Brexit discussion

Originally Posted by Carth

Considering the 'younger generation' probably outnumber the 'older generation' (I've no idea what age groups you're implying), it seems obvious that the 'younger generation' did the usual thing of sitting on their arse while someone else did the work

When I said younger people I meant people who were not eligible to vote.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

When I said younger people I meant people who were not eligible to vote.

aah ok, I see what you mean.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

This was on Channel 4 last night, a briefing to the new US Ambassador to London on Brexit - https://twitter.com/davemacladd/stat...786314240?s=19. The full program is here - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/i...mand/66335-001 with that clip 21 minutes in.

Yikes!

Thanks for posting that. Always good to see the UK being analysed through an overseas pair of eyes.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think Boris is almost trying to get fired. His backing off from Heathrow doesn't help either.

Oddly enough, I was thinking that today may have been the first time we had seen a cabinet secretary just vote no / revolt on Heathrow even with CR still in place, go against the 3 / whip line and still remain FS.

I think he didn't want to waste that on the airport vote, which like he has said is not likely to proceed anyway (court challenges, future governments etc) so why waste his new found way of tormenting May on a nothing vote.

Speaking cabinet bickering, Liz Truss was the latest one to wade in...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...inet-colleague

She took a shot at Gove:

Treasury minister Liz Truss has a joke at colleague Michael Gove's expense as she criticises regulations that get in the way of people enjoying their lives.

In a speech in London, she suggests that proposed controls on wood-burning stoves - or wood-burning Goves as she calls them - are symptomatic of the "hot air" coming out of the Department for the Environment.

In its clean air strategy published last month, Mr Gove's department said it wanted to encourage the use of cleaner stoves and certain types of kindling as well as giving councils the power to set local limits.

She then took swipes at other male members:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...rning-12800328

"And Government's role should not be to tell us what our tastes should be.

That combined with swipes at Doughnut eating and obesity seem like swipes at remain turned leaver Hunt.

Swipes also at Javid and Williamson who seem to have done the same and sympathy for Hammond who has to find money for all this "increased budgeting".

Oh, and the macho nature of government.

So she got her shots in, now I think it is high time for a fight within the Johnson family so that we can turn this Jerry Springer cabinet into a Maury Povich family split.

The brunt of her attack was saved for the bc / illegitimate offspring of the cabinet, Michael Gove but she laid it on pretty thick for the rest.

Less Hammond of course, who is her boss after all.

In some circles, many would call May her ultimate boss. But of course most of us don't believe in Narnia.

You know as much as I have criticized May, if I were in the cabinet / an MP, I would do the same as every other member ; trash the living crap out of her, either through frustration or an ego boost / thrill seeking and then glare her down and ask her what the hell she was going to do about it.

Good times.

Odds on next cabinet member to rip the rest a new one / humiliate May? What does everyone think?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, if your arguments are relying on straw for support, don't be surprised if someone effortlessly blows them down, Den.

If that is the best reply you can come up with OB then that just shows the feebleness of your argument..

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

That is the part of this that you are not getting ; there is no deal to negotiate. Does not matter how many times over May says that it is a negotiation / process under way the "no" will mean just that from Brussels. No to SM access without FM, no to FT without CU membership etc. These are not negotiations - they are refusals.

If they go hard / a hard leave then there is nothing to negotiate. If it is soft / a soft leave then there are simply going to be rules and stipulations that the UK must abide by and given that it can't then perks are going to be forsakes I suppose.

The EU won't decide which option the UK goes for - but whichever it is, the UK will have to abide by whatever is required in return ; whether that be sacrificing access or independence. One or the other.

There is a deal to negotiate but that's between the members of the Cabinet who need to agree what rules they want to follow

There are some areas around the fringes like health cards, repayment periods etc and maybe the terminology used for any UK-EU customs union but generally, what's on offer depends on what rules the UK is happy to follow. Want to use the golf club toilets if you're in the area and caught short? You must pay £1 towards costs and agree to flush the toilet afterwards or the club chairman will fine you. Don't agree to allow the club chairman to fine you if you don't flush the toilet? Sorry, you can't use the toilet, that's unfair on the members.

As you point out, it's apparent from postings on here that many fail to get this but this lack of understanding also extends to some Labour and Conservative MPs. And some who do get it will doubtless be happy to talk up a potential deal that could only happen if Aslan and not Theresa May was PM.
There is a great quote that summarises the situation:

“There is not an issue of general distrust towards the UK. That’s not the issue, but the EU is a rules-based system. Why is that? It’s because 28 member states do not trust each other spontaneously; they trust each other because they work on the basis of agreed common rules with common enforcement, common supervision and under a European court that will make sure they all apply the same rules in the same manner. They trust each other because there are remedies available. If you don’t have these remedies, you’re a third country.”

The third country bit was not fully appreciated by MPs when British classic car fan and EU Chief Negotiator Guy Verhofstadt appeared in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee in Westminster recently.

You could hear the same question, repeatedly from the MPs: “So we can’t stay in Galileo?” “So we can’t stay in Europol?” The answer from Verhofstadt was always the same: “No, because you will be a third country.”
Andrea Jenkyns even asked: “Why is the EU not just giving the Brits what we want?” Verhofstadt explained this is not a simple two-way negotiation: the single market is a legal entity and you cannot just break those rules to appease a member state who wants to leave...

I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it incredible that a lot of Westminster still doesn’t get this. But they should get it – the UK signed off on a joint report with the European Commission in December 2017, which makes it abundantly clear that you cannot cherrypick the bits of the EU you do like and pretend the other things don’t exist.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8416076.html

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Yep, the 37% who felt strongly enough about it to go out and vote . . . as opposed to those who didn't bother because their masters told them 'it will never happen'



Considering the 'younger generation' probably outnumber the 'older generation' (I've no idea what age groups you're implying), it seems obvious that the 'younger generation' did the usual thing of sitting on their arse while someone else did the work

They played pokemon go on their phones confident that they had an 87% chance of winning the remain vote ,ah well such is life , they can teach their children why it's wrong to play games instead of voting .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

They played pokemon go on their phones confident that they had an 87% chance of winning the remain vote ,ah well such is life , they can teach their children why it's wrong to play games instead of voting .

You can't vote if you're under 18.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Fake News! Nothing incorrect here .. Brexit was decided by 37% of the electorate. The Will of (Some Of The) People

You are wrong and I will keep telling you this no matter how many times you bring it up.

You cannot bring in people who could not be arsed to vote and people ineligible to vote. 52% of those who decided to vote in one of the biggest ever democratic processes, chose Brexit. NO other figure you bring is relevant-end of!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

You can't vote if you're under 18.

I don't believe any one suggested they could .

Originally Posted by Damien

You can't vote if you're under 18.

And I was unable to vote to prevent the UK joining the bloc as it was back in the 70's. MY future was decided back then for me as well, that I did not want. That's life.

Suggesting old people shouldn't vote on something because they won't be around in the future, is ageism and is prejudice and it is not acceptable to say old people have less of a say than young people, everyone has equal say, no matter what. (I am not saying you are personally saying this but it's the impression I am getting from others).

It is no point the young who were eligible to vote, complaining now, when they had the chance to vote and papa says, were too busy trying to hunt pokoman's.

It was the biggest mistake joining a union that became corrupt and so financially unbalanced, in where we have now only 10 member States, who put more in to the EU, than get out and we are one of them, that's some significant downfall and is not sustainable as we are finding out.

Thank goodness we are finally leaving that corrupted mess, the pathetic shackles they had on us will finally be removed. 40 years in the making, there is no way in hell, I would have voted for that, if I was eligible to, back in the 70's.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

If that is the best reply you can come up with OB then that just shows the feebleness of your argument..

It was a feeble reply to a feeble post, Den. Your post said nothing except that you had an alternative view. But we all know that already.

I have conveyed my view, with justifications, on many occasions now, and so Andrew's 'straw man' argument that you have taken to repeating doesn't stand up in the first place.

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

And I was unable to vote to prevent the UK joining the bloc as it was back in the 70's. MY future was decided back then for me as well, that I did not want. That's life.

Suggesting old people shouldn't vote on something because they won't be around in the future, is ageism and is prejudice and it is not acceptable to say old people have less of a say than young people, everyone has equal say, no matter what. (I am not saying you are personally saying this but it's the impression I am getting from others).

It is no point the young who were eligible to vote, complaining now, when they had the chance to vote and papa says, were too busy trying to hunt pokoman's.

It was the biggest mistake joining a union that became corrupt and so financially unbalanced, in where we have now only 10 member States, who put more in to the EU, than get out and we are one of them, that's some significant downfall and is not sustainable as we are finding out.

Thank goodness we are finally leaving that corrupted mess, the pathetic shackles they had on us will finally be removed. 40 years in the making, there is no way in hell, I would have voted for that, if I was eligible to, back in the 70's.

Agreed, Mick. In all previous generations, younger people have turned to older people to get the wisdom of their experience. Old people want the best for their younger ones and sometimes have to save them from themselves.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Agreed, Mick. In all previous generations, younger people have turned to older people to get the wisdom of their experience. Old people want the best for their younger ones and sometimes have to save them from themselves.

Precisely and the older types will do their best to prevent another disaster with a Jeremy Corbyn government, as the young, have been brainwashed in to believing he will be their saviour, should he ever get in to number 10.

[arcimedes]

Agreed, Mick. In all previous generations, younger people have turned to older people to get the wisdom of their experience. Old people want the best for their younger ones and sometimes have to save them from themselves.

Unfortunately in this case they got it totally wrong.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Agreed, Mick. In all previous generations, younger people have turned to older people to get the wisdom of their experience. Old people want the best for their younger ones and sometimes have to save them from themselves.

It's funny how often what's best for young people is to cut their benefits, mental health services and support for educational funding whilst increasing the amount given out for pensions isn't it?

Although there are exceptions the evidence suggests demographics as a whole vote in their own best interest. Young people vote for parties that'll make university cheaper, Older people vote for parties which will increase their pensions. It would be better to be honest about that rather than pretend it's altruistic.