3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Tariffs are at an all time low? The average EU import tariff on food is 20%, this is what the EU forces member states to pay for 3rd country food imports at present. And 80% of that tariff has to be sent to the EU. The highest tariff is obviously significantly more than the average. With WTO we can set our own import tariffs, and keep 100% of the tariff.

 

The average tariff on foods that have tariffs applied to them might be 20%, but 85% of food imports by volume are with 0% tariff because of existing trade agreements.

 

It's only where foreign imports might impact EU(including UK)  producers that tariffs are used. 0% tariffs on everything might make UK production uneconomic. 

19 minutes ago, rixalex said:

This from the man who is keen for the politicians who promised to abide by the referendum to now treat it purely as an "opinion poll".

You want trustworthy politicians but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, duplicitous is just fine.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The CONs only. The others agreed to a referendum but did not agree to be bound by it. FACT

It's not decisive - if it were decisive would we have been having 2 and a half years of arguments about how decisive it was ? 
 
For referenda that do constitutional changes that can affect a generation or more you need a supermajority - a straight majority just leads to the sort of divisive  argument we've had since the referendum. 
 
Such a narrow margin can mean that by the time you come to implement a policy it is no longer the will of the people.
 
Given the respective ages of the two sides  this is almost certainly already the case with brexit due to natural attrition of the older leave voters.
 
Look at the age divide in this recent poll 
 
 
[/url]  

Not decisive would be a couple of hundred thousand people or less. More than a million people IS decisive. Had remain won by such a margin that would have been the end of the debate. Quote Farage on vote night all you like, everyone knows that it would have been the end of the road for him and we would have moved on by now. You are having a laugh if you're suggesting we would be sitting here talking about another referendum, or that you would be trotting out nonsense like "it was only an opinion poll".

Re the supermajority, it's all a moot point because the time for that discussion was before the vote. You can't have the vote and then decide a simple majority isn't sufficient. That's moving the goalposts as you go. Besides, there needs to be some consistency in these matters and since no supermajority was used in the Scottish Indy vote, how would you have justified using it for the EU vote?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

23 minutes ago, rixalex said:

This from the man who is keen for the politicians who promised to abide by the referendum to now treat it purely as an "opinion poll".

You want trustworthy politicians but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, duplicitous is just fine.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That is because that is exactly what it was - a glorified opinion poll.

 

I want politicians who understand the constitution and their duties under it.

 

I do not want politicians who pander to populist rhetoric . 

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

The ageist arguments put forward by many on the remain side just don't work for me. Someone who has substantial experience of life, work, politics etc is likely to be far more informed about the issues than a teenager with close to zero adult life experience.

Haha. Do you have kids?

 

Ill bet they run rings around you with many aspects of the modern world!

 

But that's not the point. Do you consider what is in their best interest or your own?

3 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Not decisive would be a couple of hundred thousand people or less. More than a million people IS decisive. Had remain won by such a margin that would have been the end of the debate. Quote Farage on vote night all you like, everyone knows that it would have been the end of the road for him and we would have moved on by now. You are having a laugh if you're suggesting we would be sitting here talking about another referendum, or that you would be trotting out nonsense like "it was only an opinion poll".

Re the supermajority, it's all a moot point because the time for that discussion was before the vote. You can't have the vote and then decide a simple majority isn't sufficient. That's moving the goalposts as you go. Besides, there needs to be some consistency in these matters and since no supermajority was used in the Scottish Indy vote, how would you have justified using it for the EU vote?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

And still they drone on

 

The referendum was advisory

 

Only the CONs agreed to be bound and they no longer have a majority.

That is because that is exactly what it was - a glorified opinion poll.
 
I want politicians who understand the constitution and their duties under it.
 
I do not want politicians who pander to populist rhetoric . 

Please point me in the direction of one single politician who is on record as saying prior to the vote that the vote was a glorified opinion poll, or that the vote was purely advisory.

This argument of yours is so disingenuous it really does stink the forum out.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

27 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Not decisive would be a couple of hundred thousand people or less. More than a million people IS decisive. Had remain won by such a margin that would have been the end of the debate. Quote Farage on vote night all you like, everyone knows that it would have been the end of the road for him and we would have moved on by now. You are having a laugh if you're suggesting we would be sitting here talking about another referendum, or that you would be trotting out nonsense like "it was only an opinion poll".

Re the supermajority, it's all a moot point because the time for that discussion was before the vote. You can't have the vote and then decide a simple majority isn't sufficient. That's moving the goalposts as you go. Besides, there needs to be some consistency in these matters and since no supermajority was used in the Scottish Indy vote, how would you have justified using it for the EU vote?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Decisive in my opinion what be a majority of 10-20%

 

So if TM had won her vote of confidence  by 165 votes to 152, would you say that was an overwhelming majority ?

29 minutes ago, rixalex said:

 

Re the supermajority, it's all a moot point because the time for that discussion was before the vote. You can't have the vote and then decide a simple majority isn't sufficient. That's moving the goalposts as you go. Besides, there needs to be some consistency in these matters and since no supermajority was used in the Scottish Indy vote, how would you have justified using it for the EU vote?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The problem is that when it was raised in parliament, when the laws for the referendum were being made, that a referendum of this importance should have a supermajority to be valid, it was stated by the government that one was not necessary because the referendum was only advisory .

 

So now who's  moving the goalposts?

15 hours ago, tebee said:

 

Some window dressing and a show of goodwill from the 27 is fine. But English swivels must understand that even if they are prepared to throw their own country under a bus the EU will never do that to one of its own member states.  

 

I realize not treating Ireland as a whipping boy is a difficult concept for some English people to get their heads around but Ireland is an EU member state.

 

That makes it equal to the UK through European eyes and if the UK really does leave the EU it will make Ireland more important than the UK through European eyes. That's just the way it is.
 

What about Greece and Spain?
eg  for Greece in 2010 and 2012, harsh austerity measures were forced on it by other Eurozone members and the IMF to bring its deficit under control leading to much hardship, poverty and unemployment.

Please point me in the direction of one single politician who is on record as saying prior to the vote that the vote was a glorified opinion poll, or that the vote was purely advisory.

This argument of yours is so disingenuous it really does stink the forum out.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Rivalex..do not bother bout likes of grouse..bomber..tebee etc...they are but bitter LOSERS [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

9 hours ago, tebee said:

The average tariff on foods that have tariffs applied to them might be 20%, but 85% of food imports by volume are with 0% tariff because of existing trade agreements.

 

It's only where foreign imports might impact EU(including UK)  producers that tariffs are used. 0% tariffs on everything might make UK production uneconomic. 

Please give evidence for your first paragraph.

 

Regarding your second paragraph, I never suggested 0% on everything.

 

 

8 hours ago, tebee said:

Decisive in my opinion what be a majority of 10-20%

 

So if TM had won her vote of confidence  by 165 votes to 152, would you say that was an overwhelming majority ?

You are conflating two completely different terms. Decisive and overwhelming. Don't know why you brought overwhelming into it, since that wasn't what was being discussed. You were disputing whether or not the margin of victory was "decisive". It was. Decisive means definitive, conclusive, beyond the margin for error. Over one million people is a decisive result. It's not overwhelming, it's not massive. It is decisive.

 

And you know it's only because you lost that you are trying to argue that it wasn't decisive.

9 hours ago, tebee said:

The problem is that when it was raised in parliament, when the laws for the referendum were being made, that a referendum of this importance should have a supermajority to be valid, it was stated by the government that one was not necessary because the referendum was only advisory .

 

So now who's  moving the goalposts?

You are until you can quote one single politician prior to the vote who is on record as publicly announcing  that the vote would purely be a "glorified opinion poll" or would just be "advisory".

17 hours ago, tebee said:

realize not treating Ireland as a whipping boy is a difficult concept for some English people to get their heads around but Ireland is an EU member state.

Your usual content free emotional assertions. Try some facts from the Irish Times:

 

"WTO says its rules would not force EU or UK to erect hard Irish border."

 

The EU claims a hard border is necessary in the event of FTA, including WTO. They are wrong. I'm guessing that they know they are wrong, and that it's part of their weaponising of the Irish border.

 

One is forced to conclude that the EU's position is based on ignorance, incompetence or dishonesty, or a mixture thereof.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136

 

Edited December 15, 20187 yr by My Thai Life

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

Haha. Do you have kids?

 

Ill bet they run rings around you with many aspects of the modern world!

 

But that's not the point. Do you consider what is in their best interest or your own?

As it happens, my Bachelor's and Master's have put me at the leading edge of technology meets business for 30 years with world leading tech companies and management consultancies. The sort of people who will be leading the numerous international change management programmes arising out of Brexit.

 

As for your third line, I guess I'll have to again give this evidence of the EU's destruction of youth opportunity.

 

Edited December 15, 20187 yr by My Thai Life

24 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You are until you can quote one single politician prior to the vote who is on record as publicly announcing  that the vote would purely be a "glorified opinion poll" or would just be "advisory".

By UK law, referenda are only advisory.  Only parliament makes the law.

15 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

By UK law, referenda are only advisory.  Only parliament makes the law.

By UK law, bills passed by parliament aren't enshrined in law until the Queen signs them, and she could refuse to do so. It's a law that exists but is never exercised. If the Queen did exercise it, she would be within the law but it would bring the whole system crashing down and the likelihood is that the Queen wouldn't come out of it well.

 

It's the same sort of thing when politicians hold a referendum in which every single politician, right up to the Prime Minister, declare that the outcome of the vote will be respected and implemented. It doesn't matter if in law they can go back on their word and ignore the vote. To do so would be to bring the whole system crashing down. The politicians know this. That's why you won't hear any of them trotting out this "glorified opinion poll"  or "only advisory" nonsense.

12 hours ago, evadgib said:

'School colleague' suggests you could easily have been a 'trinity tiddlywinker' too; albeit in the modern era. 

 

Is this guy the officer in Blackadder's WW1 series? You have me at a disadvantage sir, I don't own a TV and have hardly ever watched one for many years. The trinity tiddlywinker is a reference that I don't understand, I used the word colleague in order to avoid the word friend, the Thesaurus is the most erudite of dinosaurs. 

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

As it happens, my Bachelor's and Master's have put me at the leading edge of technology meets business for 30 years with world leading tech companies and management consultancies. The sort of people who will be leading the numerous international change management programmes arising out of Brexit.

 

As for your third line, I guess I'll have to again give this evidence of the EU's destruction of youth opportunity.

 

I think you will find that it is an effect of the Euro as opposed to the EU. But we were talking about the negative effect of Brexit on the opportunities for British young people. From your tertiary education you obviously know how to select data sets and axes to illustrate your point ????.

 

Finally you were saying that elders know better?

   11 hours ago,  Grouse said: 

Haha. Do you have kids?

I'll bet they run rings around you with many aspects of the modern world!

But that's not the point. Do you consider what is in their best interest or your own?

 

1 hour ago by My Thai Life

As it happens, my Bachelor's and Master's have put me at the leading edge of technology meets business for 30 years with world leading tech companies and management consultancies. The sort of people who will be leading the numerous international change management programmes arising out of Brexit.

 

As for your third line, I guess I'll have to again give this evidence of the EU's destruction of youth opportunity.

 

 

I am concerned about the quality of Education nowadays. Someone with a Master's degree should be able to understand graphs. This one clearly shows that Youth Unemployment has gone DOWN in every EU country shown. Why was it so high before? In 2008 a worldwide financial crisis brought growth to a halt, and years of recession followed. Which country has recovered best from this? From my reading it is Iceland, who had the guts to lock their bankers up, something the UK establishment would never consider.

 

I am also puzzled by the original post which appeared to be reacting to the idea that people got poorer judgement as they grew older. I don't think this idea was ever put forward in the first place. The age related comments were entirely about demographics and voting patterns, not about ability to analyze data and reach an informed decision.

 

Anyway if our children are not (As a group rather than individually) brighter than we are, what hope is there for the future. My son is brighter that I am, and I am perfectly happy about that. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

By UK law, bills passed by parliament aren't enshrined in law until the Queen signs them, and she could refuse to do so. It's a law that exists but is never exercised. If the Queen did exercise it, she would be within the law but it would bring the whole system crashing down and the likelihood is that the Queen wouldn't come out of it well.

 

It's the same sort of thing when politicians hold a referendum in which every single politician, right up to the Prime Minister, declare that the outcome of the vote will be respected and implemented. It doesn't matter if in law they can go back on their word and ignore the vote. To do so would be to bring the whole system crashing down. The politicians know this. That's why you won't hear any of them trotting out this "glorified opinion poll"  or "only advisory" nonsense.

Only the CONs 

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Only the CONs 

Only the CONs what?

41 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Only the CONs what?

Only David Cameron prior to the refendum stated and wrote "we will implement your decision"

 

Parliament was never bound in any way

 

I do not recall what was in the election manifestos, but they are not binding anyway, just intentions at the time. Just like "no more taxes"

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Only David Cameron prior to the refendum stated and wrote "we will implement your decision"

Why would anyone else have stated such a thing? Only Cameron was leading the country as head of the government. What would have been the point of Miliband saying "we will implement your decision"? How could he? He was in opposition.

 

Please point me in the direction of a single politician from any of the parties who made any sort of public statement along the lines of the referendum being a "glorified opinion poll" or "purely advisory", prior to the vote.

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Why would anyone else have stated such a thing? Only Cameron was leading the country as head of the government. What would have been the point of Miliband saying "we will implement your decision"? How could he? He was in opposition.

 

Please point me in the direction of a single politician from any of the parties who made any sort of public statement along the lines of the referendum being a "glorified opinion poll" or "purely advisory", prior to the vote.

Stop wriggling man!

 

Everyone knew that referendums are advisory only in the U.K. Unless stated otherwise

 

That is WHY a super majority was not specified

 

That is WHY Cameron felt it necessary to state that WE (the Government) and WE the CONs will implement what you decide. He had a majority remember.

 

Pariament was not bound to do anything.

 

FACTS

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

FACTS

You forgot you’re talking with Brexiteers. Red bus, anyone?

Stop wriggling man!
 
Everyone knew that referendums are advisory only in the U.K. Unless stated otherwise
 

You're the one that's wriggling and what you've done there is to flat out lie, because in a previous discussion on this "advisory" nonsense matter, you yourself when pressed to answer, conceded that at the time of the vote, you, (like everybody else in the country) did not consider that you were taking part in an opinion poll.

So who is this "everyone"?



Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

16 minutes ago, rixalex said:

 

You're the one that's wriggling and what you've done there is to flat out lie, because in a previous discussion on this "advisory" nonsense matter, you yourself when pressed to answer, conceded that at the time of the vote, you, (like everybody else in the country) did not consider that you were taking part in an opinion poll.

So who is this "everyone"?



Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

????

 

And that my friend is EXACTLY why we need a second referendum because NOBODY, including me, knew everything at the time. But we do now.

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

I rest my case

[emoji847]
 
And that my friend is EXACTLY why we need a second referendum because NOBODY, including me, knew everything at the time. But we do now.
 
Thank you for making my point.
 
I rest my case

So let's get this straight.

When you stated, "everyone knew referendums were advisory", what you really meant to say was, "nobody knew". OK. Par for the course.

And in spite of the fact that as far as everyone in the country was aware, the vote was to be respected and binding, as promised by the PM - a promise that wasn't contested by any other politician - the fact that it has now since been discovered that legally the vote need not be respected and can be ignored, you think that rather go with what was believed by everyone at the time, including yourself, it's better to just ignore it, since legally that is what CAN be done.

And this standpoint of yours has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the vote didn't go the way you wanted it to, and indeed even had remain won, here you would be arguing for the vote to be ignored.

Don't you ever have moments of clarity when you can actually hear what you're saying and realise what an embarrassment you're making of yourself with this stuff? You're 64. What happened to you?

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app