UK government Brexit bill defeated again

[hawker9000]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, Grouse said:

I did try to be polite to you

 

BUT you, like most Brexiteers are resistant to any points raised

 

We have already done to death the point that remainers correlate closely with higher education and U am not going to revisit that.

 

No, the point is that there have been a series of people giving quite erudite explanations as to why they are pro remain

 

From the Brexiteers, all we hear is "the will of the people"

 

I sorry you don't see this anomaly 

 

Finally, Hitler came to power democratically with great support from the masses

 

Actually, Hitler came to power through appointment (by Hindenburg), and not really democratically.  In the 1932 elections, he won only 30% of the vote in the first round, and I think about 36% in the 2nd.   So I have to imagine that what you're arguing for here is some sort of nullification of the majority vote by "appointment" by these "intellectuals" you keep prating about. 

 

I presume this preoccupation with half truths explains your bromance with Dawkins, the "erudition" you're so keen on, and your OWN resistance to "points raised".

 

Like I said, Pfffffft.

 

 

[pitrevie]

15 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Actually, Hitler came to power through appointment (by Hindenburg), and not really democratically.  In the 1932 elections, he won only 30% of the vote in the first round, and I think about 36% in the 2nd.   So I have to imagine that what you're arguing for here is some sort of nullification of the majority vote by "appointment" by these "intellectuals" you keep prating about. 

 

I presume this preoccupation with half truths explains your bromance with Dawkins, the "erudition" you're so keen on, and your OWN resistance to "points raised".

 

Like I said, Pfffffft.

 

 

You are quite right and of course Churchill was also appointed by HM the King and the first general election he fought to confirm that position he lost by a landslide. In fact the present incumbent in the U.K. Is also an appointed position we do not elect PMs and once appointed the PM has the power to appoint every other position in the government. Perhaps the EU should follow the same model and then it would be regarded as more democratic.

[teatree]

On 08/03/2017 at 10:59 AM, Grouse said:

1) The Con Party are strangely gleeful and united about Brexit when before a majority were pro remain. Why?

 

2) The Con Party are strangely reluctant to protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK because they fear it might not be reciprocated. Why?

 

3) The Con Party do not wish parliament to have the final say. Why?

 

It's because they intend to undermine the EU and European social democracy by turning the U.K. Into a low cost, low tax, low service off shore economy.

 

This will be terrible for most U.K. Citizens but great for companies and shareholders. They want to attract manufacturing by offering very low corporation tax. 

 

What will that do for UK health and education and society generally? Increased inequality, reduced health care, poorer education.

 

There will be a two tier school system for the masses: grammar schools and crap schools. 

 

This is NOT the kind of UK I want ?

3) ANS - Because if the UK parliament gets a veto on the final deal the risk is that the UK will be offered the worst possible deal after the longest possible negotiation period.  The EU could do this in the hope that the UK parliament would veto the deal, delaying the whole process and increasing the chance of another referendum.

 

If the executive has the power to agree to any deal then the EU would have to accept that Brexit IS going to happen and is more likely to offer a better deal. 

 

Also, going into a negotiation it is important for the parties involved to have the authority to make decisions.  If the UK negotiators do not have that and have to go back to parliament to approve everything then it makes the whole process a farce.  (I understand that this is the farcical system the EU uses and is why a trade deal with Canada took seven years and was at one point stalled because the Belgian regional parliament of Wallonia refused to pass it!   Absolutely absurd.  Europe is a continent, not a country)

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, teatree said:

3) ANS - Because if the UK parliament gets a veto on the final deal the risk is that the UK will be offered the worst possible deal after the longest possible negotiation period.  The EU could do this in the hope that the UK parliament would veto the deal, delaying the whole process and increasing the chance of another referendum.

 

If the executive has the power to agree to any deal then the EU would have to accept that Brexit IS going to happen and is more likely to offer a better deal. 

 

Also, going into a negotiation it is important for the parties involved to have the authority to make decisions.  If the UK negotiators do not have that and have to go back to parliament to approve everything then it makes the whole process a farce.  (I understand that this is the farcical system the EU uses and is why a trade deal with Canada took seven years and was at one point stalled because the Belgian regional parliament of Wallonia refused to pass it!   Absolutely absurd.  Europe is a continent, not a country)

It's a matter of trust

 

I for one do NOT trust the Con Party to act in the "best interest" of the UK generally rather than just line their own pockets. Parliament MUST reserve the right to endorse or otherwise. 

 

You folks obviously dont see the risk. Sad but not surprising

 

I always used board approval as a negotiating lever. I never found it to be an impediment. 

 

Signing subject to endorsment by parliament is entirely reasonable.

 

I'm glad you have no objections to (1) & (2)

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Actually, Hitler came to power through appointment (by Hindenburg), and not really democratically.  In the 1932 elections, he won only 30% of the vote in the first round, and I think about 36% in the 2nd.   So I have to imagine that what you're arguing for here is some sort of nullification of the majority vote by "appointment" by these "intellectuals" you keep prating about. 

 

I presume this preoccupation with half truths explains your bromance with Dawkins, the "erudition" you're so keen on, and your OWN resistance to "points raised".

 

Like I said, Pfffffft.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power

 

Well we're getting into semantics (not semitics) here. You are literally correct but the Nazi party rose to power through the electoral process.

 

The point I was making ( and beginning to wish I had not bothered) is that so many very bright people are not in the Brexit camp. No body is trying to undermine Brexit, BUT, I would like to see the Con Party dirty scheme undermined. It's a pity you people can't see it ?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Actually, Hitler came to power through appointment (by Hindenburg), and not really democratically.  In the 1932 elections, he won only 30% of the vote in the first round, and I think about 36% in the 2nd.   So I have to imagine that what you're arguing for here is some sort of nullification of the majority vote by "appointment" by these "intellectuals" you keep prating about. 

 

I presume this preoccupation with half truths explains your bromance with Dawkins, the "erudition" you're so keen on, and your OWN resistance to "points raised".

 

Like I said, Pfffffft.

 

 

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

 

What a crap estuary expression

 

If I agree with the intellectual ideas of another male I am having a Bro - Romance?

 

moronic

[3NUMBAS]

On 07/03/2017 at 11:35 PM, daveAustin said:

Time to abolish the Lords. A bloated, anachronistic bunch of unelected snobs that have very little connection with ordinary people and the will of ordinary people.

There's a petition going to abolish these old gits 

[3NUMBAS]

May will ignore the remoaners and trigger the 50 next week and they can kiss her rear

[JAG]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

I don't mind you butting in to this conversation but please don't deflect.

 

This started with a piece by Dawkins who of course is anti Brexit.

 

I just commented that it appears a majority of really bright people are not in the Brexiteer camp.

 

Why is that?

 

Now democracy across EU is less than perfect we know; though it is not as extreme as you claim.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/20/eu-democratic-deficit

 

You think it is a deflection?

 

You asked a question in a thread which has , as a "leitmotif" the theory (which you seem to openly subscribe to) that those who favour the UK leaving the EU are "not very bright"

 

Said view is patently laughable, rather along the lines of "all black men can run fast"; it is also rather offensive actually to the many of us who have clear reasoned views (even if you do not share them) on why the UK should leave.  So I thought, and still do, that  a mocking reply was appropriate.

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, JAG said:

You think it is a deflection?

 

You asked a question in a thread which has , as a "leitmotif" the theory (which you seem to openly subscribe to) that those who favour the UK leaving the EU are "not very bright"

 

Said view is patently laughable, rather along the lines of "all black men can run fast"; it is also rather offensive actually to the many of us who have clear reasoned views (even if you do not share them) on why the UK should leave.  So I thought, and still do, that  a mocking reply was appropriate.

OK, Eeyore,

 

I did not say what you claim

 

I just made the obvious point that it at least appears that most very bright people are not pro Brexit unless they see that they can make an easy buck.

 

Why is that?

 

Now you, sir, are obviously an outlier; clearly knowledgeable and bright but now pro Brexit. It's the exception that proves the rule eh!

 

I appreciate a well engineered mocking response ?

[teatree]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's a matter of trust

 

I for one do NOT trust the Con Party to act in the "best interest" of the UK generally rather than just line their own pockets. Parliament MUST reserve the right to endorse or otherwise. 

 

You folks obviously dont see the risk. Sad but not surprising

 

I always used board approval as a negotiating lever. I never found it to be an impediment. 

 

Signing subject to endorsment by parliament is entirely reasonable.

 

I'm glad you have no objections to (1) & (2)

I do see the risk.  I am not a Conservative supporter and have never voted for them.

 

But I also see not giving the government the power to make a deal as an even greater risk.  The UK needs to get out ASAP so that we can get on with making trade deals across the globe.  The longer we are in limbo the more it will hurt the UK.  I see the amendment by the Lords as a cynical attempt to derail the whole Brexit process.

 

Not sure what you meant by saying that they would line their own pockets rather act in the best interests of the UK.  Can you be more specific?

[teatree]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

OK, Eeyore,

 

I did not say what you claim

 

I just made the obvious point that it at least appears that most very bright people are not pro Brexit unless they see that they can make an easy buck.

 

Why is that?

 

Now you, sir, are obviously an outlier; clearly knowledgeable and bright but now pro Brexit. It's the exception that proves the rule eh!

 

I appreciate a well engineered mocking response ?

What do you mean by saying that most bright people voted against Brexit?  Is this opinion anecdotal or is it because more graduates voted for remain?

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, teatree said:

I do see the risk.  I am not a Conservative supporter and have never voted for them.

 

But I also see not giving the government the power to make a deal as an even greater risk.  The UK needs to get out ASAP so that we can get on with making trade deals across the globe.  The longer we are in limbo the more it will hurt the UK.  I see the amendment by the Lords as a cynical attempt to derail the whole Brexit process.

 

Not sure what you meant by saying that they would line their own pockets rather act in the best interests of the UK.  Can you be more specific?

Yes, I fear that many of the Con Party right wing have no desire to "do a deal" with the EU. The master plan is to get out and then undermine European social democracy by turning the UK into a low tax, low rent, low service economy by slashing corporation tax to say 10%. This would be great for the few and terrible for the majority. If this is indeed the aim, it explains much of their recent anomalous behaviour.

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, teatree said:

What do you mean by saying that most bright people voted against Brexit?  Is this opinion anecdotal or is it because more graduates voted for remain?

I think it has already been established that there is a strong correlation between remainers and education level.

 

But, this is something different. I observe that the vast majority of the very bright seem to be anti Brexit. It's just my observation. Feel free to shoot me down with examples refuting that...

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

17 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Great so what do we do from now on when we negotiate treaties with numerous countries? Should we hold a referendum every time we negotiate a new treaty or even when there is some change to an existing treaty as with Lisbon, Maastricht etc?

Then if our representatives don't read what they are signing up to and people like Thatcher fundamentally don't understand what they are signing then how on earth is Joe public going to make an informed decision when it's down to him to decide. I guess we will all have to rely on the Daily Hail to tell us which way to vote I am certain their leader writers will be wading through these issues so as to better inform us. 

As Churchill often said democracy is the worst form of government but it's better than all the rest. 

I like the Churchill quote.

You need to read my post again: I didn't suggest we have a referendum on every decision, but sometimes there is a big enough question that demands the electorate decide. What I said was, we had been promised a referendum on the EU treaties several times, and didn't get one. I also pointed out the civil service advisors and the elected few tasked with our welfare don't always get it right.

All the daily papers have an agenda, but a Free Press is an essential part of a working democracy.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

15 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Alan Sugar said that quitting the EU would be a massive mistake and the British people 'mugs' if they voted to leave.

Yes I know, that was my point...

[SheungWan]

Pound drops against doomed Euro.

 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

12 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Pound drops against doomed Euro.

 

 

Where is the total financial collapse we were told would happen by the remain side?

If you have something to say get on with it I have better things to do.

The Thai baht is 43 to the pound today, I know that too.

[Dagnabbit]

I think it has already been established that there is a strong correlation between remainers and education level.
 
But, this is something different. I observe that the vast majority of the very bright seem to be anti Brexit. It's just my observation. Feel free to shoot me down with examples refuting that...

Casual relationships do not prove causation.

You can show a relationship between earnings and education level. Which means you could equally argue that the poorer were suffering more from the negative impacts of the EU and that caused them to vote this way.

Also higher education does not prove a higher IQ. Not at all. You only have to look at teachers. Many of whom have spent their entire life since childhood in education. Many of them have a very blinkered outlook on life.

Political correctness and the wave of social justice is also something that has sprouted from Universities, so has infected those that studied there. Again another potential cause of the desire to remain.

So yes, perhaps the remainers have more degrees but that does not prove that people voted Brexit because they were less smart.

And anyway, where does that lead us? You want a minimum IQ for voting? That the only the votes of those you consider clever enough should count?

Slippery slope that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hawker9000]

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power

 

Well we're getting into semantics (not semitics) here. You are literally correct but the Nazi party rose to power through the electoral process.

 

The point I was making ( and beginning to wish I had not bothered) is that so many very bright people are not in the Brexit camp. No body is trying to undermine Brexit, BUT, I would like to see the Con Party dirty scheme undermined. It's a pity you people can't see it ?

'Literally, actually, totally correct.   Why not just practice reciting that?  Much easier on the lips than all the double-talk.  You should try it.   (No.  I do realize it would be easier to teach a pig to fly.)

 

It's a much greater pity that you people can't just accept a majority outcome and m-o-v-e  o-n ...

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

'Literally, actually, totally correct.   Why not just practice reciting that?  Much easier on the lips than all the double-talk.  You should try it.   (No.  I do realize it would be easier to teach a pig to fly.)

 

It's a much greater pity that you people can't just accept a majority outcome and m-o-v-e  o-n ...

The point is that just because one is in the majority, it does not mean that one I shall correct.

 

But nobody is trying to change the result. We do wish to minister minimise the amount of damage resulting though. 

 

 

[hawker9000]

Pound drops against doomed Euro.
 
 

You throw up a chart with a few "down days" which are absolutely no worse, and actually more benign, than other slumps over the last 8 months on the same chart, and are trying to scaremonger with that?! Yeah, scary... The sky is falling, Everybody!

5555555555

[pitrevie]

6 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

I like the Churchill quote.

You need to read my post again: I didn't suggest we have a referendum on every decision, but sometimes there is a big enough question that demands the electorate decide. What I said was, we had been promised a referendum on the EU treaties several times, and didn't get one. I also pointed out the civil service advisors and the elected few tasked with our welfare don't always get it right.

All the daily papers have an agenda, but a Free Press is an essential part of a working democracy.

I think you will find that the promises for a referendum came from individuals who were facing particular problems within their own parties and felt this was a way out. I happen to agree with Thatcher who was opposed to referenda because where do you stop.

its noticeable that those who are shouting the loudest on this issue when asked whether the final negotiated deal should be put to the British people via a referendum respond with a deafening silence.  In fact you will find many who are even opposed to Parliament being given a vote on the final deal and feel that the matter should be left to the government and even supported the use of the Royal prerogative a bit like the accusations thrown at the Undemocratic EU where everything is decided by the unelected executive. 

Do you really think that anyone is going to read what is in the Lisbon treaty and then vote on its merits? I have argued with people who while accusing the EU of being undemocratic weren't even aware that we elect MEPs. 

[SheungWan]

Maybe you would prefer the GBPEUR graph for the last month then. Clearly the Euro is on the point of imminent collapse.

Edited March 11, 2017 by SheungWan

[pitrevie]

6 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Where is the total financial collapse we were told would happen by the remain side?

If you have something to say get on with it I have better things to do.

The Thai baht is 43 to the pound today, I know that too.

Sorry I must have missed that prediction, who predicted a total financial collapse could you provide a link to that. I saw many predicting that things would be difficult and that the pound should come under pressure and drop which it has. Even the Chancellor has said that Brexit has blown a 122 billion pound hole in the public finances but unlike Osborne has decided he is in no hurry to balance the public finances. Farage even told us that if we thought 2016 was bad then 2017 was going to be a whole lot worse however I don't recall the B of E, Treasury, IMF etc ever predicting a "total financial collapse" so perhaps you could provide a link to that. 

[dick dasterdly]

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's a matter of trust

 

I for one do NOT trust the Con Party to act in the "best interest" of the UK generally rather than just line their own pockets. Parliament MUST reserve the right to endorse or otherwise. 

 

You folks obviously dont see the risk. Sad but not surprising

 

I always used board approval as a negotiating lever. I never found it to be an impediment. 

 

Signing subject to endorsment by parliament is entirely reasonable.

 

I'm glad you have no objections to (1) & (2)

It seems likely that few in the UK trust ANY politician to act in the "best interest of the UK generally rather than just line their own pockets"!  Hence the Brexit vote - despite the vast majority of politicians and 'experts' advocating 'remain'.

 

It also seems likely that many see the risk involved in the Brexit vote - and I agree that a particular worry is that 'worker's rights' will be eroded by Brit. politicians.

 

The EU has MANY faults, but they increased some 'workers' rights' - whilst at the same time the open borders policy resulted in reduced or stagnant wages for those at the bottom/middle of the scale in wealthier countries, whilst those at the top of the scale enjoyed an ever increasing escalation of salary....  Admittedly, there were other factors involved, but both the Brit. government and EU government failed to see that an increasing number of people had lost all trust and were consequently focusing on the multitude of things to dislike about the EU.

 

I suspect that many brexit voters would prefer that 'brexit means brexit' - i.e. a poor deal (from their POV) means 'no deal', so just leave.  Parliament (i.e.politicians, being only interested in their 'own pockets') cannot be trusted to ensure that brexit doesn't end up as the most 'watered-down' version - with the most disliked parts being retained which would suit politicians/big business and the wealthy.

 

Then again, I'm pretty sure this will happen anyway, so no reason for MPs to demand that they authorise the final 'deal'.

 

Edit - Presumably you feel the same way, or do you think the self-serving Con MPs are about to revolt against the Con party self-serving final deal?

Edited March 12, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

14 hours ago, Grouse said:

Yes, I fear that many of the Con Party right wing have no desire to "do a deal" with the EU. The master plan is to get out and then undermine European social democracy by turning the UK into a low tax, low rent, low service economy by slashing corporation tax to say 10%. This would be great for the few and terrible for the majority. If this is indeed the aim, it explains much of their recent anomalous behaviour.

The UK is already a (relative to other wealthy EU members) low tax, low paid, service economy?

[Grouse]

26 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It seems likely that few in the UK trust ANY politician to act in the "best interest of the UK generally rather than just line their own pockets"!  Hence the Brexit vote - despite the vast majority of politicians and 'experts' advocating 'remain'.

 

It also seems likely that many see the risk involved in the Brexit vote - and I agree that a particular worry is that 'worker's rights' will be eroded by Brit. politicians.

 

The EU has MANY faults, but they increased some 'workers' rights' - whilst at the same time the open borders policy resulted in reduced or stagnant wages for those at the bottom/middle of the scale in wealthier countries, whilst those at the top of the scale enjoyed an ever increasing escalation of salary....  Admittedly, there were other factors involved, but both the Brit. government and EU government failed to see that an increasing number of people had lost all trust and were consequently focusing on the multitude of things to dislike about the EU.

 

I suspect that many brexit voters would prefer that 'brexit means brexit' - i.e. a poor deal (from their POV) means 'no deal', so just leave.  Parliament (i.e.politicians, being only interested in their 'own pockets') cannot be trusted to ensure that brexit doesn't end up as the most 'watered-down' version - with the most disliked parts being retained which would suit politicians/big business and the wealthy.

 

Then again, I'm pretty sure this will happen anyway, so no reason for MPs to demand that they authorise the final 'deal'.

 

Edit - Presumably you feel the same way, or do you think the self-serving Con MPs are about to revolt against the Con party self-serving final deal?

Again, you miss the big risk

 

I think the Con Party will slash corporation tax to 10% in order to offset the impact of WTO following crashing out of EU with the risk of Nissan etc pulling out and the disincentive to foreign inward investment. They will say that this will increase the total tax take and allow trickle down economics by encouraging investment! In practice, this will result in increased borrowing and massive cuts in services. I foresee the English economy (Scotland will leave) being much more unequal and much more like the states. Watch out for the death of Defra and environmental protection generally. Sterling will drop toward parity and the FTSE will surge. Inflation will rocket but be disguised by reducing product size and weight. There will be labour shortages and that will pull in non EU cheap labour. But heh, Brexit means Brexit ?

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Again, you miss the big risk

 

I think the Con Party will slash corporation tax to 10% in order to offset the impact of WTO following crashing out of EU with the risk of Nissan etc pulling out and the disincentive to foreign inward investment. They will say that this will increase the total tax take and allow trickle down economics by encouraging investment! In practice, this will result in increased borrowing and massive cuts in services. I foresee the English economy (Scotland will leave) being much more unequal and much more like the states. Watch out for the death of Defra and environmental protection generally. Sterling will drop toward parity and the FTSE will surge.

You mean a continuation of the policies that have been pursued over the last few decades?

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

You mean a continuation of the policies that have been pursued over the last few decades?

I don't see how you can infer that

 

1) We have been in the EU for last few decades

 

2) Until Brexit discussions started there was "reasonable" stability apart from the 2008 crisis and the black Wednesday crisis 

 

3) I think we had some kind of opposition in parliament