Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[tebee]

OK, say I live in Manchester. I vote for my elected representatives on Manchester town council. 

 

Should I be concerned that on some subjects they can be overruled  by elected representatives in Westminster that I have also voted for ?

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The EEC has overseen the decline of European area overall growth to the weakest in the world. Greece has 50% youth unemployment. Fantastic achievements!

 

War and peace - like all moaners you conveniently discount the formation and existence of NATO.

 

Infant mortality rates have improved all across the western world, so don't attribute that to the wonderful EEC/EU.

 

The Greek debt is a result of the Greeks cheating and the EU allowing them to use the Euro before the Greek economy was properly aligned. If the EU truly wanted to help a poorer country, they would have assisted and developed the Greek economy first, not bailed them out later, with crushing loan conditions.

 

 

The claim back in 2014 was that EU growth was only stronger than Antarctica's, and they of course measured against the other continents.  The slow growth has been a trend across the developed world post the 2008 crisis, the best growth is in the developing world, and continents do not necessarily only contain either developed or developing countries, comparing continents is far from revealing.  For example, the growth in 2014 in Japan it was 0.5% despite Asia being the continent with the highest growth at 6.8%.  You can't blame the EEC for Japan having terrible growth despite being within a continent with excellent growth, can you? 

 

Greece joined NATO in 1952.  But that didn't stop them starting the coup in Cyprus which lead to the Turkish invasion, Greece left NATO and went to war, so what are you on about there?

 

Infant mortality rates have reduced throughout the Western world but Greece was lagging behind and since joining the community caught up, theirs improved at a rate almost double to ours.

 

The EU gave an enormous amount of help to Greece, but don't think of it as them, it is us, we the tax payer who assist and develop, how much do you want to pay the EU?

 

Crushing loan conditions?  A 0.7% interest rate with a further bailout when they couldn't afford , the second loan with deferred interest for 10 years.  What is Greece's crushing loan condition that sees the hardworking European paying it again and again?

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, talahtnut said:

It is true that Brexit has been shown to have a bad effect.

It is also true that Brexit has been shown to have a good effect.

Ignoring the many political deceptions, most people naturally

seek freedom and independance..and that's what they voted for.

 

Getting out of the European Court of Human Rights being a priority for the campaigners of freedom could have been a giveaway for those seeking freedom from their vote.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

An interesting and comprehensive post; may I just ask about one statement, when you say that  “In the UK if you vote Labour you get to vote for your PM, if you vote Conservative you don't, that is not a lack of democracy in the UK system, it is in the Conservative party”

 

are you referring to the fact that Theresa May was not elected as Prime Minister in the general election, but just succeeded the retiring David Cameron ….. thanks

 

It is party policy of the Labour party to allow members to choose their leader, the Tories do it themselves.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

In the UK if you vote Labour you get to vote for your PM, if you vote Conservative you don't, that is not a lack of democracy in the UK system, it is in the Conservative party.

It is a lack of democracy (to those that consider it to be so) in the UK system, not in the Conservative party. If any Prime Minister retires (or dies) during their elected term of office, their political party chooses a new leader who subsequently, after a selection process and approval of the Queen becomes Prime Minister. They are not under any constitutional obligation to call a general election, but are free to do so if they wish.

 

When labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson retired in 1976, James Callaghan was chosen by the labour party as their new PM, so the electorate did not have a PM that they had voted for, until the next general election in 1979.

 

The same thing happened when Labour PM Tony Blair retired in 2007 and Gordon Brown took office, no general election until 2010.

 

So while I am happy enough to see the Conservative party, or any other party, criticized, I would prefer that it is done without propaganda   

[Orac]

 
It is party policy of the Labour party to allow members to choose their leader, the Tories do it themselves.

Not sure if it has changed now or if leadership is automatic when all others drop out but Conservatives did used to put it to a membership vote. I remember voting for David Davis some years back against Cameron - not sure now what the right decision would have been now in hindsight.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Kieran00001]

11 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

It is a lack of democracy (to those that consider it to be so) in the UK system, not in the Conservative party. If any Prime Minister retires (or dies) during their elected term of office, their political party chooses a new leader who subsequently, after a selection process and approval of the Queen becomes Prime Minister. They are not under any constitutional obligation to call a general election, but are free to do so if they wish.

 

When labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson retired in 1976, James Callaghan was chosen by the labour party as their new PM, so the electorate did not have a PM that they had voted for, until the next general election in 1979.

 

The same thing happened when Labour PM Tony Blair retired in 2007 and Gordon Brown took office, no general election until 2010.

 

So while I am happy enough to see the Conservative party, or any other party, criticized, I would prefer that it is done without propaganda   

 

Its a new Labour policy adopted in 2014, it was just an example of how different parties in the UK system can have different degrees of democracy just like in the EU groups.

[vogie]

19 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is party policy of the Labour party to allow members to choose their leader, the Tories do it themselves.

Would you say a typical Labour member?

 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Would you say a typical Labour member?

 

 

It has changed, it used to be a union vote now it is one member one vote, and I was actually wrong anyway, the Tories also now have a one member one vote system.

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

Not sure if it has changed now or if leadership is automatic when all others drop out but Conservatives did used to put it to a membership vote. I remember voting for David Davis some years back against Cameron - not sure now what the right decision would have been now in hindsight.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

I was just wrong, it changed a long time ago, they used to vote amongst themselves but now it is one member one vote the same as the Labour party.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It has changed, it used to be a union vote now it is one member one vote, and I was actually wrong anyway, the Tories also now have a one member one vote system.

Why do you answer questions which infact nobody has asked you? ???

[talahtnut]

Voting is merely choosing your preferred brand of

        government lies and mismanagement.

                Same different outcome!

[talahtnut]

49 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Getting out of the European Court of Human Rights being a priority for the campaigners of freedom could have been a giveaway for those seeking freedom from their vote.

Please explain your post.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We had already joined, the referendum was on whether to leave.

This is a quote from a parliament session before the 1975 referendum.  There was a leave campaign, and they were informing the public of the intentions of the community, so clearly it was not only a few who knew, everyones MP knew and everyone with an interest in politics knew.

 

"Both sides of the House now clearly accept a directly-elected European parliament. If we accept that, we surely accept that such a body will do something. It will not sit there and do nothing. It will legislate."

 

"The point about the European Parliament and the inability of the British elector, once that Parliament is set up, to change the laws which it makes, is being hidden by the pro-Market case. The pro-Marketeers know that if the British fully understood that, they would he sure to vote to come out of the EEC. My hon. Friends and I, who find ourselves on this side of the argument, will ensure that throughout the referendum campaign the British public will be made aware of that fact. I hope that on that basis they will vote for self-rule and self-government. I hope that finally they will say "Let us in this country rule ourselves and let us not be ruled by Brussels." 

 

 

I know the history of joining and the 1975 referendum. A quote? Well, whoever said it sounds like a leaver, Powell?

 

But even in 1975 the deception continued. The make-up, intentions and full consequences of the EEC were not broadly revealed to the public. It was still sold as the "Common Market". A shame it wasn't just that. 

[peter48]

When 6 political parties were Remain, all living PMs from Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron & May voted Remain, when all top business people and Trade Unions and all professional groups voted remain, when 90% + of all economists and analysts were Remain and the global FT claimed it was  UK committing 'self harm'  you know its going to be grim. When you disengage from 500 million other consumers across all Europe you know its going to be grim. Part 1 was falling pound and higher prices. Part 2 will be when we no longer have the free Tariffs to trade with EU and others like Norway + Switz and pound wll fall. Jobs, investment , wages, pensions , shares  , trade,  revenues, public services- all will suffer once Brexit kicks in next year.   

 

Low income groups will suffer most as pensions will be limited so more will move abroad ?  Again if you have good job pensions, wealth etc you will have that option. As always  low incomes or poor health will restrict your choices and living abroad with a falling pound and limited pensions is bad. Too many less educated Brits swallowed propaganda of Brexit Right Wing press like Daily Mail and Sun. 

Edited April 22, 2018 by peter48

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The claim back in 2014 was that EU growth was only stronger than Antarctica's, and they of course measured against the other continents.  The slow growth has been a trend across the developed world post the 2008 crisis, the best growth is in the developing world, and continents do not necessarily only contain either developed or developing countries, comparing continents is far from revealing.  For example, the growth in 2014 in Japan it was 0.5% despite Asia being the continent with the highest growth at 6.8%.  You can't blame the EEC for Japan having terrible growth despite being within a continent with excellent growth, can you? 

 

Greece joined NATO in 1952.  But that didn't stop them starting the coup in Cyprus which lead to the Turkish invasion, Greece left NATO and went to war, so what are you on about there?

 

Infant mortality rates have reduced throughout the Western world but Greece was lagging behind and since joining the community caught up, theirs improved at a rate almost double to ours.

 

The EU gave an enormous amount of help to Greece, but don't think of it as them, it is us, we the tax payer who assist and develop, how much do you want to pay the EU?

 

Crushing loan conditions?  A 0.7% interest rate with a further bailout when they couldn't afford , the second loan with deferred interest for 10 years.  What is Greece's crushing loan condition that sees the hardworking European paying it again and again?

 

 

Weak growth - just fact. It shows that EU protectionism is actually failing. 

 

NATO - what I'm on about there is European security. The UK also fought independently in 1982.

 

Infant mortality rates improved from 49/1000 to 16/1000 from 1950 to 1980 (before they joined the EEC) - the trend was already there - you attribute any improvements in anything to the EU alone.   

 

Interest rates were low everywhere. The bailout/help came along with numerous conditions which have cost the Greeks far more than interest rate payments as: more cuts to the pension system, forced privatizations/asset sales (with close "supervision" by the Troika), EU "monitoring" of the government itself and even law-making. Pretty much a total giving over of fiscal sovereignty, with the Germans as the main proponents.

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by nauseus

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Orac said:

 

 

Not sure if it has changed now or if leadership is automatic when all others drop out but Conservatives did used to put it to a membership vote. I remember voting for David Davis some years back against Cameron - not sure now what the right decision would have been now in hindsight.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I think you were right - Davis has been given this exit job but he has obviously not been allowed to do it! I think May put him in there as a token leaver but he is being overruled. He would have been far better as the PM now, instead of May.  

[sandyf]

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Not sure where I found the original stat I used but this I have just found says 155 spent in 2017 and 8% of GDP.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_pensions_analysis

 

No, The state pension was as I said 111 billion, the other 44 Billion was sickness and disability. I believe the original point made by Bill was in respect of the old age pension.

 

"But then pensions spending started to accelerate, reaching £150 billion in 2015. in 2017 pensions spending hit £155 billion, with old age pensions at £111 billion and sickness and disability at £44 billion."

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I know the history of joining and the 1975 referendum. A quote? Well, whoever said it sounds like a leaver, Powell?

 

But even in 1975 the deception continued. The make-up, intentions and full consequences of the EEC were not broadly revealed to the public. It was still sold as the "Common Market". A shame it wasn't just that. 

 

Absolutely, many aspects were hidden from the public at the time, and did not come to light until In January 2001, when under the 30 year rule, The Public Records Office at Kew released files relating to Ted Heath’s application join the Common Market in 1970.

 

One particular document related to the Heath governments reaction to the “Werner Report” a document that ministers had commissioned Pierre Werner, the then Prime Minister of Luxembourg to draw up. It set out a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union.

 

The only concern Heath showed to this report was that it should not be discussed openly in public because it might inflame public opinion against what they were being assured was no more than a market place intended to boost trade.

 

Also revealed was, that on the very day the application went in, the 6 member states approved the principle that member states be given “equal access” to each others fishing waters The UK’s chief negotiator Geoffrey Rippon told Ted Heath that if we wanted to join the Common Market “we will have to sacrifice our fishermen” ….. the rest is history, we all know what the treacherous Heath did, he accepted the fait accompli and caused the demise of one of the largest fishing industries in the world 

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, aright said:

In the votes that I cast what ballot paper did Mr Selmayr's name appear on?

As you can see from my quote Mr Selmayr was appointed in secret by Mr Juncker ; Mep's knew nothing about it......this is your idea of representative democracy is it? 

Still trying to side step the point, I have never made any reference to a Mr Selmayr. 

Did you or did you not claim to have voted for the Prime Minister, a simple yes/no will suffice.

 

So if as you say,

"I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives.", you are also including the EU commissioner among those officials you used your vote for.

 

 

[aright]

54 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Still trying to side step the point, I have never made any reference to a Mr Selmayr. 

Did you or did you not claim to have voted for the Prime Minister, a simple yes/no will suffice.

 

So if as you say,

"I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives.", you are also including the EU commissioner among those officials you used your vote for.

 

 

I am not trying to side step the point. I use Mr Selmayr's name and his appointment as an example of the undemocratic nature of the EU which is what this conversation is all about. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/a-very-eu-coup-martin-selmayrs-astonishing-power-grab/  https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2018/03/selmayrgate-or-why-secretary-general-job-matters 

 

Yes I voted for the PM, now you tell me the length and the names on the chain which led to the appointment of Mr Selmayr and where I stood in the chain. By the way I was first in the electoral chain when it came to voting for the PM.

While you are going through the chain you might want to identify rubber stamping issues also you might want to tell me who other than Juncker  endorsed Mr Selmayr..

Edited April 22, 2018 by aright

[Kieran00001]

3 hours ago, talahtnut said:

Please explain your post.

 

The Leave campaign were very vocal about their desire to leave the Human Rights Court, anyone using their vote in hope of gaining more freedom might have considered that the court brings a greater level of freedom.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

I know the history of joining and the 1975 referendum. A quote? Well, whoever said it sounds like a leaver, Powell?

 

But even in 1975 the deception continued. The make-up, intentions and full consequences of the EEC were not broadly revealed to the public. It was still sold as the "Common Market". A shame it wasn't just that. 

 

It was Neil Martin, he was one of the leader of the Leave campaign.

 

This is the pamphlet the post office distributed to every British household in 1975, note the opening paragraph, as you can see there was no deception, every household was informed that the EEC planned to make Europe into one nation.

1975-referendum-no.pdf

"For the British people, membership of the Common Market has already been a bad bargain.  What is worse, it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation. This will take away from us the right to rule ourselves that we have enjoyed for centuries."

 

 

 

 

[aright]

18 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The Leave campaign were very vocal about their desire to leave the Human Rights Court, anyone using their vote in hope of gaining more freedom might have considered that the court brings a greater level of freedom.

 

Only half the story. When we decided to leave the EU the Government (a mixture of Remainers and Leavers) decided to leave the EU Bill of Human Rights(not Court) in due course and replace it with a British Bill of Human Rights. This is designed to be more au fait with British needs. Makes sense. 

[HAKAPALITA]

I remember the Financial Checks that young staffers had to meet to work at the Hague, if an Alien. Yet now they appear to be against any searches that may keep beggars out of all our stable nations..

[sandyf]

31 minutes ago, aright said:

I am not trying to side step the point. I use Mr Selmayr's name and his appointment as an example of the undemocratic nature of the EU which is what this conversation is all about. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/a-very-eu-coup-martin-selmayrs-astonishing-power-grab/  https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2018/03/selmayrgate-or-why-secretary-general-job-matters 

 

Yes I voted for the PM, now you tell me the length and the names on the chain which led to the appointment of Mr Selmayr and where I stood in the chain. By the way I was first in the electoral chain when it came to voting for the PM.

While you are going through the chain you might want to identify rubber stamping issues also you might want to tell me who other than Juncker  endorsed Mr Selmayr..

Why do you continue to bring up a name that has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question if not to side step the issue.

If you voted for the Prime Minister you obviously acknowledge the concept of indirect election. The Prime Minister in turn selects the EU commissioner so under your own concept you have participated in the selection of the EU commissioner. Yes or No.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Weak growth - just fact. It shows that EU protectionism is actually failing. 

 

NATO - what I'm on about there is European security. The UK also fought independently in 1982.

 

Infant mortality rates improved from 49/1000 to 16/1000 from 1950 to 1980 (before they joined the EEC) - the trend was already there - you attribute any improvements in anything to the EU alone.   

 

Interest rates were low everywhere. The bailout/help came along with numerous conditions which have cost the Greeks far more than interest rate payments as: more cuts to the pension system, forced privatizations/asset sales (with close "supervision" by the Troika), EU "monitoring" of the government itself and even law-making. Pretty much a total giving over of fiscal sovereignty, with the Germans as the main proponents.

 

 

 

 

No it shows that there is still a global financial crisis.

 

It's not about fighting independently, NATO did not protect Greek Cyprus from the Turkish invasion.

 

I'm not sure, perhaps infant mortality is not such a good example, but they have made enormous improvements since joining, the biggest of course being free from war and dictatorship, something they had failed to do for 500 years, failed when in NATO and only once they joined the EEC have they seen a period so long of peace and freedom.

 

Oh, the pension cuts are among these crushing loan conditions of yous.  So them no longer getting to retire far earlier than the tax payers who foot their bill in other European countries is a crushing condition, got it.  As for forced sell offs and monitoring, what is it that you want?  What options do you think there are?  Do you want us to pay them off and leave them to rack us up our next bill?   I think most people are looking for less bills and getting the Greeks to pay some of theirs and stop being corrupt is only fair, isn't it, or would you rather we all just split their bill for them and let Greece laugh at us?

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

No, The state pension was as I said 111 billion, the other 44 Billion was sickness and disability. I believe the original point made by Bill was in respect of the old age pension.

 

"But then pensions spending started to accelerate, reaching £150 billion in 2015. in 2017 pensions spending hit £155 billion, with old age pensions at £111 billion and sickness and disability at £44 billion."

 

Sorry, I missed that.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Why do you continue to bring up a name that has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question if not to side step the issue.

If you voted for the Prime Minister you obviously acknowledge the concept of indirect election. The Prime Minister in turn selects the EU commissioner so under your own concept you have participated in the selection of the EU commissioner. Yes or No.

So are you saying you voted for Nigel Farage?

[aright]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Why do you continue to bring up a name that has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question if not to side step the issue.

If you voted for the Prime Minister you obviously acknowledge the concept of indirect election. The Prime Minister in turn selects the EU commissioner so under your own concept you have participated in the selection of the EU commissioner. Yes or No.

In the case of Mr Selmayer no. Who the official in the Commission is doesn't matter. You are either democratic or undemocratic . You seem to think it's alright to be undemocratic sometimes. Coming close only counts when you are throwing hand grenades. Once again address the length of the chain, rubber stamping issues and my part in the election of Mr Selmayr or sign off.