|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 2, 2019 5:43:23 GMT 1
I thought the result was crisp and well-formed: leave the EU. Good. But I was talking about the run-up: no declaration of ingredients, method, or the existence of nuts. Null and void. Here you are, cloth-ears. I knew you weren't paying attention: I clearly remember the choice being very clear and clearly distinguished, thanks, from both sides, from all the principal players in either campaign: Leaving would mean leaving the Customs Union, leaving the Single Market, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, ceasing paying into the EU, and able to do trade deals with the rest of the world.Someone cut a YouTube video shortly after the vote, interviews with Dimbleby, Humphrys, Neil, Coburn, Peston, Snow, Boulton, and so on - I'll see if I can find it, this evening maybe. You have Boris, and Gove, and Farage, and Cameron, and Osborne, and Alexander, and Clegg, and the CBI/IOD wallahs, and loads of other bigwigs on the Remain side - leaving will mean all those things (Hannan is the only one who prevaricates a bit, and says it wouldn't be strictly necessary to leave the SM - he believed they would be more reasonable). And the bits about borders, tax rates, regulations, end so forth. (Interestingly, no one mentions Ireland.) And, long after the result, we had both major political parties standing on manifestoes to bring about those results, in case there was anyone who hadn't been clear what "leaving" meant before. What the hell did you think you were voting for, if you hadn't a clue what the alternative was?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 2, 2019 5:49:06 GMT 1
And I clearly remember the choice being very clear and clearly distinguished, thanks, from both sides, from all the principal players in either campaign: Leaving would mean leaving the Customs Union, leaving the Single Market, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ, ceasing paying into the EU, and able to do trade deals with the rest of the world. The rest was arguable - and still is, as far as I'm concerned, as much as the Vote campaign love to say so much "we know the facts of the matter now." No you don't - all you know is your usual doom-mongering predictions. And I clearly remember the opposite. No, you don't. Every principal player in that campaign made these points - including the bloody Government. You've gotta make a bit of an effort. A nine million quid leaflet drop through your door not enough for you? Took me a minute, that one. Look, I don't want to teach you your business, I respect craft and expertise and mastering one's living, but...shouldn't it be going in the other end?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 2, 2019 6:17:07 GMT 1
Here's a serious question, which I'd sincerely like to hear your views about, Aqua, as a soi-disant "democrat", who thinks the EU is a democratic insitution.
How can it possibly be that Tusk can declare that as far as the EU is concerned the Withdrawal Agreement is no longer "draft" but "concluded", that the EU will not be reopening any further negotiations into it, and will now be proceeding with its implementation? I mean - wtf? How can they possibly say let alone do such a thing, when we have not agreed to this so-called "agreement"? Huh?
Can you explain this to us perhaps over-sophisticated folk?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 2, 2019 11:44:56 GMT 1
Suppose one (I couldn't possibly use the second person here, for fear of offending somebody) was a member of a gentlemen's club or a church. It is (or should be) transparently clear what membership entails, in terms of tithes, rules, dress codes, etc. and what benefits you receive from membership. It is also obvious from your memory or the behavior of your neighbors, what not being a member entails. Now you are offered the choice: remain or leave. What more information do you need to make the choice?
It is interesting that those with the actual experience of nonmembership (the over-60's) voted overwhelmingly to leave. You can't accuse us of being sentimental imperialists because we joyously watched the Empire turn into a democratic Commonwealth, and were brought up on our parents' and grandparents' recollections of the ghastly effects of jingoism and nationalism. Then we lived through the steady erosion of our legal system, trading standards, industries, public services and wages, and decided that Britain was indeed a better place when ruled from Westminster than from Berlin.
Si veritas requiris, circumspice.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 2, 2019 16:58:56 GMT 1
Took me a minute, that one. Look, I don't want to teach you your business, I respect craft and expertise and mastering one's living, but...shouldn't it be going in the other end? What woeful and shameful ignorance of donkey-worming? Are they just figures of fun, for bloated and reddened-bellied deck-chaired Brexiteers to point and laugh at? Don't donkeys and their wormers have rights any more? No equality, no human or workers' or animal rights? The entry point of the worming paste is at the front. The exit point of the brown stuff, which down 'ere we like to call Brexit, is where it should be. Close inspection of the Brexit mess (which is where the looking-backward allusion comes from, for the hard of thinking) is required to establish the faecal egg count. EU regulations require the retention of the mess for at least 10 years, for Braudit purposes. And then for another 10, to check on the first braudit. Metaphorically, we should've stuck with cake and eaten it too. (More palatable than this scatalogicaL stuff.) For purists, whether brexiteers or leavers: you cannot eat your cake and have it still.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 3, 2019 0:45:21 GMT 1
Here's a serious question, which I'd sincerely like to hear your views about, Aqua, as a soi-disant "democrat", who thinks the EU is a democratic insitution. How can it possibly be that Tusk can declare that as far as the EU is concerned the Withdrawal Agreement is no longer "draft" but "concluded", that the EU will not be reopening any further negotiations into it, and will now be proceeding with its implementation? I mean - wtf? How can they possibly say let alone do such a thing, when we have not agreed to this so-called "agreement"? Huh? Can you explain this to us perhaps over-sophisticated folk? I don't think I've ever said the EU is a democratic institution. All I've ever said is that we'd be better-off in it than outside it, particularly when our safety and security are at stake, and probably our prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 3, 2019 1:47:13 GMT 1
Safety: every major threat to the UK, ever, has come from Europe. Minor threats have originated in the Irish Republic (a member of the EU) or as a result of the EU Human Rights Directives allowing free passage of convicted murderers and potential terrorists. Personal safety is minimsed by EU regulations on all products from aspirins to airplanes.
Security: see above. It is interesting that, prior to the EU, the North Sea was a defensible barrier against the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine, but now anyone with a bad attitude and a rowing boat can cross the Channel with the blessing of our allies. The highest level of international intelligence sharing (Five Eyes) does not include any other EU nation. There is no EU Border Force or joint military structure. Former members of East European military, secret police and intelligence services now have the absolute right to live and work in the UK.
Prosperity: The UK's net trade deficit with the EU has grown every year at a rate of £1 - 2 billion per year, reaching £62,000,000,000 in 2016. UK net direct contribution to EU funds is a further £9,000,000,000 per year, presumably paid for the privilege of maintaining the trade deficit. It is difficult to see how this net outgoing £1270 per capita per annum (half of the NHS budget, or twice what we spend on defence) can be classified as beneficial to prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 3, 2019 2:03:13 GMT 1
I thought you'd say that.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 3, 2019 9:27:25 GMT 1
Safety: every major threat to the UK, ever, has come from Europe. Minor threats have originated in the Irish Republic (a member of the EU) or as a result of the EU Human Rights Directives allowing free passage of convicted murderers and potential terrorists. Personal safety is minimsed by EU regulations on all products from aspirins to airplanes. Security: see above. It is interesting that, prior to the EU, the North Sea was a defensible barrier against the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine, but now anyone with a bad attitude and a rowing boat can cross the Channel with the blessing of our allies. The highest level of international intelligence sharing (Five Eyes) does not include any EU nation. There is no EU Border Force or joint military structure. Former members of East European military, secret police and intelligence services now have the absolute right to live and work in the UK. Prosperity: The UK's net trade deficit with the EU has grown every year at a rate of £1 - 2 billion per year, reaching £62,000,000,000 in 2016. UK net direct contribution to EU funds is a further £9,000,000,000 per year, presumably paid for the privilege of maintaining the trade deficit. It is difficult to see how this net outgoing £1270 per capita per annum (half as much as the NHS costs, and twice what we spend on defence) can be classified as beneficial to prosperity. well said spot on
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 3, 2019 9:31:04 GMT 1
So, knowing the facts, you think
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your definition of safety, security, prosperity, or "better-off".
An aside from this week's news. Apparently, after 50 years of sterilising the North Sea and faced with the imminent loss of UK coastal waters, the EU Common Fisheries Policy has reverted to the highly successful and bloody obvious Norwegian model. Each boat is allocated a quota but there is no minimum size for any species, and no discards are permitted. The few remaining UK fishermen are now complaining that their profits will decrease if they have to sell small fish. The EU is about short term profit, not long term environmental security.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 4, 2019 23:37:32 GMT 1
Suppose one (I couldn't possibly use the second person here, for fear of offending somebody) was a member of a gentlemen's club or a church. It is (or should be) transparently clear what membership entails, in terms of tithes, rules, dress codes, etc. and what benefits you receive from membership. It is also obvious from your memory or the behavior of your neighbors, what not being a member entails. Now you are offered the choice: remain or leave. What more information do you need to make the choice? Does God really exist, and if he does, why doesn't he mend the bloody roof again himself? Whoa, steady on there, old-timer. Something to do with wisdom and the capacity for informed reflection, I like to think. "Previously..."
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 4, 2019 23:42:22 GMT 1
Took me a minute, that one. Look, I don't want to teach you your business, I respect craft and expertise and mastering one's living, but...shouldn't it be going in the other end? What woeful and shameful ignorance of donkey-worming? Are they just figures of fun, for bloated and reddened-bellied deck-chaired Brexiteers to point and laugh at? Don't donkeys and their wormers have rights any more? No equality, no human or workers' or animal rights? The entry point of the worming paste is at the front. The exit point of the brown stuff, which down 'ere we like to call Brexit, is where it should be. Close inspection of the Brexit mess (which is where the looking-backward allusion comes from, for the hard of thinking) is required to establish the faecal egg count. EU regulations require the retention of the mess for at least 10 years, for Braudit purposes. And then for another 10, to check on the first braudit. Metaphorically, we should've stuck with cake and eaten it too. (More palatable than this scatalogicaL stuff.) For purists, whether brexiteers or leavers: you cannot eat your cake and have it still.What cake? I see you and your ilk - ilk, good word that, has a Devonshire ring to it - get some of this so-called cake. Most of us don't, however. Which is why you lost the vote, you greedy fat lazy bastard.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 4, 2019 23:53:43 GMT 1
Safety: every major threat to the UK, ever, has come from Europe. Don't forget Japanese Knotweed. I was going to mention Abu Hamsa, but I didn;t want to seem racist, or crippled-ist. There's a word you don't hear very often any more, do you, ladies and gentlemen? It's a eugenicist plot. Huh? Wha...where...They're in the smoke alarm? I knew it! I never liked those things. Don't try and dazzle Aqua with facts and logic, Aan, that's a dirty trick. Yes, yes, but...is Aqua more comfortable?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 5, 2019 0:15:07 GMT 1
So, knowing the facts, you think Perhaps you could enlighten us with your definition of safety, security, prosperity, or "better-off". The confusion here is you have to understand when Aqua and his ilk says "we" they mean we. A curious specific class of people who some time back in the 18th Century discovered the pathway to lives of privilege and ease and have somehow managed to construct the political machine since so that they have the control over its levers of power. They do not mean the country and its people when they refer to "our" prosperity, security, safety, or anything else. They would have preferred to surrender to Hitler in 1940 - obviously (what's the downside?) Don't get me started on all that disgusting blatantly deceptive hypocrisy. I'm a vegetarian, and I like to think a principled one, who is considerably better than yow, so recuse myself from any such debate, but anyone who knows the first thing about farming in Europe knows...oh, shaddap, don't get me started I said.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 5, 2019 1:32:20 GMT 1
I see with crushing disappointment that Aqua hasn't deigned to respond to my heartfelt pleas for an explanation for how Tusk could be so dictatorial and dismissive of any democratic procedures in this country, but then...what could he say, really?
So, instead, let's consider that delightful paragon of democracy and popular appeal, Herr Juncker.
He has been repeatedly saying lately that the UK should stop being nebulous and simply "say what it wants." I'm sort of bemused as to what he could mean, but let's assume for a moment that our negotiating side has not "said what it wants" - not as unbelievable as it should be, perhaps - and reiterate what ought to have been said from the outset.
Herr Juncker, sir, we respectfully want Free Trade with you, and offer that in exchange. We're not entirely certain that that's a good thing, mind you, what with Bulgaria and Romania and Poland and whatnot - but it's more of a long-standing principle, really, which sorts of makes sense, in the longer term bigger picture sort of way - but, anyway, that's where we are now, so let's not be disruptive and keep things pretty much as they are, shall we? You frictionlessly trade in our market, we'll do the same in yours. That's more or less what we joined up to in the first place - remember?
We want to take part in various pan-European projects - scientific, academic, security, policing, and so forth - and are of course willing to stump up our share of the costs. Luckily - nothing seems to have to change much to sort that out, either.
We want our citizens in Europe to enjoy the same perfectly rational rights as they enjoy now, and of course we'll extend the same politesse to yours who have settled here. Luckily, again, nothing needs to change.
Errrr....well, mein herr, that's just about it, really. All we want! All we need! Errr...we don't want anything to do with your plans for further political integration, thanks, but good luck with that. No wish to joining your future army - we like NATO, more or less. Not interested in your currency - though good luck with that.
We don't need to pay for this reciprocal arrangement, naturally - it doesn't cost anything. We don't need a court to judge any disputes that might arise - we have our own courts, and the market standards are very clear. If someone makes a widget in Bradford that doesn't meet your standards - fine em, by all means, be our guests.
The border with Ireland - well, we offer you Free Trade - in which case, there's dim prob, right? Same as it ever was. You're not happy? Well - errr...in that case, we'll just offer free trade to Ireland, on Irish goods. That solves that problem.
What else? Errr...money. Well, we'll pay what we owe. Best to let someone impartial decide that, eh? An American or New Zealand legal firm with no ties to either side, perhaps. What are we legally obliged to pay in our divorce - and what you are obliged to pay us, of course (we own quite a chunk of your real estate, for example.) By all professional estimates, that should be about 15 billion euros, net.
Now, I see our hour is almost up, Herr Juncker. Anything else on your mind?
|
|