Cable Forum
Page 30 of 34 « First 2026272829 30 31323334
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)

Mr K 08-06-2018 19:28
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949825)
Says Mr K, who considers Jeremy Corbyn as a great PM... :sick: :rolleyes:
When did I ever say that Mick? 'Fake news' from you there :D

ianch99 08-06-2018 19:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949736)
Pretty much spot on, but it goes a bit farther than that. So yes, you got it, but there is a deeper reason. So for example across Christianity there is a conundrum that always has one answer: the question is that of works VS faith.

So the basic question is this, do you have faith alone which will get you into heaven or must you earn your way into it, through deeds?

In Galations 2: 16 Paul says this:



Then, James says this: (James 2: 14 through 17)



Now, this argument is both futile and unanswerable in the first place - Paul gets close to answering it, himself in Romans 7 15 through 24:



See the answer is one and the same, every single time. You are covered by God's grace through belief and if that belief is sincere and you have Christ in your heart, the acts will follow naturally because of your faith - the deeds will come naturally because you truly are a Christian.

Now for what I personally care about as a Christian I would expect to come naturally to my every day life. It doesn't always, but as I have Christ in my heart my desire is to do His work. Because the faith is there, the rest comes as second nature.

Now in regards to JRM, the shared faith leads me to believe that his deeds will follow suit - he has Christ in his heart (which I truly believe that he does) and I believe that his acts will follow accordingly. Given every chance he got, he refused to abandon his Catholic principles and stood firm in his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He had every single chance to say something like "it is a settled matter" etc etc, but he did not. This is what I was saying to Mick...public opinion is one thing but so long as your own principles do not get compromised along the way, you are good.

You mentioned the future of our children in your post so firstly yes, I am a mother, and I have a 10 year old thank you for asking. I believe that he (specifically) is the member with the most value for the sanctity of life. For me, that is the single biggest issue and most important (along with faith in general) and yes, that over-rides the other issue(s) that you have mentioned. If we leave the EU...oh well. So long as he defines that a child must never be killed in the womb, I will support him.

This is also something I can share with politicians of other denominations, within the same faith - like Frank Fields who is a politician from the other side of the aisle. He is an outstanding advocate for the poor and needy (again as Christ taught us) and he has campaigned tirelessly for the more vulnerable in our society (the disabled, elderly, poor etc). He also was a phenomenal supporter of the troops, taking care of those who were injured in combat through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and has been supportive of the mission there all along.

It can even go beyond the denomination - my former MP was Matthew Offord (until I moved). He was opposed to the gay marriage bill, he supports Israel beyond question, and ironically enough, opposed to the EU like the two others above, too. I am in favor of EU membership for Britain but ultimately it is not important for me as an issue (insofar as priorities go).

You are right, I do not agree with JRM on the EU and some other stuff. But I do agree with him (and the two above) on God the father (though Offord being Jewish only sees the son as a prophet) and the protection of every unborn child, first and foremost. JRM is my denomination and I would love a Roman Catholic PM but beyond the faith, all 3 have supported restricting abortion or banning it altogether, they all supported the Iraq war and have been phenomenal supporters of Israel, too. Field does a great deal for the poor and the needy (as Christ taught us), Offord does a great job defending the constituency with the largest Jewish population in the country and even though I may not agree with all 3 on Europe I don't particularly care - God before country any day. Because if you have the faith, the acts that the Father told us to carry out, will follow naturally.
Risking the wrath of the off-topic police but here goes :)

Trying to govern a country of mainly non-theist individuals and a disparate set of widely differing faiths based on the tenets of one specific faith is misguided at best, disturbing at worst. So any politician who try to bring their personal beliefs to the (political) table is on a hiding to nothing.

Quoting scripture to backup an argument is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You can put together justification for most things from the Old and New Testament so it means nothing when reinforcing an objective point.

If JRM ever puts God before Country, he's political toast ...

OLD BOY 08-06-2018 21:53
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35949798)
Unless the migrants we've put off from coming were going to work in services, schools, hospitals, surgeries, etc....
The whole point is about controlling migration, not stopping it altogether.

Your post shows the nature of the Brexit kickbackers - deliberately confuse the problem with the intention of getting a peverse result!

Mr K 08-06-2018 22:03
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949865)
The whole point is about controlling migration, not stopping it altogether.

Your post shows the nature of the Brexit kickbackers - deliberately confuse the problem with the intention of getting a peverse result!
We already have a problem recruiting overseas workers in critical areas like health and farming, and this is before Brexit has even happened. We're coming across as a very unwelcoming country, there are plenty of others that will welcome these workers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8194701.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...es-say-doctors

OLD BOY 08-06-2018 22:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949803)
Sorry, yeah that did go a little OT. (I did try not to go on too much about the works VS faith argument). Yeah, I do have a lot of personal respect and love for JRM as a person. I never used to be as far right as I am on various issues but conservatives / Republicans were the ones who always remained opposed to abortion / God in the public square etc so I could easily reconcile some of my other positions pretty easily. Obviously I would never compromise my faith so I steered closer to those who shared it - the likes of JRM do so I stood by his membership of the house. Yes, I may not agree with Dr Fox on much but as a pro life Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage I would definitely support either him or Phillip Hammond to become the next PM if it had to be one of the current cabinet ministers. (Hammond was opposed to the gay marriage bill, too). Even though Hammond was a remain campaigner and Fox was adamant on leaving the EU they commonality on faith makes their social stances rise above whatever differences they have over Europe.
I know your belief is sincere, Chloé, but I think we should make up our own minds and think for ourselves on these matters, rather than rely on ancient texts written by people who lacked the depth of understanding we now have. The danger of unconditional belief are amply demonstrated in the rise of ISIL.

Look at abortion from a different perspective. Rather than just quote from a firm 'belief', argue the point that abortion involves the murder of a human being who has consciousness and feeling. The issue should not be whether the baby is capable of living after abortion, but whether it can be conscious of its situation and feel pain. If it can do so, then abortion in those circumstances is murder, pure and simple. Abortion at up to 12 weeks, to my mind, is acceptable, based on what I know.

As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I don't think religion is relevant at all. Either Brexit will work or it won't. Personally, I think there are enormous potential benefits from getting out, and the real danger is staying in. This monolithic monstrosity will implode sooner or later, and we don't want to be in it when that happens.

1andrew1 08-06-2018 22:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949865)
The whole point is about controlling migration, not stopping it altogether.

Your post shows the nature of the Brexit kickbackers - deliberately confuse the problem with the intention of getting a peverse result!
Whereas you falsely assume that every migrant comes here to sign on.

ianch99 08-06-2018 22:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949873)
Whereas you falsely assume that every migrant comes here to sign on.
And the Elephant in the room that is never discussed is that net migration into the UK is far larger for non-EU countries:

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics

Quote:
EU net migration is currently 90,000 compared to 205,000 from outside the EU.
Attachment 27432

An inconvenient truth ...

1andrew1 09-06-2018 00:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949825)
Says Mr K, who considers Jeremy Corbyn as a great PM... :sick: :rolleyes:
Lol, I'm sure Corbyn wishes this was true! :D
I honestly don't think anyone on this forum would credit JC as ever being a potential great PM! Not that the current incumbent is exactly brilliant, mind.

OLD BOY 09-06-2018 01:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949873)
Whereas you falsely assume that every migrant comes here to sign on.
No, I am saying that if anyone wants to settle in the UK, they need to demonstrate that we need their skills. What's wrong with that? Please tell!

A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the demands for staff in the NHS, but this is based on a false assumption. We are looking not at a ban on immigration but controlled immigration, so we only take on the people we need.

Most of us are not anti-immigration, we are just concerned about uncontrolled immigration, because we are only a small island.

Chloé Palmas 09-06-2018 02:34
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35949820)
get some help, it's not too late ;)
You can't show warmth for him as a person? See, this is the thing with me - usually if someone is not nasty / crude / vile etc, I can have a good relationship with them, no matter how much I disagree with them.

I have political differences with a lot of my friends (almost all are more conservative than me).

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything - what kind of life would that be?

To be fair to her btw, May is taking that approach of exit options from the EU within her own cabinet. Nobody agrees on anything do they? Collective responsibility is one thing but Boris and Jo Johnson are brothers, look at how they disagree on the issue.

Disagreement but respect is a fundamental sign of decency.

I disagree with a lot of the leave voters (on the issue of the EU) in this thread - just because I can like them or get along with them as people does not mean that I need help.

OLD BOY 09-06-2018 03:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949873)
Whereas you falsely assume that every migrant comes here to sign on.
No, I don't, actually! I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Carth 09-06-2018 11:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949897)
I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Fully agree with Old Boy on this one.

There are many 'skilled' economic immigrants in the UK that are quite happy (and work well) doing menial unskilled minimum wage work . . because that minimum wage for an unskilled job actually pays more than their 'skilled' job back home (if they can find one).

It works for them, it doesn't work for the UK people who are unable to find work because it's already taken by 'outsiders'. - leave off with 'the uk people won't work' stuff, it's probably only 1% of the unemployed.

1andrew1 09-06-2018 13:15
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949897)
No, I don't, actually! I just want to ensure that we only take in the people that we need. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
How do you define the people that you need? Seems like a scheme to create lots of well-paid civil service jobs and strangle the British economy with red tape and cost. Move over Jeremy Corbyn, Old Boy will do your job for you! :td:

You seem to be thinking of a model of a centrally-planned economy like the Soviet Union with minimal technological change. Your theory may work ok in such an economic environment but not in a world where yesterday's jobs are outdated in ways that no one can predict and new jobs are created in areas that we would similarly never have considered.

OLD BOY 09-06-2018 16:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949906)
How do you define the people that you need? Seems like a scheme to create lots of well-paid civil service jobs and strangle the British economy with red tape and cost. Move over Jeremy Corbyn, Old Boy will do your job for you! :td:

You seem to be thinking of a model of a centrally-planned economy like the Soviet Union with minimal technological change. Your theory may work ok in such an economic environment but not in a world where yesterday's jobs are outdated in ways that no one can predict and new jobs are created in areas that we would similarly never have considered.
No, of course I don't mean that. What I am saying is that if an organisation is unable to recruit a suitably qualified candidate for a position, the government would give that organisation dispensation to recruit from abroad.

We should only allow in the people we need until such time as our population levels reduce below an optimum figure. That way our services and housing needs will be back on an even keel.

I don't know why these simple concepts are eluding some people. It really isn't rocket science!

Carth 09-06-2018 17:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949906)
How do you define the people that you need? Seems like a scheme to create lots of well-paid civil service jobs and strangle the British economy with red tape and cost.
Alternatively, we can flood the market with cheap foreign labour, and strangle the UK economy with high unemployment levels, housing shortages etc. :D

It would all be so much easier if the Government introduced legislation that required employers to hire UK workers rather than foreign ones if their skills were of equivalent levels.

Damien 09-06-2018 21:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...anks-6lf5xdp6h

Quote:
Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who helped fund Brexit, had three meetings with the Russian ambassador to Britain — raising explosive questions about attempts by Moscow to influence the referendum result.

Emails by Banks and his sidekick Andy Wigmore, shown to The Sunday Times, reveal an extensive web of links between Banks’s Leave.EU campaign and Russian officials.

Hugh 09-06-2018 21:45
Re: Brexit discussion
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949919)
Alternatively, we can flood the market with cheap foreign labour, and strangle the UK economy with high unemployment levels, housing shortages etc. :D

It would all be so much easier if the Government introduced legislation that required employers to hire UK workers rather than foreign ones if their skills were of equivalent levels.
The statistics don’t seem to reflect that statement.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1528573474

TheDaddy 09-06-2018 21:52
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949919)
Alternatively, we can flood the market with cheap foreign labour, and strangle the UK economy with high unemployment levels, housing shortages etc. :D

It would all be so much easier if the Government introduced legislation that required employers to hire UK workers rather than foreign ones if their skills were of equivalent levels.
What UK workers, we have all but 100% employment and it could be argued the low skilled migrants are opening up a higher level tier of jobs for British workers to do, not that it matters, if we keep hemoraging foreign investment we might well need those jobs for our own people after all.

1andrew1 09-06-2018 23:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949911)
No, of course I don't mean that. What I am saying is that if an organisation is unable to recruit a suitably qualified candidate for a position, the government would give that organisation dispensation to recruit from abroad.

We should only allow in the people we need until such time as our population levels reduce below an optimum figure. That way our services and housing needs will be back on an even keel.

I don't know why these simple concepts are eluding some people. It really isn't rocket science!
How on earth do you determine what that optimum level is? You can't because this is not some planned economy without technological innovation.
Plenty of brownfield sites and closed shops that can be converted into housing. As others have explained to you - and I don't know why you turn a deaf ear to the facts - immigrants more than cover the services they use so are not a burden. Yes, a minority don't and they should be deported as legislation permits us to do.
You've not explained the process, timelines and costs behind your proposal but we're talking about a significant burden you propose to impose on British industry to solve a non-existent problem.

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)
Absolutely not surprised by this revelation, Brexit has been a God-send to the Russians.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Interesting piece by former NI negotiation Jonathon Powell in today's FT.
Quote:
Thursday June 7 2018 may go down in history as the day hard Brexit died. It has tripped over the conundrum of the Northern Ireland border, as it was always going to do. The only reason there isn’t more noise is that the Brexiters do not realise it yet.
There was only ever one possible answer to avoiding a hard border, and that is either Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole staying in the customs union and the single market for goods. Finally the British government has accepted the inevitable in its “ backstop” proposal: the UK will stay in the customs union, although it will be called something else, and we will have to negotiate regulatory alignment by remaining in the single market for industrial and agricultural goods. The proposal suggests that the UK will be able to negotiate new trade deals with third countries from this position, but you only have to think about that for a moment to realise it is nonsense. The only area where we would have any scope for separate deals would be on services. And who is going to reach a free-trade agreement with the UK on services alone?
He concludes by pointing out that the only bit of the EU we will be leaving is the one area where we are strongest in — the single market for services.
https://www.ft.com/content/05dc4920-...1-39f3459514fd

Carth 09-06-2018 23:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35949938)
The statistics don’t seem to reflect that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35949939)
What UK workers, we have all but 100% employment . .
I know what the 'statistics' say, and I know how they get them.

I guess by 'employment' you guys would be happy with 16hrs a week?

Damien 09-06-2018 23:27
Re: Brexit discussion
 
We need to find another way to solve the NI border issue than staying in 'a' customs union if such an arrangement allows the EU to sell their strengths to us but not our strength to them. Leave or Remain we're heading for a disaster no-one wants. I wanted to stay in the EU because I think it helps us to have access to that market but it's mental to constrict our access to them but not their access to us!

At the moment it seems they can sell cars to us but we'll face tariffs selling services to them! It's crazy. Brexit is going to leave them laughing at this rate.

1andrew1 10-06-2018 00:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949949)
We need to find another way to solve the NI border issue than staying in 'a' customs union if such an arrangement allows the EU to sell their strengths to us but not our strength to them. Leave or Remain we're heading for a disaster no-one wants. I wanted to stay in the EU because I think it helps us to have access to that market but it's mental to constrict our access to them but not their access to us!

At the moment it seems they can sell cars to us but we'll face tariffs selling services to them! It's crazy. Brexit is going to leave them laughing at this rate.
We've had two years to devise a solution for Ireland and failed. Even if we devised a solution that all members of the Cabinet agreed to, what motivation is there for the EU to accept it? None. The game to me was up on 8 December 2017 when Theresa May signed the backstop agreement which allowed the Brexit talks to move onto the next stage.
The EU will be quite happy for high-value services to relocate from the UK to Dublin and the Continent whilst at the same time selling us their cars and wine. We will continue to fund the EU but be a rule-taker, consulted if they are feeling generous.
If the Brexit deal has to be approved by the British Parliament, I seriously wonder if it will be accepted as by then the penny will have truly dropped.

---------- Post added at 23:23 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)
Tomorrow's Observer has further revelations on the scandal.
Quote:
Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.

The communications suggest:

- Multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
- Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
- An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
- A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
- Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-meeting

Chloé Palmas 10-06-2018 03:31
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35949848)
Risking the wrath of the off-topic police but here goes :)
They seem very happy to let this naturally flow wherever it is going and we are still talking about the EU here so it does come back full circle. :)

Quote:
Trying to govern a country of mainly non-theist individuals and a disparate set of widely differing faiths based on the tenets of one specific faith is misguided at best, disturbing at worst. So any politician who try to bring their personal beliefs to the (political) table is on a hiding to nothing.
Actually, in the midst of struggling to govern a nation of non believers in such a way shows that his religious principle is unmovable, right?

Not like he gains much from it (politically speaking) so it goes to show that he believes what he says, he means it and it does not matter whether it is unpopular or not.

Would you rather that he ignore his views and pretend to hide them?

Quote:
Quoting scripture to backup an argument is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You can put together justification for most things from the Old and New Testament so it means nothing when reinforcing an objective point.
So? Those of us who have faith in our life do not use it for the purpose of making an objective point. We believe what we believe and irregardless of how it may or may not be ridiculed, we believe it none the less.

Quote:
If JRM ever puts God before Country, he's political toast ...
Again, he won't care - comes back to this EU stuff. When we get up to the gates you think that Saint Peter is really going to care what we did about the bill to leave and referendum?

JRM will not care one hoot if his political career is toast. He is a rich man who is only involved in politics for other people...he isn't doing this for himself.

His true judge is all he will care about.

---------- Post added at 02:31 ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949867)
I know your belief is sincere, Chloé, but I think we should make up our own minds and think for ourselves on these matters, rather than rely on ancient texts written by people who lacked the depth of understanding we now have. The danger of unconditional belief are amply demonstrated in the rise of ISIL.
Those texts are what guide us into the views that we hold, though - dear or otherwise.

For example (as difficult as it may be) if you saw an Eastern European immigrant who was starving on the street instead of wishing him to be deported I would hope that you would try and help him out / give him a hand.

The teaching of the belief is different and while IS may have painful, hideous and nasty teachings nothing in my faith tells me to show anything but love to my fellow human beings. In following God's laws I try do that to the best of my abilities.

Quote:
Look at abortion from a different perspective. Rather than just quote from a firm 'belief', argue the point that abortion involves the murder of a human being who has consciousness and feeling. The issue should not be whether the baby is capable of living after abortion, but whether it can be conscious of its situation and feel pain. If it can do so, then abortion in those circumstances is murder, pure and simple. Abortion at up to 12 weeks, to my mind, is acceptable, based on what I know.
Let's say that you are correct and that they feel no physical pain before 12 weeks. For me that is irrelevant to my own actions and behavior and could never see any justifications for killing a child in the womb either way. Just because he or she does not feel pain does not justify it at all, IMO. For me, it is still murder and the pain makes it even worse. Even without any pain though, the act is still wrong IMO.

Quote:
As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I don't think religion is relevant at all. Either Brexit will work or it won't. Personally, I think there are enormous potential benefits from getting out, and the real danger is staying in. This monolithic monstrosity will implode sooner or later, and we don't want to be in it when that happens.
Religion is not relevant? If it was not for the religious divide, Ireland would be whole / one. If that were the case it would be the biggest stumbling block taken care of.

Another thing (on that front) - how difficult is it to get major figures and media to realize the flaw of the word Brexit? Britain - presumably what the BR in Brexit stands for? That is defined as the kingdom of England merging with the Kingdom of Scotland (Wales was a part of England back then). Now the UK...that is the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if it was truly just "Brexit" then the Ireland issue would not exist, either.

That is tripping this thing up all over the place - the Ireland issue. God's holy own Catholic nation, bordering with the protestants north of the border and there is no way round that.

See why religion is relevant? Because you are correct, it will either work, or it will not.

Without acceptance that religious accommodation is needed, it won't.

Mick 10-06-2018 04:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949937)
FFS not this bullshit again...

The Russians did not influence the EU Referendum... I did NOT need any assistance from ANY foreign entity to tick 'Leave the EU' and I am damn sure that's the case for the other 17.4 Million other people who voted to leave the EU!!!

Any excuse to find and de-legitimise, a legitimate result....

TheDaddy 10-06-2018 04:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949961)
FFS not this bullshit again...

The Russians did not influence the EU Referendum... I did NOT need any assistance from ANY foreign entity to tick 'Leave the EU' and I am damn sure that's the case for the other 17.4 Million other people who voted to leave the EU!!!

Any excuse to find and de-legitimise, a legitimate result....
You shouldn't be so sure of the other 17.4 million, just looking at what some posted here confirms that.

---------- Post added at 03:57 ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35949948)
I know what the 'statistics' say, and I know how they get them.

I guess by 'employment' you guys would be happy with 16hrs a week?
How do they get them?

Damien 10-06-2018 08:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949961)
FFS not this bullshit again...

The Russians did not influence the EU Referendum... I did NOT need any assistance from ANY foreign entity to tick 'Leave the EU' and I am damn sure that's the case for the other 17.4 Million other people who voted to leave the EU!!!

Any excuse to find and de-legitimise, a legitimate result....
I don't think they would have had a direct impact on the result. However it's still worth seeing if foreign entities are trying to damage the UK's interests Leave or Remain.

1andrew1 10-06-2018 12:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35949961)
FFS not this bullshit again...

The Russians did not influence the EU Referendum... I did NOT need any assistance from ANY foreign entity to tick 'Leave the EU' and I am damn sure that's the case for the other 17.4 Million other people who voted to leave the EU!!!

Any excuse to find and de-legitimise, a legitimate result....
I don't think any Leavers who believe in sovereignty can turn round and say it's unfair that Parliament is investigating possible overseas influence in a political campaign, especially if they believe thar campaign to be wholly innocent.

papa smurf 10-06-2018 12:40
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I predict that once we have exited from the EU millions of remoaners will spend the rest of their lives sulking and going to weekly therapy sessions .

denphone 10-06-2018 12:45
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35949988)
I predict that once we have exited from the EU millions of remoaners will spend the rest of their lives sulking and going to weekly therapy sessions .
Well first of all less of the remoaners as l for one won't be sulking for the rest of my life or going to weekly therapy sessions as there are far more important things in life to care and worry about IMO..:p::p:

OLD BOY 10-06-2018 12:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35949941)
How on earth do you determine what that optimum level is? You can't because this is not some planned economy without technological innovation.
Plenty of brownfield sites and closed shops that can be converted into housing. As others have explained to you - and I don't know why you turn a deaf ear to the facts - immigrants more than cover the services they use so are not a burden. Yes, a minority don't and they should be deported as legislation permits us to do.
You've not explained the process, timelines and costs behind your proposal but we're talking about a significant burden you propose to impose on British industry to solve a non-existent problem.
I was not advocating that a group of civil servants would get together and work out a formula to determine the optimum level! What are you like? :D

When demand and supply are more or less in balance, you will know. When we are able to meet housing needs, when the NHS is able to cope with the demands placed on it, when we can once again rely on being able to get our children into school within their catchment area - all these things and more will tell you whether we have reached an optimum level. Everyone can see that GB is creeking at the seams at the moment, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

You keep returning to this belief you seem to have that those calling for controlled immigration are dismissive of the contribution of migrants. Well, I'm certainly not, and I drew attention on an earlier post to the fantastic contribution made by the Asians who came to this country during Idi Amin's rule a few decades ago as an example.

This is not about the contribution they make, it's about the strain that over-population puts on the infrastructure of a country.

And as for your 'solution' that we should build and build and build our way out of this situation, I think you will find that most people don't want to see their countryside destroyed to accommodate more and more people. That is exactly what would happen when you run out of brownfield sites, and indeed is happening already. We have whole villages and miles of fields being destroyed in the Thames Valley to make way for huge new housing estates. We can't go on like this!

I don't see what 'burden' you think I want to see on industry. All I have said is that employers should seek to recruit people from within this country before looking overseas. We should be able to improve the prospects of our own people by training them, and that's what TM's government is all about, and is why you are seeing so much investment in apprenticeships, the new technical qualifications, etc.

1andrew1 10-06-2018 13:05
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35949988)
I predict that once we have exited from the EU millions of remoaners will spend the rest of their lives sulking and going to weekly therapy sessions .
I think you're taking a leaf from Trump's book to try and move on from the big news of the day. Naughty smurf! ;)
https://storify.com/services/proxy/2...undayTimes.JPG

OLD BOY 10-06-2018 13:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949959)

Those texts are what guide us into the views that we hold, though - dear or otherwise.

For example (as difficult as it may be) if you saw an Eastern European immigrant who was starving on the street instead of wishing him to be deported I would hope that you would try and help him out / give him a hand.

The teaching of the belief is different and while IS may have painful, hideous and nasty teachings nothing in my faith tells me to show anything but love to my fellow human beings. In following God's laws I try do that to the best of my abilities.



Let's say that you are correct and that they feel no physical pain before 12 weeks. For me that is irrelevant to my own actions and behavior and could never see any justifications for killing a child in the womb either way. Just because he or she does not feel pain does not justify it at all, IMO. For me, it is still murder and the pain makes it even worse. Even without any pain though, the act is still wrong IMO.



Religion is not relevant? If it was not for the religious divide, Ireland would be whole / one. If that were the case it would be the biggest stumbling block taken care of.

Another thing (on that front) - how difficult is it to get major figures and media to realize the flaw of the word Brexit? Britain - presumably what the BR in Brexit stands for? That is defined as the kingdom of England merging with the Kingdom of Scotland (Wales was a part of England back then). Now the UK...that is the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if it was truly just "Brexit" then the Ireland issue would not exist, either.

That is tripping this thing up all over the place - the Ireland issue. God's holy own Catholic nation, bordering with the protestants north of the border and there is no way round that.

See why religion is relevant? Because you are correct, it will either work, or it will not.

Without acceptance that religious accommodation is needed, it won't.
I understand where you are coming from, Chloé, but I stick by my views on this. Religion has its place, of course, and it can bring great comfort to people in coping with their lives. What I was trying to say was that to make decisions based on what the Bible, Koran, or whatever says, you are basically not taking responsibility for your own decisions. Whether one is a good or bad person, they can construe the meaning of these texts the way they want to - we all know that, don't we?

When I said that religion was not relevant, that is what I meant. Clearly the religious sensitivities in the island of Ireland must be taken into account, which is why the border issue is so sensitive.

However, having said that, I think people are bigging up the issues over the Irish border. Everyone will come to see very soon that this 'problem' is not a problem at all. It's just hype and the media is exploiting it for all it's worth because they want to keep the Brexit debate going as long as possible. The eventual solution will not exactly be rocket science.

papa smurf 10-06-2018 13:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35949989)
Well first of all less of the remoaners as l for one won't be sulking for the rest of my life or going to weekly therapy sessions as there are far more important things in life to care and worry about IMO..:p::p:
Bingo first ;)

denphone 10-06-2018 13:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35949995)
Bingo first ;)
No its the family as bingo is just a nice little outing every now and again.:)

1andrew1 10-06-2018 13:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949993)
When I said that religion was not relevant, that is what I meant. Clearly the religious sensitivities in the island of Ireland must be taken into account, which is why the border issue is so sensitive.

However, having said that, I think people are bigging up the issues over the Irish border.
Everyone will come to see very soon that this 'problem' is not a problem at all. It's just hype and the media is exploiting it for all it's worth because they want to keep the Brexit debate going as long as possible. The eventual solution will not exactly be rocket science.
Neither Protestants nor Catholics want a hard border in Ireland. It's more a case of identity and not religion. Google the FT article I linked to before for a better understanding of the context.

Thinking broadly, there are only three practical solutions:
1) Remain in the EU.
2) NI to become part of the Republic
3) UK or NI has an effective customs union and parts of the single market shared with the EU.

I expect you would rule out 1) and 2) just leaving 3).

The other solutions are unacceptable to the EU so even if they were practical - which they're not - the back stop ie 3) would kick in anyway.

However, as Damien and a few others have wised up to, 3) allows the EU to seamlessly and tariff-free sell us manufactured goods but we can't sell our services to them in the same way. The UK's exports are mainly services, not manufactured goods.

Pretending this is not an issue has no merit. This is not a case of religion where praying enough or believing enough matters. These are practical issues requiring practical solutions and the menu from the EU has been written many moons ago. Grand statements from BoJo won't make the problem go away. They just reveal his ongoing ignorance of detail and disrespect for the people of Ireland.

Taf 10-06-2018 13:58
Re: Brexit discussion
 
All I've seen for weeks is attempts to overthrow the democratic vote by any means possible.

ianch99 10-06-2018 14:01
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949959)
Actually, in the midst of struggling to govern a nation of non believers in such a way shows that his religious principle is unmovable, right?

Not like he gains much from it (politically speaking) so it goes to show that he believes what he says, he means it and it does not matter whether it is unpopular or not.

Would you rather that he ignore his views and pretend to hide them?

So? Those of us who have faith in our life do not use it for the purpose of making an objective point. We believe what we believe and irregardless of how it may or may not be ridiculed, we believe it none the less.

Again, he won't care - comes back to this EU stuff. When we get up to the gates you think that Saint Peter is really going to care what we did about the bill to leave and referendum?

JRM will not care one hoot if his political career is toast. He is a rich man who is only involved in politics for other people...he isn't doing this for himself
His religious principles, unless he wants to move us to a theocratic state, would be subordinate to his duty to represent the UK population as a whole. For example, as a Catholic, he would be against contraception. Should he propose a bill to ban contraception? No of course not.

You say he is a "rich man who is only involved in politics for other people...he isn't doing this for himself" Total rubbish. I know of no politician now and few in the past that are not in politics, at some level, for themselves whether that be vanity, power, wealth, etc.

To deploy the Chocolate Teapot, I doubt JRM would find himself at the Pearly Gates:

Quote:
I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26


---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35949988)
I predict that once we have exited from the EU millions of remoaners will spend the rest of their lives sulking and going to weekly therapy sessions .
Maybe they could use the sessions vacated by the Brextremists? I mean after 40+ years of moaning, you would have thought that they would be more well adjusted by now. :)

Dave42 10-06-2018 14:19
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35949988)
I predict that once we have exited from the EU millions of remoaners will spend the rest of their lives sulking and going to weekly therapy sessions .
I predict the Brextremists are first ones to moan when country is much worse off

OLD BOY 10-06-2018 14:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35950005)
I predict the Brextremists are first ones to moan when country is much worse off
Except that we won't be worse off because the customs issue will be shown to be the nonsense it is, we will gain the ability to forge our own trade deals, we will have a tariff free deal with the EU (that nice Mr Barnier has already conceded that), so there will be more trade, not less, and we will no longer be contributing to the EU to boot.

Where you and other naysayers get the idea we will be poorer, is frankly beyond me.

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950000)
Neither Protestants nor Catholics want a hard border in Ireland. It's more a case of identity and not religion. Google the FT article I linked to before for a better understanding of the context.

Thinking broadly, there are only three practical solutions:
1) Remain in the EU.
2) NI to become part of the Republic
3) UK or NI has an effective customs union and parts of the single market shared with the EU.

I expect you would rule out 1) and 2) just leaving 3).

The other solutions are unacceptable to the EU so even if they were practical - which they're not - the back stop ie 3) would kick in anyway.

However, as Damien and a few others have wised up to, 3) allows the EU to seamlessly and tariff-free sell us manufactured goods but we can't sell our services to them in the same way. The UK's exports are mainly services, not manufactured goods.

Pretending this is not an issue has no merit. This is not a case of religion where praying enough or believing enough matters. These are practical issues requiring practical solutions and the menu from the EU has been written many moons ago. Grand statements from BoJo won't make the problem go away. They just reveal his ongoing ignorance of detail and disrespect for the people of Ireland.
Nor do I want a hard border with Ireland. Frankly, Andrew, you need to start thinking outside the box and stop arguing that the sky is about to fall in. We will not remain within the customs union once the implementation period runs out. There would be absolutely no point in Brexit if that were to be the case.

Ask Mick, he knows about these things! :D

denphone 10-06-2018 15:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950007)
Except that we won't be worse off because the customs issue will be shown to be the nonsense it is, we will gain the ability to forge our own trade deals, we will have a tariff free deal with the EU (that nice Mr Barnier has already conceded that), so there will be more trade, not less, and we will no longer be contributing to the EU to boot.

Where you and other naysayers get the idea we will be poorer, is frankly beyond me.
Prove that we will not be poorer? as even most Brexiteers have said we will be worse off financially.

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950007)
Nor do I want a hard border with Ireland. Frankly, Andrew, you need to start thinking outside the box and stop arguing that the sky is about to fall in. We will not remain within the customs union once the implementation period runs out. There would be absolutely no point in Brexit if that were to be the case.

Ask Mick, he knows about these things! :D
He has a opinion just like you , l and everybody else.:)

OLD BOY 10-06-2018 16:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35950011)
Prove that we will not be poorer? as even most Brexiteers have said we will be worse financially.
Given that we will get a tariff free trade deal and the customs issues are resolved sensibly, as I believe they will, I think it is for you to prove that we will be poorer.

The people who are saying we will be poorer take the view that we will not get the deal the government wants. If you assume we will, you get a different answer.

As I said before, continued trade with no tariffs between the UK and the EU, plus new trade deals that we will agree with other countries, amounts to a plus, not a minus, for Britain.

papa smurf 10-06-2018 17:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35950005)
I predict the Brextremists are first ones to moan when country is much worse off
lets give it 40 years and then see how it's hanging .

1andrew1 10-06-2018 19:33
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35950005)
I predict the Brextremists are first ones to moan when country is much worse off
Spot on, Dave. Some like BoJo are moaning now despite winning so God knows what they'll be like when the penny drops!

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950022)
Given that we will get a tariff free trade deal and the customs issues are resolved sensibly, as I believe they will, I think it is for you to prove that we will be poorer.

The people who are saying we will be poorer take the view that we will not get the deal the government wants. If you assume we will, you get a different answer.

As I said before, continued trade with no tariffs between the UK and the EU, plus new trade deals that we will agree with other countries, amounts to a plus, not a minus, for Britain.
That we'll be proved worse off outside the EU has been proved by Theresa May's own Government. Den doesn't need to do it again. The cross-department analysis indicates we'll be worse off even if the Government gets the deal it wants.

OLD BOY 10-06-2018 19:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950031)
That we'll be proved worse off outside the EU has been proved by Theresa May's own Government. Den doesn't need to do it again. The cross-department analysis indicates we'll be worse off even if the Government gets the deal it wants.
I don't agree with that at all, but I guess it won't be proved until it happens.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35950024)
lets give it 40 years and then see how it's hanging .
Well, I don't think countries like New Zealand, Singapore, etc are poor simply because they are not members of the EU.

What is it about that undemocratic bureaucracy that the establishment figures like? Oh, I get it...:D

1andrew1 11-06-2018 01:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950040)
I don't agree with that at all, but I guess it won't be proved until it happens.
Why don't you agree with the cross-department expertise that the Brexit-orientated British Government has employed? Do you think your Brexit Government has deliberately picked an incompetent bunch of pessimists when they could have easily chosen a bunch of people with your outlook but would firm up some calculations to support such wildly optimistic views?
Or do you think that they've actually got a great bunch of experts who've looked into things deeply, crunched the numbers exhaustively and come up with some very probable scenarios which to Brexiters like BoJo are an uncomfortable truth.

---------- Post added at 23:13 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950040)
Well, I don't think countries like New Zealand, Singapore, etc are poor simply because they are not members of the EU
Wrong continent, Old Boy.

---------- Post added 11-06-2018 at 00:25 ---------- Previous post was 10-06-2018 at 23:13 ----------

Meanwhile, have Putin's useful idiots have been revealed? Nope. Not Jeremy Corbyn, Putin would not waste his time there. We're talking about Aaron Banks and side-kick Andy Wigmore.You know it must be bad when Nigel Farage is distancing himself from it
Quote:
Mr Banks had a total of three meetings with Alexander Yakovenko in the build-up to and after the EU referendum in June 2016, according to emails seen by two Sunday newspapers.
He had previously admitted only to a “six-hour boozy lunch” in November 2015 with the Russian ambassador in his book The Bad Boys of Brexit.
The emergence of apparently closer contact between Mr Banks, his Leave.EU aide Andy Wigmore, and senior Russian state officials will increase suspicions that the Kremlin sought to influence and disrupt western electoral processes. It is also likely to add spice to questioning of him and Mr Wigmore by a committee of MPs this week...
An ally of Nigel Farage, the former UK Independence party leader, Mr Banks has donated £1.3m to Ukip since 2014. During the referendum campaign he set up his own group, Leave.EU, to which he lent £6m. Leave.EU was a rival set-up to Vote Leave, the official campaign.
https://www.ft.com/content/6a49782c-...d-d8b934ff5ffa

Quote:
He [Aaron Banks] is under investigation by the Electoral Commission over his donations to pro-Brexit campaigns. Its inquiry started in November and is examining whether the businessman “was the true source of loans” made by him to Leave.EU, and whether Better for the Country Ltd, a company he controlled, was “the true source of donations made to referendum campaigners in its name”.
Banks has also now been told by Companies House that he must publish the accounts of the offshore holding company ICS Risk Solutions, which he uses to finance his activities.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-russia-links

Mick 11-06-2018 02:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Yawn. :zzz:

Still going on about the non-Russia issue that didn't influence mine or the other 17.4 Million people who voted leave.....? :rolleyes:

1andrew1 11-06-2018 05:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950068)
Yawn. :zzz:

Still going on about the non-Russia issue that didn't influence mine or the other 17.4 Million people who voted leave.....? :rolleyes:
What makes you so sure no one was influenced one way or the other? Was it perhaps a Twitter poll from your Corbyn-admiring mate? ;)

jonbxx 11-06-2018 10:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950068)
Yawn. :zzz:

Still going on about the non-Russia issue that didn't influence mine or the other 17.4 Million people who voted leave.....? :rolleyes:
It only had to influence 634,751 voters to swing to leave, half +1 of the majority leave had.

---------- Post added at 09:39 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950022)
Given that we will get a tariff free trade deal and the customs issues are resolved sensibly, as I believe they will, I think it is for you to prove that we will be poorer.

The people who are saying we will be poorer take the view that we will not get the deal the government wants. If you assume we will, you get a different answer.

As I said before, continued trade with no tariffs between the UK and the EU, plus new trade deals that we will agree with other countries, amounts to a plus, not a minus, for Britain.
Given that the government does not want a customs union, then non-tariff barriers will exist, even it it's simply rules of origin declarations. These have a cost for either exporters to the EU or in enforcement for imports from the EU. I believe we will also leave the single market so there will also be regulatory barriers (CE marking, veterinary, phytosanitary, etc.)

Mick 11-06-2018 11:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Er. Your 600K figure is very inaccurate. Over a Million more people voted leave than Remain.

This pathetic desperation to invalidate a legitimate democratic result, is getting tiresome.

daveeb 11-06-2018 11:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950088)
Er. Your 600K figure is very inaccurate. Over a Million more people voted leave than Remain.

This pathetic desperation to invalidate a legitimate democratic result, is getting tiresome.
So a 600K swing would send the vote the other way ;)

jonbxx 11-06-2018 12:26
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 35950092)
So a 600K swing would send the vote the other way ;)
What he said ^^^

Leave 17,410,742-634,751 = 16,775,991
Remain 16,141,241+634,751 = 16,775,992

Should have shown my working as I was told at school :)

Mr K 11-06-2018 12:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950088)
Er. Your 600K figure is very inaccurate. Over a Million more people voted leave than Remain.

This pathetic desperation to invalidate a legitimate democratic result, is getting tiresome.
Did you find maths lessons tiring Mick ? ;)

Mick 11-06-2018 13:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Either way it’s still a Million more majority. There was no Russian influence. It’s another pathetic attempt by some Remainers to thwart the legitimacy of the vote. Get it in to your heads, we are leaving the corrupted EU that was democratically decided in 2016.

papa smurf 11-06-2018 14:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35950099)
What he said ^^^

Leave 17,410,742-634,751 = 16,775,991
Remain 16,141,241+634,751 = 16,775,992

Should have shown my working as I was told at school :)
2 losers don't make a winner game set and match to brexit ;)

Mr K 11-06-2018 14:05
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950116)
Either way it’s still a Million more majority. There was no Russian influence. It’s another pathetic attempt by some Remainers to thwart the legitimacy of the vote. Get it in to your heads, we are leaving the corrupted EU that was democratically decided in 2016.
So what would you think if we remained in some sort of customs union with the EU ? With no definite date of leaving it ? Does that count as 'Brexit' ? Or just a complete waste of time all round ?

1andrew1 11-06-2018 14:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950116)
Either way it’s still a Million more majority. There was no Russian influence. It’s another pathetic attempt by some Remainers to thwart the legitimacy of the vote. Get it in to your heads, we are leaving the corrupted EU that was democratically decided in 2016.
Our institutions are still conducting their enquiries. If you have additional information to support the above kind of statement they would undoubtedly welcome your insights which would doubtless save the taxpayer time and money.

Damien 11-06-2018 14:11
Re: Brexit discussion
 
https://www.ft.com/content/94ef2bb0-...b-4acfcfb08c11

Quote:
The UK is to apply to stay in the European standards system for industry products and services after Brexit, following warnings from business that creating British-only benchmarks would be “an isolationist move” that would pile costs on to companies.

Business secretary Greg Clark has backed moves to keep the UK as a full member of European standard setting bodies, shrugging off suggestions from trade secretary Liam Fox that Britain should strike out on an independent course.

Mick 11-06-2018 14:43
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950121)
Our institutions are still conducting their enquiries. .
They are doing no such thing.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35950120)
So what would you think if we remained in some sort of customs union with the EU ? With no definite date of leaving it ? Does that count as 'Brexit' ? Or just a complete waste of time all round ?
I thought I had made this clear many times over....

...Brexit is leaving the EU, in it's entirety. No Single Market, no Customs Union, staying in a Customs Union prevents us from trading with the rest of the World, which has a far more bigger and productive market, that is in terms of market share, the EU is a shrinking financial bubble. We're paying a membership fee just for paltry benefits. We put more in than we get out, rather than some of the other 28 Countries are putting less in but getting more out.... 28 Countries in the EU, (Soon to be 27 when we finally leave) and we are one of only 10 who puts in more than we get out.

Not sustainable, time to leave the club in which we carry other Countries.

1andrew1 11-06-2018 15:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950130)
They are doing no such thing.
The Electoral Commission is and the House of Commons has asked Banks to give evidence. Companies House has also compelled him to publish accounts of his holding company so we can better understand how his companies are funded.
MPs are also understandably calling for a police investigation.

Mr K 11-06-2018 15:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950130)
I thought I had made this clear many times over....

...Brexit is leaving the EU, in it's entirety. No Single Market, no Customs Union, staying in a Customs Union prevents us from trading with the rest of the World, which has a far more bigger and productive market, that is in terms of market share, the EU is a shrinking financial bubble. We're paying a membership fee just for paltry benefits. We put more in than we get out, rather than some of the other 28 Countries are putting less in but getting more out.... 28 Countries in the EU, (Soon to be 27 when we finally leave) and we are one of only 10 who puts in more than we get out.

Not sustainable, time to leave the club in which we carry other Countries.
Ok, think you might be disappointed then. The penny is dropping for even the hard Brexiteers, hence Boris's 'meltdown' speech.

You can always blame May/Corbyn/the EU/Clinton/immigrants ;)

Carth 11-06-2018 15:55
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950134)
The Electoral Commission is and the House of Commons has asked Banks to give evidence. Companies House has also compelled him to publish accounts of his holding company so we can better understand how his companies are funded.
MPs are also understandably calling for a police investigation.
Really?

That's a lot of effort and money being used to chase somebody down. Maybe they can find other 'persons of interest' or a few other 'companies' to investigate too . . or is it a Brexiteer only mission?

They can start by sweeping through London to make things easier for the poor overworked souls :D

1andrew1 11-06-2018 16:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35950140)
Really?

That's a lot of effort and money being used to chase somebody down. Maybe they can find other 'persons of interest' or a few other 'companies' to investigate too . . or is it a Brexiteer only mission?

They can start by sweeping through London to make things easier for the poor overworked souls :D
Sorry, Brexiters are not above the law and if they fail to comply with legislation the appropriate regulators will act, as they will with anyone else.

jonbxx 11-06-2018 17:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950142)
Sorry, Brexiters are not above the law and if they fail to comply with legislation the appropriate regulators will act, as they will with anyone else.
Yep, the Liberal Democrats (very much Remain) were fined last year for a breach of campaign finance rules in the referendum - https://www.electoralcommission.org....-finance-rules

OLD BOY 11-06-2018 18:00
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950059)
Why don't you agree with the cross-department expertise that the Brexit-orientated British Government has employed? Do you think your Brexit Government has deliberately picked an incompetent bunch of pessimists when they could have easily chosen a bunch of people with your outlook but would firm up some calculations to support such wildly optimistic views?
Or do you think that they've actually got a great bunch of experts who've looked into things deeply, crunched the numbers exhaustively and come up with some very probable scenarios which to Brexiters like BoJo are an uncomfortable truth.
Andrew, we've been over these pessimistic forecasts time and again. Even those compiled by the most trusted of sources have got it wrong every time.

As I said, whether or not Brexit is forecast to be a success or a disaster rather depends what assumptions you put into the calculation in the first place. Put rubbish in, and you get rubbish out.

I say again, the government is committed to getting a good trade deal (no tariffs),with the EU, which is already in the bag, to getting out of the customs union and single market.

If you dare to think, just for one minute, that the government succeeds in getting what it wants, what is it exactly, that is going to impoverish us as you want us all to think?

FORMULA: TRADE WITH EU LITTLE CHANGED + MORE TRADE FROM NEW TRADE DEALS = MORE DOSH FOR LITTLE BRITAIN.

Seems straight forward enough for me. The trouble is that you and your fellow remainers just cannot bring yourselves to believe that TM's government will achieve its aims on Brexit. However, I guess seeing is believing but don't complain that I didn't tell you so when we get to 2019.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950059)
Wrong continent, Old Boy.
The world is smaller than you think, old chap!

ianch99 11-06-2018 18:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950145)
... good trade deal (no tariffs),with the EU, which is already in the bag
This is news to a lot of people. So the UK has a permanent trade deal with the EU already agreed and that this deal has no tariffs? How come you know this but Mrs May and the Cabinet seem not to?

If we have a deal why the endless naval gazing and infighting?

OB, you are pulling our legs, right? Sort of Brexit joke?

1andrew1 11-06-2018 18:56
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950145)
Andrew, we've been over these pessimistic forecasts time and again. Even those compiled by the most trusted of sources have got it wrong every time.

As I said, whether or not Brexit is forecast to be a success or a disaster rather depends what assumptions you put into the calculation in the first place. Put rubbish in, and you get rubbish out.

I say again, the government is committed to getting a good trade deal (no tariffs),with the EU, which is already in the bag, to getting out of the customs union and single market.

If you dare to think, just for one minute, that the government succeeds in getting what it wants, what is it exactly, that is going to impoverish us as you want us all to think?

FORMULA: TRADE WITH EU LITTLE CHANGED + MORE TRADE FROM NEW TRADE DEALS = MORE DOSH FOR LITTLE BRITAIN.

Seems straight forward enough for me. The trouble is that you and your fellow remainers just cannot bring yourselves to believe that TM's government will achieve its aims on Brexit. However, I guess seeing is believing but don't complain that I didn't tell you so when we get to 2019.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------



The world is smaller than you think, old chap!
Why do you assume that your uncalculated calculations are better than those of our hard-working economists? These people weren't Project Fear and they don't have the appalling record that you attribute to them. They have modelled all leave scenarios and all come out worse than staying in the EU. It really isn't that hard to grasp.

It's something like a maximum 0.7% uplift from the bold new deals that you talk about and a 5% decrease in trade with the EU.

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35950151)
This is news to a lot of people. So the UK has a permanent trade deal with the EU already agreed and that this deal has no tariffs? How come you know this but Mrs May and the Cabinet seem not to?

If we have a deal why the endless naval gazing and infighting?

OB, you are pulling our legs, right? Sort of Brexit joke?
I think Old Boy posted this after a tough Quidditch match! :D

papa smurf 11-06-2018 21:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950152)
Why do you assume that your uncalculated calculations are better than those of our hard-working economists? These people weren't Project Fear and they don't have the appalling record that you attribute to them. They have modelled all leave scenarios and all come out worse than staying in the EU. It really isn't that hard to grasp.

It's something like a maximum 0.7% uplift from the bold new deals that you talk about and a 5% decrease in trade with the EU.

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------


I think Old Boy posted this after a tough Quidditch match! :D
i think Andrew's still brexsulking !

OLD BOY 11-06-2018 21:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35950151)
This is news to a lot of people. So the UK has a permanent trade deal with the EU already agreed and that this deal has no tariffs? How come you know this but Mrs May and the Cabinet seem not to?

If we have a deal why the endless naval gazing and infighting?

OB, you are pulling our legs, right? Sort of Brexit joke?
No, I heard Barnier confirm that we would get a tariff free deal with the EU on the BBC News, and here is a report that confirms it. There are others.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-EU-trade-deal

Hugh 11-06-2018 22:04
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950164)
No, I heard Barnier confirm that we would get a tariff free deal with the EU on the BBC News, and here is a report that confirms it. There are others.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-EU-trade-deal
That article doesn’t mention "tariff free" - it states "tailor-made” trade deal".

And it’s from the 20th December 2017

1andrew1 11-06-2018 22:20
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35950166)
That article doesn’t mention "tariff free" - it states "tailor-made” trade deal".

And it’s from the 20th December 2017
I thought BoJo was a tad desperate the other day until I saw this historical link from The Express of all sources! Old Boy, you really are getting desperate for evidence but even going back six months you are failing to find anything that supports your statements!

The reality is that as the article explains "Mr Barnier has repeatedly spoken about how the only option available to Britain is a Canada-style free trade deal because of Theresa May’s red lines over free movement and the ECJ."

So, that will exclude services which account for most of our exports to the EU but include manufactured goods thereby allowing the Germans to carry on selling us their cars and the French their wine.

Whether we ever get to that stage given the Irish border situation is of course another matter.

TheDaddy 11-06-2018 22:34
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950170)
I thought BoJo was a tad desperate the other day until I saw this historical link from The Express of all sources! Old Boy, you really are getting desperate for evidence but even going back six months you are failing to find anything that supports your statements!

The reality is that as the article explains "Mr Barnier has repeatedly spoken about how the only option available to Britain is a Canada-style free trade deal because of Theresa May’s red lines over free movement and the ECJ."

So, that will exclude services which account for most of our exports to the EU but include manufactured goods thereby allowing the Germans to carry on selling us their cars and the French their wine.

Whether we ever get to that stage given the Irish border situation is of course another matter.
It's not the only option, no deal at all is better than that, they'll like that option only slightly less than us plus on the upside we'll be able to become a fully fledged tax haven on the coast of Europe rather than simply masquerading as one like we do currently, they can also stick their much vaunted fair and level playing field where the sun doesn't shine to then as well

1andrew1 11-06-2018 22:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35950172)
It's not the only option, no deal at all is better than that, they'll like that option only slightly less than us plus on the upside we'll be able to become a fully fledged tax haven on the coast of Europe rather than simply masquerading as one like we do currently, they can also stick their much vaunted fair and level playing field where the sun doesn't shine to then as well
You're forgetting we signed the indefinite back stop agreement and wish it to apply to the whole of the UK.

Mick 11-06-2018 23:15
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35950163)
i think Andrew's still brexsulking !
Yes and I like it how they think that if they keep throwing their toys out of the pram, Brexit won't be happening.

It's happening, as is leaving the SM and CU, May has said this over and over again about us leaving these two parts of the EU. We are leaving them, as we should.

1andrew1 11-06-2018 23:43
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Yes and I like it how they think that if they keep throwing their toys out of the pram, Brexit won't be happening.

It's happening, as is leaving the SM and CU, May has said this over and over again about us leaving these two parts of the EU. We are leaving them, as we should.
One key issue remains. The backdrop agreement for the Irish border. We'll be leaving the EU next year but for how long we remain in the SM and CU remains to be seen. No amount of confident posturing will solve it. Forget Sunny & Cher, this is the track that we'll all be singing all to for the rest of our lives.

Hugh 12-06-2018 00:26
Re: Brexit discussion
 
This was on LBC tonight, as reported by LBC.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-trump-brexit/
Quote:
Arron Banks Says Russian Collusion In Trump/Brexit Campaigns Is "Possible"
Quote:
Speaking in a wider context, Nigel asked Mr Banks if he thought there had been any collusion between Russia and the Trump or Brexit campaigns.

The Leave.EU founder replied: “I think it’s possible at a low level – when we talked about these bots and the things that the Russians were trying to do. But at a very, sort of, amateur level."

Mr K 12-06-2018 00:50
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Russian involvement with Brexit and Trump isn't a surprise. They want maximum discord and unrest to make other countries weaker. It's working a treat here and in the US.

TheDaddy 12-06-2018 02:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950173)
You're forgetting we signed the indefinite back stop agreement and wish it to apply to the whole of the UK.
It won't be on the terms you describe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35950190)
This was on LBC tonight, as reported by LBC.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-trump-brexit/
I thought there was no collusion, now it's low level, by this time next week he'll have married a Russian, speak the language and be on first name terms with the ambassador

---------- Post added at 01:18 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950178)
Yes and I like it how they think that if they keep throwing their toys out of the pram, Brexit won't be happening.

It's happening, as is leaving the SM and CU, May has said this over and over again about us leaving these two parts of the EU. We are leaving them, as we should.
When shouldn't we be just out of interest, I've accepted I'm going to be a bit poorer as a result of this but where is your level, you happy to be a lot poorer, house worth lots less, loose your job? Just wondering what you class as acceptable to get out

heero_yuy 12-06-2018 10:12
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Quote from The Sun:

IT is Britain’s biggest warehouse – but the doom-mongering anti-Brexit brigade would prefer that you did not even know it exists.

Felixstowe, on the Suffolk coast, is Britain’s biggest and busiest container port, handling £80billion of goods every year.

The vast majority of the four million containers that pass through come from outside the EU — but there are no catastrophic queues, stacks of paperwork or ludicrous checkpoints as a result.

Non-EU goods must be declared and processed, and whining Remainers insist that doing this with EU goods would cause chaos if we leave the customs union. They say the country will become a bureaucratic basket case.

That is baffling news for the port workers in Felixstowe.

Their system is so efficient that some EU containers, arriving on non-EU ships go through the processing system anyway as it is so painless.

Quote:
Felixstowe is proof that leaving the customs union will not be the logistical disaster that some warn it could be.

Figures show an estimated 98 per cent of non-EU crates pass through the port of Felixstowe as quickly and easily as goods that arrive from within the EU.

This is because the non-EU goods have cleared customs before they even reach Britain thanks to a digital cargo-tracking system called Destin8.
So there's already the Destin8 system of electronic customs pre-declaration for non-EU goods illustrating that the NI border issue that remainers think is so impossible to solve really doesn't exist at all.

1andrew1 12-06-2018 10:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35950233)
So there's already the Destin8 system of electronic customs pre-declaration for non-EU goods illustrating that the NI border issue that remainers think is so impossible to solve really doesn't exist at all.
It's not Remainders insisting on anything, it's what acceptable to the EU27. The negotiations are firstly in the Government and then between the UK and EU. We're still negotiating internally at the moment.

jonbxx 12-06-2018 10:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35950233)
So there's already the Destin8 system of electronic customs pre-declaration for non-EU goods illustrating that the NI border issue that remainers think is so impossible to solve really doesn't exist at all.
This is a rehash of a story in the Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ptrap.html

That article was rebutted from a frankly unlikely source, a pro leave blog - http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86882 In this article, Felixstowe and Dover are compared.

OLD BOY 12-06-2018 10:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950152)
Why do you assume that your uncalculated calculations are better than those of our hard-working economists? These people weren't Project Fear and they don't have the appalling record that you attribute to them. They have modelled all leave scenarios and all come out worse than staying in the EU. It really isn't that hard to grasp.

It's something like a maximum 0.7% uplift from the bold new deals that you talk about and a 5% decrease in trade.
As I said, Andrew, economic forecasts tend not to reflect the reality. They have been wrong time and time again, as the record shows. And yet you treat these forecasts as if they are indisputable proof!

Too many wrong assumptions are made by those trying to work out the likely consequences of Brexit. Most of them seem only to see disaster when actually this is a wonderful opportunity for us.

Given the incorrect assumptions that were made about what would happen to the economy as soon as the electorate voted for Brexit, I'm rather surprised that you are ignoring that in pursuit of your steadfast, unwavering insistence that post 2019, Britain will fall into abject poverty. The rest of the world survives without the EU, as indeed we used to as well.

This dystopian future you foresee is typical of many visions that novellists have when they write their fantasies about what is to come, and the 'end of the world is nigh' brigade seem to attract an uncanny fascination for some folks. Fortunately, history teaches us to ignore these fanciful notions.

Mick 12-06-2018 10:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950239)
As I said, Andrew, economic forecasts tend not to reflect the reality. They have been wrong time and time again, as the record shows. And yet you treat these forecasts as if they are indisputable proof!

Too many wrong assumptions are made by those trying to work out the likely consequences of Brexit. Most of them seem only to see disaster when actually this is a wonderful opportunity for us.

Given the incorrect assumptions that were made about what would happen to the economy as soon as the electorate voted for Brexit, I'm rather surprised that you are ignoring that in pursuit of your steadfast, unwavering insistence that post 2019, Britain will fall into abject poverty. The rest of the world survives without the EU, as indeed we used to as well.

This dystopian future you foresee is typical of many visions that novellists have when they write their fantasies about what is to come, and the 'end of the world is nigh' brigade seem to attract an uncanny fascination for some folks. Fortunately, history should teaches us to ignore these fanciful notions.
Give up OB - certain individuals on this forum and there is a few - want to see failure or see every negative thing 10 yards down the road.

denphone 12-06-2018 11:22
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950244)
Give up OB - certain individuals on this forum and there is a few - want to see failure or see every negative thing 10 yards down the road.
l guess that is our great democracy where people can have differing views or shall l say a opposite view of someone else's view.:)

Mr K 12-06-2018 11:44
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35950248)
l guess that is our great democracy where people can have differing views or shall l say a opposite view of someone else's view.:)
Sometimes differing views aren't welcome on CF Den ;)

Mick 12-06-2018 11:44
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35950248)
l guess that is our great democracy where people can have differing views or shall l say a opposite view of someone else's view.:)
You have a funny view of Democracy - that's not how I see this thread has gone.

The democracy I see is having a vote and then once a vote has taken place, accepting the result, the backbiting, the negative rubbish, the scare tactics, fear mongering is just a feeble attempt by "some" Remainers to overturn that vote, because they cannot accept they lost.

Damien 12-06-2018 11:47
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950253)
You have a funny view of Democracy - that's not how I see this thread has gone.

The democracy I see is having a vote and then once a vote has taken place, accepting the result, the backbiting, the negative rubbish, the scare tactics, fear mongering is just a feeble attempt by "some" Remainers to overturn that vote, because they cannot accept they lost.
Democracy allows people who lost a vote to continue to express their opinions and to advocate further change.

denphone 12-06-2018 11:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35950252)
Sometimes differing views aren't welcome on CF Den ;)
Not sure about that Mr K.:)

Quote:
A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../english/forum

Mick 12-06-2018 11:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35950252)
Sometimes differing views aren't welcome on CF Den ;)
Where haven't you been able to post your "differing views"?

You have a viable post count with ALL your views laid bare - stop posting baseless accusations like the one above. :rolleyes:

Mr K 12-06-2018 11:52
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950253)
You have a funny view of Democracy - that's not how I see this thread has gone.

The democracy I see is having a vote and then once a vote has taken place, accepting the result, the backbiting, the negative rubbish, the scare tactics, fear mongering is just a feeble attempt by "some" Remainers to overturn that vote, because they cannot accept they lost.
It's not a football game Mick, we're all on the same side at the end of the day. We all win or we all lose. Let's not Americanise the country with having to have 'winners' and 'losers'.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950256)
Where haven't you been able to post your "differing views"?

You have a viable post count with ALL your views laid bare - stop posting baseless accusations like the one above. :rolleyes:
Very often, the response to a differing view has been abuse Mick. Haven't bothered reporting as thought it pointless on here.

Mick 12-06-2018 11:53
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35950254)
Democracy allows people who lost a vote to continue to express their opinions and to advocate further change.
As I said, that's not what is happening - not you personally but "some" Remainers are trying to over turn a democratic decision because they do not like what was voted for.

They are free to not accept the result but trying to overturn it, is not acceptable. That is not what I call Democracy.

denphone 12-06-2018 11:54
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950253)
You have a funny view of Democracy - that's not how I see this thread has gone.

The democracy I see is having a vote and then once a vote has taken place, accepting the result, the backbiting, the negative rubbish, the scare tactics, fear mongering is just a feeble attempt by "some" Remainers to overturn that vote, because they cannot accept they lost.
l have always accepted democracy as l fully accepted the Brexit vote a long time ago but that does not mean that people should not have a differing opinion on it even if its a opposing view to what someone else's view is as the one thing people should not do is lickspittle to those who supported Brexit be it politicians or the people who voted for Brexit.

Mick 12-06-2018 12:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35950257)

Very often, the response to a differing view has been abuse Mick. Haven't bothered reporting as thought it pointless on here.
Where is the abuse...?

If I sent abuse your way, do you think the other mods would sit back and allow that ?

These are Rhetorical questions by the way.

You always attempt to take the piss out of me by posting humorous exchanges, as if you never quite take anything seriously enough. Everything has to be ridiculed, if it is something you do not absolutely agree with.

I said in another thread you post negative crap a lot, which you do - that is an observation, that is NOT abuse, if you consider that to be abusive - I think you need to get out more.

Anyway - we are not doing this little 'throwing accusations around' session.

Back to the topic.

ianch99 12-06-2018 12:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
It may be a surprise to learn that I supported Remain :) but the last thing I want is the Government to be defeated as a result of House of Lords amendments. The HOL is a totally undemocratic institution and as such should have no place in deciding the Government of this country.

If the Government is to be defeated, it should be through due Parliamentary process in the House of Commons. The HOL is in danger of being Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mr K 12-06-2018 12:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Parliament having a 'meaingful vote' shouldn't be up for discussion. If they have votes that aren't meaningful, they're wasting tax payers money.

Anyway, at least there's one Tory mininster prepared to put the good of the country before his own career and party.
https://www.ft.com/content/47ee37da-...d-d8b934ff5ffa
Quote:
A UK minster has resigned in protest at the government’s handling of Brexit.

Phillip Lee said he was standing down in order to “speak up” for his country.

Writing on Twitter, he said: “I am incredibly sad to have had to announce my resignation as a minister in Her Majesty’s Government so that I can better speak up for my constituents and country over how Brexit is currently being delivered.”

Dr Lee said resigning was a “last resort” that he turned to since “a serious principle is being breached that I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass.”

“If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s current exit from the EU looks set to be delivered,” he said on Twitter.

The dramatic resignation comes shortly before the UK prime minister faces 48 hours of potentially knife-edge votes in the House of Commons.

1andrew1 12-06-2018 13:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35950244)
Give up OB - certain individuals on this forum and there is a few - want to see failure or see every negative thing 10 yards down the road.
Who?

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35950239)
As I said, Andrew, economic forecasts tend not to reflect the reality. They have been wrong time and time again, as the record shows. And yet you treat these forecasts as if they are indisputable proof!

Too many wrong assumptions are made by those trying to work out the likely consequences of Brexit. Most of them seem only to see disaster when actually this is a wonderful opportunity for us.

Given the incorrect assumptions that were made about what would happen to the economy as soon as the electorate voted for Brexit, I'm rather surprised that you are ignoring that in pursuit of your steadfast, unwavering insistence that post 2019, Britain will fall into abject poverty. The rest of the world survives without the EU, as indeed we used to as well.

This dystopian future you foresee is typical of many visions that novellists have when they write their fantasies about what is to come, and the 'end of the world is nigh' brigade seem to attract an uncanny fascination for some folks. Fortunately, history teaches us to ignore these fanciful notions.
The link you provided was found by Hugh not to support your argument so instead you try and move the debate onto something else entirely. Others can judge what that might mean about the absence of evidence to support your original bold statement.

The chances of economic forecasts being more accurate from skilled professionals working for the British Government are far, far higher than those you and I can conjurte up on the back of a fag packet. It is unfair and slightly arrogant to write off the work of an entire bunch of people in the way you attempt to do.

They are not making incorrect assumptions, they are using the wide range of information they ahve at their disposal and have modelled a range of scenarios. All showed that the UK would perform worse outiside the EU.

Now onto your strawman proposition and ramblings of people apparently forecasting a dystopian future. Humourous stuff yet no one is forecasting abject poverty. What is being forecast is that the UK will perform less well than it would do if the status quo remained.

Carth 12-06-2018 16:31
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
“I am incredibly sad to have had to announce my resignation as a minister in Her Majesty’s Government so that I can better speak up for my constituents and country over how Brexit is currently being delivered.”
Because not being a minister in the Government gives you more clout?

Come off it . . .

ianch99 12-06-2018 17:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35950295)
Because not being a minister in the Government gives you more clout?

Come off it . . .
I think he means he wouldn't have to lie about the way he thinks Brexit should be deleivered ..

Carth 12-06-2018 18:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35950296)
I think he means he wouldn't have to lie about the way he thinks Brexit should be deleivered ..
But, as a politician, he probably feels ok lying about everything else :D:D ;)

1andrew1 12-06-2018 18:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35950295)
Because not being a minister in the Government gives you more clout?

Come off it . . .
It's like being on a management team. In that situation, you have to spout the management line even if you don't believe it. As soon as you're not, you can be more honest about things.

Hugh 12-06-2018 18:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446632
Quote:
Leave.EU led people up the garden path - Arron Banks

Leave.EU, which was backed by then UKIP leader Nigel Farage, lost out to Vote Leave in the battle to become the official Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum.

It ran a "disruptive" campaign instead, Mr Banks told the committee, adding: "We were not above using alternative methods to punch home our message or lead people up the garden path if we had to."

Mr Wigmore, Leave.EU's director of communications, said "the piece of advice that we got, right from the beginning, was remember referendums are not about facts, it's about emotion and you have got to tap into that emotion".

He said the campaign had aimed to "make fun" of journalists and his role in it had been that of an "agent provocateur".

Asked what the difference was between provocation and lies, he said: "If you are trying to sell something or put a good case over to somebody you will tell the best story. If that's provocation - or a lie, if you want to call it that, yeah."


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55.
Page 30 of 34 « First 2026272829 30 31323334
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