OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

I was taking the "put forward for consideration" meaning of the word rA. No way would I wish to stir up riots on the streets and hope that nobody understood that I was putting riots up as action to be considered.

I think we all know that ‘Amster and, as I hope I’ve made clear, it was never my intention to suggest otherwise. You’re not the first to put forward the likelihood of the idiotic far right rioting though and I’m simply suggesting that it should not even be a factor in deciding any future course of action.

I’ve never seen the incident you refer to Andy and one wonders, if the media are so good at suppressing/magnifying issues as they see fit, how you have.
You really need to get over your anti BBC obsession. The overwhelming tone of the media in this country...Sky, ITV, Express, Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times etc is unequivocally right of centre. Imo the BBC is relatively impartial where conventional, as opposed to ‘politically correct’, politics is concerned and I know plenty who object to the ‘establishment leaning’ aspect of the BBC in the same way as you believe them to be ‘left leaning’.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Quote rA "You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way..."

Really? I believe I have merely pointed out flaws in your pro EU arguments and, most recently, the impossibility of a referendum which requires a majority of eligible voters, given the high percentage of abstainers.

You have been totally consistent in your beliefs, as, in a perverse way, have I: ie I have consistently been unsure, seeing plusses and minuses in both outcomes. Thus, by the very nature of debate, interchanges of conflicting opinion will result.

As the only passionate remainer consistently posting here, you may feel this is a personal attack, but believe me it isn't. I have the same debates in real life with people who are equally as passionate as you both pro and against.

The problem is that you're trying to find a solution to the insoluble and so there will always be factors that make those solutions not work. That's not a personal attack, that's pointing out flaws in logic. OK I may flower it up a bit and use inflammatory examples, but at its core, the underlying logic is irrefutable.

Take the 30% non voting question. Clearly when almost 1/3rd don't vote, that means you will never get an overall majority in any close run contest. It doesn't matter why those people didn't vote, be it holidays, illness, imprisonment etc. Fact is they didn't vote thus they were responsible for the mixed message outcome of referendum 1. I'm sure this was not a deliberate act, but nonetheless that is the consequence.

Now if we had had a 100% turnout (or as near as would be practical to that) we would not have had this dilemma that has blurred the past 2.5 years. Decisions could have been made without the need to look over the shoulder or pander to dissenting views. We could have negotiated more confidently, our stance would be stronger - during the whole negotiation process we have had one hand tied behind our back and the EU knew it.

Hence the lame duck deal that we now have on the table: basically stay in, whilst being out, and sitting at the back, gagged, as our future is decided by eurocrats.

All because of an ill conceived and ill worded referendum... and you want another one, with redefined rules almost guaranteed to have no valid outcome? I just don't get it, other than to assume that what you are trying to do is rerun the first one on a better basis as if the last 2.5 years didn't happen, and to fix the result to yield what you want!! (nothing wrong with that 😉😉&#128512

[ramAnag]

Quote rA "You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way..."

Really? I believe I have merely pointed out flaws in your pro EU arguments and, most recently, the impossibility of a referendum which requires a majority of eligible voters, given the high percentage of abstainers.

You have been totally consistent in your beliefs, as, in a perverse way, have I: ie I have consistently been unsure, seeing plusses and minuses in both outcomes. Thus, by the very nature of debate, interchanges of conflicting opinion will result.

As the only passionate remainer consistently posting here, you may feel this is a personal attack, but believe me it isn't. I have the same debates in real life with people who are equally as passionate as you both pro and against.

The problem is that you're trying to find a solution to the insoluble and so there will always be factors that make those solutions not work. That's not a personal attack, that's pointing out flaws in logic. OK I may flower it up a bit and use inflammatory examples, but at its core, the underlying logic is irrefutable.

Take the 30% non voting question. Clearly when almost 1/3rd don't vote, that means you will never get an overall majority in any close run contest. It doesn't matter why those people didn't vote, be it holidays, illness, imprisonment etc. Fact is they didn't vote thus they were responsible for the mixed message outcome of referendum 1. I'm sure this was not a deliberate act, but nonetheless that is the consequence.

Now if we had had a 100% turnout (or as near as would be practical to that) we would not have had this dilemma that has blurred the past 2.5 years. Decisions could have been made without the need to look over the shoulder or pander to dissenting views. We could have negotiated more confidently, our stance would be stronger - during the whole negotiation process we have had one hand tied behind our back and the EU knew it.

Hence the lame duck deal that we now have on the table: basically stay in, whilst being out, and sitting at the back, gagged, as our future is decided by eurocrats.

All because of an ill conceived and ill worded referendum... and you want another one, with redefined rules almost guaranteed to have no valid outcome? I just don't get it, other than to assume that what you are trying to do is rerun the first one on a better basis as if the last 2.5 years didn't happen, and to fix the result to yield what you want!! (nothing wrong with that ������)

Right...so it was another Geoff Parkstone who disparagingly referred to ‘my Referendum’, talked about ‘mealy mouthed wimpish liberal supporting Remainers’, ‘RA’s stockpile of WW2 weapons’ and ‘being lectured by RA’ was it? Glad that’s clear.

Neither am I the ‘only passionate Remainer on here’. Swale is at least as passionate. You and Andy perversely both say that given another chance you’d both vote Remain. I’m fairly sure that of the regulars, mista and ‘Amster share an overall opposition to Brexit, in fact now Ram59 and one or two others appear to have departed I’d say that only the otherwise admirable MoP and DCFCA along with that oddity from Barnsley, whose name I forget, are committed ‘Leavers’.

I obviously agree with much of what you write about the inadequacy of using a referendum to form national policy. It was always a nonsense imo, but it isn’t a question of ‘fixing the result to yield what I want’. This is of course why the Brexiteers are so opposed to the idea of a second Referendum...because a better informed Joe Public and a better worded question is not likely to give them what they want.
From my point of view however...yes I’m entirely opposed to Brexit but if there was a genuine majority I’d get on with it...I’m even more opposed to the creeping paralysis of just about everything concerning business and politics in our country for approaching three years because of bloody Brexit and I simply want to find a way forward.

[MadAmster]

1. I hate the EU with a vengeance and anything that looks like upsetting the apple cart is OK by me, however.....
2. A proper Brexit, complete with no freedom of movement, no Customs Union but with a good trade deal was possible.... but only if the government had got off its hind quarters and put together a credible stance/negotiating position in the first 6 months following the refeerendum. Instead they prevarificated and hummed and aared right up to the last moment and then agreed the current Mayhem proposal which does no more than take the UK out of the EU whilst keeping it in the EU........ if you get my drift.
3. There are 3 options open as far as I can fathom, one of which really would cause riots, and that is to stay in the EU as is. The 2nd is the Mayhem deal which has the UK in and out at the same time but with no say in EU law making. The 3rd is no deal. #1 is not really an option which is a shame as my thoughts on banking, multinationals, stock markets and money markets would be better served by having them done through the EU. A single country going it alone on those measures would collapse quicker than a Russian spy who has just taken his cyanide pill. No deal is also ruinous which leaves the Mayhem deal as no more than the best of a bad bunch. What a mess and I point the finger not at the 52 or 48 or 63 or 67 or even the 30% but fairly and squarely at the Conservative and Unionist Party who have perfectly screwed up any chance of the UK getting the best it could through a lack of concerted action and effort which, IMO, they did on purpose so that leaving the EU whilst staying in it would be best for them and their paymasters whilst placating, they hope, the 52% who, according to the rules under which the referendum took place, "won".
4. IMO it should not matter whether the PM is a Leaver or a Remainer, as long as that PM appointed a Leaver as Brexit Minister. Someone who would toil night and day do push for the very best deal for the UK and I am convinced the best deal is not what is currently on the table.
5. It is my considered opinion that the UK could have taken down the EU by staying in and undermining the whole inefficient monolith from within. There are, IMO, enough member states now going against the Commission's wishes to be able to destroy it from within. Greece, Italy and Spain (the people of more than the politicians) don't want Northern Europe style taxes and tax gathering machines in place. The Eastern Bloc refuse to have African immigrants and there it is both government and populace against the immigration.
6. Austria is the most recent country to back out of the EU Army project, more will follow IMO.

The whole kit and caboodle is falling apart at the seams. People in most countries want less interference from Brussels. The Commission belives that MORE Europe is the answer. A totally ridiculous situation.

[MadAmster]

....... and just to muddy the waters yet further..... it seems that Germany has been in a recession in the last 2 quarters of 2018. A continuance thereof would see France in the brown and smelly and completely stuff Italy which is also in recession and on the financial brink.

Source https://www.businessinsider.nl/germa...onal=true&r=US

This News might just be the trigger to Mayhem being able to give the EU an ultimatum as it seems they now really need that £39Bn divorce settlement. Let's see what Mayhem is made of now she has been given this opportunity.

[Geoff Parkstone]

1. I hate the EU with a vengeance and anything that looks like upsetting the apple cart is OK by me, however.....
2. A proper Brexit, complete with no freedom of movement, no Customs Union but with a good trade deal was possible.... but only if the government had got off its hind quarters and put together a credible stance/negotiating position in the first 6 months following the refeerendum. Instead they prevarificated and hummed and aared right up to the last moment and then agreed the current Mayhem proposal which does no more than take the UK out of the EU whilst keeping it in the EU........ if you get my drift.
3. There are 3 options open as far as I can fathom, one of which really would cause riots, and that is to stay in the EU as is. The 2nd is the Mayhem deal which has the UK in and out at the same time but with no say in EU law making. The 3rd is no deal. #1 is not really an option which is a shame as my thoughts on banking, multinationals, stock markets and money markets would be better served by having them done through the EU. A single country going it alone on those measures would collapse quicker than a Russian spy who has just taken his cyanide pill. No deal is also ruinous which leaves the Mayhem deal as no more than the best of a bad bunch. What a mess and I point the finger not at the 52 or 48 or 63 or 67 or even the 30% but fairly and squarely at the Conservative and Unionist Party who have perfectly screwed up any chance of the UK getting the best it could through a lack of concerted action and effort which, IMO, they did on purpose so that leaving the EU whilst staying in it would be best for them and their paymasters whilst placating, they hope, the 52% who, according to the rules under which the referendum took place, "won".
4. IMO it should not matter whether the PM is a Leaver or a Remainer, as long as that PM appointed a Leaver as Brexit Minister. Someone who would toil night and day do push for the very best deal for the UK and I am convinced the best deal is not what is currently on the table.
5. It is my considered opinion that the UK could have taken down the EU by staying in and undermining the whole inefficient monolith from within. There are, IMO, enough member states now going against the Commission's wishes to be able to destroy it from within. Greece, Italy and Spain (the people of more than the politicians) don't want Northern Europe style taxes and tax gathering machines in place. The Eastern Bloc refuse to have African immigrants and there it is both government and populace against the immigration.
6. Austria is the most recent country to back out of the EU Army project, more will follow IMO.

The whole kit and caboodle is falling apart at the seams. People in most countries want less interference from Brussels. The Commission belives that MORE Europe is the answer. A totally ridiculous situation.

So in your opinion, MA, Europe is burning and on the brink of collapsing anyway, at least as far as a "unification project" is concerned. A free trade area could be salvaged out of the ashes though, I imagine. This would take the EU back to its Common Market roots in the 60's, which would be a neat solution which would appeal to me as a voter.

I get that the eventual impact of the differences at national level smashing the structure from within is possibly inevitable. You cannot hope to unify any economies with divergent attitudes towards tax (hence the Euro would not be acceptable in UK). Still less can you achieve it when the union stretches further east into economies and governments that that are further from western european than they are from third world. Hence attitudes against African immigration will never be adopted across the existing EUno matter what Brussels may pontificate.

RA asks for a solution. At heart I still believe there isnt one, but if one could reinvent time, then a strong western european free trade zone between some 12-15 countries is what could work. Economies of more or less equal levels of activity and currency broadly stable against one another withing the free trade area would solve many of the brexiteer arguments against europe. Similar levels of economic activity in all members, hence similar tax regimes, hence similar wage regimes would stop free movement of labour dead in its tracks - if there is no economic edge to moving for work, people will not uproot themselves and leave their families for financial betterment. Similarly one can allow free movement of capital without necessarily changing much as yields would be the same throughout the unified zone.

So a mechanism could exist that allows for free movement of labour and capital, but in practice very little incentive exists for it to be taken up. So "the poles wont steal our jobs" etc. that half the brexiteers bought off!! Free movement of capital and level playing field economic activity throughout the union would mean the centre does not have to redistribute the contributions, so it would cost less. Abandonment of full scale unification projects could reduce the cost still further and knock another brexiteer objection (mine in particular) on the head.

So the EU has to split in half, full members and associate members / Norway, Switzerland style members. the associates have their own free trade zone, again a society of equals. The Associates can have a trade agreement with the full members but not one tht allows the economies to swamp one another with labour, capital or goods.

Simples

Except they should have done it 25 years ago before the "let any country in" philosophy developed itself.

Ah well

Its a solution, but not a solution to today's problem sadly
.

[Andy_Faber]

I’ve never seen the incident you refer to Andy and one wonders, if the media are so good at suppressing/magnifying issues as they see fit, how you have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pw7EwceF8A

OK some time ago but there were some VERY nasty folk in that rabble and you can bet they were neither right wingers nor Brexiters. I also thing NF's reaction was a bit less rabble-rousing than AS's. This actually came up the other day on a very well-balanced BBC piece, questioning (presumably its own) level of eaction to the Anna Soubry incident

[Andy_Faber]

You really need to get over your anti BBC obsession.

Its not an obsession but thanks for reverting to Remainer mode and telling me what I should think and do. IMO the BBC is pretty sh*t hot at almost everything it does, but a few of its correspondents just can't help themselves in their distaste for some views/people. My issue with BBC is nothing to do with Brexit, its their obsession with diversity

[ramAnag]

Its not an obsession but thanks for reverting to Remainer mode and telling me what I should think and do. IMO the BBC is pretty sh*t hot at almost everything it does, but a few of its correspondents just can't help themselves in their distaste for some views/people. My issue with BBC is nothing to do with Brexit, its their obsession with diversity

I apologise...it did sound a tad patronising. Wasn’t intended, don’t think it’s ‘Remainer’ mode...more likely learned behaviour from spending too much time on here.

Tbf though, you have repeatedly criticised the BBC on the Brexit thread.

[Andy_Faber]

Tbf though, you have repeatedly criticised the BBC on the Brexit thread.

Criticised yes, but they excelled themselves last night by giving Owen Jones enough air time to expose what an obnoxious t*t he is, a man more likely to drive people right of centre than 100 Tommy Robinsons

[MadAmster]

Parky wrote....

Simples

Except they should have done it 25 years ago before the "let any country in" philosophy developed itself.

Ah well

Its a solution, but not a solution to today's problem sadly


....... I have said many a time and oft that I would prefer a return to pre Maastricht (1991 to be precies, Maastricht came into force in '92 having been signed in '91).

[MadAmster]

Just watching a FB video from Breaking Brexit News.

It explains how much better off Switzerland is than us thanks to not being in the EU

It explains that you don't need a trade deal to trade with other countries

It explains all sorts of reasons why the EU is failing (only economic area in decline they say)

It is a video well worth watching

[Geoff Parkstone]

How do you access FB videos, do you have to join the vile site?

[swaledale]

Just watching a FB video from Breaking Brexit News.

It explains how much better off Switzerland is than us thanks to not being in the EU

It explains that you don't need a trade deal to trade with other countries

It explains all sorts of reasons why the EU is failing (only economic area in decline they say)

It is a video well worth watching

Well its is if you only believe crap that fits with your point of view, but then you'd never learn anything! Still I guess lots of Germans believed what Hitler told them and look where how that ended!

The Eu isn't perfect, no institution or organisation run by human beings is, but if people really can't see that smaller countries acting in partnership economically is the only sure way to survive then I guess something is blinding them to the obvious!

We have to some extent followed Switzerland by washing dirty money from various dodgy sources around the world and there are certain other distinct factors about how the Swiss operate which would definitely not go down well with many of the libertarian right wing Brexiteers.

[swaledale]

Criticised yes, but they excelled themselves last night by giving Owen Jones enough air time to expose what an obnoxious t*t he is, a man more likely to drive people right of centre than 100 Tommy Robinsons

Ah your true colours are out in the open! Your dislike of the BBC stems from the fact you don't like to hear facts which conflict with your own views - mm that pretty typical of a lot of people who could accurately be called ****s!