Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

Are you... are you seriously criticising Keir Starmer for making a blunder, whilst calling Boris Johnson one of our best politicians?

Seriously now?

Yes I am criticising Starmer as it shows the nature of the man, not the initial error he made but using the full might of state apparatus in order to cover his own embarrassment, which wouldn’t be out of place in Zimbabwe. Starmer is an apprentice politician, Johnson, like him or not, has wrestled London from Labour against the odds, led the leave vote to victory against the odds, and has communication skills far and away superior to the majority in the commons. Starmer is what he is, a failed head of the CPS, given a Labour stronghold and has so far achieved nothing......

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

To your first point IMO it shouldn't have been a mere majority for a win on something as important as this. 60% (or more) super majority for victory should have been the standard. It seems prudent to me at least. I am not even sure something that big should be a vote. I can't decide on that part.

The super majority would be unworkable imo. You can't say to the people "we're giving you a vote but even if you are in the majority we are going to ignore you if it's not the result we want to hear". I don't altogether disagree with you about not having the vote at all, as the whole thing has been extremely divisive to an already very fractured nation. I've been very clear about my contempt of David Cameron and his and his sneering and condescending attempt to promise a Referndum he thought he'd never have to give.

Had the status quo remained the same and the vote was close I would guarantee there would have be folks trying to drum up support for another referendum. Even further emphasizing the importance of a super majority.

That's perfectly true some leavers would of howled for a second referndum had it been a remain victory. However you know as well as I do that not only would they of been ignored and even laughed at, they'd of been called fascists and anti-democrats for refusing to except the result. They 100% would not of received the positive backing from the media and the endless coverage on the subject. They'd simply of rolled out Nigel Farrarge every now and then to be shouted down and sneered at, further emphasizing that they consider him the sole reason anyone voted out at all and that those people are not worth listening to. That is the truth and deep down remainers most know this to be true. Can any remainer truly say with their hand hand on their hart that they'd of just excepted a second Referndum so soon after the first had it been a remain victory?!

The smash and grab comment was with regards to the completely BS campaign that people have now had time to reflect on. Demonizing immigrants, that NHS bus lie, etc...not to mention not having a clue how to deal with ROI/NI.

The problem mate, is that you consider that there was only two campaigns. Leave and remain, when in fact there were loads of diffrent campaigns fighting for the same goals but with very diffrent motives. TUSC for example was for leaving and they most certainly didn't want to leave for the same reasons as Farrarge. It just suited the media to doumb down the whole thing and focus on UKIP vs the government. Plenty of lies were also told by the main official remain group lead by Cameron. He did what he always does and lead a smear campaign rather then focusing the the issues that matter. When you mention immigrants being demonized i really think I further emphasizes the need for a proper debate on immigration into this country so we can end most of these arguments but again that poster (while being a disgrace) was only one campaign out of many for leaving. It just served the media's perpouses to pretend that it had a massive effect.

The truth is the official leave side told a ridiculous amount of lies too. Osbourne claimed he had an emergency budget that he'd put into opperation the day after the vote if leave won. It was a clear scare tactic. Or Cameron falsely claiming that the EU was responsible for peace in Europe and a war could potentially result from us voting to leave the EU.

If you want to talk about demoisation, then look no further then your average leave voter who has been called everything from a racist to a Nazi to an uneducated moron and everything in between.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Its not a cup final at the end of play thats it. Referendum is a small part of UK democrocy, which is ongoing.

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy” David Davis 2012

Nor is it a game were we can play best out of three or keep playing till we get the result we want. Do you think those who voted against us joining the common market in 75 we're happy with the result? They had to wait 41 years for a second vote on the matter. Were was this thirst for more democracy then? Who's decided that anyone has changed their mind anyway? The media has said so have they?

 

[peteblue]

I see that Germany still cannot form a government and that the deal with the SPD is falling apart even before the membership get to vote on it.........shambles......

 

[peteblue]

After the speech by Boris........

“EU diplomats have removed a so-called "punishment clause" from a draft text of the arrangement for the Brexit transition period, the BBC understands.
A footnote published by the European Commission last week suggested that the UK would lose access to elements of the European single market if it broke EU rules during the transition period.
But officials have now promised new wording that makes reference to the EU's standard infringement procedures.”

 

[Charlie Sweet]

In the summer of 2012 Nick Cohen, a journalist, published allegations that Starmer was personally responsible for the continued prosecution of Paul Chambers, a traveller who, frustrated at airport delays, had posted a joke about Doncaster Sheffield Airport on Twitter. In the case known as the "Twitter Joke Trial" Chambers had been convicted of sending a "public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". The trial and conviction provoked widespread protest by free-speech activists, but the Crown Prosecution Service maintained a long-term opposition to Chambers' appeals. According to Chambers' defenders, prosecutors had been willing to stop opposing the appeals, but Starmer had over-ruled his subordinates because he was "trying to save face by refusing to admit he was in the wrong."

Pete come on and be serious will you. If your criticism is based solely on the unconfirmed heresay and unsubstantiated rumour of the other side in a trivial little matter as that then you are seriously scraping the barrell!!

After the speech by Boris........

“EU diplomats have removed a so-called "punishment clause" from a draft text of the arrangement for the Brexit transition period, the BBC understands.
A footnote published by the European Commission last week suggested that the UK would lose access to elements of the European single market if it broke EU rules during the transition period.
But officials have now promised new wording that makes reference to the EU's standard infringement procedures.”

As with all of these things it's a work in progress and evolving negotiation so not sure what's new here. But presumably you agree with the basic principle that if someone breaks the rules then there needs to be consequences?

 

[peteblue]

Pete come on and be serious will you. If your criticism is based solely on the unconfirmed heresay and unsubstantiated rumour of the other side in a trivial little matter as that then you are seriously scraping the barrell!!




As with all of these things it's a work in progress and evolving negotiation so not sure what's new here. But presumably you agree with the basic principle that if someone breaks the rules then there needs to be consequences?

Any transition period is a period for both the U.K. to prepare to continue trade with the EU market and for the EU countries to prepare to continue trade with the U.K. market, It therefore follows that existing rules should still be applied together with consequences. However, we should not be applying any new laws formed without either our input or acceptance.......

 

[Joey66]

Pete come on and be serious will you. If your criticism is based solely on the unconfirmed heresay and unsubstantiated rumour of the other side in a trivial little matter as that then you are seriously scraping the barrell!!




As with all of these things it's a work in progress and evolving negotiation so not sure what's new here. But presumably you agree with the basic principle that if someone breaks the rules then there needs to be consequences?

We will have left by then so why should any new rules apply to us?

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Any transition period is a period for both the U.K. to prepare to continue trade with the EU market and for the EU countries to prepare to continue trade with the U.K. market, It therefore follows that existing rules should still be applied together with consequences. However, we should not be applying any new laws formed without either our input or acceptance.......

Agreed of course but a transition period deal is a new arrangement so they have to set new rules. If the agreement is we get the benefits of EU membership for a 2 or 3 year period but the rules say we can't sign any new trade deals at the same time - and then Boris goes off and signs something - then it's right we'd have the rug pulled from under us

We will have left by then so why should any new rules apply to us?

As above Joey. The UK wants a transition period. If that was taken off the table now it would cause massive damage to the UK economy.

 

[Joey66]

Agreed of course but a transition period deal is a new arrangement so they have to set new rules. If the agreement is we get the benefits of EU membership for a 2 or 3 year period but the rules say we can't sign any new trade deals at the same time - and then Boris goes off and signs something - then it's right we'd have the rug pulled from under us



As above Joey. The UK wants a transition period. If that was taken off the table now it would cause massive damage to the UK economy.

They call it transition period - we call it Implementation period - you can not apply any new rules to a leaving country, but its the EU they make the rules up!
.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They call it transition period - we call it Implementation period - you can not apply any new rules to a leaving country, but its the EU they make the rules up!
.

You've used a golf club metaphor in the past Joe. If you serve your notice to leave, you can still use the facilities during that notice period but you've still got to abide by the rules at the same time.

 

[Joey66]

You've used a golf club metaphor in the past Joe. If you serve your notice to leave, you can still use the facilities during that notice period but you've still got to abide by the rules at the same time.

If you left a golf club Bruce you would just leave!
An implemented period should be beneficial, not detrimental to the UK because why agree to it - they will gladly take our money!

 

[neil999]

If you left a golf club Bruce you would just leave!
An implemented period should be beneficial, not detrimental to the UK because why agree to it - they will gladly take our money!

Your assuming any new rules would be 'bad' for the UK

 

[ilikecheese]

The super majority would be unworkable imo. You can't say to the people "we're giving you a vote but even if you are in the majority we are going to ignore you if it's not the result we want to hear". I don't altogether disagree with you about not having the vote at all, as the whole thing has been extremely divisive to an already very fractured nation. I've been very clear about my contempt of David Cameron and his and his sneering and condescending attempt to promise a Referndum he thought he'd never have to give.

That's perfectly true some leavers would of howled for a second referndum had it been a remain victory. However you know as well as I do that not only would they of been ignored and even laughed at, they'd of been called fascists and anti-democrats for refusing to except the result. They 100% would not of received the positive backing from the media and the endless coverage on the subject. They'd simply of rolled out Nigel Farrarge every now and then to be shouted down and sneered at, further emphasizing that they consider him the sole reason anyone voted out at all and that those people are not worth listening to. That is the truth and deep down remainers most know this to be true. Can any remainer truly say with their hand hand on their hart that they'd of just excepted a second Referndum so soon after the first had it been a remain victory?!

The problem mate, is that you consider that there was only two campaigns. Leave and remain, when in fact there were loads of diffrent campaigns fighting for the same goals but with very diffrent motives. TUSC for example was for leaving and they most certainly didn't want to leave for the same reasons as Farrarge. It just suited the media to doumb down the whole thing and focus on UKIP vs the government. Plenty of lies were also told by the main official remain group lead by Cameron. He did what he always does and lead a smear campaign rather then focusing the the issues that matter. When you mention immigrants being demonized i really think I further emphasizes the need for a proper debate on immigration into this country so we can end most of these arguments but again that poster (while being a disgrace) was only one campaign out of many for leaving. It just served the media's perpouses to pretend that it had a massive effect.

The truth is the official leave side told a ridiculous amount of lies too. Osbourne claimed he had an emergency budget that he'd put into opperation the day after the vote if leave won. It was a clear scare tactic. Or Cameron falsely claiming that the EU was responsible for peace in Europe and a war could potentially result from us voting to leave the EU.

If you want to talk about demoisation, then look no further then your average leave voter who has been called everything from a racist to a Nazi to an uneducated moron and everything in between.

I don't see how a super majority is unworkable. Here in the states it takes a 60% or better vote to get a law enacted. Something as 'permanent' as this vote was should have required the same.

You go back to 1975 and the vote was a clear super majority. 67% to 33%. If you make something permanent that is divided right down the middle it will only keep people divided.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you left a golf club Bruce you would just leave!
An implemented period should be beneficial, not detrimental to the UK because why agree to it - they will gladly take our money!

Well we've benefited from the strong performance of the EU economy over the past 18 months, largely because so many of our exports are to the EU. Our researchers continue to benefit from access to Horizon2020 and other science projects. Our companies continue to have access to talent from across Europe with no barriers.