I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: cassandra on April 13, 2018, 12:10:59 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43535497
Okay, I'm awaiting evidence :angel;
-
Wooh, shouldn't this be in "Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry"? If there are enough British members from each side, this could become the nastiest argument on the board. There could even be blood.
-
Wooh, shouldn't this be in "Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry"? If there are enough British members from each side, this could become the nastiest argument on the board. There could even be blood.
Hello Paul ... and ... I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it, because, after all, we don't even have an idea whether or not it might be given a chance to happen during our life-time ...
P.S. There is still a lingering suspicion that politicians were taken by surprise when the outcome of voting did not comply with expectations ...
-
Brexit just seems like an unholy mess to me. It felt so rushed.
I agree with Kristina; I don't know if it is ever going to happen. And I KNOW that politicians on both sides were taken by surprise by the result.
I have a very distinct memory of being in the car on holiday when the Good Friday Agreement was announced. Even though I was neither British nor Irish, I felt such pride and relief on behalf of both nations. I would be so upset if Brexit became a vehicle for the destruction of that agreement.
-
I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it
Try going into a bar of an evening and loudly arguing either for or against Brexit, see how long it takes for someone to smash a beer bottle over your head! Many many people have very strong opinions (you'll note that since my post, moderators have moved this to the "Thick Skin Required" board) and public debate on the subject can get nasty.
-
Ignore this post: I noticed I had typed "bear bottle" instead of "beer bottle", so hit modify to change it. However I must have hit quote instead, as I ended up with two copies of the same post. Cannot delete a post, so I took out all the repeated text instead, and just left this explanation.
-
Thanx Paul for your obsevations.
:angel;
-
I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it
Try going into a bar of an evening and loudly arguing either for or against Brexit, see how long it takes for someone to smash a beer bottle over your head! Many many people have very strong opinions (you'll note that since my post, moderators have moved this to the "Thick Skin Required" board) and public debate on the subject can get nasty.
Hello again, Paul ... couldn't it just be that the people you mention above, might be a bit stressed and as a result they might have some anger-issues and then, after a few beers in a pub they finally have a chance to "let it all out" whilst "discussing" the Brexit-issue?
... Just meddling a bit ... but ... what do you think ?
-
ouldn't it just be that the people you mention above, might be a bit stressed and as a result they might have some anger-issues......
No, Brexit is a seriously contentious issue for most people. The reason you are not aware of how high feelings run is that your friends have enough sense not to discuss it with people they dissagree with in the same way they would not argue religion with someone of widely differing religious beliefs.
To the Brexiteer: The EU is basically the same ideal as Hitler had, unite Europe under Germany. Remaining in the EU is just continuing his work, and a "Remainer" is as bad as a Nazi sympathiser, and should be treated the same as Lord Haw Haw.
To the Remainer Outside the EU Britain will fail, we will fall into a recession worse than any we have known before, a recession there is no way out of. Brexiteers are simply, for their own selfish reasons, driving their country into bankruptcy. They are traitors, and should be treated as any other traitor to their country would be treated.
In other words, both feel, that in a fair and just society, the other side would be executed.
-
ouldn't it just be that the people you mention above, might be a bit stressed and as a result they might have some anger-issues......
No, Brexit is a seriously contentious issue for most people. The reason you are not aware of how high feelings run is that your friends have enough sense not to discuss it with people they dissagree with in the same way they would not argue religion with someone of widely differing religious beliefs.
To the Brexiteer: The EU is basically the same ideal as Hitler had, unite Europe under Germany. Remaining in the EU is just continuing his work, and a "Remainer" is as bad as a Nazi sympathiser, and should be treated the same as Lord Haw Haw.
To the Remainer Outside the EU Britain will fail, we will fall into a recession worse than any we have known before, a recession there is no way out of. Brexiteers are simply, for their own selfish reasons, driving their country into bankruptcy. They are traitors, and should be treated as any other traitor to their country would be treated.
In other words, both feel, that in a fair and just society, the other side would be executed.
What a very strange combination of thoughts you mention there (above) ! And ... I don't understand where it could possibly be coming from ? A united Europe under Germany? What for? And why ? What about France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and The Netherlands, all who together with Germany were original founders ?
Did not most Brexiteers vote for "exit" because they feel certain that the money can be much better used here in the UK for our National Health Service instead?
I have never heard a Brexiteer talking about what you mentioned above i.e. Nazi sympathizer or Lord Haw Haw in the context of "Brexiting". Instead everyone seems to be talking about the enormous costs and how much better the same money can be used here in the UK for our NHS instead etc.
-
There is a tendency for governments to try to figure out a way to have a re-vote on an issue when people vote incorrectly.
In those parts of the US where people get to vote on tax overrides or a special tax increase of a new school, the towns just keep re-taking the vote (sometimes with cosmetic changes like a 1% reduction in cost) until they get yes, then no more revotes.
I suspect the govt is trying to find some sort of reason to re-vote the Brexit issue; something that would not have happened if Brexit had lost.
Of course, this could just be paranoia on my part. I am good at that.
-
Instead everyone seems to be talking about the enormous costs and how much better the same money can be used here in the UK for our NHS instead etc.
Do people really believe that there will be an enormous cash infusion into the NHS as a result of exit (and I don't mean that as a snarky question. I mean, do those who voted for Brexit have a heartfelt conviction that the NHS will be a main beneficiary of Brexit)? What do you all think?
-
Instead everyone seems to be talking about the enormous costs and how much better the same money can be used here in the UK for our NHS instead etc.
Do people really believe that there will be an enormous cash infusion into the NHS as a result of exit (and I don't mean that as a snarky question. I mean, do those who voted for Brexit have a heartfelt conviction that the NHS will be a main beneficiary of Brexit)? What do you all think?
Yes MM a lot of people actually believed that. Some are really stunned that it hasn't happend yet....
And a lot of Brexiteers believed that Germany held too much power......
And a lot of Brexiteers thought that the EU wanted to become a Super State which would controle everything from the colour of toilet rolls to the shape of bananas.
And that the UK could only controle its borders if it were outside the EU.
And that British fisher-men would start fishing again in British waters again.
And blah blah blah
I blame the education system ;D
-
Thanks for that, cass. It would be great if the NHS could be the greatest beneficiary of Brexit. Britain is so proud of it, and quite rightly so, and it deserves to be well funded in all areas of the UK.
-
What a very strange combination of thoughts you mention there (above) ! And ... I don't understand where it could possibly be coming from ? A united Europe under Germany? What for? And why ? What about France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and The Netherlands, all who together with Germany were original founders ?
I have never heard a Brexiteer talking about what you mentioned
I can only assume you have never spoken to Brexiteers, and that in the weeks after the vote you never listened to a serious news program. I exaggerate a bit when I say "all", but more than half think this. And in the weeks after the vote you could hear these views from supporters loudly and proudly said on all major news programs. For a while the Today program (Radio 4 in the morning) was really really boring as idiot after idiot came on yelling about how we were "free of Germany", and that Britain was a country again, no longer a subject of the German Empire. You can still hear it if you are ever bored enough to listen to a show that give Brexiteers a voice.
My favourite was an elderly gentleman who had lived through the war. He was in tears of joy yelling something like "Our boys, our boys, we got our boys back. So many died but now we got our boys back." He was referring to British soldiers in the Second World War, not sure exactly what he meant, but he went on to explain that now we were out of the EU we had at last won the war and the soldiers could now lie in peace.
Sorry, but before the vote I assumed that Brexiteers were just ordinary people who held different views to me. But since the referendum I cave come to realise that they were actually a bunch of simple minded idiots (with apologies to my father who was one of those idiots).
-
Wasn't much of the motivation behind the pro-Brexit folks fear of unchecked Muslim immigration that came with EU membership? Some countries are (in my opinion rightly) fearing a democratically elected Sharia government.
-
There is a tendency for governments to try to figure out a way to have a re-vote on an issue when people vote incorrectly.
In those parts of the US where people get to vote on tax overrides or a special tax increase of a new school, the towns just keep re-taking the vote (sometimes with cosmetic changes like a 1% reduction in cost) until they get yes, then no more revotes.
I suspect the govt is trying to find some sort of reason to re-vote the Brexit issue; something that would not have happened if Brexit had lost.
Of course, this could just be paranoia on my part. I am good at that.
Hello Simon, surprisingly, there is some talk to have another vote over Brexit, as the voters obviously voted "incorrectly" and perhaps a "valid" reason might come along very soon to "fit the bill" for another Brexit vote and no, you (and I) are certainly not paranoid ...
-
I was under the impression that the fear of unchecked Muslim immigration was sort of the spark that ignited the Brexit vote rather than the crux of it.
I was also under the impression that it was more the fear of the free movement of labor/people from particularly eastern Europe that was more crucial to the outcome of the vote. I kept hearing about the horrors of "Polish Plumbers" invading England even while I still lived there, and that was 15 years ago.
England has always been wary of any link to the Continent. I remember all too well the kerfuffle over the Channel tunnel. There were a surprising number of people who did NOT want ANY land link the the Continent. There is a reason that the UK is not part of the Eurozone. There is a reason that the Euroskeptic part of the Tory government brought down John Major.
I personally can't imagine any Western European country democratically vote for Sharia law as the main governing principle, and to suggest that this could happen is hyperbolic and a bit hysterical. Can anyone name a country in which there is a real danger of happening? This may help to ease your mind as far as the UK is concerned.
https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/
-
BTW, there is a difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant. The millions of people who escaped to Europe in the face of ISIS and other wars are NOT the result of "unchecked immigration". They are not seeking citizenship, rather, they are seeking refuge. The number of refugees accepted by member countries was indeed set by the EU. The problem with the EU in this case was just the overwhelming numbers of people fleeing, and they were not up to it.
The EU should be a more involved player in making countries like Syria safer for all of its citizens. None of those refugees would willingly have left their homes if they had not had to. If places like Syria were safe for families to return so they could resume their normal lives, they would do so in a heartbeat.
-
What a very strange combination of thoughts you mention there (above) ! And ... I don't understand where it could possibly be coming from ? A united Europe under Germany? What for? And why ? What about France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and The Netherlands, all who together with Germany were original founders ?
I have never heard a Brexiteer talking about what you mentioned
I can only assume you have never spoken to Brexiteers, and that in the weeks after the vote you never listened to a serious news program. I exaggerate a bit when I say "all", but more than half think this. And in the weeks after the vote you could hear these views from supporters loudly and proudly said on all major news programs. For a while the Today program (Radio 4 in the morning) was really really boring as idiot after idiot came on yelling about how we were "free of Germany", and that Britain was a country again, no longer a subject of the German Empire. You can still hear it if you are ever bored enough to listen to a show that give Brexiteers a voice.
My favourite was an elderly gentleman who had lived through the war. He was in tears of joy yelling something like "Our boys, our boys, we got our boys back. So many died but now we got our boys back." He was referring to British soldiers in the Second World War, not sure exactly what he meant, but he went on to explain that now we were out of the EU we had at last won the war and the soldiers could now lie in peace.
Sorry, but before the vote I assumed that Brexiteers were just ordinary people who held different views to me. But since the referendum I cave come to realise that they were actually a bunch of simple minded idiots (with apologies to my father who was one of those idiots).
Hello Paul ... I have actually talked with and listened to many Brexiteers, so there you are wrong, but you are right in assuming that I don't know what was/is presented to the public in, as you write, "serious" news programs over Brexit, because I hardly ever listen to news programs ... Why? Because first of all I have no TV and secondly it becomes really hard to figure out, whether or not the public is being served with real news or whether the news happen to be another of these PR-exercises ... Please tell me: Do you know which is which ? I honestly don't ... and I very much doubt there are many people who really know what is actually going on ... ?
Today a neighbour told me that there surely must be some people who make lots of money over this Brexit-issue ...
-
Wasn't much of the motivation behind the pro-Brexit folks fear of unchecked Muslim immigration that came with EU membership? Some countries are (in my opinion rightly) fearing a democratically elected Sharia government.
I have heard of these fears as well ...
-
Kristina, I watch/listen to a lot of British political programming and also read the online editions of several of the "broadsheets", and frankly, I can't make heads or tails out of Brexit, so I can understand your bewilderment! I'm not sure you'd be any better informed if you DID watch any of these TV shows!!
-
Kristina, I watch/listen to a lot of British political programming and also read the online editions of several of the "broadsheets", and frankly, I can't make heads or tails out of Brexit, so I can understand your bewilderment! I'm not sure you'd be any better informed if you DID watch any of these TV shows!!
Many thanks for your understanding MooseMom ...
I was beginning to wonder myself because I can't really make head or tails out of Brexit either.
... But we can be rest assured that in about 50 years time everything will have become quite clear about Brexit ... and ... at this moment I would like to get an idea about what is actually going on ...
-
I was under the impression that the fear of unchecked Muslim immigration was sort of the spark that ignited the Brexit vote rather than the crux of it.
No the main fear that started it was of European (mostly non-Muslim) immigrants stealing British jobs, using the British health service without paying for it, and getting UK unemployment/housing benefits. Of these only the last one was a fair criticism, because British people have been buggering off to Europe and stealing German and Spanish (and a few other countries) jobs for years, even before we started letting in Europeans. And WRT British health service, the British get a reciprocal deal with the rest of Europe (for example I could go to France, and the local French hospital is obliged by European law to dialyse me for free as necessary), and on balance, we use their health services more than they use ours.
-
but you are right in assuming that I don't know what was/is presented to the public in, as you write, "serious" news programs over Brexit, because I hardly ever listen to news programs ... Why? Because first of all I have no TV and secondly it becomes really hard to figure out, whether or not the public is being served with real news or whether the news happen to be another of these PR-exercises ...
(A) Paranoid Much?
(B) An intelligent person should be able to tell the difference, not hide from facts trembling in fear in case they are lies.
(C) Well if you don't listen to the news how the hell can you claim to know anything about anything? (Radio will do if you don't have a TV, I get most of my news from the Today program on radio 4 and only watch the TV news when my dialysis over runs and I catch it there.) All you know is what a few of your friends tell you, a skewed partial view of the world. Few facts and a lot of opinions. This explains why you are about the only person in Britain unaware of the opinionated attitude both sides of the Brexit argument tend to spout.
(D) If you are afraid of "fake news", the way it spreads is via friends and the Internet. If you don't have the "real" news to compare it with, then you will never be able to tell what is fake, and what is true. So how do you know that what your friends tell you is "true" news, or something they read on David Icke's website?
-
but you are right in assuming that I don't know what was/is presented to the public in, as you write, "serious" news programs over Brexit, because I hardly ever listen to news programs ... Why? Because first of all I have no TV and secondly it becomes really hard to figure out, whether or not the public is being served with real news or whether the news happen to be another of these PR-exercises ...
(A) Paranoid Much?
(B) An intelligent person should be able to tell the difference, not hide from facts trembling in fear in case they are lies.
(C) Well if you don't listen to the news how the hell can you claim to know anything about anything? (Radio will do if you don't have a TV, I get most of my news from the Today program on radio 4 and only watch the TV news when my dialysis over runs and I catch it there.) All you know is what a few of your friends tell you, a skewed partial view of the world. Few facts and a lot of opinions. This explains why you are about the only person in Britain unaware of the opinionated attitude both sides of the Brexit argument tend to spout.
(D) If you are afraid of "fake news", the way it spreads is via friends and the Internet. If you don't have the "real" news to compare it with, then you will never be able to tell what is fake, and what is true. So how do you know that what your friends tell you is "true" news, or something they read on David Icke's website?
I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?
I am wondering, because I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business ... and I remember many innocent people who set-up in business (being urged by the Thatcher-business-enterprising-fever) during these Thatcher-years, putting their houses as a guarantee to repay their huge business-loans (the bigger the better and the banks were ever so willing to "help" with huge loans) and in the end all these enterprising innocent people were all caught-up, because there were no news to warn them i.e. no television-news and no newspaper-news warned them of the oncoming huge "bust" with unemployment etc. and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything, including their family-homes to the banks... Remember the huge suicide-numbers in the UK during the late 1980's?
I mention the above to explain why many people (including myself) have become extremely sceptical of, as you say, "real news" ...
-
Paul, in case I didn't make myself clear, I meant to explain that the fear of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK and taking away everyone's jobs and using the health system and taking advantage of benefits has been present for decades. This is nothing new. But the refugee problem was a spark that finally brought these fears to the fore, just in time for Cameron's Brexit ploy.
I have British friends who have a home in the south of Spain, and like you've explained, they are able to take advantage of the health system down there without charge. They are now concerned about what Brexit will mean for them, so I do understand your point.
I never had UK citizenship, so when we went abroad, I was not covered by this EU agreement regarding health care. I was in Normandy one year around D-Day and had a gout attack (I didn't know at the time that my kidneys were quite so bad); I had to see a doctor and then get a prescription. I had to pay a small fee only because I was not an EU citizen.
These are the kinds of details that I personally would have liked to have seen at least spoken about before the Brexit vote.
Almost two years after the vote, I still don't see a clear idea of what the British people want. Soft Brexit? Hard Brexit? If you all are baffled about Trump and what he means to the future of a liberal democracy, we are baffled about Brexit and what it means for the future of the European alliance.
-
That we are talking about "real news" versus "fake news" is very troubling, as is the discussion about whether or not to believe scientists. We are seeing a breakdown in consensus, and this will break our society.
Citizens are increasingly believing whatever they want to believe. "Alternative facts" are dangerous.
-
I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?
I'm not "absolutely certain", I am "reasonably sure", there is a big difference, it meant that I am always aware I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. But either way it is better than your position, which is "blind guessing with no real information to base those guesses on". Your policy of not listening to any news, but believing what a "mate down the pub told you" is a guarantee that you are going to be wrong.
I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business......and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything
Oh you mean people like Richard Branston, Alan Sugar, John Mills, Duncan Bannatyne, Theo Paphitis, Anita Roddick, Peter Jones, Piers Linney, James Caan, Deborah Meaden, etc., etc., etc...... I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher but even I have to admit that most people who made their money in her time are still rich. However as well as these competent businessmen who accepted her call, a lot of idiots who were not competent to run their own company tried it. Their failure was due to their stupidity or (more often) their greed, a sort of "make money quickly by cutting corners" business method, never a good idea (nor a morally correct one). These are the people who went bust.
A few years back I was talking to a guy who had set up his own business and was now selling up because if he did not he was about to go bankrupt and loose everything. He was telling me, proudly, that he had set up the business without being able to read and write. He could sign his name, but could not read or write anything else. So he could sign contracts, but could not read what he was agreeing to by signing the contract! And he wondered why his business was going bust!
The problem with your opinion of this period is that you don't follow the news. So you only have the information that friends give you. Presumably some of these friends have friends who went bust because they were too greedy, or too stupid to run a successful business. But you don't blame you friends for things like that. So when they tell you the story it is all Thatcher's fault, she could be an evil woman at times, so it is easy and believable to blame her for things that were not her fault. Sadly without real news to guide you, you have no choice but to believe your friends.
Sure, if you follow the news, some of it will be wrong. It is up to the listener to work out which is the false stuff, which is surprisingly little (provided you are careful of your news sources), but still some. And occasionally you will make a mistake and believe something that is false, or disbelieve something that is true. But if you are reasonably intelligent you will be wrong less than five percent of the time, which means you will be right ninety five percent of the time. That is a hell of a lot better than not watching the news, and relying on a "mate down the pub" to give you the facts. Then you will be uninformed 50% of the time, misinformed 50% of the time, and correct only rarely.
And you will end up posting on boards like this that you are totally unaware of Brexiteers having a particular view when about half of them (i.e. about 25% of the population of Britain) are shouting these things from the rooftops.
-
Paul, in case I didn't make myself clear, I meant to explain that the fear of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK and taking away everyone's jobs and using the health system and taking advantage of benefits has been present for decades. This is nothing new. But the refugee problem was a spark that finally brought these fears to the fore, just in time for Cameron's Brexit ploy.
Yes that is correct, it was mostly people from the "new" EU countries in Eastern Europe who came over here looking for work, only a few came from Western Europe, those countries had a more stable economy, and did not need to come here for work. Plus their salaries were similar to ours, many Eastern European countries have a much lower average and minimum wage, so the same job in Britain pays a lot more.
However what I did (and still do) disagree with was your claim that it was "fear of unchecked Muslim immigration" (my emboldment). Their religion was of little importance, it was the fact that they were "foreigners" that offended most Brexiteers. And to be accurate, most were Christian not Muslim anyway.
-
Just talking to a friend on the 'phone and I mentioned this thread. They pointed out something I missed WRT business failures in the 1980s: Very few successful businessmen have not had at least one failure. Many of those failed businesses will be ones run by quitters who gave up after that first failure. These people obviously do not have the stamina to succeed in business, and it is better for them that they got out early, rather than go on until they have a nervous breakdown.
Kristina also mentioned the high suicide rate. My friend pointed out that anyone who takes this route out of business problems is obviously not psychologically suitable to run a business, so it is no wonder they failed. Sad that they killed themselves, but if you cannot take the stress of failure without taking this route, you should never even consider such a risky career move.
-
Citizens are increasingly believing whatever they want to believe. "Alternative facts" are dangerous.
It's dangerous when everyone can concentrate their news reading on sources that support their view. If all the Democrats stick to CNN and Republicans to Fox, we will have a very poorly informed electorate. The big problem is that Democrats declare "CNN is the accurate one" while the Republicans say the same thing about Fox - with each ignoring what the other advocacy org (which is what the major networks have all too often become) has to say.
-
Paul, I'm sure you are right in saying that the problem wasn't necessarily one of religion, rather, it was one of being a "foreigner" from a culture so very different. Thank you for pointing out the difference.
Simon Dog, people associated with Fox News will all tell you that their daytime reporting is entirely different from their nighttime opinion/talk show host shows. Their reporters have the reputation of being good journalists while the Hannities of that network do not. So, it is not merely a matter of which side you are on, rather, it is a matter of whether or not you want facts.
One cannot say the same about CNN. You can deem them to be an "advocacy org", but that does not make it so.
We all have the ability to think critically and outside of our own personal political bubble. If I see a big news story on CNN, I do check Fox to see how they are covering it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this, and I'm confident that those who get their news from Fox would check out another news source if something they hear just doesn't ring true.
Still, I get your point, and it is true that it is becoming a problem. There is a reason Trump said that he loves the poorly educated. We all have the opportunity to educate ourselves. We just have to want to.
-
I am very impressed by your absolute certainty ! But ... how can you be so certain, that the news you rely on, are really true and are "real" news?
I'm not "absolutely certain", I am "reasonably sure", there is a big difference, it meant that I am always aware I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. But either way it is better than your position, which is "blind guessing with no real information to base those guesses on". Your policy of not listening to any news, but believing what a "mate down the pub told you" is a guarantee that you are going to be wrong.
I remember the Thatcher-years when citizens in the UK were urged to become "enterprising" and set up in business......and all of a sudden many people were left overnight in bankruptcy and were even left homeless, after they had lost everything
Oh you mean people like Richard Branston, Alan Sugar, John Mills, Duncan Bannatyne, Theo Paphitis, Anita Roddick, Peter Jones, Piers Linney, James Caan, Deborah Meaden, etc., etc., etc...... I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher but even I have to admit that most people who made their money in her time are still rich. However as well as these competent businessmen who accepted her call, a lot of idiots who were not competent to run their own company tried it. Their failure was due to their stupidity or (more often) their greed, a sort of "make money quickly by cutting corners" business method, never a good idea (nor a morally correct one). These are the people who went bust.
A few years back I was talking to a guy who had set up his own business and was now selling up because if he did not he was about to go bankrupt and loose everything. He was telling me, proudly, that he had set up the business without being able to read and write. He could sign his name, but could not read or write anything else. So he could sign contracts, but could not read what he was agreeing to by signing the contract! And he wondered why his business was going bust!
The problem with your opinion of this period is that you don't follow the news. So you only have the information that friends give you. Presumably some of these friends have friends who went bust because they were too greedy, or too stupid to run a successful business. But you don't blame you friends for things like that. So when they tell you the story it is all Thatcher's fault, she could be an evil woman at times, so it is easy and believable to blame her for things that were not her fault. Sadly without real news to guide you, you have no choice but to believe your friends.
Sure, if you follow the news, some of it will be wrong. It is up to the listener to work out which is the false stuff, which is surprisingly little (provided you are careful of your news sources), but still some. And occasionally you will make a mistake and believe something that is false, or disbelieve something that is true. But if you are reasonably intelligent you will be wrong less than five percent of the time, which means you will be right ninety five percent of the time. That is a hell of a lot better than not watching the news, and relying on a "mate down the pub" to give you the facts. Then you will be uninformed 50% of the time, misinformed 50% of the time, and correct only rarely.
And you will end up posting on boards like this that you are totally unaware of Brexiteers having a particular view when about half of them (i.e. about 25% of the population of Britain) are shouting these things from the rooftops.
I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.
P.S. How about going back to the original discussion about Brexit?
-
Simon Dog, people associated with Fox News will all tell you that their daytime reporting is entirely different from their nighttime opinion/talk show host shows. Their reporters have the reputation of being good journalists while the Hannities of that network do not. So, it is not merely a matter of which side you are on, rather, it is a matter of whether or not you want facts.
One cannot say the same about CNN. You can deem them to be an "advocacy org", but that does not make it so.
When you can predict which stories will get top billing, or how headlines are written, based on which network is reporting, you know there is bias (and this goes for both Fox and CNN). Both networks skew the selection of stories, and how various facts are presented, to suit their agenda, even when they both accurately report non-alternative facts. It is possible to accurately present facts, but subtly introduce bias in how they are presented, what details are emphasized, and how prominently they are featured in the presentation (early in the broadcast; top of the homepage; front newspaper page above the fold; etc.)
For example, when the homeowner apprehended the escaped convicted with his AR15, I predicted, before the news was on the respective sites, that the Fox headline would highlight "armed homeowner captures criminals" and the CNN news article would bury that tidbit deep in the article and not even mention an AR15 was used. Turns out both predictions were right on. Fox supports the R agenda on guns; CNN supports the D agenda.
There is a reason Trump said that he loves the poorly educated.
Gruber (MIT person, a principal architect of Obamacare) said the same thing about stupid voters and the need to mislead to get legislation passed. Both parties are more alike than different in moral character.
-
No, both parties are not more alike than different in moral character. If you really believe that Trump is "more alike than different in moral character" than Obama, then I am sad for you. The GOP is Trump's party now.
Do you think that Sean Hannity is a better investigative journalist than, say, Rachel Maddow?
You are talking about bias, whereas I am talking about facts. They are not the same.
Gruber was not elected President. False equivalency again.
-
Moose Mom I was a system programmer for 40 years. During that time I saw technology issues that became so devisive that they were referred to as Religious wars. Examples were tcp vs osi, Unix vs vms, c vs c++, Bourne shell vs Korn shell, the list is endless. In dialysis hemo, pd, home all have proponents that defend their choice with a fervor that is religious in its intensity. Politics too brings this type of human interaction into play. The end result of these interactions usually is worked out over time hopefully the political side of this will resolve itself in time. My favorite examples Coke Pepsi, VHS Betamax, iPhone Android, PC Mac .
-
During that time I saw technology issues that became so decisive that they were referred to as Religious wars.
I'll bet you even remember the IJKLMN rule.
Koran shell
The Koran shell with all those Arabic characters is as painful to use as the Korean edition of Windows.
In dialysis hemp
They are in the process of licensing mairjuana distributors in the DPRM (Democratic People's Republik of MA) now, however, I do not see my clinic on the list.
The end result of these interactions usually is worked out over time hopefully the political side of this will resolve itself in time. My favorite examples Coke Pepsi, VHS Betamax, iPhone Android, PC Mac
Some of these wars are won - think Beta vs. VHS. Others are destined to wage on forever - Coke v. Pepsi; PV vs Mac, etc. I doubt the political will "Resolve itself over time" because different groups of people will always have varying viewpoints as to the relationship of the government to the governed (which is the root cause of much of the division)
-
I doubt the political will "Resolve itself over time" because different groups of people will always have varying viewpoints as to the relationship of the government to the governed (which is the root cause of much of the division)
I agree with you here! :thumbup; And what is interesting is that The Constitution is supposed to spell out that relationship, but we STILL find ways to have those varying viewpoints!
-
I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.
We have never met, I was simply going by what you said about yourself in your posts. You cannot state that you never listen to the news, then be surprised because someone assumes you never listen to the news! Similarly, having stated that you never listen to the news, you cannot get upset when someone points out that you are uninformed on news matters.
In short "where I am coming from" is what you have been telling us about yourself in this thread. You may not think it a nice place, but it is a place of your creation, not mine.
-
Do you all think the UK should stay in the customs union? What do you think Brexit should actually look like, and how do you think it should actually function?
-
I think we should have some form of customs union, and I think it should be as close as possible to what we had when we were in the EU but without as many regulations and restrictions. However many people disagree with me. Also I think, sadly, that "as close as possible to what we had when we were in the EU but without as many regulations and restrictions" is "pie in the sky" wishing, and is not going to happen. :( We are either going to have little or no customs union, or we are going to have a shed load of regulations and restrictions. :( :( :(
-
I am quite surprised how you describe my thinking, my life-style etc., especially since we have never ever met ... and ... I don't really understand where you are coming from, but it does not sound like a nice place.
We have never met, I was simply going by what you said about yourself in your posts. You cannot state that you never listen to the news, then be surprised because someone assumes you never listen to the news! Similarly, having stated that you never listen to the news, you cannot get upset when someone points out that you are uninformed on news matters.
In short "where I am coming from" is what you have been telling us about yourself in this thread. You may not think it a nice place, but it is a place of your creation, not mine.
Crikey! That was a pretty good attempt to inspire & goad me into a personal "battle", I'll give you that !
... But I have to disappoint you ... as ... I am not into that “sort of thing” ...
I shall leave it at that and wish you good luck ...
Kristina.
-
Crikey! That was a pretty good attempt to inspire & goad me into a personal "battle", I'll give you that !
Seriously? All I did was quote back at you what you said about yourself (precied), and pointed out the obvious conclusion to your claim that you do not follow the news. And you consider that a call to war? It is a bloody good job you are not into that sort of thing, or you would spend most of your life in personal battles.
-
- If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. -
- Anon -
- I never think of the future – it comes soon enough. -
- Albert Einstein -
-
Not to worry, citizens of the United Kingdom!
President Trump will be visiting your fine nation on FRIDAY THE 13TH (of July).
He'll sort you out. ;D
-
Not to worry, citizens of the United Kingdom! President Trump will be visiting your fine nation on FRIDAY THE 13TH (of July).
That is going to be so much fun. Protests, egg throwing, tomato throwing, chanting insults, maybe even the odd burning of the Stars and Stripes. Trump is not going to get the reception he expects, unless what he is expecting is "the worst day of his life bar none".
Trump haters are going to love the visit, and Trump lovers are gonna want to nuke the UK.
-
Actually, getting back on topic,: Trump, like Obama, is greatly against Brexit. Both think it will ruin Britain and sour Anglo-American trade. It will be interesting to see if Trump brings this up while over here.
-
Nah Trump thinks Brexit is a brilliant idea, he'll brings us a great, great trade deal (which would not have been poss while in the EU.
In the mean time Hungary is waking up Brussels (EU)
-
Nah Trump thinks Brexit is a brilliant idea, he'll brings us a great, great trade deal (which would not have been poss while in the EU.
He has changed his mind then. Originally he wanted Britain to stay in the EU so that trade deals with the US would give the US a back door into Europe. (This would not have worked, but what can I say, Trump is an idiot!)
-
Incidentally, WRT Trump's visit to Britain: On news radio this morning a woman who was part of some anti-Trump collective announced that they would be organising a "Carnival Of Resistance" when he comes. Short on details, except that they would follow him around making him aware what they thought of him. She sounded so excited, the prospect of being able to confront Trump was obviously all her Christmases come at once.
-
What in the world is going on with Brexit/Remain? Every day I read about the current state of affairs, and every day I am just more baffled.
So, earlier today there was a large rally in London against Brexit and for a second referendum.
What do you all think of that?
On top of that, Donald Trump will be meeting the Queen next month. How do you think the British public will react to that, if at all? I am curious to see if the visit will even happen (and if Trump will be visiting Europe at all) after the whole separating children from parents disaster.
I'm starting to wonder if Brexit will ever happen.
Everything is just so....chaotic.
-
Wooh, shouldn't this be in "Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry"? If there are enough British members from each side, this could become the nastiest argument on the board. There could even be blood.
Hello Paul ... and ... I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it, because, after all, we don't even have an idea whether or not it might be given a chance to happen during our life-time ...
P.S. There is still a lingering suspicion that politicians were taken by surprise when the outcome of voting did not comply with expectations ...
.... I still agree with what was mentioned above ... and .... unfortunately, recent developments have suggested, that somehow it seems to go into that direction ... and ... furthermore, I have recently heard in the radio-news, that the Brexit-deal (whatever that may mean) will cost the British taxpayer around 50--60 Billions ... (whatever that may mean) ... :(
-
Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?
-
Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?
What an interesting question! Through the media it only has been brought to our attention his connection to Russia and it seems there is an ongoing investigation into the foundation of his wealth ... (How did he do it ?)
You know, there are so many "political wannabees" who want to be noticed, that it is quite difficult to distinguish what or whom to take seriously and what or whom to ignore ... But I would be very surprised if Arron Banks could have any influence on people's thoughts about Brexit ...
-
Over here it has been reported to be paralleling the questions around the 2016 Presidential election, complete with the vocabulary of which hunts and fake news. Declarations of innocence that are quickly shown to be false only for new declarations of innocence promising what has been report is the full extent of the story, only for new revelations to require the process to repeat.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/04/uk/uk-brexit-russia-links-arron-banks-intl/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/04/uk/uk-brexit-russia-links-arron-banks-intl/index.html)
Banks did spend a great deal of money (the provenance of which is in question), that money didn't have any influence?
-
Brits are the masters of irony. I remember watching a discussion panel on the BBC that included Stephen Fry; the discussion was about how comedy translated from country to country and whether British television comedies would appeal to an American audience. Stephen Fry commented that Americans do not understand irony and that they see everything in only black and white.
Well, even I can see the irony of this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain/donald-trumps-visit-puts-brexit-britains-dependence-on-show-idUSKBN1JV0R7
And in the spirit of Boaty McBoatface, the Brits will be offering this:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbj4vd/trump-will-be-met-by-a-giant-flying-trump-baby-blimp-when-he-visits-london
Brexit or no, the Brits have not exited from their famous sense of humour. :bow;
-
Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?
The results were so close that this might have been the deciding factor, but so many people hate the EU that I think they (yes, I still think of Brexiteers as "them") would have won anyway.
-
Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?
The results were so close that this might have been the deciding factor, but so many people hate the EU that I think they (yes, I still think of Brexiteers as "them") would have won anyway.
Questioning the legitimacy of a vote or demanding a re-vote because people voted incorrectly is standard operating procedure for the losing side in any dispute.
-
The Brexit vote was different than any vote we've had in US history. Neither side in the Brexit referendum really knew what they were voting for because leaving the EU had never been done before.
There is still considerable debate on what "Brexit" will even look like. It's not as simple as voting for a US president or congressperson; if that person disappoints us, we can vote them out. But once the UK leaves the EU, if the people are disapointed by the result some years down the road, too bad.
People didn't vote "incorrectly", but they certainly voted on something that didn't yet exist. And they won't be able to truly vote on "Brexit" because they won't know what it really means until it is done. The UK people have no say at all in the Brexit process because they don't get to vote on the final result.
The final shape of Brexit is not solely in the hands of British politicians nor in the hands of the British people. And THAT is part of what the British did not get to vote on.
-
People didn't vote "incorrectly"
My point was that there would be no questioning of the legitimacy or advocates calling for another vote if Brexit was voted down.
-
Well, we don't know that. But you are probably right in that the UK would remain in the EU and would go on as usual. There would be no great mystery as membership in the EU is a known quantity, so there would really be no need for another vote.
But there is no real outcry about the vote being "illegitimate" (other than some wondering whether or not Russia had a hand in it all). The real question is "What exactly did we vote for?" Like I've said, we still don't know if it will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit, and as such, there IS a question on whether or not UK citizens should be able to vote for or against the final Brexit blueprint.
What muddies the waters is the fact that Brexiteers and pro-EU MPs don't vote along party lines.
-
I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.
-
I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.
You're right in a sense, but since Brexit is by necessity more than about "controlling immigration", you've proved my point. Again, the vote wasn't illegitimate rather than "information depleted".
The UK never joined the Eurozone, so they still use sterling.
As for controlling immigration, that's a bit misleading. One of the pillars of the EU is the free flow of people/labor, so if you live in, say, Poland, you can legally work in the UK and vice versa. Those who wanted to leave the EU wanted to control that sort of movement of people, which isn't the same thing as what we think of as "immigration".
So that leaves us with a row over who should be allowed to remain in the UK. If you are a German citizen and have lived and worked in the UK for 20 years, what happens to you and your family? If you are British but have lived in France for 20 years, what will happen to you and YOUR family?
Since most people don't look past the end of their own noses, more people than not who voted for Brexit neither anticipated nor particularly care about these sorts of issues. What will happen to shared nuclear/defense resources? What will happen to the Northern Ireland border? All sorts of questions like this pop up every single day.
What about the free flow of goods into and out of a UK that is no longer part of the EU? What will the approach to the Channel Tunnel look like once Brexit has arrived and lorries carrying British goods for export to the Continent have to go through further customs checks? Calais will become a nightmare.
Like it or not, the City of London is the economic hub of, if not the entire country, at least the entire southern half of England. Brexit will almost assuredly see the end of the City's place as the center of finance and insurance in all of Europe since we would no longer see the free flow of services. Lloyd's of London is certainly the center of the energy industry's insurance market, but after Brexit, that honor might go to, oh I dunno, maybe Oslo in Europe and Singapore in Asia.
How many of these questions were posed before the referendum? If what you supposed is correct, are people really so angry about "immigration" that they would cripple the financial safety of their nation? Perhaps the answer to that is "yes".
Brexit will be formed by negotiation with the EU unless the UK would be willing to leave without any deal at all (which may indeed happen). In light of that, whatever deal or non-deal is made, UK citizens won't be allowed to show their approval or disapproval of the final result. Which again leads me back to my original point which is that the original vote/referendum left much to be desired. If I had voted for Brexit, I might well be very disappointed in the final negotiated treaty and would be very resentful of the lack of opportunity to vote on it.
-
Questioning the legitimacy of a vote or demanding a re-vote because people voted incorrectly is standard operating procedure for the losing side in any dispute.
Yes but irrelevant because:
(A) In this case there were some seriously illegal shenanigans, regardless of the result people should be prosecuted.
(B) Even accepting point "A", the brexiteers would almost certainly have won anyway, so a re-referendum would be pointless.
My point was that there would be no questioning of the legitimacy or advocates calling for another vote if Brexit was voted down.
Not true. The loosing party in our last general election were accused of using illegal methods to obtain votes. No idea where that went, because I lost interest in the damn election long before that and did not follow the story. But my point is there is questioning of legitimacy occasionally brought against the loosing side.
-
I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.
Partially correct.
Firstly, you are correct about it having very little to do with "economic separation", most brexiteers did not believe this would happen. The campaign for brexit actually claimed that after brexit the EU would want trade to continue as it was before brexit, and it came as a nasty shock to them when they did not, and "economic separation" became a reality.
However it had nothing to do with "return to pounds sterling" because we never started using the Euro, we still use the "British" pound (sterling), and would have continued to do so if we had remained in the EU. You are thinking of the "Eurozone", which is different to the EU, not all EU member countries are members of the "Eurozone".
You are also correct in saying that controlling immigration was the main reason that brexiteers voted "out". However the second reason for the out vote came pretty close. This was that, at the time of the vote (not now), Germany had the chairmanship of the EU. Many people saw this as "Germany running Europe", which was basically what Hitler wanted, and this left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. One of the most memorable news snippets after the result was announced was an elderly WW2 veteran in tears of joy, saying that at last we had won the war and that (as he believed when we were part of the EU) his "boys" had now not died in vain.
-
Always good to hear the local perspective.
-
Paul, what would you personally like Brexit to look like?
And, what do you THINK it will end up looking like?
Do you think there will be a new Prime Minister by the time Brexit negotiations are finalized?
-
Paul, what would you personally like Brexit to look like?
Personally I'd like to wake up and find it was all a dream, and that either the remainers won the referendum, or there was no referendum at all. However, in the real world I would like to see some open borders deal, trade wise. But most importantly I would like to see the health service arrangements between Britain and the EU remain. At the moment I can get free dialysis anywhere in the EU, which makes holidays easy. I doubt this will survive brexit (but I am hoping).
And, what do you THINK it will end up looking like?
The biggest financial disaster to hit Britain ever.
Plus: I live about as far south as it is possible to live and still qualify as living in outer London. But if we get no deal on open borders, I expect the traffic for ferries to build up far enough for it to cause problems if I travel in a southern direction.
In short, it will be a nightmare, be prepared to get frantic begging emails from anyone you still know in Britain.
Do you think there will be a new Prime Minister by the time Brexit negotiations are finalized?
No, I think the idiot May will continue in the post until brexit is done and dusted. I doubt she will last long afterwards though.
At this point in the negotiations it would be a bad idea to change the person in charge, however incompetent she may be. But afterwards, she is bad for the country and bad for her party. The last election should have been a landslide victory for her, instead she managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and is only in power because she managed to arrange a coalition with another minor (in Westminster, not minor in NI) party. I expect her party will ditch her as soon as brexit is over, as she will loose them the next election. With her at the helm they could easily become the third party, something that hasn't happened ever, to my knowledge. And if they don't ditch her, her party will loose the next election, so she will be gone either way.
-
All you need to know is the age of the people most involved. In this case they are baby boomers, of which I am one, and thus a member of the Worst Generation. As a group the generation born after the war and before some point in the early '60s is a selfish group all too ready to cash in the civic equity their fathers and grandfathers built. As a generation we are trust fund babies living off all the wise investments of others. And like trust fund babies generally their primary interest is in themselves, everyone else be damned.
Of course some trust fund babies do great things but as group they are a greedy, narcissistic lot. Bridges crumble (literally and figuratively), institutions destroyed and the mob of Boomers cheer.
-
... Would you believe it ... Today I heard in the radio-news that a second vote for or against Brexit might be prepared because - apparently - the first vote "went wrong", mainly because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote but they understand now what Brexit might be all about and how it would/could affect them and they have decided to take part in public demonstrations to demand very strongly a second chance to vote for or against Brexit ... :waiting;
-
I doubt there's going to be one, but as reasonable reasons for a second referendum are being denied, than maybe this completely absurd one is going to win the gray vote over.
-
because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote
I agree that another general referendum is a bad idea. But the point the youngsters make is a valid one. They never got to vote in their own future, they deserve a say. What we need is a referendum for those too young to vote last time ONLY, not those who voted last time. Preferably everyone over 16, but failing that, everyone who will be over 18 by the time we finally leave. Then add their votes to the votes cast in the previous referendum and recount using the results of both referendums.
Mrs May keeps banging on about how having a second referendum would be anti-democratic, which may be true (I'll leave wiser minds to adjudicate on that one). However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit, is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!
-
The problem with a revote is that it is undemocratic, unless you buy into the premise that there would also be a revote if Brexit was turned down. It reeks of 'You did not vote correctly the first time, so we are giving you a chance to get it right".
We have that in MA and NY. If a school budget or tax increase is turned down, token changes are made and the vote re-taken until the answer is "Yes". If the answer to any such vote is "Yes", those opposed are not given the opportunity for a revote.
However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit, is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!
So if the answer is still "no", it there an annual revote to count those just turning voting age? And what of those who wanted "no"? Are they given a revote to count the votes of newly eligible voters every time a new batch come of age, or is a revote reserved only for those cases where the citizenry voted "incorrectly"?
-
because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote
I agree that another general referendum is a bad idea. But the point the youngsters make is a valid one. They never got to vote in their own future, they deserve a say. What we need is a referendum for those too young to vote last time ONLY, not those who voted last time. Preferably everyone over 16, but failing that, everyone who will be over 18 by the time we finally leave. Then add their votes to the votes cast in the previous referendum and recount using the results of both referendums.
Mrs May keeps banging on about how having a second referendum would be anti-democratic, which may be true (I'll leave wiser minds to adjudicate on that one). However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit, is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!
Hello Paul, I quite agree with what you say and especially the point of the youngsters is a valid one... the only problem that could develop though, is the fact that many voting-decisions were made when you and/or I were youngsters and, too young to vote, we had to accept the voting-decisions of our seniors, whether we agreed with it or not...
-
I heard a guest on LBC radio who supports a second referendum make what I thought was an interesting point. The first referendum was a constitutional vote to leave the EU. A second referendum would be a vote on exactly what that exit would look like.
Now that there is a real possibility that there will be a no confidence vote on Mrs. May, there may be a whole new government in place before the end of March. With so much uncertainty, people still don't know what Brexit will look like nor how much it will cost. I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to have a good look at the final deal parameters and then deciding if this is the Brexit they want.
-
And consider this...what if the final form of Brexit isn't "leave -y" enough for some Brexiteers? Wouldn't they want a say?
-
I heard a guest on LBC radio who supports a second referendum make what I thought was an interesting point. The first referendum was a constitutional vote to leave the EU. A second referendum would be a vote on exactly what that exit would look like.
What a great idea! This idea could go a long way!! What we need now is some people to convince our politicians about this great idea and we could be "up and running" very soon !
-
The problem with a revote is that it is undemocratic
You misunderstand my point. I'm not asking for a re-vote. I am asking for a vote for those people who were not allowed to vote before. Sorry but turning round and saying "My people have spoken, you don't get a say in this because WE want it, and you don't count" is most definitely fascism.
-
the only problem that could develop though, is the fact that many voting-decisions were made when you and/or I were youngsters and, too young to vote
Yeah but can you tell me of a single referendum that happened in England our time that was not about joining/leaving the EU? I cannot even think of one from far history.
Oh and recentlyish Scotland had a referendum over leaving the union, and the agreement was that if they did not get an "out" vote, they could have another referendum in "a generation's time", IE when the kids who did not vote in the first one were old enough to have their say (and they don't appear to be prepared to wait even that long).
-
I heard a guest on LBC radio who supports a second referendum make what I thought was an interesting point. The first referendum was a constitutional vote to leave the EU. A second referendum would be a vote on exactly what that exit would look like.
This is an entirely separate thing. It has been suggested by many people, demanded by some, but Mrs May said "NO".
-
What a great idea! This idea could go a long way!! What we need now is some people to convince our politicians about this great idea and we could be "up and running" very soon !
There are plenty of politicians who have been demanding it for ages, major topic of debate in parliament during Prime Minister's Question Time, and also on TV and radio on "Any Questions" and "Question Time". But as I said, our PM has said "No!"
-
Yeah, but she may not be PM by the time Brexit is unleashed!
-
You misunderstand my point. I'm not asking for a re-vote. I am asking for a vote for those people who were not allowed to vote before. Sorry but turning round and saying "My people have spoken, you don't get a say in this because WE want it, and you don't count" is most definitely fascism.
And what of those who have lost their eligibility to vote (via death for example, which makes on ineligible to vote anywhere but Chicago)? Are their votes backed out?
-
Simon Dog, that is not really an issue in the UK.
-
Simon Dog, that is not really an issue in the UK.
You mean voters do not eventually die? I know death does not preclude voting in Chicago, but did not know the UK had a similar procedure.
-
Yep. Here in the UK you are On the roll forever and ever, Amen. Lol
-
Simon Dog, that is not really an issue in the UK.
You mean voters do not eventually die? I know death does not preclude voting in Chicago, but did not know the UK had a similar procedure.
No people in Britain just don't die. Don't look and it won't happen etc ;D
-
Yeah, but she may not be PM by the time Brexit is unleashed!
I think that is unlikely, as even those who really hate her realise that breaking in a new PM will set Brexit back. But I doubt she will last long after that.
-
And what of those who have lost their eligibility to vote (via death for example, which makes on ineligible to vote anywhere but Chicago)? Are their votes backed out?
If you actually got someone to go along with this plan, how do you intend to work out how the dead people voted? A seance?
-
... Some "Brexit-fun" is just starting : ... a very strange naked exhibitionist protested by "coming out of the woods" : ... Dr. Victoria Bateman stripped off publicly as a protest during the TV-program: "Good Morning Britain" ... (Just imagine to watch such a debacle before breakfast) ... What next ? :urcrazy;
-
"What next?" is a very complicated question when it comes to Brexit. Sounds like there's already a clothing shortage! lol
-
"What next?" is a very complicated question when it comes to Brexit. Sounds like there's already a clothing shortage! lol
Well spotted MooseMom !
You might have a point about a clothing shortage ...
By the way: Ms. Rachel Johnson admitted to have been inspired by Dr. Victoria Bateman when she herself publicly on TV took off her blouse to show that she was wearing nothing at all underneath ...
But ... what really bothers me most at the moment is a rather delicate question : ... How did Dr. Victoria Bateman finance her University studies ? :angel;
-
Dr. Bateman did the same stunt on the "Today" program on BBC Radio Four, but it is not quite as effective on the radio as it is on TV!
I have the BBC news alerts on my 'phone, and after the program the BBC sent me a link to a film of the recording. John Humphreys looked most disapproving during the event.
-
Dr. Bateman did the same stunt on the "Today" program on BBC Radio Four, but it is not quite as effective on the radio as it is on TV!
I have the BBC news alerts on my 'phone, and after the program the BBC sent me a link to a film of the recording. John Humphreys looked most disapproving during the event.
... Of course, John Humphrys would disapprovingly look at the "event" ...
... After all, he is a gentleman ... Perhaps he was wondering, what the world is coming to ... ?
-
Ahh, it is not because he is a "gentleman", but because he is an "OLD gentleman"! If he was a real gentleman his attitude would be "It is her body, she can do what she like with it." But being of the older generation his attitude was "She is a woman, thereby it is my decision as a man what she can do with her body."
IMHO, there are two types of people in this world:
!) Those who are happy to let a woman do what she likes with her own body.
2) Those who should be taken outside and shot.
There is no difference between someone who forces a woman to be a stripper or a whore against her will, and a person who stops a woman who wants to be a stripper or whore from being one. They are both controlling misogynistic b******s. Even if they themselves are women. These are not people you should tolerate.
:rant;
-
This pretty much sums it up (WARNING: not so nice language from time to time):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBQfSAVt0s
-
Content blocked in Britain, which is bloody annoying as John Oliver is a British Comedian!
I don't know, you Americans steal our best comedians, then won't even let us watch them on YouTube. (Goes off muttering darkly.)
-
Really???!!! He DID say that certain content would be blocked in Britain (the bit where we see the resounding vote against the PM because we're not allowed to see proceedings in Parliament on film in a comedy show), but you should be able to see the rest of the show on TV. Perhaps just not on YouTube, though. It's probably a copyright issue. You've just got to try to find it showing somewhere if only to see the Dutch boy band:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncHAwux70u8
(PS: The comments are the best bit. LOL! Doesn't this song make you want to stay in the EU after all????? Surely it does!!)
-
Ahh, it is not because he is a "gentleman", but because he is an "OLD gentleman"! If he was a real gentleman his attitude would be "It is her body, she can do what she like with it." But being of the older generation his attitude was "She is a woman, thereby it is my decision as a man what she can do with her body."
IMHO, there are two types of people in this world:
!) Those who are happy to let a woman do what she likes with her own body.
2) Those who should be taken outside and shot.
There is no difference between someone who forces a woman to be a stripper or a whore against her will, and a person who stops a woman who wants to be a stripper or whore from being one. They are both controlling misogynistic b******s. Even if they themselves are women. These are not people you should tolerate.
:rant;
Hallo Paul,
This looks as if there is a serious misunderstanding taking place !
I must say that I have always been and still am very grateful to the half-naked "Ladies of the Night", because that gave girls like me a very good chance to get on with my own life - especially during my University years - when I could live alone without getting into dangerous situations or being harassed etc. ...
And Paul, I could not comment on your other statements because, to be honest, I don't quite understand where you are coming from and what you mean ...
I also could not comment what you mention about shooting etc. because I always have been and still am a pacifist ...
Best wishes from Kristina. :grouphug;
P.S. Could we please continue with the Brexit-discussion ?
-
This looks as if there is a serious misunderstanding taking place......
I wasn't taking a pop at you or your post, my comments were about John Humphrey's reaction.
And Paul, I could not comment on your other statements because, to be honest, I don't quite understand where you are coming from and what you mean
Basically I was saying that it a woman's choice as to how she uses her body (for good or bad) and no other asshole has a right to dictate this to her (either to a particular woman, or women as a group).
I also could not comment what you mention about shooting etc. because I always have been and still am a pacifist
A pacifist is someone who will not fight. You appear to be saying that your pacifism means that if you see a woman being badly treated, you will just stand back and watch. That is NOT pacifism.
-
What do you all think of the formation of The Independent Group?
-
What do you all think of the formation of The Independent Group?
Hello MooseMom,
If you ask me, I feel like watching a school-play going wrong because the head-teacher is missing ... ???
-
What do you all think of the formation of The Independent Group?
Time will tell.
In Britain we have several political parties, but only two that matter. The others never get in power - ever. However at the moment both parties are a disappointment to most voters, even that party's core voters. One is currently seriously mismanaging a claim that they are all racists, and managing to look like they are confirming the accusation, while simultaneously alienating a large number of their core voters by radically moving further to the left than many of them like. The other party is comprehensively bogging up Brexit in a way that seriously angering both the pro and anti Brexit voters. Plus recentish news (Windrush) make them look even more racist than the other lot because they were cooking the books to send back immigrants who were invited over here with a promise of citizenship at a time when we really needed them. And on top of that their party leader is probably the worst prime minister we have ever had. Oh, and the party is self destructing over an internal argument over Brexit.
So it is possible that, for the first time in history, a third party will win the next election, simply because no one want either of the two main parties back in power again (at least until they have sorted themselves out). So, if they can get enough candidates to stand at the next election "The Independent Group" could win it.
However, they are not currently a "political party", just a group of independent politicians without any party allegiances. They would have to form into an actual party if they wanted a chance to become the government.
Personally (and this is an IMHO) I think that the most likely outcome of the next election will be one of the other existing parties getting into power. Either the third or fourth largest at the moment. Either the Liberal-Democrats or UKIP. I'm hoping for the former and fearing the latter.
-
I feel like watching a school-play going wrong because the head-teacher is missing ... ???
Two school plays simultaneously going wrong in a myriad of ways. And the head teachers are not missing, just idiots. The plays would go so much better if they were missing.
It at times like this that I can understand your habit of never watching the news. This mess is boring, annoying, making Britain look stupid, and helping ruin the country. Even I don't want to watch this happening.
-
I feel like watching a school-play going wrong because the head-teacher is missing ... ???
Two school plays simultaneously going wrong in a myriad of ways. And the head teachers are not missing, just idiots. The plays would go so much better if they were missing.
It at times like this that I can understand your habit of never watching the news. This mess is boring, annoying, making Britain look stupid, and helping ruin the country. Even I don't want to watch this happening.
Hello Paul,
Many thanks for your comprehensive explanations.
... To be honest, I would not want to say out loud that the headteachers are idiots, because, even though it appears to be the truth, I am still hoping that "things" are getting better and it sounds so harsh and is a horrendous thought to realize that our future may be decided by idiots ...
Sometimes, when at the doctors, hospital etc., whilst waiting, I happen to watch a little TV and when I happen to listen to the House of Commons, the thought comes to me that "once upon a time" there was a Shakespeare living here and many other great thinkers and many wonderful composers etc. and now we have to listen to this "watered down thought" ... which hardly anyone can understand or follow and which perhaps may not even be a thought at all ...
Mind you, I don't go out of my way to get familiar with the latest news (no TV etc.), but I still make a point to be not completely ignorant about what is going on.
And you hit the nail on the head when you say that this mess is boring and annoying ...
But, what really hurts most of all is the fact that many of our politicians seem to make a point to make Britain look stupid, they don't appear to bother or help the country but only seem to help themselves on all financial levels and they also seem to be too insensitive to even notice the despair of the population. That really hurts !
-
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter as it currently stands.
I realize that TIG is no a separate political party.
I also realize that the Conservatives have had a mess on their hands with the Windrush catastrophe in which May was complicit.
If any of you have any further comments or concerns as the Brexit clock winds down, please post as I am most interested! Thank you!
-
I am still hoping that "things" are getting better
Sadly they are not getting better, they are getting worse. Mrs May is driving towards an exit that even she admits will ruin the country. Even worse, it is liable to anger many Irish ex-terrorists and there is a blindingly good chance it will start the Irish bombing again.
-
Just heard the best name ever for the current Brexit situation.
This Brexit thing has been going on for nearly three years (or over three years if you include the run up to the referendum). The arguments are still going on over what type of Brexit we are going to have, each one either named after where they were created (Chequers Brexit) or the country who already has that deal (Norwegian Brexit, Swedish Brexit, etc.) or a vague sense of despair (No Deal Brexit). And now they are talking about extending the Brexit negotiations for up to another year!
Considering that, a radio presenter came up with the perfect name for it: He called it "Hotel California Brexit" because "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!"
Oh God, that is exactly how it feels.
:(
-
Considering that, a radio presenter came up with the perfect name for it: He called it "Hotel California Brexit" because "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!"
Good analogy.
-
I still don't see any real progress regarding Brexit. Northern Ireland is STILL a big sticking point. ::)
-
[John Bercow] "Division!!! Clear the lobby!!!" [/John Bercow]
Any guesses on what's going to happen next?
-
Any guesses on what's going to happen next?
Well now they have voted against May's plan yet again, there is no time to come up with another plan. That leaves only three options:
1) Crash out with no deal (this is contrary to the referendum as those people who voted "out" were given the promise that we would have a deal to make continued trading with Europe easy, if they had known they were risking a "no deal" ending, many would have voted to remain).
2) A second referendum (although this is within the bounds of "fair play" as we are not going to get what we were told we would get if we voted "out", we were told by the prime minister that there would not be a second referendum, and they would abide by the first one whatever happened).
3) Ask the EU for permission to withdraw our request to enact Article 50. Basically this means "say we are very sorry for being a nuisance but we no longer want to leave the EU, so can we stay members please, pretty please with sugar on" (obviously this is NOT in keeping with the result of the referendum).
In short, the referendum is broken, screwed, and useless. Whatever happen it will not be what the majority of people who voted, actually voted for.
-
I should also point out that options 2 and 3 (above) require the EU to agree. They can force a "no deal" crash out for us by both refusing a return to the EU and refusing to give us enough time for a new referendum, if they want.
-
Latest news on Brexit: Theresa May has decided to try and get parliament to agree to her deal again. So far she has tried three times, each time it was voted down. She has made no changes to it since she was last voted down, and there is no indication that a fourth vote will get any other result, no one has stated they have changed their minds, and nothing has changed to make it even slightly more likely for her plan to win the vote, but she is going to try a fourth time to get the damn thing passed, with no real hope.
So basically, the British prime minister's idea for solving the Brexit deadlock is that she has found a very nice wall that she likes a lot, so she is going to continue to bang her head against it.
I guess it is easier than doing something that might actually solve the impasse.
We are so screwed!
-
Well, Kenneth Clark's amendment got the most votes, though not a majority. So maybe that's one option. Maybe there can be a second referendum with three choices: No Deal, Kenneth Clark's proposal or Remain.
-
Well, Kenneth Clark's amendment got the most votes, though not a majority. So maybe that's one option.
Except that those people who voted "out" do not consider this as Brexit, they see it as remaining in the EU by other means. There have been threats of civil unrest and riots if this amendment goes through.
(For those that do not know, and are actually interested, Kenneth Clark's amendment is to remain in the customs union which (assuming the EU will agree) would mean keeping to all the EU rules and not negotiating trade deals with other countries.)
-
There is no scenario in which the majority of the people will be happy.
If the UK crashes out with no deal, that will be the end of the United Kingdom because Scotland will call another independence referendum.
Those people who are threatening civil unrest and riots have never given one single thought to what will happen to the N. Ireland border with the Republic. They don't give a shamrock.
I hope they aren't thinking they'll get some super special trade deal with the US because Obama was right. If the UK leaves the EU, they will go to the back of the line as far as trade policy goes. Trump is mad at Theresa May for not following his advice, and revenge is like a nice pudding for him.
This has been like a soap opera! It makes for some very compelling telly, I'll grant you that!
-
If the UK crashes out with no deal, that will be the end of the United Kingdom because Scotland will call another independence referendum.
That will depend on how the north/south Ireland border thing goes. The excuse Scotland would have for a second independence referendum is that they don't want to leave the EU, and if they were an independent country they could apply to join the EU as a separate country. If, as is expected, the UK leaving the EU causes problems across the north/south Ireland border, because it is a border between an EU country and a non-EU country, then there will be similar problems between Scotland and England if Scotland becomes an independent EU member. The country that Scotland exports to most is "South Britain" (England and Wales). Also a lot of Scots live in Scotland but cross the border to work in England. Much cross border shopping occurs with people living close to it (from both sides to the other side). Plus, a lot of Scottish people have "emigrated" to England, but regularly go back home to visit their family who remain in Scotland. All this will become difficult if Scotland becomes an independent country and an EU member. It will seriously effect Scotland's economy and the lives of many Scots. So, if we do "crash out" of the EU, the Scots will have a lot to think about when voting in an independence referendum.
It makes for some very compelling telly, I'll grant you that!
Really? We get so much of it here that it it makes for really boring telly, and even more boring talk radio. I have partly joined Kristina in not listening to the news. I rarely watch it on TV or read newspapers. I still listen to the Today program on the radio but hit the snooze button as soon as Brexit is mentioned, which means a three hour news program only plays for about half an hour on my radio. Nowadays I get most of my news from the BBC news app on my 'phone because it lists the headlines and you click on the news items you want to read or watch on video. I only click on items that contain no mention of Brexit whatsoever.
-
Latest News on Brexit: (Yes, despite trying to avoid it, I still get the latest Brexit news forced on me whether I like it or not.) The UK parliament will have another round of "indicative votes" on Monday, basically, a line of votes on ideas that they think the prime minister should go for. If any of them get a lot of votes, the smart money is on her bieng forced to go with that idea.
To understand how big a deal that is: Imagine in America, your president wants one thing, he is blocked by the senate and instead, the senators of HIS OWN PARTY force him to do something else, something he feels is wrong and does not want to do. In other words, the president becomes the puppet of the senate, and his own party's senators are the main force behind making him a puppet. That is sort of where we will be next week.
-
You get Brexit 24/7, and we get Trump 24/7. Pick your poison. At least May doesn't vent on Twitter and has managed to hang on to a modicum of dignity.
Your analogy is actually sort of the way our Constitution is supposed to work. It's called "checks and balances". The President gets a veto, but Congress can override a Presidential veto if it has enough votes. But no one ever thinks that this is puppetry.
-
Your analogy is actually sort of the way our Constitution is supposed to work. It's called "checks and balances". The President gets a veto, but Congress can override a Presidential veto if it has enough votes. But no one ever thinks that this is puppetry.
It is not quite the same thing as "checks and balances". Take, for example, Trump's wall: If the REPUBLICAN senators stopped him building the Mexican border wall. And then they insisted he let all Mexicans into America, with no checks, and also set up a hostel giving them free bed and free food paid for by US taxes. And Trump would have no choice but to setup and agree funding for this. That is the closest I can think of in US politics, and I really doubt it happening. (And if you think of the violent response from some more extreme members of the US population, you can see why Britain is worried that Brexit will lead to civil unrest and possibly riots.)
At least May.....has managed to hang on to a modicum of dignity.
Oh no she hasn't! Have you seen her dance? At any possible excuse and she dances like a gran her grandchild's school disco! Once she danced (if you can call it dancing) onto the stage at a serious conference, to the music of Abba's "Dancing Queen". Totally inappropriate and seriously embarrassing even to watch. And comparing her with Trump: Several people have said we would have been better off with Trump. You may have seen by my posts on the subject, that I personally have a very low opinion of Trump, but even I agree that we would have been better off if we had Trump negotiating Brexit.
-
At least May doesn't vent on Twitter
No, she goes to the national press to vent. Part of the reason she lost the third attempt to get her plan passed is that the day before she had gone to a national newspaper to basically say it was not her fault, and to seriously condemn and insult those politicians who had voted against her the last time.
-
So, this is how Brexit feels:
-
And this is how we currently feel about our politicians:
-
OK.
The UK is well and truly broken no matter what happens.
-
..... that I personally have a very low opinion of Trump, but even I agree that we would have been better off if we had Trump negotiating Brexit.
.....
That’s pushing it a bit. Yes she’s obviously not capable of listening, negotiating, compromising etc. But it’s the Conservative party that’s to blame for the referendum in the first place, Cameron to hold it and run away. And to be honest, the UK people for voting in the conservatives (and DUP)
-
That’s pushing it a bit.
I don't agree. In "peace time" she would no doubt make a better country leader than Trump, but her negotiations with the EU and with her own party were lame. Trump would have made a much better job of negotiating both in Europe and in Westminster. And I bet Trump would not have left everything to the last minute.
-
Trump would have made a much better job of negotiating both in Europe and in Westminster. And I bet Trump would not have left everything to the last minute.
What on Earth makes you think this? What has he actually "negotiated"? He singlehandedly shut down the United States' Government for almost a month because Congress wouldn't give him all of the money he wanted for his wall, despite the fact that at least on 2 different occasions, Congress presented him a bi-laterally agreed appropriations bill calling for increased funding for border protection. But because the proposed bill did not include as much money as he wanted specifically for the wall, he literally shut down the government. There were Coast Guard families that had to go to food banks as a result of this brilliant piece of "negotiation".
He does not negotiate. He demands. And this is not necessarily a criticism. It's just the way he is, and it for this reason that he enjoys the support of his like-minded base. He sees negotiation as a weakness.
I'm sure there are many people who could have done a better job than May, but Trump is just not one of those.
-
Trump has got some stuff done while in office.
May has got bugger all done as far as Brexit is concerned, her biggest achievement was to call an unnecessary election then run a campaign that reduced her party from a safe majority to an unsafe minority that has to rely on other parties to prop it up.
Trump has got some things past the Senate.
Brexit wise May has got nothing past in Westminster, and nothing even past her own party.
Trump has had some (limited) success with foreign leaders.
Most/all world leaders consider May incompetent, all European leaders wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.
To cap it all, the majority of Brits consider Trump to be a useless waste of oxygen, yet most of these people would gladly swap May for Trump if it were possible (probably send him back after Brexit is resolved though).
Also, Trump's "approval rating" amongst Americans is a hell of a lot higher than May's "approval rating" amongst the British.
-
Paul, I'm not disagreeing with you about Theresa May. But MPs on their own are making a right dog's dinner out of things.
While Theresa May is surely imcompetent, at least the people surrounding her campaign haven't been indicted or imprisoned or investigated by the British equivalent of a special counsel.
-
Now that MPs have voted "no" on all four options in today's indicative vote, how do you all think this will end up? Any guesses?
-
While Theresa May is surely imcompetent, at least the people surrounding her campaign haven't been indicted or imprisoned or investigated by the British equivalent of a special counsel.
That I'll give you. Stupid and useless but not criminal (well unless you came over on the Windrush, then you might argue that point).
Now that MPs have voted "no" on all four options in today's indicative vote, how do you all think this will end up? Any guesses?
Up a certain creek without a paddle.
I'm hoping it will mean a second referendum, but I'm fearing "no deal Brexit".
-
I think :angel; the only majority compromise in parliament :angel; will have a customs union in. UK will be in EP elections, general elections will have to follow. So there could be Brexit, stay in Customs Union incl. freedom of movement, but no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU.
I do hope Nigel Farage feels This is Great Britain again
-
I think :angel; the only majority compromise in parliament :angel; will have a customs union in. UK will be in EP elections, general elections will have to follow. So there could be Brexit, stay in Customs Union incl. freedom of movement, but no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU.
I do hope Nigel Farage feels This is Great Britain again
If we get what you suggest, Nigel Farage will definitely NOT feel that this is Great Britain again! He has stated many times that remaining in the customs union would be a betrayal of those people who voted out. Oh and Reese-Mogg has threatened "civil unrest" if we remain in the customs union.
However, now that May is talking to Corbin, we will probably get a custom's union, as that is one of his "red lines". And although we will not have free movement, it appears probable that the EU will allow us visaless travel (last I heard was that they were voting on this and likely to agree - after all, they want our Tourist euros).
Your last suggestion ("no say for UK in EU/EC and the UK staying a net contributor to the EU") is pretty much going to happen unless we withdraw Article 50.
If this is how it pans out, then IMHO it is the best of a bad lot of choices. Other than withdrawing Article 50 (which is my prefered option) I doubt we could do any better.
-
O I So want the UK to withdraw article 50
:bow;
But that can only happen after the UK people have had their say. That is unlikely to happen, and íf it were to happen, it could verywell become even worse.
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! It's BoJo!
What do you all think of him and his new cabinet? What do you think will happen next? No-deal Brexit??????? :o
-
I'm hoping it will mean a second referendum, but I'm fearing "no deal Brexit".
Would the pro-Brexit people get a second referendum if the vote had not gone there way? The problem here is that a second referendum smacks of "we will vote again since you silly people did not vote correctly the first time".
-
Simon Dog, Boris Johnson has created a cabinet filled with ardent Brexiteers, so the only way there would be a second referendum is if a general election were called and Labour was voted in. A general election would follow a vote of no-confidence in the PM, and that might indeed happen should Johnson and his cabinet continue on the path of a no-deal ("hard") Brexit.
There are a few problems with that. Labour's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, isn't generally seen as suitable PM material. Also, it is unclear whether Labour would actually run on the prospect of having a second referendum. Then again, many people feel the same way about Boris Johnson.
It is worth knowing that Boris Johnson was not elected PM by the British people, rather, he was voted in by members of the Conservative Party which represents 0.1% of the British electorate. So, it's hard to guess what would happen in a general election, particularly if a no-deal Brexit was the only kind of Brexit on the table. The EU is adamant that they will not renegotiate.
As of right now, the Tories have a majority of 3 seats in Parliament, and that may be reduced next week after a by-election in one part of the country.
The Tories' majority depends upon the coalition that Theresa May built with the DUP, the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland. I don't know how the new PM will deal with the Irish "backstop".
Furthermore, it is a distinct possibility that Scotland, in which every region voted Remain, may hold another independence referendum.
So, all of the "silly people who did not vote correctly the first time" may find themselves the cause of the breakup of the United Kingdom. I don't think they'd care, though, but I'm not sure Boris Johnson, or any PM, would like to be remembered in the annals of history as being the PM in power when that happened.
-
Brexit just seems like an unholy mess to me. It felt so rushed.
I agree with Kristina; I don't know if it is ever going to happen. And I KNOW that politicians on both sides were taken by surprise by the result.
... And just imagine : almost one and a half year later, after MooseMom mentioned this, and hard trying Prime-Ministers. well meaning cabinet ministers and many well-meaning thoughts and frightening nightmares later (plus a few suicides "thrown in", committed by scared Continentals who made GB their home, but still kept their original Nationality/Passport), Brexit is still in the planning-stages ... and no one has any idea where we are right now ... :waiting;
-
Would the pro-Brexit people get a second referendum if the vote had not gone there way?
I know this is an old comment but I only just got an answer to it. That answer is "probably 'yes', but in a few years time." The same is true of Scotland, they had a referendum on remaining part of the UK only five years ago. The result was to remain in that union, but there is talk of a second "Scottish in/out the UK" referendum as soon as Brexit is sorted. (Which, if Brexit had run to the expected timetable would have been about three years after the first referendum, it is only because the government is making such a pigs ear out of Brexit that they have not had their second one yet.)
And anyway, if you insist that we must stick to the first referendum, that was in the 1970's and we voted "in" to Europe, if we cannot change our minds with a second referendum, then we have to remain in Europe.
-
no one has any idea where we are right now ... :waiting;
There was a gorgeous interview with David Cameron (the Prime Minister who started the referendum) on the radio this morning. The interviewer (John Humphreys) introduced the interview by saying how much of a mess the thing had been and the dire straits we are in (as a country) because of it, and then started the interview by saying "...And the man responsible for this mess is sitting across the table from me now."
I almost felt sorry for Cameron (almost, not quite, he was a lousy Prime Minister, happy to screw the country over to further his career, and the sad part is that the referendum was not his worst policy, he was quite happy to bring in laws that will make rape more likely in Britain, just to get a few extra votes).
-
.... suspicion has it that the whole "circus" around Brexit is merely used as a tactical "magic trick" to distract/divert our attention from something much more important, which is supposed to be happening right now in front of our eyes without being noticed ...
Now I would like to know : What is it really all about ? ???
Could anyone please enlighten me ?
Thank you.
-
Paul, I did see "The Cameron Years" on TV while I was recently in the UK, and it reminded me that the promise of a referendum had been a carrot for many years prior to Cameron becoming PM. Euroscepticism has been the downfall of many a Tory leader!
Kristina, if Brexit is indeed a "magic trick" used to divert attention, it is certainly working!
It occurs to me that the mechanism of the referendum was dreadfully flawed from the beginning. Here in the US, amending the Constitution requires a much, much more rigorous process and cannot be done by a mere majority vote. This is where the UK went badly wrong. If you are going to propose something as radical as leaving the EU permanently, no matter which side "wins", the country as a whole will not "win" with such a small majority. This was by no means a mandate, so the country, should it even survive in its current form, will remain divided for the decades to come, if not for longer. If the result had been to Remain, voted for by the same small majority, the same problems would be evident.
With such a small majority, no one can claim to represent "the will of the people". This is an enormous problem.
If one wants to leave somewhere, surely there must be in mind a map, a mode of transport AND a destination in mind. The 2016 referendum offered none of these. If the voters were so sure they knew what Brexit really was, why does no one still really know?
-
With such a small majority, no one can claim to represent "the will of the people". This is an enormous problem.
If one wants to leave somewhere, surely there must be in mind a map, a mode of transport AND a destination in mind. The 2016 referendum offered none of these. If the voters were so sure they knew what Brexit really was, why does no one still really know?
Well said MooseMom !
As you have pointed out, there was nothing prepared, nothing was in place, no destination was given and no one still really knows.
One wonders what that says about the seriousness and/or capability of our politicians ?
That is one of the reason why so many people are confused about whether or not Brexit was really meant ... or perhaps it was not ?
Or was it meant as a "Magic Trick" to divert our attention from something else? But if that is/was the case, what for and why ?
Take your pick what to believe ... there are so many different theories and choices to pick from ... :waiting;
-
MooseMom, that was probably the best analysis of Brexit I have heard in a long time. The next time you are in the UK you don't fancy taking on the job of Prime Minister do you?
The reason it was badly thought out was that it was done in a rushed panic. The Conservative party was in power after having lost several elections in a row and having been out of power for 14 years. They were desperate not to end up back in the wilderness. A new political party was formed whose one and only policy was to get out of Europe, and a lot of die hard Conservative voters were defecting to them. Probably not enough to get this new party a victory in the next election, but enough to reduce the Conservative party's votes so that they would loose the next election. So Cameron promised the referendum simply to save his party, or more precisely, to save his job as Prime Minister.
-
... Perhaps one of the stumbling-blocks for a Brexit-go-ahead may be Northern Ireland?
After all, the Republic of Southern Ireland is independent from London/Westminster and it is also a member of the European Union and - of course - Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland, which would mean an independence from Westminster ?
If that would/could be allowed to happen, the next step would be - of course - that the Scottish and the Welsh people could also wish to become independent from Westminster as well and then ........ ?
Such thoughts could leave lots of questions about Brexit, couldn't they ?
-
I was watching Question Time while I was over there, and Fiona Bruce asked the audience if they had thought about NI before casting their vote in the referendum. They all murmured various forms of "no". One man even raised his hand and said that not for a single moment had he considered the consequences for Northern Ireland.
And with Nicola Sturgeon raising the question of another Scottish Independence referendum, it is all quite worrying.
-
Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland
Now this is why it is important you start watching the news. Say that in public in Northern Ireland and you will get severely beaten. Say that in private to a patriotic Northern Irish man and there is a real possibility they will kill you, and I mean that literally. Oh, and if you survive and go to the police, the most likely outcome is that you will go to jail for inciting racial hatred.
Also, DO NOT call it "Southern Ireland", just Ireland - adding the "Southern" is another racial slur, would be safer to refer to a black man by the N word than call Ireland "Southern Ireland"
Quick history lesson:
When Britain gave independence to Ireland there were some people who wanted to remain British, so Northern Ireland was split off as a different country to Ireland, for them to live in. (Think of the partition of India into India and Pakistan.) Unfortunately, a lot of people who wanted to be part of an independent Ireland were trapped there because their jobs/family/homes/etc. were there. The war between these two sides is what causes the violence, and stoking such violence up by saying things like "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland" is what could get you killed if you said it to the wrong Irishman.
Incidentally there is also a religious element to this, the Irish are staunch Catholics, whereas those who want NI to remain British are mostly Protestant, which is why you will often here it talked about as Protestants Vs Catholics.
OK that is a simplified version of a situation that deserves a thousand pages to explain fully, but just NEVER call Ireland "Southern Ireland", and NEVER EVER say "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland", not unless you want to be considered a racist, and get beaten up.
-
Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland
Now this is why it is important you start watching the news. Say that in public in Northern Ireland and you will get severely beaten. Say that in private to a patriotic Northern Irish man and there is a real possibility they will kill you, and I mean that literally. Oh, and if you survive and go to the police, the most likely outcome is that you will go to jail for inciting racial hatred.
Also, DO NOT call it "Southern Ireland", just Ireland - adding the "Southern" is another racial slur, would be safer to refer to a black man by the N word than call Ireland "Southern Ireland"
Quick history lesson:
When Britain gave independence to Ireland there were some people who wanted to remain British, so Northern Ireland was split off as a different country to Ireland, for them to live in. (Think of the partition of India into India and Pakistan.) Unfortunately, a lot of people who wanted to be part of an independent Ireland were trapped there because their jobs/family/homes/etc. were there. The war between these two sides is what causes the violence, and stoking such violence up by saying things like "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland" is what could get you killed if you said it to the wrong Irishman.
Incidentally there is also a religious element to this, the Irish are staunch Catholics, whereas those who want NI to remain British are mostly Protestant, which is why you will often here it talked about as Protestants Vs Catholics.
OK that is a simplified version of a situation that deserves a thousand pages to explain fully, but just NEVER call Ireland "Southern Ireland", and NEVER EVER say "Northern Ireland wants to be united with Southern Ireland", not unless you want to be considered a racist, and get beaten up.
That sounds very confusing indeed, especially since I have discussed this very issue with different people from both sides and I am still here and very much alive.
Nevertheless, I have noted what you say and thanks for the warning from Kristina.
-
It's debate night on the path to the General Election next month. Exciting, right? :sarcasm;
Any thoughts from anyone here on the future of Brexit, the election, anything?
-
Dear MooseMom,
I would be very surprised, if anyone here thinks too much about Brexit at this moment ... it seems we are all too shocked about the revelations coming to the surface when Prince Andrew gave this interview...
... The mind boggles and it is all too unbelievable to even think about and some people have even gone as far as questioning the judgement to allow the interview to take place in Buckingham Palace... and some others are already in the process to set up a "Save The Queen" initiative, but perhaps it has become a bit late? I don't know ... I honestly don't know ...
-
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.
The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.
-
Anyhoo, back to Brexit......
The saga continues on and on and on.... We have one political party that promises to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU, and one who will pull us out as soon after the election as the EU will allow. The best way to get through Brexit is if everyone votes for one or other of these two parties, then the winner takes all. However opinion poles say that most people are not going to do this. They are either going to vote for: The party that promised to get us out right after the referendum, but has been arguing about how to do it for over three years, and looks like it will never come to a conclusion and will still be arguing about it long after I am dead. Or they are going to vote for the party that has said that their policy is to have a second referendum, probably, but they might just cancel Brexit and remain in the EU, or possibly pull us out with an amazing deal with the EU - but they will absolutely, defiantly do one of those three things....or something else.
Since this thread will probably go on until Brexit/Remain is resolved, do not expect it to die anytime soon. This saga is scheduled to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and..........
-
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.
The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?
-
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?
Yes, but:
1) America is keen to do a trade deal with us as soon as Brexit is finalised, do you really think they will jeopardise that by going after the eighth in line for the throne of Great Britain?
2) As to the British public, they get bored easily, give it a couple of weeks and they will give up on the story, then the press will give up as it no longer sells copy, the TV and radio will give up as it no longer gets viewers/listeners, and other things will take the place of this story in the press, such as silly season type Christmas stories.
3) We have an election coming up, no one in authority wants this type of story running to mess with that.
4) As of yesterday, he has been fired or resigned as a "royal", except for family business (he is still the Queen's son) he will take no part in royal activities whatsoever. The public have had their pound of flesh, he has been punished, they don't care about anything else.
In short, pretty much everyone is saying "Nothing to see here, move along please, move along." But they are wasting their time, the gawkers are already moving off, and are looking for the next big thing to gawk at lasciviously.
-
... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000
This is actually a popular urban myth, the Royal Family don't get paid a penny. What happens is that government has control of their properties, and whatever they earn the government takes 85%, and share out the remaining 15% between the Royals.
This is still a lot of money, but then the Royal Family have been the kings and queens of Britain for centuries, and of England for even longer, so have acquired an enormous amount of land and property. But basically, we (the tax payers) don't give them a penny, and they are effectively paying 85% tax on their earnings.
-
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.
The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?
According to the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Mail Online etc. , the latest news on this are as follows :
"Her Majesty summoned her 'favourite son' to deliver the bad news and told him he would lose his £250,000 taxpayer-funded salary and would only appear in public at family events".
-
According to the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Mail Online etc. , the latest news on this are as follows :
"Her Majesty summoned her 'favourite son' to deliver the bad news and told him he would lose his £250,000 taxpayer-funded salary and would only appear in public at family events".
Not sure if you are pointing out that he has lost his job or that they say "taxpayer-funded salary". If you post was about him loosing his job, then I already mentioned that. If your post was to point out that they say "taxpayer-funded salary", never trust the daily/Sunday/online Mail, it has only a loose knowledge of the truth, and the Evening Standard is not too good a paper since it went "free" (the ownership of the paper changed hands a few years back, and the entire company was sold for a penny, the general opinion in the business was that the new owners overpaid). A good hint at the questionable accuracy is the comment "favourite son", he isn't, or at least the Queen has never said so. Also, the official line is that he resigned, not that the Queen "fired" him, she may have done, but that is an assumption by the press, not a known fact. Although £250,000 could be an accurate figure for his share of the money.
However, if he is no longer getting a share of the Royal Purse, and has given up all his "jobs", one wonders how he is going to live, he must be getting some money from somewhere. I cannot imagine that the government will allow the Queen's son to live on the street, begging for food.
-
I don’t know why you are still talking Brexit! I thought one or two politicians set hard dates for when it would be complete.
-
I don’t know why you are still talking Brexit! I thought one or two politicians set hard dates for when it would be complete.
Oh yes they did, then they missed the date, set a new one, missed that, set a new one, then so on.
The most recent deadline was 31st of October, the Prime Minister said he would rather die in a ditch than ask the EU for another extension. In the end he missed that deadline and got yet another extension. The Brexiteers are disappointed that he went back on his word and asked for the extension. The rest of us are disappointed that he went back on his word and did not die in a ditch.
We are now having an election to sort the matter out, with the most likely winner being the party that has screwed it up for over three years, and will probably be screwing it up three years hence. As I said in a previous post, don't expect this thread to die anytime soon!
-
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.
The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?
P.S. In terms of "What else is there to be discovered ..." .. should it not be mentioned that, despite the fact - and I quote : "Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king" - he certainly must have caused a huge security-risk to the UK not only because of the possibility of "filmed pillow-talk" etc. and resulting blackmail etc., etc., but because his mother, The Queen, is Head of State and therefore in a very confidential position and as her son who regularly sees her, dines at Buckingham Palace etc. could he not have caused to be a National Security risk ?
-
Wooh, shouldn't this be in "Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry"? If there are enough British members from each side, this could become the nastiest argument on the board. There could even be blood.
Hello Paul ... and ... I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it, because, after all, we don't even have an idea whether or not it might be given a chance to happen during our life-time ...
P.S. There is still a lingering suspicion that politicians were taken by surprise when the outcome of voting did not comply with expectations ...
... Unfortunately nothing has been resolved or "gone forward" or changed since my first Brexit-input on 14th April 2018 and rumour has it that there won't be any results for a long time to come... :secret; but ... perhaps ... maybe :boxing; ?
-
Let an American share his views on this: It seems that a few people really want to leave, a few really wish to remain, and the majority can be swayed either way by the latest ad campaign, whether is is domestically funded or funded by nefarious foreign entities. Also, what the blazes does completing Brexit have to do with any trade deal with the US?
-
Also, what the blazes does completing Brexit have to do with any trade deal with the US?
1. With Brexit completed, the UK will be looking for trade deals with countries outside of the EU, and the US will see Britain as ripe for the picking. The UK will be free to set its own agricultural trade rules but will lack the "heft" that comes with being a member of a much larger economy (the EU). So, it is very possible that the UK will soften its regulations and will allow in US goods that have been hitherto curtailed by the EU (like the highly publicized "chlorinated chicken" and hormone-fed beef.). But as of now, the UK cannot make new trade deals until it has formally left the EU.
2. The NHS. As we all know, this US administration is very "transactional", and if it remains in government after 2020, the UK will be under intense pressure from US trade negotiators to allow US health care private companies access to the UK health market, ie, the revered NHS. This issue is already a matter of concern in Great Britain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/us-wants-access-to-nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/31/us-style-healthcare-nhs-patients-election-health
https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188831701654482945
3. Believe it or not, a lot depends upon the fate of Northern Ireland and how/if Brexit creates a new hard border between NI and the Republic, which is remaining in the EU. Many Senators will simply NOT agree to anything they see as negatively impacting the Good Friday agreement, including trade.
https://www.courthousenews.com/pelosi-no-us-uk-trade-deal-if-brexit-includes-hard-border-with-ireland/
-
It seems that a few people really want to leave, a few really wish to remain
Oh no, nearly 50% want to remain, nearly 50% want to leave, and only about 5% are "on the fence". And the "leavers" include several very angry people. If we have a second referendum, and the 5% decide to vote "remain", that will be enough to tip the scales into the "remain camp". At least one politician has pointed out that if this happens there will be riots and violence from a fair proportion of the "leave camp". You must remember that the main reason most "leavers" voted to leave is that they wanted "all these bloody foreigners" out of the country. Many are extreme fascists, and are prepared to do whatever necessary to get us out of Europe. This is not a "few people" but a large angry mob. Civil war has been suggested as the possible outcome, and although I personally consider this unlikely in the extreme, I'm not 100% convinced of my own argument. People are stockpiling food, water, and medicines in preparation for Brexit, and although most are doing this off their own back, the government advice is to stockpile,
As to "what the blazes does completing Brexit have to do with any trade deal with the US", What MooseMom said sums it up perfectly, but I would add that there is a lot of public hysteria about those two things. Even the "leavers" do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef, and as to allowing US health care private companies access to the NHS, if that happens I predict a riot.
In short, whatever happens, there will be bad blood and hatred between each side for at least a generation.
-
It is fortunate that Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king. If there was any real chance of him taking the throne there would be a lot more fuss. As it is, I expect the matter will die down eventually, assuming the US does not apply for an extradition order against him.
The main reason, IMHO, that the papers are jumping on him is NOT because he may have had sex with a seventeen year old girl, but because he tends to be arrogant, aloof, and a bit unpleasant to the press, and this gives them a chance for revenge.
... I beg to disagree...
It has been mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that he is the son of the Queen of England ... and for many years the British taxpayer has paid him alone a yearly state-funded-salary of £249.000 ... and it appears to be very frightening, that in his BBC-interview he never even bothered to mention any of the victims ... What else is there to be discovered ?
P.S. In terms of "What else is there to be discovered ..." .. should it not be mentioned that, despite the fact - and I quote : "Prince Andrew is only eighth in line to the throne, so is unlikely in the extreme to become king" - he certainly must have caused a huge security-risk to the UK not only because of the possibility of "filmed pillow-talk" etc. and resulting blackmail etc., etc., but because his mother, The Queen, is Head of State and therefore in a very confidential position and as her son who regularly sees her, dines at Buckingham Palace etc. could he not have caused to be a National Security risk ?
... I so wish I could have been wrong, but perhaps my instinct might have been right with the lingering suspicion that Prince Andrew became a dangerous Security risk for the country of which his mother is Head of State ... ?
... A book has been written by the former Mossad-handler of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in which he claims they were spies and used underage girls (and boys?) for "clients" and ran a blackmail enterprise for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians ...
It seems that this story is only just unfolding itself and is becoming very politically involved indeed.... and perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread about it? :twocents;
-
It seems that this story is only just unfolding itself and is becoming very politically involved indeed.... and perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread about it? :twocents;
'Tis Done:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=35283
Now don't say I never give you anything!
-
Thank you Paul ...
... Since the election-result (?) is "with us", the leading question remains : what is going to happen first : Boris-Island or Brexit ? What is your guess...?
P.S. One of the great disappointments of becoming older (and wiser?) is the fact that "things" become more predictable ...
-
I don't trust anything "The Idiot Johnson" says, will not be surprised if we are still discussing Brexit this time next year (and the year after, and the year after that....).
-
I don't trust anything "The Idiot Johnson" says, will not be surprised if we are still discussing Brexit this time next year (and the year after, and the year after that....).
Hello Paul,
Just imagine : Who would have thought that the two of us would agree :o ? But here we are ... and ... let's just hope we are both wrong with our forebodings and thoughts ... :twocents;
-
It seems to me that this past general election pretty much served as a "second referendum". I will be so very interested to see how a Tory government strives to meet the needs and demands of long time Labour voting constituencies.
As for the earlier discussion on what Brexit has to do with US trade policy, the US is gonna eat your lunch (and I say that with no pleasure whatsoever). Not only are you going to have to worry about chlorinated chicken, but you're going to have to worry even more about the climate because the US under Trump sure isn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/21/us-bans-mention-of-climate-in-uk-trade-talks
-
It is over. Yesterday (Friday 31st January) at 11pm GMT the United Kingdom (Britain and Northern Island) finally left the EU. So that is all that finished isn't it?
Well No, not yet.
For starters, there is a one year "buffer" zone. Although we are not in the EU as I type this, we still have to obey EU rules until the first of January next year (in exchange we still get the benefits of being a member until then too). And then we have this "deal" we are supposed to be working out with Europe, so that trade can continue with Europe after the end of this year. Our Prime Minister says that this too will be done within a year, but his opposite numbers in Europe think it will take much longer, and since the leaving deal took over three years to decide, and that was just our own politicians arguing with each other before Europe was even involved, I would not be surprised if this went on until long after I am dead.
But the one thing that is certain is that the UK is no longer part of the EU and that at the end of this year the current agreement between us and mainland Europe ends. At that point we may be asking your Red Cross to start dropping care parcels of food and medicines, because the most pessimistic predictions are that we will soon be in need those after the 31st of December.