Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

lutyens posted:

<snip>

Dear God.  ....Unicorns and fairies 

... and political promises!

fatcat posted:

£100 million. I don't believe it.

sounds like yet another brexiteer fictional financial forecast.

The !00 million are you referring to what Reese Mogg was left or what he is worth, he comes from a very wealthy family.

He is my local MP and lives not to far away his father William who served in the RAF was very big in the Newspaper Industry in the sixties and seventies he also purchased some nice properties in the local area then went into politics and held several high positions he was a wealthy man in his own right.

Jacob had a rather privileged upbringing his childhood Nanny is actually the Nanny to Jacob's six children he started dabbling on the stock exchange when he was fourteen (Highly unlikely this was financed from money made from a paper round or stacking supermarket shelves) and went on to make a fortune both here and in Singapore where he worked for some time.

The last estimate I saw of his and his family wealth was well well in excess of a 100 million which probably explains why he was telling us on a recent TV interview that he doesn't bother to claim his MPs expenses.

Resurrection posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Please don't just copy and paste an entire article.  Better to paraphrase and include selected pertinent quotes, if you must.

Why?

Do you really need to ask?

A few reasons; Firstly, I'd imagine that The Spectator and the author, Anthony Browne, wouldn't be very happy about a wholesale copy and paste.  There is likely an issue of copyright and at the very least, if you wish to reproduce the article in full elsewhere then you should seek their written permission to do so. Then again, you may well be Anthony Browne, in which case...

Furthermore, it makes it easier for the more casual followers of the thread to follow (and avoids making the thread unwieldy), it shows to the readers here that you have properly read, digested and understood the article in question, and allows you to add your own comment and point of view where appropriate.

And lastly, because I have asked you (nicely) to do so. Thanks.

Huge posted:

lutyens posted:

<snip>

Dear God.  ....Unicorns and fairies 

... and political promises!

The trouble is that we don't have any promises or any clear idea about what anyone is promising really....apart from the incredibly patronising 'we are following the will of the people' nonsense. There is so much inept sitting on the fence that it is frightening 

Richard Dane posted:

Resurrection posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Please don't just copy and paste an entire article.  Better to paraphrase and include selected pertinent quotes, if you must.

Why?

Do you really need to ask?

A few reasons; Firstly, I'd imagine that The Spectator and the author, Anthony Browne, wouldn't be very happy about a wholesale copy and paste.  There is likely an issue of copyright and at the very least, if you wish to reproduce the article in full elsewhere then you should seek their written permission to do so. Then again, you may well be Anthony Browne, in which case...

Furthermore, it makes it easier for the more casual followers of the thread to follow (and avoids making the thread unwieldy), it shows to the readers here that you have properly read, digested and understood the article in question, and allows you to add your own comment and point of view where appropriate.

And lastly, because I have asked you (nicely) to do so. Thanks.

I guess I just made it unwieldy with my response, assuming you approve it, or even this response. How on earth are facts supposed to be communicated? 

Resurrection posted:

.

The 'facts' used both pre and post Referendum have been proven baseless. If you were being objective you would recognise that the “facts” peddled by both sides before the referendum were riddled with inacurracies possibly even falsehoods, and lacking in real substance and full understanding of the issues. THAT is why I believe there should be another referendum to confirm now more is known - why are Brexiteers so afraid of that?

The value attached to the thinking a bunch of pencil pushers in the Civil Service is equally risible. That is deliberately demeaning to the thousands of people who I am sure do their very best, often in a very thankless environment serving (yes, serving) politicians.

Having transformed itself from the EEC to the EU, it went from being a semi-sensible economic union to attempting to become a blatant, political federal superstate whose control mechanisms give only a notional glance at democracy. I agree, wholeheartedly. The EU indeed appeared to be on a path hellbent on creating a single Europe State, denuding the UK of its sovereignty and control, which I believe is quite unacceptable. But at the same time there are many benefits of the economic union and various social freedoms etc. Had we not been in and the question was should we join, I am not sure how I would have responded, but, whether or not you could see it, it was very evident to me that leaving would have huge negative consequences affecting  the public at large, and that is where we differ.

In my view it is simple: we should stay/have stayed, and as a relatively powerful member sought hard to ensure all other nations could see and understand the negative sides of the central EU policy drivers, and sought by intensive and rigorous debate and negotiation to have the EU either cease its path to sovereignty, or identify two levels of EU membership, the higher level United States of Europe and the European Economic Union (in which scenario UK would be in the latter). As I said once before, what was needed was a Maggie Thatcher figure with a weighty handbag she would not hesitate to weild, and not a wishy washy Cameron or Davis or May or whomever.

.

Your link to the article is fine, and readable by all.  If you wish to say more then by all means do so, but please in your own words, supported with a few short quotations if need be. That way facts can be communicated quite adequately.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

.

The 'facts' used both pre and post Referendum have been proven baseless. If you were being objective you would recognise that the “facts” peddled by both sides before the referendum were riddled with inacurracies possibly even falsehoods, and lacking in real substance and full understanding of the issues. THAT is why I believe there should be another referendum to confirm now more is known - why are Brexiteers afraid of that?

The value attached to the thinking a bunch of pencil pushers in the Civil Service is equally risible. That is deliberately demeaning to the thousands of people who I am sure do their very best, often in a very thankless environment serving (yes, serving) politicians.

Having transformed itself from the EEC to the EU, it went from being a semi-sensible economic union to attempting to become a blatant, political federal superstate whose control mechanisms give only a notional glance at democracy. I agree, wholeheartedly the EU indeed appeared  a path bent on a path hellbent on creating a single Europe State, denuding the UK of its sovereignty and control, which I believe is quite unacceptable. But at the same time there are many benefits of the economic union and various social freedoms etc. Had we not been in and the question was should we join, I am not sure how I would have responded, but, whether or not you could see it, it was very evident to me that leaving would have huge negative consequences affecting  the public at large:

In my view it is simple: we should have stayed, and as a relatively powerful member sought hard to ensure all other nations could see and understand the negative sides of the central EU policy drivers, and sought by intensive and rigorous debate and negotiation to have the EU either cease its path to sovereignty, or identify two levels of EU membership, the higher level United States of Europe and the European Economic Union (in which scenario UK would be in the latter). As I said once before, what was needed was a Maggie Thatcher figure with a weighty handbag she would not hesitate to weild, and not a wishy washy Cameron or Davis or May or whomever.

.

 

Strangely, I am not is disagreement with much of your response. When the politicians put the Civil Servants' heads above the parapet then they have to take the flak aimed at them. The idea that we could fight our position better inside the EU is of course a strong and old argument and very subjective.

However, I, and many others have got so frustrated with this that we voted to come out. The rights and wrongs of that decision will be tested after March next year. The problem is intractable, although I am sure that you and the very vociferous combatants in this thread appear to enjoy challenging the rational that caused us separately to our own conclusions. It may die down for a week or two but am sure we will still be crossing verbal swords this time next year, God willing. 

Richard Dane posted:

Your link to the article is fine, and readable by all.  If you wish to say more then by all means do so, but please in your own words, supported with a few short quotations if need be. That way facts can be communicated quite adequately.

And of course, this doesn’t prevent giving references, which can be beneficial to enable people to check the source for themselves where something is not just your considered opinion, and the rules would appear to allow those to be links, which makes it easy for the interested reader.

There are limits to the amount of a copyright work that can be reproduced and the purposes for which it can be used, under the terms of the Fair Dealing exceptions in UK copyright law.  If you look up 'Fair Dealing copyright' you will find out how much can be used and when.

However as Richard so rightly points out even using this amount of an article is more than necessary (which is just highlight quotes and links to the article and possibly other relevant sources) and does not make for ease of use of the forum  for other people.  In fact, to post a lengthy article verbatim is likely put more people off than it is to bring people round to the way of thinking that you're commending.

Richard Dane posted:

Your link to the article is fine, and readable by all.  If you wish to say more then by all means do so, but please in your own words, supported with a few short quotations if need be. That way facts can be communicated quite adequately.

Okay Richard, having cut and pasted the 17 reasons from the Speccie, which you have denied to publish,  It would have, however, been impossible to precis them all. succinctly

However, anyone who could actually give a toot can read Anthony Browne's piece, "17 reasons why we should love Brexit"  in this week's edition. Moggie's wealth and where it was made can be found by Googling Rees-Mogg and reading the entry in Wikipedia. 

Huge posted:

There are limits to the amount of a copyright work that can be reproduced and the purposes for which it can be used, under the terms of the Fair Dealing exceptions in UK copyright law.  If you look up 'Fair Dealing copyright' you will find out how much can be used and when.

However as Richard so rightly points out even using this amount of an article is more than necessary (which is just highlight quotes and links to the article and possibly other relevant sources) and does not make for ease of use of the forum  for other people.  In fact, to post a lengthy article verbatim is likely put more people off than it is to bring people round to the way of thinking that you're commending.

Gives you all a point of reference to demolish my own thoughts or ideas. I did just make the links which were  to highlight earlier points, but Richard did not like the links alone.

Be very careful at taking any kind of stand against articles or items freely accessible on the internet or it will all rebound on your own ability to define or refine arguments. I, of course, will now pay careful attention to external links or references used by any of you to refute my arguments. Slippery slope stuff. 

I subscribe to an investment BB and much of the stuff on there is cut and pasted from all sorts of publications which no-one has challenged for legitimacy, and, as it is hosted by and investment company, they would not allow such activities ir they thought it would lead to them being subject to a criminal charge. 

Hi Resurection,

Just to clear things up, my words weren't meant as as an admonition or even criticism, rather to indicate how to obtain definitive info on the copyright position and then a suggestion based on an expansion of Richard's point about readability for other forum members.

In my case I just happen to have particular sensitivity to lengthy posts (particularly quotes) as I'm dyslexic.  True, I'm more sensitive to this than most others, but the principle still applies generally, just to a lesser extent! 

Huge posted:

Hi Resurection,

Just to clear things up, my words weren't meant as as an admonition or even criticism, rather to indicate how to obtain definitive info on the copyright position and then a suggestion based on an expansion of Richard's point about readability for other forum members.

In my case I just happen to have particular sensitivity to lengthy posts (particularly quotes) as I'm dyslexic.  True, I'm more sensitive to this than most others, but the principle still applies generally, just to a lesser extent! 

Sorry Huge, we all get caught up in the heat of our emotions. My youngest son was diagnosed with dyslexia when he was 9 years old and could neither read nor write. He has to a large extent overcome that disability.

His own son has been very problematic resulting in him being expelled from two schools and hopeless at reading and writing at 7 years of age. Currently, after state and public schools failing him, we have been home schooling him. After a few weeks I can confirm he is not dyslexic, can read and write, is more than capable of being numerate, does not have ADHD (whatever that is) and is fast becoming a rather funny, polite and nice little boy.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Rees-Mogg would be an ideal Tory leader. He’d split the party, the Government would fall, and we’d have a Labour victory in the inevitable election. It would all need to happen quickly though, to give enough time to halt Brexit.

 

My comment on Rees-Mogg not being suitable to lead the Conservative party wasn't partisan.  Whatever your political allegiance, I think most sensible people would agree that it is important for healthy democracy that the Opposition is effective and well led.  I don't think Rees-Mogg shows leadership qualities. Nor do I think he would stand the remotest chance in uniting the Conservative party.    

To my mind, given half a chance, Rees-Mogg is determined to drag us all, kicking and screeming, into the 17th century.

He will keep a straight face, and polite, hard-grin, monologue whilst describing why this is happening.

You will have no say in the matter.

Resurrection posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Please don't just copy and paste an entire article.  Better to paraphrase and include selected pertinent quotes, if you must.

Why?

With due appreciation of a mild irony: -

"4.4. Except as set out in the limited licence in section 4.2 above (or as required under any applicable law), the Content, Trade Marks and/or any other part of the Site may not be used, reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, accessed, modified, or otherwise exploited, in full or in part, for any purpose without our prior written consent. In particular, you are not permitted to republish any part of the Site (including the Content) on another website, in any other medium (print, electronic or otherwise) or as part of any commercial service without our prior written permission. If you require any further information on permitted use, or a licence to republish any part of the Site (or any Content), please email us at theeditor@spectator.co.uk, or contact us by telephone on +44 207961 0200."

Resurrection posted:

For me, the elimination of the waste of space that is the EU is my primary concern. Corbyn comes next....

Except if Mr Corbyn gets voted into power by a majority of the electorate and then you will fall silent before the Will of the People.

Fat chance.

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Richard Dane posted:

Please don't just copy and paste an entire article.  Better to paraphrase and include selected pertinent quotes, if you must.

Why?

With due appreciation of a mild irony: -

"4.4. Except as set out in the limited licence in section 4.2 above (or as required under any applicable law), the Content, Trade Marks and/or any other part of the Site may not be used, reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, accessed, modified, or otherwise exploited, in full or in part, for any purpose without our prior written consent. In particular, you are not permitted to republish any part of the Site (including the Content) on another website, in any other medium (print, electronic or otherwise) or as part of any commercial service without our prior written permission. If you require any further information on permitted use, or a licence to republish any part of the Site (or any Content), please email us at theeditor@spectator.co.uk, or contact us by telephone on +44 207961 0200."

Resurrection posted:

For me, the elimination of the waste of space that is the EU is my primary concern. Corbyn comes next....

Except if Mr Corbyn gets voted into power by a majority of the electorate and then you will fall silent before the Will of the People.

Fat chance.

In which case I'll not bother cross referencing any or all of my opinions and just continue to shred you articulately, without prejudice of course. Unlike Remoaners, if Corbyn does get elected I won't demand a recount or another General Election as I do know the destruction he will wreak on the nation will make Brexit look like a kiddies party. 

Careful, Resurrection. Adam has a black-belt in sarcasm.  

We live in very strange political times.  I can see a scenario in which Corbyn gets into No.10 and that would involve the Tories continuing on their path to implosion and many young voters voting for Corbyn on the basis of blind hope, no interest in history, plus others who (blindly) support his ideology.  Rather like the EU referendum, I fear such a general election will be devoid of facts and throughly-worked policies.  So I think I'm saying there will still be room for many to decry the unfairness of it all. 

MDS posted:

Careful, Resurrection. Adam has a black-belt in sarcasm.  

We live in very strange political times.  I can see a scenario in which Corbyn gets into No.10 and that would involve the Tories continuing on their path to implosion and many young voters voting for Corbyn on the basis of blind hope, no interest in history, plus others who (blindly) support his ideology.  Rather like the EU referendum, I fear such a general election will be devoid of facts and throughly-worked policies.  So I think I'm saying there will still be room for many to decry the unfairness of it all. 

Ha! Ha! I can take it. ????

Unless you lived through the 70s of its its mixture of militant unions, strikes and totally incompetent British management then perhaps the only explanation is to allow it to be relived with an even more incompetent bunch led by Corbyn, McDionell, Watson, Abbott, the puppet master McCluskey et al. Believe  me, it will be Venezuela on steroids. 

Resurrection posted:

Unless you lived through the 70s of its its mixture of militant unions, strikes and totally incompetent British management then perhaps the only explanation is to allow it to be relived with an even more incompetent bunch led by Corbyn, McDionell, Watson, Abbott, the puppet master McCluskey et al. Believe  me, it will be Venezuela on steroids. 

Some of us lived through that period and didn’t find it as bad as the subsequent 15 years of destructive Thatcherism, with its monetarism, mortgage interest rates up to 15%, me,me,me self serving attitudes trampling over evryone else, wholesale sell of of council houses dirt cheap (admittedly good for the purchasers, getting bargains at everyone elses expense), destruction of coal mining industry, etc.

I don’t think any party has been perfect in my lifetime, and if you are objective there is some good to be found even if the ‘colour’ is not the one you would choose (Thatcher went to Brussels with her handbag...)

As one who can remember the 3 day week, piles of rotting rubbish, delayed funerals, militant car workers, Red Robbo, power cuts, strikes every other day, it was little wonder that the country voted in Thatcher.

I think too that the decline of the coal industry and the closure of mines was not quite so much Thatcher's direct responsibility but more one of simply uneconomic mines being closed down, [ if you check, many mines were being closed down as being worked out, long before Thatcher came about]

I have never voted Conservative btw...

I will admit, with regret, that I voted Conservative when Thatcher first stood  ...but whatever was the credible opposition the next two times. Naively I had thought that a woman PM would bring less testosterone to Parliament, and better chance of cooperational approach rather than confrontational. How wrong I was, and in my view her successive governments did at least as much damage to the country as had Labour before, with just the one single positive as already mentioned (her handbag in Brussels).

GTB-Buckaroo posted:

As one who can remember the 3 day week, piles of rotting rubbish, delayed funerals, militant car workers, Red Robbo, power cuts, strikes every other day, it was little wonder that the country voted in Thatcher.

I don't think anyone would argue that 3 day week and continual strikes is a good thing: the problem with dismissing them in such a way is that you never get to the heart of if they were a cause of discontentment in the country and therefore a good argument for keeping away from left wing (as opposed to either left of centre or extreme left wing) views, or simply an effect and symptom of underlying discontentment.

Innocent Bystander posted:

I don’t think any party has been perfect in my lifetime, and if you are objective there is some good to be found even if the ‘colour’ is not the one you would choose (Thatcher went to Brussels with her handbag...)

Perhaps that (Thatcher with her handbag in Brussels) is actually the heart of the issue with the UK "in Europe".  Our politicians have always (possibly with the exception of Blair) approached "Europe" with the attitude of how can we get of "Europe" the most benefit for the UK.  To the whole idea of European unity that is an anathema.  It should have been about how can we change "Europe" for the betterment of the whole of Europe.

To me the UK has never fully embraced "Europe" and always been looking to itself not to Europe as a whole.

PS I put "Europe" in inverted commas because (of course) I'm talking about the EEC and lately the EU not the continent of Europe.