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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

'Talking trade and soliciting naughties' isn't what it's about though is it? Maintaining working relationships with our continental neighbours in terms of defence, border control, anti-terrorism liaison and the actual business of trade delivery all remain, I believe, of ***** importance and the climate of mistrust which has developed since Brexit, between us and our European allies, will help none of those imo.
.

---

But that's exactly what it is about. How can global economics not be relevant? We don't need to make our choices based on geography, we have the whole world to work with (including Europe), this little Island in the corner of the globe idea is ancient and doesn't reflect the way the modern world is.

On defence - we couldn't be any more closer to our allies, we are more and more spreading our cooperation and advancement with foreign establishments. Check out for example this trial carried out recently for collaboration, it's massive in terms of combined capability:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...of-at-sea-demo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdiSalisbury

But that's exactly what it is about. How can global economics not be relevant? We don't need to make our choices based on geography, we have the whole world to work with (including Europe), this little Island in the corner of the globe idea is ancient and doesn't reflect the way the modern world is.

On defence - we couldn't be any more closer to our allies, we are more and more spreading our cooperation and advancement with foreign establishments. Check out for example this trial carried out recently for collaboration, it's massive in terms of combined capability:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...of-at-sea-demo

---

Well I don't think it's actually about 'soliciting naughties';D and I don't think that being in favour of European unity amongst our nearest neighbours implies that I've ever suggested 'global economics' is 'irrelevant'. Beyond that your knowledge of matters relating to defence is clearly considerably greater than mine and you've taught me something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roger_ramjet

Shock horror - Tweedledum agrees with Tweedledee. Bill with Ben....fallubadub.

Silly laws? There are so many unpopular ones that frequent the pages of the Daily Express and Daily Mail that I have lost count, but lots of these comprise whingeing about sensible change. I rather liked the one banning vendors of water from claiming that it aids rehydration because "experts" thought that it didnt. Perhaps those experts worked for iPro? Also the law preventing you eating a horse that you owned, but you could eat someone else's horse with impugnity. Or the planned law to enforce the removal of the back legs of tortoises to prevent them roaming into other peoples gardens and destroying produce. The list goes on.

Most of the examples one hears of are in the consumer environment and actually try to standardise things for better or worse. I have no problem with a lot of them but they are introduced in a very high handed way. It soes make one wonder if such trivial actions are replicated in more serious areas of the law though. I suppose its the "unintended consequences" that piss me off though - the pointless destruction of non conformist food products when half the world is starving??? Tey telling a starving person in sub Saharan Africa rhat they cannot eat that banana as it curves too much or that horse because he owned it. And what did the animal rights people make of the tortoise law?

---

You kill me Rog with your wry wit and irony! Before you start blaming the EU for the destruction of "non conformist" food products, you need to look closer to home, at the big retailers who have decreed that "perfectly" formed food in shape and colour etc. is what consumers want - there have been attempts to sell "non conformist" food but most consumers won't buy it!!! That has diddly squat to do with Eu regulations as for what reported on the pages of the Express and Mail, mmm does anyone with half a brain cell actually believe the ****e they print? The list of EU myths is endless.

Not sure how any law is introduced in a high handed way! If you mean one has to comply with it, then I guess thats laws for you! Whats also telling is that in a typically British jobsworth manner, we really do interpret and enforce regulations whether they be EU or local parking ones whereas the French and Italians, and the Greeks to name but three examples don't, its all a question of interpretation and I can't see that changing when we leave, still it will be consoling to now that its our own Government implementing irritating laws I suppose!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

I'm confused here.
72.2% of the electorate voted.

33,568,184 out of an electorate of 46,500,001
Now juggle it how you will. There is a win/loss ratio here.
In any electorate, no 100% Is going to agree.

So where do you draw the line at? 100%., 75%, 51%
Under current rules, first past the post wins. After all the legal showboating, that rule still applies.
Whinge about the 37% all you like. Was it a majority or not?
Yes / no will do.

---

Yes it was a majority, NO it does not represent "the will of the British people" is that simple enough for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roger_ramjet

I wasn't accusing you of a closed mind, although I am not sure I would say the same about Tweedledee! The inference was entirely in your own mind ;D

Yes I freely admit to both fence sitting and the other thing best left unmentioned, being an avowed anti hunt person....

---

Then your clearly not as bright as I thought you were! To be fair you do say not sure, but then its not like you to be unsure , your pithy remarks seem to indicate that your quite sure about things!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Yes it was a majority, NO it does not represent "the will of the British people" is that simple enough for you?

---

This is starting to get a bit boring now. Can you start a new O/T thread just for this irrelevant argument so we can continue with the more constructive part of this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

This is starting to get a bit boring now. Can you start a new O/T thread just for this irrelevant argument so we can continue with the more constructive part of this thread?

---

It's certainly getting a bit repetitive but unfortunately it remains central and crucial to the debate. Tricky has a habit of asking such questions and then scuttling off when he can't take the argument further but...the fact that the Brexiteers continue to continually talk about the 'will of the people' when in fact the vote reflects the views of only just over a third of the people remains central imo. Hypothetically, if only 30% of the electorate had voted - the rest being too disinterested/complacent/sidetracked etc - and, because it's always easier to motivate 'protest' voters, 60% of that 30% voted 'Leave', would you accept that a decision of this magnitude should be made by approximately 20% of the electorate? Of course this whole charade points to the fact that we need to be clear about the rules surrounding any further referenda - are they advisory or binding, should we have different types (like Italy), what should represent a winning majority? - but in the meantime, where would you draw the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Then your clearly not as bright as I thought you were!

---

Whereas you are clearly as bright as I have always thought....

Swales tell you will do wall those jobs The same people who did them before 2004 when they opened the doors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistaram

Swales tell you will do wall those jobs The same people who did them before 2004 when they opened the doors

---

Not sure about that mista, not pretending there isn't a problem, but there are lots of examples of jobs - taxi driving and running corner shops for instance - where these roles are now dominated by Asians precisely because the white population didn't fancy the unsocial hours. The same was once true of public transport employment being dominated by West Indians back in the 50's and 60's for exactly the same reason, at the same time as the hospitals were very dependent upon migrant labour. The traditional white working class didn't seem to mind until other jobs were in short supply then suddenly a scapegoat had to be found.