May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[AlexRich]

44 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Read it again. patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation was not mentioned. You are trying (poorly) to put words down that I have not said. I am also happy to be friends with our European neighbors I just don't believe that  the EU Brussels, should be telling the UK what to do, or the other EU countries come to that. Please don't use the race card, it is demining and in poor taste.

As for the UK has prospered within the EU, yes I agree, it has in some areas and in others it hasn't I am not against the French, Germans or any other EU country. It is the EU federalization that I am against. The whole concept of what the EU has become. There is a huge difference.

 

Xenophobia played no part in the vote? I watched numerous 'vox pop' interviews, one in Romford market was telling ... "send them back" ... "get rid of immigrants" ... type of comments were common. The poster about a Turkish invasion (interpret that as a 'muslim' invasion)? No need for me to play the race card, it was a prominent theme of the campaign ... some subtle and others not so. You speak for yourself, but just because it wasn't important to you don't presume that in others.

[AlexRich]

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Technically flawed, maybe, but the reality is that benefit fraud is a huge problem in UK - far moreso than in Germany (for example).  The UK does not police it's benefit system much at all, mostly going for soft targets -- but let's not continue that train of thought and focus on the means of getting Brexit done. 

 

As an aside - it is quite illuminating to see the disconnect between the technicalities of the various laws, regulations, etc -- and the people that promote them, and, on the other hand, what actually happens in the streets.   Basically, some people need to get out more

 

Benefit fraud is a problem, predominantly with UK passport holders.

 

[jpinx]

Just now, AlexRich said:

 

Benefit fraud is a problem, predominantly with UK passport holders.

 

 

Source of that information please ? :)

[rockingrobin]

44 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Terminology is tricky, but federalism would have been preferable to the mess the EU actually is. A federation of independent countries sharing trade, labour and other advantages but running their own affairs under skinny umbrella of federation.  What we actually got is an indescribable mess of beaurocracy held together by treaties which have no restrictions on the amount of future central governance.  Look to the USA where the resentment of the federal government is widespread and each state has considerable differences - even to the extent of the death penalty.  That could not happen in the EU as it exists today.

 

P.S. --  it'd also make Mr Tusk subject to election -- it'd be funny to see that play out,,,,,  

Mr Tusk was elected by the European Council

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Technically flawed, maybe, but the reality is that benefit fraud is a huge problem in UK - far moreso than in Germany (for example).  The UK does not police it's benefit system much at all, mostly going for soft targets -- but let's not continue that train of thought and focus on the means of getting Brexit done. 

 

As an aside - it is quite illuminating to see the disconnect between the technicalities of the various laws, regulations, etc -- and the people that promote them, and, on the other hand, what actually happens in the streets.   Basically, some people need to get out more

Re. the second para. - people nearly always meet similar people in their economic strata, so 'getting out more' wouldn't help.

 

But yes, I agree that politicians have completely lost touch with the electorate.  Hence the brexit vote.

[jpinx]

25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Mr Tusk was elected by the European Council

Which is *not* the electorate 

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

Which is *not* the electorate 

The European Council is the head of states of each member state, in the case of the UK the PM

[chiang mai]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes they did and I have said it many times. You disagree with me but I am one as many of my friends are. We wanted out. Still do and find the fact that people have the arrogance to tell us why and what we voted for. I do not tell you, if you voted to remain why, you did.

 

People voted to Brexit for different specific reasons, few of them being understood in terms of impact. Nobody in the country voted to leave at ANY cost apart from a handful of seriously troubled people.

[jpinx]

10 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

 

People voted to Brexit for different specific reasons, few of them being understood in terms of impact. Nobody in the country voted to leave at ANY cost apart from a handful of seriously troubled people.

 

Not at all -- the indications are that many people wanted out and didn't care about short term pain. This was part of the problem,  Camoron didn't see them either

[chiang mai]

14 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Not at all -- the indications are that many people wanted out and didn't care about short term pain. This was part of the problem,  Camoron didn't see them either

 

Give it a rest jp, only an imbecile would vote to leave at ANY cost and without knowing what that might entail, if for (extreme) example) it might include: loss of state pension, a reversion of tax rates to 90%, total loss of the NHS, would you vote for leave if you KNEW that was the cost!

Edited November 7, 2016 by chiang mai

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, chiang mai said:

 

Give it a rest jp, only an imbecile would vote to leave at ANY cost and without knowing what that might entail, if for (extreme) example) it might include: loss of state pension, a reversion of tax rates to 90%, total loss of the NHS, would you vote for leave if you KNEW that was the cost!

 

Perhaps you are unaware of the depth of resentment towards the EU .  The sort of hype you give as examples of consequences are typical of a dyed-in-the-wool Remainer and bear no relevance to the existence of a country outside the EU.  Given your projections one wonders how so many countries around the world manage to thrive without being a member of the EU. 

 

The discussion is moot in any case since the probability is that Brexit will happen with some kind of cobbled together trade agreement and maybe a properly structured immigration policy that UK will actually police properly.

Edited November 7, 2016 by jpinx

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Read it again. patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation was not mentioned. You are trying (poorly) to put words down that I have not said. I am also happy to be friends with our European neighbors I just don't believe that  the EU Brussels, should be telling the UK what to do, or the other EU countries come to that. Please don't use the race card, it is demining and in poor taste.

As for the UK has prospered within the EU, yes I agree, it has in some areas and in others it hasn't I am not against the French, Germans or any other EU country. It is the EU federalization that I am against. The whole concept of what the EU has become. There is a huge difference.

 

Then don't say the UK has been strangled by the EU. I posted a chart demonstrating that UK GDP has rocketed since we joined.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The free movement of labour is viewed in the UK as a detriment, the PM has a tendency to address the public's misconceptions as opposed to reality .

The following is a legal perspective of FOM

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html 

 

She will get her ear bent in India. Our visa regs have caused a massive fall in students. They are our fourth largest inward investor. They want UK in EU. Bonkers

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Then don't say the UK has been strangled by the EU. I posted a chart demonstrating that UK GDP has rocketed since we joined.

But you forget that the World Bank has consistently judged the UK to be one of the 10 easiest countries in which to do business. I think that's proof enough of the stranglehold that the EU has on Britain.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the second para. - people nearly always meet similar people in their economic strata, so 'getting out more' wouldn't help.

 

But yes, I agree that politicians have completely lost touch with the electorate.  Hence the brexit vote.

 

I don't know ANY Brexiteers 

[Orac]

 
She will get her ear bent in India. Our visa regs have caused a massive fall in students. They are our fourth largest inward investor. They want UK in EU. Bonkers

Not gone well - Tata couldn't even be bothered to meet her!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/u-k-and-india-s-migration-spat-hints-at-trade-woes-after-brexit

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

 

Not at all -- the indications are that many people wanted out and didn't care about short term pain. This was part of the problem,  Camoron didn't see them either

Please stop misspelling Cameron's  name. I find it distasteful.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

 

Not at all -- the indications are that many people wanted out and didn't care about short term pain. This was part of the problem,  Camoron didn't see them either

 

More likely did not understand the ramifications. Numpties!

[chiang mai]

27 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Perhaps you are unaware of the depth of resentment towards the EU .  The sort of hype you give as examples of consequences are typical of a dyed-in-the-wool Remainer and bear no relevance to the existence of a country outside the EU.  Given your projections one wonders how so many countries around the world manage to thrive without being a member of the EU. 

 

The discussion is moot in any case since the probability is that Brexit will happen with some kind of cobbled together trade agreement and maybe a properly structured immigration policy that UK will actually police properly.

 

Perhaps you should try and do more work in your office and stop wasting everyone's time with pedantic and inane responses geared towards temporarily relieving your boredom! Good bye jp.

[jimmybkk]

1 hour ago, chiang mai said:

 

Give it a rest jp, only an imbecile would vote to leave at ANY cost and without knowing what that might entail, if for (extreme) example) it might include: loss of state pension, a reversion of tax rates to 90%, total loss of the NHS, would you vote for leave if you KNEW that was the cost!

 

You've raised an interesting point - maybe people would still vote for leave if they knew this was the SHORT TERM cost of remaining and that the long term gains were more significant... At the next general election they could simply vote in a more capable government with more astute fiscal policies who would (hopefully) turn things around. But how about (to follow the lead of your extreme example) if the people didn't know it now, but it turned out that through EU legislation the impact of a vote to remain resulted in: loss of state pension, a reversion to tax rates of 90%, total loss of the NHS... what would be their recourse then?

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, jimmybkk said:

 

You've raised an interesting point - maybe people would still vote for leave if they knew this was the SHORT TERM cost of remaining and that the long term gains were more significant... At the next general election they could simply vote in a more capable government with more astute fiscal policies who would (hopefully) turn things around. But how about (to follow the lead of your extreme example) if the people didn't know it now, but it turned out that through EU legislation the impact of a vote to remain resulted in: loss of state pension, a reversion to tax rates of 90%, total loss of the NHS... what would be their recourse then?

 

If those things resulted from Remain there would always be the option to Brexit later. But if those things resulted from Brexit there would be what, an option to beg sink or swim later!

[jpinx]

52 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

More likely did not understand the ramifications. Numpties!

 

44 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

 

Perhaps you should try and do more work in your office and stop wasting everyone's time with pedantic and inane responses geared towards temporarily relieving your boredom! Good bye jp.

 

The discussion is about how to move forward and execute the will expressed by the referendum. The reflections on why or how people voted in or out are no longer important or relevant.  We know there will not be a 2nd referendum and we know that Art50 will be triggered as soon as the government sort out the mechanism. What is of considerable interest is how things will pan out whe one considers of the cold face of Tusk and his cohorts, and the warm reception promised around the world.  I have skin in this situation and it's been interesting to hear the commentary. Some is constructively looking forward and some is more along the lines of "what might have been".   For the benefit of growse -- Cameron *was* an arrogant moron.  No commercial director or manager would have made such a fundamental blunder as to not allow for both outcomes. He has cost many of us a lot of money because of his actions, but - like Blair and Clinton - he will probably do well on the lecture circuit.  I read somewhere that he's considering returning to politics in 2020 - -gawd help us!

 

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

 

The discussion is about how to move forward and execute the will expressed by the referendum. The reflections on why or how people voted in or out are no longer important or relevant.  We know there will not be a 2nd referendum and we know that Art50 will be triggered as soon as the government sort out the mechanism. What is of considerable interest is how things will pan out whe one considers of the cold face of Tusk and his cohorts, and the warm reception promised around the world.  I have skin in this situation and it's been interesting to hear the commentary. Some is constructively looking forward and some is more along the lines of "what might have been".   For the benefit of growse -- Cameron *was* an arrogant moron.  No commercial director or manager would have made such a fundamental blunder as to not allow for both outcomes. He has cost many of us a lot of money because of his actions, but - like Blair and Clinton - he will probably do well on the lecture circuit.  I read somewhere that he's considering returning to politics in 2020 - -gawd help us!

 

 

Why don't you just say what outcome you would like to see?

[jimmybkk]

50 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

 

If those things resulted from Remain there would always be the option to Brexit later. But if those things resulted from Brexit there would be what, an option to beg sink or swim later!

 

How can you know that there would have been an option to Brexit later if the British public had voted to remain now? There's no obligation nor requirement for future referendums as I understand it, so in the wake of a remain vote I can only imagine that those in power would be reciting rhetoric along the lines of: "We asked the public what they wanted in 2016 and they told us they wanted to remain, and so we shall follow their wishes... There is no need for another referendum... We know what the majority of the British people want..."

 

The last time there was a referendum such as this regarding whether the British public wanted to remain a part of the EEC (as it was then) was in 1975, 2 years after we joined (notably, there was no referendum beforehand about whether or not we wanted to join the EEC...). So should we expect the next referendum on this issue in 2057? Is that what you mean by "later"? Kinda too late by then if things have gone t!ts up in the meantime, if you ask me...

 

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

 

Why don't you just say what outcome you would like to see?

 

I was not so stupid as CamOron - I prepared for both outcomes, but I expected the  Brexit result to be moving along by now.  A remain result would have been a damp squib with no significant action needed for my situation.

 

 

 

 

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

 

How can you know that there would have been an option to Brexit later if the British public had voted to remain now? There's no obligation nor requirement for future referendums as I understand it, so in the wake of a remain vote I can only imagine that those in power would be reciting rhetoric along the lines of: "We asked the public what they wanted in 2016 and they told us they wanted to remain, and so we shall follow their wishes... There is no need for another referendum... We know what the majority of the British people want..."

 

The last time there was a referendum such as this regarding whether the British public wanted to remain a part of the EEC (as it was then) was in 1975, 2 years after we joined (notably, there was no referendum beforehand about whether or not we wanted to join the EEC...). So should we expect the next referendum on this issue in 2057? Is that what you mean by "later"? Kinda too late by then if things have gone t!ts up in the meantime, if you ask me...

 

 

Given the history of referendums (dae?) in UK two things are clear -- there's been very few and they've always been held for internal party political reasons.  If the government was truly representing the people, there'd be no need for them because the MP's would be reflecting the consensus of his constituents wishes anyway, allowing the normal process of motion, debate, vote, enactment to create the laws we collectively want. 

 

There's two reasons this does not happen -- one is because the party political system actually stifles the feed of opinion from constituent to MP for all but the constituents who are party stalwarts. Secondly we have a government in Westminster that is subservient to the EU and we can not make the laws we want.

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

I was not so stupid as CamOron - I prepared for both outcomes, but I expected the  Brexit result to be moving along by now.  A remain result would have been a damp squib with no significant action needed for my situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that doesn't tell us much. Don't be shy. What do you want personally, for you and your family? What do you want for your business?

[jpinx]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Well that doesn't tell us much. Don't be shy. What do you want personally, for you and your family? What do you want for your business?

 

Personal information is generally not put on public forums.

[AlexRich]

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

Source of that information please ? :)

 

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

Source of that information please ? :)

 

Source ... common sense ... how many people in the UK with disabled badges that are not disabled? Immigrants are a small proportion of the total, but get more publicity.

[jimmybkk]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

Well that doesn't tell us much. Don't be shy. What do you want personally, for you and your family? What do you want for your business?

 

I think he got what he wanted - a vote for Brexit.

 

You would clearly have preferred to see a remain outcome, which would have resulted in Cammo continuing as our CiC, and Ozzie continuing as the numbers man. Given that when the chips were down and it became apparent that they were (somewhat amazingly) completely and utterly unprepared for the eventual outcome of the referendum called by Cammo, rather than stick around... accept the decision of the people... and deal with the outcome... they both made an extremely hasty beeline for the exits...

 

And yet these jokers are who you would want to be running Britain now, yes? I would love to hear what character traits you feel they possess that makes you think they are so right for the job...