Brexit...

[Chach]

10 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Our rich are getting richer. They can afford to pay more wages. More wages creates more spending, which creates more jobs. 

Wages will go up in any sector when there's more jobs than workers Pete., more chance of this post Brexit.

[pete0]

16 minutes ago, Chach said:

Zero deflection from me, I made no claims other than employment had risen to your claim it had fallen, the jobs market is constantly in a state of change, most companies go broke over time jobs are constantly being lost and replaced that doesn't mean it's a result of the referendum. 

There's publication on how Gov manipulate employment stats. Peter Stefanovic mentions a couple in the vid too. 

So I'm asking you a very simple question. What jobs have been created? (Eight!) 

6 minutes ago, Chach said:

Wages will go up in any sector when there's more jobs than workers Pete., more chance of this post Brexit.

Wages are artificially low atm, nothing to do with the workforce. It's the poor governance from our austerity party. More than helped by the dismantling of unions power since Thatchers days. 

The wages are that poor now, coupled with the crippling cost of living, a lot of Polish for example have moved back or gone elsewhere. Skilled labourers were bleeding when were desperate for more houses to be built. 

[Chach]

7 hours ago, pete0 said:

There's publication on how Gov manipulate employment stats. Peter Stefanovic mentions a couple in the vid too. 

So I'm asking you a very simple question. What jobs have been created? (Eight!) 

Wages are artificially low atm, nothing to do with the workforce. It's the poor governance from our austerity party. More than helped by the dismantling of unions power since Thatchers days. 

The wages are that poor now, coupled with the crippling cost of living, a lot of Polish for example have moved back or gone elsewhere. Skilled labourers were bleeding when were desperate for more houses to be built. 

 

[Chach]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

I don't see it as being tough on Corbyn at all. His extreme left wing policies have history in UK - it always ends in tears and Corbyn, imho, is not only no different, he is far worse than his far left predecessors.

Which "extreme left wing polices" and which "far left predecessors" is he worse than?

[Chach]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

Countries are lining up to do business with UK, post Brexit. USA and Commonwealth countries plus others.

In terms of relative economy size and agreement, lining up would be a mild way of putting it

[holystove]

Is it true that if the right wing of the conservative party had voted for May's deal, it would have passed?  Were there enough Labour members to offset the DUP voting against?

If so, how are they getting away with saying people like Gauke, Hammond, etc are frustrating Brexit?  It is the right wing tories (currently in government) that have stopped Brexit from happening thus far by voting against it three times.

[Chach]

What time will we know if Hillary Benn's bill gets passed?

[johnh]

1 hour ago, holystove said:

Is it true that if the right wing of the conservative party had voted for May's deal, it would have passed?  Were there enough Labour members to offset the DUP voting against?

If so, how are they getting away with saying people like Gauke, Hammond, etc are frustrating Brexit?  It is the right wing tories (currently in government) that have stopped Brexit from happening thus far by voting against it three times.

The Gauke's and Hammond's of this world will vote against any Brexit deal (as will all arch-remainers) which is why May's deal was voted down three times. They don't want a deal of any description, they want to remain in the EU.

[holystove]

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

That depends on whether you call May's WA Brexit or not. It certainly wasn't what we were told we were voting for so it was (quite rightly imho) rejected three times because it left us under the control of EU via, inter alia the Backstop.

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

4 minutes ago, johnh said:

The Gauke's and Hammond's of this world will vote against any Brexit deal (as will all arch-remainers) which is why May's deal was voted down three times. They don't want a deal of any description, they want to remain in the EU.

They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

[Chach]

54 minutes ago, holystove said:

May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

 

Yep, you can't really rely on one of these without accepting the other.

So really the only solution is another referendum with the following question:

The parliament has been unable to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that can command a majority in the house of commons, should the United Kingdom:

Leave the EU with no deal

Remain in the EU

A GE with Brexit not decided will be a disaster.

[johnh]

2 hours ago, holystove said:

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

That's not what I said?  May's deal was REJECTED three times (as will any deal that Johnson comes up with). They are also fighting to eliminate 'no deal'.  Wonder what the option is then?

[Formby]

2 hours ago, holystove said:

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

We weren't told we were voting for a bad deal, either.

Only 3 Labour MPs voted for May's initial deal so it's not as if the Conservatives were the only party to throw it out. Parliament threw it out. The deal was not good enough.

I welcome your comment about presuming 17.4 million people thought the same way about Brexit. Reasons for leaving were various and individual. Reasons for staying, likewise.

We are now removing any hope of securing a better deal by removing the only bargaining chip the UK has.

 

[Matt]

Well that took a lot of catch up and fuck me it was a waste of time largely. Even after all this time, simple things are basically still not understood, e.g about what actually constitutes the British democracy and what the EU democracy. Basic hypocrisies are still being ignored, e.g. still calling the vote being “democratic” despite being a tool of direct democracy, not parliamentary, e.g. comparing the year, let alone current global economic situation we live in, with that of 10-50 years ago (how that even starts to be an “argument” for either side) is baffling. 

If anything though, there may be 1 bright side to Brexit. It is the biggest evidence of parliamentary democracy being completely outdated and unrepresentative of the population. My only hope is that causes some sort of revolution in Britain. But it won’t, because the population seems to still be shouting about a yes/no result that had no detail or plan on either side and was largely fuelled by lies and deceit by the very people who are left to “run” the country. 

This isn’t aimed just at the leavers in here, but a lot of the remainers too. Too much personal opinion on too big a topic. Which, ironically, is why we have a parliamentary democracy in the first place. 

Also found this recently too, which seems to undermine the main arguments of both sides of the “debate”

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

[MikeO]

59 minutes ago, RPG said:

Watching Parliament now and I have to say that Johnson does look a tad rattled.

He looks and sounds exactly like a Jim Henson creation to me, I keep expecting the camera to cut away to Statler & Waldorf heckling from the public gallery.

[Matt]

So there’s no majority anymore (well, technically never was without the May bribe).

[MikeO]

55 minutes ago, Matt said:

So there’s no majority anymore (well, technically never was without the May bribe).

Before Dr Lee's defection, Mr Johnson only had a working majority of one in the Commons.

In a letter to the prime minister, Dr Lee said Brexit divisions had "sadly transformed this once great party into something more akin to a narrow faction in which one's Conservatism is measured by how recklessly one wants to leave the European Union".

"Perhaps more disappointingly, it has become infected by the twin diseases of English nationalism and populism."

He told BBC Radio 4's PM the "bullying" of MPs opposed to no deal showed the "tone and culture" of the Conservative Party had fundamentally changed, and he knew of other like-minded colleagues who were also considering their futures.

Good man.

As a wise man once said, 

"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate.....It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy."

 

[pete0]

8 hours ago, RPG said:

Wilson, Callaghan, Foot.

The policies I refer to are the one's where the Labour Party 'borrows' enough money to try to kick start industry, fails (again) and we end up with high interest rates, high unemployment, high iinflation, high taxation, strikes and a slowdown in the economy.

It is always the same with a left wing government - everything is great for about one year until they run out of other people's money to spend.

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/uk_government_debt_in_cash.png

Spike under labour was thanks to the bankers. It should have then been brought down as the recession was over yet the tories and all their cuts has somehow managed to double it.. And murder 200,000+ people with their beliefs/policy. 

[pete0]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

1970's double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, 98% supertax, record unemployment and strikes was entirely down to left wing policies.

Yet the tories still managed to increase debt more than any other other party... 

[MikeO]

Rees-Mogg lying down (literally) on the front bench smugly raising his eyebrows at heartfelt contributions for the last half an hour or so, the man is pure slime.

[Romey 1878]

7 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Rees-Mogg lying down (literally) on the front bench smugly raising his eyebrows at heartfelt contributions for the last half an hour or so, the man is pure slime.

Just say it. He’s a cunt. 

[MikeO]

Just now, Romey 1878 said:

Just say it. He’s a cunt. 

I was being polite.

[Romey 1878]

11 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I was being polite.

To be honest, calling him a cunt is polite. 

[MikeO]

57 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Just say it. He’s a cunt. 

Anna Soubry calling him out on it, "A result that made even the Leader of the House sit up"

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, MikeO said:

Anna Soubry calling him out on it, "A result that made even the Leader of the House sit up"

If that horror is calling you out on something then you must be really bad. 

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

If that horror is calling you out on something then you must be really bad. 

If it was Lucifer himself taking the piss out of the twat I'd laugh!

[rubecula]

WTF IS GOING ON? ]

the general public voted (by a small majority I admit) to leave the EU   and there are politicians actively saying that the leaving would  be undemocratic…  I do not understand,  the more they  dig in the heels over this  the more it will drag ot out and it will become more painful when we do leave.  i  do not like Boris by the way  but he is right to throw out the rebels.

[MikeO]

21 minutes ago, rubecula said:

WTF IS GOING ON? ]

the general public voted (by a small majority I admit) to leave the EU   and there are politicians actively saying that the leaving would  be undemocratic…  I do not understand,  the more they  dig in the heels over this  the more it will drag ot out and it will become more painful when we do leave.  i  do not like Boris by the way  but he is right to throw out the rebels.

By that logic he wouldn't be PM because he'd have been thrown out himself in March.

[MikeO]

10 hours ago, MikeO said:

Anna Soubry calling him out on it, "A result that made even the Leader of the House sit up"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49573630/jacob-rees-mogg-told-to-sit-up-man

[holystove]

This is informative by the neutral, government funded, think-tank "The UK in a changing Europe" :

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UKIN-No-Deal-Brexit-Issues-impacts-and-implications.pdf

 

[Chach]

19 hours ago, RPG said:

Totally disagree with your second referendum question.

First, I do not think there should be a second referendum.

Second, however you try to spin it, the result of the referendum was Leave. Therefore, if there is to be a second referendum, the questions should be restricted purely to how we leave EU as we have already decided that we will leave.

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure.

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.