Brexit is off ?

Rule 1 always applies:   We lose. (We the normal working people) 

Don Atkinson posted:

Nicely observed sj.

And for the benefit of those who think that kicking the "Establishment" in the goolies by way of voting Leave will be beneficial for Joe Public, think again, very very carefully.

But that is the whole point!! They don't care anymore because they have had a gut full of the last 20+ years of the political B S that never considers their plight. O K they may get an extra few quid in their pocket if the budget swings slightly in their favour but it's never enough to truly change their lot. They are at the bottom of the 'dung pile' and then they see workers from Europe taking what menial jobs they had, stabbed in the back by the party who should have been looking out for them, the Labour Party. They saw an opportunity at the referendum to strike back and to hell with the consequences and they appear to have taken it.

It's getting near Christmas, I wonder how the turkeys are going to vote this year.

SWS you seem to suggest that many have voted to leave out of frustration and you may well be correct. Perhaps the fact that leaving the EU meant change and that any change would be better than the status quo was the attraction. I would prefer to believe this were the case rather than a "two fingers" to 'whoever'.

sjbabbey posted:

It's getting near Christmas, I wonder how the turkeys are going to vote this year.

SWS you seem to suggest that many have voted to leave out of frustration and you may well be correct. Perhaps the fact that leaving the EU meant change and that any change would be better than the status quo was the attraction. I would prefer to believe this were the case rather than a "two fingers" to 'whoever'.

My point exactly. I'm sure they feel that it cannot be any worse than more of the same, at least in the short term.

Southweststokie posted:

sjbabbey posted:

It's getting near Christmas, I wonder how the turkeys are going to vote this year.

SWS you seem to suggest that many have voted to leave out of frustration and you may well be correct. Perhaps the fact that leaving the EU meant change and that any change would be better than the status quo was the attraction. I would prefer to believe this were the case rather than a "two fingers" to 'whoever'.

My point exactly. I'm sure theyfeel that it cannot be any worse than more of the same, at least in the short term.

Well, I get your point. And I note your choice of the word "feel" rather than "think"

Clearly we both know that these people are incapable of THINKING.

Huge posted:

It's the EU that has maintained the integrity of Europe after the breakup of the Eastern Bloc.  It has been a stabilising force to maintain a state of defused political tension between the member states.  Without the EU the possibility would have existed for separate political blocks to have arisen within the NATO countries, leading to groups secession from NATO (after the Russian threat receded) and thus leading to the breakup of NATO, similar to that of the Eastern Bloc.

Whist not a particularly likely scenario this would have been entirely possible.

Huge, I am not entirely sure, the EEC has indeed been one of the players of stabilisation, but along with others such as EFTA and NATO. Ironically, in my view, the transformation of the EEC into the EU has worked to create a dominate liberal establishment.... a group of collective centralist perceived wisdoms and values... I am sure it's intent is genuinely for good, but the issue is it appears to do so by suppressing local or national voice, opinion or values that differ from it. This ultimately is DESTABILISING unless corrected through the democratic process. (And having grown up with the Cold War, the iron curtain and civil unrest in the U.K. I feel there are resonances) Some of these processes might result in challenging this and/or extrication from this establishment. I will be following the EU state elections next year to see what the appetite for change is given what the UK and US have gone through.

Don Atkinson posted:

My point exactly. I'm sure theyfeel that it cannot be any worse than more of the same, at least in the short term.

 

Well, I get your point. And I note your choice of the word "feel" rather than "think"

Clearly we both know that these people are incapable of THINKING.

I think that's a bit unkind, we can't all be rocket scientists or rock stars but when you are constantly ignored by the people who are supposed to represent your interests and needs eventually all you can do is rebel.

And listening to Tim Farron on BBCR4 right now, the leader of the liberals in the U.K. I just feel his views are potentially dangerous, he just can't accept the where we are, so like a compulsive gambler he just wants to have another vote as he might just hit the jackpot and stay with his EU establishment. Fortunately most of the populous perhaps agree as his party has been decimated to just 8 MPs.  (Disclaimer.. I was a Tim Farron supporter once, but I just can't accept his stance on the Brexit referendum now.. get over it Tim and move on.   )

Agreed, but his misfortune is that the public mood appears to have shifted far from the liberal views of his party.  I'm sure thinks will change but for now he is out of his time. His failure to understand this, and to listen to the messages sent by the public, is almost as irritating as the view that some appear to have that only they and those who support their view are capable of thinking through those views and making a rational decision.  Reflection and understanding are in short supply.

With what Simon and Dayjay said about the Liberal lizard like leader and harking back to an earlier General Election, I wholeheartedly agree with Stokie! 

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Right, sleeves rolled up!

Let's start with all those billions we will not be contributing to the EU (nope don't start that one again as I have no interest in pouring it down the NHS plug hole). It's our money and we should be able to invest it a bit more appropriately for our own benefits. I know, but at least there are less layers of bureaucracy and it doesn't actually have to go to non existent olive fields in Rumania or wherever. Then there is the cost of chasing all these cases through the courts right up to the ECJ, and then we can eliminate one layer of useless politicos inhabiting Brussels. No more costs of running useless EU elections to appoint worthless, overpaid rubber stamps. Then there's our borders, which become ours again and I know it's a hard stretch and will give some of you the vapours, but if our UK based politicians would do something to address the massive inflow whether European or otherwise then may be we could find schools for our kids, see a doctor, access a hospital, maybe even buy a house or drive on some roads that are not massively congested, or even have a chance at fixing the railway infrastructure. And I can assure you we do not need any more baristas or berry pickers. 

Oh, and we can perhaps slim the ranks of those who fill think tanks, analyse impacts of unpredictable events, shuffle bits of paper, enforce worthless diktats from Brussels and generally while away their existences as jobsworths. 

I worked implementing systems in real companies that made real products, some of them even British all around the world, until we gave it all away based on 'fair trade' and 'open market forces'. Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

Blimey Dan you've just opened a new can of worms! Anyway in remembrance..

“and when he knew for certain/ Only drowning men could see him/ He said all men will be sailors then/ Until the sea shall free them”.

andarkian posted:

Oh, and we can perhaps slim the ranks of those who fill think tanks, analyse impacts of unpredictable events, shuffle bits of paper, enforce worthless diktats from Brussels and generally while away their existences as jobsworths. 

I worked implementing systems in real companies that made real products, some of them even British all around the world, until we gave it all away based on 'fair trade' and 'open market forces'. Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

If UK wants to export to any EU country it will need to comply with relevant EU legislation, which in some cases (e.g. Food) is copious. Once UK has left, the EU won't translate its legislation and everything relating to it into English, as is automatic now. That may well include removal of everything currently presented in English. So, there will need to be an army of people looking at the EU legislation constantly, spotting anything of the slightest possible relevance and then translating - and the daily output is significant. I hope that at the very least they are engaged in downloading and archiving the English version of all existing legislation that will cease to be available on tap from the EU repository, so they will only have to deal with the new output (and developing legislation to give forewarning of change to come ) Add that and the need to assess it all to the normal lawmaking process of any government, which UK will have to develop for itself if not copying from Brussels, and I doubt there would be any scope to reduce the civil servants you give the impression of detesting.

As for foreign aid, I'm unaware of that being an EU requirement, but purely down to the country, and is applied out of humanity. Yes, charity begins at home, but Britons are part of the human race, and even the plight of the worst-off British resident is nothing compared to some places, while some countries simply haven't got the resources to cope with major naturad disasters, which without help could lead to millions dying. But as this is not a Brexit matter it is rather irrelevant here.

EU legislation will still be published in English because it is the official language for Ireland.  Furthermore English is and will remain the de facto common language inside the EU machinery because it is the second language that most people can speak (eg the Nordic countries).

But I agree that we will still have to conform to all of the EU regulation and standards if we want to sell stuff to EU countries. It's just that with Brexit we won't have a say in making regulations - we will just have to accept what everyone else decides.

best

David

Point re English noted (with relief, as I have to deal with too much of it!)

Andarkian,

Actually thanks!

It's good to finally have some definition to what has until now been a woolly vague undefined concept surrounding just one single fact.  I would have preferred it with more straightforward statements rather than such an emotive presentation, but I can live with that.  

Even though I disagree with many of the points, there is one point with which I really do need to take issue as it definitely works the other way; and that is protectionism.  The lesson of history is that protectionism is only beneficial in the very short term - typically only a few years when you look at a highly connected economy such as in the 'westernised' states.  After that time protectionism reduces the activity of all economies, world trade suffers and all economies suffer as a consequence. 

Am fed up trying to cut and paste on the iPad, it is utterly hopeless! 

Huge: I am not advocating closing borders or business, but am not favouring giving away the seed corn (ARM) or the good companies (Cadburys) without a second glance. Our government should ensure that business not only thrives in the UK but that it should not be a simple job for any foreign predator to buy via the Stock Exchange any of our indigenous listed companies. Goodbye Quality Street, Goidbye HP Sauce etc. etc.

Innocent: I didn't Labour Foreign Aid, just pointed out another gross waste of money that could be used to reinvent a post Brexit Britain.

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Strangely enough Don when I vote I don't feel it necessary to outline my thought processes to you or to a hifi forum, nor do I expect you to have to do so in order for me to assume that you are capable of thinking and that you have made a judgement, even if a different one from me, when you cast your vote.  I automatically assume that you are capable of thinking and making your own decision based on whatever logic you choose to apply even when I don't agree with your conclusion - perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me and others who disagree with you.  An inability to accept that others can disagree with you and still be capable of rational thought is just blind arrogance.  I would question why you feel it is necessary to resort to insults in the first place.

andarkian posted:

 

Innocent: I didn't Labour Foreign Aid, just pointed out another gross waste of money that could be used to reinvent a post Brexit Britain.

I think you’re heading for a huge disappointment, if we do eventually decide to leave the EU.

 Foreign Aid is just another name for a bribe.

 Trade agreements equals bribes, equals Foreign Aid.

andarkian posted:

Am fed up trying to cut and paste on the iPad, it is utterly hopeless! 

Oh something we agree on ... cutting and pasting and more specifically editing "quotes" on this forum using an iPad is hopeless!

Huge: I am not advocating closing borders or business, but am not favouring giving away the seed corn (ARM) or the good companies (Cadburys) without a second glance. Our government should ensure that business not only thrives in the UK but that it should not be a simple job for any foreign predator to buy via the Stock Exchange any of our indigenous listed companies. Goodbye Quality Street, Goidbye HP Sauce etc. etc.

The problem is ... that if you try to prevent the "good companies" from being (as you put it) "given away" then you also prevent companies from abroad investing in the UK.  

As for your two examples ... you realise that the ARM processor only exists because an Italian company saved Acorn back in the late 80s (maybe early 90s); and it was only through a joint British - American (Acorn and Apple) venture that ARM even became a company.  And Cadbury was already a multi-national owned company since the late 1960s (prior to joining the EEC) with its previous merger with Schweppes.  

So things aren't quite as clear cut as you like to portray them.

dayjay posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Strangely enough Don when I vote I don't feel it necessary to outline my thought processes to you or to a hifi forum, nor do I expect you to have to do so in order for me to assume that you are capable of thinking and that you have made a judgement, even if a different one from me, when you cast your vote.  I automatically assume that you are capable of thinking and making your own decision based on whatever logic you choose to apply even when I don't agree with your conclusion - perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me and others who disagree with you.  An inability to accept that others can disagree with you and still be capable of rational thought is just blind arrogance.  I would question why you feel it is necessary to resort to insults in the first place.

Dayjay,

OK, that is a very reasonable point to make, and I am sure that you, like many who contribute to this forum, made a reasonably logical and intelligent decision about your preference (others on here may disagree with your logic or your choice), and it is indisputably your right to have done so. You had no need, and have no need, to outline your reasons for voting this way.  I hope that a majority of the people who post on this forum are intelligent enough to have seen through some of the rhetoric and lies that formed a substantial part of the debate.

However, I would support Don's argument by stating that:

A) Now that the referendum is over, and BREXIT will happen, it is simply not good enough to state 'Get on with it!', when no one knows whether that means a so called 'Hard BREXIT or not. We (collectively) still have to determine exactly what BREXIT will entail, and many of us are not simply prepared to delegate the decision to the clique of individuals who happen to have inherited leadership of the Tory party.

B) Unlike most of those who contribute to this forum, there were many (or some, if you prefer) people who voted 'Leave' because they knew absolutely nothing about the political or social issues involved in their choice, but were swayed by the sentiment, rhetoric, hatred and downright lies peddled by the leave campaign. I think you can probably understand the frustration of those of us on the 'losing' side, that nowadays it appears that there are no downsides to conducting a political campaign on the basis of a few inflammatory downright lies. These lies, when portrayed by one side often enough as facts, seem to be able to win the day (as witnessed by both the BREXIT referendum and the US Election). However, after the event, politicians seem to feel absolutely no contrition about the fact that they lied, and indeed seem quite happy to admit to the fact - witness Boris Johnson and others laughing off the campaign bus slogan and Donald Trump heaping praise (post election) on both Obama and Clinton.

Politics has always been relatively nasty, but never quite so two faced or downright shameful.       

I wouldn't disagree with much of that, but I would also argue that the leave side has no monopoly on people voting without considering all of the issues, or, for that matter, on peddling inaccurate 'facts' during the campaign and outright scare stories that have thus far failed to manifest themselves.  I don't have any problem with people holding different beliefs to me, or of people fighting to get clarity on the way forward and campaigning for that way forward to include elements that give them assurance.  I do have a bit of an issue with 'logic' which tries to argue that the result of the referendum was not a leave win because lots of people couldn't be bothered to vote, and I do have an issue with those who are seeking to avoid exiting the EU altogether because that is the guidance that the public indicated they wanted to be followed in a fair vote.  Where I have a real issue though is the view that those who voted out are incapable of thinking, or all racists or have expressed a view that has no value just because it is not a view shared by others.  When I made my decision I considered both sides of the argument, not just blindly one side, and when I debate on here or elsewhere I'd like too think I do so with respect for those who disagree with me and with a healthy awareness that there are no absolutes.

I should have added, perhaps, that I agree that campaigning today seems to include outrageous lies and exaggerations as a matter of course, perhaps one reason why we seem to have a movement of anti politics at the moment, but all we can do is aim to filter that and make decisions in a considered and balanced way.

In my opinion, there should be a more direct comeback on those politicians who can, in law, be shown to have lied outside of the House (of Commons or of Lords).  Within the House, Parliamentary Privilege allows for "terminalogical inexactitudes" (inside the House it's against the rules to accuse someone of lying!) but outside the House they do not have that protection in law, and should therefore be held to the legally defined standards of behaviour required by others in public office (such as Civil Servants).

Huge posted:

In my opinion, there should be a more direct comeback on those politicians who can, in law, be shown to have lied outside of the House (of Commons or of Lords).  Within the House, Parliamentary Privilege allows for "terminalogical inexactitudes" (inside the House it's against the rules to accuse someone of lying!) but outside the House they do not have that protection in law, and should therefore be held to the legally defined standards of behaviour required by others in public office (such as Civil Servants).

The CPS are investigating if the Leave campaign used "undue influence" (in plain speak lied) during the campaign.