***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 30 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 28 Jun 16 at 02:12
|
|
Is Sinn Fein correct in calling for a referendum to unite Ireland after the E.U.Referendum.
|
Sinn Fein will of course make the most of Brexit - not that I believe they have any particular interest in the EU.
Northern Ireland would not vote to merge with Eire - which is what Sinn Fein want; there's a world of difference between voting yes to that and voting Remain.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 13:15
|
|
Would be a good idea in my mind, but I don't think the "Royalists" would want to live in a Republic, just like the EUropeans don't want to live in a free England!
|
'... I don't think the "Royalists" would want to live in a Republic...'
I don't think it's that, so much as the religious and historical reasons. As someone once said - perhaps rather unkindly - "The Irish have forgotten nothing and learned nothing."
|
|
There certainly wouldn't be wholehearted support south of the border either.
|
>> There certainly wouldn't be wholehearted support south of the border either.
That's a telling comment from somebody with (IIRC) Irish roots.
|
>>>>
>> That's a telling comment from somebody with (IIRC) Irish roots.
>>
People in the Republic had every sympathy with the Nationalist cause in the north. From what I heard from Irish family and friends back home that did no extend to actually liking the Ulstermen very much.
|
>>From what I heard from Irish family and friends back home that did no extend to
>> actually liking the Ulstermen very much.
For sure. The last thing the Republic needs is to flip the participants in the struggle with the rebels on its patch.
|
|
Well, the Republic have just left Europe now :-(
|
|
To unite Ireland the Good Friday Agreement would have to be abolished.
|
>> To unite Ireland the Good Friday Agreement would have to be abolished.
IIRC it provides for possibility of a united Ireland with the consent of both the Republic and Northern Ireland.
|
Fluffy, you have email. If I don't get a response to it, I'll presume it is a dead email address and disable your account here.
In the meantime stop keep creating separate referendum discussions and post them in the thread that has been specifically created for it.
Vx.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 18:58
|
In Volume 28, Bromptonaut wrote:-
"IIRC it (The Good Friday Agreement) provides for possibility of a united Ireland with the consent of both the Republic and Northern Ireland".
How do the numbers stand up in the North?
In a straight 'join the Republic v stay in the UK' plebiscite in N.I. who would win?
|
>> In a straight 'join the Republic v stay in the UK' plebiscite in N.I. who
>> would win?
I don't know if there's any polling.
The Protestant/Catholic split is said to be 48/45 with rest other. Is religion still the marker for Loyalist/Nationalist it was assumed to be in seventies reporting of the troubles?
Question was actually in fluffsters Irish thread but may be as relevant here.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 18:17
|
>>>>
>> The Protestant/Catholic split is said to be 48/45 with rest other. Is religion still the
>> marker for Loyalist/Nationalist it was assumed to be in seventies reporting of the troubles?
>>
>>
Pretty much the case.
|
rtj posted something that ended 'so much for giving the more stupid populous the vote'.
Sorry rtj, but what you must have meant was 'the less well-informed segment of the populace'. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
Of course universal suffrage has its drawbacks, but would you really want the vote to be restricted to the ruling class (as it once was), with everyone else expected to like it or lump it? The ignorant populace would take a lot of persuading now that it has had a taste of 'power'.
|
Up to now we have had a system of representative democracy that by and large enabled the educated ruling classes to water down the excesses of far more populous ignorant and prejudiced elements of society. Universal suffrage gave the illusion of power but in practice this was limited.
Referendums remove this "softening" process and expose us to the raw wishes of the majority however barmy they be. Those that allowed the referendum geni out of the box are surely regretting it. It will be a very long time before the government proposes another one
|
>> Universal suffrage gave the illusion of power but in practice this was limited.
Yes, just a taste.
And I agree CGN that the referendum was a very bad idea. What could have possessed the man to go for it?
Of course I cheerfully put my X against remain as a sane British person would. Lo and behold I was outvoted by a small idiot majority. Tchah!
Manatee's Dick Tuck (who he?) has it right.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 17:46
|
|
It was Tyrednemotional's Dick Tuck I think. Or Richard Nixon's to be fair.
|
>> It was Tyrednemotional's Dick Tuck I think. Or Richard Nixon's to be fair.
Who wants or needs to be fair? Manatee quoted the geezer so I blame him.
:o}
|
...s'awright, old chap, I have no feeling of ownership.
Overall, I'm doing my best to refrain from commenting on a situation for which the epithet "clusterf*ck" might well have been coined.......
|
|
I wonder if there will be an election before the end of the year? Seems certain i would think with a new PM and possibly a new opposition leader. I know there is no legal reason to have one, however I think any new PM would want a mandate via a general election.
|
Are the ignorant populace the ones who don't know the difference between populous and populace?
"The people have spoken, the b------s". (Dick Tuck).
It was the question that was stupid. Deliberately so as it was designed to deliver a Remain result (thanks Mr Cameron).
I wasn't happy about putting a cross in either box. There's a lot of water between pulling up the drawbridge and joining the European superstate.
|
>> Interesting stats from 2nd referendum petition :-)
I said in previous volume these petitions are about participation in the democratic process. As such they're simple and susceptible to manipulation around the edges.
But after taking out the prank/fraud element it's still way over 2 million; biggest my miles since these things began under coalition.
Point made on radio that there is no prospect that, of itself, it could trigger another referendum
The coming week/month/year in politics will be most vigorous and interesting since 1945.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 18:23
|
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
|
>> Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
>> Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
That's true enough... I always liked that saying, or whatever it is.
There's nothing 'mere' about anarchy though. The very thought makes one's blood run cold.
And by the way, it's a middling crap rhyme, unless pronunciation has changed more than I think it has...
|
"it's a middling crap rhyme"
WB Yeats was a bit over-rated was he AC?
The following lines from the same poem seem to sum ups our present crowd of politicians.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
|
"There's nothing 'mere' about anarchy though."
Yeats was probably using "mere" in the archaic sense of "sheer", or "downright".
"...it's a middling crap rhyme, unless pronunciation has changed more than I think it has..."
It's what is known to English scholars as a half-rhyme. Thought you would have known that.
|
>> It's what is known to English scholars as a half-rhyme. Thought you would have known that
I'm no Scholar FP. But I like a full rhyme where it can be wangled. A half-rhyme is middling crap in my finicky book.
True, I should have known it. But all that was such a long time ago.
|
But after taking out the prank/fraud element it's still way over 2 million; biggest my
>> miles since these things began under coalition.
1.8 m is the previous highest apparently.
|
In vol 28, WillDeBeest said:-
"Is Leave now in panic, having won a vote they expected to lose?"
If they expected to lose, then what would be the point in campaigning to leave? They must have known they'd be in with a shout, or else why bother.
|
|
My family are ( were ) very closely involved in Scottish politics. Numerous off stage conversations were held on many late nights in various of our houses. I was too young to really know or understand the minutiae but let me assure you, the public face of the activities are very carefully managed and are not always ( ever? ) what they seem.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 19:18
|
I see the issue from a different perspective.
All the effort was given towards convincing voters to vote for leave side. Because the probability of winning was low, not much effort was made on planning what would happen if indeed they win (which has now happened).
Remain side never had this problem because winning means business as usual.
Couple of months back I read a book titled David & Goliath written by Malcolm Gladwell.
This referendum was similar to this. Remain side was very powerful (Goliath) and leave side was like a country farmer (David). However, Goliath was good at close combat where as David fought the battle using stone with sling and hit Goliath at the head.
|
That must have been a short book movilogo.
Be nice to see a United Ireland.They all speak Irish have ginger hair and cost us less in paying for Northen Ireland.
And the Irish sea divide us.
|
At one level, you're right Movi, this was all about "shaking the the bag, mixing things up" the actual result wasn't expected from either side.
This was about certain politicians using this to raise their profile and riding the wave of a prime minister gambling everything on a loosely concealed vote of confidence.
What they all forgot or failed to recognise was the possibility of being believed.
( no, not just my opinion...)
|
London is to far away and the Eton Boys gambled wrong.
Boris and go looked like scared sheep.We have won what the S are we going to do now>:)
|
But the stone bounced back and crippled David. Goliath then moved in for the kill...
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 20:05
|
Just thinking can we go back to ten bob notes and pence.Nostalgia. we might as well go the whole way.Lorries with three wheels.Big bars of white chocolate.
So many good memories when England was England.I was listening to Alex Salmon he is full of himself isn't he.Someting about Scotland being a country.Is that official?
|
>> Scotland being a country.Is that official?
Yes.
Scotland as a country is part of Great Britain (and therefore the UK). Wales is a principality and part of GB/UK. Northern Ireland is constituent unit of the UK.
|
|
Well technically it's more of a country than England in having its own Parliament and all.
|
|
This was on the bbc, Scotland is a nation but not a state.
|
If they expected to lose, then what would be the point of campaigning to leave?
As I said, to put on a show. To be able to say afterwards that they'd put up a good fight but been outmuscled by the Establishment. And then to offer their services to Cameron as the people who could tame the Europhobic right, assure him a tranquil second (and final) term, and ultimately form the nucleus of the next Tory leadership.
The clues are there in Bozza's - and even Gove's - behaviour at the start of the campaign. Johnson took forever to decide, and he gave a chaotic interview on Today in mid-campaign in which he couldn't state a preference for keeping or ditching access to the Single Market, or even deny that he'd written two announcement columns, one for each side he might have joined.
Yes, there are those who clearly relish having won, but they're fringe players with no higher ambitions: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bill Cash and the like. Johnson, Gove and those in the next tier down, like Chris Grayling, are showing clear signs that all they wanted was a plucky, good-show-chaps defeat.
|
I'm not entirely surprised about the referendum result; I broadly outlined in a response to Zeddo before he flounced the level of dissatisfaction in the provinces (particularly the North) and the lack of any perspective of this in the London/SE-centric view of both it's inhabitants and Parliament.
I'm certainly persuaded that sufficient an element of the vote to cross the threshold was based more on a desire to put two fingers up to the establishment than simply to exit the EU.
The situation we now find ourselves in is reprehensible, largely the legacy of weak, self-seeking individuals, and the main players now jostling for position have already proven themselves constitutionally unsuitable to sort any of the mess out.
We've instigated a referendum on European Union membership for reasons that had very little to do with a desire to be in or out, and a lot to do with internecine war in the Tory party.
We've had the "leave" camp led by people who had very little interest in us leaving, and a considerable interest in furthering their own ambitions.
We've had a vote where a significant number of people were simply trying to "stick it" to the government, and another significant number were voting for "promises" of change that could never be delivered, and are/have already been retracted (NHS funding, immigration, etc), or will have to be retracted simply to keep the UK (or England) remotely viable.
There has been absolutely no planning of how to handle any fall-out (either in the leave campaign or the extant government). Worse than that, even after the result senior Tory party members were entirely oblivious to the level of impact ("Good, now it's over, we can get back to delivering the rest of our manifesto" - and just how much parliamentary/civil service bandwidth is going to be available for that in the next 2+ years if we are to handle exit negotiations without getting royally screwed?).
Incidentally, IMO (and others more informed) we simply do not have the skills and capabilities in Government and the Civil Service to successfully support such a major renegotiation. I dread a resolution based on advice from PWC, Accenture, Deloittes, et al, never mind the Merchant Banks.
We have a Chancellor who has gone AWOL whilst the markets are in chaos; a PM who has washed his hands of any responsibility for sorting the mess out ("don't blame me, I only called the referendum"!); no defined leadership or direction (much of it being tied up in the ongoing internecine war), and no timescale for resolution; so, in the interim, big business is (not entirely surprisingly) taking contingency action for the worst case (and generally, these actions are not in the best interest of the UK).
And now, rather too late, we are having the "what did the Romans ever do for us" moment, and discovering that there are rather a lot of EU-based things we'd either like or need to retain, but aren't at all well placed to (re)negotiate. (for example, much of our Financial Services (the main underpinning of our economy) rely on EU "passporting", and given the difficult history of retaining concessions in this area whilst we were IN the EU, being OUT is going to pose some interesting problems).
Fundamentally, it would appear that (unless there is someone man (or woman) enough to take some real control), we are going to spend an awful amount of effort, an awful amount of risk, and probably a big hit economically, to end up being outside the EU, but with most of the costs and trappings still in place because we can't exist without them. This alongside little of the promised "benefits" being realised.
If I'd been responsible for such a mess in my previous career, I'd have been out on my a*se already.
....and the BBC is still running with the crisis in the Labour party as its main story.......wtf?
|
|
T&E, if I could give you a hundred "green thumbs" I would. One of the most astute and accurate assessments of this farce I have ever seen.
|
Two quick points.
1. I had great difficulty putting an X next to either option - complete separation for the EU is impossible on the one hand, and to indicate satisfaction with the status quo, which is unlikely to endure, would have been an untruth. I suspect many people just chose the option they disliked least. Too narrow a question.
2. I hope the government sees a difference between a 52/48 result and say a 7/30 result. In fact there's really sod all difference between 52/48 and 48/52 except the arithmetic. The negotiators would be justified in interpreting that as a mandate to seek a meaningful repatriation of sovereignty and the retention of as many of the benefits of the EU as is consistent with that.
|
Manatee I hope you'll understand I mean no personal slight and certainly don't seek to mock when I disagree with Bromp's wish to appoint you our conscience on the referendum issues. I think you've vastly overthought the whole thing, and what you've written today underlines that.
You write as the question weren't on a ballot paper but an A-level Philosophy paper. In fact, all we had to do was exactly what you say at the end of your first point: pick what we considered the 'least worst' option. We weren't asked to pick one 'true' answer for which we could account openly on the Day of Judgment, just to say which one had the best probable outcome for the kind of UK we wanted to live in.
Of course, the campaigns didn't help. Leave's 'Take Control' in particular suggested strongly that everything we knew and resented as 'Brussels' could be swept away and replaced with honest bulldog alternatives, even though they struggled to articulate what these would actually be. Remain didn't do enough to show that the EU is not on an unveering path to a federal, omnipotent superstate but is reining back its ambitions and focusing on consolidating and stabilizing the gains from its eastward expansion. And Leave successfully disparaged Remain's 'don't cock it up' message as 'Project Fear' - while, of course, gleefully propagating alarm about immigrants and Turkish accession.
Given this, your carefully explained Leave vote was wrong, not because I wanted you to vote Remain (although of course I did) but because you had comprehensively and methodically worked out an answer to the wrong question.
|
No offence taken. We have to make our own choices.
Claude Juncker's, and Martin Schulz's contributions over the last week are not consistent with the idea that the EU was ready to retreat from its agenda of closer integration, or even to take a temporary step backwards.
The vote last week may have changed more for the EU than for us. Frau Merkel has already intimated that she will be instrumental in finding an accommodation. If our leaders don't cock it up, there is a real possibility of an improvement for us, and a better footing for the EU which has got itself into a corner. The problem with the status quo was that it was never going to remain the status quo.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 23:52
|
|
It was an unhappy marriage. If Merkel can make the settlement amicable then it will be better for all of us!
|
This is the biggest political crisis since Suez, perhaps since Chamberlain's fall in 1940.
The Government's majority is what? 17?.
Almost anything is possible.
|
>> almost anything....
I'm trying to run through people with the skills and experience to lead a government of national (dis)unity. Ruth Davidson would be ideal but is not in the Commons. Who else?
|
Who else?
Alan Johnston MP
David Blunkett (House of Lords but I guess he could be pulled in)
Stephen Crabb MP ( well regarded by some in Wales despite being a Tory)
|
>> Nick Clegg for PM??
I think he'd make a good PM. Needs to be an MP first.
|
Ruth Davidson is a good call. She could draw in moderate Tories, of course, but also disaffected centrist Labourites and Lib Dems (what on earth is Tim Farron for?) She could even bring the SNP into a broad progressive (odd word to use of a Tory, I know) coalition that could be credible in negotiating a settlement with the EU and prevent the bluster of Johnson and Farage antagonizing the other countries into unnecessarily anti-UK positions.
If course, this would probably require a split in the Conservative Party analogous to the genesis of the SDP. But this upheaval makes Labour's squabbles in the 1980s look pretty trivial, so I don't think we should rule it out.
|
Further thought on RD: she is young - 38, I think - and has no national experience, or even experience beyond opposition in Scotland. Her TV debate performance convinced me that she could be a contender in ten years - she has some of the natural 'listen to me' presence that characterized Tony Blair, and apparently without his sanctimonious, God-listens-to-me streak - but even with the right personal qualities, it'd still be a huge step up.
Still, with so many other candidates discredited or disqualified, perhaps it's a step someone needs to take.
|
>> I think he'd make a good PM. Needs to be an MP first.
Still siting for Sheffield Hallam:
www.libdems.org.uk/nick_clegg
(I had to check before posting last night)
|
...would have been a name I woulds have put forward, but he's no longer a sitting MP. (Though he is a life peer).
TBH, one of the best suggestions on the way forward I've seen has come from Michael Heseltine, (not someone I like very much, but he comes from an era where MPs had a little more gravitas).
Conservative peer Lord Heseltine says "the people who created this mess" - Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage - must be the ones to carry out the negotiations with the EU - and do it quickly. "If you put anyone else in charge they will disown it," he says.
The former deputy prime minister says those negotiations "will produce a quite unacceptable deal for this country and the House of Commons will then say, 'No, we can't accept that.'
"And the only way to deal with that is to have a general election or another referendum."
Of course, such a solution would be better with the existing leadership in place to oversee (but play no central part). I'd also think that it would be sensible to then have a general election even if the negotiations (unexpectedly) turned out to be acceptable, (in which case, BorisGoveFarage would presumably be elected).
|
The probable sequence of events does not support Heseltine's 'plan' if Article 50 has been triggered before heads of terms are finalised.
It would first be necessary to establish the principle with the EU that negotiations can be conducted to that point before notice is given (or not).
|
|
I think that's right. But there is another method: clarification of the issues and heads of terms with the EU, and a further referendum, It has been said, and I think correctly, that in a referendum campaign the "No" faction have a structural advantage, in that they can cast doubt, by means fair or foul. Addressing the doubters concerns seems to have been successful on 3 occasions as mentioned before. Here is a link to explain the process: blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
|
...indeed it wouldn't - the invocation of Article 50 is a very dangerous point for the UK (it essentially at that point places the great majority of the negotiating power with the EU with a time-limit that means that, even if an acceptable agreement can't be reached, after two years we are out.....).
It does provide for an agreed compromise to that timing arrangement (if, of course, one can be agreed......). Frankly, that should be the immediate main direction of the (pre-article 50) negotiations
Unfortunately, regardless of any of the direction at the start of the negotiations (and I sincerely doubt that in the current atmosphere the core negotiators are going to even start "kindly-disposed" to the UK's interests), it is my experience of the nature of such things that they descend into being "competitive", with each side looking for a win.
.....though I'm sure the "Leavers" have that entirely under control...... :-(
|
>> This is the biggest political crisis since Suez, perhaps since Chamberlain's fall in 1940.
As distinct from an economic crisis which it is not.
The FTSE100 finished 3 points down on Friday, higher than it had been in both September and February and about 500 points above the one year low.
>>Almost anything is possible
Yes. What an opportunity. I hope the Tories don't choose either of Gove or Johnson. Now is the hour for a statesman.
Labour...oh dear. I suspect they will end up eventually with Benn if he'll have it.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 26 Jun 16 at 21:22
|
>> As distinct from an economic crisis which it is not.
>>
>> The FTSE100 finished 3 points down on Friday, higher than it had been in both
>> September and February and about 500 points above the one year low.
I wish I was confident of Friday's close as anything more than a snapshot influenced by short term events.
At least two posters in this pretty select group, Runfer and Zippy, have posted examples of how trade is being affected. My neighbour over road, retired IT middle exec with a grounded business head on her shoulders, points out a freeze/retraction of inward investment. Another week or month....?
|
|
That's a very fair point; volatility is a given, the trend is harder to predict.
|
|
Idealism is the preserve of the comfortable or the penniless. Those of us who need to continue to earn our own living and continue to help in providing a platform for others to do so need to interpret and react to the realities. It is not going to be easy. This has just made it a lot harder.
|
And people like Runfer need to make decisions now and therefore there has to be some guessing.
So the governments majority is 17. What happens if say 50 of them declare independence from the party? No majority.... would that force an early election?
Someone on Radio 4 was asked about this earlier today and they said short of a revolution they couldn't see what could be done apart from leave the EU. I wonder what would constitute a revolution?
But the damage is already being done.
|
Concluding paragraph from Norton's Anthony Hilton link in the previous volume. Article was published on 15 June. He explains that the referendum result carries no legal weight until the leaving process is approved by both houses of Parliament, and that we can only guess how individual members will choose to behave.
Perhaps the only real conclusion is that, far from settling the issue, this referendum is most likely to make things worse. A Remain vote is not going to convince the Tories that they should work more constructively and enthusiastically with the EU; a Leave vote may not achieve that result either. These past few weeks have entrenched prejudices far more than they have opened minds.
Full Fact explains how the parliamentary process and Article 50 interlock here:
fullfact.org/europe/how-eu-works-leaving-eu/
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 07:07
|
|
I see Trump and Palin are praising Brexit. I wonder if they would be so happy if California, New York or Texas voted to leave the Union?
|
In further news...
Sajid Javid, when asked if the half million job losses he forecast would now come to pass, said "not if we all work together". Well I never. Definitely not a scare story then.
George Osborne is now insinuating himself into the negotiations and claimed he is prepared for this, and there will be no immediate emergency Brexit budget.
Boris Johnson, although not my preferred candidate, appears to have taken my advice that the government should heed the margin of the referendum and act in the interests of all the voters -
The leading pro-Leave campaigner said exit supporters must accept the 52-48 result was "not entirely overwhelming".
"I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be.
"There will still be intense and intensifying European co-operation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment.
"EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI - the BDI - has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.
"The only change - and it will not come in any great rush - is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU's extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal."
I shouldn't be surprised...no one can make a 90 degree or perhaps a 180 degree turn sound quite as reasonable as Boris.
I can't say I fully understand the last part but it's pretty clear that this is a long way from paddling our own canoe in an entirely new direction.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 10:05
|
|
...or even from 'taking control'.
|
...what Boris actually wrote before his spin-doctors got hold of it was...
"2 years of risk, uncertainty, economic decline and and further division in the country will lead to very little change, other than me becoming PM - sorted!"
;-)
|
What is the process for choosing a new PM? Does it have to be someone from ruling party only?
What will happen if Conservatives split and there are 2 teams? Will there be new election then?
|
Here's a small irony. A significant proportion of the goods I sell go to EU countries. Therefore they have to, and will continue to have to comply with EU regulations in terms of how they are manufactured and packaged. But now, or in due course, our UK industry bodies will have no right to a say in what those regulations are or are to become in the future. Great.
:-(
|
Great innit. A right mess...
|
www.facebook.com/index.php (needs sound)
And the reasoning of an outie (subtitled, and contains good old Anglo Saxon sweary words) which I hope are a spoof but I fear is not. If not, it supports my theory that giving us a choice was a bad decision!!
www.facebook.com/212667045793913/videos/212815595779058/
|
>>And the reasoning of an outie (subtitled, and contains good old Anglo Saxon sweary words) >>which I hope are a spoof but I fear is not. If not, it supports my theory that giving us a >>choice was a bad decision!!
Not only should she be barred from voting, she should be barred from breeding as well!
|
>> Do Movi, Westpig et al still think this chaos a price worth paying?
Personally I think yes. Any deviation from "status quo" always brings some chaos which settles over long run.
Does it mean we should never thrive for changes? You can't fathom some changes unless you are actually into it.
That news link about German car manufacturers is exactly as I predicted. UK will suffer some pain but EU will have even larger pain - because of that they would be willing to negotiate and this gives us some leverage.
Without the referendum it would have never been possible.
The economic implication threat is similar to blackmailing. This has proven that politicians only talk about democracy when it suits their needs only.
Just look how some celebrities already changed their tunes and now claiming life would be better under Brexit.
Quality of life can't always be measured using monetary amount.
I know that leave side didn't know what to do in case of Brexit. But leave side was funded casually and except few career politicians most fought because of believe and passion. The remain side was funded by HM's Government had unlimited funds. Why they didn't chalk out plans in case leave wins? They hand hundreds of civil servants under their disposal to carry out this activity.
Because they took common public with contempt and assumed scaremongering will achieve what they want (rather than what public want).
Even after the referendum they can't accept and now trying for 2nd referendum.
I do remember Farage saying he'd fight if leave lost by thin margin. However, winning side would have laughed at him and said "ya, you will get another referendum in 20 years time".
Similarly, if there is 2nd referendum, it should be in 20 years time.
My 5-yr old can tell which number is bigger - 52 or 48. But for remainers, the answer is still "it depends, based on which number means more cash in my bank account".
The hypocrisy is now laid bare.
I know someone will now raise the backtracking on £350 million pledge. But both sides told lies. If remainers would have won there would have similar breaking pledges like Turkey still joining EU, no more benefits curb for new EU migrants etc. So the lies just cancel each other out.
|
Words fail me.
>>The economic implication threat is similar to blackmailing.
Not blackmail - it is what will happen. The economy will suffer. We will all suffer. EU will suffer and therefore any deals we make might not be in our favour.
>> The remain side was funded by HM's Government ... Why they didn't chalk out plans in case
>> leave wins?
Why spend our money on planning for something they didn't want? Very few MPs want this. So whatever we take to the EU to discuss will not be what you think you'd get from Brexit. The MPs will try to get what's the best deal for the country. So probably free movement of EU citizens etc.
>> Similarly, if there is 2nd referendum, it should be in 20 years time.
What would a referendum in 20 years be for? We'd be out of the EU by then.
|
|
Sorry Movi. We try to be nice to you - and Smokie will tell me off for this - but while Dog may think you're an asset to this country, it must be in some way that doesn't involve critical thinking, logical reasoning or understanding. You plainly haven't a clue about how grownup societies and economic systems actually work. And you write utter rubbish here and act hurt and surprised when better brains hack it to pieces.
|
So, apart from intangibles, what are the benefits that will acrue to the UK by leaving the EU?
Those that have been forecast by knowledgeable people, and are measurable?
|
>> The hypocrisy is now laid bare.
>>
>> I know someone will now raise the backtracking on £350 million pledge. But both sides
>> told lies. If remainers would have won there would have similar breaking pledges like Turkey
>> still joining EU, no more benefits curb for new EU migrants etc. So the lies
>> just cancel each other out.
That's just nonsense. Like schoolyard stuff about he did it too sir.
There may be some exaggeration on he in side but Osborne's Brexit budget hasn't gone away. He's just waiting for the government's economists to tell him how big the tax shortfall is. Turkey hasn't joined yet and, while it's being buttered up to keep it on side over Syria, it'snot joining anytime soon. Turkey has illegally occupied the north of Cyprus since 1974 and the underlying problem is intractable. Even if Erdogan get's his ducks in a row Greece and Cyprus will veto.
Out was admitting it had lied within hours of the polls closing. Apart from the obvious deceit what does that say about trust in politics?
|
Bromptonaut, like you I don't think his 'threat' of a budget was a lie or there to scare us. He pointed out it would be necessary - but the leavers think that's him being a bully. With government borrowing costs going up as I type this.... how do we pay for that? And how will we pay for the extra people now about to become out of work? Well we'll have to raise taxes.
But to the leavers, the negative facts about what would happen was simply seen as scare tactics and they ignored it. They think they were all lying and nothing too bad was going to happen (although I think Westpig is smart enough to know things will get a lot worse before we get back to anywhere near to where we are today).
AS for Turkey joining the EU... we could and probably would have vetoed that. But as soon as we trigger clause 50 we have no say. So in theory Turkey could join next year and therefore Turks could come and settle in the UK and take our jobs. They will then already be here when we leave the EU in 2 years time. Had we stayed in the EU that could not have happened.
Of course I don't really think the EU will let Turkey join but used it as an example of what might change in the EU (which we will remain in for 2 years but have no input or veto) whilst we negotiate our way out.
I thought Boris might have made a good PM in the future.... now I don't trust him and might join the Conservatives so I can have a vote in the future Conservative leader.
What will get really messy is we get a new PM this year and start negotiations with the EU with a Conservative government... then part of the way through we have a general election and say have a liberal/labour coalition government who then might change the direction of the negotiations.... so perhaps we should have a unity government and get all sides involved in our future direction.
|
Following the outcome, the country's economic and political systems appear to me to have been completely and utterly destabilised, with no resolution in sight for either. If we were a company no-one would want to do business with us at the moment.
I know it's early days, and also I realise an honest answer is unlikely, because no-one likes to own up to a mistake, but is there anyone at all who voted out who is prepared to concede that they regret their decision?
If not, maybe instead the Leavers could explain, using the benefit of hindsight and the current situation, and their anticipated outcomes, why an Out vote continues to have been the correct decision?
There's no point turning it round on the Remainers as I don't see that there is a case to answer as (at least) the status quo would have prevailed, and as was said so many times, the required changes to the EU would have been better negotiated from the inside.
|
Are you suggesting the leavers were wrong in not believing all of the experts that said this would start happening? ;-)
Surely this was their plan and understanding all along? And they realised that the promise on EU immigration would likely be a lie because we will need to allow free movement to have access to the common market. Or maybe they don't think we need to trade with EU countries on an even footing and instead do it under the WTO tariffs?
I wonder what the leavers on here think they will have achieved now for the medium to long term apart from destabilising the UK, EU and world economy. Oh and your holiday spending when overseas just got more expensive.
|
>> There's no point turning it round on the Remainers as I don't see that there
>> is a case to answer as (at least) the status quo would have prevailed, and
>> as was said so many times, the required changes to the EU would have been
>> better negotiated from the inside.
If you are determined to answer your own question, why ask it?
|
Your response, Manatee, supports precisely the point I was trying but obviously failed to make, which is that I'd hoped that people would just gave a straight answer to an easy question rather than sidestepping it.
My apologies if you find my post too long, or muddled, or confusing but if that's the case please simply ignore my last paragraph and respond to the earlier questions. Which for clarity are:
1) is there anyone who voted out who is prepared to concede that they regret their decision?
2) if not, can the Leavers explain why an Out vote continues to have been the correct decision?
|
How many people here think there will be job losses where they work now we have voted to leave?
I for one think jobs will go where I work in IT services. And if we're not in the common market then (IT) services is a tricky one to sell to EU countries without the common market. For manufacturing you can come up with deals etc but services is something else. Trade deals for manufacturing will favour the countries strong in manufacturing like Germany. The UK has been strong in services over recent decades.
I also think some companies will use the referendum to (unfortunately) move jobs off-shore. They perhaps planned to do this anyway but it is of course unpopular. They can now blame the referendum when they 'have to do it'. IT services companies are already off-shoring big time - take HP Enterprise for example who are going to merge with CSC.... a good time to get rid of a lot of people and blame those who voted leave. Of course they would have done it anyway but now we cannot totally blame them.
The ones who will do well out of all of this are consultant like FM2R and lawyers. We need hundreds (perhaps thousands) to help make the best out of this for the country. All paid for on top of the '£350m a week' we send to the EU :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 13:51
|
Fortunately it hasn't happened to us, yet. But an erstwhile colleague ( now competitor but still a personal friend ) told me off stage this morning that he has this morning just had a very large contract cancelled by a major French customer. The customer has decided that there is little point in developing a market for British brands at this stage given what they see as the uncertainty of their longevity and the unknown effects of any future tariffs or duties. Coupled frankly with a sudden public resistance to buying anything British in the light of what is seen as our rejection of Europe.
Make of that what you will.
|
Maybe the world's love of the Mini is going to dwindle if there is an anti-UK (as in British) feeling around the world and in particular Europe.
I think this country has made a very big mistake (well some 17m of them) and we can do nothing about it.
Because this impacts the future generations I really think the 16 and 17 year old should have had a vote. And if they did the outcome would have been different.
|
I can foresee it happening where I work. Although since we report and budget in dollars, it's possible that the collapse of the pound makes us more affordable than before - but probably not enough to offset the collapse in the value of our GBP revenues from UK customers. I suspect it'll mean that any vacancies will tend to be filled in EU countries, and that our Irish location may take on a new significance.
But hey, no big deal. Movi lost two jobs in the collapse we didn't vote for, so where's the harm in voting for a recession that might cost him another?
|
The fundamental issue was immigration. The treaty with EU could have been "free movement of goods but not people (for work)".
A work permit application could have been introduced (may be less stringent for EU migrants compared to non-EU migrants).
That would have avoided the need for this referendum (as it would turn the uncontrolled immigration problem into a controlled migration scenario). Neither EU nor UK govt shown any endeavor to achieve this.
If the leave side comes into power, they are expected to implement this. If not, then outers will give them a kick as well (in next election).
|
>> If the leave side comes into power, they are expected to implement this
We can only implement what we can get agreed with the EU. If we don't like what's on offer then our parliament won't agree it. and the majority of MPs wanted to stay in the UK. And we elected those MPs to represent our views - so actually we should have a general election ASAP because the referendum and parliament don't actually agree any of this.
If we have a new leader for both main parties I really do think the country deserves an election. Things in both parties have changed so much. And this election should be before we trigger clause 50 and then any new government could ignore the referendum... it was this government that called it ;-)
But if I was the EU I'd not accept what the UK wants for 23 months and 2 weeks after clause 50 is triggered. I'd offer them things they cannot accept. At 2 years minus 2 weeks I'd offer them something even worse. Now if they do not accept that and get it through the UK parliament you will now leave the EU without any agreement. You will now trade with the EU under WTO terms. After you've left the EU you will now probably agree to anything!
This is similar to what they did to Greece when they called a referendum. What Greece accepted in the end was worse than was on offer before the referendum was called.
|
>> If we have a new leader for both main parties I really do think the
>> country deserves an election.
Be careful what you wish for.
Unless Corbyn accepts the bottle of whisky and pistol Labour is going to be in self absorbed meltdown. In any event the trick of 'equal sized constituencies' has gerrymandered the boundaries to give the Tories a significant advantage. Not clear the Liberals are in state of comeback either.
One might hope Labour would follow the ideas of Paul Mason and work with other left leaning parties Nationalists, Greens etc to create a liberal pre electoral pact or coalition. But Corbyn would never agree to that.
|
|
I don't think Corbyn will survive the week. Everything we hear from him has the whiff of "I fight on, I fight to win". Meanwhile his MPs, who never wanted him in the first place, have sensed their moment and won't miss their chance to be rid of him.
|
Neither do I. I think they'll have a new leader before the Conservatives.
And to fight a Boris Johnson led opposition party, perhaps they can line up their coalition plans before we vote.
What would I like to see? Nick Clegg as a key front-bencher even leader. I actually thought he'd gone in the last election but I was wrong.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 15:28
|
So of 31 shadow cabinet ministers (including Corbyn himself), 19 have resigned since he sacked Hillary Ben. So that's taken about 36 hours? Who'll go next? Will one of the new appointees resign even. A further 11 shadow ministers also resigned.
Now I think Hillary Ben would make a good labour leader too.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 15:42
|
To quote Cameron earlier:
"Let me welcome the new member for Tooting to the House.
I'd advise her to keep her mobile phone on because she might be in the Shadow Cabinet by the end of the day...and I thought I was having a bad day!
:-)
|
Did you really expect the other 27 countries to abolish a central tenet of the single market just to appease a few xenophobes here?
You may not have been listening recently but you're not going to do away with free movement even after the referendum.
|
>> Did you really expect the other 27 countries to abolish a central tenet of the single market just to appease a few xenophobes here?
Same way as no one expected leave side to win the referendum?
There is no laws of physics preventing from happening. There are "xenophobes" in other EU countries as well who are seeking referendums.
|
|
I give up, Movi. You're really not worth arguing with on this.
|
Perhaps he won't be able to afford Internet access if he loses his job because he voted out.
He's right there are xenophobes in other countries too. So there is a danger to the EU if we get what the leavers want that others will try to follow. Hence why we will get a worse deal than we had in the EU.
If we had a general election soon (if the parties had leaders!), could say a new non-Conservative government ignore this governments promise to leave the EU? If we all voted in a party that we knew was pro-EU then surely that's us giving a new popular vote.
I know wishful thinking... we're leaving the EU sadly.
|
I'm not so sure, RTJ. The Leave mandate was hardly rock-solid at 37 percent of eligible voters. Since Friday it's splintered in multiple planes - withdrawn promises, misled voters, lack of drive or vision among the Outies, Scotland, Northern Ireland, market collapses - that it's far from clear that the nation does have the will to leave the EU.
No one is yet saying it openly but I bet one thread of discussion among MPs is 'do we really have to let this happen?' And I suspect - and, yes, hope - that the eventual answer may be no. Put that idea to voters who now know that the reduced immigration and the additional NHS funding that they voted for were never on the table at all, and the backlash may not be as severe as they might have assumed a week ago. There might just be a gentle sigh of relief.
|
WdB, you're not suggesting it's possible for a country in the EU to have a referendum in this day and age and the people cast their vote that means they would have to leave both the Eurozone and EU.... and then the government ignores it.
That couldn't possibly happen could it ;-) Surely not even the Greeks would try that... :-)
|
"... I bet one thread of discussion among MPs is 'do we really have to let this happen?' And I suspect - and, yes, hope - that the eventual answer may be no. Put that idea to voters who now know that the reduced immigration and the additional NHS funding that they voted for were never on the table at all, and the backlash may not be as severe as they might have assumed a week ago."
You cannot say to the UK, "Here's your referendum - make your mind up: in or out," and then, on the assumption, guess, anecdotal evidence or whatever that the Leavers "didn't really mean it", ignore the result.
It would be such a mockery of democracy I cannot believe anyone would take it seriously. Everything - fact, guess, forecast, expert opinion etc. - was presented on both sides of the argument - and people made up their minds and voted.
There was at least as much rubbish spoken by the Remainers as the Leavers. And yes, it was a crude measure of what people wanted, taking no account of the not-quite-convinced compared with the staunch believers on each side. But how on earth was it going to be resolved otherwise?
And there has been so much rubbish spouted about the people who voted Out - that they were oldies, which apparently automatically means that their opinion is worth less, because they have less life to live than others, or that graduates were under-represented, which means that they were too stupid to be taken seriously. Why not just withdraw universal suffrage and have done with it, one wonders.
You can argue all night about whether there should have been a referendum at all, but that's an entirely different question.
All of this wriggling, weaving and ducking to try to invalidate the result of the referendum just looks like the behaviour of sore losers - "We was robbed. It wasn't fair."
If the vote to leave the EU does not result in the UK actually leaving it would be a travesty of democracy.
P.S. I'm not going to re-write it now, but I realise the above comes over as me being a bit irritable. Sorry. Nothing personal is intended, but I am getting increasingly peed off with the post-referendum behaviour of the Remainers in the media, social and otherwise. I got peed off with the nastiness of the campaign and now it's still rumbling on I'm feeling even more peed off.
|
>> If the vote to leave the EU does not result in the UK actually leaving
>> it would be a travesty of democracy.
>>
I agree, although from the other side, I do not and never will agree with the result but not to implement it would cause, in my opinion, more trouble than implementing it.
I do think that, had the vote gone he other way, there would be as many protests as there are now. Neither side, to me, comes out of this mess with any honour.
Separately, I would still like to see some official breakdown of the age ranges preferences for the actual vote.
If, indeed, there was substantial support for leave among the over 50s I would be surprised. I am 61 and my vote to remain was cast with my children and grandchildren very much in mind as well as my own preference.
|
|
The Independent has one, CD. Google 'older generation site:independent.co.uk' and it should turn up.
|
Thanks, but that is about the polls not the actual vote.
I would like to see how people of different ages actually voted.
I suspect actual voting was more to do with other social factors than it was to do with age.
|
No offence taken, FP, but I take issue with you on a couple of points there.
Sore losers This is not a game. I played cricket on Saturday, as I've done regularly for the last 30 years. Luck played a part - we lost the toss and had to bat first on a wet pitch - but we played poorly and lost the match. That happens; we shook the opposition's hands, congratulated them, had a drink and went home, resolving to do better next time.
This situation is very different and will affect lives and livelihoods for generations. There is no spirit of the game to uphold here; if there's a legitimate method that will prevent a deliberately-misinformed British public from being stampeded into a national catastrophe, it is worth taking - indeed, it's our duty to take it.
Democracy I'm not suggesting anything extra-democratic; I'm suggesting that our elected representatives might use the democratically-defined legislative process to prevent a development that nobody can confidently say is in the interests and wishes of the majority.
|
>> Democracy I'm not suggesting anything extra-democratic; I'm suggesting that our elected >> representatives might use the democratically-defined legislative process to prevent a >> development that nobody can confidently say is in the interests and wishes of the majority.
>>
While I agree that this is not some sort of game, I think that to reject the result without addressing the clear breakdown between the establishment and large parts of the population would cause severe social issue which might do long term damage, and is not to be brushed off with the comparison with Cricket or any other sport.
|
I think that to reject the result without addressing the clear breakdown between the establishment and large parts of the population would cause a severe social issue...
It would, but that rather underlines my point: much of the Leave vote was a protest vote on issues that - we now all know, although some of us knew before - will not be addressed by leaving the EU, and may even be exacerbated. It won't help that the consequent economic downturn will hurt the poorest worst, as downturns always do.
So unwind the commitment to leave, but couple that with a commitment to improve services, housing and resources on those areas currently feeling neglected. Show them that the real enemy has not been Brussels or Latvians but good old British neglect.
Giving in to blackmail? Arguably. But now we've had a glimpse of the true alternative, doesn't that seem like a win for everyone?
|
Interestingly, my wife has just returned from visiting her elderly parents. They have both "apologised" to her for voting "leave". They are full of regret. Both admit that they didn't really know why they did but that they got carried along by the opinion of their peers and were seduced by some of the promises which have now been broken.
Having seen what has happened already, and indeed what is likely to happen, they are deeply sorry they were ( as they see it not me ) conned by the leave campaign into voting for them.
I don't want another referendum either, the result is what it is and we have to live with that and make the best of the outcome.
What I do hope has been learned is that such important decisions in future shouldn't be taken by the electorate, but by those they have elected to take them.
|
"This is not a game."
Exactly my point, WDeB. Some of the whingeing just reminds me of what happens in sport - losing teams, that's all.
"... if there's a legitimate method that will prevent a deliberately-misinformed British public from being stampeded into a national catastrophe..."
There you go again. If Remain had won, the Leavers could claim exactly the same argument - EXACTLY the same.
"I'm not suggesting anything extra-democratic..."
Yes, you are. Before the vote, everyone understood that the result of the referendum was to be binding.
"...a development that nobody can confidently say is in the interests and wishes of the majority."
Exactly the same could be said of any vote if the result was less than, say, a 10% differential (or whatever figure suits you). And if Cameron had added as a condition of the referendum that the result was not going to depend on a simple majority he would have been laughed to scorn; in practical terms, the Remainers were probably convinced they were going to win, but not by much, so it wasn't in their interests to do that anyway.
And if the vote had been closely in favour of Remain, would they be taking any notice of disgruntled Leavers who were demanding that negotiations should be re-opened with Brussels? I don't think so.
|
>>I am getting increasingly peed off with the post-referendum behaviour of the Remainers in the media, social and otherwise. I got peed off with the nastiness of the campaign and now it's still rumbling on I'm feeling even more peed off.
Same here. I voted Out and would vote Out again, although not necessary now (thanks Dave)
Triggering Article 50 is a long way off, so actually leaving the EU (if it happens) is more than two years away.
Awful to hear about the racism which has been going on. Woman on the wireless today (Radio Cornwall) reckons she was racially abused on Mugtome because she had a 'foreign' surname (she was married to a Belgian shepherd) she was quite upset about it too of course.
Maybe best to avoid twitter, Facebook, and internet forums, until the Remain whingers run out of bile.
|
Quite a lot of the "whinging" as some are so charmingly putting it, is being done by those who voted leave but now discover that they were mislead ( to put it mildly )
The result is the result, we can not change the past, we have to live in the present and make the best of the future.
|
>> The result is the result, we can not change the past, we have to live
>> in the present and make the best of the future.
>>
I think that is correct, and to reject it without any provable reason would cause more problems than it would solve.
Thinking more about it, I think the one thing that would give any legitimacy to not leaving would be a fairly major readjustment of the parliamentary distribution of parties, maybe including some reform and founding of new parties, followed by a clear result from a general election which pointed a different way.
But that would be almost infinitely unlikely given the current crop of politicians.
|
followed by a clear result from a general election which pointed a different way.
>>
>> But that would be almost infinitely unlikely given the current crop of politicians.
>>
I think with two new leaders in very short order, an election with 'are you really sure? ' playing a big part might well happen.
|
>>The result is the result, we can not change the past, we have to live in the present and make the best of the future.
I absolutely agree, especially as Cameron has now stated a 2nd referendum isn't going to happen.
|
I absolutely agree, especially as Cameron has now stated a 2nd referendum isn't going to
>> happen.
>>
That's true, but he's gone soon. pretty unlikely of course, but who can rule anything out right now?
|
I've already stated, unequivocally, that I don't want to see a second referendum. But I would like to see those who deliberately and consistently lied to the electorate in the pursuit of winning this last one held to account and personally discredited. I do not want any of them to end up in positions of power.
We have to live with the dreadful consequences of all this, not try to rewrite it but make the most of our futures together, in a spirit of cooperation, with leaders we believe in, with no place for self seeking liars and con men running the country.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Mon 27 Jun 16 at 18:03
|
I've already stated, unequivocally, that I don't want to see a second referendum. But I would like to see those who deliberately and consistently lied to the electorate in the pursuit of winning this last one held to account and personally discredited. I do not want any of them to end up in positions of power.
Which is pretty well all major MPs whatever the party. Anyone speaking in the referendum debate, for or against leaving quoted 'facts' which are either made up or unverifiable in plain language in a reasonable amount of time.
Make for a very interesting election.
|
Speaking of xenophobes, it will be an interesting time (I fear) for anyone with a "not British" accent in the days to come.
Even having a mild Scots one set off some ribald political remarks in the Gents changing room at the gym last night.
|
>> Speaking of xenophobes, it will be an interesting time (I fear) for anyone with a "not British" accent in the days to come.
>> Even having a mild Scots one set off some ribald political remarks in the Gents changing room at the gym last night.
Very old Punch cartoon: two rough British navvies confronted by an Italian.
'What's e sayin, Fred?'
'I dunno. 'It 'im in the ear'ole.'
|
>> Speaking of xenophobes, it will be an interesting time (I fear) for anyone with a
>> "not British" accent in the days to come.
Or dark skin. Facebook friend is Anglo Indian and posts of her experience of past and fear for future racist insults etc. Says it was worst after 9/11. She dresses western and has little if any accent.
Lives near Thurrock though.
|
Speaking of xenophobes, it will be an interesting time (I fear) for anyone with a "not British" accent in the days to come.
I've heard the same thought from our friend Alanović - privately but he invited me to quote it here. He's concerned that his southeast European wife doesn't feel welcome in England with a foreign accent, and that things could turn ugly as they did in Yugoslavia. I think we're a long way from that - but, trivial as it may sound, I am taking every opportunity to remind the resident Europeans I work with or buy from that they're still welcome and valued here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Let's call it the Hug a Hungarian campaign.
};---)
|
>> Even having a mild Scots one set off some ribald political remarks in the Gents
>> changing room at the gym last night.
>>
...given the location, they probably weren't about your accent.......
(possibly about baseball caps......?)
|
|
Can I just ask, whoever marked my post as offensive, to explain why reporting a true and real life disturbing incident is offensive?
|
Is anyone going to answer my post above? I am genuinely interested to know what you found "offensive" or is that you are one of those who just puts a gong next to anything you don't want to read?
I was quite "offended" by some of the real life remarks made to me, but those who made them would probably be quite surprised that I was because making remarks about "eff-ing Jocks" is just "banter" right?
|
>>"eff-ing Jocks" is just "banter" right?
No it is not just banter. It is grounds for dismissal....see my post below.
|
|
Oh good, I thought perhaps I was being over sensitive.
|
|
Sadly Humph "some people" have only just realised that Scotland had a plan and someone to steer their ship of state away from the rocks, love her or hate but Sturgeon is coming out as a positive leader in this. FaceBook has been full of derision for her comparing her to a Krankie - Usual xenophobic sexist crap. Two German FB friends who live and work in this area have been told to F off back to their own country....
|
>> Is anyone going to answer my post above? I am genuinely interested to know what
>> you found "offensive" or is that you are one of those who just puts a
>> gong next to anything you don't want to read?
>>
>>
Not me sir. I have never given a frownie to anyone, and though we disagree fundamentally on this issue I respect your opinions and your right to hold them.
|
>>Can I just ask, whoever marked my post as offensive
Really guvnor, don't over concern yourself with it. It may even have been someone who never posts.
I've reread your post and there is nothing even mildly offensive there - IMO.
|
>>Can I just ask, whoever marked my post as offensive, to explain...
If they had both the balls and the ability to explain, then they wouldn't have needed to do it in the first place.
|
>> >> Did you really expect the other 27 countries to abolish a central tenet of
>> the single market just to appease a few xenophobes here?
>>
>> Same way as no one expected leave side to win the referendum?
>>
>> There is no laws of physics preventing from happening. There are "xenophobes" in other EU
>> countries as well who are seeking referendums.
>>
...and therein lies the problem.
I can only hope to be proven wrong, but when the negotiations start (with the European Commission, not the individual governments, and certainly not the "xenophobes" or the car manufacturers), Realpolitik dictates that they are unlikely to want to give the UK a deal that bypasses those central tenets, as this would simply be perceived as feeding the desire from other countries for secession.
If I were doing a risk assessment, I would put a higher probability on the UK getting a very rough time in the negotiations, simply (paraphrasing the Admiral Byng quote) "pour decourager les autres".
This is now "big boys games", and the rules are largely unwritten.
|
will Ireland unite after E.U.Referendum. - fluffy
