Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On another planet

124

Comments

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    A story to break Roger's heart:

    ' For kids in Greece, Spain and Italy, the Mediterranean diet is dead, according to the World Health Organisation, which says that children in Sweden are more likely to eat fish, olive oil and tomatoes than those in southern Europe.

    In Cyprus, a phenomenal 43% of boys and girls aged nine are either overweight or obese. Greece, Spain and Italy also have rates of over 40%. The Mediterranean countries which gave their name to the famous diet that is supposed to be the healthiest in the world have children with Europe’s biggest weight problem. '

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/24/the-mediterranean-diet-is-gone-regions-children-are-fattest-in-europe

    To be honest the Mediterranean types I see about don't appear to be the slim, sophisticated ones Roger meets but look rather more like Andalusian or Thracian farm-workers.

    And that's what they might well have been.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    Whoa! You did what?! What a numpty.

    And it proves that the Left has low expectations if an election defeat is "icing on the cake".
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    Tony Benn campaigned to stay out of the EEC in 1975 and for socialism in 1983 so I can see your logic, Corbyn probably believes the same, after all he wants state control of public services and most industries not an unfettered free market
    I actually voted Leave back in 1975 too. My reasoning in 2017 was very different,however, in that I have not held strong views on the EU for several decades - and would not have been upset had the result gone the other way.What swung my vote in the end was the acute distaste I felt for the campaigning style of Cameron and Osborne. At the 2015 election they had successfully used scaremongering to win re-election - 'A Labour Govt will mean the SNP controlling Milliband'etc . They tried the same approach a year later at the London Mayoral election - and received a bloody nose. In the Brexit campaign , they were quite deliberately lying to their own people - trying to scare voters by peddling rubbish about the immediate economic consequences of a Leave vote. I had no wish to see that approach to politics succeed - demonstrating as it did basic contempt for the democratic process.I voted accordingly to deny those forces the triumph they were seeking.
    I suspect the socially liberal, pro free market, limited state views of Cameron and Osborne were also a factor in your Leave vote as anathema to your socially conservative, socialist/social democrat ideology even if you were not a fan of their tactics either
    Not really - I had been very undecided and sitting on the fence though I did make my mind up by Easter 2017. I don't reject the idea of a United Europe in the form of a single state in due course - though if it comes to pass it will only occur via a very gradual process over a period of centuries.I strongly disapproved of political elites across the EU seeking to impose this on their citizens - if only because the idea of the Nation State is now so firmly embedded in the psyche of most people.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    As far as I can see you a Pauline Hanson backing l impact either way

    Well, we have established that you cannot see very well at all. I think ts way.
    Clearly not when everything you spout comes from thts
    I think Tony Abbott is an idiot as well. I have no interest in Christian conservatism. I am a Thatcherite conservative - shame the Tory sively is your red line, say so. Then I can save the thread and show it to you later when May sells you out.
    Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite conservative plus so you have just affirmed everything I said. Though of course Thatcher took the UK into the single market and backed membership of the EEC so she was certainly no hard Brexiteer as PM.

    Even work permits with a job offer are fine by me, at the moment anyone from the EU can come to the UK job offer or not for at least 3 months
    You know nothing about Australian politics if you think Tony Abbott is a Thatcherite. Or you don't understand what a Thatcherite is. Probably both.

    Anyway, you have just confirmed that you don't want the abolition of FOM. Good to know. If all it takes to enter the UK is a letter offering a job, then don't you think that would be rather easy to arrange? Which is, of course, the point. Another sellout.

    HYUFD for FOMINO.
    Ha! Ha! Ha! It was Margaret Thatcher who campaigned for our entry into the EEC in the first place in 1975 and Margaret Thatcher who signed up to the UK joining the single market in 1987 and you talk to me about not understanding what a Thatcherite is!

    Thatcher also realised when the EU started to morph into the sort of controlling, undemocratic and bureaucratic state that she despised and she changed her previous support. She stood up to virtually her whole cabinet and lost her office because she was not prepared to go along with the cosy consensus. Time proved her right.

    Then in your case, you have spent the best part of two years on this forum declaring that FOM must end yet the moment it becomes obvious that May is going to sell out on this, you display what I think the great Margaret described as an 'indiarubber quality'.

    Thatcher was about principles. You wouldn't get it.
    Show me one statement Thatcher made advocating withdrawal from the Single Market and the Customs Union?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Dadge said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    Whoa! You did what?! What a numpty.

    And it proves that the Left has low expectations if an election defeat is "icing on the cake".
    Moving from a majority Tory Government to the paralysed Minority Tory Government we have now was a success!
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    This *is* the poster that wished for the deaths of older MPs because of the by-elections.

    Kinder.
    Gentler.

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    justin124 said:

    Dadge said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    Whoa! You did what?! What a numpty.

    And it proves that the Left has low expectations if an election defeat is "icing on the cake".
    Moving from a majority Tory Government to the paralysed Minority Tory Government we have now was a success!
    Paralysed? You tell that to the people who are still suffering because of hostile environment, benefit sanctions, disability tests etc. Not to mention May's shambolic Brexit.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Just a wayward comment:

    Chris Froome now leads the giro d'Italia after yesterday's humongous effort. The final critical stage can be found here:

    http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/live/
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    At least neither is now responsible for our affairs.Are you seriously suggesting there was nothing blatantly dishonest and distasteful regarding their conduct of the 2015 election - and the later campaigns for the London Mayor and Brexit? Some of us have higher expectations of our political leaders than appear to satisfy you.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Toms said:

    Just a wayward comment:

    Chris Froome now leads the giro d'Italia after yesterday's humongous effort. The final critical stage can be found here:

    http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/live/

    He went full Landis. Never go full Landis.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Toms said:

    Just a wayward comment:

    Chris Froome now leads the giro d'Italia after yesterday's humongous effort. The final critical stage can be found here:

    http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/live/

    And here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/may/26/giro-ditalia-2018-stage-20-live-chris-froome-cycling

    Unless some unexpected disaster happens Froome is on his way to holding all three Grand Tours.
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150
    edited May 2018


    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    The EEC was only set up in the first place (1957) because Britain chose not pursue the path of union with France (1956) and decided instead to put itself under the United States. You cannot rightly blame De Gaulle's veto (1963) for that. The idea that Britain could operate in the overlap of the Commonwealth, some kind of European community, and also the Atlantic alliance, was moronic.

    De Gaulle is denounced for his veto use to this day, usually without his reason being mentioned (Britain as a US Trojan horse). Clearly the garlic eaters are also cheese loving surrender monkeys and, when they get the chance, awful no sayers. Or something. They must be. They're foreign. If only British governing circles in the 1950s had had more sense! They screwed up.

    Then throughout the period of EEC-EC-EU membership there was practically no effort in Britain to popularise the EU, practically no discourse regarding what should be the EU's position on such and such. I doubt the BBC ever referred to the EU as "we" a single time. The EEC-EC-EU was always treated in the ideosphere as if it were a foreign power.

    It was as if British foreign policy was conducted by grouse shooters until the 1960s and then by Sun readers. Most politico types for example think the "Yes Minister" sketch is hilarious that shows Britain deliberately causing divisions on the continent because unity would be such a scary prospect. Now look what's happened.

  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Dura_Ace said:

    Toms said:

    Just a wayward comment:

    Chris Froome now leads the giro d'Italia after yesterday's humongous effort. The final critical stage can be found here:

    http://www.giroditalia.it/eng/live/

    He went full Landis. Never go full Landis.
    If I recall correctly Landis mainlined testosterone. I suspect Froome has his own.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Dadge said:

    justin124 said:

    Dadge said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    Whoa! You did what?! What a numpty.

    And it proves that the Left has low expectations if an election defeat is "icing on the cake".
    Moving from a majority Tory Government to the paralysed Minority Tory Government we have now was a success!
    Paralysed? You tell that to the people who are still suffering because of hostile environment, benefit sanctions, disability tests etc. Not to mention May's shambolic Brexit.
    Are you seriously suggesting that environment would now be less hostile had the Tories retained an overall majority? May now faces far greater difficulty in getting her policies accepted by the Commons than was true in the two earlier Pariaments. I am surprised you have failed to notice this.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    At least neither is now responsible for our affairs.Are you seriously suggesting there was nothing blatantly dishonest and distasteful regarding their conduct of the 2015 election - and the later campaigns for the London Mayor and Brexit? Some of us have higher expectations of our political leaders than appear to satisfy you.
    Nope. Dave and Ozzy always conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and aplomb.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    This *is* the poster that wished for the deaths of older MPs because of the by-elections.

    Kinder.
    Gentler.

    Not true. I did ,however, suggest that it was a development reasonably to be expected in due course.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    At least neither is now responsible for our affairs.Are you seriously suggesting there was nothing blatantly dishonest and distasteful regarding their conduct of the 2015 election - and the later campaigns for the London Mayor and Brexit? Some of us have higher expectations of our political leaders than appear to satisfy you.
    Nope. Dave and Ozzy always conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and aplomb.
    They were a pair of shysters - and it was heartwarming to see them get their comeuppance.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    How embarrassing. Cameron is completely nonchalant about the matter and Osborne is clearly enjoying himself to the full editing the Evening Standard. You sound a bit of a twit.
    I voted remain , only just , with no real enthusiasm .

    For many years did not like how Greece had been let into the Euro, by manipulating the criteria for joining, and all that followed that decision.

    Was never in favour of referendums , as people vote for many reasons , and not on the question asked..

    I know many who voted leave to give Cameron a kicking , and in my opinion , that short termism defies any reason .However it , finished Cameron , eventually cost the conservatives a majority, So it is a result for some.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Purple said:


    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    The EEC was only set up in the first place (1957) because Britain chose not pursue the path of union with France (1956) and decided instead to put itself under the United States. You cannot rightly blame De Gaulle's veto (1963) for that. The idea that Britain could operate in the overlap of the Commonwealth, some kind of European community, and also the Atlantic alliance, was moronic.

    De Gaulle is denounced for his veto use to this day, usually without his reason being mentioned (Britain as a US Trojan horse). Clearly the garlic eaters are also cheese loving surrender monkeys and, when they get the chance, awful no sayers. Or something. They must be. They're foreign. If only British governing circles in the 1950s had had more sense! They screwed up.

    Then throughout the period of EEC-EC-EU membership there was practically no effort in Britain to popularise the EU, practically no discourse regarding what should be the EU's position on such and such. The EEC-EC-EU was always treated in the ideosphere as if it were a foreign power.

    It was as if British foreign policy was conducted by grouse shooters until the 1960s and then by Sun readers. Most politico types for example think the "Yes Minister" sketch is hilarious that shows Britain deliberately causing divisions on the continent because unity would be such a scary prospect. Now look what's happened.

    Its difficult to popularise something which is costing you money with doubtful benefits.

    Now we can discuss how much EU membership benefited the UK ** but there's not much doubting that it benefited most of the other countries a lot more.

    ** Not to mention that the positives and negatives of EU membership were never equally shared within the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    Purple said:


    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    The EEC was only set up in the first place (1957) because Britain chose not pursue the path of union with France (1956) and decided instead to put itself under the United States. You cannot rightly blame De Gaulle's veto (1963) for that. The idea that Britain could operate in the overlap of the Commonwealth, some kind of European community, and also the Atlantic alliance, was moronic.

    De Gaulle is denounced for his veto use to this day, usually without his reason being mentioned (Britain as a US Trojan horse). Clearly the garlic eaters are also cheese loving surrender monkeys and, when they get the chance, awful no sayers. Or something. They must be. They're foreign. If only British governing circles in the 1950s had had more sense! They screwed up.

    Then throughout the period of EEC-EC-EU membership there was practically no effort in Britain to popularise the EU, practically no discourse regarding what should be the EU's position on such and such. I doubt the BBC ever referred to the EU as "we" a single time. The EEC-EC-EU was always treated in the ideosphere as if it were a foreign power.

    It was as if British foreign policy was conducted by grouse shooters until the 1960s and then by Sun readers. Most politico types for example think the "Yes Minister" sketch is hilarious that shows Britain deliberately causing divisions on the continent because unity would be such a scary prospect. Now look what's happened.

    The truth is most Britain has never really been part of continental Europe for most British people and never really a satellite of the USA either.

    We feel closer to Australia and New Zealand thsn we do to either of those, hence Australia is easily the biggest destination for UK emigrants
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    I disagree.A paralysed Tory Government is far better than one able to continue with a right wing reactionary agenda. As it is , economic policy under May has become more centrist than during the Coalition years - with some signs of Heseltinian -style interventionist polices - as well as some parts of the rail network being returned to public ownership. I am not a fan of this Government at all - but find it far more palatable than what we were forced to experience from 2010 to 2017.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Purple said:

    Then throughout the period of EEC-EC-EU membership there was practically no effort in Britain to popularise the EU, practically no discourse regarding what should be the EU's position on such and such. I doubt the BBC ever referred to the EU as "we" a single time. The EEC-EC-EU was always treated in the ideosphere as if it were a foreign power.

    I think the most obvious way we could have behaved differently was in dropping the neediness of wanting supreme custodianship of the transatlantic relationship. If we'd spoken instead of the special relationship between America and Europe, it would have emphasised that we are Europe, and also done much more to advance the goal of being seen as a 'bridge'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    I disagree.A paralysed Tory Government is far better than one able to continue with a right wing reactionary agenda. As it is , economic policy under May has become more centrist than during the Coalition years - with some signs of Heseltinian -style interventionist polices - as well as some parts of the rail network being returned to public ownership. I am not a fan of this Government at all - but find it far more palatable than what we were forced to experience from 2010 to 2017.
    The hung parliament is certainly better than Mays desired increased majority, but that couldnot have been known a year before at the time of the Brexit referendum.

    All it does is demonstrate that referendums are a silly way of deciding issues.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    I disagree.A paralysed Tory Government is far better than one able to continue with a right wing reactionary agenda. As it is , economic policy under May has become more centrist than during the Coalition years - with some signs of Heseltinian -style interventionist polices - as well as some parts of the rail network being returned to public ownership. I am not a fan of this Government at all - but find it far more palatable than what we were forced to experience from 2010 to 2017.
    The hung parliament is certainly better than Mays desired increased majority, but that couldnot have been known a year before at the time of the Brexit referendum.

    All it does is demonstrate that referendums are a silly way of deciding issues.
    I am no fan of them either , but given that Cameron had called it - for reasons of internal party management rather than the national interest - I was not inclined to reward him with a triumph given his conduct of recent campaigns. I have no regrets at all - though were a further Referendum called I might well vote to remain.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Foxy said:
    We;ve had early results from most constituencies - confirming the exit poll there or thereabouts
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150


    Its difficult to popularise something which is costing you money with doubtful benefits.

    Now we can discuss how much EU membership benefited the UK ** but there's not much doubting that it benefited most of the other countries a lot more.

    ** Not to mention that the positives and negatives of EU membership were never equally shared within the UK.

    If governments thought membership was costing too much they shouldn't have supported it. But if they supported it they should have got with the programme, including in terms of internal popularisation. Instead we got "Sir Humphrey": "in" but contemptuous.

    If a popularisation effort would have been met by a rise of scorn towards the government and politicians generally, and to the widely held conception that they were mostly some kind of Quislings of the foreign power called the EU, that would largely be because of the right-wing popular press rather than because the population were better educated about hard-to-hide economic matters than the politicians would prefer.

    I don't buy the idea that France, Germany, and all the other countries that managed to popularise EU membership internally had an easier ride than British governing circles would have had if they'd tried it because those countries were benefiting whereas Britain wasn't. Britain is fairly similar to France and Germany economically if not of course identical.

    There is definitely a notion of "continentals are stupid" in the "Sir Humphrey" position. If Britain couldn't have been fully and wholly "in", she shouldn't have joined (or been accepted) in the first place.

    Which is not to point the finger at any particular government to the exclusion of the others. They all looked the other way and when it came down to it they were Quislings but of the US not of continental Europe. Now the realistic salvage options are a 180 degree reversal and rejoining the EU with heart and soul, adopting the euro, and full steam ahead to ever closer union, which clearly isn't on the cards......or.....????? Closer relations with India, New Zealand, Chile, the UAE, Canada? It's crazy...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Fenman said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:

    Stricter rationing than during the war
    Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
    The wasting of Marshall Aid
    The Partition of India
    The Town & Country Planning Act
    Nationalisation of road transport
    Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
    The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR

    I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.

    Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus.
    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
    The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
    Yes we did.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Bet on Ricciardo for pole looking good...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Purple said:


    Its difficult to popularise something which is costing you money with doubtful benefits.

    Now we can discuss how much EU membership benefited the UK ** but there's not much doubting that it benefited most of the other countries a lot more.

    ** Not to mention that the positives and negatives of EU membership were never equally shared within the UK.

    If governments thought membership was costing too much they shouldn't have supported it. But if they supported it they should have got with the programme, including in terms of internal popularisation. Instead we got "Sir Humphrey": "in" but contemptuous.

    If a popularisation effort would have been met by a rise of scorn towards the government and politicians generally, and to the widely held conception that they were mostly some kind of Quislings of the foreign power called the EU, that would largely be because of the right-wing popular press rather than because the population were better educated about hard-to-hide economic matters than the politicians would prefer.

    I don't buy the idea that France, Germany, and all the other countries that managed to popularise EU membership internally had an easier ride than British governing circles would have had if they'd tried it because those countries were benefiting whereas Britain wasn't. Britain is fairly similar to France and Germany economically if not of course identical.

    There is definitely a notion of "continentals are stupid" in the "Sir Humphrey" position. If Britain couldn't have been fully and wholly "in", she shouldn't have joined (or been accepted) in the first place.

    Which is not to point the finger at any particular government to the exclusion of the others. They all looked the other way and when it came down to it they were Quislings but of the US not of continental Europe. Now the realistic salvage options are a 180 degree reversal and rejoining the EU with heart and soul, adopting the euro, and full steam ahead to ever closer union, which clearly isn't on the cards......or.....????? Closer relations with India, New Zealand, Chile, the UAE, Canada? It's crazy...
    France was a net beneficiary of funds for decades.

    Germany had its guilt to assuage.

    Both had good reasons to support more European integration.

    What did the UK have to gain ?

    It wasn't going to be a net beneficiary of funds or a net exporter of people.
    It didn't have the fear of being a future battlefield or a shameful past to forget.
    It hadn't had its political institutions fail repeatedly.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Alistair said:

    Fenman said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:

    Stricter rationing than during the war
    Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
    The wasting of Marshall Aid
    The Partition of India
    The Town & Country Planning Act
    Nationalisation of road transport
    Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
    The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR

    I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.

    Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus.
    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
    The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
    Yes we did.
    True. And I believe it was offered to Russia.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Purple said:


    Its difficult to popularise something which is costing you money with doubtful benefits.

    Now we can discuss how much EU membership benefited the UK ** but there's not much doubting that it benefited most of the other countries a lot more.

    ** Not to mention that the positives and negatives of EU membership were never equally shared within the UK.

    If governments thought membership was costing too much they shouldn't have supported it. But if they supported it they should have got with the programme, including in terms of internal popularisation. Instead we got "Sir Humphrey": "in" but contemptuous.

    If a popularisation effort would have been met by a rise of scorn towards the government and politicians generally, and to the widely held conception that they were mostly some kind of Quislings of the foreign power called the EU, that would largely be because of the right-wing popular press rather than because the population were better educated about hard-to-hide economic matters than the politicians would prefer.

    I don't buy the idea that France, Germany, and all the other countries that managed to popularise EU membership internally had an easier ride than British governing circles would have had if they'd tried it because those countries were benefiting whereas Britain wasn't. Britain is fairly similar to France and Germany economically if not of course identical.

    There is definitely a notion of "continentals are stupid" in the "Sir Humphrey" position. If Britain couldn't have been fully and wholly "in", she shouldn't have joined (or been accepted) in the first place.

    Which is not to point the finger at any particular government to the exclusion of the others. They all looked the other way and when it came down to it they were Quislings but of the US not of continental Europe. Now the realistic salvage options are a 180 degree reversal and rejoining the EU with heart and soul, adopting the euro, and full steam ahead to ever closer union, which clearly isn't on the cards......or.....????? Closer relations with India, New Zealand, Chile, the UAE, Canada? It's crazy...
    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Purple said:


    Its difficult to popularise something which is costing you money with doubtful benefits.

    Now we can discuss how much EU membership benefited the UK ** but there's not much doubting that it benefited most of the other countries a lot more.

    ** Not to mention that the positives and negatives of EU membership were never equally shared within the UK.

    If governments thought membership was costing too much they shouldn't have supported it. But if they supported it they should have got with the programme, including in terms of internal popularisation. Instead we got "Sir Humphrey": "in" but contemptuous.

    If a popularisation effort would have been met by a rise of scorn towards the government and politicians generally, and to the widely held conception that they were mostly some kind of Quislings of the foreign power called the EU, that would largely be because of the right-wing popular press rather than because the population were better educated about hard-to-hide economic matters than the politicians would prefer.

    I don't buy the idea that France, Germany, and all the other countries that managed to popularise EU membership internally had an easier ride than British governing circles would have had if they'd tried it because those countries were benefiting whereas Britain wasn't. Britain is fairly similar to France and Germany economically if not of course identical.

    There is definitely a notion of "continentals are stupid" in the "Sir Humphrey" position. If Britain couldn't have been fully and wholly "in", she shouldn't have joined (or been accepted) in the first place.

    Which is not to point the finger at any particular government to the exclusion of the others. They all looked the other way and when it came down to it they were Quislings but of the US not of continental Europe. Now the realistic salvage options are a 180 degree reversal and rejoining the EU with heart and soul, adopting the euro, and full steam ahead to ever closer union, which clearly isn't on the cards......or.....????? Closer relations with India, New Zealand, Chile, the UAE, Canada? It's crazy...
    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.
    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Purple said:



    If governments thought membership was costing too much they shouldn't have supported it. But if they supported it they should have got with the programme, including in terms of internal popularisation. Instead we got "Sir Humphrey": "in" but contemptuous.

    If a popularisation effort would have been met by a rise of scorn towards the government and politicians generally, and to the widely held conception that they were mostly some kind of Quislings of the foreign power called the EU, that would largely be because of the right-wing popular press rather than because the population were better educated about hard-to-hide economic matters than the politicians would prefer.

    I don't buy the idea that France, Germany, and all the other countries that managed to popularise EU membership internally had an easier ride than British governing circles would have had if they'd tried it because those countries were benefiting whereas Britain wasn't. Britain is fairly similar to France and Germany economically if not of course identical.

    There is definitely a notion of "continentals are stupid" in the "Sir Humphrey" position. If Britain couldn't have been fully and wholly "in", she shouldn't have joined (or been accepted) in the first place.

    Which is not to point the finger at any particular government to the exclusion of the others. They all looked the other way and when it came down to it they were Quislings but of the US not of continental Europe. Now the realistic salvage options are a 180 degree reversal and rejoining the EU with heart and soul, adopting the euro, and full steam ahead to ever closer union, which clearly isn't on the cards......or.....????? Closer relations with India, New Zealand, Chile, the UAE, Canada? It's crazy...

    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.
    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?
    Perhaps you'd like to tell us if Ireland has been a net beneficiary of funds and whether the UK has ?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Another shameful England batting performance.
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150
    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2018
    Root out LBW.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Alistair said:

    Fenman said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:

    Stricter rationing than during the war
    Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
    The wasting of Marshall Aid
    The Partition of India
    The Town & Country Planning Act
    Nationalisation of road transport
    Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
    The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR

    I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.

    Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus.
    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
    The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
    Yes we did.
    we most certainly did, we pissed it away on setting up a welfare state while Germany and France used it to rebuild.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited May 2018
    England outclassed in batting, bowling and fielding by Pakistan.

    England need 70 runs to avoid an innings defeat with just five wickets left.

    Edit Make that four wickets left.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Purple said:

    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

    Don't be ridiculous - we had all this the shops are going to run out of food silliness a year ago.

    Go down to your local supermarket to see the reality.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    England outclassed in batting, bowling and fielding by Pakistan.

    England need 70 runs to avoid an innings defeat with just five wickets left.

    Edit Make that four wickets left.

    England cricket has gone back to the 90s.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.
    "Like it or not they had no choice"

    Will you accept being on the receiving end of that dynamic in good grace when we remain in the customs union?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742

    Purple said:

    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

    Don't be ridiculous - we had all this the shops are going to run out of food silliness a year ago.

    Go down to your local supermarket to see the reality.
    Shouldn't your call to avoid ridiculousness be addressed to David Gauke?
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    So.

    Jezfest.

    How's that working out for you?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
    Or they spent 1/2 a trillion quid on employing nurses, doctors, teachers and local government officers...
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Purple said:

    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

    Good thinking.

    Get the prisoners out into the fresh air and exercise them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: grid looks quite interesting. Verstappen's lack of restraint has robbed his team of a near certain front row lock-out.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Purple said:


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
    The mistake was to allow ourself to be monumentally screwed when it comes to contributions. Maggie got some of the back, but even after the rebate its an appalling setup. Has there been a single year in which the uk has been a net recipient?

    It was just a crap deal. I initially thought it was only us who were obsessed about the money, but from the very beginning of the brexit it process it became very clear that our membership of the EU was *all about * the money for them. Thats fine, our relationship was only ever transactional. They just got to use to f**king us raw on an annual basis.

    Best rid.

    PS. I was a reluctant leaver believing the Single Market was the crowning achievement of free market economics across the Union, thatcherising the entire continent.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Purple said:

    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

    Don't be ridiculous - we had all this the shops are going to run out of food silliness a year ago.

    Go down to your local supermarket to see the reality.
    Shouldn't your call to avoid ridiculousness be addressed to David Gauke?
    Expecting government ministers to not make ridiculous comments would be the ultimate in being ridiculous.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    notme said:

    Alistair said:

    Fenman said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:

    Stricter rationing than during the war
    Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
    The wasting of Marshall Aid
    The Partition of India
    The Town & Country Planning Act
    Nationalisation of road transport
    Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
    The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR

    I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.

    Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus.
    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
    The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
    Yes we did.
    we most certainly did, we pissed it away on setting up a welfare state while Germany and France used it to rebuild.
    Err, you mis-spelled "vast military spending maintaining a delusion of Empire"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    notme said:

    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
    Or they spent 1/2 a trillion quid on employing nurses, doctors, teachers and local government officers...
    Call it what you want.

    But the fact remains that the government borrowed and that money ultimately left the country.

    In other words the UK was living far beyond its means and flogging off its assets to fund it.

    And the government encouraged this process as it kept people happy and so more likely to re-elect the government.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051

    Purple said:

    When before has a country needed to use prison labour to bring in the harvest?

    "Prisoners could work in sectors likely to be hit by the UK leaving the European Union such as catering, construction and agriculture, (Justice Secretary) David Gauke said."

    The total number of prisoners in Britain is roughly equal to the number of foreign citizens who come here to work in seasonal agriculture, mainly from Poland and other East European countries in the EU.

    This is panic.

    Good thinking.

    Get the prisoners out into the fresh air and exercise them.
    Hmm, can anyone spot a potential security issue there...?

    Productivity may well be an issue too, but on the other hand chain gang wages are pretty low.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    England have never lost a 5 day Test match at Lords in 3 days before.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    So does crap english cricket correlate with LFC as well as Spurs results... not long to find out!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Just got up, how's the cricket going?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Go back to bed. Honestly.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    It could be said that Ireland sees the EU as a way of escaping British economic and political domination and has seen countries like France, Spain and Italy as historic friends.

    Whereas for Britain the threat always came from would-be European superstates.

    Meaning that there's not so much difference to Britain and Ireland's views of the EU except that the two countries are viewing from different points.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    AndyJS said:

    England have never lost a 5 day Test match at Lords in 3 days before.

    and we won the toss.... after doing so many time in Oz too. Some advantange that is.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    It could be said that Ireland sees the EU as a way of escaping British economic and political domination and has seen countries like France, Spain and Italy as historic friends.

    Whereas for Britain the threat always came from would-be European superstates.

    Meaning that there's not so much difference to Britain and Ireland's views of the EU except that the two countries are viewing from different points.

    I think that's absolutely right.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Foxy said:
    "Britain Elects" had me confused for a minute.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    notme said:

    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
    Or they spent 1/2 a trillion quid on employing nurses, doctors, teachers and local government officers...
    Call it what you want.

    But the fact remains that the government borrowed and that money ultimately left the country.

    In other words the UK was living far beyond its means and flogging off its assets to fund it.

    And the government encouraged this process as it kept people happy and so more likely to re-elect the government.
    Please tell me in which years the government increased the deficit.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Alistair said:

    notme said:

    Alistair said:

    Fenman said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Nonsense. We have the Atlee Government to thank for these monstrosities:

    Stricter rationing than during the war
    Continued ruinous levels of defence expenditure
    The wasting of Marshall Aid
    The Partition of India
    The Town & Country Planning Act
    Nationalisation of road transport
    Active sabotage of private industry that wasn’t nationalised
    The sale of Roll-Royce engines to the USSR

    I’ll give you the introduction of the NHS. Otherwise it was pretty terrible.

    Without the NHS we wouldn't have had the Brexit bus.
    Without snubbing the Coal and Steel Community, we wouldn't have had to join the EEC cap in hand after it had already been established, nor suffer the humiliation of De Gaulle's veto.

    Clement Attlee, j'accuse!
    The Uk as a Victor did not receive Marshall Aid.
    Yes we did.
    we most certainly did, we pissed it away on setting up a welfare state while Germany and France used it to rebuild.
    Err, you mis-spelled "vast military spending maintaining a delusion of Empire"
    But 'vast military spending maintaining a delusion of Empire' can come and go ** a welfare state only grows bigger.

    ** and its still around with our politicians always willing to piss money away on Middle Eastern warmongering or posturing about Overseas Aid.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
    The internet, a printer, a glue stick and a new scrap book would be cheaper.

    Tell them home made is better.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
    Why not? You are a rich man; you can afford it. If your bank manager calls to complain, make an excuse about teaching them geography.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    And people wonder why referendums are a bad idea. The time to vote out Cameron and Osborn was at a general election not at a referendum that will have all manner of consequences for our future.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    notme said:

    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
    Or they spent 1/2 a trillion quid on employing nurses, doctors, teachers and local government officers...
    Call it what you want.

    But the fact remains that the government borrowed and that money ultimately left the country.

    In other words the UK was living far beyond its means and flogging off its assets to fund it.

    And the government encouraged this process as it kept people happy and so more likely to re-elect the government.
    Please tell me in which years the government increased the deficit.
    2001/2
    2002/3
    2003/4
    2004/5

    2007/8
    2008/9
    2009/10

    2012/13
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    No Purple is entirely wrong. The reason we did not embrace the EU in ways other countries did is because the whole concept is utterly alien to us and the practicalities of it based on different legal and economic systems meant we were never going to be willing or able to take part in some of their most important projects.


  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    notme said:

    notme said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    I voted Leave for the record - albeit just to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.The icing on the cake came a year later when the Tories lost their majority!

    What a plonker! May and her headless chicken cabinet are far worse.
    Are they ?

    It was Cameron and Osborne, plus Clegg and Cable, who came up with triple lock pensions, tripling student fees and HelpToRaiseHousePrices and ended up with a cumulative current account deficit of over half a trillion quid.
    I dont think anyone could have came out of what we came out of without a massively increased current account debt. It was a phenomenal achievement getting spending down and it not causing mass unemployment etc. Cutting public expenditure is a rare characteristic of any government. Something Thatcher never achieved.
    You're referring to the national debt not the current account deficit ie the current spending difference this country has with the rest of the world.

    Roughly speaking Cameron and Osborne borrowed half a trillion quid and gave it to the country to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
    Or they spent 1/2 a trillion quid on employing nurses, doctors, teachers and local government officers...
    Call it what you want.

    But the fact remains that the government borrowed and that money ultimately left the country.

    In other words the UK was living far beyond its means and flogging off its assets to fund it.

    And the government encouraged this process as it kept people happy and so more likely to re-elect the government.
    Please tell me in which years the government increased the deficit.
    If you're referring to the government spending deficit the record is:

    2010 £144bn
    2011 £115bn
    2012 £128bn
    2013 £99bn
    2014 £98bn
    2015 £78bn
    2016 £57bn
    2017 £38bn

    The government's borrowing plans clearly going awry from 2012 onwards.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf

    For the current account deficit the record is:

    2010 £60bn
    2011 £39bn
    2012 £72bn
    2013 £97bn
    2014 £98bn
    2015 £98bn
    2016 £114bn
    2017 £83bn

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. T, I agree that people voting Leave because they wanted Cameron gone even though they like the EU were dumb as a post.

    There are some matters that do warrant a referendum, though. Changing the voting system would be one such example.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    edited May 2018

    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    No Purple is entirely wrong. The reason we did not embrace the EU in ways other countries did is because the whole concept is utterly alien to us and the practicalities of it based on different legal and economic systems meant we were never going to be willing or able to take part in some of their most important projects.


    Though the Irish economic and legal system is much the same as ours and was not a bar? Let alone legal and econnomic systems as diverse as Malta, Greece, Estonia, Portugal or Finland?

    British exceptionalism at its finest.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Purple said:


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
    Wrong in every possible way. If the British politicians ever thought they could have sold the European project to the people they would have done. But for all the reasons I listed and many more they knew it would be a waste of time and a sure way to throw away their political careers.

    This is why you Remaniacs are so shocked by the referendum result. You have never truly understood the differences between the UK and Europe nor the attitudes of the British people. It is why you will continue to make a mess of your attempts to drag us closer to the EU.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
    Yea, I am at Wembley watching Fulham v Aston Villa in the EFL playoff with my father
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Purple said:


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
    Wrong in every possible way. If the British politicians ever thought they could have sold the European project to the people they would have done. But for all the reasons I listed and many more they knew it would be a waste of time and a sure way to throw away their political careers.

    This is why you Remaniacs are so shocked by the referendum result. You have never truly understood the differences between the UK and Europe nor the attitudes of the British people. It is why you will continue to make a mess of your attempts to drag us closer to the EU.
    Is it not a shock to you that over 48% of people voted to Remain in the EU in the circumstances of 2016? If I had your world view I would find that very troubling.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    Which will be met with dumbfounded bemusement and scorn by the vast majority of the public.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited May 2018

    Purple said:


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
    Wrong in every possible way. If the British politicians ever thought they could have sold the European project to the people they would have done. But for all the reasons I listed and many more they knew it would be a waste of time and a sure way to throw away their political careers.

    This is why you Remaniacs are so shocked by the referendum result. You have never truly understood the differences between the UK and Europe nor the attitudes of the British people. It is why you will continue to make a mess of your attempts to drag us closer to the EU.
    Is it not a shock to you that over 48% of people voted to Remain in the EU in the circumstances of 2016? If I had your world view I would find that very troubling.
    It is not a shock at all. People will vote for the status quo in many cases even when they are unhappy with it. It needs to be a pretty severe case for them to vote against the status quo as everyone kept telling us before the referendum. As such the fact that you got 48% is not at all surprising. And this is another reason why any attempt to rejoin for the next few decades is doomed to failure. The new status quo means you will be lucky to get 25% to support your vision.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited May 2018

    Purple said:


    The Continental countries were sold the myth that EEC membership would prevent war. They also had economies and political systems that were rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. They had shared a common legal system and had populations that had experienced movable borders on a regular basis.

    It's not a myth that countries that build cooperation within the framework of a union are less likely to go to war with each other. Spain and Sweden don't have economies rebuilt from the ground up after WW2. Differences between legal systems exist but they haven't posed much of a practical problem. Cultural differences abound between Protestant and Catholic Europe, between France and Germany, and so on. British politicians could have made the effort to say "we" for the EU but hardly any ever did. There was so little will to play along, such a lack of leadership.

    If the politicians could see further than the ends of their noses there would be more effort to build cooperation within the British union too.

    None of these things applied to the UK which was why were always were and remain a ill fit for the political, economic and legal union occurring on the Continent. The mistake we made was to ever get involved in the first place.

    The mistake was to get half-involved.
    Wrong in every possible way. If the British politicians ever thought they could have sold the European project to the people they would have done. But for all the reasons I listed and many more they knew it would be a waste of time and a sure way to throw away their political careers.

    This is why you Remaniacs are so shocked by the referendum result. You have never truly understood the differences between the UK and Europe nor the attitudes of the British people. It is why you will continue to make a mess of your attempts to drag us closer to the EU.
    Is it not a shock to you that over 48% of people voted to Remain in the EU in the circumstances of 2016? If I had your world view I would find that very troubling.
    It is not a shock at all. People will vote for the status quo in many cases even when they are unhappy with it. It needs to be a pretty severe case for them to vote against the status quo as everyone kept telling us before the referendum. As such the fact that you got 48% is not at all surprising. And this is another reason why any attempt to rejoin for the next few decades is doomed to failure. The new status quo means you will be lucky to get 25% to support your vision.
    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.
    "Like it or not they had no choice"

    Will you accept being on the receiving end of that dynamic in good grace when we remain in the customs union?
    Nope because we do have a choice. You just don't like the fact.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846


    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...

    You are back in the realms of fantasy again. Where it seems you spend most of your life.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    No Purple is entirely wrong. The reason we did not embrace the EU in ways other countries did is because the whole concept is utterly alien to us and the practicalities of it based on different legal and economic systems meant we were never going to be willing or able to take part in some of their most important projects.


    Though the Irish economic and legal system is much the same as ours and was not a bar? Let alone legal and economic systems as diverse as Malta, Greece, Estonia, Portugal or Finland?

    British exceptionalism at its finest.
    With the exception of Malta which runs a mixed Common law/Civil Law system, all of the countries you mention run Civil Law systems as opposed to the Common Law system run in Britain and the Anglosphere. The Scots also run a mixed system like Malta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786


    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...

    You are back in the realms of fantasy again. Where it seems you spend most of your life.
    Your plan was simply to gatecrash EFTA to stay in the EEA against the EU's will. Wholly unrealistic and incompatible with the Irish backstop. What's your plan B?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
    Yea, I am at Wembley watching Fulham v Aston Villa in the EFL playoff with my father
    One last outing for this joke: Police have warned Fulham fans not to bring flares into the stadium for the play-off final...

    Because that's what they wore the last time they were at Wembley.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just got up, how's the cricket going?

    Oh.
    Anyway. Any other sport on today?

    And should I introduce my children (7 & 10) to a World Cup Panini Sticker book?
    Yea, I am at Wembley watching Fulham v Aston Villa in the EFL playoff with my father
    And after that, I think there’s something going on in Kiev...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    -Six in ten (60%) people support an immigration policy that is designed to make it as difficult as possible for people who do not have the right to be in the UK to stay here.

    - But almost two-thirds (64%) also prioritise that people who have the right to be here are not forced to leave, even if this means that some illegal immigrants are not deported

    - The majority of the public (63%) say they are ashamed of how Britain has treated the Windrush generation and six in ten (61%) agree that the Windrush scandal is mainly a result of government incompetence rather than the rules on immigration


    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/attitudes-towards-immigration-after-windrush

    There are a lot of sadists in the U.K.!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Superb points made by Purple this afternoon.

    And it’s worth repeating, that the U.K. makes little effort to nation build *within* the union, apart from by running a grossly overcentralised system from Treasury.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846


    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...

    You are back in the realms of fantasy again. Where it seems you spend most of your life.
    Your plan was simply to gatecrash EFTA to stay in the EEA against the EU's will. Wholly unrealistic and incompatible with the Irish backstop. What's your plan B?
    I have no interest in the Irish backstop. Nor was it a question of gatecrashing anyone. Next question.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Is Ireland a continental country or do you presume to tell them their view of the national interest is wrong?

    Ireland joined when we did because like it or not they had no choice. With their main trading partner joining they were screwed if they didn't join. More importantly they received vast amounts of money from the EU.

    Should they have joined in the first place? In terms of getting loads of money from the rest of the EU then yes. But otherwise no it was as dumb as us joining. Even more so then being so stupid as to join the Euro.


    In 1970 the Irish economy had 90% of exports go to the UK. We are still their second largest export destination by value, but at about 15%. Combined with the shift from a Punt tied to Sterling to the Euro, Ireland has become a much more integrated part of the EU than us. This cultural and economic change is dramatic, with yesterdays vote emblematic of the change. This is despite Ireland having much the same legal system and culture as GB. Ireland is more European, but still a distinctve nation, and one that is effectively using its power as a member of the Union for political leverage.

    Ireland has embraced EU values in a way that we never did. I think @purple is correct in saying that this was the missing element in the Remain campaign. The emphasis on transactions rather than values was a big defect in the campaign, as I said at the time, and failed to engage in what was for the most part a campaign between Tory factions.

    All water under the bridge for now, but showing in the continuing strength of feeling of former Remain voters, and it is nailed on that there will be an active Rejoin campaign along fairly swiftly.
    Though the Irish economic and legal system is much the same as ours and was not a bar? Let alone legal and economic systems as diverse as Malta, Greece, Estonia, Portugal or Finland?

    British exceptionalism at its finest.
    With the exception of Malta which runs a mixed Common law/Civil Law system, all of the countries you mention run Civil Law systems as opposed to the Common Law system run in Britain and the Anglosphere. The Scots also run a mixed system like Malta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png
    It’s not a numbers game.
    The point is that Ireland seems to manage very well (and is now using the EU to magnify it’s influence) despite having a common law system.

    Purple is right.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Sounds like a mad theory, but worth sharing:

    https://twitter.com/j_amesp/status/1000316180249436160?s=21
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051


    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...

    You are back in the realms of fantasy again. Where it seems you spend most of your life.
    Your plan was simply to gatecrash EFTA to stay in the EEA against the EU's will. Wholly unrealistic and incompatible with the Irish backstop. What's your plan B?
    I have no interest in the Irish backstop. Nor was it a question of gatecrashing anyone. Next question.
    You may not!

    However our government did agree the Irish backstop, so we either abide by it or repudiate it and go back to phase one. I think the latter option may well not progress well!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786


    The new status quo being shackled to a customs union and the single market because "like it or not we don't have any choice"?

    Poor you...

    You are back in the realms of fantasy again. Where it seems you spend most of your life.
    Your plan was simply to gatecrash EFTA to stay in the EEA against the EU's will. Wholly unrealistic and incompatible with the Irish backstop. What's your plan B?
    I have no interest in the Irish backstop. Nor was it a question of gatecrashing anyone. Next question.
    Why did you spend so much time explaining that the EU could do nothing to prevent your plan?

    Given that it's not happening, you still need to answer my first question: what is your plan B?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    In a week in which we have had interesting reads from Cummings and Rogers, this - just published - is really the best thing I’ve read on Brexit to date.

    It echoes Purple’s points, (It could even be *by* Purple). A must read for Leavers and Remainers.

    http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2018/05/forty-years-of-failed-political.html
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    It’s not a numbers game.
    The point is that Ireland seems to manage very well (and is now using the EU to magnify it’s influence) despite having a common law system.

    Purple is right.

    No it is not a numbers game but Foxy listed a whole set of countries claiming they had a different legal system and it was garbage.

    Besides, all that money the EU has thrown at Ireland will buy a lot of souls.
This discussion has been closed.