Brexit

[Chillidoggy 4,516]

5 hours ago, 100th_Idiot said:

 

Lastly if MPs approve A50 trigger but the Lords try to reject it there will be a titanic response. 

 

You are Boris Johnson, and I claim my £10.

Or €11.26.

[Andyww 1,310]

18 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

With all this rollocks going on how long going on how long will it be until we challenge the election results..... this is getting bloody stupid now.

roll on the revolution - throw all these champagne troffing salmon guzzling fat pigs to the lions 

Already happens constantly in the Guardian. Apparently the Tories didnt win the election at all, because they only got 36% of the vote so more people didnt vote for them than did. 

[Chillidoggy 4,516]

2 hours ago, Andyww said:

Already happens constantly in the Guardian. Apparently the Tories didnt win the election at all, because they only got 36% of the vote so more people didnt vote for them than did. 

 

I blame the hipsters.

[molemot 521]

To all the Brexiteers who keep chanting, "The people have spoken, the people have spoken..."

This is like 10 people living in a house. They hold a vote on whether to burn the house down because they don't like the colour of the curtains.

Four people vote to burn the house down.

Three people vote not to.

Three of the four people start sprinkling petrol around while chanting," The people have spoken, the people have spoken...."

The fourth says, "I didn't realise you really meant to burn the house down.... I've changed my mind!"

The three people who didn't vote say, "We thought you were kidding! You were serious? Are you insane?!!"

The three arsonists continue their inane and inaccurate chant: "The people have spoken, the people have spoken....."

 

It's an interesting simile....(!) This sort of stuff has consequences.....the difference between this and an election, is that you get a chance to sort things out later with elections....

[Barrykearley 7,309]

« The Ultimate TSA Takedown

How Many Bureaucrats Does It Take to Screw in a Light Bulb? »

The Tax System Explained in Beer

===============================================

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
• The fifth would pay $1
• The sixth would pay $3
• The seventh would pay $7
• The eighth would pay $12
• The ninth would pay $18
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

• And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[C8RKH 6,976]

2 hours ago, molemot said:

To all the Brexiteers who keep chanting, "The people have spoken, the people have spoken..."

This is like 10 people living in a house. They hold a vote on whether to burn the house down because they don't like the colour of the curtains.

Four people vote to burn the house down.

Three people vote not to.

Three of the four people start sprinkling petrol around while chanting," The people have spoken, the people have spoken...."

The fourth says, "I didn't realise you really meant to burn the house down.... I've changed my mind!"

The three people who didn't vote say, "We thought you were kidding! You were serious? Are you insane?!!"

The three arsonists continue their inane and inaccurate chant: "The people have spoken, the people have spoken....."

 

It's an interesting simile....(!) This sort of stuff has consequences.....the difference between this and an election, is that you get a chance to sort things out later with elections....

Sorry but what a complete load of shite, pish and bollocks. Next we'll be saying that unless a court verdict is a unaminous verdict of 12 good and true men then the verdict does not count.

Your whole analogy makes the presumption that "burning down the house" can only be a bad thing. We currently have the fastest growing economy in the G7. The value of our exports to the EU have been falling every year for the past 10 years, whilst our imports from them have been growing. If we don't trade, who loses out? 

Only this week the BoE revised it's forecast for growth in 17/18 upwards. Contrast that with the continual decline that is happening, and forecasted, for the Eurozone economy.

What real and physical  data informs you that Brexit is bad and comparable with burning down the house? What real data as opposed to the mythical doom and gloom projections from just about everyone? ,

Even the hugely biaised IMF have had to swallow hard on and admit they were wrong?

Let's see how smug and arrogant remainers are after next years elections in France and Germany.  It's going to be an interesting 12-18 months Brexit or not. The lunatics have escaped and just maybe they may not be rounded up and put back into the Asylum. But maybe that is no bad thing.

Of course decisions have consequences. Do you take us all for freakin' clueless numpties? And by not voting the 3 in your example forfeit their right to complain either way. It was their choice not to vote after all.

I have no issue with Parliament wanting a say. What I really take exception too is the frankly total under mining of the negotiation position - it is such a niaive position. You NEVER EVER declare to the other party your key conditions / bargaining points up front. Forget about whether you voted leave or remain, it is sheer lunacy to suggest, a la Corbyn and the others, that the Government MUST declare it's key positions up front. FFS, in what circumstances has that ever been a successful  negotiation strategy?

Also, there is such a complete lack of appreciation of the reality of the situation. We don't invoke A50 to then have a cosy chat to agree the terms then decide whether we like them or not. Once we evoke A50 there is no provision to un-revoke it. We either negotiate a settlement within 2 years or we go without one. End of. Also, we don't have to take the full 2 years. We could just decide after 2 days to end negotiations, say we will never agree and walk out. If we invoke A50 on March 31st we could be out on 2nd April! We would not have common market access but we would default to WTO tariifs. And as per above, as we import more than we export to, the EU, who has the most to lose?

I really wish people would wake up and smell the roses. The decision to leave is FINAL once we invoke it whether or not we get the deal we want. And we CANNOT UNREVOKE it if we don't like the deal on the table. These are facts - noy merely suggestions/soundbites etc.  Gety real and understand the situation. Once we go for it, we've gone...

In a democratic process, the majority, by however small the margin, voted out.

To all the Remainers who keep chanting, "The people have spoken, the people have spoken" and we don't accept it - get over it. In this democracy the majority wins. Stop trying to over turn it and usurp it. Just accept it. Stop behaving like spoilt entitled brats. Move on. And help us all, as one united nation, make it work...

[Barrykearley 7,309]

Let's [email protected] off now and take wto deals.

stick your eu pishe straight where the sun don't shine. You can't fly like an eagle when your surrounded by turkeys.

goodbye eu - good riddance - hello bright and glorious new world

[C8RKH 6,976]

[Bibs 11,881]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Only this week the BoE revised it's forecast for growth in 17/18 upwards.

Was front page news today in the Telegraph Business. Carney needs to go for sure.

[C8RKH 6,976]

Bloody hell @Bibs, the Telegraph. Had you down as a Metro reader!   hahaha

I guess what annoys me, and sporned my rant above, is this unshakeable view that Remainers seem to have that Brexit can only be calamatous. Equivalent to the wrath of the gods being rained down on us.  There seems to be very little capacity within the Remain camp to recognise any good or potential.

FFS, we are going into uncharted territory. We're on a mission into the unknown. We're going to a new Frontier with the opportunity to boldly go where no man, woman or lunatic has gone before. Like the great explorers who proved the world was round. Like Armstrong and Aldrin who conquered the moon. Like my mate Pete who proved you could eat a Phaal curry without Uranus then going into meltdown. We need to have an open mind and the courage to see this through.

Yes, it might be a disaster and we might sail off the end of the world or our fuel tanks might blow on lift off. But also it just might be the opportunity we need to overcome, to strive for, and to deliver, something wonderful.

All this talk about burning down houses and other negativity is not helpng us to move forward. Yes, there are risks. But history teaches us we are at our best as a people. As a country. When the odds are stacked against and the impossible needs to achieved.

The common market has been good. It's been good for us and for Europe. Butthe other bit. The Federal EU State and Parliament. The bloated political beaureacracy of the Parliament, The unelected dictatorship of the commission. Do we really believe that these are total forces for good?

Let's accept the risks of change. Lets unite together to make it work for all. Let's not bicker and fight between us - as that path and the weakening of our negotiating position is what will, more than anything else, deliver the burning house.

[Chillidoggy 4,516]

"Bloody hell @Bibs, the Telegraph. Had you down as a Metro reader!   hahaha"

 

I had Bibs down as a Metrosexual until I realised he'd sold his Metro.

[100th_Idiot 373]

Excellent.

 

Well done beeb for poking a pompous twat in the eye.

 

https://youtu.be/WwsQ_5Wm4oo

[molemot 521]

It was culled from elsewhere....included to poke the ant's nest a bit. I am surprised at how totally convinced you all are, though; also the way in which you instantly resort to insult and bad language.

[Andyww 1,310]

7 minutes ago, molemot said:

I am surprised at how totally convinced you all are, though; also the way in which you instantly resort to insult and bad language.

This.

Using insults is a cop-out and means the argument is being lost. I have posted many somewhat long reasoned explanations of why I voted leave, on Facebook and the Remainers usually seem to quieten down after that. Fact is, many Remainers believe that all Leavers are thick/stupid/racist and its our job to rationally explain why we are not.

We also need to acknowledge there are huge risks. The "growth" figures are largely irrelevant, the fact is the UK economy is a disaster and the "growth" is only happening because of immigration, which is one reason successive governments have encouraged it.

The legal challenge is made, that is done, and no use ranting over it. I believe Mrs May has made a huge mistake in saying that she will appeal and win. She really should let it stand, much as I disagree with the initial aims of the challenge, which surely must be to derail Brexit, the law must be respected.

[100th_Idiot 373]

I think the appeal is a mistake as well. The supreme court can draft new laws and set legal precedent on which future judgements will be based. Setting a precedent that enables the government to bypass parliament could be very dangerous. They will not do this lightly. The government could lose twice which will make them lok even worse and undermine them.

Better to get the parliamentary thing done and dusted. It will get approved after some grandstanding as although many MPs were in favour of remain a large number of those will be of the opinion that they should respect the referendum result.

Meanwhile some of the ministers reactions to the judgement is appalling. Liz Truss refusing to state that an independent judiciary should be respected. The rabid tabloids savaging them for being gay or and UK. 

An independent judiciary is vital to a functioning democracy. There need to be mechanisms to hold the government to account according to the laws of the land. This whipping up of anti judiciary fervour is dangerous.

[Buddsy 1,673]

6 minutes ago, Andyww said:

Fact is, many Remainers believe that all Leavers are thick/stupid/racist and its our job to rationally explain why we are not

So true. I got so bored being told Im hateful, racist etc. 

I heard the head of the Catholic Church saying there has been an increase in racist targeting and that the feeling in the country is this is ok now since the Brexit vote. I just dont see this myself. He goes on to blame the politicians and media for fear mongering but I would argue his fear mongering is just as bad.

Nick Clegg kept repeating "or we can have a self damaging hard Brexit" time and time again. Just trying to enforce his views as being the correct option.

Buddsy

[molemot 521]

I'd been reading this thread and seeing everyone patting each other on the back and telling each other how right they all were. Thought it was time to introduce an opposing point of view, to see what happened. Personally, I think that any referendum that does not have the support of at least half of the total electorate has to be unsafe. Arguments about elections and majorities don't cut it for me...as election results are only temporary, and not the permanently binding decision that this one is. There is no way back, once we're gone. Had the result been 70% to leave and 30% to remain...of the total electorate....I'd be quite happy; in that case, "the people" would truly "have spoken".

But it wasn't.

And basing the entire future of the UK on such a marginal result does seem to me to be parlous.

A friend of mine, a dedicated Brexiteer, replied to the diatribe I posted by saying that they weren't trying to burn the house down, quite the opposite...they wanted to build a new, better house instead. I pointed out that, although that was a praiseworthy idea, what they were proposing was equivalent to "buying off plan"... where the new house doesn't exist, has no planning permission, the price is variable, there's no drainage or other services, the roads haven't been built and there is nobody with any real idea as to what it might end up like.

I have never said all Brexiteers are thick, stupid and racist; I know they aren't and have engaged in some interesting discussions on the subject of the referendum....but I haven't changed my point of view, that such a marginal result should not be allowed to stand. The thing should be fought out until a proper majority exists. "Get over it" does not qualify as a reasoned response. 

[Chillidoggy 4,516]

Was he proposing to build a house in Greece?

[Barrykearley 7,309]

46 minutes ago, molemot said:

I'd been reading this thread and seeing everyone patting each other on the back and telling each other how right they all were. Thought it was time to introduce an opposing point of view, to see what happened. Personally, I think that any referendum that does not have the support of at least half of the total electorate has to be unsafe. Arguments about elections and majorities don't cut it for me...as election results are only temporary, and not the permanently binding decision that this one is. There is no way back, once we're gone. Had the result been 70% to leave and 30% to remain...of the total electorate....I'd be quite happy; in that case, "the people" would truly "have spoken".

But it wasn't.

In that case - I would argue for independence for areas which voted on that basis then 

the reality is more stark frankly. In the high remain areas - you will see a much higher proportion of residents who are actually foriegn migrant workers from other parts - less than 20 years or so resident. When you look deeper and consider areas where the migration came after the war - they are even more against free movement and that's been widely reported in the media. This is where the works or mr kalergi come into play - move enough people around the shores and countries - undermine identity and you can have an eu superstate

Mr Cameron made us have a simple question - what I'd like to see is a simple solution and let's get on with it. He should have invoked a50 as he shut the door walking out of downing st

And let's not forget that successive temporary governments have signed us into this mess only after the electorate agreed to free trade.

in the 1970s no one mentioned what a monster this would turn into - again - the works of mr kalergi.

[C8RKH 6,976]

5 hours ago, molemot said:

It was culled from elsewhere....included to poke the ant's nest a bit. I am surprised at how totally convinced you all are, though; also the way in which you instantly resort to insult and bad language.

We're not all convinced, have you not read our posts? I think you read and see what you want to read and see.

We Brexiteers know this is a journey into the unknown. We're scared by it. But at the same time we're excited by it. By the opportunities that it might present. Just think about it. When was anything worth having or worth achieving done without some sort of a struggle? Be it a political, academic, or sporting or scientific anything?

Instead of posting anecdotes about houses being burned down and other tidings of woe and destruction and negativity, why don't you put some real thought into convincing us about the value of remaining. Educating us in how things will be better if we remain?  You  know, really add something positive instead of spreading fear? Or is this me, a Brexiteer, instantly resorting to insult and bad language?   Frankly, I'me getting a little tired of the generic broad brush that Remainers keep taring all Brexiteers with as being ignorant, uneducated, racists. It is total noncense.

I see you live in France. Let's see how the debate about Europe develops in France over the next 12 months especially with the elections there.  I have many French friends and work colleagues. To start off with, they thought we Brexiteers were lunatics. However, after many a positive and thought provoking discussion, without the need for bad language and insults from either side, a surprising number of them now see that this indeed could be an ideal opportunity for change as many of them believe the EU conglomerate and corporate entity is corrupt. Self serving and even miss-guided.

I see many Brexiteers passionately post about their rationale and reasons for their stance. I see many stones just being thrown back by Remainers who either are unwilling, or unable, to really join into a sensible debate and truly try to convince and educate, through reasoned argument and passionate displays, their position. Just look at the huffing, puffing, chest projectioning threats coming out of EU politicians, especially the French ones (what are they really scared off, or is it, that at long last they sense the opportunity to kick us out of club they tried so hard, and lied and decieved to keep us out of, when we first wanted to join?), that want to exorcise us of our demons.

Can we please remember that what the electorate signed up in the first place was membership of a common market. A free trading area. We did not, I believe, ever, sign up for membership of a Federalised Superstate ruled by un-elected and un-impeachable Bureaucrats. How did we sleep walk into that?  It's funny, well it makes me laugh, when you calmly listen to all the Reaminers, all they really want is "access to the common market" - that's what they are fearful of losing -not the other bits like the EUCHR, The EU Pariliament, The EU commission, etc etc. I can't for the life of me think why when our trading within the EU as a % of exports has been steadily decling for over 10 years. Our imports have been growing. Yet our exports and trade virtually everywhere else in the world is growing!  Why is the common market so important?

@molemot the way I see it is that you have, and do, poke the bear. And then complain when it wakes us and tries to bite you.  By all means poke away, but don't whinge and cry about the response.

And just to b e very clear. I do not condone, support and will not tolerate the language and abuse that has been aimed at judges and others as a result of the recent court case. I do believe that the complainants are not being fully truthful re their reasons for it, their motivations, etc. But I do not believe the threatening and insulting response has any place in a modern civilised society.

 

4 hours ago, Buddsy said:

I heard the head of the Catholic Church saying there has been an increase in racist targeting and that the feeling in the country is this is ok now since the Brexit vote. I just dont see this myself. He goes on to blame the politicians and media for fear mongering but I would argue his fear mongering is just as bad.

Given the history and track record of the Catholic Church's joyful and enthusiastic support for the displacing, killing and the persecution of people on race and religion grounds I really do think the Head of the Catholic Church should humbly look at the roots, actions and bedrock of the foundations of his church, and its wealth, before he deems it appropriate to throw stones at any one else. Preists and religion should never be mixed with politics. Too many wars have been fought as a result. Too many people killed and persecuted. Too many displaced.

[Chillidoggy 4,516]

It might be worth reading this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

 

 

[molemot 521]

Please reveal the "whinge and cry" bit.....bite back all you like.  Such is discussion....

My main point has always been the miniscule majority that resulted from the referendum, and I find the idea of the entire future of this country being decided by such a small percentage of the electorate to be very worrying.  I would be equally unhappy if the vote had gone the other way, by the same sort of percentage; I really think we need a consensus on this decision. (Oh, by the way, I currently live in Englefield Green....I do move about a lot.)

 

I did vote in the 1975 referendum...took a lot of thought, but I voted to remain on that occasion, and haven't changed my mind since. A quote from the article you cite, attributed to Harold Wilson, after the result...

 

"The verdict has been given by a vote with a bigger majority than has been received by any Government in any general election. Nobody in Britain or the wider world should have any doubt about its meaning. It was a free vote, without constraint, following a free democratic campaign conducted constructively and without rancour. It means that fourteen years of national argument are over. It means that all those who have had reservations about Britain’s commitment should now join wholeheartedly with our partners in Europe, and our friends everywhere to meet the challenge confronting the whole nation."

The same cannot be said about our current position.

[C8RKH 6,976]

5 minutes ago, ian29gte said:

It might be worth reading this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

 

 

Was not aware of that, my bad. However, the questions was  Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?   That is not what we have now though is it? It has quietly morphed, whilst we have sleepwalked along, into some thing very much darker, more sinister, and above the law of countries!

[Buddsy 1,673]

Was about to ask where you are living as I can understand expats are finding it harder.

Any way

20 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Given the history and track record of the Catholic Church's joyful and enthusiastic support for the displacing, killing and the persecution of people on race and religion grounds I really do think the Head of the Catholic Church should humbly look at the roots, actions and bedrock of the foundations of his church, and its wealth, before he deems it appropriate to throw stones at any one else. Preists and religion should never be mixed with politics. Too many wars have been fought as a result. Too many people killed and persecuted. Too many displaced.

Im not into pointing fingers. I just dont think hes right and also people are justified to having their own opinions...still how that church treated unmarried mothers and people who loved other people of the same sex is just horrid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37880275

 

Buddsy

 

[C8RKH 6,976]

4 minutes ago, molemot said:

Please reveal the "whinge and cry" bit.....bite back all you like.  Such is discussion....

My main point has always been the miniscule majority that resulted from the referendum, and I find the idea of the entire future of this country being decided by such a small percentage of the electorate to be very worrying.  I would be equally unhappy if the vote had gone the other way, by the same sort of percentage; I really think we need a consensus on this decision. (Oh, by the way, I currently live in Englefield Green....I do move about a lot.)

 

I did vote in the 1975 referendum...took a lot of thought, but I voted to remain on that occasion, and haven't changed my mind since.

Sorry - your country flag on here is French and I thought that represented where the member lived. Again my bad.

The small majority is a worry yes. And as you say it would have been a worry either way. We only have to look at Scotland, the county where I live, hence the Union Flag (  ) to see what can happen when a referendum is won, or lost, by a small majority.  The losers in Scotland have reacted just as badly as the remainers in the UK, even though they lost by a greater majority in Scotland too!  What does that say about losers of a referendum?

However, the basic principle is one person, one vote, all who are entitled to vote can vote. So, if you do not use your vote, then as far as I am concerned you cannot then say, "Oh, damn, I should have voted, but I did not vote, so as I don't like the result you need to change it / anull it". The rules of the game are known. A simple majority is all it takes. I would have been mightily annoyed if the Remain camp had won. But actually, I would have accepted it and moved on.

I'm all for a discussion. I just don't think "prodiing" negatively toned anecdotes/stories add anything to one, or to the wider debate. Hence my reaction. But I am not going to fall out with you about it, or send you hate mail or threaten to kill or injure you. We Brexiteers are not all like that!