Brexit - Merged Threads

[12gauge82]

Again, I'm in ore of the collective knowledge on PW, I don't know about pseudo intellectuals, but there are certainly some very bright people on here, regardless of what they do for a living.

Very inteesting read rewulf 

[oowee]

5 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Again, I'm in awe of the collective knowledge on PW, I don't know about pseudo intellectuals, but there are certainly some very bright people on here, regardless of what they do for a living.

I am also surprised at the lack of knowledge of the impact of the decision, but don't take it too serious. After all we are all (mostly) here as we share a common interest in country sports so can't be too bad 

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

I am also surprised at the lack of knowledge of the impact of the decision, but don't take it too serious. After all we are all (mostly) here as we share a common interest in country sports so can't be too bad 

I'm actually in awe due to the amount of knowledge some on here have, but we both know you knew what I meant, oh, thanks for the spelling correction to

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm actually in awe due to the amount of knowledge some on here have, but we both know you knew what I meant, oh, thanks for the spelling correction to

 don't look at my stuff too closely my spelling is the worst. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by oowee

[Granett]

22 hours ago, neutron619 said:

To paraphrase: when the situation changes, I change my mind Sir. What do you do?

That sounds like the perfect argument for a second referendum now we have a clearer view of the shambles that is being made of Brexit.

Anyone see this about the Brexit champion:

David Davis says he doesn't have to be clever or 'know that much' to be Brexit secretary

 - David Davis says he doesn't have to be clever to manage Brexit.

 - Brexit Secretary told LBC he just has to stay "calm" in negotiations.

 - "Anybody can do details," Davis said.

 - Davis defended decision not to commission Brexit impact assessments.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-davis-does-not-have-to-be-clever-to-be-brexit-secretary-2017-12

[poontang]

1 hour ago, Granett said:

That sounds like the perfect argument for a second referendum now we have a clearer view of the shambles that is being made of Brexit.

 

 

We've already had a second referendum... we voted to leave.

 

[neutron619]

1 hour ago, Granett said:

That sounds like the perfect argument for a second referendum now we have a clearer view of the shambles that is being made of Brexit.

On the contrary - the fact of Brexit hasn't changed and neither - at this point - has our membership of the EU. We're still "in" and leaving.

What would choice would another referendum held now put to the people? I mean, can you imagine? The first "next" referendum would be easy. Something like:

Quote

Should the British government continue to implement the policies contained within the manifesto upon which it stood for election until the time of the next election?

a) Yes.

b) Yes, but only for the next 12 hours when I want you to ask me again in case I feel unsure about it all.

c) Yes, but only for the next 18 seconds because I've forgotten (again) that I had an opportunity to vote for a party that didn't support Brexit at the previous general election, did so, and was colossally outvoted by the rest of the populace but I'm so vulnerable and really need to feel better about myself right now...

c) Yes, and then some.

I can see though that people might want to have an input on how those manifesto policies might be implemented, which is difficult and means the next one gets a bit harder to word, what with all the terminology that's been bandied about:

Quote

Should the Brexit currently being implemented by the British government be:

a) softer

b) slightly softer

c) of a blancmange-like consistency

d) harder

e) completely flaccid

f) harder, with some crunchy bits

g) harder, but with a moderate-to-firm resistance under pressure

h) of a behaviour simillar to vulcanized rubber when dropped from great height

i) brittle

j) none of the above

And so on. Shall we ask the populace every time the Prime Minister wants to change her shoes?

Don't get me wrong - I see your point. But since nothing about our international status has actually changed yet and there's no proposed constitutional change upon which it's appropriate to hold another referendum. If there is to be another referendum, it should - as I indicated above - be on the subject of our rejoining the European Union when - and only when - the fact of our international status changes such that we are no longer inside the European Union. 

Just because something is difficult, or can't be done perfectly, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Edited December 11, 2017 by neutron619

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, neutron619 said:

On the contrary - the fact of Brexit hasn't changed and neither - at this point - has our membership of the EU. We're still "in" and leaving.

What would choice would another referendum held now put to the people? I mean, can you imagine? The first "next" referendum would be easy. Something like:

I can see though that people might want to have an input on how those manifesto policies might be implemented, which is difficult and means the next one gets a bit harder to word, what with all the terminology that's been bandied about:

And so on. Shall we ask the populace every time the Prime Minister wants to change her shoes?

Don't get me wrong - I see your point. But since nothing about our international status has actually changed yet and there's no proposed constitutional change upon which it's appropriate to hold another referendum. If there is to be another referendum, it should - as I indicated above - be on the subject of our rejoining the European Union when - and only when - the fact of our international status changes such that we are no longer inside the European Union. 

Just because something is difficult, or can't be done perfectly, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Brilliant 

[Rewulf]

You know what really 'gets ' me about particularly rabid remainers ?

They dont really have any kind of coherent argument for remaining.
A lot just see Brexiters as the enemy, the far right, nazis, kippers, xenophobes and racists, without any real evidence to back that up.
But that gives them more than enough reason to know  that leaving the EU is wrong.

Any argument that is put forward after that for leaving is negated, as the people putting the argument forward are bigots and uneducated racists.
Status quo aside, which ,by the way, is a good argument in some cases, virtually any argument for staying can be countered.
But they will not listen to it, as the thinking behind any pro leave discussion is always (in their mind) based on extreme far right ideals.
Economic benefits      - small island thinking,economic disaster
Sovereignty and law    - Nationalism (bad !) ,human rights and environmental laws thrown away
Immigration control    - xenophobia and bigotry
Avoiding closer union - small mindedness, little Englander
 

Even when some labour MPs, and general left leaning people venture a pro leave argument, they are sidelined or just ignored, comrade Corbyn, historically a europhobe, decided to remain quiet during the referendum, rather than be true to his beliefs, and support Brexit, but how could he, when his whole party ideology is against the supposed right wing  thinking behind it ?

Personally I think its time we moved on from this early 20 th century habit of  labelling  'right' and 'left'
Particularly since the political  axis seems to have been flipped upside down.
When your left liberal parties seem to appeal to the middle classes more than the working classes, and your working classes are leaning towards the right, I think its use within the English language has run its course.
Why cant people pick what elements they like from whatever political ideologies?
Why  such a rigid way of thinking ?
People arent like that, you can have someone who is pro immigration, but wants to leave the EU, or vice versa.
Or do we have to copy American politics ,where the lines are drawn rigidly with gay marriage,immigration, abortion, gun rights ect the sole domains of certain camps.
Its never really made sense to me.
There are more than two sides to every story.

[Gordon R]

Only a idiot would claim to know which decision will have the best outcome. Spouting nonsense on this Forum or anywhere else is just silly. No-one, including politicians, knows for certain what will happen. Trade might be worse or better - who can tell.

That doesn't stop people saying we have made a massive mistake. They have no facts to back this up - because there are none - but still the moaning and wailing continues, warning of doom.

Vote has been taken - on what basis would anyone seek to overturn democracy? Some bright spark will pop up and say that people didn't know what they were voting for. That puts them in the same padded cell as Tim (Nice, but genuinely dim) Farron - who spoke for everyone, but hadn't actually consulted anyone.

 

[neutron619]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Why cant people pick what elements they like from whatever political ideologies?

Why  such a rigid way of thinking ?

Pity the poor old classical liberals like me!

We want small government, low taxation and plenty of freedom of speech, association and choice. We want the state only to do those jobs which can not be organized sensibly other than via a monopoly, or whose delivery is impossible or insensible when organized via competition for profit. I'd put defense of the realm, law enforcement and supply (but not necessarily delivery) of energy into those categories, for the record. Probably basic sanitation and a degree of quality control on various medicines and essentials as well, but there really isn't much which couldn't be provided, profitably, to the public, to everyone's mutual advantage.

Traditionally, this has meant voting for approximately one third of the Conservative party, though as time has passed, even the Tories have now apparently forgotten that low-tax, low-regulation economies tend to be the most successful. (I read a rather amusing comment from an American Democrat responding to the tax changes being introduced over the pond this morning: "I have a really big problem with Trump: I find I agree with everything he does.")

The trouble is, at least two-thirds of the Tories are socially conservative and seem (like much of the establishment - the C of E particularly) always to be more concerned with what people are doing in thir bedrooms than running (or ministering to) the country, which means that one has to "hold one's nose" to vote for them. What other people do for ****s and giggles is none of my business; what I think of them for doing it is none of theirs. Simples. So I should vote for the Lib Dems, right?

Well - no - I don't, because their economic policy is moronic and the antithesis of "liberal". "Would Sir like a reduction in his personal allowance to go with his gargantuan corporation tax bill? Can I get an increase in VAT with that tax return please?" Well that's not going to pay for any more nurses, since no-one will risk employing any of them.

UKIP, unfortunately, are by no means the nutters that lots of folk argue they are, but are the same split party as the tories, dressed in purple. There are a few classical liberals in there, holding their noses, but let's face it - a lot of them don't much like black people, muslims, immigrants and various "others". Or any social convention invented since 1950. That's up to them and their consciences and on one level doesn't really bother me at all (I'm rather fond of early 18th century Germanic culture as it happens), but it isn't effective politically and it's not how I feel about it. As for the immigration thing - well - I find it's all too black and white when viewed through the purple-tinted glasses, whereas all I'm concerned about is the people here taking responisbility for their own lives and paying their own way. I suspect the bigger problem is to be found amongst the feckless, lazy, white British.

So Labour then. Well - it's a "no" from me, I'm afraid. There's no space to list even 10% of the reasons I'd never vote for the Labour party, but to give you a whimsical, silly image, I'd say they see the EU as being too much like "the competition". "We can't create the new socialist world order if the EU are still in charge - it would be the wrong kind of socialism!" I'm being a bit silly now, but you get my drift. They're split down the middle on "Europe" even more than the Tories. Momentum are bloody dangerous though.

So yeah. As a classical liberal, there's basically nobody to vote for, so it becomes a question of voting "against" and that isn't a great way to run a democracy. Just ask the American Democrats and their current bogeyman.

That said, I rather like Trump. He's the sort of American President one ought to keep as a pet to amuse the folk one invites to dinner...

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

As for the immigration thing - well - I find it's all too black and white when viewed through the purple-tinted glasses, whereas all I'm concerned about is the people here taking responisbility for their own lives and paying their own way. I suspect the bigger problem is to be found amongst the feckless, lazy, white British.

 

That said, I rather like Trump. He's the sort of American President one ought to keep as a pet to amuse the folk one invites to dinner...

Absolutely 100% with you there.

Trump is what you get when you elect someone who isnt a career politician.
He may be not everyones cup of tea, but he won, hasnt plunged the US into economic disaster, and hasnt as yet, started WW3.

[12gauge82]

15 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

Pity the poor old classical liberals like me!

We want small government, low taxation and plenty of freedom of speech, association and choice. We want the state only to do those jobs which can not be organized sensibly other than via a monopoly, or whose delivery is impossible or insensible when organized via competition for profit. I'd put defense of the realm, law enforcement and supply (but not necessarily delivery) of energy into those categories, for the record. Probably basic sanitation and a degree of quality control on various medicines and essentials as well, but there really isn't much which couldn't be provided, profitably, to the public, to everyone's mutual advantage.

Traditionally, this has meant voting for approximately one third of the Conservative party, though as time has passed, even the Tories have now apparently forgotten that low-tax, low-regulation economies tend to be the most successful. (I read a rather amusing comment from an American Democrat responding to the tax changes being introduced over the pond this morning: "I have a really big problem with Trump: I find I agree with everything he does.")

The trouble is, at least two-thirds of the Tories are socially conservative and seem (like much of the establishment - the C of E particularly) always to be more concerned with what people are doing in thir bedrooms than running (or ministering to) the country, which means that one has to "hold one's nose" to vote for them. What other people do for ****s and giggles is none of my business; what I think of them for doing it is none of theirs. Simples. So I should vote for the Lib Dems, right?

Well - no - I don't, because their economic policy is moronic and the antithesis of "liberal". "Would Sir like a reduction in his personal allowance to go with his gargantuan corporation tax bill? Can I get an increase in VAT with that tax return please?" Well that's not going to pay for any more nurses, since no-one will risk employing any of them.

UKIP, unfortunately, are by no means the nutters that lots of folk argue they are, but are the same split party as the tories, dressed in purple. There are a few classical liberals in there, holding their noses, but let's face it - a lot of them don't much like black people, muslims, immigrants and various "others". Or any social convention invented since 1950. That's up to them and their consciences and on one level doesn't really bother me at all (I'm rather fond of early 18th century Germanic culture as it happens), but it isn't effective politically and it's not how I feel about it. As for the immigration thing - well - I find it's all too black and white when viewed through the purple-tinted glasses, whereas all I'm concerned about is the people here taking responisbility for their own lives and paying their own way. I suspect the bigger problem is to be found amongst the feckless, lazy, white British.

So Labour then. Well - it's a "no" from me, I'm afraid. There's no space to list even 10% of the reasons I'd never vote for the Labour party, but to give you a whimsical, silly image, I'd say they see the EU as being too much like "the competition". "We can't create the new socialist world order if the EU are still in charge - it would be the wrong kind of socialism!" I'm being a bit silly now, but you get my drift. They're split down the middle on "Europe" even more than the Tories. Momentum are bloody dangerous though.

So yeah. As a classical liberal, there's basically nobody to vote for, so it becomes a question of voting "against" and that isn't a great way to run a democracy. Just ask the American Democrats and their current bogeyman.

That said, I rather like Trump. He's the sort of American President one ought to keep as a pet to amuse the folk one invites to dinner...

Another excellent post and I think alot of us feel the same, no one party represents my feelings either, defiantly a political vacuu to be filled by a new party out there, new party set up by Farage perhaps?

[das]

Blah Blah Blah The moaning, arguing and avid discussion still goes on. I voted leave and would always do so, but you, I and everybody else can do sod all about it.

It will run its course and hopefully we wil all, with abit of luck, be better off.

[Aled]

Now neutron 619 as is my democratic and freedom of speech choice I do not agree with everything you say, but I get where some aspects of your recent post comes from, and I agree with some of what you are saying. 

I lost a specific political direction in the late 90's early 00's firstly Wales got a form of devolution, which relaxed a lot of issues in my political head (you may disagree with me but hey ho!) however the second issue that changed me was more personal.  I started work in a County Council and found myself working with councillors across the political spectrum. All parties cheesed me off completely, very rarely did i see councillors putting local issues first, their priorities appeared to be political point scoring, and going out of their way to have a disagreement with other politicians of a different party. I'll never forget the day I was in a meeting where a Plaid Cymru, Labour, Lib Dem, and a Independent councillor all agreed to work together to make a positive change within a community my jaw dropped! So my voting now is based entirely on the person first and political party second. Our local MP & AM (who I voted for based on the people they are) have been very supportive of a medical issue for my children recently. Unless there is a massive change, I will be voting for them in the foreseeable future. Its also why I found the result of the last General Election very amusing!

Cheers

Aled

 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Aled

[oowee]

I follow your thinking Aled. I worked for central Government and there are a number of politicians on both sides of the house that demonstrated an absolute commitment to make the right choice even when it may differ from their party line. The level of work that some of them commit to is truly astonishing. Some i would not give the time of day. I would say the same about some of the officers to.

[Aled]

Yes I agree with you oowee, when I became eligible to vote in the late 80's early 90's there were a quite few Welsh politicians who seemed to be respected and indeed liked across the political spectrum,  Which was to their credit, there are not so many these days, sadly.

Cheers

Aled

 

[Aled]

Thought this thread would be bouncing with anger today.

[12gauge82]

I'll kick it off if you want but it's pointless really, democracy really is dead and this proves it, regardless of if people believe Brexit is a good idea or not there was a referendum asking a simple question, it's been turned into a complex issue of "what brexit is" by those wanting to undo what people voted for, it's a farce and I can see riots erupting in this country, maybe not now, but with the way it's going, I've never seen so many people on all sides so angry with the government and that was before brexit was ever on the horizon, our politicians are so far out of touch, it'll be too late to stop it if/when civil unrest kicks off.

[Newbie to this]

28 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'll kick it off if you want but it's pointless really, democracy really is dead and this proves it, regardless of if people believe Brexit is a good idea or not there was a referendum asking a simple question, it's been turned into a complex issue of "what brexit is" by those wanting to undo what people voted for, it's a farce and I can see riots erupting in this country, maybe not now, but with the way it's going, I've never seen so many people on all sides so angry with the government and that was before brexit was ever on the horizon, our politicians are so far out of touch, it'll be too late to stop it if/when civil unrest kicks off.

I've never trusted a politician my entire voting life, and totally agree with earlier posts about voting becuase one party is just slightly less worse than the other, no political party in the UK is anywhere near in touch with the average person, and Brexit has proven that. All (well the majority) politicians are in it for their and their family's gain, not for the good of the people. Brexit for me is the first step in bringing accountability back into UK politics.

[Aled]

Brexit is happening, and I think we can all agree that we don't know exactly what shape or form that will take,

Now initially I  had a big worry: That Brexit would get pushed through along specific (i.e. Tory) party political lines, when in fact it was not a specific party political decision. It should have been delivered cross party in my opinion from the beginning (there are Labour supporting Brexiteers, and many of Labours heartlands voted overwhelmingly for Brexit)

 It is interesting that in my opinion, PM May, called an election to try and get a big safe majority to deliver Brexit along party political lines, and I reckon (and I don't doubt our electoral rules affect this) she made a huge mistake as she lost a large majority,  and therefore she is unable to do so. Brexit is happening, but no specific rules were laid out by the Leave campaign as to how it should be done, so I reckon we are just making up as we go along, and perhaps allowing parliament to look at the "what where and when" it maybe a stabilising and unifying affect on the Brexit process. Please note that I used "maybe"  I am well aware we discussing politicians here.

Cheers

Aled

[Yellow Bear]

I think for once the Daily Wail had the right of it with their headlines this AM but I would add the Leibour politicos that voted on party lines to save their own skin but against their constituents in many cases  -  It is just a way to water the thing down to keep their foot in the door of the EU grave train for politicians.

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I've never trusted a politician my entire voting life, and totally agree with earlier posts about voting becuase one party is just slightly less worse than the other, no political party in the UK is anywhere near in touch with the average person, and Brexit has proven that.

Ill let you in on a secret, Ive voted once, in all my 32 years of being able to, for just this reason.
Because it was something I could believe in, and that vote was for Brexit.

 

4 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

I think for once the Daily Wail had the right of it with their headlines this AM but I would add the Leibour politicos that voted on party lines to save their own skin but against their constituents in many cases  -  It is just a way to water the thing down to keep their foot in the door of the EU grave train for politicians.

The opposition, just doing what opposition does, never mind what it does to the country or its citizens.

 

21 minutes ago, Aled said:

 

 It is interesting that in my opinion, PM May, called an election to try and get a big safe majority to deliver Brexit along party political lines, and I reckon (and I don't doubt our electoral rules affect this) she made a huge mistake as she lost a large majority,

It might have worked, but someone promised to end tuition fees for one thing.Then back tracked straight afterwards.

I am still of the belief its going to all come good in the end.
The EU sabotage team are still hard at it, poking our team, and making claims that are designed to disrupt talks.
I still believe we are going to HAVE to walk out at some point, when its obvious these 'negotiations' are a total waste of time.
It will probably become more obvious the closer we get to 2019, to be fair its obvious to me now its not going to work, they will ask for too much, knowing it will infuriate the voters if we give in, or hit a wall on an issue that will delay more and more.
I mean seriously, where have we got to in 8 months ?
If they are so concerned about these issues, why not sit down till they are resolved ?
But no its ' We are not sure we have made sufficient progress on X so we cant move onto Y ,we shall reconvene in a months time and say the same again 
Theres stalling , and theres taking the ...
There is talk that they are attempting to get that close to a UK general election, which could end up with a pro EU labour government, and reverse the whole thing, or re-join with conditions, the euro, no rebate ect, absolute carnage.
But they wouldnt do something like that surely ?

[oowee]

50 minutes ago, Aled said:

Brexit is happening, and I think we can all agree that we don't know exactly what shape or form that will take,

Now initially I  had a big worry: That Brexit would get pushed through along specific (i.e. Tory) party political lines, when in fact it was not a specific party political decision. It should have been delivered cross party in my opinion from the beginning (there are Labour supporting Brexiteers, and many of Labours heartlands voted overwhelmingly for Brexit)

 It is interesting that in my opinion, PM May, called an election to try and get a big safe majority to deliver Brexit along party political lines, and I reckon (and I don't doubt our electoral rules affect this) she made a huge mistake as she lost a large majority,  and therefore she is unable to do so. Brexit is happening, but no specific rules were laid out by the Leave campaign as to how it should be done, so I reckon we are just making up as we go along, and perhaps allowing parliament to look at the "what where and when" it maybe a stabilising and unifying affect on the Brexit process. Please note that I used "maybe"  I am well aware we discussing politicians here.

Cheers

Aled

On moderate terms. Trying to dilute the hardliners in her party by increasing the head count. I think most seek consensus government and i would love to see the first past the post system moderated to something where you could have a meaningful vote for a candidate rather than a party. Interesting discussion on five live the other day talking about the failings of the system we have and the impact on long term thinking and investment.

I think your right, the parliamentary scrutiny will help us avoid the excesses. 

Make it up as we go along that's about the sum of it. There is no agreed strategy, no consensus on objectives. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Aled said:

Brexit is happening, and I think we can all agree that we don't know exactly what shape or form that will take,

Now initially I  had a big worry: That Brexit would get pushed through along specific (i.e. Tory) party political lines, when in fact it was not a specific party political decision. It should have been delivered cross party in my opinion from the beginning (there are Labour supporting Brexiteers, and many of Labours heartlands voted overwhelmingly for Brexit)

 It is interesting that in my opinion, PM May, called an election to try and get a big safe majority to deliver Brexit along party political lines, and I reckon (and I don't doubt our electoral rules affect this) she made a huge mistake as she lost a large majority,  and therefore she is unable to do so. Brexit is happening, but no specific rules were laid out by the Leave campaign as to how it should be done, so I reckon we are just making up as we go along, and perhaps allowing parliament to look at the "what where and when" it maybe a stabilising and unifying affect on the Brexit process. Please note that I used "maybe"  I am well aware we discussing politicians here.

Cheers

Aled

Before the vote took place it was made clear by the remain side no less, that if we voted to leave it would mean leaving the customs union, single market ect, the only mention of different forms of Brexit came about after the vote went the wrong way, it's quite clear what's happening and it stinks, dress it up however you want.