Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldtom]

it does not matter that a debate has occurred before MPs take a position.

Not true! Gina Miller took exactly such a matter all the way to the Supreme Court which found in her favour and against the government.

Remember headlines such as this?

GINA Miller has won her Brexit challenge with the Supreme Court ruling that Theresa May can not trigger Article 50 without the consent of Parliament.

The tory extremists actually believed they could do as they pleased, bypassing normal parliamentary procedure in the process but the learned judges decided otherwise.

That aside, it is not for me to make decisions about the kind of political representation I want, as you remarked previously. It was not me who decided to eschew normal parliamentary mechanisms by permitting a poll to test public opinion on secession from the EU. As we are stuck with a political system, warts and all, then any consideration of the UK's continuing membership of the EU should have been a parliamentary issue arising out of concerns aired in the house. We joined the Common Market as a consensus of parliamentary opinion in the late 1960s and early 1970s favoured seeking entry.

The UK was allowed entry along with Ireland and Denmark at the start of 1973 and following the adoption of a new Referendum Act in 1975, the government of the day used a poll, (non-binding), to ascertain public opinion as to whether or not the country should continue with membership.

The result was better than two-to-one in favour of remaining part of the Common Market.

For me, any decision to leave or continue membership of the EU should have been raised within parliament first but the normal protocols were avoided by certain individuals and small groups with vested interests. Add to that, the tory Party was led at the time by a particularly incompetent and poorly-advised PM and it is not difficult to understand the mess that arose and has remained since 2016.

Tom

 

[oldtom]

Meanwhile in America, the country with which leading 'Brexit' proponents would like to see the UK more closely aligned, this is the reason why :



That is the dream of the far-right of the tory Party.

Tom

 

[Woosh]

Not true! Gina Miller took exactly such a matter all the way to the Supreme Court which found in her favour and against the government.

that is a different issue. The government controls business in the HoC. The principle that MPs are in charge of brexit was not in doubt. What caused the confusion was JC's position, suppporting hard brexit with tactical voting while professing that he wants the same benefits as we have at the moment.
That was dishonest because everybody knows that the EU cannot give us that.

 

[oyster]

Add to that, the tory Party was led at the time by a particularly incompetent and poorly-advised PM and it is not difficult to understand the mess that arose and has remained since 2016.

And a spectacularly poor campaign against brexit. Seemed to be all Cameron wittering on. What we have seen since in terms of the apparently unexpected, unanticipated problems were very much ignored or shouted down.

 

[oyster]

Meanwhile in America, the country with which leading 'Brexit' proponents would like to see the UK more closely aligned, this is the reason why :

View attachment 26230

That is the dream of the far-right of the tory Party.

Tom

I find the contrast between the ultra-smart WWII era nazis and the long-haired lout look we see so often in USA versions needs some sort of comment. I just don’t quite know what to make of it.

 

[flecc]

I find the contrast between the ultra-smart WWII era nazis and the long-haired lout look we see so often in USA versions needs some sort of comment. I just don’t quite know what to make of it.

As evil as their doctrines were, the WW2 Nazis did have an orderly society in mind so were not misfits nor anti-social as such.

The loutish American, and indeed British versions, are largely just anti-social misfits angrily lashing out at the rest of us under a guise they know will upset decent society.

That is why they adopt it, to offend.
.

 

[oldtom]

I don't think tax evasion is a motivation.

Really! I just don't know what to say to that.

Tom

 

[anotherkiwi]

Really! I just don't know what to say to that.

Tom

I tend to agree with tom. What motivation do these rich people have?

- keep tax havens out of the grasp of the EU
- speculate against sterling and/or the euro on exchange "markets"
- lower their production and sales costs buy getting rid of worker, environmental and consumer protection regulations

brexit is all about rich greedy individuals thinking about short term profit to become even more rich on the back of those who actually work for a living.

 

[Woosh]

I tend to agree with tom. What motivation do these rich people have?

same as people who vote for the NF/FN.
it's more about identity than numbers.
Most don't gain but don't lose if UK or France leaves the EU.
if you look at the social grouping of the conservative membership, it's largely ABC groups and pensioners.

 

[oldgroaner]

Really! I just don't know what to say to that.

Tom

He is absolutely correct
It's a religion and gave us "Holy Brexit"

 

[Woosh]

"Holy Brexit"

for a large number of conservative voters, it looks that way.
butt two out of three Labour voters want to remain, if this does not happen, then a soft brexit.
What does Corbyn do? He lets JRM and his ERG blackmail the government and sabotage any deal with the EU.
He could have allowed his MPs a free vote to support soft brexit.

 

[flecc]

What motivation do these rich people have?

- keep tax havens out of the grasp of the EU
- speculate against sterling and/or the euro on exchange "markets"

brexit is all about rich greedy individuals thinking about short term profit to become even more rich on the back of those who actually work for a living.

Indeed, and those currency speculation gains were why the same types launched successive attacks on the euro in its early days, resenting it for removing all the national currencies they used to gamble against each other for gain.

That is also why they talk up and deliberately exacerbate the difficulties of the poorer eurozone members, only too willing to get them back into their old currencies and weaken the euro.
.

 

[Zlatan]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/10/saudi-arabia-israel-civilians-britain-yemen-palestinian-arms

And we wonder why generation after generation has its terrorists. We are planting seeds for our grandkids to face ever more radical and extreme acts of terrorism.
I, m neither pro Israel or Palestine but for gods sake just stop this madness.

 

[Zlatan]

Indeed, and those currency speculation gains were why the same types launched successive attacks on the euro in its early days, resenting it for removing all the national currencies they used to gamble against each other for gain.

That is also why they talk up and deliberately exacerbate the difficulties of the poorer eurozone members, only too willing to get them back into their old currencies and weaken the euro.
.

That's not quite true Flecc. FX trading has plenty of other currencies to speculate on. Many of the financially weaker members of Euro have lost one of major tools to fight downturns. I, m not saying being able to devalue your own currency is a panacea, if it were Venezuela would be doing rather better, but all Eurozone did lose a valuable aid to recovery Would Greece be in position it is now? Probably so, and answer is rather hypothetical but the problems Greece faces now risks the entire zone. EU should have waited until it had gained central fiscal control before introducing Euro.
Imagine position we would now be in had we adopted Euro. Much much worse.
Without central fiscal control the weaker countries can't compete. Without devaluation they can not attract investment or become more competitive with exports. Hand outs don't really replace devaluation it just prolongs the suffering.
We all agree UK has gone about all this wrong. The EU has also made massive mistakes along its way. The Euro being one of them.
Perhaps there is a mechanism within EU to replace devaluation but it's at a cost, can EU carry on meeting that cost??
Financially the EU is caught between two mutually exclusive systems. Combinations of the two are always going to create issues. It's either central control, taxing and policy and one currency or 28 diverse policies with 28 currencies. Anything between the two is a fudge, a compromise.
And, there is probably a link between this and the rise of right wing politics, especially so in Italy where the EU enforced policies have given rise to poorer living standards and hence a rise in extremes. Would 5 Star have risen to prominence (well almost) had Italy been able to simply devalue rather than take EU cash with strings attached? (,ie austerity, which 5 Star promised to stop)
There is a strong argument EU has given rise to all the far right politics throughout Eurozone /EU. Would Farage even have been heard of without EU???
I, m not blaming EU intrinsically for rise in right wing, rather its been failed EU policies on migration and finances that have done so.

 

[oldgroaner]

That's not quite true Flecc. FX trading has plenty of other currencies to speculate on. Many of the financially weaker members of Euro have lost one of major tools to fight downturns. I, m not saying being able to devalue your own currency is a panacea, if it were Venezuela would be doing rather better, but all Eurozone did lose a valuable aid to recovery Would Greece be in position it is now? Probably so, and answer is rather hypothetical but the problems Greece faces now risks the entire zone. EU should have waited until it had gained central fiscal control before introducing Euro.
Imagine position we would now be in had we adopted Euro. Much much worse.
Without central fiscal control the weaker countries can't compete. Without devaluation they can not attract investment or become more competitive with exports. Hand outs don't really replace devaluation it just prolongs the suffering.
We all agree UK has gone about all this wrong. The EU has also made massive mistakes along its way. The Euro being one of them.
Perhaps there is a mechanism within EU to replace devaluation but it's at a cost, can EU carry on meeting that cost??
Financially the EU is caught between two mutually exclusive systems. Combinations of the two are always going to create issues. It's either central control, taxing and policy and one currency or 28 diverse policies with 28 currencies. Anything between the two is a fudge, a compromise.
And, there is probably a link between this and the rise of right wing politics, especially so in Italy where the EU enforced policies have given rise to poorer living standards and hence a rise in extremes. Would 5 Star have risen to prominence (well almost) had Italy been able to simply devalue rather than take EU cash with strings attached? (,ie austerity, which 5 Star promised to stop)
There is a strong argument EU has given rise to all the far right politics throughout Eurozone /EU. Would Farage even have been heard of without EU???
I, m not blaming EU intrinsically for rise in right wing, rather its been failed EU policies on migration and finances that have done so.

More a case of the failure of each countries Government policies, over which the EU has no control.
The principles they employ are sound but hampered by incompetent politicians like ours, and frankly we owe a great deal to the EU for establishing standards for food, the environment and working conditions that would never have seen the light of day had we not joined the Common Market, and we can kiss goodbye to them thanks to Brexit in due course.

This is far more important than this nonsense you keep pushing over currency problems, which though real are small beer by comparison with the social consequences.

What percentage of the Brexit voters knew or care about the difficulties or otherwise of the Euro?
They don't even understand the difficulties of the pound do they?
Hardly likely it affected their Referendum vote was it?

If a right wing paper asserts that the Pound crashing is a "Brexit Bonus" they will applaud like the mugs they are, they just want the Prize they think they have won, and don't want anyone to take their toy away.

Look at how May has gone from Hero to Zero with them!

 

[Woosh]

For me, any decision to leave or continue membership of the EU should have been raised within parliament first but the normal protocols were avoided by certain individuals and small groups with vested interests. Add to that, the tory Party was led at the time by a particularly incompetent and poorly-advised PM and it is not difficult to understand the mess that arose and has remained since 2016.

If I remember correctly, JC wanted to trigger A50 in the days or weeks after the referendum.

 

[oyster]

More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to stay in EU
Major new analysis shows most constituencies now have majority who want to Remain

Michael Savage Observer policy editor

Sat 11 Aug 2018 21.00 BST Last modified on Sat 11 Aug 2018 22.21 BST

More than 100 Westminster constituencies that voted to leave the EU have now switched their support to Remain, according to a stark new analysis seen by the Observer.

In findings that could have a significant impact on the parliamentary battle of Brexit later this year, the study concludes that most seats in Britain now contain a majority of voters who want to stay in the EU.

The analysis, one of the most comprehensive assessments of Brexit sentiment since the referendum, suggests the shift has been driven by doubts among Labour voters who backed Leave.

As a result, the trend is starkest in the north of England and Wales – Labour heartlands in which Brexit sentiment appears to be changing. The development will heap further pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to soften the party’s opposition to reconsidering Britain’s EU departure.

Researchers at the Focaldata consumer analytics company compiled the breakdown by modelling two YouGov polls of more than 15,000 people in total, conducted before and after Theresa May published her proposed Brexit deal on 6 July.


The picture caption (I've saved you having to view their faces again) is: The constituencies of Leavers Michael Gove and Boris Johnson have changed sides to back remain, polling shows. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

 

[oyster]

Even, with a local-for-me twist:

‘They don’t know what they’re doing’: Leave-voting Swansea turns on Brexit

I'll just add that my constituency has swung to remain.

 

[oldgroaner]

In the Telegraph this morning
"
Burka rowTheresa May faces furious grassroots and donors backlash over 'malevolent' decision to discipline Boris Johnson.

Lets face it this pillock deserves a lot more punishment than he is going to get for his consistent breaking of the rules.

But there's a different set of rules for his kind aren't there?

And the Sunday Express runs this
"
Boris burka row poll calls for Tories NOT to punish Johnson over freedom of speech fears
EXCLUSIVE: The majority of Britons believe Boris Johnson should not be punished for his burka comments, a Sunday Express poll reveals..

The majority of Britons want to tell a woman what she can't wear, because it makes her look "foreign" or "like a letterbox" do they?

What is the word for attitudes like that? if it wasn't for the influence of "Holy Brexit" , idiots like Boris and the right wing press ,these people wouldn't have been conditioned to think this was a reasonable idea
Boris's comments were not about "Freedom of Speech" just about raising fear of Foreigners to make yourself popular with impressionable sections of the Public, when he should leave things alone.

 

[Woosh]

What is the word for attitudes like that? if it wasn't for the influence of "Holy Brexit" , idiots like Boris and the right wing press ,these people wouldn't have been conditioned to think this was a reasonable idea

My view is there is no story of anyone wearing a burka threatening anyone so there is no reason to ban the burka.. However, the article invites people to talk about the burka.

let's see what he actually said:

QUOTE:

Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/05/denmark-has-got-wrong-yes-burka-oppressive-ridiculous-still/

If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.

etc.

fact check::

Full burka and niqab ban

• France, since 2004
• Belgium, since 2011
• Chad, since 2015
• Cameroon, in five provinces, since 2015
• Diffa, Niger, since 2015
• Brazzaville, Congo, since 2015
• Tessin, Switzerland, since 2016
• Denmark, introduced in 2018

Burkini ban

• Around 30 French coastal towns had issued bans, but France's highest court ruled against them on 26th August, meaning that burkini bans are now illegal.

Partial burka and niqab ban

• The Netherlands: women cannot have their faces covered in schools, hospital and on public transport.
• The Italian town of Novara: women were told to stop wearing a full veil in 2010, but there is no established fines system.
• Parts of Catalonia, Spain: The country's Supreme Court ruled against a ban in some areas in 2013, however those areas which brought their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have continued with the ban - supported by an ECHR ruling in their favour in 2014.
• Turkey: a full ban was abandoned in 2013. Now, women are only barred if they work in the judiciary, military and police.