May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[SheungWan]

14 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Normally I couldn't be bothered to reply as I have just been for my walk in the village talking to the peasants, but just for you......

 

The United Kingdom is a country that includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island.  Its official name is “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” 

https://www.infoplease.com/world/world-geography/difference-between-uk-great-britain-england-and-british-isles

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

https://www.thoughtco.com/united-kingdom-great-britain-and-england-1435711

Although the UK is treated as a single country it is actually a United Kingdom which muddies the waters somewhat. Politically the separate countries have historically been a single entity for a long time, but devolution has shaken the bonds which link the countries together (the wikipedia link is the more useful here) and the more recent (and not so recent) demands of Scotland for independence even more bring into focus that the United Kingdom is in its concept a historically moving feast. Think also about the history of Ireland and particularly Northern Ireland to know that even definitions of countries within the UK are not set in stone. OK, maybe the Stone Of Scone.

[Flustered]

I'll take that as a retraction and climb down if rather long winded.

[SheungWan]

22 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I'll take that as a retraction and climb down if rather long winded.

No.

[SheungWan]

Brexit talks may collapse amid government divisions suggests Vince Cable: http://tinyurl.com/yas67dvw

 

[Flustered]

54 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Brexit talks may collapse amid government divisions suggests Vince Cable: http://tinyurl.com/yas67dvw

 

A brilliant man whose mind has been warped by LibDem beliefs and values.

 

If only he could focus on the real world instead of his flakey LibDem one.

[SheungWan]

Brexit supporting Viscount looking at jail time for racist abuse: http://tinyurl.com/yapwarym

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Brexit talks may collapse amid government divisions suggests Vince Cable: http://tinyurl.com/yas67dvw

 

I like Vince!

[onthesoi]

56 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Brexit supporting Viscount looking at jail time for racist abuse: http://tinyurl.com/yapwarym

 

Not all Brexiters are racist, but almost all racists are Brexiteers.

Edited July 12, 2017 by onthesoi

[pitrevie]

9 hours ago, Flustered said:

Wow, what an ego you have. You consider yourself so above everyone. no wonder you have trouble understanding the basics of the EEC and EU.

 

In case your memory is giving you trouble, let me remind you of the wording of the referendum.

 

""Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" 

 

See, nothing about a political union so don't tell me that it was obvious that the "founding fathers" always meant this or that. There were no "founding fathers" just a bunch of politicians looking out for their own interests. There was no future of the European Union put forward to the general public, the Government with the blessing of all sides just took us deeper in without asking for approval.And as for parliamentary democracy, if no option is given, it is not democracy, it is dictatorship. The British public were never given the chance to vote against it until this last referendum.

 

I think you need to read up a bit more as you clearly have no case to put forward and your responses are not worthy of debate.

For some reason you gloss over the parts where you are telling me that I don't understand and then proceed to lecture me on what took place as if you are some authority on the matter.

You have claimed erroneously that the British people never gave permission for the formation of the EU when that is clearly not the case. In each amendment to the Treaty of Rome the British people have signalled their approval through Parliament.

Of course political union was not on the ballot paper just like expanding the EEC to 28 members wasn't on the ballot paper.

Where on the ballot paper of the present referendum does it explain what sort of Brexit should take place?

Even good old Nigel offered several explanations, the Norway option etc so what exactly apart from leaving the EU did the British people vote on?

In fact as we have seen TM put her version of Brexit to the British people and got a bloody nose.

I have made this observation several times, you seem to dislike Parliamentary democracy. The British people have always expressed their approval in the way they have done for some 400 years and that is through the ballot box at general elections, referendums have never formed a part of that approval. 

When I tell you that you lack understanding apparently my ego is on display. Try re-reading your first and last sentences. Apparently its okay for you to state that others lack understanding of the issues, no case to put forward, not worthy of debate. As I said in an earlier post you appear to consider yourself an authority on the matter when you are clearly not.

 

 

[jpinx]

14 hours ago, pitrevie said:

And apparently they occupy the same building have the same members  and additional new members. Its like a company that changes its name, because it encompasses new areas of expertise. 

 

Britain's membership of what was then primarily an economic union came into effect on 1 January 1973. Since then the Community has developed into a much broader entity, the European Union, which was formally created by the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992. The terms of Britain's agreement to the Treaty received parliamentary approval in the European Communities (Amendment) Act of 1993, and the Union came into force in November 1993.

 

I take it that you are not in favour of parliamentary democracy as the establishment of the EU was agreed to by the UK  and received Parliamentary approval. 

 

It is now of course for the next generation to demand a third referendum on the subject which will take us back into the EU.

 

As for gravy trains I don't think legislators have ever needed the EU to lead the way there.

I don't like the UK's version of parliamentary democracy, but it's what exists and it is what we must use to change the FPTP system of confrontational politics into something much more inclusive -- something that allows the UK to grow out of it's apparent need to be at loggerheads with itself, as is reflected by posters in this and other forums.  In the same way as the EU desperately needs to reform from withing, so does the UK.  This process will be resisted strongly by the beaurocrats it employs, not to mention the sitting, elected members, both of which groups would potentially lose personal benefits in such an upheaval.

 

There is considerable precedent for UK to be a member of one of the  european trading blocks - as is shown here....

...

 

[pitrevie]

27 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I don't like the UK's version of parliamentary democracy, but it's what exists and it is what we must use to change the FPTP system of confrontational politics into something much more inclusive -- something that allows the UK to grow out of it's apparent need to be at loggerheads with itself, as is reflected by posters in this and other forums.  In the same way as the EU desperately needs to reform from withing, so does the UK.  This process will be resisted strongly by the beaurocrats it employs, not to mention the sitting, elected members, both of which groups would potentially lose personal benefits in such an upheaval.

 

There is considerable precedent for UK to be a member of one of the  european trading blocks - as is shown here....

...

 

Like most Parliamentary systems the UK system is far from perfect  but in the past 400 years it has evolved just like many others.

Unfortunately the electorate rejected changing from FPTP to the alternative but that is the problem with referendums the more complex the issue the less likely it is that anyone will bother to inform themselves and that was just a simple either or issue.

Do you know of anyone who has read the Lisbon treaty, or for that matter has even heard of the Lisbon treaty and yet there are those who demanded a referendum and its a good guess that they too have never read it.

Or how about the SEA or the Maastricht Treaty.

Sure they may know a few headline grabbing facts that have been highlighted for them in the Daily Mail but that is the sole extent.

 

I think Churchill got it right.

 

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." 

 

Sadly in recent years we see less and less participation and before the blame gets placed elsewhere I think its more to do with the fact that most people cannot be bothered. 

 

Personally I would like to see a compulsory voting system where you get fined if you don't carry out your civic duty and of course within that system is the option to spoil the ballot paper which takes care of the often offered excuse from the lazy Joes.

 

 

[jpinx]

Amongst other aspects of the EU's  "Bye-Bye-Brexit" project  Mr Barnier said  that the British position does not allow those persons concerned to continue to live their lives as they do today, but he fails to define the changes to which he refers.  He also said that the European Court of Justice must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizen's rights.  He was quoted as saying "We want EU citizens in Britain to have the same rights as British citizens who live in the EU", but he fails to realise that UK citizens in Germany have a different set of laws to those in Greece (for example)  Each EU country has it's own law-book.  He goes on to say something about that requiring the ECJ to be the "ultimate guarantor" of those rights,  because Britain could simply change its laws later. -- thereby demonstrating his gross over-simplification of the EU as it currently stands. 

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

Amongst other aspects of the EU's  "Bye-Bye-Brexit" project  Mr Barnier said  that the British position does not allow those persons concerned to continue to live their lives as they do today, but he fails to define the changes to which he refers.  He also said that the European Court of Justice must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizen's rights.  He was quoted as saying "We want EU citizens in Britain to have the same rights as British citizens who live in the EU", but he fails to realise that UK citizens in Germany have a different set of laws to those in Greece (for example)  Each EU country has it's own law-book.  He goes on to say something about that requiring the ECJ to be the "ultimate guarantor" of those rights,  because Britain could simply change its laws later. -- thereby demonstrating his gross over-simplification of the EU as it currently stands. 

 

 

So you say German law, Greek law and, presumably, UK law has supremacy of the ECJ? If so, how does Brexit solve the disquiet of supremacy of laws?

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Like most Parliamentary systems the UK system is far from perfect  but in the past 400 years it has evolved just like many others.

Unfortunately the electorate rejected changing from FPTP to the alternative but that is the problem with referendums the more complex the issue the less likely it is that anyone will bother to inform themselves and that was just a simple either or issue.

Do you know of anyone who has read the Lisbon treaty, or for that matter has even heard of the Lisbon treaty and yet there are those who demanded a referendum and its a good guess that they too have never read it.

Or how about the SEA or the Maastricht Treaty.

Sure they may know a few headline grabbing facts that have been highlighted for them in the Daily Mail but that is the sole extent.

 

I think Churchill got it right.

 

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." 

 

Sadly in recent years we see less and less participation and before the blame gets placed elsewhere I think its more to do with the fact that most people cannot be bothered. 

 

Personally I would like to see a compulsory voting system where you get fined if you don't carry out your civic duty and of course within that system is the option to spoil the ballot paper which takes care of the often offered excuse from the lazy Joes.

 

 

"Personally I would like to see a compulsory voting system where you get fined if you don't carry out your civic duty and of course within that system is the option to spoil the ballot paper which takes care of the often offered excuse from the lazy Joes."

 

A compulsory voting system would work far more effectively if there was an option for 'none of the above'.

 

It would concentrate politicians minds and actions far more effectively than 'spoiling' the ballot paper as a protest vote - which politicians can easily pretend was down to many voters making an accidental mistake when voting.....

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

I don't like the UK's version of parliamentary democracy, but it's what exists and it is what we must use to change the FPTP system of confrontational politics into something much more inclusive -- something that allows the UK to grow out of it's apparent need to be at loggerheads with itself, as is reflected by posters in this and other forums.  In the same way as the EU desperately needs to reform from withing, so does the UK.  This process will be resisted strongly by the beaurocrats it employs, not to mention the sitting, elected members, both of which groups would potentially lose personal benefits in such an upheaval.

 

There is considerable precedent for UK to be a member of one of the  european trading blocks - as is shown here....

...

 

I just noticed the UK GDP figure of 2,850 Billion USD! I'll wager it's less now with the reduced value of Sterling.

 

Then I came across this

 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/qna

 

This is a GDP volume chain series which effectively strips out inflation. Looks good to me!

 

If in ain't broke, let's spend huge amounts of time and treasure to damage it ?

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Like most Parliamentary systems the UK system is far from perfect  but in the past 400 years it has evolved just like many others.

Unfortunately the electorate rejected changing from FPTP to the alternative but that is the problem with referendums the more complex the issue the less likely it is that anyone will bother to inform themselves and that was just a simple either or issue.

Do you know of anyone who has read the Lisbon treaty, or for that matter has even heard of the Lisbon treaty and yet there are those who demanded a referendum and its a good guess that they too have never read it.

Or how about the SEA or the Maastricht Treaty.

Sure they may know a few headline grabbing facts that have been highlighted for them in the Daily Mail but that is the sole extent.

 

I think Churchill got it right.

 

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." 

 

Sadly in recent years we see less and less participation and before the blame gets placed elsewhere I think its more to do with the fact that most people cannot be bothered. 

 

Personally I would like to see a compulsory voting system where you get fined if you don't carry out your civic duty and of course within that system is the option to spoil the ballot paper which takes care of the often offered excuse from the lazy Joes.

 

 

Astonishing that PR did not get approved. I guess it was the particular type proposed or more likely, Joe Public just didn't understand.

 

I think coalitions work just fine and would encourage much more positive discourse. FPTP is much too polarising and excludes minorities like me!

[Flustered]

7 hours ago, pitrevie said:

For some reason you gloss over the parts where you are telling me that I don't understand and then proceed to lecture me on what took place as if you are some authority on the matter.

You have claimed erroneously that the British people never gave permission for the formation of the EU when that is clearly not the case. In each amendment to the Treaty of Rome the British people have signalled their approval through Parliament.

 

 

My last attempt at trying to get through to you.

 

Expanding the number of members is not the same as changing the details of the treaty. This is more serious than changing a governments manifesto while in power as it brings new acts and responsibilities into UK law.

 

As all parties (the formation of UKIP an exception) wanted to stay in the new EU which turned out to be against the British publics wish, we had no say in the matter.....dictatorship not democracy.

 

UKIP won a resounding victory in the MEP elections and then went on to force a referendum. They have done their job and have the British public's thanks.

 

You on the other hand will never see any view but your own so further debate is pointless. And yes, I have been persuaded to see a different point of view in the past on forums when FM's have sensibly made their case.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Flustered

[Flustered]

51 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Astonishing that PR did not get approved. I guess it was the particular type proposed or more likely, Joe Public just didn't understand.

 

I think coalitions work just fine and would encourage much more positive discourse. FPTP is much too polarising and excludes minorities like me!

You are aware that PR would have given UKIP a huge number of seats in the UK Parliament and silenced the Greens.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Flustered said:

You are aware that PR would have given UKIP a huge number of seats in the UK Parliament and silenced the Greens.

And would have more accurately represented the whole population in parliament! Correct!

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-general-election-in-five-graphs

 

Under PR, I doubt the CONs would have been able to form a government

 

Also, voting would have been radically different I believe...

Edited July 13, 2017 by Grouse

[ilostmypassword]

31 minutes ago, Flustered said:

You are aware that PR would have given UKIP a huge number of seats in the UK Parliament and silenced the Greens.

If I read correctly the chart that grouse linked to it looks like they would have had 13-14 seats. Not exactly huge.

[beautifulthailand99]

35 minutes ago, Flustered said:

My last attempt at trying to get through to you.

 

Expanding the number of members is not the same as changing the details of the treaty. This is more serious than changing a governments manifesto while in power as it brings new acts and responsibilities into UK law.

 

As all parties (the formation of UKIP an exception) wanted to stay in the new EU which turned out to be against the British publics wish, we had no say in the matter.....dictatorship not democracy.

 

UKIP won a resounding victory in the MEP elections and then went on to force a referendum. They have done their job and have the British public's thanks.

 

You on the other hand will never see any view but your own so further debate is pointless. And yes, I have been persuaded to see a different point of view in the past on forums when FM's have sensibly made their case.

 

Not my British thanks , not in my name.

[pitrevie]

3 minutes ago, Flustered said:

My last attempt at trying to get through to you.

 

Expanding the number of members is not the same as changing the details of the treaty. This is more serious than changing a governments manifesto while in power as it brings new acts and responsibilities into UK law.

 

As all parties (the formation of UKIP an exception) wanted to stay in the new EU which turned out to be against the British publics wish, we had no say in the matter.....dictatorship not democracy.

 

UKIP won a resounding victory in the MEP elections and then went on to force a referendum. They have done their job and have the British public's thanks.

 

You on the other hand will never see any view but your own so further debate is pointless. And yes, I have been persuaded to see a different point of view in the past on forums when FM shave sensibly made their case.

Your last sentence sums you up admirably but you just cant see it. You persuaded to see another point of view I hardly think so judging from your posts on this subject or if you did it must have been a very minor matter.

 

 UKIP winning a so called resounding victory in MEP elections they in fact won 24 seats compared to Labour's 20 and the Tories 19  was only of marginal impact since the place where referendums are initiated are in the UK Parliament and UKIP's representation there was just 1. It was Cameron with his fear of the hard right in his own party that was the deciding factor in holding a referendum. 

As Farage said there was no need for him to stand at the last election as the Tory Party under May had adopted all the UKIP policies and what happened, UKIP got wiped out and the Tory hard Brexit was given a bloody nose and resoundingly rejected.

I gave expanding the number of countries as an example in how the EEC has evolved and I expect in 20 years from now we will see more changes and maybe even a change of name but it will be the same organisation still in the same building in the same city that has its roots in the Schuman Plan when six countries signed a treaty to run their heavy industries – coal and steel – under a common management. Nothing to do with A Common Market even.

Building on the success of the Coal and Steel Treaty, the six countries expand cooperation to other economic sectors. They sign the Treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘ common market’. The idea is for people, goods and services to move freely across borders.

Just based on that little history is it any surprise that Thatcher signed the SEA or that the natural progression for a single market was a single currency?

[Flustered]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If I read correctly the chart that grouse linked to it looks like they would have had 13-14 seats. Not exactly huge.

82 seats in the 2015 election.

https://www.indy100.com/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional-voting-system--gJenQmaW2gW

 

And I give thanks daily to all of the Gods that we do not live in pitrevie's little whining sour grapes world. A feeling shared by many FMs on TVF.

 

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Astonishing that PR did not get approved. I guess it was the particular type proposed or more likely, Joe Public just didn't understand.

 

I think coalitions work just fine and would encourage much more positive discourse. FPTP is much too polarising and excludes minorities like me!

Agreed on both counts - PR has so many formats it would need to be a well thought out system and presented to a well-educated public.   Coalitions are just a poor mans PR system, but could possibly be a good stepping stone to some PR thing that works for UK.

 

That's two counts of agreeing with Grouse -- I think I'll go and lie down now,,,,,, 

 

 

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, Flustered said:

82 seats in the 2015 election.

https://www.indy100.com/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportional-voting-system--gJenQmaW2gW

 

And I give thanks daily to all of the Gods that we do not live in pitrevie's little whining sour grapes world. A feeling shared by many FMs on TVF.

 

Nor in yours constantly whining about how the last election was lost by May thanks to all those students especially the ones living in Kennsington and Chelsea.

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Your last sentence sums you up admirably but you just cant see it. You persuaded to see another point of view I hardly think so judging from your posts on this subject or if you did it must have been a very minor matter.

 

 UKIP winning a so called resounding victory in MEP elections they in fact won 24 seats compared to Labour's 20 and the Tories 19  was only of marginal impact since the place where referendums are initiated are in the UK Parliament and UKIP's representation there was just 1. It was Cameron with his fear of the hard right in his own party that was the deciding factor in holding a referendum. 

As Farage said there was no need for him to stand at the last election as the Tory Party under May had adopted all the UKIP policies and what happened, UKIP got wiped out and the Tory hard Brexit was given a bloody nose and resoundingly rejected.

I gave expanding the number of countries as an example in how the EEC has evolved and I expect in 20 years from now we will see more changes and maybe even a change of name but it will be the same organisation still in the same building in the same city that has its roots in the Schuman Plan when six countries signed a treaty to run their heavy industries – coal and steel – under a common management. Nothing to do with A Common Market even.

Building on the success of the Coal and Steel Treaty, the six countries expand cooperation to other economic sectors. They sign the Treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘ common market’. The idea is for people, goods and services to move freely across borders.

Just based on that little history is it any surprise that Thatcher signed the SEA or that the natural progression for a single market was a single currency?

Agree with most of what you say, but no, the natural progression for a single market was not a single currency.  Not without fiscal union. It made no sense and most economists, at least in the USA, from left to right, put their finger right on the problem. In Europe it was backed on the basis of emotionalism and a right wing desire to limit deficit spending.

[Flustered]

Has anyone thought how ridiculous Barnier's demands are regarding EU citizens rights in the UK?

 

He wants the EU citizens to have the same rights (laws) as UK citizens in the EU. That is exactly the same as saying an American living in the UK comes under American law. Could you imagine a situation where Barnier would agree to UK citizens in the EU coming under UK law or UK citizens in America coming under UK law. OK we can guarantee that....EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU come under UK law. Problem solved, equal rights.

 

Plain bonkers. You live under the laws of the country you live in. That is the same the whole world over.

 

And this man is the EU's chief negotiator. Makes you cringe.

[pitrevie]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Agree with most of what you say, but no, the natural progression for a single market was not a single currency.  Not without fiscal union. It made no sense and most economists, at least in the USA, from left to right, put their finger right on the problem. In Europe it was backed on the basis of emotionalism and a right wing desire to limit deficit spending.

well there we can agree to differ and I appreciate the problems that have been experienced with the single currency but if you have a single market then a single currency makes sense. In fact I was watching a German Industrialist (that should annoy Flustered) who was making that very point about working with the single currency.

[Flustered]

1 minute ago, pitrevie said:

well there we can agree to differ and I appreciate the problems that have been experienced with the single currency but if you have a single market then a single currency makes sense. In fact I was watching a German Industrialist (that should annoy Flustered) who was making that very point about working with the single currency.

Glad you are watching other sources on information other than the Indi or the Guardian.

 

But to show the fault in your logic, this would mean any trade agreement between countries that creates a single market should have a single currency. Unworkable.

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

well there we can agree to differ and I appreciate the problems that have been experienced with the single currency but if you have a single market then a single currency makes sense. In fact I was watching a German Industrialist (that should annoy Flustered) who was making that very point about working with the single currency.

Why does it make sense? If a country can't devalue it's currency or if a currency can't float upwards, it makes economic adjustments vastly more difficult. What exactly does it accomplish? Only if you have a fiscal union where transfer payments can be made from richer regions to poorer would it even remotely make sense. The arguments in favor of it are either emotional or just silly. Like it was so difficult to convert kroner into deutschmarks.