Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The management of the Company I worked for would brook no interference from anyone.
They operated a bonus system for everyone, universally applied.
Succeed and you're welcome and can be promoted
Fail and you are history, and likely to find as some did a letter on the Notice Board thanking them for their service and hoping that their "choice of deciding on a career outside of the Corporation" would be greeted with success, was the first hint that things had gone pear shaped for them.
Last edited:
Step too far there OG, no where do I say or imply being 'brave' yes doing my duty. The simple fact being that when essential services withdraw that is at least the one time that Government has to do something about it. Would have thought even you could work that out without the need to stupidly attempt point scoring!
Peter, you were blatantly "point scoring " with that post
It was a classic case of "one upmanship" and I was correct was I not? you were obeying orders and there was nothing brave about doing that.
You will note that I did not say that what you were doing was wrong, or inessential, did I?
As usual you leapt to the wrong conclusion that I had done so, didn't you?
And accuse me of using "offensive language" for pointing out what you were actually doing., trying to infer that Tom was inferior to you on the basis of you having a superior tendency to act decisively.
Rather less impressive when it is obvious that you were ordered to do so whether you liked to or not.
OK enough is enough. This has become race to the bottom - I'm out of here.
More fun from the Express
"
REVEALED: Britain ALREADY planning for Brexit NO DEAL in payback for divorce bill demands
THE PROSPECT of Britain walking out of Brexit talks with the EU has come closer with claims that the Government is set to go on the offensive and lay out the benefits of “no deal”.
At last , can it be we are going to see the "Benefits" or is this just the usual tripe?
How can anyone on the EU side hope to reach agreement with a "negotiator" that regards an amount of money owed by a previous agreement as a "Divorce" bill?
And to take seriously a threat that they would most likely by now respond to with
"Close the door after you on the way out?"
At which point we will leave and have to attempt to get other countries to agree with trade deals after publicly proving ourselves untrustworthy and likely to renege on any agreement?
Hilarious!
Do us all a favour and bring the fool Davis and co back, send someone else....Farage got us into this mess to complete the disaster, let him go.
When you think about it if JC offered the Tories would pay his bus fare in the hope he would make such a balls up the blame would be his., but in all honesty I suspect he would get the best deal .
"
REVEALED: Britain ALREADY planning for Brexit NO DEAL in payback for divorce bill demands
THE PROSPECT of Britain walking out of Brexit talks with the EU has come closer with claims that the Government is set to go on the offensive and lay out the benefits of “no deal”.
At last , can it be we are going to see the "Benefits" or is this just the usual tripe?
How can anyone on the EU side hope to reach agreement with a "negotiator" that regards an amount of money owed by a previous agreement as a "Divorce" bill?
And to take seriously a threat that they would most likely by now respond to with
"Close the door after you on the way out?"
At which point we will leave and have to attempt to get other countries to agree with trade deals after publicly proving ourselves untrustworthy and likely to renege on any agreement?
Hilarious!
Do us all a favour and bring the fool Davis and co back, send someone else....Farage got us into this mess to complete the disaster, let him go.
When you think about it if JC offered the Tories would pay his bus fare in the hope he would make such a balls up the blame would be his., but in all honesty I suspect he would get the best deal .
Last edited:
you have a valid point to make and you make it politely.
don't go just yet.
You should understand that you are not the only contributor to this forum who has held rank. You, apparently, feel a need though to proclaim that information whereas others are content to live their post-military lives as private citizens in a humble manner, without the need to resort to their former rank as if it were a badge of honour entitling the respect of all around.
I shall in future regard you as I do those other great military commanders, James Blunt and Iain Duncan Smith.
Tom
Its inevitable Peterl. There is no actual debating with OG..
PS
A brave act is a brave act wether ordered to do it or not. Infact probably braver when asked, told to do it. Many brave actions are done on spur of moment. When asked to do something you always have time to contemplate...after which it gets harder..
PPS
Good effort Peterl. My thoughts quite often are to just leave OG and his underlings to wallow in their abstract misery..( Not including Woosh in that, he really does deserve a medal..for patience and perserverance.. I,ll close door on way out.
Cheers OG. Learnt a lot about human nature in here.
Bye.
Woosh
I am off but in closing let me leave you all with these thoughts. Not my own I hasten to add but very valid I feel
If Brexit ends up wrecking the UK’s economy and making everyone poor, will the Remainers be proven right and start reversing the whole process?
Should the wider national interest supersede democracy at times, as the UK electorate are not economists?
John Finagin, observes, reflects and writes
I am one of the 48% who voted Remain and I won’t go into all the needless problems we Brits have created for ourselves. But Brexit was voted for by 52% and on the whole the Brits are respecters of due process, however flawed, and as a country we have been known to have a bit of a stubborn streak!
I also believe the online argument, like so many these days, has become tribal - we fall into one camp or the other - whereas reality is much more nuanced and pragmatic. Whatever happens - and that’s hard to predict - making it work is what counts.
In some respects the process cannot be reversed. The UK will almost certainly have forfeit the EU rebate on its annual contributions negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, so the “end point” will now be different whatever happens.
I doubt if the UK’s economy will be wrecked, although significant damage has already been done. Some economists argue that an implementation dip will occur as a result of major change with the implication that a recovery will follow in time. The 44% of trade the UK does with the EU will not drop to nothing. The UK’s trade with the rest of the world is increasing and I believe the overall effects will be marginal. BMW are well aware that a price increase on their cars in the UK will result in Brits switching to other quality manufacturers such as Toyota, who have already led the increasingly important hybrid and electric car developments in the UK.
The UK has a history of creative thinking and problem-solving, and necessity is the mother of invention. An example of that is the idea of electronic customs, tracking goods across borders that’s emerged from the Irish border problem. It’s certainly within the capability of the IT industry to come up with such solutions and we already have huge experience with surveillance and recognition technologies (try driving into central London without paying the congestion charge and see what happens & how quickly, or watch Channel 4’s “Hunted” on catch-up). Brexit may well prove to be a stimulus to new technologies. The benefits of such technologies could be global.
When the 2016 referendum took place the political party in power, the conservatives, had long been torn by whether the UK should be part of the EU. There were some opposition MPs as well who opposed our membership and had done so for over 40 years. Tony Benn, a leading labour politician and prominent socialist thinker put it:
“When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious that what they had in mind was not democratic. I mean, in Britain you vote for the government and therefore the government has to listen to you, and if you don’t like it you can change it. But in Europe all the key positions are appointed, not elected – the Commission, for example. All appointed, not one of them elected.”
“And my view about the European Union has always been not that I am hostile to foreigners, but that I am in favour of democracy. And I think out of this story we have to find an answer, because I certainly don’t want to live in hostility to the European Union but I think they are building an empire there and they want us to be a part of that empire, and I don’t want that.”
Even many Remainers have some sympathy with this view. It has to be understood that Great Britain’s sense of identity has been reinforced by acts of separation for almost 500 years. Henry VIII’s decoupling of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church was ultimately about English sovereignty (in this case Henry’s as an absolute monarch) if in practice it was about divorcing Catherine of Aragon. Elizabeth I’s defeat of an attempted Spanish invasion, Britain standing against Napoleon’s Continental System, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain & the wider WWII experience are all historical events that reinforced a strong sense of identity and even a degree of insularity not experienced by European countries predominantly with land borders. For centuries Britain did rather well out of its insularity ….. even to the point of calling itself Great Britain. London as a global financial centre continues to prosper even though the days of Empire are long over.
The issue has been is we have had two differing views about what is meant by the national interest. For Brexiteers sovereignty is the key issue. Fears about immigration and the EU’s reluctance to do a meaningful deal with the UK demonstrated Britain’s powerlessness in the light of something very tangible and apparent.
For Remainers trade and prosperity were the key issue. During the 2016 referendum the Remain advocates never put forward a positive case about belonging to Europe, of being Europeans in any emotional sense. It was purely pragmatic - it was worth “paying the price” to get the benefits. Remain didn’t argue a case for the value of our country having an international identity and it’s probably because of that that Leave won as the sense of national identity could be so much more clearly expressed.
The fact that these two conflicting views existed among politicians, that migration is now a global issue we are bombarded with on the TV news on a daily basis, and voices among the leadership of the EU calling for ever-closer integration, including the EU exerting sanctions on its own members such as Hungary for non-compliance, meant that a referendum over the EU would have been highly likely. Maybe inevitable.
It’s hard to predict what EU27’s response will be in the negotiations. If for political reasons they choose to play hardball to force another referendum that will simply persuade Brits that it’s a good job they’re leaving, especially if UK representatives come to the table with reasonable offers and practical solutions. If they’re more pragmatic both sides could benefit.
Yes, I do think Britain has created a lot of problems it need not have created for itself. But equally it could well stop the UK from being complacent about where it fits in to the grand scheme of things and bring about changes and developments and create a sense of direction that perhaps we were beginning to lose. Who knows?
I have too, so you are leaving again? how many times is that now? Tom will be putting an advert in for someone to replace you as we speak.
Anyway, parting is such sweet sorrow, see you on here again in a couple of days as usual, while you are away do give some thought on the knotty problem of a really 100% reason guaranteeing Brexit will work.
By the way to Drive a Green Goddess doesn't require bravery, just the appropriate driving licence. If you want to be brave, join the real Fire Brigade or RNLI as a crew member, that is what Bravery is all about, where you go and face danger, not because you were ordered to break a strike, but because you chose to to save the lives of others.
Be seeing you!
Last edited:
Some good points in there of course, the problem is that the chances of things turning out for the better are far too slim to rely on, as the incompetence of the organs of state work against any improvement, especially at the extreme rate we will shortly need.
To regard ourselves as being a nation with a forward looking modern approach is merely self flattery, and the public have great expectations that simply cannot and will not be met.
This is a dead end we are heading into.
The big question is this: if all these things are possible, why aren't we dong them already?
Nothing is stopping us now, therefore we either lack the will, the competence, technoloqy or the money, or in fact all of those things.
Apparently faith in Brexit requires all of those requirements to magically come together.
They haven't before, why should they now?
And most damning of all, if we can't negotiate and agreement with the EU over secession what chance have we of not being taken to the cleaners in Trade Deals where we have absolutely no expertise or experience at all?
We are offering our throats to be cut by the first country we want to cut a deal with.
God help us if if we try our luck with the Chinese or Americans.
Very true, but the difference is that Brexit was presented as the panacea to those problems and in fact looks like simply compounding them.
This will be terribly disappointing to the Brexit voters, and quite rightly too!
After reading all that blind faith, obedience and ignorance from the former correspondent recently departed, I am convinced of the strong link between tory extremism, the hijacking of 'Brexit' for purely political reasons and the electorate in 1930s Germany which supported and sustained the fascist regime which led ultimately to their country's destruction.
An awful lot of the 'Brexidiots' are going to be hugely disappointed if this charade is allowed to play out in a manner that suits the tory right wing.
Tom
An awful lot of the 'Brexidiots' are going to be hugely disappointed if this charade is allowed to play out in a manner that suits the tory right wing.
Tom
There is some interesting opinion in this short article from Wales Online:
everything-were-told-brexit-turned-13591131
Tom
everything-were-told-brexit-turned-13591131
Tom
I've long since lost count of the number of times I've corrected this delusion, and for me the error represents the falsities of the Leaver position.
The word Great was added to Britain to reflect the enlarged area of the country when Scotland joined into union with Britain (England and Wales), that's all. Therefore the word Great does not in any way reflect status, in the sense of standing in the world.
More correctly in our language, the new term for the combined countries' area should have been Greater Britain.
.
Last edited:
I feel a ned to pop back and correct Flecc
Derivation of "Great"
The Greco-Egyptian scientist Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - megális Brettanias) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρής Βρεττανίας - mikris Brettanias) in his work Almagest (147–148 AD).[20] In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave the islands the names Alwion, Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man),[21] suggesting these may have been the names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.[22] The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use sometime after the Roman conquest of Britain, after which Britain became the more commonplace name for the island.[15]
After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by migrants from Britain.[23] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee". It was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland".
Modern use of the term Great Britain
Great Britain refers geographically to the island of Great Britain, politically to England, Scotland and Wales in combination.[24] However, it is sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom.[25]
Similarly, Britain, can refer to either all islands in Great Britain, the largest island, or the political grouping of counties.[26] There is no clear distinction, even in government documents: the UK government yearbooks have used both "Britain"[27] and "United Kingdom".[28]
GB and GBR are used instead of UK in some international codes to refer to the United Kingdom, including the Universal Postal Union, international sports teams, NATO, the International Organization for Standardization country codes ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, and international licence plate codes.
On the Internet, .uk is the country code top-level domain for the United Kingdom. A .gb top-level domain was used to a limited extent, but is now obsolete because the domain name registrar will not take new registrations.
In the Olympics, Team GB is used by the British Olympic Association to represent the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team. The British Grand Prix of motor racing is another example of a use of Britain in place of the United Kingdom.
Political definition
Political definition of Great Britain (dark green)
– in Europe (green & dark grey)
– in the United Kingdom (green)
Politically, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in combination,[29] but not Northern Ireland; it includes islands, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, that are part of England, Wales, or Scotland. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are self-governing dependent territories.[29][30]
The political union that joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland happened in 1707 when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of the two nations, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island. Before this, a personal union had existed between these two countries since the 1603 Union of the Crowns under James VI of Scotland and I of England.
Derivation of "Great"
The Greco-Egyptian scientist Ptolemy referred to the larger island as great Britain (μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - megális Brettanias) and to Ireland as little Britain (μικρής Βρεττανίας - mikris Brettanias) in his work Almagest (147–148 AD).[20] In his later work, Geography (c. 150 AD), he gave the islands the names Alwion, Iwernia, and Mona (the Isle of Man),[21] suggesting these may have been the names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.[22] The name Albion appears to have fallen out of use sometime after the Roman conquest of Britain, after which Britain became the more commonplace name for the island.[15]
After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by migrants from Britain.[23] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee". It was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland".
Modern use of the term Great Britain
Great Britain refers geographically to the island of Great Britain, politically to England, Scotland and Wales in combination.[24] However, it is sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom.[25]
Similarly, Britain, can refer to either all islands in Great Britain, the largest island, or the political grouping of counties.[26] There is no clear distinction, even in government documents: the UK government yearbooks have used both "Britain"[27] and "United Kingdom".[28]
GB and GBR are used instead of UK in some international codes to refer to the United Kingdom, including the Universal Postal Union, international sports teams, NATO, the International Organization for Standardization country codes ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, and international licence plate codes.
On the Internet, .uk is the country code top-level domain for the United Kingdom. A .gb top-level domain was used to a limited extent, but is now obsolete because the domain name registrar will not take new registrations.
In the Olympics, Team GB is used by the British Olympic Association to represent the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team. The British Grand Prix of motor racing is another example of a use of Britain in place of the United Kingdom.
Political definition
Political definition of Great Britain (dark green)
– in Europe (green & dark grey)
– in the United Kingdom (green)
Politically, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in combination,[29] but not Northern Ireland; it includes islands, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, that are part of England, Wales, or Scotland. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are self-governing dependent territories.[29][30]
The political union that joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland happened in 1707 when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of the two nations, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island. Before this, a personal union had existed between these two countries since the 1603 Union of the Crowns under James VI of Scotland and I of England.