Brexit and EU general chit chat

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • The Tory Party and Labour Party are both split over Brexit, why don't the moderate sections of both amalgamate and form a centrist party which would have a Commons majority

  • Serves the EU right. Corbyn has alienated just about everybody now.^^

  • I have avoided posting on this subject, but can no longer restrain myself. The fact is the subject is both complex and simple, depending on where you sit. From where I sit it is relatively simple. The nation voted "LEAVE" depending whether you like it or not. They did NOT vote for a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, and decided to leave this to the government. Unfortunately the self serving pigs who have absolutely no interest in democracy, would appear to remain, and my suspicions are they wish to remain for their own financial advantages. Very few Brexiteers were not aware there would be hardships in doing so, but believed for the long term future it would be best for the country. Uncontrolled immigration from third world eastern European countries needed controlling, as did obeying irrelevant and daft laws, and pumping billions of £s into struggling countries. I think the majority of us would prefer an agreement that would suit both the EU and the UK, however , as the EU is determined to make an example of us I am positive they are prepared to cut off their noses to spite their stupid faces. The daft thing is that the generation we are attempting to protect is the same generation who want to remain. Good old Boris is attempting to obey the will of the people, whilst the self serving pigs are determined to do their own thing. In short, what was a relatively straight forward thing to achieve has been made difficult by politicians and political parties who wish to feather their own nests.

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • I have avoided posting on this subject, but can no longer restrain myself.

    Nice to see you back and please, do let rip!:)

    By the way, agree with everything you say.

    LW was saying in the other thread that people would be stupid if the wishes of result are ignored, but as you say its purely self interest.

    If you're rich and live in Central London and frequent lots of restaurants which are all staffed by Eastern Europeans and other foreigners, you're having a great time. If those workers were actually paid a decent wage, half of those restaurants would go bust, so the rich enjoy a very nice lifestyle on the backs of others.

    As for the young, they're young.:) I'm very pro EU in many ways, believe in the one world philosophy as the ultimate goal for the world etc etc but I'm also a realistic and all that's for the future, not now. That's why I voted leave and don't view the world through the same rose-tinted glasses that the young uns do.

  • There has never been "one world" and there never will be. There are only multiplicities of diversity. It's how Nature operates in order to keep things viable. There can and should be cooperation among diversities, but trying to undiversify humanity is like trying to repack a product packed in Japan. It just won't go back in the box ^^

  • Boris is getting whacked by the media today. This time he is being drubbed by former student weedhead Cameron.

    Supporters of Johnson and Co who are trashing Cameron today should remember that he is the last Conservative to win an election for the past donkey's years

    I don't see any of them winning anything

  • There has never been "one world" and there never will be. There are only multiplicities of diversity. It's how Nature operates in order to keep things viable. There can and should be cooperation among diversities, but trying to undiversify humanity is like trying to repack a product packed in Japan. It just won't go back in the box ^^

    You have a exceptionally unique (and probably accurate) way of putting things.:thumbup:

    Boris is getting whacked by the media today. This time he is being drubbed by former student weedhead Cameron

    Yep. I'll post a link to a story right now, once I've actually read what Cameron's said.

  • David Cameron: Johnson and Gove behaved 'appallingly'

    David Cameron has accused the current prime minister, Boris Johnson, and Michael Gove of behaving "appallingly" during the EU referendum campaign.

    Speaking to the Times ahead of the launch of his memoir, the former Tory PM attacked some colleagues who backed Leave for "trashing the government".

    Mr Cameron said the result in 2016 had left him "hugely depressed" and he knew "some people will never forgive me".

    He also said another referendum cannot be ruled out "because we're stuck".

    So, Cameron thinks his colleagues behaved badly in 2016, yet chooses to only speak about it now. When you've got a book to sell, a little controversy always helps.

    This is a total non-story.:rolleyes:

  • Supporters of Johnson and Co who are trashing Cameron today should remember that he is the last Conservative to win an election for the past donkey's years

    I don't see any of them winning anything

    Well, we don't know do we because Boris is prevented from calling a GE. But yes, I bet the day the conservatives regret the day that May called a GE and lost the conservatives' majority as a result.

  • So, Cameron thinks his colleagues behaved badly in 2016, yet chooses to only speak about it now. When you've got a book to sell, a little controversy always helps.

    This is a total non-story.:rolleyes:

    It's considered bad form in Tory land for ex Leaders/PMs to criticise their successors

    Look at the stick that the "Incredible Sulk" Heath got

  • What a majestic posting! When I write stuff that long you sneer or slag me off!

    I think you've provided much food for thought. Let me try and do it justice. (Try your best not to get angry!)

    1 You're right, it is "relatively simple from where you sit". It's also relatively simple from where I sit. It's relatively simple from where everyone sits. If only we all sat in the same place. As we don't it is relatively quite un-simple. This is as true in Parliament as it is in the electorate. The reasons will vary. Very few people - in or out of Parliament - will admit it's for their own selfish reasons, as if somehow thinking of their own standard of living - and that of their family - is somehow reprehensible. Yet can you imagine the stupidity of us all voting for other people rather than ourselves? It would end up being hearsay voting, votes by proxy. It is okay to vote for your business; that somehow isn't selfish, especially if you can say it's for the sake of those you employ. So everyone has to generalise or socially justify their vote, for jobs, for sovereignty, for putting the Great back into Britain, not falling off a cliff, not crashing out, not a catastrophe, thinking of one's children and grandchildren.

    2 The nation did NOT, as you so sweepingly say, vote to "leave". Only half of them did. Or to be precise, 52%. Horizon will take your side - his view is that if the result was 50.0000000001% ticking Leave and 49.99999999% ticking Remain, he'd consider that a slam-dunk winner-takes-all. In other words, our future and our children's and our children's children, and all that crap, could be in the hands of just one drunken semi-retard in urgent need of cataract surgery who ticked the wrong box. A civilised country with common sense would have a referendum where the abandonment of the status quo on such an important issue would need 60%.

    3 For some reason, when politicians say these things about democracy and sovereignty and jobs and children and children's children, they are, as you put it, self-serving pigs or hypocrites because they are concealing selfish motives. This implies the presumption that they live in Parliament and have no home to go to, no personal life to live, no wife, kids, mortgage - and God help them if they were educated in a public school and holiday in France or have a big expensive house - what a bunch of self-seeking bastards! - how dare they consider their own life style! Don't worry, the looters (aka Labour), will soon get rid of all that capitalistic garbage about equal opportunity and, in its place, have unconditional equality, including edukashen, free privileges such government paid-for unemployment pay, etc etc - thanks to a looting - oops, I mean a redistribution of wealth, taken from those who didn't get themselves and their money out of this f---ed-up country quick enough. Quite how this r-o-w can continue when eventually there won't be any wealth lying around to redistribute.

    3 continued: Democracy is a nice principle if only it worked better. I suddenly realised why the Parliamentary method of democracy has fu--ed up this country. Not just the absurdity of letting 650 MP's be entitled to vote on various proposals - can you imagine a commercial company with 650 board members each voting on various issues that arise in running their company - least of all when half of them want to take over the company rather than let it prosper. Okay, that's been my hobby horse for a while now - and of course no one has commented on how archaic and unmanageable it is. But I suddenly realised another major improvement that could make Parliament more decisive, ie do it's bloody job properly. Don't have yes-no proposals. Britain is a nation of negative nitpickers or pedants, so there is an almost ingrained higher percentage of noes to almost any proposal, especially with bi-partisanship and within-party sub-partisanship weaving its deadly tentacles around democracy. Instead, give Parliament a multiple choice, deal A vs B versus C versus no deal and implement the one with most votes. Those abstaining will, of their own making, be spectators to action that is then taken. I would contend that this is absolutely fair and democratic, reflecting a tough real world, where a decision has to be taken which may be the least worst rather than the best. If Remain has to be included in that multiple forced choice, so be it, let Parliament be prepared for civil unrest among either the 3-years ago Leavers or the 3 years-ago Remainers - protests these days are a dime a dozen - those who didn't bother voting in the referendum 3 years ago will either shrug their shoulders or toss a coin to decide which protest they fancy joining.

    4 You say "very few Brexiteers were not aware there would be hardships but believed in the long term it would be best for the country". I think you mean "not unaware" (the peril of double negatives!). But in any case you make this assertion with a tone of much authority. Is this research or just your feeling? Back to my opening point - it's all so simple just so long as it is based on views you hold that are incontestable. I wish I had that confidence of being right. Just because I don';t use that pathetic opener IMHO doesn't mean I'm certain of what I say.

    5 You're right that uncontrolled immigration needed controlling, along with breaking free of irrelevant and daft laws, and pumping ridiculous sums into countries unable or unwilling to help themselves or, worst still, not needing the money (eg India). But Britain could have disobeyed or bent the EU rules, while staying in the EU, as did Italy and a couple of the East Europe member states. I contend that the problem was us, not the EU. The EU could be reformable - especially these days as they see whata is looming on the horizon. I think we can and should help the EU - regardless of whether we do so as members or well-meaning friendly associates (detente cordiale!).

    6 I think it's an equal contest as to who is doing the best job of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I think Cameron-the-smooth-talking-toff queered our pitch and May-the-inarticulate-deadhead then made the pitch unplayable and demolished the Conservative party working majority. At least we've stopped sneering at the EU's lack of democracy (I mean, we're not a shining example of the success of democracy, are we?). If MP's could keep their stupid mouths shut and starve the media of being able to sensationalising every tiny revealed development and portray Britain as arrogantly over-confident, we might have come to an agreement with the EU that was mutually acceptable. But instead we just seemed arrogant and obnoxious. I think Boris could have remedied this impasse but Parliament's 650 polecats dragged him down - and yet, like you, I still think he could hang in there and play a winning hand.

    7 You're right, it is indeed daft that we're protecting a generation who want to remain. Well, more fool us. We are supposed to vote for ourselves not for others. Otherwise it's a like comical garden party of good manners.

    8 If Boris delivers (with or without a deal, provided the deal is not BINO), he will get a big majority in the next election. If he loses and the extension turns into a resumption of groundhog day, I don't fancy his changes.

    9 You conclude that it was a "straightforward thing" made difficult by parliament. I think if it was a straightforward thing it would have survived a stupid and self-serving parliament and a type of democracy that is has become historically quaint but unfit for purpose, or extremely high risk, or too easily subverted when the stakes are high. Almost anything can be straightforward apart from its complications! But I do so agree with you, that Britain has created those complications. Britain has been so uncool.

  • 2 The nation did NOT, as you so sweepingly say, vote to "leave". Only half of them did. Or to be precise, 52%. Horizon will take your side - his view is that if the result was 50.0000000001% ticking Leave and 49.99999999% ticking Remain, he'd consider that a slam-dunk winner-takes-all. In other words, our future and our children's and our children's children, and all that crap, could be in the hands of just one drunken semi-retard in urgent need of cataract surgery who ticked the wrong box. A civilised country with common sense would have a referendum where the abandonment of the status quo on such an important issue would need 60%.

    As you're in wind up mode and you've mentioned me, I'll play, especially as you've made such an effort to post this entertaining point. 8o

    I've made this particular point about ten thousand times before, but here we go again. A majority of this country did vote to leave, if you go by constituency. Take a look here. Now, the result was severely skewed because London with its huge population almost exclusively voted remain. But you may say, why does that matter and my reply to that would be that it matters because London has a majority foreign population now. So, as far as our own people goes, we did vote overwhelmingly to leave.

  • 3 For some reason, when politicians say these things about democracy and sovereignty and jobs and children and children's children, they are, as you put it, self-serving pigs or hypocrites because they are concealing selfish motives.

    In some cases they are. Dominic Grieve has been photographed going into the London HQ of the EU which as I'm sure you're aware was the former conservative HQ. His motives are purely self-serving.

    3 continued: Democracy is a nice principle if only it worked better. I suddenly realised why the Parliamentary method of democracy has fu--ed up this country. Not just the absurdity of letting 650 MP's be entitled to vote on various proposals - can you imagine a commercial company with 650 board members each voting on various issues that arise in running their company - least of all when half of them want to take over the company rather than let it prosper. Okay, that's been my hobby horse for a while now

    Good points.

    And we'll talk about constitutional reform in another thread. I think there's one already, but if not and if someone doesn't do it before me, I'll create one at some point too. It's my hobby horse too and you've made good points on this subject spread across several different threads, so we'll try to formulate a plan together for revolution evolution of the system.

    and of course no one has commented on how archaic and unmanageable it is

    I and several others have. Pay attention or it'll be bread and water for your dinner!^^

  • I've made this particular point about ten thousand times before, but here we go again. A majority of this country did vote to leave, if you go by constituency. Take a look here. Now, the result was severely skewed because London with its huge population almost exclusively voted remain. But you may say, why does that matter and my reply to that would be that it matters because London has a majority foreign population now. So, as far as our own people goes, we did vote overwhelmingly to leave.

    I've gone through this with you over a year ago with actual figures rather than your non-numerical impressions from a Leaver rag. With actual figures you don't have to gloss over your argument with bullshit phrases like "severely skewed", "almost exclusively","majority", "overwhelmingly".

    Here are those figures again:

    Of the 33.5m votes across the UK, 48% voted to remain and 52% to leave

    Of the 3.78m votes in London, 60% voted to remain and 40% to leave

    Of the 29.7 votes elsewhere in UK, 47% voted to remain and 53% to leave

    These are the actual figures

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_o…Kingdom_regions

    The point is that even leaving out London only changed the Leave vote from 52% to 53%. Hardly "severely skewed"!

    This is because London accounted for 11% of all votes made. If you want to use a broader definition of London, one which accounts for a higher percentage of the population, then you would have a smaller percentage than 60% voting to leave, so you will still fail to make a case fr London "severely skewing" the overall UK result.

    This is the third time I've told you this. I have to believe you are just playing dumb. "Severely skewed"? My arse! Either you are running a proper forum or you are are deliberately peddling Brexit propaganda/lies. It's one thing to have a strong conviction, it's quite another to lie and deliberately ignore facts that contradict your lie. Why don't you go into politics? You'd be a natural!

    1 In some cases they are. Dominic Grieve has been photographed going into the London HQ of the EU which as I'm sure you're aware was the former conservative HQ. His motives are purely self-serving.

    2 And we'll talk about constitutional reform in another thread. I think there's one already, but if not and if someone doesn't do it before me, I'll create one at some point too. It's my hobby horse too and you've made good points on this subject spread across several different threads, so we'll try to formulate a plan together for revolution evolution of the system.

    3 I and several others have (constitutional reform). Pay attention or it'll be bread and water for your dinner!^^

    1 Dominic Grieve is a walking talking argument for bringing back capital punishment.

    2 It's easy to bitch about the way it is. Harder to propose improvements. I had a plan under my previous screen name (Rob Alka) and you raised some useful points that helped sharpen up those improvements. No one else in "Forlorn Box" commented! Better luck next time. My suggestion this time around was to force a choice that cuts through a natural parliamentary pedantry or negativism by direct comparisons of the proposals, to arrive at a most preferred or least unpreferred proposal rather than a string of 51% rejecting each individual proposal. In market research it's called comparative preference measurement and it is used to pin down a preference when a series of independent standalone tests don't identify a clear winner.

    3 With Brexit/Wrexit, bread & water is all that's left!

    1 Cut it out.:cursing:

    2 And it's probably me your referring to, not him

    1 Don't be so humourless. It's a fair yet lighthearted dig when someone has an aggressive by line in all their postings viz "don't make me angry" and also sneeringly dismisses my comments because they're it's too long. I absolutely refuse to be dragged down to other people's limited power of concentration

    2 No, it isn't you. You are fairly robust, as well as forensic!

  • When I said the majority of the country, I meant England, but I think you knew that. Of course I don't dispute the overall UK figures because that includes London, Northern Ireland and the pesky Scots, that skews the figures massively.

    If you want to go through each region, excluding London, we can. The results are clear cut, a majority of areas in England voted to leave.

  • When I said the majority of the country, I meant England, but I think you knew that. Of course I don't dispute the overall UK figures because that includes London, Northern Ireland and the pesky Scots, that skews the figures massively.

    If you want to go through each region, excluding London, we can. The results are clear cut, a majority of areas in England voted to leave.

    The percentage voting to leave in England was 53%

    In NI it was 44%

    In Scotland it was 55%

    In Wales it was 53%

    In London it was 40%

    In England excluding London it was 55%

    With or without Wales, with or without London, with or without Scotland, with or without Northern Ireland, the percentage voting to leave did not exceed 55%

    Even across the 12 UK regions the Leave vote never reached 60%. Only in a few selected cities in NE, W Mids and Yorkshire/Humber did it reach 60% or over. But then there other Cities in England where it reached down to 40% or lower voting to Leave

    The moral of this being that you're supposed to be honest and impartial when talking about statistics .......unless you're a crooked pension salesman dependent on commission ...... or a hard Brexiteer ..... or an MP !

    Or unless have an allergy to figures. You're not alone. I gather that 17 million adults in England - half of the working age population - have everyday maths skills roughly equivalent to those expected of a primary school child (Entry Levels)

    It would be more to your credit to concede that your argument doesn't hold water rather than try weaseling out of it


  • The moral of this being that you're supposed to be honest and impartial when talking about statistics

    I should be impartial, who says? You?? I'm about as impartial as Dominic Grieve is to leaving the EU. I'm not impartial on this or any other subject.

    Before I proceed further, what do you define as a majority? Clearly, your definition is the not the legal definition of a majority which is more than half. The country (UK) voted by more than a half to leave the EU and in the bulk of most areas of each English region, the vote was way above 50% voting leave in most cases with only the cities skewing the figures giving a much closer overall figure.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!