Matt Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 They'll need to give us a big bill seeing as we're one of the major financial contributors. They best spend it wisely.from what I understood, it's to respect commitments home and abroad. For Merseyside in particular, this is vital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I agree. For the most part it's been very engaging (though I should apologise for getting sensitive at certain times) The sad thing is, there is more debate, evidence and counter argument in this thread that ever took place between either Leave or Remain, before and since the result too... And I think this is the only place I feel I can openly say I voted Leave without quarrelling with everyone else who voted for remain. It is a real discussion without anyone getting too nasty. Whichever way you voted, if you contribute to the thread, THANK YOU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 American Chamber of Commerce : study on the EU Single Market. http://www.amchameu.eu/sites/default/files/amcham_eu_single_market_web.pdf Study concludes Single Market membership has made the UK economy 1,3% larger over the last 25 years, than it would otherwise have been, resulting in 933 EUR per household. Integration has also resulted in 389.000 extra jobs in UK. Further UK - Single Market integration is projected to add another 199.000 jobs and an extra 476 EUR per household. Before someone goes bonckers and "what about Greece": - this study is only about the Single Market and not about any other aspect of the EU. - it -is- possible to be a member of the Single Market but not the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39075244 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 same message, different PM http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/john-majors-incendiary-speech-branding-9929258 First British PM I was old enough to know about (passionately dislike).. he raises the same points as Blair (although he doesn't call for an uprising). Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Major was leader of the worst Conservative Government in living memory. Several million of, normally Conservative voters, voted for Labour and Blair in 1997 just to get rid of him. His views on Brexit are on a par with Blair's, ie the pair of them would ensure a massive 'leave' majority in the event of a second referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rusty747 Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Its about a lot more than the economy. First, I disagree that we will be worse off outside EU. The Common Market (which was all we agreed to) was a decent idea at the time, given the trading limitations imposed by such factors as cold war, technology and transport limitations etc. But now it is just as easy (in many ways easier) to do business with Australia, NZ, USA, Canada than it is with other EU countries. But more than all of that, it is about taking control of our country back and letting UK be run from within UK by UK nationals for the benefit of UK people. The Common Market project has been hijacked/railroaded into a Federal EU movement which the British people never signed up to. I honestly believe that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once our post EU future starts to take shape. Edited February 28, 2017 by rusty747 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Its about a lot more than the economy. First, I disagree that we will be worse off outside EU. The Common Market (which was all we agreed to) was a decent idea at the time, given the trading limitations imposed by such factors as cold war, technology and transport limitations etc. But now it is just as easy (in many ways easier) to do business with Australia, NZ, USA, Canada than it is with other EU countries. But more than all of that, it is about taking control of our country back and letting UK be run from within UK by UK nationals for the benefit of UK people. The Common Market project has been hijacked/railroaded into a Federal EU movement which the British people never signed up to. I honestly believe that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once our post EU future starts to take shape. What about the people outside London, because without the eu funding and the European court the rest of the country is fucked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Its about a lot more than the economy. First, I disagree that we will be worse off outside EU. The Common Market (which was all we agreed to) was a decent idea at the time, given the trading limitations imposed by such factors as cold war, technology and transport limitations etc. But now it is just as easy (in many ways easier) to do business with Australia, NZ, USA, Canada than it is with other EU countries. But more than all of that, it is about taking control of our country back and letting UK be run from within UK by UK nationals for the benefit of UK people. The Common Market project has been hijacked/railroaded into a Federal EU movement which the British people never signed up to. I honestly believe that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once our post EU future starts to take shape. This is my sentiment exactly. A Common Market with free trade? Yes. United States of Europe? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 But more than all of that, it is about taking control of our country back and letting UK be run from within UK by UK nationals for the benefit of UK people. This is my sentiment exactly. A Common Market with free trade? Yes. United States of Europe? No. Every nationalist party 101, straight out of the Farage/Trump/LePen/Wilders propaganda booklet. How about if the US and Dubai took those measures to their potential extreme and kicked the pair of you out because you're not "locals" by birth? How far do we take this? Independence for Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria? London would certainly be better off without the burden of the rest of the country so how about, "...letting London be run from within London by London residents for the benefit of London people"? They could even build a wall! Huge retrograde steps for the future of the human race in all this ugly nationalism going on at the moment, and the result will be ever increasing international unrest and terror imo. holystove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Every nationalist party 101, straight out of the Farage/Trump/LePen/Wilders propaganda booklet. How about if the US and Dubai took those measures to their potential extreme and kicked the pair of you out because you're not "locals" by birth? How far do we take this? Independence for Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria? London would certainly be better off without the burden of the rest of the country so how about, "...letting London be run from within London by London residents for the benefit of London people"? They could even build a wall! Huge retrograde steps for the future of the human race in all this ugly nationalism going on at the moment, and the result will be ever increasing international unrest and terror imo. Mike, if Remain had won, where do you see the EU going? The ultimate centralisation is a 'World' Government - the Dictatorships of all Dictatorships. Where the average Joe has no say in anything. Talk about 1984. The EU is a small example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Mike, if Remain had won, where do you see the EU going? The ultimate centralisation is a 'World' Government - the Dictatorships of all Dictatorships. Where the average Joe has no say in anything. Talk about 1984. The EU is a small example. Why does a properly constituted World government equal a dictatorship any more than a properly constituted parish council? World government where every member of the human race is treated the same irrespective of the privilege into which they're born by accident of geography can only be good. "I'm a Brit so I'm considerably richer than you and it's my birthright, get over it" should be consigned to history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Why does a properly constituted World government equal a dictatorship any more than a properly constituted parish council? World government where every member of the human race is treated the same irrespective of the privilege into which they're born by accident of geography can only be good. "I'm a Brit so I'm considerably richer than you and it's my birthright, get over it" should be consigned to history. why? Because they are unelected! Oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Can't remember who, but someone on here complained that as they live in a constituency that has a large Conservative majority, their vote doesn't count. How do they think their vote counts in an EU context or a World government context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Why does a properly constituted World government equal a dictatorship any more than a properly constituted parish council? World government where every member of the human race is treated the same irrespective of the privilege into which they're born by accident of geography can only be good. "I'm a Brit so I'm considerably richer than you and it's my birthright, get over it" should be consigned to history. Like it worked in the old Soviet Union. The reality is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and there is always someone to take advantage. No matter how well intentioned the vision, it will, like the Soviet Union, be corrupted. That is the main reason I voted leave, the EU is headed in that direction and democracy is the first casualty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Every nationalist party 101, straight out of the Farage/Trump/LePen/Wilders propaganda booklet. How about if the US and Dubai took those measures to their potential extreme and kicked the pair of you out because you're not "locals" by birth? How far do we take this? Independence for Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria? London would certainly be better off without the burden of the rest of the country so how about, "...letting London be run from within London by London residents for the benefit of London people"? They could even build a wall! Huge retrograde steps for the future of the human race in all this ugly nationalism going on at the moment, and the result will be ever increasing international unrest and terror imo. There's just no comparison, Mike. Imagine if NAFTA officials used this trade agreement to create a North America Union with a central body telling the US, Canada, and Mexico what they can and cannot do on social issues, economic policy, immigration, labour issues, and so on. There would be uproar. This is not about nationalism; it's holding those pushing for a supranational political entity to account by involving the voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Why does a properly constituted World government equal a dictatorship any more than a properly constituted parish council? World government where every member of the human race is treated the same irrespective of the privilege into which they're born by accident of geography can only be good. "I'm a Brit so I'm considerably richer than you and it's my birthright, get over it" should be consigned to history. I have no problem with moving toward greater unity among countries - provided the citizens of those countries want it! That's the point here: British citizens were happy to be part of a Common Market, a European Economy Community. We never asked for the political union toward which the EU is working, and the referendum was the very first opportunity to take our views into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Its about a lot more than the economy. First, I disagree that we will be worse off outside EU. The Common Market (which was all we agreed to) was a decent idea at the time, given the trading limitations imposed by such factors as cold war, technology and transport limitations etc. But now it is just as easy (in many ways easier) to do business with Australia, NZ, USA, Canada than it is with other EU countries. But more than all of that, it is about taking control of our country back and letting UK be run from within UK by UK nationals for the benefit of UK people. The Common Market project has been hijacked/railroaded into a Federal EU movement which the British people never signed up to. I honestly believe that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once our post EU future starts to take shape. This "taking back control' (meaning: immunising the country from foreign whim and interest, while asserting national dignity and independence), is an illusion. To keep businesses from moving elsewhere, Britain may have to shadow EU regulations and pay into EU programmes without the chance to shape either. UK trade deals will be forged with a fraction of the negotiating force that has long promoted its intrests. That means more concessions to the tariff and regulatory preferences of foreigners. Take Indonesia for example, which is currently drawing up a trade agreement with the EU. Indonesia has already agreed with British officials that the eventual deal with the EU could simply be tailored a bit to suit Britain. But warns "of course the UK would be in a much weaker bargaining position outside the EU, so we could expect much more favourable terms of trade against the UK post-Brexit. Regarding domestic policy the EU is the best protection for UK citizens against a regulatory race to the bottom. What if, for example, France decided to give a lot of antibiotics to their pigs, thereby keeping more alive, and lowering the price of the average pig. To remain competitive, other countries would have to follow suit, with detrimental effects on public health. The EU prevents such things by ensuring certain basic standards are met. If you don't think such things could happen in the UK, Hammond has already used extreme deregulation as a threat to the other EU members. It's why I don't really agree with the statement that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once the UK post EU future starts to take shape. On its current path, in 10 years time, I see the UK being a small open economy with a vulnerable currency and a persistent trade deficit. Or as the NewYorker recently hyperbolically put it " Brexit will mean that England, shorn of Scotland, Northern Ireland and maybe even Wales, contracts into a small, isolated, one-party state governed by schoolteacherly Conservatives who persist in wild-eyed delusions about their country’s special grandeur. " MikeO and Matt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 The New Yorker, is that the newspaper that operates in the country that voted Trump as president and where the only alternative was a mad woman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rusty747 Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 This "taking back control' (meaning: immunising the country from foreign whim and interest, while asserting national dignity and independence), is an illusion. To keep businesses from moving elsewhere, Britain may have to shadow EU regulations and pay into EU programmes without the chance to shape either. UK trade deals will be forged with a fraction of the negotiating force that has long promoted its intrests. That means more concessions to the tariff and regulatory preferences of foreigners. Take Indonesia for example, which is currently drawing up a trade agreement with the EU. Indonesia has already agreed with British officials that the eventual deal with the EU could simply be tailored a bit to suit Britain. But warns "of course the UK would be in a much weaker bargaining position outside the EU, so we could expect much more favourable terms of trade against the UK post-Brexit. Regarding domestic policy the EU is the best protection for UK citizens against a regulatory race to the bottom. What if, for example, France decided to give a lot of antibiotics to their pigs, thereby keeping more alive, and lowering the price of the average pig. To remain competitive, other countries would have to follow suit, with detrimental effects on public health. The EU prevents such things by ensuring certain basic standards are met. If you don't think such things could happen in the UK, Hammond has already used extreme deregulation as a threat to the other EU members. It's why I don't really agree with the statement that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once the UK post EU future starts to take shape. On its current path, in 10 years time, I see the UK being a small open economy with a vulnerable currency and a persistent trade deficit. Or as the NewYorker recently hyperbolically put it " Brexit will mean that England, shorn of Scotland, Northern Ireland and maybe even Wales, contracts into a small, isolated, one-party state governed by schoolteacherly Conservatives who persist in wild-eyed delusions about their country’s special grandeur. " I think we will just have to agree to differ there. We will find out soon enough for sure but Dyson has just invested £2.5 billion in jobs in post brexit uk and Boeing is moving its European HQ to UK so it seems that big business likes the idea. And I still think that British people voting for a British government to administer the British people is way more preferable than being a part of a Federal United States of Europe. rubecula 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 This "taking back control' (meaning: immunising the country from foreign whim and interest, while asserting national dignity and independence), is an illusion. To keep businesses from moving elsewhere, Britain may have to shadow EU regulations and pay into EU programmes without the chance to shape either. UK trade deals will be forged with a fraction of the negotiating force that has long promoted its intrests. That means more concessions to the tariff and regulatory preferences of foreigners. Take Indonesia for example, which is currently drawing up a trade agreement with the EU. Indonesia has already agreed with British officials that the eventual deal with the EU could simply be tailored a bit to suit Britain. But warns "of course the UK would be in a much weaker bargaining position outside the EU, so we could expect much more favourable terms of trade against the UK post-Brexit. Regarding domestic policy the EU is the best protection for UK citizens against a regulatory race to the bottom. What if, for example, France decided to give a lot of antibiotics to their pigs, thereby keeping more alive, and lowering the price of the average pig. To remain competitive, other countries would have to follow suit, with detrimental effects on public health. The EU prevents such things by ensuring certain basic standards are met. If you don't think such things could happen in the UK, Hammond has already used extreme deregulation as a threat to the other EU members. It's why I don't really agree with the statement that people will see the benefit of leaving the EU once the UK post EU future starts to take shape. On its current path, in 10 years time, I see the UK being a small open economy with a vulnerable currency and a persistent trade deficit. Or as the NewYorker recently hyperbolically put it " Brexit will mean that England, shorn of Scotland, Northern Ireland and maybe even Wales, contracts into a small, isolated, one-party state governed by schoolteacherly Conservatives who persist in wild-eyed delusions about their country’s special grandeur. " On its current path, in ten years time, I see the EU (if it still exists) being just a few countries still struggling on. Germany, Belgium, Austria and possibly one other, Holland or Denmark. Germany will continue to rule the roost. The euro didn't survive 2017 and was replaced by a new currency. They couldn't continue with the name 'euro' with its connotations of failure, so they took the M and K from the German Mark and the R and A from the Belgian Franc and called it the 'Mark'. With Frexit meaning the departure of France, the official language of the EU is German. Best of luck! Unfortunately, I may not be here to say 'I told you so'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Hoping you are still around, mate, regardless of what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Also, there's nothing wrong with German; a very logical language Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) And I still think that British people voting for a British government to administer the British people is way more preferable than being a part of a Federal United States of Europe.we already have that!!! That's what I can't get my head around! Honestly, I wouldn't be so nervous and frustrated if there was an actual plan (on top of the completely bullshit "cases" each party put together to "inform" the public). But there isn't, even the latest "plan" is just a collection of ideas of what they want - that is not a plan! If someone came to me with a proposed project with what they have as benefits for doing what they're doing, I'd dismiss it out of hand and tell them there are no facts, no structure and no risk assessment, no direction to back up approving it; a list of demands is not a proposal for improvement, it's a list of demands and ideas - unless backed up with real analysis. Which we don't have. Edited March 1, 2017 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) we already have that!!! That's what I can't get my head around! Honestly, I wouldn't be so nervous and frustrated if there was an actual plan (on top of the completely bullshit "cases" each party put together to "inform" the public). But there isn't, even the latest "plan" is just a collection of ideas of what they want - that is not a plan! If someone came to me with a proposed project with what they have as benefits for doing what they're doing, I'd dismiss it out of hand and tell them there are no facts, no structure and no risk assessment, no direction to back up approving it; a list of demands is not a proposal for improvement, it's a list of demands and ideas - unless backed up with real analysis. Which we don't have. Quite honestly, when did you last hear or read of any government plan, in just about any country in the world, that met your criteria for being acceptable? They all wing it - with the civil service (Sir Humphrey et al) sorting out those nitty gritty details. Edit: I know this clip is about polls and not policy, but Yes (Prime) Minister got it right in so many ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfkTwY6aalg Edited March 1, 2017 by Cornish Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 If (what do I mean, if...) that's accurate, then every individual who is allowed to vote should be allowed to speak up and demand change. There will be some who'll say "well, we did that!", and to that I answer you've all been played in, both sides. I'd also answer that those who are originally labelled "remoaners" ( how original and completely hypocritical) are allowed to continued to challenge. The fact that the Tories ever got back in power after the stripping of the country for so long speaks volumes. Politicians are supposed to protect the public from itself. They are usually better educated that their constituents and, more importantly, have access to more information. But instead, we elected "candidates" with their careers as the driving force and not the people. I don't blame them, I assume many start in politics with good intentions (I highly doubt this with the Tory candidates but I have to stay open minded) and they need to make a living. But as John said, and it's completely true; power ultimately corrupts etc. But to the crucial point, Steve. How the fuck is "winging it" accepted as governing a nation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 Unfortunately, I may not be here to say 'I told you so'. You bloody better be! No getting out of it the easy way before I'm saying, "I told you so" to you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 I think they should bring back National Service. Cornish Steve 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 we already have that!!! That's what I can't get my head around! Honestly, I wouldn't be so nervous and frustrated if there was an actual plan (on top of the completely bullshit "cases" each party put together to "inform" the public). But there isn't, even the latest "plan" is just a collection of ideas of what they want - that is not a plan! If someone came to me with a proposed project with what they have as benefits for doing what they're doing, I'd dismiss it out of hand and tell them there are no facts, no structure and no risk assessment, no direction to back up approving it; a list of demands is not a proposal for improvement, it's a list of demands and ideas - unless backed up with real analysis. Which we don't have. What about if your main competitor had access to the proposal? I guess that you would be delighted that it was a broad brush proposal and didn't give away any negotiating detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 But to the crucial point, Steve. How the fuck is "winging it" accepted as governing a nation? Beats me, but it's always been that way. Politicians say what the public want to hear and leave the civil service to clear up the mess. When it comes down to it, we vote based on the big questions: government help or personal responsibility? Nationalistic or internationalist? Free trade or protectionism? Privatization or nationalization? United States of Europe or just a free trading bloc and common market? No-one ever considers the details, quite honestly. MikeO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.