Brexit, for once some facts.

[Kudoscycles]

Ok I googled the Tory election system for their leader. The Tory PM,s vote until the selection is down to two,then the membership vote on a one vote per member,first past the post.
After Cameron,Boris dropped out after he realised he would get very few votes,helped by Gove stabbing him in the back,that left May v Leadsom,Leadsom realised that she couldn't win,so stepped down leaving May....there was only one left so no need for a membership vote.
I wonder who the remainers in the parliamentary party could put against May to ensure that Boris didn't make it to the second stage, Boris is hated by the PM's
KudosDave

 

[Danidl]

The builders have gone under but I think the problem was a classic bubble of overvaluation of assets.

As one of the developers said to me..." It was grand until the last trade. "Property is only as valuable as someone is prepared to pay.

 

[Danidl]

Michael Martin

Ok. I met him once, he is a likely candidate Personally very pleasant. The only negative is that his party was in government in 2007, when the events referred to took place, and he was actually a minister.

 

[tommie]

have you not put that gay chap in now, of indian descent?

 

[Danidl]

have you not put that gay chap in now, of indian descent?

Yes he's the current one. Very sauve is our Leo, I had hoped that Coveney would have got it.. I reckon he has more substance.
But we did not get to put him in... The previous guy Enda retired and the governing party picked a new leader, , the Dail voted , Michael Martin's group abstained, so the Dail voted. We the punters had no choice. . Had Martins group voted against, we would have had a general election, but "the confidence and supply" arrangement , of supporting the minority government continued.its actually working out better than expected. Both sides know how far to push, and the main opposition had a hand in framing the budget.

 

[oldgroaner]

Well I hope all you remainers have a good think before voting Corbyn in ( if he does do a U turn ) on back of staying in EU because I guarantee that bloke will bankrupt the country way quicker than leaving ever could. His policies are financial disaster.

Are they really? and yet other than your word for it, like Brexit, no facts to support that statement, have you?
Why are his policies financial disaster? is that because they won't favour the parasites on the system the present ones do?

 

[oldgroaner]

That is total nonsense and just an excuse for you to put forward same. Absolute ******* - excuse my French!

Really? if you think that is nonsense you must have been born yesterday.

 

[oldgroaner]

A race to the bottom perhaps?

The Tory party has been doing that for a generation people voted for Brexit in protest thinking it was the EU to blame not them, didn't they?

 

[oldgroaner]

Tail apparently wags Dog in the Telegraph
"
'Deeply concerned' DUP orders Theresa May to rein in 'divisive' Philip Hammond"
May forgot the old saying "You get what you deserve when you pay Blackmailers "

 

[oldtom]

Ah well, 21 posts further on since I typed this,

if anyone from the anti-EU camp has anything real which might persuade those of us who like being part of the EU to reconsider, now's your chance.

and the only response is this:

the point is we don't want a US of E.

That is exactly why I posed the question. In place of a diatribe of anti-EU waffle this time, 'Woosh' has decided to answer in the negative by stating 'we', presumably meaning all the 'Brexidiots', don't want a USofE, as if it were a bad thing.

No qualification even for stating that as a position; just another piece of anti-EU rhetoric - I expected better. Perhaps it's ok for the UK to be a conjunction of four separate peoples or for the USA to collectively group 50 states into one international entity but somehow it's a bad idea for 28 European sovereign nation states to do the same thing? I cannot see anything but good in that notion and I seem to recollect that the tory government not long ago was proclaiming 'stronger together' and various other jingoistic slogans in an effort to persuade the Scots to vote for remain in their independence referendum.

All I wanted was some rational, persuasive reasons how and when we might be better off following the proposed secession - I'm still waiting.

Tom

 

[Woosh]

All I wanted was some rational, persuasive reasons how and when we might be better off following the proposed secession - I'm still waiting

there is a supremacist undertone in isolationism.
We won the war and all that.

Personally, I don't like superpowers, the US of E will be one.

 

[flecc]

You are shooting your feet again mentioning tax in UK and wanting a USE with Junkers in charge. His behaviour is a disgrace, yet you Flecc and Tom defend him.

You really do live in a world of imagination.

Firstly Jean Claude Junker would not be president of a USE. He is currently the elected president of the EU Council for a five year term which ends in a little over a year's time, around the time of our departure from the EU. An EU Council will not exist in a USE, nor will there be an EU Commission, since a USE will be a parliamentary democracy.

Secondly, once again you group me as taking an action which I haven't done in respect of Jean Claude Junker. I have in fact compared him to the fictional character "Despicable Me". Does that sound like I'm defending him?
.

 

[oldtom]

there is a supremacist undertone in isolationism.
We won the war and all that.

Personally, I don't like superpowers, the US of E will be one.

While I understand the words you have used, I really don't grasp your meaning in the first sentence. Perhaps you have become a little confused?

Tom

 

[Woosh]

While I understand the words you have used, I really don't grasp your meaning in the first sentence. Perhaps you have become a little confused?

Tom

the first sentence should read 'brexiters have a supremacist undertone'
the second sentence: one superpower (the USA) is a sufficient menace the the human species, we don't want another one.

 

[PeterL]

Really? if you think that is nonsense you must have been born yesterday.

If only! Not only that but I would probably be more on your wavelength.

 

[oldtom]

the first sentence should read 'brexiters have a supremacist undertone'
the second sentence: one superpower (the USA) is a sufficient menace the the human species, we don't want another one.

Yes, I see what you mean now and I agree with your first point. The 'Brexidiots' with whom I had discussions while canvassing on the streets certainly made that belief very clear.

What is interesting is that supremacists and fascists tend to use the same kind of language and flourish the same kind of flags and banners - one could easily imagine they are one and the same! Those who rally under either banner share one thing in common which is racism. That is a huge element in their desired, utopian political landscape. Most commonly, their racism is based on colour prejudice but more recently has included those from eastern Europe and the middle-east.

I'm afraid that the USA is unique and should not be considered as an atypical superstate. That the Europeans have managed to survive for half a century, always progressing, step by step, is testament to a different set of ideals and ambitions from those that drive many Americans.

Tom

 

[oldtom]

These lists are interesting:

companies-that-support-brexit-and-the-companies-that-support-the-eu

Tom

 

[Woosh]

That the Europeans have managed to survive for half a century, always progressing, step by step, is testament to a different set of ideals and ambitions from those that drive many Americans.

I disagree with you there.
I believe there are natural laws in politics as in natural world. For example, behaviour of swarms can be modeled on computers, same as humans in airports or at bus stops.
China for example has flexed her military muscles in the South China Sea. India does the same on her Northern borders.
A US of E will have a combined military power greater than China's and potential to be even more powerful. Nothing can stop the US of E to behave like the USA or China in the future.

 

[PeterL]

[QUOTE="Woosh, post: 403620, member: 8175"China for example has flexed her military muscles in the South China Sea. India does the same on her Northern borders.
A US of E will have a combined military power greater than China's and potential to be even more powerful. Nothing can stop the US of E to behave like the USA or China in the future.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree, by their very nature such large groupings are both protectionist and aggressive. We demonstrated that long enough, albeit I suppose some would blame the Tories for that as well?

 

[Danidl]

I disagree with you there.
I believe there are natural laws in politics as in natural world. For example, behaviour of swarms can be modeled on computers, same as humans in airports or at bus stops.
China for example has flexed her military muscles in the South China Sea. India does the same on her Northern borders.
A US of E will have a combined military power greater than China's and potential to be even more powerful. Nothing can stop the US of E to behave like the USA or China in the future.

In this I can agree with you Woosh. I also am concerned with large military alliances. What I am not sure about is whether having 3 or 4 or 5 is more stable than 2. I kind of suspect it is.