Cable Forum
Page 22 of 224 « First 1218192021 22 232425263272122 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Brexit discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705369)

Hom3r 11-10-2017 20:31
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35919874)
You will most likely get your wish fairly soon ;)
If I don't can I keep demanding one until I get the result I want?

richard s 11-10-2017 20:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I wonder how many of are MPs voted out and how many wanted to remain in the EU. IMO the Tory's have failed the British people.

Ignitionnet 11-10-2017 22:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35919872)
Likewise I'm yet to see any credible report thats suggest anyone will lose from Brexit.
This is a joke and I'm just not getting the punchline, right?

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35919877)
If I don't can I keep demanding one until I get the result I want?
You can keep demanding one all you want. It's called democracy.

pip08456 12-10-2017 08:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Treasury minister changes mind on brexit. Seems like things won't be as bad as some predict.


http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics...exit-1-5232380

jonbxx 12-10-2017 10:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35919872)
Likewise I'm yet to see any credible report thats suggest anyone will lose from Brexit.[COLOR="Silver"]
I'll bite. What source would you regard as credible? Academics, finance institutions, government departments? Would you accept single reports or a meta analysis? I found a brief presentation which covers all three - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf

Good use of the word 'scenarii' in there :D

Mick 12-10-2017 11:40
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35919921)
I'll bite. What source would you regard as credible? Academics, finance institutions, government departments? Would you accept single reports or a meta analysis? I found a brief presentation which covers all three - https://benefitcostanalysis.org/site...1%20Brexit.pdf

Good use of the word 'scenarii' in there :D
There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.

denphone 12-10-2017 11:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919927)
There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.
On that l think we can agree as how can anyone know what the consequences are when we have never ventured down this path before.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919927)
There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.
And vice versa there are equally just as many who have only experienced life being in the EU so whether ones experience of one is better then the other is all down to ones personal experiences and preferences.

jonbxx 12-10-2017 11:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919927)
All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.
So faith will get us through the process?

Mick 12-10-2017 13:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35919930)
So faith will get us through the process?
No. Being optimistic and wanting the Country to succeed when we leave should be the priority now. Going over old arguments as to staying in the EU, that boat has sailed. Talk of being in the single market, customs union, this is not leaving tbe EU.

I and millions of people took part in a huge democratic process. There was two options. The option I voted for, won. I’m not interested in the arguments as to why people voted the way they did, the rules before the vote, were the same and both sides used questionable tactics. Both sides told porkies to get their side more votes.

So a democratic process took place, one result was final and it should be enacted because if we don’t then let’s just piss all over the graves of all those people who fought and died, for the right to a free, stable democracy.

ianch99 12-10-2017 13:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919927)
There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.
Mick, you cannot use Nostalgia as a basis for predicting the future especially when the period you are referring is decades ago. The world has changed in all recognition and assumptions made then just do not apply today.

Also sources are not credible just because they says things you do want to hear, that is just denial. If you think they are wrong, tell us why they are wrong. Our whole society is based on the ability to predict events in the short to medium term. The City use Actuaries to do exactly this.

If you went to the Doctor and he said that he thinks that, in his opinion, something will happen to you in 6 months time if you do not change your lifestyle, would you tell him/her that he/she "doesn't have a bloody clue"?

Also, I do not want my children to just "manage" and be grateful that they may be worse off in all sorts of ways but they have "taken back control". There are people who are content to be poorer after Brexit as long as their have their "control" .. I am not one of them and when I see people forcing their extreme Brexit path on the country when they know it is going to make the Country worse off then something has to change.

Ignitionnet 12-10-2017 15:47
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919936)
No. Being optimistic and wanting the Country to succeed when we leave should be the priority now. Going over old arguments as to staying in the EU, that boat has sailed. Talk of being in the single market, customs union, this is not leaving tbe EU.

I and millions of people took part in a huge democratic process. There was two options. The option I voted for, won. I’m not interested in the arguments as to why people voted the way they did, the rules before the vote, were the same and both sides used questionable tactics. Both sides told porkies to get their side more votes.

So a democratic process took place, one result was final and it should be enacted because if we don’t then let’s just piss all over the graves of all those people who fought and died, for the right to a free, stable democracy.
I'm afraid the rest of your post and your final paragraph don't mesh at all. A free and stable democracy is not one where dissent is disallowed, and is not one where people aren't allowed to question the legality and methods of campaigns.

The result of that one vote is final, the situation following is not set in aspic. Should circumstances change democracy demands that the country is permitted to change course.

I also disagree on your definition of leaving the European Union and, in a free, stable democracy, it is absolutely my right to do so.

I'm not into authoritarianism whether based on a referendum result or not - I'd hope your knowledge of history would show you that that's a bad idea. It is your demands in your post that are disrespecting democracy. Those who fought in the Second World War would be very, very aware of what happens when a referendum is considered irreversible.

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919927)
There are no credible sources, don’t care how expertly opinionated some group or professional or someone may be, they don’t have a bloody clue, no one does.

All I know is that people who were alive decades before the EU existed came to be, they have some experience in what life was like before the EU. They say we managed then and I’m sure we will manage again.
There are plenty of credible sources though there is plenty of cynicism about them, especially from one point of view, due to that virtually none of them say what those on one side of the debate want to hear. There is a very Trumpian tendency now to seize upon the slightest inaccuracy from experts and try and use it, whether legitimately or by mischaracterising it, to completely discredit everything they say - see recent climate change research.

Are the various companies that make their money through forecasts about the future some kind of illuminati trying to subvert democracy? They make money either way, if anything many are likely to make more money should the UK's economy go completely pearshaped.

Experts were among those ridiculing the comprehensively and legitimately discredited nonsense spouted during the campaign.

The last paragraph is crazy. People who were alive in the early 70s have absolutely no relevant experience to how the post-EU world will be in the late 2010s and the time after because the world of the 2010s bears very little resemblance to the one of the early 70s and before.

If it's fine for us to just 'manage' rather than prosper perhaps we should start looking at the whole thing again? I personally would rather my daughter did more than just 'manage'. YMMV.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35919917)
Treasury minister changes mind on brexit. Seems like things won't be as bad as some predict.


http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics...exit-1-5232380
Yes. Liz Truss. A true intellectual powerhouse.



---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

This does make me think, though. Let's have some conspiratorial fun and look at our free, stable democracy in the context of that referendum. This is extremely long, so I've 'spoilered' it.

Spoiler: 
We all know that the Government saw fit to send us a load of nonsense through the post pre-referendum.

How many people hear know that the group that owns The Sun registered as an official Leave campaigning group the week before the referendum?

How many people know Vote Leave, having maxed out their own spending, gave £625,000 to a one-man organisation run by a 23 year old fashion student which was promptly spent with a basically unknown company with virtually zero advertising presence in Western Canada, Aggregate IQ, along with half of Vote Leave's own spending and money from the DUP with cash they received from unknown sources as anonymous donations are allowed in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain? The cash is believed to have come from the extra £2 million Vote Leave raised but didn't actually spend 'officially', much as the 'BeLeave' campaign, the 23 year old fashion student and Vote Leave volunteer's funding was. Veterans for Britain also received a hundred grand from Vote Leave.

Now, despite all parties involved claiming that there was no co-ordination within the spending, as that would be a breach of election law, mysteriously both BeLeave and Veterans for Britain also spent their cash at Aggregate IQ, this obscure web marketing company based in British Columbia, Canada. The Electoral Commission actually believed this absurdity.

Aggregate IQ, incidentally, is based in British Columbia at the same address and telephone number as a company briefly listed by Cambridge Analytica, the previously virtually unknown big data weaponisation service owned by Robert Mercer and Steve Bannon, among others, as an overseas office under the name SCL Canada.

Cambridge Analytica are noteworthy for being heavily involved in the 2016 US presidential election and are accordingly under investigation as there are many unanswered questions regarding how they came by their raw data and what they did with it. They are on record as claiming credit for 'weaponisation' of big data, having a staff heavily comprised of ex-defence staff, many experts in 'information warfare' and claiming involvement in a number of election campaigns.

But ignoring this is essential to not showing disrespect to those who gave their lives fighting for a 'free, stable democracy'. Ya.

Let's discuss some of the funders of campaigns too. Crispen Odey - hedge fund manager, nearly 900 grand, he lost a lot more when the economy failed to immediately crash.

Just think about that for a moment. In our 'free, stable democracy' a man gave 900k to a political campaign in the hope that it would crash the economy and he could make money.

Aaron Banks - £2.1m in donations, £6m in loans. The leaks of the Panama Papers documents showed him to have various involvements in off-shore tax havens. The kinds of operations that would get more problematic with the EU's Anti-Tax Aviodance Directive, which becomes law in 2019.

There's a fair amount more mileage in this but, sadly, I only have a limited lunch break - I'm not a multi-millionaire that can throw millions at 'free, stable' democratic votes to try and ensure my tax liabilities don't go up or to try and make a mint crashing an economy.

Now onto the sudden rush for a Brexit with no deal with the European Union. Let's talk about the Legatum Institute, an organisation that most definitely has the ear of prominent members of our Government:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1454/hp-sauce

Quote:
In their place have come the hardmen and women of the Tory right. Toby Baxendale, who helped run Andrea Leadsom’s Tory leadership campaign, is a trustee. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, is a senior fellow, along with Tim Montgomerie, founder of Conservative Home, who recently accused the BBC of “looking unpatriotic” when it reported that the French were poaching jobs from post-Brexit Britain.

Right-wing ministers have welcomed Legatum’s “expertise”. It’s not just Johnson who entertains its gurus. Shanker Singham, Legatum’s director of economic policy, has advised David Davis and Liam Fox. Although the media describe Singham as a “former US trade negotiator”, a former US trade official told the Times: “He didn’t negotiate anything.” To imply that he was an authority on trade deals was “a bit of a stretch”.

Although Montgomerie plays the patriotic card, no organisation could be further from Britain than the Legatum Institute. It is funded by a foundation registered in Bermuda and controlled by a company in the Cayman Islands. Behind it stands Christopher Chandler, a remarkably shy billionaire from New Zealand.

-----

Right-wing ministers
In their place have come the hardmen and women of the Tory right. Toby Baxendale, who helped run Andrea Leadsom’s Tory leadership campaign, is a trustee. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, is a senior fellow, along with Tim Montgomerie, founder of Conservative Home, who recently accused the BBC of “looking unpatriotic” when it reported that the French were poaching jobs from post-Brexit Britain.

Right-wing ministers have welcomed Legatum’s “expertise”. It’s not just Johnson who entertains its gurus. Shanker Singham, Legatum’s director of economic policy, has advised David Davis and Liam Fox. Although the media describe Singham as a “former US trade negotiator”, a former US trade official told the Times: “He didn’t negotiate anything.” To imply that he was an authority on trade deals was “a bit of a stretch”.

Although Montgomerie plays the patriotic card, no organisation could be further from Britain than the Legatum Institute. It is funded by a foundation registered in Bermuda and controlled by a company in the Cayman Islands. Behind it stands Christopher Chandler, a remarkably shy billionaire from New Zealand.
If any of this is untrue I am sure that law suits will be hitting Private Eye. Unlike, say, Guido Fawkes and his blog they don't operate under the umbrella of an off-shore company to dodge the UK's libel laws.

Senior members of our Government are having their ears bent by an off-shore, opaque organisation owned by a man with a track record of buying distressed assets within distressed economies and I'm supposed to shrug my shoulders for fear of disrespecting a 'free, stable democracy'?

I think it's fair to say that that referendum was a long way from what would be expected of a 'free, stable democracy'. The Electoral Commission has since embarked on a campaign of covering its backside and trying to ignore how out of date its powers are in the modern world.

Those of us who voted to leave were, comprehensively, had. It would, no question, have influenced how people voted. Whether it would've changed the result I don't know but there is no way that anyone could hold it up as a shining example of democracy in a modern, first world country.

jonbxx 12-10-2017 16:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919936)
No. Being optimistic and wanting the Country to succeed when we leave should be the priority now. Going over old arguments as to staying in the EU, that boat has sailed. Talk of being in the single market, customs union, this is not leaving tbe EU.

I and millions of people took part in a huge democratic process. There was two options. The option I voted for, won. I’m not interested in the arguments as to why people voted the way they did, the rules before the vote, were the same and both sides used questionable tactics. Both sides told porkies to get their side more votes.

So a democratic process took place, one result was final and it should be enacted because if we don’t then let’s just piss all over the graves of all those people who fought and died, for the right to a free, stable democracy.
Ah, the Tinkerbell effect - believe it strongly enough and it will happen...

You are of course right, the leave campaign won. The problem is that no one really defined what leave means. Simply invoking article 50 and walking away is of course a simple concept but the reality of things are much more complicated than that.

I am concerned that the clock is ticking here and there doesn't appear to be much action. Lots of talk, but no action and that's from both the EU and UK. If there isn't a solution to the issue of our one land border between the UK and EU yet then I don't feel very condfident on harmonisation and mutual recognition of standards for computerised systems used in pahrmaceutical production as an example

Ramrod 12-10-2017 22:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919944)
The result of that one vote is final, the situation following is not set in aspic. Should circumstances change democracy demands that the country is permitted to change course.
No, democracy doesn't demand that. We were told that if we voted out, we would be out. It was made crystal clear to us all before we voted.

Ramrod 12-10-2017 22:20
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35919955)
The problem is that no one really defined what leave means.
That really doesn't matter. Leave (as we were repeatedly told) means leave :shrug:

pip08456 12-10-2017 22:22
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35919991)
No, democracy doesn't demand that. We were told that if we voted out, we would be out. It was made crystal clear to us all before we voted.
Couldn't be clearer.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:01.
Page 22 of 224 « First 1218192021 22 232425263272122 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum