Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blaming the hard-line CON Brexit fundamentalists who are takin

124

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    Sean_F said:

    tyson said:

    Funnily enough I had the misfortune to sit next to a full on Brexit (really quite famous after I wikied him) Peer historian at my local....in Oxford this very evening.

    The only argument he was able to give about Brexit was Parliamentary sovereignty.

    I tried to explain to him as amicably as possible that Brexit has already cost me where I live, thousands upon thousands of squidlies, caused my wife and her family undue anxiety and the rest....

    and for what. For fucking Parliamentary sovereignty over the spectre of EU regulation..he couldn't even give me one example where Parliamentary sovereignty would make one iota of a smidgen of a bit of interest in my life. Not one. Not one repeat. Not one. Do I need to repeat that again.


    So my conclusion...you Brexiteers who quote Parliamentary sovereignty are a bunch of nihilistic, destructive, ideological numpties.

    The rest of the Brexit voters who don't give a shit about Parliament are just simply racist and narrow minded, or illiterate. Take your pick where you stand.

    I care about Parliamentary sovereignty.

    If you don't would you be happy to abolish Parliament altogether and appoint Theresa May for life as dictatorial Lord Protector?
    Not Theresa May, but he feels love and loyalty towards Jean Claude Juncker.
    Demonising the EU will get you nowhere.

    My poor Breixt pub contact tonight bemoaned the lack of congeniality from the EU towards our democratic vote.

    How the hell could the EU give us a good deal when some, if not all EU countries, are facing populist movements? How could that work?

    The UK has to lose out as a result of the populist Brexit vote. Of course we could strike deals outside and become a global power again. There again I could have a threesome with Angelie Jolie and Cameron Diaz.
    By 'populism' do you mean 'democracy'?
    Probably....the prospect of illiterate nincompoops deciding my future fills me with dread...

    I think the Chinese Communist Party, providing they get to grips with wiping out elephants, tigers, climate change and whotnot, have it about right.
    I imagine that the they will wipe out elephants, tigers etc. In due course, along with much of their population.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Who specifically would you reduce?

    Should a skilled Canadian teacher be told they can't come over to make room for free movement from Europe? How do you justify it?
    The skilled Canadian teacher has no right to come to Britain. We can choose to invite them over or make it easy for them to come. Or not, as the case may be.

    FoM can be justified on the basis that:-

    [polite snip...]
    Either we have FoM for everyone, or FoM for no-one. Level the playing field.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    RobD said:

    MTimT said:

    The current system is not a nightmare. There are no jackboots kicking in my door. There is a framework of laws guaranteeing my security and rights and making it easy for me to contribute to the common good. The system is not perfect, nonetheless it works.

    To ask that it all be thrown away for an abstraction is not rational.

    Who on earth is asking for all that to be thrown out? We are simply leaving the EU, not throwing out the framework of laws that guarantee rights and security - which, BTW, pre-date the EU by centuries.

    For instance, habeas corpus = 1166, The Assize of Clarendon
    What are you blithering on about? We all know human rights/the rule of law were implemented by the EU.

    :D

    I must do better, read more history. But it is so hard when it keeps changing so fast. ;)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Who specifically would you reduce?

    Should a skilled Canadian teacher be told they can't come over to make room for free movement from Europe? How do you justify it?
    The skilled Canadian teacher has no right to come to Britain. We can choose to invite them over or make it easy for them to come. Or not, as the case may be.

    FoM can be justified on the basis that:-

    1. We along with our neighbours have made a conscious decision to make it easier for Europeans to live and move freely among European countries because we are neighbours and because it is one way of creating a friendly Europe rather than the Europe which existed for too much of the 20th century.

    2. European immigrants are some of the most productive immigrants there are and, on the whole, tend not to bring with them the problems associated with immigrants from faraway places and very different cultures.

    Appreciate that this is not an issue with Canadians on the whole but FoM does not stop them coming. It just means that they have no automatic right to come and may have to take their place in a queue.

    There are issues with FoM. I have outlined some of them in my thread headers. I think the belief in unlimited immigration as an unqualified good is a shibboleth which does not really stand up to close scrutiny. But, really, the most problematic issues we have associated with immigration do not come from having too many Polish plumbers, Portuguese nurses and Latvian IT specialists coming here.

    So if immigration is an issue we need to address - and it is - we should focus on what we can already control. So reintroduce the primary purpose rule to stop young British girls of Pakistani origin being married to cousins from Pakistan. Refuse to accept as asylum seekers and deport those who have arrived here after travelling through any number of safe countries. Take effective steps to deport those who arrive here illegally. Adopt something like the Swiss system re benefits to stop those coming here just for benefits

    I accept that I am probably a minority on this. But migration from EU countries is not really the biggest problem - let alone the biggest immigration problem - we have. And yet it seems to be determining our European strategy. It is both peculiar and short-sighted. And if controlling it means that we end up letting in more people from countries / groups which are associated with problems of integration etc, well that would be bloody daft, no?
    A set of proposals way too sensible for anyone to take any notice of them....
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    edited October 2017
    "LOL! For every 'business chief' wanting him sacked, there will be 100 who would be absolutely horrified" -even the Independent called him unprepossessing.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @seanjonesqc: There is a Tory on Newsnight complaining that the negotiation sequencing that the Govt expressly agreed to is unreasonable.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2017
    Mortimer said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I also note that @Beverley_C has appointed herself PB Empress of Womens’ Shoes.

    Hmm.....

    Just as well I was not on earlier as I might have had something to say about that. My shoe collection, my love of and desire for shoes ..... well, it’s incomprehensible to all the men I know.

    Still, as my Italian Mama rightly said: “One can never have too many shoes or handbags or gloves.”

    In our flat, the spare room is crammed full with pairs of my wife's shoes and handbags. I don't complain though, for fear of objections to the quantity of books that fill every other available recess in the flat.
    I am guilty on the books front as well, I’m afraid.

    Every time I ask my builder to build me more shelves he asks me why I don’t get rid of my books. Then he looks at me. Then he starts measuring up.
    My other half is threatening to introduce a "one in, one out" rule for books. We're contemplating a move and one of the bones of contention is that I want a study. Since I have a very big study in Hungary, that is apparently excessive.
    That is grounds for divorce.

    I was fortunate to grow up in a bookshop owned by my Mum. At the last count I have something over 20,000 books in my house, a situation helped by the fact my wife was also an avid reader/collector so the combined collection required a dedicated library when we moved in together.
    Is your favourite novel 'Books do Furnish a Room' ?
    :smile:

    Spent today in a stuffy Mayfair hotel basement room buying books from a Cheshire country house library that was formed between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. The range was incredible: my favourite purchase was a folio of 1862 photographs by a leading Jewish preraphelite; second favourite an early English book binding with endpapers from an early John Webster work. Books are sooooo fun.
    I finally got round to buying Blast I & II today online from France. The Black Sparrow reprint, mind, but still have half an eye out for the originals. Can't wait to get them (again - a friend borrowed them thirty years ago and I haven't seen them since).
  • Cyclefree said:


    The Canadian teacher has no right to come to Britain. We can choose to invite them over or make it easy for them to come.

    FoM can be justified on the basis that:-

    1. We along with our neighbours have made a conscious decision to make it easier for Europeans to live and move freely among European countries because we are neighbours and because it is one way of creating a friendly Europe rather than the Europe which existed for too much of the 20th century.

    2. European immigrants are some of the most productive immigrants there are and, on the whole, tend not to bring with them the problems associated with immigrants from faraway places and very different cultures.

    Appreciate that this is not an issue with Canadians on the whole but FoM does not stop them coming. It just means that they have no automatic right to come and may have to take their place in a queue.

    There are issues with FoM. I have outlined some of them in my thread headers. I think the belief in unlimited immigration as an unqualified good is a shibboleth which does not really stand up to close scrutiny. But, really, the most problematic issues we have associated with immigration do not come from having too many Polish plumbers, Portuguese nurses and Latvian IT specialists coming here.

    So if immigration is an issue we need to address - and it is - we should focus on what we can already control. So reintroduce the primary purpose rule to stop young British girls of Pakistani origin being married to cousins from Pakistan. Refuse to accept as asylum seekers and deport those who have arrived here after travelling through any number of safe countries. Take effective steps to deport those who arrive here illegally. Adopt something like the Swiss system re benefits to stop those coming here just for benefits

    I accept that I am probably a minority on this. But migration from EU countries is not really the biggest problem - let alone the biggest immigration problem - we have. And yet it seems to be determining our European strategy. It is both peculiar and short-sighted. And if controlling it means that we end up letting in more people from countries / groups which are associated with problems of integration etc, well that would be bloody daft, no?

    Surely the problem with the current system is that we have one set of very relaxed rules for one set of countries and very tough rules for another set. These rules do not reflect the relative worth of the people involved, simply their geographic location.

    So to put it in practical terms, why should a truck driver from Latvia with no tertiary education be considered more worthy of coming to our country than a highly educated and skilled petroleum engineer from Venezuela? Why should the former be allowed to come and go as he pleases whilst the latter has to jump through all manner of hoops and lives under constant threat of being kicked out?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Scott_P said:
    Does it name any of the 'business chiefs' calling for Hammond to be sacked?
    Interesting that the Mail talks about itself in the headline - shows the bubble that the declining media now inhabit.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Sean_F said:


    Your comment merely reflects the danger of assumptions.

    I have said repeatedly that I am NOT moving to Dublin
    I have said repeatedly that I have DUAL citizenship

    The tricolour merely reflects the fact that I lost my sense of national pride in being British and that is entirely down to Brexit.

    FYI - It has taken time to get things re-organised but I will have moved away from soggy, rainy old Manchester by Xmas.

    That's like saying I lost my sense of national pride because Labour won a majority.
    Some people actually do seem to feel that way because there are people out there portraying Brexit as restoring national pride and making Britain great again, etc etc, so the implication is that being in the EU destroyed or diminished that pride.

    Nowt as queer as folk....
  • The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    I think that sums up the present situation. The quicker we leave, the quicker we can move on and actually start sorting ourselves out. Remainers seem to be living in a strange world of endless, and unreachable hope, that Brexit will just be cancelled and we'll just move on and focus on the next project. It is quite tragic that some have not grasped the concept of acceptance.
  • tyson said:

    tyson said:

    Sean_F said:

    tyson said:

    Funnily enough I had the misfortune to sit next to a full on Brexit (really quite famous after I wikied him) Peer historian at my local....in Oxford this very evening.

    The only argument he was able to give about Brexit was Parliamentary sovereignty.

    I tried to explain to him as amicably as possible that Brexit has already cost me where I live, thousands upon thousands of squidlies, caused my wife and her family undue anxiety and the rest....

    and for what. For fucking Parliamentary sovereignty over the spectre of EU regulation..he couldn't even give me one example where Parliamentary sovereignty would make one iota of a smidgen of a bit of interest in my life. Not one. Not one repeat. Not one. Do I need to repeat that again.


    So my conclusion...you Brexiteers who quote Parliamentary sovereignty are a bunch of nihilistic, destructive, ideological numpties.

    The rest of the Brexit voters who don't give a shit about Parliament are just simply racist and narrow minded, or illiterate. Take your pick where you stand.

    I care about Parliamentary sovereignty.

    If you don't would you be happy to abolish Parliament altogether and appoint Theresa May for life as dictatorial Lord Protector?
    Not Theresa May, but he feels love and loyalty towards Jean Claude Juncker.
    Demonising the EU will get you nowhere.

    My poor Breixt pub contact tonight bemoaned the lack of congeniality from the EU towards our democratic vote.

    How the hell could the EU give us a good deal when some, if not all EU countries, are facing populist movements? How could that work?

    The UK has to lose out as a result of the populist Brexit vote. Of course we could strike deals outside and become a global power again. There again I could have a threesome with Angelie Jolie and Cameron Diaz.
    By 'populism' do you mean 'democracy'?
    Probably....the prospect of illiterate nincompoops deciding my future fills me with dread...

    I think the Chinese Communist Party, providing they get to grips with wiping out elephants, tigers, climate change and whotnot, have it about right.
    Glad you are showing your true colours once again. It makes it easier to scorn you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Anna said:

    Option A of non-enforcement wouldn't just apply to Irish goods though it would be any goods routed across the land border. If that's considered discriminatory then - heck- say any goods landed at a NI port or NI airport are treated the same as goods coming across the land. There's still a bottleneck issue in moving goods from NI to rest of UK if the route is used for tax avoidance. The government can manage the issue by keeping NI ports the same size they are today.

    Option B of enforcement by a different process than a hard border also doesn't discriminate - the enforcement might be more effective or less effective than the process at ports and airports, depending on the size of the fines applied.

    As for "interesting" cross border businesses - big deal - we already give regions tax breaks to encourage jobs and investment with Enterprise Zones, with any luck NI would get a similar effect via different tax breaks.

    I know neither option is optimal compared to an FTA with Ireland, but both can work even without a deal from the EU. And even if smuggling/tax evasion did turn out to be a major social or economic problem - the government in Westminster or Stormont could decide at a later date to change things. It's not urgent to find the long term solution immediately when there are viable solutions sustainable in the short-medium term.

    The WTO does not allow you to have two sets of tariff schedules according to how goods are landed. Indeed, just as with IATO, the ITU, and various other international organisations, they set the codes for products that are adopted worldwide and which tariff schedules are set against.

    It is incredibly prescriptive (and, by the way, we will be - errr - treaty bound to accept rulings of the WTO) and there is close to 100% (99.999%) chance that the WTO would rule that this does not accord with our treaty obligations.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Freedom of movement with Canada would help Mr Screaming Eagles...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    PAW said:

    Beverley_C - I have an idea that moving to the Irish Republic (I think you intend to) will not be the best way of avoiding brexit blues.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-attend-dublin-abortion-rights-protest-1.3239832
    PAW - Glad to see that the "Bev is going to Ireland" meme is still going round and round PB after repeated denials on my part.

    Keep up the good work Sunil

    (BTW Abortion is not Brexit - my cure for the Brexit blues is entirely different)
    Why do you fly the flag of a country that restricts women's access to abortion?
    I fly the flag of a country that has made huge social strides in my lifetime and looks like it will be making more. Ireland has gone from a totally parochial backwater to a far more modern outlook. Brexit-UK seems to be going the other way.
    I must have missed the bit where Theresa May banned abortion...
    Maybe PM Rees-Mogg will oblige? His views are already on record.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    @sean F...do you vote with confidence in the lot you are voting for...particularly UKIP who are mostly just bonkers?

    The best people to vote for are those who really do not care too much about anything. Harold Wilson was a good example. Tony Blair was another until he believed in something.

    T May could possibly be a contender because to all intents she is vacuous, but unfortunately she is held captive by some nut job, fruitcake, swivel eyes bazzokkos
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that Emma Thompson is now claiming that she suffered similar abuse to that alleged against Weinstein from “many other” men in the film industry. Is she going to name them, one wonders?

    As you might expect, popbitch this week is indispensable reading on this subject:

    https://twitter.com/popbitch/status/918559118557933573

    I found much of this shocking.

    What a charming industry the entertainment industry is...Inches for Column Inches etc etc etc.

    There is worse. The fashion industry.
    I notice Dov Charney, the guy behind American Apparel, is back in the business.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SteveRW said:

    The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    I think that sums up the present situation. The quicker we leave, the quicker we can move on and actually start sorting ourselves out. Remainers seem to be living in a strange world of endless, and unreachable hope, that Brexit will just be cancelled and we'll just move on and focus on the next project. It is quite tragic that some have not grasped the concept of acceptance.

    It's precisely the middle classes who on the one hand are educated enough to understand Brexit and on the other who will suffer from the diminution of wealth for the country it entails, unlike the working and upper classes respectively so of course they care.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Leaving the EU does not threaten our basic living standards.

    But, for me, the type of society we live in, the rights we enjoy, and how we're governed are all-important. As are the values we set and defend to future generations that will follow us.

    We only live for, what, perhaps 80 years on this planet, if we're lucky?

    As I get older, the more I realise that the level of cash I have sitting in my bank account, and whether it's 10% higher, or 10% lower, actually makes very little difference to my intrinsic happiness, contentment or well-being.

    The choices and freedoms and political power I enjoy do.

    From a different viewpoint, I agree, although as I get older I care a bit less about the political power and a bit more about personal relationships. By the time I'm 90 I dare say I'll feel that the world will sort itself out as it sees fit - maybe less anxious to influence those decisions because I don't have children.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    MTimT said:

    tyson said:

    and for what. For fucking Parliamentary sovereignty over the spectre of EU regulation..he couldn't even give me one example where Parliamentary sovereignty would make one iota of a smidgen of a bit of interest in my life. Not one. Not one repeat. Not one. Do I need to repeat that again.

    I made a post the other day along those lines. I asked what difference "sovereignty" will make to the household bills, food on the table or other practical day-to-day things. Like the thread header recently, I cannot eat a blue passport.

    I got no responses for the very obvious reason that "sovereignty" is Fool's Gold at best ...
    It depends by what currency you judge your politics.

    For some, the amount of cash in the bank and pragmatics of day-to-day living is all that really matters. For others, having the right to vote to change laws and regulations, and reverse them, is what makes them feel free and empowered.

    Neither is foolish.
    How do you like your passport cooked? I hope feeling empowered will keep you warm at night. Etc etc....

    It seems to me that post-EU, the situation for many people will be worse than they are under the current system. The current system is not a nightmare. There are no jackboots kicking in my door. There is a framework of laws guaranteeing my security and rights and making it easy for me to contribute to the common good. The system is not perfect, nonetheless it works.

    To ask that it all be thrown away for an abstraction is not rational.
    Leaving the EU does not threaten our basic living standards.

    But, for me, the type of society we live in, the rights we enjoy, and how we're governed are all-important. As are the values we set and defend to future generations that will follow us.

    We only live for, what, perhaps 80 years on this planet, if we're lucky?

    As I get older, the more I realise that the level of cash I have sitting in my bank account, and whether it's 10% higher, or 10% lower, actually makes very little difference to my intrinsic happiness, contentment or well-being.

    The choices and freedoms and political power I enjoy do.

    My realization in the last decade has been that most 'assets' are in fact liabilities. Once body, shelter and security are taken care of, happiness has bugger all to do with cash or shiny cars.
    :+1:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    To come to Sunil's defence, he is of course perfectly correct. The EU has a wall round it. It is not a physical wall, but it is a more real wall than Trump's wall.

    We hear a lot from Remainers about the rich funds coming to the UK Universities from the EU.

    Can those funds be used to support a doctoral student from India? No. A doctoral student from Russia? No. A doctoral student from China? No.

    Compare this now to the US. On an American grant (paid for by American taxpayers), can a doctoral student from India be supported ? Yes. Can one from Russia be supported ? Yes. Can one from China be supported ? Yes.

    Now ask -- in the list of the best 100 universities, how many are there from the US? In fact, almost all of them are from the US. If you want the strongest universities in the world, you take anyone who is brilliant. You don't ask -- as the EU does -- whether they have a EU passport.

    Sunil described it as a racist policy. It is. It is a fence around the EU. That is how it is seen in Asia or in Russia or in America.

    The Universities in Trump's America are still way more generous than any University in the EU when it comes to hiring international talent.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_P said:
    Giving ammunition to Barnier et al.... great.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    GIN1138 said:

    OchEye said:

    One thing I am beginning to get a little worried about, is that over the past few days I've become increasingly aware on social media and on phone ins on the radio, an increasing number of people starting to talk about ditching the monarchy. OK, there's always one or two going off on a wee rant, and everyone tut tuts or has a giggle at them, but not now. There seems to be a mood change, and our political class are missing it.

    Nothing will happen while HMQ is alive.

    But King Charles and Queen Camilla could bring the whole show down...
    Perhaps I should be clearer, the Monarchy is being represented as the pinnacle of the ruling class, in other words, the lightning rod. But, it is the actual rulers in Westminster that are causing the electricity to begin to flow. Too many in the political bubble have forgotten that just because most people are not public school /oxbridge educated, that they are not stupid. People can see what is going on on the government benches, they realise that they are being being talked down to, they know that the government has no idea of the misery that they are having to endure - and they are beginning to to get angry.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    PAW said:

    I never would have guessed Beverley_C was Mancunian...

    I am not. I just happen to live here, though not for much longer.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Evening to one and all.

    I am, possibly, being a bit thick here but why can’t we stay in the Single Market, Customs Union with FoM and reduce non-EU immigration?

    If what people care about is reducing immigration and having control over it, why not take steps to reduce that over which we indisputably do have control? And parts of which, frankly, create more problems for the country than allowing all of Spain’s nurses to move here.

    Sure - we lose the ability to have our own trade deals but in the real world (a) how important is that to voters and (b) we will be the weaker party so that freedom is probably more apparent than real.

    Sure - we will still face ECJ jurisdiction but any agreement we have with anyone is going to need some final court of adjudication. The ECJ is not notably so much worse than any other possible court.

    I simply do not understand why the government does not put forward a proposal that would go some way to reconciling those who voted Remain, would put our relations with the EU on a better footing (they are not going to go away, after all) and would not cause unnecessary and potentially very serious economic disruption.

    It would also have the benefit of giving us time to think about what our European strategy should be over the long-term and does not burn our bridges with the EU should changes happen within it that might make us want to reconsider.

    Well, I do - the government has painted itself into a corner and is scared of the hard Brexiteers. But surely there are the votes in the Commons for such an outcome?

    Or am I being thick / naive / a dreamer / insanely optimistic?

    I think FoM, the concept at least, is a good one. But the reason I think it needs overhauling and why we should not control immigration from outside the EU, is because we attract visitors from India, Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and so on who are lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses and skilled workers. The equivalent numbers from the EU are significantly low skilled or have nothing more to offer than a working class Brit has. Therefore we need to ask who we need in the country and what can they offer. It has nothing to do with where they come from, or the colour of their skin, but if you want a fair immigration system, then everyone, from anywhere, should be having to follow the same immigration application system. Others you are inadvertently discriminating against groups of people and favouring others just because they are geographically located in specified area. So our immigration policy is currently dictated by luck rather than skill.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    RobD said:

    PAW said:

    Beverley_C - I have an idea that moving to the Irish Republic (I think you intend to) will not be the best way of avoiding brexit blues.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-attend-dublin-abortion-rights-protest-1.3239832
    PAW - Glad to see that the "Bev is going to Ireland" meme is still going round and round PB after repeated denials on my part.

    Keep up the good work Sunil

    (BTW Abortion is not Brexit - my cure for the Brexit blues is entirely different)
    Do you think that might have anything to do with the fact your avatar is an Irish flag, and you keep talking about having made arrangements to move, despite living near Greater Manchester?
    Your comment merely reflects the danger of assumptions.

    I have said repeatedly that I am NOT moving to Dublin
    I have said repeatedly that I have DUAL citizenship

    The tricolour merely reflects the fact that I lost my sense of national pride in being British and that is entirely down to Brexit.

    FYI - It has taken time to get things re-organised but I will have moved away from soggy, rainy old Manchester by Xmas.
    What's the deal with the shoes then? You can see how it could be misconstrued as symbol for leaving for Ireland.
    All my PB avatars have been shoes. I like shoes. A lot. Plato and I used to discuss them in great detail.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    RobD said:

    Giving ammunition to Barnier et al.... great.

    What do you mean?

    Surely these studies reveal the source of the £350m a week? All of the trade deals Liam Fox has lined up? The foreign investors gagging to engage with Global Britain?

    Right?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    tyson said:

    @sean F...do you vote with confidence in the lot you are voting for...particularly UKIP who are mostly just bonkers?

    The best people to vote for are those who really do not care too much about anything. Harold Wilson was a good example. Tony Blair was another until he believed in something.

    T May could possibly be a contender because to all intents she is vacuous, but unfortunately she is held captive by some nut job, fruitcake, swivel eyes bazzokkos

    Major was the best Tory leader for similar reasons. Warm beer, cricket, etc.. No one would die in a ditch, or even live in a ditch for it.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    SteveRW - you are right, I am sure. And because the middle class is so out of touch with the rest of the UK in prefering anybody except the English, it explains why Corbyn did so well - it was a vote against the middle class who have shown they will sell everybody else down the river for a few pounds.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Giving ammunition to Barnier et al.... great.

    What do you mean?

    Surely these studies reveal the source of the £350m a week? All of the trade deals Liam Fox has lined up? The foreign investors gagging to engage with Global Britain?

    Right?
    Hopefully they would identify risk areas that the UK negotiators should seek to avoid. Why should the UK negotiators be compelled to reveal all their work/studies? The EU aren't being subjected to the same requirement.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Scott_P said:
    Make them all Cabinet papers - and tell them they can have a peek in 30 years.

    I mean, if papers detailing any aspect of our Brexit negotiations aren't top secret in the national interest - what is?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049



    Leaving the EU does not threaten our basic living standards.

    But, for me, the type of society we live in, the rights we enjoy, and how we're governed are all-important. As are the values we set and defend to future generations that will follow us.

    We only live for, what, perhaps 80 years on this planet, if we're lucky?

    As I get older, the more I realise that the level of cash I have sitting in my bank account, and whether it's 10% higher, or 10% lower, actually makes very little difference to my intrinsic happiness, contentment or well-being.

    The choices and freedoms and political power I enjoy do.

    From a different viewpoint, I agree, although as I get older I care a bit less about the political power and a bit more about personal relationships. By the time I'm 90 I dare say I'll feel that the world will sort itself out as it sees fit - maybe less anxious to influence those decisions because I don't have children.
    Mate, do you want to get to 90?
    Apart from meat eating which is quite disgusting, and capitalism and greed, human beings clinging onto life at all costs is pretty sad.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    RobD said:

    Hopefully they would identify risk areas that the UK negotiators should seek to avoid.

    There aren't any. Brexit is our gateway to limitless opportunity.

    Right?
  • PAW said:

    Beverley_C - I have an idea that moving to the Irish Republic (I think you intend to) will not be the best way of avoiding brexit blues.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-attend-dublin-abortion-rights-protest-1.3239832
    PAW - Glad to see that the "Bev is going to Ireland" meme is still going round and round PB after repeated denials on my part.

    Keep up the good work Sunil

    (BTW Abortion is not Brexit - my cure for the Brexit blues is entirely different)
    Why do you fly the flag of a country that restricts women's access to abortion?
    I fly the flag of a country that has made huge social strides in my lifetime and looks like it will be making more. Ireland has gone from a totally parochial backwater to a far more modern outlook. Brexit-UK seems to be going the other way.
    I must have missed the bit where Theresa May banned abortion...
    Maybe PM Rees-Mogg will oblige? His views are already on record.
    Um, Rees-Mogg is just an MP, not PM!
  • SteveRW said:


    I think FoM, the concept at least, is a good one. But the reason I think it needs overhauling and why we should not control immigration from outside the EU, is because we attract visitors from India, Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and so on who are lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses and skilled workers. The equivalent numbers from the EU are significantly low skilled or have nothing more to offer than a working class Brit has. Therefore we need to ask who we need in the country and what can they offer. It has nothing to do with where they come from, or the colour of their skin, but if you want a fair immigration system, then everyone, from anywhere, should be having to follow the same immigration application system. Others you are inadvertently discriminating against groups of people and favouring others just because they are geographically located in specified area. So our immigration policy is currently dictated by luck rather than skill.

    Agree 100%.

    Indeed it is because we sit behind our walls in Europe that we fail to realise how much of the rest of the world has caught up and surpassed us in terms of education and skills. The EU is inward looking and parochial. We need to be looking to the rest of the world because it will be they, not the EU, who rule the coming century.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Hopefully they would identify risk areas that the UK negotiators should seek to avoid.

    There aren't any. Brexit is our gateway to limitless opportunity.

    Right?
    Come off it. Surely you can see how this action would damage the UK's negotiating team.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    dixiedean said:

    tyson said:

    @sean F...do you vote with confidence in the lot you are voting for...particularly UKIP who are mostly just bonkers?

    The best people to vote for are those who really do not care too much about anything. Harold Wilson was a good example. Tony Blair was another until he believed in something.

    T May could possibly be a contender because to all intents she is vacuous, but unfortunately she is held captive by some nut job, fruitcake, swivel eyes bazzokkos

    Major was the best Tory leader for similar reasons. Warm beer, cricket, etc.. No one would die in a ditch, or even live in a ditch for it.
    I agree...and plus the fact that he was strumping Edwina only added to his charm after the event.

    Alan Johnson seems quite cheerful enough too..
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    SteveRW said:

    The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    I think that sums up the present situation. The quicker we leave, the quicker we can move on and actually start sorting ourselves out. Remainers seem to be living in a strange world of endless, and unreachable hope, that Brexit will just be cancelled and we'll just move on and focus on the next project. It is quite tragic that some have not grasped the concept of acceptance.

    I have accepted the result of the referendum, It was not my preferred outcome and I believe the sales pitch given by the Leave side was spurious to say the least. In fairness the Remain camp's message was equally flawed. That said, we are where we are. So far no proponent of Brexit has provided me with a vision which is nothing short of a fantasy or a potential economic catastrophe. What is your vision?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    tyson said:

    @sean F...do you vote with confidence in the lot you are voting for...particularly UKIP who are mostly just bonkers?

    The best people to vote for are those who really do not care too much about anything. Harold Wilson was a good example. Tony Blair was another until he believed in something.

    T May could possibly be a contender because to all intents she is vacuous, but unfortunately she is held captive by some nut job, fruitcake, swivel eyes bazzokkos

    No. I was (a long time ago) a true believer in the people I voted for. Now, I vote for the best option, out of what is available.
  • PAW said:

    SteveRW - you are right, I am sure. And because the middle class is so out of touch with the rest of the UK in prefering anybody except the English, it explains why Corbyn did so well - it was a vote against the middle class who have shown they will sell everybody else down the river for a few pounds.

    But that doesn't make sense, since Corbyn has promised even more immigration. I think Corbyn's success was due to bizarre Tory policies of stealing your houses and killing foxes. But Corbyn himself is both anti-EU and pro-EU and I think it depends on the wind direction as to what opinion he will have on any certain day. The LibDems, despite their rather lacklustre current appeal, are the only party with a clear policy on Brexit. You don't have to agree with them, but at least they're consistent. But the middle classes I think Giles Fraser is referring to are the Gina Miller's, Alistair Campbell's and Richard Branson's of the elitist establishment, not necessarily Maureen Botox-Boobjob from over the road.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    But with the additional handicap that we'd have to go all in, euro and schengen.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    edited October 2017
    "NHS 'more scared than ever', amid fears flu jab may not protect the old" - not so sure I will put my mother through it again - she has severe dementia so it falls to me to decide - she was violently sick for two days last year, and again the jab provided no protection against the flu "However, last year’s jab had zero effectiveness among over 65s, an official evaluation reveals".
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    If anyone wants to see Public Service Broadcasting in Norwich this Saturday the 14th...message me their email address through the link and I'll send the online tickets.

    Good night
  • tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    And you will be ignored for 40 years just like we were.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    SteveRW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Evening to one and all.

    I am, possibly, being a bit thick here but why can’t we stay in the Single Market, Customs Union with FoM and reduce non-EU immigration?

    If what people care about is reducing immigration and having control over it, why not take steps to reduce that over which we indisputably do have control? And parts of which, frankly, create more problems for the country than allowing all of Spain’s nurses to move here.

    Sure - we lose the ability to have our own trade deals but in the real world (a) how important is that to voters and (b) we will be the weaker party so that freedom is probably more apparent than real.

    Sure - we will still face ECJ jurisdiction but any agreement we have with anyone is going to need some final court of adjudication. The ECJ is not notably so much worse than any other possible court.

    I simply do not understand why the government does not put forward a proposal that would go some way to reconciling those who voted Remain, would put our relations with the EU on a better footing (they are not going to go away, after all) and would not cause unnecessary and potentially very serious economic disruption.

    It would also have the benefit of giving us time to think about what our European strategy should be over the long-term and does not burn our bridges with the EU should changes happen within it that might make us want to reconsider.

    Well, I do - the government has painted itself into a corner and is scared of the hard Brexiteers. But surely there are the votes in the Commons for such an outcome?

    Or am I being thick / naive / a dreamer / insanely optimistic?

    I think FoM, the concept at least, is a good one. But the reason I think it needs overhauling and why we should not control immigration from outside the EU, is because we attract visitors from India, Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and so on who are lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses and skilled workers. The equivalent numbers from the EU are significantly low skilled or have nothing more to offer than a working class Brit has. Therefore we need to ask who we need in the country and what can they offer. It has nothing to do with where they come from, or the colour of their skin, but if you want a fair immigration system, then everyone, from anywhere, should be having to follow the same immigration application system. Others you are inadvertently discriminating against groups of people and favouring others just because they are geographically located in specified area. So our immigration policy is currently dictated by luck rather than skill.
    A good carer is surely worth more to society than a dodgy accountant?

    I don' t think there is anything stopping us having a free movement agreement with Canada or Australia. We would benefit from it, as would they.

    Also. you don't need to give anyone citizenship.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @britainelects: Liberal Democrat GAIN Oxhey Hall & Hayling (Three Rivers) from Conservative.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    PAW said:

    Beverley_C - I have an idea that moving to the Irish Republic (I think you intend to) will not be the best way of avoiding brexit blues.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-attend-dublin-abortion-rights-protest-1.3239832
    PAW - Glad to see that the "Bev is going to Ireland" meme is still going round and round PB after repeated denials on my part.

    Keep up the good work Sunil

    (BTW Abortion is not Brexit - my cure for the Brexit blues is entirely different)
    Why do you fly the flag of a country that restricts women's access to abortion?
    I fly the flag of a country that has made huge social strides in my lifetime and looks like it will be making more. Ireland has gone from a totally parochial backwater to a far more modern outlook. Brexit-UK seems to be going the other way.
    I must have missed the bit where Theresa May banned abortion...
    Maybe PM Rees-Mogg will oblige? His views are already on record.
    Um, Rees-Mogg is just an MP, not PM!
    For now... ;)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572



    Surely the problem with the current system is that we have one set of very relaxed rules for one set of countries and very tough rules for another set. These rules do not reflect the relative worth of the people involved, simply their geographic location.

    So to put it in practical terms, why should a truck driver from Latvia with no tertiary education be considered more worthy of coming to our country than a highly educated and skilled petroleum engineer from Venezuela? Why should the former be allowed to come and go as he pleases whilst the latter has to jump through all manner of hoops and lives under constant threat of being kicked out?

    Indeed. Also, it is not just about the UK's economic issues - there is a historic moral dimension as well. Quite what moral obligation the UK has to the citizens of Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania etc, in contrast to citizens of the rest of the world, quite escapes me. If there is a moral obligation (to consider in additon to the economic one) it is to citizens of former colonies of the British Empire, who have become subject to ever more restrictions in a forlorn attempt to compensate for the effects of the free for all taking place within the EU. If you're from the Indian subcontinent - which Britain ruthlessly exploited economically for centuries - it must rankle to find that your immediate family cannot join you in the UK when you've seen the nature of your established multi-ethnic community change very rapidly thanks to unlimited Eastern European migration in the last decade.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    And you will be ignored for 40 years just like we were.
    But there will be a lot more of us Remoaners...we will infiltrate all the main parties....and we will represent the mainstream of business, media and journalism.....

    Do you think Brexit will sail serenely away with this huge anchor? Do you really think that will happen?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Who specifically would you reduce?

    Should a skilled Canadian teacher be told they can't come over to make room for free movement from Europe? How do you justify it?
    The skilled Canadian teacher has no right to come to Britain. We can choose to invite them over or make it easy for them to come. Or not, as the case may be.

    FoM can be justified on the basis that:-

    [polite snip...]
    Either we have FoM for everyone, or FoM for no-one. Level the playing field.
    Every immigration system in the world discriminates on basis of origin.

    Every single one.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    PAW said:

    Beverley_C - I have an idea that moving to the Irish Republic (I think you intend to) will not be the best way of avoiding brexit blues.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-attend-dublin-abortion-rights-protest-1.3239832
    PAW - Glad to see that the "Bev is going to Ireland" meme is still going round and round PB after repeated denials on my part.

    Keep up the good work Sunil

    (BTW Abortion is not Brexit - my cure for the Brexit blues is entirely different)
    Why do you fly the flag of a country that restricts women's access to abortion?
    Because she's a dual national Sunil. If you don't want people with Irish passports to contribute to the site then say so, but we'd lose Beverley_C, Cyclefree, Alanbrooke and no doubt others. And I'm not convinced the site would be better for the lack thereof.
  • SteveRW said:

    The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    I think that sums up the present situation. The quicker we leave, the quicker we can move on and actually start sorting ourselves out. Remainers seem to be living in a strange world of endless, and unreachable hope, that Brexit will just be cancelled and we'll just move on and focus on the next project. It is quite tragic that some have not grasped the concept of acceptance.

    I have accepted the result of the referendum, It was not my preferred outcome and I believe the sales pitch given by the Leave side was spurious to say the least. In fairness the Remain camp's message was equally flawed. That said, we are where we are. So far no proponent of Brexit has provided me with a vision which is nothing short of a fantasy or a potential economic catastrophe. What is your vision?
    What is my vision? Great question. I don't have a vision. Only aspiration. I don't think that Brexit will be a catastrophe or a falling off the cliff, nor do I think it will be a Golden Utopia where streets are paved with gold. I think for the vast majority of us, nothing much will change, because most of us have no dealing or benefit from the EU. What it will mean is that once again we can blame our Government for their errors and not allow them to blame the EU. They will be wholly accountable and as such we can see why we are voting for them or kicking them out. I think we'll have a recession within five years, in or out of the EU, and I think we'll continue trading with the EU and with other countries on mutually agreed terms. I don't think they'll be mass unemployment or grounded aircraft.

    I have aspirations that this country will prove to the world that you can actually do OK on your own, you don't need to be dictated to by other lesser nations. And whether that term is liked or popular, there are lesser nations, contributing next to nothing into the EU kitty, dictating to us how much we should pay them!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    PAW said:

    SteveRW - you are right, I am sure. And because the middle class is so out of touch with the rest of the UK in prefering anybody except the English, it explains why Corbyn did so well - it was a vote against the middle class who have shown they will sell everybody else down the river for a few pounds.

    From a data point of view, is he?

    Do you have rates of economic activity by country of origin for immigrants?

    I will search them out, but I suspect that EU immigrants are well above those from Pakistan, Bangladesh or India. And I suspect they are on a par with the US and Canada.
  • tyson said:

    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    And you will be ignored for 40 years just like we were.
    But there will be a lot more of us Remoaners...we will infiltrate all the main parties....and we will represent the mainstream of business, media and journalism.....

    Do you think Brexit will sail serenely away with this huge anchor? Do you really think that will happen?
    I think you will find that you are scorned and ridiculed as you justly deserve. And all the while the EU will be integrating further, making it less and less attractive and the chances of us ever rejoining will be receding by the year.

    Thankfully those "illiterate nincompoops" you scorn will make sure we never rejoin.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    RobD said:

    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    But with the additional handicap that we'd have to go all in, euro and schengen.
    The problem for Brexit is that we'd take that warts and all, rather than have to plough on with Brexit. And quite simply there are a lot of us REmainers out there, and many of us have very sharp, pointy, well oiled, lubricated and financed elbows....

    Brexit is only ever going to fail unless it can get some very quick wins, or unless the EU implodes.....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited October 2017
    tyson said:

    If anyone wants to see Public Service Broadcasting in Norwich this Saturday the 14th...message me their email address through the link and I'll send the online tickets.

    Good night

    I would love to see them again, but committed this weekend. Have a good show!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SteveRW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I think FoM, the concept at least, is a good one. But the reason I think it needs overhauling and why we should not control immigration from outside the EU, is because we attract visitors from India, Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and so on who are lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses and skilled workers. The equivalent numbers from the EU are significantly low skilled or have nothing more to offer than a working class Brit has. Therefore we need to ask who we need in the country and what can they offer. It has nothing to do with where they come from, or the colour of their skin, but if you want a fair immigration system, then everyone, from anywhere, should be having to follow the same immigration application system. Others you are inadvertently discriminating against groups of people and favouring others just because they are geographically located in specified area. So our immigration policy is currently dictated by luck rather than skill.
    We could let in whoever we want from outside the EU without any of these tiresome requirements. We don’t because people want immigration controlled and reduced. Since FoM limits what we can do re European immigrants, we have chosen to control non-European immigration.

    But if you want to lift those controls you can vote for parties advocating that.

    We can choose to abandon FoM but the price we will have to pay is the loss of the Single Market and Customs Union and the consequences of that. Is the ability to control movement of Europeans into this country worth the economic disruption we may well -increasingly seem likely to - suffer as a result of making such a choice?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    If anyone wants to see Public Service Broadcasting in Norwich this Saturday the 14th...message me their email address through the link and I'll send the online tickets.

    Good night

    I would love to see them again, but commuted this weekend. Have a good show!
    I'm stuck in Oxford and then Budapest......
  • AnnaAnna Posts: 59
    rcs1000 said:

    Anna said:

    Option A of non-enforcement wouldn't just apply to Irish goods though it would be any goods routed across the land border. If that's considered discriminatory then - heck- say any goods landed at a NI port or NI airport are treated the same as goods coming across the land. There's still a bottleneck issue in moving goods from NI to rest of UK if the route is used for tax avoidance. The government can manage the issue by keeping NI ports the same size they are today.

    Option B of enforcement by a different process than a hard border also doesn't discriminate - the enforcement might be more effective or less effective than the process at ports and airports, depending on the size of the fines applied.

    As for "interesting" cross border businesses - big deal - we already give regions tax breaks to encourage jobs and investment with Enterprise Zones, with any luck NI would get a similar effect via different tax breaks.

    I know neither option is optimal compared to an FTA with Ireland, but both can work even without a deal from the EU. And even if smuggling/tax evasion did turn out to be a major social or economic problem - the government in Westminster or Stormont could decide at a later date to change things. It's not urgent to find the long term solution immediately when there are viable solutions sustainable in the short-medium term.

    The WTO does not allow you to have two sets of tariff schedules according to how goods are landed. Indeed, just as with IATO, the ITU, and various other international organisations, they set the codes for products that are adopted worldwide and which tariff schedules are set against.

    It is incredibly prescriptive (and, by the way, we will be - errr - treaty bound to accept rulings of the WTO) and there is close to 100% (99.999%) chance that the WTO would rule that this does not accord with our treaty obligations.
    Option B works regardless though within WTO rules as it is not a separate tariff system.

    I leave it to better legal minds as to whether having no tariff mechanism for certain points of entry or having a tariff mechanism that is routinely ignored is actually a breach. It's not discriminatory against any country and since the WTO founding principle is reducing and removing tariff and non tariff barriers, it would be very perverse if a country can't unilaterally remove tariff and non tariff barriers, even if only for a region.

    In any case, my point still stands that having an open border with Ireland can be managed from a customs viewpoint, isn't an immigration problem and doesn't need co-operation from the EU (even though that would be nice to have).
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572

    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    And you will be ignored for 40 years just like we were.
    That assumes that the EU will last that long. An organisation designed to coordinate the economic interests of 6 states, now showing that you cannot apply that same design to try and unify 28 states other than in a totally disfunctional, ossified and unaaccountable manner.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2017
    Scott_P said:
    Rightwing virtue signalling by Mr Berry, there.


  • A good carer is surely worth more to society than a dodgy accountant?

    I don' t think there is anything stopping us having a free movement agreement with Canada or Australia. We would benefit from it, as would they.

    Also. you don't need to give anyone citizenship.

    A good carer? Well, I worked in the care industry, and believe me, having British elderly people in the winter of lives who are being looked after by people they can barely understand is particularly good caring. It's the equivalent of being dumped in a box and just having to go through the motions of conveyor belt routines until you pop your clogs. And why would an accountant be "dodgy" just because it isn't a profession you care for?

    I agree about free movement with Canada and Australia. It is I believe, already under discussion.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    As an homage to Red Dwarf this evening, I think it appropriate to refer to the Bexit Ultras in future as Smegheads...
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    PAW said:

    SteveRW - you are right, I am sure. And because the middle class is so out of touch with the rest of the UK in prefering anybody except the English, it explains why Corbyn did so well - it was a vote against the middle class who have shown they will sell everybody else down the river for a few pounds.

    Tyson tonight proving that point.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited October 2017
    tyson said:

    RobD said:

    tyson said:

    I remember pre-referendum being assured only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.

    Asking for a friend, when's the ETA for that?

    Once Brexit occurs. I mean - who is going to want to re-open it, whatever the outcome? Most will rally round the deal, saying it was the best we could ever expect to get from those gits in Brussels. They will say the post-Article 50 shenanigans of the EU justfied the decision to leave in the first place. Soubry and Clark will chunter, but there will be no appetite whatsoever amongst the public to rejoin, so they will fade into anachronism.

    Then the Conservative Party will get on with making the best of our new status in the world. And keeping Labour out of power.
    Our relationship with Europe, and the hokey cokey that results has been a constant for the last 2 millennia. I do not believe this will end with Brexit, though the terms may shift.

    There will be a very active pro EU movement, and I think it very likely to be a core issue in subsequent UK GE.
    The post Brexit (if it happens....which I still question).... pro EU headbangers (like my good self) will be much, much more numerous and active and vocal than the EU sceptics ever were. Fact.
    But with the additional handicap that we'd have to go all in, euro and schengen.
    The problem for Brexit is that we'd take that warts and all, rather than have to plough on with Brexit. And quite simply there are a lot of us REmainers out there, and many of us have very sharp, pointy, well oiled, lubricated and financed elbows....

    Brexit is only ever going to fail unless it can get some very quick wins, or unless the EU implodes.....
    I am beginning to think that the cabinet themselves are planning a reverse ferret.

    Ultimately they are going to have to decide whether they put country before party. Many Tories are patriotic so will put country before party.

    We may get a clue in the response to the November budget.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Scott_P said:

    As an homage to Red Dwarf this evening, I think it appropriate to refer to the Bexit Ultras in future as Smegheads...

    And Remainers as Rimmers.....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Since people are questioning the meaning of each others' avatars, I would like to make clear I am still planning on banging in 60 goals in one season for Everton.
    Soon.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    I am beginning to think that the cabinet themselves are planning a reverse ferret.

    I've had the same feeling since Boris's 4000 word article. It was so detached from the reality of the negotiations that it could only be an act of positioning, but it wasn't the leadership he had his eye on, but his reputation as the defender of the Brexit that never was.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074



    Surely the problem with the current system is that we have one set of very relaxed rules for one set of countries and very tough rules for another set. These rules do not reflect the relative worth of the people involved, simply their geographic location.

    So to put it in practical terms, why should a truck driver from Latvia with no tertiary education be considered more worthy of coming to our country than a highly educated and skilled petroleum engineer from Venezuela? Why should the former be allowed to come and go as he pleases whilst the latter has to jump through all manner of hoops and lives under constant threat of being kicked out?

    Indeed. Also, it is not just about the UK's economic issues - there is a historic moral dimension as well. Quite what moral obligation the UK has to the citizens of Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania etc, in contrast to citizens of the rest of the world, quite escapes me. If there is a moral obligation (to consider in additon to the economic one) it is to citizens of former colonies of the British Empire, who have become subject to ever more restrictions in a forlorn attempt to compensate for the effects of the free for all taking place within the EU. If you're from the Indian subcontinent - which Britain ruthlessly exploited economically for centuries - it must rankle to find that your immediate family cannot join you in the UK when you've seen the nature of your established multi-ethnic community change very rapidly thanks to unlimited Eastern European migration in the last decade.
    I would argue that Britain has a strong moral obligation to Poland. Rather more than it has to Pakistan or Bangladesh or other former colonies. They are independent states and have been for decades. I don’t buy this idea that somehow we owe them special favours just because once we were all citizens of Queen Victoria. Not do I buy the idea that they owe us wonderful FTAs because we were the Mother Country once, a fantasy Liam Fox and others seem prone to.

    And not only does Britain have a moral obligation to Eastern European countries but it is also in its interests to have these countries within the comity of free liberal democracies of Europe. Look at what happened - and the price we had to pay - when they weren’t.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Scott_P said:

    As an homage to Red Dwarf this evening, I think it appropriate to refer to the Bexit Ultras in future as Smegheads...

    And Remainers as Rimmers.....
    Or Dwayne Remain Dibleys
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    Scott_P said:
    I think I'm right in saying that

    (1) others (not Maugham) have had a punt at getting these released under FOIA and failed,
    (2) Maugham's wheeze is to ask DExEU and HMT nicely to release it just because they have the info and therefore simply can release it,
    (3) if they say no but don't provide a jolly good reason why not then he'll seek judicial review of that decision,
    (4) in the JR, he will ask the court to conclude that being Obviously Top Bloody Secret doesn't outweigh his organisation's A10 human right to information,
    (5) if the JR concludes that the decision not to release them wasn't properly made, the court will require the two departments to make the decision again properly (which is not to say differently).

    One can see why he's not using his own money.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited October 2017

    I am beginning to think that the cabinet themselves are planning a reverse ferret.

    I've had the same feeling since Boris's 4000 word article. It was so detached from the reality of the negotiations that it could only be an act of positioning, but it wasn't the leadership he had his eye on, but his reputation as the defender of the Brexit that never was.
    Some are not strong on self awareness again this evening, I see....

  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    We are seeing the ties break between the conservative working class and the middle classes who really benefit from a Conservative government. The more the middle class call for more immigration the more the working class will say punitive taxation to punish them.
  • Cyclefree said:


    I would argue that Britain has a strong moral obligation to Poland. Rather more than it has to Pakistan or Bangladesh or other former colonies. They are independent states and have been for decades. I don’t buy this idea that somehow we owe them special favours just because once we were all citizens of Queen Victoria. Not do I buy the idea that they owe us wonderful FTAs because we were the Mother Country once, a fantasy Liam Fox and others seem prone to.

    And not only does Britain have a moral obligation to Eastern European countries but it is also in its interests to have these countries within the comity of free liberal democracies of Europe. Look at what happened - and the price we had to pay - when they weren’t.

    It has nothing to do with Queen Victoria nor our being the Mother Country. It does have something to do with two and a half million of them - all volunteers - fighting for us in WW2.

    Now I don't for second agree with all the rubbish about modern day Germany being an enemy because of what happened more than 70 years ago. But I do think we should pay our dues and we owe a great amount to the Indian sub-continent for their support in times of trouble.

    We went to war for Poland. That went a very long way to fulfilling any moral obligation you might feel we have. Poles also fought alongside us. But so did many more Indians and Pakistanis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Michael Portillo recounts on 'This Week' how he was having a conversation with David Owen comparing Foot and Corbyn and Owen was more favourable about Corbyn, saying unlike Foot he had made some compromises with the Labour Party where required, eg backing Remain and accepting a nuclear deterrerent
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    SteveRW said:

    SteveRW said:

    The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    I think that sums up the present situation. The quicker we leave, the quicker we can move on and actually start sorting ourselves out. Remainers seem to be living in a strange world of endless, and unreachable hope, that Brexit will just be cancelled and we'll just move on and focus on the next project. It is quite tragic that some have not grasped the concept of acceptance.

    I have accepted the result of the referendum, It was not my preferred outcome and I believe the sales pitch given by the Leave side was spurious to say the least. In fairness the Remain camp's message was equally flawed. That said, we are where we are. So far no proponent of Brexit has provided me with a vision which is nothing short of a fantasy or a potential economic catastrophe. What is your vision?
    What is my vision? Great question. I don't have a vision. Only aspiration. I don't think that Brexit will be a catastrophe or a falling off the cliff, nor do I think it will be a Golden Utopia where streets are paved with gold. I think for the vast majority of us, nothing much will change, because most of us have no dealing or benefit from the EU. What it will mean is that once again we can blame our Government for their errors and not allow them to blame the EU. They will be wholly accountable and as such we can see why we are voting for them or kicking them out. I think we'll have a recession within five years, in or out of the EU, and I think we'll continue trading with the EU and with other countries on mutually agreed terms. I don't think they'll be mass unemployment or grounded aircraft.

    I have aspirations that this country will prove to the world that you can actually do OK on your own, you don't need to be dictated to by other lesser nations. And whether that term is liked or popular, there are lesser nations, contributing next to nothing into the EU kitty, dictating to us how much we should pay them!
    ...but to ensure the future of my children I need a cast iron plan, not an aspiration. I need to see that our financial service sector will not relocate, lock stock and barrel to Frankfurt. I need to know that Ford won't move their engine plant from Bridgend to Valencia because we have no customs union. I need to know that I won't be paying WTO tariffs on my next Mercedes Benz. I need to know that (as Hammond commented upon) I can fly to a destination of my choice in France. Etc. Etc

    You can have your sovereignty, I don't care! But I need you to provide a road map to prevent that list of horrors above becoming reality!

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    SteveRW said:

    The best thing I saw today was a tweet from Giles Fraser who said, quite succinctly:
    "Remain has become a middle class tantrum of people who are used to getting their own way."

    If that's true, could you please tell my dad that I've finally made it to the middle class? He'd be ever so proud, if somewhat bemused.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    viewcode - you are middle class if, when you die, you can look back and see that you won't be missed.

  • ...but to ensure the future of my children I need a cast iron plan, not an aspiration. I need to see that our financial service sector will not relocate, lock stock and barrel to Frankfurt. I need to know that Ford won't move their engine plant from Bridgend to Valencia because we have no customs union. I need to know that I won't be paying WTO tariffs on my next Mercedes Benz. I need to know that (as Hammond commented upon) I can fly to a destination of my choice in France. Etc. Etc

    You can have your sovereignty, I don't care! But I need you to provide a road map to prevent that list of horrors above becoming reality!

    Given that companies used membership of the EU as a means to move their businesses out of the UK I am not sure why you think there will be any less security after we have left.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233



    Surely the problem with the current system is that we have one set of very relaxed rules for one set of countries and very tough rules for another set. These rules do not reflect the relative worth of the people involved, simply their geographic location.

    So to put it in practical terms, why should a truck driver from Latvia with no tertiary education be considered more worthy of coming to our country than a highly educated and skilled petroleum engineer from Venezuela? Why should the former be allowed to come and go as he pleases whilst the latter has to jump through all manner of hoops and lives under constant threat of being kicked out?

    Indeed. Also, it is not just about the UK's economic issues - there is a historic moral dimension as well. Quite what moral obligation the UK has to the citizens of Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania etc, in contrast to citizens of the rest of the world, quite escapes me. If there is a moral obligation (to consider in additon to the economic one) it is to citizens of former colonies of the British Empire, who have become subject to ever more restrictions in a forlorn attempt to compensate for the effects of the free for all taking place within the EU. If you're from the Indian subcontinent - which Britain ruthlessly exploited economically for centuries - it must rankle to find that your immediate family cannot join you in the UK when you've seen the nature of your established multi-ethnic community change very rapidly thanks to unlimited Eastern European migration in the last decade.
    Hold on, are you saying that an advantage of Brexit is that immigration will go up?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    PAW said:

    viewcode - you are middle class if, when you die, you can look back and see that you won't be missed.

    :)
  • Mexicanpete: Maybe all the horror scenarios you speak about are just scenarios you've dreamed up in your head. I think your children will be fine in the future. This is Great Britain, not Ethiopia. Perhaps if the future involved people aspiring to be magnificent rather than relying on other countries and the state to keep them in clothes, then the world be a much better place. You make your own success in life, anfd frankly using your children as a form of blackmail as if leave voters have done them wrong, is non-sensical claptrap. They'll be fed, they'll be clothed, go to school, college, get a job and survive. Just as people in this country have done so for hundreds of years. Perhaps people should stop being so melodramatic.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited October 2017
    Re the freedom of movement debate there is has been stated a campaign group Canzuk campaiging for freedom of movement between Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. The latter two of course already have it between themselves via the Trans Tasman agrrement.

    It won't go anywhere of course. They did a poll however which found 82 percent of New Zealanders, 75 per cent of Canadians and 70 per cent of Aussies backed the plan for free movement with the U.K. - but only 56 per cent of Brits. Given the Brits have most to gain as we live on a crowded small island I found that odd.


    http://www.cityam.com/249764/before-britain-joined-eec-we-had-free-movement-between

    http://www.canzukinternational.com
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587


    ...but to ensure the future of my children I need a cast iron plan, not an aspiration. I need to see that our financial service sector will not relocate, lock stock and barrel to Frankfurt. I need to know that Ford won't move their engine plant from Bridgend to Valencia because we have no customs union. I need to know that I won't be paying WTO tariffs on my next Mercedes Benz. I need to know that (as Hammond commented upon) I can fly to a destination of my choice in France. Etc. Etc

    You can have your sovereignty, I don't care! But I need you to provide a road map to prevent that list of horrors above becoming reality!

    Given that companies used membership of the EU as a means to move their businesses out of the UK I am not sure why you think there will be any less security after we have left.
    I don't disagree with your assertion that it is easy to move an enterprise out of the UK to mainland Europe whilst we are still in the club, but with the removal of the customs union and tariff free trading surely you can't deny there might in all probability be an accelerated exit?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    brendan16 said:

    Given the Brits have most to gain as we live on a crowded small island I found that odd.

    Brexit as a project to depopulate Britain and transport the indigenous population to the colonies? I suppose it's one way to leave Europe.

  • ...but to ensure the future of my children I need a cast iron plan, not an aspiration. I need to see that our financial service sector will not relocate, lock stock and barrel to Frankfurt. I need to know that Ford won't move their engine plant from Bridgend to Valencia because we have no customs union. I need to know that I won't be paying WTO tariffs on my next Mercedes Benz. I need to know that (as Hammond commented upon) I can fly to a destination of my choice in France. Etc. Etc

    You can have your sovereignty, I don't care! But I need you to provide a road map to prevent that list of horrors above becoming reality!

    Given that companies used membership of the EU as a means to move their businesses out of the UK I am not sure why you think there will be any less security after we have left.
    I don't disagree with your assertion that it is easy to move an enterprise out of the UK to mainland Europe whilst we are still in the club, but with the removal of the customs union and tariff free trading surely you can't deny there might in all probability be an accelerated exit?
    It depends entirely on the business environment we provide in the country after Brexit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    SteveRW said:

    Mexicanpete: Maybe all the horror scenarios you speak about are just scenarios you've dreamed up in your head. I think your children will be fine in the future. This is Great Britain, not Ethiopia. Perhaps if the future involved people aspiring to be magnificent rather than relying on other countries and the state to keep them in clothes, then the world be a much better place. You make your own success in life, anfd frankly using your children as a form of blackmail as if leave voters have done them wrong, is non-sensical claptrap. They'll be fed, they'll be clothed, go to school, college, get a job and survive. Just as people in this country have done so for hundreds of years. Perhaps people should stop being so melodramatic.

    You may well be right that everything will be hunky dory. Progress, so far between Mr Davis and M. Barnier suggests that may well be wishful thinking.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:


    I would argue that Britain has a strong moral obligation to Poland. Rather more than it has to Pakistan or Bangladesh or other former colonies. They are independent states and have been for decades. I don’t buy this idea that somehow we owe them special favours just because once we were all citizens of Queen Victoria. Not do I buy the idea that they owe us wonderful FTAs because we were the Mother Country once, a fantasy Liam Fox and others seem prone to.

    And not only does Britain have a moral obligation to Eastern European countries but it is also in its interests to have these countries within the comity of free liberal democracies of Europe. Look at what happened - and the price we had to pay - when they weren’t.

    It has nothing to do with Queen Victoria nor our being the Mother Country. It does have something to do with two and a half million of them - all volunteers - fighting for us in WW2.

    Now I don't for second agree with all the rubbish about modern day Germany being an enemy because of what happened more than 70 years ago. But I do think we should pay our dues and we owe a great amount to the Indian sub-continent for their support in times of trouble.

    We went to war for Poland. That went a very long way to fulfilling any moral obligation you might feel we have. Poles also fought alongside us. But so did many more Indians and Pakistanis.
    We betrayed the Poles at the end of the war. We owe them. Not as much as Germany who, unconscionably, to my mind, imposed restrictions on them when they joined the EU.

    I don’t really feel that we owe something special to former countries of the Empire or, perhaps, to the extent that we did, that we have fulfilled this with the aid provided and the fact that many of their citizens were permitted to move here in the decades after the war.

    The war was 70 years ago. These countries have been independent for a good long while now. Time now to stop pretending that either they or we have some special obligation to each other as a result of events that are no longer in the living memory of any but a very few.

    There may be a case for permitting the entry of skilled Indians here. But not because of some “they fought for us” argument.

    I accept that I find the whole Empire - Commonwealth issue a bit distant and irrelevant. Historically interesting undoubtedly. But there seems to be a misty-eyed attachment amongst some which seems, to me at least, little better than nostalgia wrapped up in a claim to be open to the world. The latter feels a bit bogus to me.

    I do accept that you are genuine in thinking that there is a world beyond Europe so I am not accusing you of bogus nostalgia.

    Anyway, time for bed and thanks for the debate.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Cyclefree said:


    I would argue that Britain has a strong moral obligation to Poland. Rather more than it has to Pakistan or Bangladesh or other former colonies. They are independent states and have been for decades. I don’t buy this idea that somehow we owe them special favours just because once we were all citizens of Queen Victoria. Not do I buy the idea that they owe us wonderful FTAs because we were the Mother Country once, a fantasy Liam Fox and others seem prone to.

    And not only does Britain have a moral obligation to Eastern European countries but it is also in its interests to have these countries within the comity of free liberal democracies of Europe. Look at what happened - and the price we had to pay - when they weren’t.

    It has nothing to do with Queen Victoria nor our being the Mother Country. It does have something to do with two and a half million of them - all volunteers - fighting for us in WW2.

    Now I don't for second agree with all the rubbish about modern day Germany being an enemy because of what happened more than 70 years ago. But I do think we should pay our dues and we owe a great amount to the Indian sub-continent for their support in times of trouble.

    We went to war for Poland. That went a very long way to fulfilling any moral obligation you might feel we have. Poles also fought alongside us. But so did many more Indians and Pakistanis.
    We went to war after Poland was invaded certainly, but for it? If memory serves (I'm in digs and away from my books and may get these bits wrong, but bear with), we did some things for Poland (eg host the exile government) and Churchill did try to present their case during the later war conferences, but practicably our help in the end didn't amount to much. Compare in contradistinction to France, for example.

    Although Polish peoples' contribution to WW2 RAF is well known, their contribution towards breaking Enigma is perhaps not as widely known, particularly as modern-day dogma has it that Benedict Cumberbatch did it all by himself whilst impersonating Sheldon and stuttering.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    brendan16 said:

    Given the Brits have most to gain as we live on a crowded small island I found that odd.

    Brexit as a project to depopulate Britain and transport the indigenous population to the colonies? I suppose it's one way to leave Europe.
    Seems 75 per cent of Brits back leaving!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275878/Three-quarters-Britons-want-emigrate-Australia-popular-destination.html
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I would argue that Britain has a strong moral obligation to Poland. Rather more than it has to Pakistan or Bangladesh or other former colonies. They are independent states and have been for decades. I don’t buy this idea that somehow we owe them special favours just because once we were all citizens of Queen Victoria. Not do I buy the idea that they owe us wonderful FTAs because we were the Mother Country once, a fantasy Liam Fox and others seem prone to.

    And not only does Britain have a moral obligation to Eastern European countries but it is also in its interests to have these countries within the comity of free liberal democracies of Europe. Look at what happened - and the price we had to pay - when they weren’t.

    It has nothing to do with Queen Victoria nor our being the Mother Country. It does have something to do with two and a half million of them - all volunteers - fighting for us in WW2.

    Now I don't for second agree with all the rubbish about modern day Germany being an enemy because of what happened more than 70 years ago. But I do think we should pay our dues and we owe a great amount to the Indian sub-continent for their support in times of trouble.

    We went to war for Poland. That went a very long way to fulfilling any moral obligation you might feel we have. Poles also fought alongside us. But so did many more Indians and Pakistanis.
    We betrayed the Poles at the end of the war. We owe them. Not as much as Germany who, unconscionably, to my mind, imposed restrictions on them when they joined the EU.

    I don’t really feel that we owe something special to former countries of the Empire or, perhaps, to the extent that we did, that we have fulfilled this with the aid provided and the fact that many of their citizens were permitted to move here in the decades after the war.

    The war was 70 years ago. These countries have been independent for a good long while now. Time now to stop pretending that either they or we have some special obligation to each other as a result of events that are no longer in the living memory of any but a very few.

    There may be a case for permitting the entry of skilled Indians here. But not because of some “they fought for us” argument.

    I accept that I find the whole Empire - Commonwealth issue a bit distant and irrelevant. Historically interesting undoubtedly. But there seems to be a misty-eyed attachment amongst some which seems, to me at least, little better than nostalgia wrapped up in a claim to be open to the world. The latter feels a bit bogus to me.

    I do accept that you are genuine in thinking that there is a world beyond Europe so I am not accusing you of bogus nostalgia.

    Anyway, time for bed and thanks for the debate.
    Sleep well.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited October 2017
    Toight's by -elections
    LAB 4 (=)
    CON1 (-2)
    LD 1 (+!)
    IND 1 (+!)

    1 LAB and 1 CON defence to count in morning
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587


    ...but to ensure the future of my children I need a cast iron plan, not an aspiration. I need to see that our financial service sector will not relocate, lock stock and barrel to Frankfurt. I need to know that Ford won't move their engine plant from Bridgend to Valencia because we have no customs union. I need to know that I won't be paying WTO tariffs on my next Mercedes Benz. I need to know that (as Hammond commented upon) I can fly to a destination of my choice in France. Etc. Etc

    You can have your sovereignty, I don't care! But I need you to provide a road map to prevent that list of horrors above becoming reality!

    Given that companies used membership of the EU as a means to move their businesses out of the UK I am not sure why you think there will be any less security after we have left.
    I don't disagree with your assertion that it is easy to move an enterprise out of the UK to mainland Europe whilst we are still in the club, but with the removal of the customs union and tariff free trading surely you can't deny there might in all probability be an accelerated exit?
    It depends entirely on the business environment we provide in the country after Brexit.
    Our future trading arrangements with the EU don't look too promising unless Davis really is a master of brinkmanship. The USA with a protectionist President don't look to be a great help.

    Our best hope therefore is to make labour rates much more competitive, and that's one of our current beefs. These pesky Poles are undercutting poor old, hard working Johnny Blighty.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Scott_P said:

    As an homage to Red Dwarf this evening, I think it appropriate to refer to the Bexit Ultras in future as Smegheads...

    And Remainers as Rimmers.....
    Ace Rimmer, thank you... :)

    On a tangential note, both Red Dwarf XII S12E01 "Cured" and Orville S01E05 "Pria" have been leaked onto YouTube. Life is good... :)
This discussion has been closed.