|
Post by Tim on Sept 7, 2017 15:09:15 GMT
Apologies, so they're like the mafia not a violent husband, that's all right then.
I expect that if Scotland had actually got independence from the rest of the UK in 2014 then Westminster (as the representatives of the UK) would've fallen over themselves to make it as smooth as possible and that Scotland wasn't disadvantaged financially in any way?
It's politics and they're mostly like a bunch of spoilt children if they don't get their own way.
Also, if you read the letter issued today from the group of Brexiteers then they mention the 'will of the people' again. I'll simply remind you that it is the will of 51% of 'the people'. The rest voted to stay and as such their views need to be taken into account by our own people but the staunch Brexiteers seem to be ignoring that extensive minority so from my viewpoint, as a remain voter, they're acting like the mafia towards me.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 7, 2017 15:13:37 GMT
I expect that if Scotland had actually got independence from the rest of the UK in 2014 then Westminster (as the representatives of the UK) would've fallen over themselves to make it as smooth as possible and that Scotland wasn't disadvantaged financially in any way? It was written into the independence legislation that both countries would act in a fair way to each other in such an eventuality. There was no such agreement with the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 18:06:16 GMT
As long as the price of digestives does not go up, who cares?
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 7, 2017 20:29:39 GMT
It was written into the independence legislation that both countries would act in a fair way to each other in such an eventuality. There was no such agreement with the EU. This. The EU have never actually considered what their position would be if a country triggered Article 50 because they couldn't write legislation that was beneficial to the EU in any eventuality. I've said before that if a net taker from the EU coffers triggered it would they be given a huge parachute payment? No, of course not but that is what any argument would commence with if a lesser state were to jack it in after the Brexit shenanigans resulted in a huge payment due from the UK to compensate the EU. As I said above all the EU's behaviour is doing is inflating the belief of Brexiteers in the rationale for leaving. If it gets too nasty and EU businesses don't like it (by that I mean German ones) there will cease to be an effective EU as those businesses will bring pressure on the Bundestag and it's the employees of the businesses that vote for them....
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 7, 2017 20:42:38 GMT
Apologies, so they're like the mafia not a violent husband, that's all right then. Or you could look at Britain like a middle-aged husband who has had a classic mid-life crisis and filed for divorce from his nagging wife so that he chase after the busty young intern who he fantasises has been flirting with him in the office, but is now complaining because his wife (a) has turned out to feel angry and humiliated about it and (b) wants a substantial divorce settlement for her pains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 10:25:12 GMT
We had the will of the people and the people have spoken after the first referendum, accompanied with so shut up and put up. This time around the remainers lost and have/are wanting another referendum or as Tony Bleuch put it. "In case they have changed their minds". No way should we pay for the policies of the EU hard liners policies post Brexit. Not right OR legal which is why the negotiations are not going the way of the EU hardliners. Perhaps a news blackout would remove the topic from the equation?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 8, 2017 11:02:56 GMT
Perhaps a news blackout would remove the topic from the equation?
I'd welcome that, or at the very least a blackout unless there was actual something concrete to say rather than the ongoing rubbish we're subjected to.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 8, 2017 11:23:15 GMT
We had the will of the people and the people have spoken after the first referendum, accompanied with so shut up and put up. This time around the remainers lost and have/are wanting another referendum or as Tony Bleuch put it. "In case they have changed their minds". No way should we pay for the policies of the EU hard liners policies post Brexit. Not right OR legal which is why the negotiations are not going the way of the EU hardliners. Perhaps a news blackout would remove the topic from the equation? The problem I have with the way you are looking at this (and apologies if I am misreading it) is that it seems to be:
- The EU is nasty. - We left because we think the EU is nasty. - Brexit is only going badly because the EU is being nasty to us. - Brexit is going to be good for us. - If Brexit is not good for us, it will only be because the EU was nasty to us.
There's no room for admission that perhaps the "people" made a mistake, or were mislead, or that our government's epic mishandling of the aftermath of the referendum is making things worse, or indeed that anyone on this side of the Channel would ever have any responsibility for why Brexit might not be a success.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 8, 2017 11:27:43 GMT
We had the will of the people and the people have spoken after the first referendum, accompanied with so shut up and put up. This time around the remainers lost and have/are wanting another referendum or as Tony Bleuch put it. "In case they have changed their minds". No way should we pay for the policies of the EU hard liners policies post Brexit. Not right OR legal which is why the negotiations are not going the way of the EU hardliners. Perhaps a news blackout would remove the topic from the equation? The problem I have with the way you are looking at this (and apologies if I am misreading it) is that it seems to be:
- The EU is nasty. - We left because we think the EU is nasty. - Brexit is only going badly because the EU is being nasty to us. - Brexit is going to be good for us. - If Brexit is not good for us, it will only be because the EU was nasty to us.
There's no room for admission that perhaps the "people" made a mistake, or were mislead, or that our government's epic mishandling of the aftermath of the referendum is making things worse, or indeed that anyone on this side of the Channel would ever have any responsibility for why Brexit might not be a success.
I'd say that, in addition, there is no acknowledgement that those who don't want Brexit are entitled to their opinion - it comes across as "they're wrong to want to stay" and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 8, 2017 11:35:10 GMT
I'd say that, in addition, there is no acknowledgement that those who don't want Brexit are entitled to their opinion - it comes across as "they're wrong to want to stay" and that's it.
And that is exactly why referendum should never have a 50% majority requirement. To carry a major and potentially life changing policy through, you need a decent majority. Probably 60% minimum and for real success 75%. The consequences of a slim majority win are very long term grievances, lack of direction and unhappiness.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 8, 2017 11:57:31 GMT
You're all being far too insightful here. As our beloved Prime Minister has said time and again: "Brexit is Brexit". We don't need any other analysis.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 8, 2017 12:43:27 GMT
I'd say that, in addition, there is no acknowledgement that those who don't want Brexit are entitled to their opinion - it comes across as "they're wrong to want to stay" and that's it.
And that is exactly why referendum should never have a 50% majority requirement. To carry a major and potentially life changing policy through, you need a decent majority. Probably 60% minimum and for real success 75%. The consequences of a slim majority win are very long term grievances, lack of direction and unhappiness. I can see that a minimum turnout level could be set, but as soon as you go away from a 51% vote to win, you're into some quite dangerous territory. As if the status quo has more weight than any other view. And surely if the status quo had that much support, you'd probably never need a referendum in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 8, 2017 16:52:28 GMT
And that is exactly why referendum should never have a 50% majority requirement. To carry a major and potentially life changing policy through, you need a decent majority. Probably 60% minimum and for real success 75%. The consequences of a slim majority win are very long term grievances, lack of direction and unhappiness. I can see that a minimum turnout level could be set, but as soon as you go away from a 51% vote to win, you're into some quite dangerous territory. As if the status quo has more weight than any other view. And surely if the status quo had that much support, you'd probably never need a referendum in the first place. I do think the status has more weight than any other view - you know what you have and you know how it works. The type of major change that is so important/life changing it requires a referendum is almost by definition something which is going to take us into the unknown. In my opinion, something as significant as that requires either unanimity or a large proportion in favour. A near split vote when major changes are going to impact on people is not healthy. I might accept 50% +1 as fair/reasonable, if there was 100% turnout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 17:12:34 GMT
We had the will of the people and the people have spoken after the first referendum, accompanied with so shut up and put up. This time around the remainers lost and have/are wanting another referendum or as Tony Bleuch put it. "In case they have changed their minds". No way should we pay for the policies of the EU hard liners policies post Brexit. Not right OR legal which is why the negotiations are not going the way of the EU hardliners. Perhaps a news blackout would remove the topic from the equation? The problem I have with the way you are looking at this (and apologies if I am misreading it) is that it seems to be:
- The EU is nasty. - We left because we think the EU is nasty. - Brexit is only going badly because the EU is being nasty to us. - Brexit is going to be good for us. - If Brexit is not good for us, it will only be because the EU was nasty to us.
There's no room for admission that perhaps the "people" made a mistake, or were mislead, or that our government's epic mishandling of the aftermath of the referendum is making things worse, or indeed that anyone on this side of the Channel would ever have any responsibility for why Brexit might not be a success.
I take no offence, your arguments are valued and an example to me for my need to choose my words better. The EU is being nasty to us, well yes but that is not why I voted to leave. The EU was a trading partnership that is morphing into a nation state which I have said before. At the end of WWII the Russians or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pushed their borders as far west as they could. They built communist nations as a barrier between them and the direction of the most recent and most damaging incursions. During the cold war they failed to maintain their economic base because they ran on the old friends of friends basis rather than a meritocracy. I know this because when I was in Berlin we got to talk to rodinary Russian troops pretending to be spies, or is that the other way round, anyway, they were giving sausage producers targets they could not achieve with the product they were given so at the end of a production target a lot os the 'sausages' were made up with floor sweepings and sawdust. The regime fell over and big time. Did the west do anything very much? Well apart from a little help cleaning up nuclear leaks and waste, not really but then the problem as well as the state were massive. Since that time the borders where the west have dominance have moved further and further east to the point where the EU is taking what were soviet block nations into the brotherhood. Add to that, the move towards a standing EU army followed by the declaration that the Ukraine were intending to join the EU and Russians and native Russian speakers in the Ukraine etc got extremely pissed. Next is civil war. The regiment that came from the remains of my old regiment exercised in Poland along with suggestions that they would exercise in the Ukraine. Are the Russians saints? No, like any nation they have the potential to be a bunch of muppets or worse. The EU began as a trading partnership which evolved into the EFTA 7 and then the EU but that is evolving into a EU nation with several nations in particular wanting to expand the EU to what extent I know not. What the EU has done by destroying the farming and several other markets in Africa, flooding these markets with food they cannot match the prices of and THIS leads to an influx of refugees who think the EU streets are paved with gold. These desperate people believe they will be given homes and jobs right off the bat and to achieve this they risk everything and part with everything they have. The EU did this. The EU being nasty is simply protectionist over their funding to go forward with their nation building. Will this lead to another pan European war? Possibly. Greece, the Greeks wanted to reduce their debt and to do that they wanted to write off a chunk of what they owed to make payment more realistic. The EU made sure that to make payments, the EU would give them more money in a lot of these instance the money lent was just to cover the next tranche of payments for the original loans. How long can Greece survive paying off the interest of their loans with more loans? Honestly, does the EU sound like one of those dodgy payday loan companies? It does to me. On top of this the waste of money which we all know does not grow on tree's and the endless rubbish like "Can a cucumber be straight"? I know this has been repealed but the crap they spend their days doing makes my blood boil. I am a Trekkie and the core of my belief is that one day human beings will not only learn to live together in peace but, we will also learn not to totally fuck the planet for greed etc. Over my life I have watched the EU and grown more and more suspicious, I did not make up my mind over a few years. Racing, I value your statements and your beliefs as I do everyone else here and if I do not share them it is not meant as disrespect. If I have given this impression, I humbly appologise to those who feel otherwise. I actually think you are a thoroughly decent bloke. We are all entitled to our beliefs and to hold them come what may. Having said that, for people to say that those who want out of the EU are stupid or have lower inteligence than anyone who wants to stay is ludicrous. When the first referendum was over and we had a remain vote people whined about anyone who wanted to leave and it feels largely the same. Statements about the people who voted to leave being mistaken and should have an opportunity to change their minds and we should have known the EU would go all at to grab money etc. No matter how the majority sits with anyone the result is the same as it was to remain years ago, a democratic solution that does not find favour with everyone. Just what was the majority for the first Cameron parliament? 50%? No, undemocratic then, recount...... I am not a bleeding heart sentimentalist but the truth is I see the EU coming to a sticky end, not too far off either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 10:36:42 GMT
^^ Very nicely put Mike
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 11, 2017 14:46:12 GMT
Thank you for that reasoned reply. And I do not think that you disagree with me out of disrespect. I do not lack respect for the opposing position either but I nevertheless think it is wrong and am determined to try and address what I see as the misinformation that clouds this debate. And you never know, along the way, I might come to the conclusion that in fact I am wrong and change my mind. I am always open to that possibility.
For now, I'll respond to your points as I see that. I'll tackle the low intelligence point first. Unfortunately, we all have a tendency to fling insults at other people we disagree with, especially when passions are inflamed on important topics. The Leave brigade likes to characterise Remainers as elitists and liberal intellectuals (as if being a liberal intellectual is somewhere a devastating crime). The Remain brigade has a tendency to not understand the logic of the Leaver position and, given they are being attacked for their intellectualism, therefore is pretty susceptible to the rather arrogant notion that all Leavers must be either thick or dogmatic to a fault. These are all are harmful generalisations that should be avoided as they don't advance anyone's cause. So I believe that we should all try to avoid both sets of generalisations.
I'm not sure I get the relevance of the diversion into Russia and Ukraine but as you've raised it, let's talk about it anyway.
In my experience, the Russians are hopelessly and congenitally paranoid as a result of their history, both of invasion and of dictatorship under the Tsars, Stalin and their successors. Living in Moscow taught me many things but a couple that stand out in this context are that the average Russian has a very skewed vision of Britain where (a) London is basically like something out of Sherlock Holmes book (SH was popular in Soviet times), complete with endless pea-souper fogs and (b) the British are a great and Machiavellian world power who are constantly plotting to invade Mother Russia at any moment. To which my reaction was always to laugh and thank them for their delightful flattery, before setting the record straight.
That having been said, the reasons why Russia has meddled in Ukraine from the get-go, are (in my view) almost nothing to do with standing EU armies and in fact a great deal to do with the essence of what Russians feel it means to be Russian. Modern Slavic Russian civilisation has its roots in what is known as Kievan Rus. This medieval state was founded by Vikings who conquered the Eastern Slavic regions and had their capital at Kiev. Moreover, it also gave modern Russia its Orthodox faith. According to the stories, 1,000 years ago Prince Vladimir the Great invited representatives of the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Islam and Judaism to his court at Kiev to pitch for his faith and that of his country. He chose Byzantine Orthodoxy having been impressed by the grandeur of Hagia Sofia and having found various fault with the other religions (for example, it was reported that he didn’t like the prohibition on drinking alcohol demanded by Islam). So for many Russians, the idea of Kiev not being part of Russia is almost an affront to their sense of national identity.
Set against that, you have the fact that Ukraine, post-independence, suffered rampant corruption and repression under Leonid Kuchma, who then opted to cosy up to Russia as his popularity waned at home. When his time was up, rampant election-rigging in favour of the Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych resulted in the popular uprising known as the Orange Revolution, whereby the rigged result in favour of Yanukovych was annulled and his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, who was nearly assassinated during the campaign through the ingestion of a toxic compound (old tricks die hard), won a clear victory. Moscow wasn't amused and continued to agitate among Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine, with a propaganda campaign of misinformation about how Russian-speakers rights would be curtailed and so on and so forth. The Yushchenko government, based on a coalition of more EU-orientated parties, then fought amongst itself destructively and lost the next election to Moscow's favoured Yanukovych. Yanukovych is by all accounts an out-and-out crook who ended up playing the Russians and EU off against each other (and irritating both in the process), one minute seeming to veer towards one, and the next towards the other, and also wasn't much of a believer in the finer points of democracy. That portion of Ukrainian society who remembered Soviet times badly, having had the prospect of getting closer to the EU dangled before them by successive governments, understandably started to protest against the notion of closer integration with Russia and "managed democracy". That led to the Euromaidan protests, the overthrow of Yanukovych and the rest of recent history, with which we are all familiar.
So before you blame it all at the door of the EU/West, I ask that you stop a moment to consider that like nearly everything in life, it is much more complex a situation than it seems. That the EU has handled the situation badly is not in dispute. But it is not the cause.
Then you mention Africa. As it happens, we do a lot of work with trade finance and the like across Africa. And last Wednesday, I had lunch with a group of African bankers and lawyers at a conference we held, at which the topic of African trade came up. My dining companions all agreed that Africa could easily feed itself but doesn't. And it was observed that the primary cause of this was because intra-African trade accounted for just 16% of all trade in Africa last year. The reasons are many but chief among them are the parlous state of African infrastructure (as the Nigerian next to me observed, if he wants to fly from Nigeria to next door Cameroon, it often requires him to travel via Nairobi or Addis Ababa on the other side of the continent), difficult diplomatic relations between neighbours and absolutely rampant corruption. This simply makes it easier to import from outside Africa than inside Africa and means that Africa's agricultural trade deficit with the rest of the world was something like USD50bn last year. That's an absolute disgrace but to blame it on EU protectionism and/or dumping is simply not correct. The EU also is not responsible for African migrants from former French, British, Belgian, Italian and German colonies in Africa wanting to move to the EU. They don't want to move to the EU, other than for the fact that Schengen makes it easier to get to where they really want to be by extending the effective national borders down to the Mediterranean. The economic migrants typically want to move to the former colonial overlord whose language they speak. Again, to suggest otherwise is to accept, without question, the bilge pumped out constantly by the anti-European hardliners who will co-opt absolutely any argument to their cause.
The nation-building argument is another one that I don't really see the merits of. Yes, Juncker and co do have starry-eyed dreams of that sort of thing and yes various treaties talk grandly about "ever closer union". But that reality is that's actually a paper tiger. The leaders in the chancelleries of Europe, who each have their own proudly patriotic electorates to think of, simply don't dream of one EU nation. It's extremely unlikely to happen – it would need to be voted for and it's simply not a remotely popular idea in any European country, not even Germany. I'd remind you that furthermore we had a veto.
The topic of Greece has been done to death. Suffice to say that my sympathies for Greece don't run particularly deep. I am sympathetic for those Greek citizens who are struggling to live, but the simple truth is that the bail-outs would be there if the powerful vested interests in the Greek establishment would agree to the necessary reforms to the Greek economy, without which no lessons will be learned and any bail-out/debt write-off would simply be a temporary cure until the next default, because you've not fixed the underlying structural issues that created the problem in the first place. Greece should never have been admitted to the Eurozone because it wasn't ready and it didn't have the fiscal discipline required. But I don't see why that is the EU's fault only. I agree that the EU should have found better ways to help Greece, but it's easy in this country to say that the Euro-zone should bail out Greece because we aren't part of it. Would you be so keen if it was your tax-payer pounds being used to dig Athens out of what is, after all, a mess of its own making and for which it makes no apology and is refusing to reform? The politics of it are hideous.
I do not find the EU a suspicious institution. It is certainly a flawed one though. It is in need of much reform and trimming. But I firmly believe that you engineer change from the inside out. We could have done that. We had a uniquely privileged position within the Brussels environment. Outside, however, I fear that we will have no influence and all the consequences.
And frankly, as I said right from the start, if the EU comes to a sticky end (which I also agree is possible), then it makes actually no odds whether we are in or out at that point. And I would rather have avoided the process by which we have damaged our reputation in front of the rest of the world. If the EU fails, no one will say "Ah those prescient Brits – they saw it coming and left, like rats from a sinking ship". No, it will be "if only the British hadn't been so self-obsessed and insular, a great social project would not have failed like it did", regardless of the fact that would not actually be true. We would became the highly convenient scape-goat for the failure of Europe and it would be entirely our own fault. You can go back to well before the referendum and find commentary by me saying precisely this. I feel like Cassandra.
My African dining colleagues the other day all agreed that "you British are crazy – you only damage yourselves". It makes me think of the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes. At what point do we start wondering whether perhaps, just perhaps, everyone else is right and we are the ones who are mistaken?
At a certain level, I admire the sheer certainty of those who believe in Brexit. But, try as I have, I cannot understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 12, 2017 9:11:37 GMT
I've just returned from Aberdeen where we were exhibiting at Offshore Europe which, outside the one in Houston, is the biggest trade show for the Oil & Gas industry and a couple of interesting things came up in relation to Brexit. The first was the number of tradespeople who welcomed the end of the unregulated flow of cheap labour from Poland and Romania who arrive with unverifiable CVs claiming to be able to do everything from welding through to rigging, driving all pay rates down towards minimum wage. The feeling was at last this trend would start to be reversed and wages might start to go back up again. The second was that two large Polish companies actually approached us with the proposal that we do some of their work which is normally done over there, in the UK. Their opinion was that they could see a future where local content could become important in the UK market and the days of moving all production Eastwards may be coming to an end. Just to put some balance on the EU and African trade. How the EU fucks over Africa: www.tuaeu.co.uk/how-the-eu-starves-africa/capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/I could certainly see how a group of wealthy African bankers and lawyers would want this reprehensible situation to continue as they are generally the ones in their countries that benefit from it.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 12, 2017 9:35:46 GMT
Their opinion was that they could see a future where local content could become important in the UK market and the days of moving all production Eastwards may be coming to an end. I think that is one chink of light I see might be an improvement after Brexit. There does appear to be a move to try to bring some production back to the UK in many of the industries where they currently import most of their goods. However, unless we want to see significant increases in costs, productivity in the UK is going to need to be sky high or wage rates are going to have to remain "subdued".
Unless the EU have a late change of heart and allow us to be part of the free trade agreement but keep some border control/restrictions, my opinion of the economic impact on the UK after Brexit is still negative.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2017 9:59:55 GMT
It's disappointing that you take one look at a discussion which was actually about how to find genuine solutions to an identified problem, applied your own prejudice and twisted it into an assertion that the discussion was actually somehow a cabal of vested interests cackling in a corner about how to ensure it continues.
And, moreover, it is not the EU that does these things - it is individual European countries advancing their own agendas - the French appear to cherish CAP more than their own mothers. You really think the absence of the EU would resolve that? Pull the other one.
As it happens, there are a number of things that need to be done:
(a) African nations are trying to consensus build on ways to form trade blocs of their own - think Mercosur in South America for example - that can counteract other world trading blocs, but this is proving very difficult so far since it is venal African officials who permit dumping and so on - the way these attack articles read, you'd think that EU officials personally fly across the continent scattering free frozen chicken thighs and powdered milk; and
(b) ultimately countries in the African continent should be growing crops to address the primary problem, which is providing the continent's population with adequate and reliable sources of basic foodstuffs, not growing consumer foodstuffs for export. Because unfortunately the foreign currency earnings from the latter (i) aren't what they should be due to tariffs (some of which are probably WTO) and (ii) rarely go back into being invested to help the poorest.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 12, 2017 11:39:43 GMT
It's disappointing that you take one look at a discussion which was actually about how to find genuine solutions to an identified problem, applied your own prejudice and twisted it into an assertion that the discussion was actually somehow a cabal of vested interests cackling in a corner about how to ensure it continues.
And, moreover, it is not the EU that does these things - it is individual European countries advancing their own agendas - the French appear to cherish CAP more than their own mothers. You really think the absence of the EU would resolve that? Pull the other one.
As it happens, there are a number of things that need to be done:
(a) African nations are trying to consensus build on ways to form trade blocs of their own - think Mercosur in South America for example - that can counteract other world trading blocs, but this is proving very difficult so far since it is venal African officials who permit dumping and so on - the way these attack articles read, you'd think that EU officials personally fly across the continent scattering free frozen chicken thighs and powdered milk; and
(b) ultimately countries in the African continent should be growing crops to address the primary problem, which is providing the continent's population with adequate and reliable sources of basic foodstuffs, not growing consumer foodstuffs for export. Because unfortunately the foreign currency earnings from the latter (i) aren't what they should be due to tariffs (some of which are probably WTO) and (ii) rarely go back into being invested to help the poorest.
I was merely pointing out that your deeply prejudicial postings come from one viewpoint and don't reflect the whole story. And to suggest there isn't a cabal of vested interests cackling in a corner about how to ensure it continues is rather naive. I try to take a balanced view over the pros and cons of Brexit whereas you seem to be unable to find any positives and focusing solely on how it looks from the London bubble of an artisan bakery on every corner, nice gated communities and the City of London's dominance on global finance. We've already been through the fact that London isn't the UK and within certain parts of it there are people terrified of disturbing the status quo and ignorant of their ignorance of how the rest of the country lives. That's why you find it so hard to understand why people voted to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 12, 2017 12:12:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2017 13:19:13 GMT
It's disappointing that you take one look at a discussion which was actually about how to find genuine solutions to an identified problem, applied your own prejudice and twisted it into an assertion that the discussion was actually somehow a cabal of vested interests cackling in a corner about how to ensure it continues.
And, moreover, it is not the EU that does these things - it is individual European countries advancing their own agendas - the French appear to cherish CAP more than their own mothers. You really think the absence of the EU would resolve that? Pull the other one.
As it happens, there are a number of things that need to be done:
(a) African nations are trying to consensus build on ways to form trade blocs of their own - think Mercosur in South America for example - that can counteract other world trading blocs, but this is proving very difficult so far since it is venal African officials who permit dumping and so on - the way these attack articles read, you'd think that EU officials personally fly across the continent scattering free frozen chicken thighs and powdered milk; and
(b) ultimately countries in the African continent should be growing crops to address the primary problem, which is providing the continent's population with adequate and reliable sources of basic foodstuffs, not growing consumer foodstuffs for export. Because unfortunately the foreign currency earnings from the latter (i) aren't what they should be due to tariffs (some of which are probably WTO) and (ii) rarely go back into being invested to help the poorest.
I was merely pointing out that your deeply prejudicial postings come from one viewpoint and don't reflect the whole story. And to suggest there isn't a cabal of vested interests cackling in a corner about how to ensure it continues is rather naive. I try to take a balanced view over the pros and cons of Brexit whereas you seem to be unable to find any positives and focusing solely on how it looks from the London bubble of an artisan bakery on every corner, nice gated communities and the City of London's dominance on global finance. We've already been through the fact that London isn't the UK and within certain parts of it there are people terrified of disturbing the status quo and ignorant of their ignorance of how the rest of the country lives. That's why you find it so hard to understand why people voted to leave. My postings are no more prejudiced than yours or anyone else's on here and I did not start the stories, whole or otherwise – I merely responded. One-sided assertions were made that my experience does not support, so why should I not respond? It seems to me that you are much more readily sympathetic to the anti-EU viewpoint, however one-sidedly expressed, and readier to attack the Remain perspective than not. So I really don't see your balanced view I'm afraid. In the perhaps overly long piece I wrote above, I: (i) tried to reply with the same grace that Mike showed (apologies if that failed); (ii) opined that both sides should stop resorting to casting personal insults to people they disagree with; (iii) gave my personal view, expressed as such and expressed to be based on my experience, on the topics of whether the mess in Ukraine is the EU's fault, whether famine in Africa is the EU's fault and whether the mess in Greece is the EU's fault; and (iv) gave my personal view as to why we shouldn't have left, which wasn't that the EU was wonderful, but rather that Brexit was simply not the answer to an otherwise valid question. I also pointed out that I was always open to the possibility of being wrong. Which is something I have yet to hear a Leaver do. Moreover, I did not say I did not understand those who voted to Leave. I said I did not understand those who believe in Brexit. There is a fairly significant difference between the two. So, really, what was so egregious about that? Furthermore, I never suggested the world doesn't contain cabals of vested interests cackling in corners – I simply rebutted your remarkably offensive insinuation that this was an accurate characterisation of my lunch and dining companions. Lastly, please cut the reverse snobbery. It's unbecoming and mean-spirited. I am very well aware of my surroundings and their context in the grand scheme of things – I do not need them ramming down my throat. They do not, whatever you think, negate the validity of my viewpoint, just as they don't for anybody else. You risk coming across as having exactly the same sort of decidedly prejudiced and generalised view of the City and London-based Remain voters, as you accuse them of having of Leave voters. It seems in your world to be ok to accuse Remainers of being ignorant of their ignorance of how the rest of the country lives but not ok to accuse Leavers of any ignorance, whether of their own ignorance or otherwise. So if you are trying to be balanced, it isn't working very well.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2017 13:21:51 GMT
But these are just viewpoints. I fear that very valid point gets well and truly lost in the heat of this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 12, 2017 14:11:19 GMT
My postings are no more prejudiced than yours or anyone else's on here and I did not start the stories, whole or otherwise – I merely responded. One-sided assertions were made that my experience does not support, so why should I not respond? It seems to me that you are much more readily sympathetic to the anti-EU viewpoint, however one-sidedly expressed, and readier to attack the Remain perspective than not. So I really don't see your balanced view I'm afraid. In the perhaps overly long piece I wrote above, I: (i) tried to reply with the same grace that Mike showed (apologies if that failed); (ii) opined that both sides should stop resorting to casting personal insults to people they disagree with; (iii) gave my personal view, expressed as such and expressed to be based on my experience, on the topics of whether the mess in Ukraine is the EU's fault, whether famine in Africa is the EU's fault and whether the mess in Greece is the EU's fault; and (iv) gave my personal view as to why we shouldn't have left, which wasn't that the EU was wonderful, but rather that Brexit was simply not the answer to an otherwise valid question. I also pointed out that I was always open to the possibility of being wrong. Which is something I have yet to hear a Leaver do. Moreover, I did not say I did not understand those who voted to Leave. I said I did not understand those who believe in Brexit. There is a fairly significant difference between the two. So, really, what was so egregious about that? Furthermore, I never suggested the world doesn't contain cabals of vested interests cackling in corners – I simply rebutted your remarkably offensive insinuation that this was an accurate characterisation of my lunch and dining companions. Lastly, please cut the reverse snobbery. It's unbecoming and mean-spirited. I am very well aware of my surroundings and their context in the grand scheme of things – I do not need them ramming down my throat. They do not, whatever you think, negate the validity of my viewpoint, just as they don't for anybody else. You risk coming across as having exactly the same sort of decidedly prejudiced and generalised view of the City and London-based Remain voters, as you accuse them of having of Leave voters. It seems in your world to be ok to accuse Remainers of being ignorant of their ignorance of how the rest of the country lives but not ok to accuse Leavers of any ignorance, whether of their own ignorance or otherwise. So if you are trying to be balanced, it isn't working very well. Racing, thanks for your lengthy reply and I hope I can respond with as much clarity. (i) I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m sometimes quick to respond to a comment and dash off a reply when more considered response might ruffle fewer feathers. For that I apologise. (ii) I agree about not casting personal insults and debating the point not the person, I think I made that comment on page 2 of this. However, I came into this thread as a person who voted to Remain but I have friends and family who voted Leave and when a forum member starts referring to them as muppets, ignorant, badly educated etc. I do feel the need to defend them. I don’t always agree with their politics but the way you have talked about them in some of your posts I found very annoying. (iii) I also give my personal view. We live in different areas of the country, work in different fields and have different backgrounds. My view has always been that no one person’s opinion is of more value that another’s. (iv) My view was that Brexit was not the answer but on reflection with all that is wrong with the EU was I not just kopping out, taking the easy option because that affected me least? Was I not just condoning the EU’s unfair treatment of Greece, Africa etc. and the folly of trying to push its borders up to Russia and provoking their (understandable?) response. Sometimes the paradigm needs to be broken before being remade. To be fair I’ve never heard you express any possibility of you being wrong, you’ve been pretty clear on what you believe will happen. My comment regarding cackling cabals referred to the fact that in situations where trade is skewed in one sides favour and the general public suffer, it is generally those at the top of society who benefit from this scenario – the government officials, lawyers, bankers etc. They don’t want their positions challenged. I wasn’t referring directly to you or your lunch companions and if you took it that way I apologise. I refer back to my original point. I’m not one for reverse snobbery but there is no getting away from the fact that London is not the UK and living within that “bubble”, and I make no apology for using that word, does give one a completely different view to that of the rest of the country. It doesn’t negate that viewpoint, but equally does not give it more validity. London receives the investment in transport and infrastructure and everything is geared towards keeping it as a dynamic 21st century cosmopolitan city. A fraction of that spread more evenly would do a lot to assuage peoples’ prejudices. The ironic thing is that, living in the North East, we get the crumbs from the table, it’s always been that way and we’re used to it, staying in or out of the EU is unlikely to change that fact, so when people ask why would someone working at Nissan with all its focus on export vote for Brexit, surely that’s shooting themselves in the foot, well they know they’re only one management meeting at Renault Nissan from moving production to France or Romania and whether we’re in or out is unlikely to make a significant difference. They’re just swapping one uncertainty for another uncertainty. I’m probably going to exit this thread, I’ve made my point and defended those I felt needing defending. If I’ve upset anyone I apologise again, this is a valuable forum to spout off on and I value everyone’s contribution (except ChrisM’s). (Only joking Chris!)
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 12, 2017 14:40:53 GMT
If its any comfort to anyone on either side, I used to spend my easter holidays with an aunt and uncle in North London's affluent Muswell Hill area. My very "right-on" younger cousin used to have raging arguments with her father at seemingly every mealtime about the rights and wrongs of society. Really quite fierce.
My point is: they had different opinions (still have, he in his 80s she in her 40s) but they still love each other dearly.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2017 14:48:18 GMT
Thank you for that and apology accepted. I will duly wind my neck back in. We are evidently two people who generally don't believe in sugar-coating things or who steer clear of saying things just because they might not be fashionable or might be controversial. For example, I freely admit that I did at one point accuse Remain voters who now say we should get with the Leave programme "just because" of being muppets, because that's a stance I personally find to be muddled nonsense. But I don't think I personally have accused any Leave voter of being a muppet or badly educated. If I have, I apologise. I have deliberately tried to avoid doing so because I have no basis on which to make such assertions, and I have tried mostly to clarify either (a) why I think what I think and (b) why I think the opposing view is either wrong or based on what I see as fantasy. I have also consistently said since before the referendum that I would love to be wrong on Brexit but so far I haven't seen any evidence that I am. That doesn't mean I'm not wrong - it just means that I won't just go along with the flow in the face of the evidence as I see it on such an important topic (and ergo my muppet remark). As regards investment across the nation, no-one disputes that this needs addressing - a fear I have is that Brexit was sold as the answer but it's hard to see how that's a promise that is capable of being delivered on. And there is also a risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs - whatever the inequalities, the ONS has shown that London (with around 13% of the UK population) generates almost 30% of all tax paid in the UK. This Guardian article illustrates the point quite well: www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 12, 2017 14:53:17 GMT
It's at this point the forum falls down as we can't all go for a nice pint now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 17:02:12 GMT
It's at this point the forum falls down as we can't all go for a nice pint now. And that is a real shame.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 12, 2017 18:35:34 GMT
Virtual pint then?
Cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 19:22:30 GMT
Cheers to all, I decided to have a look in my wine and spirits cellar, all right, cupboard in the kitchen. Surprised to find I have a bottle of A'bunadh, sealed. Having a very nice sup of Talisker original and it is sliding down so very nicely. On top of a bottle of Whitechapel porter, the porter is full of chocolate notes with hints of bullshit and an aroma of burnt slippers. The talisker has a very nice burn at the back of the throat with hints of orange and vanilla. I however have an aroma of really claggy socks but then I changed diet and my neighbour upstairs who is deaf as a coot gets it when she uses her bathroom. Oops. Sufficient change of pace chaps?
|
|