now does it?And how is it the rest of Europe, or the world for that matter, has managed to survive with a small, 2-prong plug that's common across most of Europe and other countries that also use 220-volts? Odd you don't read about mass electrocutions all over the world because people are running around without fuses in their plugs. And by the way, electricity doesn't care which end of the wire has the fuse on it. So stick it inside the product like everyone else and get on with it already! 

FYI -American household power is actually safer as we only have 110-V at all outlets. While you may have a fuse in your plug, we even go one step further and incorporate GFI (Ground Fault Interrupter) in the wall outlets themselves. That way, when you're blow drying your hair in the shower, like so many people do, the power cuts off at the outlet, not the plug. Ahhhh...see! Didn't think of that now did you!! 

I'm just saying, making products people want and can use which can also be exported to other countries, makes a lot more sense than not doing so. And to your point of chicken and beef, that's not up to Trump or the EU, that's up to the consumer! Every time you walk into the market, you have the freedom to purchase those products or not. People really need to get beyond the "government has to make decisions for me" mentality and think and act for themselves.

_"That's what you have with WTO and trading blocks like the EU."_ Again, total nonsense. That's like saying we need the UN to resolve international conflicts. And we all know how well that works. The WTO doesn't give a rats-a$$ about sovereign nations or individual citizen's rights. The WTO only cares about global corporations and money. Individual rights and safety come in second as far as their concerned. Don't believe me? Ask the people in Bhopal how that worked out for them. :x

And where was the WTO when the UK was dominating Europe as an industrial heavyweight prior to WWI? It wasn't the WTO negotiating deals between the UK and Germany. The Royal Navy didn't line battle ships up along the north sea and force Germany to buy British locomotive engines and rolling stock. It was British industrial know how and smart economic trade deals that put British rail into Germany - all without the WTO or the EU. Yes, Germany later sorted out it's own rail industry, but my point is you guys lead the way without the WTO or EU. Well done! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Of course Churchill wanted to join the EC. The UK was in economic ruin after two world wars. You had food and fuel rationing up until the mid-50's and with the complete loss of your colonies and commonwealth, there was little left for the British government to negotiate in trade and very little to trade anyway. At the time it was the only option Churchill had on the table. But that was then, this is now.

But lets look at the facts - after the war, the only country who's industrial capacity was seriously affected was Germany. Britain, France, Czech, Poland, Italy and even Japan were untouched in comparison to Germany's industrial ruin. But never forget, Germany, despite the devastation of their cities, factories and loss of man power, still managed to build the first fighter jet in history and the first intercontinental missile! After the war, Germany* got the jump on the rest of Europe because it, like Japan, had the advantage of American money and most importantly, new tooling and industrial manufacturing practices America perfected during the war years.

*Luckily for the rest of Europe, East German, Polish, Czech and Hungarian industries all fell under communist rule and their idiotic central planning or we'd all be driving Ladas instead of Audis!

America, as part of the Marshall Plan, literally handed it's industrial know now and advanced machine tooling to the Germans along with a boat load of cash. Meanwhile the UK, and the rest of Europe, were struggling with outdated machine tools, industrial processes and practices and to add injury to insult, trade unions that were not exactly cooperative with business. With all that stacked against you, there was simply no way you guys could compete in international trade export against Germany.

"It's incorrect to say that Germany or Brussels tells the UK what to do." - Really? Have you read EU mandates recently? They tell Greece, Spain and Portugal what to do and they've ruined them economically. And they're now imposing political pressure on Poland and Hungary because of the refugee situation. Who do you think gave Spain the right to fish in UK territorial waters? It certainly wasn't your government.

If you want a good example of how a small, island nation can succeed in industrial capability and trade, just look at Japan. It's the best example of how a small nation can become an industrial powerhouse. Not because it has vast resources, not because it needs the WTO to help it cut trade deals, but because it understands how to make products consumers want and how to negotiate with other nations on its own.

Go look at the people working on Toyota factory floor in Nagoya - they are highly trained, highly skilled and highly motivated. Their designers, engineers and business teams are well educated and very capable. And this is true across most of Japanese industry. I'm not saying it's utopia, but my point is Japanese citizens enjoy the freedoms, rights and privileges of their own Constitution and their own local laws without the Americans telling them how to live their lives and without some one from Brussels telling then what shape their bananas have to be at the supermarket.

.


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> FYI -American household power is actually safer as we only have 110-V at all outlets. While you may have a fuse in your plug, we even go one step further and incorporate GFI (Ground Fault Interrupter) in the wall outlets themselves. That way, when you're blow drying your hair in the shower, like so many people do, the power cuts off at the outlet, not the plug. Ahhhh...see! Didn't think of that now did you!!


Not exactly true Swiss.

America has more electrical related house fires which are probably due to the 110V system requiring double the current of the 240V system.

Not every American house hold will have the latest power supply or indeed home appliance equipment and that's where the fused British 3 pin plug comes in to play by being both earthed and fused.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

@ leopard - If I had a choice, I'd rather grab 110-V than 240-V any day of the week!  While you can argue the UK plug might be safer with a fuse, those UK outlets, over-designed as they are, are still pretty easy to defeat. Any kid with enough time and persistence can still zap themselves. And without GFI to kill the power at the outlet, it's just a matter of when, not if.

I think the problem regarding American household fires can be attributed to our method of home construction. The majority of US homes are timber frame construction with sheet rock. Not brick and certainly not stone-block as is the norm in Germany and the rest of Europe.

When it comes to household construction and safety, the Germans have it right. Solid construction, good insulation and I love their double-opening windows! And they actually go one step further than the US and put GFI at the main panel, not just the outlets. So any detection of a fault at any outlet causes a circuit trip. It's a smart system.

But to your point, I'm pretty sure the leading cause of home fires in both the US and the UK is faulty appliances or over-loaded extension cord outlets regardless of plug design or voltage.


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> While you can argue the UK plug might be safer with a fuse, those UK outlets, over-designed as they are, are still pretty easy to defeat. Any kid with enough time and persistence can still zap themselves.


There is nothing about the UK design that is intended to stop deliberate access to the live contact. That's not the purpose. The reason it's a much safer design is because it massively reduces the chance of accidental shock from both the plug/socket and the appliance itself.


----------



## Stiff

leopard said:


> America has more electrical related house fires which are probably due to _*them having an awful lot more houses*_


There, fixed it for you


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> @ leopard - If I had a choice, I'd rather grab 110-V than 240-V any day of the week!  While you can argue the UK plug might be safer with a fuse, those UK outlets, over-designed as they are, are still pretty easy to defeat. Any kid with enough time and persistence can still zap themselves. And without GFI to kill the power at the outlet, it's just a matter of when, not if.
> 
> I think the problem regarding American household fires can be attributed to our method of home construction. The majority of US homes are timber frame construction with sheet rock. Not brick and certainly not stone-block as is the norm in Germany and the rest of Europe.
> 
> When it comes to household construction and safety, the Germans have it right. Solid construction, good insulation and I love their double-opening windows! And they actually go one step further than the US and put GFI at the main panel, not just the outlets. So any detection of a fault at any outlet causes a circuit trip. It's a smart system.
> 
> But to your point, I'm pretty sure the leading cause of home fires in both the US and the UK is faulty appliances or over-loaded extension cord outlets regardless of plug design or voltage.


Remember it's "mills that kills and volts that jolts" without going into the science of what impedance the human body introduces into the equation.

The UK have GFI's,RCBO by a different name that are in the consumer unit too.

The GFCI that you're on about isn't the holy Grail either,you can still be electrocuted by touching the live and neutral at the same time and up to 50% of these don't work due to MOX varioister breakdown,so this sort of puts your child analogy in iffy waters...


----------



## leopard

Stiff said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has more electrical related house fires which are probably due to _*them having an awful lot more houses*_
> 
> 
> 
> There, fixed it for you
Click to expand...

No you haven't :lol:

The two pronged electrical plug(read flimsy and prone to wearing) combined with double the load for a given voltage causes arcing,combine that with cheap wooden housing and this exacerbates the problem.
Booooff


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> ... Sovereign nations should be managed by the people who live there and ruled by the government they vote for. No one, not Germany, not Brussels, should be telling you guys what to do, or how to do it. Having said that, I can appreciate the EU harmonizing standards across all European countries. ...





SwissJetPilot said:


> _"One country allowing its laws and standards to change to meet the demands of another country is a loss of sovereignty._" - Nonsense! How is the harmonizing of industrial standards a loss of national sovereignty?


You seem to be somewhat confusing the meaning of the word "sovereignty" in that you are trying to imply it doesn't apply with technical standards but does when other rules are imposed.

Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself, and determine its own laws and policies. In the case of the UK we have the concept of parliamentary sovereignty too which holds that parliament is the highest authority and free to make laws without restriction.

Many countries however have a written constitution and in the case of the UK constitutional law is determined by precedent. Constitutional requirements restrict the freedom of a parliament to make law and can be held to account in court.

International treaty agreements also restrict the freedom of parliament to make law such as in the case of the UK's obligations to the EU. However, since the 1972 EC act of union is a domestic law passed by parliament our obligations to EU law are and always have been under the control of parliament.

So, to put it simply, UK parliament remains sovereign as it always has been but we have an international treaty obligation to the EU whereby we have agreed freely and willingly to be bound by it's law in certain areas such as technical standards, its international trade and other treaty agreements and policy such as the fundamental four freedoms, independent judicial systems and democracy etc. These are all things we agreed to but have the sovereign power ultimately should we decide at some point to rescind them from domestic law (international treaties under our constitution only apply, if they affect the rights of citizens, when enacted through domestic law in an act of parliament).

So, in all those areas we have voluntarily agreed to be bound by EU law - you can't split off technical standards harmonisation from the judiciary or other EU treaty obligations like the four freedoms etc.

You can't say, 'technical standards make sense to me as an engineer so that's not a sovereignty issue' but then say 'I don't agree with the EU interfering with sovereignty' - over Polands judicial policy or Hungary's border or the way a country handles its financial risk to itself and the stability of the EU.

All those areas come under the treaty agreement those countries have signed up to voluntarily in order to be part of the EU in order to gain its advantages.

It's also fallacy to imagine that international trade agreements are only to do with giving up just that part of sovereignty required for technical harmonisation of standards. All such agreements involve setting levels of tariffs and quotas which have a direct effect on domestic producers and political policy implications. They also involve the freedom of movement of people. Should the UK seek to have a trade agreement with India for example you can be certain that would involve enhanced freedom for its people to travel and work in the UK.

It's down to a choice of who you think you will be better off with. In our case - the UK as part of the world's biggest free trade area with an equal say in rules and policy with standards we want to retain. Or, a diminished UK trying to agree deals with larger nations where to satisfy all we will necessarily have to adopt the lowest common denominator in many standards and policy.

You go on to give lots of examples of how the harmonisation of standards is a good thing because it makes products easier to sell and improves trade etc. I don't disagree but I have to insist that it comes about because of and is enforced through EU rules and standards and is part of the pooling of sovereignty by which means members join and benefit from being members of the club.



SwissJetPilot said:


> And to your point of chicken and beef, that's not up to Trump or the EU, that's up to the consumer!


Only partially. The consumer can only buy what's on offer and is largely driven by price especially when poor. If the UK gives up some sovereignty in this area to accept US standards in this regard then there would also be no restriction on UK producers also to follow these standards - it's cheaper and they won't want to be undercut. Then there won't be a consumer choice.

You continued at length about past trade before the UK joined the EU in 1972 and the WTO started in 1995 asking where were they then? Well obviously they didn't exist then but they came about to improve trade and improve international relations. Let's move on.

You mentioned Japan. The UK has 4% trade export with Japan and the EU has just completed a trade deal with Japan which reduces many tariffs in dairy products for example. The UK won't benefit from that if it leaves the EU. Current trade on WTO is punative on these products.

You end by saying:



SwissJetPilot said:


> ... without some one from Brussels telling then what shape their bananas have to be at the supermarket.


That would be a technical standard you previously said were good things but letting that pass, I'm sure you'll be pleasd to know that the banana thing is an EU myth put about by Boris Johnson when he was editor of the Sun.










Hence the ridicule 

Now, I don't want to continue a tenuous off topic issue about plugs and fuses but I have to disagree that it doesn't matter where the fuse is. The UK plug fuse protects everything beyond including the cable and entry into the alliance. A fuse in the appliance doesn't protect against a cable fault such as a short due to a insulation puncture from a chair leg etc. Also the type "A" US plug is non polarised, so a fault in the appliance which blows the fuse in the appliance can still leave the whole appliance live and potentially anything connected to it. A live side plug fuse disconnects the appliance from the live feed.

UK building regulations (17th IEE) require residual earth fault detection for the whole ring main at the consumer unit not just the socket.

And I wsn't suggesting the UK 13A plug should be adopted as an EU standard. I used it as an example of freedom within a harmonised standard.


----------



## Stiff

leopard said:


> The two pronged electrical plug(read flimsy and prone to wearing) combined with double the load for a given voltage causes arcing,combine that with cheap wooden housing and this exacerbates the problem.
> Booooff


But they *do* still have more houses


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Fair point on the 2-prong US plug. Actually the newer ones are polarized, one pin is slightly wider than the other and the newer outlets are similar so you can only plug it in one way. Like many EU plugs, we got away from grounding pins some time ago probably because more and more products are designed with so much plastic the consumer can't get zapped even if touching the item when the fault occurs.

While we can disagree on the merits of sovereign self rule and mutually agreed harmonization of industrial standards, I agree this is a huge mess for you guys and everyone involved. I can't image if our 50-States all got a burr under their saddle and wanted to secede. Even though I believe Texas and California could technically do so since they were independent Republics before they were granted Statehood.

This subject makes for excellent and spirited debate, which is great. But - it's all bananas anyway!


----------



## John-H

I think we can agree about bananas :lol:

From Infacts newsletter:

Hardline Brexiters have been calling for months for the government to publish detailed plans showing how we would cope without a deal. Now within weeks of getting the Cabinet to grant them their wish, the Brexit extremists are wobbling.

It turns out that stories of stockpiling food and medicine, running short of insulin, drafting in the army to help move basic supplies, banks lending billions to keep businesses afloat and turning Kent into a lorry park do not sit well with the public.

What was intended by the Brexiters as a macho display towards the EU to strengthen our negotiating position is now threatening to kill off their "no deal" dreams entirely.

New polling shows clear public shift to remain:



> not leaving the EU would be the preferred option for 48%, with 27% preferring to leave the EU with no deal, and 13% choosing the government deal - 8% say they would not vote, 3% don't know.


https://news.sky.com/story/public-opini ... s-11453220


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> New polling shows clear public shift to remain:


 " not leaving the EU would be the preferred option for 48%, with 27% preferring to leave the EU with no deal, and 13% choosing the government deal - 8% say they would not vote, 3% don't know. "

..........................................................................................

From a poll of 1466 SKY customers you forgot to mention.
Hardly a clear public shift :lol:


----------



## John-H

You missed out the weighting that was applied to normalise the sample :roll: Here's the full quote:



> :: Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,466 Sky customers online 20-23 July 2018. *Data are weighted to the profile of the population. Sky Data is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. *


You might also be interested to know that it follows the weekend poll from the Times/YouGov which showed support for a People's Vote is soaring, and is now ahead for the first time.

Some pollsters have had this in the lead for many months, but the remarkable thing about the Times/YouGov poll was that an 8% deficit a month ago has now transformed into a 2% lead. The momentum in this debate is moving only in one direction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majo ... -hwg632gqf


----------



## leopard

...And these are the same pollsters who said the remain vote would have it :lol:

Haven't you heard,these pollsters don't hold any credibility anymore,most of their guessing ends up being wrong weighted or not.

The SKY poll is to keep the lefties like you all warm and cuddly,don't you know 

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/02/28/ ... ong-again/

"Are the UK's political polls wrong, again? "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -why-wrong

Etc,etc...


----------



## John-H

Polls of this size generally have an error margin of 2%. The 2016 referendum result was within that margin of error as it was a marginal result.

We are now talking about far bigger numbers than the error margin meaning that the result is far more reliable as a measure of opinion.

Have a read of this which helps explain and includes "weighting" too which you didn't appreciate before: 
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support ... vey-error/

As your article says...



> The polls can be wrong; the polls often are wrong; but they are not likely to be that wrong.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Have a read of this which helps explain and includes "weighting" too which you didn't appreciate before:
> https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support ... vey-error/


This is the thing,"weighting" was appreciated and considered but it's still educated guess work and it was still wrong,whether this wrong,not quite wrong or even not that wrong, or by a small margin wrong it's still wrong :lol:

But that's by the by,1,466 SKY viewers is not indicative of a Nation and how they would vote which was picked up upon in your original overly optimistic pro EU post,weighted un-weighted or weighed down by the ton,oops metric ton :roll: ...


----------



## Shug750S

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a read of this which helps explain and includes "weighting" too which you didn't appreciate before:
> https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support ... vey-error/
> 
> 
> 
> This is the thing,"weighting" was appreciated and considered but it's still educated guess work and it was still wrong,whether this wrong,not quite wrong or even not that wrong, or by a small margin wrong it's still wrong :lol:
> 
> But that's by the by,1,466 SKY viewers is not indicative of a Nation and how they would vote which was picked up upon in your original overly optimistic pro EU post,weighted un-weighted or weighed down by the ton,oops metric ton :roll: ...
Click to expand...

Metric Tonne...


----------



## leopard

Shug750S said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a read of this which helps explain and includes "weighting" too which you didn't appreciate before:
> https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support ... vey-error/
> 
> 
> 
> This is the thing,"weighting" was appreciated and considered but it's still educated guess work and it was still wrong,whether this wrong,not quite wrong or even not that wrong, or by a small margin wrong it's still wrong :lol:
> 
> But that's by the by,1,466 SKY viewers is not indicative of a Nation and how they would vote which was picked up upon in your original overly optimistic pro EU post,weighted un-weighted or weighed down by the ton,oops metric ton :roll: ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Metric Tonne...
Click to expand...

Metric Ton is a tonne = 2204.6 llbs or 1000KG,the play on the ton because of metrification by Countries that use predominantly the metric system who are European....smart arse :roll:

Quote:

" British English: metric ton noun
A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms.
The newspaper uses 220,000 metric tons of newsprint each year."


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a read of this which helps explain and includes "weighting" too which you didn't appreciate before:
> https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support ... vey-error/
> 
> 
> 
> This is the thing,"weighting" was appreciated and considered but it's still educated guess work and it was still wrong,whether this wrong,not quite wrong or even not that wrong, or by a small margin wrong it's still wrong :lol:
> 
> But that's by the by,1,466 SKY viewers is not indicative of a Nation and how they would vote which was picked up upon in your original overly optimistic pro EU post,weighted un-weighted or weighed down by the ton,oops metric ton :roll: ...
Click to expand...

Consideration of the science behind a subject doesn't just mean 'What do I want to believe? Oh yes that must be right then.'

If you did that you'd be so prone to being influenced without realising it.


----------



## John-H

And on that note and closely related to what we believe to be true - how we are manipulated to allow the institutions and held values to be corrupted or devalued through popular and ill found belief. Have a read of this:

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2 ... pond-today


----------



## John-H

A Point of View
Michael Morpurgo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bclyj3


----------



## Shug750S

More positive news today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45286989

Brexiteers must be just so happy


----------



## A3DFU

Well I just wonder how/why people thought life would go on as is if the UK leaves the EU?

How do the supermarket shelves get filled with truck loads sitting in day long queues with perishables rotting.
How do drugs (medicines) turn up at pharmacies like, anti cancer drugs, diabetes, blood pressure and other drugs? They come from Continental Europe and with hefty tariffs if the UK leaves.
What about supply for dentists, drills, chairs etc? Again, loads of it comes from the EU.
The list would be almost endless.

It just baffles me that "Joe and Jane Public" never thought it necessary to inform themselves what leaving the EU might mean.


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> ...
> It just baffles me that "Joe and Jane Public" never thought it necessary to inform themselves what leaving the EU might mean.


After 45 years of integration it goes deep. I was struck by a story today that cigarette packaging will no longer be able to use EU copyright health warming pictures. Not the biggest of problems as I'm sure some other UK pictures can be found (unless the tobacco lobby gets there first to stop the need) but it just goes to show how many things will be affected with the accompanying cost of change that we, the public, will have to pay for.

The tide has turned - we don't want this - tell your MP!


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> The tide has turned - *I* don't want this * I'm telling my MP*


There FIFY John


----------



## Stiff

Must be a few more inches to go to reach the bottom of the barrel at the BBC...

*Grand National 'could be hit by no deal Brexit'*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45301966


----------



## John-H

The Brexiteers are weaponising ignorance into misleading sound ites like "clean Brexit" but anyone who thinks no deal could be worked around should listen to this:






John Shirley freight forwarders talks about the port of Dover and how our present 200 customs officers won't cope with no deal - it's a totally disastrous situation to get into. We've made no preparation for this.

Apparently we used to have 2,000 customs officers before the single market but freight has increased four fold since then so we'd need 8,000 now to handle the 10,000 daily truck traffic. The car park there is already full from the 1% of that traffic that currently requires customs clearance.

So what do the spitfire polishers propopse as a solution? I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> So what do the spitfire polishers propopse as a solution? I'd like to hear it.


It's irrelevant what the "spitfire polishers" (or any of the masses) propose as a solution as they aren't the ones that make these decisions - it's the powers that be. You could have the best solution in the world but it won't be listened too, let alone put into practice.


----------



## Danny1

82 pages in and we are still leaving.


----------



## John-H

It matters to the "spitfire polishers" in so far as they will be complaining when their dream isn't implemented. To others it would only matter if faced with reality, they changed their mind about their dream but I doubt they will.

True, that the decision lies with parliament. There's no majority for no deal there but the danger is that enough vote for Mrs May's blind fudge Brexit - that we leave the present treaty (which is the.best deal) and accept a transition treaty where we become a rule taker with no say and aiming for a final deal of something similar - but crucially to be sorted after we've left the present deal with no way back.

The best case for persuasion of parliament is not to leave in the first place. Brexit is a busted flush and the argument that "the people have spoken" was invalidated by the Electoral Commission. How is consulting the present will of the people, now the facts are known, less important and less democratic?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> It matters to the "spitfire polishers" in so far as they will be complaining when their dream isn't implemented.


It matters to the "spitfire polishers" in so far as it won't be their fault that the government didn't have a viable plan for a 'leave' decision. Nobody expected that outcome. Neither the remain nor the leave community, let alone the government. Had it been thought out better and proper plans prepared then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in at this stage. It's hardly the fault of the voters for the governments lack of foresight. So yes, they would have a damn good reason to complain.
You can't be asked to vote on something as important and detrimental as this to then be told afterwards, in effect: Hmm, we don't really have any plans for this as we didn't think it would happen. We f*cked up and are in deep sh1t, sorry about that, moan at the voters not us!



John-H said:


> The best case for persuasion of parliament is not to leave in the first place.


Of course it is but it looks like that's not really in the offering at the moment so we have to carry on regardless.


----------



## John-H

Well not quite - because Charlie Elphicke (Conservative MP for Dover) argues that we should have made preparations for no deal only two years ago. When the point is made to him that he's saying we haven't prepared so shouldn't be going through with it he then says -
when we've got our backs against the wall we'll think of something :roll:

Good to see we are in safe hands [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## John-H

Not only has the 10% overspend cheating of Vote Leave invalidated the less than 2% swing (only 600,000 votes) of the 2016 referendum result but we also have this:


----------



## Stiff

It's going to fall on deaf ears I'm afraid. Like it or not.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... democracy/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ed ... 19451.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45385421

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-slams-cal ... t-11488381

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/16/will-no- ... y-7721559/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/02/euro ... index.html

You're a fighter though, there's no denying that. God loves a trier.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> It's going to fall on deaf ears I'm afraid. Like it or not.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... democracy/
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ed ... 19451.html
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45385421
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/pm-slams-cal ... t-11488381
> 
> https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/16/will-no- ... y-7721559/
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/02/euro ... index.html
> 
> You're a fighter though, there's no denying that. God loves a trier.


Well thank you. I've just spent an evening with Lord Adonis and he made the point that Theresa May is talking about a People's Vote nearly every day now which shows you how significant it's become and if you remember back to the last general election - she kept denying that would happen too, then promptly announced it.

Her Chequers plan is deeply unpopular and in tatters, opposed by many in her party, the opposition and the EU. With a choice between the realisation that it's going to fail and no deal what choice has she got?


----------



## ashfinlayson

I expect a second referendum would be deeply unpopular, and regardless of all the kids turning 18, would probably result in the same outcome.

If we voted to remain, then I could understand a second referendum in the future, in the same way the pro independent Scotts wanted another go, because we have remained and fulfilled the mandate of remaining. But to ask for a second referendum on leaving without having actually fulfilled the mandate of leaving, would be an egregious political decision for any party. But calling a referendum on whether or not to rejoin, if/when it all goes economically tits up would be acceptable, all be it a massive waste of everyones time, money and energy. But you will get the opportunity to say I told you so


----------



## John-H

I don't think it's acceptable to let the economy tank just to fulfil misplaced sentiments regarding a tiny and now discredited mandate where nobody even after two years of arguing has any agreed plan on _how_ to leave without causing immense damage.

If you look at the polling you can see that a People's Vote is the popular option now. It's getting more popular by the day.

This is what's needed:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jNlBvXrvx ... e=youtu.be


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> I don't think it's acceptable to let the economy tank just to fulfil misplaced sentiments regarding a tiny and now discredited mandate where nobody even after two years of arguing has any agreed plan on _how_ to leave without causing immense damage.
> 
> If you look at the polling you can see that a People's Vote is the popular option now. It's getting more popular by the day.
> 
> This is what's needed:
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jNlBvXrvx ... e=youtu.be


Misplaced sentiments.. Your opinion as a remain voter, but you're in the minority. It also seems like you're forgetting that the option on ballot paper was _Leave the EU?_ not _Leave the EU without affecting the UK economy?_, after all, economics is a by-product or society, not the other way round.

Does it honestly surprise you that after two years, no progress has been made? The current government prioritises their political agenda above their mandate. In a nutshell; May doesn't want to leave the EU so we will remain in the EU in all but name and a few technicalities, which begs the question - why do you keep bleating on about it?


----------



## John-H

Public opinion has clearly shifted as people have become aware of the reality of what Brexit actually means, which many were not aware of back in 2016.

You are clearly incorrect now about the majority opinion - but perhaps you were referring to the majority back in 2016 (<2% swing to leave) but as I've pointed out - the Electoral Commission have found there was significant overspend (10%) during the campaign by Vote Leave which is highly significant (not to mention Aaron Banks, data manipulation and the Russian interference element!) and is why there are rules governing elections and as the UK is a signatory of the Venice Commission governing referenda whose rules say the referendum must be annulled in such circumstances, you have to point out that there is no longer justification for continuing with a now invalidated mandate for what was only an advisory referendum with no legal force and now no political justification.

In fact you can't even be sure what the real "will of the people" would have been on that day due to the tiny margin and the corruption and flouting of the rules.

How can one justify the democratic basis of continuing with the result of illegal corruption of the referendum to the extent that under the normal rules governing a legally binding referendum it would have been thrown out by the courts by now? It's only because it was advisory it hasn't. Do we live in a dictatorship or do a have rule of law? Should politicians be allowed to take advantage of that loophole and violate the spirit of the law?

As for "bleating on" you might thank me for my small part here and others elsewhere who are saying no to being made poorer, no to losing our jobs, quality of life and services and rights and no to corruption, manipulation and illegality of a flawed referendum pushed by people with deep pockets who stand to gain from the chaos and turmoil to the detriment of our country and the wider alliance of liberal democracies in Europe and its people. Did you or anyone vote to be poorer? Did you or anyone vote to weaken peace?

The effect of leaving will have a disproportionate effect on the poor too - do we not have concern for those less fortunate that will be made more so? Some may have felt disenfranchised and voted leave in protest but is it democratic to deny them more democracy now? A check to make sure this is what everybody still wants? Should it be a case of we've tricked you so hard luck?

As for Mrs May being a "remainer" it could simply be that she is trying to limit the damage - but that's not what I want. I want to stop any further damage, maintain our advantages under the current treaty and for people to be given the chance to recover the situation to that - if that's what they want. How is more democracy less democratic? Democracy is an ongoing process - it didn't end in 2016.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Misplaced sentiments.. Your opinion as a remain voter, but you're in the minority. It also seems like you're forgetting that the option on ballot paper was _Leave the EU?_ not _Leave the EU without affecting the UK economy?_, after all, economics is a by-product or society, not the other way round.
> 
> Does it honestly surprise you that after two years, no progress has been made? The current government prioritises their political agenda above their mandate. In a nutshell; May doesn't want to leave the EU so we will remain in the EU in all but name and a few technicalities, which begs the question - why do you keep bleating on about it?


It seems you're forgetting that the mandate comes from the campaign, not the words on the ballot paper. The leave campaign didn't acknowledge any risk to the economy before the referendum, so how on earth do you think they now have a mandate to 'leave at all costs'?

At the end of the day, our politicians are not there to do as we tell them. Their job is to do what is best for us as a country. This is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

That being said, the real question your post raises is, if zero progress after two years was entirely predictable, what nutjob would vote for that???


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> At the end of the day, our politicians are not there to do as we tell them. Their job is to do what is best for us as a country.


^ Exactly this ^ 
And for fear of not being the only one sounding like a stuck record...
*It should never have gone to a public vote!*


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Public opini...blah, blah, blah...in 2016.


Serious question John. Do you think there will be a second referendum? Do you think there is even a *possibility* of a second referendum?


----------



## John-H

Seriously yes, although it would be the first referendum on the actual deal now we know what it is - likely to be a choice between Mrs May's fudge, no deal and remain. It's not a certainty but it's getting more likely. Mrs May has united her party against her deal on both sides, the opposition are against it and there's no majority for a no deal disaster. So with a stalemate in Parliament, if they don't have the guts themselves, there is a handy ladder to climb out of the hole they have dug themselves into - put it back to the people.

And you are totally right - it should never have been put to a referendum in the binary form it was with no agreed plan. At least in the Scottish referendum there was a detailed white paper planned proposal to put to the electorate. In the EU debate there was just hot air, lies and contradictory arguments to the extent that they can't even agree now what they said at the time about things like being in the single market and the customs union. As a rational debate for constitutional change it was a complete joke were it not so serious and consequential.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> it should never have been put to a referendum in the binary form it was with *no agreed plan*.


This is what I find most disturbing. Utter madness and beyond belief.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> likely to be a choice between Mrs May's fudge, no deal and remain.


Is it? I would think a choice between the 'deal' (whatever that may be) and crashing out with no deal, would be a fairly logical choice to offer us.

By leaving 'remain' off the table, they could be seen to be respecting the first referendum, whilst also offering us a choice on how we will leave. I'll admit, it won't be a particularly palatable choice but I could see it being sold as a fair compromise. That being said, I suspect we won't be offered any say in the matter as the bickering that's crippling the government in all their Brexit decisions so far will probably stop them making a decision to offer a 2nd referendum too.


----------



## John-H

A choice between Mrs May's fudge and no deal might be what Mrs May might want to present to the public in order to ratify her "deal" (which is actually only a proposal as it's not agreed) but that would be no choice at all as no deal is too suicidal to be a serious option.

But it's not Mrs May who would be deciding the choice, it would be Parliament. It's Parliament that insisted on a meaningful vote as opposed to a take it or leave it Hobson's choice, so there would be little reason for Parliament to then saddle the public with a choice they had already rejected for themselves - Parliament insisted on being in charge at that point - that would achieve little other than putting the public over a barrel to achieve what Parliament didn't want in the first place.

The idea is to give them a ladder to climb out of a hole and that, given the unpopularity of booth an unacceptable fudge or no deal calamity is likely therefore to include the remain option. So say many parliamentarians and you may have noticed comments from the Labour front bench in support.

It's not certain and I agree you are right that disagreement and stalemate on the issue may prevent a fresh plebiscite but in that case the responsibility would still lie with Parliament. If Parliament remained unable to decide then that would also by definition mean they would not have an agreement to pass into legislation. If Parliament fails to pass the remaining legislation such as the keystone WAI bill then there is no constitutional change and despite the nonsense the government have spouted about the end date of March 29 2019 being in the EU (withdrawal) bill so we leave then automatically, that isn't actually true. The bill remains inactive. The default in the event of a failure to pass legislation is the present EU treaty remains in force under the 1972 EC act domestic law.

Then, the argument goes, that notice under Article 50(2) expires and we have failed to meet our constitutional requirements to leave under Article 50(1) so therefore we are still in.

Of course the government could ask for an extension under Article 50(3) but that would require agreement from all member states. They could do that and I'm told will be granted this for a referendum but there is some doubt it would be granted if the likelihood was continued nonsense.


----------



## Spandex

But parliament is just as affected by the unwillingness to defy 'the 52%' as government is.

The ridiculous problem faced by all politicians, whether in government or parliament, is that doing what's right for the country will be political suicide.


----------



## John-H

Yes that's the difficulty. Of help is pushing the illegality of the campaign as that undermines the political justification.

It's going to be debated in parliament now.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729

The debate is scheduled for 10 September. Could be an idea to encourage MPs to attend.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> it should never have been put to a referendum in the binary form it was with *no agreed plan*.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I find most disturbing. Utter madness and beyond belief.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious, you can't hold a referendum on leaving the EU with an agreed departure and/or future trade deal - Not in a million years would the EU negotiate deals on trade, migration etc with the UK prior to holding a in/out referendum. That's like me asking my boss "If I give you my notice, can I come back as a contractor on twice the money?" :lol:

Ultimately, it should never have been put to a binary decision.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> it should never have been put to a referendum in the binary form it was with *no agreed plan*.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I find most disturbing. Utter madness and beyond belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's hilarious, you can't hold a referendum on leaving the EU with an agreed departure and/or future trade deal - Not in a million years would the EU negotiate deals on trade, migration etc with the UK prior to holding a in/out referendum. That's like me asking my boss "If I give you my notice, can I come back as a contractor on twice the money?" :lol:
> 
> Ultimately, it should never have been put to a binary decision.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean a plan agreed with the EU - that's what the two years after Article 50(2) notice is there to discuss - I meant a plan agreed by the Brexit side on what their plan was to try and achieve.

For example whether we would be in the customs union and single market or not. During the referendum campaign some of them claimed this would be retained but then said things like being out of the ECJ jurisdiction which is incompatible. Some said we'd be in one and not the other or not in either and some out of the whole thing on WTO. They were playing fast and loose with the whole thing and saying all things to please as many as possible without the responsibility of a coherent and realistic plan. Yes it won them the referendum but now they are stuck in a hole.

The joke is they still don't know what they want and have made no preparation for change.

Yes it should never have been the ridiculous binary choice without meaning it was.


----------



## ashfinlayson

ashfinlayson said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> it should never have been put to a referendum in the binary form it was with *no agreed plan*.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I find most disturbing. Utter madness and beyond belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's hilarious, you can't hold a referendum on leaving the EU with an agreed departure and/or future trade deal - Not in a million years would the EU negotiate deals on trade, migration etc with the UK prior to holding a in/out referendum. That's like me asking my boss "If I give you my notice, can I come back as a contractor on twice the money?" :lol:
> 
> Ultimately, it should never have been put to a binary decision.
Click to expand...




John-H said:


> I didn't mean a plan agreed with the EU - that's what the two years after Article 50(2) notice is there to discuss - I meant a plan agreed by the Brexit side on what their plan was to try and achieve.


The current government is pro EU, no matter how much they spout on about _making a success of Brexit_, they're dragging their heels and will ultimately accept any rubbish that the EU put on the table when it gets late enough in the day to keep the UK as in as possible regardless of the economic impact. I think it was @Spandex that asked, if I predicted they wouldn't be able to organise any agreement, why vote out? Well I didn't predict that at the time of the referendum, in honesty, I didn't predict a leave vote to be successful, but I voted on my principles anyway, I didn't predict my MP would jack as PM and I didn't predict that a pro EU PM would replace him.



John-H said:


> For example whether we would be in the customs union and single market or not. During the referendum campaign some of them claimed this would be retained but then said things like being out of the ECJ jurisdiction which is incompatible. Some said we'd be in one and not the other or not in either. They were playing fast and loose with the whole thing and saying all things to please as many as possible without the responsibility of a coherent and realistic plan.


Yes and the remain campaigners said there would be an emergency austerity budget following an out vote, that 2 thirds of manufacturing jobs are reliant on EU membership and that there would be a boarder in Ireland. Reiterating whats been said before; both sides of the debate were pitiful. Granted Remain haven't yet been seen to have broken the law but after every election I remember, one or more sides has been deemed to have broken election law in some way and it has never resulted in a reelection. So as much as I agree that someone should be held to account for the above, I can't see that the result of that would be another referendum.


----------



## John-H

Exaggeration of the immediate consequences by the remain side and speculation about remain campaign cheating even if it were true would not make things fairer. That would only add to the unreliability of the result.

Project fear is rapidly becoming reality. We will need austerity, we will lose jobs and how can a border in Northern Ireland be avoided without regulatory alignment?

We could become a vassal state and have our fudge and eat it but some may spit that out.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Well I didn't predict that at the time of the referendum


I did. I wrote as much on here. It was entirely predictable, and I have zero sympathy for any leave voter foolish enough to think otherwise.


----------



## John-H

Is this stubbornness do you think?


----------



## bobclive22

> The Irish currently use their ports and airports to check only one per cent of goods arriving from anywhere outside the EU, let alone the UK. We live in a world of smartphone apps and electronic forms and Authorised Economic Operator schemes. There is no need for any kind of friction at the border at all.
> 
> As Jon Thompson, the head of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, told the House of Commons: 'We do not believe - and this has been our consistent advice to Ministers - we do not believe we require any infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances.'


So where is the problem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -deal.html


----------



## Spandex

Thanks BobBot. Anyone living on a desert island for the last few days might have missed that article. Good work.


----------



## A3DFU

> That's 10,000 shipping containers a day.


https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/s ... jay-rayner


----------



## Spandex

I've discovered what's wrong with the BobBot:


----------



## FJ1000

Macron calling out the BREXIT lies and EU sending Maybot packing - and the leavers are somehow surprised!?!

Of course the EU are going to look after their own interests. That's completely logical, and was predicted well in advance. This is not bullying- they've been very clear and consistent, but no progress is being made, and patience is clearly wearing thin.

The idiots saying that a deal would be easy have been exposed.

What a shambles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> Tim Martin of Wetherspoon, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Friday that he believed the company was "trundling along nicely," shortly after reporting full-year profits had increased 16.5 percent.
> 
> Wetherspoon's pre-tax profit after exceptional items rose to 89 million pounds ($116.7 million) in the year ended July 29, from 76.4 million pounds a year earlier. Like-for-like sales climbed 5 percent.


Must be the Brexit effect.


----------



## Spandex

I'm actually very happy that Wetherspoons is doing well. As long as Wetherspoons pubs exist, the rest of us can go to nice pubs safe in the knowledge that most of the gammon-faced bitter old Brexit bores are safely tucked away in one of those dumps where we don't have to listen to them.


----------



## John-H

Ah yes, Tim Martin and his - running the country is like running a pub mentality. Here's a piece I wrote for inclusion in his pub magazine in response to his nonsense:
https://www.oureu.uk/article.php?id=83


----------



## jjg

Spandex said:


> I'm actually very happy that Wetherspoons is doing well. As long as Wetherspoons pubs exist, the rest of us can go to nice pubs safe in the knowledge that most of the gammon-faced bitter old Brexit bores are safely tucked away in one of those dumps where we don't have to listen to them.


Been following this thread for some time.

Won't say which side of the fence I'm on but this post is a classic. Spandex for PM.


----------



## TRTT

jjg said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually very happy that Wetherspoons is doing well. As long as Wetherspoons pubs exist, the rest of us can go to nice pubs safe in the knowledge that most of the gammon-faced bitter old Brexit bores are safely tucked away in one of those dumps where we don't have to listen to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Been following this thread for some time.
> 
> Won't say which side of the fence I'm on but this post is a classic. Spandex for PM.
Click to expand...

+1 !!!!

On technicalities, I've just traded in my soon-to-be-former-eu-approved driving license for a shiny new German one.


----------



## John-H

Best two videos of the week:

Keir Starmer's standing ovation at the Labour conference when he calls for the campaign option of a People's Vote with an option to remain:

https://twitter.com/peoplesvote_uk/stat ... 26240?s=20

Jeremy Corbyn pays a visit to Mr Barnier to highlight the six tests:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45660640

Question time audience member calls the change:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... letterlink

Tory MP looks a bit of a lemon after stunt in local Tesco:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-5711110


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Why do I get a sense the British government is going to keep voting on this issue until they get the results they want. Didn't the EU pull that stunt on the Irish recently?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> Why do I get a sense the British government is going to keep voting on this issue until they get the results they want. Didn't the EU pull that stunt on the Irish recently?


Nah! It's the people that vote on the information presented at the time of the vote. It's called democracy, it's ongoing, and more of it is only opposed by those politicians who wish to deceive or dictate in the face of a changing reality.


----------



## John-H

Good news for Theresa May - the prankster wishing to hand her a P.45 
is spotted turning up too early.


----------



## John-H

https://mobile.twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/s ... 2434341888


----------



## A3DFU

Funnily I saw that on the German news, ZDF, yesterday.


----------



## John-H

After listening to Arlene Foster this morning....


----------



## bobclive22

> Spandex wrote:
> I'm actually very happy that Wetherspoons is doing well. As long as Wetherspoons pubs exist, the rest of us can go to nice pubs safe in the knowledge that most of the gammon-faced bitter old Brexit bores are safely tucked away in one of those dumps where we don't have to listen to them.


BM Catalysts Press on with European Expansion Plans, BM Catalysts is the largest independent manufacturer of high-quality aftermarket Catalytic Converters, Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) and Front Pipes in Europe.

Export sales are now making up well over 50% of the turnover of BM Catalysts, with that figure expected to grow dramatically over the coming years. At a time when Brexit negotiations continue to provide uncertainty over wide ranging issues, the move to further expand the Export Sales Department could be considered a bold one. *Commercial Director Mark Blinston sees uncertainty as opportunity though;*

http://www.bmcatalysts.co.uk/2017/08/01 ... ion-plans/


----------



## John-H

Spending £120 million pounds (!) of public money on a 'festival of Brexit' - seriously?!

Twitter has it: "A fete worse than death!"

I've just added my name to this open letter to stop this Brexit madness. Join me and add your name before it's delivered to Downing St!

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/br ... 0/?kdMOVbb

Also If you've not added your name to these two petitions for a People's Vote on the final deal please do so now:

http://www.peoples-vote.uk/

http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/final-say

Please pass onto everyone you know.

Don't forget the Peoples Vote march in London on Saturday 20th October.

See you there!


----------



## leopard

"Twitter has it" ... :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> BM Catalysts Press on with European Expansion Plans, BM Catalysts is the largest independent manufacturer of high-quality aftermarket Catalytic Converters, Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) and Front Pipes in Europe.
> 
> Export sales are now making up well over 50% of the turnover of BM Catalysts, with that figure expected to grow dramatically over the coming years. At a time when Brexit negotiations continue to provide uncertainty over wide ranging issues, the move to further expand the Export Sales Department could be considered a bold one. *Commercial Director Mark Blinston sees uncertainty as opportunity though;*
> 
> http://www.bmcatalysts.co.uk/2017/08/01 ... ion-plans/


You seem to be struggling with the concept BobBot, but it's not enough for _some_ companies to be ok after Brexit. That just won't cut it.

If you seriously look around at what's happening in this country as a result of what *you* voted for and think "this is going well", then you're even more stupid than I thought (and believe me, that would be a truly spectacular achievement).


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

(Bloomberg) -- German industry warned that Europe risks sinking into chaos and trade will collapse if U.K. and European Union leaders fail to resolve their differences on the future of Britain's relationship with the bloc, stepping up pressure amid a final push for a deal.
The fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/german-indu ... -1.1149318

Penny Mordaunt REFUSES back Theresa May

Mordaunt said: "I believe in honoring the result, we must also honor the motives and ambitions of that historic decision.
"In the past year, the British people have been wrongly opposed and have decided to leave, and you would be wrong to interpret Brexit as protectionist, nationalistic or selfish.
"Just as you would be wrong to interpret the skepticism that part of the audience has about aspects of British aid to a lack of love or logic on their part.
"Brexiteers and aid skeptics are not carefree, selfish little England." Indeed, it is often those people who give the greatest percentage of their income to help others.

https://www.archynety.com/news/brexitee ... end-up-39/

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-dail ... 6522007724

Spandex said,


> If you seriously look around at what's happening in this country as a result of what you voted for


Enlighten me,

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/fir ... ld-1205828

They can`t build them fast enough but it`s the 4 beds that are selling.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> (Bloomberg) -- German industry warned that Europe risks sinking into chaos and trade will collapse if U.K. and European Union leaders fail to resolve their differences on the future of Britain's relationship with the bloc, stepping up pressure amid a final push for a deal.
> The fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade.
> 
> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/german-indu ... -1.1149318
> 
> Penny Mordaunt REFUSES back Theresa May
> 
> Mordaunt said: "I believe in honoring the result, we must also honor the motives and ambitions of that historic decision.
> "In the past year, the British people have been wrongly opposed and have decided to leave, and you would be wrong to interpret Brexit as protectionist, nationalistic or selfish.
> "Just as you would be wrong to interpret the skepticism that part of the audience has about aspects of British aid to a lack of love or logic on their part.
> "Brexiteers and aid skeptics are not carefree, selfish little England." Indeed, it is often those people who give the greatest percentage of their income to help others.
> 
> https://www.archynety.com/news/brexitee ... end-up-39/
> 
> https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-dail ... 6522007724
> 
> ...


Of course there is a third option - a People's Vote with an option to remain (the best deal available is the one we've got already - everything else is either fraught with risk or has evaporated)


----------



## bobclive22

> Of course there is a third option - a People's Vote with an option to remain (the best deal available is the one we've got already - everything else is either fraught with risk or has evaporated)


John, the UK voted leave, get over it and move on.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Of course there is a third option - a People's Vote with an option to remain (the best deal available is the one we've got already - everything else is either fraught with risk or has evaporated)
> 
> 
> 
> John, the UK voted leave, get over it and move on.
Click to expand...

You sound so 2016 Bob :roll: Things have indeed moved on, unfortunately, you've been left behind :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Spandex said,
> 
> 
> 
> If you seriously look around at what's happening in this country as a result of what you voted for
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten me,
> 
> https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/fir ... ld-1205828
> 
> They can`t build them fast enough but it`s the 4 beds that are selling.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't enlighten you because I genuinely have no clue what you think your article demonstrates about the entire countries fortunes outside Europe.

Talking to you is like talking to a bad AI. You respond in a way that appears vaguely human but your answers, although broadly about the topic at hand, don't actually address anything the other person is saying. It's like you have a big list of points you want to make, and you just cram them in regardless of what the other person says.


----------



## John-H

Top Tweet:



> May is twisting and turning in increasingly contorted attempts to keep her government together. Brexit hardliners forced the weak Cameron to hold the referendum when few wanted one. Now May similarly weak. A braver PM wd state there's only one solution to Irish Question : Remain
> 
> - steve richards (@steverichards14) October 15, 2018


----------



## John-H

*10 broken promises*

A cross-party group of MPs has challenged the government to explain how 10 *key promises* made during the referendum will be kept. They ask how Brexit can:

(1) Have the "exact same benefits" as we get from EU membership

(2) Be fully negotiated by March 2019

(3) Produce a dividend from Europe worth £350m per week for our NHS

(4) Result in new trade deals from day one after leaving

(5) Deliver more jobs and higher wages across the UK

(6) Mean no payments for access to the Single Market

(7) Ensure an end to free movement in March 2019

(8) Fully protect the integrity of the UK

(9) End austerity

(10) Mean a complete end to EU rules and regulations from March 2019?

These are benchmarks against which any Brexit deal must be judged. And if these promises are not kept, the country has every right to ask whether it really wants to proceed.

*Join us on the People's Vote and Independent ...

March for the Future

... on Saturday in London
*
https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march?utm_c ... _source=in


----------



## bobclive22

> I honestly can't enlighten you because I genuinely have no clue what you think your article demonstrates about the entire countries fortunes outside Europe.


It demonstrates Spandex, that even though there is a constant barrage of project fear relating to the outcome of Brexit houses are being built and sold in large numbers in the area where I live and elswhere.



> Wood said construction workers - many of whom moved to Britain from Eastern Europe - were becoming harder to find, but there was no sign of housing investment drying up ahead of Britain's scheduled departure from the EU in March 2019.
> 
> Housing starts rose by nearly 20 per cent in Wales and parts of central England, and crept up by 1 per cent in London - the first increase in the capital since 2011


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 77061.html

*Increase in house building delivers huge boost to UK economy*

Industry now generating £38bn a year and supporting 700k jobs
The 74% increase in house building activity in the past four years has provided a huge boost to the UK economy. Research in a new report by planning and development consultancy Lichfields shows that the house building industry in England and Wales is now worth £38bn a year and supports nearly 700,000 jobs. House building activity contributes economically in different ways including providing jobs, tax revenues and contributing funding for local infrastructure and communities. And with Government targeting further increases in supply, the knock-on benefits are set to increase still further.

https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/increase-hou ... k-economy/

Thicko.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> It demonstrates Spandex, that even though there is a constant barrage of project fear relating to the outcome of Brexit houses are being built and sold in large numbers in the area where I live and elswhere.


I went to the petrol station yesterday, and it was still open, with plenty of fuel for sale. Also, my office hadn't shut down and relocated to Belgium. At no point did I find myself fighting my way through a post-apocalyptic landscape. It hadn't occurred to me that this was actually all a sign that Brexit was a roaring success.


----------



## FJ1000

Spandex said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates Spandex, that even though there is a constant barrage of project fear relating to the outcome of Brexit houses are being built and sold in large numbers in the area where I live and elswhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the petrol station yesterday, and it was still open, with plenty of fuel for sale. Also, my office hadn't shut down and relocated to Belgium. At no point did I find myself fighting my way through a post-apocalyptic landscape. It hadn't occurred to me that this was actually all a sign that Brexit was a roaring success.
Click to expand...

Lol!

I think the bar for "roaring success", in the eyes of Leavers, has definitely got lower and lower to the point it's pretty comical now.

It started off with all the false patriotism and fantasy that we'd be a global superpower if free of the EU.

Now, even if we have a recession but avoid rations, that'll probably do!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

FJ1000 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates Spandex, that even though there is a constant barrage of project fear relating to the outcome of Brexit houses are being built and sold in large numbers in the area where I live and elswhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the petrol station yesterday, and it was still open, with plenty of fuel for sale. Also, my office hadn't shut down and relocated to Belgium. At no point did I find myself fighting my way through a post-apocalyptic landscape. It hadn't occurred to me that this was actually all a sign that Brexit was a roaring success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol!
> 
> I think the bar for "roaring success", in the eyes of Leavers, has definitely got lower and lower to the point it's pretty comical now.
> 
> It started off with all the false patriotism and fantasy that we'd be a global superpower if free of the EU.
> 
> Now, even if we have a recession but avoid rations, that'll probably do!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Funny that the next recession will undoubtably be blamed on Brexit, but the truth is that the UK is due another one in the next few years anyway.


----------



## Stiff

FJ1000 said:


> It started off with all the false patriotism...










'False patriotism'? What on earth is that supposed to mean? You're either patriotic or your not.



FJ1000 said:


> ...and fantasy that we'd be a global superpower if free of the EU.










I don't recall that ever been bandied around anywhere. I think your making things up here.



FJ1000 said:


> Now, even if we have a recession but avoid rations, that'll probably do!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Crapatalk


I think Ash nailed that with his previous comment.


----------



## John-H

Sounded more like lining up an excuse to me. Even if you accept the assumption/prediction that a recession will eventually come around anyway, do you honestly think Brexit will make it better? Does anyone think Brexit is going well? Seriously?

Hopefully it won't happen if there's enough rage with what's going on:


----------



## A3DFU

An excellent video, John [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Sounded more like lining up an excuse to me.


An excuse for what? Something that would inevitably happen anyway? Had the outcome been remain would it still be an excuse then?



John-H said:


> Even if you accept the assumption/prediction that a recession will eventually come around anyway, do you honestly think Brexit will make it better?


Probably not but there's no real way of knowing. One thing's guaranteed though, brexit will be blamed for it regardless (or at very least, the level of it).



John-H said:


> Does anyone think Brexit is going well? Seriously?


No, of course not. It's an utter shambles.



John-H said:


> Hopefully it won't happen if there's enough rage with what's going on:


Hopefully. But I'm not holding my breath.
If it were reversed though, don't you think there will be enough rage from the opposing side?


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded more like lining up an excuse to me.
> 
> 
> 
> An excuse for what? Something that would inevitably happen anyway? Had the outcome been remain would it still be an excuse then?
Click to expand...

A recognition that Brexit is going to damage the economy but then by saying, well we were due a recession anyway, substituting a reason. Of course the closed car factories and migrated businesses might be a give away as to the real cause.

Had remain won then the status quo would have been maintained - no change. How could you possibly blame a recession on no change as a "cause"? So no, I think is the answer to that one :wink:



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you accept the assumption/prediction that a recession will eventually come around anyway, do you honestly think Brexit will make it better?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not but there's no real way of knowing. One thing's guaranteed though, brexit will be blamed for it regardless (or at very least, the level of it).
Click to expand...

Again, wouldn't the closed factories be a way of knowing and yes Brexit would be the clear cause. Astrazeneca who contribute something like 2% of our GDP have frozen all UK investment and have already irrevocably decided to transfer £1.3 billion of drugs procurement business out of the UK as contingency.



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone think Brexit is going well? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> No, of course not. It's an utter shambles.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully it won't happen if there's enough rage with what's going on:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hopefully. But I'm not holding my breath.
> If it were reversed though, don't you think there will be enough rage from the opposing side?
Click to expand...

I actually think there will be a lot of people breathing a sigh of relief and Johnson, Gove and Farage will be busted flushes and won't be believed again. They might get egged if they tried.

After all the evidence we've seen we know a lot more now and all the lies are being exposed.

It was always a case of stick with the status quo and nothing changes greatly but you can manage sensible change as you go along.

Vote leave was a massive gamble. It doesn't seem to be paying off.

As we've got some time left should we be forced to go through with it? Or should we be able to change our minds?

David Davis himself said, _*"If a democracy cannot change its mind it ceases to be a democracy."*_

It's funny how words come back to haunt.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> David Davis himself said, "If a democracy cannot change its mind it ceases to be a democracy."
> 
> It's funny how words come back to haunt


Still got to wait the five years after a General Election...

( It's the sentiment, try not to retort the
"EU referendum is permanent" reasoning guff)


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Davis himself said, "If a democracy cannot change its mind it ceases to be a democracy."
> 
> It's funny how words come back to haunt
> 
> 
> 
> Still got to wait the five years after a General Election...
> 
> ( It's the sentiment, try not to retort the
> "EU referendum is permanent" reasoning guff)
Click to expand...

I know Spitfire polishing is a sentimental exercise :wink: but if it helps; with a general election, once the vote is counted MPs instantly become elected and can form a government, so yes, you'd then have to wait until the next vote to indicate a change of mind. That could be in five years due to the fixed term parliament act or indeed earlier if the elected MPs fail to form a government with a working majority etc.

With the EU referendum however it was never possible to instantly implement leaving the EU as the process is set out in treaty and constitutionally. Part of the process involves negotiating where you end up as it was never possible to "just leave" because the question arises "where to?" How are we going to trade and feed ourselves etc. As it hasn't happened yet and the Article 50 process is not concluded and can be rescinded, we do indeed have the opportunity to change our minds before any permanent change happens. Parliament is sovereign and can decide that. They can also decide that a People's Vote would be needed to indicate the present will of the people.

Tell me, how do you think Brexit is going?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Come on John, you bang on about stats and what the experts say in every other post, surely you've seen some stats on economic growth? If you had, you would know that the UK economy goes into the recession every 10-20 years without fail, and that historically, the severity of a recession is directly linked to 2 factors, time since last decline and how tightly coupled an economy is with other affected economies. The suggestion that I'm lining up excuses for the next 'bexit caused' recession is laughable


----------



## John-H

I presume you've made lots of money from such reliable predictions of a chaotic system? Isn't that like predicting the next ice age? Such predictions by definition are not reliable.

Factories closing because of friction at borders and quantifiable economic penalties seems like a far more tangible predictor of our economic performance.

The government's own Brecit impact studies predict a drop in GDP of between 3% and 16% depending on the deal or lack of it. That's far more authoritative than either of us:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

So, how do you think Brexit is going?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> I presume you've made lots of money from such reliable predictions of a chaotic system? Isn't that like predicting the next ice age? Such predictions by definition are not reliable.
> 
> Factories closing because of friction at borders and quantifiable economic penalties seems like a far more tangible predictor of our economic performance.
> 
> The government's own Brecit impact studies predict a drop in GDP of between 3% and 16% depending on the deal or lack of it. That's far more authoritative than either of us:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp
> 
> So, how do you think Brexit is going?


John, I'm talking about historical data, it tends to be a lot more reliable than forecasts.

I wonder how much friction there would actually be? Simon Wolfson was saying the other day that most of Next's products come from outside the EU with no checks at the border.

You put JIT manufacturing on this huge pedestal, but is it really all it's cracked up to be? Taking the car industry for example, they've never had it so good: Vehicles are paid for by the customer/finance company, a couple of months down the road, they are built, creating 0 business risk to the manufacturer. The poor workers on the production line are forced to be on stand-up or stand-down on a moments notice based on demand, forced to work as much as 12+ hour shifts, 6 days a week in busy periods to make up for that fact that they're living on as little as 3 days a week during the lulls - Sounds similar to 0 hours contracts right? Having to work in very high demand situations with very little recompense in terms of a good wage, while the execs get paid enormous salaries and bonuses. Yet they still have archaic practices like factory shut-down so the poor sods on the line can't afford a decent holiday when they can plan their time. All so Joe blogs can have the option of phone prep or LEDs in his car.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you've made lots of money from such reliable predictions of a chaotic system? Isn't that like predicting the next ice age? Such predictions by definition are not reliable.
> 
> Factories closing because of friction at borders and quantifiable economic penalties seems like a far more tangible predictor of our economic performance.
> 
> The government's own Brecit impact studies predict a drop in GDP of between 3% and 16% depending on the deal or lack of it. That's far more authoritative than either of us:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp
> 
> So, how do you think Brexit is going?
> 
> 
> 
> John, I'm talking about historical data, it tends to be a lot more reliable than forecasts.
Click to expand...

Well yes. Historical data is on record as fact. Forecasts are about things that haven't happened yet so are more uncertain. Especially chaotic systems like the weather or stock markets.

I'm talking about the known and quantifiable effect of what's being proposed. The studies have already been done. Manufacturers are already withdrawing investment and warning about factory closures. There's no comparison regarding which is a reliable prediction.



ashfinlayson said:


> I wonder how much friction there would actually be? Simon Wolfson was saying the other day that most of Next's products come from outside the EU with no checks at the border.
> 
> You put JIT manufacturing on this huge pedestal, but is it really all it's cracked up to be? Taking the car industry for example, they've never had it so good: Vehicles are paid for by the customer/finance company, a couple of months down the road, they are built, creating 0 business risk to the manufacturer. The poor workers on the production line are forced to be on stand-up or stand-down on a moments notice based on demand, forced to work as much as 12+ hour shifts, 6 days a week in busy periods to make up for that fact that they're living on as little as 3 days a week during the lulls - Sounds similar to 0 hours contracts right? Having to work in very high demand situations with very little recompense in terms of a good wage, while the execs get paid enormous salaries and bonuses. Yet they still have archaic practices like factory shut-down so the poor sods on the line can't afford a decent holiday when they can plan their time. All so Joe blogs can have the option of phone prep or LEDs in his car.


40 years ago we had 2,000 customs officers handling trade in Dover from France and Germany etc. Now we've got 200 officers. In those 40 years we've had the single market and a four fold increase in trade traffic. 10,000 trucks per day. Not just car manufacturers. Does that answer your question?

Please answer mine: How do you think Brexit is going?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Yes, there were also a lot more police officers, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, social workers and councillors too. I suppose that is the fault of Brexit as well.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Yes, there were also a lot more police officers, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, social workers and councillors too. I suppose that is the fault of Brexit as well.


What have border controls got to do with police and fire officers?

The reduction of customs officers was due to a lack of need for them due to the single market.

To do the same level of checking with today's frictionless border if border checks were re-introduced would require an army of 8,000 officers. Clearly preposterous.

I was trying to illustrate to you the scale of change we should all be worried about.

Do you think re-introducing such border checks will help trade? Look to the historical data.

So how do you think Brexit is going? Are you not going to answer?


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> 40 years ago we had 2,000 customs officers handling trade in Dover from France and Germany etc. Now we've got 200 officers.


Possibly the same reason it now only takes a fraction of manual workers to build a car, than it did 40 years ago :wink:


----------



## ashfinlayson

My point was that the public sector workforce has hugely declined, so saying that there are less people working in customs is due to being in the EU is a misnomer. In fact, if you spoke to someone working in the sector, I suspect they would tell you that their budget and workforce are stretched, just like every other public sector department. Some people might consider 3,600 less people working in customs as a bad thing, that's 3,600 less jobs in the region. But Barry raises a good point, a lot of these reductions would also be down to advancements in technology, not joining the EU.

Going back to my previous point, Simon Wolfson said that Next's goods from outside the EU aren't checked at the border, like many other business' goods, so how many extra checks are needed at the border? I suspect, just like the £350m/week, the 8,000 border staff is also exaggerated.

You keep twittering on about a question I've already answered, but I'll reiterate for you



ashfinlayson said:


> The current government is pro EU, no matter how much they spout on about making a success of Brexit, they're dragging their heels and will ultimately accept any rubbish that the EU put on the table when it gets late enough in the day to keep the UK as in as possible regardless of the economic impact.


Obviously I don't think Brexit is going well. But I feel, that you are holding me (and other Brexit voters) personally responsible for the actions or inactions of government. I instructed the government as per the options on the ballet paper. There was not a free-text comment section where I could instruct the government to do X Y and Z also. So by all means, have your protest marches as is your democratic right, but do not presume that I should feel that I have made a mistake in exercising mine.


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years ago we had 2,000 customs officers handling trade in Dover from France and Germany etc. Now we've got 200 officers.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the same reason it now only takes a fraction of manual workers to build a car, than it did 40 years ago :wink:
Click to expand...

Actually rather than take my word for it, take that of someone who knows.






John Shirley freight forwarders talks about the port of Dover and how our present 200 customs officers won't cope with no deal - it's a totally disastrous situation to get into. We've made no preparation for this.

Apparently we used to have 2,000 customs officers before the single market but freight has increased four fold since then so we'd need 8,000 now to handle the 10,000 daily truck traffic. The car park there is already full from the 1% of that traffic that currently requires customs clearance.



ashfinlayson said:


> My point was that the public sector workforce has hugely declined, so saying that there are less people working in customs is due to being in the EU is a misnomer. In fact, if you spoke to someone working in the sector, I suspect they would tell you that their budget and workforce are stretched, just like every other public sector department. Some people might consider 3,600 less people working in customs as a bad thing, that's 3,600 less jobs in the region. But Barry raises a good point, a lot of these reductions would also be down to advancements in technology, not joining the EU.
> 
> Going back to my previous point, Simon Wolfson said that Next's goods from outside the EU aren't checked at the border, like many other business' goods, so how many extra checks are needed at the border? I suspect, just like the £350m/week, the 8,000 border staff is also exaggerated.
> 
> You keep twittering on about a question I've already answered, but I'll reiterate for you
> 
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current government is pro EU, no matter how much they spout on about making a success of Brexit, they're dragging their heels and will ultimately accept any rubbish that the EU put on the table when it gets late enough in the day to keep the UK as in as possible regardless of the economic impact.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I don't think Brexit is going well. But I feel, that you are holding me (and other Brexit voters) personally responsible for the actions or inactions of government. I instructed the government as per the options on the ballet paper. There was not a free-text comment section where I could instruct the government to do X Y and Z also. So by all means, have your protest marches as is your democratic right, but do not presume that I should feel that I have made a mistake in exercising mine.
Click to expand...

The reduction in border officers is down to the lack of a need for checking. Have you checked if Next are importing under an EU zero tariff FTA?

But thanks for agreeing that Brexit is not going well. So many people who voted leave avoid answering or blame the government for not achieving the impossible.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> But I feel, that you are holding me (and other Brexit voters) personally responsible for the actions or inactions of government. I instructed the government as per the options on the ballet paper. There was not a free-text comment section where I could instruct the government to do X Y and Z also. So by all means, have your protest marches as is your democratic right, but do not presume that I should feel that I have made a mistake in exercising mine.


I can't speak for John, but I certainly am holding you and everyone else who voted for Brexit responsible for the governments actions.

To re-use an analogy, if you bet your house on a horse race and lose, it is your fault you lost your house, not the horses, or the jockeys, or the trainers. When you choose to gamble, you are responsible for the outcome of that gamble, even if you're not directly responsible for the thing you're betting on.

The fact that anyone with any experience of our politicians, and our current government in particular, thought that they could be trusted to handle the most important, most risky and potentially most damaging political process we will ever experience, is staggering. I honestly feel a bit disgusted when I hear a leave voter saying "if it's going badly, it's the governments fault" - Who the bloody hell did you think you were entrusting to do it??!?! Seriously...


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> barry_m2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years ago we had 2,000 customs officers handling trade in Dover from France and Germany etc. Now we've got 200 officers.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the same reason it now only takes a fraction of manual workers to build a car, than it did 40 years ago :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually rather than take my word for it, take that of someone who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Shirley freight forwarders talks about the port of Dover and how our present 200 customs officers won't cope with no deal - it's a totally disastrous situation to get into. We've made no preparation for this.
> 
> Apparently we used to have 2,000 customs officers before the single market but freight has increased four fold since then so we'd need 8,000 now to handle the 10,000 daily truck traffic. The car park there is already full from the 1% of that traffic that currently requires customs clearance.
Click to expand...

Based on 1970's figures. It's 2018 John. A four-fold increase on the current 200 customs officers, is 800. :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I feel, that you are holding me (and other Brexit voters) personally responsible for the actions or inactions of government. I instructed the government as per the options on the ballet paper. There was not a free-text comment section where I could instruct the government to do X Y and Z also. So by all means, have your protest marches as is your democratic right, but do not presume that I should feel that I have made a mistake in exercising mine.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for John, but I certainly am holding you and everyone else who voted for Brexit responsible for the governments actions.
> 
> To re-use an analogy, if you bet your house on a horse race and lose, it is your fault you lost your house, not the horses, or the jockeys, or the trainers. When you choose to gamble, you are responsible for the outcome of that gamble, even if you're not directly responsible for the thing you're betting on.
> 
> The fact that anyone with any experience of our politicians, and our current government in particular, thought that they could be trusted to handle the most important, most risky and potentially most damaging political process we will ever experience, is staggering. I honestly feel a bit disgusted when I hear a leave voter saying "if it's going badly, it's the governments fault" - Who the bloody hell did you think you were entrusting to do it??!?! Seriously...
Click to expand...

TBH Spandex, based on some of your posts that I've read, you strike me as the sort that blames all your problems on others, so I tend to not pay much attention. But going on your analogy; You wouldn't expect to be able to bet your house again, knowing the outcome of the race either.


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually rather than take my word for it, take that of someone who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Shirley freight forwarders talks about the port of Dover and how our present 200 customs officers won't cope with no deal - it's a totally disastrous situation to get into. We've made no preparation for this.
> 
> Apparently we used to have 2,000 customs officers before the single market but freight has increased four fold since then so we'd need 8,000 now to handle the 10,000 daily truck traffic. The car park there is already full from the 1% of that traffic that currently requires customs clearance.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on 1970's figures. It's 2018 John. A four-fold increase on the current 200 customs officers, is 800. :lol:
Click to expand...

No, the for fold increase in the number of trucks is to be applied to the then level of private customs clerks, then 2,000 x 4 = 8,000 - watch the video - and it still doesn't change the fact that customs checks and delay will be required whereas they aren't now which is what they are all complaining about.

It doesn't change what the government's own impact statements say either. They were done by the impartial civil service suppressed and then eventually leaked.

We certainly won't be better off. The best we seem to be hoping for now is that it won't be quite as bad as it could have been. What an inspiration :roll:


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> TBH Spandex, based on some of your posts that I've read, you strike me as the sort that blames all your problems on others, so I tend to not pay much attention.


Instead of getting defensive and inventing feeble digs at me, try thinking about what I said. When you voted, you didn't just vote for the best Brexit imaginable, you voted for the current government to do 'something', knowing full well that 'something' was open to interpretation and was incredibly complex and might be a complete disaster.


ashfinlayson said:


> But going on your analogy; You wouldn't expect to be able to bet your house again, knowing the outcome of the race either.


Yeah, it was an analogy about taking responsibility for a gamble, it wasn't an analogy that encompasses every aspect of Brexit. I mean, if I bet my house on a horse I probably wouldn't have to negotiate how the Irish border controls would work before I could claim my winnings either. But you probably realised that, didn't you...


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> No


Yes


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> To re-use an analogy, if you bet your house on a horse race and lose, it is your fault you lost your house, not the horses, or the jockeys, or the trainers. When you choose to gamble, you are responsible for the outcome of that gamble, even if you're not directly responsible for the thing you're betting on.


What absolute, utter, utter *bollox*. *Nobody* was asked to _gamble_ anything. They were given a vote on something with promises for either outcome. How on earth can the voter be blamed? Sheesh Spandex, _most_ of the stuff you come out with is very sensibly put forward and on point but this is laughable and downright sanctimonious. :roll:



Spandex said:


> The fact that anyone with any experience of our politicians, and our current government in particular, thought that they could be trusted to handle the most important, most risky and potentially most damaging political process we will ever experience, is staggering. *I honestly feel a bit disgusted when I hear a leave voter saying "if it's going badly, it's the governments fault" *- Who the bloody hell did you think you were entrusting to do it??!?! Seriously...


Of course it's the government's fault! Who the f%uck do you think started the ball rolling in the first place? If they didn't want us to leave - or have any kind of plan for it - then *they* are the ones to blame for the whole debacle. *Obviously*.



ashfinlayson said:


> TBH Spandex, based on some of your posts that I've read, you strike me as the sort that blames all your problems on others, so I tend to not pay much attention. But going on your analogy; You wouldn't expect to be able to bet your house again, knowing the outcome of the race either.


Nail - Head again.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> What absolute, utter, utter *bollox*. *Nobody* was asked to _gamble_ anything. They were given a vote on something with promises for either outcome. How on earth can the voter be blamed? Sheesh Spandex, _most_ of the stuff you come out with is very sensibly put forward and on point but this is laughable and downright sanctimonious. :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you believe every promise anyone makes??

No, you weren't asked to gamble. You're supposed to have the modicum of sense required to work out it's a gamble yourself. Unless you're the kind of credulous fool who believes everything a politician tells him. Are you?

If not, then that means you knew it was a gamble.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Davis himself said, "If a democracy cannot change its mind it ceases to be a democracy."
> 
> It's funny how words come back to haunt
> 
> 
> 
> Still got to wait the five years after a General Election...
> 
> ( It's the sentiment, try not to retort the
> "EU referendum is permanent" reasoning guff)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know Spitfire polishing is a sentimental exercise :wink: but if it helps; with a general election, once the vote is counted MPs instantly become elected and can form a government, so yes, you'd then have to wait until the next vote to indicate a change of mind. That could be in five years due to the fixed term parliament act or indeed earlier if the elected MPs fail to form a government with a working majority etc.
> 
> With the EU referendum however it was never possible to instantly implement leaving the EU as the process is set out in treaty and constitutionally. Part of the process involves negotiating where you end up as it was never possible to "just leave" because the question arises "where to?" How are we going to trade and feed ourselves etc. As it hasn't happened yet and the Article 50 process is not concluded and can be rescinded, we do indeed have the opportunity to change our minds before any permanent change happens. Parliament is sovereign and can decide that. They can also decide that a People's Vote would be needed to indicate the present will of the people.
> 
> Tell me, how do you think Brexit is going?
Click to expand...

Naughty, naughty, like I said without the guff lol.

To answer your question, heels are being dragged but
we should go for a no deal and get on with it.


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...

I think you need to read it again and for the source of the information watch the video.

Just a few points I missed:

The customs people being referred to are private customs clerks not public servants. In the 70's there were 2,000 of them.The number of trucks has gone up four fold.

Yes it was certainly Cameron's fault for organising a referendum and the fault of them politicians for going along with it and not following the advice of the House of Commons library to require a super majority for a constitutional change.

Then of course you can blame all the liars cheats and criminal overspending during the campaign.

Some responsibility of judgement should also be assigned following on from that though. After all many people did think remain means nothing changes but leave is a gamble.

If you did believe that it would be easy to sort out a trade deal on day one, there would be £350m for the NHS, we wouldn't have to follow EU rules any more, we'd be better off, sunlit sovereign uplands etc., then why argue with remainers now?

Vent your rage at the government and those who lied to you instead!






See you tomorrow on the march!


----------



## bobclive22

*EU aims to tie Britain on tax after Brexit *- PressReader

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-dail ... 2162293434


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *EU aims to tie Britain on tax after Brexit *- PressReader
> 
> https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-dail ... 2162293434


The EU want to do what's in their members best interest?? OMG! That's outrageous! Glad we're out of that little club.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *EU aims to tie Britain on tax after Brexit *- PressReader
> 
> https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-dail ... 2162293434


The EU want to do what's in their members best interest?? OMG! That's outrageous! Glad we're out of that little club.


----------



## John-H

Thanks to everyone who joined us on the march in London on Saturday. It was the second biggest protest march ever in the UK with over 700,000 people on the streets marching for the future to the sound of marching drums, whistles, horns and huge spontaneous travelling waves of roaring from the crowd. It was so big and took such a long time to move such a mass of people that by the time we shuffled into Trafalgar Square in the backed up throng at 4:30 pm, we still hadn't yet reached Parliament Square and all the speeches had finished!

To make up for missing the end was the great feeling to be involved in this historic march and a mark of its success that it was so big.

For everyone that didn't see the speeches and to get a birds eye impression of just how big this was, here is the best video I've found of the event. It's in real time and very long but you can skip through. The first half is uninterrupted helicopter footage and the speeches are towards the end. Be impressed!






Please also now keep up the momentum. Politicians will take note of the size of this march. Write to your MP and DEMAND A PEOPLE'S VOTE! Use this pre-filled letter which you can edit with your own words - it only takes a few minutes. Just enter your postcode to find your MP. Every letter they get is counted and the views collected - they can't ignore us now:

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/write_this_wrong

Cheers,
John


----------



## bobclive22

Lets see John,

We have the so called Peoples remoaners, funded by wealthy remoaners, backed up with wealthy remoaning celebs, all attending a remoaners march in remoaners London where in the referendom all 33 boroughs voted remain* 59.9% or 2.26 million,* (all singinging from the same hymn book), I believe *600,000 *attended the march many came from outside the London Boroughs, seems to be a few remoaner voters missing from the march, probably changed their minds to leave.


----------



## bobclive22

> Spandex, The EU want to do what's in their members best interest?? OMG! That's outrageous! Glad we're out of that little club.


EU exactly, you vill not leave the club, if you do ve vill destroy you.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> EU exactly, you vill not leave the club, if you do ve vill destroy you.


Not sure what your point is. We knew the EU wouldn't help us leave easily (well, apart from any idiot who said "they need us more than we need them"). Why should they? Seems a bit dumb to act all self-righteous because they're now doing exactly what they should do, and exactly what we'd do if we were staying and another country was leaving.

Hardly a great reason to leave though, is it? 'Look how well they protect each other - lets make sure we can't benefit from that"


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Please also now keep up the momentum. Politicians will take note of the size of this march. Write to your MP and DEMAND A PEOPLE'S VOTE! Use this pre-filled letter which you can edit with your own words - it only takes a few minutes. Just enter your postcode to find your MP. Every letter they get is counted and the views collected - they can't ignore us now:
> 
> https://www.peoples-vote.uk/write_this_wrong
> 
> Cheers,
> John


lol, the dream factory...


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Lets see John,
> 
> We have the so called Peoples remoaners, funded by wealthy remoaners, backed up with wealthy remoaning celebs, all attending a remoaners march in remoaners London where in the referendom all 33 boroughs voted remain* 59.9% or 2.26 million,* (all singinging from the same hymn book), I believe *600,000 *attended the march many came from outside the London Boroughs, seems to be a few remoaner voters missing from the march, probably changed their minds to leave.


You seem a little bitter Bob. Is it because you don't think the leave side could mount such a large demonstration - despite all the money from Russia via Aaron Banks etc.? I put "Bitter Bob" into Google for a laugh and found this:









Obviously not you :wink:



leopard said:


> ...we should go for a no deal and get on with it.


Get on with what?












leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please also now keep up the momentum. Politicians will take note of the size of this march. Write to your MP and DEMAND A PEOPLE'S VOTE! Use this pre-filled letter which you can edit with your own words - it only takes a few minutes. Just enter your postcode to find your MP. Every letter they get is counted and the views collected - they can't ignore us now:
> 
> https://www.peoples-vote.uk/write_this_wrong
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> lol, the dream factory...
Click to expand...

As opposed to your no-deal nightmare? Yes I think most people and MPs would prefer the more positive outcome. Again, Thanks for highlighting


----------



## FJ1000

bobclive22 said:


> Lets see John,
> 
> We have the so called Peoples remoaners, funded by wealthy remoaners, backed up with wealthy remoaning celebs, all attending a remoaners march in remoaners London where in the referendom all 33 boroughs voted remain* 59.9% or 2.26 million,* (all singinging from the same hymn book), I believe *600,000 *attended the march many came from outside the London Boroughs, seems to be a few remoaner voters missing from the march, probably changed their minds to leave.


I'm too lazy to get out on a march, but good on John for doing so - and great to see such a massive turnout!

When can we expect the Leavers to mount their magic unicorns and march? Or do they fly?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

While I applaud the turn out, an impressive achievement for any protest. 2.5m voted for a pro _peoples vote_ party in the most recent election, 26m voted for parties that appose another referendum. Yes, an election from a year ago, but most of what we found out post referendum, we knew pre election. If there really was the appetite for another referendum as militant Remainers are saying, there would have been a landslide Liberal victory, not 8 seats in parliament. So 25% of the number of those that voted pro EU in the last election marched - an amazing turn out, but never the less, a case of the smallest majority shouting the loudest.

Do you really think the nation has the appetite to spend another £150m on what would probably be the same answer?


----------



## bobclive22

> You seem a little bitter Bob. Is it because you don't think the leave side could mount such a large demonstration - despite all the money from Russia via Aaron Banks etc.? I put "Bitter Bob" into Google for a laugh and found this:


John, how can I be bitter, I voted leave and leave won, we don`t need to mount a demonstration, Sticks and stones John, the auguments lost once you start name calling, anyway it`s the numbers, the organisers had to bring in remoaners from all over the country and still couldn`t reach the 2.26 million London referendum remain votes. [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Spandex

I think maybe BobBot doesn't understand how protests work... :lol:


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> While I applaud the turn out, an impressive achievement for any protest. 2.5m voted for a pro _peoples vote_ party in the most recent election, 26m voted for parties that appose another referendum.


That's not quite correct. Whilst it may be true that Labour did not fight the election on the basis of another referendum, because there apparently was no need, they did however fight the election on the basis of Keir Starmer's six tests, holding the government to account to its promise of providing "the exact same benefits" as EU membership to which the Prime Minister agreed. Basically that we will be no worse off.

It's a good job they did because it's now clear that the exact same benefits can't be achieved. We'll be far worse off.

So now, given the quandary that their manifesto was to protect jobs, rights and the economy, providing the exact same benefits etc but all the EU leaving scenarios leave us worse off. Then the only way of keeping to their manifesto commitments appears to be to remain in the EU.

In those circumstances it would be quite reasonable for Labour to either vote down the legislation that will make us worse off and remain in the EU or/and call for a referendum to solve the problem.

You certainly cannot say that Labour promised not to hold a referendum. That certainly was not in their manifesto. The situation has also now changed as the facts have become clear and everything is still on the table.

So that argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I certainly knew that when I voted.



ashfinlayson said:


> Yes, an election from a year ago, but most of what we found out post referendum, we knew pre election.


Certainly a lot of things were talked about but they were disputed. I might say I knew it would all turn out badly but other people were of an opposite opinion. Only recently have many things become clear, most of them bad. And we are still right now in an uncertain situation as to whether a deal is possible with the government stockpiling food and drugs and building a huge lorry park on the M4. You can't claim "we knew this" before the general election.



ashfinlayson said:


> If there really was the appetite for another referendum as militant Remainers are saying, there would have been a landslide Liberal victory, not 8 seats in parliament.


For so many reasons that could not be presumed then and would equally not necessarily be true now.



ashfinlayson said:


> So 25% of the number of those that voted pro EU in the last election marched - an amazing turn out, but never the less, a case of the smallest majority shouting the loudest.


Are you claiming that all the people on the march were Liberal Democrats?

I can assure you that the political alignment of those on the march was across the board.



ashfinlayson said:


> Do you really think the nation has the appetite to spend another £150m on what would probably be the same answer?


That cost would be peanuts to the cost of the damage that will be inflicted on our economy if we leave the EU. It's already costing us £500m per week in comparison to where we should have been had we decided not to, casting the £350m p/w saving claim for the NHS into the bin. UK GDP is around £2 Trillion and the government's own estimates of leaving the EU are a loss of GDP between 3% and 16%.

I certainly think most people are fed up with the whole debacle and will be glad to see Article 50(2) notice rescinded which would bring the whole sorry mess to an end and so it would all seem a bad dream. I think that will be quite an appeal.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> I think maybe BobBot doesn't understand how protests work... :lol:


Perhaps Bob should explain the lack of a need to protest to Nigel Farage photographed recently on his empty battle bus well there was at least one photographer on there to be fair) in Bolton.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Senior labour mps, including Corbs, said on numerous occasions on the run up to the election; that labour would be honouring the result of the referendum, and not offering another referendum. It wasn't in their manifesto summary not to hold a referendum because you don't bullet point what you're not doing. On that regard, we all know that labour's "key tests" are a laugh, any cretin knows that it is impossible to have all the benifits of club membership without actually being a member.

Note that I said 25% of the number of voters, not 25% of the voters.

I'm in no doubt that the cost to both uk and eu economy will be greater than £150m. But that wasn't the question I asked- I asked if the nation, not the protesting minority, wants to spend another £150 on re asking a question that will probably be answered in the same way.


----------



## John-H

I disagree with your word "probably" - ending up with the same result. Polling suggests otherwise and the longer this goes on the more people are against what's going on.

It was the government that claimed we could have "the exact same benefits" - David Davis in fact when he was Brexit minister and the Prime Minister agreed. Now you may disparage those who believed him and voted for them on that basis regardless but what would that make them? Are you saying they knowingly voted to be poorer?

Correct, you don't put things you are not considering on your manifesto. It's perfectly possible to "respect" the referendum result then as a valid result as believed at the time and there were plenty of government ministers claiming Brexit could be achieved to our great advantage and achieved easily according to people like Fox etc. The opposition did what they should do - hold them to account.

Since then we've found out that Vote Leave cheated and that the referendum result is in doubt because of criminal overspending. Should we all continue to respect the result in these circumstances?

It's precisely because Labour did not make it a policy manifesto commitment to outlaw the possibility of a second plebiscite that allows them to have one if required. It's now been democratically passed in conference as a possibility. Whether that happens remains to be seen. They certainly said they would vote down any deal that didn't meet the six tests.

Tell me, which do you think is more honest and responsible - the government claiming we would get the exact same benefits and pushing it through when clearly it's not possible - or the opposition clearly stating they will oppose and vote down any deal that didn't keep to that promise?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Polls also said Remain would win the referendum, so while some polls might suggest that everyone wants another referendum, they might not be right.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Polls also said Remain would win the referendum, so while some polls might suggest that everyone wants another referendum, they might not be right.


That was on a tight 50:50 margin though and the results were within the usual 2% error margin most of the time I seem to remember. The polls are diverging away from 50:50 now though.










Latest info here: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i ... ve-the-eu/

It does depend on the situation and the question though both in the poll and the eventual referendum. If May comes back with a crap deal and that gets put to the country for example on a three way "May-deal, No-deal, Remain" on a "first choice, second choice" basis for example. Or she may not get a deal or it gets voted down in parliament so then it's "No-Deal, Remain" but it's doubtful if that would be a responsible question to put.


----------



## ashfinlayson

A 3-way ballot with 2 leave options and 1 remain option, 48% of the electorate voting remain, what would the result of that be John?


----------



## John-H

It would be up to parliament to decide the options and the electoral Commission the question to make it fair.

To flesh this out a bit, if over 50% voted remain (which seems more likely now) then there would be no need for a second round. If 48% voted remain as you suggest it would then fall to a second choice round. As many leave and remain voters deeply dislike May's fudge, as it mainly just takes away our say in running the EU, it's likely the leave vote will split into no-deal and remain in the second choice. As no deal is only for extremists, the remaining vote (see what I did there!) will add to the remain total taking it into a majority. It does depend what remainers vote for as a second choice but given May's fudge is unpopular it will likely not win. Splitting the leave vote into soft and hard camps is fairer as it is more reflective of the fact that leave voters voted for different things. Remain voters voted for the singular status quo. So I don't agree the same result will be repeated. Of course there are other possibilities of question depending on the situation.

I do find your comments interesting. You seem to accept we will be worse off by leaving the EU but nonetheless think we should go ahead.

I was thinking of an analogy earlier:

If a sales person offered you some amazing product, you agreed to purchase, but before it was delivered you were told it wouldn't do all the things you were promised and would cost you a lot more than you were told. You wouldn't say, oh well I agreed to buy it so I'll have to go through with it now, would you? You'd say you are not giving me what you said you would, I don't want it now. In law it would be a beach of contract and you could cancel.

Why do you still want to go ahead with it when you won't get what you were told?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Twit


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Twit


 :lol: You said it, not me!


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twit
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: You said it, not me!
Click to expand...

As an individual within a minority, you lose a referendum vote, so you campaign for another one, not only one that asks the same question again, but asks that same question in a way that only the minority can win :lol:

You don't bother to read, let alone comprehend opposing views, instead, you come up with poor analogies to attempt to insult the intelligence of those which you don't agree with. If you did make the effort to have a constructive debate; you would know that I have given my reasons for wanting to leave several pages ago, and several pages before that, and several pages before that. But instead of trying to understand the rationale behind an opposing view, you just ignorantly repeat 80-odd pages worth of the same old rhetoric.

So it appears that you think that by alienating those that appose your views, those that you _need_ to agree with you; you will turn your minority into a majority. That John, is why I think you're a humongous twit.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twit
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: You said it, not me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As an individual within a minority, you lose a referendum vote, so you campaign for another one, not only one that asks the same question again, but asks that same question in a way that only the minority can win :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

You said you thought another referendum would produce the same result but gave no evidence. I said I didn't think it would and gave evidence and tried to explain the various question possibilities as you requested. As I explained it's arguable that the leave vote is nuanced into factions and the 2016 referendum was flawed in that there were many different destinations for leave but only one for remain. A three way split it obviously more reflective of reality. Sorry if you don't see that but as I say, that might not be the question put as it could be a simple yes or no.

It's more democracy and a check to see if that's what we still want. You shouldn't be afraid of that unless you actually think opinion has changed but yours hasn't.



ashfinlayson said:


> You don't bother to read, let alone comprehend opposing views, instead, you come up with poor analogies to attempt to insult the intelligence of those which you don't agree with. If you did make the effort to have a constructive debate; you would know that I have given my reasons for wanting to leave several pages ago, and several pages before that, and several pages before that. But instead of trying to understand the rationale behind an opposing view, you just ignorantly repeat 80-odd pages worth of the same old rhetoric.
> 
> So it appears that you think that by alienating those that appose your views, those that you _need_ to agree with you; you will turn your minority into a majority. That John, is why I think you're a humongous twit.


On the contrary. I've been over your past posts and your reasons why don't make sense to me which is why I tried to extract a better explanation from you as you continued to comment in response to my posts and argue against what I was saying. I didn't force you to.

I've not insulted you I've just taken issue with various points you've made which I believe to be in error and challenged you with opposing points. This forum is all about debate after all.

My analogy was I believe reflective of your past comments - you voted leave, say the campaigns misinformed, blame the government for what's happening now, say you were right at the time for voting the way you did (I can accept that) but now given it's all going wrong and we'll be worse off you still insist we should all suffer the consequences and go through with it. Why is allowing the harm better than preventing the harm? It was that last bit I was trying to understand and you haven't explained - just argued for it.

As you don't seem to be able to say why it's better and instead resort to insulting me I can only conclude you either don't have an explanation or are unwilling to give me one. I thought my analogy got to the point. Sorry if it upset you. let's not fall out


----------



## ashfinlayson

The same result in terms of the same people voting the same way, which would result in a Remain minority winning a 3-way vote.

I haven't explained my rationale further, because you never asked, you dismissed or ignored and continued with your rhetoric on economic fallout or illegalities of the Leave campaign, or brought down the level of debate with poor analogies or just carried on insulting bobbot's views. Why would anybody want to keep talking at somebody that isn't listening? they wouldn't, it's a waste of energy. If you had asked me to elaborate on a point I made, I would have.


----------



## John-H

Yes that is the point about the vote because leave voted for different things, some sovereignty, some thought we'd still retain the single market and customs union some not some immigration. Remain was remain. How was it fair to split understanding the first time shrouded under a binary mask of deception?

I asked several times how you think Brexit is going? Let's be more specific then. Given what we know now, give me the one thing that makes it all worthwhile. The one thing that you think - yes that's a good reason for going through with Brexit as that trumps all the reasons for changing our minds and remaining.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Yes that is the point about the vote because leave voted for different things, some sovereignty, some thought we'd still retain the single market and customs union some not some immigration. Remain was remain.


To be honest, I think the three way vote is a cop out, designed to avoid accusations of it just being a re-run of the first referendum - pretending its a vote on the deal, but throwing in the 'preferred' outcome of remaining too. But I think any 'people's vote' should just be a choice between remaining and taking whatever deal (or lack thereof) we have at the end of the process. I don't care if people say it's a re-run of the referendum - that's exactly what it is. If we now have a clear idea of what 'leave' means then re-running the original referendum is completely appropriate. It would basically be, "now you know what leave will look like, are you sure you still want it?" If the majority say 'yes', then we go with the deal that was voted on and leave.

If 'the will of the people' is important, then we shouldn't be scared of it now.


----------



## John-H

I don't disagree. It was an early suggestion but it did have the merit of ordering the choice behind a leave vote. As things have moved on it becomes more certain what the final deal is tending towards but also uncertain if it will be agreed both with the EU and in both parliaments. There may not be a deal to put to the electorate and no-deal is increasingly being seen as an inappropriate option to present as a choice.

Given that we know more now, it's ridiculous not to check back with the electorate - if it's acceptable - and as you say, if it's supposed to be "the will of the people" then why should the people be denied the continuation of a democratic consultation. How can the people betray the people?

The Prime Minister saying it would be a "politicians vote" is ludicrous. The march at the weekend wasn't made up of politicians.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> To be honest, I think the three way vote is a cop out, designed to avoid accusations of it just being a re-run of the first referendum - pretending its a vote on the deal, but throwing in the 'preferred' outcome of remaining too. But I think any 'people's vote' should just be a choice between remaining and taking whatever deal (or lack thereof) we have at the end of the process. I don't care if people say it's a re-run of the referendum - that's exactly what it is. If we now have a clear idea of what 'leave' means then re-running the original referendum is completely appropriate. It would basically be, "now you know what leave will look like, are you sure you still want it?" If the majority say 'yes', then we go with the deal that was voted on and leave.
> 
> If 'the will of the people' is important, then we shouldn't be scared of it now.


Ah good, you're back on form again. Now all of this makes perfect sense to me, it really does. Especially that last sentence, which cannot be denied.
There may well be a fair few that voted leave which, possibly, have changed their mind. But how many is anyone's guess. Would it be enough to sway? (Even as close as it was). Will more people vote than originally? A fair few didn't - me included. Depending on where they're from, they may well make up a crucial portion of the outcome if they do so it's back to an 'anyone's guess' situation.
Thoughts?


----------



## FJ1000

Is it Bob that likes to quote Dyson? Turns out he's a hypocrite:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... brexit#amp

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> ...
> There may well be a fair few that voted leave which, possibly, have changed their mind. But how many is anyone's guess. Would it be enough to sway? (Even as close as it was). Will more people vote than originally? A fair few didn't - me included. Depending on where they're from, they may well make up a crucial portion of the outcome if they do so it's back to an 'anyone's guess' situation.
> Thoughts?


I think the best indication is the tracker of polls being run. The trend you can see by best fitting a straight line to the results. These polls include people who didn't vote last time as well as those who did.










Latest info here: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i ... ve-the-eu/

Interestingly the Times are running a poll on whether there should be a new referendum and currently it's running 72% for.

You could say those who want another vote are remainders who want to change the result of the last one but it's also significant that many leave voters also want another vote either because they have changed their mind or because they don't like the deal Mrs May is pushing.

Generally I think those who don't want a People's Vote are afraid of "the will of the people" because they realise it's changed and changing further. They are quite happy to stick with the result of the "misleading of the people" perpetrated in 2016.


----------



## barry_m2

Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:


Is your job at risk?


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> barry_m2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your job at risk?
Click to expand...

Is posting in a thread on a car forum going to change that if it was?


----------



## Spandex

barry_m2 said:


> Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:


Let's just break this down for as you seem to be under the impression this was a football match or something, where leave voters won something and remain voters lost something.

Whether an individual 'wins or loses' from Brexit has nothing to do with which way they voted. A remain voter will get the same benefits, or suffer the same losses as a leave voter when we eventually leave the EU. I suppose the ultimate irony (and the thing that will cheer up this miserable git slightly if it happens) is that if the economy tanks when we leave, the leave voters will suffer most while the 'metropolitan elite' will ride out any storm fairly easily. Maybe wait till then and see who feels like they won...


----------



## barry_m2

Spandex said:


> barry_m2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just break this down for as you seem to be under the impression this was a football match or something, where leave voters won something and remain voters lost something.
Click to expand...

 :lol: Ok sport.


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry_m2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. 90 pages of 'I was on the side that lost and still can't accept it'... :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your job at risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is posting in a thread on a car forum going to change that if it was?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. It helps serve as a record of issues and spreads thoughts and ideas. Who knows where they reach. Every little helps. Oh, and this is a forum as you know. So, is it?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> I think the best indication is the tracker of polls being run. The trend you can see by best fitting a straight line to the results. These polls include people who didn't vote last time as well as those who did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latest info here: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i ... ve-the-eu/


I'm not sure the YouGov poll is the best source of accuracy, being run by Peter Kellner, husband of EU Politician Baroness Ashton, you might as well ask Juncker for his own poll. The other link though is more believable, being non partisan.
I reckon it would still be tight. That is, of course, if does indeed happen. Which is not a guarantee.


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> I'm not sure the YouGov poll is the best source of accuracy, being run by Peter Kellner, husband of EU Politician Baroness Ashton, you might as well ask Juncker for his own poll.


Peter Kellner left the company in 2016.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> Peter Kellner left the company in 2016.


My bad. Looks like it may be more accurate than I first thought then.


----------



## Spandex

I'm not sure it affects the accuracy of the poll anyway. This isn't a newspaper, where an editorial political stance is an accepted part of the culture. Changing the results of a poll (either by manipulating the results or manipulating the methodology in such a way as to skew the data) would be visible to so many people in the organisation that it would almost certainly be leaked.

That being said, I'm not sure how much I trust those results and I'm not sure how much we should care anyway. The reason a 2nd vote makes sense is because we have (or should soon have) the information needed to make a decision between two clearly definable outcomes, AND we have an opportunity to do so before we commit to a course that can't be changed. It shouldn't just be a case of, "we think enough people have changed their mind so let's quickly have another referendum". The vote should be a clear decision on the output of the governments negotiations.


----------



## John-H

Quite...

*It's coming*


----------



## bobclive22

*1 year ago*



> Of those polled, 45% want out of the EU and voted accordingly in the referendum (hard leavers); 22% still want to try to stop Brexit (hard remainers); and 23% voted to remain in the EU, but crucially now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people. 9% of those polled "didn't know".
> 
> YouGov suggests that the new re-leaver group means that when discussing Brexit, the electorate should stop being presented as a team of 52% and a team of 48%.
> 
> Instead, due to the so-called re-leavers, 68% of the population now wants Brexit to be carried out, while only 22% is openly still hoping to remain inside the EU.


*Today*

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... ret-01.png



> But before anyone gets carried away with the possible implications of this shift, it is important to note that thinking Britain was wrong to vote to leave is not the same as thinking the referendum result should be reversed.
> 
> Some Remain voters don't like the destination, but have strapped in for the ride
> In a recent poll we asked Britons which of four different routes they would prefer the Brexit process take. Four in ten (40%) wanted to continue with Brexit on current negotiating terms, whilst 12% wanted Britain to seek a "softer" Brexit - meaning a "go ahead" majority of 52%.
> 
> Just 18% wanted a second referendum and a further 14% wanted Brexit abandoned completely, a total of 32% for an "attempt to reverse" Brexit. The remaining 16% said they didn't know.


You forget that many who voted remain also believe that to challenge the result challanges the foundations of democracy and they will not go down that road.

http://www.konbini.com/en/lifestyle/rem ... y-britain/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/th ... c-still-t/


----------



## John-H

An odd presentation Bob. You ignore the trend.

How can checking with the people betray the people? How can more democracy be going against democracy?

What are you afraid of? Current opinion?

Are you perhaps clinging onto a result from the guesswork and cheating period of hoodwinked 2016 and don't want to face the informed blinkers off opinion emerging now?

Why do you want to deny people an informed choice?

If you stand by your convictions about public opinion I challenge you to support a People's Vote. Do you accept and support the challenge?


----------



## FJ1000

Having a vote is going against democracy; got it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

FJ1000 said:


> Having a vote is going against democracy; got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You obviously don't realise how that comes across :lol: :roll: [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]

And with one bound Bob sinks without trace to the challenge :!: [smiley=toilet.gif]

No more democracy for Bob 

EDIT:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Oh my days I misread your post sorry! I genuinely thought you were Bob. Darn good impression though - had me fooled  :lol:


----------



## FJ1000

John-H said:


> FJ1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a vote is going against democracy; got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't realise how that comes across :lol: :roll: [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]
> 
> And with one bound Bob sinks without trace to the challenge :!: [smiley=toilet.gif]
> 
> No more democracy for Bob
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh my days I misread your post sorry! I genuinely thought you were Bob. Darn good impression though - had me fooled  :lol:
Click to expand...

Haha!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> You forget that many who voted remain also believe that to challenge the result challanges the foundations of democracy and they will not go down that road.


It would set a precedent for any future referendum John.


----------



## John-H

What? Some people disagreeing sets a precedent? I hardly think so. We had a referendum in 1975 and then one in 2016. You might say things changed between and thus justifies the second referendum. I put to you the same point now about the third.

Why are you resisting any further democracy?

So you won't take up the challenge? What are you afraid of?

You are not denying the will of the people are you?


----------



## John-H

One for you Bob... (click to enlarge)


----------



## bobclive22

> What? Some people disagreeing sets a *president*? I hardly think so.


Err no John, some very influential individuals posing as a ordinary voters (peoples vote) attempting to overturn an earlier democratic vote by insisting on a re-run because the initial result wasn`t to their liking, the *precedent* is then set for any future referendum result not to the liking of the government in power or a small but powerful group to be overturned in a similar fashion. Can`t you see the danger?.

Not sure what a President has to do with Precedent. :?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Actually Bob, there is nothing powerful about the minority in this case, hence the need to protest. The side with the most funding won, same outcome as 1975.


----------



## John-H

That's why there are laws to ensure funding limits are adhered to during the campaign.

Vote Leave cheated by exceeding their campaign limits by over 10%. The swing to leave was less than 2%.

If the 2016 referendum was legally binding it would be annulled by the courts.

Should cheats be allowed to win?


----------



## ashfinlayson

The 1975 referendum wasn't legally binding either.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Err...


Err no Bob, some very influential individuals posing as ordinary voters (Peter Hargreaves, Stuart Wheeler, Peter Cruddas, Anthony Bamford, Jeremy Hosking, Robert Edmiston, Michael Hintze, Crispin Odey and of course Aaron Banks) attempting to overturn an earlier democratic vote in 1975 by insisting on a re-run in 2016 because the initial result wasn`t to their liking, the precedent is then set for any referendum result not to the liking of the people when things change and promises are broken to be overturned by a People's Vote. Can`t you see the justice?.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> The 1975 referendum wasn't legally binding either.


Correct but that vote was 67% for 32% against so clearly not a marginal result influenced by cheating.


----------



## Stiff

I can't see how 'funding' can influence a voter so much? Maybe it can, I don't know. Peoples views are peoples views and I find it hard to believe that 'funding' would sway their view in any way. Least of all 10% worth. Seeing as the remain campaign's swing was 2% then they also 'cheated' right? But that never gets brought up does it? 
So in effect, what we have is a referendum where both sides went over budget? (or 'cheated' as you prefer to call it) Just that one side overfunded a teensy weensy bit more than the other.
Quick question.
Had it been the remain side that had overfunded slightly more than the leave side, would you still call it 'cheating' and would there be so much uproar about this particular aspect of the whole debacle as this seems to be _one_ of the main arguments for the re-run.


----------



## John-H

Vote leave overspent their budget by over 10%. They cheated by this amount.

The less than 2% swing referred to was the result of the referendum (not any cheating buy remain) - just 600k votes more for leave than remain was the "swing" away from a 50:50 dead heat.

In a marginal situation you can more easily tip the balance by spending more. You'll not change people's strongly held views but you can swing the views of the undecided or unsure with targeted advertising. We know advertising works as they wouldn't spend such a lot on it if it didn't. Vote Leave channeled extra donations to other groups and got round the spending limit.That was the plan drawn up on record by the leave campaign and that's what the Electoral Commission found in their report which has been referred to the police.

The list of names I gave before, by the way, are all donors to the leave campaign - millionaire asset and hedge fund managers and the like who want to see deregulation of rights and standards and turn the UK into an offshore Singapore. Not ordinary people. Not to mention Aaron Banks's Russian connections.

If the cheating had been the other way round then that would be wrong too but I wouldn't be the one complaining about the accrual result.


----------



## Stiff

This makes very interesting reading: https://capx.co/remain-not-leave-had-an ... eferendum/

And a few little excerpts from there...

_ "More importantly, the European referendum was not a case of one squeaky clean side against another up to all kinds of tricks.
The government produced a 16-page leaflet, "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK", which was delivered to 27 million households in April (and in Scotland and Wales in May) 2016 at a cost to the public purse of £9.3 million, which did not count towards referendum expenditure."

"A study by Harry Pickard of Sheffield University has shown that the government's 2016 leaflet did have a major impact on the referendum vote - those who read the leaflet were, the study shows, 3 per cent less likely to vote leave than those who had not. Among Conservative voters, exposure to the leaflet reduced the likelihood of voting leave by over 6 per cent. The government's leaflet - and indeed the other public resources employed on behalf of a Remain vote - created a far from even playing field."

"Both sides in the Referendum exploited loopholes to maximise how much they could spend. The Remain side had the advantage of having the government machine - and £9.3 million of public funds on clear campaign literature - on its side. If the referendum was unbalanced, the advantage was with Remain - and yet it still lost."_


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1975 referendum wasn't legally binding either.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct but that vote was 67% for 32% against so clearly not a marginal result influenced by cheating.
Click to expand...

What % are we calling a majority these days?


----------



## ashfinlayson

As I understand it, there were far fewer eurosceptics, in the commons, the lords and public eye in 1975, which would explain why it had significantly more financial support than the opposing campaign and why the remain vote won a more significant majority.

You can't say with any certainty that Leave tipped the vote because of a 10% overspend on their campaign, that would only be speculation.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> As I understand it, there were far fewer eurosceptics, in the commons, the lords and public eye in 1975, which would explain why it had significantly more financial support than the opposing campaign and why the remain vote won a more significant majority.
> 
> You can't say with any certainty that Leave tipped the vote because of a 10% overspend on their campaign, that would only be speculation.


You can speculate all you like but rules are rules and there for a reason. Breaking the rules does not make things fairer.

I do wonder at the motivation for sustaining the result off a corrupted referendum which would be annulled were it legally binding.

Gambling with the countries future was an irresponsible act.

Of course a few well placed rich backers will make more money from the chaos. Why support them?


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> This makes very interesting reading: .......


That article you linked to is written by Michael Mosbacher who is part of the shadowy right wing pressure group with some very rich backers - the Taxpayers Alliance. Their aim is to get rid of the welfare state, sell off the NHS and turn the UK into a low tax offshore Singapore. It's the same group backing the leave campaign for their own selfish reasons. I really wouldn't trust anything it says.

The government leaflet referred to was not part of the campaign. Neither was the drip feed over the years from rich backers of leave newspaper owners like Aaron Banks's Express, Murdoch's Sun, Barclays Mail etc. They had a huge influence but didn't count either. How far back and how far out do you go?

There's a set of rules, arguably in need of an update but they should be applied strictly and fairly.

The government leaflet by the way was more informational about what the EU does for us and what might be the effect of losing a number of those benefits - which was unclear. It makes interesting reading in the present light. You can read it here:

View attachment why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-.pdf


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You can speculate all you like but rules are rules and there for a reason.


Yet both sides flouted them?


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can speculate all you like but rules are rules and there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet both sides flouted them?
Click to expand...

That's untrue. The cheating was all on one side. You need to read the Electoral Commissions findings. Don't believe the right wing hack's distortion.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> The cheating was all on one side.


Of course it was :roll:



John-H said:


> Don't believe the right wing hack's distortion.


But we should believe all the left wing's distortion? :roll:

It looks to me that whatever is brought up against the leave side is going to be attacked vehemently, _regardless_ of it's veracity, whilst anything from the remain side is defended to the death and painted whiter than white. 
Perhaps it's time to change the title of the thread to _'John's Hissy Fit at losing the EU Referendum thoughts / concerns / hopes'_


----------



## ashfinlayson

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can speculate all you like but rules are rules and there for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet both sides flouted them?
Click to expand...

Abso-flippin-lutely they both did. So you could rerun the referendum for another £150m and split the country down the middle again. The militant remain camp will say that we know a lot more now so everyone should vote remain. But we also know a few things that might make more want to leave since the referendum so... is there any point? Some say that a soft brexit (which appears to be where we are going) is the best compromise, those that don't, refuse to compromise.


----------



## leopard

The whiter than white remain campaign didn't cheat with their finances :lol:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses.



stiff said:


> 'John's Hissy Fit at losing the EU Referendum thoughts / concerns / hopes'


Sounds about right for Mr.Project Fear lol


----------



## ashfinlayson

Another interesting correlation between now and 1975, seeing that we are going there, is that the Left was on the losing side on both occasions; the country as a whole has moved more to the left since 75' so you could argue that the referendum result correlated with that.


----------



## John-H

What a disappointing response. I'm afraid you are all making a mistake (I'm being polite). You've obviously not read the Electoral Commission's report. It simply isn't a case that both sides are as bad as one another. Trying to pretend this is the case in order to claim fairness is deluded. The deliberate cheating was done by the leave campaign. It was pre-meditated and documented. They are the ones who received the maximum possible fine. That is fact. Other fines are not for cheating but for missing account return errors - minor issues in comparison and not deliberate cheating and on a completely different scale. There's no point in you arguing against the findings as they are there in black and white. Who is it that's been referred to the police? Who got the maximum fine possible? Who massively breached data protection laws according to the ICO? There is no comparison.

We come back to the same point however.

Why do you want the country to be made worse off? The reason you are arguing with me.

Give me your reason for going ahead with Brexit, that trumps all the advantages of remaining? Why do you want it to happen even now?

Once you've answered that can you please explain how it is going to be achieved?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John I didn't dignify that childish question with a response last time because it is just that; a childish question. Just like me asking you to give _one_ reason to remain that trumps _all_ reasons to leave. The short of it is, in my view; there are several reasons to leave, that trump several reasons to remain. But those reasons would vary depending on who you ask. If I was to summarise my reasons for voting to leave, they are sovereignty and long term economics over visa-less travel, cheap European goods and short term economic gains of remaining


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Why do you want the country to be made worse off? The reason you are arguing with me.


I don't want the country to be made worse off. Why would I? 
I'm arguing with you because a lot (but not all) of what you're saying isn't quite as black and white as you're making out. You're so infatuated by this whole thing, and the fact that 'leave' won the vote, that it's like a religion to you. You'll only believe what 'your' god tells you and any other god is wrong. Faith is a very strong (and dangerous at times) thing. Look at America - it's the same with the Trump thing.



John-H said:


> Give me your reason for going ahead with Brexit, that trumps all the advantages of remaining? Why do you want it to happen even now?


I can't give you any reason. I'm not sure there *are* any valid reasons. Maybe we will be worse off - probably - but to what extent, no one knows for sure. It's speculation with scaremongering on a *massive* scale. We still haven't left yet, remember.

Originally, I was totally on the fence with all this. Totally. I didn't know enough about the implications and didn't suck up to all the hype from *either* side - they're politicians at the end of the day - known for being absolutely full of BS and failed promises. Hence the neutrality of it all. If I had any small sway either way it would have been to leave. But it would have been an _extremely _ small sway. Mainly for the reasons cited above. Now? That (extremely small) sway would probably be remain. Thanks (in part) to the way Spandex has put his arguments forward. Rather than stamping his feet like a spoilt child and coming across as 'demanding', he puts things across quite eloquently, and professionally. Yes, he may be obnoxious at times and have that 'holier than thou' demeanour but his arguments are (nearly) always very valid and easily understood (which is good for retards like me).
Would it be enough for me to vote remain if there were another vote? I don't know. I'm still on the fence with it all. I don't think it would be anywhere _near_ as bad as 'speculation' has made it out to be. Nobody does.
Whatever happens, we just have to deal with it and move on.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John I didn't dignify that childish question with a response last time because it is just that; a childish question. Just like me asking you to give _one_ reason to remain that trumps _all_ reasons to leave. The short of it is, in my view; there are several reasons to leave, that trump several reasons to remain. But those reasons would vary depending on who you ask. If I was to summarise my reasons for voting to leave, they are sovereignty and long term economics over visa-less travel, cheap European goods and short term economic gains of remaining


I don't see why you think it's a childish question and is one I'd be glad to answer and wouldn't think any less of you for asking. I think it's an important question and helps get to the reasoning. Thanks for a dignified answer.

Ok, let's take sovereignty.

With Mrs May's minimal economic damage deal (which isn't a deal yet) we'll be giving up our shared sovereignty with the other 27 over running the EU, so we have no say in making any rules but instead have to follow the EU rules. We become a rule taker - a vassal state. So we will have less sovereignty than we do now.

Because of the Northern Ireland border and the legal obligations under the Good Friday agreement we will need to have, either the whole of the UK in a customs agreement with the EU which means we won't be able to make our own trade deals, or we have a border in the Irish Sea which will annex Northern Ireland from the UK. This too is a loss of sovereignty and could trigger a border referendum under the agreement with the loss of NI as it re-unifies with the rest of Ireland. Whatever is offered to Ireland is likely to by demanded by Scotland which could be next to go. How are we doing on sovereignty so far?

Ok let's consider no deal instead. Apart from all the immediate chaos and damage we would be able to make our own trade deals. But we'd be much smaller and we'd be so desperate to replace the loss of trade with the EU and all its international FTAs that we'd find ourselves dropping our food and quality standard laws to accept chicken and beef from the USA free movement from India, open up our NHS to purchase by US corporations and to become more competitive workers rights as we try and compete by being more like Singapore. Our producers will be undermined. That's all a huge loss of sovereignty forced upon us. Of course we might not be trusted having walked away from the EU with no deal and have all sorts of insurance clauses snapped on any FTAs. How does this sound for sovereignty?

So much for taking back control.

Now, long term economics.

Will it be worth the loss of sovereignty? With the loss of environmental, food, safety employment standards etc.?

Given that we will have taken a huge loss of GDP with any EU leaving scenarios according to the government's own impact statements which will dwarf the banking crisis of 2008 we will have a lot of catching up to do before we see any long term benefit - if any.

Also I have to point out that we are free to trade with any country in the world as an EU member, either through advantageous EU negotiated FTAs or WTO. It will all be WTO if we leave with no deal, with punitive tariffs until we negotiate FTAs and the FTAs we are likely to be able to negotiate won't be as good as the ones the powerful EU negotiate on our behalf. So the chances are that there will never be any long term gains.

My main reason to vote remain was continuity - nothing would change. Leave was a massive gamble with lots of unforeseen consequences. The advantages I see of being in the EU are peace in Europe, the security of its size and common interest and the economics rights, standards and freedoms.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the country to be made worse off? The reason you are arguing with me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want the country to be made worse off. Why would I?
> I'm arguing with you because a lot (but not all) of what you're saying isn't quite as black and white as you're making out.
Click to expand...

A lot of it is pretty obvious and a lot is still uncertain. When someone argues with you it does often indicate that they take a contrary position. How extensive that is can be unclear. Are they arguing about a specific detail or the whole thing? Hence the probing questions. The reason I'm engaged on this subject is partly because it makes for good debate and that's what this forum is all about. It also brings into the open for discussion the reasoning behind the rhetoric.



Stiff said:


> You're so infatuated by this whole thing, and the fact that 'leave' won the vote, that it's like a religion to you. You'll only believe what 'your' god tells you and any other god is wrong. Faith is a very strong (and dangerous at times) thing. Look at America - it's the same with the Trump thing.


I do agree that faith is a dangerous thing which is why I don't have one and I say the same to people who put belief before evidence or find the evidence that suits their belief and ignore that which contradicts. That's not being scientific and makes for poor engineering solutions. So I take issue with you suggesting that about me. My background is one of how things work and understanding them. I've applied that to the EU and know a lot more about the issues than I did but it is fantastically complex in its reach after 45 years of integration. I think it's fair to say that most people have little idea of how the EU works and we are only now finding out what happens if we sever ourselves from it. People don't like complexity and detail and look for simple solutions and arguments. The worst simplification was the binary choice of in or out. Just look at the mess that's emerging.



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your reason for going ahead with Brexit, that trumps all the advantages of remaining? Why do you want it to happen even now?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't give you any reason. I'm not sure there *are* any valid reasons. Maybe we will be worse off - probably - but to what extent, no one knows for sure. It's speculation with scaremongering on a *massive* scale. We still haven't left yet, remember.
> 
> Originally, I was totally on the fence with all this. Totally. I didn't know enough about the implications and didn't suck up to all the hype from *either* side - they're politicians at the end of the day - known for being absolutely full of BS and failed promises. Hence the neutrality of it all. If I had any small sway either way it would have been to leave. But it would have been an _extremely _ small sway. Mainly for the reasons cited above. Now? That (extremely small) sway would probably be remain. Thanks (in part) to the way Spandex has put his arguments forward. Rather than stamping his feet like a spoilt child and coming across as 'demanding', he puts things across quite eloquently, and professionally. Yes, he may be obnoxious at times and have that 'holier than thou' demeanour but his arguments are (nearly) always very valid and easily understood (which is good for retards like me).
> Would it be enough for me to vote remain if there were another vote? I don't know. I'm still on the fence with it all. I don't think it would be anywhere _near_ as bad as 'speculation' has made it out to be. Nobody does.
> Whatever happens, we just have to deal with it and move on.
Click to expand...

I like your answer - an honest one - and I'm sure similar to many peoples'. I agree Spandex can be very analytical and persuasive. He can demand answers too (like pursuing Bob on the environmental thread!). Stamping feet? If I was appearing demanding here it's perhaps because answers were not forthcoming to questions. When campaigning on the street it's often best to ask "So how do you think Brexit is going?" which usually gets an answer and opens up a conversation without pushing a standpoint to start with and raising shields. It's not quite so easy here as people already know my standpoint and have time to think up something that avoids answering. It's all food for thought though and there'll be a lot more to come out over the coming months to think about. Thanks for answering


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> So I take issue with you suggesting that about me.


My apologies if it offended you (I hate religion with a passion) but it was meant only as an analogy - maybe not the best one - but nothing more.



John-H said:


> I agree Spandex can be very analytical and persuasive.


We both missed out 'condescending' but hey, no ones infallible.











John-H said:


> It's all food for thought though and there'll be a lot more to come out over the coming months to think about


Yes, I'm sure there will. It should be interesting.


----------



## John-H

No offence taken at all


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> We both missed out 'condescending' but hey, no ones infallible.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Stiff

Spandex said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> We both missed out 'condescending' but hey, no ones infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## ZephyR2

Argue all you like John, it isn't going to change anything. Maybe you'd be better off just accepting that the other side won and leave it at that, graciously. Getting all worked up about it won't do you any favours.


----------



## John-H

ZephyR2 said:


> Argue all you like John, it isn't going to change anything. Maybe you'd be better off just accepting that the other side won and leave it at that, graciously. Getting all worked up about it won't do you any favours.


 :lol: of course. That would solve everything. Magic unicorns. David Davis for PM :wink:


----------



## John-H

I've heard it many times; _"You lost, get over it!"_ However, it has also been said many times that the 2016 EU referendum wasn't like a football match. There is no winning or losing side as we are all in this together. The country as a whole will be better or worse off as a result of the very serious games being played with our lives.

The _"deal"_ is also like no other deal you come across in general life, so the usual logic does not apply. Usually if you walk away from a deal you remain in the exact same position as you were previously as nothing has changed. With Brexit however, if we walk away without a deal we go to a very different place. It's more like agreeing to move to a new house, demolishing your old one then deciding you don't like the new one and refusing it - now you've got no roof over your head. That's something to get across to those who say, _"I just want out mate"_. Oh yes, where are you going?

To give a clue to what's going on and to indicate the level of misunderstanding and miscalculation in parliament by those in the driving seat you've only got to look at all the vile vitriol that came out against the Prime Minister from nameless swivel eyed Brexiteers in her own Tory party when the PM suggested extending the transition period. It's as if they were throwing a tantrum because they realised they could not get their own way.

In desperation they even suggested replacing Theresa May with David Davis - the man whose job it was to take the UK out of the EU but resigned when he realised he couldn't do it. And Boris Johnson's people were then briefing against David Davis claiming he was in the Brexit secretary job for two and a half years and failed, so is not fit for the job of PM. Do they think their man Johnson was a success at foreign secretary and would be any better? And then there's the 19th century Jacob Rees-Mogg. If his ERG group had a viable plan for Brexit it would publish a serious white paper but we don't get anything that stands up to a short argument.

Talking of white papers, the government published a little known one, after all the Brexiteer pressure to write the 29th March 2019 as the leaving date into the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It was to _"save"_ the effect of the 1972 European Communities Act until 31 December 2020. So, the leaving date has no legal effect. Sleight of hand to save its own skin.

There was a chance to leave the EU with a Norway type deal offered by the EU some time ago but because _"freedom of movement"_ had been weaponised as a xenophobic rant to thus end it, despite the damage to the NHS etc, that was never going to fly. Instead the Brexiteers have been expecting to go on a cherry-picking fest and stuff their face with cake, expecting the EU commission will back down because of the _"they need us more than we need them"_ clap trap. But it's not worked out like that of course. The EU Commission has been extremely stable and has not changed its tune all along. The only possibility of instability was in member states with the odd comment but when it comes down to the EU 27's best interest, it's the preservation of the EU. The only unstable state has been the UK and what a state we're in.

Johnson and Davis have pushed Canada as a deal but they haven't got a clue as it does nothing for services and will either require, under the legally binding Good Friday agreement, a border in the Irish sea which will annex Northern Ireland, or the whole of the UK stays in a customs agreement or arrangement, locked into EU rules ad-infinitum because of the required backstop guarantee. They've realised this and hence the reaction to Mrs May's suggestion of extensions.

Michael Gove suggested a _"Norway for now"_ model transitioning to a Canada or something deal later. It would park us in the EEA for a while whilst we negotiated an FTA with the EU. But Norway are not keen on the UK jumping in when they are the big fish in their small pond along with Iceland and Liechtenstein. Besides, the Northern Ireland backstop will still be needed.

The Canada solutions require either the UK staying closely aligned with the EU to minimise border check friction for trade and keeping the Northern Ireland border open. That prevents us agreeing FTAs elsewhere. Or if the UK really wants to negotiate FTAs, then the border goes in the Irish Sea. With Northern Ireland annexed, or with the threat of it being economically held back, then under the Good Friday agreement a border poll could be triggered reuniting the island of Ireland. So that's Northern Ireland gone. The DUP know this and threaten to pull the plug.

Whatever Northern Ireland gets Scotland will want as they want to be in the EU and even the Scottish Tories are demanding this, or they will lose out to the SDP and Labour. Scotland could be next to go.

How are we doing for sovereignty and taking back control so far?

How about no deal and WTO? Well, we are not even going to find that easy as various countries including Russia and Canada have raised objections to the UK coming on board in our own right as they not unsurprisingly want to see what the UK's eventual relationship with the EU is first and when is that going to be resolved?

How about an FTA with the USA? Well things are going a little sour there too, they have a lot more power than us if we are out of the EU as it's "America First" and do we really want to drop all our food and animal welfare standards to allow the import of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef, changing our laws to suit the USA? Not to mention opening up our NHS to take over by US corporations. How's that for sovereignty and taking back control?

We've got 150 days to go before the Article 50 process deadline expires. We have no deliverable Brexit that is in any way workable or acceptable with a likely majority because we've left it too late to negotiate something else as we've allowed rich idiots who are more interested in their own twisted careers, money or anti EU ideology to herd us towards a cliff edge. And nobody is admitting we are screwed in order to save their own positions. May's strategy seems to be to leave admitting the truth until it's too late. Then what?

(1) Either we get locked into a miserable Mrs May's deal becoming a vassal state satellite to the EU trapped in a legal cage with no say on the running of the EU - and don't think for one moment this is the fault of the EU - it's entirely the fault of those who have been pushing for this impossible project and haven't got a clue what they are doing or don't care about the consequences because they'll be alright. You know who they are.

Or

(2) We crash out with no deal and say goodbye to large parts of our manufacturing and service industry and suffer a massive economic hit. To survive there is a plan by some to turn the UK into an offshore Singapore, scrapping workers' rights, environmental and other protections. Their preferred option all along. I say the "UK" but there's little chance of it staying together in such circumstances and who would want to live in what's left?

Or

(3) We take back control and stop this nonsense. Writing to MPs and demanding a People's Vote is part of this and is rapidly becoming the ladder by which politicians can climb out of the hole they have dug themselves into. Through one means or another Article 50(2) notice must be withdrawn. That will come from a sensible majority once it's finally realised that there is no deliverable Brexit that is compatible with its own impossible promises.

Write to your MP now: https://www.peoples-vote.uk/write_this_wrong


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> (3) We take back control and stop this nonsense. Writing to MPs and demanding a People's Vote is part of this


You conveniently forget to mention what your stance will be if in your wishful thinking a people's vote goes ahead and doesn't have the outcome you expect, a third vote and more musings on here no doubt ?


----------



## TRTT

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> (3) We take back control and stop this nonsense. Writing to MPs and demanding a People's Vote is part of this
> 
> 
> 
> You conveniently forget to mention what your stance will be if in your wishful thinking a people's vote goes ahead and doesn't have the outcome you expect, a third vote and more musings on here no doubt ?
Click to expand...

You conveniently forget to consider the ability of the British people to admit when they've been fooled, and that they've ultimately f*cked up as a result. We're stubborn, but not that pig headed.

There's no "if". Those who chose to cast emotionally-charged votes as a mechanism to lash out (arguably quite understandably) at a system they didn't care for and/or understand, should now have substantially more facts at their disposal to leverage in decision making processes of this nature.

In the bigger picture, I actually wonder if this _needs_ to happen now. And the many years of hardship and rebuilding need to ensue. Perhaps then, the common man will learn to place value in the non-trivial consequences of failing to acquire the appropriate data points needed to inform important decisions. Perhaps an over-simplified view.


----------



## leopard

TRTT said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> (3) We take back control and stop this nonsense. Writing to MPs and demanding a People's Vote is part of this
> 
> 
> 
> You conveniently forget to mention what your stance will be if in your wishful thinking a people's vote goes ahead and doesn't have the outcome you expect, a third vote and more musings on here no doubt ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently forget to consider the ability of the British people to admit when they've been fooled, and that they've ultimately f*cked up as a result. We're stubborn, but not that pig headed.
> 
> There's no "if". Those who chose to cast emotionally-charged votes as a mechanism to lash out (arguably quite understandably) at a system they didn't care for and/or understand, should now have substantially more facts at their disposal to leverage in decision making processes of this nature.
> 
> In the bigger picture, I actually wonder if this _needs_ to happen now. And the many years of hardship and rebuilding need to ensue. Perhaps then, the common man will learn to place value in the non-trivial consequences of failing to acquire the appropriate data points needed to inform important decisions. Perhaps an over-simplified view.
Click to expand...

I've forgotten nothing. Of couse "there's an if" that was so ably demonstated in the referendum, 52% majority. It doesn't necessarily mean that this would be overturned in a fresh vote of the people, just because
the way your perception hinges on the present situation.

Your reply is simply one of being in denial by not even being able to comprehend that a People's Vote might go the opposite way like the rest of the dreamers on here.

Oh, choke on this 

"Pound Sterling Recovery Extends on Brexit Negotiation Breakthrough in Services: Outlook vs. Euro, Dollar Turning Positive Near-Term"


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Oh, choke on this
> 
> "Pound Sterling Recovery Extends on Brexit Negotiation Breakthrough in Services: Outlook vs. Euro, Dollar Turning Positive Near-Term"


Equivalence rules will leave the city in an inferior position to its current unfettered access. How is that better? Would you vote for things to get worse?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, choke on this
> 
> "Pound Sterling Recovery Extends on Brexit Negotiation Breakthrough in Services: Outlook vs. Euro, Dollar Turning Positive Near-Term"
> 
> 
> 
> Equivalence rules will leave the city in an inferior position to its current unfettered access. How is that better? Would you vote for things to get worse?
Click to expand...

Lol, you always "vox pop" with a counter question demanding an answer [smiley=zzz.gif]

It's early days, no doubt negotiations will get tweaked, they always do.


----------



## Spandex

The fact that the pound recovered on this news is hardly reassuring. It simply shows how bad things were expected to get, that an equivalence agreement is seen as a relief.

The trouble is that the Brexiters are so focused on debunking what they call 'project fear' that they've stopped caring whether Brexit leaves us worse off than we were inside the EU. When the news breaks that we won't have to eat rat sandwiches for the next 20 years, they'll all act like they've proved everyone wrong and Brexit is a roaring success.

I suppose if we're going to celebrate every time things turn out slightly less bad than they could be, then maybe we'll be able to convince ourselves that Brexit is going well.


----------



## barry_m2

Spandex said:


> When the news breaks that we won't have to eat rat sandwiches for the next 20 years, they'll all act like they've proved everyone wrong and Brexit is a roaring success.


Oh, you mean the what if's and maybe's that all the remoaning scaremongers keep bleating on about! :lol:


----------



## Spandex

barry_m2 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the news breaks that we won't have to eat rat sandwiches for the next 20 years, they'll all act like they've proved everyone wrong and Brexit is a roaring success.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean the what if's and maybe's that all the remoaning scaremongers keep bleating on about! :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. The brexiteer simpletons are measuring the success of Brexit against the worse-case scenarios put forward (by 'remoaning scaremongers') before the referendum. Even if our economy suffers as a result of Brexit, there will still be a load of gammon-faced Brexiteers strutting around all pleased with themselves because the world didn't end like those remoaners said it would.


----------



## barry_m2

Spandex said:


> Even if our economy suffers as a result of Brexit, there will still be a load of gammon-faced Brexiteers strutting around all pleased with themselves because the world didn't end like those remoaners said it would.


Yes, quite possibly.


----------



## TRTT

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, choke on this
> 
> "Pound Sterling Recovery Extends on Brexit Negotiation Breakthrough in Services: Outlook vs. Euro, Dollar Turning Positive Near-Term"
> 
> 
> 
> Equivalence rules will leave the city in an inferior position to its current unfettered access. How is that better? Would you vote for things to get worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you always "vox pop" with a counter question demanding an answer [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> It's early days, no doubt negotiations will get tweaked, they always do.
Click to expand...

There's a bloody good reason there's no sign of anything like an adequate Brexit deal, which delivers what the Brexiteers apparently voted for. It doesn't exist. Those who want all the pros without an iota of the cons are living in a dreamworld.


----------



## ashfinlayson

TRTT said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> (3) We take back control and stop this nonsense. Writing to MPs and demanding a People's Vote is part of this
> 
> 
> 
> You conveniently forget to mention what your stance will be if in your wishful thinking a people's vote goes ahead and doesn't have the outcome you expect, a third vote and more musings on here no doubt ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently forget to consider the ability of the British people to admit when they've been fooled, and that they've ultimately f*cked up as a result. We're stubborn, but not that pig headed.
> 
> There's no "if". Those who chose to cast emotionally-charged votes as a mechanism to lash out (arguably quite understandably) at a system they didn't care for and/or understand, should now have substantially more facts at their disposal to leverage in decision making processes of this nature.
> 
> In the bigger picture, I actually wonder if this _needs_ to happen now. And the many years of hardship and rebuilding need to ensue. Perhaps then, the common man will learn to place value in the non-trivial consequences of failing to acquire the appropriate data points needed to inform important decisions. Perhaps an over-simplified view.
Click to expand...

So the common man, that doesn't agree with you, needs to be educated before exercising his electoral right. That sounds like you have an excellent grasp of democracy. I wonder if we should take a page out of the Chinese book and setup some re-education prisons to help the leave voters that have trouble with their thoughts.


----------



## leopard

barry_m2 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the news breaks that we won't have to eat rat sandwiches for the next 20 years, they'll all act like they've proved everyone wrong and Brexit is a roaring success.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean the what if's and maybe's that all the remoaning scaremongers keep bleating on about! :lol:
Click to expand...

 :lol:

A little Oloroso with rat makes it palatable don't you know


----------



## John-H

I think everyone has a right to an opinion and a vote. There is no legal obligation for detailed prior research or even to vote if you don't want to. You can believe any person or source to inform your choice or just flip a coin or not bother. That's your right in our democracy.

Logically, however, when making an important decision in a vote that affects everyone profoundly, it makes sense to find out as much as possible before voting in order to get the decision right. I don't think anyone would argue against that from a responsible position or hold it against you for making the effort or exercising your rights.

Having voted, you'd hope that you'd have voted correctly and things would look like they were going to work out nicely. In that case you can rest assured.

Here's a hypothetical and logical question:

If however, things don't seem to be working out as you were informed and/or believed or guessed and are instead unfolding badly, what would be the best reaction?

(1) Deny the unfolding evidence and doggedly insist on being right to vote the way you did, and/or claim you have/should have no opportunity to change your mind, refusing all invitations to think again?

(2) Assess and review the unfolding situation and support taking corrective action to avoid the consequences of having made a mistake?

This is a hypothetical question you understand and not necessarily related to the current dilemma. I'm just wondering if everyone would agree that logically (2) would be the correct answer?


----------



## Spandex

But if you didn't care about facts or evidence before you voted, why would those things trouble you afterwards?

I suspect a large proportion of leave voters did so based on an entirely ideological position. There is no information that could come to light that would make them change their mind because the ONLY thing they want is to leave. To them, the question on the ballot paper wasn't nebulous to the point of being meaningless - it asked the only thing they had any interest in. They don't care _how_ we leave. They don't care what happens as a result. They're not trying to improve anyone's life, not even their own.

It's the OAP equivalent of a riot.


----------



## bobclive22

> I suspect a large proportion of leave voters did so based on an entirely ideological position. There is no information that could come to light that would make them change their mind because the ONLY thing they want is to leave.


Start at 11.00,


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> I suspect a large proportion of leave voters did so based on an entirely ideological position. There is no information that could come to light that would make them change their mind because the ONLY thing they want is to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> Start at 11.00,
Click to expand...

As interesting as that is (I'm lying. It's not), I don't think she was voting in the 2016 referendum.


----------



## John-H

I did too Bob and she said it was right the EU should be more closely integrated and was talking about having influence in EU polices.

I guess you don't like Mrs May's deal then which has us being a rule taker with no influence on EU rules.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> If however, things don't seem to be working out as you were informed and/or believed or guessed and are instead unfolding badly, what would be the best reaction?


I agree with what you're saying John, but Spandex hits on a very good point regarding the mentality and validity of a large percentage (at a guess) of their reason to vote leave. Yes, there were promises, but I don't think people were necessarily expecting them all to hold up (when do they ever?). In reality, hopes and dreams - aspirations if you were.
Things may get worse, they probably will, but don't forget, there's an awful lot of scaremongering from the remain side - some very true, some not at all, and the voters know that. They're under no illusion that they may be slightly worse off, but nowhere near to the scale of what's been bandied around. I think they're prepared to take that risk. Like I/we've said before, no-one knows _for sure_ what will, or would happen.
It just seems a lot of 'panic stations' due to what _could_ happen. A fear of the unknown. I'm still unsure if I'm being honest.


----------



## John-H

Spandex was voicing the unfortunate conclusion about some who don't agree with my logical point about correcting a mistake - that some just want to leave for ideological reasons and don't care about the consequences. They are prepared to throw their walking stick into the works even if it causes chaos. As he put it - the OAP equivalent of a riot.

You are right that some thought it might only be a bit worse and not as bad as some made out but leaving with no deal is not quite the situation that faces us as parliament won't allow that to happen because _they_ believe it would be chaos.

We are instead faced with Mrs May's deal (if she gets a deal) and basically that is going to be very similar to our current situation as it minimises disruption at the ports, avoids tariffs and keeps us close to the EU. It will be leaving the EU in name only. We will still be subject to EU rules and the biggest change will be that we will be giving up our right to have a say in making the rules. We'd become a rule taker having given away our sovereignty to the EU. We'd become as Jacob Rees-Mogg puts it - a vassal state. That's a betrayal of what many leave voters voted for.

What's the point of doing this?


----------



## John-H

On another note, finally the National Chrime Agency have opened a criminal investigation into Aaron Banks funding of the leave campaign:










http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

And according to this Daily Mail report Theresa May blocked an intelligence agency probe into Aaron Banks at the time of the 2016 referendum when she was home Secretary. She's got a lot of questions to answer it seems. All this trouble may have been avoided:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... endum.html


----------



## Stiff

If Britain ends up with a "no deal" Brexit ?

So far, we've been told by the Remain politicians and the gullible media that a No Deal Brexit would cause (and I'm not making this up):

* A shortage of food

* A shortage of medicine

* The end of the Grand National

* An outbreak of super-gonorrhoea

* A sperm shortage

* A redesign of cigarette packets

* The desecration of British organic farming

* A shortage of places in which to dump waste

* Aeroplanes not being able to take off

* The break-up of the United Kingdom

* An increase in bicycle and motorcycle thefts

* £930 a year added to our shopping bills

* An increase in the cost of cheese and beef

* A sudden decrease in the exports of sheep

* Universities having less student applications

* The UK to become a dumping ground for dangerous chemicals

So, as you can see, the laughable and unbelievable (unless you're an ardent Remainer or working for the MSM) Project Fear is trying to scare the British people into meek submission and doing as they are told - which didn't work during the referendum, of course.

As Project Fear cranks up once more, I expect to see in the media in the next week or so over what will also happen with a No Deal Brexit:

* A shortage of books in our libraries

* The extinction of the puffin in the UK

* The disappearance of all the lakes in the Lake District

* An increase in the number of babies born with a cleft palate in the UK

I also I predict ... they'll rename Coronation Street to "Ruination Street" and the other one to "Middle Eastenders".
French wasps will be stripe-searched at the border and we'll see 'The great toilet roll shortage of 2019.' Proving the point Britons cannot wipe their ar5e without the EU.

(All mainly just for fun but take it how you will)


----------



## Spandex

Stiff said:


> So, as you can see, the laughable and unbelievable (unless you're an ardent Remainer or working for the MSM) Project Fear is trying to scare the British people into meek submission and doing as they are told - which didn't work during the referendum, of course.


Yes, it's easy to mock the more extreme predictions. Some of them are extremely unlikely. The trouble with that is that it encourages people to dismiss *every* negative prediction. If you're pro leave, you can just call everything you don't like the sound of 'fake news'. Even stuff that's fairly likely to happen gets laughed off.

Trump started this really. The constant references to 'msm' - as though 'mainstream' has suddenly become shorthand for 'unreliable'. They're not particularly unreliable, they're just not reporting what certain parts of society wants to hear. But if you create a catchy name like 'msm' or 'fake news' or 'project fear' you can bundle it all up and ignore it all in one go. You don't need to address the points they make, you can just ignore them completely.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> ...
> So, as you can see, the laughable and unbelievable (unless you're an ardent Remainer or working for the MSM) Project Fear is trying to scare the British people into meek submission and doing as they are told - which didn't work during the referendum, of course.
> 
> As Project Fear cranks up once more, I expect to see in the media in the next week or so over what will also happen with a No Deal Brexit:
> ...


There are many unavoidable consequences of no deal but even if you believe (and I don't disagree) that some of these possibilities are being emphasised by the government for their own purposes - what are they trying to get you to do? Why are they drip feeding you bad news about no deal?

They are trying to get you to support Mrs May's deal (should it become a possibility) - and that basically is to leave the EU in name only - but stay closely aligned. We will become a vassal state trapped in a legal cage having to follow EU rules but having no say in the making of those rules. We also won't be able to act independently to make our own trade deals. So if you wanted to leave what's the point of this?

There is another possibility however - demand a People's Vote on Mrs May's deal - is it what you want? Or would it be better to remain and have a say in what goes on?


----------



## Stiff

(I'm not sure you read the disclaimer at the bottom but that was mainly just for a little bit of light hearted fun to brighten up an otherwise serious, nay, heated debate of which can often bring a nation together in these near end times. Smile, and the world smiles with you. Cry, and less than half cry with you.)


----------



## John-H

Sorry, I did read that but thought it applied to the second half of the list. D'oh!


----------



## John-H

You'll likely be hearing more about Aaron Banks today. This Channel 4 news item is a good summary. The allegation is that money donated to Aaron Bank's Leave.EU illegally came from foreign sources: Rock Holdings in the Isle of Man part owned by Mr Banks and through other of Mr Banks's interests in Gibraltar with further allegations of Russian funding of inactive gold mines in South Africa owned by Mr Banks, the funds of which were diverted to the leave campaign:






How the leave campaign cheated by overspending through other leave groups and bombarded seven million people with one and a half billion targeted ads by spending most of it's budget with Aggregate IQ:
https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-ca ... stleblower

How people are profiled by very clever on-line analytics - how even your music and shopping preferences can predict your political views and how likely you are to be persuaded by targeted advertising (first item):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... -your-data

Cambridge Analytica were asked to combine with their harvested Facebook data, Aaron Banks's Eldon insurance user data which had expanded data access to half the UK population through Go-compare's database. This was later denied by Mr Banks in evidence he gave to parliamentary select committee: 
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... his-Brexit
Mr Banks claimed that Cambridge Analytica only got as far as tendering but were not hired:
http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... /80126.pdf

However from earlier posts...










In January 2017, Banks responded to a dismissive tweet about Cambridge Analytica, with:



Aaron Banks said:


> "Interesting, since we deployed this technology in leave.eu we got unprecedented levels of engagement. 1 video 13m views. AI won it for leave."


Aggregate IQ is the Canadian based arm of Cambridge Analytica which was set up by Robert Mercer - the man who bankrolled Donald Trump's winning election campaign.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -campaigns

And of course the Electoral Commission has already found that Vote Leave significantly and illegally overspent their budget and tried to hide it by diverting the extra funds to BeLeave and Veterans for Britain and paid this extra spending direct to Aggregate IQ. Vote Leave subsequently received record fines.

Part of the evidence investigated by parliament was a £50m football competition which was used to scrape people's data which can be seen here: 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... est-brexit

And here are many of the adverts used to target those identified as persuadable from the data. If you didn't see them you were not identified as a swing voter:
https://twitter.com/nealb2010/status/10 ... 43104?s=21









Screengrab taken at 2pm on Tuesday 20th March from AIQ's homepage. By Thursday, after the company was contacted by the Observer, it had been taken down.

How this all fits together with the various characters:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -questions

How can the result of the 2016 EU referendum be accepted as valid in these circumstances?


----------



## John-H

Leave.EU tycoon Arron Banks: Britain should have voted Remain instead of unleashing demons of Brexit
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... have-voted

Well, when the donator of the biggest ever political donation in the UK, donating over £8m to the Leave campaign, says voting leave was a mistake and wishes he could withdraw the effect of his persuasion shouldn't that alone mean that his followers also should also consider this?

Full interview , in which Aaron Banks repeatedly evades explaining the true source of funding for Leave.EU here (from 26 min):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... w-04112018



> Despite repeated questions, he insisted the funding he provided for the Brexit campaign came from his UK based company, Rock Services. But when Andrew Marr highlighted Mr Banks' own evidence to a committee of MPs - which apparently differed from this account - he appeared flustered.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46089236


----------



## John-H

1,500 lawyers sign letter supporting a People's Vote.



> parliament should not be bound by the 2016 vote any more than it should be by the 1975 referendum that took Britain into the EU, especially when there were question marks over its validity.
> 
> "voters are entitled to know what they are voting for"... "There was a key difference between 1975 and 2016. The earlier referendum was held after negotiations were complete, so voters knew what they were voting for.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other


----------



## John-H

The public wants a People's Vote in all 259 Labour-held seats, according to a new poll of 26,000 constituents.

https://infacts.org/labour-mps-in-leave ... ples-vote/

Jeremy Corbyn's seat has the biggest backing at 74% for a People's Vote.

Daily Mail - Peter Osborne: "I voted for Brexit, but claims of Russian influence are deeply troubling"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... newsletter


----------



## ashfinlayson

The channel 4 programme last night was interesting, a broad spectrum of views heard, though it was comical that the presenter sounded exactly like Nick Clegg. Their poll suggests currently the UK is at 46% Leave and 54% Remain. That's not much of a swing to call for another referendum.


----------



## John-H

He did a bit. The eight point lead is consistent with the average poll trend which is steadily changing in that direction.

The three things I picked up from that programme were - that the biggest swing to remain was in the heaviest leave voting areas last time such as the North East and South Wales, the very surprising support for free movement which had Farage choking and the demographic split that old Tories wouldn't mind no deal and the young want their future in the EU.

The other significant and larger poll of 26,000 has shown that all Labour seats support a People's Vote and so do all the marginals cross party where the majority for a new vote exceeds the winning candidate's majority.


----------



## ZephyR2

ashfinlayson said:


> The channel 4 programme last night was interesting, a broad spectrum of views heard, though it was comical that the presenter sounded exactly like Nick Clegg. Their poll suggests currently the UK is at 46% Leave and 54% Remain. That's not much of a swing to call for another referendum.


TBH I think many of those who are now leaning towards remain are just plain fed up with the whole dreary process - the steady feeds of doom and gloom, the lack of any progress by politicians and the continuing worry of what we will eventually end up with.
Saying - forget the whole thing and lets get back on with normal life would seem a reasonable reaction.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Unless there is an election between now and March, it looks like that ship has sailed John.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... sponse=yes


----------



## John-H

There's unlikely to be an election I think but there are several possibilities of a change of direction as the ship is about to hit the rocks in the Irish Sea :wink:


----------



## John-H

So now we have a draft agreement deal to vote on. As expected it leaves us following all the EU rules without a say in the making of the rules. Rather than sharing sovereignty we've handed it away. We can't make our own trade deals and the backstop for Northern Ireland threatens to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK with a deeper relationship with the EU. We become a vassal state with the integrity of the UK under threat. And we'll have to go through it all again after the transition deal when we reach the can that was kicked down the road.

Is this what anyone voted for? It suits neither leave promises made in 2016 or remain wishes. It seems to have united both sides in opposition. Febrile times to come.

Here's a handy - _complain to your MP custom letter generator_ - just answer a few questions and it even gives you delivery options :!:

https://www.notbuyingit.uk/


----------



## FJ1000

Sounds like the worst of both worlds - but likely the best that could have been achieved. We'll know more once the details are out.

Leavers are now going to be whining that the deal is crap due to May and the British negotiators. Whilst May is incompetent - there's nobody else to do the negotiations as all the leavers ran away and are just whinging from a safe distance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJ1000

The BREXIT secretary has resigned, as he cannot support the deal - that he helped negotiate.

Leavers will no doubt no whinge that the reason the withdrawal deal is a shambles is because of the people negotiating it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000 said:


> Leavers will no doubt no whinge that the reason the withdrawal deal is a shambles is because of the people negotiating it.


It's THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE to request the government negotiate our leaving the EU, and it's THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE to put Theresa May and her government back in power in the last general election, but you can bet your arse THE PEOPLE will somehow blame everyone else now that's turned out to be a bad idea.


----------



## John-H

Things are moving very fast now. The parliamentary arithmetic does not favour Mrs May's deal. Keir Starmer confirmed this morning that Labour will vote against the deal and the DUP are hostile to it and have had government email updates stopped because they are no longer seen as supportive. The ERG are moving against May in a leadership challenge. We've had the Northern Ireland minister, the Brexit Secretary and Work and Pensions minister's resign this morning from the cabinet despite the one to one pep talks last night and hours of discussion overrun - which resulted in "agreement" but no joint statement and subsequent admissions of 1/3 disagreement - hence the resignations.

May has managed to unite Labour, SNP, SDP, UDP, Greens and both sides of her own party against her.

What now? Febrile times.

I'm predicting a People's Vote. If you noticed, May in her speech, said 'my deal, no deal or no Brexit'. That's the first time she has alluded to a status quo option.

Previous thoughts were that a leadership challenge may be triggered but would fail because the rabid Brexiteers can't put up someone to unite the party and nobody reasonable wants the job because it's a poison chalice so May would win as the fall guy. That's less certain now because of the resignations but what could a successor do? They can't support the May plan. The EU won't support an extension of A50(2) for more negotiations, only a referendum or a general election. Even if a hard line Brexiteer did win a leadership challenge there's no majority to crash out without a deal. The conservatives won't vote for a general election. What's left?

Focus on this:


----------



## bobclive22

https://www.bitchute.com/video/haNh7gqGL3o/


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> https://www.bitchute.com/video/haNh7gqGL3o/


EU: As a group, we can become more powerful and compete with China and the US.

Britain: Sounds good, but we want blue passports, soooo.....


----------



## FJ1000

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

A Titanic success...






Rise up from that...


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

Who would have thunk it.

A European Court ruling has thrown the UK's energy security into disarray by ordering the immediate halt to a £1bn scheme designed to keep Britain's lights on THIS WINTER.

The cornerstone energy security scheme has come to an abrupt standstill after the European Union's Court of Justice ruled that the UK should not be allowed to pay power plants to stay open.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... tandstill/


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

> *Whether PM survives or not, People's Vote is logical choice*
> 
> by Hugo Dixon | 15.11.2018
> 
> Theresa May's deal is dead and only a tiny number of MPs want "no deal". These are the key facts to bear in mind in the midst of the ministerial resignations and infighting.
> 
> As a result, voting down the deal doesn't mean we will end up crashing out with no deal. Far more likely, we will end up with a People's Vote.
> 
> But before we get there, the political drama will have to play out.
> 
> The first act will determine whether May stays as leader of the Conservative Party. Now that Jacob Rees-Mogg has called for a leadership challenge, it seems likely that there will soon be the 48 letters required to force the issue to a vote.
> 
> But that doesn't mean she will quit. A full 158 Tory MPs have to vote against her to force her out of office. Many people think she would resign if there were 100 or more. But May has shown the tenacity of a limpet and she could surprise observers again.
> 
> Write to your MP to demand a People's Vote
> 
> If the prime minister does survive, she will press on with the special EU summit to approve the deal on November 25 and then present her miserable deal to MPs a couple of weeks later. But it will then probably get shot down in flames - and rightly so. It is now being opposed from so many angles - the opposition, the DUP, Tory Brexiters, Tory pro-Europeans and possibly even Scottish Conservatives - that it could be defeated by a big majority.
> 
> After her deal is rejected, all sorts of alternative ideas will be tossed into the air. Labour will try to bring the government down. Various Tories will put forward their pet projects - such as Boris Johnson's "Super Canada" and Nick Boles' "Norway for Now". They are all hopeless.
> 
> Given that Parliament does not want "no deal", a People's Vote will probably be the only proposal left standing. MPs could then back it by a big majority. The EU is also in favour, with Donald Tusk saying he is "best prepared for a no-Brexit scenario". The prime minister herself might see the writing on the wall and end up supporting it. But if she doesn't, Parliament will force her to.
> 
> But what if the Moggite coup succeeds? It is hard to know how the drama would then unfold. Would there be a full leadership election for a new Conservative leader, including asking the party's members - and, if so, how long would that take? Would somebody step in as a caretaker and, if so, would he or she press ahead with May's Brexit deal or wait for the new leader to decide what to do?
> 
> But whatever happens, not much will change apart from up to two months of time-wasting. If there is no deal by January 21, whoever is prime minister has to present a plan to Parliament within five working days.
> 
> And the range of options will be pretty much the same: May's deal, crashing out with no deal or holding a People's Vote. Given that the deal will look just as bad as it does today and MPs won't want "no deal", the People's Vote again will be the main game in town.
> 
> https://infacts.org/whether-pm-survives ... al-choice/


----------



## John-H

Aaron Banks Brexit campaign funding links to illegal foreign sources in the USA Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, who bank rolled the Trump election campaign, revealed in leaked email to be investigated by parliament on Monday:


----------



## John-H

> "The divorce deal the EU has agreed today is bad for our power and our prosperity - and it's going to get worse because the notorious "backstop" puts us in an awful negotiating position for the coming talks over our future relationship with the EU."


https://infacts.org/only-answer-to-this ... heres-why/

If we leave this will go on and on and on..... you ain't seen nothing yet [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## John-H

The Prime Minister's lies and half truths in her 800 word letter to the nation exposed:

https://infacts.org/mays-letter-to-publ ... lf-truths/


----------



## John-H

The case that the Prime Minister knew of and failed to investigate criminality in the conduct of the referendum and yet triggered Article 50 is to be fast tracked in the High Court with a ruling that the Brexit vote be declared 'void' as early as Christmas.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 49001.html


----------



## FJ1000

John-H said:


> The case that the Prime Minister knew of and failed to investigate criminality in the conduct of the referendum and yet triggered Article 50 is to be fast tracked in the High Court with a ruling that the Brexit vote be declared 'void' as early as Christmas.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 49001.html


I saw that over the weekend - sounds like big news to me but only covered by the Independent.

Bollocks to BREXIT

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

Latest polling by Populous has remain at 56%
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-5793961

The trend of polls now shows this:


----------



## John-H

We can revoke Article 50 - it's been agreed by all parties at the the ECJ today. The die is not set - we won't necessarily be leaving the EU.

The only question is whether (a) the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50(2) notice, or (b) whether it requires agreement from the EU Council - that's going to be ruled on in the coming days. I predict (a) but the important point is we don't have to leave the EU - it's official.

Please write to your MP via this link to let them know - that (either way) we don't have to leave any more. This could be a game changer as it removes the threat of "no deal":

https://goodlawproject.org/article-50-case/

(just enter postcode and off you go. Please pass it on!)


----------



## bobclive22

> Aaron Banks Brexit campaign funding links to illegal foreign sources in the USA Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, who bank rolled the Trump election campaign, revealed in leaked email to be investigated by parliament on Monday:


A link from the same Guardian article,

TTIP has been booed off the stage but another treaty, whose probable impacts are almost identical, is waiting in the wings. And this one is more advanced, wanting only final approval.* If this happens before Britain leaves the EU, we are likely to be stuck with it for 20 years.*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -canada-eu

*information-commissioner-crushes-caroles-conspiracies*

https://order-order.com/2018/11/06/info ... spiracies/


----------



## John-H

The ECJ Advocate General has given his opinion the UK can unilaterally withdraw Article 50(2) notice.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1494909

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... cid=162518

Note there is no overarching mutual consent as that would undermine a member states sovereignty. Also "intention" is not a decision legally is cited and the onus of notification and enactment of decision is thrown back to a state's own constitutional requirements as required by A50(1) and the Vienna convention on which it is based.

The government's hypothetical argument is entirely dismissed.

Let your MP know that Article 50 can be withdrawn without cost so we retain our current deal. The threat of no deal is removed:

https://goodlawproject.org/article-50-case/


----------



## FJ1000

Norway has put an end to the "Norway plus" option - not that it was ever an option to begin with...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> The Liberal Democrats can offer "exactly the formula" of centrist French President Emmanuel Macron, Sir Vince Cable has said.





> He said that, in the UK: "The Tories have effectively been taken over by *hard line anti-Europe zealots*


And you want to remain within the EU John :lol: :lol:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40 ... ws_central



> The French people have chosen hope over fear and unity over division. *Congratulations (Sadiq Khan)*


 *oops*


----------



## John-H

A comment in a news article from June 2017? Your reference is behind the times Bob.

This has more up to date information from two days ago:










"The poll comes after the prime minister last month delivered the three option ultimatum to her MPs: her deal, no deal or no Brexit. This was the largest survey on Brexit to date, with nearly 21,000 people participating in the poll. The same methodology was used which nearly perfectly predicted the hung parliamentary results of 2017.

Supporters were asked to rank May's deal/no deal/remain options in order of preferences."


----------



## bobclive22

> A comment in a news article from June 2017? Your reference is behind the times Bob.


A lot can happen in a short time, don`t have blind faith in your masters john,

The optimal solution would be for leaders to draw the logical conclusion from the major disasters of the past years, give up *the impossible dream of the superstate and start planning an alliance based on genuinely shared interests.* Brexit would be the best opportunity to launch this exercise by negotiating in a constructive way instead of alienating a former member state and ally. Alas, this is the least likely outcome because *the EU leadership is wedded to the abolition of the nation state,* is used to ruling rather than governing, and the ruling classes have too much vested interest in the game.

The third possibility is that the leadership will realise that the experiment has failed but refuse to abandon it. In a hopeless situation, sometimes the best defence is attack. *Merkel has called on EU countries to "give up more sovereignty",* and on *France to share its Security Council seat with the EU, in practice strengthening German dominance.* Merkel and Macron have both called for a "real European army". The migrant situation, terrorism and civil unrest à la française may be construed a justification of extraordinary measures. *It is just one step from here to rely on a "European army" to help member states keep "law and order".*

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget


----------



## FJ1000

It's ironic that Leavers are pointing at the French riots as some kind of evidence of an EU-wide problem, whereas it is actually perfect proof that one of their main claims is BS.

It is precisely BECAUSE each state is sovereign that Macron can enact policy that pissed off people sensitive to fuel prices. He did that, not the EU.

Just as the Tory Government enacted austerity, squeezed the NHS and local councils to breaking point, failed to use their immigration control powers, and failed to invest outside London. All claimed on the EU, when the Government actually had control.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

You do talk a lot of cobblers Bob.

The EU don't want to alienate us they want us to remain in the EU.

It is you and and people like you who want us to alienate ourselves.

The French protests by the way have been hijacked by the dark forces of the right and fascism. There's money fuelling such things from the likes of Robert Mercer and Steve Bannon. We need to keep a united Europe against this.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

These two recent statements alone should make every European citizen, not just the Brits, think twice about what being a EU member could ultimately mean to themselves and their children in the near future -

_"Today, nation states should, I would say must - be prepared to give up their sovereignty. But of course in an orderly manner. National parliaments must play the key role in making such concessions for the greater good."_
A. Merkel

_"You would not create a European army to use it immediately, but a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union."_
J.C. Juncker

For those who don't believe history repeats itself, the phrase "Gemeinnutzgeht vor Eigennutz" − the common good supersedes the private good - was one of the more popular slogans during Hitler's times and we all know how that worked out.

So all you have to do is give up your sovereignty and put on a uniform for the EU? What could possibly go wrong with that?


----------



## John-H

What, are you suggesting the EU would go to war with itself? Don't you think the idea behind a common army is entirely defensive for protection of member states against outside forces and with the uncertain position of the US within NATO? The EU has certainly been a peace project since its conception to stop the scourge of war and to keep the peace in Europe. The idea of shared or pooling of sovereignty is a necessity of such cooperative projects - a phrase used by Churchill as a necessary good and debated at length in the UK parliament prior to the UK joining the then EEC in 1972.

Besides, as a member state, the UK has a veto and all member states would have to agree on such a move. We would have no say if we left the EU. So, your argument, powered by your own concern is logically one for the UK to remain in the EU. Thanks [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Not war against itself, but I would not put it past the EU to use its military against European citizens to keep them in line.

Russia is no more a threat to Europe than Spain to the UK. Putin is about restoring an historic Russia, not military expansion into the west. Besides, the west is their best potential customer and Russian occupation of Europe is pure fantasy. Mr. Junkers should be more concerned with Russian and Chinese hackers and ransom-ware attacks against European banks and financial services via the internet than with visions of tanks rolling into Brussels. Talk about out of touch with reality!

But to your point, if an EU Army can draw manpower from all member nations, then when it declares Martial Law to put down civil unrest (as the French were recently considering against the 'Yellow Vests") it could effectively end up in a situation of putting UK troops against UK citizens.

Then there's the issue of manpower. Would the EU be able to use conscription from member nations? Germany only recently stopped theirs a few years ago, but there's nothing to stop them from bringing it back, especially to support an EU Army if they don't get enough volunteers.

History has shown time and time again, when a government has total control of it's military, it has no hesitation to use it against it's own population. Especially when it's population is effectively unarmed as is the case in Europe.

Just like the supposed "Russian and Chinese threat" the recent issue with President Trump and the USA is just a ploy to get US Forces out of NATO and out of Europe so the EU puppet masters can do what they want without having to worry about the US getting in the way. Do you think they'd have this same "get out of Europe" attitude if Mr. Obama was still in office?? I mean seriously, does anyone actually think the USA is a threat to Europe? What nonsense!

More to the point is funding. The UK can't effectively staff the military it has (1), and the current German military is barely operational (2). This is pretty much the case across all existing European Armies, Navies and Air Forces. European countries can't even afford the 2% GDP contribution for NATO, let alone fund an entire EU Army, Navy and Air Force.

Then there's deployment. Exactly how does the EU plan on moving this new EU Army? Even the UK doesn't have an equivalent to the USA's C-5 Galaxy or C-17. Yes, there's a European A400-M cargo aircraft, but you'll find it lacks the ability to carry main battle tanks. As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight!

The recent riots in France by the 'Yellow Vests' have proven the French have had enough of excessive taxation and were willing to set their city ablaze to prove a point.

So with all that in mind, can you explain how the EU plans on funding their proposed EU Army and where the manpower will come from?

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ade-report
(2) https://www.stripes.com/news/as-germany ... l-1.527253


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> History has shown time and time again, when a government has total control of it's military, it has no hesitation to use it against it's own population. Especially when it's population is unarmed.


It's an odd argument. We already live in a country where our government has total control of its military and we are unarmed.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

True. But each sovereign government controls their own military. When the EU has it's own military forces, drawing manpower from member states, that's a whole different ball game. The EU has proven it does not answer to each member state, just the opposite is true, and is exactly why Martin Schulz wants United States of Europe by 2025 (1).

In the USA, we have the Federal military and the National Guard. The National Guard is made up of citizens from the local state population, which then reports to the state Governor. The National Guard can be called upon by the Governor to enforce martial law, or as riot control as was the case back during the Vietnam war on university campus. Typically, however, they provide humanitarian aid during natural disasters.

But even Americans have questioned the role of the National Guard if there was a Federal movement against a State. Would the Federal government fire on the National Guard especially if the National Guard was sympathetic to it's own State's citizens.

Just consider the recent situation with the "Yellow Vests" in France. The French police backed down and took off their helmets in solitary with their fellow countrymen (2). The question is whether an EU Army unit, in confrontation with those same French citizens, would also be as sympathetic especially if that EU Army unit wasn't French?

(1) https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-ma ... e-by-2025/
(2) https://www.collective-evolution.com/20 ... he-people/

.


----------



## ross_cj250

Ummm, didn't the remain side say that there wasn't going to be a European army, it was just scare stories from the brexitiers? :wink:

Regards

Ross


----------



## John-H

In answer to your end question SwissJet Pilot - you argue against your own conclusion. If you say it can't be funded then it's not going to happen.

I do think talk of using an EU army to quell insurrection in a member state, wherever that came from, is bordering on paranoid or put about for political reasons.

Member states have their own civil police and military forces. The individual state concerned would be the first to know of any civil unrest and employ their own forces to restore order under their own sovereign powers.

The EU is a very democratic organisation (despite what some would have you believe) and respectful of the individual member state's constitution and sovereignty - just look at the Article 50 process as an example of that - so there's no way it would dream or have a process to muscle in on a member state's internal affairs and certainly wouldn't be able to do it quicker than the individual member state's own government. That worry is just nonsensical.

In any case, as I already said, any such worries would be an argument to remain in the EU to have a say.

Leaving under Mrs May's deal to become a rule taker with no veto, no say, is the opposite of "taking back control" and regaining sovereignty. It's letting go of the shared element of sovereignty for the EU to have total control over and following the rules without any say.

Leaving without any replacement treaty agreement would be illegal under international law and lose all trust for any further international agreements.

Leaving with a bare minimum of negotiated treaty agreements to keep the planes flying, the pensions and long term projects funded, and the banking system from collapsing due to the £12 Trillion of unassigned cross border derivatives, maybe a legal "no deal" but the lack of a trade deal or continuity of the existing arrangements will cause massive disruption. This is really why Brexit is not deliverable and why it's best to abandon it and work from within for continuity and the ability to reform and exercise shared control with a veto.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Wait, what? ...

_"The EU is a very democratic organisation (despite what some would have you believe) and respectful of the individual member state's constitution and sovereignty....there's no way it would dream or have a process to muscle in on a member state's internal affairs..."_

Really? You're kidding, right??? One only need look at how the EU reacted to Poland and Hungary saying "No!" to the EUs immigration policy, which is clearly being forced upon them...

_"Orban castigated European lawmakers in a fiery speech at the parliamentary chambers in Strasbourg, France, saying, "Hungary is going to be condemned because the Hungarian people have decided that this country is not going to be a country of migrants." He said Europe had no right to interfere in the actions of a sovereign government."Hungary will not accede to this blackmailing. Hungary will protect its borders, stop illegal migration," he said, "and if needed we will stand up to you."

"Poland said it was very worried by the European Parliament's rare decision to launch a procedure against Hungary for posing a "systemic threat" to the EU's founding values. The vote took the first steps under Article 7 of the European Union Treaty, known by some in Brussels as the "nuclear option", which could ultimately strip Hungary of its EU voting rights."_

Evidently "Democratic" is just a nonsensical term to the EU Parliament when sovereign member states decide to not do what the EU dictates.

As to the EU finding the funding for it's new EU Army...

_"In Brussels, the EU Commission has proposed a €13-billion European Defense Fund for the bloc's next long-term budget." _

Since the European Commission is empowered by the EU Treaty to borrow from the international capital markets, on behalf of the European Union, my guess would be that €13-billion won't be hard to find.

But it does begs the question, why does the EU Parliament feel it needs a unique European Army when, as you say, every member already has it's own military? My guess is just one word - "control".

.


----------



## John-H

You quote me out of context. We were talking about a hypothetical EU army. But it's interesting that the diversion you cite as an example of interference with sovereignty is actually an area of "pooled" or"shared" sovereignty that member states sign up to in agreement as part of joining the club - namely the four founding freedoms.

That's then the EU having a say in the pooled area of sovereignty that members agree to pool by treaty. It's not interference in an area of sovereignty outside the confines of the pool.

You can't join a club and then cherry pick which rules you don't want to follow so too right they've been pulled up on the issue.

Sorry, but that example falls flat on its face. It's in the treaty agreement.

As I was saying the EU wouldn't get involved with sovereign internal security issues - only things which it has agreed jurisdiction over.

It's also interesting that in returning to the subject of an EU army you end in using the term "control" - which is exactly what you advocate we lose by giving up our veto if we leave the EU. Then we will have no say. I'd rather we have a say and support and persuade to better outcomes.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I didn't take what you said out of context, we obviously have very different ideas of what Sovereign means.

By your definition, EU member nations are not sovereign nations at all if their own people have no say in how their freely elected government can control and protect their own borders and the interests of it's citizens. When a "member" has to default to EU policy, sovereignty goes out the window with an attitude of "...it's my way or the highway!" No wonder other members are looking to leave the club.

So if the EU dictates policy to all the "club members" for which they have no say, then what's the point of individual member state governments once you're in the club? To whom does the individual citizen own allegiance then; their own country or to the EU Council and Parliament? Clearly, you can't serve two masters equally.


----------



## John-H

It's not a sudden made up imposed "policy" as you seem to infer, it's an agreed treaty obligation entered into freely by member states which they previously signed up to.

I suggest you look up the "four freedoms".

Then, consider why they did that and more importantly given they have entered freely into a legally binding treaty agreement to their advantage (in their own perceptions at the time), whether club members should suddenly be allowed to break the rules?

Is it right, do you think, that cherry picking of rules should be allowed?

Isn't that just like the misconceived ideas of Brexiteers who thought they could have "the exact same benefits" of EU membership without accepting free movement of people and services and not paying membership fees etc?

Imagine the response you'd get if you suddenly told your sports centre, "I'm canceling my gym membership subscription, but I still want to come and use the equipment". If the gym said no and wouldn't let you in, would you complain that was interfering with your sovereignty?


----------



## Spandex

ross_cj250 said:


> Ummm, didn't the remain side say that there wasn't going to be a European army, it was just scare stories from the brexitiers? :wink:
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ross


No, they said that there wouldn't be an EU army while we were in the EU and didn't want one. So for brexiters to say that there would be an EU army if we remained is patently ridiculous, as there can only be one if we leave.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

@ John-H : I don't consider it "cherry picking", I consider it responsible compromise to agreements that are no longer applicable to a dynamic political environment. Especially where the original intentions or conditions of the agreement no longer exist or following them puts citizens at risk.

I may not know the "four freedoms" but I do know Situational Awareness. Some years ago, a young, inexperienced Air Traffic Controller attempted to put me directly into the flight path of an on coming aircraft in the traffic pattern. I'm here today because I intentionally ignored the ATC.

As the Pilot In Command of an aircraft, I have the ultimate responsibility to my own safety and to that of my passengers. But please - feel free to argue how I should have followed the instructions of that ATC which, by the way, were compliant with Federal Air Regulations.

In a similar way, leaders of sovereign nations have the ultimate responsibility to their citizens first and foremost. And they also have the right and responsibility to adjust any policy they may have agreed to, as they see fit, when the circumstances of the original agreement have changed and by following them may actually cause harm (e.g. physically, emotionally or financially) to their citizens.

Following rules, or orders, without the recourse or the common sense to realize they are no longer relevant to changing current events, is exactly the sort of stupidity that plunged Europe into WW1 - just because everyone signed a piece of paper.

@ Spandex: American president George Bush Sr. was famous for his quote "_Read my lips. No new taxes_." Although he did oppose the creation of new taxes as president, the Democratic-controlled Congress proposed increases of existing taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you hear" especially from politicians!

Not only does the EU Parliament want an army, Merkel and Macron are supporting the idea too -

_"Jean-Claude Juncker already said that a common European army would show the world that there would never again be war in Europe,"_ Merkel said, referring to the European Commission president, who was in the Parliament chamber. And she said that_ "...the EU needs to invoke treaty provisions that allow decisions to be taken by a qualified majority of member countries, without the customary unanimity that often blocks security and defense initiatives." _(1)

I love her catch phrase, "qualified majority" which in political speech means France and Germany. Nice how those two countries can make decisions "without the customary unanimity" of other member states. Nice one!

Of course, these people have yet to explain why, after more than 70-consecutive years of peace in Europe, they suddenly need to justify a brand new European Army. Oh that's right - Russia and China and America, oh my!

(1) https://www.politico.eu/article/angela- ... ment-nato/


----------



## SwissJetPilot

@ John-H: Despite the idea that the EU Parliament is just some grand, benevolent overseer for Europe, you might want to read up on recent events. Switzerland, which is a role model for working democracy, and has one of the highest standards of living in the world, is now under pressure from the EU to accept new policies it doesn't want.

_"As Brexit approaches in the UK, the EU wants to recalibrate relations with "third party" countries - nations that have close ties to the bloc but are not members. The Swiss cabinet must choose whether to accept a deal that would align the affluent Alpine country even closer with the EU and, in critics' eyes, undermine the country's independence. Since the UK voted for Brexit, Brussels has been determined that Switzerland should not become a model for third country relationships. _ (1)

_"Switzerland faces the threat of financial sanctions from the EU after its cabinet refused on Friday to endorse a deal aligning the small Alpine nation more closely with the bloc. In decision that could have ramifications for the UK after Brexit, the Swiss federal council, or cabinet, declined to agree a proposed new "institutional framework" to govern EU trading relations with Switzerland, which is not an EU member."_ (2)

So let's go back to your "club membership" argument. In this case the EU Parliament (the club owners) can "recalibrate" and change the rules as it sees fit. Exactly how is it okay for the club owners to change the rules but not the members or in the case of Switzerland, non-club members?

The EU is terrified of losing power as it sees membership slipping away and immediately looks to put pressure on anyone else not fully "in the club". Again, it's all about control as I said before. The EU Parliament is going to take whatever measures it can to ensure every European country is under their thumb with France and Germany having the majority say.

Have you read the definition of Facism? _"A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy." _

Just sayin' -

(1) https://www.ft.com/content/d596a2a8-f86 ... a24bd5409c
(2) https://www.ft.com/content/c1545cb8-fa4 ... 22a0b02a6c


----------



## FJ1000

Leavers missing the point that a UK still in the EU can veto an EU army?? We can't if we Leave.

But - seriously- this is what you're worried about?

Or is it just that all your other arguments have been trashed so heavily that you need something else to clutch onto?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> In a similar way, leaders of sovereign nations have the ultimate responsibility to their citizens first and foremost. And they also have the right and responsibility to adjust any policy they may have agreed to, as they see fit, when the circumstances of the original agreement have changed and by following them may actually cause harm (e.g. physically, emotionally or financially) to their citizens.


It's that kind of melodramatic, over emotional thinking that has got us into this whole mess in the first place. If people could actually cope with disliking something without having to have a massive negative emotional reaction to it, we'd be able to work through the issues with the EU instead of throwing all our toys out the pram. Unfortunately that kind of emotional maturity is sadly lacking in society these days.

We're not at risk of physical or financial harm by staying in the EU, and if someone wants to explain to me how it puts them at risk of emotional harm then please do - this thread could do with a few more laughs like that.



SwissJetPilot said:


> @ Spandex: American president George Bush Sr. was famous for his quote "Read my lips. No new taxes." Although he did oppose the creation of new taxes as president, the Democratic-controlled Congress proposed increases of existing taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you hear" especially from politicians! Not only does the EU Parliament want an army, Merkel and Macron are talking about one too.


Why does everyone keep repeating this like it's the part that we disagree with? I know various people high up in the EU have discussed the benefits of an EU army. I know some of them would really like one. The point is (and it's a simple one that has been said enough times for it not to really need repeating) that they can't have one as long as a single country in the EU opposes it.

It's like saying we'll have to join the Euro if we stay in the EU. Nonesense, but the aim isn't to win an intelligent debate, it's to stoke up fears in people who don't look any further into it. If you write enough headlines saying Turkey are joining the EU soon, eventually a few thousand people will just believe it. And if you're really lucky, that's all you'll need to win a referendum.


----------



## John-H

@ SwissJet Pilot

Any change that the EU makes is with the consent of members within its democratic structure. It's hardly also surprising that it should act in the interest of its members. Switzerland is not a member.

Coming back to your other accusations.

It's the protection of citizens rights and democratic freedoms that sparked off sanctions against Hungary. The EU requires a democratic system of member state government and an independent judiciary.

This article explains the background and these are the charges:



> Since coming to power, Mr Orban's government has taken a hardline stance against immigration. It introduced a law which made it a criminal offence for lawyers and activists to help asylum seekers, under the banner of "facilitating illegal immigration".
> 
> But there have also been reports of pressure being put on the courts and the electoral system, and of widespread corruption.


https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45498514

So it's not protection of citizens from immigration by Hungary which you compared to the sensible safety override of avoiding a mid air collision.

What triggered the Article 7 action was suppression of citizens rights and suppression of the judiciary etc.

Hard right wing extremists and the rise of fascism is currently being fueled by external political funding to undermine the EU with encouragement from the likes of Steve Bannon (from the Trump campaign) who has been meeting with Hungary and Poland leaders, and has had meetings with and knows very well the UK's Nigel Farage and has had several meetings with Jacob Rees- Mog - both proponents of hard Brexit, and has been encouraging the far right "Tommy Robinson" who now advises UKIP which even Nigel Farage felt would be an unsavory vehicle too far for him, so he's gone off to start a new party.

Things are rarely simple and arguments get politicised. Be careful who your bed fellows are.


----------



## John-H

Of far more immediate significance:

UK can cancel Brexit, says EU court - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-46481643

Thanks to everyone who helped fund the action.

https://www.gofundme.com/thepeopleschal ... c88fd04fc5


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Emotions, such as fear, are exactly why we have laws to protect our interests. Now, how rational those fears may be is a different debate.

And if Switzerland is not a member of the EU, then why is the EU planning on imposing draconian steps against them if they don't agree to the terms put before them? The EU can't have it both ways.

Sorry, but I have to agree with the Hungarians on this one. Anyone who facilitates or encourages illegal immigration should be prosecuted. The Hungarians, and everyone else, have the right to protect their borders and their citizens as they see fit, including the implementation of their own laws. And please, save me the 'corruption' nonsense. Anyone who believes governments, even western ones, are free from corruption is delusional.

I'm pretty sure if 1.4 million 'refugees' had showed on on the border of Belgium, the EU Parliament would have "recalibrated" the terms of the agreements they signed as they saw fit. And in all fairness, rightly so. But as we have already seen, the owners of "the club" have shown us they can change the rules to suit their needs. But they make sure the members can't.

To the point on the EU Army "_...they can't have one as long as a single country in the EU opposes it._" all the EU Parliament has to do is put enough pressure on anyone who opposes them (as they are currently threatening with Switzerland) to get the consent they want. It's that simple!

The EU Parliament has consistently proven they will say and do whatever they want to both members and non-members to get what they want, with or without the consent of the European people and their respective governments; either through mutual agreement or overt coercion. That much is clear.

By the way - I appreciate the opportunity to debate this with you both and respect your positions even if I don't completely agree with it. However I will say, I completely agree it's a very emotional subject and Brexit will have many unforeseen consequences no matter which way it goes.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Be careful who your bed fellows are.


That alone is an important point. If I found myself on the same side as people like Bannon and Robinson, that would cause me concern. If the side you're on attracts racists and bigots then maybe it's not good enough to just say "yeah, but I'm not one".


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The term 'extremist' has gained far too much influence in today's vocabulary. Now every time someone disagrees with some else's point of view they're labeled a racist, bigot or extremist and immediately lumped in with either the far right or far left.

The middle, along with a good deal of common sense, has suddenly seemed to have disappeared.

One could argue the original US Constitution was based on extremist views of it's day. I'm sure King George would have agreed with me on that point as he watched us implement Brexit 1.0.


----------



## John-H

Here's something more positive. A dividend that can come out of all of this and address the problems that caused it:

http://www.commongrounduk.com/reports/t ... of-brexit/


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> The term 'extremist' has gained far too much influence in today's vocabulary. Now every time someone disagrees with some else's point of view they're labeled a racist, bigot or extremist and immediately lumped in with either the far right or far left.


That comment serves no useful purpose other than to excuse bad behaviour.


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> Emotions, such as fear, are exactly why we have laws to protect our interests. Now, how rational those fears may be is a different debate.


No, it's not 'a different debate'. It's THIS debate. Excusing the stupidity by saying "it's ok to have concerns. We'll worry about whether they're rational another day" is the whole reason we're here.



SwissJetPilot said:


> To the point on the EU Army "_...they can't have one as long as a single country in the EU opposes it._" all the EU Parliament has to do is put enough pressure on anyone who opposes them (as they are currently threatening with Switzerland) to get the consent they want. It's that simple!


No it's not that simple. If it was that simple we'd have been in the Euro and we'd have been in an EU army years ago. The reason we're not is because the EU patently doesn't work the way you claim it does. Sorry, but saying something doesn't make it true. What you're doing is engaging in the same scaremongering that we've had to put up with from the right wing press for years.

The problem is, if people stopped with the scaremongering and just pointed out the actual, genuine, current known issues with the EU (because they definitely exist. I'm not blind to that), there's a risk that everyone might realise that these were all problems we could try to fix from within the organisation. But that's not the aim for these people - they want out at any cost (to everyone else) so instead they focus on all the terrible things that _could_ happen, but they talk about them as though they definitely *will* happen any time soon (it's been 'any time soon' for decades now of course, but lets ignore that).


----------



## John-H

I quite agree Spandex. Scaremongering, accusations of being unelected, antisemitic, antidemocratic, corrupt, bullying, telling us what to do, bent bananas etc etc - all false but repeat them often enough and people start to believe it. Then the real bullies get their way.

This document gives a useful perspectives behind some of the motivations of the Brexiteers:

https://www.open-britain.co.uk/r?u=9g-h ... 1fdc462279


----------



## ashfinlayson

We're not in an EU army or the Euro because the majority of MEPs are eurosceptic. Which begs the question, if the majority of the elected European parliament are eurosceptic, how can the very existence of the EU be deemed democratic? The answer is that it's not - There is an elite council setting priorities of their own agenda for an unelected commission behind closed doors. Fortunately there is an elected parliament which seems to have the sole purpose of putting down mostly egregious policy tabled by the commission. Although they have been known to drop the occasional bollock, like when they elected Junker :lol: So we can only hope that when the commission tables the abolition of the national veto next year, that they don't drop the other one.


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> The problem is, if people stopped with the scaremongering and just pointed out the actual, genuine, current known issues with the EU (because they definitely exist. I'm not blind to that), there's a risk that everyone might realise that these were all problems we could try to fix from within the organisation.


They have. It can be argued that Brexit was born out of years of frustration through talks and nothing being accomplished as a result.

Stopping Freedom of movement and limiting immigration being two prime examples...


----------



## FJ1000

ashfinlayson said:


> We're not in an EU army or the Euro because the majority of MEPs are eurosceptic. Which begs the question, if the majority of the elected European parliament are eurosceptic, how can the very existence of the EU be deemed democratic? The answer is that it's not - There is an elite council setting priorities of their own agenda for an unelected commission behind closed doors. Fortunately there is an elected parliament which seems to have the sole purpose of putting down mostly egregious policy tabled by the commission. Although they have been known to drop the occasional bollock, like when they elected Junker :lol: So we can only hope that when the commission tables the abolition of the national veto next year, that they don't drop the other one.


1. We're not in an EU army because it doesn't exist.

2. Any source for that claim? The Eurosceptics seem to me to be a (very loud) minority. Remember when the Tory eurosceptic group (the ERG) tried to oust May a couple of weeks ago and couldn't muster the 48 votes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"What you're doing is engaging in the same scaremongering that we've had to put up with from the right wing press for years." _

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in EU statements, policies and practices that make me question how honest and above board they really are. For example, you seem to think an EU Army won't happen because of some prior agreement. I'm saying the EU will do what it wants and use any means to get it whether you believe it or not.

Just look at this recent statement by Angela Merkel. We've all heard that all EU members are equal and have an equal voice. Well, evidently not when it comes to decisions of security and defense -

"_...the EU needs to invoke treaty provisions that allow decisions to be taken by a qualified majority of member countries, without the customary unanimity that often blocks security and defense initiatives._"

Okay, so please explain -

1. Who are the "_qualified majority of member countries_" she's talking about? 
2. To what standards are member countries considered qualified or unqualified? 
3. And what gives those members the right to over-rule "unqualified" member countries?

The fact she stated "_...without the customary unanimity that often blocks security and defense initiatives_" is a huge red flag. She's talking about giving carte blanc to a select few members, while excluding other sovereign member nations from decisions about security and defense.

Her statement, taken to it's logical conclusion, is about who decides to use military force. She's talking about who decides to go to war. And she's clearly stated, not everyone gets to participate in that decision, just the "qualified majority" - whoever that is.
.


----------



## Stiff

SwissJetPilot said:


> The term 'extremist' has gained far too much influence in today's vocabulary. Now every time someone disagrees with some else's point of view they're labeled a racist, bigot or extremist and immediately lumped in with either the far right or far left.
> 
> The middle, along with a good deal of common sense, has suddenly seemed to have disappeared.


Couldn't agree more.



Spandex said:


> That comment serves no useful purpose other than to excuse bad behaviour.


Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Stiff

Brexit is on the ropes, and Theresa May is looking increasingly like a giraffe caught in the headlights. 
Whether you voted Breakfast or Romanian, we should all unite behind the Prime Minister, while the Conservative Backbenchers stab her in the back.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> They have. It can be argued that Brexit was born out of years of frustration through talks and nothing being accomplished as a result.


Lol...


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have. It can be argued that Brexit was born out of years of frustration through talks and nothing being accomplished as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...
Click to expand...

I know, I know. Incredible isn't it


----------



## bobclive22

> leopard wrote:
> They have. It can be argued that Brexit was born out of years of frustration through talks and nothing being accomplished as a result.
> 
> Lol...


*The French protests, like Brexit, are a raging cry for help from the disenfranchised*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ces-macron

I would have thought being at the bottom of the pile you would have understood this Spandex.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> *The French protests, like Brexit, are a raging cry for help from the disenfranchised*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ces-macron
> 
> I would have thought being at the bottom of the pile you would have understood this Spandex.


Lol...


----------



## ashfinlayson

FJ1000 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not in an EU army or the Euro because the majority of MEPs are eurosceptic. Which begs the question, if the majority of the elected European parliament are eurosceptic, how can the very existence of the EU be deemed democratic? The answer is that it's not - There is an elite council setting priorities of their own agenda for an unelected commission behind closed doors. Fortunately there is an elected parliament which seems to have the sole purpose of putting down mostly egregious policy tabled by the commission. Although they have been known to drop the occasional bollock, like when they elected Junker :lol: So we can only hope that when the commission tables the abolition of the national veto next year, that they don't drop the other one.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We're not in an EU army because it doesn't exist.
> 
> 2. Any source for that claim? The Eurosceptics seem to me to be a (very loud) minority. Remember when the Tory eurosceptic group (the ERG) tried to oust May a couple of weeks ago and couldn't muster the 48 votes?
> 
> Yes, google 'national veto comes under fire' or similar, there are multiple publications on it
> 
> Given that May has called off the vote, I suspect Tory rebels feel they don't need to bring her down, she's doing a fab job by herself
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## ashfinlayson

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Stiff said:


> Brexit is on the ropes, and Theresa May is looking increasingly like a giraffe caught in the headlights.
> Whether you voted Breakfast or Romanian, we should all unite behind the Prime Minister, while the Conservative Backbenchers stab her in the back.


----------



## ashfinlayson

@Swiss, You're points regarding the European army and the qualified majority are bang on.


----------



## John-H

And my point about having no say in the matter if we leave seems to be ignored by those "banging on".

It will only happen if all states are in agreement and what is proposed is within the existing treaty boundaries and of non legislative issues - so there's no chance of non veto qualified majority voting being used to create new laws in the proposals as far as I can see.

Those waving their hands with worry are only worrying because they choose to be suspicious, want other people to worry and choose not to see any potential worth and laudable motivation in any of the proposals. They want to knock the EU and since their other arguments have been demolished and the advantages of leaving shown to be a pack of lies and fantasy nonsense promises are now clutching at things like the far off possibility of there being an EU army and rather than accept it as further enhancing the EU's roll as a peace project, more efficient organisation of military capability which would save member states money, a compliment to NATO and an insurance policy in case the USA drops out (as has been explained) - they, with an almost hysterical paranoia imagine it's all some sort of secret Masonic-esk conspiracy bid for control and quelling of the populous and splash chosen extracts about on the internet couched in their own interpretation for their own dubious reasons. What is this - project paranoia? Certainly not a balanced view. You wouldn't get the BBC reporting it like that.

Still, as I say, if you want to retain control then don't leave and keep your say and influence instead.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Your points haven't been ignored john, if they were, we wouldn't be on page 100 would we. Personally, I don't want to have a say in the matter, I want to leave the EU. If other member states want to become vassal states to a European overlord, that's up to them.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

John-H: With all respect my friend, the EU Parliament has clearly stated it will decide with or without anyone's consent, whether it will have a military, or anything else it feels is necessary, to maintain power and control under the guise of "security and defense".

Junckers and Merkle said as much in their statements with words like "recalibrate" and phrases like "qualified majority". I hate to say it, but I have to give them credit for at least being open and honest about their intentions. All one need do is listen to what they're saying.

A lIttle foot note on the "security and defense" comment. You may recall from your history lessons that Germany, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles following WW1, massively expanded its military after the Nazi Party came to power in 1933.

Oddly enough, they also used the phrase "...for security and defense". Coincidence Frau Merkle used it too? Hummmm...


----------



## John-H

Well, congrats to all for reaching page 100 

A vassal state would be under Mrs May's deal. Being a full member gives you joint control.

As regards the removal of veto powers in certain matters, this can't just be imposed. Article 48, the "passerelle" clause would need unanimous agreement at EU summits and could be blocked by the parliament of one member state. This is both democratic and safeguarded by the principal of subsidiarity.

So, if you like, there's a veto on the removal of veto powers. There's also a treaty principal that the EU central body shall not perform those tasks which can be performed at a member state level unless by agreement.

As has already been stated, we have a veto (which we would have to agree to be removed) with which we could block the formation of an EU army if we remain a full EU member. It can't be imposed upon us if we don't want it. If we leave we obviously lose this influence.

However, we may decide that the EU common defence moves may be a good idea but that's up to us to decide (as a full member).

As for the comments about the rise of the third Reich, that strikes me as unwarranted paranoid delusional pattern spotting (the sort of thing said by Mr Farage to worry people) - besides if you were seriously worried about such possibilities - remain and keep control is the obvious answer :!:


----------



## Spandex

SwissJetPilot said:


> I hate to say it, but I have to give them credit for at least being open and honest about their intentions. All one need do is listen to what they're saying.


I did wonder how people could possibly rationalise such a contradictory position, where they claim that the EU is scheming away behind the scenes to take away our powers, and (with seemingly no fear of irony) evidence these claims by quoting open and transparent statements and discussions from senior figures in the EU.

Now I know. You just ignore the contradiction and carry on as though it makes sense.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> @Swiss, You're points regarding the European army and the qualified majority are bang on.


They are if you assume that every other country in the EU is in agreement about ceding control of their military, and the good ole UK is the only country with the balls to stand up to those Brussels bullies. Which unfortunately is exactly how a large number of brexiters like to see it.

But that's all bollocks really, isn't it. The EU couldn't hope to get universal agreement on an 'EU army' or on a move to majority voting, even without the U.K. in there.


----------



## Spandex

But brexiters don't really care anyway. It's just an excuse. They want to leave and if there was absolutely guaranteed zero chance of an EU army, or the removal of the veto, they'd just be talking about some other reason. And if every single reason they could think of was removed, they'd still want to leave. It's an emotional decision, not a rational one. The 'rational' window dressing is subconsciously added on afterwards to justify the position. People want to leave because of misplaced patriotism and a bizarre belief that the U.K. is still a powerful country (so obviously closer integration with the EU must be giving up that imagined power). It's national pride, but not the good kind - the 'pride before a fall' kind


----------



## SwissJetPilot

This is priceless!









https://dms.licdn.com/playback/C5605AQE ... 6o14bwF0yk


----------



## silkman

No, this is.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=512950682524090


----------



## John-H

They are both hilarious and I heard about the Gollum one - excellent :lol:

On a serious note @ Spandex: "Island mentality" - I think there's a lot to be said for that in terms of perspective. We've not had anyone invade and occupy the UK I think since the Normans so there's no recent shared handed down memory of such things. Just one of empire benefits and more recently of fending off invaders in WW2.

Contrast that with people on the continent who had their land and people trampled under invading forces. There's a recent handed down memory there; grandparents to parents to present adults, of how terrible that was and a natural motivation to ensure it doesn't happen again.

I have long thought that the film Schindlers List was a masterpiece in engaging a viewer and telling the story of what it it was like to be caught up in that catastrophe, so amazing that I'd not heard of the story before, of Schindler himself and how empathy and decency prevailed in the end to save so many people. Every time I watch the film it brings me to tears.

When I see a good film I often encourage friends to watch it too but I've noticed that whilst British friends and family can share my appreciation of how good this anti war film is to tell the story and drive home now we are all humans together - many of my European friends can't watch it. They have family memory of such events all too raw of cruelty, rape and murder. Children dashed out of existence against a wall or bayonetted in the street because they ran when families were ordered out of their houses.

We in the UK have no recent communal memory of such things. No wonder our perspective is different in our relatively safe island. We are pre-disposed to think of ourselves differently and in the recently discussed topic of an EU army, mistrust the motivation of others trying to ensure peace in an uncertain world. We are all human and should work together to make a peaceful and friendly success of our existence.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## Stiff




----------



## leopard




----------



## Stiff




----------



## Yashin

No confidence vote in May between 6 - 8pm tonight in Parliament. The plot thickens.....


----------



## ashfinlayson

Yashin said:


> No confidence vote in May between 6 - 8pm tonight in Parliament. The plot thickens.....


It certainly does.

I see she has already started with the scaremongering to protect her position, apparently a change of leadership will result in no deal :lol: Backing out of the vote was a spineless act of self-preservation and a half-arsed attempt at calling junket's bluff. At least if she had gone through with it and lost, the EU would know that Westminster will not accept the deal, and that it's no deal or back to the table.


----------



## FJ1000

Looks fairly safe that she'll keep her job for now I reckon. 100+ Tory MPs have already said they'll vote to keep her PM.

She's terrible. Some of the alternatives are worse.

If Corbyn called for a vote of no confidence in the government though - that would get interesting...I wonder if that would force May to offer a second referendum

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndreiV93

FJ1000 said:


> She's terrible. Some of the alternatives are worse.


This is what I fear :lol: as bad as she is in some aspects, the alternatives are frightening


----------



## John-H

With the clock ticking the May deal was the only realistic plan. A new leader can't push May's deal any longer as that's why she'd have been removed. If she remains her plan is already dead and she's weak. A replacement Brexiteer pushing a hard Brexit will get even less support and the Tory party will be split. There's no time left to negotiate anything substantial anyway. The only things left are a People's Vote with an A50 extension or withdrawing A50 notice and halting the process - which is by far the safer option and if anyone has the appetite then Brexiteers have the opportunity to discuss and plan a realistic Brexit with the country on the safe side of A50 and try to convince us that we want panto season again.


----------



## Spandex

Those aren't 'the only things'. The problem is that on March 29th, we leave the EU, whether we have a deal or not. Stopping or extending that clock would involve parliamentary approval to repeal/amend the withdrawal act. But we currently have a government and a parliament that cannot agree on anything.

There's a very serious risk that we just roll gently off the cliff while everyone bickers about who's turn it is to sit in the drivers seat.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> With the clock ticking the May deal was the only realistic plan. A new leader can't push May's deal any longer as that's why she'd have been removed. If she remains her plan is already dead and she's weak. A replacement Brexiteer pushing a hard Brexit will get even less support and the Tory party will be split. There's no time left to negotiate anything substantial anyway. The only things left are a People's Vote with an A50 extension or withdrawing A50 notice and halting the process - which is by far the safer option and if anyone has the appetite then Brexiteers have the opportunity to discuss and plan a realistic Brexit with the country on the safe side of A50 and try to convince us that we want panto season again.


The only option left is your option :lol: There is no majority for another referendum either John.


----------



## John-H

You are both right of course, there is a danger that bickering will lead us blindly over a cliff but the "no deal" resulting from parliamentary paralysis is not the same as a managed or legal "no deal" that would ensure the planes still fly, we can still get medicines, we don't lose £12 Trillion of cross border unassigned derivatives, we don't break international law and become a pariah state etc etc. That would require the government and parliament to get its act together and negotiate and enact into domestic law a treaty to ensure the bare legal minimum. I don't see any sign of that.

So, if paralysis does prevail up to near the deadline the pressure will be extreme for a rescue and by then the solution will have to be simple.


----------



## FJ1000

We got an email today that my company has setup a physical Dublin office for the first time, opening in the new year to ensure we can definitely service our EU clients. Several senior staff from London will be relocated, and in time more probably hired locally. Lawyers will have been busy for a while applying for licences for our existing Dublin entity - but the office is a surprise.

This adds nothing to our business and is just a cost - all due to the uncertainty of BREXIT.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

FJ1000 said:


> We got an email today that my company has setup a physical Dublin office for the first time, opening in the new year to ensure we can definitely service our EU clients. Several senior staff from London will be relocated, and in time more probably hired locally. Lawyers will have been busy for a while applying for licences for our existing Dublin entity - but the office is a surprise.
> 
> This adds nothing to our business and is just a cost - all due to the uncertainty of BREXIT.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yet your company will no doubt begin collecting revue from it's EU clients in Dublin, offsetting the expense with reduced corporation tax rates. That is of course until Junker's plan to take taxation out of the national prerogative kicks in and Ireland are no longer able to keep their rate low to encourage enterprise. Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Paolo Barnard's views on brexit

https://www.facebook.com/DemocraziaVerd ... DYzMTYzOA/


----------



## bobclive22

> There's a very serious risk that we just roll gently off the cliff while everyone bickers about who's turn it is to sit in the drivers seat.


Does it actually effect you Spandex, I thought half of nothing was still nothing. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Does it actually effect you Spandex, I thought half of nothing was still nothing. :lol: :lol:


Ok, who has hacked his account? There's no way the real BobBot could get that sum correct... [smiley=dizzy2.gif]


----------



## bobclive22

BRUSSELS - Theresa May personally insisted that the words *"ending of free movement of people" be added to the first page of the political declaration, the non-legally-binding part of the Brexit deal* that sets out the framework for the future UK-EU relationship.

Is it legally binding or not.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> BRUSSELS - Theresa May personally insisted that the words *"ending of free movement of people" be added to the first page of the political declaration, the non-legally-binding part of the Brexit deal* that sets out the framework for the future UK-EU relationship.
> 
> Is it legally binding or not.


The withdrawal agreement will be legally binding. The political declaration is not legally binding. It's not complicated.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eclaration


----------



## FJ1000

May told last night that the withdrawal agreement is not renegotiable.

Like the EU has been saying - repeatedly and clearly.

But of a pointless exercise travelling out there just to be told the same thing, but I guess it's just optics.

Only way out of this deadlock is to give the decision back to the people; 2nd referendum.

Have been reading some interesting pieces about the format it would have to take. There are 3 main options out there; no Brexit, no deal, or May's deal. However, putting all three on the ballot is unlikely to deliver a decisive result - even if people are given a first and second preference. You can end up with perverse results like a winning option, where most people actually voted for one of the other 2.

A couple of ways around this are:
- A 2 stage vote, perhaps a week apart. One option gets eliminated after the first vote, and then the second vote just has 2 options.
- Only have 2 options on the ballot (e.g. no Brexit and May's deal)

I'm growing more optimistic that we'll get the referendum.

However - I think the remain camp need a more hopeful campaign to ensure a victory this time. Clearly defining the benefits of EU membership, rather than focusing on what'll go wrong if we leave.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

I particularly enjoyed seeing Rees Mogg after the failed no confidence vote, saying that despite his side losing by a fair margin he still thought May should resign. Hopeully now he can understand why, despite losing by a tiny margin, remain supporters still think we should stay in the EU.

I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## ashfinlayson

May shouldn't have delayed the vote - a colossally poor act of self preservation putting her premiership as prime minister over our negotiating position with the EU which has resulted in her having to say she's going to step down anyway. If she had lost the vote, the EU would've had clarification that the deal could not go ahead without renegotiation, or it's WTO. Granted this is riskily calling their bluff, but frankly I would rather see that than have us bullied into a shite deal, which fortunately most of us agree on, it is a shite deal.

All she's done here is wasted more time. She's now stacked all her cards on this deal and I expect she'll be resigning as PM and stepping down from her seat shortly. I still don't see an opportunity for another referendum because there is no majority for a referendum in the commons, the in/out question has already been answered and the question of WTO vs May's deal will have already been answered by parliament with the acceptance or rejection of May's deal.

Personally, I think the only viable option is WTO with an extended transition period - obviously I am biased because that is what I voted for, _but_ unlike the deal (where so much is left without clarification). We know what WTO entails and the economy can plan for it and recover from setbacks with the option of negotiating a future partnership with the EU down the road.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> I particularly enjoyed seeing Rees Mogg after the failed no confidence vote, saying that despite his side losing by a fair margin he still thought May should resign. Hopeully now he can understand why, despite losing by a tiny margin, remain supporters still think we should stay in the EU.
> 
> I won't hold my breath though.


It was a miscalculation by Mogg's faction, they should have taken a page out of Corbyn's book and wait to see how it would play out before using the only card they had. However, I don't think there could be any doubt that Mogg understands that remainers want to remain in the EU, he is just of the opinion that they lost the vote so their opinions don't matter.


----------



## Yashin

FJ1000 said:


> May told last night that the withdrawal agreement is not renegotiable.
> 
> Like the EU has been saying - repeatedly and clearly.
> 
> But of a pointless exercise travelling out there just to be told the same thing, but I guess it's just optics.
> 
> Only way out of this deadlock is to give the decision back to the people; 2nd referendum.
> 
> Have been reading some interesting pieces about the format it would have to take. There are 3 main options out there; no Brexit, no deal, or May's deal. However, putting all three on the ballot is unlikely to deliver a decisive result - even if people are given a first and second preference. You can end up with perverse results like a winning option, where most people actually voted for one of the other 2.
> 
> A couple of ways around this are:
> - A 2 stage vote, perhaps a week apart. One option gets eliminated after the first vote, and then the second vote just has 2 options.
> - Only have 2 options on the ballot (e.g. no Brexit and May's deal)
> 
> I'm growing more optimistic that we'll get the referendum.
> 
> However - I think the remain camp need a more hopeful campaign to ensure a victory this time. Clearly defining the benefits of EU membership, rather than focusing on what'll go wrong if we leave.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lets be honest now, the 2 option May or No Brexit isn't going fly in a million years with the voters. 
Personally the way this has all descended into a farce I would look at adding some mystique and allure into the expected upcoming Neverendum, questions like:

Should we have a:

Full English Brexit
Mediterranean Brexit

Then dont explain what they mean.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> he is just of the opinion that they lost the vote so their opinions don't matter.


While still thinking his opinion matters after he lost a vote.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Personally, I think the only viable option is WTO with an extended transition period - obviously I am biased because that is what I voted for


You voted for WTO with an extended transition period?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is just of the opinion that they lost the vote so their opinions don't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> While still thinking his opinion matters after he lost a vote.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure is just one of the many reasons why he is deeply unpopular



Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the only viable option is WTO with an extended transition period - obviously I am biased because that is what I voted for
> 
> 
> 
> You voted for WTO with an extended transition period?
Click to expand...

I see you're hanging on my every word @spandex


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> You voted for WTO with an extended transition period?
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're hanging on my every word @spandex
Click to expand...

I guess that's one way of looking at it. So did you?


----------



## Stiff

The UK's unnoticed export boom underlines why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear.










https://brexitcentral.com/uks-unnoticed ... 1iKDfsT_Nk

Thoughts?


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> The UK's unnoticed export boom underlines why a no-deal Brexit is nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://brexitcentral.com/uks-unnoticed ... 1iKDfsT_Nk
> 
> Thoughts?


Well, "Brexit Central" is hardly a balanced impartial news source. It's run by Vote Leave campaigners: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vo ... at-downing

Their members also have links to the Tax Payers Alliance - the shadowy right wing organisation that's been lobbying the Conservative conferences and is funded by rich backers who want to reduce tax and welfare and sell off the NHS turning the UK into Singapore.

But to address the main article point briefly. The £ has been devalued since the referendum making our goods cheaper for the export market, so that's why exports are doing well. But "no deal" will increase barriers for trade which will damage these markets. The increased border friction will also damage our just in time supply lines by causing delays making the operations of many of our manufacturers uneconomic and cause them to shift production to mainland Europe losing jobs. Increased tariffs will damage trade and make imports more expensive or setting them to zero as some advocate will damage our home producers.

But there's something else. "No deal" would be illegal under international treaty law rendering the UK a pariah state no better than North Korea. Without a negotiated agreed treaty to fulfil our pension and project funding obligations under the present EU treaty and to keep the planes flying, the continued supply of medicines and continuity of the financial system with £20 Trillion of uncleared cross border derivatives at stake, which could become unrecoverable without a working treaty, we'd have chaos.

There is also no time to negotiate and agree a "managed" or "legal no deal" alternative replacement treaty. So "no deal" is not an option. There's no sign of the government doing this. It is quite disingenuous of the Prime Minister to use "no deal" as a threat to the EU or to MPs. It it's an empty threat as it proposes a reckless and illegal act. It's also not something which the Brexiteers can legally offer. Mrs May's unpopular deal is the only legal alternative at present to our current membership.

That's what I think. I also think that the choice then simply resolves to two possibilities:

(A) Put the question back to the people in a referendum of the legal possibilities.

(B) Withdraw Article 50(2) notice.

The safer option is to rescind Article 50. This allows the UK, in safety and without the threat of deadlines, to hold a national debate about Brexit and our failed political system and agree what the real options and consequences of Brexit are. The realistic options could then be agreed by parliament to enact or put to the people in a future referendum. It would also, importantly, give us time to update electoral law to avoid the corruption and illegality that has invalidated the 2016 referendum according to the Electoral Commission and the Venice Commission rules the UK has signed and promised to uphold.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Well, "Brexit Central" is hardly a balanced impartial news source. It's run by Vote Leave campaigners: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vo ... at-downing


I see your point John but let's face it, most sources are biased in one way or another. It's hard to find a reliable source of information or debate with absolutely no sway to either side. The leave side will always remain firm on their views, especially when the sources they choose (prefer) to read from are feeding them what they want to hear and it's exactly the same the other way round with the remain camp.
I also see your other points too, although again, it's debatable depending on which side you're viewing it from.


----------



## ashfinlayson

There is no such thing as an impartial news source.


----------



## John-H

Of course not but you can't say they are all the same when some try to be impartial and yet some are obviously a campaign tool.

That's like saying we can't be sure which of leave or remain is best when the former was no change and the latter is a massive gamble.

Remain was actually guaranteed to be a safe bet as nothing world change the next day but, as we now know and at least suspected then, leave will leave us worse off financially and in terms of our sovereignty because we are about to give it away.

It's like bobbot believing the maverick climate change conspiracy theorist when 99% of climate scientists agree global warming exists. Bobbot argues all the scientists are biassed too.


----------



## bobclive22

> I see your point John but let's face it, most sources are biased in one way or another. It's hard to find a reliable source of information or debate with absolutely no sway to either side. The leave side will always remain firm on their views, especially when the sources they choose (prefer) to read from are feeding them what they want to hear and it's exactly the same the other way round with the remain camp.


Perhaps you remainers should look at Australia and New zealand, to see what sort of success the Uk will probably have once relieved of the shackles of the EU, might also be a good idea to try another search engine other than Google.

*Forty years after Britain officially joined the EEC in 1973, New Zealand has an organised and efficient agricultural sector which looms large on the world stage.

Fonterra is the world's largest dairy exporter and New Zealand's largest company.

Earlier this month, he told the prestigious Oxford Farming Conference in Britain only 0.2% of New Zealand's $13.9 billion dairy exports in 2012 went to the UK.

Compare that to the 1950s, when Britain is thought to have taken about 96%. *

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/stab-back ... -dw-134625

https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/09/22/ ... r-farmers/

When de Gaulle rejected Britain's entry for a second time, he explained to more than 1000 diplomats, civil servants, ministers and journalists assembled at the Elysee Palace why Britain needed a complete and radical transformation to become compatible with Europe. *Had the British listened closely to him, they would have known what was in store for them as potential EEC members. *Though de Gaulle obviously tried to prevent British membership, his assessment that Britain would have to overhaul its way of life was prescient.

*It is Australia's great good fortune that it escaped this fate. Instead, it developed its own approaches and solutions to its national problems. Far from receiving directives from a central European authority, Australia was able to experiment with different policies. This did not stop it from occasionally seeking ideas overseas. But these ideas and their applications came to Australia as inspiration, not as a dictate from abroad. They were received on a case-by-case basis, not on a conveyor belt. And they could originate from Europe as well as from anywhere else.*

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/b ... 62be520055

*Why Britain really joined the EEC (and why it had nothing to do with helping our economy)*

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2015/11/2 ... r-economy/

You are being fed Bulls**t by the establishment and vested interests.


----------



## Spandex

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that the sources we believe are all bullshit and the sources you believe are all completely credible?

Isn't it amazing that ALL the reliable sources are in favour of Brexit? I mean, what are the odds? If I was cynical, I'd think that you decide whether a source is reliable purely based on whether or not they agree with you. Lucky I'm not the cynical type, eh BobBot :wink:


----------



## ashfinlayson

I agree, foreign papers tend to give a more balanced view of Brexit amongst other things, EU observer is a good one. Foreign papers though tend not to get into the nitty gritty, other countries have their own priorities and headlines.


----------



## bobclive22

https://brexitcentral.com/uks-unnoticed ... 1iKDfsT_Nk

John, the source of the article is unimportant, it`s the quality of the information provided that is, is the information in that article correct or not. If it`s correct you are being led up the garden path with project fear by your superiors.

Check the facts, If New zealand can prosper outside of the EEC so can the UK outside of the EU, facts John not predictions.


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> John, the source of the article is unimportant, it`s the quality of the information provided that is, is the information in that article correct or not. If it`s correct you are being led down the garden path with project fear by your superiors.


Do you seriously think that article is just an unadorned list of facts?? Don't you understand how bias works in media? It's not about telling outright lies (despite what your boyfriend Trump says), it's about taking perfectly accurate information, then interpreting it in a way that supports your biased view. Just as the Guardian could probably take all the same information used in that Brexit Central article and put an anti-Brexit interpretation on it.

If you think it's all about the 'quality of the information' then no wonder you're so easily fooled.

Oh, and just FYI, every time you use a tabloid catchphrase like 'project fear' you make yourself sound like a simpleton who can't think for themselves and has their opinion spoon-fed to them in jingoistic easy to remember sound bites. Not that your posts give the impression of a man overly concerned with looking like a fool, but I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## bobclive22

> Do you seriously think that article is just an unadorned list of facts?? Don't you understand how bias works in media? It's not about telling outright lies (despite what your boyfriend Trump says), it's about taking perfectly accurate information, then interpreting it in a way that supports your biased view. Just as the Guardian could probably take all the same information used in that Brexit Central article and put an anti-Brexit interpretation on it.


Why is it me that`s easily fooled Spandex, the article is quoting facts that can be proved or disproved, I would have thought you would welcome that, they are though *actual facts* not predictions based on computer models.

The article is also on an internet source which is not main stream, I am sure the guardian can do a hit piece if they feel the need.

As for project fear you seem to have swallowed it whether it exists or not, property COULD devalue by 30% if we leave the EU. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Spandex

bobclive22 said:


> Why is it me that`s easily fooled Spandex, the article is quoting facts that can be proved or disproved, I would have thought you would welcome that, they are though *actual facts* not predictions based on computer models.


If you read what I wrote, you'd know why. Why should I keep repeating myself because you skim read everything then assume you understood it all.


bobclive22 said:


> The article is also on an internet source which is not main stream, I am sure the guardian can do a hit piece if they feel the need.


Not being mainstream isn't a sign of quality BobBot.

As for the guardian comment, READ WHAT I WROTE, FFS. Jesus Christ BobBot. How can you manage to miss every single point I made??


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> https://brexitcentral.com/uks-unnoticed-export-boom-underlines-no-deal-brexit-nothing-fear/?fbclid=IwAR1D_VBGqO4tkzn3WL3RcyRaUeYV6Lo29DEsS1KcmR6Cijqq71iKDfsT_Nk
> 
> John, the source of the article is unimportant, it`s the quality of the information provided that is, is the information in that article correct or not. If it`s correct you are being led up the garden path with project fear by your superiors.
> 
> Check the facts, If New zealand can prosper outside of the EEC so can the UK outside of the EU, facts John not predictions.


Thanks for the opportunity to check your facts Bob. The rule - when distance doubles trade halves helps explain. Given the UK is only 33km from Europe but New Zealand is another18,000km the relative advantage for each country being in the EU becomes clear. Here's a helpful graphic to help you double check these facts:


----------



## ashfinlayson

John, I agree with the statistic of export over distance in principle. But as you used New Zealand as an example: Why is it that we get so much Lamb from New Zealand instead of Europe? In fact, prior to joining the EEC we got the vast majority of our lamb from New Zealand, and it was only import restrictions of the EEC that meant we could no longer import so much lamb from New Zealand as of 73'. Now most of New Zealand's lamb goes to China which is 11,000km away, not Australia which is 4,000km away. So we like tasty New Zealand lamb, but we're not allowed it because of EU import restrictions, we don't like European meat (for obvious reasons) so we don't import it even thought it's on our doorstep.


----------



## John-H

Lamb isn't a very good example to examine distance and membership of a trading block for relative advantage as it's not a level playing field. As you say, we imported New Zealand lamb prior to EU membership but our relative trading position has improved during membership which seems to be something we wanted despite any restrictions on lamb. I doubt our farmers complain.

More crops are grown in Europe relatively speaking. New Zealand is a huge lambing field for various reasons and produce rather a lot of sheep - it's their big thing. Australia too seem to do sheep.

I suppose if we were partial to penguins then we'd import from the Falklands. As it happens I wouldn't swallow either as an argument about membership of the EU or not :wink:


----------



## ashfinlayson

It has improved only because the EU has relaxed restrictions in certain areas due to Europe's own lack of supply, but as with most eu legislation, very little, very late. The fact remains that The UK is restricted on importing goods and commodities from outside the EU in favour of goods from inside the EU regardless of the quality, supply or demand. The same is true for exports and is a contributing factor to the EU's lack of growth, and is a perfectly valid reason to want to improve trade relations with the rest of the world.

I fail to see how lamb is a bad example, it is an example of where quality is worth going the extra mile for.


----------



## John-H

Most countries are now part of trade organisations of one sort or another. There are over 80 such organisations if I remember correctly and many base themselves on the EU model which is the most successful and the largest and many even have a flag and anthem. Hardly anybody trades on WTO terms as an individual country. So clearly most countries see the advantage of trading blocks. They also serve as protection to home producers just as the basic WTO tariffs do to.

The difficulty for the UK of dropping out of the EU is that it will be starting from scratch, unable to trade on WTO terms as it has to apply for membership and other countries have already raised objections particularly because the UK's trading position with the EU is not yet clear. You are arguing for something that isn't true as regards the advantages of trading blocks otherwise everyone would be doing it alone and even if it was true it isn't practical as explained.

To focus on the merits of lamb or any other one item is clearly missing the bigger picture.


----------



## John-H

> Vladimir Putin has said the UK should not hold a second referendum on Brexit, insisting Theresa May must "fulfil the will of the people".


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... the-people

Well, he helped it happen. I expect he doesn't want to be disappointed and you know how good a democrat he is. The idea of more democracy indeed!


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Vladimir Putin has said the UK should not hold a second referendum on Brexit, insisting Theresa May must "fulfil the will of the people".
Click to expand...

Well THAT'S a good sign.. :lol: :lol:


----------



## leopard

That Putin fella knows his onions, likes to put a good polish on his MIG don't you know


----------



## bobclive22

TRANSPORT Secretary Chris Grayling said the culprit behind Gatwick's drone chaos should be hunted down and thrown in jail.

I am surprised the BBC has not yet managed to link Bexit and the Russans to this attack.

I thought this comment from the Telegraph was hilarious,



> Don Rodrigo 21 Dec 2018 9:23AM
> seems that Grayling attracts failure like a flame attracts moths...To paraphrase Joseph Heller, "Chris Grayling had been born too late and too mediocre. Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Chris Grayling it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was."
> 
> He is Major Major re-incarnated...


----------



## John-H

Are you still droning on Bob :roll:

What about this?










There are plenty of these posters appearing










The website says:



> We are Proud Bear. We are collective of Russia GRU agents retrained in fields of digital telephony and Myspace.
> 
> For years we help people of England make freedom from the European Union and democracy voting.


https://proudbear.ru/

Also:



> BREAKING: Officers from poster SPETSNAZ division have TODAY deployed in UNITED ENGLAND city of MANCHESTER to celebrate GLORY of NO DEAL #Brexit! UNITED BRITAIN, today Russia's GRU stands WITH YOU Much joy in below THREAD! #ProudBear


https://mobile.twitter.com/Pr0ud_Bear/s ... 0443635713



> TOMORROW is BIG vote day! PEOPLE of GLOBAL BRITAIN, put your TRUST in #Brexit LIONS
> @BorisJohnson
> and
> @Jacob_Rees_Mogg
> ! They want No Deal LIBERATION from EU so NEW TRADING FRIENDS can RIDE your nation like a PHALLUS! #DingDong #HardBrexit












Very concerning.... Is it a spoof or by spoofing your own activities ridiculing the idea of investigation and scrutiny?


----------



## Yashin

That Proudbear site is hilarious! :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

And how is this supposed to work, no wonder I voted leave. :lol: :lol:

*EU Faces Time Crunch To Agree New CO2 Limits For Cars And Trucks*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeatin ... 321f853d6b


----------



## John-H

So, to influence the biggest collaborative influencer of coordinated climate policy you vote to have no say in the process and walk away to a position of irrelevance? Well done Bob. So staying to have your voice heard doesn't appeal to you? Are you not confident of your conviction?

Why do you post here and tell us all that manmade climate change isn't real then?

You seem to be a person of contradiction. I consider there are a number, similarly conflicted, that will question their conviction and some who will not realise the need.


----------



## Spandex

Just to clarify BobBot, as you have a habit of not thinking things through, all the cars that get made in the EU and sold into the U.K. will still meet these limits. All the cars made outside the EU that the manufacturer wants to sell in the EU (including any we make here after we leave) will still have to meet these limits.

All you have done is to ensure that we have absolutely zero input into the limits which will continue to apply to our cars. Well done, Einstein.

You're right about one thing though - with an IQ like yours, it IS no wonder you voted to leave.


----------



## John-H

Here are a couple of good quotes. Spot the difference....

*"I am absolutely clear that I cannot countenance parliament being able to overturn the will of the British people."
*
UK Prime Minister, 13th June 2018

*"There is no possibility for parliamentary interference to obliterate and render ineffective the execution of the nation's will."
*
German Minister of Propaganda, 28th September 1933


----------



## Stiff

Pictures are always better. So much easier than typing it all out.


----------



## Stiff

It's official: Tin foil hats will offer zero protection against mind control rays after Brexit, because of inferior imported Chinese metals.

Don't Brexiteers realize..... this is what our extraterrestrial reptilian Illuminati overlords want!


----------



## SwissJetPilot




----------



## Stiff




----------



## bobclive22

> It's official: Tin foil hats will offer zero protection against mind control rays after Brexit, because of inferior imported Chinese metals.
> 
> Don't Brexiteers realize..... this is what our extraterrestrial reptilian Illuminati overlords want!
> We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
> for what could be, the darkest age...


Still drinking the Kool-Aid,


----------



## Stiff

bobclive22 said:


> Still drinking the Kool-Aid,


----------



## SwissJetPilot




----------



## bobclive22

Deputy Calais Mayor Jean-Marc Puissesseau has* dismantled scare stories that Britain will have to reroute freight or that there will be massive delays at ports in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit.*

"We have been preparing for a 'No Deal' Brexit [for] one year in Calais. From the 29th of March, we will be ready," Mr Puissesseau told Mishal Husain on* BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday.*

"When [France's transport minister] came to Calais, we told him we would be ready.

"As Great Britain has decided not to check any trucks in export and not to check any trucks in import,* we will not check the trucks more than we are doing today* [for illegal migrants].

"The other thing that we will be doing is only asking the driver the customs declaration.

*"We will not stop more or ask more than we do today," he said firmly.*

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... ort-chief/

*Brexit BREAKTHROUGH: Port of Calais chief furiously dismantles Project Fear - 'NO DELAYS'* *January 9, 2019 8:23 am*

https://nytimespost.com/brexit-breakthr ... no-delays/

Here is Radio 4`s To-day Podcast.






Project fear is government propaganda and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker John.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingn ... 96549.html


----------



## ashfinlayson

I see the festive cessation of Brexit hostilities is over, en garde!


----------



## John-H

Oh contraire Blackbob. I have long been saying that the government's position over no deal is a bluff. To leave without a deal, in breach of our future pension and development project obligations under the present treaty without a replacement treaty in place, would be illegal under international treaty law and render the UK a pariah state. The fact that the government is not negotiating a separate "legal treaty" and there is no time left in which to do it l shows that no deal is not going to happen. It's a bluff to frighten MPs and the public. The only legal choice is between Mrs May's deal and remaining in the EU.

As for the deputy Mayor of Calais - of course he's going to talk up his port to maximise business.

Even if we did leave under a new legal treaty on WTO terms the fact remains that WTO rules require the EU to treat the UK as a third country and apply tariffs (e.g. 40% agricultural 10% automotive) and 100% checks for regulatory compliance. There is no way that the EU would waive these obligations for the UK because under the WTO most favored nation status rules the same benefits would apply to all nations and open the floodgates for dumping so damaging home producers.

For the same reasons it wouldn't be in the UK's interest to set WTO tariffs at zero to keep EU imports at their present cost. It would also remove our biggest bargaining chip with other countries and damage our producers.

As we do most of our trade with and through the EU (about 60,%), our imported goods would get more expensive and our export market would be damaged. We would become poorer and our costs would rise. Friction and time at borders would increase.

I think you fell for that one Bob.

Something different:

Seems to be to do with leave supporter Peter Lilley being on the board of outsourced electoral services company IDOX employed by councils (against electoral Commission rules) and someone recently spotting the number of missing envelope verifications and then tying that up with the verification service performed by IDOX.

Apparently over one million postal ballots went missing or we not counted during the 2016 referendum.

The most info I can find in one place is here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/stilldelving ... 8091525122

Sounds like a case for investigation.


----------



## ashfinlayson

and obviously all those lost ballots were remain votes


----------



## bobclive22

BBC 22 minutes ago, Brexit: Second Commons defeat for Theresa May in 24 hours.

No mention of the Good news from the British Bulls**t Corporation, will it get a mention on the evening news, we wait with bated breath.


----------



## bobclive22

> Seems to be to do with leave supporter Peter Lilley being on the board of outsourced electoral services company IDOX employed by councils (against electoral Commission rules) and someone recently spotting the number of missing envelope verifications and then tying that up with the verification service performed by IDOX.
> 
> Apparently over one million postal ballots went missing or we not counted during the 2016 referendum.


The opposition manipulating the vote, that`s a new one John.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> and obviously all those lost ballots were remain votes


It's good that you've worked out that they were definitely simply lost and not deliberately destroyed, otherwise your facetious post wouldn't make sense :wink:


----------



## FJ1000

Well done to Grieve and Bercow for today, for thwarting the Brexiteer attempts to undermine the democracy and sovereignty of parliament.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> and obviously all those lost ballots were remain votes
> 
> 
> 
> It's good that you've worked out that they were definitely simply lost and not deliberately destroyed, otherwise your facetious post wouldn't make sense :wink:
Click to expand...

Lost being a synonym of missing, I was loosely quoting John's post. Are you still here?


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Lost being a synonym of missing, I was loosely quoting John's post.


Talking of missing, I think you're missing the point. Johns post was implying a deliberate act (i.e that they weren't 'lost', despite being missing - not really synonyms in this context). It would seem nonsensical for someone to deliberately destroy a random selection of ballots, no? So _if_ it was deliberate as johns post implied, they would have to be predominantly remain votes. Hence your post only making sense if you knew it wasn't deliberate. Glad we cleared that up.


ashfinlayson said:


> Are you still here?


Yes. You?


----------



## FJ1000

News today that UK retailers have had their worst Xmas since 2008.

Nothing to do with BREXIT of course, Leavers?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lost being a synonym of missing, I was loosely quoting John's post.
> 
> 
> 
> Talking of missing, I think you're missing the point. Johns post was implying a deliberate act (i.e that they weren't 'lost', despite being missing - not really synonyms in this context). It would seem nonsensical for someone to deliberately destroy a random selection of ballots, no? So _if_ it was deliberate as johns post implied, they would have to be predominantly remain votes. Hence your post only making sense if you knew it wasn't deliberate. Glad we cleared that up.
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You?
Click to expand...

How can you intelligently assume they were Remain votes? How do you know they weren't Leave votes destroyed by a naughty Remainer? :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

FJ1000 said:


> News today that UK retailers have had their worst Xmas since 2008.
> 
> Nothing to do with BREXIT of course, Leavers?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Markets across the world have had a bad quarter, thats globalisation for you. But I'll refer back to a post about 50 pages ago. The next recession will no doubt be blamed on Brexit regardless of the fact that the UK economy goes into recession every 10-20 years.

Also worth noting that some of the major UK retailers have made major investments in restructuring their offerings over the last couple of years, which affect the P&L. Then there is Amazon; not a UK retailer, has overtaken Microsoft to the top spot. I suspect that has something to do with Everyone using them instead of UK retailers - I must have done about 70% of my xmas shopping on amazon this year. I even get most of my tools from Amazon now excluding the specialist stuff - why drive down to Screwfix when the same thing is cheaper on Amazon and delivered free the next day? Our babies nappies, wipes and batteries for her toys etc all come from Amazon subscriptions, that's about £50/month that was going to Sainsbury's, and I suspect my household is not alone.

The issue with the UK retail sector is not Brexit, it's their ability to adapt to the modern market place. They've had it in their heads for some time that acquiring other failing businesses will some how get them out of the hole they're in.


----------



## John-H

Prices have gone up due to the drop in the pound due to the Brexit vote and if Brexit goes ahead prices will rise further regardless of retail being on line or not. Look at the benefits we'll lose too.

1. Does anyone doubt that a further fall in sterling is in the offing if we leave on worse terms?

2. The EHIC blue health card. This takes such a load off the mind if one suffers from illness when abroad elsewhere in the EU.

3. Roaming charges for mobile phones and other technology. This is currently guaranteed under EU law. That will not be the case if we leave.

4. Cheap holiday air fares and improved compensation for cancelled or delayed flights. These cheap flights are based largely on the ability under EU law of airline carriers to fly between multiple destinations in different member states.

5. Keeping the full panoply of EU internal security measures: the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and Eurojust, automatic exchange of criminal records, DNA and other crime-fighting data

6. Workers', environmental and other rights covered by the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The government has refused to replicate this in UK law.

7. Freedom for students to travel to other member states for study or research, often done under the EU's Erasmus+ programme.

8. Freedom for professionals to travel to and work in other member states without cumbersome bureaucracy and extra costs.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John, you're again raising points for what has already been debated and decided upon. The question for parliament is not whether we leave but how we leave. Granted another referendum is now looking less unlikely than it did before the Christmas break, maybe you should raise these points again if that happens :wink:


----------



## John-H

The decision hasn't been made yet. Parliament is sovereign and has yet to decide. They may present the electorate with the now informed choice in a referendum.

The 2016 referendum was flawed. It wasn't like the 1975 referendum where we were voting on a known treaty.

How can you make a valid decision without knowing the facts and the consequences? By being a gambler regarding the consequences or not responsibly caring about them or not being aware of them and possibly being lied to I suppose are the only valid answers. Boris Johnson said during the campaign only a madman would contemplate leaving the EU without a deal.

For those who didn't realise they were taking a gamble by voting leave in 2016 because the consequences were not explained at the time, a People's Vote now would be a welcome means of correcting what should always have been a two stage referendum - (1) decide in or out intention, if out find out the consequences then (2) accept or reject the deal.

Fire those who have not changed their minds despite now knowing the deal they can simply confirm their now informed choice.

All very democratic. There is no way you can validly claim a two stage referendum process to confirm such an important decision is undemocratic or unfair.

By the way, there are only two legal and practical choices now:

(A) Mrs May's deal which would ensure the Brexit process continues for years to come. 
(B) Remain in the EU which ends Brexit.

No other legal choices exist. Your choice (possibly).


----------



## ashfinlayson

:lol:


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> How can you intelligently assume they were Remain votes? How do you know they weren't Leave votes destroyed by a naughty Remainer? :lol:


Because the post was about a prominent leave supporter holding a senior position in an organisation that was responsible for the ballots at the time they went missing. I know Brexiters are all about shooting themselves in the foot, but destroying leave votes might be a bit dim even for them. :wink:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Could have been anyone in said organisation, even a dim Remainer (I'm sure there are a few of those too), if of course there is any truth in the story at all, I tend not to believe everything I read on Twitter.


----------



## Spandex

It could have been lots of things. But johns post was about suspicions around a prominent leave supporter and missing ballots. As you made clear, you were responding to his post.

If you want to expand the discussion beyond johns post to speculate on all of the things that could possibly result in missing ballots, I suppose we could do that too. Dog ate them? Squirrels?


----------



## ashfinlayson

It's possible, my dog eats post all the time. He especially likes Lib Dem leaflets.


----------



## Yashin

ashfinlayson said:


> It's possible, my dog eats post all the time. He especially likes Lib Dem leaflets.


Don't let him eat those - they are full of crap and not good for him.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Yashin said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible, my dog eats post all the time. He especially likes Lib Dem leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let him eat those - they are full of crap and not good for him.
Click to expand...

 :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Details of EU budget lost to fraud each year - As the third largest contributor, the UK currently pays in about 14% of the EU budget. The fewest cases are reported by Bulgaria, Greece, and Hungary, which are deemed the EU's most high-risk states on corruption which collectively contribute only 2.45% of the overall budget.



> The commission has developed an IT platform, called Arachne, for "identifying the riskiest projects and beneficiaries" of EU funds, but Germany and Greece do not bother to use it. Poland and Spain hardly use it as well.


Full article is worth a read.

https://euobserver.com/economic/143877


----------



## leopard

Spandex said:


> It could have been lots of things. But johns post was about suspicions around a prominent leave supporter and missing ballots. As you made clear, you were responding to his post.


...... Said the Secretary :lol:


----------



## Spandex

leopard said:


> ...... Said the Secretary :lol:


You just can't resist can you, you little scamp... :-*


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Details of EU budget lost to fraud each year - As the third largest contributor, the UK currently pays in about 14% of the EU budget. The fewest cases are reported by Bulgaria, Greece, and Hungary, which are deemed the EU's most high-risk states on corruption which collectively contribute only 2.45% of the overall budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commission has developed an IT platform, called Arachne, for "identifying the riskiest projects and beneficiaries" of EU funds, but Germany and Greece do not bother to use it. Poland and Spain hardly use it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Full article is worth a read.
> 
> https://euobserver.com/economic/143877
Click to expand...

I've not looked too much into eurobserver but found this:

https://jonworth.eu/beware-euobserver/

This is from the commission:



> Myths and facts
> 
> Is there any fraud?
> 
> Errors in EU spending are usually administrative mistakes where spending rules have not been followed correctly, for example when documents are missing. This is not fraud, and these errors usually do not undermine the end result of a project.
> 
> The Commission and the European Court of Auditors report all suspicions of fraud with EU money to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). These are only very few cases per year, out of several hundred the European Court of Auditors looks at annually.


http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm


----------



## ashfinlayson

And, the majority of MEPs are eurosceptic so many of EUOs sources will be. But back to a previous point; there are no impartial news sources. That being said, not everything they write is eurosceptic, far from it.


----------



## John-H

Maybe but I wouldn't say the majority of MEPs are Eurosceptic. Why go into that job? Most are keen in the job. You were thinking of the UKIP lot I take it? Perhaps enough to create mischief.

As it happens I met MEP Julie Ward the other night and I don't think I've met a person so motivated by the wish to improve things for people. She's on three EU committees and been involved in securing regional development EU funding for the UK and into women's rights and education etc. She is impressively connected to so many aspects of the EU she was a great ambassador for the positive things that get done. Liverpool One, NE, Wales, etc - redistribution of funds to improve peoples lives in deprived areas - areas that the UK government had abandoned. She badgered Cameron to apply for funding with the deadline two days away and persuaded him - he'd been reluctant because of trying to negotiate his famous EU deal at the time before the referendum and thought it wouldn't look right. The EU has been a bit of a punch bag convenient excuse and little publicised about it's successes and benefits which people don't know they've got. Many of the most deprived areas voted to leave despite the EU funding. The EU's PR man for years was a Brit. Say no more.

Regarding the budget - I hear it quite often quoted to me that the 'EU has never had its accounts signed off because of corruption'. It's a myth.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Nope, the majority in the European Parliament has been eurosceptic for a long time, it's a result of the European political system. There are plenty of stats online that back that up If you want to do some googling. Or look at how little that gets through the European Parliament as evidence and how long it takes to get anything through as further evidence - when you've got a commission that is pro integration and heavily lobbied council, it's left to the EP to push back. It's a bit like brexit in a way. The commission doesn't always represent the electorate so very little gets done. Uk Parliament doesn't represent the elctoricate in that many remain mps sit in brexit seats so very little gets done as we see currently.

Not really referring to UKIP although they are a small faction within the eurosceptic side of the EP, there are many other eurosceptic parties throughout Europe, don't forget that UKs politics is fairly left compared to a lot of other countries. You ask why go into the job of you are eurosceptic - the same rason anyone goes into politics, you believe in something and you campaign for it. Many believe that the eu has too much control or affects certain things negatively etc, so they get involved to try and stop it; not far removed from your protest in London the other week.

There is a massive surge in right wing and tribal politics across Europe at the moment, ultimately because the commission doesn't listen to the EP, which will no doubt lead to a greater eurosceptic majority. Probably a good time to remain the the EU ironically 

Yes the reports about eu budget not being signed off were discredited a long while ago.


----------



## John-H

Right wing groups have been on the rise partly with the help of Steve Bannon - Trump's campaign man who has set up offices in Brussels and has been meeting with groups in Poland and Hungary as well as with Mogg, Johnson and Farage. There are other dark connections and those who stand to gain from the demise of the EU with Eastern alliances and they need resisting for the sake of peace.

Although you might say that "Eurosceptic" parties that send representatives to the EU parliament have been rising as a result they are not in the majority and it depends what you mean by Eurosceptic. There are about 80 out of 751 MEPs you could describe as very opposed to the EU and it may rise in the elections in 2019 but conversely the EU is positively supported by about two thirds of its 450 million population which is the highest popularity it's ever enjoyed - partly I'm sure due to the self inflicted harm the UK is currently demonstrating as a path not to follow.


----------



## ashfinlayson

It seems you are assuming that eurosceptic and right-wing are the same thing, so the only eurosceptics in the EP are those from right wing parties, which is incorrrect - There are very few hardline anti EU types in the EP and will become fewer once we leave. But while a right wing MEP is usually eurosceptic, so is a left wing MEP that pushes back on further integration. The trouble is that MEPs can not push reform because it is the president of the commission that sets priorities for the EP, they can only inhibit further integration. This is precisely why junker wants to table majority voting peior to the elections, but he's waiting for the UK to depart first.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> This is precisely why junker wants to table majority voting peior to the elections, but he's waiting for the UK to depart first.


As if the UK are the only country that would oppose majority votes.. :roll:

Anyway, as a Leave supporter I would have thought you'd be in favour of simple majority rule, no?


----------



## John-H

I think the right wing are the most worrying but I'm including all sides in the figure for those from parties hard line opposed to the EU - which as you know are not necessarily related to the governments of the states concerned but instead directly elected to the parliament. The popularity rating is a barometer survey regularly run by the EU.


----------



## ashfinlayson

The rise of the right across Europe is indeed worrying John, but unfortunately they're fuelled by the commissions refusal to listen to and act on the concerns of it's members. Many across Europe (not just Leave voters) believe that the EU needs reform. Unfortunately it will at the very least take the resignation of one of their major benefactors to make it happen.


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> The rise of the right across Europe is indeed worrying John, but unfortunately they're fuelled by the commissions refusal to listen to and act on the concerns of it's members.


The rise of the right across Europe is really fueled by a resurgence in populism, and the EU is a pretty 'un-populist' concept (which is what leads to many of the claims of it being overly bureaucratic and undemocratic). I don't agree that the EU needs to become more populist in order to keep the populists happy - that's not going to defeat the far right, it's just going to move the EU closer to them so they don't look quite so extreme.

I don't even think it's correct to say the EU doesn't listen to the concerns of its members. It's a group of almost 30 countries, so it is guaranteed that most decisions won't be liked by every one of its members. But whenever the UK is one of the countries that doesn't like a decision, the Eurosceptics will twist that as evidence of the EU not working in our best interests. And that plays into the brexiter view that if we go it alone, everything will be better because we will be making all our own decisions, so they will all go our way.


----------



## John-H

Yes there are other causes of the rise of populism. The cause is not the EU although some of its aspects may provide a target.

One aspect is that we've had peace in the EU for such a long time that with the WW2 generation becoming scarce as is the memory of war, a larger number therefore don't spot the causes of fascism or realise the consequences. Some of the more recent members of the block have had more experience of living under a dictatorship and funny enough are amongst the keenest to be part of the EU.

The EU is not perfect by any means. It is a project but a laudable one and necessarily needs to develop and adapt. I'd much rather be inside in safety having a say amongst other member states in the same mutual interest community than outside with no influence and having to bow to the rules of larger nations of incompatable interest just in order to survive.


----------



## John-H

> Well, I've heard it all now. The BBC R4 PM programme revealed last night that the Prime Minister personally voted against ratifying the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum which voted 50.3% for a Welsh assembly and 49.7% against.
> 
> How can the Prime Minister threaten MPs that not voting for her EU deal would be a "catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy" - what hypocrisy!
> 
> The 2016 EU referendum result was only slightly less marginal at 51.9% leave and 48.1% remain - and it has been shown by the Electoral Commission to be an illegally corrupted and unsafe result that should be annulled.
> 
> Take a step back for some perspective here - why are we proceeding with inflicting damage to the country when there is no reliable mandate to do so?
> 
> To knowingly inflict damage to someone entrusted in your care, even though they might not realise the danger, would normally be considered an immoral act. Are MPs delegates or representatives? Clearly the Prime Minister thought the latter in 1997.
> 
> Vote down the Prime Minister's EU deal - it's damaging for the country. Put the question back to the electorate in a People's Vote now we are informed of the facts and know the reality of the consequences.
> 
> Either that or withdraw Article 50(2) notice and hold a People's Assembly to discuss future EU options in a civilised manner without the threat of the clock.


And the Conservatives went into the 2005 general election with a manifesto pledging a new vote for the people on Wales, to include an option to abolish the assembly and become anyone says - the Tories voted against applying the result *before* it was implemented. They also voted against the Scottish devolved parliament after their decisive referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... questioned?

This made me laugh from Marrina Hyde:



> May's plan B is believed to involve a variety of tinned goods and the contact details for Ray Mears. It's her bad deal or no deal, kids - and no deal is no longer better than a bad deal, even if she told you for way more than a year that it was. Given how well that strategy went, it's intriguing that she should have spent this week veering between suggesting that no deal was more likely, and suggesting no Brexit was more likely. She's good cop AND bad cop. Playing more than one character in a movie is fairly excruciating when Eddie Murphy does it; when a performer of the calibre of May attempts it, it is less watchable than gamma rays &#8230; May remains the comic character pointing the gun at their own head and warning: "One false move and I'll shoot" - even as the timer she so foolishly set clicks down to zero.


----------



## ashfinlayson

May is going to have a busy few days if she's got 3 days to come up with plan B, especially with 2 of those days spent defending her government.

I wonder what other options could possibly be viable other than hard or no Brexit. Looks like we both still have a horse in the race John


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> May is going to have a busy few days if she's got 3 days to come up with plan B, especially with 2 of those days spent defending her government.
> 
> I wonder what other options could possibly be viable other than hard or no Brexit. Looks like we both still have a horse in the race John


Giddyup! :lol:


----------



## A3DFU

Brexit 2: May & Trump vs Truth, with Stephen Fry


----------



## FJ1000

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

If we had another EU referendum, what would the question be? A few mentioned on radio 2 this lunch-time were:

1) Leave or remain?
2) Leave with Mays deal, or leave with no deal?
3) Leave with no deal or remain?
4) Leave with May's deal or remain?
5) Leave with May's deal, leave with no deal, or remain?
6) Two stage referendum:
- Leave or remain?
- Leave with May's deal or no deal?

Initial thoughts on these:

1) This is another ambiguous question and wouldn't solve the deadlock in parliament. and would be unpopular for Leave voters as the question as already been asked.
2) Deeply unpopular for Remainers, obviously.
3) 4) 5) These questions are stacked in favour of remain based on the outcome of the last referendum and could therefore be deemed undemocratic.
5) Could lead to a minority winning the referendum and be deemed undemocratic.
6) Do you ask question one again or do you skip to stage two? Should there be second question after remain, to determine the terms of how we remain in the EU?

The only option I see that would remain entirely demographic in literal terms and "put the issue to bed" would be option two, though I expect the ardent Remainers among us would disagree rather vocally. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, there can be no argument that another referendum would be divisive.

Any options that haven't been thought of above? Do chime in.


----------



## barry_m2

ashfinlayson said:


> Any options that haven't been thought of above? Do chime in.


Well, the only one out of the above that can happen is No.2.

Remain isn't an option as the country has already voted in favour of leave. :?


----------



## ashfinlayson

What about the 48% that voted remain though Barry, option two is essentially not applicable to them because they voted to remain. Are we going to withhold their democratic right on this particular issue?

Regardless of whether or not it's ethical to hold another referendum on this. Is it even practical? I don't see how it is.


----------



## barry_m2

ashfinlayson said:


> What about the 48% that voted remain though Barry......


What about them? Isn't that like asking, what about the 41.9% that voted Labour in the last general election?


----------



## ashfinlayson

barry_m2 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the 48% that voted remain though Barry......
> 
> 
> 
> What about them? Isn't that like asking, what about the 41.9% that voted Labour in the last general election?
Click to expand...

That is true, but they're asked every 5 years.


----------



## barry_m2

I know what you're saying Ash, but at the end of the day, everyone had a chance to vote. In or out. You can't keep voting until the result goes the way you want it, or you think it should go.

I voted remain, but fully support leave now, and want to make the best I can of it, not moan and bitch about it because it didn't go my way, that won't get anyone, anywhere! Like you say, it's not a general election, so no going back now. Back it and make it work.


----------



## ashfinlayson

No I completely agree, totally against another referendum. The point I was trying to make was that I cannot see any form of referendum on EU membership now that could be deemed democratic and fair or provide a solution that would break the deadlock in parliament.


----------



## John-H

All the options with "no deal" would be illegal under international treaty law and would not be a responsible option to have on the ballot paper as it would invite the population to render the UK a pariah state in breach of its treaty obligations. Who would trust us in any trade deal then?

The only "no deal" that would be legal would be a minimalist treaty that paid the divorce bill, dropped the transition period and to prevent a disaster of legal claims; kept the banking system, aviation, medicine etc functional. BUT - there is no sign that such a minimalist treaty is being negotiated and it's too late now anyway. The only thing visible is stockpiling and non existent ferry bookings. Ignore that, it's a bluff.

Even if such a treaty had secretly been negotiated and we left on those minimalist terms, which would be legal as regards our existing obligations to the EU treaty, we would immediately be in breach of the Good Friday agreement which is also an international treaty. A hard border would necessarily be instated which would be in breach and action could arise on the UK unless we agree to keep full regulatory alignment with the EU - an effective backstop like in May's deal.

So, the legal options are limited. It's possible that May could put he deal to the country in order to ratify it via a political declaration from the public but that flies against the historic political defeat of 230 votes in parliament and should it be tried the DUP would likely drop its support of the government without changes the EU and Ireland won't agree to. You get into constitutional difficulty here too as to who is sovereign and instructs the government?

An obvious legal option is to revoke Article 50(2) which is politically difficult - BUT - could be a possibly with the setting up of a People's Assembly - like how they solved the abortion issue in Ireland - randomly selecting members of the public to calmly discuss the realistic issues without the glare and distraction of newspaper headlines, in order to make recommendations for a future EU membership decision.

Anorher referendum would certainly be a democratic option but would need to pass in parliament and it's likely (apart from the revocation idea) to be the only remaining option after all the Norway+, Canada+ options have been thrown out. The ballot options presented would likely be on the basis of May's deal but possibly with the promise of further discussions with the EU for variation (but is this possible apart from the political declaration?) - or remain as the other option. Any "no deal" option would have to be on the agreement to negotiate the cover of a legal treaty for it. There would need to be a new and realistic period for discussions.

We know a lot more now so the leave option is clearer. It's certainly not easy unicorns as many made out. The question, even if it were the same, would be understood very differently.

Sorry about the length but I hope that helps. It is not simple but tends to be reported with the difficult bits left out.

This updated tracker might be useful too:


----------



## Spandex

barry_m2 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the 48% that voted remain though Barry......
> 
> 
> 
> What about them? Isn't that like asking, what about the 41.9% that voted Labour in the last general election?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. The 41.9% that voted labour aren't ignored. They got 256 MPs who are there to represent their constituents. Labour MPs will vote against the government at times and prevent them from implementing some policies, so it's not a case of the winners getting all the power.

So if you're saying the referendum should be the same as a general election, where the 'losing' voters views are still represented, then I completely agree. That is exactly what democracy means. That is why we have a sovereign parliament.


----------



## John-H

This article, although from December (things move so fast these days), gives a very good analysis of the historical and developing constitutional procedural relationship between people, politicians, politics and law, and who is sovereign:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12 ... atens-cons

Then in light of those considerations this makes more sense:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ote-brexit

Ok I'm being too technical again. I need to be more emotional :wink:


----------



## FJ1000

A two stage referendum with a week or 2 apart was proposed in a LSE (I think?) article but I can't find the link now.

There are three main camps; remain, no deal, May's deal.

So a 2 stage referendum (with a week or so between stages) could be:

1. May's deal, or not?
2. Remain or no deal?

The arguments not to have another referendum are complete nonsense. Firstly, if we're leaving - the country ought to be able to have a say how, exactly (Leavers are split). Secondly - given the last vote featured electoral fraud, almost 3 years will have passed, and the public is better informed now - we should have the option to change our minds. That is democracy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

What really annoys me is that there is no good outcome anymore. We're now in a position where we will be worse off than before no matter what. If we leave with no deal we'll obviously be screwed for many years at best. If we leave with Mays deal we'll be worse off than if we stayed in, even if it genuinely is the best deal we could get (which is questionable). And finally, if we stay in the EU we'll have half the country completely disillusioned with Westminster and I suspect it will fuel the rise of the far right even more.

So having the referendum has ballsed the country up, not because leaving will be bad, but because it's opened up this huge rift in the country that can no longer be fixed by any course of action.

So, unlike John, I'm not particularly keen on remaining in the EU (financially I sure it will be better, but socially I think it will be a disaster), but neither am I particularly keen on any of the genuine options available for leaving. Right now it feels like being asked to choose which bollock to get kicked in.


----------



## John-H

A big motivation for objecting to another referendum would of course be the desire to prevent a possible change in the decision despite new evidence and circumstances which would be a denial of democracy.

Apart from Brenda from Bristol, I don't remember many complaining that Mrs May calling a snap election in 2017 was "undemocratic" or "a betrayal of the will of the people". How can more democracy amongst the same electorate be anything other than checking back with them that they still want the same thing - especially when things change. The will of the people is not necessarily a fixed thing.

There is also an argument that given that "leave" meant different things to different people (e.g. Customs union, single market, WTO, sovereignty, immigration etc), but everyone knew the singular thing that remain meant, then the vote was actually split multiple ways to stack against remain despite the binary option on the ballot and since so many leave options were incompatible with each other, it's inevitable now we know the realities, that those differing ways are separated into different options and some will be ruled out as impractical. So even if we "left" much of leave and all of remain would not be satisfied.

I agree with you Spandex that the referendum has wrecked our social cohesion. Arguably that had already happened but the referendum provided a lightning rod for it. But that's a given now. It's wrecked whichever way it goes. But I don't agree that remaining would be a "disaster" any more than having the wrong government elected would be and most of us think that happens all the time and we don't riot. We can only attempt to repair things and the reasons for them. We are going to have to do that anyway or leave the country. We and our politicians should do what's best for the country as a whole and accept that many are not going to be satisfied because that's impossible to achieve.



> ... if we stay in the EU we'll have half the country completely disillusioned with Westminster and I suspect it will fuel the rise of the far right even more.


But if we leave then more than half the country will be completely disillusioned with Westminster and is appeasing to the movers of the right wing the correct thing to do? I seem to remember that going badly for Chamberlain.

Pandora's box has been opened and when all the contents have escaped all that's left is hope.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> ... if we stay in the EU we'll have half the country completely disillusioned with Westminster and I suspect it will fuel the rise of the far right even more.
> 
> 
> 
> But if we leave then more than half the country will be completely disillusioned with Westminster and is appeasing to the movers of the right wing the correct thing to do? I seem to remember that going badly for Chamberlain.
Click to expand...

Simply leaving the EU isn't appeasing the right wing, no matter how much you don't like the idea of it. For example, I suspect if Labour were in power they would try to would leave in a way that would genuinely p off the far right (and probably annoy a lot of brexiters too).

So why would anyone be disillusioned with Westminster if we leave? My level of disillusionment with Westminster is completely unconnected to leaving the EU. That little gem is the fault of everyone who voted for it.

There are plenty of expert opinions and predictions regarding the actual damaging effects of leaving the EU without having to invent new ones. We don't need to pretend that leaving will cause problems beyond the ones we know about - they're already a good enough reason to be unhappy about it.


John-H said:


> Pandora's box has been opened and when all the contents have escaped all that's left is hope.


I'm not sure the teenage melodrama really helps.

The real problem is we have two sides that are completely closed off to anything that other than their ideal end result. You're as bad as each other. None of you will accept that the only reasonable outcome might have to be something that neither side really wanted. Also known as 'a compromise'.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... if we stay in the EU we'll have half the country completely disillusioned with Westminster and I suspect it will fuel the rise of the far right even more.
> 
> 
> 
> But if we leave then more than half the country will be completely disillusioned with Westminster and is appeasing to the movers of the right wing the correct thing to do? I seem to remember that going badly for Chamberlain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply leaving the EU isn't appeasing the right wing, no matter how much you don't like the idea of it. For example, I suspect if Labour were in power they would try to would leave in a way that would genuinely p off the far right (and probably annoy a lot of brexiters too).
Click to expand...

I agree that the simple notion of leaving the EU is neutral. That Labour would have a left wing motivation for their version of Brexit doesn't negate the documented right wing agenda motivating some pushing Brexit - e.g. Farage, Mogg, Banks, Bannon, Mercer, Taxpayers Alliance etc. The test is who is trying to limit the damage and who stands to gain.



Spandex said:


> So why would anyone be disillusioned with Westminster if we leave? My level of disillusionment with Westminster is completely unconnected to leaving the EU. That little gem is the fault of everyone who voted for it.


Well, I am sympathetic to that. There are plenty in parliament trying to make the best of a bad situation. It was Cameron who opened Pandora's box though in an effort to stop a party split and look at the effect.



Spandex said:


> There are plenty of expert opinions and predictions regarding the actual damaging effects of leaving the EU without having to invent new ones. We don't need to pretend that leaving will cause problems beyond the ones we know about - they're already a good enough reason to be unhappy about it.


Your right wing reference/worry I agree with though and although disconnected from the effect of leaving is no doubt part of the cause and I would say should be resisted even though the bully might be angered if we remain. We need to stand up to bullies after all.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pandora's box has been opened and when all the contents have escaped all that's left is hope.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the teenage melodrama really helps.
> 
> The real problem is we have two sides that are completely closed off to anything that other than their ideal end result. You're as bad as each other. None of you will accept that the only reasonable outcome might have to be something that neither side really wanted. Also known as 'a compromise'.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by teenage melodrama and I'm also not sure that a classic compromise is the solution in this situation because the compromises don't deliver on the promises made and leave us all worse off.

If you remember your Greek mythology after the first opening of the box that let out all the evils a second opening of the box released hope as a cure. A rather good analogy of how another referendum could fix the problem I think.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> I agree that the simple notion of leaving the EU is neutral. That Labour would have a left wing motivation for their version of Brexit doesn't negate the documented right wing agenda motivating some pushing Brexit - e.g. Farage, Mogg, Banks, Bannon, Mercer, Taxpayers Alliance etc. The test is who is trying to limit the damage and who stands to gain.


But this is conflating two issues. Yes, there are right wing groups who believe they will gain from us leaving the EU in as hard a way as possible, but that doesn't mean that 'leaving the EU' is appeasing the far right.


John-H said:


> Well, I am sympathetic to that. There are plenty in parliament trying to make the best of a bad situation. It was Cameron who opened Pandora's box though in an effort to stop a party split and look at the effect.


Yes, the reasons for having the referendum in the first place are moronic. But you can't dismiss the result based on that. 


John-H said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by teenage melodrama and I'm also not sure that a classic compromise is the solution in this situation because the compromises don't deliver on the promises made and leave us all worse off.
> 
> If you remember your Greek mythology after the first opening of the box that let out all the evils a second opening of the box released hope as a cure. A rather good analogy of how another referendum could fix the problem I think.


'Teenage melodrama' refers to all this Pandoras box nonsense. It's not a good analogy because it adds a load of unnecessary and unhelpful melodramatics to a situation that could really do with a lot less emotion. It definitely doesn't need more of it. Brexit is dumb and it's probably going to leave us all worse off, but it's not 'evil'. I guess it helps your cause to frame it as evil though.

Of course you don't think a classic compromise is the solution, because you want a solution that means we don't leave. Just the same as the brexiters not wanting a classic compromise because they want a solution that means they leave. Like I said though, the most reasonable solution might be something that neither side really want. So it is completely unsurprising that you disagree.

I should clarify that I think a reasonable compromise is the most sensible outcome, not the most likely one.


----------



## FJ1000

Spandex said:


> .
> 
> I should clarify that I think a reasonable compromise is the most sensible outcome, not the most likely one.


I disagree that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be respected. The Leave campaign committed fraud. It was also a xenophobic campaign that featured outright lies and blatantly false promises.

The Leave vote contains some people that are just xenophobic- I do not respect their views.

However - The Leave vote also contains an element of truth in that the UK is an unequal society, but falsely puts the blame at the EU's door, when many of the issues are down to UK Government policy.

I think the compromise is that we remain, but there have to be some policy changes that put tighter control on migration, raise the living standards of the poorest in society, and redirect some investment to former industrial areas of England and Wales.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex

Well, I'm not saying the referendum result has to be respected. Just that it can't be ignored. Just the same as the views of all the remain voters can't just be ignored. That's why the reasonable solution is probably a compromise that doesn't completely please anyone.

And as I said, in this current climate where we all hold binary views and are unwilling to give a millimeter to the other side, that compromise will never happen. I can't picture a deal with the EU that will get enough support in Parliament because they're split too evenly and too diametrically. If the deal softens they'll gain some remainer votes and lose some brexiter support. If the deal hardens they'll gain some brexiter votes and lose remainers. So that leaves crashing out and remaining as the only horses left in the race... and both of those will have huge negative consequences for the UK in the future.

And guess what? All the brexiters will think that going back on the referendum result is the worst outcome possible and all the remainers will think crashing out is the worst outcome possible. And we're back to square one.


----------



## Spandex

FJ1000 said:


> I think the compromise is that we remain, but there have to be some policy changes that put tighter control on migration, raise the living standards of the poorest in society, and redirect some investment to former industrial areas of England and Wales.


That's not a compromise. That's just getting what you want.


----------



## John-H

Spandex, I'm linking the right wing agenda that would have us leave the EU in as hard a way as possible with the possible option of leaving the EU in a hard away as possible. That's real and needs resisting.

Hate was one of the evils released from Pandora's box along with illness, worry, crime, envy and indeed hate crime has increased since the referendum. The analogy is actually not a bad one - especially about the second opening that released hope - but it serves as an illustrative analogy only, I'm not suggesting it's an entirely accurate model.

More to realism; what would you suggest as a compromise that meets enough of the aspirations of both sides to be a solution?

Mrs May's deal is certainly an attempt but has succeeded only in uniting everyone against it. Part of the reason for that is that it is not a final solution but a can kicking exercise and puts the UK in a bad negotiating position. The likelihood after transition that all can see is that we will have left in name only and still be subject to all the rules of the EU, unable to make our own free trade agreements, having to pay more, become poorer and have no say in the making of the EU rules. A massive surrender of sovereignty. So what would be the point? Is that what leavers voted for? I don't think it is.

Norway+ would be closer to the EU and mean we wouldn't be quite as poor, still unable to negotiate FTAs and have no say. Again what's the point?

Canada+ would be free from the EU but see the break up of the UK. So what's acceptable here?

Choose your "compromise" or come up with another with no time left. None I take it?

As I said, the only thing likely left when all other options have been rejected is to put the problem back to the people or decide what's in their best interests - which is the job of parliament after all.

FJ1000, you raise important points. How is it that the referendum result has not been annulled given the findings of the Electoral Commission? What indeed was the will of the people? All we can closely say is that it's split. But as I said before, the leave vote was again split into incompatable elements. That's no way to decide because you don't get a proper answer.

We need several things sorting out such as proper sanctions against lying politicians during campaigns and policing of the campaign spending before we can trust our failed electoral system again - especially for marginal decisions.

I am being more drawn to bide some time and hold a People's Assembly idea to take the heat out of it and inject some realism. Can we gain enough respect for that outcome?


----------



## A3DFU

FJ1000 said:


> I disagree that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be respected. The Leave campaign committed fraud. It was also a xenophobic campaign that featured outright lies and blatantly false promises.
> 
> The Leave vote contains some people that are just xenophobic- I do not respect their views.


Xenophobic most certainly and I'm at the receiving end of it, more so after the 2016 referendum.

One thing to ear in mind as well is that the EU has brought continued peace to Europe. I do hope that Article 50(2) will be revoked in the end


----------



## John-H

Touches on many of the points raised:

https://mobile.twitter.com/peoplesvote_ ... 3262566401

And then there's this:


----------



## A3DFU

PS

Don't believe everything you read on British media as some newspapers seem to want to push the reader into the "Brexit at all cost" direction .....
From experience other countries draw a different picture of the hat happ me here.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Spandex, I'm linking the right wing agenda that would have us leave the EU in as hard a way as possible with the possible option of leaving the EU in a hard away as possible. That's real and needs resisting.


Ah, you're only resisting leaving in as hard a way as possible? I mistakenly thought you were resisting leaving full stop.



John-H said:


> More to realism; what would you suggest as a compromise that meets enough of the aspirations of both sides to be a solution?


There isn't a compromise that meets 'enough' (whatever the hell that means) of the aspirations of both sides. I never claimed there was. I actually said the most reasonable outcome is a compromise that would please neither side - and because both sides are unwilling to give on any of their fundamental beliefs, it's safe to assume that compromise will never materialise.



John-H said:


> So what would be the point? Is that what leavers voted for? I don't think it is.


So it's very important not to go with Mays deal because it doesn't give leavers what they voted for, but it's also very important to remain in the EU even though that also doesn't give leavers what they voted for? I must have missed something here...



John-H said:


> Norway+ would be closer to the EU and mean we wouldn't be quite as poor, still unable to negotiate FTAs and have no say. Again what's the point?
> 
> Canada+ would be free from the EU but see the break up of the UK. So what's acceptable here?


The point might be that it's a compromise. (and please don't start a long discussion about the merits or otherwise of a Norway+ or Canada+ deal - I'm not interested. I am just using this as an illustration that the compromise will almost certainly be something that leaves us worse off than if we remained).



John-H said:


> Choose your "compromise" or come up with another with no time left. None I take it?


There are lots of compromises. You've listed some of them. The fact that you don't like them isn't really relevant - in fact, if something is truly a compromise it basically guarantees you won't like it because the only option you like is remaining. Which isn't a compromise, is it.



John-H said:


> As I said, the only thing likely left when all other options have been rejected is to put the problem back to the people or decide what's in their best interests - which is the job of parliament after all.


Ok, so we have a referendum on which deal (including 'none') we want to have? That do ya? No, of course not - the only reason you support a new referendum is because you think it's the best hope of remaining. Without that on the ballot paper, you're not interested.

Lets just get one thing clear. John, you believe that remaining in the EU is the least damaging outcome possible - so by effing definition, *any* compromise will be worse than remaining, in your view. So the fact that you can find problems with every single suggestion that isn't "stay in the EU" isn't surprising, it's inevitable. And you know what, all the leavers on the other side of the fence are seeing this exactly the same way as you do, except with leaving as the least damaging outcome.

Unless people on both sides take off the blinkers and start to understand that they might actually have to give some meaningful ground and that the best solution isn't going to leave anyone feeling like they 'won', we're going to end up with an outcome that is more extreme and more damaging than it needed to be.


----------



## Spandex

You know what.. you can completely ignore my last post if you want, because this is the whole issue distilled down to one line:


John-H said:


> So what would be the point? Is that what leavers voted for? I don't think it is.


I didn't think about this beyond the obvious hypocrisy, but it actually explains everything.You genuinely can't see the point in doing something if it doesn't give at least one side what they wanted. Which ultimately means you can never accept *any* compromise. It's pointless discussing them because an acceptable compromise cannot exist.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> A big motivation for objecting to another referendum would of course be the desire to prevent a possible change in the decision despite new evidence and circumstances which would be a denial of democracy.


And, a big motivation for wanting another referendum would of course be the desire to change the decision previously made democratically.


----------



## ashfinlayson

FJ1000 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I should clarify that I think a reasonable compromise is the most sensible outcome, not the most likely one.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be respected. The Leave campaign committed fraud. It was also a xenophobic campaign that featured outright lies and blatantly false promises.
> 
> The Leave vote contains some people that are just xenophobic- I do not respect their views.
> 
> However - The Leave vote also contains an element of truth in that the UK is an unequal society, but falsely puts the blame at the EU's door, when many of the issues are down to UK Government policy.
> 
> I think the compromise is that we remain, but there have to be some policy changes that put tighter control on migration, raise the living standards of the poorest in society, and redirect some investment to former industrial areas of England and Wales.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You can say as you like about the ethicality of the campaigns and the fraudulent spending, after all the Lib Dems were fined for breaking electoral law during the campaign too :roll: Whether or not you respect the views of those that you deem racist is up to you, but they also have a democratic right to vote whether you like it or not.

Leave won the referendum because they connected with voters where remain didn't, and so they should have - They had 40 years to prepare for the referendum. Ultimately, Remain was done in by the words "Take back control" in the same way the Tory's were by "Education, education, education".

Finally, a compromise would not be to remain, a compromise would be May's deal.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A big motivation for objecting to another referendum would of course be the desire to prevent a possible change in the decision despite new evidence and circumstances which would be a denial of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And, a big motivation for wanting another referendum would of course be the desire to change the decision previously made democratically.
Click to expand...

Which would also be democratic - just more up to date.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A big motivation for objecting to another referendum would of course be the desire to prevent a possible change in the decision despite new evidence and circumstances which would be a denial of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And, a big motivation for wanting another referendum would of course be the desire to change the decision previously made democratically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which would also be democratic - just more up to date.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it might not feel very democratic to the 17 million that voted to leave in 2016


----------



## John-H

So, would you vote for May's deal in a referendum against remain as an option? Or would you vote for "no deal" (presuming there was a legal version included to vote for) given the choice? Or would you refuse to vote?


----------



## Spandex

ashfinlayson said:


> Maybe, but it might not feel very democratic to the 17 million that voted to leave in 2016


Presumably less than that now, if you believe Polly Toynbee's controversial comment (controversial according to the ironically snowflake-like outrage it generated from the brexiter camps, anyway) about brexiters dying while fresh remainers reach voting age...


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> You know what.. you can completely ignore my last post if you want,


I'll be kind :wink:



Spandex said:


> ... because this is the whole issue distilled down to one line:
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would be the point? Is that what leavers voted for? I don't think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think about this beyond the obvious hypocrisy, but it actually explains everything.You genuinely can't see the point in doing something if it doesn't give at least one side what they wanted. Which ultimately means you can never accept *any* compromise. It's pointless discussing them because an acceptable compromise cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Your presumptions and extrapolations go too far. That is what _they_ say - I'm just pointing it out. Many Leave voters have said to me that May's deal is worse than our current deal as all it does is give away our voting rights and gives us nothing in return. Many were clearly furious at the time and some even said they would now vote remain if they had the chance as they we conned.

As for my own opinion it surely must be no secret or surprise to you after 100 pages where I stand on the issue. A position not unlike your posts indicate on the issue over the same period.

It seems a little strange then that you accuse me of having an inability to compromise on a solution to the argument. You are not exactly renowned for compromising on your arguments Spandex. Remember this affectionate observation of your discussion style from Brian1978?



brian1978 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in tears and my stomach muscles hurt :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

From here if anyone is interested: https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &p=5195713

Classic - and shows you like a good argument - nothing wrong with that.

When the referendum was first muted I didn't really have an opinion but I looked into it and I've learnt a huge amount since. I could no more compromise my view on the present evidence I'm aware of than I could compromise my view and agree that perhaps co-ax Hi-Fi interconnects change the sound after all, just to settle an argument in a "compromise". Some things are just plain wrong and if you believe that, you should not compromise your beliefs but instead present your evidence.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Spandex said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but it might not feel very democratic to the 17 million that voted to leave in 2016
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably less than that now, if you believe Polly Toynbee's controversial comment (controversial according to the ironically snowflake-like outrage it generated from the brexiter camps, anyway) about brexiters dying while fresh remainers reach voting age...
Click to expand...

Quite possibly yes, but then there's the Barrys among us that voted remain and changed their mind after the referendum too. The polls are too close to call a result accurately. So anything on it is mere speculation.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Remember this affectionate observation of your discussion style from Brian1978?


Fair enough John. I'm out.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> It seems a little strange then that you accuse me of having an inability to compromise on a solution to the argument. You are not exactly renowned for compromising on your arguments Spandex.


I am only speculating as I don't know the bloke and he's welcome to call me a c**t, but it seems that while being ardently against leaving the EU and the referendum as a whole, Spandex does accept the result of the referendum. You however John, again feel free to tell me I'm talking sh*t, don't seem to accept the referendum result and would do anything you could to reverse the decision. But ultimately, that view is why there is no progress on a divorce agreement and why there is a deadlock in parliament - A significant number of MPs that voted to remain sit in seats that voted to leave, some MPs that want another referendum sit in seats where their constituents don't, which is enough to prevent progress on Brexit; Those MPs could have:

1. Stepped down for a by-election, to give the constituencies a chance to vote in someone that better represents their view, as my MP did.
2. Vote against triggering article 50 and said sorry plebs, we know best. Granted this could create a whole new constitutional issue, but it would have stopped the process.

But they respected the view of their constituents at the time and voted to trigger article 50. I wonder how many of those MPs are out and about now asking the views of their constituents so they can properly represent them in parliament? I for one haven't seen my new MP anyway.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Ironically, my new MP voted to leave but represents a constituency that voted to remain, go figure.


----------



## John-H

Well until just recently you may well have thought spandex and I both supported the same points on Brexit. I don't think that is necessarily no longer true but I was quite surprised when Spandex suddenly said a few posts back that remaining in the EU would be a social disaster. I know he was referring to the reaction of some leavers but what about how remainders feel? It also ignores the financial to social effects of leaving where arguably we would be worse given we'd be poorer and have less money for social services, NHS etc.

Spandex can speak for himself but did support what I was saying some time back about the illegality of the referendum with Aaron Banks and foreign influence etc, so I'd question fully accepting of the result. That it's happened yes and so do I.

There are a litany of errors and wrong doings throughout the history of Brexit. Cameron wasn't prepared for leave, May wasn't prepared to trigger Article 50(2) and only now we are finding out that the Brexit promises are incompatible with what we can achieve and that is the main reason it can't be progressed further. It is simply built on falsehoods and now they are exposed and people don't like what they see and who can blame them? It seems a complete mess.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> and agree that perhaps co-ax Hi-Fi interconnects change the sound after all


Quite right, whether in context or not :lol: :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Well until just recently you may well have thought spandex and I both supported the same points on Brexit. I don't think that is necessarily no longer true but I was quite surprised when Spandex suddenly said a few posts back that remaining in the EU would be a social disaster. I know he was referring to the reaction of some leavers but what about how remainders feel? It also ignores the financial to social effects of leaving where arguably we would be worse given we'd be poorer and have less money for social services, NHS etc.
> 
> Spandex can speak for himself but did support what I was saying some time back about the illegality of the referendum with Aaron Banks and foreign influence etc, so I'd question fully accepting of the result. That it's happened yes and so do I.
> 
> There are a litany of errors and wrong doings throughout the history of Brexit. Cameron wasn't prepared for leave, May wasn't prepared to trigger Article 50(2) and only now we are finding out that the Brexit promises are incompatible with what we can achieve and that is the main reason it can't be progressed further. It is simply built on falsehoods and now they are exposed and people don't like what they see and who can blame them? It seems a complete mess.


Still in your little bubble John.


----------



## leopard

bobclive22 said:


> Well until just recently you may well have thought spandex and I both supported the same points on Brexit. I don't think that is necessarily no longer true but I was quite surprised when Spandex suddenly said a few posts back that remaining in the EU would be a social disaster. I know he was referring to the reaction of some leavers but what about how remainders feel? It also ignores the financial to social effects of leaving where arguably we would be worse given we'd be poorer and have less money for social services, NHS etc.
> 
> Spandex can speak for himself but did support what I was saying some time back about the illegality of the referendum with Aaron Banks and foreign influence etc, so I'd question fully accepting of the result. That it's happened yes and so do I.
> 
> There are a litany of errors and wrong doings throughout the history of Brexit. Cameron wasn't prepared for leave, May wasn't prepared to trigger Article 50(2) and only now we are finding out that the Brexit promises are incompatible with what we can achieve and that is the main reason it can't be progressed further. It is simply built on falsehoods and now they are exposed and people don't like what they see and who can blame them? It seems a complete mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Still in your little bubble John.
Click to expand...

Love is a fickle thing.

Looks to me like the leg on the bed broke and Spandex fell out :lol:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Well until just recently you may well have thought spandex and I both supported the same points on Brexit. I don't think that is necessarily no longer true but I was quite surprised when Spandex suddenly said a few posts back that remaining in the EU would be a social disaster. I know he was referring to the reaction of some leavers but what about how remainders feel? It also ignores the financial to social effects of leaving where arguably we would be worse given we'd be poorer and have less money for social services, NHS etc.
> 
> Spandex can speak for himself but did support what I was saying some time back about the illegality of the referendum with Aaron Banks and foreign influence etc, so I'd question fully accepting of the result. That it's happened yes and so do I.
> 
> There are a litany of errors and wrong doings throughout the history of Brexit. Cameron wasn't prepared for leave, May wasn't prepared to trigger Article 50(2) and only now we are finding out that the Brexit promises are incompatible with what we can achieve and that is the main reason it can't be progressed further. It is simply built on falsehoods and now they are exposed and people don't like what they see and who can blame them? It seems a complete mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Still in your little bubble John.
Click to expand...

Sorry to keep bursting yours


----------



## bobclive22

> Sorry to keep bursting yours


Remainers like yourself John are like lemmings, remember that early PC game.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why there was so much opposition from wealthy land owners and the professional classes when Parliament decided to give the English working classes the vote in 1867. Might it be John that the wealthy at that time considered it was in their best interests to keep the vote within their grouping as they knew best for them.

Our referendum John is the *only time* since that reform act in 1867 that the English (UK) working classes have had the opportunity for meaningfull vote on where they wish the direction of our country should go, you John and people like you are undermining that once in a generation opportunity purely for misguidedly believing the incessant propaganda transmitted by exactly the same groupings that tried to scupper the 1867 reform bill all those years ago.

Millions have died fighting in Two world wars to ensure this country remains an independent nation that can make it`s own laws, choose who comes and goes and trades with whoever it wishes, shame on you John.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Sorry to keep bursting yours
> 
> 
> 
> Remainers like yourself John are like lemmings, remember that early PC game.
> 
> Perhaps you should ask yourself why there was so much opposition from wealthy land owners and the professional classes when Parliament decided to give the English working classes the vote in 1867. Might it be John that the wealthy at that time considered it was in their best interests to keep the vote within their grouping as they knew best for them.
> 
> Our referendum John is the *only time* since that reform act in 1867 that the English (UK) working classes have had the opportunity for meaningfull vote on where they wish the direction of our country should go, you John and people like you are undermining that once in a generation opportunity purely for misguidedly believing the incessant propaganda transmitted by exactly the same groupings that tried to scupper the 1867 reform bill all those years ago.
> 
> Millions have died fighting in Two world wars to ensure this country remains an independent nation that can make it`s own laws, choose who comes and goes and trades with whoever it wishes, shame on you John.
Click to expand...

What complete utter rubbish Bob. You do talk clap trap at times.

Lemmings? It's you that wants to jump off a cliff not me!

How bizarre you should use that simile :lol:

We've been through this before but obviously you can't remember.

(1) We had a referendum in 1975 on EC membership in which the working class could vote. That is after 1867 and before 2016 clearly. That vote was 67% for remain in 1975. You are absolutely incorrect in what you say.

(2) After two world wars Churchil and Roosevelt strove to prevent future wars in Europe by the setting up of the EU. It's a peace project that ensures peace through trade and the pooling of sovereignty which in itself was a sovereign act. That peace is what we fought for and it seems you have such little understanding of this that you are also quite happy to see borders and the troubles return to Northern Ireland.

You might be interested to be informed that it was the case of proclamations in 1610 and later the Bill of Rights in 1689 that enshrined in constitutional law that the King, now the executive, cannot remove the rights of citizens enacted by parliament.

It was William Hague, Jacob Rees Mogg and others that saw through the European Union Act 2011 that we required a referendum to be held should there ever be a change to the existing EU treaty enacted into domestic law, which defines citizens rights.

So don't give me any guff about Mrs May's proposed changes not now needing a referendum to ratify.


----------



## bobclive22

> We've been through this before but obviously you can't remember.
> 
> (1) We had a referendum in 1975 on EC membership in which the working class could vote. That is after 1867 and before 2016 clearly. That vote was 67% for remain in 1975. You are absolutely incorrect in what you say.


https://web.archive.org/web/20160620231 ... referendum

http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/197 ... dumGov.pdf

http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/197 ... dumYES.pdf

http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/197 ... ndumNO.pdf






Not quite the same then was it john and it was not binding, by the way, the looses accepted the vote and just got on with life. Project fear was well lit though.


----------



## John-H

Both the 1975 and 2016 EU referendums were advisory Bob.

You are correct in that it wasn't quite the same.

The 1975 referendum was only two years after joining and was to ratify a treaty we had recently signed up to, so we know what remain meant and we also knew what leave meant as it was only going back to the situation two years before.

The 2016 referendum came two years _before_ Mrs May's EU treaty so we didn't know the consequences when we voted out and it certainly wouldn't be like going back 45 years in time as things had vastly moved on. This is back to front.

Having another referendum now in 2019 on the deal would be just like the one in 1975 - to ratify a treaty and accept the consequences we have learnt about - if we still want them that is. Seems the right way round again don't you think?


----------



## Stiff

Entertaining.

https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &t=1878753

(Content moved to flame room)


----------



## SwissJetPilot

In or out!?


----------



## SwissJetPilot

An interesting take on Brexit from a behavioural economic perspective -

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.co ... rexit.html

_"A sense of control over one's destiny, and of having a right to a say, makes us happy even if we don't actually exercise that right and even if the outcomes of decisions are the same. You might object to this that nobody other than a minority of cranks much cared about sovereignty before 2016. True, but irrelevant. They care now. And this is what matters."_

_Brexit trades off income against sovereignty. Behavioural economics suggests this is a bargain which many people might rationally want. The fact that a slim majority chose to make this trade-off is therefore reasonable - perhaps more so than they knew at the time._

I would even take this a step further and say that the recent rise in European Nationalism (which is clearly scaring the bejezus out of Macron and Merkel) has absolutely nothing to do with economics or national destiny, but more to do with a general sense that Europeans no longer feel they have control over their own well being.

.


----------



## ashfinlayson

SwissJetPilot said:


> In or out!?


Amusing, I've got a spaniel that does this 20/day when it's snowing out, although I think it would be more accurate if that cat was inside looking out :lol:


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> _"...You might object to this that nobody other than a minority of cranks much cared about sovereignty before 2016. True, but irrelevant. They care now. And this is what matters."_


Sounds like an argument for a more up to date opinion poll.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"...You might object to this that nobody other than a minority of cranks much cared about sovereignty before 2016. True, but irrelevant. They care now. And this is what matters."_
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an argument for a more up to date opinion poll.
Click to expand...

Looking at recent polls (as of Feb 2019) the only party offering a second referendum (Lib Dem) at 9% of the electorate. Parties offering to see out the brexit process (Labour and Tory) are both hovering around 38%. That looks like there isn't a huge amount of appetite for another referendum to me.


----------



## John-H

I disagree because people vote for a party for many different reasons. Also, for that reasoning, with the Lib Dems being a minority party, people may well not vote their way because they think it will be a wasted vote and may think that Labour would be the best bet for remain even if they are voting on that single issue.

The argument that the major parties were elected in 2017 on a position of respecting the 2016 referendum result is a bogus indication of the "will of the people" over Brexit. People voted for many different reasonsas I say and both Conservative and Labour promised the "exact same benefits" as EU membership. Clearly that's not going to happen - we are all going to be poorer with the present course - but things can change.

As for polls:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Sorry, I'm calling BS on the poll. It's not as simple as was the decision right or wrong, it's* why *was the decision to leave was right or wrong?

It's like taking a poll and asking "Is it a right or wrong decision to toss a baby out a 2nd story window?" I think it's pretty safe to say you'd get a 100% 'Wrong' vote on that. However, if you reword the question to 'Is it a right or wrong decision to toss a baby out a 2nd story window *if the house is on fire*?' Obviously you'd get a totally different answer.

That's the problem with polls like these; they're biased from the start.

Personally I suspect a lot of people are just sick to the teeth of the entire Brexit process, regardless of how they originally voted or whether or not they've changed their minds. This single issue has exposed the mind numbing levels of incompetency, arrogance and stupidity of elected officials on both sides of the aisle.

It's a safe bet that the longer this goes on, the higher the yellow line will go.


----------



## John-H

Thought this was funny as it might sadly end up being true:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Is something inherently wrong with industry, when the government has to pay a business tens of millions in grants to make their products here?


----------



## John-H

Interesting to compare news reports from the time about the letter:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37827209

And after the U torn:

Business Minister Richard Harrington said *"This was nothing to do with the X-Trail."*
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47120759

Here's the actual letter itself and a quote from it:

*"It is contingent too on a positive decision by the Nissan Board to allocate production of the Qashqai and X-Trail models to the Sunderland plant."*
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... r_2016.pdf

It was obvious at the time that Brexit threatens supply chains with friction and tariffs if it all goes wrong and the bribe to Nissan bought a thumbs up signal for the UK. It all seems to be unravelling now.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Is it a bribe from the government to get business in? Or is it a ransom from business to bring money into an area? I suspect it's that latter.


----------



## bobclive22

> Both the 1975 and 2016 EU referendums were advisory Bob.
> 
> You are correct in that it wasn't quite the same.
> 
> The 1975 referendum was only two years after joining and was to ratify a treaty we had recently signed up to, so we know what remain meant and we also knew what leave meant as it was only going back to the situation two years before.
> 
> The 2016 referendum came two years before Mrs May's EU treaty so we didn't know the consequences when we voted out and it certainly wouldn't be like going back 45 years in time as things had vastly moved on. This is back to front.
> 
> Having another referendum now in 2019 on the deal would be just like the one in 1975 - to ratify a treaty and accept the consequences we have learnt about - if we still want them that is. Seems the right way round again don't you think?


Well John, when I voted to stay in the EU there were 9 nations and millions of eastern Europeans were not flooding into the UK taking the majority of the low paid jobs at even lower rates of pay. The only issue we heard about was the food mountain, the EU was a totally different animal in 1975. This time round we were aware of the consequences of that 1975 referendum and now had the opportunity to reverse that vote which we have done.
No need for a third referendum John, we voted out when we understood the aim of the EU was to form a federal Europe led by Germany, simples.

These are worth a read,

by Dr. Michael Ivanovitch, Dr. Michael Ivanovitch is an independent analyst focusing on world economy, geopolitics and investment strategy. He served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, international economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught economics at Columbia Business School.

*Brexit is a revolt against a German-run European super-state*



> Here is how Henry Kissinger talks in his memoirs about a most humiliating history lesson he received on that topic from the towering French President Charles de Gaulle. Egged on by President Richard Nixon, during his visit to France in the 1960s, to challenge de Gaulle's ideas about Germany, Kissinger piqued the haughty general with the question how he would prevent Germany from dominating Europe. De Gaulle's answer was simple: *"Through war.*"


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/brexit- ... ntary.html

*France and Germany are uprooting the pillars of the European Union*

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/france- ... ntary.html


----------



## bobclive22

I was aware of the Irish, keep voting till we get the right answer John but not the others,



> Some might say that the definitive result of the 2016 referendum rules out a reversal of the said decision. Call me old-fashioned, but when a parliament organises a referendum to ask the people a question, is it not duty bound to implement the answer it is given? But of course, that's not the EU's way of doing things. When Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a 1992 referendum, they had to vote again in order to approve it. It was the same with Ireland and their Nice Treaty referendum in 2001. And when the French and Dutch electorates rejected the European Constitution in 2005, it was merely cosmetically repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. And when the Irish rejected that in 2008, they had to vote again in order to give Brussels the answer it required. All a salutary reminder that the EU is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.


----------



## John-H

So, Bob, you use the argument that things have changed since 1975 to justify another referendum so you can have another vote in 2016. That's fine. That's democracy.

Why are you now denying further democracy by saying there shouldn't be another vote when things are clearly turning out so different to the promises made by Brexiteers in 2016?

You might be happy with anything from illegally crashing out with no deal, have the economy go into crisis with shortages of food and medicine and have Marshall law imposed, to becoming a vassal state under Mrs May's deal or somewhere in between but what about other people? They should have a say too shouldn't they?

Don't worry about a People's Vote Bob. You are welcome to vote the same way again or if you really don't like it you don't have to take part.

As Donald Tusk hit the nail on the head,

*"By the way, I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."*

The basic problem is that there is no form of Brexit on offer that comes anywhere near the Brexiteers promises which can be implemented because of the legal treaty The Good Friday agreement. All the Brexiteers ignored it at the time or didn't realise the implications but now we are all well aware.

P.S. You didn't attribute your last quote but I think people should know it's from Brexitcentral which is a right wing propaganda tool of the pro Brexit group underpinned by shady rich backers like the Taxpayers' Alliance.


----------



## John-H

Here's a new report about the deal and its implications:

View attachment Noclarity_noclosure.pdf


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> So, Bob, you use the argument that things have changed since 1975 to justify another referendum so you can have another vote in 2016. That's fine. That's democracy.
> 
> Why are you now denying further democracy by saying there shouldn't be another vote when things are clearly turning out so different to the promises made by Brexiteers in 2016?
> 
> You might be happy with anything from illegally crashing out with no deal, have the economy go into crisis with shortages of food and medicine and have Marshall law imposed, to becoming a vassal state under Mrs May's deal or somewhere in between but what about other people? They should have a say too shouldn't they?
> 
> Don't worry about a People's Vote Bob. You are welcome to vote the same way again or if you really don't like it you don't have to take part.
> 
> As Donald Tusk hit the nail on the head,
> 
> *"By the way, I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."*
> 
> The basic problem is that there is no form of Brexit on offer that comes anywhere near the Brexiteers promises which can be implemented because of the legal treaty The Good Friday agreement. All the Brexiteers ignored it at the time or didn't realise the implications but now we are all well aware.
> 
> P.S. You didn't attribute your last quote but I think people should know it's from Brexitcentral which is a right wing propaganda tool of the pro Brexit group underpinned by shady rich backers like the Taxpayers' Alliance.


Because the outcome of the last one has not yet been carried out. I'm all for another referendum to rejoin the EU down the road once we're out, if that's what people want. But unlike 1975-2016, nothing has changed between 2016-present, we're still in the EU, our position in the EU hasn't changed, nor has the EU changed. So why should the question be asked again? You can argue until you're blue in the face that _we know now what we didn't know then_, but most of you haughty liberals have been calling for another referendum since the day after the last one. So the argument isn't relevant in that context.


----------



## John-H

You are denying reality as well as democracy now Ash. Of course things have changed since 2016 - namely the Brexiteer promises have been dropped and our expectations have plummeted as the sorry saga has unfolded and jobs have started to leave our shoes. Luckily the process of leaving (it is a process and not an event) isn't instant under Article 50 which we voted for and within it includes two years of negotiation and the right to change your mind if you don't like the the result. One would hope our government do what's best for the country.

If they don't feel authorised then there's no law that we can't be asked if we think it's still Ok to go through with it - it would only be polite given the spectacular failure of the governments so called negotiations which haven't come close to sorting out the final relationship - only the divorce deal and need I remind you that it was Vote Leave who promised that our final relationship would be negotiated before we started the legal process of leaving.

Oh and did I mention asking us again to verify would be democratic? 

As I said to Bob you don't have to take part if you don't want to. Everyone can have an opinion 

Out of curiosity, when Mrs May called a snap general election in 2017 did you refuse to vote because we'd already had a vote and the five years wasn't up yet?


----------



## ashfinlayson

I haven't lost touch with reality John. You make a big deal about all these companies apparently leaving the UK but the reality is that businesses have come and gone and gone and come back to the UK since globalisation was a thing, they're only making a huge fuss about it in the press due to Brexit and their requirement for filling 24/7 news.

The trouble here is that the definition of democracy in this instance is a grey area;

- Those for Leave will feel that they had a vote and the majority voted to leave so we should leave as per their decision and are biased against anything that would result in their democratic decision being overturned, which is fair enough.

- Those for Remain feel that they should be asked again because leaving is against there wishes in the first place and in light of the lack of progress in negotiations feel there is a reason so stay or at least be asked again, which is also fair enough.

While I do not want another referendum, obviously if there is one then I will vote because I do not want my decision to be overturned, but then you're clearly assuming lack of intelligence of Leavers and banking on them not voting a second time, perhaps because this huge appetite for another referendum and overwhelming majority to remain in the EU that you keep banging on about is in fact fictional :lol:


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> I haven't lost touch with reality John.


Ash, now you know full well I hope that what I meant was that you were denying the reality of important Brexit developments since the referendum in claiming that nothing has changed. That's all 



ashfinlayson said:


> You make a big deal about all these companies apparently leaving the UK.


Actually it was a minor aside but it's obvious it will get worse when trade fiction increases.



ashfinlayson said:


> The trouble here is that the definition of democracy in this instance is a grey area;
> 
> - Those for Leave will feel that they had a vote and the majority voted to leave so we should leave as per their decision and are biased against anything that would result in their democratic decision being overturned, which is fair enough.
> 
> - Those for Remain feel that they should be asked again because leaving is against there wishes in the first place and in light of the lack of progress in negotiations feel there is a reason so stay or at least be asked again, which is also fair enough.


I agree Ash, they are indeed polarising elements and thoughts but it would be a mistake to presume all leave and remain voters still think exactly that. Some will but I've met many remain voters who grapple with the question of another vote perhaps for feelings such as those you have. Fair enough. I put to them the same points I make to you. I also get angry leave voters who think they were mislead and want another vote. These are just feelings and opinions though - there is no constitutional, procedural, electoral or moral bar to another vote and given we know more now and things have developed there is a logic for it.



ashfinlayson said:


> While I do not want another referendum, obviously if there is one then I will vote because I do not want my decision to be overturned.


That's perfectly fair enough but it seems you will accept the idea of another vote and take part at least. The opportunity for you to influence the vote I'm sure you would agree should be open to everyone else too.



ashfinlayson said:


> ... but then you're clearly assuming lack of intelligence of Leavers and banking on them not voting a second time,


No I'm not assuming anything of the sort. As I've pointed out, there are quite a few remain voters who also have qualms about another vote. I'm merely trying to persuade people with qualms that they would take part in another vote and supporting one would now help to answer the question honestly and more reliably now we know more of the reality.



ashfinlayson said:


> ...
> perhaps because this huge appetite for another referendum and overwhelming majority to remain in the EU that you keep banging on about is in fact fictional :lol:


Well, there's one way to find out Ash :wink:


----------



## John-H

It had to be said. An open letter to all MPs:

*
The actions of a Democrat?*

Imagine - I've been in a coma for the last two and a half years - I've just woken up and am now wondering - what's going on with Brexit? I might well conclude that the nation including its parliament has taken leave of its collective senses. Crashing out of the EU into chaos with lack of regulation and illegality being entertained as an option and with no trade deals in place and still arguing over a divorce deal with days to go - this is crazy. I keep hearing these words:

* "I voted remain but I'm a democrat so I must respect the referendum result"*

Surely the prime responsibility of government is to ensure security and prosperity for the nation and its people? So why is such chaos not being ruled out and given all EU exiting options leave us worse off and implementing a divorce deal before even agreeing a future free trade deal puts us in such a bad negotiating position, what is the democratic imperative that drives this and what explains the disconnect between this poor almost now inevitable outcome, compared to the best interests of our prosperity and security? _'The people have spoken - it's our democratic duty'_. Really?

The 2016 referendum did not define this outcome to the people as a choice. It presented contradictory outcomes with impossible solutions in breach of treaties. *But it is the responsibility of democrats to define and bound the limitations of the effects of any referendum devolved to the people under a duty of care to the nation.* That's part of the job - not to irresponsibly allow the nation to wonder off a cliff edge in the process. Why is this failure in lack of planning, contingency consideration and duty of care under the Cameron administration binding the hands of subsequent administrations? _Because we said we would respect the result?_ Isn't the present parliament then repeating the same failure and now owning full responsibility?

*Failure of duty of care*

At least in the 1975 EC referendum we knew what we were voting on. We had an agreed treaty and could simply go back to conditions two years prior if we decided to leave. We voted 67% to remain however.

In the 2016 referendum there was no new treaty deal at that point and going back to "no deal", severing 45 years of integration, is profoundly damaging as well as being illegal under international treaty law by the act of walking away from our future treaty obligations to the EU and to Ireland without a replacement treaty to honour them. We will be taken to the International Court in The Hague as a result and have sanctions applied as well as having opted to have WTO tariffs and quotas imposed under "no deal" which will decimate our industries.

We were given an unrealistic choice in 2016. A properly thought out referendum would have been in two stages - (1) in or out - if out; (2) negotiate a legal deal and put it back to people in a follow up referendum, or allow MPs to do their job as representatives and decide for the good of the country. Forcing MPs now to leave with "no deal" or a worse deal than we currently have is crass stupidity. How are we going to fund public services in this event?

The 2016 referendum was held to solve internal Tory party issues. We are still suffering from them.

*Marginal mandate*

The result of the referendum was the most marginal UK wide referendum result ever (<2% 635k votes swung it) and therefore amongst the weakest of all mandates for a constitutional change. The country was split down the middle.

Of all UK referenda and elections since WW2, only the Welsh devolution result was more marginal. Theresa May and the Tory party as a whole, however, voted against Welsh devolution AFTER that referendum result. It seems the "will of the people" was not to be trusted or acted upon by them on that occasion.

Nobody complained that Mrs May's 2017 snap election was anti-democratic or against the "will of the people". Not even Brenda from Bristol. Quite rightly, more democracy is more democracy. How can the people betray the people? Consulting further is the responsible thing to do now the facts have changed and the likely options have been realised.

*Unreliable mandate*

The 2016 referendum was not even a reliable result. Vote Leave significantly overspent its campaign budget by more than 10% and only needed a small influence to tip (<2%) the balance of the result. The Electoral Commission and ICO have issued record fines and a criminal investigation is underway regarding foreign funding and influence through Aaron Banks and Leave.EU.

*The UK is a full member of the Venice Commission whose guidelines say that a significant overspend of a referendum campaign fund limit should result in that referendum being annulled. Why is the result still standing?*

Because the referendum was legally only 'advisory', the government have not taken any action. Strangely they still think that politically they must carry on with it despite knowing about the corruption and not now reliably knowing what the "will of the people" actually was then or is now. What is their motivation? To their shame it would appear only to be party unity and the self interest of some. They could make a case for double checking public opinion but appear happier to brush things under the carpet. Where is the Muller type enquiry? Do we really have the cheek to call ourselves "democrats" in allowing these circumstances to continue?

*Practical options out of this mess*

We now see how difficult negotiating trade deals with a much larger block will be like as illustrated by the Irish backstop impasse. The EU will support its member states. The UK has put itself in a position of international weakness. This makes no sense for any of us.

We now need a People's Vote to find out if the people want Mrs May's deal and the uncertainty and weakness of years of future trade talks, or we need to withdraw Article 50(2) notice and recognise that the 2016 referendum result was invalid and corrupt.

Our MPs need now to show some leadership for the good of the country - as true democrats.

Hold a Public Enquiry into the conduct of the referendum and improve our electoral laws and safeguards. If needed we can hold a People's Assembly to discuss EU membership options in a civilised fashion without being manipulated by newspaper headlines and deep pockets of shady backers and then make a decision.

Make no mistake, if it all goes wrong and people suffer, the public will blame the politicians. Claiming 'the people told us to do it' is no excuse. MPs are representatives and took an oath to do what is best for the country with full responsibility for any referendum. Clearly that doesn't include making the country poorer and less safe.

The argument that the major parties were elected in 2017 on a position of respecting the 2016 referendum result is a bogus indication of the "will of the people" over Brexit. People voted for many different reasons of party policy. Both Conservative and Labour promised the "exact same benefits" as EU membership. Clearly that's not going to happen - we are all going to be poorer.

We have been lied to by our politicians over Brexit. It's about time that MPs seized the opportunity for leadership out of this mess. We have become a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. I am ashamed of my country, the position it has got itself into and the damage it is doing to itself. The spectacle of the Prime Minister vowing to "battle for Britain " with our friends and neighbours in Europe is deeply troubling - have we not moved away from WW2 jingoism? Have we forgotten that the EU is a peace project?

We have little time. Extend the deadline and hold a People's Vote or withdraw Article 50(2) notice and hold a People's Assembly to sensibly discuss the future.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Clearly that doesn't include making the country poorer and less safe.


That is the whole point you've missed though John, it does.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly that doesn't include making the country poorer and less safe.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole point you've missed though John, it does.
Click to expand...

I think I was pointing out that it shouldn't :!:


----------



## A3DFU

An excellent letter John. Everyone should copy it and send it to *all* MPs!


----------



## bobclive22

John, Doesn`t it strike you as odd that the UK left wing news media especially the BBC denigrates president Trump with the same vigour as it undermines Brexit.

The Nisan investment, it`s Brexit, couldn't` be that diesel is now the fuel of the past, couldn't` be that China`s economy has stagnated with declining car sales, couldn`t be that Nisan lost a Billion in 2018 by pulling out of a consortium with Mercedes, couldn`t be that Nisans earnings fell by 21% in 2018, of course not it`s all down to Brexit.



> Europe loss, outlook cut
> 
> Nissan's European unit, meanwhile, swung to an operating loss of 7.3 billion yen ($66.2 million) in the fiscal third quarter, from an operating profit of 2.0 billion yen the year before. European sales declined 16 percent to 142,000 vehicles in the three months.





> Citing lower sales outlooks for the U.S., China, Europe and Japan, Nissan cut its full-year sales forecast for the current fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.





> It now sees global retail sales falling 2.9 percent to 5.6 million vehicles. It had originally forecast sales to increase to 5.9 million units, from 5.8 the year before. Nissan also lowered its forecasts for operating profit, net income and revenue, because of the deteriorating sales.





> It is not likely that the world will go into a recession despite a weaker global growth outlook. However, markets will struggle for a stable footing until better economic data emerges from the major economies like US, China, Japan and the EU.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ma ... 418856.cms

*EU Slashes Growth Forecasts and Warns Over Brexit, China*
By Viktoria Dendrinou
7 February 2019, 10:00 GMT

In its forecasts, the commission sees the 19-nation euro-area economy expanding *1.3 percent this year down from 1.9 percent projected in November. *

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... es-outlook

The BoE now expects Britain's economy to grow by just *1.2% this year and 1.5% in 2020. Back in November, the central bank forecast the economy would grow by 1.7% each year.*

So that`s EU down 0.6% and UK down 0.5% Brexit included.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bank- ... 58282.html

Same old project fear John.


----------



## bobclive22

> The truth is, if we do end up with growth this year of 1.2 per cent, that will be quite a turn-up for the books compared with the prophecies Bank of England Governor Mark Carney made in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. A month before the referendum result, he suggested that the consequences of a vote for Brexit 'could include a technical recession'. We are still waiting for one. Indeed, here we are possibly seven weeks before a messy, no-deal Brexit, the government is in complete crisis - and still the economy is growing and unemployment is at its lowest since the early 1970s.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/i ... forecasts/


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> John, Doesn`t it strike you ...


No Bob. It doesn't.


----------



## bobclive22

> No Bob. It doesn't.


That`s because you are not listerning John, no comment regarding Nisan pulling UK investment, why would they invest in new plant to produce diesel vehicles for the EU when the EU does not want to buy them, 21% drop in sales in 2018, the BBC could have reported this honestly and stated it had very little to do with Brexit, but as I have said the organisation is far left and far left do not do honesty, everything that eminates from the BBC should be treated with a pinch of salt.



> The X-Trail is a relatively large SUV and is *well-paired with a diesel engine,* however sales of diesel-engined cars declined by almost 30 per cent in 2018.





> Nissan Europe chairman Gianluca de Ficchy said: "*While we have taken this decision for business reasons,* the continued uncertainty around the UK's future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.
> "And, while the X-Trail's diesel engines come from business partner Renault in relatively nearby France, the model's petrol engines would have to be shipped over from Japan. Finally, while the Qashqai has been a huge success for Nissan, the larger X-Trail is a far less common sight on UK roads.


This is a good speech by Nigel on the subject of the backstop.







> Summary
> Economic growth in Great Britain has now reached a seven year low *putting it within the same range of performance as the rest of Europe.*
> Investors and businesses are pulling back from the uncertainty created by politicians in *both the UK and in the European Union.*
> *Real leadership seems to be absent from the scene *which makes it hard to have any optimism about the possible outcome of this mess, especially at this late date.


https://seekingalpha.com/article/423997 ... exit-break Feb 2019.



> Summary
> Economic growth forecasts for the European Union have been slashed, making expectations for expansion in the EU the worst in five years.
> 
> Many analysts believe that weak economic growth in Europe, connected with a "bad" Brexit, could have a negative impact on US stock prices.
> 
> Politically, Europe does not seem to be in a position to turn this around and could face even more turmoil in the future, again not a positive outcome for growth.


https://seekingalpha.com/article/423916 ... tocks-look

There you are John, no project fear, just the facts as they stand, pity the UK leftist MSM can`t report as honestly.


----------



## John-H

Your grasp of the facts Bob is about as good as Nigel millionaire stockbroker Farage's :lol:

No matter how bad it gets it's not Brexit that's at fault. Of course. There's always something else to blame - ignore the elephant :roll:

It always makes me laugh how the BBC gets it in the neck from both sides too - each accuse it of being on the other side of bias.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Your grasp of the facts Bob is about as good as Nigel millionaire stockbroker Farage's :lol:
> 
> No matter how bad it gets it's not Brexit that's at fault. Of course. There's always something else to blame - ignore the elephant :roll:
> 
> It always makes me laugh how the BBC gets it in the neck from both sides too - each accuse it of being on the other side of bias.


The same could be said that Brexit has had the blame for every economic wobble since 2016. The Guardian says the UK is going to be the poorest economy in Europe by 2020, the BBC says the UK is at the slowest growth since 2008 but neglects to mention that the global economy is at it's slowest growth point too, and the Guardian got it's information from an EU forecast :lol: Ultimately, the economy has been in the toilet since records began, and will probably remain so until the world ends.


----------



## John-H

So the biggest self inflicted influence on the economy can be ignored because you reckon there are bigger influences beyond our control.

Sounds like climate change denial to me.

Keep clutching at straws with Bob :wink:


----------



## ashfinlayson

No I'm not in denial about anything John, but every graph I've looked at pretty much puts the UK economy tracking the US in terms of growth. Every country in the bloc has slowed growth, so has Asia. So to say that the current state of the UKs economy is the fault of Brexit, could also be considered denial. I suppose at some point you're going to start blaming the housing slow down on Brexit too, nothing to do with increased supply


----------



## John-H

I think you are mixing up something that's not happened yet - like Bob was suggesting Nissan was all to do with diesel and not Brexit despite them saying that was part of the reason and then not mentioning Ford - and ignoring the fact that friction at borders is clearly going to impact just in time supply lines. Same with Airbus and others.

Extra trade friction - good or bad for our economy?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Firstly, I am in no way affiliated with Bob and his views are not necessarily mine, in fact I can't remember the last time I read one of his responses (no offence). Secondly, you have jumbled up what is happening, with what has happened, what may happen and what will happen throughout your arguments throughout this thread, but ultimately what has happened is not a lot, what will happen is unknown and what may happen is only speculation.

Nissan is not really a good example - If it was, they would be moving their development of the x-trail to another EU country, last time I checked Japan was not in the EU, and I would suspect that continuing to develop the x-trail in it's existing factory in Japan is a lot cheaper than setting up abroad given the global economic slowdown you ignored earlier. Airbus however is a good example given that they already do most of their manufacturing in mainland Europe, but they're also saying they're going to stop developing their monster plane anyway due to the state of their P&L. I'm not saying that Brexit is not a contributing factor in these business decisions, but to say that it is the fault of Brexit that these companies are leaving the UK is totally inaccurate Guardian dribble.

I have not once said that Brexit will not negatively affect JIT manufacturing supply chains or demand for that matter, but you read how I feel about JIT manufacturing about 30 pages ago, and as I have stated several times, maybe in not so many words, that I do not feel that we should let economics set the terms of ideology, that should be the job of the electorate.


----------



## bobclive22

> Your grasp of the facts Bob is about as good as Nigel millionaire stockbroker Farage's :lol:
> 
> No matter how bad it gets it's not Brexit that's at fault. Of course. There's always something else to blame - ignore the elephant :roll:
> 
> It always makes me laugh how the BBC gets it in the neck from both sides too - each accuse it of being on the other side of bias.


John, I am talking about balance, up to this point nothing has happened, some companies depart and some arrive, US car giant General Motors (GM) is taking a £25 million stake in a British technology startup as it prepares for a driverless future.

The BBC does not do balanced reporting because it`s left wing, if it did you would have been aware that the GDP of the UK compared to the EU is doing just fine. It`s like thinking you have just purchased a bargain, when the shop around the corner is selling the item cheaper. You need all the facts John, not just some of them.

If you watched Nigels vid, the point he made was that Irelands Politicians were playing roulette with Irelands businesses when there was no need, the EU is doing exactly the same, if no deal is taken off the table the UK will then be held to ransom.


----------



## John-H

I think it's pretty obvious what the effect on real people will be from increasing friction at borders, imposing tariffs etc. You seem to ignore the illegality. You both seem to think on a more detached plane for ideological reasons. How quaint.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Resorting to belittlement, must be running out of rational points to make. But I do wonder why you're so terrified of trade tariffs when we pay them now in the form of net budget contributions.


----------



## John-H

We don't. If you think that's equivalent that's quite sad or is it quaint? Perhaps there's another word  - 'detachment' that's it.

As for rational arguments. I do believe I've made quite a few of them covering these points already like our EU export trade being worth 50 times the cost of our membership which pays for regulatory and standards agencies etc anyway, the government's own impact studies showing the huge cost of Brexit compared to our present position and put some very direct questions to you to highlight various contradictions but I seem to be met with obfuscation and avoidance and higher plane thinking whereby you claim costs don't matter to you. There seems little point in repetition. Good luck with your vote.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Oh dear


----------



## John-H

Here's a petition to sign -
revoke Article 50 if there is no Brexit plan by 25 Feb - we may as well keep asking!

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239706


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Here's a petition to sign -
> revoke Article 50 if there is no Brexit plan by 25 Feb - we may as well keep asking!
> 
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239706


I think you need to take up a new hobby, it's gonna happen :lol:


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> Here's a petition to sign -
> revoke Article 50 if there is no Brexit plan by 25 Feb - we may as well keep asking!
> 
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239706


Signed and forwarded to a good number of people


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a petition to sign -
> revoke Article 50 if there is no Brexit plan by 25 Feb - we may as well keep asking!
> 
> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/239706
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take up a new hobby, it's gonna happen :lol:
Click to expand...

Is it? The sad thing is watching you revel in the the expectation of the chaos of your own demise. I hope your spitfire is shiny by now and you've removed the tarnish from your Hi-Fi interconnects :lol:


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

I hope they are gold plated antenna connections. Leopard won't accept anything less :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

The British economy is matching or outpacing growth in the Eurozone's leading countries as Brexit approaches, with inflation falling and real wages rising.
New Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show inflation down to a two-year low of 1.8 percent, and quarterly growth is running at 0.2 percent - *outpacing Angela Merkel's Germany,* which is supposed to be the economic powerhouse of Europe, and appearing to give the lie to claims by EU loyalists that Britain has become "the sick man of Europe" since the 2016 vote to Leave the European Union.

Chris Giles, economics editor of the slavishly europhile Financial Times, attempted to put a negative spin on the growth figures in a dispute with the BBC's increasingly marginalised interrogator-in-chief, *Andrew Neil - who tends to buck the common conception of the corporation biased and unbalanced in its Brexit coverage* - on social media, but came unstuck when he was forced to admit that *the United Kingdom is indeed the fastest-growing G7 member of the EU.*

You should read the twitter comments John :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/ ... 7220242432

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... ce-europe/


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I hope they are gold plated antenna connections. Leopard won't accept anything less :wink:


Lol, you should know that gold plated connectors are for the 
"Window lickers",it's the nickle underneath that muddys the Sonics, you need the solid silver connectors 

This personal crusade of 114 pages in length is looking good, no :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they are gold plated antenna connections. Leopard won't accept anything less :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, you should know that gold plated connectors are for the
> "Window lickers",it's the nickle underneath that muddys the Sonics, you need the solid silver connectors
> 
> This personal crusade of 114 pages in length is looking good, no :lol:
Click to expand...

Your input is the crowning glory :lol: Keep hearing things that don't exist. It parallels your Brexit understanding.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Your input is the crowning glory :lol: Keep hearing things that don't exist. It parallels your Brexit understanding.


Yep, parallels your desperation to get everybody on side, 
Ba Dum Tssshhh [smiley=drummer.gif] :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your input is the crowning glory :lol: Keep hearing things that don't exist. It parallels your Brexit understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, parallels your desperation to get everybody on side,
> Ba Dum Tssshhh [smiley=drummer.gif] :lol:
Click to expand...

You still believe Hi-Fi coaxial interconnect leads "sound" different despite transmitting the same electrical signal?
https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... it=coaxial


----------



## leopard

I'll ignore your comment for obvious reasons.

I think this eu malarkey has been an obsession with you for quite awhile now, sort of an obsessive compulsive depression, best see your GP, John [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Interesting 3-parts BBC series - "Ten Years of Turmoil". The arrogance of these people and their complete lack of consideration or foresight of how their decisions impact European citizens daily lives is truly mind numbing. We need to build a wall in Europe just to line these people up against it.

In order...













If these comments are true, you guys are in serious trouble -

-Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
-Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, 
the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
-Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
-British Armys new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU 
to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales. 
-Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
-Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
-M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
-Hornby models gone.In fact all toys an models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants
-Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
-Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
-Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant
-Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
-Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech R. and the Far East by Italian comp Candy with EU backing.
-ICI integration into Holland's AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
-JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU "regeneration" grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
-UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
-Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
-Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
-The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
-Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
-39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
-The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. 
-His campaign Bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis, in the UK. 
-The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
-haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.
-haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.﻿


----------



## ashfinlayson




----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> I'll ignore your comment for obvious reasons.
> 
> I think this eu malarkey has been an obsession with you for quite awhile now, sort of an obsessive compulsive depression, best see your GP, John [smiley=sick2.gif]


That's quite funny. At least I'm concerned with something that's going to affect all our lives to a profound extent. Whereas you are avoiding admitting that you are hearing things that don't exist and you think I should see my GP :lol:


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> Interesting 3-parts BBC series - "Ten Years of Turmoil". The arrogance of these people and their complete lack of consideration or foresight of how their decisions impact European citizens daily lives is truly mind numbing. We need to build a wall in Europe just to line these people up against it.
> 
> In order...


Yes, I saw it. Remarkable how resilient the EU has been despite the turmoil to uphold the common values of the peace project in the interest of its 512 million people and which explains why popularity of the EU amongst it's citizen's is at a 35 year high with a 67% approval rating.










https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1IO2SP

So much for your somewhat extreme view and interpretation :roll:



SwissJetPilot said:


> If these comments are true, you guys are in serious trouble -
> 
> ... Big long selective list made up from a mixture of examples of EU development grants being awarded to member states - of course the list omits the many examples granted to the UK. ...
> 
> ...nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.﻿


The last bit shows your sustained and determined misunderstanding despite the facts being explained to you a number of times :roll:

The EU grants about £5 billion to the UK each year in the form of regional development grants. Here's an interactive map so you can check where the money has been spent in your area:

https://www.myeu.uk/

And an article explaining: https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.u ... s-map/amp/

All this explains why membership of the EU is so popular now and even here in the UK is growing as people realise why its to our profound advantage to remain in the EU.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


>


I couldn't resist :lol:


----------



## John-H

Brexodus - how the uncertainty is hurting our small businesses:

https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/15/bus ... -companies

The NHS is stockpiling body bags in case of no deal:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-13985984

Catherine Blaiklock, leader of Farage's new 'Brexit party', wants to privatise the NHS. This is the real agenda of the Brexiteers!

https://mobile.twitter.com/NHSvBrexit/s ... 6001930240


----------



## John-H

Just for Bob. The truth about UK growth in the G7 with propaganda removed:



> In the first six months of 2018, the UK was one of the slowest growing economies in the G7. This is a group of the largest advanced economies in the world and includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US, alongside the UK.
> 
> This is a significant turnaround since the period from 2013 to 2016, where the UK was one of the fastest growing economies.












https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economi ... within-g7/



> Claim
> UK GDP growth in the second quarter of 2018 was 0.4%. In the Eurozone it was 0.3%.
> Conclusion
> This was correct when the claim was made earlier in August, but the figures have since been revised, with both the UK and Eurozone growing at 0.4% in the second quarter. Growth in the EU and the Eurozone is higher in the previous 12 months than the UK. It's projected to stay that way.


https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economi ... er-europe/

As explained in this article, German growth suffered because of the effect of changes in vehicle registration regulations but by far the biggest threat is the uncertainty over Brexit.

https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/e ... tlook.html

That's a reason to stop Brexit not get out of the EU.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... k-13902285

If this article is accurate, it looks like a few more thousand jobs in the UK will disappear for good in the not to distant future. You may or may not have heard of Ross Perot; he went up against Clinton and Bush back in during the presidential election in 1992. He predicted passing NAFTA (North America Free Trade Act) would cause major manufacturing companies to leave North America for Mexico, which they did. The major tech companies started moving to China a decade later.

Unfortunately, I doubt President Trump will be able to bring many of these jobs back since most manufacturing has become so heavily automated, it no longer requires human workers. Foxcom is a good example.

If these jobs leave the UK, odds are good they won't be coming back.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/30/141 ... ufacturing

Company name - moving to:

Dyson - Singapore
Easyjet - Austria
Sony - Amsterdam
Lloyds of London - Brussels
Airbus - undeclared
Muji - Germany
HSBC - France
Barclays - Europe / Dublin
Toyota - Deeside and Burnaston plants on "stop-start"
Honda - planned a six day halt in April
Bentley - stocking parts
P&O Ferry - re-flag ships to be under the Cyprus flag


----------



## John-H

You've got a mixture of companies there some of whom may be moving jobs out of the UK for globalisation reasons that have got nothing to do with the EU and some companies who are thinking of moving out of the UK because if the UK leaves the EU the costs of continuing to operate in the UK becomes uncompetitive.

Dyson is a good example of someone taking advantage of lower wages and workers rights in Singapore but also taking advantage of a free trade deal between Singapore and the EU to import cars into the EU market.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Two points -

(1) You made the statement _"The EU grants about £5 billion to the UK each year in the form of regional development grants."_

And where exactly did they get £5 billion? Are they printing it in their basement? Or are the getting that in taxes from European citizens. If sovereign European countries are already taxing their citizens for roads, schools, etc., exactly what do we need the EU for? I'm pretty sure France, Spain and the rest of Europe can trade, and loan money to each other without a middle-man.

We already have the WTO, IMF and other global trade and banking organizations. Are sovereign European nations incapable of doing business without the EU? America's been trading with the entire freekin' world for over 100-years without the interference of the EU. Why can't the UK do the same?

(2) _"If the UK leaves the EU the costs of continuing to operate in the UK becomes uncompetitive."_

Really??

_Switzerland is a prosperous and modern market economy with low unemployment, a highly skilled labor force, and a per capita GDP among the highest in the world. Switzerland's economy benefits from a highly developed service sector, led by financial services, and a manufacturing industry that specializes in high-technology, knowledge-based production. Its economic and political stability, transparent legal system, exceptional infrastructure, efficient capital markets, and low corporate tax rates also make Switzerland one of the world's most competitive economies (1)._

So if Switzerland can do it, why can't the UK if they leave the EU?

(1) https://theodora.com/wfbcurrent/switzer ... onomy.html


----------



## Stiff

SwissJetPilot said:


> So if Switzerland can do it, why can't the UK if they leave the EU?


----------



## John-H

You guys should really do some homework.

The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market which seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour - the "four freedoms" - within the European Union (EU). The market encompasses the EU's 28 member states, and has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties.

Switzerland accepts freedom of movement as part of the price it pays for access to the single market. It's a member of EFTA. The country is hugely dependent on the EU as a trade partner, with more than half of all Swiss exports going to the EU and nearly three-quarters of Swiss imports coming from the EU.

As for the £5 billion in regional development aid the UK gets from the EU - do you really think our UK government will keep that scheme or its equivalent going if we leave the EU? We'll be worse off so I doubt it could be afforded.

Just a couple of answers for you.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I'm still not convinced the UK can't do business just as well as Switzerland when it leaves the EU. It's the third largest economy in Europe after Germany and France so I'm quite sure it can go it alone, and with it's own currency just as the Swiss are doing. Looking at GDP, little Switzerland's industry is cranking out more than France or the UK.

By the way, if you want to see real Democracy in action, follow Swiss politics. Their citizens vote on everything and even have the highest gun ownership in Europe; (45.7 guns per 100 residents). And all this from a country where over 30% of the population are non-Swiss. I'm thinking they're doing something right. Too bad they don't build TTs! :lol: 
(https://theodora.com/wfb/#U)

*Germany -*
Agriculture: 0.6% 
Industry: 30.1%
Services: 69.3% (2017 est.)

*France - *
Agriculture: 1.6%
Industry: 19.4% 
Services: 78.9% (2017 est.)

*UK -* 
Agriculture: 0.6% 
Industry: 19% 
Services: 80.4% (2017 est.)

*Switzerland -*
Agriculture: 0.7% 
Industry: 25.6% 
Services: 73.7% (2017 est.)

_https://theodora.com/wfb/#U_


----------



## John-H

Did you not read what I wrote? The Swiss are effectively following EU rules including freedom of movement in order to have access to the single market which they are intimately involved with. This is through bilateral treaty. They don't have a say in the making of the rules like we do. They are currently wanting to extend relationships to include services and are likely to end up closer tied.

That's completely the opposite of what the UK is proposing by abandoning the single market and anything that has EU in the title. You are talking opposite agendas and pretending they are the same. They are not.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I'm curious how the Swiss define "freedom of movement" because they have fully staffed and armed border check points with every neighboring country.


----------



## A3DFU

Switzerland is the most beautiful country I know and I shall go there if the UK goes down the pan. Thankfully I have a close relative livin in Zürich [smiley=sweetheart.gif]


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> I'm curious how the Swiss define "freedom of movement" because they have fully staffed and armed border check points with every neighboring country.


They are not in the customs union which is why they have border checks and friction and delays but they have negotiated access to the single market through bilateral treaty which includes freedom of movement. The UK are talking about abandoning all access to infrastructures. That also causes a breach of treaty at the Northern Ireland border, again because of different regulatory systems that will be in divergence. This is the impossible UK situation. It wants complete separation and yet is bound by treaty to keep things the same. It's unicorns.

This may help with the Swiss border explanation:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... k-44054594


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Interesting article, thanks. Clears up a few things.


----------



## bobclive22

> Just for Bob. The truth about UK growth in the G7 with propaganda removed:


Who funds this unbiased Charity Fullfacts.org John,

Some of the sponsors of Full Fact are well known REMAIN campaigners. The Labour party and a number of its affiliations for one. The hugely powerful, wealthy and influential City of London Corporation, largely representing the banks publicly backs membership.

Diageo is the worlds largest drinks distributor, is another financial sponsor of Full Fact and a huge supporter of EU membership as is Roll Royce the BMW owned manufacturer who have admitted to sending letters to thousands of employees warning of the consequences of Brexit in a clear campaign (that they ended up apologising for) to garner more favourable pro-EU votes.

Another sponsor of 'Full Fact' is the equally influential Cambridge University who's Vice Chancellor has said 'I cannot identify a single persuasive reason to recommend leaving Europe'.

This comes in the guise of The Centre for European Legal Studies who produced a video of students voting in a mock referendum where the result was Undecided 2, Leave 12 and Remain 150 - with one student pleading for the referendum to be stopped altogether. This is blatant propaganda at its very worst.

Full Fact reports on EU referendum - but how unbiased are they exactly?
See the VIDEO HERE 




The FT reported that a "Group of 300 senior lawyers pushed for Britain to stay in Europe", one of its most vocal pro-EU partners is a law firm King & Wood Mallesons who are also sponsors of Full fact.

Full Fact has considerable access to the establishment and mainstream media and has the ability to influence millions of people. With financial sponsors who are so vocal about their intentions to influence public opinion in favour of remaining in the EU it is hard to see why such powerful sponsors would spend money without getting some sort of return.

Why would these lawyers support Brexit, did they not understand the question.

https://lawyersforbritain.org/

From Fullfacts.org,

This is where you come in. *Your donation is vital for our small, independent team to keep going*, at the time when it's needed most. With your help, we can keep factchecking and demanding better from our politicians and public figures.We can give more people the tools to decide for themselves what to believe. We can intervene more effectively where false claims cause most harm.

This small independent team had £600,000 last year and expects to raise £800,000 this year, nice one.


----------



## bobclive22

> You guys should really do some homework.





> Did you not read what I wrote? The Swiss are effectively following EU rules including freedom of movement in order to have access to the single market which they are intimately involved with.


Did you say free movement John,

Swiss immigration: recent developments and outlook 2018
By Adrian Tüscher in Legal, Tax, 15.12.2017

Looking back at 2017 and forward to 2018, I offer an overview of the latest developments and outline some recommendations for navigating Switzerland's immigration laws and admission practice. It's clear employers will have to review recruitment processes before the *'Stop Mass Immigration'* plan takes effect in July 2018.

The Swiss Federal Council increased the number of work permits for 2018 - ending 2017 on a positive note. Still, next year promises to be a challenging one for recruiters and foreign workers.

We can expect the implementation of new legislation arising from the 'Stop Mass Immigration' initiative by mid-2018. Aimed at reducing the number of EU nationals in the workforce, the legislation brings considerable legal uncertainty and may place a huge strain on employers. Read on to find out what you can expect regarding immigration in 2018 and get a brief review of 2017.

https://blog.kpmg.ch/swiss-immigration- ... look-2018/

*EU and Switzerland agree on free movement* BRUSSELS, 22. *DEC 2016,*

Juncker's mention of "all forms of freedom" is a reminder that for the commission, the Swiss negotiations could have created a negative precedent for Brexit talks, in which the UK is also likely to seek EU migrant curbs..

One of Juncker's spokeswomen said earlier this week that the commission made a "tireless effort to find a compromise" and suggested that *the Swiss government had little choice but to agree to the EU demand*s.

https://euobserver.com/justice/136398

*Initiative to stop free movement with EU takes next step* *AUGUST 31, 2018* 3:11

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/s ... p/44364496

* :roll: OOPs.*


----------



## bobclive22

*Germany teeters on brink of recession after a surprise slump in its industrial production* 8 January 2019 |

Meanwhile, the eurozone is suffering deep gloom with economic confidence down for the 12th month in a row in December, says a European Commission survey - the longest losing streak since the financial crisis.

Recession fears are growing in Germany after it posted a surprise slump in the country's industrial production.

Factory output slid 1.9 per cent in November, according to the economy ministry, its third fall in a row.

That meant production was 4.7 per cent lower than a year earlier, the biggest drop since 2009.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mar ... ction.html

FRANKFURT--The German economy came close to entering its first recession in six years in the final quarter of last year, and seems set for another year of weak growth amid uncertainty about the future of global trade rules.

The abrupt slowdown in the eurozone's industrial powerhouse in the second half of last year partly reflected short-term problems in its key automobile and chemical industries. But weakening demand for its exports from China and elsewhere also played a part, and will likely continue to hold back growth this year.

Germany also faces the threat of a rise in U.S. tariffs on automobile imports from Europe, and a U.K. departure from the European Union without a trade deal.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/germa ... 2019-02-14


----------



## John-H

As I explained. Your information is out of date regarding Germany, confirmed only yesterday on the BBC too. But the effect of Brexit on the Eurozone is the biggest relative comparative reason for differences to the G7 average and that's a reason to stop Brexit.
https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/e ... tlook.html

It's funny bobbot. I link the source of some of my GDP information to a handy website - the fullfact charity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fact

... information which I could easily have obtained from many other publicly verifiable sources such as the NSA but instead of verifying the information itself you resort to casting aspersions on the reporting organisation. Aspersions you've obtained from dubious blogs and biased sources who are playing the same game as you - not addressing the data but attacking the source because they are inconveniently providing facts that you don't like.

You are like Donald Trump shouting "fake news" and claiming the media are telling lies about him when in actual fact he's the biggest liar.

You are both similar in that respect and it's funny for that reason I don't trust you or any of the falsehoods you spread.

If you check the data you will find it is correct but of course you won't as that way you'd have no argument and your posts would be revealed as effective as a broken pencil - pointless.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## SwissJetPilot

Meanwhile in the USA, there's 'Last Week Tonight' on HBO with John Oliver and his explanation about it all -


----------



## bobclive22

Back to name calling John,

No comment on Switzerland then.

The one place you should never ever go for information relating to any subject that is even slightly controversial is Wikipedia, didn`t you know that John.



> information which I could easily have obtained from many other publicly verifiable sources such as the NSA but instead of verifying the information itself you resort to casting aspersions on the reporting organisation.


John, Fullfacts.org is funded mainly from remainer donations, even an idiot would question information from an organisation funded by the opposition.



> Aspersions you've obtained from dubious blogs and biased sources who are playing the same game as you.


John, either the charity is funded by remain donations or it is not, check it out, it does not matter where the source of the information comes from, either it is true or false, seems accurate to me.



> As I explained. Your information is out of date regarding Germany,


Germany narrowly avoids recession after economy stagnates in late 2018 
14th Feb 2019

Here comes the false news John,

Experts pointed to Brexit uncertainty and fears surrounding global trade disputes as the reason behind Germanys sluggish economy, with business confidence dropping for the fifth month in a row in January. ( didn`t mention the collapse of diesel car sales or the likely US 25% tarriff on cars made in the EU did they).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 78696.html

More false news,

The loss of the Honda plant follows *previous warnings about the impact of a no-deal Brexit* from Britain's largest automotive firm, Jaguar Land Rover, as well as Ford, Toyota, Nissan and BMW. The Guardian were already aware Brexit had nothing to do with the Honda closure but put it in anyway, (fake news).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ry-reports

So you don`t like President Trump John, do you mean this fake news,

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/media-f ... mpted-coup

or the Russia probe,

Senate Intelligence Committee Found *No Evidence of Collusion Between Trump Campaign and Russia*, Reports Say 
*14th Feb 2019.*

After interviewing more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 300,000 pages of documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democratic and Republican sources on the committee.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/senate-in ... 99309.html

or this fake news,

'*Concrete evidence of collusion between Trump team and Russia'* handed to official investigation* 
Friday 14 April 2017

The official investigation into relations between Donald Trump and Russia now has "specific, concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion", it has been reported.

And we all know how the Democrats dodgy Steel Dossier backfired.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 83386.html

Senate Intelligence Committee Found No Evidence of Collusion Between Trump Campaign and Russia, Reports Say February 13, 2019

After interviewing more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 300,000 pages of documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democratic and Republican sources on the committee.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/senate-in ... 99309.html

Germany today, good read John, looks like a German EU empire to me, all facts appear correct. I hope I don`t get what you wish for.

Has a corporate Germany actually conducted a "postwar commercial campaign" to increase its influence over Europe?

As German companies increasingly seek to dominate Europe's gas and power distribution, finance, manufacturing and defense industries, Europe will find itself under increasing pressure to submit to German leadership.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned, speaking of the EU in a speech given in America in October 1995, "You have not anchored Germany to Europe; You have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you'll find it will not work."

https://www.thetrumpet.com/2902-defeate ... ack-on-top*


----------



## John-H

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march











https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march


----------



## leopard

Lol, the desperation :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

*Speech by Northern Ireland Regional Organiser of the Campaign for an Independent Britain Professor Arthur Noble*
POSTED ON DECEMBER 16, 2013

I am not a politician or an economist; I am simply a patriot. Having spent fifteen years as Professor of German at two French universities (Metz and Nancy), I can assure you that I am well aware of the nature of the conspiracy behind the EU. I lived in France when the Franc was replaced by the Euro: at that time the single currency was promoted as a great invention, but now, of course, we know that it was a complete disaster which has wrecked the economies of the Southern European states and is now being increasingly despised by some of the core EU states, including most recently Austria and even Germany itself.

***

I am sure all of us here will agree that the UK was shoe-horned into the co-called Common Market in 1973 by Edward Heath. He told us that we were joining a free-trade area which would (1) boost our prosperity and (2) leave our independence intact. This double assurance was later proved to be a blatant lie - a lie which has characterised the continuing deception of our relations with the EU ever since.

Perhaps I should add that I am not anti-German. I love Germany and its wonderful culture. I have taught German language, German literature, German music, German architecture and German history all my life. I never thought that I would see the day when the old German ideas of superiority would surface again.

https://campaignforanindependentbritain ... hur-noble/


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Lol, the desperation :lol:


But this is a real noise :wink:


----------



## A3DFU

> Germany narrowly avoids recession after economy stagnates in late 2018
> 14th Feb 2019


 :lol: 
What a lot of dross bob. Where the blazes do you get your figures from


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> *... Professor Arthur Noble*
> ...


You can't half find them Bobbot - a man who believes it's all a jesuit plot to destroy Britain :lol: :lol: :lol: Sounds like he's got as much imagination as leopard :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

The Peoples vote,

You are expecting the new young voters to vote remain, they have no worldly experience, the only opinion they have is that of their tutors and project fear.

*Hitler - He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!*


----------



## bobclive22

> You can't half find them Bobbot - a man who believes it's all a jesuit plot to destroy Britain :lol: :lol: :lol: Sounds like he's got as much imagination as leopard :wink:


They seem to have a colourfull history John.

http://www.reformation.org/jesuits.html


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> The Peoples vote,
> 
> You are expecting the new young voters to vote remain, they have no worldly experience, the only opinion they have is that of their tutors and project fear.
> 
> *Hitler - He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!*


So refreshing to see such faith in our young, a belief in their bright intelligence and their freedom to think for themselves, free from the moral bankruptcies of their elders.

I never realised you were such a keen student of Hitler. He tried to deny democracy to much of Europe through a fascist dictatorship. Imagine that - trying to deny people a vote about their future. You wouldn't think such thoughts existed these days.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> So refreshing to see such faith in our young, a belief in their bright intelligence and their freedom to think for themselves, free from the moral bankruptcies of their elders.


What a load of claptrap.

They couldn't be arsed to get out of their w*****g chariots, nevermind get dressed and vote [smiley=zzz.gif] :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

To think that the 16-year-olds that appear on Question Time is representative of 16-year-olds nationwide is fairly laughable. To say that this years 18-year-olds deserve a say because they couldn't 2 years ago is also a bit silly. Or shall we have yet another referendum in 2020 for the next lot of kids to have a say as well? F*** it, let's have one every year

FYI you have also been known to slag off the source of information you don't agree with on this thread as well.


----------



## John-H

Very poor arguments - and please don't swear on this thread - it's not the flame room. You know the rules.

FYI Bob was criticising the source of the information despite the data being inconveniently correct and therefore trying to discredit the truth. When I've criticised the source it's because the data was incorrect and I was showing why the source was untrustworthy that produced it. Demonstrable facts are not opinions.


----------



## John-H

*Revealed: How dark money is winning 'the Brexit influencing game'
*

As Tory MPs resign in protest at the malign influence of hardline Brexiters, documents show the "unfettered" access to ministers and senior politicians enjoyed by secretive think tanks such as the IEA that are "marching the country" to a no-deal Brexit.










https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


----------



## leopard

About time :lol:


----------



## bobclive22

> Very poor arguments - and please don't swear on this thread - it's not the flame room. You know the rules.
> 
> FYI Bob was criticising the source of the information despite the data being inconveniently correct and therefore trying to discredit the truth. When I've criticised the source it's because the data was incorrect and I was showing why the source was untrustworthy that produced it. Demonstrable facts are not opinions.


*Germany narrowly avoids recession in late 2018*

FRANKFURT--The German economy came close to entering its first recession in six years in the final quarter of last year, and seems set for another year of weak growth amid uncertainty about the future of global trade rules.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/germa ... 019-02-14/

https://moneyweek.com/502392/germany-na ... recession/

Do your research John the story is also in your bible, The Guardian.

*Regarding the Japanees free trade deal with the EU, Brexit and Honda*

Paul Daly, partner at UHY Hacker Young, said: "The EU-Japan trade deal is set to be a significant help for Japanese car sales in the UK - European manufacturers will be concerned that their market share could be impacted by reduced prices on Japanese imports."

"The picture is complicated further by the fact that a no-deal Brexit could eventually lead to tariffs on European cars by the UK, further assisting Japanese manufacturers in competing on price and marketing spend."

"If both the EU and Japan are granted 0% tariffs on UK imports, we may see greater price competition between European and Japanese brands, which would ultimately benefit consumers."

Interesting.

https://fleetworld.co.uk/new-eu-japan-t ... und-in-uk/


----------



## ashfinlayson

As of the 1st Feb Honda no longer needs to manufacture in the UK in order to access the European market tarrif free so they gain nothing from having a factory here. The Honda factory has only been working at half capacity anyway due to the fact they mostly churn out diesel civics and people aren't buyig diesels anymore. It has sod all to do with brexit, in fact you could say it's the Germans fault for causing the diesel scandal. But given that there are so few countries that drive RHD vehicles, Japan included, you'd have thought Japan would want to remain engaged with the uk in that regard, especially given how many Nissans there are on UK roads.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> As of the 1st Feb Honda no longer needs to manufacture in the UK in order to access the European market tarrif free so they gain nothing from having a factory here. The Honda factory has only been working at half capacity anyway due to the fact they mostly churn out diesel civics and people aren't buyig diesels anymore. It has sod all to do with brexit, in fact you could say it's the Germans fault for causing the diesel scandal. But given that there are so few countries that drive RHD vehicles, Japan included, you'd have thought Japan would want to remain engaged with the uk in that regard, especially given how many Nissans there are on UK roads.


Incorrect. The Honda plant does not "mostly churn out diesel Civics. "



> Honda spokesman:
> 
> "For financial year 2018/19, the breakdown of cars built at Honda of the UK Manufacturing Ltd is Diesel 6% and Petrol 94%."


Another quote for you:



> Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.


Your logic seems to be it's not completely to do with Brexit so therefore nothing to do with Brexit. The real world isn't like that. If tariffs are imposed the plant becomes uncompetitive compared to other options. That's obvious. Tariffs are due to Brexit. Setting import tariffs unilaterally to zero would undercut our manufacturers further.

You should read this since it sounds like you've read the same incorrect information as Julia Hartley-Brewer:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexite ... eu-8786006


----------



## ashfinlayson

*Small diesel engine vehicles sales volume in the United Kingdom (UK) between 2010 and 2017 (in units sold)* _Statista_









94% petrol now, but look how diesel sales have diminished over the last few years. As I said above, the factory is working at half capacity and has been for some time. You don't keep a factory open that isn't performing when you've got another factory that can do the same job cheaper. Japan aren't exactly known for their high standard of human rights so Honda and Nissan will no doubtably enjoy saving a few quid on employment rights manufacturing out of europe too.



> Your logic seems to be it's not completely to do with Brexit so therefore nothing to do with Brexit.


While you could say that, you could also say the remainer spin is that if it's remotely possible that it has something to do with brexit, it's entirely caused by brexit.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## bobclive22

> Honda spokesman:
> 
> "For financial year 2018/19, the breakdown of cars built at Honda of the UK Manufacturing Ltd is Diesel 6% and Petrol 94%."
> 
> Another quote for you:
> 
> Last year, the senior vice-president of Honda Europe warned that if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.


Honda sales in Europe have declined steadily in Europe from 2009 to 2015, with market share sliding accordingly, to below 1% for the first time ever in 2015, compared to 2 percent in 2007. In 2016, its share slightly rebounded to above 1% *before dropping to an all-time low in 2017.
*
http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/honda/

It appears the EU don`t want Honda cars so how can Brexit be the cause of the closure. :? :?


----------



## John-H

Ash, your graph does not reflect Honda specifically. I never claimed Brexit was the only factor but can you seriously claim that Brexit head no influence? Honda actually exported RHD cars back to Japan from the Swindon plant. It must have been efficient enough for that. But with the UK out of any trade deal and having tariffs imposed clearly that's going to cost them.



> Automotive industry experts said that while multiple factors are behind Swindon's closure, uncertainty about Britain's future trading relationship with the EU must have played a part.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... se-in-2021



> Claims that Brexit had nothing to do with Honda closing its only UK manufacturing plant are "fanciful", according to a former British ambassador to Japan.
> 
> "The idea that Brexit uncertainty is irrelevant to this is fanciful. How are Honda supposed to calculate the costs and benefits of staying in the UK in the overall global context against such lack of clarity on the future terms of trade?"


 https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... vid-warren



> But, according to notes taken by local Labour councillor Jane Milner-Barry, he also flagged up a litany of reasons why Brexit, in particular the prospect of a no-deal scenario, posed a threat to the factory.


https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ns-in-2018

You guys can comfort yourselves with the belief that this has got nothing to do with Brexit but are you really going to pretend that it's just a coincidence? And Toyota not investing too? And Ford and Jaguar. You really think that they are all happy with the extra costs imposed by Brexit. They ALL said it would cause then severe problems. I know Japanese companies and I know that they avoid getting into politics. It's politeness. Comfort yourselves as you wish but I know there will be further closures if the situation worsens.

You are in denial. We hear of Westminster bubbles but we seem to have have a TT forum bubble here :lol: well actually a bit sad for a car forum when you think about it :?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You guys can comfort yourselves with the belief that this has got nothing to do with Brexit


I don't think anyone claimed that it has _nothing_ to do with Brexit but let's face it, the chances are they would have pulled out anyway due to the reasons mentioned so linking the uncertainty of Brexit to a decision that would likely have been made even if we 'remained' is a bit of a misdemeanor. 
It's the same with countless other arguments that are attributed to the 'uncertainty' of Brexit. If it can be used to fear monger, it will, at any and every opportunity. 
Yes sure, there _are_ decisions that are made due directly to Brexit but man, there are sh!tloads of others where it's just roped in due to the 'uncertainty' card that probably has no bearing on it whatsoever.



John-H said:


> You are in denial.


I think after 117 pages of you waffling on, spitting your dummy out and posting more links than the Bob-Bot, it does indeed seem that it is you sir, that is in denial. Brexit is happening and it looks like there's no way of stopping it, bubbles or no bubbles.
I actually miss Spandex's input on this subject as he came across as informative and less desperate but even he won't debate you anymore. _He_ certainly wasn't in denial either.


----------



## John-H

Well sir, that's just your opinion. It was Ash that claimed Honda had nothing to do with Brexit. I just pointed out that Brexit has clearly something to do with it from their previous comments and Brexit will clearly have a detrimental effect on our car industry due to the distributed European shop floor across the single market. That is undeniable.

You may try to claim the Honda decision would have happened anyway but you can't be sure about that. That's just an alternative way of trying to claim Brexit had "nothing" to do with it and denying Brexit has any effect. What is certainly the case is that the possibility of Honda deciding to invest in the plant capacity for future production has been ruled out by the uncertainty over Brexit. Sure, the EU-Japan trade deal means they can import at zero tariff into the EU but they have been exporting from the UK (EU) plant into Japan so clearly that was economically viable but the UK will be outside that deal if we leave the EU and tariffs will apply. Faced with that scenario what would you do with the UK plant?

Sure I've been posting a lot on this thread - that's because I think it's important but I do check my facts carefully and would be mortified if I had posted anything that was incorrect.

I also use this thread as a historical repository of useful information of things I come across and often refer back to it. It's useful.

The comments from people with opposing views are useful too -
to develop the arguments and that's what this forum is all about. I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you that's been great.

Yes I miss Spandex's input - he's not posted at all on this forum since his last input on this thread. I do hope my reminder of the dog with bone episode didn't upset him. It was actually meant as an affectionate reminder of a really enjoyable and hilarious past debate which I thought we - Brian86, Spandex and me were all enjoying at the time - I really was in tears and loved every minute of the debate. I can't read minds though. Apologies to Spandex if I caused any upset - it certainly wasn't meant.

Debate is great and that's what this forum is all about. We may have different opinions but at least we can discuss and broaden our horizons in the process.

Come on - Stop Brexit - you know it makes sense! This government are risking all our futures with their game playing.

There was a hearing in the court of appeal on Thursday - Sue Wilson vs The Prime Minister Theresa May. The case was that the Prime Minister triggered Article 50(2) notice to leave the EU when she was already aware that the referendum had been illegally corrupted by the leave campaign overspend as found to a criminal standard by the Electoral Commission. This admission in submission predated the published findings. In the hearing the government's counsel James Eadie admitted that the Prime Minister was fully aware of the illegality.

The court went further to say they accept that Theresa May continued to pursue her Brexit policy, despite knowing the referendum outcome was procured by corrupt and illegal practices. Sir James Eadie QC (counsel for the PM) stated in court that the 'true position' is that Theresa May was well aware of 'notorious facts' of the findings of the Electoral Commission, ICO, DCMS and of the police investigations and appeals lost. He also stated that the findings were 'all properly done' and conceded that the referendum result was unlawful.

In relation to these comments (as some would see it - revelations) he remarked simply that 'it is obvious that the Prime Minister decided to carry on'. The Prime Minister (in law) made the decision and she alone made the decision to ignore the fact that the referendum was procured by corrupt and illegal practices and proceed with implementing Brexit (with the help of Parliament). The courts have accepted that it was within her lawful powers to take this course of action after choosing to ignore the Electoral Commission's findings.

I simply ask you - do you think it is right to continue with Brexit on this basis?

You may also want to read this report about the dark money motivating the people behind Brexit pushing for no deal because they've bought gold in anticipation:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You may try to claim the Honda decision would have happened anyway but you can't be sure about that. That's just an alternative way of trying to claim Brexit had "nothing" to do with it and denying Brexit has any effect.


In a way, Ash is kind of right. It depends on how you view it. The people who will no doubt blame Brexit for Honda closing down Swindon (and Nissan not producing a new vehicle in UK) need to understand why the Japanese car makers are/have been producing vehicles in the UK. 
Vehicles imported in to Europe directly from Japan have for years been subject to paying tariffs to EEC. They avoid the tariffs and actually get major government financial benefits if they set-up manufacture/assembly here in the UK (and presumably in Europe).
EEC has negotiated phased reductions of these tariffs with individual Japanese car manufacturers over a several year period. This is the reason for Honda's saying that the reasons for pulling out are nothing to do with Brexit.
This was _always_ scheduled to happen - however now European based car manufacturers will be effected as Trump levies huge additional tariffs on many imported products in to the USA.
Strange that the media don't really report all this and let us all believe its down to the Brexit effect.



John-H said:


> I simply ask you - do you think it is right to continue with Brexit on this basis?


Right or wrong, it's irrelevant. It's going to happen.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may try to claim the Honda decision would have happened anyway but you can't be sure about that. That's just an alternative way of trying to claim Brexit had "nothing" to do with it and denying Brexit has any effect.
> 
> 
> 
> In a way, Ash is kind of right. It depends on how you view it. The people who will no doubt blame Brexit for Honda closing down Swindon (and Nissan not producing a new vehicle in UK) need to understand why the Japanese car makers are/have been producing vehicles in the UK.
> Vehicles imported in to Europe directly from Japan have for years been subject to paying tariffs to EEC. They avoid the tariffs and actually get major government financial benefits if they set-up manufacture/assembly here in the UK (and presumably in Europe).
> EEC has negotiated phased reductions of these tariffs with individual Japanese car manufacturers over a several year period. This is the reason for Honda's saying that the reasons for pulling out are nothing to do with Brexit.
> This was _always_ scheduled to happen - however now European based car manufacturers will be effected as Trump levies huge additional tariffs on many imported products in to the USA.
> Strange that the media don't really report all this and let us all believe its down to the Brexit effect.
Click to expand...

Again you are denying Brexit has anyrhing to do with it. Can you seriously claim that the frictions and tariffs at borders due to Brexit is irrelevant to UK car production? They all said it was. I've no reason to disbelieve them. Why have you?



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply ask you - do you think it is right to continue with Brexit on this basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Right or wrong, it's irrelevant. It's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Tug your forelock, keep your head down, and then you die, if you are lucky - Are you a man or a mouse? Come on the march and stick two fingers up to the 'stards that grind you down. This will not stand. We are in charge. Watch the votes on Wednesday :wink: :

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Are you a man or a mouse?


Rhetorical question, right?


John-H said:


> Come on the march and stick two fingers up to the 'stards that grind you down.


No. They're certainly not grinding _me_ down.


John-H said:


> This will not stand.


Yes it will.


John-H said:


> We are in charge.


No _we_'re not.


John-H said:


> Watch the votes on Wednesday :wink:


I will :wink:


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a man or a mouse?
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetorical question, right?
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on the march and stick two fingers up to the 'stards that grind you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They're certainly not grinding _me_ down.
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will not stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it will.
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No _we_'re not.
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the votes on Wednesday :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will :wink:
Click to expand...

Then we will see


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> *Revealed: How dark money is winning 'the Brexit influencing game'
> *
> 
> As Tory MPs resign in protest at the malign influence of hardline Brexiters, documents show the "unfettered" access to ministers and senior politicians enjoyed by secretive think tanks such as the IEA that are "marching the country" to a no-deal Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


Its called a democracy and people have the right to infuence just as they have right to vote in favour of brexit. No doubt the unions, the Guardian and BBC find this distasteful and full of conspiracy theories ( scary "secretive think tanks") as it impedes their anti tory agenda of using brexit to create, fear and confusion for political reasons. You need to step back John and see the bigger picture of "influence". Leaving the EU "hard" won't be as bad as you think and if it is, at least you are respecting the will of the people. There are many countries who successfully compete in a sustainable way without being part of an all encompassing "trade" organisation that protects the inefficient and that may have suited the political situation post two European based World Wars but has grown to influencing areas that are usually the domain of a sovereign state. Heck, if it all turns to custard you can always rejoin


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revealed: How dark money is winning 'the Brexit influencing game'
> *
> 
> As Tory MPs resign in protest at the malign influence of hardline Brexiters, documents show the "unfettered" access to ministers and senior politicians enjoyed by secretive think tanks such as the IEA that are "marching the country" to a no-deal Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga
> 
> 
> 
> Its called a democracy and people have the right to infuence just as they have right to vote in favour of brexit. No doubt the unions, the Guardian and BBC find this distasteful and full of conspiracy theories ( scary "secretive think tanks") as it impedes their anti tory agenda of using brexit to create, fear and confusion for political reasons. You need to step back John and see the bigger picture of "influence". Leaving the EU "hard" won't be as bad as you think and if it is, at least you are respecting the will of the people. There are many countries who successfully compete in a sustainable way without being part of an all encompassing "trade" organisation that protects the inefficient and that may have suited the political situation post two European based World Wars but has grown to influencing areas that are usually the domain of a sovereign state. Heck, if it all turns to custard you can always rejoin
Click to expand...

Four things:

(1) Lobbying is fine as long as the rules are followed but it seems they were not.

(2) Prove it won't be as bad without risk to me thanks and... is that the great sunlit uplands promise reduced to arguing about the level of bad it will be? You aren't really selling this very well are you?

(3) Perhaps you've not picked up the latest news - the fact that the test of the "will of the people" (the 2016 referendum) has been accepted in court as being obtained through "corrupt and illegal practices" to a criminal standard of proof, that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been voided because of cheating. But it was only advisory, so has no legal standing but by the same argument nobody actually reliably knows what the "will of the people" actually was then. So the use of the phrase is meaningless. There is no mandate.

(4) If we leave we lose our current favorable deal and would have to re-apply for a worse deal. So given the above why should we do this and accept the risks?


----------



## bobclive22

*Jaguar Land Rover hands Tata the biggest loss in Indian corporate history*

BENGALURU/NEW DELHI - Jaguar Land Rover's owner Tata Motors Ltd stunned markets by posting the biggest-ever quarterly loss in Indian corporate history of about $4 billion on slumping China sales, sending its shares crashing as much as 30 percent.

JLR's China retail sales were cut almost in half in the December quarter as overall demand in the world's biggest auto market contracted last year for the first time since the 1990s. The firm has also been *buffeted by Brexit woes* and weaker business for diesel cars that account for bulk of its sales in Europe.

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/08/jag ... YORC_KVT7D


----------



## John-H

Very tenuous EU relation to your post Bob. Perhaps you should start a new thread on the subject?


----------



## John-H

Explained:
"Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"

If the winner of the Tour de France was found to have cheated they would be disqualified. Simple. They would not be allowed to claim "I would have won anyway even if I hadn't cheated", or "Others cheated so that makes it Ok". Indeed if they had all cheated the whole race would be declared void and Re-run.

So, why are we persisting with the invalid and corrupt result of the 2016 referendum? There is no valid mandate. A legally binding referendum won by cheating would have been rendered void - is it right that an advisory referendum won by cheating is respected?


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Iceblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revealed: How dark money is winning 'the Brexit influencing game'
> *
> 
> As Tory MPs resign in protest at the malign influence of hardline Brexiters, documents show the "unfettered" access to ministers and senior politicians enjoyed by secretive think tanks such as the IEA that are "marching the country" to a no-deal Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga
> 
> 
> 
> Its called a democracy and people have the right to infuence just as they have right to vote in favour of brexit. No doubt the unions, the Guardian and BBC find this distasteful and full of conspiracy theories ( scary "secretive think tanks") as it impedes their anti tory agenda of using brexit to create, fear and confusion for political reasons. You need to step back John and see the bigger picture of "influence". Leaving the EU "hard" won't be as bad as you think and if it is, at least you are respecting the will of the people. There are many countries who successfully compete in a sustainable way without being part of an all encompassing "trade" organisation that protects the inefficient and that may have suited the political situation post two European based World Wars but has grown to influencing areas that are usually the domain of a sovereign state. Heck, if it all turns to custard you can always rejoin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four things:
> 
> (1) Lobbying is fine as long as the rules are followed but it seems they were not.
> 
> (2) Prove it won't be as bad without risk to me thanks and... is that the great sunlit uplands promise reduced to arguing about the level of bad it will be? You aren't really selling this very well are you?
> 
> (3) Perhaps you've not picked up the latest news - the fact that the test of the "will of the people" (the 2016 referendum) has been accepted in court as being obtained through "corrupt and illegal practices" to a criminal standard of proof, that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been voided because of cheating. But it was only advisory, so has no legal standing but by the same argument nobody actually reliably knows what the "will of the people" actually was then. So the use of the phrase is meaningless. There is no mandate.
> 
> (4) If we leave we lose our current favorable deal and would have to re-apply for a worse deal. So given the above why should we do this and accept the risks?
Click to expand...

Hi JohnH

1. Lobbying occurs at many levels, if they did not want you to know about it, you wouldn't - As stated this is a scare campaign to paint brexit and its supporters as bad. This is influence and obfuscation 101

2. No one can prove anything other than the uncertainty created from the politicisation of the process is bad for the economy and gives further resolve to the EU negotiators to drive a hard bargain. We know that other countries can prosper without being part of the EU and yes there may be a transition period involving the restructure of some industries as has occurred at various turning points in history. Ultimately however, the real damage and future risk for you, is the undermining of a democratic election in a first world democracy, from a country that has argueably done the most for democracy in modern history. As someone once said, "civilisations are not destroyed from the outside but from within".

3. Within the rule of law the decision and election result stands. The only mandate in a democracy is the majority vote of that one person who puts it over 50% in your voting system. If you respect democracy you accept both the rule of law and the majority vote and get on with it, even if do not agree. If you don't cherish democracy then we know where that ends.

4. There are better deals to be negotiated both with the EU and with new trading relationships that will open up. It is not in the EU's long term interest to punish the UK and see 60 million consumers go elsewhere. Call their bluff

cheers


----------



## bobclive22

Well said Iceblue,

Always retain the option to walk away, (no deal option) once that has gone the negotiation is lost.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Well said Iceblue,
> 
> Always retain the option to walk away, (no deal option) once that has gone the negotiation is lost.


On the contrary Bob. If we walk away with no deal we lose. If we take no deal off the table we prevent further losses over what we've already lost in this debacle.

This it's not like any normal deal. I often hear people talk about "walking away" but unlike what they are used to in a normal negotiation they do not retain the status quo like when deciding not to buy a car for example.

A better example is if you get your builder's van serviced and repaired at your usual garage and during the work demand free service and repairs from now on. The garage offer a discount for being a good customer but you refuse and furthermore you threaten not to pay the latest bill and say you'll go elsewhere from now on. An argument ensues. The garage tell you you you are welcome to do all the work and servicing yourself from now on but you won't be able to drive your van away until you pay the bill. So in a fit of peak you storm off with no van, unable to run your business and with the threat of being taken to court over the bill.


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> A better example is if you get your builder's van serviced and repaired at your usual garage and during the work demand free service and repairs from now on. The garage offer a discount for being a good customer but you refuse and furthermore you threaten not to pay the latest bill and say you'll go elsewhere from now on. An argument ensues. The garage tell you you you are welcome to do all the work and servicing yourself from now on but you won't be able to drive your van away until you pay the bill. So in a fit of peak you storm off with no van, unable to run your business and with the threat of being taken to court over the bill.


An excellent analogy John!


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Iceblue,
> 
> Always retain the option to walk away, (no deal option) once that has gone the negotiation is lost.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary Bob. If we walk away with no deal we lose. If we take no deal off the table we prevent further losses over what we've already lost in this debacle.
> 
> This it's not like any normal deal. I often hear people talk about "walking away" but unlike what they are used to in a normal negotiation they do not retain the status quo like when deciding not to buy a car for example.
Click to expand...

John, Iceblue didn't mention walking away from a deal whilst retaining the current status quo, he just said that walking away from a deal is both an option and a card to play, which it is. Whether or not _we lose_ is subjective, while I agree that both the UK and the EU may suffer economically over WTO, economics is only a portion of the debate.


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> Hi JohnH
> 
> 1. Lobbying occurs at many levels, if they did not want you to know about it, you wouldn't - As stated this is a scare campaign to paint brexit and its supporters as bad. This is influence and obfuscation 101
> 
> 2. No one can prove anything other than the uncertainty created from the politicisation of the process is bad for the economy and gives further resolve to the EU negotiators to drive a hard bargain. We know that other countries can prosper without being part of the EU and yes there may be a transition period involving the restructure of some industries as has occurred at various turning points in history. Ultimately however, the real damage and future risk for you, is the undermining of a democratic election in a first world democracy, from a country that has argueably done the most for democracy in modern history. As someone once said, "civilisations are not destroyed from the outside but from within".
> 
> 3. Within the rule of law the decision and election result stands. The only mandate in a democracy is the majority vote of that one person who puts it over 50% in your voting system. If you respect democracy you accept both the rule of law and the majority vote and get on with it, even if do not agree. If you don't cherish democracy then we know where that ends.
> 
> 4. There are better deals to be negotiated both with the EU and with new trading relationships that will open up. It is not in the EU's long term interest to punish the UK and see 60 million consumers go elsewhere. Call their bluff
> 
> cheers


Thanks for your considered response Iceblue. In response I'd say :

1/ In this case we know about the lobbying from the evidence of the report. The memos and letters are there to see. Open Democracy say,

"We're not doing this because we're for or against Brexit, but because we all deserve to know who's bankrolling our politics. Our journalism has sparked law change, criminal investigations and global media pickup. It's not funded by dark money or lucrative sponsorship deals, so we depend on the regular support of readers to keep going."

The evidence presented is obviously genuine. It started like this with Cambridge Analytica if you remember. Journalists digging and following the money and legal action following. Some said it was scare stories then. It wasn't. The truth will out.

2/ following on from that. We can prove things given time. It would be a shame to find out we've been conned and taken advantage of.

Of course countries not in the EU survive but most countries form trading blocks with close neighbors. When distance doubles trade halves - because of cost and difficulty. To put barriers to trade with our closest neighbors and substitute the trade with countries further away makes no sense.

3/ We already know we were lied to and manipulated. As of last week we find out in court that the government accept that the referendum was won by corrupt and illegal practices that would have annulled a legally binding referendum. They are clearly not holding the 2016 advisory referendum to the same democratic standards. They are pushing through a result they and their interested parties want despite what the people might actually have thought back in 2016 which they don't reliably know by legitimate means. They deny the people a voice now in a democratic and more informed consultation. Don't you think that undermines trust in democracy?

4/ About 60% of our trade is done with and through the EU and its 40 trade deals with 70 countries. Only about 8% of EU trade with UK is done at present (or 18% of non EU countries if we leave). It's clear who has most to lose and who has the most clout when bargaining. That's why is better to stay in.


----------



## Iceblue

I respect your points John and could argue the minutiae over many more pages but it is not really necessary as I think you missed my point. As Ash noted it is not just about economics even though I maintain over the medium term you will prosper like many non EU nations and not just "survive" within the EU. I know in our country that our farming setor is itching to get into your market despite the distance, as we already compete (read lower prices and/or better quality for UK consumers) successfully in most non subsidised/non-protected markets.

Anyway the process is politicised and the UK becomes more divided which is a lose lose for the people and a win for the vested interests who benefit from the self inflicted turmoil. Be careful what you wish for John and being optimistic I think you will get to brexit eventually and hopefully without two much collateral damage.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Explained:
> "Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"
> 
> If the winner of the Tour de France was found to have cheated they would be disqualified. Simple. They would not be allowed to claim "I would have won anyway even if I hadn't cheated", or "Others cheated so that makes it Ok". Indeed if they had all cheated the whole race would be declared void and Re-run.
> 
> So, why are we persisting with the invalid and corrupt result of the 2016 referendum? There is no valid mandate. A legally binding referendum won by cheating would have been rendered void - is it right that an advisory referendum won by cheating is respected?


James O'Brian and a reporter for the Guardian, really could not get more odious than that without wheeling in Hitlers corpse.

I don't get all this "cheating" claims, by all means have another Vote on the matter if that's what people want. What we don't want to see is some technical guff that overrides the result - I do believe the fallout and damage would destroy all faith in this Countries Political system and allow the far right wing into power on the promise of "Justice for the people" etc.

There are ways and means and this angle is a poorly thought out one.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explained:
> "Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"
> 
> If the winner of the Tour de France was found to have cheated they would be disqualified. Simple. They would not be allowed to claim "I would have won anyway even if I hadn't cheated", or "Others cheated so that makes it Ok". Indeed if they had all cheated the whole race would be declared void and Re-run.
> 
> So, why are we persisting with the invalid and corrupt result of the 2016 referendum? There is no valid mandate. A legally binding referendum won by cheating would have been rendered void - is it right that an advisory referendum won by cheating is respected?
> 
> 
> 
> James O'Brian and a reporter for the Guardian, really could not get more odious than that without wheeling in Hitlers corpse.
Click to expand...

It's not a Guardian journalist it's Jessica Simor QC who was the lead barrister in the case Wilson vs. The Prime Minister.



Yashin said:


> I don't get all this "cheating" claims,


It's been proven to a criminal standard of proof, there have been investigations by the Parliamentary select Committee, the ICO, Electoral Commission and record fines imposed. There is no doubt.



Yashin said:


> by all means have another Vote on the matter if that's what people want. What we don't want to see is some technical guff that overrides the result - I do believe the fallout and damage would destroy all faith in this Countries Political system and allow the far right wing into power on the promise of "Justice for the people" etc.
> 
> There are ways and means and this angle is a poorly thought out one.


The right to a vote is not just the right to tick a box. It's a right to take part in a valid democratic process where there is no cheating otherwise there's no point in it.

The cheating that went on, that has been accepted by the courts and even the Prime Minister's QC in the Wilson case, would seem a good reason to have another vote in order to remove doubt. Hopefully without cheating next time.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explained:
> "Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"
> 
> If the winner of the Tour de France was found to have cheated they would be disqualified. Simple. They would not be allowed to claim "I would have won anyway even if I hadn't cheated", or "Others cheated so that makes it Ok". Indeed if they had all cheated the whole race would be declared void and Re-run.
> 
> So, why are we persisting with the invalid and corrupt result of the 2016 referendum? There is no valid mandate. A legally binding referendum won by cheating would have been rendered void - is it right that an advisory referendum won by cheating is respected?
> 
> 
> 
> James O'Brian and a reporter for the Guardian, really could not get more odious than that without wheeling in Hitlers corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a Guardian journalist it's Jessica Simor QC who was the lead barrister in the case Wilson vs. The Prime Minister.
> 
> 
> 
> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get all this "cheating" claims,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been proven to a criminal standard of proof, there have been investigations by the Parliamentary select Committee, the ICO, Electoral Commission and record fines imposed. There is no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> by all means have another Vote on the matter if that's what people want. What we don't want to see is some technical guff that overrides the result - I do believe the fallout and damage would destroy all faith in this Countries Political system and allow the far right wing into power on the promise of "Justice for the people" etc.
> 
> There are ways and means and this angle is a poorly thought out one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to a vote is not just the right to tick a box. It's a right to take part in a valid democratic process where there is no cheating otherwise there's no point in it.
> 
> The cheating that went on, that has been accepted by the courts and even the Prime Minister's QC in the Wilson case, would seem a good reason to have another vote in order to remove doubt. Hopefully without cheating next time.
Click to expand...

Very well I'll retract odious and simply label it extremely repugnant.

I still don't get the cheating angle - is this over money spent on the campaign?

Either way it's not going to fly, it's fantasy thinking. Still not seeing the benefits of being in the EU pushed forward which cost the absolute embarrassment of a Remain campaign. Lessons have not been learnt so nothing has changed.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> Very well I'll retract odious and simply label it extremely repugnant.
> 
> I still don't get the cheating angle - is this over money spent on the campaign?


Well if you watch the link it's fully explained. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... lt-stands/



Yashin said:


> Still not seeing the benefits of being in the EU pushed forward which cost the absolute embarrassment of a Remain campaign. Lessons have not been learnt so nothing has changed.


I've pushed them forward many times on this thread - for example just recently:

The EU grants about £5 billion to the UK each year in the form of regional development grants. Here's an interactive map so you can check where the money has been spent in your area:

https://www.myeu.uk/

And an article explaining: https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.u ... s-map/amp/

These grsnts are independent of our government's reluctance to fund.

And some more off the top of my head...

The EU is a huge peace project stopping member states warring with each other by promoting trade and common values.

About 60% of our trade is done with and through the EU and its 40 free trade deals with 70 countries. Trade halves as distance doubles so it makes no sense to raise barriers with our nearest partners. The advantage is the current free trade we have which is worth 50 times our membership fee just with the EU alone.

For perspective the fee is about 1% of UK tax revenue whereas we pay 2.2% to fund our own government.

That EU fee pays for EU standards and regulatory bodies which because they are common standards removes the need to reintroduce and fund our own bodies.

Common standards for chemicals, electrical, safety, products etc etc which makes trade easier. With the single market a product approved for sale in one country automatically meets the standards of all member states without the need for separate approval.

Huge simplification for cross border trade due to common regulatory alignment.

High environmental standards.

High animal welfare standards.

Being part of the world's biggest trading block means huge bargaining clout.

Big clout and control over multinationals e.g. Microsoft, Google Facebook etc

Security and intelligence sharing.

Harmonised data protection.

Galileo satellite project. JET project etc.

Erasmus education scheme providing great opportunities for our students.

Mobile phone roaming charges harmonised across Europe.

Driving licence and medical cover harmonisation across the EU.

Freedom to work and live and retire where we want.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well I'll retract odious and simply label it extremely repugnant.
> 
> I still don't get the cheating angle - is this over money spent on the campaign?
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you watch the link it's fully explained. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... lt-stands/
> 
> 
> 
> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not seeing the benefits of being in the EU pushed forward which cost the absolute embarrassment of a Remain campaign. Lessons have not been learnt so nothing has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've pushed them forward many times on this thread - for example just recently:
> 
> The EU grants about £5 billion to the UK each year in the form of regional development grants. Here's an interactive map so you can check where the money has been spent in your area:
> 
> https://www.myeu.uk/
> 
> And an article explaining: https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.u ... s-map/amp/
> 
> These grsnts are independent of our government's reluctance to fund.
> 
> And some more off the top of my head...
> 
> The EU is a huge peace project stopping member states warring with each other by promoting trade and common values.
> 
> About 60% of our trade is done with and through the EU and its 40 free trade deals with 70 countries. Trade halves as distance doubles so it makes no sense to raise barriers with our nearest partners. The advantage is the current free trade we have which is worth 50 times our membership fee just with the EU alone.
> 
> For perspective the fee is about 1% of UK tax revenue whereas we pay 2.2% to fund our own government.
> 
> That EU fee pays for EU standards and regulatory bodies which because they are common standards removes the need to reintroduce and fund our own bodies.
> 
> Common standards for chemicals, electrical, safety, products etc etc which makes trade easier. With the single market a product approved for sale in one country automatically meets the standards of all member states without the need for separate approval.
> 
> Huge simplification for cross border trade due to common regulatory alignment.
> 
> High environmental standards.
> 
> High animal welfare standards.
> 
> Being part of the world's biggest trading block means huge bargaining clout.
> 
> Big clout and control over multinationals e.g. Microsoft, Google Facebook etc
> 
> Security and intelligence sharing.
> 
> Harmonised data protection.
> 
> Galileo satellite project. JET project etc.
> 
> Erasmus education scheme providing great opportunities for our students.
> 
> Mobile phone roaming charges harmonised across Europe.
> 
> Driving licence and medical cover harmonisation across the EU.
> 
> Freedom to work and live and retire where we want.
Click to expand...

I watched a bit, 500k overspend in the last week. Would it swing the result? I doubt it but it's all academic anyway. Sure that the leavers will bring up the 9 million quid government leaflet etc. Either way it's dead horse flogging.

I wasn't referring to you Regards pushing the benefits, rather the pro euro media in general. Just haven't learnt.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> I watched a bit, 500k overspend in the last week. Would it swing the result? I doubt it but it's all academic anyway. Sure that the leavers will bring up the 9 million quid government leaflet etc. Either way it's dead horse flogging.


According to Dominick Cummings of Vote Leave, spending the money with AIQ won them the referendum. The 10% budget overspend deployed in the final days of the campaign on targeted Facebook ads. The <2% swing produced that won it.

The point was that the rules were broken. If it had been a legally binding referendum it would have been declared void.

But you are right, because it was only advisory there is no legal connection between the referendum result and the Prime Minister's decision to proceed with it regardless.


----------



## Yashin

The Referendum was just a culmination of what was always going to happen. Sure there is always people who will want to leave the EU no matter what they did, but to get to such a high percentage hasn't happened overnight. If Leave hadn't won the vote in 2016 then it would of happened in 10 years/20 years etc anyway. The misguided growing sense that we want to be outside of the EU has been brought about by years of a poor public image of the EU that has never been addressed. For my whole life we have been a member of the EU, but until I researched and looked into it to form an view on how I will vote in the Referendum I couldn't tell you anything about it, it's benefits etc. It was never mentioned in school and the first time the average Joe knew about t was the vote to give up the Pound for the Euro - not a good introduction.

Perceptions need to be changed - if there was another Referendum and Remain won by 5% or so, it's not going to change anything. Leavers won't be just "oh well, that's that then let's never mention it again" and carry on as normal. If it's a small percentage it wouldn't be a problem but when it's nearly half the country that is antiEU that monster will forever be lurking in the shadows, dictating future events and preventing us rejoining the EU if we do leave. This hasn't been addressed and the Remain side of us can't stick our heads in the sand constantly hoping it will go away. Until there is a positive change to the perception of the EU by promoting the benefits instead of pushing the project fear angle etc we will forever remain divided as a country on the matter.

Why are we really leaving the EU?
Is it because of a bus?
Is it because of Facebook adverts?


----------



## John-H

This might provide an answer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002z9g

But what is needed is proper and full information.

As you say the information about the EU has been sorely lacking. Our politicians are quick to take the credit for themselves for its benefits and quick to blame it for their own failings. It's been a convenient pinch bag and the newspapers just looked for amusement or later their owners had more selfish reasons.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Our politicians are quick to take the credit for themselves for its benefits and quick to blame it for their own failings. It's been a convenient pinch bag and the newspapers just looked for amusement.


This could be construed as a reason to leave though John, I think I mentioned this very early on in this thread; by removing the scapegoat that politicians use for not delivering on their manifestos, policy becomes more transparent, the electorate becomes closer to the policy makers and gains more control over policies that affect them. This is precisely why we have devolved governments, yet the European Parliament and council represents the exact opposite of devolved power.

I don't personally know a single Leave voter that would say there are _no_ benefits to the electorate for being a member of the EU, but most of these benefits _can_ be delivered by the British government, e.g regional funding. Now that we're leaving, it's up to the electorate to elect MPs that deliver on them and unseat those that don't.


----------



## John-H

That seems to be a bad reason for leaving though when you consider that all the other member states manage not to fall into that mindset (is it an island mentality?) and if we did we certainly wouldn't be able to take part in the advantages and wouldn't be able to provide them ourselves because of the issue of scale - we are too small on our own.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> That seems to be a bad reason for leaving though when you consider that all the other member states manage not to fall into that mindset (is it an island mentality?) and if we did we certainly wouldn't be able to take part in the advantages and wouldn't be able to provide them ourselves because of the issue of scale - we are too small on our own.


Any reason to leave is a bad reason in your opinion though John. Unless you're a national of all the other member states, living under their political systems and reading their media, you're hardly qualified to say what mindset they fall into.


----------



## cheechy

Not posted in this one for a while.

I'm still anti-brexit / pro-EU for all its flaws.

One thing obvious to me is that people generally haven't changed their minds and this seems the norm. Either for or against people will seek out information that backs up their original thoughts through verification, or enhancement of ideas to reinforce the original decision.

For the record I think the whole EU ref decision stinks to high levels and was all about the tory parties internal UKIP right. The campaign was fought on fear and suspicion (and indeed lies) - the idea of using queues of migrants, turkey, eu armies (I dont even see the problem here tbh) - oh and the failing EU thing... even if later retracted got the message across and influenced thinking that has stuck since.

Views also seem to be shared in social groups (I'm not talking social media here) which also helps cement view points.

Do I want to see another EU ref to verify the end game? Yes....but its not going to happen. The Tories want out and they are trying with all their might to ensure they leave with or without a deal. Its fairly obvious I think that a rerun would mean a victory to remain but not by enough to put this to bed.

Why we couldn't come to a proper compromise is beyond me - ie a proper customs union etc - but its seems the hard right has defined the leave strategy and to hell with the 48%.

We'll see what happens in the next few weeks but tbh I have a sneaky suspicion that May's deal with get voted in when the ERG realise its the best outcome they will get.

Cant believe the whole country is being held to ransom by less than a 100 MPs


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> Not posted in this one for a while.
> 
> I'm still anti-brexit / pro-EU for all its flaws.
> 
> One thing obvious to me is that people generally haven't changed their minds and this seems the norm. Either for or against people will seek out information that backs up their original thoughts through verification, or enhancement of ideas to reinforce the original decision.
> 
> For the record I think the whole EU ref decision stinks to high levels and was all about the tory parties internal UKIP right. The campaign was fought on fear and suspicion (and indeed lies) - the idea of using queues of migrants, turkey, eu armies (I dont even see the problem here tbh) - oh and the failing EU thing... even if later retracted got the message across and influenced thinking that has stuck since.
> 
> Views also seem to be shared in social groups (I'm not talking social media here) which also helps cement view points.
> 
> Do I want to see another EU ref to verify the end game? Yes....but its not going to happen. The Tories want out and they are trying with all their might to ensure they leave with or without a deal. Its fairly obvious I think that a rerun would mean a victory to remain but not by enough to put this to bed.
> 
> Why we couldn't come to a proper compromise is beyond me - ie a proper customs union etc - but its seems the hard right has defined the leave strategy and to hell with the 48%.
> 
> We'll see what happens in the next few weeks but tbh I have a sneaky suspicion that May's deal with get voted in when the ERG realise its the best outcome they will get.
> 
> Cant believe the whole country is being held to ransom by less than a 100 MPs


If people haven't changed their minds, how would another referendum result in Remain winning?

If we were in the customs union, we would still be under the ECJ, still be accepting freedom of movement and still be unable to make trade deals, do you think that would put the issue to bed?


----------



## Yashin

To be fair MPs voted 498 to 114 to trigger article 50, it can't all be blamed on the Tories. The Leader of the Labour Party would love nothing better than to leave the EU - can't have a socialist wonderland if you are taking laws from Brussels can you. With the lack of an alternative from the main opposition it's hard to see where the majority for a new Ref is going to come from as the other alternative is the Lib Dem's who, well, a certain Monty Python sketch involving a dead parrot springs to mind.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be a bad reason for leaving though when you consider that all the other member states manage not to fall into that mindset (is it an island mentality?) and if we did we certainly wouldn't be able to take part in the advantages and wouldn't be able to provide them ourselves because of the issue of scale - we are too small on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason to leave is a bad reason in your opinion though John. Unless you're a national of all the other member states, living under their political systems and reading their media, you're hardly qualified to say what mindset they fall into.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about other nations mindset other than make the obvious observation that they want to stay in the EU which we know from the recent EU wide survey but certain people in this country don't and I question; - is it an island mentality that wants to put up barriers and fend off perceived invaders? Not everyone thinks like that but some do and not even that it's true any more that we want to leave - most in hindsight think it was a mistake according to polling. I meet lots of people in this country. I live here and am in a position to form an opinion on this.

Actually the latest polling shows that the UK has changed its mind on immigration too and supports freedom of movement. In fact if you listen to that link I posted the people in the citizens assembly study came to the same conclusion.

It throws into question whether being against immigration was actually a majority view in the 2016 referendum at all. I never thought it was and suspect it was just one of the many incompatible reasons for leaving like sovereignty that can't form a solution if you want to trade.

You can see this if you say to people Ok were leaving - now what are your solutions? Who do we trade with and how and follow through the effect of tariffs and cost of customs barriers etc? This is when people realise they can't have cake and eat it and start to row back on the things they thought they could have, independently, from their present benefits and situation. But it requires a proper discussion not a point scoring one - as instead per citizens assembly.

I could counter Ash, that any reason to stay I might put forward is opposed by you as, or by, a reason to leave. Often when we will be made worse off or be taking a needless risk. Or leaving first just to satisfy a principal and then apparently it's Ok joining again afterwards. I don't think you've ever accepted cheating went on as a reason to abandon that principal.

I saw an interesting exercise by way of explaining why it is that in an argument between two opposing sides, the argument often develops to the point that both sides end up worse off. It has parallels from political leaders driving followers to support policies to their followers disadvantage (but not necessarily their own) and even to explain why people bid for a second hand item on eBay over and above what the same item costs new - and it's not just wanting to win, it's also a continual belief of minimising a relative or absolute loss.

You may have heard of it referred to a the dollar auction or similar:

An auctioneer says to bidders here's £10 which you can buy for any bid providing that the auctioneer also keeps the losing bid.

One bidder bids £1 (£9 profit) but the second bidder bids £2 (£8 profit). The first bidder doesn't want to lose £1 so bids £3 and so on.

At some point one bidder decides to cut their losses and birds £10 (£0 profit/loss) but it doesn't end there.

The other bidder doesn't want to lose £9 so bids £11 (£1 loss) but then the other bidder bids £12 (£2 loss) etc.

As the absolute losses mount the motivation to continue the process increases driving the overall average of the bidders' losses higher and the auctioneer is quids in.

In a political sense you might imagine there are certain advocates of change that stand to make a profit - people who have bought gold or by other means stand to make a profit. They feed their supporters with slogans and ideas, Facebook ads etc and feed the argument. The foot soldiers on both sides dutifully repeat the slogans and drive themselves further into chaos and loss.

The leaders smile.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> To be fair MPs voted 498 to 114 to trigger article 50, it can't all be blamed on the Tories. The Leader of the Labour Party would love nothing better than to leave the EU - can't have a socialist wonderland if you are taking laws from Brussels can you. With the lack of an alternative from the main opposition it's hard to see where the majority for a new Ref is going to come from as the other alternative is the Lib Dem's who, well, a certain Monty Python sketch involving a dead parrot springs to mind.


Well, the Labour leader logically will not want to be seen as facilitating a damaging Tory Brexit which will split the party and lose him any chance of power in the future.

When all other options are rejected - Canada+, Norway+, PM's deal, no deal etc. All you are left with is revoking Article 50(2) or asking for an extension and putting it back to the people.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair MPs voted 498 to 114 to trigger article 50, it can't all be blamed on the Tories. The Leader of the Labour Party would love nothing better than to leave the EU - can't have a socialist wonderland if you are taking laws from Brussels can you. With the lack of an alternative from the main opposition it's hard to see where the majority for a new Ref is going to come from as the other alternative is the Lib Dem's who, well, a certain Monty Python sketch involving a dead parrot springs to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Labour leader logically will not want to be seen as facilitating a damaging Tory Brexit which will split the party and lose him any chance of power in the future.
> 
> When all other options are rejected - Canada+, Norway+, PM's deal, no deal etc. All you are left with is revoking Article 50(2) or asking for an extension and putting it back to the people.
Click to expand...

The mans policies has put paid to any chance of that.

Personally, I think May's deal is going to scrape through after some "amendments", unfortunately.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair MPs voted 498 to 114 to trigger article 50, it can't all be blamed on the Tories. The Leader of the Labour Party would love nothing better than to leave the EU - can't have a socialist wonderland if you are taking laws from Brussels can you. With the lack of an alternative from the main opposition it's hard to see where the majority for a new Ref is going to come from as the other alternative is the Lib Dem's who, well, a certain Monty Python sketch involving a dead parrot springs to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Labour leader logically will not want to be seen as facilitating a damaging Tory Brexit which will split the party and lose him any chance of power in the future.
> 
> When all other options are rejected - Canada+, Norway+, PM's deal, no deal etc. All you are left with is revoking Article 50(2) or asking for an extension and putting it back to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mans policies has put paid to any chance of that.
> 
> Personally, I think May's deal is going to scrape through after some "amendments", unfortunately.
Click to expand...

He has to follow the conference decision.

As for May's deal the most significant thing to develop - or not will be from Geoffrey Cox.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not posted in this one for a while.
> 
> I'm still anti-brexit / pro-EU for all its flaws.
> 
> One thing obvious to me is that people generally haven't changed their minds and this seems the norm. Either for or against people will seek out information that backs up their original thoughts through verification, or enhancement of ideas to reinforce the original decision.
> 
> For the record I think the whole EU ref decision stinks to high levels and was all about the tory parties internal UKIP right. The campaign was fought on fear and suspicion (and indeed lies) - the idea of using queues of migrants, turkey, eu armies (I dont even see the problem here tbh) - oh and the failing EU thing... even if later retracted got the message across and influenced thinking that has stuck since.
> 
> Views also seem to be shared in social groups (I'm not talking social media here) which also helps cement view points.
> 
> Do I want to see another EU ref to verify the end game? Yes....but its not going to happen. The Tories want out and they are trying with all their might to ensure they leave with or without a deal. Its fairly obvious I think that a rerun would mean a victory to remain but not by enough to put this to bed.
> 
> Why we couldn't come to a proper compromise is beyond me - ie a proper customs union etc - but its seems the hard right has defined the leave strategy and to hell with the 48%.
> 
> We'll see what happens in the next few weeks but tbh I have a sneaky suspicion that May's deal with get voted in when the ERG realise its the best outcome they will get.
> 
> Cant believe the whole country is being held to ransom by less than a 100 MPs
> 
> 
> 
> If people haven't changed their minds, how would another referendum result in Remain winning?
> 
> If we were in the customs union, we would still be under the ECJ, still be accepting freedom of movement and still be unable to make trade deals, do you think that would put the issue to bed?
Click to expand...

One word - demographic.

The electorate has changed since 2016 - its a short time but enough to bring younger voters through and older ones to drop out. I also think personally more would come out in favour of remain and be less passive this time around. Certainly I do believe leave supporters were more motivated to go out and vote last time around on the principle of wanting change.

Think its all a bit moot anyhow as I say i doubt it will happen - not enough support in parliament.


----------



## John-H

Still time to make it happen. Come on the march! Attaching a referendum to ratify Mrs May's deal may be the only way she can get it through.


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> Still time to make it happen. Come on the march! Attaching a referendum to ratify Mrs May's deal may be the only way she can get it through.


*+1*
There are coaches from many different locations to the march on the day 

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march_trans ... 060319&n=1


----------



## John-H

It's more bad news for Mr Arron Banks....


----------



## A3DFU

Well worth watching!


----------



## John-H

Exposed - How foreign donors have been buying influence with cabinet Brexit ministers to steer government policy via opaquely funded right wing think tanks such as the IEA who working together get round lobby transparency rules and drive the agenda.

How the true reason for Brexit is being hidden from the public and how the public has been unwittingly duped to vote for it by a populist agenda set by these groups for the consumption of the public but which bears little resemblance to the real purpose behind Brexit - achieving a low-tax, small state, deregulated economy.

*"Perhaps the most disturbing goal of the IEA is their belief that the NHS should be replaced by an insurance based private healthcare scheme with local health boards turned into competing national franchises."
*








"Health Secretary Matt Hancock has received £32,000 from the IEA"

*55 -57 Tufton Street << click for full report *

Home to meetings every other Tuesday to set the coordinated news agenda between:

Brexit Central (55)
The Centre for Policy Studies (57)
Civitas (55)
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (55) (Nigel Lawson)
The Institute for Economic Affairs (Lord North St) 
Leave means Leave (55)
The Office of Peter Whittle (The New Culture Forum) (55) (UKIP ex Deputy Leader)
The Tax Payers' Alliance (55)
The Adam Smith Institute (Great Smith St)

There is evidence of a strong working relationship between AIQ and Cambridge Analytica's parent company SCL Elections (SCLE), connecting both Vote Leave and Leave.EU's data firm to Robert Mercer -
the man who bankrolled the Trump campaign and is the founder of Cambridge Analytica. The Mercer family and the Atlas network have strong ties to Matthew and Sarah Elliott. Matthew Elliott is known as the brains behind Brexit and founder of the Taxpayer's Alliance. Funding for the Tufton street groups went up before the referendum at the same time as Mercer's Atlas group increased its spending in Europe - coincidence? ExxonMobil also funds the Atlas group which promotes and funds climate change denial stories and groups. 
*Matthew+Sarah Elliott links to US Robert Mercer<<*

Yes they were not very pleased with May's deal which was behind the ERG's failed attempt to bring May down and is behind their attempts now to promote a no deal Brexit in order to tie up with a US trade deal they have ready to go. In the deal the real US benefit isn't just getting round EU rules on chlorinated chicken etc. It would be the ability of US corporations to sue the British government for the imposition of any laws that caused them a disadvantage. Our sovereignty would be toast.
*May's deal causes panic at Tufton St <<*


----------



## leopard

john-H said:


> How the true reason for Brexit is being hidden from the public and how the public has been unwittingly duped to vote for it by a populist agenda set by these groups for the consumption of the public but which bears little resemblance to the real purpose behind Brexit - achieving a low-tax, small state, deregulated economy.


Prove it !

The general public voted with their eyes. No need to be unwittingly duped with free movement...


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> john-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the true reason for Brexit is being hidden from the public and how the public has been unwittingly duped to vote for it by a populist agenda set by these groups for the consumption of the public but which bears little resemblance to the real purpose behind Brexit - achieving a low-tax, small state, deregulated economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it !
> 
> The general public voted with their eyes. No need to be unwittingly duped with free movement...
Click to expand...

I think you just did :wink:

Read the evidence it's all there. All the stated aims video evidence, papers etc.

Oh and it's been accepted by the courts that the referendum result was gained by corrupt and illegal practices. The rules were broken to a significant degree so therefore it was not a democratic exercise. It has no validity. Who knows what the will of the people was then. Fortunately there is a way of finding out what it is now


----------



## leopard

lol
I've just realised you're all amped up for your jollies to 
'destination nowhere' in the dream bus on the 23rd. Good luck


----------



## John-H

Well thank you for the good wishes


----------



## John-H

Graphic of the day:


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

Treasonous May should be hanging from the nearest lamp=post to No10,


----------



## ashfinlayson

Bit strong


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

leopard said:


> lol
> I've just realised you're all amped up for your jollies to
> 'destination nowhere' in the dream bus on the 23rd. Good luck


well said,

"peoples march" lol, as in "looser's march",

so if, i mean when, you remainiac's loose again how many more referendum vote's would you like, 2, 3, 4, :roll:

it's called "democracy" the people of the UK voted out, get over it,


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Graphic of the day:


The wheel has fallen off the magic bus now a second referendum is toast :lol:


----------



## oldhipp

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> I've just realised you're all amped up for your jollies to
> 'destination nowhere' in the dream bus on the 23rd. Good luck
> 
> 
> 
> well said,
> 
> "peoples march" lol, as in "looser's march",
> 
> so if, i mean when, you remainiac's loose again how many more referendum vote's would you like, 2, 3, 4, :roll:
> 
> it's called "democracy" the people of the UK voted out, get over it,
Click to expand...

well said


----------



## ashfinlayson

It's pretty appalling that May can bring her shoddy deal back to parliament for a third time.


----------



## John-H

Democracy didn't end in 2016 

One opinion poll doesn't change everybody's opinion. When MPs come back into Parliament after a general election the minority parties don't all fall in behind the Prime Minister and change their beliefs. They continue to press for their beliefs and vote accordingly. It's called democracy and it's a *continuing process* which is a point that seems to go over the heads of many leavers.

They want democracy to stop in 2016 because what they are really afraid of is that the so called _"will of the people"_ has changed and they don't want anyone to find out. They want to dictate their fixed opinion and oppose more democracy at all costs. Democracy couldn't be further from _either_ their intentions or their comprehension.










And of course they are all dancing to the tune of those who stand to gain from the UK leaving the EU without realising their role or their loss.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> They continue to press for their beliefs and vote accordingly. It's called democracy and it's a *continuing process* which is a point that seems to go over the heads of many leavers.


I don't think it does. I think everybody understands how democracy works. The grey area comes on the decisions of just how long has elapsed before it's time to decide again. Days? Weeks? Months? (as is cried in this case) or every four/five years like the PM term or presidential elections.
And falling back on "It wasn't fair!" or "They cheated" doesn't really cut it. You've seen how politicians work right? Corruption seems to be de rigueur when it comes to end plans in this game.
I'm not trying to find an argument here as I can fully see both sides but it's been brought up many, many times already yet never seems to be addressed thoughtfully, merely brushed aside with a counter argument - which is just as valid, but leads nowhere (not dissimilar to this whole debacle)


----------



## John-H

I don't disagree with you and to add to your point you may wish to consider the number of meaningful votes Mrs May is having trying to get her unpopular deal through Parliament. They are talking about meaningful vote four now. Or of course her calling another election in 2017 before the fixed term was run. There are rules governing these things though.

Just as there are rules governing referenda or any competition. Cheats shouldn't be allowed to benefit, is a principal widely accepted but you are right again - it doesn't cut it, as within the rules (law) here, there is no legal connection between the corrupt referendum result and the PMs decision to leave the EU.

As a general point, the time between elections or referenda has traditionally been when a recognised time period expires or when something significant changes such as public opinion.

In the case of the 1975 referendum it was to ratify a treaty, in 2016 it was to try and stop the Tory party splitting. In 2019 it will be to ratify a treaty again.

I can't see what the problem is


----------



## ashfinlayson

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> They continue to press for their beliefs and vote accordingly. It's called democracy and it's a *continuing process* which is a point that seems to go over the heads of many leavers.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. I think everybody understands how democracy works. The grey area comes on the decisions of just how long has elapsed before it's time to decide again. Days? Weeks? Months? (as is cried in this case) or every four/five years like the PM term or presidential elections.
> And falling back on "It wasn't fair!" or "They cheated" doesn't really cut it. You've seen how politicians work right? Corruption seems to be de rigueur when it comes to end plans in this game.
> I'm not trying to find an argument here as I can fully see both sides but it's been brought up many, many times already yet never seems to be addressed thoughtfully, merely brushed aside with a counter argument - which is just as valid, but leads nowhere (not dissimilar to this whole debacle)
Click to expand...

Well Vince Cable was calling for another referendum on the 24th June 2016 so apparently 1 day is enough if you ask the Lib Dems :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Democracy didn't end in 2016
> 
> One opinion poll doesn't change everybody's opinion. When MPs come back into Parliament after a general election the minority parties don't all fall in behind the Prime Minister and change their beliefs. They continue to press for their beliefs and vote accordingly. It's called democracy and it's a *continuing process* which is a point that seems to go over the heads of many leavers.
> 
> They want democracy to stop in 2016 because what they are really afraid of is that the so called _"will of the people"_ has changed and they don't want anyone to find out. They want to dictate their fixed opinion and oppose more democracy at all costs. Democracy couldn't be further from _either_ their intentions or their comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> And of course they are all dancing to the tune of those who stand to gain from the UK leaving the EU without realising their role or their loss.


I'm not sure which Leavers you've been talking to John, certainly not any that share the same opinion I or Leavers I know do. You are right of course that minority parties in the commons aren't supposed to back the government; they're supposed to back what they campaigned for, but that isn't the issue here.

In the referendum, the majority of constituencies in the UK voted to leave, but in the majority of these, the MPs sitting on said seats voted remain. Yet those MPs voted to trigger article 50 (because that is what their constituents voted for) and they sat on manifestos in the general election to take the UK out of the EU, yet they're not doing that, they've voted down a deal to take the UK out (granted it's a crappy deal written by the EU for the EU), they've voted not to leave without a deal (even though that's the only option that follows their manifesto), they've removed any ability to leave with a better deal and they've voted not to have a second referendum.

Ultimately John, you want another referendum not to solve the current crisis in parliament or to move forward democratically with Brexit, you want another referendum because you wan't to overturn the decision of the previous one.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> They continue to press for their beliefs and vote accordingly. It's called democracy and it's a *continuing process* which is a point that seems to go over the heads of many leavers.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it does. I think everybody understands how democracy works. The grey area comes on the decisions of just how long has elapsed before it's time to decide again. Days? Weeks? Months? (as is cried in this case) or every four/five years like the PM term or presidential elections.
> And falling back on "It wasn't fair!" or "They cheated" doesn't really cut it. You've seen how politicians work right? Corruption seems to be de rigueur when it comes to end plans in this game.
> I'm not trying to find an argument here as I can fully see both sides but it's been brought up many, many times already yet never seems to be addressed thoughtfully, merely brushed aside with a counter argument - which is just as valid, but leads nowhere (not dissimilar to this whole debacle)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Vince Cable was calling for another referendum on the 24th June 2016 so apparently 1 day is enough if you ask the Lib Dems :lol:
Click to expand...

Ash. If you don't want to vote stay at home that's fine.
It's also fine if you come out to vote the same way as you did last time before what we know now.
Just don't deny democracy to the rest of us if we think developments are important. Why should we live in the past? - That opinion poll was nearly three years ago. What's the opinion now? 

And how come it's fine for leave voters to keep to their opinion but remain voters have to change their minds? What's wrong with the Lib Dems sticking to their policy from day one - seems honest and consistent to me.

Oh and constitutionally you are wrong about opposition manifestos following a general election. They no longer tie the opposition's hands if they want to change. In fact by the action of democracy they are encouraged to change.

The difference between what we are saying is not just an opinion about an issue. You want to deny democracy a voice about it and stop the further implementation of democracy keeping it firmly in the past and suppressed so it suits your dictation it seems. I want more democracy and to give choice to people with a relevant and present voice however it turns out.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Ash. If you don't want to vote stay at home that's fine.
> It's also fine if you come out to vote the same way as you did last time before what we know now.
> Just don't deny democracy to the rest of us if we think developments are important. Why should we live in the past? - That opinion poll was nearly three years ago. What's the opinion now?
> 
> And how come it's fine for leave voters to keep to their opinion but remain voters have to change their minds? What's wrong with the Lib Dems sticking to their policy from day one - seems honest and consistent to me.
> 
> Oh and constitutionally you are wrong about opposition manifestos following a general election. They no longer tie the opposition's hands if they want to change. In fact by the action of democracy they are encouraged to change.
> 
> The difference between what we are saying is not just an opinion about an issue. You want to deny democracy a voice about it and stop the further implementation of democracy keeping it firmly in the past and suppressed so it suits your dictation it seems. I want more democracy and to give choice to people with a relevant and present voice however it turns out.


John, you're proving yourself as an irrefutable whiner and somebody that can't accept the reality of the situation. Why is it that anybody who disagrees with your way of thinking is wrong or somehow undemocratic.

You say you want democracy but won't accept a democratic outcome. You somehow think if you and your fellow thinkers shout loud enough you'll get your own way for another referendum and a result that will make you all happy.

It's not looking good for you at the moment...


----------



## John-H

Forgive me I'm a little confused. I've heard that countries with dictators or those who stage manage their democracies by rigging the vote like China are not democratic because they don't allow the free expression of the people in a free democratic process where rules are followed to ensure a fair vote.

Can you please explain the difference between the above and denying a People's Vote for our people now?


----------



## leopard

There are always those that think they've been hard done by when on the losing side. Unfortunately you fit into this subset, witness the General Election every five years...


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> There are always those that think they've been hard done by when on the losing side. Unfortunately you fit into this subset, witness the General Election every five years...


That's not answering my question. I believe there are lots of people under dictatorships, dissident political prisoners in China etc. I expect they fit into your subset too.

So can you please explain the difference I'm still a little confused.


----------



## leopard

No...

Suffice to say we don't live in China or under a dictatorship of which that subject is irrelevant. Keep it on topic :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> No...
> 
> Suffice to say we don't live in China or under a dictatorship of which that subject is irrelevant. Keep it on topic :lol:


I didn't think you could 

We don't live in China agreed. You were going quite well up till that point.

But we are being denied democracy if we can't determine our own future and you and others argue we should be suppressed and denied a vote on the treaty like in 1975. How far do you want to take this? Do you want to lock us up if we continue to complain that we should have a vote? Why can't we have a vote? You can vote too if you like. What's wrong with that? I know they don't allow that in some countries but I thought we were supposed to be different. Have another go at explaining


----------



## leopard

Rinse and repeat...

You're whining again, dry your eyes


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Rinse and repeat...
> 
> You're whining again, dry your eyes


That wasn't a very good go now was it? :roll:

Again you are not answering the question but instead using a diversion tactic to avoid addressing the issue.

How is more democracy a problem to you? You can still vote the same way as last time if you want, or stay at home. Why do you want to deny democracy to others?


----------



## Yashin

A new Referendum is a waste of time and money for a couple of reasons -

1. *Whoever wins, the other side wont accept the result*. If Leave don't win it will be best of 3, or they have already won before and that wasn't respected so this one shouldn't, or it opens the floodgates for UKIP style parties to get a much stronger foothold in Parliament to eventually take us out by either being directly elected or commanding a significant portion of the seats to negotiate what they want for backing any party in power (Think of this as DUP++). The Remainers we already seen that it wont be accepted, will be "But do you really really really want to leave the EU?" coming up each day.

2. *Whats the question going to be?*. Remainers will want Mays deal vs Staying in with no option of no deal. Leavers will want Mays deal vs No deal with no option of staying in. Neither will fly with the other side, and to make it a fair vote it has to be a binary choice.

I'm hoping a new Referendum is now dead as a Dodo so the Country can look at viable options to resolve this mess.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> But we are being denied democracy if we can't determine our own future


No we're not. The votes were cast and the outcome determined (in a fashion)



John-H said:


> How far do you want to take this? Do you want to lock us up if we continue to complain that we should have a vote?


It's getting that way, yes.



John-H said:


> Why can't we have a vote?


You've had one. Fairs fair and all that.
We're getting back to the whole 'best of three' again as mentioned in the above post.

It doesn't matter how much whinging and whining goes on in this forum, or any other for that matter, all we can do is wait and see what pans out. That's when the _real_ dummy spitting will come out.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we are being denied democracy if we can't determine our own future
> 
> 
> 
> No we're not. The votes were cast and the outcome determined (in a fashion)
Click to expand...

We had a vote on 1975 but you thought it was Ok to have another one in 2016. You can argue that some things changed and that's the reason for another vote in 2016 but I can argue we didn't have a treaty to vote on in 2016 but we have now - just like we did in 1975. So I put it to you:

Can you please explain the difference between dictatorships that deny democracy or rig the vote to deny or force outcomes and denying a People's Vote for our people now?



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far do you want to take this? Do you want to lock us up if we continue to complain that we should have a vote?
> 
> 
> 
> It's getting that way, yes.
Click to expand...

That's what they do to political dissidents in China isn't it. So I think, if I understand you correctly, you agree with the suppression of democracy and the subjugation of people who speak out against it. At least that's honest I suppose.



Stiff said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we have a vote?
> 
> 
> 
> You've had one. Fairs fair and all that.
> We're getting back to the whole 'best of three' again as mentioned in the above post.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We've not had a vote on the treaty like we did in 1975. There was no agreed outcome for the relationship with the EU in 2016. Everyone had their own idea but they are not all compatible with each other and that's why we have an impasse in Parliament now. But at least we have a treaty defining the divorce deal and transition period only now.

At least allow us a vote on that.

The final relationship, the political agreement part, is not a final trade deal or a final relationship however and is going to cause much argument in negotiation for years. When eventually we reach that point at the end of negotiations then yes, perhaps that should be put to a vote too because that'sgoing to have the biggest impact but if we don't like it it will be too late to come back to our present deal which is the best one. So that's why a vote on Mrs May's divorce deal is so important.

It's not voting on the same thing over and over at all as you imply - unlike Mrs May trying to get her deal through Parliament. Why is it Ok for her to have multiple votes in the same thing but we are not even allowed a vote on her treaty?

Why do you want to deny us a vote to determine these issues? Why are you being undemocratic. I thought that was what dictators did. You don't support a dictatorship surely?



Stiff said:


> It doesn't matter how much whinging and whining goes on in this forum, or any other for that matter, all we can do is wait and see what pans out. That's when the _real_ dummy spitting will come out.


It might be too late by then. Rather than spit your dummy out wouldn't you have rather had the chance to have a say?

I can't see what the problem is. You can take part in the vote too why are you so against democracy and having a say in the outcome of what affects us all?

If you are fed up with the whole thing then put an end to it. If you allow May's deal to go through into law and change the treaty we will be in a weak position to negotiate a trade deal and actually prefer to keep ourselves in the transition period and become a vassal state - a rule taker not a rule maker, subject to follow EU law without having a say in the running of it. The negotiations whilst we struggle to realise any advantage from such a disadvantageous bargaining position will go on for years. If you think it's been bad so far then wait for the trade negotiations. We will be screwed. We should have had it all sorted by now but we triggered article 50 before we had a plan and wasted the period arguing amongst ourselves - so now all we've got is a divorce deal and no trade deal.

If you are fed up with the whole thing and want it to stop then we need to stop the process and cancel the whole failed Brexit project.If you want to pick it up again in future then work out a proper plan first that's not based on unicorn fantasies that we know won't work and stop screwing up people's lives and wasting time and money currently costing us £800 million per week.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

No answers? So how do you resolve it? See you on Saturday!


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> No answers? So how do you resolve it? See you on Saturday!


Top tip, get yourself a decent pair of interconnects and you will soon hear the truth. Problem solved, oh, and we won't be seeing you Saturday either :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> No answers? So how do you resolve it? See you on Saturday!
> 
> 
> 
> Top tip, get yourself a decent pair of interconnects and you will soon hear the truth. Problem solved, oh, and we won't be seeing you Saturday either :lol:
Click to expand...

That's a very imaginative connection  The crowd will make it very difficult to find anyone and it will be too noisy. It was like sardines last time :lol:


----------



## John-H

Here's a compromise being put forward to break the impasse:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... peter-kyle

At the moment we just have May's divorce deal but have no plan or agreement for a trade deal that should go with it. We triggered Article 50 before we had a plan and have spent the last two years arguing amongst ourselves and getting nowhere.

Just implementing the divorce deal now would put us in a very weak bargaining position for a trade deal because we'd have left the existing EU treaty and be in the transition period of the new one with no way back. The arguments could go on for years as we tried to make sense of the mess we'd be in. We'd become a vassal state following EU rules and probably end up staying there because the alternatives won't be as good.

May can't get enough support for her deal for the above reasons. Stalemate.

So, this plan with cross party support from Labour gives May enough votes to get her deal over the line in return for the opportunity to thrash out a plan - all the different Labour customs union, Norway+, Canada+, unicorn, the Brexiteers get their chance etc options can be voted on and eventually a plan agreed and that winning plan that has the most support, along with May's divorce deal as a basis, is put to the people for ratification against the present situation.

That way we solve the problem of where we plan to end up democratically, May gets her divorce deal over the line and we avoid no-deal. What do you think?


----------



## ashfinlayson

The current dictatorship, or government, whatever you want to call it, didn't rig the vote the John, they lost.

As I said before, you don't want a referendum for the sake of democracy, you want another referendum because you want to overturn a democratic decision that didn't go your way. In way, I'd quite like to have another referendum, just to see what you say when the result comes in the same as the last one :lol:


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> The current dictatorship, or government, whatever you want to call it, didn't rig the vote the John, they lost.
> 
> As I said before, you don't want a referendum for the sake of democracy, you want another referendum because you want to overturn a democratic decision that didn't go your way. In way, I'd quite like to have another referendum, just to see what you say when the result comes in the same as the last one :lol:


The present government didn't rig it apart from Michael Gove's possible contribution as he was in Vote Leave who did, along with Johnson and Banks in Leave.EU who is under investigation by the police :roll: No it wasn't "democratic" as agreed in court.

It was Cameron's government who "lost" as a result, not the present administration.

Have you been following this? :lol: :wink:

As I and the court said it wasn't democratic.

Of course I don't want to leave the EU that's what I'm campaigning for :roll: That doesn't mean to say I don't believe in democracy. It's possible to do both things at once for different reasons. I'm for more of it. You've been against more of it so far because you don't want the chance for the people to change their minds, but I'm glad to see you are tentatively dipping a toe towards the possibility even if only "in a way" to see me react.

You are quite welcome to watch me react to the result of another referendum. If we remain I'd predict I'd be pleased  but if the public voted leave I'd be sad  but at least the trade deal might be better. I'd accept the result if it was fairly implemented without cheating unlike last time but I'd still campaign to rejoin the EU because I believe in the project and that it's better for our country. Just like her majesty's opposition don't support the Prime Minister and have their own mind - I hope you wouldn't expect me to change the beliefs of a lifetime - that's democracy for you.

As it happens, coming back to the compromise I previously mentioned, the speaker has just ruled that Mrs May can't bring her deal back for MV3 (meaningful vote three) unless the bill is amended or has a substantive change to the withdrawal agreement. It seems the opportunity for what has been suggested is open.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Apologies, not the current government, the government. Their position was to support remain, with their £9m leaflet, so the scenario is not comparable to a dictatorship rigging a vote to go their way.

Yes I'm glad Bercow is speaking some sense, it seems like both Leavers and Remainers agree with him, with exception of the government. But it puts the ball in the EUs court to a degree, it's change the deal or no deal because the existing deal (as I said before; written by the EU for the EU) is now officially dead. Or an election or a referendum. But neither of the latter 2 solve the problem.


----------



## cheechy

Sorry but the whole monologue around emphasising the need for the "EU to do something" has no mileage whatsoever.

The UK notified intention to leave and agreed a deal with TM that then got thrown out by the UK HoP twice. Not once but twice. The issue is the backstop as everyone knows but TM signed up to this and its in place to protect the Good Friday agreement thats it.

What are we expecting the EU to come up with??

Somehow the EU are being asked to pull something out of the hat - and I can guarantee that any suggestion would be knocked back by that bad EU dictatorship as being told what to do.

Agreed the deal is crap - as mentioned already I'd be ok (just ok) with a good old compromise that gives us a Norway style relationship but pulls us out of the political union.

Who can say whats next though?


----------



## FJ1000

Just take a step back a second and think; Why exactly are we leaving?

It's pretty clear that the EU isn't the problem and never was. It's the tory government.

All the Leave promises were lies - clear for anyone to see.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cheechy

News today around heckling case is more concerning for me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47622282

It seems our current political climate is providing empowerment to right wing pro-brexit nutters who cant accept that some people have a different POV or want to represent a balance of the electorate.

Where are we heading with this?


----------



## Yashin

cheechy said:


> News today around heckling case is more concerning for me:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47622282
> 
> It seems our current political climate is providing empowerment to right wing pro-brexit nutters who cant accept that some people have a different POV or want to represent a balance of the electorate.
> 
> Where are we heading with this?


How is it concerning?

The guy is in Court, the judges will look at the evidence and if he overstepped the line between freedom of speech and harrasment he will be found guilty and subsequently punished by the court.

Surely it would be concerning if he was punished without a fair trial and being found guilty?

What part of the judicial process are you concerned about?


----------



## cheechy

Yashin said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> News today around heckling case is more concerning for me:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47622282
> 
> It seems our current political climate is providing empowerment to right wing pro-brexit nutters who cant accept that some people have a different POV or want to represent a balance of the electorate.
> 
> Where are we heading with this?
> 
> 
> 
> How is it concerning?
> 
> The guy is in Court, the judges will look at the evidence and if he overstepped the line between freedom of speech and harrasment he will be found guilty and subsequently punished by the court.
> 
> Surely it would be concerning if he was punished without a fair trial and being found guilty?
> 
> What part of the judicial process are you concerned about?
Click to expand...

Its the empowerment bit not concerned at all at process or indeed even interested in the outcome.

This isn't a one off - Soubry and other pro-remain MPs are constantly harassed outside parliament - but I'm guessing you know what I meant and chose to answer by changing the context?


----------



## Yashin

cheechy said:


> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> News today around heckling case is more concerning for me:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47622282
> 
> It seems our current political climate is providing empowerment to right wing pro-brexit nutters who cant accept that some people have a different POV or want to represent a balance of the electorate.
> 
> Where are we heading with this?
> 
> 
> 
> How is it concerning?
> 
> The guy is in Court, the judges will look at the evidence and if he overstepped the line between freedom of speech and harrasment he will be found guilty and subsequently punished by the court.
> 
> Surely it would be concerning if he was punished without a fair trial and being found guilty?
> 
> What part of the judicial process are you concerned about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its the empowerment bit not concerned at all at process or indeed even interested in the outcome.
> 
> This isn't a one off - Soubry and other pro-remain MPs are constantly harassed outside parliament - but I'm guessing you know what I meant and chose to answer by changing the context?
Click to expand...

Not really, what do you mean by empowered? Who is empowering?

I don't see constant harrasment of pro-Remain MPs at Parliment square, admittedly I'm not up there in person all the time, but apart from the usual suspects chanting and singing on both sides it's pretty much a relaxed atmosphere, with peaceful mingle both sides.

Certainly not more concerning than Brexit itself, personally.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

According to the Electoral Commission there were 46,500,001 people eligible to vote in the referendum.
Of that number:
17,410,742 voted for Brexit.
16,141,241 voted to remain.
12,948,018 didn't vote at all (give or take a few thousand excluded votes that were spoilt).

As percentages:
37.44245 % voted for Brexit.
34.71234 % voted to remain.
27.845199 % didn't vote at all.

*So over 1/4 of the UKs population didn't vote in the Referendum.
*
Isn't it fair that they get the chance to vote in a second Referendum given us leaving the EU could have grave and long-term consequences for them and the country?

If 'Leave' as so confident that the majority of the UKs population would vote for Brexit again why are they so scared to have a second vote? Lets have a second Referendum and they can prove themselves right to us all over again. Or not.
Only this time I'd hope a lot more of the 27.8% who didn't vote in the last one would vote this time.

Ideally I'd like to see voting made compulsory for everyone eligible to vote in national elections/referendums as they are in 22 countries around the world (from Argentina and Australia to Switzerland and Uruguay - voting is compulsory.) With anyone not voting having to pay a £50 fine. That way, with postal votes and poling stations we could get close to 100% voter turnout and not have the shitstorm we have now.

The Electoral Commission stats: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... nformation


----------



## John-H

74% of people didn't vote to leave the EU. Only 26% did. And they call it "the will of the people" :roll:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

If one decides not to participate in government, that's their right. I know plenty of people who didn't vote in the last US election because they don't want to pick one idiot in favor of another idiot. And I have no problem with that. By not participating, they have chosen to live with the consequences of whatever other people decide for them. And that's a problem why?

But why, you might ask, would someone choose not to vote? Other than not really having a choice in the first place, it's because they've figured out that voting is the biggest scam governments and the elites have ever pulled on a 'democratic' society. Vote as you wish, you still have no say and the elites and politicians will do whatever they want anyway. Just look around. Brexit is one of THE best examples.

As to your 'isn't it fair' comment; if you show up late for a train because you can't be bothered to get out of bed on time or for whatever reason that may or may not be your fault, is it somehow "unfair" that it doesn't stop when you finally show up and back up just for you? No. It's nothing to do with fairness. It keeps going and you can either walk, take a taxi or wait for the next train.

Also, the idea of 'forced to vote' doesn't solve anything. Making 1/3rd of a population vote when they have no idea what they're voting for is even more idiotic than not voting at all. But if you do insist that everyone vote, then they should have to take a test to prove they have a clue about what they're voting for in the first place.


----------



## Yashin

A Democratic vote isn't just about ticking a box, and it certainly isn't about ticking a box or being fined £50. Some people don't vote because they think it makes more of a statement to the Government that way, some people just are not bothered.

In this Country it's a two horse race. With the Poundland Commies running the show at Labour it's personally easy for myself to pick who I will be voting for at the next GE, where in years past at a couple of GE's I didn't vote because both where equally bad. Why should I be forced to vote for something I don't believe in, that's not Democracy.


----------



## leopard

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> Isn't it fair that they get the chance to vote in a second Referendum given us leaving the EU could have grave and long-term consequences for them and the country?
> 
> If 'Leave' as so confident that the majority of the UKs population would vote for Brexit again why are they so scared to have a second vote? Lets have a second Referendum and they can prove themselves right to us all over again. Or not.
> Only this time I'd hope a lot more of the 27.8% who didn't vote in the last one would vote this time.


Typical remainers rhetoric. lol

Why should these window lickers, the 27.8%, who wouldn't or couldn't be bothered to get off their arses to vote the first time be given another chance in a second referendum. Doesn't happen in a General Election.

This is just wishful thinking that they might, just might vote the way you want the outcome to happen. What happens which incidentally nobody has addressed on here, that if there were a second referendum to magically be decided upon, that these 27.8% would vote to leave...
A third referendum ? Not going to happen. :lol:


----------



## John-H

That's exactly what Bart is saying - you hold a referendum to find out :!:


----------



## FJ1000

I don't like the whole "only 26% voted to leave" argument - since, unfortunately, less than that voted to remain.

The valid arguments are:

1. The Leave campaign broke the law, so the 2016 referendum result is tainted.

2. Leavers are split on how they want to leave (no deal, May's deal, unicorn ++, spam and spitfires etc) - so they should be given the chance to state their preference

3. Parliament is deadlocked. They can't agree a way forward, having voted down all options. So it should go back to the people

Even JRM suggested there should be a second vote, to confirm the manner of exit.

Finally - it wouldn't be democratic if there wasn't the option to remain. You are allowed to change your mind in a democracy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> That's exactly what Bart is saying - you hold a referendum to find out :!:


No its not. It's just that you're reading into something that's not there whether intended or not. Read again :lol:


----------



## leopard

FJ1000 said:


> You are allowed to change your mind in a democracy.


Of course you are, but it won't get you anywhere once the majority have made their minds up. You can change your mind after a 
General Election...


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what Bart is saying - you hold a referendum to find out :!:
> 
> 
> 
> No its not. It's just that you're reading into something that's not there whether intended or not. Read again :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Bart is saying hold another referendum to find out what people now think. All you are doing is coming up with excuses to deny us any more democracy because you are afraid to hear the truth.


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

John-h,
you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,


----------



## leopard

Well said, Mr Hermit


----------



## John-H

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> John-h,
> you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
> you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,


On the contrary. I want more democracy. I believe it is a live and continuing process. You and one or two others seem to want democracy to have ended in 2016 it seems and deny the people a further voice on this issue as things stand now 

I'm a bit confused. I've heard that some countries like China or Russia are called dictatorships because they have rigged electrons or don't allow people a vote. Can you please explain the difference?


----------



## leopard

Talking of democracy...

How on earth do you imbed a YouTube clip on this forum, never seen it explained !


----------



## John-H

You used to be able to but Google exercised its sovereign right to take back control. I thought it was better when we all worked together.


----------



## leopard

How very undemocratic, we'll have to stick with the link which doesn't have the same impact but here you go John, here's one for you, the truth of the matter if you will


----------



## John-H

I'll watch it later but in the mean time here's one for you from a leave campaigner who worked for Vote Leave:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Bringing those that didn't vote into the debate is laughable. Those that didn't vote do not represent the majority or a minority, their opinion on a past political exercise isn't counted because they relinquished their right to an opinion on it by not voting.


----------



## leopard

Oh dear, fell asleep at about 06:45 [smiley=zzz.gif]

What was it that somebody said in the comments... Waffly crap :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Oh dear, fell asleep at about 06:45 [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> What was it that somebody said in the comments... Waffly crap :lol:


It was a confession they lied. Respect to the guy for saying so.

I watched all of yours. I would never have guessed that was you though as I thought you were much older. It's a wonder you didn't crack the mirror shouting like that :lol:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

As an outsider on all this, it seems to me like your government (or former PM) thought it would be a good idea, in purely democratic fashion, to ask if the people of your great country wanted to leave the EU or stay. Okay, fair enough. Seems there were enough rumblings about it that it seemed like a good gesture for the government to see how everyone felt about it and fair play for doing so.

Now while you can argue whether or not the Government had a clue about what that would mean or how they would act on a "yes" vote, it's pretty clear they were betting it was going to be a "no" vote. Two years later, all they can do is drag their feet, convince everyone it's a bad idea, and now talk about how unfair it was to some people, how people were uninformed and mislead, and scare-monger everyone in hopes they get another vote (praying of a "no" this time). And why? For fairness and equality and to rally around democracy? Guess again.

Bottom line is, there was an open election, people had a fair, democratic opportunity to vote (or not) the "yes" won. And their only job was to act upon the will of the people even if the majority is a slim one and regardless of who did or did not vote. That's how democracy works. Frankly, if anyone's really paying attention, people are seeing exactly what their political elites are made of - hot air and BS without a single clue between any of them. Are we amused? I think not.


----------



## John-H

No it wasn't a good idea as there were not enough rumblings about it. It was only some looney right in the Tory party who started defecting to UKIP so Cameron wanted to keep his party together and thought a referendum was a good way of doing it. There was little general public interest in the EU question at the time.

But, once a referendum came into the agenda the vehicle for manufacturing an argument came into existence and the latest covert technologies were used to run rings round our electoral laws. Massive fines from the Electoral Commission and ICO and investigation by the police ongoing.

So, no it wasn't democratic which has been accepted in the UK courts. Had it been a legally binding referendum it would have been declared void no question. Don't accept any BO**OC *S said to you claiming it was run to an acceptable lawful standard. So it was not democratic NO WAY! And it had NO LEGAL connection to the PM's decision to trigger Article 50(2) notice without a plan. It was a political decision.

So, I agree with you about the hot air and not having a clue .
That just about sums it up. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

In fact if you want to see how far we have fallen in world standing see this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

Very sad for a once proud nation.


----------



## cheechy

Yashin said:


> Not really, what do you mean by empowered? Who is empowering?
> 
> I don't see constant harrasment of pro-Remain MPs at Parliment square, admittedly I'm not up there in person all the time, but apart from the usual suspects chanting and singing on both sides it's pretty much a relaxed atmosphere, with peaceful mingle both sides.
> 
> Certainly not more concerning than Brexit itself, personally.


Empowerment in the shape of a completely incompetent pm blaming everyone else but herself for the mess we are in.

MPs being threatened left and right ...this was already happening but now the pm has given her endorsement.


----------



## cheechy

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> John-h,
> you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
> you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,


THIS attitude is the reason the country is so divided. The whole theory of a triumphant winner rubbing a losers nose in it.

It was a vote where one opinion got higher number of votes than another, YOU won nothing.


----------



## John-H

Please sign this government petition to Revoke Article 50. It's gone over 1 million today and the site keeps crashing.
The government have said they will respect it.

KEEP TRYING - PASS IT ON TO EVERYBODY!!!

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

74% of people didn't vote to leave the EU. Only 26% did. Come on 74% of UK citizens - don't be dictated to - sign the petition!


----------



## leopard

Yeah, 26% that could be bothered lol, I'll take a rain check on the petition


----------



## HOGG

cheechy said:


> GARAGE HERMIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> John-h,
> you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
> you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,
> 
> 
> 
> THIS attitude is the reason the country is so divided. The whole theory of a triumphant winner rubbing a losers nose in it.
> 
> It was a vote where one opinion got higher number of votes than another, YOU won nothing.
Click to expand...

Is that not the same as in a board meeting. More opinions sway one way and that is what the company implements?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

In a way. Watch this space


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

John-H said:


> Please sign this government petition to Revoke Article 50. It's gone over 1 million today and the site keeps crashing.
> The government have said they will respect it.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> "The government have said they will respect it." you really are in your own little bubble aren't you,
> 1 million russian bott's signed it,


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

cheechy said:


> GARAGE HERMIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> John-h,
> you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
> you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,
> 
> 
> 
> It was a vote where one opinion got higher number of votes than another, YOU won nothing.
Click to expand...

no, that's the very definition of winning,^^^^^


----------



## John-H

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please sign this government petition to Revoke Article 50. It's gone over 1 million today and the site keeps crashing.
> The government have said they will respect it.
> 
> 
> 
> "The government have said they will respect it." you really are in your own little bubble aren't you,
> 1 million russian bott's signed it,
Click to expand...

Obviously they got to you first :lol:


----------



## cheechy

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GARAGE HERMIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> John-h,
> you've got the worst case of "loser's syndrome" i've ever seen,
> you obviously do not believe in democracy or the sovereignty of the UK, the people of the UK voted OUT, you cant keep having vote's till you get the result YOU want,
> 
> 
> 
> It was a vote where one opinion got higher number of votes than another, YOU won nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that's the very definition of winning,^^^^^
Click to expand...

Wow.

Can you give us a picture of your trophy?

You have just verified for me that you revel in the division and want it to continue.


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> You have just verified for me that you revel in the division and want it to continue.


Yes it's a sad comment and granted there are no winners in political exercises such as this, but when it comes to divisive rhetoric, it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.


----------



## Iceblue

Ash. If you don't want to vote stay at home that's fine.
It's also fine if you come out to vote the same way as you did last time before what we know now.
Just don't deny democracy to the rest of us if we think developments are important. Why should we live in the past? - That opinion poll was nearly three years ago. What's the opinion now? 

And how come it's fine for leave voters to keep to their opinion but remain voters have to change their minds? What's wrong with the Lib Dems sticking to their policy from day one - seems honest and consistent to me.

Oh and constitutionally you are wrong about opposition manifestos following a general election. They no longer tie the opposition's hands if they want to change. In fact by the action of democracy they are encouraged to change.

The difference between what we are saying is not just an opinion about an issue. You want to deny democracy a voice about it and stop the further implementation of democracy keeping it firmly in the past and suppressed so it suits your dictation it seems. I want more democracy and to give choice to people with a relevant and present voice however it turns out.[/quote]

Not sure you would describe the vote as an 'opinion pole' as they are generally from a sample of the population. It was a formal vote of all the people entitled to vote. Granted there is not a compulsory voting system in the UK, but that does not make it an opinion pole. Why not use the words "vote of the people" everytime you refer to the 2016 referendum. At least that way everyone knows whats at stake


----------



## bobclive22

Perhaps we should stay,

https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/11/eur ... ions-study


----------



## FJ1000

SwissJetPilot said:


> .
> 
> Bottom line is, there was an open election, people had a fair, democratic opportunity to vote (or not) the "yes" won.]
> 
> Except it wasn't - one of the campaigns actually broke electoral law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## leopard

cheechy said:


> Wow.
> Can you give us a picture of your trophy?


A fine example of what the Brexit trophy might look like ...










And the new National Anthem will be changed out of respect, to this:






:lol:


----------



## cheechy

leopard said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> Can you give us a picture of your trophy?
> 
> 
> 
> A fine example of what the Brexit trophy might look like ...
> 
> 
> 
> And the new National Anthem will be changed out of respect, to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
Click to expand...

You're a genius!

Oh wait...


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

FJ1000 said:


> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Bottom line is, there was an open election, people had a fair, democratic opportunity to vote (or not) the "yes" won.]
> 
> Except it wasn't - one of the campaigns actually broke electoral law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

yes, the tory government spent £9 million on "project fear", tax payer's money,


----------



## GARAGE HERMIT

Iceblue said:


> Ash. If you don't want to vote stay at home that's fine.
> It's also fine if you come out to vote the same way as you did last time before what we know now.
> Just don't deny democracy to the rest of us if we think developments are important. Why should we live in the past? - That opinion poll was nearly three years ago. What's the opinion now?
> 
> The difference between what we are saying is not just an opinion about an issue. You want to deny democracy a voice about it and stop the further implementation of democracy keeping it firmly in the past and suppressed so it suits your dictation it seems. I want more democracy and to give choice to people with a relevant and present voice however it turns out.


[/quote]

so a year or two after a genral election we should have another election because circumstance's have changed, :roll:


----------



## John-H

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> ...so a year or two after a genral election we should have another election because circumstance's have changed, :roll:


If it's good enough for Mrs May.... 



leopard said:


> ...
> And the new National Anthem will be changed out of respect, to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:


I thought this was the new national anthem:



But this is better still:

Oh what a lovely Brexit

"I'm terribly pleased about Brexit -
Its going to be just like the war!"


----------



## leopard

Thought you said you couldn't imbed YouTube clips.

Less time with the remain fantasy and more effort with the forum faq's 
[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Thought you said you couldn't imbed YouTube clips.
> 
> Less time with the remain fantasy and more effort with the forum faq's
> [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


As so often in life it's easy to presume something is simple. But that doesn't make it correct. Bit like Brexit really.

They are not imbedded. That's just presentation making them look like that - a still picture with a link in the normal way - just like my sig strip 

I love magic tricks. Maybe I should be a politician? The illusion fades when the trick is explained though. I'm probably better sticking to challenging them.


----------



## HOGG

How I saw it and how I still see it. I'll explain as best I can.....

Imagine being in a room. You're very happy in your room. Everything is great. You like being in your room.
The door to your room is locked but that's okay. As you have everything you need and more in your room. You have no need to leave your room.

Now the vote is as follows:

Vote remain= door stays locked
Vote leave= door gets unlocked

Therefore, with an unlocked door. If you do wish. You could leave your room and have a look around. See if outside your room is any better/ worse
If you don't like it, you can go back in your room and shut the door and be happy. If you think actually, I'm liking the fact I've now got out I'm not going back in. So be it.

I hope that comes across clear

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## FJ1000

GARAGE HERMIT said:


> FJ1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Bottom line is, there was an open election, people had a fair, democratic opportunity to vote (or not) the "yes" won.]
> 
> Except it wasn't - one of the campaigns actually broke electoral law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, the tory government spent £9 million on "project fear", tax payer's money,
Click to expand...

Could you clarify if a law was broken?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJ1000

HOGG said:


> How I saw it and how I still see it. I'll explain as best I can.....
> 
> Imagine being in a room. You're very happy in your room. Everything is great. You like being in your room.
> The door to your room is locked but that's okay. As you have everything you need and more in your room. You have no need to leave your room.
> 
> Now the vote is as follows:
> 
> Vote remain= door stays locked
> Vote leave= door gets unlocked
> 
> Therefore, with an unlocked door. If you do wish. You could leave your room and have a look around. See if outside your room is any better/ worse
> If you don't like it, you can go back in your room and shut the door and be happy. If you think actually, I'm liking the fact I've now got out I'm not going back in. So be it.
> 
> I hope that comes across clear
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


That's a terrible analogy.

Being part of the EU makes us MORE open to the rest of the world. We're more free to travel and work abroad, do business with other countries, receive skilled workers from around the world, import goods tariff free etc..

Leaving is like locking ourselves in the basement.

All the stuff Leavers blame the EU for is actually the fault of the Tory government.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

Well, perhaps the analogy showed that the referendum decision unlocked the door allowing you to have a peek outside. But if there's nothing there worth having then come back in.

A David Davis said, 

*"If a democracy cannot change its mind then it ceases to be a democracy."*


----------



## leopard

FJ1000 said:


> All the stuff Leavers blame the EU for is actually the fault of the Tory government.


Bollocks, it was Tony Blair and New Labour...


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> FJ1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the stuff Leavers blame the EU for is actually the fault of the Tory government.
> 
> 
> 
> Bollocks, it was Tony Blair and New Labour...
Click to expand...

Things only got better then. I remember the song


----------



## Yashin

So how was the March Peeps? What was the vibe like?


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> So how was the March Peeps? What was the vibe like?


A carnival atmosphere. Good weather but so huge we couldn't move for ages. Last time with 700,000 it started at 12 noon and we got to Trafalgar Square at 4pm and missed all the speeches. This time we didn't get that far because the crowds were even bigger estimated at over 1-000,000.

I'll catch up with the speeches on video no doubt but it was great to be involved with something so big even if I didn't make it to the end. I'll post some pictures late as my battery is dead - still on the coach heading back - but here's a report and helicopter footage which is impressive:

Report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47678763

Helicopter:


----------



## HOGG

What a load of bollock. We need a nother guy fawkes

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Stiff

Is there any way to block people's signatures on here? Some of them are filled with that much garbage that if they post more than once on a single page it's like being back being on 56K modem dial up.
Seriously, what is the point of signatures that take up the full screen? 
Oops, just realised this should have been in the flame room.
I blame the Disaronno.
And the bottle of red. 
My bad.


----------



## John-H

Boo


----------



## John-H

Click on any to expand for more detail:


































































































































































































































*Video of best posters*


*Video with more perspective*


*Michael Heseltine speech:*


----------



## A3DFU

An excellent speech by Michael Heseltine and something that doesn't get mentioned anywhere near enough:
that the EU ensured long last.ing peace within Europe


----------



## ZephyR2

Can you not see that the EU is fast becoming a dead duck. The French don't know where they're going with Macron and the yellow jackets and their whole economy and government structure is falling apart. Makes UK look professional.

Germany is teetering on the edge of recession and had been for months. The China Silk Road to Italy and Trumps import tariffs will be enough to send it over over edge into collapse, if hasn't gone before then.

On top of that Italy is at odds with EU over how it sets its own internal budget and has a huge deficit. The economies of Spain, Portugal and Greece remain unstable as they have been for many years. Ireland's not looking too bad and the Benelux countries are keeping their heads down ploughing a nice level field, for now.

But then have a look at the eastern block countries and see how little they have progressed since joining the EU. Poland continues to go on its own merry way in opposition to the EU demands and there has been little by way integration by the rest.

Stop living with a past belief and get ready to move on.


----------



## Stiff

Already an (ironic) favorite for the Eurovision song contest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... iUFPjulTW8


----------



## John-H

ZephyR2 said:


> Can you not see that the EU is fast becoming a dead duck. The French don't know where they're going with Macron and the yellow jackets and their whole economy and government structure is falling apart. Makes UK look professional.
> 
> Germany is teetering on the edge of recession and had been for months. The China Silk Road to Italy and Trumps import tariffs will be enough to send it over over edge into collapse, if hasn't gone before then.
> 
> On top of that Italy is at odds with EU over how it sets its own internal budget and has a huge deficit. The economies of Spain, Portugal and Greece remain unstable as they have been for many years. Ireland's not looking too bad and the Benelux countries are keeping their heads down ploughing a nice level field, for now.
> 
> But then have a look at the eastern block countries and see how little they have progressed since joining the EU. Poland continues to go on its own merry way in opposition to the EU demands and there has been little by way integration by the rest.
> 
> Stop living with a past belief and get ready to move on.


That sounds like a desperate outpouring. Have you just realised the wheels have come off? I really don't think the - UK looks "professional" comment is widely accepted internationally. We are in a complete shambles. It's far worse than Suez. When you think of the elevating effect of the UK being a gateway into Europe and the UK being seen as a strong link to the US - and the multiplying effect of all of that is about to be cast aside.... It's the biggest incident of national self harm - far greater than Suez. The amazing thing is how little people realise we are going down in the world - and why? - just so some rich people can get richer from the Brexit chaos. More fool us. Ultimately it was all started by Cameron worried about 15 Tory MPs who might defect to UKIP (remember them?) when the country wasn't interested in a debate about the EU. But he decided to hold a referendum to keep the party together. How the debate got hijacked since that moment.

Oh, and if you don't want to live in the past, let's find out what the "will of the people" is now rather than three years ago. Surely an up to date opinion poll (referendum) is more valid than an old one given that we know more now than we did then?


----------



## ZephyR2

Tell you what John, if you're going to keep wearing those blinkers I'll put a few quid on you in the National in a couple of weeks.

Why do you think the EU is so desperate to stop us leaving.


----------



## John-H

ZephyR2 said:


> Tell you what John, if you're going to keep wearing those blinkers I'll put a few quid on you in the National in a couple of weeks.
> 
> Why do you think the EU is so desperate to stop us leaving.


I've got my eyes open. I'm also not a gambler. That's why I voted remain - because it meant stability and less risk with the opportunity to change incrementally from within. To vote leave was always a gamble because we had no clear idea where we'd end up. Simples  We are the desperate ones - not the EU - have you not clocked that one yet? Have you looked at what's going on in our parliament? We've got far more to lose.


----------



## HOGG

John-H said:


> Oh, and if you don't want to live in the past, let's find out what the "will of the people" is now rather than three years ago. Surely an up to date opinion poll (referendum) is more valid than an old one given that we know more now than we did then?


I think you'll find that it has swung more toward leave having spoken to many work colleagues about this

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

HOGG said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if you don't want to live in the past, let's find out what the "will of the people" is now rather than three years ago. Surely an up to date opinion poll (referendum) is more valid than an old one given that we know more now than we did then?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that it has swung more toward leave having spoken to many work colleagues about this
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's fine. Let's find out what opinion is now. As you imply a more up to date poll is more relevant for us today.

Here's a bigger poll by the way:


----------



## cheechy

John-H said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if you don't want to live in the past, let's find out what the "will of the people" is now rather than three years ago. Surely an up to date opinion poll (referendum) is more valid than an old one given that we know more now than we did then?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that it has swung more toward leave having spoken to many work colleagues about this
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine. Let's find out what opinion is now. As you imply a more up to date poll is more relevant for us today.
> 
> Here's a bigger poll by the way:
Click to expand...

Agreed - and this is what I said earlier but again blinkers are on. People have more or less become entrenched in their views BUT a combination of younger voters coming through AND voters who couldnt be bothered getting off their a***** last time around mean that in actual fact, its around a 55%/45% in favour of remaining and thats a consistent factor in all opinion polls going back many many months.

This is why validating any decision is so important - butI guess if you are all in favour of leaving with no deal then you wont want this for obvious reasons.


----------



## ZephyR2

John-H said:


> I've got my eyes open. I'm also not a gambler. That's why I voted remain - because it meant stability and less risk with the opportunity to change incrementally from within. To vote leave was always a gamble because we had no clear idea where we'd end up. Simples


John. if you took your news from sources other than just the Guardian then you'd realised that the EU is in for a rocky future and that staying within the EU offers anything but stability.

So you're not a gambler and you're on a sinking ship. Do you gamble and jump into the water or do you stay on the sinking ship ?


----------



## cheechy

ZephyR2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got my eyes open. I'm also not a gambler. That's why I voted remain - because it meant stability and less risk with the opportunity to change incrementally from within. To vote leave was always a gamble because we had no clear idea where we'd end up. Simples
> 
> 
> 
> John. if you took your news from sources other than just the Guardian then you'd realised that the EU is in for a rocky future and that staying within the EU offers anything but stability.
> 
> So you're not a gambler and you're on a sinking ship. Do you gamble and jump into the water or do you stay on the sinking ship ?
Click to expand...

Whats the exposure? We aren't in the Euro so not affected by currency devaluation or destabilisation, and indeed any moves to change the organisation in a way we do not like can be vetoed.


----------



## barry_m2

John-H said:


> That sounds like a desperate outpouring.............................................
> 
> Oh, and if you don't want to live in the past, let's find out what the "will of the people" is now rather than three years ago. Surely an up to date opinion poll (referendum) is more valid than an old one given that we know more now than we did then?


That made me chuckle! :lol:


----------



## HOGG

We are leaving. End of. Get over it

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what John, if you're going to keep wearing those blinkers I'll put a few quid on you in the National in a couple of weeks.
> 
> Why do you think the EU is so desperate to stop us leaving.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got my eyes open. I'm also not a gambler. That's why I voted remain - because it meant stability and less risk with the opportunity to change incrementally from within. To vote leave was always a gamble because we had no clear idea where we'd end up. Simples  We are the desperate ones - not the EU - have you not clocked that one yet? Have you looked at what's going on in our parliament? We've got far more to lose.
Click to expand...

We aren't desperate John, the only reason we're in this current predicament is because MPs in the main parties haven't done what they said they would in their manifestos. The Lib Dems and the SNPs are the only ones I have any respect for currently because they've at least remained consistent with what they said they would do, I just don't agree with them.

I'm surprised you want to remain in the EU after all that has happened. Leaving now will likely result in Labour getting in in the next election and an end to austerity, or remain in the EU and see a massive rise of right-wing tories and UKIP in Westminster.

Stability and less risk are fair reasons to want to remain, but the opposite of risk is normally regret.


----------



## cheechy

HOGG said:


> We are leaving. End of. Get over it
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Is that it?? Whats the point in posting this garbage?


----------



## John-H

ZephyR2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got my eyes open. I'm also not a gambler. That's why I voted remain - because it meant stability and less risk with the opportunity to change incrementally from within. To vote leave was always a gamble because we had no clear idea where we'd end up. Simples
> 
> 
> 
> John. if you took your news from sources other than just the Guardian then you'd realised that the EU is in for a rocky future and that staying within the EU offers anything but stability.
> 
> So you're not a gambler and you're on a sinking ship. Do you gamble and jump into the water or do you stay on the sinking ship ?
Click to expand...

If I care about the ship I stop it sinking obviously


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> I'm surprised you want to remain in the EU after all that has happened. Leaving now will likely result in Labour getting in in the next election and an end to austerity, or remain in the EU and see a massive rise of right-wing tories and UKIP in Westminster.
> 
> Stability and less risk are fair reasons to want to remain, but the opposite of risk is normally regret.


You don't know me very well. My priority it's staying in the EU not looking after the Labour parties interests in preference.

The right wing are doing a good job of exposing themselves. Have you heard Johnson, Hogg and Duncan-Smith are referring to themselves as "grand wizards". You know the origins of that title I take it.

The opposite of risk is only regret if you are inclined to gamble. It's actually safety.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Hogg and Duncan-Smith are referring to themselves as "grand wizards". You know the origins of that title I take it.


Don't know why but when I first heard this I thought of Dungeons & Dragons.....


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Harry Potter? No no, wait I know! Lord of the Rings!!

Honestly, this gif pretty well sums up the current state of Brexit quite well!


----------



## Stiff

SwissJetPilot said:


> Honestly, this gif pretty well sums up the whole Brexit thing quite well!












Agreed


----------



## Stiff

There's a lot of truths in this...


----------



## HOGG

cheechy said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are leaving. End of. Get over it
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Is that it?? Whats the point in posting this garbage?
Click to expand...

Because it's fact. The matter is in hand

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

> Parliament will debate "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU."
> 
> The debate is scheduled for 1 April 2019.


I wonder if this is an April fools


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Parliament will debate "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU."
> 
> The debate is scheduled for 1 April 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is an April fools
Click to expand...

Thanks for signing.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parliament will debate "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU."
> 
> The debate is scheduled for 1 April 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is an April fools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for signing.
Click to expand...

I signed the other one John. The above information was available by clicking on the link in your signature


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> I signed the other one John. The above information was available by clicking on the link in your signature


It's good to be part of a democratic process at least even though we might have different views don't you agree Ash?


----------



## Yashin

Indicative votes have provided clarity I see.


----------



## DPG

Why not have a peoples vote? What is May scared of?

The original leave campaign was just pure lies and I bet a large number would vote differently if they had the option (now they know that facts )

Give people the chance to vote on No Deal, May's Deal or 2nd referendum. Even group No Deal and May's Deal together under the leave banner.


----------



## John-H

Yashin said:


> Indicative votes have provided clarity I see.


Oliver Letwin always said the first round was not likely to produce a majority. The next round is on Monday.


----------



## HOGG

11pm today we leave whoop whoop

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

HOGG said:


> 11pm today we leave whoop whoop
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


No we don't. The SI was passed the other day to extend the date to either the 12th or 22nd April.


----------



## ashfinlayson

DPG said:


> Why not have a peoples vote? What is May scared of?
> 
> The original leave campaign was just pure lies and I bet a large number would vote differently if they had the option (now they know that facts )
> 
> Give people the chance to vote on No Deal, May's Deal or 2nd referendum. Even group No Deal and May's Deal together under the leave banner.


We already had a peoples vote in 2016. By your logic, should we rerun every general election after 2 years when the party in power hasn't yet delivered on their manifesto?

If those that campaigned for a rerun of the referendum from day dot accepted the outcome of the democratic exercise and campaigned for a soft Brexit, there would have been a compromise that would have shut down the right-wing and minimised the impact of Brexit. Instead we have a faction that refuses to vote for anything that enables Brexit to proceed, a faction that want to remain even though their constituencies voted to leave and a faction that will not accept anything other than a hard Brexit. Then there is NI, who want a hard Brexit or no Brexit.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> Yashin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indicative votes have provided clarity I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Oliver Letwin always said the first round was not likely to produce a majority. The next round is on Monday.
Click to expand...

Providing the PM's deal doesn't pass today I assume, which isn't looking likely to be honest.


----------



## Yashin

John-H said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11pm today we leave whoop whoop
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. The SI was passed the other day to extend the date to either the 12th or 22nd April.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Hotel California Hogg!


----------



## Yashin

Do people not think it's worrying we don't have a plan when it comes to exiting the EU?

Imagine one minute it's an alternative universe and the Brexit referendum never happened. Or there is another referendum and 95% of people voted to remain etc.
Then a few years down the line German voted to leave, which triggered France to leave and basically signalled the end of the EU and we find ourselves coming to an end with this political union through not fault of our own. What do we do then? Watch the collapse of the Country because we can't function without the EU?

Surely there should be some plan ready to go into action if things go belly up on the Continent? If Brexit ends up not happening you would like to think for future sake someone in goverment says "You know what, we dodged a bullet there. Phew, better come up with a plan if that happens again".


----------



## ashfinlayson

Yashin said:


> Surely there should be some plan ready to go into action if things go belly up on the Continent? If Brexit ends up not happening you would like to think for future sake someone in goverment says "You know what, we dodged a bullet there. Phew, better come up with a plan if that happens again".


That would be the rational, intelligent approach yes. But we're talking about MPs and civil servants here.


----------



## John-H

Well she lost by 58 votes. Chris Grayling was just on College Green saying that May has previously said she'd not ask for a longer extension and claiming that we are well prepared to leave with no deal.

You know, every time he opens his mouth a ferry dies :roll:


----------



## badger64

17.4 million voted to leave. the question on the ballot paper was 'do you want remain or leave' simple no other options on the ballot paper, it was the duty of our mp's regardless of party or views to deliver it. the biggest mistake was a remainer trying to negotiate Brexit.
every single person was made fully aware BEFORE what their vote meant, the majority who voted still wanted to leave.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ca ... ORM=VRDGAR


----------



## HOGG

True that









Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ZephyR2

badger64 said:


> 17.4 million voted to leave. the question on the ballot paper was 'do you want remain or leave' simple no other options on the ballot paper, it was the duty of our mp's regardless of party or views to deliver it. the biggest mistake was a remainer trying to negotiate Brexit.
> every single person was made fully aware BEFORE what their vote meant, the majority who voted still wanted to leave.
> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ca ... ORM=VRDGAR


That's pretty clear, even though he was a twit.


----------



## John-H

Its only "clear" or "simple" to those who deliberately or unwittingly avoid seeing the complexity of what "leave" actually means.

So here's a challenge to you: Can you please explain on what basis we continue to trade, how we buy and sell food, drugs, goods and services? Also please explain the effect this change will have on our producers and consumers including the NHS, our car manufacturers, our security services and our international standing and bargaining ability and which of our laws (loss of sovereignty) will we need to change in order to secure trade deals with countries with different manufacturing, safety and food standards etc and what freedom of movement of workers will be part of those deals? Please explain the effect on EU citizens who live in this country and their families. Also please explain how travel for trade goods, business people and pleasure will be affected when crossing borders and the costs associated e.g. Mobile phone billing, insurance, licencing and in summary can you please at least provide a realistic etimate whether we will be financially better off or worse off and how much by?

I predict you will find it very difficult to do this thoroughly. You will be tempted to ignore, or provide a glib, humorous or dismissive short answer.

To be fair my question is a complex one but it has far more realistic meaning to all of us than the referendum's "yes or no" question to the "leave" option presented on the ballot paper or any sound bite video clips. Even the campaign, given it had longer to explain, was massively inadequate, misleading and confused over even basic things like whether we were going to still be in the single market and retain the "exact same benefits" as we do now.

My question to you is unfair as I know you will not be able to fully answer it but in the same way the referendum question was also unfair for the same reasons. It was a very unfair question.

We are all being played in this game. We are all dutifully playing out our parts by joining in with the arguments provided to us by our manipulators. Who are they? Answer this:

*Who stands to gain from Brexit? Who will be making money from it?*

I'll give you a clue. It's not the ones being played.

http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/


----------



## Stiff

How did we manage before being in the EU? How do all other countries that aren't part of some conglomerate manage to survive? It's frightening isn't it.
I'm not poo pooing your arguments John, they're very valid but as you state, it's an unfair question as the average guy on the street don't know the answers - they're not supposed to. They're not all economics experts, or political experts, or experts of most things relating to the whole affair. They were given a choice of leave or remain and the _majority_ voted leave. The fact that the hierarchy have failed miserably in their handling of the whole situation is appalling and disgusting.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## leopard




----------



## badger64

John-H said:


> Its only "clear" or "simple" to those who deliberately or unwittingly avoid seeing the complexity of what "leave" actually means.
> 
> So here's a challenge to you: Can you please explain on what basis we continue to trade, how we buy and sell food, drugs, goods and services? Also please explain the effect this change will have on our producers and consumers including the NHS, our car manufacturers, our security services and our international standing and bargaining ability and which of our laws (loss of sovereignty) will we need to change in order to secure trade deals with countries with different manufacturing, safety and food standards etc and what freedom of movement of workers will be part of those deals? Please explain the effect on EU citizens who live in this country and their families. Also please explain how travel for trade goods, business people and pleasure will be affected when crossing borders and the costs associated e.g. Mobile phone billing, insurance, licencing and in summary can you please at least provide a realistic etimate whether we will be financially better off or worse off and how much by?
> 
> I predict you will find it very difficult to do this thoroughly. You will be tempted to ignore, or provide a glib, humorous or dismissive short answer.
> 
> To be fair my question is a complex one but it has far more realistic meaning to all of us than the referendum's "yes or no" question to the "leave" option presented on the ballot paper or any sound bite video clips. Even the campaign, given it had longer to explain, was massively inadequate, misleading and confused over even basic things like whether we were going to still be in the single market and retain the "exact same benefits" as we do now.
> 
> My question to you is unfair as I know you will not be able to fully answer it but in the same way the referendum question was also unfair for the same reasons. It was a very unfair question.
> 
> We are all being played in this game. We are all dutifully playing out our parts by joining in with the arguments provided to us by our manipulators. Who are they? Answer this:
> 
> *Who stands to gain from Brexit? Who will be making money from it?*
> 
> I'll give you a clue. It's not the ones being played.
> 
> http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/


all of your points are irrelevant. the people of this country were given a democratic vote. the losers of the referendum don't like it. it will affect my job, my company and everybody else in some manner, but its what the people voted for, we were all told 'its your choice'.
every 4 yrs a government is elected and the 1st past the post system means there are more people who voted for other parties but end up on the losing side, its called democracy, live with it.


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its only "clear" or "simple" to those who deliberately or unwittingly avoid seeing the complexity of what "leave" actually means.
> 
> So here's a challenge to you: Can you please explain on what basis we continue to trade, how we buy and sell food, drugs, goods and services? Also please explain the effect this change will have on our producers and consumers including the NHS, our car manufacturers, our security services and our international standing and bargaining ability and which of our laws (loss of sovereignty) will we need to change in order to secure trade deals with countries with different manufacturing, safety and food standards etc and what freedom of movement of workers will be part of those deals? Please explain the effect on EU citizens who live in this country and their families. Also please explain how travel for trade goods, business people and pleasure will be affected when crossing borders and the costs associated e.g. Mobile phone billing, insurance, licencing and in summary can you please at least provide a realistic etimate whether we will be financially better off or worse off and how much by?
> 
> I predict you will find it very difficult to do this thoroughly. You will be tempted to ignore, or provide a glib, humorous or dismissive short answer.
> 
> To be fair my question is a complex one but it has far more realistic meaning to all of us than the referendum's "yes or no" question to the "leave" option presented on the ballot paper or any sound bite video clips. Even the campaign, given it had longer to explain, was massively inadequate, misleading and confused over even basic things like whether we were going to still be in the single market and retain the "exact same benefits" as we do now.
> 
> My question to you is unfair as I know you will not be able to fully answer it but in the same way the referendum question was also unfair for the same reasons. It was a very unfair question.
> 
> We are all being played in this game. We are all dutifully playing out our parts by joining in with the arguments provided to us by our manipulators. Who are they? Answer this:
> 
> *Who stands to gain from Brexit? Who will be making money from it?*
> 
> I'll give you a clue. It's not the ones being played.
> 
> http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/
> 
> 
> 
> all of your points are irrelevant. the people of this country were given a democratic vote. the losers of the referendum don't like it. it will affect my job, my company and everybody else in some manner, but its what the people voted for, we were all told 'its your choice'.
> every 4 yrs a government is elected and the 1st past the post system means there are more people who voted for other parties but end up on the losing side, its called democracy, live with it.
Click to expand...

All of my questions are relevant. You just don't have relevant answers.

Also, you are incorrect about democracy. The promise to carry out the result of the referendum presumed it would be a properly conducted referendum held to legally correct standards.

The 2016 referendum was *not democratic* as agreed in the Court of Appeal. Had it been legally binding the level of cheating and campaign overspend would have rendered it void and it would have been annulled and re-run.

It was also stated by the Prime MInister's QC that it was the Prime Minister who decided to trigger Article 50(2) and that the decision has no legal connection to the referendum because the referendum was only advisory.

The party manifestos in 2017 were based on what we now know to be an undemocratic and illegally corrupted referendum result. No party had a majority so there is no majority mandate. Constitutionally, opposition parties are not bound by failed manifestos.

*There is simply no democratic justification for leaving the EU.*


----------



## John-H

Who's that next to Sara Wollaston? Is it anything to do with this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-47770959

Untouched original by the way. This one has just had the colour removed:


----------



## bobclive22




----------



## John-H

Brexiteer Peter Oborne's thoughtful article on why he has changed his mind on Brexit

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... ink-again/?


----------



## A3DFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q9LpRL ... ture=share


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

I never thought I'd say this but I recommend everyone to read this article by strong Brexiteer and Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... zGq2KPmf8o


----------



## A3DFU

What an excellent article, John!


----------



## ashfinlayson

So another extension has been agreed to enable the Tories and Labour to reach a consensus on how to reapproach negotiations of the withdrawal agreement even though the extension was granted on the proviso that there will be no renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement :lol:

I wonder how long it will take before MPs and the commission realise that kicking the can down the road is causing as much economic harm as leaving on WTO terms. But I'm sure all the newly elected UKIP MEPs will let them know shortly.


----------



## HOGG

Just leave already. Sort the s*** after

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## A3DFU

HOGG said:


> Just leave already. Sort the s*** after


That sounds a bit like:
Let's jump off the highest cliff and let's sort the bones and corpses later


----------



## ashfinlayson

A3DFU said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just leave already. Sort the s*** after
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit like:
> Let's jump off the highest cliff and let's sort the bones and corpses later
Click to expand...

Jumping off a cliff is about as close to reality as £350m /week, you've clearly got your info straight from the horses a***.


----------



## HOGG

A3DFU said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just leave already. Sort the s*** after
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit like:
> Let's jump off the highest cliff and let's sort the bones and corpses later
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to make the leap of sacrifice

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## leopard

I love this whiff of altruism HOGG, gives me a warm feeling inside


----------



## SwissJetPilot

If you don't care about being able to control your own destiny, then voting to Remain is a great idea. Otherwise, just roll over and continue to allow people you can't elect to decide your fate and that of your Country.

The fact that the EU would even consider their rules above those of sovereign nations, including their own Constitutions, is a chilling indication of their intent to ultimately control and dictate their authority over all member States.

_The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, *it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states.*

"The primacy and direct effect of EU law has no formal basis in the founding treaties of the union, but was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), long before UK accession, on the grounds that the purpose of the treaties would be thwarted if EU law were subordinate to national law. *The view of the ECJ is that any norm of EU law takes precedence over national law, including national constitutions."*_

In a discussion regarding the development of a EU Army, Ms. Merkel's words are clear that not all members are "equal" in her eyes -

_"The times when we could rely on others are over," Merkel said. "This means nothing less than for us Europeans to take our destiny in our own hands if we want to survive as a Union. This means, in the long run, Europe has to become more capable to act. We have to reconsider our ways of deciding and* to renounce the principle of unanimity *where the European treaties allow and wherever this is necessary. I proposed a European security council, in which important decisions can be prepared faster."_

Prepare to kiss European Democracy good-bye!


----------



## John-H

Almost entirely wrong. Where so you get this rubbish from? :roll:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

It's all on the EU's website and on the UK.gov's website. You can look up the agreements, they're all there to read and study.

If you didn't flinch at Merkle's quote, or any statement which puts Democracy into question by these people, then there's really nothing else to say on this topic. If you're okay with these sort of statements, that the EU can pick and choose which members get to decide on things, that pretty much says it all.


----------



## John-H

It's your interpretation that I disagree with.

Your first paragraph is just hyperbole and incorrect interpretation and exaggeration which fails to understand the democratic structure - that each country is required to be democratic and appoints commissioners into a regulatory body (not unlike our civil service - which we also don't elect directly but is appointed by government but you don't complain about that in the domestic case) - the Commission - whose job it is to apply the treaties (which regulate the element of shared sovereignty agreed to by each democratic member state) with the independent judiciary ECJ court to resolve any disputes. All of this is democratically agreed and supported by member states. On top of that we have the European Parliament which I look forward to exercising my democratic vote on 23rd May.

The elements of EU law that have primacy over domestic law have all been agreed by treaty. Domestic law that is not subject to the democratically agreed sharing of sovereignty through treaty are entirely independent and a matter for the constitution of the member state.

Take Article 50 of the 2007 Lisbon treaty for example. This came into force in 2009 and states in 50(1) that any member state may leave the EU according to its own constitutional requirements. That shows that domestic law has primacy regarding its own sovereignty and whether it chooses to be in the union or not. 50(2) describes the steps the state must take regarding it's obligation within the agreed treaty to give notice to the union of its intention to leave and defines the process etc.

Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty was written by our own Lord Kerr.

Your other paragraphs go on to expand on hyperbole and misinterpretation designed to raise unnecessary concerns which have no basis in fact.

Interpreting the words of a politician about an EU army is largely inflammatory, distorting and pointless as every member state has a veto on such developments and everything regarding the EU jurisdiction is controlled through treaty and the EU Parliament. It's all within tiered levels of joint democratic control. Ultimately each member state is sovereign with control of its own destiny to be part of the joint enterprise or not. We can choose whether it's in our interest to remain or not. EU membership is very popular with member states it seems and has the highest ever approval of citizens. Your words of worry and fear, wherever thay have come from, are groundless and inflammatory designed to cause dissent.

Who stands to make money from such dissent? You need to address that.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I get the impression that you think the EU is some benevolent organization that has the best interests of all European citizens in mind and has every intention of respecting the laws and constitutions of member states. And that every member state can do what it wants, based on the will of it's citizens, and the EU will respect those decisions.

However the evidence is to the contrary and has been from the start.

The EU has made it very clear what their ultimate intentions are towards a Federalized Europe they, and only they control. This isn't conspiracy talk, this is evidenced in their doctrine and policy. They've made it clear that sovereign constitutions, agreements, treaties, referendums, etc., are nothing more than pieces of paper they can, and have, ignored.

I suspect the Dutch, Irish, Polish and Hungarian governments would have a different opinion about "...tiered levels of joint democratic control" or what their "own destiny" means to the EU.

As to your comment about "interpreting the words of a politician", I quoted her directly; her statement was clear, precise and succinct. Not much to misinterpret there.


----------



## John-H

Yes, clearly it is a beneficial organisation for its members.

No it is conspiracy talk. That's precisely what you are engaged in.

Take a step back. Who are "they" of which you speak? They are commissioners and parliamentarians appointed by the member states and the citizens of the EU. Not some secret organisation for world domination. That's fantasy.

If the member states and their peoples thought it was that bad and was not of overall advantage to them they wouldn't be members and the EU and its institutions wouldn't be as popular as it is.

That's the evidence.

I say again to you, who stands to benefit from the break up of the EU? They are the ones generating and disseminating the divisive propaganda you in turn are posting.

Take a step back. Follow the money. I suggest you read this:

Dark money from foreign sources channelled through right wing think tanks such as the IEA and Tax Payers' Alliance with ERG since 2016 setting news agenda but hiding real purpose of Brexit:

http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/mat ... sts-Brexit

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Yes, clearly it is a beneficial organisation for its members.
> 
> No it is conspiracy talk. That's precisely what you are engaged in.
> 
> Take a step back. Who are "they" of which you speak? They are commissioners and parliamentarians appointed by the member states and the citizens of the EU. Not some secret organisation for world domination. That's fantasy.
> 
> If the member states and their peoples thought it was that bad and was not of overall advantage to them they wouldn't be members and the EU and its institutions wouldn't be as popular as it is.
> 
> That's the evidence.
> 
> I say again to you, who stands to benefit from the break up of the EU? They are the ones generating and disseminating the divisive propaganda you in turn are posting.
> 
> Take a step back. Follow the money. I suggest you read this:
> 
> Dark money from foreign sources channelled through right wing think tanks such as the IEA and Tax Payers' Alliance with ERG since 2016 setting news agenda but hiding real purpose of Brexit:
> 
> http://www.brexitshambles.com/brexit-sc ... on-street/
> 
> https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/mat ... sts-Brexit
> 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexit ... uencing-ga


Well the majority of the British electorate don't think it's beneficial to it's members John, that's why they voted to leave, I also doubt the Greeks, held to ransom and afflicted with further austerity, see much benefit to the EU's politics either. But I don't think that many of the Eurosceptics actually want to break up the EU, but rather limit it's supremacy over European politics through significant reform. Unfortunately it will take the departure of one of it's main benefactors to insight such change while the commission is so hell bent on further integration.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

@ Ashfindlayson - Be careful! Using trigger words like "ransom" and "austerity" in this post will get you labeled a conspiracy scaremonger!

"Everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel".
- George III

Yeah, and we all know how that worked out.


----------



## John-H

I question "the majority" especially as we now know the campaign was illegally run and undemocratic. If you support cheats that's one thing but since then opinion has changed.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Consider the possibility John, that supporting cheats is not the same as having the same view point as them on one particular issue.

But yes you question the majority because the campaign was illegal, but if you dug deep enough you would probably find that laws have been broken during every political exercise in modern history. You would have to rerun every election and undo every council decision ever made. Shall we do that too? Or just the one that you don't agree with?

You say that opinion has changed, but again I say to you that after everything that's gone on, the poor campaigns, the lack of plans, the lack of a deal, the lies you keep banging on about, only 55%? - That's a pitiful swing in the other direction. Even the opposition is normally doing better than that in the polls before losing an election, and your lot were until recently banging on that you'd win another referendum on the basis that all the old racists have died since 2016.

The reality is, that Brexit probably isn't going to happen at all, in the unlikely event that it does, it will be as soft as custard and would result in little to no effect on Joe Blogs or his job. But instead of going with that and petitioning for a soft Brexit, accepting a democratic outcome and moving on; you insist on another referendum that would no doubt result in the Leave campaign coming back out peddling even more antiestablishmentarianism, and leave the Remain campaign miles behind, with a mandate for government to push for a hard Brexit.


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> Who stands to make money from such dissent?


That is exactly what I was discussing with a client today as we did previously as well. 
Who's making money from Brexit? Who's making money from spreading lies? Answer those two questions accurately and you know what's currently going on.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> I question "the majority" especially as we now know the campaign was illegally run and undemocratic.


You can question it all you want but I think you may be surprised at what "the majority" actually is. No one knows for sure but I wouldn't be surprised that it's very similar to what it was originally. Take the poll you started on here for instance. I'm pretty sure you thought that it would sway considerably to remain, _especially_ after limiting the only 'leave' option to one you knew was an unpopular choice (you cheeky little tyke  ) but no, the consensus still swayed to the 'leave' camp. 
"illegally run and undemocratic". That's a bit dramatic isn't it? :lol:



John-H said:


> If you support cheats that's one thing


Again, dramatics, bet even more so, extremely condescending. :roll:



John-H said:


> but since then opinion has changed.


As stated, I'm not convinced it has.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> But yes you question the majority because the campaign was illegal, but if you dug deep enough you would probably find that laws have been broken during every political exercise in modern history. You would have to rerun every election and undo every council decision ever made. Shall we do that too? Or just the one that you don't agree with?


No. Simply that the EU referendum was advisory so nobody can take any action regarding the illegality. In all the other elections you refer to, they were legally binding and if there had been a similar amount of cheating they would have been challenged and annulled in court no question.

So the "result" you cling into is entirely bogus.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> ...Take the poll you started on here for instance. I'm pretty sure you thought that it would sway considerably to remain, _especially_ after limiting the only 'leave' option to one you knew was an unpopular choice (you cheeky little tyke  ) but no, the consensus still swayed to the 'leave' camp.
> "illegally run and undemocratic". That's a bit dramatic isn't it? :lol:


You crack me up :lol:

The poll I started included the only legal options. "No deal" would breach international treaty law. I knew that a long time ago. It's now accepted. The poll was not unreasonably limited - it was realistic as it is now.

As regards what I expected from the demographic of a car forum - your input is largely what I expected. That's your opinion fair enough. It's not far off the average here. It's not the national average and that's what matters in the end 

I'm just stating the legal truth about illegality and that's a statement of fact.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John, The only sources I've seen that states that WTO is illegal are The Guardian and you. Not one MP in all the parliamentary debates I've watched (and I've watched a fair few) has mentioned it, neither has Barnier.


----------



## Iceblue

John and your one other supporter on here make me laugh :lol: You accuse Swiss of following or creating a conspiracy and then in the same breath pose your scary question, "who is behind and most likely to benefit from Brexit". If you don't know, find out, or at least tell us your consiparacy theory. My consiparcy theory is that the majority of people who voted did so as they are getting sick of big institutions, big government and big bureaucracies being self serving and taking away their rights and self determination.


----------



## cheechy

SwissJetPilot said:


> If you don't care about being able to control your own destiny, then voting to Remain is a great idea. Otherwise, just roll over and continue to allow people you can't elect to decide your fate and that of your Country.
> 
> The fact that the EU would even consider their rules above those of sovereign nations, including their own Constitutions, is a chilling indication of their intent to ultimately control and dictate their authority over all member States.
> 
> _The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, *it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states.*
> 
> "The primacy and direct effect of EU law has no formal basis in the founding treaties of the union, but was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), long before UK accession, on the grounds that the purpose of the treaties would be thwarted if EU law were subordinate to national law. *The view of the ECJ is that any norm of EU law takes precedence over national law, including national constitutions."*_
> 
> In a discussion regarding the development of a EU Army, Ms. Merkel's words are clear that not all members are "equal" in her eyes -
> 
> _"The times when we could rely on others are over," Merkel said. "This means nothing less than for us Europeans to take our destiny in our own hands if we want to survive as a Union. This means, in the long run, Europe has to become more capable to act. We have to reconsider our ways of deciding and* to renounce the principle of unanimity *where the European treaties allow and wherever this is necessary. I proposed a European security council, in which important decisions can be prepared faster."_
> 
> Prepare to kiss European Democracy good-bye!


Sounds like a plan to break the UK up to me and leave England to it.

I know if the question comes back north of the border I'll be voting with my feet and "taking back control and not being dictated to by an undemocratic dictatorship that doesnt listen to its member states" :lol:

Seriously annoyed that I voted to remain in the UK with one of the big questions around the EU being we'd have to leave and being in the UK would mean we'd stay. What a joke.

English nationalism (this is what taking back control is all about here) is dictating the whole future of the UK.


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't care about being able to control your own destiny, then voting to Remain is a great idea. Otherwise, just roll over and continue to allow people you can't elect to decide your fate and that of your Country.
> 
> The fact that the EU would even consider their rules above those of sovereign nations, including their own Constitutions, is a chilling indication of their intent to ultimately control and dictate their authority over all member States.
> 
> _The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, *it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states.*
> 
> "The primacy and direct effect of EU law has no formal basis in the founding treaties of the union, but was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), long before UK accession, on the grounds that the purpose of the treaties would be thwarted if EU law were subordinate to national law. *The view of the ECJ is that any norm of EU law takes precedence over national law, including national constitutions."*_
> 
> In a discussion regarding the development of a EU Army, Ms. Merkel's words are clear that not all members are "equal" in her eyes -
> 
> _"The times when we could rely on others are over," Merkel said. "This means nothing less than for us Europeans to take our destiny in our own hands if we want to survive as a Union. This means, in the long run, Europe has to become more capable to act. We have to reconsider our ways of deciding and* to renounce the principle of unanimity *where the European treaties allow and wherever this is necessary. I proposed a European security council, in which important decisions can be prepared faster."_
> 
> Prepare to kiss European Democracy good-bye!
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan to break the UK up to me and leave England to it.
> 
> I know if the question comes back north of the border I'll be voting with my feet and "taking back control and not being dictated to by an undemocratic dictatorship that doesnt listen to its member states" :lol:
> 
> Seriously annoyed that I voted to remain in the UK with one of the big questions around the EU being we'd have to leave and being in the UK would mean we'd stay. What a joke.
> 
> English nationalism (this is what taking back control is all about here) is dictating the whole future of the UK.
Click to expand...

Except you're not a member state are you, you're a province of a member state, same as England is, yet you have better parliamentary representation per head than the rest of the UK does, and 40% of you voted to leave the EU, shame the 40% don't doesn't have any representation in Westminster.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John, The only sources I've seen that states that WTO is illegal are The Guardian and you. Not one MP in all the parliamentary debates I've watched (and I've watched a fair few) has mentioned it, neither has Barnier.


Would you like me to explain it to you or provide more authoritative sources than the ones you've identified?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, The only sources I've seen that states that WTO is illegal are The Guardian and you. Not one MP in all the parliamentary debates I've watched (and I've watched a fair few) has mentioned it, neither has Barnier.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you or provide more authoritative sources than the ones you've identified?
Click to expand...

No I wasn't asking you to explain it or provide more sources nor was I trying to disprove the point. I was just mentioning that no one that wants to prevent Brexit that actually matters has used it as an argument to prevent Brexit, so I doubt it's relevance.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, The only sources I've seen that states that WTO is illegal are The Guardian and you. Not one MP in all the parliamentary debates I've watched (and I've watched a fair few) has mentioned it, neither has Barnier.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to explain it to you or provide more authoritative sources than the ones you've identified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I wasn't asking you to explain it or provide more sources nor was I trying to disprove the point. I was just mentioning that no one that wants to prevent Brexit that actually matters has used it as an argument to prevent Brexit, so I doubt it's relevance.
Click to expand...

Oh it's very relevant. It's an unsustainable position for the UK to maintain as we'd be subject to sanction which any of the injured parties could take action over. For example the EU is guarantor for the international treaty of Belfast or Good Friday agreement which ensures a soft border to Northern Ireland. If a party were to take a unilateral action to be in breach they could be sanctioned. A similar situation exists regarding our EU membership in that under our treaty obligations to things like pensions and ongoing and future project funding. Where we not to settle our bills and simply walk away with no deal we would be subject to sanction under the treaty of Venice which is an internationally agreed law of treaties which comes into play regarding any dispute and would be ruled on in the Hague. This would be unsustainable for the UK to ignore as we would be subject to sanction. We wouldn't want to become a pariah state like North Korea.

Who would trust us in any future trade deal if we behaved like this and ignored treaty obligations without resolution and agreement?

Now, the reason it's not being mentioned much is because not many think that far ahead and the grand standing swivel eyed loons in the ERG etc can exert more political pressure by calling for it and they stand to gain personally from such chaos. The government are playing along for political reasons and the no deal planning is a threat of chaos but it's not sustainable. The main reason is that we are still in negotiation and have not taken such action yet. Mr Barnier is too much of a diplomat and negotiator to start threatening legal action. That doesn't mean anyone should doubt the illegality's relevance. Ultimately it would come into play if it went that far. In reality even if we did leave with "no deal", because it would be unsustainable and damaging mostly to us due to tariffs and damage to trade, we would soon come to terms. This only underlines the nonsense of the whole idea of "no deal" as a solution. It would be an irresponsible option to include in a referendum because it is completely unsustainable.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Indeed, but both the UK and EU have said they intend to honour the Good Friday agreement, neither party wants a border, the EU is supposed to be a piece project so it would be against their interest to place border/import revenue over the piece process.

I never suggested we should ignore our existing treaty obligations, if you read back you will see that I was for an extended transition to WTO where we pay our contributions up to an agreed cut off, sort out settled status of our expats and theirs and put in suitable off-border checks for NI, then start looking at comprehensive trade agreements with the EU.

I certainly don't agree with you that no one will want to trade with us after Brexit, it will just take a bit of time to get agreements in place; The UK as always been a huge consumer of foreign goods and commodities and the idea that these foreign suppliers will just not want to sell us their stuff anymore is utter nonsense spoken only by those that wish to halt Brexit.


----------



## John-H

I was saying that "no deal" would not be sustainable and that we would rapidly come to terms (an agreement) and would not want to be a pariah state - then we could make trade agreements.

But WTO are not the terms we would want to trade with the EU which is our major market or anyone else out of preference. Most trade is done through FTAs which is beneficial for all concerned. Tariffs cost money and trade and this is the nonsense of even thinking about something different to our existing customs union and single market and and any change to this will cause regulatory imbalance across the Northern Ireland border which will threaten the integrity of the single market, motivate smuggling and threaten peace. Just because both sides don't want a hard border doesn't mean they can avoid one due to treaty obligations. The inescapable solution to that is a border poll, reunification of the island of Ireland and the break up of the United Kingdom.

Or don't do it.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Seems the US is your biggest customer. Odd you sell less to China than Ireland.

United States: US$64.4 billion (13.3% of total UK exports)
Germany: $47 billion (9.7%)
Netherlands: $33.3 billion (6.9%)
France: $31.8 billion (6.6%)
Ireland: $28.3 billion (5.9%)
China: $27.5 billion (5.7%)
Switzerland: $25.4 billion (5.2%)
Belgium: $19.1 billion (4%)
Italy: $14.1 billion (2.9%)
Spain: $13.9 billion (2.9%)


----------



## John-H

Well, as they say, when distance doubles trade halves. Our biggest customer is the EU because its closest and it's a bigger market than the USA.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Well, as they say, when distance doubles trade halves. Our biggest customer is the EU because its closest and it's a bigger market than the USA.


Ireland: $28.3 billion (5.9%)
China: $27.5 billion (5.7%)

I think you need to look at both your geography and your fractions there John


----------



## Stiff

https://twitter.com/OwenPaterson/status ... 3727044610









https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status ... 9780426753









https://twitter.com/AntoniaRomeoUK/stat ... 8764973057









https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/1 ... 7683523586









https://twitter.com/AntoniaRomeoUK/stat ... 4802325505









https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/1 ... 9858600961


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> Except you're not a member state are you, you're a province of a member state, same as England is, yet you have better parliamentary representation per head than the rest of the UK does, and 40% of you voted to leave the EU, shame the 40% don't doesn't have any representation in Westminster.


Actually nearer 63%...that 2% makes a difference between winning and losing and getting all or nothing it seems.

You've tried to divert my point by making a somewhat irrelevant dig at over representation. The Tories don't seem to think this is overly relevant given only 10% or so don't tow the line.

I was making a statement about a democratic vote held in 2014 where I was told that a vote to remain meant we would stay in the EU. We would have been better going our own way and reapplying to join as a member state...that was my point but you chose to ignore mine about the rise of English nationalism dominating (and for many in England the UK is "theirs") the agenda.

The ironic point I'm making here is that many in england in particular voted to leave to get back control and not be told what to do. The wishes of the VAST majority in Scotland voted to stay, and we consistently have our wishes overruled by an unelected uk government.

You have to laugh...


----------



## ashfinlayson

The ironic point you're making overlooks the fact that Scotland has 1/10 population of England, which impacts its voice in national referenda. There are a few things you can do about that: Campaign to change the uks policital system, leave the union, or breed.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Unfortunately, politicians have been in-breeding for decades, doesn't seem to be helping.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> The ironic point you're making overlooks the fact that Scotland has 1/10 population of England, which impacts its voice in national referenda. There are a few things you can do about that: Campaign to change the uks policital system, leave the union, or breed.


If you want to start a thread about political representation then go for it but again in here it's not relevant and indeed moot. We are a small country (or region) locked in a union where the will of the English electorate dictates a great deal of things that happen in my every day life. Up until 2016 I was happy to accept this as part of an overall package that was of mutual benefit for all.

No more. If I get the chance again I'm for breaking up the union ...no more UK.


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic point you're making overlooks the fact that Scotland has 1/10 population of England, which impacts its voice in national referenda. There are a few things you can do about that: Campaign to change the uks policital system, leave the union, or breed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to start a thread about political representation then go for it but again in her it's not relevant and indeed moot. We are a small country (or region) locked in a union where the will of the English electorate dictates a great deal of things that happen in my every day life. Up until 2016 I was happy to accept this as part of an overall package that was of mutual benefit for all.
> 
> No more. If I get the chance again I'm for breaking up the union ...no more UK.
Click to expand...

Well you're welcome to vote for what you wan't, that's democracy. Obviously the rest of us would be sorry to see you go, you say my point about representation isn't relevant, well I'm sorry but you're just being ignorant - Referenda are done entirely on numbers, so the 5m people in Scotland have less influence on outcomes than the 55m people in England, that is just how it works. The reason I brought up proportional representation is that, although you feel hard done by in this instance, your MPs have a lot of influence over Westminster, especially in the scenario of a hung parliament, yet the referendum result is no more unfair than the 40% of Scotts that voted to leave having no parliamentary representation on that issue.

Yes you voted to remain part of the union and EU membership was part of the debate, but if my memory serves, Brexit wasn't a consideration in 2014, it was after your referendum where the uk voted to elect a party that was offering a referendum on EU membership.

You've mentioned the tories several times and obviously blame them for the current situation, but if you don't want to be governed by them, stop voting for a minority single issue party like the SNP.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic point you're making overlooks the fact that Scotland has 1/10 population of England, which impacts its voice in national referenda. There are a few things you can do about that: Campaign to change the uks policital system, leave the union, or breed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to start a thread about political representation then go for it but again in her it's not relevant and indeed moot. We are a small country (or region) locked in a union where the will of the English electorate dictates a great deal of things that happen in my every day life. Up until 2016 I was happy to accept this as part of an overall package that was of mutual benefit for all.
> 
> No more. If I get the chance again I'm for breaking up the union ...no more UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're welcome to vote for what you wan't, that's democracy. Obviously the rest of us would be sorry to see you go, you say my point about representation isn't relevant, well I'm sorry but you're just being ignorant - Referenda are done entirely on numbers, so the 5m people in Scotland have less influence on outcomes than the 55m people in England, that is just how it works. The reason I brought up proportional representation is that, although you feel hard done by in this instance, your MPs have a lot of influence over Westminster, especially in the scenario of a hung parliament, yet the referendum result is no more unfair than the 40% of Scotts that voted to leave having no parliamentary representation on that issue.
> 
> Yes you voted to remain part of the union and EU membership was part of the debate, but if my memory serves, Brexit wasn't a consideration in 2014, it was after your referendum where the uk voted to elect a party that was offering a referendum on EU membership.
> 
> You've mentioned the tories several times and obviously blame them for the current situation, but if you don't want to be governed by them, stop voting for a minority single issue party like the SNP.
Click to expand...

It's hard not to blame the Tories. I have to admit I have voted for them in the past but never again. They have moved so far to the right its unreal.

You've made the assumption I voted SNP for some reason? My local mp is labour and I did indeed vote strategically in the last GE...for all the good it did.

You also keep mentioning 40% which is too high it was closer to 37% yet I don't see you referencing the importance of the 45/46% who voted to remain in England?


----------



## ashfinlayson

Apologies, I was referring to the majority in Scotland, not you specifically cheechy. I've also voted Tory in the passed, but can't bring myself vote for the current generation of Tories as I am in that awkward situation where I believe in the core ideology but not that party - I'm sure I'm not alone in that. But you mention that they've moved far to the right, there has always been a right faction, it's just amplified by Brexit and Labour moving to the left.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as they say, when distance doubles trade halves. Our biggest customer is the EU because its closest and it's a bigger market than the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Ireland: $28.3 billion (5.9%)
> China: $27.5 billion (5.7%)
> 
> I think you need to look at both your geography and your fractions there John
Click to expand...

Are you tryng to claim Ireland is the same size as China? :lol:

I don't think you've followed the logic of the old adage. China is further away - 4,873 miles. Ireland is only 349 miles away (or 74 miles between ports). Ireland GDP $376 million. China GDP $13.4 trillion. Yet as you point out the trade is comparable.

So my point that trade with close neighbors is much more important than trade with distant ones as a determining factor is entirely supported by the comparison of China and Ireland. In fact China is so much the larger than Ireland in terms of GDP, trade should still be greater despite the distance which only goes to underline the importance of proximity and a favourable trading regime - which we have in the EU.


----------



## HOGG

https://www.thistimeimvoting.eu/?recruiter_id=284242

I'm voting in the eu elections.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## HOGG

I need 4 people to sign up using my link to unlock some rewards


----------



## John-H

HOGG said:


> I need 4 people to sign up using my link to unlock some rewards


You have one at least [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

Little girl gets a surprise when dropping some money in a street musicians hat:


----------



## Stiff

From Robin Tilbrook's Blog - http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/

Well fancy that. The MSM are completely ignoring the Judicial Review at the High Court. Anyone would think they're biased and in league with the EU and Remainers. What a shock.



> The English Democrats are bringing a High Court case using the Judicial Review procedure to sue Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Case No. CO/1322/2019). We have a strong case that, according to law, the United Kingdom left the European Union on the 29th March at the expiry of our two year notice period which was given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
> 
> This case is therefore the only realistic chance that we have of getting any real Brexit. The media are falling over themselves to report displacement activity that cannot make any difference. For example, as I write this, they are falling over themselves to report about Nigel Farage and his new Party. The safe fact for the Remain supporting media is that however many MEPs Farage's Party wins it cannot make any difference whatsoever to whether we are in or out of the EU or on what terms! Misdirecting Leave support into that cul-de-sac is therefore useful for Remain.
> 
> *I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success.*


----------



## John-H

Interesting but without merit. The EU unanimously extended the deadline under A50(3) and the UK had previously extended the date in the Withdrawal Bill via statutory instrument. It's also arguable that under A50(1) we can't have left under our "constitutional requirements" as required in A50(1) because we haven't yet passed all the necessary legislation including the WAI (Withdrawal And Implementation) bill that is the keystone bill that brings all the other Brexit legislation into force - repealing the 1972 Act of Union and bringing any new treaty (which we haven't ratified yet) into domestic law.

So not a chance. That's why nobody is reporting it because it has no credibility.


----------



## bobclive22

> Interesting but without merit. The EU unanimously extended the deadline under A50(3) and the UK had previously extended the date in the Withdrawal Bill via statutory instrument. It's also arguable that under A50(1) we can't have left under our "constitutional requirements" as required in A50(1) because we haven't yet passed all the necessary legislation including the WAI (Withdrawal And Implementation) bill that is the keystone bill that brings all the other Brexit legislation into force - repealing the 1972 Act of Union and bringing any new treaty (which we haven't ratified yet) into domestic law.
> 
> So not a chance. That's why nobody is reporting it because it has no credibility.


You sound like a top lawyer John, copy and paste, yes.

Germany not doing so well John.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKCN1QI3SJ

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/germa ... ion-2019-1


----------



## John-H

No, I just do research of the legal facts Bob. I leave the cut and paste to Sandy Shaw :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> No, I just do research of the legal facts Bob. I leave the cut and paste to Sandy Shaw :wink:


Well John it all depends on what legal facts you have researched, I keep saying to you, consider both sides of the argument. Respected former appeal judge Sir Richard Aikens has said the way in which the extension was organised is '*highly unsatisfactory' and 'arguably illegal'*.we will see.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... court.html


----------



## John-H

I see Nigel Farage has refused to publish his Brexit party manifesto until AFTER the EU elections. Not only doesn't he have any more policies obviously but the one he does have would remove him from the role he's applying for. It's about time he disappeared up the backside of his own logic in a puff of stale cigarette smoke :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> I see Nigel Farage has refused to publish his Brexit party manifesto until AFTER the EU elections.


It`s called keeping your powder dry, or enemies guessing.


----------



## leopard

Nigel for PM ! Rothmans and pint come part of the package...


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> I see Nigel Farage has refused to publish his Brexit party manifesto until AFTER the EU elections.
> 
> 
> 
> It`s called keeping your powder dry, or enemies guessing.
Click to expand...

"Vote for me" - I'm not telling you what I'm going to do and can't even promise I've even thought about it.

How stupid does he presume people are?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Nigel Farage has refused to publish his Brexit party manifesto until AFTER the EU elections.
> 
> 
> 
> It`s called keeping your powder dry, or enemies guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Vote for me" - I'm not telling you what I'm going to do and can't even promise I've even thought about it.
> 
> How stupid does he presume people are?
Click to expand...

It's a single issue party, they probably haven't got one. But that is no worse than doing the opposite of what's on your manifesto


----------



## bobclive22

> "Vote for me" - I'm not telling you what I'm going to do and can't even promise I've even thought about it.
> 
> How stupid does he presume people are?


I presume you voted Tory John, if you are going to screw your own voters tell them after they have voted not before, :lol: :lol: :lol:, I am still not sure whether this was shear stupidity on Mays part or a dastardly plot to f**kup Brexit and destroy the Tory party in one go.

*Tory manifesto*: more elderly people will have to pay for own social care,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ocial-care


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> "Vote for me" - I'm not telling you what I'm going to do and can't even promise I've even thought about it.
> 
> How stupid does he presume people are?


It's not rocket science.
The Brexit Party is about Leaving the EU and the Single Market and Customs Union...as voted for in the referendum.
It's about honouring the democratic vote and helping to get the job done.
Everyone knows this without a manifesto. It's a very fast moving situation and new people are coming in all the time. My guess is that they will produce a manifesto when the date of the general election is announced.
The thing I like about Farage is he never gives up. The thing I dislike about him is his insistence on leading/creating one purpose parties.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Vote for me" - I'm not telling you what I'm going to do and can't even promise I've even thought about it.
> 
> How stupid does he presume people are?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

It's not but neither does it seem to be widely accepted or understood.



Stiff said:


> The Brexit Party is about Leaving the EU and the Single Market and Customs Union...as voted for in the referendum.


That's a case in point. The customs union did not feature in the run up to the 2016 referendum and there were Brexiteers claiming we'd have access to the single market. It was a confused situation at best so you can't claim with any certainty or understanding what people were voting for regarding those two things. Leaving or remaining in the EU as a vague concept is all you can claim as to what people generally understood at the time as it's only now that we've got to grips with what it actually means. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?



Stiff said:


> It's about honouring the democratic vote and helping to get the job done.


But it wasn't a democratic vote. Electoral law regarding campaign funding - rules ensuring a fair and level playing field for the parties - were criminally broken to such a significant extent that had the referendum been legally binding the result would have been declared void by the courts. You can't possibly justify it as a valid democratic vote because, as has been accepted in the court of appeal, it wasn't.



Stiff said:


> Everyone knows this without a manifesto. It's a very fast moving situation and new people are coming in all the time. My guess is that they will produce a manifesto when the date of the general election is announced.


What's the general election got to do with a manifesto for the EU elections? Basically he hasn't got any policies except one. Having "leaving the EU" as your only policy should rule out standing in the EU elections if you had any honour as you have nothing to contribute to the EU and our part in it. That should only be a policy for a general election.

It's like claiming you are against Catholicism and all the church stands for and then applying to become a priest.

He's just using the EU elections as a protest vote and to gain funding from the EU for his party for completely disingenuous reasons. His former party UKIP didn't have any MPs in the UK parliament did they? Their attendance in the EU parliament was extremely poor and they did nothing constructive. Farage only used it to grandstand and claim expenses. He's a disgrace and a national embarrassment.



Stiff said:


> The thing I like about Farage is he never gives up. The thing I dislike about him is his insistence on leading/creating one purpose parties.


He's got rich backers in the US that don't want him to give up because they stand to gain a lot from Brexit through de-regulation, the sale of the NHS and abandonment of environmental and employment regulations guaranteed by the EU which they see as an obstacle. They have been lobbying for it for years. The connections between Farage, Bannon, Mercer and Trump are well known. The funding provided by the US Atlas group and Cato Institute significantly increased during the 2016 referendum in its lobbying around Brexit pushing climate change denial on behalf of the interests of the fossil fuel industry and deregulation. You can see a summary of many of these connections *here*.

Farage creates division and encourages the worst to come out in people. Look at that inflammatory poster campaign he proudly launched showing a line of refugees then claiming that Turkey were going to send millions over - all of it false and inflammatory, sewing the seeds of division and racism - a fascist tactic. We even had an MP murdered due to the raising of tensions in society for which Farage has played a large part.

Look at how he's left UKIP. He started it, attracted a lot of unsavoury fascist and racist characters to the extent that even he had to leave because the party had become too toxic to be associated with - That's why he's started a new party. That's what he and his poisonous rhetoric does to parties he creates and the society he interacts with.


----------



## badger64

Stiff said:


> The Brexit Party is about Leaving the EU and the Single Market and Customs Union...as voted for in the referendum.


That's a case in point. The customs union did not feature in the run up to the 2016 referendum and there were Brexiteers claiming we'd have access to the single market. It was a confused situation at best so you can't claim with any certainty or understanding what people were voting for regarding those two things. Leaving or remaining in the EU as a vague concept is all you can claim as to what people generally understood at the time as it's only now that we've got to grips with what it actually means. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

it did, and it was made quite clear by the PM at the time.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yo ... ORM=WRVORC .
john you are obviously still upset that the vote did not go the way you wanted, but it was democratic and despite many 'experts' saying people weren't intelligent enough to know what they voted for, it was all made quite clear to all of us and yes we still want Brexit to happen.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Farage is the best form of UK entertainment since Monty Python. His rants in the EU Parliment are legend -

_"You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk."_


----------



## badger64

SwissJetPilot said:


> Farage is the best form of UK entertainment since Monty Python. His rants in the EU Parliment are legend -
> 
> _"You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk."_


I love his speeches he absolutely says what he believes, unlike most of our politicians.


----------



## Stiff

The Bus. What a masterstroke that was. It really riled up the remainers and they're still going on about it over two and half years later.
Just look at the Brexiteers _positive_ message on that bus. It was basically saying "Look at all this money we're sending to the EU. Let's spend it at home. Let's spend it on say, the NHS." The remainers reaction to that was, "No. Don't spend all that money on the NHS, let's keep handing it over Brussels, let's improve the roads in Poland, let's install new sewers in Bulgaria."
They could've put anything on the side of that bus. Trouble was they'd have needed an entire fleet of buses. 'Let' spend the money on education. Let's spend it on the Police' etc The thing is, the remainers couldn't have a bus with "Let's keep sending it to Europe".
It was nice to see that the Chancellor in the budget honour the bus aspiration, by increasing NHS spending by £350 million a week for the years 2018/2024. Obviously we're not crashing out with Brexit were cashing in. We're paying £350 million and still have more on top. 
But let's also acknowledge that the UK economy has continued to grow every single quarter since the vote to leave. The experts / the remainers told us the economy was meant to decline by minus -8% when in fact its grown by 4.6% 
The experts got it wrong by a staggering 12.6%. Along with many other things in their fear mongery.


----------



## John-H

Well you are all very sad if you genuinely think Farage is good.

Cameron may have said one thing but Brexiteers were saying that was scare mongering and we could easily get "the exact same benefits" - you guys have short and selective memories :lol:

You can't even tell me what the advantage of leaving the EU is? All you seem to say now is we must do it. You don't seem to have a reason.


----------



## badger64

John-H said:


> Well you are all very sad if you genuinely think Farage is good.
> 
> Cameron may have said one thing but Brexiteers were saying that was scare mongering and we could easily get "the exact same benefits" - you guys have short and selective memories :lol:
> 
> You can't even tell me what the advantage of leaving the EU is? All you seem to say now is we must do it. You don't seem to have a reason.


what does it matter weather or not you can see any advantage in leaving or not? the vote didn't include a clause to explain your reasons. it asked 'do you want to remain or do you want to leave the eu' the democratic result is written in history and must be upheld, what part do remoaners not get?


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are all very sad if you genuinely think Farage is good.
> 
> Cameron may have said one thing but Brexiteers were saying that was scare mongering and we could easily get "the exact same benefits" - you guys have short and selective memories :lol:
> 
> You can't even tell me what the advantage of leaving the EU is? All you seem to say now is we must do it. You don't seem to have a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> what does it matter weather or not you can see any advantage in leaving or not? the vote didn't include a clause to explain your reasons. it asked 'do you want to remain or do you want to leave the eu' the democratic result is written in history and must be upheld, what part do remoaners not get?
Click to expand...

So you don't know why you voted the way you did? Classic :lol:

And you keep ignoring the FACT that the vote was not held to a legally democratic standard and has NO legal validity.

Which part of the word "cheat" are you having difficulty with?


----------



## badger64

John-H said:


> badger64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are all very sad if you genuinely think Farage is good.
> 
> Cameron may have said one thing but Brexiteers were saying that was scare mongering and we could easily get "the exact same benefits" - you guys have short and selective memories :lol:
> 
> You can't even tell me what the advantage of leaving the EU is? All you seem to say now is we must do it. You don't seem to have a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> what does it matter weather or not you can see any advantage in leaving or not? the vote didn't include a clause to explain your reasons. it asked 'do you want to remain or do you want to leave the eu' the democratic result is written in history and must be upheld, what part do remoaners not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know why you voted the way you did? Classic :lol:
> 
> And you keep ignoring the FACT that the vote was not held to a legally democratic standard and has NO legal validity.
> 
> Which part of the word "cheat" are you having difficulty with?
Click to expand...

firstly i know why i voted for brexit, 2ndly it was perfectly legal despite the government being able to spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on the project fear propaganda leaflet, 3rdly it was legal, and article 50 voted in parliament. remoaners through every legal angle trying to find any technicality to block brexit will be unsuccesful.
remoaners hoping a peoples vote with more younger voters since 2016 can overturn a democratic vote, again will fail.
there should not be a 2nd vote ala denmark, france and ireland, but if there was i believe the outcome would be more decisive in favour of brexit.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

A reason to leave the EU? How about being a Sovereign nation where it's own tax paying citizens can determination what they want for themselves and their children without secretly elected bureaucratic officials dictating policy. How about taking care of your own first, before worrying about everyone else?

Jean Monnet -
_"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."_

Angela Merkel -
_"Today, nation states should, I would say must - be prepared to give up their sovereignty."_

TheZMan - (http://thezman.com/wordpress/)
_"What we have today is rule by a surprisingly small number of people. At the top is the global pirate class that owns the media, technology and finance. Under them are the lesser elites that rule over the academy, mass media, politics and foreign policy. This is the New Class, an elite within the bureaucracy that has a free hand in running the state, as long as they don't anger their paymasters. At most there are a few thousand people controlling a few million person bureaucracy that runs the global empire."_


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> firstly i know why i voted for brexit, 2ndly it was perfectly legal despite the government being able to spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on the project fear propaganda leaflet, 3rdly it was legal, and article 50 voted in parliament. remoaners through every legal angle trying to find any technicality to block brexit will be unsuccesful.
> remoaners hoping a peoples vote with more younger voters since 2016 can overturn a democratic vote, again will fail.
> there should not be a 2nd vote ala denmark, france and ireland, but if there was i believe the outcome would be more decisive in favour of brexit.


You just explained it didn't matter why people voted the way they did because it wasn't defined in the ballot paper. So you guessed what you were voting for? Another classic :lol:

You also seem to be confused about what's legal as regards electoral spending. Firstly, the government leaflet to which you refer was published for information prior to the start of the defined campaign period in which spending limited are applied so it doesn't count. Heavens, if you are going to include all of time then I call into evidence the years of propaganda spouted in the right wing press about bent bananas and other such rubbish.

Talking sense, there is a defined campaign period in which the level playing field is set during an election or referendum. Vote Leave broke the law to a criminal extent during that period and have been referred to the police. Leave.EU and Aaron Banks are also under police investigation for the biggest political donation in history with record fines and multiple breaches of electoral law and fined to the maximum amount by the ICO for data offences in connection with abuse of Eldon insurance client data with the placement of social media advertising immediately prior to the referendum vote.

You should read this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... s-44856992

Now do you see how Vote Leave and Leave.EU cheated and how the vote was therefore undemocratic and illegally run - but - that it has no legal standing so cannot be overturned in the courts?

Why are you supporting cheats?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> A reason to leave the EU? How about being a Sovereign nation ... Bla bla


Sorry, I've dealt with that already. I refer you to my previous answer.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Really...?? National sovereignty to you is just blah, blah, blah. Awesome.

So as I understand what you've said, the referendum is not law, it's basically just a public opinion poll. And? So what? If that's the case, even if they had a legal referendum and another vote, the outcome is still nothing more than public opinion.

In the same way, the current "remain" petition is not legally binding either, so what difference does it make? Whether referendum or petition, they're both just opinion polls with different names. The bottom line here is the whole discussion about the referendum and even the petition is a totally moot point. No one in government is legally bound to act, one way or another, on the outcome of a referendum or a petition. Period.

From what I have read, _"The UK government has a power known as the Royal Prerogative, which allows it to do certain things including deploying armed forces, granting honours and altering international treaties without consulting Parliament (1)."_

So unless it states somewhere that only Parliament can enact Article 50, Brexit has been legally initiated in accordance to UK and EU law - not public opinion. And given the fact that the EU has accepted the UK's enactment of Article 50 and has not challenged the legality of the enactment, it all seems pretty legit to me.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative


----------



## badger64

John-H said:


> badger64 said:
> 
> 
> 
> firstly i know why i voted for brexit, 2ndly it was perfectly legal despite the government being able to spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on the project fear propaganda leaflet, 3rdly it was legal, and article 50 voted in parliament. remoaners through every legal angle trying to find any technicality to block brexit will be unsuccesful.
> remoaners hoping a peoples vote with more younger voters since 2016 can overturn a democratic vote, again will fail.
> there should not be a 2nd vote ala denmark, france and ireland, but if there was i believe the outcome would be more decisive in favour of brexit.
Click to expand...

You just explained it didn't matter why people voted the way they did because it wasn't defined in the ballot paper. So you guessed what you were voting for? Another classic :lol: 
the voting public all had differing reasons why the wanted out of the eussr but it didn't matter because they were not required to explain to remoaners why, just remain or leave and guess what, the majority of the voting public who cared enought to vote won.
in a general election you can vote for whatever candidate/party you like if your preferred candidate does not get elected you can't for a second vote because YOU don't like the policies of the winning candidate, you suck it up and accept your mp has been democratically voted in. what part of democracy are you struggling to get your head round, oh i know you want the eu version where there will be a 2nd/3rd vote until you get the result you want.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> Really...?? National sovereignty to you is just blah, blah, blah. Awesome.
> 
> So as I understand what you've said, the referendum is not law, it's basically just a public opinion poll. And? So what? If that's the case, even if they had a legal referendum and another vote, the outcome is still nothing more than public opinion.
> 
> In the same way, the current "remain" petition is not legally binding either, so what difference does it make? Whether referendum or petition, they're both just opinion polls with different names. The bottom line here is the whole discussion about the referendum and even the petition is a totally moot point. No one in government is legally bound to act, one way or another, on the outcome of a referendum or a petition. Period.
> 
> From what I have read, _"The UK government has a power known as the Royal Prerogative, which allows it to do certain things including deploying armed forces, granting honours and altering international treaties without consulting Parliament (1)."_
> 
> So unless it states somewhere that only Parliament can enact Article 50, Brexit has been legally initiated in accordance to UK and EU law - not public opinion. And given the fact that the EU has accepted the UK's enactment of Article 50 and has not challenged the legality of the enactment, it all seems pretty legit to me.
> 
> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative


Parliament is sovereign not the executive.

The discussion I referred you to was one we had around the nature of the element of shared sovereignty we have with the EU and our part governance of it in equal share with other member states and commitment to its treaty values and aims - all of which is mutually beneficial. Also to consider the element of sovereignty we would give away in and trade deal with the USA for example by having to change our laws to accept their chlorinated chicken or hormone beef, GM food, opening up our NHS to ownership by US insurance companies, deregulation of environmental and employment protection and accepting the supremacy of US courts to arbitrare any dispute or infringement of that trade treaty.

Which loss of sovereignty would you rather have - the shared, mutually beneficial one with the EU or a one sided and permanently damaging legal stitch up we'd get with the US?

Once thing is for sure - if you want to trade you have to accept some loss or sharing of sovereignty.

Your point about referenda and petitions etc having no legal force is correct.

It is possible for a referendum act of parliament to legally bind parliament to the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was legally binding on this way because parliament decided to bind itself. Normally referenda are advisory and indeed just a glorified snap shot opinion poll. Parliament is sovereign and any decision made on the result is a political one and only then subsequently given legal force if parliament so decides.

Parliament is sovereign and the executive is not. The Royal prerogative was the subject of the Gina Miller case in the High and Supreme Court 2017 with citations of constitutional law going back to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Case of Proclamations 1610.

The court upheld that parliament was sovereign and the executive could not trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty by use of the Royal prerogative on the international stage because it would take away the rights of citizens in domestic law as given by parliament under the 1972 EEC Act of Union.

That's why parliament passed the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017 to give the Prime Minister permission to make that decision.

So, the decision, legally, to trigger Article 50 was entirely that of the Prime Minister's but only because our sovereign parliament allowed it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_" Once thing is for sure - if you want to trade you have to accept some loss or sharing of sovereignty." _

Totally wrong! The US hasn't given up one iota of sovereignty to anyone and can trade with whomever they want without asking permission of some external political body like the EU. And I'm pretty sure the Chinese would also disagree with this.


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> ...
> the voting public all had differing reasons why the wanted out of the eussr but it didn't matter because they were not required to explain to remoaners why, just remain or leave and guess what, the majority of the voting public who cared enought to vote won.
> in a general election you can vote for whatever candidate/party you like if your preferred candidate does not get elected you can't for a second vote because YOU don't like the policies of the winning candidate, you suck it up and accept your mp has been democratically voted in. what part of democracy are you struggling to get your head round, oh i know you want the eu version where there will be a 2nd/3rd vote until you get the result you want.


I think you are struggling with the concept of democracy. I keep pointing pout to you that the vote was not held to a democratic standard and you keep ignoring this FACT.

I entirely disagree that individual interpretations of what "leave" means are irrelevant. Some interpretation needs to be decided on where we end up in order for "leave" to happen and that lack of clarity and legal difficulty regarding the breaking of international treaties and making the nation poorer is entirely why we are in this impasse. Failure to comprehend this and insist on an over simplified viewpoint as a solution is a failure to accept reality.

There is no need for multiple referenda on the same question as you imply. The question is now a different one because we now have a better idea of what "leave" means and how damaging it will be. Democracy didn't end in 2016. It will be a failure of democracy not to give the public a carry on this reality.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> _" Once thing is for sure - if you want to trade you have to accept some loss or sharing of sovereignty." _
> 
> Totally wrong! The US hasn't given up one iota of sovereignty to anyone and can trade with whomever they want without asking permission of some external political body like the EU. And I'm pretty sure the Chinese would also disagree with this.


Thanks for making that point. When I said "if *you* want to trade" the "you" was referring to the UK. The USA and China are much bigger and as you point out they call the shots in any bilateral trade agreement with the UK - so the UK will lose sovereignty in any such relationship as I pointed out.

If we remain in the EU then we have a much bigger clout as the biggest market trading block and will not be at such disadvantage. That's why it's best to remain in the EU.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

John, John, John...you and your quaint idea of "democracy". None of us live in a democracy, even in the good old US of A. We live in a Republic. Democracy is so, Athenian. :wink:

Well, as long as the Brits are happy paying more and more taxes to support every other EU member, that's great. I was just in Poland a few weeks ago and I have to say they have some really nice, brand new factories over there. It was set up with brand new, state-of-the art CNC machines and robotic assembly lines. Their engineering team was not shy about telling us it was courtesy of EU funding and subsidies.

Which, IHMO, is unfortunate for the UK. I've been working with a number of UK machine shops and engineering companies over the past five or six years which quite literally look like something you would have found in Poland 50-years ago.

On the upside, I guess the Poles will be heading home for better jobs and working conditions than they're currently have in the UK. So that will make some people happy.


----------



## John-H

The EU invests about £5 billion per year in the UK for regional development. This is unlikely to be replicated by a poorer government if we leave the EU.

Check to see where funding has been placed by postcode on this UK map here:

https://www.myeu.uk/

What your EU does for you - all states:

https://what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/portal


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Interesting list of EU projects. No seriously, I was not aware of the scope of these projects and funding.

To bad they're just dribs and drabs; funding 23-k here, or 27-k there or 146-k somewhere else is chump change in today's economy. Show me a dozen new multi-million dollar projects the UE has funded which has resulted in the creation of hundreds of good paying jobs for Brits and at the same time, produces sales revenue for future investment and taxes for the local economy.

The fact is the UK, French and German economies are not exactly solid right now and the UK has lost thousands of skilled workers due retirement, redundancy and plant closures. Like the old Bruce Springstein song My Hometown _"Those jobs are going boys, and they ain't coming back!"_ Germany industries (like Audi and the other major industries) are pushing for more and more for suppliers in East Block and other LCCs (Low Cost Countries).

Don't be fooled by politicians saying the European economy is sound because production is up. So much has been automated, that not only have jobs been lost, they will never be replaced. And shifting jobs from the UK, Germany and Switzerland, where costs are higher than anywhere else in Europe, to LCC members is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Eventually, the music will be turned off, and someone's going to end up without a chair. If you think the Germans will help members who are in financial trouble, just ask the Greeks how that worked out for them.

Back to the list of EU funding on that map you provided (from random clicks) -

_£14,060 - Wanborough Primary School - The leadership of the school is committed to incorporating European and International culture, language and pedagogy into our curriculum and school life._ UK schools don't already teach that as part of History and Social studies?

_£135,864 - The EU provided Rvh Technology Ltd with £135,864 for the possibility to create an augmented reality vision._ "For the possibility"...??? Go look at their website. It's nothing more than a crowd funding project with no viable product.

_£29,187 - To Bosch Lawn and Garden Ltd_. Oh I'm sure Bosh needed that money!

_£191,074 - The EU provided Intervision Global Ltd with £191,074 to fund 18% of the "CUPID" research project_. Basically these guys figure out how prevent corrosion. Oh right. Like no one else on the planet has thought about that? Again, check their website, no products, nothing more than a website with a "Contact us" link.

The only person who's benefiting from this sort of "EU funding" project nonsense is some EU bureaucrat so they can justify their own existence.


----------



## John-H

Well actually it's a means of redistribution of wealth - an effort to support depressed areas which the rich areas pay for. A bit like Robin Hood. Gets my vote


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Problem with Robin Hood is he took money from rich people and gave it to the poor so the poor could buy bread. And guess what, after that poor man bought bread, he was still poor and hungry the next day.

When discussing redistribution of wealth, people always forget to consider where did the money handed out by the EU came from in the first place? Like all governments, the EU only has three sources of money; raise taxes, borrow from local banks, or borrow from abroad.

If the EU raised the money in taxes, then the people paying the taxes have less money to spend in the exact amount that is going to be handed out. Somebody's spending power was reduced by the exact amount that somebody else receives it. The person paying the taxes will now spend (or invest) less and that missing spending cancels out the economic boost from the eventual recipient. And if these EU handouts were from loans, how do you think they'll repay them? From additional taxes, of course!

Redistributing money from richer to poorer countries does not create economic growth. It's the old Broken Window fallacy where townspeople rejoice at the economic boost to be gained when a shopkeeper spends money to replace a broken window. What they miss is the fact that shopkeeper could have invested that money in something else; e.g. new machines, new technology, new personnel, etc. In reality, by simply buying a new piece of glass, the economy is unchanged.

These EU redistribution programs are exactly the reason why Poland is building brand new factories, buying state-of-the art machines and hiring new employees - while the UK is not. As the saying goes "You can't dance at two weddings."

The EU believes in redistributing wealth, which is not the same as investing it to grow the economy and create jobs. They are more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it. They're only interested in redistributing money rather than spreading opportunity. Spending is not the same as investing. Distribution is not the same as production. Unfortunately, the EU doesn't seem to understand these basic facts.

Now, if the EU and member countries want to redistribute the wealth from corporate giants like Amazon, Google or others who earn billions and pay nearly nothing in taxes, then we'd have a very different discussion about wealth distribution.


----------



## John-H

The EU are involved in the ability to tax the big corporations like Google and FaceBook etc and take them to task and impose massive fines for data breaches with GDPR and anti-competitive practices, enforcement of workers rights and environmental protections etc.

Without the clout of the EU that would all be far less likely to happen. That's why the right wing lobby groups have driven Brexit because rich backers and US corporations don't want to pay taxes, don't want to be regulated and want to be able to exploit workers and want to avoid having to look after the environment and reduce their carbon footprint. That's why they are encouraging climate change denial to undermine the protective regulations imposed by the EU which they will ensure are removed if Brexit goes ahead..

As for your extended musings about Robin Hood and the sources of taxation - if the UK leaves the EU we'll be much poorer with a 5% to 10% loss of GDP so the Treasury tax take will be lower, with the government not being able to replace the £5 billion of EU regional funding because there will simply be no source for the money.

As for extra funding for the NHS you can forget that in such circumstances as it will be sold off to US insurance corporations as part of a US trade deal - this has already been discussed and proposed by Liam Fox. We know this because the US Cato Institute accidentally published the proposals on line:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... e-deal-nhs


----------



## SwissJetPilot

If the UK abandons the NHS for a US based HMO (Health Management Organization) model, you guys are seriously screwed! I've heard that Germany is already implementing a US based health care system and having had it when I lived in the US, it will not end well for the Europeans. If the lack of care isn't bad enough, the astronomical cost alone will put people off.

The Germans actually had a pretty good system which was very affordable. Under their old system, health care providers (hospitals and clinics) were only allowed to make around 3% profits and there were very strict rules for liability and doctors salaries were reasonable. Of course their health care insurance system for workers goes back over 130-years thanks to Bismark. So they've had a long time to get it right.

In the US, hospitals can charge whatever they want. And with the litigation issue of patients routinely suing their doctors when things go wrong, prices are through the roof. I personally know a neurosurgeon who makes $500,000 a year in salary and pays out around 40% of that just for malpractice insurance. Doctors pass along their malpractice insurance rates to the hospitals, who in turn, pass that along to the patients. Combine that with pharma prices that are out of touch with reality, it's why most Americans can't afford decent health care.

Then, to add insult to injury, companies who don't want to contribute to their workers health care only offer it to full time (40-hours per week) employees. That's why so many unskilled positions are only part-time (< 40 hours). It's a win-win for corporations, lose-lost for individuals and families.


----------



## cheechy

This thread has become pointless. As I've already mentioned people's views (certainly on here) have not changed and most have found ways to enforce the way they voted not to change their mind.


----------



## John-H

Well we seem to have discovered what's behind Brexit and who is driving it. People can either take note or ignore this.

The thread is great for me as it's a time line of news and opinion where I can always find things 

It's also an entertaining debate and useful to develop arguments which can be put to others who perhaps are less decided. I'm sure lots of people also read and don't post :wink:


----------



## bobclive22

> Without the clout of the EU that would all be far less likely to happen. That's why the right wing lobby groups have driven Brexit because rich backers and US corporations don't want to pay taxes, don't want to be regulated and want to be able to exploit workers and want to avoid having to look after the environment and reduce their carbon footprint. That's why they are encouraging climate change denial to undermine the protective regulations imposed by the EU which they will ensure are removed if Brexit goes ahead..


John, Outside of climate models I believe no one has actually been harmed by CO2, climate is always changing so what`s to deny.

Hottest year in US is 1934, the US has the best weather station coverage in the world yet does not appear to have warmed for over 85 years, odd that, by the way the original link below no longer exists.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+ ... le8383.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20170828020 ... le8383.htm

Nasa admits mistake and reinstates 1934 as hottest year,

I agree with you that this simple procedure creates an artificial step if some new corrections were applied to the newest data, rather than bringing the older data in sync with the latest measurements - as I naively assumed. Comparing the 1999 data in both data sets showed that in about half the cases where the 1999 data were changed, the GHCN data were higher than the USHCN data and in the other half it was the other way round with the plus-corrections slightly outweighing the minus-corrections.

Although trying to eliminate those steps should have little impact on the US temperature trend (much less the global trend), it seems a good idea to do so and I'd like to thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention.

The press don`t do trends they do HOTTEST temperatures mainly to fool the gullible.

https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/qua ... y2k-error/

Hottest year in US is 1934, the US has the best weather station coverage in the world and yet does appear to have warmed for over 85 years, then after 1998 temps stood still for 18 years even with all the fiddling.



> Rich cororations don`t want to pay taxes,


 err, Ireland and Google don`t count then.

*want to be able to exploit workers *, zero rate contracts have been banned in the EU then.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## badger64

if the tories and labour don't cop out and agree a soft/no Brexit and the eu elections go ahead, then the European elections will effectively represent a free peoples vote, the options being a Brexit party or chuka's anti Brexit party, can't imagine anyone voting for the traditional parties for this.


----------



## Stiff




----------



## ashfinlayson

:lol:


----------



## John-H




----------



## bobclive22

Despite the apparent reluctance of the mainstream media to engage with Brexit candidates in a way that reflects their anticipated performance in Thursday's vote, the Brexit Party has still managed to come from nowhere to poll first place in just five weeks since its founding.

This is down in part to ordinary people being able to see past news bias and make their own mind up, said fellow Brexit Party candidate Christina Jordan.

The former NHS nurse said new media online allowed politically engaged people to bypass the legacy media, telling the rally: "&#8230;they actually do a good job for us, because every time there's a panel with five Remainers and one Brexiteer, or all Remainers and no Brexiteers on social media - where the Brexit Party is very successful - people are talking about it in their hundreds and thousands.

"Sometimes it actually works in our favour when the media tried to just promote one view. People aren't stupid - we aren't stupid! We can see what's going on."

And where does your information come from John. [smiley=dunce2.gif]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/0 ... in-denial/


----------



## A3DFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegp ... e=youtu.be


----------



## bobclive22

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegp ... e=youtu.be


It`s a political video for remain, it`s like *preaching to the choir*, I see it is has an adverse reference to president Trump, why.

As I have said repeatedly, do some actual research similar to this below, this is now under investigation, some very high profile left wing players are destined to go down.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-roo ... bruce-ohr/

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00 ... -SD001.pdf


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> ... I see it is has an adverse reference to president Trump, why. ...


Probably because there's nothing good to say :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> Probably because there's nothing good to say :roll:


Where did you get that information from John, christopher steele by any chance, what did you say, Brexiteers are thick, :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments


----------



## John-H




----------



## ashfinlayson

Labour, Conservatives, SNP, Plaid Cymru and UKIPs websites all take PayPal for anonymous donations. The Libdems also do through their "unofficial website" libdemvoice.org

I do believe that's the pot calling the kettle a racist.


----------



## John-H

Apparently the other parties insist on other corroborating information during registration when becoming a member and also when making a donation i.e. name and address so they can be checked against the electoral roll. Only UKIP and the Brexit party accept anonymous donations with the only identification being an email address. This allows donations to be foreign and split across different emails from the same source. Wherever and whosoever sent it.

Mr Farage's party doesn't have members because it's a limited company and all the money goes to Mr Farage.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> Apparently the other parties insist on other corroborating information during registration when becoming a member and also when making a donation i.e. name and address so they can be checked against the electoral roll. Only UKIP and the Brexit party accept anonymous donations with the only identification being an email address. This allows donations to be foreign and split across different emails from the same source. Wherever and whosoever sent it.
> 
> Mr Farage's party doesn't have members because it's a limited company and all the money goes to Mr Farage.


Sorry John but you're talking utter cobblers, paypal pass on the email address, and physical address of donors. But even if you were right, libdemvoice have the exact same paypal setup as the brexit party. The lib dem official website, labour, tories, snp and green websites all accept payments from outside the uk.

This is nothing more than a few old figure heads spouting rubbish because Farage is doing well in the polls.


----------



## John-H

I'm sorry to correct you again Ash but I suggest you listen carefully to this report on the Today programme from this very morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005702

From about 24 minutes to 8 am 1:36:10 in.

Also as you well know a gift payment does not come with a delivery address from PayPal. All the other parties ask for physical addresses to confirm with electoral roll. Please do your research properly instead of accusing me of talking cobblers.


----------



## John-H

BBC News - British Steel to enter insolvency endangering 5,000 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48365241


----------



## cheechy

John-H said:


> BBC News - British Steel to enter insolvency endangering 5,000 jobs
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48365241


Really worrying for those affected.

They have mentioned the affect of import prices increasing due to poor exchange rate as a major factor contributing but I'm also guessing the business model must have been close to the wire for this to have had such an impact.

Sounds like raw material imports weren't offset by foreign export - ie sell to domestic market only


----------



## John-H

One of the sources - New Video Shows Nigel Farage Courting Fringe Right-Wing Figures At A Private Tea Party Hosted At The Ritz
Farage was a guest at the event alongside people who have praised Putin and spread far-right memes. The Brexit Party leader asked them for money and "all the help we can get".

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/fa ... -tea-party


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> I'm sorry to correct you again Ash but I suggest you listen carefully to this report on the Today programme from this very morning:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005702
> 
> From about 24 minutes to 8 am 1:36:10 in.
> 
> Also as you well know a gift payment does not come with a delivery address from PayPal. All the other parties ask for physical addresses to confirm with electoral roll. Please do your research properly instead of accusing me of talking cobblers.


For the record John, I'm a software engineer and have extensive experience in integrating third-parties with paypal, including donations for charity websites, so I do have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.

When you receive a payment through PayPal regardless of whether it's a donation or a transfer or a reverse payment, you can see the physical address for the card or account that was used to make the payment, including name address, url and telephone of the person of organisation via a _more info_ button in the transaction details. Again, lib dems accept donations in the same way from their unofficial website. Parties that collect payments through other portals directly on their website collect the address because they _have to_ collect the card address in order to take the payment for card validation. If a donor is not logged in to paypal, they have to input their address while making the payment. They only time a donor does't have to enter their address is if they're already logged in to paypal, in which case their address is already on file. Also worth mentioning that if for any reason the address of the donor is not visible (which is never the case), paypal are obliged to hand the data over to the payee on request. However checking payment addresses against the electoral role is a separate process that the electoral commission should be (and no doubt are) looking into.


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - British Steel to enter insolvency endangering 5,000 jobs
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48365241
> 
> 
> 
> Really worrying for those affected.
> 
> They have mentioned the affect of import prices increasing due to poor exchange rate as a major factor contributing but I'm also guessing the business model must have been close to the wire for this to have had such an impact.
> 
> Sounds like raw material imports weren't offset by foreign export - ie sell to domestic market only
Click to expand...

The business model has been struggling for years because the Chinese have been dumping steel expensive import prices due to a weaker pound also result in cheaper exports so it can only really be down to fewer orders.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - British Steel to enter insolvency endangering 5,000 jobs
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48365241
> 
> 
> 
> Really worrying for those affected.
> 
> They have mentioned the affect of import prices increasing due to poor exchange rate as a major factor contributing but I'm also guessing the business model must have been close to the wire for this to have had such an impact.
> 
> Sounds like raw material imports weren't offset by foreign export - ie sell to domestic market only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The business model has been struggling for years because the Chinese have been dumping steel expensive import prices due to a weaker pound also result in cheaper exports so it can only really be down to fewer orders.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you agree with a no deal when the tories elect a new leader (I fully expect this approach given where this is all heading) my real concern is seeing this position amplified by generous no tariff import regime.

It could seriously destroy our ability to sell even domestically.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to correct you again Ash but I suggest you listen carefully to this report on the Today programme from this very morning:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005702
> 
> From about 24 minutes to 8 am 1:36:10 in.
> 
> Also as you well know a gift payment does not come with a delivery address from PayPal. All the other parties ask for physical addresses to confirm with electoral roll. Please do your research properly instead of accusing me of talking cobblers.
> 
> 
> 
> For the record John, I'm a software engineer and have extensive experience in integrating third-parties with paypal, including donations for charity websites, so I do have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.
> 
> When you receive a payment through PayPal regardless of whether it's a donation or a transfer or a reverse payment, you can see the physical address for the card or account that was used to make the payment, including name address, url and telephone of the person of organisation via a _more info_ button in the transaction details. Again, lib dems accept donations in the same way from their unofficial website. Parties that collect payments through other portals directly on their website collect the address because they _have to_ collect the card address in order to take the payment for card validation. If a donor is not logged in to paypal, they have to input their address while making the payment. They only time a donor does't have to enter their address is if they're already logged in to paypal, in which case their address is already on file. Also worth mentioning that if for any reason the address of the donor is not visible (which is never the case), paypal are obliged to hand the data over to the payee on request. However checking payment addresses against the electoral role is a separate process that the electoral commission should be (and no doubt are) looking into.
Click to expand...

Did you listen to the report?

I too deal with PayPal for this site. I know what I'm talking about too.

The point made was that all the other parties including other organisations like People's Vote, Best for Britain etc require the (separate to PayPal) filling in of name and address. Sure you can raise an issue with PayPal to investigate a payment with no physical address but it's hassle and Farage's campaign manager is not doing that. He's just looking at the URL of the email and presuming if it says ".co.uk" or sounds an English name it must be legit. Come on :roll:


----------



## cheechy

Wow just wow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wa...vid-davies-called-a-liar-amid-rise-in-threats

Brexiteer isn't Brexiteery enough and the BBC is so pro remain its incredible :lol:

This is truly scary


----------



## John-H

cheechy said:


> Wow just wow
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wa...vid-davies-called-a-liar-amid-rise-in-threats
> 
> Brexiteer isn't Brexiteery enough and the BBC is so pro remain its incredible :lol:
> 
> This is truly scary


That was quite funny. And sad to hear. That's not the David Davis though.


----------



## silkman

As an outsider to the discussion, I find it remarkable that Farage played so blatantly the "I hate Europe, so I'll get meself reelected to europarl so I can continue pocketing 20k per month until brexit happens" card. And people fell for it.

Well played, Nigel. :lol:

Unrelated to Mr. Farage, we have in Greece some lefties who do their best to get elected to europarl so they can fight [smiley=jester.gif] [smiley=juggle.gif] the system from within. Here's one on his recent trip to France.



> All names, characters, and incidents portrayed herein are fictitious and no identification with actual persons, living or dead is intended.


----------



## Iceblue

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - British Steel to enter insolvency endangering 5,000 jobs
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48365241
> 
> 
> 
> Really worrying for those affected.
> 
> They have mentioned the affect of import prices increasing due to poor exchange rate as a major factor contributing but I'm also guessing the business model must have been close to the wire for this to have had such an impact.
> 
> Sounds like raw material imports weren't offset by foreign export - ie sell to domestic market only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The business model has been struggling for years because the Chinese have been dumping steel expensive import prices due to a weaker pound also result in cheaper exports so it can only really be down to fewer orders.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the high carbon pricing built into British steel to meet overly ambitious emission targets that makes the cost uncompetritive. This is the long term cost of climate change politics - rich countries de-industrialising to countries who have less aggressive or no targets.


----------



## John-H

And the order book drying up because of the threat of tariffs.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The UK's steel collapse has nothing to do with tariffs, or Brexit or even climate change. The US went through the same thing not so long ago. Bethlehem steel, America's second-largest steel producer, is now a tourist attraction. I visited it last year on holiday - interesting, but still sad.

Actually the UK's steel industry's problems have everything to do with the UK being one of the highest cost producers of steel, around 10x what it costs to produce in China. Not to mention China has been dumping cheap steel on the market for years and even mighty Krupp steel in Germany is in trouble. Fact is China can simply produce steel, and everything else, cheaper.

_"China has produced more steel in 2-years than Britain has since 1870". _
- Russell Jones, Llewellyn Consulting, London


----------



## John-H

British Steel's demise has very much to do with Brexit, tariffs and climate change.

There were suddenly no orders from the rest of Europe because of the impending possibility of the EU customers having to pay 25% import tariffs. That doesn't sound like nothing to me.

This is partially due to Trump imposing similar tariffs on imports and the EU moving to protect its domestic producers from the glut of steel on the world market caused by the US move. With the UK potentially outside of the EU, importers within the single market previously buying under single market tariff free trade terms, didn't want to take that risk. So the order book dried up.

This Brexit effect caused a lack of orders and crash flow problem which meant they couldn't pay the carbon tax so applied for a government loan. The continuing situation shouldn't be sustained so now it's in administration with the only hope being nationalisation because of its strategic importance or Brexit being stopped.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Nope. I'm totally not buying the Brexit argument. One only need to read the history of British steel production to know it's been in decline for decades. Or does Brexit somehow affect the present, future and the past now too?

It's a simple fact that steel production in the West had been in decline across the board and is another industry that will continue to contract because of high utility costs, lack of investment in new equipment, high labor costs and the simple fact China can and will undersell the rest of the world to dominate the market.

Just Google any article on British steel. This one is from 2013. Clearly Europe and the US have all been affecte. And believe it or not, Brexit had nothing to do with it.

_"In 1955 the British steel industry was working at 98 percent of capacity. But, over the following years, this declined as a result of its failure to adopt new methods (such as the basic oxygen steel-making process and continuous casting) and increased steel production in other countries. By 1966 just 79 percent of capacity was being utilised.

The following year a large chunk of the British steel industry was renationalised (it had been nationalised for a few years in the early 1950s). In 1970 the new British Steel had a record output of 23.8 million tonnes (4.7 percent of the world total, down from 25 percent in 1929).

But the industry was now being run for political rather than economic ends and massive over-manning and consequent low productivity became endemic. By 1977 output had actually fallen to 20 million tonnes (3 percent of the world total). By 1978 British Steel was operating at just two-thirds capacity. And by 1979, British steel workers were a third less productive than their French competitors and 40 percent less productive than West German steel workers.

In the fiscal year 1978-1979 British Steel lost £309 million. This rose to £545 million the following year, one in which workers struck for six weeks for a 20 percent pay rise. They got it, but my dad, who worked in a steel works in Sheffield at the time, said that by the time they went back to work their foreign customers had gone elsewhere.

In 1980-1981, British Steel lost a staggering £1 billion on turnover of £3 billion, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records. By contrast the output of Britain's small private sector steel industry doubled between 1967 and 1979, from 3 million tonnes to 6 million tonnes.

Between 1967 and 1974 employment in the British steel industry fell from 250,000 to 197,000. And by 1990 it had fallen again by 74 percent to 51,000. But other developed countries also saw drastic declines in employment in their steel industries in the same period. In France, for example, employment fell by 70 percent, while in the United States it fell by 60 percent. Even Germany lost 46 percent of its steel workforce._

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3 ... l_industry


----------



## John-H

Nobody is saying British Steel hasn't been in decline for decades or that cheaper steel comes from China etc. which has caused problems (defended by tariffs).

You however said its current failure had "nothing" to do with Brexit, tariffs or global warming.

That clearly is trying to deny reality as I've explained - all those three elements are relevant. Brexit and its consequences have pushed a vulnerable company into administration. Denying that, like "climate change denial" could be fairly called "Brexit effect denial".


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Sure, I will agree that the uncertainty of Brexit and some recent tariffs are causing some companies to hold off on major investments. But those same issues also existed during the oil crisis and 2008 financial disaster. Now however, those decisions are more about global competition than Brexit.

Just like in the USA, UK manufacturing has suffered from a number of issues; management that was unable or unwilling to adapt to a changing economic factors on a global scale, lack of investment, inadequate training programs for young workers, lower than average productivity, higher fake taxes (like carbon taxes), higher utility costs and of course the external factors of competition due to massive undercuts in cost by China and other low cost countries.

What do all those things have in common? The have nothing to do with Brexit. Just look at UK industries across the board and how they're doing in terms of productivity and employment opportunities -

Fishing - in decline
Mining - in decline
Steel - in decline
Transportation manufacturing - in decline
Ship building - in decline
Farming - in decline
Textiles - in decline

Declining industrial segments and lower than average productivity in the UK has nothing to do with Brexit. 'Remaining' isn't going to suddenly bring all these industries back and provide thousands of new jobs. They're gone! Adios! Bu-Bye! And that same trend is starting to make it's way across Europe too.

So for the sake of argument, let's say the UK does 'Remain'. Where do you think the EU is going to get it's funding to subsidize the UK's declining industries, when Europe is on the exact same path?

And frankly why should it? Why should someone in Portugal subsidize a British tin miner or textile worker?

Despite the arrogance and stupidity of the EU Parliament, they'll eventually learn that sooner or later, borrowing money you can't pay back and creating money out of thin air only works for so long. Just ask anyone in Venezuela how that's been working out for them.


----------



## John-H

My question to you is this. Do you think that Brexit has had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce?


----------



## leopard

Brexit party tops UK poll

Explain that one John :lol:


----------



## John-H

A lot of people believe in unicorns and are willing to shoot their own foot off. They treated it like a re-run of the 2016 referendum.

But it's not first past the post. In fairness you need to look at the overall share between parties supporting a People's Vote and those heading for the cliffs.

Of course the election should have been about electing MEPs who have manifesto policies and want to do a good job in the EU for their region. Not people who just want to cause trouble and don't even want to be there.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Of course the election should have been about electing MEPs who have manifesto policies and want to do a good job in the EU for their region.


That's precisely correct. The Brexit party's manifesto does exactly what it says on the tin, that's to leave the EU and it's showing in the results.
Leave means leave after all.

Now make yourself an Ovaltine, dry your eyes and try and have a good night's sleep. Until tomorrow, Goodnight  :lol:


----------



## John-H

You are not making sense again. They don't want to do a good job in the EU. The Brexit party don't even have a manifesto.

It's a bit like being against the Roman Catholic church and all that Catholicism represents and then applying to be a priest :lol:


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> It's a bit like being against the Roman Catholic church and all that Catholicism represents and then applying to be a priest :lol:


No. It's absolutely _nothing_ like that whatsoever. Sometimes the things you come out with to fervidly defend your views makes me think you have 'Brexit Tourette's'.
Democracy is a real bitch when it doesn't go your way huh? 
I'm off to bed as its all far too embarrassing for the Lab/Con. I can't watch anymore it's a bloodbath.


----------



## John-H

Of course it is just like it. They are against the institution but have stood to become representatives of it. If you can't follow that simile then perhaps it is time for your bed. Really :roll:


----------



## leopard

:lol:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_My question to you is this. Do you think that Brexit has had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce?_

It's the wrong question, John. It's not whether Brexit has a positive or negative effect, it's whether Brexit is even related to British steel's current problems. And the answer is no, it's not.

Brexit is the latest and most convenient excuse for everything wrong with the UK from declining industries, a failing health care system, a lack of social programs, a failing postal system and trains that don't run on time.

The problem is, it's total BS. These issues have nothing to do with Brexit. They were pre-existing problems that pre-date Brexit and even the 2008 financial crisis.

Instead of accepting the fact EU membership is not good for the UK, you might want to listen to the thousands of Brexiters who fear for their jobs, their future and their children's future. They would like to have their industries modernized rather than watching UK factories closed while the EU uses British taxes to develop, and subsidize factories in Poland and Hungary. The UK is paying carbon taxes, while at the same time, the EU has granted Turkey, Poland and Hungary exemptions. So where's the "fair playing field" in that scenario?

You Brits need to take control of your own destiny! Stop allowing foreign bureaucrats, who've never worked an honest day in their life, to dictate unreasonable and fake taxes (like carbon tax) and hand your taxes to other countries.
My question back to you is this - even if you did remain, why would the EU invest billions to create jobs in the UK when the UK is one of the highest cost industrial countries?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> _My question to you is this. Do you think that Brexit has had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce?_
> 
> It's the wrong question, John. .....


So you can't or won't answer the question. That really is avoiding answering the question. It's the question I asked -
it speaks volumes that you won't answer it.

You are I'm afraid burying your head in the sand over this because you don't want to face the reality of cause and effect of the last three years. You don't want to admit even a scintilla of acceptance that Brexit could possibly have a detrimental effect. You keep trying to overwhelm the effect of Brexit with other arguments that British Steel has problems anyway. Well of course it had. But that wasn't my question. Of course the weak are vulnerable to eventual demise but you are arguing that sudden change has no effect which is clearly bumpkum.

It's quite clear that Brexit has caused a major problem for British Steel which has triggered it's demise. I agree that they were not strong to start with but Brexit has clearly pulled away the chair they were sat on.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Brexit has had no effect? It didn't weaken their position further? Are you seriously claiming they were due to fail for the reasons you claim at this point anyway and the timing is a complete coincidence? Really?

Have another go: Do you think that Brexit has had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce?


----------



## barry_m2

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit like being against the Roman Catholic church and all that Catholicism represents and then applying to be a priest :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's absolutely _nothing_ like that whatsoever. Sometimes the things you come out with to fervidly defend your views makes me think you have 'Brexit Tourette's'.
> Democracy is a real bitch when it doesn't go your way huh?
> I'm off to bed as its all far too embarrassing for the Lab/Con. I can't watch anymore it's a bloodbath.
Click to expand...

100% this, Stiff, 100%.


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit like being against the Roman Catholic church and all that Catholicism represents and then applying to be a priest :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's absolutely _nothing_ like that whatsoever. Sometimes the things you come out with to fervidly defend your views makes me think you have 'Brexit Tourette's'.
> Democracy is a real bitch when it doesn't go your way huh?
> I'm off to bed as its all far too embarrassing for the Lab/Con. I can't watch anymore it's a bloodbath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% this, Stiff, 100%.
Click to expand...

Well Stiff was quite wrong and so are you.
_
*simile*
/ˈsɪmɪli/
noun
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid._

i.e. EU is like Church as institution of belief and priest is like MEP as representative of institution.

The irony of course is that a priest generally does believe in the institution and supports it whereas the Brexit MEP does not and their application for the post is entirely negative to the institution.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> :lol:


Firstly, we are all in the same boat so are all losers or winners together. You seem to treat it like football match between two sides. But there were many parties.

With a little more analysis you can understand the result better in terms of "sides".










Parties supporting a People's Vote: Labour, Liberal democrats, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cumru, SNP

Total seats so far: 33
Percentage vote: 54.5%

Parties heading for the cliffs: Brexit, Conservative, UKIP

Total seats so far: 31
Percentage vote: 44.0%

Scotland has yet to declare.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The question is both misleading and irrelevant.

It's like asking "Is radiation good or bad for the body?" Of course radiation is bad. However the right question, in the right context, would be "Are the results of chemotherapy beneficial to a cancer patient?" To which the answer is "Yes, they are beneficial". So sure, you can argue about whether chemo is a brutal and painful treatment, but the point of fact is it is an effective treatment against cancer.

So back to your question; the right question would be "Do you think the effect of the Brexit proceedings have had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce." To that I would say "Yes, the Brexit proceedings have been negative."

No one would deny that three years of the Brexit process have been a brutal and painful process. Most of which I might add has been made intentionally worse, no thanks to the EU and people on the Remain side, who have refused to accept the democratic outcome of a freely voted referendum.

The fact is, as difficult as the Brexit process may be and despite the uncertainty and effects of these proceedings, it doesn't mean the outcome of leaving the EU won't be positive for the UK.

The majority of Brits sees the EU as a cancer they can do without. It's quite apparent they are also willing to suffer some pain to be rid of it in hopes of a positive outcome and brighter future.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> *simile*
> /ˈsɪmɪli/
> noun
> a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid.


_*Brexit Tourette's*
Also called 'Tantrum'_

A comedy illness where the "sufferer" appears to be unable to control brexit-tics (spasms) and utters a variety of noises, coughs and/or swear words when confronted with facts and views that oppose thiers.

These and other symptoms typically appear after June 2016 and the condition occurs in all ethnic groups with males affected 3 to 4 times more often than females. Although the symptoms of BT (often referred to as 'BS') vary from person to person and range from very mild to severe, the majority of cases fall into the mild category with the exception of German car forums . Associated conditions can include attentional problems, impulsiveness and learning disabilities.
Unfortunately, being a neurodevelopmental disorder, there is no known cure and is only likely to get worse over time, often leading to denial and deep resentment of peers.

Reference pics:

https://66.media.tumblr.com/bdc43b45f0a ... 2o_500.gif

https://www.fatherly.com/wp-content/upl ... df724e.gif


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Firstly, we are all in the same boat so are all losers or winners together. You seem to treat it like football match between two sides. But there were many parties.
> 
> With a little more analysis you can understand the result better in terms of "sides".
> 
> Parties supporting a People's Vote: Labour, Liberal democrats, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cumru, SNP
> 
> Total seats so far: 33
> Percentage vote: 54.5%
> 
> Parties heading for the cliffs: Brexit, Conservative, UKIP
> 
> Total seats so far: 31
> Percentage vote: 44.0%
> 
> Scotland has yet to declare.


Just look at the map and see how foolish it is to add up all the parties.


----------



## Stiff

SwissJetPilot said:


> The question is both misleading and irrelevant.
> 
> It's like asking....(_majority removed for space_)


I fear that your intelligent, sensible reply will fall on deaf ears and will yet again be responded with Brexit Tourettes.
_"But, but, but... it's brexits fault because..."_
I can see it coming in 3... 2...


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, we are all in the same boat so are all losers or winners together. You seem to treat it like football match between two sides. But there were many parties.
> 
> With a little more analysis you can understand the result better in terms of "sides".
> 
> Parties supporting a People's Vote: Labour, Liberal democrats, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cumru, SNP
> 
> Total seats so far: 33
> Percentage vote: 54.5%
> 
> Parties heading for the cliffs: Brexit, Conservative, UKIP
> 
> Total seats so far: 31
> Percentage vote: 44.0%
> 
> Scotland has yet to declare.
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at the map and see how foolish it is to add up all the parties.
Click to expand...

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of how voting works in overlooking population density. Adding up votes is how they count the result and it's based on boundaried regions based on population. Using a physical map of traditional counties to try and count like you've done overlooks the fact that they don't use counties. Its like holding your thumb in front of the sun and declaring your thumb is bigger than the sun. You need a sense of perspective :wink:

Here, this is the actual map of regions which looks like this:










Notice that Scotland is one region and so is London. Here's a graphic from the BBC which shows "pro-Brexit" and "anti-Brexit" parties having removed the two main parties:










So the BBC are fools too are they Stiff?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> ...
> 
> So back to your question; the right question would be "Do you think the effect of the Brexit proceedings have had a positive or negative effect on British Steel and its workforce." To that I would say "Yes, the Brexit proceedings have been negative."
> 
> No one would deny that three years of the Brexit process have been a brutal and painful process. ...


Respect for answering







I agreed with your general points of decline of the steel industry.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> So the BBC are fools too are they Stiff?


Comedy gold.
The BBC are *notoriously* biased when it comes to brexit so they'll put whatever spin on this that they can.
The sad truth is that we are no clearer than we were before the vote, and any and all sides can take figures from the results to argue whatever case one wants. (Which has happened continuously throughout this thread and will no doubt continue to)


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the BBC are fools too are they Stiff?
> 
> 
> 
> Comedy gold.
> The BBC are *notoriously* biased when it comes to brexit so they'll put whatever spin on this that they can.
> The sad truth is that we are no clearer than we were before the vote, and any and all sides can take figures from the results to argue whatever case one wants. (Which has happened continuously throughout this thread and will no doubt continue to)
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Looking forward to it  :wink:


----------



## Stiff




----------



## John-H

You still going :lol:

How about this to put things in perspective:

*Brexit Party votes + UKIP votes = 5,794,052*

*Recent online petition to revoke Article 50: 6,084,981 signatures*


----------



## Stiff




----------



## SwissJetPilot

On a more serious note, the reason this whole Brexit thing actually matters has little to do with how it effects UK voters, business or economics, but because Brexit in and of itself, threatens the very core of the European Union's political order.

As I stated before, every British citizen is well aware of the UK's political, economic and industrial failure over the past 30-years which have put the country into the state it's in now. None of which are as a result of the Brexit proceedings.

On one hand, the EU won't tolerate a community that can think for itself and is quick to demonize anyone who stands up against it. And on the other hand, it can't just roll over to the results of freely voted, democratic referendums since the outcome puts an end to policies which, for countries like Greece, have been economically devastating.

That's the real fight we see going on now; between those trying to change the political order and those seeking to defend it and their privileges within it.


----------



## John-H

Yes Brexit matters for the rest of the EU because it shows all the other states that it's a bad idea. EU satisfaction is now at 80% the highest its ever been. Nobody else wants to leave because we've shown them how damaging the idea is.

As for your comments that our economy has been in decline for the last 30 years - clearly that's wrong. We were leading with the greatest growth in the Eurozone. Now, however, since the Brexit vote we have the worst performing economy in the zone largely because investment fell as sharply as the currency.

And you think we'll do fine on WTO outside of the block? We are 80% services - it's our manufacturing industry that has declined ever since Margaret Thatcher said it didn't matter if we served chips or micro-chips but those services ride on the back of goods - nobody does FTAs solely on services. So with no trade deals in place how do you think we'll get on with crashing out in October?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, we are all in the same boat so are all losers or winners together. You seem to treat it like football match between two sides. But there were many parties.
> 
> With a little more analysis you can understand the result better in terms of "sides".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parties supporting a People's Vote: Labour, Liberal democrats, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cumru, SNP
> 
> Total seats so far: 33
> Percentage vote: 54.5%
> 
> Parties heading for the cliffs: Brexit, Conservative, UKIP
> 
> Total seats so far: 31
> Percentage vote: 44.0%
> 
> Scotland has yet to declare.
Click to expand...

Dream on John, a people's vote was put to parliament three times and three times it was voted against so I wouldn't rely on another referendum.


----------



## ashfinlayson




----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"EU satisfaction is now at 80% the highest its ever been." _

Well it doesn't take an advanced degree in economics to see why. When Poland, Czech and all of the other East or Mediterranean member countries get hand outs from other donor countries, I'm sure they are very much pro-EU!

Oddly enough John, if you ask the average welfare recipient how they feel about free government hand outs, you'll find out they're very pro-welfare. Go figure!?










By the way, is it just me, or have all the female UK PMs resigned in tears? Just sayin'. :roll:


----------



## cheechy

No surprise at all in the results and indeed opinions on here tbh.

% of remain is higher v's leave but voters were spread across a number of remain parties but leavers focused more or less one guy.

We'll continue to see leavers deny any issues caused by the brexit process and indeed repeatedly see remainers being blamed for any impact due to their "defiance and treachery".

I'm now looking forward to seeing BoJo get the gig and a general election by the end of the year due to a complete breakdown in the government and the insistence on a no deal brexit.

Only way out of this now due to polarising views is a no deal / remain vote with a legal / non-advisory outcome so we're in no doubt that the vote is acted upon. No reruns / 20 votes - we know the the options clearly and we do it.


----------



## ashfinlayson

We've had 3 national votes now where Brexit has been the overbearing issue - A headcount back in 2016 where the majority voted to Leave, a first passed the post election vote where the winning party offered Leave in 2017, and now we've just had a vote based on proportional representation where a Leave party won. Our political system is running out of ways to tell parliament what the will of the electorate is.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> We've had 3 national votes now where Brexit has been the overbearing issue - A headcount back in 2016 where the majority voted to Leave, a first passed the post election vote where the winning party offered Leave in 2017, and now we've just had a vote based on proportional representation where a Leave party won. Our political system is running out of ways to tell parliament what the will of the electorate is.


and I guess you are entitled to your opinion of the interpretation of the results. I'll stick to mine...


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had 3 national votes now where Brexit has been the overbearing issue - A headcount back in 2016 where the majority voted to Leave, a first passed the post election vote where the winning party offered Leave in 2017, and now we've just had a vote based on proportional representation where a Leave party won. Our political system is running out of ways to tell parliament what the will of the electorate is.
> 
> 
> 
> and I guess you are entitled to your opinion of the interpretation of the results. I'll stick to mine...
Click to expand...

I actually wasn't responding to your post, hence the lack of a quote. I was just making a statement. But as you mention your interpretation - The idea that you think the green vote is a Remain vote is a bit daft. Greens always do well in the European elections - Many Labs, Cons and Lib Dems and a lot of general election non-voters vote for them based on environmental issues and many use the Euros as a protest without risking the opposition winning in a general elections. By your logic, you could add the Tory votes to the Brexit Party votes and say more people voted Leave :lol:

I'm not a Farage fan boy as I've said before, but one thing I will say for the guy is that in 6 weeks, he's come along with a brand new party and completely wiped out the only right-wing party in British politics. He's also reminded the Liberal lot that the _swing to Remain_ that they keep talking about, is non existent, though they obviously won't listen.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The Green Party is rolling over Europe - I can't wait until gasoline is 10-Euro a liter to save the Polar bears. But hey, as long as we can buy cheap skateboards from China, we're good! :roll:

_The German Greens' gains came at the expense of all other mainstream parties, including the center-left Social Democrats, who slumped to third place behind the Greens, and Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats.

Armin Laschet, the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia state and a member of Merkel's party, called the outcome "a wake-up call for politics."

In France, the environmental EELV party received almost 13.5% of the vote, coming in third. Green parties also polled strongly in Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Britain, the Greens - a largely insignificant force nationally - took 7 seats in the European Parliament vote._


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had 3 national votes now where Brexit has been the overbearing issue - A headcount back in 2016 where the majority voted to Leave, a first passed the post election vote where the winning party offered Leave in 2017, and now we've just had a vote based on proportional representation where a Leave party won. Our political system is running out of ways to tell parliament what the will of the electorate is.
> 
> 
> 
> and I guess you are entitled to your opinion of the interpretation of the results. I'll stick to mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually wasn't responding to your post, hence the lack of a quote. I was just making a statement. But as you mention your interpretation - The idea that you think the green vote is a Remain vote is a bit daft. Greens always do well in the European elections - Many Labs, Cons and Lib Dems and a lot of general election non-voters vote for them based on environmental issues and many use the Euros as a protest without risking the opposition winning in a general elections. By your logic, you could add the Tory votes to the Brexit Party votes and say more people voted Leave :lol:
> 
> I'm not a Farage fan boy as I've said before, but one thing I will say for the guy is that in 6 weeks, he's come along with a brand new party and completely wiped out the only right-wing party in British politics. He's also reminded the Liberal lot that the _swing to Remain_ that they keep talking about, is non existent, though they obviously won't listen.
Click to expand...

Yup and labour added to remain and it looks even worse.

Green are a pro-remain party there is no doubt in that so I'm not getting why you would deny that easily verifiable fact.

To me it looks like the tories are now going gung ho to leaving without a deal which wont work, and labour for a 2nd referendum that looks more and more likely between no deal and remain. There is no other way out.

On another strand I see BoJo is getting his time in court

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430


----------



## ashfinlayson

cheechy said:


> Yup and labour added to remain and it looks even worse.
> 
> Green are a pro-remain party there is no doubt in that so I'm not getting why you would deny that easily verifiable fact.
> 
> To me it looks like the tories are now going gung ho to leaving without a deal which wont work, and labour for a 2nd referendum that looks more and more likely between no deal and remain. There is no other way out.
> 
> On another strand I see BoJo is getting his time in court
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430


You could say that Labour is a Remain party given that most of their MPs are Remain supporters, but you would be overlooking the fact that they don't have any policies on Brexit and that the more Labour constituencies voted Leave than any other party.


----------



## cheechy

ashfinlayson said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup and labour added to remain and it looks even worse.
> 
> Green are a pro-remain party there is no doubt in that so I'm not getting why you would deny that easily verifiable fact.
> 
> To me it looks like the tories are now going gung ho to leaving without a deal which wont work, and labour for a 2nd referendum that looks more and more likely between no deal and remain. There is no other way out.
> 
> On another strand I see BoJo is getting his time in court
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
> 
> 
> 
> You could say that Labour is a Remain party given that most of their MPs are Remain supporters, but you would be overlooking the fact that they don't have any policies on Brexit and that the more Labour constituencies voted Leave than any other party.
Click to expand...

Corbyn most likely now to call for a 2nd referendum on any outcome...its coming very very soon.

If I were a leaver now I'd be concerned tbh. A tory government hell bent on a no deal is doomed to failure.


----------



## John-H

Yes, things don't stay static apart from some individual opinions. It cracks me up.

Brexit had the chance of "compromise" to May's deal but compromise over Brexit is not possible because being close to Europe and carrying on as if nothing has changed in an eventual customs union with negotiated single market access to satisfy the Good Friday agreement but just giving up our say at the table (either May's eventual post transition deal or Labour's version), is neither seen as "leaving" by Brexiteers and pointed out as "what's the point?" by remainers also agreed by leavers.

Thus, the middle ground is no man's land and nobody wants it.

Opinion is polarised to the football team you choose in 2016 and most are staying loyal to their team and coming up with all sorts of nonsense to justify it.

Reality, doesn't have such loyalty however. Most people talking up "no deal WTO" don't have a clue about international law and don't realise WTO is a dysfunctional system. In their imagination WTO is an alternative to EU membership giving all the same benefits plus unicorns.

The fact that Trump is having a trade war with China in complete defiance of WTO rules doesn't seem to register.

The USA will flex its muscle and has prevented effective governance of the WTO through its actions because it can.

The idea that the UK could gain a fair and equitable trade deal with Trump is for the birds. It's already been stated that any trade deal would have to allow US food imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef (requiring the UK to change its laws and give up its sovereignty accordingly) and also free up the NHS for takeover as admitted on the Andrew Marr programme even this morning by the US trade ambassador: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6083946

What's going to bite is reality. The EU are saying the withdrawal deal is not open for renegotiation - they have broken up the negotiation team and have other fish to fry.

We ultimately have to stick to our international treaty agreements or become a pariah state - so the divorce deal will need to be agreed if we leave and we will have to keep to the Good Friday agreement which is also an international treaty. We either become a vassal state of the EU or we do the best thing for the country (lest the disadvantages become a permanent stain on those who take us out).

So, we are not going to leave. The consequences are too severe. Come October, either the EU agree to extend for a general election (unlikely) or referendum (more likely) or if they don't agree we revoke.


----------



## bobclive22

> It's already been stated that any trade deal would have to allow US food imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef.


And Bernard Mathews,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... ports.html

Read Page 5.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... hicken.pdf



> Reality, doesn't have such loyalty however. Most people talking up "no deal WTO" don't have a clue about international law


And you are an expert John. :lol: :lol:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Yes, things don't stay static apart from some individual opinions. It cracks me up.
> 
> Brexit had the chance of "compromise" to May's deal but compromise over Brexit is not possible because being close to Europe and carrying on as if nothing has changed in an eventual customs union with negotiated single market access to satisfy the Good Friday agreement but just giving up our say at the table (either May's eventual post transition deal or Labour's version), is neither seen as "leaving" by Brexiteers and pointed out as "what's the point?" by remainers also agreed by leavers.
> 
> Thus, the middle ground is no man's land and nobody wants it.
> 
> Opinion is polarised to the football team you choose in 2016 and most are staying loyal to their team and coming up with all sorts of nonsense to justify it.
> 
> Reality, doesn't have such loyalty however. Most people talking up "no deal WTO" don't have a clue about international law and don't realise WTO is a dysfunctional system. In their imagination WTO is an alternative to EU membership giving all the same benefits plus unicorns.
> 
> The fact that Trump is having a trade war with China in complete defiance of WTO rules doesn't seem to register.
> 
> The USA will flex its muscle and has prevented effective governance of the WTO through its actions because it can.
> 
> The idea that the UK could gain a fair and equitable trade deal with Trump is for the birds. It's already been stated that any trade deal would have to allow US food imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef (requiring the UK to change its laws and give up its sovereignty accordingly) and also free up the NHS for takeover as admitted on the Andrew Marr programme even this morning by the US trade ambassador: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6083946
> 
> What's going to bite is reality. The EU are saying the withdrawal deal is not open for renegotiation - they have broken up the negotiation team and have other fish to fry.
> 
> We ultimately have to stick to our international treaty agreements or become a pariah state - so the divorce deal will need to be agreed if we leave and we will have to keep to the Good Friday agreement which is also an international treaty. We either become a vassal state of the EU or we do the best thing for the country (lest the disadvantages become a permanent stain on those who take us out).
> 
> So, we are not going to leave. The consequences are too severe. Come October, either the EU agree to extend for a general election (unlikely) or referendum (more likely) or if they don't agree we revoke.


Seems to me like you need to get on television and tell it like it is as you've got all the answers- The expert from the car forum full of self righteousness giving the nation's leavers the benefit of a waving finger and a frown with your chosen obsession on News Night :lol:

Also why do you think a second referendum is the magic bullet ?
You have never given an adequate explanation as to what happens if this backfires and is still voted by the electorate for the UK to leave. A third presumably :roll:


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> It's already been stated that any trade deal would have to allow US food imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef.
> 
> 
> 
> And Bernard Mathews,
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... ports.html
> 
> Read Page 5.
> 
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... hicken.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality, doesn't have such loyalty however. Most people talking up "no deal WTO" don't have a clue about international law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are an expert John. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks for dutifully coming up with nonsense to prove my point Bob. Knew I could rely on you :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Also why do you think a second referendum is the magic bullet ?
> You have never given an adequate explanation as to what happens if this backfires and is still voted by the electorate for the UK to leave. A third presumably :roll:


Not true. I have said previously that we know a lot more now than we knew then. That's the reason. It makes sense to check if the electorate still wants this given this new knowledge. If they still vote the same way then nobody can say they weren't informed this time round. Equally if remain is the result there is no point in continuing the process because nothing has changed.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also why do you think a second referendum is the magic bullet ?
> You have never given an adequate explanation as to what happens if this backfires and is still voted by the electorate for the UK to leave. A third presumably :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I have said previously that we know a lot more now than we knew then. That's the reason. It makes sense to check if the electorate still wants this given this new knowledge. If they still vote the same way then nobody can say they weren't informed this time round. Equally if remain is the result there is no point in continuing the process because nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you mean what you say. If a second referendum turns out to have a leave majority you will still be here trying to string out another 140 pages on the merits of why the vote wasn't legal, was ill informed, massaged, fraudulent, etc etc, insert most appropriate here, so it's best to leave first time round for all the above reasons that you and the remainers will no doubt cook up for our entertainment...


----------



## John-H

What? You think we'll all shut up if we leave the first time round as you put it? You worried I might post more on this thread? Don't worry, I'll start a new thread


----------



## HOGG

I wish the remoaners would shut up.

I can't understand how anybody thinks it's a good idea to stay in the European Union.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

Wouldn't you rather the NHS stayed in the British Public's hands?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... k-homepage


----------



## ashfinlayson

John, what would your stance be if another referendum were to result in another Leave vote?


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John, what would your stance be if another referendum were to result in another Leave vote?


I refer you to my previous answer to Leopard.


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, what would your stance be if another referendum were to result in another Leave vote?
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to my previous answer to Leopard.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read that first, you didn't answer the question though - You have been using the argument that _we know now what we didn't know at the time of the 2016 referendum_ therefore there should be another one. But you have not said what your stance would be if there was another referendum resulting in another Leave majority.


----------



## John-H

But I said, If they still vote the same way then nobody can say they weren't informed this time round. Equally if remain is the result there is no point in continuing the process because nothing has changed.

As for my opinion as to whether it's best to be in or out why should that change?

As for whether I respect the vote result that depends if cheating invalidates the result again. If it's fair then I'd respect the result but would just disagree. I might campaign to re-join again if things go downhill as expected.


----------



## A3DFU

How good for the economy 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... SApp_Other


----------



## cheechy

First off - comments such as wanting people to "shut up" are just incredible. If you have nothing better to say (again and again HOGG) then dont post in here. It just shows you have no interest in discussion you just "wants it precious"

IN relation to another referendum I get the sentiment - I just fear given Boris is already dishing out unicorns in his want to be the PM - we'll have another campaign of soundbites which is stretching the truth or lying - just to make the impact regardless.

It worked last time so why not this time?


----------



## John-H

Boris Johnson has decided chaos and self-destruction is a price worth paying - as long as he gets to be in charge
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/bor ... ssion=true

It's worth a reminder:

_*
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave."*
_(Vote Leave: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html)

So leave didn't mean leave without a deal, it meant a careful deal - presumably one where we were better off. Funny how people's recollections change.


----------



## bobclive22

Postal voter fraud in Peterborough by-election.

https://www.politicalite.com/election-2 ... eally-won/

https://www.pressreader.com


----------



## HOGG

cheechy said:


> First off - comments such as wanting people to "shut up" are just incredible. If you have nothing better to say (again and again HOGG) then dont post in here. It just shows you have no interest in discussion you just "wants it precious"


I meant it as in, let the results stand as they are and let what needs to be done be done....

Either way, moaning about the results isn't going to change them, hence the comment
"I wish the remoaners would shut up"

Like I tell my kids, no point crying when I say NO.... it'll not change the answer. Cry if you fall over and hurt yourself or if the hamster dies.

Hence the follow up statement just below the first one....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## cheechy

HOGG said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off - comments such as wanting people to "shut up" are just incredible. If you have nothing better to say (again and again HOGG) then dont post in here. It just shows you have no interest in discussion you just "wants it precious"
> 
> 
> 
> I meant it as in, let the results stand as they are and let what needs to be done be done....
> 
> Either way, moaning about the results isn't going to change them, hence the comment
> "I wish the remoaners would shut up"
> 
> Like I tell my kids, no point crying when I say NO.... it'll not change the answer. Cry if you fall over and hurt yourself or if the hamster dies.
> 
> Hence the follow up statement just below the first one....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right...brilliant insight there so theory is if someone doesnt agree with you then you treat them like a child?

Does explain a lot :lol:

I'll just try that with the wife


----------



## leopard

Here you go John

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... xit-boris/

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> Here you go John
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... xit-boris/
> 
> [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


Wahey! Let's go for no deal as rat tastes lovely [smiley=chef.gif]


----------



## HOGG

cheechy said:


> HOGG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off - comments such as wanting people to "shut up" are just incredible. If you have nothing better to say (again and again HOGG) then dont post in here. It just shows you have no interest in discussion you just "wants it precious"
> 
> 
> 
> I meant it as in, let the results stand as they are and let what needs to be done be done....
> 
> Either way, moaning about the results isn't going to change them, hence the comment
> "I wish the remoaners would shut up"
> 
> Like I tell my kids, no point crying when I say NO.... it'll not change the answer. Cry if you fall over and hurt yourself or if the hamster dies.
> 
> Hence the follow up statement just below the first one....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...brilliant insight there so theory is if someone doesnt agree with you then you treat them like a child?
> 
> Does explain a lot
> 
> I'll just try that with the wife
Click to expand...

No. That was an example.

Don't get upset over nothing. Get upset over your nan dying or the pet dog dying. Not a vote.

Honestly, first World problems

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

Go to 35:00 (Brexit) then view the whole video, amazing, what did President trump say, Fake Media.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... NBTb0eZMLI


----------



## John-H

Reality will clash with fantasy very soon.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Reality will clash with fantasy very soon.


Mr. Project Fear at it again :lol:


----------



## E.L.Wisty

He's right though.


----------



## leopard

No he's not, he might be in your eyes :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality will clash with fantasy very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Project Fear at it again :lol:
Click to expand...

It's funny to see.the first to have a problem with the onset of reality 

So, if with "no deal" we insist on having zero tariffs and unlimited quotas to ensure no hard border between the UK and the EU, so we don't break the Good Friday agreement, would you be happy for the same to apply between the UK and the rest of the world?


----------



## leopard

I'm spoilt for synonyms here.

Conjecture, supposition, speculation...

Bojo will deliver by Halloween


----------



## John-H

As usual you don't answer the question. You might want to look up GAT regulations and most favoured nation status and then see what your obligations would be.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> As usual you don't answer the question. You might want to look up GAT regulations and most favoured nation status and then see what your obligations would be.


Usual old cobblers going on here :lol:

Why should I answer your inane questions when you come out with such muppetry as 'GAT'.

Re-educate yourself with GST Regs instead...


----------



## John-H

The legal obligations under the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The first clause of which imposes a strict legal obligation on all signatories to offer "most favoured nation" status to all other signatory states in the WTO.

So, if we set zero tariffs at the Northern Ireland border in order not to breach the Good Friday agreement we also set the same for our border with the rest of the world. That would cause immense damage to our farmers and home industries.

Setting zero tariffs would also remove any incentive for any other country to enter into a trade agreement with us as we would have already given everything away by removing all barriers.

So basically, your mate Boris and anyone else promoting "no deal" as a course of action is either reckless or unaware of the consequences.


----------



## bobclive22

Hi John, you appear to believe pretty much anything pro remain that appears in the press.

Ever considered why instead of using an argument between Boris and his girl friend to undermine his attempt to become Prime minister the left leaning press and the deep state didn't use this (photo below) against Boris, the guy on the left is the disappeared supposedly Russian spy Joseph Mifsud who went into hiding next to the US embassy in Rome, (recently been found) when it was discovered he was in fact not a Russian spy but linked to MI6 and the FBI. It was Mifsud that started the Trump Russia collusion which is now finally unravelling. Looks like project fear and the Mueller report are very similar in nature, they are both trying to undermine the will of the people, Mueller in the US, project fear in the UK.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

"Trump Russia collusion which is now finally unravelling". So you don't think it is in the Russian interests to de-stabilise the west? You don't think Farage appears regularly on RT? You don't think Arron Banks has Russian contacts? You don't think the Trump family has Russian connections? All these are on record.

Though he found no evidence of direct Russian collusion Mueller made it clear he could not indict Trump of crimes because of protocol. He said "A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view - that too is prohibited." "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that".

I respect Brexit supporter's right to believe that is a good option - though the available evidence to me and most others strongly indicates otherwise - but it makes me laugh when Brexiteer's refer to remainers' well-founded concerns as "project fear", because there was well documented collusion between Brexit groups to spread their - often false - statements, funded by a network of shady backers - and yes, very possibly Russian ones.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> Hi John, you appear to believe pretty much anything pro remain that appears in the press.
> ...


Your misunderstanding is fathomless if that's what you think. What I said is not a belief, it's a demonstrable fact.

As for conspiracy theories about spies I'll leave that up to you. I thought you were more into conspiracy theories about global warming not being true or have you accepted that the things you have been reading were put about by the fossil fuel industry who have also been sinking money into Brexit and right wing groups across Europe to undermine the EU and its strong environmental controls and commitments to fight global warming?


----------



## ZephyR2

Can you Remoaners not see that the EU is going down the pan. Try taking your news from somewhere other than just the Guardian. Read about what's really going on in Europe with its multiple failing economies and the failure of the Eastern block countries to fully integrate.
For a really interesting read look up Mini-Bots and Italy. And then take your heads out of the sand.


----------



## John-H

I tend to find that people who make broad sweeping statements about others, presuming that they too have applied the same intellectual consideration to a subject as one might pick a football team and then give blind support without the dispassionate analysis required of intelligent consideration, lack the same considerate qualities of detail and nuance themselves - because they so obviously presume others are just like themselves with the exception of supporting the rival team. Not everybody is like that.

Detractors of the EU have for years been predicting its demise and yet it continues with the highest ever satisfaction level amongst its people. The UK has of course helped to demonstrate the folly of separatism. Nobody else wants to go there now and where there's a will a solution will be found as it always has for any problem.

Talking about solutions, how do you avoid breaching the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement peace treaty if the UK were to leave the EU? What's your solution?


----------



## ZephyR2

Haven't a clue what you're rambling on about there John but I guess you know.

I try to take in a broad range of reading on the subject so that I can have a balanced view. The fact is that when we were asked to vote on Brexit no one knew whether Brexit would be better or worse for the country than remaining in the EU. That situation hasn't changed and we won't know until Brexit takes effect.
Unfortunately there are a number vociferous Remainers who refuse to accept the outcome of the referendum and who take a patronising "we know better than you" type attitude. These are often people in influential positions who are used to getting their own way and who have found that the EU has been very profitable for them. They have access to the media and can readily get their point of view across to the wider public. 
These people don't know what will happen but they fear that the golden goose that has served them well for years is about to slip away.
And that is why we hear so much anti-Brexit rhetoric.



John-H said:


> Talking about solutions, how do you avoid breaching the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement peace treaty if the UK were to leave the EU? What's your solution?


I'm sure you know full well that I don't have the required inside knowledge about the complexities of these systems to be able to offer a solution, any more that you do yourself. So its just a pointless question.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Hi Zephyr,



> multiple failing economies


 The southern european economies have always been rather shaky (and the Italian one traditionally having corruption issues) but not sure that the main north and western european economies are tanking? The other question is would those economies have fared better or worse without the EU. I think worse without that EU umbrella and that the EU adds important stability that helps keep Europe as a whole stable, but obviously it's a matter of conjecture.



> failure of the Eastern block countries to fully integrate


 I do agree with you about the integration of the eastern countries. For me this is very possibly the biggest issue facing the EU. Allowing weak economies in before they were ready undermines the EU, puts a strain on its ecomony as a whole, and can lead to unbalanced economic migration.



> For a really interesting read look up Mini-Bots and Italy.


 I had a quick look at this last night and agree that it looks like a recipe for disaster. I think that reflects the damage a populist government can wreak as much as anything else. I hope that doesn't come home to roost for Italy and the EU.

Re your later post


> "when we were asked to vote on Brexit no one knew whether Brexit would be better or worse for the country than remaining in the EU. That situation hasn't changed and we won't know until Brexit takes effect."


 I agree with you on the first, remainers and leavers both, but would dispute that "the situation hasn't changed" as a great deal of information has been flushed out in the 3 years since then, neary all of which in my view indicates that remaining is by far the better option. Whilst we won't know for sure until Brexit takes effect we obviously have to make decisions based on our our best analysis of the available information and the situation as it stands today. For me that all points strongly towards remaining at this point.



> "there are a number vociferous Remainers who refuse to accept the outcome of the referendum and who take a patronising "we know better than you" type attitude. These are often people in influential positions who are used to getting their own way and who have found that the EU has been very profitable for them. They have access to the media and can readily get their point of view across to the wider public."


 This can all be said of both sides. And don't forget that the likes of Arron Banks want Brexit because that is their golden goose. Again, it's no different.



> These people don't know what will happen but they fear that the golden goose that has served them well for years is about to slip away. And that is why we hear so much anti-Brexit rhetoric.


 I genuinely don't think that is the case. I think the anti-Brexit rhetoric is because we genuinely believe that throwing away trade deals and alliances for much much worse ones, and triggering the break-up of the union (because Scotland do not want Brexit and because Brexit is fundamentally incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement) is not good for these islands.

Whilst we clearly have different viewpoints and takes on a lot of this I do think you put forward interesting points and arguments - which is good and means we can have a rational debate - and thanks especially for pointing up the mini-bots thing, which I hadn't been aware of.


----------



## John-H

ZephyR2 said:


> Haven't a clue what you're rambling on about there John but I guess you know.
> 
> I try to take in a broad range of reading on the subject so that I can have a balanced view. The fact is that when we were asked to vote on Brexit no one knew whether Brexit would be better or worse for the country than remaining in the EU. That situation hasn't changed and we won't know until Brexit takes effect.


As you say we didn't know then but we certainly do know now that we will be worse off. Even if you don't believe the government's own civil service dire far worse than banking crisis predictions it's an undeniable fact that we will have to pay tariffs which will increase prices for everything. That's a clear consequence of leaving the customs union and leaving the single market will impose regulatory checks at borders which will wreck our just in time reliant cross border manufacturing. These are facts and everybody should be aware of them.

Only today Hunt was promising £8bn to compensate the fish producers that will have to pay tariffs. Brexit has gone from claims of being better off to ones of damage repair.



ZephyR2 said:


> Unfortunately there are a number vociferous Remainers who refuse to accept the outcome of the referendum and who take a patronising "we know better than you" type attitude. These are often people in influential positions who are used to getting their own way and who have found that the EU has been very profitable for them. They have access to the media and can readily get their point of view across to the wider public.
> These people don't know what will happen but they fear that the golden goose that has served them well for years is about to slip away.
> And that is why we hear so much anti-Brexit rhetoric.


I think it's more a case of faith denying proof when the evident damage already is being ignored.



ZephyR2 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about solutions, how do you avoid breaching the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement peace treaty if the UK were to leave the EU? What's your solution?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know full well that I don't have the required inside knowledge about the complexities of these systems to be able to offer a solution, any more that you do yourself. So its just a pointless question.
Click to expand...

It's simple. If we stay in the EU we don't break the NI pace treaty by ensuring there are no tariffs and customs checks.

Put it this way, if any other country wanted to leave the EU we'd just erect a customs barrier and it would be sorted, even if that country might be worse off, but because of the peace process we can't do that. We are forced to keep the same regulatory alignment - unless we allow Northern Ireland to depart from the UK and reunite with Ireland. Then we could make ourselves worse off no problem.


----------



## ZephyR2

Hi Wisty, 
good to see someone else can take a balanced view, which ever side of the fence they sit on.
Re the northern European economies I wouldn't say the French were in a good state and the German economy is just picking up from teetering on the edge of recession for the last 9 months.
If Italy does go tits up it won't be like Greece or Portugal, Italy is a far larger market and is in so much debt to the EU, predominantly Germany, that it would drag Germany down with it.
The Benelux countries and other northern European states are fairly stable, economically and politically but they are much smaller economies would not have the reserves to back up a struggling EU.
Poland continues to defy EU rulings and go it own way, Italy still can't agree with the EU on its own internal budget and Greece although becoming more stable is still struggling to repay its bailout debt and regain its economy.
It doesn't sound like a great club to be in.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> As you say we didn't know then but we certainly do know now that we will be worse off. Even if you don't believe the government's own civil service dire far worse than banking crisis predictions it's an undeniable fact that we will have to pay tariffs which will increase prices for everything.


Can't wait for you to come on here telling us you told us so when your favourite tin of soup and bread to dunk it in has gone up an extortionate amount (not). You gonna' have to make decisions here, petrol for the mk1 or food on the table :lol:


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Interesting summary Zephyr, thanks for that.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you say we didn't know then but we certainly do know now that we will be worse off. Even if you don't believe the government's own civil service dire far worse than banking crisis predictions it's an undeniable fact that we will have to pay tariffs which will increase prices for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait for you to come on here telling us you told us so when your favourite tin of soup and bread to dunk it in has gone up an extortionate amount (not). You gonna' have to make decisions here, petrol for the mk1 or food on the table :lol:
Click to expand...

We'd all be hearing things if you told us your Hi-Fi interconnects had gone up any more in price. Excess input tariffs may yet distort your perception to the point of epiphany and salvation.


----------



## cheechy

Sorry Zeph but any view you have of a balanced argument goes right out the window when your opening gambit is the "remoaners" dig and cliche.

Credibility gone for me...


----------



## leopard

cheechy said:


> Sorry Zeph but any view you have of a balanced argument goes right out the window when your opening gambit is the "remoaners" dig and cliche.
> 
> Credibility gone for me...


Sheesh, grow a pair and get out a little more. How's that for credibility :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> As for conspiracy theories about spies I'll leave that up to you.


Well John we will see what transpires in the next month or two when the US attorney General William Barr submits his report, this vid is from Yahoo news, seems Brexit pops up in many odd places.

If MI6 and the British establishment are capable of helping the Democrats bring down an elected President they are quite capable of doing the same to Brexit.

As Joe Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported -- There is solid evidence that proves a foreign government meddled in the 2016 US Election. But that government *was the UK, not Russia!
*

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/0 ... -may-2018/

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/george- ... 55393.html
*

Here is the Guardians SPIN.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nks-russia*


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Sure. You carry on living in your dream world :-/


----------



## John-H

And in the real world ...... in three weeks' time, on July 23, the new Conservative leader will finally be announced after 0.25% of the population - the 160,000 party members - have voted - with about 30,000 of them infiltrated by Arron Banks to try and swing the result. What's his motive do you think?

For the rest of us, who are being told we will have no further say over Brexit, that's three more weeks listening to yet more "unicorn" Brexit proposals and reckless No Deal rhetoric.

Proposed changes at the top of the European institutions, from last night, will make no difference to delivering on unicorn promises. The real choice facing MPs is between a destructive No Deal, a reckless hard Brexit or you've guessed it - a People's Vote.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson commented: "It's worse than a general election. Both candidates are falling over themselves to offer big tax cuts and spending increases, yet they provide no idea where the money will come from."

£9 billion for a tax cut for the best paid people in the UK. No problem, there's some money down the back of a bus seat somewhere.

The day before yesterday, Jeremy Hunt was talking up a £20 billion plan to "turbocharge" the economy in the event of No Deal with £6 billion to ease the tariff burden for farmers and fishermen (1% of the economy), the very groups who were supposed originally to benefit substantially from Brexit. This is the shift from sunlit uplands to damage repair and nobody is supposed to ask why things have changed and why we are still doing it? Is everybody happy to comply?

Both leadership contenders are playing to the crowd of Conservative members (0.25% of the population) to force something on the country that was never considered even by Leave campaigners in 2016. There is no mandate for a destructive No Deal. Vote Leave claimed a good deal would be agreed BEFORE any legal steps were taken to leave. Hummm...

Yesterday, the Chancellor revealed No Deal would blow a huge £90 billion hole in the UK's public finances over the next 15 years. You may dismiss that as "project fear" but the simple fact is that tariffs will apply and border controls increase costs for all of us, which makes all those claims from Johnson about £350 million extra a week for the NHS look ever more dishonest.

Hammond also dropped a heavy hint that he would potentially line up with opposition parties to block No Deal, saying he had been consistently clear that such a departure from the EU would be "bad for the UK, bad for the British economy, bad for the British people". It would be down to the House of Commons to block it and he is apparently ready to be counted.

With others such as Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke refusing to support Boris and Justice Secretary David Gauke and International Trade Secretary Rory Stewart also heading to the backbenches in opposition to no deal, the government's majority is about to disappear.

It's even doubtful that if Boris gets elected as party leader that Mrs May can recommend to the Queen that he forms the next government. Where would the majority be? Constitutionally the Queen has to accept with her own judgement what is being recommended and such a dubious recommendation in the circumstances would inevitably bring the Queen into politics - and that may well get refused. This will likely go back to the people once way or another.


----------



## Stiff

This year the UK economy has experienced growth of 1.8% so far, despite Brexit uncertainties. This means that so far only Spain in the EU has had higher growth at 2.4%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/european-u ... rowth-rate

In comparison France has had 1.2%, Germany has managed to avoid recession on 0.70%, but Italy is in recession on -0.10%. It means that with the global GDP growth results in for Q1 and Q2 that the UK is currently the 7th fastest growing economy on the planet.

Well done the UK. It certainly _seems_ like there is a fear campaign going on desperate to manipulate the country into staying in the EU by preying on people's fears of economic disaster.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> This year the UK economy has experienced growth of 1.8% so far, despite Brexit uncertainties. This means that so far only Spain in the EU has had higher growth at 2.4%.
> 
> https://tradingeconomics.com/european-u ... rowth-rate
> 
> In comparison France has had 1.2%, Germany has managed to avoid recession on 0.70%, but Italy is in recession on -0.10%. It means that with the global GDP growth results in for Q1 and Q2 that the UK is currently the 7th fastest growing economy on the planet.
> 
> Well done the UK. It certainly _seems_ like there is a fear campaign going on desperate to manipulate the country into staying in the EU by preying on people's fears of economic disaster.


We haven't left yet so are not paying tariffs and suffering border checks yet, not quite yet destroyed our cross border just in time manufacturing industries, we've not yet lost our passporting advantages in services and have not yet disengaged from 40 EU trade deals with 70 countries so far or left the world's biggest single market and customs union yet :roll:










But we have dropped from being the fastest growing economy in the G7 to the lowest. Yes, before we've even left - well done indeed! :?


----------



## cheechy

leopard said:


> cheechy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Zeph but any view you have of a balanced argument goes right out the window when your opening gambit is the "remoaners" dig and cliche.
> 
> Credibility gone for me...
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh, grow a pair and get out a little more. How's that for credibility :roll:
Click to expand...

Ta for reinforcing the point though


----------



## ZephyR2

John-H said:


> But we have dropped from being the fastest growing economy in the G7 to the lowest. Yes, before we've even left - well done indeed! :?


You shouldn't read too much into that John. These things are constantly fluctuating for a variety of reasons. Apart from that what exactly does fastest growth indicate? If you look at the fastest growing economies in the world they are Ethiopia, Rwanda, Bangladesh, India, Ivory Coast, Cambodia and so on. Somewhere below the top 10 you'll find China, Canada, USA and Japan with Germany somewhere amongst them.
And strangely enough NOT being in the EU hasn't been a handicap to these countries.


----------



## John-H

That's a bit of a spurious argument - of course if you are small and change you are more volatile statistically or if you come from a low base developing corrective action can also create greater relative growth but we are supposed to be a large stable developed economy and should be compared to other larger stable economies.

Here's the growth rates of the G7 comparable economies since 2014.










The 2018 poor growth changed recently to be more positive but largely because stockpiling for Brexit has boosted our last quarter GDP and next quarter is expected to be in recession at -0.1%.

Everything is relative but the main point I'm trying to get across is that no deal will mean we pay tariffs, our exports become uncompetitive and we suffer restrictions to trade across borders. We will undoubtedly be poorer as a result. This is simply a consequential fact.


----------



## bobclive22

> And in the real world ...... in three weeks' time, on July 23, the new Conservative leader will finally be announced after 0.25% of the population - the 160,000 party members - have voted - with about 30,000 of them infiltrated by Arron Banks to try and swing the result. What's his motive do you think?


In your world it`s never the Left that are infiltrated is it John, odd where Brexit keeps popping up.

Watch Vid 6.56 is the Brexit bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... q9pChEUzMs


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> And in the real world ...... in three weeks' time, on July 23, the new Conservative leader will finally be announced after 0.25% of the population - the 160,000 party members - have voted - with about 30,000 of them infiltrated by Arron Banks to try and swing the result. What's his motive do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> In your world it`s never the Left that are infiltrated is it John, odd where Brexit keeps popping up.
> 
> Watch Vid 6.56 is the Brexit bit.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... q9pChEUzMs
Click to expand...

It as Aaron Banks's claim Bob. You'd better tell him.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

One of the hidden issues behind declining UK businesses has very little to do with Brexit at all. I've touched on it before, but it's rapidly gaining momentum and isn't really discussed in the media.

Point of fact is the EU has been pumping billions into the old East Block countries and business is booming in Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary and now Turkey. It's well documented that thousands of skilled Poles have been leaving British industry and are returning home for better paying jobs and better working conditions in brand new, cutting edge machine shops, fabrication shops and foundries.

And who can blame them?

I've personally visited a number of very old UK manufacturing plants that have a long history going back easily 100-years. But because of high costs of labor and energy, they've made no effort to update or modernize in the past few decades. Much of the equipment is so old that spares are nearly impossible to find and the repair technicians have retired, leaving many UK machine shops in dire straights.

While this article states this is a problem for small businesses, it's the same situation for larger, traditional industries as well -

_"According to the Federation of Small Businesses 21% of small employers have EU staff. Certain sectors have been hardest hit, including hospitality, care, agriculture and retail. Evidence can also be seen in the construction industry, where house builders have been hit by labour shortages and supply chain pressures. In fact as far back as 2017 the Federation of Master Builders described the sector as facing a "cliff edge"._ https://www.kisbridgingloans.co.uk/busi ... certainty/

Major companies on the Continent are well aware of this fact, and have been shifting to second tier suppliers who are new, modern, well skilled and cheaper than the UK. Is it any wonder UK industry is on a fast track for de-industrialization? The UK simply can't compete in a global, or even European market when it's low wage, highly skilled workforce decides to leave and go home. And that's exactly what's happening.

Wander through this list and check for yourself - the majority of the suppliers for Aston-Martin are not even in the UK and there's one simple reason. Cost.

https://europe.autonews.com/article/201 ... artin-db11

Brexit is a factor, I'll grant you, but it's not the cause of why so many UK companies have been shutting down over the past few years. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth about Post-Brexit borders and tariffs affecting businesses. But the fact is, UK industry can't modernize and become competitive when their cheap but skilled EU workforce is leaving in droves. Compounding this problem is the fact British young people are simply not interested or willing and in some cases, incapable of learning the skills necessary do this sort of work. And they certainly don't see themselves standing in front of a mill or lathe all day for the next 30-40 years.

It's a no win situation Brexit or no Brexit.


----------



## John-H

Not very encouraging. Imposing tariffs and friction at borders will only make us more uncompetative too and given that 80% of our economy is based on services which won't be covered by WTO but trade in goods is a vehicle for services to ride on, the loss will be compounded :?


----------



## Iceblue

There is a future for UK industry and it requires change at many levels to be more competitive. Leaving the EU will be a catalyst for that change. Having uncompetitive industries and government policies surviving within the EU is not sustainable.


----------



## John-H

Trouble is a lot of the push behind Brexit has been to deregulate and turn the UK into an offshore Singapore with a reduction of employment standards, workers rights, health and safety, environmental controls etc due to a free market unregulated doctrine and push from vested interests like the fossil fuel industry and those wishing to get their hands on the NHS as well as those wishing to make money from change and chaos.

The reduction of investment and UK manufacturing to 20% of the economy and the rise in services to 80% has been a choice this country has made going back to Thatcher, favouring services and has had nothing to do with the EU.

You can argue that the creation of the single market, also going back to Thatcher, created more opportunity for trade by reducing the burden of different regulatory and standards requirements. Services often ride on the back of trade in goods too. Certainly leaving the EU will only reverse this trading advantage.

You can also argue that Germany has kept it's manufacturing investment up during the same period with great success within the single market and with great export achievements too, whilst in the EU. So why can't we do that?

The UK's manufacturing ability and choice of reducing investment in this sector to favour services is a management decision of this county's own making and nothing to do with the EU. It is that bias of our own decision preference which needs to change to favour manufacturing if manufacturing is to thrive, not a pursuit of deregulation to impoverish the population and the environment to the benefit of the wealthy and corporate few who have been lobbying for their own interests.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_You can also argue that Germany has kept it's manufacturing investment up during the same period with great success within the single market and with great export achievements too, whilst in the EU. So why can't we do that?_

Germany has been importing cars into the US for over 50-years and the brands are all still well known. Meanwhile iconic British imports such as MG, Jaguar and LandRover either completely disappeared or were bought out by someone else.

As for the UK, the reason why you can't do what the Germans have done is pretty straight forward - lack of capital investment, high energy costs, low wages for workers, lack of technically skilled staff and poorly attended apprenticeship programs and a lack of government to support British industry...it's a long list.

It's no secret that the entire British automotive industry virtually vanished. But yet somehow BMW, Honda and Nissan all opened factories in the UK and were able to build world class facilities. Makes you wonder. As to the graphic for parts suppliers below, note how many parts come from the UK and where everything else comes from.

Meanwhile in Germany, they've been "off shoring" their suppliers to the East; (e.g. Poland, CR, Romania, Turkey) but very, very quietly. Subtle changes can be seen with fewer labels that state "built in Germany". Now it's either "Assembled" or "Designed" in Germany. The US started doing this with Canada and Mexico 40-years ago, the Germans have only just caught on.

Brits are in the same situation as after WWII. Even then, while Germany was financially backed by the US courtesy of the Marshall Plan, the UK struggled to survive ruinous debt from two world wars while trying to be industrially competitive. Now, they face further de-industrialization as the EU ignores the UK and pumps billions into Poland and Eastern European countries.

"The European Union, together with Poland, entered 2014 with a new budget that will run to 2020. As in the past, Poland will be the largest beneficiary of EU funds. Our country will get EUR 106bn, of which almost EUR 82,3bn will go towards the cohesion policy that aims to reduce development inequalities between different regions."

https://polska.pl/economy/investments-p ... ds-poland/

Maybe the Brits should follow the Greek example and just sell out to China. At least the Greeks can boast about having the second largest port in the Mediterranean. What's interesting is this is a huge financial win for Greece, and now they're thumbing their noses at the EU. And when the EU gets an attitude, the Greeks point at China and tell the EU to p*** off.

But how long that will last is anyone's guess.









http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.com ... -mean.html


----------



## John-H

I agree with a lot of what you say. We had an apprentice system in this country but such schemes were abandoned due to decisions made in this country. Germany has kept its apprentice system and its industrial investment and not, to the same extent, pursued outsourcing and consequential justification for insisting as a result on cheap labour here to compete - that's a short term profit driven mindset which results in dissinvestment in home industries - and we see the result.

The UK has to some extent been industrially rescued by other countries who have expanded into the single market Europe wide shop floor and taken advantage of development grants both from the UK and EU for what had become deprived areas since the UK managers decided to decline or failed depending on which way you look at it. And of course the UK has been seen as an entry point into the EU market and so attracted investment. My own company is no exception.

Where I would depart with your comments on EU funding is that the UK had been "ignored" as I wouldn't say that at all. EU funding is fair and transparent. The policy is all explained here:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... -grants_en

It's up to member states to apply for funding (they have to bother) and a lot depends on need and population density. Generally the policy is a social leveller to try and improve the lives of those most in need. The UK is a developed wealthy country yet received more EU funding (€6,326M) than Greece (€5,132M) but then we've got more people. You can find the figures at a glance here:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/external ... lt_en.html

I don't have a problem with it as it seems good that a club should look after its members in a fair way without favouritism to the most powerful. I think it's brilliant in that philanthropic effort.

The deprived areas in the UK have received extensive EU funding and to be honest, I doubt, if it wasn't for the EU they, would have received the same from London.


----------



## bobclive22

> The deprived areas in the UK have received extensive EU funding and to be honest, I doubt, if it wasn't for the EU they, would have received the same from London.


Still voted Brexit though, wonder why?.

*Back to project Fear and Russiagate,*

If the deep state together with the left wing media can very nearly bring down the president of the US, destroying Brexit should have been been like taking candy from a baby, fortunately both attempts to interfere with the democratic vote of two major powers now appear doomed to failure.



> At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western intelligence agencies. We are left with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy, whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude that the gambit was initially developed with participation of *John Brennan and UK intelligence.* Following this, Mueller inherited and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we know today.
> 
> Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that *British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency,* and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.


https://disobedientmedia.com/2019/01/de ... s-network/

PS, It all started with Prof Mifsud who was supposed to be a Russian spy but was actually linked to western intelligence, don`t believe what you read in the left wing press John.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Sigh.


----------



## John-H

I think we should start a new thread for you Bob if you post any more off topic conspiracy theories.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

To the question of why the hardest hit areas would vote Brexit when they risk losing the most, this article seems to hit the nail on the head and summarizes the findings into three key factors.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vo ... ortunities

It's the age old story where wealthy, educated liberals have everything to loose with Brexit. While the less educated, poorly skilled conservatives have nothing left to lose.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Hi Swiss

That's one interpretation, and I would say there was an element of this - but not as much as you are saying in my view. There are other interpretations and they probably all have an element of truth too. 
E.g. Brexit being in part a protest vote, with these demographic elements being - justifiably - very uncontent and lashing out. But the problem is that Brexit is not going to help them - they will surely be the biggest losers. The things they were lashing out at were the products of successive UK governments (of both parties), not issues rooted in EU. The EU protected them against the worst excesses of our governments with human rights, working rights, environmental rights, privacy laws that will for sure all be eroded after Brexit in the name of more money for shareholders and more surveillance and other powers, and decreased accountability, for the authorities. 

BTW good post you did about UK economics. I did reply but someone else posted simultaenously (John H maybe?) and my reply ended up getting lost, and I couldn't face re-typing it!


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I hate to say "I told you so", but.... United States of Europe and a European Army are on their way. But hey, at least the EU Bureaucrats only consider best and brightest for positions of power and authority. Thank goodness there's none of that pesky nepotism in the halls of the EU. :roll:

_German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, the daughter of a prominent EU official, has been nominated to replace Jean-Claude Juncker as the next president of the European Commission, the powerful bureaucratic arm of the European Union. She has called for the creation of a European superstate. "My aim is the United States of Europe..." she said in an interview with Der Spiegel. She has also called for the creation of a European Army.

Von der Leyen has called for the creation of a European superstate. "My aim is the United States of Europe - on the model of federal states such as Switzerland, Germany or the U.S.," she said in an interview with Der Spiegel. She has also called for the creation of a European Army.

At the same time, however, von der Leyen has been roundly criticized at home and abroad for her performance as German defense minister. During her tenure, Germany's military has deteriorated due to budget cuts and poor management, according to Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels.

"The Bundeswehr's condition is catastrophic," wrote Rupert Scholz, who served as defense minister under Chancellor Helmut Kohl, days before von der Leyen was nominated to the EU's top post. "The entire defense capability of the Federal Republic is suffering, which is totally irresponsible."

Writing for the Munich-based newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, commentator Stefan Ulrich opined that von der Leyen is an "unsuitable" choice.

In March 2016, von der Leyen was cleared of allegations of plagiarism in her doctoral thesis. In September 2015, the newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported that plagiarized material had been found on 27 pages of her 62-page dissertation_

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1450 ... superstate


----------



## ashfinlayson

Money well spent?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> I hate to say "I told you so", but.... United States of Europe and a European Army are on their way. ...


So what? If you are leaving why do you keep being bothered about something one person said that doesn't concern you?

On the other hand if we stay in the EU we have a veto on such things, so again what's your problem?

Here, have a read of this instead and chill :

https://www.thebrexiteer.eu/


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Money well spent?


Here's one for you about exposing MEP extravagance:

https://www.thebrexiteer.eu/post/brexit ... travagance

There's all the money wasted on no deal preparations of course. How did that elephant get in the room?


----------



## bobclive22

> I think we should start a new thread for you Bob if you post any more off topic conspiracy theories.


Trying to sensor debate John, getting rid of President *Trump and Brexit* are linked, no conspiracy theory just solid facts.

We have a visit from (you will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal) *Obama*, left wing press loved it, we then have (the U-S is committed to a "phenomenal" trade deal with Britain as it prepares to leave the European Union.) *Trump,* left wing press absolutely hated this and now hated Trump even more. 
Because Trump became President the deep state of the US involved the UK,Italian and Australian secret services in a bib to sabotage his Presidency hoping to impeach him and kill off Brexit at the same time(no trade deal), kill two birds with one stone, it appears the UK and Australia were willing participants being part of 5 eyes, this didn`t work therefor a *good US/UK trade deal was still on the cards.* As Boris was likely to become the next UK PM and was a Brexiteer, desperation then took hold, surprise, surprise, up pops the lefts latest effort to harm Brexit *Sir Kim Darrochs leaked memo`s*, parr for the course here, he has now been forced to resign and hopefully no damage has been done. This devious move was meant to *harm Boris, harm US relations *and the promised trade deal.
How about that for a conspiracy theory John.

As you probably only acquire your information from MSM via google john, you probably are not ware of what is playing out at the present time, below is from the Italian media.

ITALYGATE / 1 SPECIAL - All the Russiagate roads leading to Rome: the Mifsud and EyePyramid cases

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... pyramid%2F

You should watch these 2 vid`s, all will become clear, this is James Bond, absolutely amazing.






Part 2


----------



## John-H

It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?

Reality is soon to meet with the unicorns Bob. Are you ready?

I don't frequent MSM.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Swiss, not really sure what point you're making here.

1/ If it's that she was a controversial choice, yes, she is. The nepotism claims are not something to be proud of; though a lot worse happens, every day and in every country. (Also just because someone is a mate/crony or a relative doesn't mean they're not the best person for the job - but such appointments need to be very transparent indeed. I don't know the facts relating to these particular claims so I can't/won't comment more). You only have to look at the Tory government (and I'm not saying Labour would be any better) to understand there are people there who should never, ever, be given positions of power. Including a person who will shortly become PM who is an examplar of mendacity, who has lied and cheated his way through an entire career, so you'll forgive me if I can't get too worked up about this nomination - I'm too busy worrying about the next PM and the damage he will do to the UK.

2/ you've missed the point that the appointment has to be ratified by the EU. She may well not become president of the next commission. This is, at the current time, simply a nomination, which the EU parliament can accept or reject. That's a democratic process.

3/ just because someone holds some views, that does not mean those views come to pass! That is the point of a parliament any parliament. You think because an eccentric MP has a particular view, that view comes to pass? Of course not. That's also a democratic process.


----------



## bobclive22

> It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?


I presume you know who *Congressman Devin Nunes* is John, I don`t believe he is into any conspiracy.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

@Bob


> the U-S is committed to a "phenomenal" trade deal with Britain as it prepares to leave the European Union.


 ROFLMAO!


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you know who *Congressman Devin Nunes* is John, I don`t believe he is into any conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Start a new thread Bob [smiley=stop.gif]


----------



## John-H

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_3/ just because someone holds some views, that does not mean those views come to pass! That is the point of a parliament any parliament. You think because an eccentric MP has a particular view, that view comes to pass? Of course not. That's also a democratic process._

"A democratic process". In the EU? You're kidding, right?

The idea of a United States of Europe and a European Army are not just the ideas of Ursula von der Leyen. Macron, Merkel and others have been talking about both for quite some time. It's well documented too.

It's clear the goal of the EU is total control of all EU member states which, among other reasons, is why they don't want the UK out and also why they have been threatening Poland and Hungary to tow the line. Even the Swiss caved in recently to the EU demands for gun law changes.

Remind me how "democratic" the EU system is when it forces countries to vote until they get the results they want. I think the Irish would have a very different opinion.

If you think the EU is some benevolent group of who have our best interest in mind, then you fail to comprehend why they are trying everything possible to usurp and over-rule every member nations national constitution. There's only one reason they'd do that. No conspiracy necessary.


----------



## John-H

If you are leaving why do you keep being bothered about something said that doesn't concern you?

On the other hand if we stay in the EU we have a veto on such things, so again what's your problem?

Of course it's democratic. All member starters are required to be and we've just elected MEPs - or are you talking about the civil service?

So the EU controlled by member states is out to control member states who all have a veto? Have you any idea how lunatic that contention of yours sounds?

What's your problem with the idea of cooperation for the greater good? That's what Churchill said in 1958 when he thought it would be a good idea to join a political and economic union of states. Why must everything be seen in terms of conflict and subjugation?

Here, have another read of this instead and chill :

https://www.thebrexiteer.eu/

If you want to worry about something far more likely worry about the UK becoming, under Boris throw-our-ambassador-under-the-bus Johnson, the poodle of Trump's America first USA and giving our sovereignty away by adopting US law in a desperate one sided trade deal which includes selling our NHS to the American insurance corporations. All that is far more likely to happen. Join us in the fight to stop it happening.

As you are into Déjà Vu posting about things we have already dealt with it's worth posting again on this very subject:










https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Have to say Swiss you are disappointing me. Not sure what your agenda is. Talk about project fear: you seem to be a master of it.

Faults the EU has, sure. But you know perfectly well the EU is a democratic institution. (Whereas farage/banks/ashcroft et al are seeking to undermine democracy and the instutions that underpin it, which is very serious indeed for all of us in the uk).

You think the uk is better off as the 51st state of the USA? Because I don't.

You also know perfectly well that leaving the EU means throwing away all or access to markets within EU and outside the EU through the trade deals we have. It's economic insanity, without good deals to replace all of this.

You know perfectly well that once outside the EU the US, China, et al, will bend us over a barrel without the lubrication.

Perhaps you want consumer protection standards and agricultural standards to be watered down to the levels of the US. 
Perhaps you want environmental standards to be eroded. 
Perhaps you want your rights as a worker eroded.
Perhaps you want your legal rights eroded. 
But I don't want any of this. And I don't want you to force it on me, thanks.

And I haven't even started on the scientific collaborations that the UK will be frozen out of. 
Etc. Etc.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed the massive amount of money that Hunt's intending to be set aside to assist farmers and fishermen that will be hit by a no-deal Brexit, a similar amount what to the last crash cost. Strangely the very industries that were meant to benefit from Brexit (how I'm not sure - no-one explained that bit). If Brexit is so good for the country perhaps you'd like to explain why that will be necessary?

What has the EU ever done for me? Plenty thanks.

Edited to say: people may not realise a lot of the stuff the EU brings, have a look at the following links for examples: 
https://www.myeu.uk/ - stuff they are doing near you 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128556460584075270 wider view at EU benefits and collaborations

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725687564502441984 comic sketch with Patrick Stewart


----------



## John-H

Some excellent points there. It's amazing how Brexit has gone from - _we'll be much better off_, to _it won't be too bad - project fear_, to _Ok we've been through two world wars so we can take it_, to _it's going to cost us billions to repair the damage but we still have to do it because Nigel says it would be undemocratic not to_. Errr... No thanks, it hasn't happened yet and I don't see why I or anyone else should accept his nonsense.

Talking about Farage and democracy - it doesn't apply with his Brexit "party" which is a limited company wholly owned by him to which there are no members, only donors. Farage is the majority shareholder and is in total control. All explained here:

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/05/21/one- ... laid-bare/

What a constitution - and people vote for him and think he should be trusted on government? The man has never been an MP. He's only held the disingenuous and pointless position of a protesting MEP that does nothing. He only attends to mock the EU but takes the money and the pension and turns his back to the anthem so he can get his bottom closer to the microphone hoping we can more clearly hear and lap up what he says. Wake up everybody. His rhetoric stinks.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I'm always amused by people who think government is going to somehow create jobs out of thin air and solve all of societies problems. You show me one company the EU has created which has provided hundreds of good paying, secure jobs which has in turn resulted in revitalized neighborhoods, better schools, etc. Tell me how the EU is going to restore the failing mining industry in Wales - turn it into a shopping mall? Oh I know...UK Disneyland!

Truth is, scattering a few Euros here and there is nothing but virtue signaling at its best, with no real long term results. I'm sure a few people shoved those Euros into their pockets, But I'd bet even fewer, if anyone, was gainfully employed because of it. The EU, like all governments, creates nothing. It simply takes money from one person and hands it to another. They p*** on our leg and tell us it's raining. And shouldn't we all be happy!

To the point of government creating jobs, Obama tried that with Solyndra which totally failed. The old USSR tried for decades and we know how that worked out - collectively speaking. "Grab a shovel comrade! Dig hole, fill it in. If everyone has shovel and hole, everyone has job. 100% employment! Well done! Comrade!" Fact is, communist countries have proven their "five-year plans" don't work. Well the one exception would be China. But wait, you want democracy too. Never mind.

I might be in favor of all this nonsense if you had major corporations backing the political decisions and making the investments to shore failing UK and European industry. But it's all crony capitalism at it's worse. Big business isn't interested in the UK, or Europe. It's all too expensive and those pesky unions always turn up and ruin everything. Want to know where your Pounds are going when they leave the UK for the EU coffers. To Poland. Along with all the Polish workers.

I spent the early part of my working life in Silicon Valley, so I know what I'm talking about with big social governments destroying what once worked in failed social experiments and vast regulations that strangled businesses out of existence. California is working as fast as it can to turn itself into a 3rd world nation. Seems the EU is trying it's best to follow suit, and not for a lack of trying I might add - increased taxes, open borders, unsustainable social programs, crumbling infrastructure, declining productivity, weak growth, structural unemployment, and lack of flexibility in the employment market pretty much sums up the effects EU policies.

Don't take my word for it. Most economic and academic studies support exactly these statements.

At this point, after two long and mind-numbing years of it all, I'm honestly not one way or the other with Brexit because as our famed ex-president's wife once said "What difference - at this point, what difference does it make?" With regards to the future of the UK and the EU, Hillary Clinton might actually be right even if quoted out of context.


----------



## E.L.Wisty

Hi Swiss

Re your first two paras (It simply takes money from one person and hands it to another etc): No it doesn't. It promotes trade everywhere. That's a lot of the point. Secondly, where it re-distributes money, it does so in areas that national governments, driven by politics, simply doesn't. I know you're not in the UK: but govt invests huge amounts in London. Full stop. Investment elsewhere is utterly insignificant.

And then - to repeat - Hunt believes we need to set aside *vast* amounts of money to save the country in the event of a no-deal that we are rapidly heading for. How on earth does that square with leaving being great for the economy?

How many jobs do you think are being created by the prospect of UK leaving EU? Have you seen one? A single, solitary one?

To say again - the EU is a very long way from being perfect. A very long way. Of course it's got things wrong lots of times. But the fact is that without anything *remotely* near it to replace it economically then leaving it is not a rational act. And that is just trade arrangements, customs arrangements. Trade is trouble free because all countries buy into the same standards. What do you think the increased costs to businesses are going to be when every single business and product has to be tested and proved to meet EU standards before we can trade with one of the world's biggest trading blocks, and our nearest neighbours, with whom we carry out the vast majority of our trade?

You then have to consider all the other things, all the collaborations, put in place over 40 years. Air travel collaborations, law-enforcement, human rights, legal rights, workers rights, data protection rights. Agricultural standards, environmental standards. Look at what has happened in the US under Trump's presidency. Consumer protection trashed. Environmental protection trashed.

Then there's scientific collaboration, aerospace collaboration. Healthcare available across the EU. Mobile phone roaming same price as home. The list just goes on and on. And it will all be trashed. And all because a number of hard right backers who have no interest in the UK people but they will profit enormously and are making damned sure Brexit happens. But hey, Arron Banks will clean up on his health insurance businesses once the NHS is trashed, so that's ok then :-(


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I always come back to the question how can little Switzerland manage to do as well as it does, despite being smaller than the UK and with vastly less resources? Especially when you consider Swissyland was a poor, backwater country for most of it's existence. Maybe the UK should follow the Swiss model with its relationship to the EU.

I think one of the biggest advantages for Switzerland is decentralization. Even with less than ten million people, the top federal tax rate is around 13%. The majority of taxes go to their Cantons (equivalent to states or provinces) which host anywhere from 10k to 1.5 million people each. A lot of government programs are administered at the Cantonal level

Switzerland is a great example of what the UK should strive to be - a country united by a constitution that guarantees basic securities, a small federal government that enforces that constitution, and a bunch of states/provinces/cantons that are allowed to experiment with policy and remain largely autonomous.

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/co ... zerland/uk


----------



## John-H

We've had fantastic investment from the EU thanks. £3 bn into the North West in the last few years. For the current funding period (2014-20), the UK has been allocated €17.2 billion and €22.5 billion through two separate EU funds.

Have you been to Liverpool since the rundown 80's? Funding from Brussels started in 1994 when £700m was allocated under the Objective One programme followed by another £928m. Countless jobs created and businesses started. It's been completely transformed.

Cuckoo clock solutions?

So now you are talking about replacing 700 years of evolution of UK and English constitution going back to the case of Proclamations with a knee jerk solution of a written constitution modeled on a very different country in a very different situation with a very different electoral system riddled with referenda.

Don't you realise we are in a compete mess because of the inappropriate application of a referendum with an evens chance of completely disrupting our economy and its half unsuspecting citizens - many of which were completely unaware the reallocation of wealth to rescue them from an uncaring Westminster came from the EU? Some of the rich people don't seem to know either and many of the rest its not even occurred to, they don't care to know or to be fair they've not been told by Westminster who would rather they believed it came from them.

How long did it take for Switzerland to join the EU? Yes it is effectively in the EU to a large extent but achieved by years and years and years of painstaking negotiation and agreement of multiple international treaties to try and replicate something similar to membership.

We've got three months before a no deal crash out. We haven't even agreed a divorce deal.

And you propose this as a solution? Have you been drinking?


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> So now you are talking about replacing 700 years of evolution of UK and English constitution going back to the case of Proclamations with a knee jerk solution of a written constitution modeled on a very different country in a very different situation with a very different electoral system riddled with referenda.


Yet here you are, asking for another referendum :lol:


----------



## barry_m2

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are talking about replacing 700 years of evolution of UK and English constitution going back to the case of Proclamations with a knee jerk solution of a written constitution modeled on a very different country in a very different situation with a very different electoral system riddled with referenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, asking for another referendum :lol:
Click to expand...

It's comedy gold isn't it. [smiley=end.gif]


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are talking about replacing 700 years of evolution of UK and English constitution going back to the case of Proclamations with a knee jerk solution of a written constitution modeled on a very different country in a very different situation with a very different electoral system riddled with referenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, asking for another referendum :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's comedy gold isn't it. [smiley=end.gif]
Click to expand...

I realise this is difficult but the only other way of avoiding the damage is to revoke.


----------



## barry_m2

Damage? You mean all the speculation of what 'might' happen? [smiley=computer.gif]


----------



## Iceblue

> I always come back to the question how can little Switzerland manage to do as well as it does,


Because its the size of a postage stamp and managed to position itself to clip the ticket on a lot of colourful money :lol:


----------



## John-H

barry_m2 said:


> Damage? You mean all the speculation of what 'might' happen? [smiley=computer.gif]


No, the certainty of tariffs and border friction in reality.


----------



## bobclive22

> It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?


Well John how do you know everything you have read from your remain sources isn`t just garbage.
Seems our J Mifsud has some high level western contacts considering he is supposedly a Russian spy, well that`s according to the $20million Mueller enquirry, nothing is as it seems in these times John.

Google the names on the last photo, the link to Brexit is in the last photo.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?
> 
> 
> 
> Well John how do you know everything you have read from your remain sources isn`t just garbage. ...
Click to expand...

Because it stands to reason unlike yours :roll:


----------



## bobclive22

> bobclive22 wrote:
> It's a fine conspiracy theory Bob. You must have put your best imagination into it or was it someone else's?
> 
> Well John how do you know everything you have read from your remain sources isn`t just garbage. ...
> 
> Because it stands to reason unlike yours :roll:


Try this John, all the links can be followed to verify the statements,

"After Mifsud allegedly engaged George Papadopoulos in trying to set him up with allegedly stolen data, he went on to* host conferences with US Treasury officials, ex-CIA agents, congressmen and State Department officials in numerous venues.* If the investigation were genuine, US authorities would have alerted the British government and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.* Mifsud would not have been able to get into a position to be photographed with the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson *if he was a security threat or an agent of influence."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04- ... ing-mifsud

https://twitter.com/CJBdingo25/media


----------



## John-H

If you didn't see it, it's worth watching. The Andrew Neil interview with Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson:

The Andrew Neil Interviews, Conservative Leadership: Jeremy Hunt & Boris Johnson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0006xtz via @bbciplayer

Funniest moment was when Andrew Neil brought up Johnson's insistence that GATT 24 would apply.

Johnson insisted "GATT24 paragraph five B" would apply and told Andrew Neil it was important to get the detail right.

Andrew asked him what he would do to get round paragraph five C? Johnson said he would "entirely rely on paragraph five B". Andrew asked, "Do you know what's in paragraph five C? Johnson said with comic timing, "No", and then grinned liked he thought it was funny and proceeded into bluster.

There we have the man of detail exposed as not being in command of his own brief.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Funnniest moment was when Andrew Neil brought up Johnson's insistence that GATT 24 would apply.


Really lol


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Brexit is the greatest show on earth! Now this from the German news (translated into English) :










Boris Johnson does not know his own Brexit plan: The favorite to succeed Prime Minister Theresa May has revealed in a BBC interview that he has major knowledge gaps. The favorite in the race for conservative party leader and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has revealed gross gaps in his Brexit plan in a BBC interview on Friday night.

Johnson wants to lead the UK out of the EU on October 31, "come, whatever you want". Should the EU by then not respond to Johnson's demands for changes to the Brexit Agreement, he wants to retire, if necessary, without a deal from the international community.

Johnson claims that negative consequences for the economy could then be overcome through a provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) - an international treaty that laid the foundations for the World Trade Organization ( WTO ).

Boris Johnson does not know the content of Article 24

Then just the same trading rules could apply as before, until a new free trade agreement is concluded, Johnson said. Customs duties are superfluous. However, weeks ago, he could not even name the exact provision of the agreement.

In an interview with BBC presenter Andrew Neil, Johnson now attached great importance to Article 24, clause 5 (b) of the GATT Agreement. The question of Neil, whether he knew what was in paragraph 5 c, Johnson had to deny, however.

In it, Neil taught him that "you not only need EU approval, you also need to agree on the outline of a future trade agreement and the timeline to achieve that." Why, if Johnson did not even want to commit to the terms of the withdrawal that were already agreed, should Brussels agree, Neil asked. Johnson had no convincing answer. (Pak / dpa)

https://web.de/magazine/politik/brexit/ ... n-33843246


----------



## bobclive22

> There we have the man of detail exposed as not being in command of his own brief.


Doesn`t matter John, Boris`s has his BREXIT advises to guide him, Olly Robbins won`t be one of them so we can now get on with some serious negotiations.


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> There we have the man of detail exposed as not being in command of his own brief.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn`t matter John, Boris`s has his BREXIT advises to guide him, Olly Robbins won`t be one of them so we can now get on with some serious negotiations.
Click to expand...

They have been advising him. The advice didn't come from anyone sensible. I expect the absurd charabanc to suffer breakdown on its erratic journey quite soon.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> bobclive22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There we have the man of detail exposed as not being in command of his own brief.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn`t matter John, Boris`s has his BREXIT advises to guide him, Olly Robbins won`t be one of them so we can now get on with some serious negotiations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been advising him. The advice didn't come from anyone sensible. I expect the absurd charabanc to suffer breakdown on its erratic journey quite soon.
Click to expand...

Let it ride over you John and enjoy the journey. Worrying about something you have no control over at 04:44hrs is concerning


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Pure speculation I'll admit, but I would not be surprised if Ursula von der Leyen has Nigel Farage arrested, hand cuffed and hauled out of EU Parliament on some trumped up charges just to shut him up.

Given the back room deals she's done in her shady, and incompetent past, I wouldn't put it past her. The clock, as they say, is ticking.

Considering her track record for the German military, she should do wonders for the EU. Can't wait to see how this goes!


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> ...
> Let it ride over you John and enjoy the journey. Worrying about something you have no control over at 04:44hrs is concerning


Some of us get up early - and I wouldn't want that charabanc riding over me :?



SwissJetPilot said:


> Pure speculation I'll admit, but I would not be surprised if Ursula von der Leyen has Nigel Farage arrested, hand cuffed and hauled out of EU Parliament on some trumped up charges just to shut him up.
> 
> Given the back room deals she's done in her shady, and incompetent past, I wouldn't put it past her. The clock, as they say, is ticking.
> 
> Considering her track record for the German military, she should do wonders for the EU. Can't wait to see how this goes!


She's subject to the Parliament and veto of the member states. Her job is primarily to uphold EU law defined by treaty and the democracy of member states and the Parliament.

Farage? Well, he is under investigation for not declaring his financial support income - the private jets to the US, the bodyguards, the chauffeur driven Range Rover and the exclusive Chelsea apartments - all paid for by Arron Banks. And he's set up his "Brexit party" as a company where he's in total control of all the collected donations - a "party" where you can only be a donor and not a member. He keeps control of policy and the money. He turns his back on the EU but keeps the salary and the pension. Who's taking the mick here?

But it's more serious than that. The mandate in 2016 was to leave the EU to be "better off". The "easiest trade deal in history". We'd save huge amounts of money by not having to pay but we could get the "exact same benefits". Save £350m p/w for the NHS. "Take back control for the UK Parliament".

At what point did it change to no-deal is the only true Brexit option? It's going to cost billions in tariffs and jobs and restrictions and loss of trade, risking peace in Northern Ireland - but we've been through two world wars so we are told to take it.

At what point did this mandate involve shutting down Parliament to remove its control?

At what point did the mandate involve removing civil servants and ambassadors who are seen as not being Brexiteer enough?

This is turning into a coup - replacing not only a party leader to enact the whims of 0.25% of the population but replacing the structures of government with believing supporters of the populist creed. Checks and balances removed.

Who do you think gains? Hint - Aaron Banks and Farage and a whole load of lobbyists and investors are not trying to make the general UK population better off. This is no altruistic drive. Don't you think the ones pushing Brexit might be up for an advantage for themselves??? We are all being taken for a ride.

You should read this:
https://europeantomorrow.blogspot.com/2 ... mined.html

And this:
View attachment cliffedgedossier_A4.pdf


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_Her job is primarily to uphold EU law defined by treaty and the democracy of member states and the Parliament. _

If so, Poland and Hungary are in for a major s-storm in the near future.


----------



## bobclive22

OOP`s there goes another one.

While the Government spent almost half a million pounds fighting him, *Guido readers'* generous donations supercharged Darren's appeal helping to raise over £90,000 to take the fight back to the Remain establishment. The average donation was just £30&#8230;

https://order-order.com/2019/07/19/darr ... ommission/


----------



## John-H

The independent process of law will continue from the county court to the court of appeal.

Guido and Order-order have the same right wing backing by the way.


----------



## leopard

BoJo for PM [smiley=mexicanwave.gif] [smiley=drummer.gif] :lol:

Hey John where's the district judge's judgement, hasn't stopped him from entering the door at No 10 has it ?

Where's the money that you and the crowd funders wasted, I hope you get a refund LMAO


----------



## John-H

You seem to be as presumptive as ever. Mrs May is still PM until Wednesday and it's not 100% certain Boris will have a majority by then.

Even if stardust Johnson does become PM the chances are he won't last long. He's locked himself in the ERG dungeon with no room for manoeuvre and they've placed guards on the doors to keep him there. Now either you expect him to be Houdini or will he turn out to be Tommy Cooper after all?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> You seem to be as presumptive as ever. Mrs May is still PM until Wednesday and it's not 100% certain Boris will have a majority by then.
> 
> Even if stardust Johnson does become PM the chances are he won't last long. He's locked himself in the ERG dungeon with no room for manoeuvre and they've placed guards on the doors to keep him there. Now either you expect him to be Houdini or will he turn out to be Tommy Cooper after all?


Disgusting attitude. You obviously have no regard for important people who can make lives of the ordinary man like yourself to enjoy a better quality of life once Brexit is underway by the end of October 

... And comedy gold as usual here. Your whole quote is pure presumption. Firstly let's wait until Wednesday. I am quite happy to bet he'll be in Downing st before bedtime.

Ah the old ERG chestnut. What you seem to forget is parliament has already voted twice for a no deal Brexit should an agreement not be forthcoming and it's written in law, so no problems there either.

I'm quite happy the way things are progressing as no doubt the majority 17+ million who voted out are as well. Stick that in your remainers crack pipe


----------



## John-H

You do have an interesting interpretation of the meaning of words and the definition of facts :lol:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> You do have an interesting interpretation of the meaning of words and the definition of facts :lol:


You've been brainwashed on all these marches and remainers nonsense, the heat and the sleepless nights don't help either :lol: 
Even the most influential and most powerful man in the world, that's right old Trumpy has said Boris is going to be excellent. You can't get a better endorsement than that


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Actually, I'd argue the most powerful man in the world right now is Xi Jinping. Western economies will all soon be on their knees, Brexit or not, at the rate China is going. How much of the UK and London does China own at this point? They already have Greece in their pocket thanks to Piraeus.

https://quillette.com/2019/07/22/when-t ... ist-party/


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> Actually, I'd argue the most powerful man in the world right now is Xi Jinping. Western economies will all soon be on their knees, Brexit or not, at the rate China is going. How much of the UK and London does China own at this point? They already have Greece in their pocket thanks to Piraeus.
> 
> https://quillette.com/2019/07/22/when-t ... ist-party/


China is going down the toilet, recession lurks around the corner.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/19/econ ... index.html


----------



## John-H

Trump just said Boris Johnson is like himself - a sort of mini Trump and added to the crowd that "they like me over there". Another fantasist comedian :roll:

Unfortunately we seem to have ended up with the leader Leopard deserves :wink:










One small step for a man - one giant leap into the dark for mankind :?


----------



## SwissJetPilot

OMG, CNN...??? Seriously? I hate to say this, but they're just another major US fake news factory. It's one reason you have to avoid mainstream US media, especially anything under AT&T ownership.

Keep in mind, what most of these so called 'news' centers tell us is how much activity there is in the economy, but they tell us very little about the prosperity of the people, which is really what matters. The Chinese have been incredibly prosperous over the past 20-years. I can't say the same for anyone in the US or Europe, other than the uber-rich.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Unfortunately we seem to have ended up with the leader Leopard deserves :wink:


I don't want to take all the credit, I'm sure the rest of the 17 million will be over the moon too. The minority will learn to love. Time is a great healer and in time I'm sure the majority will forgive


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> OMG, CNN...??? Seriously? I hate to say this, but they're just another major US fake news factory. It's one reason you have to avoid mainstream US media, especially anything under AT&T ownership.
> 
> Keep in mind, what most of these so called 'news' centers tell us is how much activity there is in the economy, but they tell us very little about the prosperity of the people, which is really what matters. The Chinese have been incredibly prosperous over the past 20-years. I can't say the same for anyone in the US or Europe, other than the uber-rich.


Yes seriously. China = [smiley=toilet.gif]


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> OMG, CNN...??? Seriously? I hate to say this, but they're just another major US fake news factory. It's one reason you have to avoid mainstream US media, especially anything under AT&T ownership.
> 
> Keep in mind, what most of these so called 'news' centers tell us is how much activity there is in the economy, but they tell us very little about the prosperity of the people, which is really what matters. The Chinese have been incredibly prosperous over the past 20-years. I can't say the same for anyone in the US or Europe, other than the uber-rich.


Take no notice - he thinks hi-fi co-ax interconnects sound different :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, CNN...??? Seriously? I hate to say this, but they're just another major US fake news factory. It's one reason you have to avoid mainstream US media, especially anything under AT&T ownership.
> 
> Keep in mind, what most of these so called 'news' centers tell us is how much activity there is in the economy, but they tell us very little about the prosperity of the people, which is really what matters. The Chinese have been incredibly prosperous over the past 20-years. I can't say the same for anyone in the US or Europe, other than the uber-rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Take no notice - he thinks hi-fi co-ax interconnects sound different :wink:
Click to expand...

 :lol: You slipped up and inserted co-ax last minute. Makes no difference and yes even co-ax cable can sound different. But this is besides the point, as an administrator you should know not to change the subject when in difficulty. Take it on the chin, your waffling thoughts on here are for the internet only, reality is on the outside John :lol: 
Which reminds me, it's about time I was promoted to moderator...


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Wait...what? My gold plated RCA connectors and monster cables DON'T improve the sound quality!? Say it ain't so!!! :lol:


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, CNN...??? Seriously? I hate to say this, but they're just another major US fake news factory. It's one reason you have to avoid mainstream US media, especially anything under AT&T ownership.
> 
> Keep in mind, what most of these so called 'news' centers tell us is how much activity there is in the economy, but they tell us very little about the prosperity of the people, which is really what matters. The Chinese have been incredibly prosperous over the past 20-years. I can't say the same for anyone in the US or Europe, other than the uber-rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Take no notice - he thinks hi-fi co-ax interconnects sound different :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :lol: You slipped up and inserted co-ax last minute. Makes no difference and yes even co-ax cable can sound different. But this is besides the point, as an administrator you should know not to change the subject when in difficulty. Take it on the chin, your waffling thoughts on here are for the internet only, reality is on the outside John :lol:
> Which reminds me, it's about time I was promoted to moderator...
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out your tendency to flights of fancy despite irrefutable proof to the contrary. Remind you of anybody? How's your Latin? :wink:



SwissJetPilot said:


> Wait...what? My gold plated RCA connectors and monster cables DON'T improve the sound quality!? Say it ain't so!!! :lol:


ALL the evidence is here: https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1162521


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I was just pointing out your tendency to flights of fancy despite irrefutable proof to the contrary. Remind you of anybody? How's your Latin? :wink:
> 
> ALL the evidence is here: https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1162521


Nutrix, Et Walterus de lecto surrexit iterum lol


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out your tendency to flights of fancy despite irrefutable proof to the contrary. Remind you of anybody? How's your Latin? :wink:
> 
> ALL the evidence is here: https://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1162521
> 
> 
> 
> Nutrix, Et Walterus de lecto surrexit iterum lol
Click to expand...

Wiff waff . . . . Your ping pongs


----------



## John-H

On a more serious note... Have you noticed how Trump has bigleyed up Johnson and then in the same speech bigleyed up Farage? Are we going to be pushed? Or are we going to push back?

Who do you think is promoting Brexit and who stands to gain?

Serious question.


----------



## leopard

Even more serious, Bojo now confirmed PM, seventeen negative members of the old cabinet kicked out and JRM Leader of the House of Commons.
Don't cry into your warm beer John


----------



## John-H

Why should I do that? It's a corralling of the unicorns. The more sensible have now gone to the back benches.

The numbers haven't changed, the government has no majority to speak of and now everybody is free to oppose.

The EU never took Theresa May's no deal threat seriously because it would harm the UK far more than it would harm the EU and nothing has changed. BoJo the clown won't be able to get it through the commons and I don't believe he wants the UK to be damaged or for it to break up.

All that will happen now is that the EU will suggest he ratifies May's withdrawal agreement with some changes to the political agreement but the backstop in the legal text will remain.

BoJo won't be able to get that through the commons and neither will he be able to get no deal through but if he tries he will be able to claim he's tried and is being resisted by the commons.

So, then he has the excuse to call a general election if he thinks he can win in the prevailing circumstances in order to change the numbers or he calls a referendum. Arguably a referendum keeps him in power longer and the problem goes away.

Reality always wins in the end


----------



## leopard

You're right reality does win in the end, so you keep dreaming and we'll wake you up when it's all over :lol:


----------



## HOGG

Boris will sort it

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

All the worst people are celebrating Boris


----------



## bobclive22

> The EU never took Theresa May's no deal threat seriously because it would harm the UK far more than it would harm the EU and nothing has changed.


I believe May never threatened no deal at talks.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/m ... ar-AAEvsq2


----------



## bobclive22

> Trump just said Boris Johnson is like himself - a sort of mini Trump and added to the crowd that "they like me over there". Another fantasist comedian :roll:


You have obviously been reading the fake MSM John and swallowed the fake Trump Russia collusion narrative. Bob Mueller author of a $25 million report taking over 2 years to complete appeared before the house Judiciary and Intelligence Committees yesterday, if you have been paying attention you will be familiar with the names in the video below, No conspiracy and NO collusion just left wing garbage, same as project fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EbrfiA ... dex=8&t=0s


----------



## John-H

bobclive22 said:


> The EU never took Theresa May's no deal threat seriously because it would harm the UK far more than it would harm the EU and nothing has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe May never threatened no deal at talks.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/m ... ar-AAEvsq2
Click to expand...

You have obviously been reading fake MSN Bob :roll:


----------



## badger64

I seriously had my doubts about boris, but i think he invigorated politics, may was a wet blanket frightened of her own shadow and never believed in no deal. I hope boris delivers what he is promising, not only for Brexit but his promises of investment. the greens, libdems and those that campaign for a 2nd referendum but then say they will not accept another leave decision are a disgrace to politics, moreover how can the liberals claim to be democrats when they are anything but democratic?


----------



## John-H

So all you have to do is believe and it will come true? Good luck riding that unicorn.

We need more democracy, not less, to correct this mistake. There is no mandate for no deal which breaks all the promises made about the easiest trade deal in history and the exact same benefits. Theresa May has no legacy to stand on and neither for her successor on which to build.

Johnson is a liar just like Trump. "Britain Trump" - apparently we like Trump over here according to Trump. Well some of us like his equivalent it seems - the Liar King with his yellow mane. The two are very similar:









Johnson is already talking about getting rid of GM rules in the UK to allow the import of American genetically modified produce. Of course that would create problems with our biggest market in our doorstep in the EU.

Do we trust him not to sell off the NHS too in a US trade deal?

He said, _"The people who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts."_

The people who bet against Britain are the hedge fund managers that shorted the nation during the referendum, betting against construction and industry and all the things that plummet every time an economy dives. They bet against Britain and Johnson and Cummings delivered them billions. We pick up the bill costing the UK £600m per week since the referendum compared to where we would have been had we collectively had more sense than to believe the nonsense.

Johnson represents the interests of the rich.

Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave director held in contempt by Parliament for refusing to attend the select committee investigating his illegal activity is now going to run Downing Street.

What do we think about a racist running the country? Cummings ran the Vote Leave campaign and stood behind posters and targeted advertising that played on prejudice, raised fears about immigrants and refugees and invented the lie that "Turkey is joining the EU."

Exploiting the racism of others for political ends does not excuse you from being a racist yourself. People say Cummings has a "large brain" but he is no better than Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson by the tools he uses to gain power. Other historical equivalence marked the start of some very dark times in Europe for which the origins of the EU were created to promote peace, harmony and prosperity to stop it happening again. Very sad that our collective short sightedness is allowing a venture in that direction.


----------



## A3DFU

Sad but true, people don't seem to learn from history. Also, one must never underestimate the power of a (mad) crowd. Crowd madness is a well know phenomenon


----------



## John-H

So, do you want GM foods contaminating our environment and restricting EU trade so reducing our biggest market?

https://sciencebusiness.net/news/boris- ... s-gm-crops

So, Johnson announces this on the first day - what else can we expect in betrayal?


----------



## Stiff

Careful John, you've left your webcam running...


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_What do we think about a racist running the country?_









_Johnson represents the interests of the rich._
Because representing the interests of the poor is a better idea? 








_Do we trust him not to sell off the NHS too in a US trade deal?_
Yeah, and the NHS is working out so well at the moment. :roll: Are you afraid someone might actually be able to do a better job of it?








_So, do you want GM foods contaminating our environment and restricting EU trade so reducing our biggest market? _
No to GM foods, and Monsanto should be set on fire using the CEO and his staff as cord wood. 








As to "_reducing your biggest marke_t"...
There's like how many billion people in India and China. You can't sell it there?


----------



## leopard

Stiff said:


> Careful John, you've left your webcam running...


Lmao


----------



## badger64

stiff if you think he is having a meltdown now, wait until oct 31st.....


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> Careful John, you've left your webcam running...


I'm flattered you think me so youthful. How kind. Hilarious.

Good to see you guys sharing round the meme brain cells of others. Lost for rational arguments? Looks that way - for example you think we can't trade with China whilst in the EU? Oh we can? So why don't we then in preference? It's such a big market after all. What's stopping us? It is far away but surely that shouldn't matter? Perhaps they just don't want what we have to offer? You think leaving the EU will improve the attractiveness of our stuff? 

You think not being able to afford medical treatment like in the US would be good? Amazing. You must be so healthy.

You think the rich are best left looking after the rich and getting poorer people to pay for it? Fantastic. I didn't realise that's the way to happiness in life.

You think racism is fine?

Well if you want to appear that way to others that's up to you. Rather you than me..


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_You think not being able to afford medical treatment like in the US would be good? Amazing. You must be so healthy._

I never had a problem with it until Obama and Pelosi showed up and forced the Affordable Care Act down everyone's throats. But I didn't realize you were an expert on the American health care system too. Please - tell us all about your personal experience using the American system and how it failed you.


----------



## John-H

It's on record and a well known fact that you or your insurance has to pay and if you can't afford it you either end up poorer or don't get the treatment. Plenty of examples of people involved in accidents pleading for ambulances not to be called because they don't have cover and *"couldn't afford the £565 they charged every time."*

*
"More than 44 million Americans are without health insurance."*

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror ... 935570.amp

The affordable healthcare bill was supposed to provide this missing cover.

Of course if you have a well paid job you don't have a problem (or don't care) because you don't see the bills because the insurance is paid by your employer. You don't want to pay more taxes for Obama care but what you really should be doing is making your healthcare more like our NHS.

The layers of middlemen between you and the care makes the service less efficient and less affordable for a nation.

The NHS with it's universal availability makes it fair and it's direct government funding makes it more efficient but it has been underfunded by successive governments and efficiency drives more for political reasons. It's interesting how health service management costs vary country to country as a percentage of the total funding:

USA 8%
France 6%
Germany 5%
World average 4.5%
UK NHS 2.5%

Our NHS is actually very efficient compared to other developed countries. The one thing that brings it down is that it's working at well over 90% capacity all the time causing queues, delays and crisis as demand varies. This simply shows that not enough resources are being allocated to it by central government.

France and Germany have their hospitals operating at around 80% capacity but the UK a ridiculous 95%.

You can see which has been efficiency driven to the bone and starved of resources.

The elephant in the room in all of the is the effect of Brexit which is already starving the NHS of workers as EU recruitment has almost stopped.

The government's own impact studies show there will be a drop in GDP of between 2.5% and 16% depending on the eventual Brexit deal or lack of one and to put that in perspective; the 2008 banking crisis only caused a 2% fall in GDP but caused 10 years of cutbacks and austerity.

There will be less money to go round because the government tax take will diminish which will then make NHS privatisation more likely - part of the motivation behind those with deep pockets behind Brexit who stand to gain from the chaos created. Any U.S. trade deal is likely to open up the NHS to American medical insurance and pharmaceuticals. we've already had this admitted to by the American ambassador and Trump.

The best boost for health and the NHS is to stop Brexit. Kick out those promoting the US model for their rich mates to make money from - we don't want to be taken advantage of thanks.

Now, I don't really believe you support racism. You were just having a cheap shot with your meme in opposition to my complaint about Dominic Cummings being racist through his actions of pressing all the racial prejudice buttons during the campaign. I know you, like Stiff, take the Mick. I'm, however, inviting some serious thought about what's going on here between those in power and darkly behind the scenes in the USA and UK lobbying to gain power and wealth from changes they are trying to engineer which are now becoming all to obvious and how that fits with the values and standards we hold dear. I invite you to complain to your MP to resist their greed and damaging influence. Don't give up on what's right - we shouldn't be arguing with ourselves we should be arguing with them. We don't have to be used and abused, disarmed by bluster and made to feel helpless by a public school educated Gary Oldman impersonator spouting Latin, lying through his teeth and doing what's best for him at our expense.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> The best boost for health and the NHS is to stop Brexit.


No need.

*Boris Johnson tells Donald Trump NHS 'not for sale' in any post-Brexit trade deal*

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... lls-donald


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You think racism is fine?


See, you keep banding that word around willy nilly like it's a bad thing. It _tries_ to label things that it really shouldn't. Once upon a time, hanging a Union flag from your house would be called patriotism. Nowadays? Screams of "I'm offended! You racist!" And there's many, many more of the same ilk. Hate crimes is another. Wolf whistling? A *hate* crime? My F^*%ing arse it is. Quite the opposite, but I digress.
Personally, I think the fact that the label includes so many menial, unwarranted (frequently laughable) incidents that it devalues the *true* racist occurrences.



John-H said:


> Well if you want to appear that way to others that's up to you.


The difference between you and me is that I couldn't care less. You can stick to your misused, construed label of racism. I'll stick to my definition of patriotism thank you very much.


----------



## stuff1

I think leaving the EU is just like everything else - designed by someone, to force people to attack each other...to divide us, so they can conquer us, like boiling a toad...you don't realize you are being killed until its too late as everything is so subtle.

I see people I used to call friends...used to call rational level headed people...that facade is gone now and they just spend all day insulting each other.

But I see a common thing and that's the Remainers or the people who put "I'm voting Labour" pictures on FB, which is really virtue signalling _"look at me I CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE MORE THAN YOU DO"_ - who do most of the insulting.

But the real hard facts are.

*There was a public vote. And the majority voted leave*

All these people, and I notice some on here with big signatures - who want to force another public vote over and over until it swings in their favor, (and I presume when that happens, future votes should be banned right?), need to grow up. It's no different to that Nicola Sturgeon idiot who wants Independence even though the Scots don't (as you can see in their votes) so she just rams more polls down their throats.

tldr: It's caused friends to do this: [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## SwissJetPilot

+1 for Stiff. Anytime someone throws the word "racist" or "Nazi" out there I immediately discount anything else they have to say. That you would even go there. Seriously? :roll:

I didn't ask you for a Wikipedia copy-paste on US health care problems. I asked you to "Please tell us all about your personal experience using the American system and how it failed you."

And your answer is - not answering the question - again. You have an interesting pattern of either avoiding direct questions, responding with a misdirect, or you quote information on subjects you obviously don't know about or understand in an attempt to sound like you do. An honest answer would be, "I don't really know as I have never used it". Instead we get BS. Nice try. Fail.

Just so we're clear and you know where I'm coming from, I've paid for medical insurance in the US and I've used the American health care system most of my life prior to "Obama Care".

So...back to the original question...I am really interested to hear from you about your experience with the US health care system and why, based on your personal experience, you think it doesn't work.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best boost for health and the NHS is to stop Brexit.
> 
> 
> 
> No need.
> 
> *Boris Johnson tells Donald Trump NHS 'not for sale' in any post-Brexit trade deal*
> 
> https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... lls-donald
Click to expand...

You trust a liar? Let's hope you are right but where did Trump get the idea that trade could go up five fold? What are we going to offer that's not on offer at the moment?



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think racism is fine?
> 
> 
> 
> See, you keep banding that word around willy nilly like it's a bad thing. It _tries_ to label things that it really shouldn't. Once upon a time, hanging a Union flag from your house would be called patriotism. Nowadays? Screams of "I'm offended! You racist!"
Click to expand...

Firstly I don't and secondly you seem to be getting a little carried away. I use the union flag myself, what's your problem?



Stiff said:


> And there's many, many more of the same ilk. Hate crimes is another. Wolf whistling? A *hate* crime? My F^*%ing arse it is. Quite the opposite, but I digress.


Since when has wolf whistling been a hate crime? :lol:

I think you mean sexual harassment. So, would you consider the feelings of a woman you wolf whistled at?



Stiff said:


> Personally, I think the fact that the label includes so many menial, unwarranted (frequently laughable) incidents that it devalues the *true* racist occurrences.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want to appear that way to others that's up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and me is that I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

I think we got that.



Stiff said:


> You can stick to your misused, construed label of racism. I'll stick to my definition of patriotism thank you very much.


It would be interesting to see your definition of "racist". The dictionary says:

*
"a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."*

You think what Dominic Cummings did was fine, Tommy Robinson's rants are fine, Nigel Farage stirring up hatred of immigrants and refugees is fine? How is it not racist to discriminate and stir up feelings against other races like this? More to the point, no matter what word you use, why are you apparently defending such things by arguing against me for calling it out?



stuff1 said:


> I think leaving the EU is just like everything else - designed by someone, to force people to attack each other...to divide us, so they can conquer us, like boiling a toad...you don't realize you are being killed until its too late as everything is so subtle.
> 
> I see people I used to call friends...used to call rational level headed people...that facade is gone now and they just spend all day insulting each other.


I totally agree. They gave us pointless things to argue about like sovereignty, control, freedom when realisation of how much we have now of these things is understood almost as badly as how much we will lose if we leave the EU. We distract ourselves arguing with one another when what's really going on is someone else is gaining at our expense, which we won't realise until it's too late.



stuff1 said:


> ...
> But the real hard facts are.
> 
> *There was a public vote. And the majority voted leave*
> 
> All these people, and I notice some on here with big signatures - who want to force another public vote over and over until it swings in their favor, (and I presume when that happens, future votes should be banned right?) ...


No. Vote Leave cheated by exceeding their campaign budget by 10% on targeted advertising they knew pressed all the right buttons. Given that the swing was less than 2% it's easy to see how the result is unsound.

The truth is that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been annulled by the courts but because it was only advisory on Parliament there is no legal connection between the referendum and the political decision by the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50.

If there was any justice now there would be a political imperative to cancel the decision and hold a fresh vote based on the knowledge we have now of the lies and cheating that went on and the truth of the situation that only now we know.

Isn't it incumbent on a democratic vote to define the choice properly and not cheat in the process?

We were told we would get the "exact same benefits" and it would be the "easiest trade deal in history" with £350m p/w for the NHS. None of this was true and there was no proper consideration of Northern Ireland or the consequential break up of the UK nor the imposition of tariffs and reduction of standards making us all worse off.

I'm calling for a fresh vote in the light of all of this. It would be the only one needed unless in future things changed again.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> +1 for Stiff. Anytime someone throws the word "racist" or "Nazi" out there I immediately discount anything else they have to say. That you would even go there. Seriously? :roll:


You are doing it again and I pulled you out of the hole last time. You seem determined to dig another one :roll:



SwissJetPilot said:


> I didn't ask you for a Wikipedia copy-paste on US health care problems. I asked you to "Please tell us all about your personal experience using the American system and how it failed you."
> 
> And your answer is - not answering the question - again. You have an interesting pattern of either avoiding direct questions, responding with a misdirect, or you quote information on subjects you obviously don't know about or understand in an attempt to sound like you do. An honest answer would be, "I don't really know as I have never used it". Instead we get BS. Nice try. Fail.


You are being a complete flapdoodle today. It wasn't a cut and paste from Wikipedia it was partly a cut and paste from something It'd written in summary before as a result of what's called research. Plus some new words of my own.

You seem to have a preposterous notion that it's only possible to know anything about a subject if you've had direct experience of it.

What are these things called reports in newspapers, journals and other media? You should try them sometime. They can broaden your knowledge you know.



SwissJetPilot said:


> Just so we're clear and you know where I'm coming from, I've paid for medical insurance in the US and I've used the American health care system most of my life prior to "Obama Care".
> 
> So...back to the original question...I am really interested to hear from you about your experience with the US health care system and why, based on your personal experience, you think it doesn't work.


 :lol: No you're not. You just want me to say I've not had any direct experience so you can pounce like an excited ninny and say "Aha! I have so I win!" But as discussed above knowledge doesn't work like that. It's possible to know a lot about something without actually being there. Heck, Patrick Moore knew a lot about the moon but never went there.

So, if I asked you what your directly formed opinion of Jeremy Corbyn was and you were forced to admit you'd never met him and I said, "Aha! I said hello to him in a car park once," and then proceeded to insist I knew everything about him and all your experiences of seeing him on the telly and reading about him meant nothing - you could quite rightly accuse me of postulating at the extremes of nincompoopery.

But that's what you were just trying to do wasn't it :wink: go on admit it. Nice try but it was never going to work :lol:


----------



## stuff1

Vote Leave spent £7.7M in total if you include the 10% overspend.

Vote Remain profited by £16M+ because the Remain-sponsored Government spent £9m of the publics money on its own Remain marketing campaign. Surely you know this...you seem like a well researched fellow with correct grammar and syntax which suggests intelligence, so why leave it out?



> More importantly, the European referendum was not a case of one squeaky clean side against another up to all kinds of tricks.
> 
> *The government produced a 16-page leaflet, "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK", which was delivered to 27 million households in April (and in Scotland and Wales in May) 2016 at a cost to the public purse of £9.3 million, which did not count towards referendum expenditure.*
> 
> A study by Harry Pickard of Sheffield University has shown that the government's 2016 leaflet did have a major impact on the referendum vote - those who read the leaflet were, the study shows, 3 per cent less likely to vote leave than those who had not. Among Conservative voters, exposure to the leaflet reduced the likelihood of voting leave by over 6 per cent. The government's leaflet - and indeed the other public resources employed on behalf of a Remain vote - created a far from even playing field. Its impact was clearly very much greater than whatever BeLeave may have achieved.





> We were told we would get the "exact same benefits" and it would be the "easiest trade deal in history" with £350m p/w for the NHS.


There should have been, except it was put into the hands of a PM (May) who wanted to Remain and I think, purposely made a mess of it all so that the public would just ask to cancel it completely. Cameron wanted to remain, so when the vote passed, he resigned. Which is logical because how can you push your country through a transition you are not in agreement with? May also pushed through several laws which directly benefit her family / husband which puts a spotlight on her personal agenda. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-12701871

I read that younger remainers came up with *the lovely democratic *idea of banning older people from voting. You know, those people who happen to have voted Leave, but have also spent 50+ years putting tax into the government pot.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"You are being a complete flapdoodle today"._ I actually had to look that up! LOL! :lol:

Do you know how many people in Switzerland have health care coverage? All of them.100%

Do you know why? Because it's Swiss law. Everyone here has to have it. 
https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/missi ... rance.html

And do you know how many people who own a car are required by law to have car insurance? Yep, all of them. 100%
Wow...how amazing is that?

So what do you think would happen if everyone in America was required, by law, to have health insurance? Well by golly they'd all have it now wouldn't they. And what if, like here in Swissyland, the American people had a CHOICE as to which type of health care they could buy with various levels of coverage, deductibles, etc. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?!

And there's the kicker. Thanks to Obama and his socialist agenda, people DON'T have a choice and if they can't afford the monthly premiums, guess what the Obama plans does. It fines them! Yes, the Government now charges people for not buying something they can't afford in the first place. And guess what, they still don't have health care coverage!! How genius is that!?

Now imagine a system where everyone has to buy health care but they have a choice about what they want. Various options about the type of coverage, deductibles, etc. Like any system where EVERYONE has to pay, it works quite well because why? It's a market driven system. OMG!! Who knew? Free market capitalism actually works!? Say it ain't so!?

Now here in Swissyland, unlike in the States, my employer doesn't contribute anything to my health care so that kinda sucks. And in Germany, which I actually think is a better system, it works quite well for a number of reasons:

1.) Hospitals are for-profit, but they are capped at around 3% profit. (the primary cost issue in the US)
2.) It's nearly impossible to sue a health care provider (a huge issue that drives up costs in the States)
3.) No doctor in Germany makes half a million a year (another huge cost factor in the US)
4.) Everyone contributes. Everyone. (you get the idea)

Now, if one could combine the best of all these systems that do work, and work quite well, we'd have the problem solved. Everyone in the States could have good quality, affordable heath care with the ability to buy only what best suits their needs.

And to your point about the poor. Most people are poor because of their bad decision making skills. And frankly, this socialist collective "wealth distribution" mentality stinks of Gulag. But if you can prove to me how Bill Gates being so rich is somehow impacting your ability, or that of anyone on this planet, to earn a living or have money in their pocket, I'd love to hear it.

Fact is, money is not a limited pie where the rich get the big piece and the poor get the what's left over. Money and wealth are not limited as Socialists would have us believe.

You should watch this video - the guy nails it!





And one last point. There's a big difference between "knowing" and "understanding". Ask yourself this - would you rather have a pilot who knows how to fly a plane, or someone who's read a book about it and understands how to fly a plane? Having an opinion about something, no matter how well educated that opinion might be, is still not the same as knowing something.

"Flapdoodle" - ?? - I'm not sure if I should be triggered or not by that one!?


----------



## John-H

stuff1 said:


> Vote Leave spent £7.7M in total if you include the 10% overspend.
> 
> Vote Remain profited by £16M+ because the Remain-sponsored Government spent £9m of the publics money on its own Remain marketing campaign. Surely you know this...you seem like a well researched fellow with correct grammar and syntax which suggests intelligence, so why leave it out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly, the European referendum was not a case of one squeaky clean side against another up to all kinds of tricks.
> 
> *The government produced a 16-page leaflet, "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK", which was delivered to 27 million households in April (and in Scotland and Wales in May) 2016 at a cost to the public purse of £9.3 million, which did not count towards referendum expenditure.*
> 
> A study by Harry Pickard of Sheffield University has shown that the government's 2016 leaflet did have a major impact on the referendum vote - those who read the leaflet were, the study shows, 3 per cent less likely to vote leave than those who had not. Among Conservative voters, exposure to the leaflet reduced the likelihood of voting leave by over 6 per cent. The government's leaflet - and indeed the other public resources employed on behalf of a Remain vote - created a far from even playing field. Its impact was clearly very much greater than whatever BeLeave may have achieved.
Click to expand...

The confusion about totals of money spent is easily explained when you consider the electoral spending rules.

During the defined campaign period strict limits are applied to each side and the smaller individual campaigns to ensure a level playing field. This is regulated by the Electoral Commission.

The 16 page government leaflet was produced well before the restricted campaign period started so is not to be included in the spending calculation. It's erroneous to do so.

You can argue that the leaflet had an effect but it was more informational about what the EU is and how it applies to us. Copy here:
View attachment why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-.pdf


How far back do you go anyway - what about the years of drip feeding anti-EU propaganda in the tabloids about bent bananas and other nonsense (made up by Johnson by the way)?

Then we have the £8m donated by Aaron Banks - the biggest single political donation in UK history to the unofficial Leave.EU (remember Vote Leave was the official campaign group) again made outside of the restricted period but £2.7 million of it found its way to be spent during the campaign and given that most was spent with Canadian based data analytics company Aggregate IQ referred to as the Canadian office of Cambridge Analytica but could have been spent earlier but deployed during, the whole idea of a level playing field is somewhat undermined.

The misuse of data harvested from Facebook and through Aaron Banks's Eldon Insurance business with access to most of the UK population resulting in targeted Facebook ads has resulted in record fines from the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) and the Electoral Commission

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45589004

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47087440

Apart from Leave.EU and Aaron Banks being fined record amounts for multiple beaches of electoral law and data rules there is even evidence that the £8m donation was from illegal foreign sources to the extent that it was referred to the National Crime Agency four a criminal prosecution.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-campaign

A fraction of the above would have voided a legally binding referendum as the UK is a signatory to the Venice Commission rules which state that where a referendum campaign spending limit is significantly exceeded the result must be voided.

Given that the Electoral Commission have found exactly that, it is clear that the referendum result would have been voided had it been legally binding and the advisory result should not be respected politically for the same equivalent reasons and Brexit should be stopped.



stuff1 said:


> We were told we would get the "exact same benefits" and it would be the "easiest trade deal in history" with £350m p/w for the NHS.
> 
> 
> 
> There should have been, except it was put into the hands of a PM (May) who wanted to Remain and I think, purposely made a mess of it all so that the public would just ask to cancel it completely. Cameron wanted to remain, so when the vote passed, he resigned. Which is logical because how can you push your country through a transition you are not in agreement with? May also pushed through several laws which directly benefit her family / husband which puts a spotlight on her personal agenda. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-12701871
Click to expand...

I don't believe it would have been any different just as Boris Johnson is finding out now. The numbers and the realities are the same.



stuff1 said:


> I read that younger remainers came up with *the lovely democratic *idea of banning older people from voting. You know, those people who happen to have voted Leave, but have also spent 50+ years putting tax into the government pot.


I think the point they are making was that what happens is more important for younger people because it's their future we are talking about whereas older people won't be sharing it.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> _"You are being a complete flapdoodle today"._ I actually had to look that up! LOL! :lol:
> 
> Do you know how many people in Switzerland have health care coverage? All of them.100%
> 
> Do you know why? Because it's Swiss law. Everyone here has to have it.
> https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/missi ... rance.html
> 
> And do you know how many people who own a car are required by law to have car insurance? Yep, all of them. 100%
> Wow...how amazing is that?
> 
> So what do you think would happen if everyone in America was required, by law, to have health insurance? Well by golly they'd all have it now wouldn't they. And what if, like here in Swissyland, the American people had a CHOICE as to which type of health care they could buy with various levels of coverage, deductibles, etc. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?!
> 
> And there's the kicker. Thanks to Obama and his socialist agenda, people DON'T have a choice and if they can't afford the monthly premiums, guess what the Obama plans does. It fines them! Yes, the Government now charges people for not buying something they can't afford in the first place. And guess what, they still don't have health care coverage!! How genius is that!?


But you are presuming that with a legal requirement the other choices (instead of Obama care) would be cheaper and people would be able to afford them. Switzerland is a civilised but expensive place to live and you need a good income. America has extremes of wealth the richest in the world and the poorest. The inability to afford Obama care is more to do with poverty and an inability of society to look after its population in fairness. The two are not very comparable.



SwissJetPilot said:


> Now imagine a system where everyone has to buy health care but they have a choice about what they want. Various options about the type of coverage, deductibles, etc. Like any system where EVERYONE has to pay, it works quite well because why? It's a market driven system. OMG!! Who knew? Free market capitalism actually works!? Say it ain't so!?
> 
> Now here in Swissyland, unlike in the States, my employer doesn't contribute anything to my health care so that kinda sucks. And in Germany, which I actually think is a better system, it works quite well for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1.) Hospitals are for-profit, but they are capped at around 3% profit. (the primary cost issue in the US)
> 2.) It's nearly impossible to sue a health care provider (a huge issue that drives up costs in the States)
> 3.) No doctor in Germany makes half a million a year (another huge cost factor in the US)
> 4.) Everyone contributes. Everyone. (you get the idea)
> 
> Now, if one could combine the best of all these systems that do work, and work quite well, we'd have the problem solved. Everyone in the States could have good quality, affordable heath care with the ability to buy only what best suits their needs.
> 
> And to your point about the poor. Most people are poor because of their bad decision making skills. And frankly, this socialist collective "wealth distribution" mentality stinks of Gulag. But if you can prove to me how Bill Gates being so rich is somehow impacting your ability, or that of anyone on this planet, to earn a living or have money in their pocket, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> Fact is, money is not a limited pie where the rich get the big piece and the poor get the what's left over. Money and wealth are not limited as Socialists would have us believe.
> 
> You should watch this video - the guy nails it!


Off course you can have different systems but the NHS is more efficient than private where insurance profits are involved.

It's unjustifiable that the eight most wealthy men in the world own more than half the planet.

I would argue that most world poverty is more due to the choices made by rich people than the poor themselves. If wealth was more evenly spread I don't think you can argue that things would be the same for the poor.



SwissJetPilot said:


> And one last point. There's a big difference between "knowing" and "understanding". Ask yourself this - would you rather have a pilot who knows how to fly a plane, or someone who's read a book about it and understands how to fly a plane? Having an opinion about something, no matter how well educated that opinion might be, is still not the same as knowing something.


"Knowing" and "understanding" are vague terms here with considerable overlap. Perhaps you might compare which passenger is best to land a commercial airliner when all the pilots are incapacitated - the computer gamer flight sim expert passenger who is familiar with all the controls but never piloted a real one or the passenger who once took over the controls of a light aircraft as a birthday treat?



SwissJetPilot said:


> "Flapdoodle" - ?? - I'm not sure if I should be triggered or not by that one!?


It's the most friendly and quaint gentle jibes I know to be used with the best of friends


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> You trust a liar?


They're all liars aren't they? Or just the ones you oppose or disagree with? Thought so.



John-H said:


> Let's hope you are right but where did Trump get the idea that trade could go up five fold?


So you're calling Johnson a liar but putting faith in Trump? Laughable and shows exactly how much your bias will sway to fit your arguments. Nothing new there eh?



John-H said:


> Firstly I don't and secondly you seem to be getting a little carried away. I use the union flag myself, what's your problem?


Firstly, the flag was used only as an example and you know full well that it's caused problems with certain groups. Can you imagine going to another country and telling them you're offended by their flag? Jesus man, you'd get a good slap around the chops at the _very_ least. 
Secondly, I don't have a problem - but you my friend, most certainly do.



John-H said:


> Since when has wolf whistling been a hate crime? :lol: I think you mean sexual harassment.


I didn't say it _was_ a hate crime yet but it's been banded around on one of your favoured sources, the BBC (Buggering Boys Club) so I trust you'll accept that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43303874
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-44740362



John-H said:


> So, would you consider the feelings of a woman you wolf whistled at?


I don't wolf whistle at women, it's tacky and immature so it's totally irrelevant as to what my considerations are.



John-H said:


> It would be interesting to see your definition of "racist". The dictionary says:
> 
> *
> "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."*


Yep, that looks about right.



John-H said:


> You think what Dominic Cummings did was fine, Tommy Robinson's rants are fine, Nigel Farage stirring up hatred of immigrants and refugees is fine? How is it not racist to discriminate and stir up feelings against other races like this? More to the point, no matter what word you use, why are you apparently defending such things by arguing against me for calling it out?


If I'm being honest. I couldn't care less. I'm probably more right wing and you're probably more left wing so we're going to have differing opinions on matters like this. If you want to view me as a 'racist' then fine, I'm a 'racist', but I certainly won't be the only one on here.
Just for the record, one of my best pals years ago was an afro carribean, I've dated two black girls (not at the same time), one of my previous jobs was in a doctors surgery that was predominantly muslim (that I frequently dined and drank with socially) and one of our cats is dark grey - almost black in some lights, yet here I am - a full blown racist.
Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn.



John-H said:


> No. Vote Leave cheated by exceeding their campaign budget by 10% on targeted advertising they knew pressed all the right buttons. Given that the swing was less than 2% it's easy to see how the result is unsound.


*Yaaaaawn*. And it's been shown that further voting and opinion swayed more to leave _yet again_.
*Get over it.*


----------



## A3DFU

Boris & Trump's Deadliest Trick, w Stephen Fry.
Worth watching to the end (11.39 min)






Sign the petition:

http://chng.it/Kx2z8XDFvt


----------



## bobclive22

> On a more serious note... Have you noticed how Trump has bigleyed up Johnson and then in the same speech bigleyed up Farage? Are we going to be pushed? Or are we going to push back?
> 
> Who do you think is promoting Brexit and who stands to gain?
> 
> Serious question.


Interview with Steve Bannon Channel 4, as this is a more biased left wing station than the BBC you would expect the comments (which are still allowed) to reflect this, surprise.






*Yanis Varoufakis blows the lid on Europe's hidden agenda*


----------



## John-H

Stiff, of course I don't trust Trump. I just asked where this sudden escalation of x5 trading came from and how that could be achieved without offering anything extra. Of course if you are saying trade with the US will stay the same then it looks like we are in trouble with nothing to replace the EU trade. You can't have it both ways.

I thought it was more the English flag that had more out a connotation with trouble from football. The Union flag was adopted by the National Front years ago - they were racist - but there has been something of a fight back against that to reclaim our flag. As I said I don't have a problem with it and your example isn't therefore very convincing to me. It might have been back in the 70's. Not now.

Err... You said:



Stiff said:


> Hate crimes is another. Wolf whistling? A *hate* crime? My F^*%ing arse it is. Quite the opposite, but I digress.


That appeared to me as use of the present tense in equating wolf whistling with hate crime and suggesting it was a crime.

I see your confusion but in your link it says:


> *Does the policy criminalise wolf whistling?
> *
> No. The research showed the policy had been misinterpreted and "trivialised" in media reports, which had focused on wolf whistling and suggested this was now illegal.


Glad we got that cleared up and glad you think it's tacky - I agree.

I'm glad too that we agree the definition of racism. Clearly that applies to the examples I gave but sad you don't care.

Regarding the referendum here's a useful explainer of the misconceptions by this short video:


----------



## barry_m2

John, I think you need to calm yourself down a bit.


----------



## John-H

Thank you but I'm quite calmly watching reality arriving


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_SwissJetPilot wrote: "Flapdoodle" - ?? - I'm not sure if I should be triggered or not by that one!? 

It's the most friendly and quaint gentle jibes I know to be used with the best of friends _

Then I shall remain untriggered! And let the banter rage on!


----------



## John-H

Here's something interesting. Remember the group of lobbyists I was telling you about all centred on and around 55 Tufton Street in London - and how they were trying to influence government to drive and promote Brexit in order to split the UK away from the EU and environmental protections, regulations and standards and expose the NHS to corporate take over.

Well would you believe it they've all got representation in Boris Johnson's new cabinet.



> _This is, in other words, a government of all the lobbyists. Those who represent the interests of big business and the super-wealthy have swept into cabinet to ensure that Britain gets a hard-line, disaster capitalist Brexit; that, as we leave the EU, we leave behind basic protections for workers, consumers, the planet and our public services._


Have a read of the full report:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... lobbyists/

If you have Netflix you might want to watch this too. Apparently Aaron Banks is threatening to sue:

https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80117542

.


----------



## John-H

A3DFU said:


> Boris & Trump's Deadliest Trick, w Stephen Fry.
> Worth watching to the end (11.39 min)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sign the petition:
> 
> http://chng.it/Kx2z8XDFvt


Excellent information about the healthcare situation there Dani.


----------



## bobclive22

> Stiff, of course I don't trust Trump.


Did you trust Obama, just asking.


----------



## John-H

Quiz! Who said this?

"If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by "Bwussels", but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure."

"Why are we still, person for person, so much less productive than the Germans? That is now a question more than a century old, and the answer is nothing to do with the EU. In or out of the EU, we must have a clear vision of how we are going to be competitive in a global economy."


----------



## SwissJetPilot

@ John-H - I'd guess Nicholas Comfort from his book "The Slow Death of British Industry: a 60-Year Suicide, 1952-2012"

But honestly, it could have been said by any who's observed British industry first hand. And they'd be right.

I've spent some years working directly with a number of British manufacturing companies and honestly, I was not impressed. The working conditions and machines are a mess, the management is medieval at best, wages are ridiculously low and there's few signs of any investment for future growth (and not just in the last few years because of Brexit).

There's no incentive for younger workers, so why would they give up dole money when they'd make less working?

It's no wonder you, and so many others, are desperate for EU funding and want to Remain. No one in their right mind who actually understands how business works, would invest in British industry. Fact is, most of British industry has been circling the drain for decades and you've no one to blame but yourselves. Sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who won't fix their own problems but somehow expect everyone else to do it for them.

Why should anyone outside the UK be forced to pay taxes to prop up a failing system you can't or won't sort out yourselves?

Sorry to be harsh, but that's just how it is and it's well documented -

https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/use ... /wp459.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sector.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... e-1945.pdf

If you haven't read "The Second Machine Age", you really should. It explains a very real and possible future of industry that affects us all. Not just the UK.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile. ... ne-Age.pdf


----------



## John-H

Well, good guess but it was in fact .....










Boris Johnson - the man you can trust for consistency - in his newspaper column in may 2013. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... rget/05/09


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Hate to say it but he's right. Maybe he'll follow Trumps example and help turn things around. Right now the Democrats are being backstabbers and trying to call him a racist and a hater as a way to distract everyone that the "inconvenient truth" is that under Trump, things are improving.

Now I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better that 8-years of Obama's BS. Nothing pi$$es off Democrats more that Conservative Republican policies that work. Trump basically shite canned Obama's policies and guess what - now things are getting better.

That's the difference between a successful businessman vs. a career politician/community leader who was given a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.


----------



## bobclive22

Agree,

Must watch video,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1156186895594004481
Obama, Trump won`t win the PRESIDENCY, the American people will make a sensible choice in the end.


----------



## John-H

Yes he is right. Leaving the EU won't solve anything.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"Leaving the EU won't solve anything."_

Actually it will.

It solves the problem every single European has to deal with who is forced to contribute their hard earn wages to the EU. It solves the problem of having to take money out of our pockets to prop up the UK's failed policies.

Maybe once British are actually on their own, cut off from EU support and hand-outs, they will finally realize they have to collectively solve their own economic and social problems. And THEN things will start to turn around. But as long as the EU keeps taking money from the rest of us and giving to you as free hand-outs, things will never change.

So yeah, Brexit is a huge solution to keeping your hands out my pockets. And to be clear, those EU hand outs are NOT free. Someone had to pay for them and that someone is every hard working European who pays taxes. As they say, Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money.


----------



## John-H

Well apart from running a cruel experiment to prove a point that's easily dismissed when you consider that the UK along with other member states contribute more money in contributions than is distributed back to them in direct funding grants - the difference being the running costs of the EU infrastructure. That's how the budget balances. Each member state then benefits many times over its contribution cost by increased trade and the reduced cost of that trade. In the case of the UK some 35 times its cost of membership. It's a win win economic relationship because of the single market, customs union and harmonised regulatory environment. Therefore, contrary to what you suggest, if the UK left the EU the EU would be poorer (less money in your pocket) but the UK would be poorer still (far less money in mine) - a lose lose situation.

But the main point of highlighting what Boris Johnson said back in 2013 was the hypocrisy of his position; - to claim in 2013 that leaving the EU would not improve our situation but merely highlight our own failures (compared to Germany which is in the EU). That our current failures have nothing to do with the EU and it would be pointless to leave.

Contrast that position with his present line.

Of course, Johnson is known to have written two articles; one for and one against EU membership, and then chosen to run with what best benefited him.

That's why he and his current expoused position can't be trusted.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Of course, Johnson is known to have written two articles; one for and one against EU membership, and then chosen to run with what best benefited him.


With all due respect John, any of them would - it's what they do. You can't just pull BJ up for it and single him out when the others, without doubt, would do exactly the same thing.



John-H said:


> That's why he and his current expoused position can't be trusted.


You'd be extremely hard pushed finding _any_ of them that can be trusted.
I thought we'd been through this?


----------



## John-H

There are many decent politicians as well as awful ones. Many would not be happy to be compared with Boris Johnson.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

It all comes down to the simple fact the West has sold it's soul and the future of it's children when it started trying to run the world on debt and convinced it's citizens they too could borrow today to pay for tomorrow.

Borris, Trump, Merkle... makes no difference. Our course was charted decades ago and the iceberg of fiscal reality keeps getting closer. Western politicians and big business are simply rearranging the deck chairs, and the media keeps playing their same old tune.


----------



## John-H

That's very philosophical. You could say all growth is based on digging things up out of the ground and creating wealth from the proceeds and that borrowing is sustainable only in the expectation of this continued process. With that comes waste as the uneconomic is abandoned in favour of the new. A more sustainable future would involve more recycling and the abandonment of growth as a necessary process for a sustainable future.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Yep, it's one massive global pyramid scheme.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> Yep, it's one massive global pyramid scheme.


That's a good way of putting it.


----------



## Iceblue

Come on guys its not that bad. A capitalist democratic system is not perfect but it is better than socialism which we know does not work. Think of the millions ,no billions that it has taken out of poverty so we can spend our time on forums such as this discussing first world problems.  . Swiss, I think your point is correct re world debt but it was a world with an EU that got us there and closeted many that should have bitten the bullet and changed. Recapitalise and grow again without making the same mistakes too soon. John, not sure how you can feed a growing population without growth.


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> ... John, not sure how you can feed a growing population without growth.


Over population is part of the problem. Even if the population was a fixed number by not having so many children we still have a growth problem with unsustainable use of resources.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Don't get me wrong on Trump. He's no poster child, but he's certainly not as bad as the liberals slander him to be. The only thing more disgusting than the liberal media demonizing him was their boot licking when Obama was president for 8-years. And he basically did nothing more than add over $8.5 trillion to US debt.

But what I really loved about Trump was when he took Merkel to task on Germany paying up their 2% for NATO. Of course Merkle back peddled on that one claiming Germany does a lot for NATO. Really? With what? Did she mean those German tanks, planes and ships that don't work. Or the overall Bundeswehr that's been in a state of rapid decay since she's been in office?

https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... -bad-state

Trump tweeted - "The US pays close to the entire cost of NATO - protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on trade ... The European Union had a $151 billion surplus - should pay much more for military!" The US pays about 22 percent of the 29-nation organization's budget. Back in June 2018 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany would not be able to meet its NATO spending obligation until well after 2024.

Plans for a "European Army" that includes Germany have about as much chance of getting off the ground as the German Air Force.

Meanwhile these same NATO countries, all part of the EU, offer Greece no mercy on their debts. European hypocrisy knows no bounds.


----------



## John-H

Overall he's a bad and dangerous influence in the world - unless you think the end justifies the means for those it suits.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I agree. Boris Johnson is a pending train wreck looking for an unexpecting train station to maximize effect.

Trump? Not so much. I'll take a shrewd businessman over a weasel politician any day. But let's do a little fact checking, shall we?

Seen any missiles coming out of N. Korea since he had a little chat with Kim Jong-un? Nope. 
Did he call out EU nations for not paying for "fair share" of NATO? Pretty much, yes. 
Did he secure key concessions on trade and climate at the G20 in Hamburg? Yes again.
Have Trump's American tariffs have begun to have an impact on China's trade policies. Yep!
And did he just ending special trade treatment for India? Oh yes, by golly!

Trump is only dangerous for anyone who goes up against him. So, yeah, I'm not seeing this as a problem.


----------



## John-H

Err... Yes, missiles have been fired out of North Korea since - didn't you see the news? Trump abandoned the Paris climate agreement - very damaging and dangerous. I think Trump's illegal trade tariffs are having the biggest effect on American importers and the public will pay. We've got a great situation with Iran. Trump's words have fuelled hate and people have just died because of them:











And now the dangerous man has had to retract his words with the aid of an auto cue.

At least Johnson is only talking about wrecking the economy :roll:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

The Paris Climate Accord is total nonsense and everyone knows it. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at MIT has said that believing CO2 controls the climate "is pretty close to believing in magic." Even James Hansen called the Paris Climate Agreement a "fraud," a "fake" and "just worthless words."

The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year but reduce global temperatures by only 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

So, who do we believe, lunatic fringe tree huggers or scientists? :roll:

As to the N. Korean missile tests, Trump has dismissed the significance of a recent spate of North Korean short-range missile tests, saying the launches over the past week did not violate his "Singapore agreement" with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

More fake new alarmists.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> The Paris Climate Accord is total nonsense and everyone knows it. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at MIT has said that believing CO2 controls the climate "is pretty close to believing in magic." Even James Hansen called the Paris Climate Agreement a "fraud," a "fake" and "just worthless words."


I didn't know you supported the minority lunatic fringe of climate change denier idiots. Tell me you are joking and only pretending to be like that for debating entertainment reasons. The vast majority of climate scientists agree global warming is happening. As a ley person it makes no logical sense to ignore that fact. Are you a climate change expert? No - so are in no position to choose individuals or argue other than from a position of ignorance. If I were you I'd try and keep some respect and go with the majority of scientists who know what they are talking about rather than speakers and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.

But this thread is about the EU. The EU are very keen on protecting the environment. It's the Brexit lobbyists that are fuelling the beliefs of the gullible for their own ends and trying to break up the union and deregulate environmental regulations and controls.



SwissJetPilot said:


> As to the N. Korean missile tests, Trump has dismissed the significance of a recent spate of North Korean short-range missile tests, saying the launches over the past week did not violate his "Singapore agreement" with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
> 
> More fake new alarmists.


And yet more missiles launched this morning. Looks like your statement that there have been "no" more missiles launched from North Korea is well and truly wrong. Sad but wrong.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Tell me you are joking and only pretending to be like that for debating entertainment reasons


Sounds familiar, everybody knows a silver hyperlitz sounds brighter than the copper equivalent. Case closed. 

Kim Jong Un is a decent fella, he just wants people to listen to his point of view.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

150 years ago the many great scholars and men of science in their own time believed manned flight was impossible. And yet....here we are. Look up the quotes from Joseph LeConte, Thomas Edison, Lord Kelvin, Worby Beaumont and Lord Haldane

You are welcome to follow the "enlightend majority" off whatever cliff you choose. I'm quite happy thinking for myself, thank you very much.

_The EU are very keen on protecting the environment_

Yeah, right. That would explain why they've been shipping all their garbage to China, Africa and south east Asia. So concerned are they that they've dumped their problem on other people. Many of whom have neither the means or funding to properly dispose of it. But hey, what's a few African kids with early cancer and skin lesions because of toxic European computer parts dumped into their villages. Check Romania some time. Their dumps are full of EU French and German garbage.

The only environment the EU is concerned about protecting their own back yard. Hypocrisy yet again.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you are joking and only pretending to be like that for debating entertainment reasons
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds familiar, everybody knows a silver hyperlitz sounds brighter than the copper equivalent. Case closed.
> 
> Kim Jong Un is a decent fella, he just wants people to listen to his point of view.
Click to expand...

 :lol: I didn't intend to offer you a lift out of the hole but you are most welcome


----------



## ashfinlayson

It is utterly deplorable that European countries ship recycling to Asia for it to de dumped in the sea and countryside, it would do less harm to dump it in the ground here, and it's utterly ridiculous that we've priced ourselves out of the most polluting industries for them to be moved to countries that don't care how much pollution they create.


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> 150 years ago the many great scholars and men of science in their own time believed manned flight was impossible. And yet....here we are. Look up the quotes from Joseph LeConte, Thomas Edison, Lord Kelvin, Worby Beaumont and Lord Haldane


You do realise that proves nothing whatsoever regarding climate change and is entirely unconvincing.



SwissJetPilot said:


> You are welcome to follow the "enlightend majority" off whatever cliff you choose. I'm quite happy thinking for myself, thank you very much.


Errr... 74% of the UK population didn't vote to leave the EU and even less than the 26% who did didn't vote to jump of a cliff. I think the majority sounds a safer bet regarding cliffs. You follow the right wing climate change lobbyists if you like. I would respectfully advise you against it.



SwissJetPilot said:


> _The EU are very keen on protecting the environment_
> 
> Yeah, right. ...


Yes actually. Clean beaches waterways and air. Far better food standards than US without the profligate use of antibiotics, growth hormones and chlorine washes to cover up unhygienic conditions in rearing, oh and better animal welfare standards too.

What was that you forgot to say about deaths and ill health caused by the US and its industries?

But to drag this back on topic - we are about to have the unicorns meet with reality. You can argue all you like. It won't change reality. Leaving the EU without a deal will cost us dearly.

The government is hanging by a desperate thread. It's likely to be brought down and if it continues to no deal it will bring itself down. The public would not forgive the consequences.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

My point is climate science is not a proven science at all, it's not even a good theory since we know the earths climate has been changing for millions of years. Canada was a tropical clime long ago and I'm pretty sure Egypt didn't turn into a desert because of all those fossil fueled chariots the Pharaohs were running around in.

Back In the 1970's, when we running out of gas (anyone old enough remembers rationing and odd-even-days) it was called "Global Cooling". So the West outlawed leaded fuel and the US and Europe cleaned up their industrial pollution. Yay, we're saved!

Um no, not quite.

Dr. Science (Al Gore) showed up, and we were suddenly faced with "Global Warming" just a decade later. Huh!? "The poles will melt!" he said, The oceans will rise!" he ranted. Um. Okay....when exactly? 10-years, 20-years, 30-years?

Still waiting....

In the nineties, environmentalists switched their emphasis to "Climate Change". Global warming could credibly be blamed for warming, but climate change could be blamed for anything. If hurricanes increase one year, that's evidence of climate change. If they decrease the next year, well, that's climate change too. Droughts are caused by climate change, but so are exceptional rains. Warmer winters prove climate change, but so do colder winters. (Claiming that frigid temperatures are caused by global warming would sound ridiculous.) "Climate Change" was disaster gold. It couldn't be disproved.

Of course there's a good reason for the "Climate Change" agenda, it's the billions of dollars that proponents have demanded for solving this "problem." "Climate Change" is a scam. And like everywhere in the West, EU politicians have jumped on the Carbon Tax bandwagon, pushing to eliminate nuclear, promising all electric vehicles, blah, blah, blah. All the while yanking yet MORE money out of corporations and tax payers for pollution THEY DON'T CREATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And in case you failed to notice, the industrialized West has the cleanest air, water and land on the planet! But how about China and India? Or Vietnam or Malaysa? Or just about any African country. And all that plastic out in the ocean that's creating "plastic islands" - do you see tons of it flowing out to sea from the Thames, the Rhein or the Mississippi? Nope.

How about China, India, Indonesia, Philippines or Vietnam? HELLO!?


----------



## John-H

SwissJetPilot said:


> My point is ... Bla bla bla ....


You've fallen into the same trap as Bob. All the evidence you cite is public domain and available to all the climate scientists - yet the vast majority of climate science experts conclude that global warming is real and don't agree with you.

You are not a climate expert so have no credibility on this issue.

All you are doing is quoting a minority view of a few mavericks - pushed by the climate change deniers supported by the fossil fuel industry which support Brexit in order to get rid of EU environmental regulations.

Any more posts of this nature are in danger of being moved to Bob's climate change denial conspiracy theory thread. Plead keep this on topic.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> The government is hanging by a desperate thread. It's likely to be brought down and if it continues to no deal it will bring itself down. The public would not forgive the consequences.


No its not, no it won't and yes they will :lol:

As usual you're playing the usual game of deluding yourself. Time to get back on shift down on the college green shouting "no Brexit" behind the BBC cameras along with your other deluded liberal friends. Off you go


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Enough. I'm outta here.


----------



## John-H

Martha Carney asked the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, _"Do you think that we can be confident that drug trials will not be disrupted that the people who need cancer treatment will not see those treatments disrupted for lack of supplies?"_

Sir Paul Nurse replied, _*"I don't have the confidence about that. I think we are facing an utterly chaotic situation, a failure of statecraft and political leadership which is led to this sort of almost wartime footing which is simply being driven by an ideology that doesn't understand the modern world. I think we should just look at what we are having to put in place to have to deal with the chaos that the failure of political leadership has led us to. The mere fact that you are asking me questions like that just underwrites the extraordinary situation that we are in."*_

Nobel Prize winning geneticist
Sir Paul Nurse
Director of the Francis Crick Institute


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> You are not a climate expert so have no credibility on this issue.


Neither are you, but here you are.



John-H said:


> All you are doing is quoting a minority view of a few mavericks


A bit like you on Brexit then?


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a climate expert so have no credibility on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are you, but here you are.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are doing is quoting a minority view of a few mavericks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A bit like you on Brexit then?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I know about climate change science. What matters is the majority of expert opinion. I don't have to be an expert. I'm merely pointing out the majority and saying that you can't credibly argue against that body of opinion, especially if you are not a climate expert. Do you follow now?

Regarding your second point, you suddenly seem to think a majority is important. Yet you don't know what the majority think about Brexit now. I think an opportunity to find out may be coming to a ballot box near you soon though 

The BBC devoted yesterday to the likely catastrophic effects of a no-deal Brexit, including food shortages, damaging consequences for the car industry and devastation for British farming. The Food and Drink Federation said leaving in autumn could pose more supply problems than the original Brexit date in March and begged the government for reassurance. But on the other hand a Twitter user called Keith with nine followers said it was "project fear twaddle". So who knows who to believe experts or Keith?


----------



## John-H

Interesting podcast discussing the results of a survey into attitudes of leaver and remainer mindsets regarding sovereignty and surrounding issues:

https://audioboom.com/posts/7338132-sov ... overeignty


----------



## John-H




----------



## A3DFU

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## leopard

A3DFU said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:


Looks like a nervous laugh to me. Don't rely on Mr. H saving your bacon, the 31st Oct isn't that far away now


----------



## John-H




----------



## leopard

:lol: :roll:


----------



## John-H

This explains a few things and how we are all being taken for fools:


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> This explains a few things and how we are all being taken for fools:


One could think Rainer was on here :lol: :wink:


----------



## John-H

*Operation Chaos: Whitehall's secret no‑deal Brexit preparations leaked*

The Sunday Times obtains the government's classified 'Yellowhammer' report in full

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oper ... -j6ntwvhll

And why this is acceptable:


----------



## leopard

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11682 ... ote-remain

It's all turning to dirty pudding for the remainers 

Hey John, just let us know when it's your turn :lol:


----------



## John-H

What I would say is that the quality by which our democracy is measured is not determined solely by the accuracy of the counting of votes. It is equally determined by the quality of the question put to the electorate - the reliability of the information presented by which the electorate can judge the answer.

Rubbish in equals rubbish out.

Respect for an electoral outcome can only be justified if both the quality of information and conduct of the parties can be judged satisfactory. Sadly in 2016 both these determinants were lacking.
Now our country is threatened by the resulting chaos of these failings. Now we know better the consequences of this destructive course of action and the motivations of those promoting Brexit without a care for the consequences to ordinary people, apart only from care of their own personal gain, we need quality of leadership to reverse this disruptive course and save us all from this self inflicted national folly


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> What I would say is that the quality by which our democracy is measured is not determined solely by the accuracy of the counting of votes.


Yes it is, it is exactly that. Democracy is determined by the majority vote. No time for losers with democracy, period.



John-H said:


> Respect for an electoral outcome can only be justified if both the quality of information and conduct of the parties can be judged satisfactory. Sadly in 2016 both these determinants were lacking.


Irrelevant, it happens every five years in a General Election. There are always cries of foul play.



John-H said:


> Now our country is threatened by the resulting chaos of these failings. Now we know better the consequences of this destructive course of action and the motivations of those promoting Brexit without a care for the consequences to ordinary people, apart only from care of their own personal gain, we need quality of leadership to reverse this disruptive course and save us all from this self inflicted national folly


Cobblers, right from the very start you've made it more than clear that you would support anything that would frustrate Brexit regardless of how the opposing parties conducted themselves. Fanciful musings that it would never happen, we would end up as a rogue state, it is illegal to leave, deluded crowdfunding money wasted with failed court cases etc :lol: 
We now have a quality leader. Unfortunately for you and your chums he's batting for the wrong side.


----------



## John-H

The funniest thing you've said ever I think which just shows were you stand - *"we now have a quality leader"* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well I've heard it all now. It's when you say things like that I just remember again how you believed that different metals in hi-fi coax interface leads sounded different and wasted money accordingly.

That's Ok as some people have strange beliefs but I also remember how even when it was shown to you that this couldn't possibly be the case you struck to your claims even when they were clearly shown to be wrong.

Why should I now listen to you and your insisted delusions of unicorn fantasy and flawed understanding about democracy and law? Reality will be the judge as airways - I trust that more.

The sad thing is that you continue to argue that you and the country should suffer harm when you don't even realise you are doing it. Over to reality.....


----------



## leopard

Move on with this cable business, you're as deluded about that as you about the UK staying in the EU lol

You think Corbyn or Swinson are the answer :lol: :lol: :lol:

Answer this: Why should the forum listen to you with your bias and failing attempts to convince anyone otherwise ?

It's entertaining to see your desperate attempts to convert anybody who will listen to your indoctrination. Reality will be the judge and that reality is we're leaving on the 31st. Chew on that


----------



## John-H

You'll find out what reality is when it comes. Or perhaps you won't as you are clearly still deluded about Hi-Fi cables and how you can imagine a sound difference to appear when the electrical signals are identical - that is delusional - but I'll be kind; either you don't follow the argument or are too stubborn to admit you are wrong - your choice 

As I've said before many times this forum is all about debate and information. I mainly post in this thread things about Brexit so I can find them in a handy place in time order. I have some amusing debate along the way and you've provided plenty of material - I wouldn't have it any other way.

You are wrong though


----------



## leopard

OK Walter, you carry on convincing yourself :wink:


----------



## John-H

I have reality on my side. You have a belief in fantasy. I expect you will need rescuing :roll:


----------



## A3DFU

I like Phil Moorhouse and I'm now certain that Rainer was here


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I have reality on my side. You have a belief in fantasy. I expect you will need rescuing :roll:


You sure do Captain. Ahab.
When the time comes you can skip past my door, ta :lol:


----------



## John-H

The odd thing is that we are all in the same plebeian boat together yet some of us think that they will be winners at the expense of the other passengers whom they declare to be losers.

The truth is we all sink or float together and suffer the same fate and destination - unless you have offshore assets you are trying to protect from EU wide taxation rules due to start next year. Then you can be a winner replete in the satisfaction that you have got all the idiot plebs arguing amongst each other in order to secure your goal.


----------



## bobclive22

> The odd thing is that we are all in the same plebeian boat together yet some of us think that they will be winners at the expense of the other passengers whom they declare to be losers.


*EU has more to fear than UK from No Deal*

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/7 ... om_no_deal


----------



## John-H

You are a case in point Bob. Lapping up the arguments of your betters - in this case Joshua Mackenzie-Lawrie who works for Brexit Central writing a preposterous article to feed the plebs. The UK relies far more on trade with the EU than the EU relies on the UK. It's nonsense.

I don't think you will ever learn will you :lol:

The Prime Minister and the Leave campaigners he has installed in Downing Street sold Brexit on the basis they'd get a "great deal". The disaster they are now trying to inflict on the country is a million miles from what they promised in 2016.


----------



## bobclive22

> You are a case in point Bob. Lapping up the arguments of your betters - in this case Joshua Mackenzie-Lawrie who works for Brexit Central writing a preposterous article to feed the plebs.


Didn`t fool you though John, 3 years of project fear and what do we have.


----------



## John-H

Bob, you are talking nonsense again, posting irrelevant data and missing the major points of importance and still dutifully doing the job given you by your betters. Don't be a sucker. For your information we haven't left yet and the unemployment "good news" you are trying to imply has been obtained whilst we are still in the EU - DUH! But rather than a "great deal" they promised you if we leave, no-deal will entail disastrous tariff cost implications and friction with subsequent job losses that will render your pointless graph irrelevant as it will be superseded by a bigger economic shock than the 2008 banking crisis to the UK outside of the EU. That's the reality that's about to unfold unless people wise up to what's going on. Have you watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO ... e=youtu.be


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... ral/30/07/

In the speech, made at the Institute for Public Policy Research, Johnson made it clear that Britain "will remain a paid, valued, participating member of the single market".

Adding that "under no circumstances in my view will a British government adjust that position".

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson ... 30%2F07%2F


----------



## John-H




----------



## John-H

In light of today's news, triggering in the words of one constitutional commentator - the biggest constitutional crisis since the Case of Proclamations in 1610 when James 1st tried to overrule Parliament, you might consider, as he said, that the reason is clearly designed to leave the EU with no deal because there has been no discussion with the EU and with prorogatuon, now no time to agree one or get the necessary legislation in place to enact one. The aim is for no deal and everything else about a legislative programme is a smoke screen.

You then have to ask, given all the chaos that would ensure as outlined in the leaked Yellow hammer report (up to date from Johnson's administration not old May's), detailing the likely (not worse case - that's Black Swan) effects of months of disruption, short supply and rationing, why a peace time government would choose to do this?

I suggest the answer is for certain people's personal advantage and nothing to do with democracy and sovereignty or immigration.

It's a right wing coup.

This is just a power grab for wealth creation and preservation of the wealthy few, attempting to manipulate things for their own ends and sod the rest of us.

Here's one reason:



The quality of our democracy is not just measured by the counting of votes. It equally depends on the quality of the information put to the electorate by which to decide and critically, the conduct of the parties. Our democracy failed in 2016 and it's failing spectacularly now.

Outraged? Sign this:

https://www.bestforbritain.org/queenproroguepetition

And this:

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/br ... c/?bDqxsjb

And this:

https://actionnetwork.org/forms/boris-j ... rect_link&

And this on that Parliament website:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157/


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> In light of today's news, triggering in the words of one constitutional commentator - the biggest constitutional crisis since the Case of Proclamations in 1610 when James 1st tried to overrule Parliament, you might consider, as he said, that the reason is clearly designed to leave the EU with no deal because there has been no discussion with the EU and with prorogatuon, now no time to agree one or get the necessary legislation in place to enact one. The aim is for no deal and everything else about a legislative programme is a smoke screen.
> 
> You then have to ask, given all the chaos that would ensure as outlined in the leaked Yellow hammer report (up to date from Johnson's administration not old May's), detailing the likely (not worse case - that's Black Swan) effects of months of disruption, short supply and rationing, why a peace time government would choose to do this?
> 
> I suggest the answer is for certain people's personal advantage and nothing to do with democracy and sovereignty or immigration.
> 
> It's a right wing coup.
> 
> This is just a power grab for wealth creation and preservation of the wealthy few, attempting to manipulate things for their own ends and sod the rest of us.
> 
> Here's one reason:


Left wing socialist claptrap as usual, as is your suggested answer to today's Brexit progression. 
"It's a right wing coup" :lol:

No, its common sense and it's doing the right thing to get democracy shifting and to bypass the dullards who have frustrated every attempt and used every excuse to do so.


----------



## leopard

Update: 
Plaid Cymru & wee Jimmy Krankie crying on the BBC about this 

Edit: Not forgetting Corbyn ranting about a smash & grab :lol:


----------



## John-H

Keep tugging the forelock for your betters - you're very good at it you and Bob :roll:

Perhaps you could get a job as Jacob Rees Mogg's fire place rug - seeing as you like being walked all over :lol:
























Did you stop to think why Boris Johnson is doing this? For the good of the country you think? You think he wants to help and do good for the people or for the good of Boris Johnson and cronies?


----------



## leopard

Lol, said the individual who donated money to his betters on a baloney goose chasing crowdfunder :lol:

Have you asked for a refund yet ?


----------



## John-H

If you tug much more you won't have much have facial fur left!

You are still oblivious to what's going on aren't you. Take back control has never looked so sinister to everyone else. Not you, as I would have guessed to be honest. I saw a cable to that effect. Very sad. I bet you'll complain if Brexit were to actually happen but I guess you'll end up being rescued and still be moaning what are you like? :roll:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> I bet you'll complain if Brexit were to actually happen


Where have you been John ? Brexit is going to happen on the 31st. 
No amount of taking the bus down to London with your lefty undemocratic chums and gnashing your teeth is going to change the inevitable no matter how much you debate this amongst yourselves over beer and sandwiches 

Which reminds me. A favourite question of your's.
"Answer the question", well answer this:

Have you requested a refund from the crowd funding donation you made and if not, why not ?


----------



## John-H

You talk about democracy and yet support the unelected who provided disinformation about the choices in campaigning and now a Prime Minister elected by 0.1% of the population in attempting to suspend the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. Who is sovereign? It was supposed to be Parliament - but you think a coup of the dark forces driving Brexit at the expense of the people is the right wing way to go! How undemocratic!

For your information I supported both the Gina Miller case and establishing the right to revoke. All money well spent in the right direction and with successful fruits.

Now answer the question I asked you. Do you honestly think Boris Johnson (the PM with only one day of debate attendance so far) is doing this for the good of the country (given the Yellow Hammer report) or might he have another motive to his own personal gain and that of his cronies? Which do you think? Be honest. Is he in it for you and the country or himself? Which?


----------



## leopard

More fool you for giving money away to lost causes. Like I said some time ago, you would do better to give to charity than chase rainbows and eat rotten fruit.

Money well spent. Do us a favour :lol:

In answer to your question, yes I believe Boris is acting for the benefit of the country and in the interests of democracy and has the balls to carry this out. You will recall I have made this quite clear in previous posts.


----------



## barry_m2

John, public don't vote for prime ministers, they vote for the party. Party leaders are always voted in by their members.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> More fool you for giving money away to lost causes. Like I said some time ago, you would do better to give to charity than chase rainbows and eat rotten fruit.
> 
> Money well spent. Do us a favour :lol:


The Gina Miller case was the most constitutionally significant case since the 1610 in that it confirmed in law, rather than a presumption, that Parliament is sovereign. Not the people (they elect parliament) and certainly not an un-elected prime minister. This will now be going back to court on the question of the right of a prime minister to suspend the legislature with the aim of preventing it performing its sovereign duty.



leopard said:


> In answer to your question, yes I believe Boris is acting for the benefit of the country and in the interests of democracy and has the balls to carry this out. You will recall I have made this quite clear in previous posts.


Well there's one born every minute they say :lol:



barry_m2 said:


> John, public don't vote for prime ministers, they vote for the party. Party leaders are always voted in by their members.


Yes I know. That is the point I was making (only a tiny amount of public involved related to party so doesn't compare to MPs) - see constitutional point made to the spotty one above who never changes his stripes and believes any old guff he's told and ignores the evidence :wink:


----------



## leopard

Yeah and if my aunt had bollocks, she'd be my uncle [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]


----------



## John-H

> Boris Johnson's decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament has the hallmarks of a "tin-pot dictator", the CEO of the world's largest independent financial advisory organisation has warned.
> 
> Nigel Green, chief executive and founder of deVere Group, said the move inflicts "unnecessary economic damage on an already vulnerable UK economy."
> 
> "Depressingly, recession is looming for Britain and Johnson's highly controversial tactics seriously increase the uncertainty which will further drag on investment and trade", Green said.
> 
> "In addition, it will further batter the beleaguered pound, which reduces people's purchasing power. Weaker sterling means imports are more expensive, with rising prices typically being passed on to consumers."
> 
> Green added that Johnson's move to prevent democratically elected representatives of the people doing their job "is deeply unconstitutional and has the hallmarks of a tin-pot dictator".
> 
> He said: "Brexit has plunged Britain into an existential crisis that will last for generations.
> 
> "It has also already cost billions upon billions of pounds. Indeed, it has cost the UK economy a staggering £66bn in just under three years, according to S&P Global Ratings.
> 
> "But perhaps even worse is the haemorrhaging of opportunity and confidence in the UK that will continue far beyond the Halloween deadline."


There's someone with some credibility, demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the situation. Notice he didn't try and demonstrate his intelligence by referring to the genital status of his relatives.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Boris Johnson's decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament has the hallmarks of a "tin-pot dictator", the CEO of the world's largest independent financial advisory organisation has warned.
> 
> Nigel Green, chief executive and founder of deVere Group, said the move inflicts "unnecessary economic damage on an already vulnerable UK economy."
> 
> "Depressingly, recession is looming for Britain and Johnson's highly controversial tactics seriously increase the uncertainty which will further drag on investment and trade", Green said.
> 
> "In addition, it will further batter the beleaguered pound, which reduces people's purchasing power. Weaker sterling means imports are more expensive, with rising prices typically being passed on to consumers."
> 
> Green added that Johnson's move to prevent democratically elected representatives of the people doing their job "is deeply unconstitutional and has the hallmarks of a tin-pot dictator".
> 
> He said: "Brexit has plunged Britain into an existential crisis that will last for generations.
> 
> "It has also already cost billions upon billions of pounds. Indeed, it has cost the UK economy a staggering £66bn in just under three years, according to S&P Global Ratings.
> 
> "But perhaps even worse is the haemorrhaging of opportunity and confidence in the UK that will continue far beyond the Halloween deadline."
> 
> 
> 
> There's someone with some credibility, demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the situation. Notice he didn't try and demonstrate his
> intelligence by referring to the genital status of his relatives.
Click to expand...

Oh, he's talking bollocks rather than his a aunty wearing a pair you mean ?


----------



## Stiff

John Bercow's comments today just prove he cannot be impartial on the brexit issue and should be removed with immediate effect.
You have to laugh. Yesterday we had the headline 'Brexit opposition MP's agree strategy to block No Deal'. There they were - the unelectables, Corbyn, Swinson, Lucas, Blackford, with your mixture of Soubry's for good measure. All getting a good photo op, signing a giant amendment.










Here they are. No sirree, no egos involved, planning their skulduggery, and whoosh. Less than 24 hours later Boris has kiboshed it. now they're complaining of skulduggery. Oh the *irony*.

It has been *3 years, 6 months, and 8 days* since David Cameron announced the referendum, and politicians want *more* time to debate?

20th Feb 2016 - David Cameron - "You (the people) will decide, and whatever your decision, I will do my best to deliver it."

23rd June 2016 - Leave wins. David Cameron breaks his own pledge and announces his resignation. So much for "I will do my best to deliver it."

3rd Feb 2019 - Theresa May - "I'm determined to deliver Brexit, and determined to deliver it on time on March 29, 2019."

7th June 2019 - Theresa May resigns

Boris needs to get on and do what the people voted for. If that means we have to remove Parliament from the process then so be it. If MPs will not respect the Democratic Will of the British people then Parliament should be prorogued. In fact, those MPs need sacking. This is a Democracy not a Banana Republic.
You know.. from a certain perspective I'm starting to see Boris Johnson as being the reincarnation of Winston Churchill. He wasn't publicly popular at the time, and he was _certainly_ despised by "the establishment". And yet he had a vision of what Britain needed to do in the face of an expansionist European power.


----------



## John-H

Keep tugging the forelocks guys!

Ooh insult me in Latin Mr Johnson! 

Sycophantic misplaced bottom licking homage. If you go any further you'd better take a torch as you might bump into Leopard.

Boris Johnson and his rich chums found you so easy. I wonder at what point you'll realise you've been had?

Since when was the "will of the people" no-deal? That's not what people were promised in 2016.

Yes we've moved on from there and know a lot more now. The only democratic solution to this is to ask people what they now think having learnt a lot more about it.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Since when was the "will of the people" no-deal? That's not what people were promised in 2016.


We had an 'in' or 'out' vote, the majority voted out. Stop trying to subvert our Democracy.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Keep tugging the forelocks guys!
> 
> Ooh insult me in Latin Mr Johnson!
> 
> Sycophantic misplaced bottom licking homage. If you go any further you'd better take a torch as you might bump into Leopard.
> 
> Boris Johnson and his rich chums found you so easy. I wonder at what point you'll realise you've been had?
> 
> Since when was the "will of the people" no-deal? That's not what people were promised in 2016.
> 
> Yes we've moved on from there and know a lot more now. The only democratic solution to this is to ask people what they now think having learnt a lot more about it.


 :lol: you'll have no toys left to throw out of your pram soon. It might be better stamping your feet, it's free you know.

More comedy please John.

Are you going down to London by bus on Saturday to demonstrate the unfairness of this dastardly deed with your socialist chums per chance ? It might be your last chance before we go feral


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was the "will of the people" no-deal? That's not what people were promised in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> We had an 'in' or 'out' vote, the majority voted out. Stop trying to subvert our Democracy.
Click to expand...

So in your version of democracy it's Ok to ask a trick question in that it include an answer that nobody was expecting three years after the event when half the electorate can't even remember properly what was said at the time?

That's not democracy.

The quality of democracy is also dependant on the quality of the information put to an electorate and the absence of campaign cheating. That democratic exercise failed on both those counts in 2016. Now it's failing on keeping to the promises made.

Let me remind you. The official leave campaigns made it abundantly clear that Brexit would mean a deal, and an easily negotiated one too. Can't you selectively remember this?

Michael Gove himself said in March this year:

*"But we didn't vote to leave without a deal. That wasn't the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey."*

For good measure, he added:

*"Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence."*

Two days before the referendum he told the BBC: 
*
"We'll be in a position I think to secure a better deal than the one that we have now.

"No-one is seriously arguing that Britain would be outside that free trade area, that tariff barriers would be erected and that Britain's manufacturing goods would be at a disadvantage."*

That's what people voted for but it turns out to have been a lie.

This needs to go back to the people in a more informed (this time round) referendum. Why are you denying further democracy and agreeing with dictators who reinterpret answers to their own ends at our expense?


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Stiff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when was the "will of the people" no-deal? That's not what people were promised in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> We had an 'in' or 'out' vote, the majority voted out. Stop trying to subvert our Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your version of democracy it's Ok to ask a trick question in that it include an answer that nobody was expecting three years after the event when half the electorate can't even remember properly what was said at the time?
> 
> That's not democracy.
> 
> The quality of democracy is also dependant on the quality of the information put to an electorate and the absence of campaign cheating. That democratic exercise failed on both those counts in 2016. Now it's failing on keeping to the promises made.
> 
> Let me remind you. The official leave campaigns made it abundantly clear that Brexit would mean a deal, and an easily negotiated one too. Can't you selectively remember this?
> 
> Michael Gove himself said in March this year:
> 
> *"But we didn't vote to leave without a deal. That wasn't the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey."*
> 
> For good measure, he added:
> 
> *"Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence."*
> 
> Two days before the referendum he told the BBC:
> *
> "We'll be in a position I think to secure a better deal than the one that we have now.
> 
> "No-one is seriously arguing that Britain would be outside that free trade area, that tariff barriers would be erected and that Britain's manufacturing goods would be at a disadvantage."*
> 
> That's what people voted for but it turns out to have been a lie.
> 
> This needs to go back to the people in a more informed (this time round) referendum. Why are you denying further democracy and agreeing with dictators who reinterpret answers to their own ends at our expense?
Click to expand...

You know full well why it's turned out the way it has. The EU never took the UK seriously when we voted out and we were offered a half arsed deal that nobody in parliament could agree on. Essentially Europe were taking the piss with the UK's sovereignty, free movement, the Irish backstop, amongst others.

The EU were hoping we would go the way Ireland went after they voted out in their referendum, that was to have another vote until they got the answer they wanted. It's only now we've got a leader who has the balls do something about this fiasco that Europe are starting to sit up and listen. A great example of this is France realising that their fishing of UK waters is in Jeopardy with huge job losses for them, works both ways you see 

John it's no good crying on a car forum and trying to convince people here. Go into the big wide world and tell 'em how it is on News Night or similar :lol:

Edit: Setting the scene, 10:45hrs News Night.

" Back to Kirsty in the studio"

Kirsty: "Tonight we have as our guest John-H from slightly up North and leader of the Audi tt socialist party", "Why have you come on the show tonight Mr.H" ?

John-H: "Thank you Kirsty, I've come here tonight as a free thinker and to warn my fellow comrade workers that leaving the EU is undemocratic and Jeremy Corbyn should take control of this unholy situation. The referendum was crooked and the result should not be allowed. Call the police"

Lmao


----------



## John-H

As I've said before, it's useful to debate and record here. Hilarious too. I have other outlets other than Newsnight but thanks for the suggestion.

You are of course wrong by the way. It was the British government that came up with Brexit without thinking it through and it was the British government that came up with the idea of the Irish backstop and asked for it, not the EU.

It was the British government that wanted market access and no tariffs so effectively a customs union but not in name but through a free trade agreement that has never been negotiated.

It was realised that such a thing could compromise our obligations to the Good Friday agreement if regulations departed, so we asked for the backstop to be set up to protect the Northern Ireland border. The DUP objected to a border in the Irish Sea, so it was the British government who asked for changes so the backstop to include the whole of the UK.

MPs objected to the UK being tied to EU regulations with no say in the making of them like we have now and hence stalemate.

The EU have been nothing but obliging and patient throughout.

It is us that are complete fools for wanting or expecting to have EU benefits and not pay for them.

It's us that didn't realise that our international treaty obligations tie us through Northern Ireland to close regulatory alignment effectively making it impossible to leave the EU and have completely free trade without splitting up the UK.

So now we have ended up in the situation of crippling our economy , imposing shortages and rationing on our population, price rises, job losses, shortages of medicine and the inevitable deaths that will result. Changing our food and quality standards to match the USA and comply with their laws accordingly as a weak trading partner and selling off our NHS putting up the cost of health care to those who can afford insurance, lowering our employment and environmental standards and wrecking or environmental effort because well end up transporting goods and food from further afield instead of from our close neighbours.

And all for what? So Rees Mogg can carry on lording it up with his offshore funds and avoid the EU tax rules due to be imposed next year?

And you think that's a price we should all pay......


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> You are of course wrong by the way. It was the British government that came up with Brexit without thinking it through and it was the British government that came up with the idea of the Irish backstop and asked for it, not the EU


 :lol: By the way I'm not, stop acting like calamity Jane and settle down.

Nobody said it wasn't the British Government's doing, it's the way the EU have been negotiating with us in a half baked manor because MP's that should have respected the outcome of the referendum behaved like arseholes thwarting any chance of a decent deal between the EU and UK :roll:


----------



## Stiff

Before the banks went belly up, YouGov polling was consistently showing that 60% to 65% of the UK population wanted us to leave the EU. Cameron timed that Brexit referendum to use peoples employment fears to get a remain vote through but lost spectacularly (although it was a bit too close for comfort). Even with the economic problems going on we still voted to leave.
As the UK population got their Brexit instance of direct Democracy, they have expressed their will, and it is the duty of the Government to get on and execute what they voted for. Looking at the results of the Brexit referendum then all we know is that the majority of the public want us to leave the EU. There wasn't enough support for us to stay. Ideally, that referendum should have been done pre-2008 when people weren't concerned about their finances to gauge the true level of anti-EU feeling. But, it is what it is.
In a Democracy people don't always get what they want, and its fundamentally wrong for a minority to then try and impose its will on the majority. That kind of spoiled brattish behaviour has arisen from a culture where shouting the loudest gets your views represented. That has come about because of historically weak leadership, and its currently making a mockery of both UK and US Democracy.
The same type of spoiled brat that cannot cope with Trump being President cannot cope with the UK voting to leave the EU. They cry aloud, they make desperate attempts to character assassinate, they nip pick relentlessly, they clutch at straws looking for any possible excuse to invalidate the will of the people, and with Trump, as well as Boris, they aren't getting their way. That's the way it should be.
If you cannot accept that you live in a Democracy, if you cannot accept the Democratic Will of the People, then may I suggest going and finding a Pro-EU authoritarian regime to live in.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are of course wrong by the way. It was the British government that came up with Brexit without thinking it through and it was the British government that came up with the idea of the Irish backstop and asked for it, not the EU
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: By the way I'm not, stop acting like calamity Jane and settle down.
> 
> Nobody said it wasn't the British Government's doing, it's the way the EU have been negotiating with us in a half baked manor because MP's that should have respected the outcome of the referendum behaved like arseholes thwarting any chance of a decent deal between the EU and UK :roll:
Click to expand...

So you agree it's the British government's doing but then blame the EU for being "half baked" because _we've_ been dithering? 

How many Brexit secretaries have we had? How many cabinet resignations? How many requested extensions because we had not decided yet - because it's an impossible question and we don't want to admit it!?!

And meanwhile the EU are patiently sat there saying, _*"Tell us what you want?"*_ and reminding us that _*"The clock is ticking!"*_

This is our self inflicted problem not the EU's.


----------



## leopard

No,re-read the post carefully


----------



## badger64

my ten pennies worth. GOOD ON YA BORIS, the undemocratic minority parties attempt to block Brexit/2nd referendum/peoples vote bulls*** has seen a leader determined to give those who voted leave and won what they voted for, and yes a deal would have been preferable but the eu decided that they would thwart any attempts at a decent deal. they knew the half in half out deal that may brought back would have no chance of getting through parliament.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> Before the banks went belly up, YouGov polling was consistently showing that 60% to 65% of the UK population wanted us to leave the EU.


That's funny. This graph seems to contradict you:









https://www.theconversation.com/amp/pol ... rope-61250

Much of the rest of what you say I've not quoted because as it's a little vitriolic and hyperbolic but the gist seems to be summarising the result of a vote without consideration of the quality of the information supplied which surely you should admit is equally as important in being reliably able to answer the question?

Not to mention the cheating which we know would have rendered the process invalid by the courts had it not only been "advisory". I've told you this many times but you continue to ignore the facts.



Stiff said:


> If you cannot accept that you live in a Democracy, if you cannot accept the Democratic Will of the People, then may I suggest going and finding a Pro-EU authoritarian regime to live in.


Well there you go. This is the sort of conclusion reached by those who don't seem to appreciate all the components of a democratic process. You don't seem to realise that it is you who is being authoritarian by supporting the misuse of a democratic process and continuing to ignore the evidence despite being informed over and over. There's a word for it I'm sure.


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> No,re-read the post carefully


I did. If you meant something different you should write something different :wink:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,re-read the post carefully
> 
> 
> 
> I did. If you meant something different you should write something different :wink:
Click to expand...

Get a grip with English instead of spouting gibberish and you might understand


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> I've told you this many times but you continue to ignore the facts.


Yes, and I've told you this many times that no matter how much you witter on about 'trick questions'(?) and cry 'cheat' blah, blah, blah, the main simple *fact* is that there was a leave/remain vote and 'leave' won. You *continue* to ignore this fact and won't accept it.



John-H said:


> There's a word for it I'm sure.


Tiring :roll:


----------



## John-H

badger64 said:


> my ten pennies worth. GOOD ON YA BORIS, the undemocratic minority parties attempt to block Brexit/2nd referendum/peoples vote bulls*** has seen a leader determined to give those who voted leave and won what they voted for...


We have representative democracy in this country. The action of a Prime Minister to suspend the legislature in order to dictate a policy of no-deal which nobody voted for - when the people's representatives want to represent which is their sovereign duty but are denied their function.

Don't you realise that is the action of a dictator? And you suppsort this? So in your world there is no need for Parliament? All you need is a dictator to define what happens. All other voices are to be suppressed. I seem to remember a little chap with a moustache having similar ideas.



badger64 said:


> ... and yes a deal would have been preferable but the eu decided that they would thwart any attempts at a decent deal. they knew the half in half out deal that may brought back would have no chance of getting through parliament.


Tell me, when you decide to leave a sports club do you think you should be entitled to continue using the equipment, refuse to follow club rules and refuse to pay?

The EU gave us the best deal they possibly could. It was basically yes you can continue to use the equipment as long as you independently respect our rules and pay something towards the upkeep - if you really want to give up your say in our future policy will be sad without your input but we respect your wishes.


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Don't you realise that is the action of a dictator? And you suppsort this?


Oh please. :roll: 
Talk about being dramatic!


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,re-read the post carefully
> 
> 
> 
> I did. If you meant something different you should write something different :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a grip with English instead of spouting gibberish and you might understand
Click to expand...

 :lol: I bow to the master of gibberish - you are best at it.

You hide your thoughts so well. I never know what you are on about clearly 
:lol:

I hear communication can be a wonderful thing :wink:



Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you this many times but you continue to ignore the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I've told you this many times that no matter how much you witter on about 'trick questions'(?) and cry 'cheat' blah, blah, blah, the main simple *fact* is that there was a leave/remain vote and 'leave' won. You *continue* to ignore this fact and won't accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a word for it I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tiring :roll:
Click to expand...

 :lol: Don't you think I know the result of the vote count of the 2016 referendum? If I was ignoring that I wouldn't be on here.

That's one part of democracy. You can't ignore the campaign and information supplied for the question - that's the other part of it - that's the part _you_ are ignoring.

So I talk about both parts and you only focus on one part - the result - and with blinkers on, refuse to discuss the other part dismissing it as irrelevant.

I don't think you are going to fully appreciate the democratic process until you accept there is more to it than just the vote count.

Tiresomeness I think is made up for by the pleasure of reading your arguments.

Keep em coming!


----------



## Stiff




----------



## leopard

Absolutely, I'm chairman of the bored :wink:


----------



## John-H




----------



## Iceblue

JohnH -You can't ignore the campaign and information supplied for the question - that's the other part of it - that's the part you are ignoring.

It would not be possible for people to get to vote on what kind of Brexit they would like. It either in or out and it is up to the negotiators/politicians to achieve the best result. Its the same with the marketing material that either supports or opposes the two sides to the argument. This is normal in any political exchange. People knew that when they voted and that there was always a potential no deal exit. Given this, your idea that there are two parts of the democratic decision that needs to be satisfied is ridiculous.


----------



## John-H

Iceblue said:


> JohnH -You can't ignore the campaign and information supplied for the question - that's the other part of it - that's the part you are ignoring.
> 
> It would not be possible for people to get to vote on what kind of Brexit they would like. It either in or out and it is up to the negotiators/politicians to achieve the best result. Its the same with the marketing material that either supports or opposes the two sides to the argument. This is normal in any political exchange. People knew that when they voted and that there was always a potential no deal exit. Given this, your idea that there are two parts of the democratic decision that needs to be satisfied is ridiculous.


No. If it's a simple in/out referendum then it's very important to define what "out" means - not leave it totally boundless.

Michael Gove himself said in March this year:

*"But we didn't vote to leave without a deal. That wasn't the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey." *

For good measure, he added:

*"Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence."*

Two days before the referendum he told the BBC:

*"We'll be in a position I think to secure a better deal than the one that we have now." ... "No-one is seriously arguing that Britain would be outside that free trade area, that tariff barriers would be erected and that Britain's manufacturing goods would be at a disadvantage."*

That's what people were told and reassured about.

Just in case anyone has difficulty remembering it's still on the Vote Leave website;



> Vote Leave (2016) - "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave"












So don't give me any guff about no deal was a possibility etc. We were reassured we had someone responsible making sure we would be better off and it would be easy - but now we are into rationing, job losses, loss of standards, rights, welfare, public services, civil unrest and even death as a consequence.

And you say we were warned to expect this?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> but now we are into rationing, job losses, loss of standards, rights, welfare, public services, civil unrest and even death as a consequence.
> 
> And you say we were warned to expect this?


Yes. Constantly. From you and all the other alleged soothsayers.

But this bit...



John-H said:


> and even death as a consequence.


FFS! You really, _really_ like to over dramatize things don't you? Seriously John, you're the absolute *king* of exaggeration. Nearly wee'd myself a bit after reading that. Thanks.


----------



## John-H

Stiff said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> but now we are into rationing, job losses, loss of standards, rights, welfare, public services, civil unrest and even death as a consequence.
> 
> And you say we were warned to expect this?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Constantly. From you and all the other alleged soothsayers.
> 
> But this bit...
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> and even death as a consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FFS! You really, _really_ like to over dramatize things don't you? Seriously John, you're the absolute *king* of exaggeration. Nearly wee'd myself a bit after reading that. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you read Yellowhammer (that's the likely effect of no-deal not worse cease that's Black Swan) - the up to date and realistic civil service report to government, you will see not only shortages and rationing of food and fuel but also critically medicines along with the expectation of civil unrest because it will go on for months. Can you guarantee that nobody will die as a consequence?

You just don't realise what you are stumbling into do you and are in denial not only of the consequences but perversely keep trying to insist it should happen.


----------



## badger64

John-H said:


>


john just accept people on this message board are bored with your arguments, you simply won't accept that you and the rest of the remoaners are in a minority, posters on here have put valid points as to why they voted and accept some difficult times in the short term to be able to progress as an independent nation, indeed if you look past the fascist left on twitter you will find huge numbers who voted remain who are embarrassed by the actions and protests of the woke. roll on October and this comes from an unskilled, unite member and manual worker, believe me MOST of the union members in my company voted leave, even the leader of the largest union of uniter glen mclusky wants Brexit albeit a soft option.


----------



## John-H

Well, clearly you and they are not bored otherwise they wouldn't keep coming back here, reading them and trying to argue back.

I've never claimed to be in the majority on here, so what you say isn't correct. As I've pointed out I use this thread as a sequential and useful repository of evidence and argument. It's quite good practice and quite entertaining.

As to your further points: people may have valid explanations as to why they voted to leave and you may believe it will be short term pain and then sunlit uplands but their explanations only explain their own thought processes and all the evidence points to them being wrong when it comes to the country being better off for leaving and in the longer term too.

Just consider two simple consequences.

Out of the EU we will have to pay tariffs to sell goods to the EU which will cripple many of our exporters. We'll have to charge tariffs so the cost of imports like food will go up or even if we set our tariffs to zero to keep imported goods from the EU at the same price our producers will then be dumped on and undercut by other exporting nations and nobody will want to do trade deals with us because we've already given away our bargaining position by setting tariffs to zero.

The second point is the old adage - when distance doubles trade halves. Basically it always makes sense to do most trade with close neighbors as it's easier and cheaper. The environmental consequences of stopping trading with the EU and shifting trade to the USA and China etc is also very bad.

You say you are in the unite union? I hope the pain doesn't end up as job losses in your industry. Len McCluskey knows no-deal will be a disaster and he supports the Labour policy of fighting against it. Good luck.


----------



## bobclive22

> We have representative democracy in this country. The action of a Prime Minister to suspend the legislature in order to dictate a policy of no-deal which nobody voted for - when the people's representatives want to represent which is their sovereign duty but are denied their function.
> 
> Don't you realise *that is the action of a dictator? *


According to John Major It was democratic to prorogue parliament when he did it in 1977,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148869403578159107
https://order-order.com/2019/07/10/john ... -scrutiny/


----------



## ashfinlayson

bobclive22 said:


> We have representative democracy in this country. The action of a Prime Minister to suspend the legislature in order to dictate a policy of no-deal which nobody voted for - when the people's representatives want to represent which is their sovereign duty but are denied their function.
> 
> Don't you realise *that is the action of a dictator? *
> 
> 
> 
> According to John Major It was democratic to prorogue parliament when he did it in 1977,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148869403578159107
> https://order-order.com/2019/07/10/john ... -scrutiny/
Click to expand...

I think you mean 1997, but yes very hypocritical.


----------



## John-H

Not necessarily. John Major was accused of suspending parliament early to avoidthe publication of a report about MP expenses but he was 20 points behind in the polls and arguably was keen to gain an extended period to turn things around in a general election in the face of a rising Tony Blair. So, proving that the main reason was suppressing a debate about a report about all MPs seems unlikely given the complexity of the campaign as you can see here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/polit ... ge97.shtml

The House of Commons Library reveals that since 2010, the average prorogation has been eight days long. And that figure has been dragged up by a relatively long 20-day period in 2014, which included the European parliamentary elections and the Whitsun recess.

The same report finds that "in the last 40 years Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks: in most cases it has been prorogued for only a week or less."

The Queen has now approved an order to suspend parliament "no earlier than Monday 9 September and no later than Thursday 12 September" until 14 October. That means prorogation could last up to 34 days.

This is very unusual.

If the reason for it was to prevent parliament having a say on Brexit then the advice to the Queen would be illegal putting the monarch on the position of acting on illegal advice.

The comparison of the enormity of Brexit and compromising the Queen with Boris Johnson's extreme position on the subject, to the marginal effect of a report about MPs expenses which affected all - cross party - during one of the most profound (for other reasons) general elections in UK history couldn't be more stark.

We'll see what the court says. They will be judging the advice on the evidence of the present situation.


----------



## ashfinlayson

It's not illegal though John, the schedule in parliament is the prerogative of the government. While yes it stinks, the alternative is continuation of the parliamentary deadlock. The ardent Remainers are complaining that this is an affront to democracy and they're being denied democracy etc, but they've had 3 years to leave the EU via a democratic consensus, and they haven't because of Remain MPs failed to move on from the result of the referendum.


----------



## John-H

It is illegal if the advice given was to stop MPs having a say on Brexit which they were planning to do. It's the reason that's important.There seems to be evidence for that. Boris Johnson has been challenged to swear on oath that the reason was not to stop debate and parliamentary control. The hearing has been brought forward so an order can be made in time. We'll see what the judge says.

I find it incredible that people are making arguments in support of crashing out without a deal given what is likely to happen. Incredible. Just incredible.


----------



## Roller Skate

On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.

#feelingproudtobebritish


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> It is illegal if the advice given was to stop MPs having a say on Brexit which they were planning to do. It's the reason that's important.There seems to be evidence for that. Boris Johnson has been challenged to swear on oath that the reason was not to stop debate and parliamentary control. The hearing has been brought forward so an order can be made in time. We'll see what the judge says.
> 
> I find it incredible that people are making arguments in support of crashing out without a deal given what is likely to happen. Incredible. Just incredible.


So all he has to say is that he fancied an extra few days off in September.



Roller Skate said:


> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.
> 
> #feelingproudtobebritish


Welcome back


----------



## ZephyR2

Roller Skate said:


> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.
> #feelingproudtobebritish


We've already had this one Roller while you've been away. You've got some catching up to do, although I wouldn't bother with this thread. :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> So all he has to say is that he fancied an extra few days off in September.


Well, we'll see. If he's any sense he'll bottle the challenge as future revelations could render him in contempt but not saying anything could also be illustrative.

It's interesting hearing people support his move to scupper the opposition and then try to explain, given his denial, why being lied to is a good thing and then asked where they think it will end?



Roller Skate said:


> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.


Yes good to see a familiar avatar  My only contribution would be the front cover of they New European which made me laugh:


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Yes good to see a familiar avatar


Why, because he agrees with you lol

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9833425/j ... -hysteria/

Lmao


----------



## John-H

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes good to see a familiar avatar
> 
> 
> 
> Why, because he agrees with you lol
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9833425/j ... -hysteria/
> 
> Lmao
Click to expand...

Can't we be friendly?


----------



## Roller Skate

ZephyR2 said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.
> #feelingproudtobebritish
> 
> 
> 
> We've already had this one Roller while you've been away. You've got some catching up to do, although I wouldn't bother with this thread. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, I couldn't read all this shite ... I'd start smelling burning hair after about 30 minutes.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes good to see a familiar avatar
> 
> 
> 
> Why, because he agrees with you lol
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9833425/j ... -hysteria/
> 
> Lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't we be friendly?
Click to expand...

Of course

[smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## John-H

[smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## Roller Skate

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes good to see a familiar avatar
> 
> 
> 
> Why, because he agrees with you lol
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9833425/j ... -hysteria/
> 
> Lmao
Click to expand...

How very dare you. I haven't agreed with anybody since this forum started. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Roller Skate

John-H said:


> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes good to see a familiar avatar  My only contribution would be the front cover of they New European which made me laugh:
Click to expand...

Hope you're well John.


----------



## John-H

Roller Skate said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roller Skate said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the upside, we've got a fabulous new Prime Minister out of all this bickering.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes good to see a familiar avatar  My only contribution would be the front cover of they New European which made me laugh:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hope you're well John.
Click to expand...

Still hanging in there - no hair left mind :lol: You Ok?


----------



## Roller Skate

Mines grown back after some wonderful courses of chemo ... can't grumble. Still refusing to use a comb. :lol:


----------



## A3DFU

"Nicholl said people could die because of potential problems with access to drugs and radioactive isotopes in the event of a no-deal Brexit,"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-concerns


----------



## John-H

No wonder the DUP are annoyed with him:

https://t.co/qbvJeFSPaw


----------



## John-H

No deal by stealth - how we are all being taken for a ride:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... arfeelpush

The workers' rights addition to Boris Johnson's "deal" will remove minimum standard rights that we currently have guaranteed through EU membership. Don't think for one moment that this replaces them.

Our current workers rights and environmental standards are minimum requirements enshrined in an international treaty which ensures a level playing field.

Having rights and standards only provided by domestic law allows the UK to diverge from EU rights and standards. Rights in domestic law can be removed by a Tory government. Do you really think they would enhance them?

That's why Johnson extracted them from the legal text of the withdrawal agreement and now wants them in a separate domestic law bill - so he can reduce them below the minimum requirements of the EU. If he was going to improve them he could have kept the minimum standards and rights definitions in the legal text of the divorce deal. There would be no need to remove them

Don't support Johnson's deal. An indication of future intention is the abandonment of Northern Ireland as part of the union by placing a border shown the Irish Sea despite previously saying he'd never do it. This was necessary because the Good Friday agreement treaty for no hard border in Ireland got in the way. Placing the border in the Irish Sea allows the rest of the UK to divert away from EU rights and standards. He had to abandon Northern Ireland to achieve it.

That's why the DUP are upset and why we should be wary of the way this is going under Johnson and his ERG friends - heading the rest of the UK for a Singapore tax haven economy for the rich, because they can. What would be able to stop them? The "deal" is only a divorce deal. We then have a transition period of trade negotiations, from a weak negotiation position, likely to end up as no-deal by stealth when we crash out without a trade deal at the end of transition. That's what the ERG are being assured about.

Don't allow the impatience of those, who don't realise the danger and want to "just get it done", to cause us to jump from the frying pan into the fire. Don't think the agony will be over. It will only just be starting.

Get your MP to vote down this divorce deal. It's not safe.


----------



## HOGG

I'm rich and I wanna get richer

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## leopard

HOGG said:


> I'm rich and I wanna get richer
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Doh, you've broken radio silence [smiley=end.gif], but agree with your statement


----------



## ashfinlayson

I disagree with you John, the British electorate has more power over domestic policy if it is all set by MPs in the UK and it's devolved governments.

You make out that in the event we leave the EU, all these workers rights will be immediately stripped away, the reality is that MPs would have to vote on such matters because EU law, as it stands would be converted into UK law under the repeal bill, and If we don't like what a government does, we can vote them out at the next election - Something we can't do when a policy has been put through by a majority of foreign MEPs.

Not all policy that is good for the EU majority, is necessarily good for the UK or other minority nation states.


----------



## John-H

The point is they are minimum standards we agreed to and stripping them out of the legal text and putting them in the political declaration allows the government to reduce them whereas if they remained in the legal text they could only be improved upon if we allowed it.

Looking at the motivations of those driving this such as Johnson on record complaining about the working time directive and other rights and standards, you can take a reasonable bet what the changes would be and in which direction.


----------



## ashfinlayson

Yeah it's not in the legal text for the withdrawal agreement. But I think the point is academic, any stripping of existing EU policy on workers rights would be stopped by parliament, just like no deal has. There is no majority in parliament to harm workers rights, In fact there is no majority in parliament :lol:

Motives of the PM and his allies cannot be known, you're speculating and drawing conclusion based on your opinion of them.


----------



## John-H

Ash, we could very quickly be into a situation where Johnson and Cummings manage to engineer a majority, so your point that they don't have a majority and there's nothing to worry about is potentially annulled.

As to your point that my assessment of Johnson's motives is speculation: - I refer you to his comments on record and those of many of his cabinet. To think that's not a danger is failing to spot the obvious.

Again I say, a minimum standard is a minimum. If you don't intend to go lower then why remove the safeguard against it.

Sure, we could vote them out when it all becomes a disaster and an outage but many people will be hurt in the process and why should we risk that?


----------



## HOGG

I'd like to have another vote. So we could have a bigger majority that say leave

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

That's fine. Just make sure you know and will be happy with what you'll be getting as a result.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

England's plan to leave the EU -


----------



## ashfinlayson

John you're just speculating on the potential actions of the PM based on your opinion of him, but there will be a general election soon, so if you don't like him, you can vote for someone else. I'm sure if you and your political friends can muster a march of 1m people or whatever it was through social media and throw a load of money at some twit so he can sue the PM, you could manage to swing an election, we're in the 21st century after all.

As for your concerns about works rights, The newly published withdrawal bill covers at length, retention of EU directives on workers rights, as I said, they will be parsed in to UK law and would have to be removed by majority in the Commons.


----------



## John-H

It's hardly speculation given all his speeches, statements and writings saying exactly that.

The problem is they've changed things regarding rights and standards away from May's deal so they can reduce them. Clearly that's their intention. We've known about the motivation of the backers for quite a while. And I'd rather not have things go wrong just so we have to fix it later as many people will suffer in the process.


----------



## leopard

We're leaving on a jet plane don't know when we'll be back again [smiley=guitarist.gif]


----------



## HOGG

Whoop whoop

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

Doesn't look like it. Looks more like this excellent clip:



SwissJetPilot said:


> England's plan to leave the EU -


----------



## Stiff

Brits/Irish,
Don't forget..... Brexit goes back one hour tonight.


----------



## HOGG

LOL delayed again

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## bobclive22

> The workers' rights addition to Boris Johnson's "deal" will remove minimum standard rights that we currently have guaranteed through EU membership. Don't think for one moment that this replaces them.
> 
> Our current workers rights and environmental standards are minimum requirements enshrined in an international treaty which ensures a level playing field.


What Minimum workers rights John, do you mean the free movement of labour where hundreds of thousands of unskilled EU workers are allowed into the UK undercutting the very lowest paid Uk workers who are probably on zero rate contracts. These bottom of the pile workers can never obtain a mortgage or any form of bank loan, they are forced into payday loans and the likes of Bright House. The only way for them to have a pay rise is a situation where there are more jobs than workers to fill them.


----------



## John-H

Your example is about exploitative management. EU workers'rights include:
Limits on working hours
Time off
Annual leave
Equal pay
Maternity rights
Parental leave
Anti-discrimination laws
Compensation for discrimination victims
Agency worker protections
Health and safety

Minimum retirements which a member state can improve upon but not go below.

Thankfully we can celebrate continued membership.


----------



## HOGG

Might as well stay in now. Parliament will dilute down again at the elections with no clear winner

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## A3DFU

HOGG said:


> Might as well stay in now.


A most desirable choice  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

*"We've waited forever for an honest politician to come along but instead of getting behind him we bow to the establishment like good little workers.
We run around like hypnotised robots repeating headlines we've read, all nodding and agreeing."*
Chris Renwick, 2017

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opini ... ory/18/07/

*"... the 'Integrity Initiative'.... Leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal the organisation's Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by former military intelligence specialists to galvanise social media influencers against disinformation campaigns. ... But the Sunday Mail found social media posts from the initiative's social media account attacking Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne and other Labour figures with smears."*
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... our/09/12/

*11 ridiculous claims made about Labour leader*
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... r-12032050

*"Our report found that 75% of press coverage misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn ... Many in our team of researchers are not British and compared to the media in our own countries we were also all quite astonished by the systematic way in which Corbyn is being actively delegitimised by the media"*
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/je ... 44381.html

*The EU has archived all of the "Euromyths" printed in UK media - and it makes for some disturbing reading*
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ing/14/11/
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ing/14/11/

So what's the common thread and reason behind all this misinformation?

*"... the majority of the UK press is owned by a handful of right-wing billionaires, most of whom don't live here. In fact, almost 80 per cent of our press is owned by a handful of mostly foreign-based billionaires. ... Perhaps most threatening of all to the overseas billionaires is that Corbyn wants to stop corporate tax breaks, close down overseas tax avoidance, and stamp out wage inequality. This makes him hugely unpopular with the wealthy elite."*
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opini ... hed/18/08/

Funny that. That's what the EU are planning on doing too! That's why we are all being manipulated by our betters. That reason along with the deregulation of environmental protection, food standards, workers rights etc. turning us into an offshore Singapore type low tax economy.

Whether we all all tug our fore-locks and do as instructed remains to be seen.


----------



## Iceblue

Singaporeans have one of the highest standards of living in the world :lol:


----------



## John-H

In South East Asia not the world.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... ed+Kingdom

It's cheaper to live in the UK and you don't have to be a sardine and can afford to own a car but the comparison was to do with workers rights, standards etc and there's no comparison.

Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -democracy


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> In South East Asia not the world.
> 
> https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... ed+Kingdom
> 
> It's cheaper to live in the UK and you don't have to be a sardine and can afford to own a car but the comparison was to do with workers rights, standards etc and there's no comparison.
> 
> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore?
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -democracy


John, comparing the cost of living/car ownership etc between the UK and Singapore is completely moronic. It would however be less inaccurate to compare living in Singapore with London.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore ?


No, but as soon as Boris gets elected I'll ring him up and arrange for you and your lefty chums (and Jeremy) to have a one way ticket there. You can come on here and give us a monthly update 

Edit:

While you're at it you can lock the "Last post wins" thread. I claim my prize, ta.


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> In South East Asia not the world.
> 
> https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... ed+Kingdom
> 
> It's cheaper to live in the UK and you don't have to be a sardine and can afford to own a car but the comparison was to do with workers rights, standards etc and there's no comparison.
> 
> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore?
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -democracy
> 
> 
> 
> John, comparing the cost of living/car ownership etc between the UK and Singapore is completely moronic. It would however be less inaccurate to compare living in Singapore with London.
Click to expand...

The poster was confused - it wasn't about cost of living in the first place. Don't be so unkind 



leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but as soon as Boris gets elected I'll ring him up and arrange for you and your lefty chums (and Jeremy) to have a one way ticket there. You can come on here and give us a monthly update
> 
> Edit:
> 
> While you're at it you can lock the "Last post wins" thread. I claim my prize, ta.
Click to expand...

Nah it would make more sense if you prowled over there :wink:


----------



## Iceblue

Not true John - https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9


----------



## SwissJetPilot

I worked in Singapore for few weeks. Had a great time. No complaints.


----------



## John-H

Woopy do - I went on holiday to Greece once and had a great time.



Iceblue said:


> Not true John - https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9


I'm not going to use the same words as Ash but by pursuing this line you are simply confirming your misunderstanding of my original point which I'll repeat for you.

The Tory government has removed from the legally binding withdrawal agreement the EU minimum standards for workers' rights such as:

Limits on working hours
Time off
Annual leave
Equal pay
Maternity rights
Parental leave
Anti-discrimination laws
Compensation for discrimination victims
Agency worker protections
Health and safety

Minimum requirements which a member state, or state bound by agreement, can improve upon but not go below.

The obvious reason for removing these minimum requirements from the legally binding withdrawal agreement and moving them into the non binding political declaration is so they can be reduced or abandoned. If they have no intention of rereducing or abandoning them they could have kept them as a legal requirement without issue. Improving rights above a minimum requirement would not be in breach.

Judge them by their actions not their weasel words.


----------



## leopard

I can't wait for the Conservatives to get elected. Corbyn would have the UK bankrupt within five minutes if he gets a sniff.
Workers rights and all the lefty stuff will be small potatoes compared to what that Muppet would inflict on us :lol:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

_"Woopy do - I went on holiday to Greece once and had a great time." _ :lol:


----------



## Iceblue

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Iceblue

John-H said:


> Woopy do - I went on holiday to Greece once and had a great time.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true John - https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to use the same words as Ash but by pursuing this line you are simply confirming your misunderstanding of my original point which I'll repeat for you.
> 
> The Tory government has removed from the legally binding withdrawal agreement the EU minimum standards for workers' rights such as:
> 
> Limits on working hours
> Time off
> Annual leave
> Equal pay
> Maternity rights
> 
> John,
> 
> I did not miss your point I just pointed out your mistake :lol:
> Parental leave
> Anti-discrimination laws
> Compensation for discrimination victims
> Agency worker protections
> Health and safety
> 
> Minimum requirements which a member state, or state bound by agreement, can improve upon but not go below.
> 
> The obvious reason for removing these minimum requirements from the legally binding withdrawal agreement and moving them into the non binding political declaration is so they can be reduced or abandoned. If they have no intention of rereducing or abandoning them they could have kept them as a legal requirement without issue. Improving rights above a minimum requirement would not be in breach.
> 
> Judge them by their actions not their weasel words.
Click to expand...

I did not miss your point I just pointed out your mistake. :lol:


----------



## SwissJetPilot

From the voice of experience -


----------



## carlsicesilverTT

leopard said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but as soon as Boris gets elected I'll ring him up and arrange for you and your lefty chums (and Jeremy) to have a one way ticket there. You can come on here and give us a monthly update
> 
> Edit:
> 
> While you're at it you can lock the "Last post wins" thread. I claim my prize, ta.
Click to expand...

This is similar thought process to Adolf Hitler - and its becoming a reality in the modern world again.

:evil:


----------



## carlsicesilverTT

I personally am embarrassed to be British.

Modern world is about unity and togetherness and we think we in UK are superior to stand alone. This is extreme right wing fascism and racism similar to Nazi ways.

With Trump being elected, UK referendum result and terrorism, I am amazed how many evil people there are in the world. I thought we moved on from extreme right wing ways and the people understood this was not the way forward.

Another example of how sad the Brits are is when international cricket and football teams tour other countries, we still sing war songs, :roll:

The UK is a relatively small island. It isn't a bad place to live in general but we stand well down the pecking order in terms of technological advancement, buildings, architecture, size, weather, food quality etc.


----------



## leopard

carlsicesilverTT said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexiteers - have you ever tried living in Singapore ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but as soon as Boris gets elected I'll ring him up and arrange for you and your lefty chums (and Jeremy) to have a one way ticket there. You can come on here and give us a monthly update
> 
> Edit:
> 
> While you're at it you can lock the "Last post wins" thread. I claim my prize, ta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is similar thought process to Adolf Hitler - and its becoming a reality in the modern world again.
> 
> :evil:
Click to expand...

Lol, forty bits of silver or whatever they call you.
You can join him too, ya melt. The Singapore Slings are on me :lol:

Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... [smiley=guitarist.gif]


----------



## A3DFU

carlsicesilverTT said:


> Modern world is about unity and togetherness and we think we in UK are superior to stand alone. This is extreme right wing fascism and racism similar to Nazi ways.
> 
> With Trump being elected, UK referendum result and terrorism, I am amazed how many evil people there are in the world. I thought we moved on from extreme right wing ways and the people understood this was not the way forward.


Very well said, Carl


----------



## John-H

https://www.theguardian.com/society/vid ... sale-video



















The leaked papers show US officials pushing lower food standards on Britain post Brexit, including allowing imports of chlorine-washed chickens, less nutritional labelling on foods, and less protection for regional food like stilton cheese. The US even offers to help the British government 'sell' chlorine chicken to a sceptical British public.

They show that the US has banned any mention of climate change in a US-UK trade deal, and that they are considering a 'corporate court system' in a US-UK deal, which would allow big business to sue the British government, in secret and without appeal, for anything they regard as 'unfair'. Recent similar cases have seen governments sued for trying to phase out use of coal in light of the climate emergency.

The papers show US officials demanding US experts and multinational corporations are able to participate in standard-setting in Britain post Brexit, and dismissing as 'unhelpful' the role of parliament in scrutinising standards. They show the US pushing to lock in the vast powers of 'Big Tech' companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon. And they show the very real threat to the NHS from sweeping services liberalisation rules and proposals to make Britain pay more for cancer medicines. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have even been given special access to the trade talks to lobby negotiators.

Boris Johnson previously denied such talks were taking place. Now the government are trying to pretend these are just "scoping" talks and will not form the basis of any agreement but you have to ask - why are civil servants then wasting their time in six meetings discussing such things? Does the government have no control of its own negotiators? Or more likely we conclude we are being lied to yet again and are NHS and food standards are under threat.

There are 451 pages of these leaked documents. Here's a summary of what they reveal: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2 ... e-us-trade

Here are the unredacted papers to download in full marked "OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (UK eyes only)":
https://openload.cc/M8MbD08fn7/OFFICIAL ... EADOUT_zip


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> The leaked papers show US officials pushing lower food standards on Britain post Brexit, including allowing imports of chlorine-washed chickens, less nutritional labelling on foods, and less protection for regional food like stilton cheese. The US even offers to help the British government 'sell' chlorine chicken to a sceptical British public.
> 
> They show that the US has banned any mention of climate change in a US-UK trade deal, and that they are considering a 'corporate court system' in a US-UK deal, which would allow big business to sue the British government, in secret and without appeal, for anything they regard as 'unfair'. Recent similar cases have seen governments sued for trying to phase out use of coal in light of the climate emergency.
> 
> The papers show US officials demanding US experts and multinational corporations are able to participate in standard-setting in Britain post Brexit, and dismissing as 'unhelpful' the role of parliament in scrutinising standards. They show the US pushing to lock in the vast powers of 'Big Tech' companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon. And they show the very real threat to the NHS from sweeping services liberalisation rules and proposals to make Britain pay more for cancer medicines. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have even been given special access to the trade talks to lobby negotiators.
> 
> Boris Johnson previously denied such talks were taking place. Now the government are trying to pretend these are just "scoping" talks and will not form the basis of any agreement but you have to ask - why are civil servants then wasting their time in six meetings discussing such things? Does the government have no control of its own negotiators? Or more likely we conclude we are being lied to yet again and are NHS and food standards are under threat.
> 
> There are 451 pages of these leaked documents. Here's a summary of what they reveal: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2 ... e-us-trade
> 
> Here are the unredacted papers to download in full marked "OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (UK eyes only)":
> https://openload.cc/M8MbD08fn7/OFFICIAL ... EADOUT_zip


Yes they specifically referenced patented drugs like Humira driving the cost up for the NHS, except Humira went off patent for Abbvie in 2018 and is now widely available for a fraction of the price. It's also a terrible example given that it's very rarely used.

But I wonder, is the remit of the NHS to R&D and manufacturer their own drugs now too? because that would be A LOT more expensive than buying patented drugs from America or anywhere else.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Are you serious about chlorinated chicken?

You realize this is same chlorine that's in your drinking water, swimming pools and everywhere else you want to kill bacteria, like salmonella? What idiots think this practice is a bad one?

https://www.lenntech.com/processes/disi ... lation.htm

More scare mongering by the hysterical idiots.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40199.pdf


----------



## John-H

It's very rude calling people idiots. I'm afraid this is a little embarrassing. If you do a little more delving into the issue you find it's not the direct effect of chlorine that's the issue. The issues are ones of animal welfare and hygiene standards. The chlorine wash is a cover up for poor standards during the life of the animal. It cleans up the surface prior to packaging. It does nothing for desease control in animal welfare not ultimately control things that the chlorine doesn't touch that have been allowed to develop in sub standard conditions.

That's only one issue.

I'm surprised you don't pick up on the loss of sovereignty that the UK would have to sign up to - having to change its laws to suit US standards and be subservient to is courts when we would have no say in the setting of those standards and laws - unlike we have with the EU.



ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leaked papers show US officials pushing lower food standards on Britain post Brexit, including allowing imports of chlorine-washed chickens, less nutritional labelling on foods, and less protection for regional food like stilton cheese. The US even offers to help the British government 'sell' chlorine chicken to a sceptical British public.
> 
> They show that the US has banned any mention of climate change in a US-UK trade deal, and that they are considering a 'corporate court system' in a US-UK deal, which would allow big business to sue the British government, in secret and without appeal, for anything they regard as 'unfair'. Recent similar cases have seen governments sued for trying to phase out use of coal in light of the climate emergency.
> 
> The papers show US officials demanding US experts and multinational corporations are able to participate in standard-setting in Britain post Brexit, and dismissing as 'unhelpful' the role of parliament in scrutinising standards. They show the US pushing to lock in the vast powers of 'Big Tech' companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon. And they show the very real threat to the NHS from sweeping services liberalisation rules and proposals to make Britain pay more for cancer medicines. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have even been given special access to the trade talks to lobby negotiators.
> 
> Boris Johnson previously denied such talks were taking place. Now the government are trying to pretend these are just "scoping" talks and will not form the basis of any agreement but you have to ask - why are civil servants then wasting their time in six meetings discussing such things? Does the government have no control of its own negotiators? Or more likely we conclude we are being lied to yet again and are NHS and food standards are under threat.
> 
> There are 451 pages of these leaked documents. Here's a summary of what they reveal: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2 ... e-us-trade
> 
> Here are the unredacted papers to download in full marked "OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (UK eyes only)":
> https://openload.cc/M8MbD08fn7/OFFICIAL ... EADOUT_zip
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they specifically referenced patented drugs like Humira driving the cost up for the NHS, except Humira went off patent for Abbvie in 2018 and is now widely available for a fraction of the price. It's also a terrible example given that it's very rarely used.
> 
> But I wonder, is the remit of the NHS to R&D and manufacturer their own drugs now too? because that would be A LOT more expensive than buying patented drugs from America or anywhere else.
Click to expand...

The initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents, which cover things such as manufacturing methods and the drug's formulation, expire in the 2020s. Besides the US are talking about extending patents.

The NHS cooperates in drug development but the bigger picture is with companies like Astrazeneca and GSK who are now shifting their operations into mainland Europe as a result of Brexit. They contribute more to the UK balance of payments than any other industry.

26% of NHS funding currently ends up in private hands. That's set to rise with the Tories' plans with Trump.


----------



## John-H

URGENT PETITION: LIB DEMS SHOULD BACK OFF IN UXBRIDGE TO BRING DOWN JOHNSON
https://infacts.org/petitions/bring-down-johnson/


----------



## John-H

*Conservatives complain to OFCOM and threaten to revoke Channel 4's operating licence after Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were "empty chaired" with two ice sculptures in climate change leaders debate.*


















Apparently Michael Gove and father Stanley Johnson stormed the broadcaster last night with their own film crew demanding that Gove stood in for Johnson who had refused to take part along with Nigel Farage but were turned away because it was a "leaders debate".










Boris Johnson has also refused to confirm taking part in a leaders' interview with Andrew Neil after he froze under questioning last time when his bluster, claiming he was relying on "GATT 24 paragraph 5b" to avoid WTO tariffs, melted away when he was asked how he was going to get round and if he knew what was in paragraph 5c and answered "No" in an embarrassing melt down, showing he was not on top of the detail and was all bluff and bluster.










https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcpolitics/ ... 77?lang=en

Looks like Johnson is again avoiding scrutiny.

I want to know what is in the report into Russian interference in our democracy which Boris Johnson is refusing to publish - apparently according to a senior source because it casts doubt on the integrity of the 2016 EU referendum and therefore the holding of the general election.


----------



## SwissJetPilot

In case you missed it, the EU has been following US laws for years. For example - the third or center brake light was Implemented in North America since 1986, in Australia and New Zealand since 1990, and in Europe since 1998.

And did you know the Swiss actually required that it be disconnected? Now does that sound like a smart thing to do, or an idiotic thing to do.

A simple device that helps make drivers safer and the European automotive and safety regulators dragged their feet for 12-years. Why? Because they're idiots.

Meanwhile, how many thousands of European drives lives could have been saved, or injuries prevented if they had just said, "Humm...that actually seems like a good idea". But no, they fought against it because just like little children having a tantrum, they don't like it when someone outside their sphere of control, happens to have a better idea than they do.

arrogance + ignorance = idiot.


----------



## John-H

We've been following the law of gravity for much longer and you the law of argument - when losing change the subject :lol:


----------



## ashfinlayson

Hmmm and farmers (not just in the USA but also Europe) chlorine wash their vegetables too, aren't you concerned about the welfare of your carrots too John?


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> Hmmm and farmers (not just in the USA but also Europe) chlorine wash their vegetables too, aren't you concerned about the welfare of your carrots too John?


Carrots don't have a central nervous system nor do they peck each other's feathers through distress, cooped up in crowded excrement strewn barnes catching communicable diseases. Do you not care about animal welfare Ash or what else may fester?
Of course you do, you were just feeling you should make a point and support any argument in defence of your position and against my position. It doesn't really work though does it?

Tell me, what would you say if the report on Russian interference in our electoral process, when it eventually gets published, casts doubt on the validity of the 2016 referendum result? Would you include the Russians on your side then too and support their influence?


----------



## Stiff

John-H said:


> Tell me, what would you say if the report on Russian interference in our electoral process, when it eventually gets published, casts doubt on the validity of the 2016 referendum result? Would you include the Russians on your side then too and support their influence?


----------



## HOGG

I need to eat, chlorine washed or not....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> ashfinlayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm and farmers (not just in the USA but also Europe) chlorine wash their vegetables too, aren't you concerned about the welfare of your carrots too John?
> 
> 
> 
> Carrots don't have a central nervous system nor do they peck each other's feathers through distress, cooped up in crowded excrement strewn barnes catching communicable diseases. Do you not care about animal welfare Ash or what else may fester?
> Of course you do, you were just feeling you should make a point and support any argument in defence of your position and against my position. It doesn't really work though does it?
> 
> Tell me, what would you say if the report on Russian interference in our electoral process, when it eventually gets published, casts doubt on the validity of the 2016 referendum result? Would you include the Russians on your side then too and support their influence?
Click to expand...

You raise a good point that it's not a food safety issue, that it's a welfare issue. Yet we hear MPs on your side of the argument being dishonest about that. Only last night we heard Caroline Lucas say that we're all going to get sick from eating chlorinated chicken and won't be able to go to the hospital because it will have been sold. I mean come on, if her lot were actually honest, people might take her more seriously on issues that actually matter, like the climate.

Yes I was japing. But in reality, European food standards are no better - We know that French farmers still feed their pigs and cattle on their own shite so we choose not to buy French meat. In the same way we can choose not to buy American chicken and the NHS can choose not to buy Humira instead of unpainted alternatives. Yes American Pharma is lobbying their government to get more money, that is what big organisations do, and with the right reforms, the NHS would have buying power over most of these organisations.


----------



## John-H

I didn't say it wasn't also a potential health issue for the reason that keeping animals in those conditions not only is a welfare issue but also is more likely to breed disease both bacteriological and virological in an environment which the chlorine wash may not always be effective against.

A study from the University of Southampton last year found that chlorine could make food-borne pathogens undetectable, giving lower microbial counts in testing, but without actually killing them - so they might remain capable of causing disease.

A 2015 WHO study found that infection rates for Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi were, respectively, four times and five times higher in North America than in Europe.

A study published in the UK in 2014 commissioned by the government estimated that there were about 34,000 cases of salmonella per year or about 55 per 100,000 people, based on 2009 data. A US study published in 2011 - and using data from 2002-2008 - estimated that there were just over a million cases of salmonella each year - a rate of about 350 per 100,000 people.

So yes, Caroline Lucas was right to highlight the health issues. She's telling the truth about there being extra risk with this process. We also know that the government have been discussing including the NHS service in trade talks. We know that 26% of NHS funding already ends up in private hands through out-source services. We know Richard Branson was provided with the right to sue the NHS when they tried not to use his services and we know that the USA will be pushing for similar legal sanction capability in their binding trade deal and we know this fits with the Tory doctrine of private is good and public is bad - so yes, I wouldn't be surprised if our NHS was heading for assimilation.

Also, have you considered the environmental effect? Why trade with the USA when the EU is right on our doorstep? All that extra transport and storage time in transit increases CO2 emissions and pollution.

It's all a really bad idea with no advantage, only disadvantage.


----------



## leopard

HOGG said:


> I need to eat, chlorine washed or not....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


You need to drink as well, it's in the water supply chain [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## John-H

When they refuse to stand up to scrutiny you have to ask why, what else they might be hiding and what reports might they be sitting on?


----------



## John-H

Warning - some offensive language:

https://dorseteye.com/jonathan-pie-spea ... e-careers/


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Warning - some offensive language:
> 
> https://dorseteye.com/jonathan-pie-spea ... e-careers/


Lol, it's old Pie & Chips givin' it large at his favourite locality again. Nevermind only four more days until we see Boris safely at the helm keeping No10 ship-shape and bristol fashion


----------



## John-H

Oh but I do mind because mine still belongs to me.


----------



## leopard

John-H said:


> Oh but I do mind because mine still belongs to me.


Haven't got a clue.  Your Beef Whistle, maybe


----------



## John-H

Unsurprising.


----------



## leopard

"Three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas"


----------



## John-H

Have you regressed back to the primary school playground? I suppose assimilation of your mind must have been easy for your masters.

*Just get done-over by Boris*

Perhaps it might catch on :lol:


----------



## leopard




----------



## leopard

Hey, John

Only tonight left roaming the streets in the wet canvassing for Jeremy, then finish off with Beer and sandwiches down at the 'Dog & Pheasant'.

To the sounds of:

Oooh Jerremeee Corrrbin, lmao


----------



## John-H

Happy Christmas....


----------



## A3DFU

I did a Proxy vote as instructed by one of my sons


----------



## Essex2Visuvesi

That's me voted


----------



## Essex2Visuvesi

Election Night Special - Monty Python


----------



## leopard

Looking wobbly for Jeremy, according to the exit polls.
Don't hold your breath John :lol:


----------



## Toshiba

Corbyn and labour would be disastrous for the UK if it came to pass. I really cant think of a worse scenario.
Politics is broken when you effectively have only one party that even partially sane.


----------



## HOGG

At least we can get on with Brexit now

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## SwissJetPilot

Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?


----------



## barry_m2

SwissJetPilot said:


> Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?


Probably all of that if the past 3 years is anything to go by.

I'm sure JohnH will be along this morning with a few YouTube clips and random links to entertain us all.


----------



## leopard

SwissJetPilot said:


> Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?


It's all up to John and Mr. Pie ... Dry your eyes Gentlemen :lol:





 [smiley=drummer.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif]


----------



## Iceblue

Well done to the quiet Britons, you dodged a major bullet. John I think you should start listening to us now and our very persuasive arguments :lol:


----------



## leopard

barry_m2 said:


> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably all of that if the past 3 years is anything to go by.
> 
> I'm sure JohnH will be along this morning with a few YouTube clips and random links to entertain us all.
Click to expand...

 "sign the petition for a revote, it's all been fraudulent" :lol:


----------



## Toshiba

He was unelectable, he's just a child that never grew up indeed that's mostly what the left is.
Dad can I have, dad can I have... no concept of who was going to pay for the stupid silly in the moment requests. Diana Abbott for leader. They just wanted to take other people's hard earned money and give it to those that believe everyone else should support them.

Scary thing is the witch in Scotland. She's like and STI,


----------



## barry_m2

leopard said:


> barry_m2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SwissJetPilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably all of that if the past 3 years is anything to go by.
> 
> I'm sure JohnH will be along this morning with a few YouTube clips and random links to entertain us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "sign the petition for a revote, it's all been fraudulent" :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Russians wasn't it!? I [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## A3DFU

Here's a good article for everyone to read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -ministers


----------



## John-H

HOGG said:


> At least we can get on with Brexit now
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


I kept saying Brexit hasn't happened yet. For sure now it will start at the end of January - unless Johnson asks for a technical extension because all the legislation isn't ready.



SwissJetPilot said:


> Looks like the results are in. Are you all going to have to vote again until you get it 'right" or will your media and the Tory/Boris-haters just start screaming there was "Russian interference" in the polls?


The Russian report that Johnson is sat on has yet to come out. So far the evidence is that voters voted and are responsible for what's about to happen but what is going to happen?

Johnson now has a majority high enough to do what he wants. He doesn't have to go for a hard Brexit, cutting all ties with the EU to keep the ERG happy and run into trouble caused by friction at ports because we had to sign up to a US trade deal which screws up our regulatory alignment with the EU, with consequent shortages, closures, unrest and acrimony.

No, he also now has the choice to go for a soft Brexit, keeping close alignment with the EU. The ERG and the right wing elements in his party can kick and scream all they like and he can ignore them. The EU would prefer this as it minimises damage and the trade deal would be much easier. We could end up with something more like EU membership but with no say in setting the rules.

Of course, either would be worse than the deal we have now - the government's own reports say so - but it would be what people voted to allow him to do.

One consideration is that a large part of his voter base will now be expecting things not to get worse for them. They won't be expecting more austerity. Does he ignore them? Will food banks and child and in work poverty and homeless ness continue to rise? Will the NHS continue to limp along? Where is the social care? Where is the urgently and visionary action needed to tackle climate change and set an example to the world - or have the climate change deniers and fossil fuel industry won?

One thing is now for sure - what happens in the next five years will be Boris Johnson's responsibility and that of the voters who, having had a chance to decide differently, opted to put him in power.


----------



## DTH

Well, I left this forum a few years ago now - mainly due to the absolutely rabid remoaner rhetoric whereby being a Brexit voter made you a thicko, (at best). I just had to sign in one last time after the election results rolled in today to see if this thread was still active - unsurprisingly it still is - and it still appears to be as rabid, fingers-in-their-ears, unreasonable as it was when I frequently visited the board, (it's good to see the same anti-democratic *minority* are still posting as elegantly as ever - possibly time to move on?)

As was said a long time ago - Best of three?

....Wait a minute....

2016 Referendum - Result - *LEAVE*
2019 MEP elections - An overwhelming 29 Seats for the Brexit party - Result - *LEAVE*
2019 UK General election - An overwhelming win for The Tories - Result - *LEAVE*

The silent majority have spoken in the *only *way that matters.


----------



## ashfinlayson




----------



## Toshiba

I say let's have some bacon sandwiches!!!


----------



## bobclive22

This has been a good week for democracy on both sides of the pond. For the UK, the stab in the back remoaner`s have been toasted and Boris with his massive majority can now get on with Brexit unhindered. He can also negotiate a better deal without having his hands tied.

On the other side of the Pond President Donald trump is slowly draining the swamp, the recent Horowitz report is a devastating indictment of the democrats attempted coup and is only the first and minor part of three ongoing investigations.

Trump is a very astute businessman, the next report is scheduled for next spring and the final will probably come out just before Trumps re-election bid.

If you want to learn anything about the deep state view this vid in it`s entirety, I say to you John, follow the rabbit down the hole, never ever trust the main stream media.

What to me is most sickening is how the left wing main stream media try to spin this report as a none event.


----------



## leopard

bobclive22 said:


> This has been a good week for democracy on both sides of the pond. For the UK, the stab in the back remoaner`s have been toasted and Boris with his massive majority can now get on with Brexit unhindered. He can also negotiate a better deal without having his hands tied.


Quite right .

No more nonsense outside Parliament with remainers rhetoric, no more senseless pro-remain marches, no moronic law suits, test cases or the like. No more fruitless crowd funding. No more endless nonsense in the commons. No excuses, Brexit is here and is going to get done and the majority have overwhelmingly voted in favour and there's not a damn thing the opposition or John can do about it now :lol:

Europe have now got the message that we mean business so never mind soft deals to appease the old remainers, and if Boris plays his cards right I reckon we've nailed this one in the bag for a better deal to come.

Can't wait to see how this pans out with the SNP


----------



## John-H

:lol:

But I did like Ash's cartoon.


----------



## bobclive22

Lost for words John. :?


----------



## mighTy Tee

DTH said:


> Well, I left this forum a few years ago now - mainly due to the absolutely rabid remoaner rhetoric whereby being a Brexit voter made you a thicko, (at best). I just had to sign in one last time after the election results rolled in today to see if this thread was still active - unsurprisingly it still is - and it still appears to be as rabid, fingers-in-their-ears, unreasonable as it was when I frequently visited the board, (it's good to see the same anti-democratic *minority* are still posting as elegantly as ever - possibly time to move on?)
> 
> As was said a long time ago - Best of three?
> 
> ....Wait a minute....
> 
> 2016 Referendum - Result - *LEAVE*
> 2019 MEP elections - An overwhelming 29 Seats for the Brexit party - Result - *LEAVE*
> 2019 UK General election - An overwhelming win for The Tories - Result - *LEAVE*
> 
> The silent majority have spoken in the *only *way that matters.


Well said, I hardly visit the TTF due to the winging remoaners - hopefully we are finally in the Brexit driving seat, rather than being at the bekon call of anti-democracy MPs who would have happly sold us down the river to line their own pockets.

Of all the (car) forums I frequent, this is the only one with a strong political bias. I come here for advice on cars not to listen to hard line political s***.


----------



## John-H

This forum has always championed free speech, discussion and expression on any subject within the rules.

You don't have to read this thread in off topic. Car stuff is on the other boards.

I seem to remember the reason you left was more to do with the split between the TTOC away from TTF and had nothing to do with Brexit even though there are interesting parallels. I always thought it was better to work together - others didn't - but I don't want to resurrect an old argument.

You think you are right about Brexit? That's your opinion but others disagree. Now you and your champions have a chance to prove it. We'll see how you get on and reality will be the judge


----------



## leopard

Free speech is good, but remember love is all around us, now 
we're a one party nation.

Time to take that stitch up banner down now John, it's all over and time for you to relax [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## ashfinlayson

John-H said:


> But I did like Ash's cartoon.


Thanks John



John-H said:


> You think you are right about Brexit? That's your opinion but others disagree. Now you and your champions have a chance to prove it. We'll see how you get on and reality will be the judge


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll put my foot in anyway... It's out of our hands now - the new gov has the chance to deliver on their promises or they'll be out on their arse like every other before. Frankly I think it would be nice if everyone learns to get along and forget all about the Brexit debacle, and I'd like to go back to talking about cars and guitars.

[smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## John-H

ashfinlayson said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I did like Ash's cartoon.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks John
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are right about Brexit? That's your opinion but others disagree. Now you and your champions have a chance to prove it. We'll see how you get on and reality will be the judge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll put my foot in anyway... It's out of our hands now - the new gov has the chance to deliver on their promises or they'll be out on their arse like every other before. Frankly I think it would be nice if everyone learns to get along and forget all about the Brexit debacle, and I'd like to go back to talking about cars and guitars.
> 
> [smiley=cheers.gif]
Click to expand...

That's a very good and noble thought Ash [smiley=guitarist.gif]
[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------

