.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Thaiwine
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Thaiwine
-
-
Logan's Run
I'm sure you would find it fun, until your turn came around.
I don't find it fun, I'm just acting without the silly PC talk, which was so much wanted by the elderly and the Wingers.
I personally hope my turn will come before I become a person, who fights against the youth and what they want to accomplish in their own future.
That is unacceptable.
What was it 36% who could be bothered to vote (youngsters)
They need to vote to decide on their future, disenfranchising one section of society so another can be indifferent, seems to me to be wrong.
-
Political Bloopers
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese." Charles de Gaulle, ex-French President
"This is a great day for France!" President Richard Nixon while attending Charles De Gaulle's funeral.
"Things are more like they are now than they have ever been." President Gerald Ford"
"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life." --Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah, explaining his support of the death penalty.
My fellow astronauts..." Vice-President Dan Quayle, beginning a speech at an Apollo 11 anniversary celebration.
"Outside of the killings, Washington D.C. has one of the lowest crime rates in the country." Mayor Marion Barry, Washington D.C.
"We found the term 'killing' too broad." State Department spokesperson on why the word 'killing' was replaced with 'unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life' in its human rights reports for 1984-5
"The chairs in the cabin are for the ladies. Gentlemen are not to make use of them till the ladies are seated." Instructions posted in a river cruise ship, Suir River, Ireland.
"The exports include thumbscrews and cattle prods, just routine items for the police." U.S. Commerce Department spokesman on a regulation allowing the export of various products abroad.-
1
-
-
Yeah, he wants his life back....just not enough to give up the 100,000 euro a year gravy train he's on.Seems I'm in the minority. He's a scumbag, worse than any of the immigrants he's vilified. We are known for standing our ground and fixing problems, not pulling up the drawbridge and hiding in our now, very little corner of the world. I am rather ashamed to be English.
I am also ashamed that you are English.
This man has done his job - a constant battler against the EU gravy train.
His job in the UK is done, he will continue as an MEP until we are out.
Well he just voted his self off the EU gravy train
Your logic is illogical
-
Brussels sending emails out telling MP's to vote to cancel referendum
Similar to the "lost veto"-claim from MissAndry, your conclusion seems wrong to me:
the MP did not say " 'Brussels' sent me an e-mail", he said a Commission employee located in Brussels sent him an e-mail. Sounds more like a personal anger-mail of somebody. I would not be surprised, if this MP received quite a few of these anger-mails over the last few days.
Could be I took it to mean official EU email
-
Brussels sending emails out telling MP's to vote to cancel referendum
Edit I did post a link seems to have gone
-
The freedom of movement directive does not mean, as some believe, uncontrolled immigration from the EEA.
It provides free movement for those exercising an economic treaty right.
- Student
- Jobseeker, but must find a job within three months or leave.
- Worker, employed or self employed.
- Living off independent means, e.g. a pension.
Approximately 2 million EEA nationals are exercising one of these rights in the UK.
Approximately 1.5 million British citizens are doing the same in another EEA state or Switzerland.
2 million from 27 EU, three EEA states and Switzerland in the UK; 1.5 million Brits in the other 31 states.
Do the maths; who, as far as the UK is concerned, makes the most use of the directive?
Yet another pro-Brexit myth is busted albeit too late sadly but they could care less. Besides primarily racists and fearful ageing xenophobes, other 'winners' of Brexit comprise those who would benefit from our weakened and fractured economic unions and societies, such as ISIS, China and Russia. Well done Brexiters, WINNING!
If you look here about EU citizens living in the UK
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
It says 3 million EU citizens in 2014, with 2 million in work, so 1 million doing what?
With over half arriving in the last eight years (2014 figures)
Now go check 7by7's figures, ohh you can't no link
-
Anything that Tony Blair says, is surely for the establishment and not for the benefit of the people. He should be arrested as a war criminal. The man is a disgrace to the working classes and it is him solely that dragged labour away from its roots. he will say and do anything to do the bidding of those pesky bankers. The man can't be trusted, period.
Hindsight is a great thing. If there'd been WMDs this guy would be feted as a hero. I can't stand the Labour party and I'm not over-fond of Tony Blair but I'm convinced that he thought he was making the correct decision at the time. I suppose all those calling for him to be tried as a war criminal have never put a foot wrong in their life. I'd like to see them walk a mile in the PM's shoes.
Ok, he didn't have a crystal ball and it looks like it was a bad decision,but I'd like to see most criticism aimed at the nutters, who were handed a golden opportunity to put their country right post Sadam, but as usual chose to tear lumps off each other instead.
Strange breed us Brits, we seem to enjoy flailing ourselves alive.
Yeah the WMD's thing always confuses me, l saw a BBC program on England's Porton Down and if chemical warfare in the form of gas ain't a WMD l don't get it.
Saddam gassed Kurd's in the North did he not.
Gasing people don't count as WMD as there's no property damage, so it's ok
-
That's like Bush saying : mission accomplished in Iraq ... and it was far from over .
UK is still not out of the EU .... even doubts it will ever be .
Too soon Nigel !
I expect the weasel con MPs to back T May, lets hope the party members have more sense
-
<snip>
Nigel Farage said, a 52/48 vote would be unfinnished business, now remain supporters agree with him, he did not say a new referendum now if we lose or overturn this one as we don't like it, unfinnished business just means we will work for a future referendum when we think we will win.....
That is what he said on the night when he thought Remain had won! He said that he could accept a two third majority for Remain, but 52% to 48% was too close and another referendum should be held.
Next morning when the actual result showed Leave had won by that small margin, he changed his mind and now says that it is finished business!
Cameron and most of the other prominent Remain campaigners have made it clear, and made it clear before the vote, that the result would be final; whatever the decision. As di, to be fair, Boris and most other prominent Leave campaigners.
It is only Farage and his ilk who said it would be 'unfinished business' if they lost and would want another referendum at some future date if they had lost.
I wonder how those here and elsewhere who are lambasting the Remain supporters who are, wrongly in my opinion, calling for another referendum would be reacting if Remain had won by such a small margin and the hypocrite Farage and other Leave supporters were calling it 'unfinished business' and demanding another referendum?
I suspect that they would be agreeing with him.
I really don't see a conflict of intrests, Nigel Farage's goal was to get a referendum to get the UK out of the EU, so if that goal failed on the 23rd then there would be unfinished business, I read his comment that "He said that he could accept a two third majority for Remain" that he would give up and not try again,
The next morning he said it's finished business ( I take the he changed his mind comment was yours ) as he had done what he wanted, any sensible person is not going to say ohh we won let's do it again, so not a change of mind but achieved his goal.
The other groups had a slightly diffrent agenda there goal was to win only, a lose would be ohh well we tried.
Perhaps you need to aim your hypocrite charge at the scottish nationalists as they want repeat referndums until they get the right result, this time is just a conveniant excuse, if not now they would have found another.
Most exit supporters have said that they would have accepted the result had it not gone their way, thats the way it works,
I defend N/F as I do not have blinkers on, unlike others.
-
ITwo egomaniacs cheat Great Britain, followed by some senile groups of England. Result is a more and more poor little England. Oxford and Cambridge and other Universities will lose their EU support. 25% of their research staff are EU citizens. Think about, peanuts splitting is waste time.
You forgot to mention that the universities EU grants,originated from the British tax payers. As for their research staff,nobody except for the Remain supporters have suggested they must exit the UK. Likewise in the event of the U.K. Takeing control of it's own borders. Nobody except,again the remain supporters, have suggested they will not be welcome into the UK. It's not about none immigration,it' s about Controlled Immigration.
The suggestion that all lost EU funding such as eg education and regional support will automatically be supported once exit is implemented because the UK taxes are sufficient to support as such is a bogus fantasy from the the crazies wing who quite clearly are off with the fairies as far as economics understanding is concerned. Nor does it even begin to address just on the uni level the loss of student numbers from the EU who would presumably be paying overseas student fees.
The current funding comes from current taxes as paid to the EU as we pay more than we get back, so no need to "find" extra funding, wether or not a future government contiues with the same level of funding is still to be seen,
I don't see why student numbers would suffer, we had about 85,000 students last year from outside the EU so if EU students wish to study here they would be able to do so.
-
Remember that time Nigel Farage said 52-48 votes should lead to second referendum?
Apologies for deleted posts,
Do you remember Scotland had a referendum, the leave group lost, they accepted the result for now, so they have unfinnished business.
That is what Nigel Farage said, a 52/48 vote would be unfinnished business, now remain supporters agree with him, he did not say a new referendum now if we lose or overturn this one as we don't like it, unfinnished business just means we will work for a future referendum when we think we will win, like the Scots are doing.
So if the remain supporters want to be in the EU they can vote in a pro EU govenment next time, but unlike when we joined last time, the next time the people must be asked first before we join.
"ICYMI – last month he announced that he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin.Calling a small defeat for his leave camp ‘unfinished business’, he predicted a second referendum on Europe"Thats what I said,
"unfinnished business just means we will work for a future referendum"
-
Do you remember Scotland had a referendum, the leave group lost, they accepted the result for now, so they have unfinnished business.
Scotland referendum was not unfinished business. They had always said that they would accept a remain vote (at least for a generation) IF the terms of the union do not change SUCH AS Scotland being taken out of the European Union AGAINST HER WILL. The English electorate have initiated a change and are trying to drag Scotland out of the European Union against her will.... therefore it is England that is driving the need for a final decision on whether Scotland will remain in the UK or remain in the European Union [which apparently they cannot have both]. In other words, it was not unfinished business it was triggered by the UK referendum results.
No need to shout.
It still boils down to "unfinnished business" if your goal is to work for the same goal, no matter how long a time frame you give it.
The vote was for the UK to stay or leave not Scotland.
-
Reminds me of the Poll Tax thingy...
I never did see what was wrong with that, each adult pays a portion of council tax instead of per house. seemed more fair to me
-
So you genuinely believe that if Brexit had narrowly lost, the likes of UKIP would have just accepted it and not continued to campaign and push for another vote? Dream on!
I just want what is best for the UK and for future generations.
You still haven't answered my question.
A simple question for you.
If your side had won and my side had lost would you STILL have wanted another referendum?
I don't know about anybody else but I would have accepted it.
What is a narrow loss?
10,000, 50,000, 100,000 votes? 1 or 2%?
It was over 1,000,000 votes and 3.8%.
quote "I just want what is best for the UK and for future generations."
Do you not think that I and many others who voted Brexit want the same thing?
How do YOU know what is best for the UK and future generations?
Are you omnipotent, do you have a crystal ball, use tarot cards?
Remember that time Nigel Farage said 52-48 votes should lead to second referendum?Apologies for deleted posts,
Do you remember Scotland had a referendum, the leave group lost, they accepted the result for now, so they have unfinnished business.
That is what Nigel Farage said, a 52/48 vote would be unfinnished business, now remain supporters agree with him, he did not say a new referendum now if we lose or overturn this one as we don't like it, unfinnished business just means we will work for a future referendum when we think we will win, like the Scots are doing.
So if the remain supporters want to be in the EU they can vote in a pro EU govenment next time, but unlike when we joined last time, the next time the people must be asked first before we join.
-
Good read about Gove/Johnson drama
-
Not at all - UKIP would still have stood for election. Any protests etc. would have been ignored if the vote had gone the other way.
Much as is happening now - apart from those desperate to pursue any avenue to ignore the democratic vote.
Yes, that's how a parliamentary democracy works. Only parliament can extricate the UK from the EU. If UKIP/Brexiters were to gain a parliamentary majority, out we would go. Obviously there will be a political cost to parties/MPs who ignore the referendum result. Hence the fascinating political manouvering at the moment. Does anyone really believe Theresa May will follow through Brexit?
Are you saying T May will be the fallguy/woman for the remainers, she will be PM but not execute arttical 50 and so putting her head on the block and saving her fellow MP's jobs at the next election,
Such devotion to her comrades, hmmm I don't see it happening.
Caveat : American, not really familiar with the intricacies of British culture , politics and parliamentary system.
Interesting comments above, since the referendum was so close, lf T May was to become PM and to disregard the referendum, will loose only 50% of the electorate's support. Any politician taking either side of the referendum will suffer a similar fate. So what is the downside of disregarding the referendum, calling it too close for such an important decision.
and moving forward to ..................
Last election. % of vote
Cons 36.9
Lab 30.4
Ukip 12.6
Lib 7.9
SNP 4.7
So if each not including Ukip as they are anti EU lost 50% and that went to Ukip, that would give them 52% of the vote, the cons won last time on 36%
I don't think they would lose 50% but we could be looking at a Ukip government next time if the referendum is ignored.
-
...and then do we have a third for best of 3? On and on and on and on!
Yes, until a result which is in the best interests of the people is reached
Please explain just who do YOU think should decide what is in the best interests of the people?
You, me, politicians, any political party, the Queen or the Royal Family, the EU, France, Germany, Mickey Mouse?
If you claim that the people of the UK should decide, it may have escaped your notice that 51.8% of the people who ACTUALLY could be bothered to vote which was over 17 million people actually voted for a Brexit.
I was one of them.
From the tone of your posts you voted to stay.
Your side lost.
My side won.
A simple question for you.
If your side had won and my side had lost would you STILL have wanted another referendum?
So you genuinely believe that if Brexit had narrowly lost, the likes of UKIP would have just accepted it and not continued to campaign and push for another vote? Dream on!
I just want what is best for the UK and for future generations.
Not at all - UKIP would still have stood for election. Any protests etc. would have been ignored if the vote had gone the other way.
Much as is happening now - apart from those desperate to pursue any avenue to ignore the democratic vote.
Yes, that's how a parliamentary democracy works. Only parliament can extricate the UK from the EU. If UKIP/Brexiters were to gain a parliamentary majority, out we would go. Obviously there will be a political cost to parties/MPs who ignore the referendum result. Hence the fascinating political manouvering at the moment. Does anyone really believe Theresa May will follow through Brexit?
Are you saying T May will be the fallguy/woman for the remainers, she will be PM but not execute arttical 50 and so putting her head on the block and saving her fellow MP's jobs at the next election,
Such devotion to her comrades, hmmm I don't see it happening.
-
The crucial point is getting enactment of Article 50. Even some Brexiters regard it something best delayed as a negotiating strategy. Plus it has yet to be determined if Parliament has to be consulted; if it does then even if MP's agree the second chamber could delay it if an Act of Parliament is required.
Both T May and M Gove have said enact next year, and D Cameron by quiting but not now, delays it until after a new PM,
I have a feeling they know something we don't and want to delay things.
-
I just watched this, Andrea Battlesom
-
I just found this on youtube funny, tho some will not be amused
-
One thing EU overlooks is the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration in some towns and cities. One thing Brexiters overlook is that immigration is needed in order to drive a modern economy.
Going from memory
Last year the figure was about 330.000 just under half from the EU, that would leave about 170,000 from other countries, about half of those were students, so we still had about 85,000 others.
I think this level is reasonable.
-
Edit to @mommysboy
I don't see an alternative as we cannot make trade deals with other countries now,only trade with them, so we have to get out of the EU to make trade deals, which means we have two years to do some of the work, It should not take years to do deals, it only takes years for trading blocks because they need to satisfy more members the bigger the block the longer it will take, we will be one country so it will be much easier, to wait for a crash would be worse for us as if and when that happens there will be a lot of countries vieing for deals making it harder for us.
Re: 'It should not take years to do deals'
and: 'we will be one country so it will be much easier'
Ahhh the simplistic bliss of Brexiteers...
However, in 'REALITY' there are 27 core EU countries to re-negotiate with one-by-one, not to mention the total number of individual countries covered by EU trade deals comes to 52. The multiples and complexities of which would take multi-years to renegotiate.
Still, most EU countries would not let Britain cherry-pick from the four EU freedoms of goods, services, capital and labour which come as a package. As freedom of movement is the main issue for most Brexiteers, a Norway etc solution would also not work.
Thus, over to the Brexiteers. What IS your plan please?
My post was not aimed at trade negotiations with the EU but at other countries so yes it would be easier to do, If no deal on freedom of movement with the EU then no deal, we go with wto rules, that will not take years to work out.
-
The only one I see for the job would be Andrea Leadsom, I think best of the bunch.
-
One huge glaring hole in your argument. Why should the UK get all the benefits of free trade with the EU but none of the obligations? Don't you think that member states of the EU might find that difficult to accept. And if it is accepted, then what are the advantages of staying in the EU?
You have to play your cards right. It makes very good sense just to do nothing at all for a short while if only to map out a future course away from EU. Personally I would play for a year before enacting Article 50 but that won't happen. Of course that could be considerably shortened if EU wants to talk sensibly about a deal. EU's stance of no negotiations before exit is a bluff. Actually whilst exit negotiations are progressing there has to be a framework for future relationship after exit.
Any trade concessions we want are unlikely to come until EU realises it needs them from us too. And for me it is simply like for like, eg, no free trade for us, no free trade for them. If we have to pay 5 billion or whatever for a single market deal, then they have to pay 5 billion to deal with UK. That charge Norway pays is an absurdity. I think it must have been inspired by Ebay.
Regarding the City of London. It isn't true that UK can't do Euro trades after exit. But of course any licence has to be at the grace of EU. BiFID2 is due to be enacted on 1st Jan 2018. This uses a concept called 'equivalence'. In short, providing a third party ( another country outside EU) has an equivalent regulatory structure, then it will be able to trade under BiFID2 as if it were a member. It is unthinkable that UK does not have that equivalence, as it is already trading.
All these issues really require good will from both parties and a desire to trade amicably. Each party needs to understand the dire consequences for not reaching a pleasant arrangment. And of course business has to have its say. The EU will be under the same pressure to make a quick, mutually acceptable deal, just as we will be. Neither of us can afford to go without each other's business. An easy trade deal for both of us makes perfect sense.
Exactly, what are the advantages of staying in the EU?
The UK already trades freely with the rest of the member states which means that the goods and services provided are compliant with EU regulations. This won't change just because the UK will no longer be part of the EU. Down the road, Brussels will of course add new rules and regulations and it's up to the UK to be abreast of these new requirements and adjust accordingly. Airbus parts currently being produced in Chester will not overnight fall foul of EU regulations and in any case, Airbus will definitely not want to pay more to the UK for the same product. If the EU tries to block this, there could be grounds for a legal case on the basis of discrimination?
An area that could be affected could be financial services due to a possible loss of passporting. However, I don't see this as a huge loss for the country, maybe just for a few flaming ferraris. Traders in the States, Hong Kong, Singapore etc are doing very well without having this EU passport.
A big disadvantage of not having free access to the single market will be the imposition of tariffs and customs duties. However, the global situation of today is very different from 40 years ago. Tariffs are not as high as they were (5 - 10% on average?) and the recent depreciation of the pound sterling has basically offset this. The BoE can regulate the currency much better without interference from the EU and can help the export market reduce the impact of tariffs and custom duties. In a perverse way, this might force the manufacturers in the EU to reduce their prices of their products to the UK if they want to continue selling at the same volumes.
I think the advantages of staying in the EU are far outweighed by the disadvantages
I would actually prefer to remain, but that is no longer an option it seems. My main motive in wishing to remain was to avoid the rancour that is now happening. The onerous obligations were mitigated because they were bilateral and some of the contributions came back to us. It was more or less a good deal. Sadly, the electorate didn't agree. If it was me I would bin the damn referendum, it's nothing but a ton of you know what hitting an extemely big set of fans. In time, I expect the EU to collapse anyway so we should have just sat it out.
But this little spat over the last few posts is about what we do now.
If we sign up to EFTA, then it is not a good deal for UK, because EFTA itself it is not really a free trade deal. Also the problem with reverting to the WTO deal is not the tariffs, but access. As you say, there are all sorts of regulations that are applied to new products, and in some case whole sectors require a specific licence to trade at all, eg, financial passporting.
In my view it would really be a lost cause negotiating a deal at present. That requires realism and goodwill on both sides.
We are best off not invoking Article 50 until such time as we are as prepared as we can be to live with the effects of a substantial dip in Europen trade. That could be 1 year, 5, or 10. It is entirely within our rights to do what we want.
You just have to be hard headed and pragmatic when dealing with unreasonable people, while encouraging positive behaviour and a change in attitude. We live in hope.
I do not think refraining from signing Article 50 for any significant period is politically viable post the referendum vote. Its just not on. There is a small window of opportunity (provided by the current PM) for some informal negotiations to take place prior to the appointment of a new PM but once s/he is in place it really must be signed. It will be the Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry moment for Brexit.
OMG what happened, I liked one of your posts, I need an asprin and lie down I think
Little England and not-so-Great-Britain
in World News
Posted
And you missed my point, I was quoting an example of where some posters logic would take them.
I'm sure you don't need it explaining.