UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[kwilco]

43 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

How are planning to stamped them out

I noticed you are a fan of ThyssenKrupp and no doubt you are aware thay used 75,000 slave labourers 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663635/Revealed-How-Nazis-helped-German-companies-Bosch-Mercedes-Deutsche-Bank-VW-VERY-rich-using-slave-labor.html

And No Doubt for anyone that refuses to take part would be sent to  something like Auschwitz concentration camp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

...and no doubt you are aware that the Daily Mail supported Hitler before the war?

[vinny41]

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

...and no doubt you are aware that the Daily Mail supported Hitler before the war?

And how many slave labourers did they employ

[vinny41]

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

...and no doubt you are aware that the Daily Mail supported Hitler before the war?

And it appears Labour Loving the Daily Mirror supported Hitler as well

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

[mogandave]

...and no doubt you are aware that the Daily Mail supported Hitler before the war?

And The NY Times supported him during the war.

[kwilco]

15 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Definition of fascism 

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

 

Not really applicable to UK politics.

 

Yet we do have a growing hard right imo, which pretends to be otherwise, and hides within the mainstream conservative party, whilst promulgating its extreme elements through fringe parties or causes.

Oh yes it is!, ....and basing your argument on one singleb premise just leads to a fallacious conclusion.

[kwilco]

33 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

And The NY Times supported him during the war.

 

You get the point then?

[kwilco]

what's the problem with a people's vote?

[mogandave]

You get the point then?

That they’re socialists and socialism leads to fascism?

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

That they’re socialists and socialism leads to fascism?

The name National Socialist was chosen as a cynical ploy because the main opposition groups were the communist party and the social democrats. In German, the name was shortened to NAZI. Your conclusion is entirely incorrect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Grouse

[soleddy]

Good sense from Mr Abbott:

 

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

[vogie]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

what's the problem with a people's vote?

The people had a vote 2 years ago, only the losers want a vote now, try to keep up.

[mommysboy]

5 hours ago, adammike said:

Does that mean you want an English independent party?

Do I want one?... well given I am Labour, then no.  I also don't want the end of the UK.

 

But I am pointing out that there is a growing far right wing in this country that needs a legitimate platform for its views.  At the moment its just a rather horse loosed collection of unaccountable reactionaries who wreak havoc. 

[Jip99]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

The people had a vote 2 years ago, only the losers want a vote now, try to keep up.

 

 

Let them hang on to their thread of forlorn/desperate hope.

 

Boring, I know, but it is the only bone that they have to play with.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Do I want one?... well given I am Labour, then no.  I also don't want the end of the UK.

 

But I am pointing out that there is a growing far right wing in this country that needs a legitimate platform for its views.  At the moment its just a rather horse loosed collection of unaccountable reactionaries who wreak havoc. 

MB, Corbyn recently stated that brexit cannot be stopped now, which appears to be Labours Party policy, however Keir Starmer said that brexit can be stopped. The guy is obviously intelligent, but I am not too sure if he knows how to act like a politician. Why is he acting againgst his leader and the Labour Party, is he a lone wolf.

[mommysboy]

This is good reading imo:

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-a-second-brexit-referendum-when-the-facts-change-1.3695406

 

The Brexiteers prevailed in 2016 by peddling the illusion that the UK could leave the EU while continuing to enjoy all its benefits. Now they face the reality: a deal that will satisfy nobody and leave everybody worse off. 

[melvinmelvin]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

MB, Corbyn recently stated that brexit cannot be stopped now, which appears to be Labours Party policy, however Keir Starmer said that brexit can be stopped. The guy is obviously intelligent, but I am not too sure if he knows how to act like a politician. Why is he acting againgst his leader and the Labour Party, is he a lone wolf.

should suit Corbyn fine

just standing there doing zilch, achieving Brexit and achieving Tories making fools of themselves

[vinny41]

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is good reading imo:

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-a-second-brexit-referendum-when-the-facts-change-1.3695406

 

The Brexiteers prevailed in 2016 by peddling the illusion that the UK could leave the EU while continuing to enjoy all its benefits. Now they face the reality: a deal that will satisfy nobody and leave everybody worse off. 

Including the Irish I think the Republic or Ireland imports 89% of its oil from the Uk and 70% of its gas

[mommysboy]

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

MB, Corbyn recently stated that brexit cannot be stopped now, which appears to be Labours Party policy, however Keir Starmer said that brexit can be stopped. The guy is obviously intelligent, but I am not too sure if he knows how to act like a politician. Why is he acting againgst his leader and the Labour Party, is he a lone wolf.

 

I'm not sure many politicians are acting like politicians, right or left, such has been the non-midas touch of Brexit.

 

I think Corbyn appears to be the one out of line with Labour policy.  Still, he was asked to give his opinion and he honestly gave it. Generally, the problem for Labour remains sticking with its Socialist principles whilst attracting broad electoral support.  

 

Both parties are damned if they do, damned if they don't, hence both throw out seemingly paradoxical messages- it's tedious.

 

 

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Including the Irish I think the Republic or Ireland imports 89% of its oil from the Uk and 70% of its gas

Yes, a deal that satisfies no one- not Brexiteers, not Remainers, not the UK, not Ireland, not the EU, and everyone worse off.  It's absurd, isn't it?

 

Do you want this deal? 

 

Does anyone on this forum?

[Orac]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

I'm not sure many politicians are acting like politicians, right or left, such has been the non-midas touch of Brexit.

 

I think Corbyn appears to be the one out of line with Labour policy.  Still, he was asked to give his opinion and he honestly gave it. Generally, the problem for Labour remains sticking with its Socialist principles whilst attracting broad electoral support.  

 

Both parties are damned if they do, damned if they don't, hence both throw out seemingly paradoxical messages- it's tedious.

 

 

 

Not sure how relevant Corbyn's statement is since the ECJ will now be deciding this before UK parliament get a meaningful vote as UK court has blocked UK govt appeal regarding this.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50/british-government-cannot-stop-brexit-case-going-to-ecj-scottish-court-says-idUSKCN1ND1RX

Edited November 13, 2018 by Orac
Link added

[mogandave]

The name National Socialist was chosen as a cynical ploy because the main opposition groups were the communist party and the social democrats. In German, the name was shortened to NAZI. Your conclusion is entirely incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
 

Oh, it’s in Wiki, it must be a fact.

Still waiting...

[mommysboy]

Politics normally operates on consensus and compromise.  Neither is suited to Brexit, where a more autocratic approach has proved mandatory.  Had it have been a Thatcher government the matter would have been done and dusted, and likely a Blair one too.  I'm not unconvinced that a Corbyn Government wouldn't have made a better fist of it.  This Government is singularly failing.  I don't think it has got what it takes to see Brexit through.

 

People say Brexiteers never had a plan.  On the face of it that seems true. Yet, my opinion is that of course they had a plan, to win the vote by hook and crook, and then simply create as much agro as possible so that their desired aim of a clean break from the EU could be engineered. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we are heading for no deal, or a reversal, and I wouldn't bet against a reversal, given public sentiment.

 

 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Oh, it’s in Wiki, it must be a fact.

Still waiting...

 

I don't think fascism (call it what you will) can be defined in party terms- it simply is monstrously extreme and undemocratic.  

[mogandave]

I don't think fascism (call it what you will) can be defined in party terms- it simply is monstrously extreme and undemocratic.  

I would generally agree. I just disagree with what end of the spectrum it comes from.

One could argue that there are no ends, but rather a circle.

Conservatives want less government, and less control.

Leftists want more government, and more control.

I believe that if you keep going right you end with anarchy.

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, Grouse said:

If there is a referendum result to remain, that will be the end of it. No government will ever ask the opinion of the masses again. Ever.

Quite, national referendums may well be confined to the history books. Another one now could be more of a problem than its worth, possibly another contentious result which would have to go before parliament.

They could very well short circuit the system and have a secret ballot in parliament. Decisions take on a different perspective when you do not have to explain yourself.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Ever notice how brave and resolute the left is when attacking Christians, and how tolerant and accommodating they are of Muslims?

 

Wonder why that is.

...quite right. I think those of us with any nous and ability to see through the BS understand that:

 

1) 'Halo polishing' goes a long way today in the our society dominated by the state mandated 'doctrine of equality and diversity' that has become virtually systemic in the West. 

2) Self preservation and cowardice, covered by a wafer-thin veneer of highly selective 'outspoken' or 'forthright' rhetoric is a popular vehicle for grandstanding politicians and bourgeois metro trendies.

 

Sure, these people will attack groups they know pose no threat to them, but they simply don't have the balls to criticise the people that they probably know, deep down, are a) the source of the real issue we're facing, and b) are militant enough to attack them in their own homes/offices.

 

As one of the very few honest and outspoken in the media with regard to this matter, I'll paraphrase a small excerpt of Douglas Murray's excellent polemic against the 'appeasers' in the liberal media:

 

When discussing the Catholic church's impediment of gay marriage:

 

'As a gay man, I really do wish the same people who are so critical of the Roman Catholic church and can be heard crying "bring me a cardinal, string up a monsignor" would save their ire for those who would not only prevent me and others like me from marrying, but who would also see us thrown from the top of the nearest tall building'.

 

 He alone has more balls than the combined writing staff of The Guardian, Evening Standard etc., do. ????

Edited November 13, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

what's the problem with a people's vote?

Nothing at all (in theory at least) and that's why we had one. Short memory!?

Edited November 13, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[vogie]

56 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite, national referendums may well be confined to the history books. Another one now could be more of a problem than its worth, possibly another contentious result which would have to go before parliament.

They could very well short circuit the system and have a secret ballot in parliament. Decisions take on a different perspective when you do not have to explain yourself.

When you say referendums may well be confined to the history books, does that include a referendum on Scottish Independence?

 

BTW, I did not say I ignore your posts as you stated, I said I take no notice of them.

[mogandave]

...quite right. I think those of us with any nous and ability to see through the BS understand that:
 
1) 'Halo polishing' goes a long way today in the our society dominated by the state mandated 'doctrine of equality and diversity' that has become virtually systemic in the West. 
2) Self preservation and cowardice, covered by a wafer-thin veneer of highly selective 'outspoken' or 'forthright' rhetoric is a popular vehicle for grandstanding politicians and bourgeois metro trendies.
 
Sure, these people will attack groups they know pose no threat to them, but they simply don't have the balls to criticise the people that they probably know, deep down, are a) the source of the real issue we're facing, and b) are militant enough to attack them in their own homes/offices.
 
As one of the very few honest and outspoken in the media with regard to this matter, I'll paraphrase a small excerpt of Douglas Murray's excellent polemic against the 'appeasers' in the liberal media:
 
When discussing the Catholic church's impediment of gay marriage:
 
'As a gay man, I really do wish the same people who are so critical of the Roman Catholic church and can be heard crying "bring me a cardinal, string up a monsignor" would save their ire for those who would not only prevent me and others like me from marrying, but who would also see us thrown from the top of the nearest tall building'.
 
 He alone has more balls than the combined writing staff of The Guardian, Evening Standard etc., do. [emoji849]

Yeah, it’s easy to attack Christians, all they’re likely to do is try to convert you.

I lived on the street for a couple years and I got a lot more help from the church and Christians than I did from the press and the left. Were it up the the left I would still be on the street voting for more benefits.

[melvinmelvin]

 

guys, you that know everything - help me out

 

some sort of deal seems to surface shortly

it must be presented to and given the hand by high level EU meeting, heads of state or pm like

 

likewise, it will be presented to the UK national assembly - seeking approval

 

now,

parliament voting yes - I understand what government will do

parliament voting no  - what then? what to do? brexit no deal - ask for prolongation of the a50 period or whatever?