UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
To be fair, David Cameron did what he could.He went to the EU to get some sort of renegotiation to get some of the things that he knew were worrying people sorted out. Then he would hold the referendum
What he got was not merely derisory (so derisory that the 'deal' hardly seems to have been mentioned in the campaign) but wasn't even guaranteed as it would have to go to EU Parliament AFTER the referendum.
If at any point in that negotiation process the Commission had offered anything of substance, Cameron might have been able to win the referendum
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "I note you've not replied to my post 3608."You mean the infamous "pompous prig" post?
It doesn't deserve a reply."
Well it saves you having to respond to the facts, Will. Dodgy as well now then?
The remain camp had 40 years and a 6 month referendum to make the case for Europe. That they failed, is a damning indictment of the calibre of politician we have these days...As for myself, I voted to leave, but immigration was never an issue for me. How could it be when I live in a part of Scotland where immigrants are rarely seen.
My vote was against the anti-democratic nature of the Brussels machine...
what you say about the Remain campaign is undoubtedly true. But the successful politicans, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al are hardly a shining light on the calibre of politicians either
Marc wrote: "they do seem to evidence that some people feel they now have been vindicated to express their racism openly."That does seem to be the case, yes.
There are twats out there who seem to think that Brexit somehow gives them authority to be nasty to foreigners in much the same way that others feel their religion gives them the authority to be nasty to LGBT people.
But there are some (as you say not all) - in the media in particular - who seemingly want this to be about nothing but racism, which seemingly says more about them that the actual situation.
Marc wrote: "what you say about the Remain campaign is undoubtedly true. But the successful politicans, Gove, Johnson, Farage et al are hardly a shining light on the calibre of politicians either"The problem is that you cannot allow personality to get in the way of doing what it right. Johnson and Farage may be the ringleaders, but the case for leaving was compelling to me, sovereignty and political independence. If Johnson, et al want to crow about winning the Brexit, let them. In the end I did the right thing for our nation, I voted to leave.
Lies and obfuscation were spread by both sides, despite feeble protestations by both sides. I knew the Leavers couldn't make promises that would stick. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that. How could they? They weren't in power.
The prophets of doom, that were the Remainers were similarly vast exaggerations. Their models and predictions will be proven to be equally untrue over time, as every prediction was based upon the worst possible outcome. Lies, by computer modelling are still lies. Extrapolation of figures against worst case predictions, then passing them off as facts are still lies.
can't disagree with your 2nd & 3rd paras in the slightest.But I do wonder exactly what sovereignty & political independence will actually amount to. And if our politicians are as bad as we all seem to be saying on this thread, then do we want to entrust our sovereignty to them to administer?
Marc wrote: "can't disagree with your 2nd & 3rd paras in the slightest.But I do wonder exactly what sovereignty & political independence will actually amount to. And if our politicians are as bad as we all se..."
I don't disagree with you, Marc, but at least we can do something about our politicians if we really want to. The hierarchy within the EU comprises one elected chamber, which is unable to remove anyone from the appointed other chambers. If you look at my previous posts, you will get an idea of what it currently looks like. Once the Euro countries join into a political union, which is the only way to save the Euro, it will be far worse. At that point we would be given the choice, join the Euro zone or sit outside and be excluded from the decision making process.
I suspect your next question would be "well what is the difference between that and the Brexit we have chosen?" The difference is that we would be shackled by EU rules that prevent us from acting independently. It would be taxation without representation. Something that caused quite a problem in the colonies, I believe.
Marc wrote: "And if our politicians are as bad as we all seem to be saying on this thread, then do we want to entrust our sovereignty to them to administer? "Probably not.
It does look as though there are a large number of people the current political system does not represent. The whole Left v Right, workers v the bosses, capital v labour rhetoric, attitudes, stances and political philosophies seem to belong to another long ago age and are in dire need of change. As is the whole of the political system from what is the role and purpose of government right down to how a democracy selects its representatives, or even if - in the modern age of communication - such representatives are even necessary.
The turnout in the referendum suggests that people do want to be engaged, it is just that the current moribund system gives them little or nothing to engage with, leaving the arena to the zealots, militants and activists of all stripes.
David wrote: "The turnout in the referendum suggests that people do want to be engaged, it is just that the current moribund system gives them little or nothing to engage with, leaving the arena to the zealots, militants and activists of all stripes. "I firmly believe that our political system is sorely in need of reform. However, I cannot see being a part of the European Political Union being anything but a further imposing of the will of the unelected elite.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "I firmly believe that our political system is sorely in need of reform. However, I cannot see being a part of the European Political Union being anything but a further imposing of the will of the unelected elite. "Yep. That's why most of the political class love it. The EU gives them a 1st class ticket on its gravy train, safe and sound from those pesky voters.
You mean the EU which elects its MEPs through a democratic process? Let's not forget that Nigel Farage was elected to be an MEP by the British public.The EU which the Tory right wing hates because it supposedly takes power away from Westminster and the sovereignty of the UK Parliament?
The EU which champions workers' rights, which is why the Labour party (when we have one) supports the UK being in the EU?
And somehow you think that "the political class" - whatever that is - loves it? The Tory right wing has just voted to leave it, and somehow conned the public to agree with them.
Came across this on Facebook.So, let me get this straight… the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they’d all done nothing to help them.
Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn’t lose, did – but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who’d always thought he’d lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash – and he was, but it did, but he’s not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can’t become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.
Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party’s view of this view is the opposite of the opposition’s. And the opposition aren’t yet opposing anything because the leader isn’t listening to his party, who aren’t listening to the country, who aren’t listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there’s not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.
Clear?
I saw that one too. Brilliantly funny.
Alistair Campbell has been on a roll as well."This, tragically, is the story of British politics and national life today. Johnson – a man who doesn’t believe in Brexit, but said he did, may be about to become PM, despite his obvious unsuitability. And Corbyn, who does believe in Brexit, but said he didn’t, is clinging on as Leader of the Opposition, despite his obvious unsuitability."
Will wrote: "You mean the EU which elects its MEPs through a democratic process? Let's not forget that Nigel Farage was elected to be an MEP by the British public.The EU which the Tory right wing hates because it supposedly takes power away from Westminster and the sovereignty of the UK Parliament?
The EU which champions workers' rights, which is why the Labour party (when we have one) supports the UK being in the EU?
And somehow you think that "the political class" - whatever that is - loves it? The Tory right wing has just voted to leave it, and somehow conned the public to agree with them."
If you care to read what I wrote Will, you will see that I said that one of the chambers was elected. However, I also pointed out that it was virtually powerless as most of the powers were held by the bureaucratic state offices.
I do agree with David, the unelected offices are stuffed with people who have been rejected by the electorate. You have to admit Will, that this is the ideal post of last resort for them.
Dead cat bounce or what, stock market has regained pre Brexit figures.
Lynne - It's been interesting to watch some parts of the market recover during the day. The FTSE 250 and sterling are still way down on their pre-Thursday levels, but the FTSE 100 has rebounded.What seems to be happening is that early fears of a "hard-Brexit" as some have been calling it have been turned around as Boris has watered down his proposals to almost the same as being in the EU. The other EU leaders are also ruling out the fantasy of an exit without pain, which probably means something like the Norway model of no change in immigration, inside the free trade zone, probably paying the same contributions as we do now, but no say in how the EU operates.
It's also obvious that Boris doesn't have a plan A, let alone a plan B, so the UK's exit from the EU is a long way off and could yet be overturned. Investors are coming back to the FTSE as there is scope to make short to medium term profits there and still get out before the bad news of a Brexit. If we ever get that far.
It is also the case that the market doesn't have many other places to go. Normally in when equities are in trouble, the big investors will switch into bonds, but bond yields are ridiculously low at the moment. Alternative markets, such as the US, Europe, Asia and the emerging markets aren't particularly attractive at the moment.
But the markets have very clearly shown us what would happen if we do go for a hard Brexit.
Much more worrying are the companies who are talking about job losses. That's the point at which this starts to hurt.
you have to judge the Stock Market over a longer period. Nothing is happening on brexit right now, it is sort of business as usual after the initial cataclysm. Watch what happens if jobs start getting transferred from Britain, particularly from the City itself and see what happens when the Europeans tell us to go take a jump in the negotiations and the single market is not made available to us without its usual conditions. Or watch what happens if the EU itself collapses, Britain's independence will not protect it from the global economic crash that will ensue
it won't be protected, I agree, our rebellion might just be the catalyst for some measures to prevent that happening, I doubt it though, Junckers arrogance is growing but I have a feeling he's heading for a fall.
there are several bankrupt countries in the Eurozone which makes it vulnerable. Thing is the UK is not much better off with our debt level and yet we persist on emphasising the "Great" in Britain when a large section of our population have just screamed about their dire circumstances by voting Leave. Of course no politician can front up and admit we're neither Great nor solvent, it would be political suicide.
A lot of the uncertainty driving the losses in currency and the FTSE is caused by the political uncertainty around one major party electing a new leader whilst the other is trying hard to destroy itself - again.This evening, Angela Eagle was informed she would be de-selected if she stood against Corbyn. The question I would be interested in knowing is, if 4/5 of the MPs voted for no confidence in the leader, are there enough MPs left to form a cabinet? He must be running out of candidates. If so, is he going to select from the House of Lords?
The SNP are making a cheeky approach to the Speaker tomorrow to demand that they be recognised as the official opposition, on the grounds that they have enough MPs to form a full shadow cabinet where Labour cannot and that they and not Labour fulfil the criterion of being able to form a government should they be called upon.
R.M.F wrote: "The remain camp had 40 years and a 6 month referendum to make the case for Europe. That they failed, is a damning indictment of the calibre of politician we have these days...As for myself, I voted to leave, but immigration was never an issue for me. How could it be when I live in a part of Scotland where immigrants are rarely seen.
My vote was against the anti-democratic nature of the Brussels machine... ..."
every so often I find myself agreeing with every word R.M.F says, just not very often :-)
But this is one of those cases.
I thought it was a damning indictment of the EU that it managed to hack off 50%+ of the population and that nobody in the campaign could 'sell the dream'
David wrote: "But there are some (as you say not all) - in the media in particular - who seemingly want this to be about nothing but racism, which seemingly says more about them that the actual situation..."This is something that is hacking off an awful lot of leave campaigners.
I've just spent the evening with friends, all who are 'persons of colour' born abroad and have taken citizenship.
All of them voted to leave
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "it won't be protected, I agree, our rebellion might just be the catalyst for some measures to prevent that happening, I doubt it though, Junckers arrogance is growing but I have a feeling he's head..."I suspect at some point a leader of a member state is going to extend a finger and tell him to swivel on it. Telling EU bureaucrats not to hold private discussions with their UK counterparts is one thing, telling democratically elected governments is something else entirely
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I thought it was a damning indictment of the EU that it managed to hack off 50%+ of the population and that nobody in the campaign could 'sell the dream' "The vote was 48-52. Hardly a damning indictment or ringing endorsement for either side.
Will wrote: "The vote was 48-52. Hardly a damning indictment or ringing endorsement for either side...."When you've been running peoples' lives for then for damn near two generations and you only get that level of approval, it's damning
Depends on your point of view. When you consider the lies that the Remain campaign put out, the 48-52 verdict doesn't look to be representative of much except that we are divided pretty much down the middle.The debate never got round to what the EU actually did, so can hardly be called a damning indictment.
And the EU doesn't come remotely close to "running people's lives for them". That's a massive exaggeration.
David wrote: "Marc wrote: "And if our politicians are as bad as we all seem to be saying on this thread, then do we want to entrust our sovereignty to them to administer? "Probably not.
It does look as though..."
I'd like to see how proportional representation would work out.
Although given the fall-out from the the referendum, I fear the result would still be a resounding 'it's not fair' from the voters who didn't get what they wanted...
compulsory voting with a 'none of the above' option might give a true representation of the nation's disillusionment
Marc wrote: "compulsory voting with a 'none of the above' option might give a true representation of the nation's disillusionment"Followed by a comment box with the heading 'So who/what do you want?'
The problem, I think, is that this shouldn't be a binary choice. It's not a case of only in or out, because there are several different options for EU membership. Off the top of my head:1. We could be wholly in, with the concessions that David Cameron negotiated. I suspect that option has largely disappeared.
2. We could be wholly in, but with a mandate for a new PM to negotiate a different set of concessions. That would now be tricky, but not yet impossible.
3. We could be formally out, but with a Norway-style agreement where we accept immigration and pay our contributions in return for entry to the single market. We wouldn't get a chance to influence the direction that the EU takes. This sounds like we will be worse off than we are now, but we will avoid the worst of the economic shock.
4. We could be formally out with a Swiss-style agreement. Limited access to the market, lower contribution, no change to immigration, no say in how the EU operates.
5. Formally out with the Canadian agreement. Some tariffs, some free trade. No say in how the EU operates. Has taken more than five years to negotiate (and still isn't in place).
6. Formally out, without any trade agreements. This is the one that will hurt the most.
These are the sorts of options that the EU unit within Whitehall will be looking at. I wish them well.
Will wrote: "And the EU doesn't come remotely close to "running people's lives for them". That's a massive exaggeration. ..."Obviously you're not involved in agriculture
Marc wrote: "compulsory voting with a 'none of the above' option might give a true representation of the nation's disillusionment"yes, and with those candidates who poll less than 'none of the above' banned from public office or working for a quango or political party for six years
Will wrote: "The problem, I think, is that this shouldn't be a binary choice. It's not a case of only in or out, because there are several different options for EU membership. Off the top of my head:1. We cou..."
You missed the Turkish option where they have a customs union, free trade in most commodities and no free movement of labour. Had it since 1995
Jim wrote: "This is something that is hacking off an awful lot of leave campaigners. "Especially when you vote leave because you think it is better for the UK to face outwards deal with the whole world rather than continue to stare inwards towards the sclerotic EU and its stultifying bureaucracy.
Well Boris Johnson will not be our next prime minister. Gove has now stabbed two friends in the back to climb the greasy pole, so his chances are slim and getting slimmer.It's beginning to look like it's Theresa May's to lose. If that happens and she becomes PM, it's unlikely that Boris will be in the cabinet as they've been sniping each other for years. If you remember, Boris bought three water canon tanks. Theresa May would not licence them for use and they are now rusting somewhere.
David wrote: "Jim wrote: "This is something that is hacking off an awful lot of leave campaigners. "Especially when you vote leave because you think it is better for the UK to face outwards deal with the whole..."
The advantage of being outside the EU is that whilst negotiating for a free trade agreement we can sign unilateral agreements with countries outside the EU. Something that is prohibited as a member.
Elizabeth wrote: "I'd like to see how proportional representation would work out."Maybe, but it does tend towards the parties doing cosy little backroom deals with each other.
I quite like the idea of getting rid of the political class entirely. At the moment it certainly seems like the idea of a professional political class making a career of it doesn't serve the needs of the populace very well at all.
I still like the idea of some sort of jury service type model of random selection of representatives.
It would get rid of the dead hand of party politics and the way that the interest of the country are often subsumed below those of the parties and their power games.
Of course it would mean something would have to be done about a truly neutral and impartial civil service and to nullify the distorting over-influence of the lobby industry.
But that is only one option, there may be other better ways of doing it we haven't thought of yet.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Well Boris Johnson will not be our next prime minister. Gove has now stabbed two friends in the back to climb the greasy pole, so his chances are slim and getting slimmer.It's beginning to look l..."
rusting in Gravesend.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "And the EU doesn't come remotely close to "running people's lives for them". That's a massive exaggeration. ..."Obviously you're not involved in agriculture"
No, but the NFU knows a thing or two about it:
http://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-...
David wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I'd like to see how proportional representation would work out."Maybe, but it does tend towards the parties doing cosy little backroom deals with each other.
I quite like the idea of getting rid of the political class entirely. At the moment it certainly seems like the idea of a professional political class making a career of it doesn't serve the needs of the populace very well at all...."
Yes, we saw it with the coalition, both parties abandoned the policies they'd stood for election on and stitched up a deal between themselves. If you have PR, that's how it's done.
The problem with the jury service model is keeping some sort of continuity whilst weeding out the muppets. But I think it's worth further exploration.
"None of the above" on the ballot paper, with those candidates who score less being banned from public office for a period would be a good first step
Will wrote: "JNo, but the NFU knows a thing or two about it:http://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-... ..."
And strangely enough I was talking to an NFU chap today and in the week since the referendum pretty well every farmer he talked to voted out
Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I'd like to see how proportional representation would work out."Maybe, but it does tend towards the parties doing cosy little backroom deals with each other.
I qu..."
I can't see that a jury type selection would work, as you do have to have a certain standard of intelligence to enable you to know what the problems facing a country are, let alone work out solutions to those problems. Jo Soap down the road wouldn't have a clue!
Jim wrote: "The problem with the jury service model is keeping some sort of continuity whilst weeding out the muppets. But I think it's worth further exploration."None of the above" on the ballot paper, with those candidates who score less being banned from public office for a period would be a good first step "
Maybe you could have a staggered selection, say a quarter of them replaced each year, or something like that.
Definitely a 'none of the above' option yes.
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "JI can't see that a jury type selection would work, as you do have to have a certain standard of intelligence to enable you to know what the problems facing a country are, let alone work out solutions to those problems. Jo Soap down the road wouldn't have a clue! "Not much different to now, then.
I dunno. If you can decide the fate of a person on trial for murder, then you can decide the fate of a nation.
After all, there is no intelligence test for politicians now - or half of them wouldn't be there - and there is not necessarily any correlation between being intelligent and knowing how things work.
I was thinking more of technical abilities. You have to be able to understand how certain things work, be able to talk to people on the big stage etc. There is a big gap between having an inkling how things work and actually having to do the working out. I understand the basics of logarithms - but please don't ask me to work any out!
more often than not I vote none of the above anyway and render my ballot spoiled
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
You mean the infamous "pompous prig" post?
It doesn't deserve a reply.