Brexit is a swear word in our house.
Advertisement
Brexit
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Category General Topics
Comments
Admin
#2
Only one man to blame - David Cameron. I frequently use swear words when his name crops up.
Advertisement
Moderator
#4
Caution: The clip below contains naughty words about our former Prime Minister.
Admin
#5
I hadn't heard that comment until now. To be honest I didn't know who Danny Dyer is when you mentioned him in your earlier post. I've since looked him up and I find he's a thespian. I like the cut of his jib if that interview is typical.
Moderator
#6
For the most part yes he is but i also think Labour under Blair and Brown also shoulder part of the blame along with the EU itself and the likes of Farage and Johnson and parts of UK society in general and the education system.
I think it's a case of hoping it'll be alright on the night!
I think it's a case of hoping it'll be alright on the night!
Generally speaking I try not to get involved in political debate and discussions.However i would like to play devils advocate here.
Did anyone else see the story in one of the National papers last week stating the reasons why most of the EU want the U.K. to stay in the Union.
Strangely it was missed by the pro EU propaganda machine that is the BBC,as well as other sources.
The reason,as if we didn’t know is purely down to the money we put in.They do not want to lose it,as admitted by Malta and the Czech Republic.Also no one ever tells what the implications are for the rest of the EU,how much they will lose in terms of money and possibly jobs.Why ,they do not want you to know.
All we get is why we should stay.The facts are,actually quite simple,nobody actually knows what is going to happen,why,because it has never happened before.
If we lose out in terms of money and/or jobs,then surely so will the rest of the EU.You cannot buy and sell goods,services and tourism without rules and regulations being in place.So all parties will , not might,be affected.
Therefore it would actually be a breath of fresh air for someone on the EU side to start telling the truth and tell everyone what the implications are for the EU members once we have left.
Tell you what though,I bet you they won’t,they would much rather blame the U.K. for rocking the boat.
The EU is doing the same as the anti. leave side,and that is stalling the talks at every opportunity,in a bid to do one of a number of things;
Deliberately force a no deal,which is actually better for us,so I can’t really see that,
Force the Tory party to implode,due to the internal squabbling and bitching,
Try and force Mrs May to call for a general election in the hope that it could force either a new vote,but with different questions,or hope that Labour get in and reverse the decision.
However,we are on the verge of losing the one thing that the U.K. has helped give the world ,and that is democracy.A vote was called,agree or disagree,it was taken to the country.Whether you like the outcome or not,the vote was in favour of leaving.Perhaps the questions on the ballot paper were wrong,but it Is done now and the leave vote won.That is the democratic process ,like it or not.If people don’t like it then perhaps they should have got off their backsides and voted.For those that did,you need to accept it.We never get calls for a re-vote on a general election, yet the process is the same,and some results in recent elections have been quite close,even if you take into account the low turn out of voters.
For the sake of the country all the politicians should be working together to get the best deal.However we know that is not going to happen.It is a sad state of affairs when you think about it.
If we get a bad deal,or no deal,then a I can see a general election being called.It will be up to the whingers and nay sayers to change the situation,but does anyone here actually think that a Labour government would have done the negotiations any better,or indeed save the country from meltdown after we have left.
Did anyone else see the story in one of the National papers last week stating the reasons why most of the EU want the U.K. to stay in the Union.
Strangely it was missed by the pro EU propaganda machine that is the BBC,as well as other sources.
The reason,as if we didn’t know is purely down to the money we put in.They do not want to lose it,as admitted by Malta and the Czech Republic.Also no one ever tells what the implications are for the rest of the EU,how much they will lose in terms of money and possibly jobs.Why ,they do not want you to know.
All we get is why we should stay.The facts are,actually quite simple,nobody actually knows what is going to happen,why,because it has never happened before.
If we lose out in terms of money and/or jobs,then surely so will the rest of the EU.You cannot buy and sell goods,services and tourism without rules and regulations being in place.So all parties will , not might,be affected.
Therefore it would actually be a breath of fresh air for someone on the EU side to start telling the truth and tell everyone what the implications are for the EU members once we have left.
Tell you what though,I bet you they won’t,they would much rather blame the U.K. for rocking the boat.
The EU is doing the same as the anti. leave side,and that is stalling the talks at every opportunity,in a bid to do one of a number of things;
Deliberately force a no deal,which is actually better for us,so I can’t really see that,
Force the Tory party to implode,due to the internal squabbling and bitching,
Try and force Mrs May to call for a general election in the hope that it could force either a new vote,but with different questions,or hope that Labour get in and reverse the decision.
However,we are on the verge of losing the one thing that the U.K. has helped give the world ,and that is democracy.A vote was called,agree or disagree,it was taken to the country.Whether you like the outcome or not,the vote was in favour of leaving.Perhaps the questions on the ballot paper were wrong,but it Is done now and the leave vote won.That is the democratic process ,like it or not.If people don’t like it then perhaps they should have got off their backsides and voted.For those that did,you need to accept it.We never get calls for a re-vote on a general election, yet the process is the same,and some results in recent elections have been quite close,even if you take into account the low turn out of voters.
For the sake of the country all the politicians should be working together to get the best deal.However we know that is not going to happen.It is a sad state of affairs when you think about it.
If we get a bad deal,or no deal,then a I can see a general election being called.It will be up to the whingers and nay sayers to change the situation,but does anyone here actually think that a Labour government would have done the negotiations any better,or indeed save the country from meltdown after we have left.
Further to my above post,and more BHX specific,I have just noticed on the online version of the Birmingham Mail,the shadow foreign secretary has said,;Birmingham Airport will be thrown into chaos if there is no deal.So will all other airports in the U.K then if that happens.It is claimed that nothing will be able to take off from the U.K. if it is either landing or overflying any part of the EU.
As I stated before then the same has to be true on the reverse.Therfore,as I said before,it is in the interests of both parties that a deal is done,even if one has to back down somewhere along the negotiation process.
I wonder who is going to give first??!!
As I stated before then the same has to be true on the reverse.Therfore,as I said before,it is in the interests of both parties that a deal is done,even if one has to back down somewhere along the negotiation process.
I wonder who is going to give first??!!
Thank you Brummiegem for voicing so many points that I totally agree with.
I don't believe the question was 'wrong'. Infact, I believe it was the most clear possible - 'Do you want to be part of the EU, or not!'
The result was clear, and democracy must be respected!
It's not democracy, if the losing group keeps campainig for more votes until their view prevails.
Also, there is no such thing as a 'no deal'. Right from the start, it was obvious that failure to reach a deal would result in World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules being applied. These are the rules under which the vast majority of nations trade and in many cases would be benefitial to the UK.
Kevin
I don't believe the question was 'wrong'. Infact, I believe it was the most clear possible - 'Do you want to be part of the EU, or not!'
The result was clear, and democracy must be respected!
It's not democracy, if the losing group keeps campainig for more votes until their view prevails.
Also, there is no such thing as a 'no deal'. Right from the start, it was obvious that failure to reach a deal would result in World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules being applied. These are the rules under which the vast majority of nations trade and in many cases would be benefitial to the UK.
Kevin
Last edited:
The shadows foreign secretaries comments are typical of the level of debate by most of our political class. Both sides agree the aviation rules are good, work and like them as they do agee on many things so to my simple way of thinking why not have an agreement onthose things that you do agree on and each side have their own rules on the things they disagree on. I know it's not that simple but Brummegem was basically correct
The referendum question was plain and simple and the answer clear I clearly remember the inept David Cameron repeatedly saying out means out thats what we got so do it.
One and only comment on this subject back to aeroplanes for me.
The referendum question was plain and simple and the answer clear I clearly remember the inept David Cameron repeatedly saying out means out thats what we got so do it.
One and only comment on this subject back to aeroplanes for me.
To answer your first point regarding the question "IN or OUT"
It was never as clear cut as that because the IN and OUT campaigners stated facts that were untrue or can't be proven.
£350m a week pledge for the NHS
Leave said "Europe will be bending over backwards to do deals with the UK"
Leave said "We'll remain in the single market if we leave"
Leave said "If we leave we will get a deal we want (have our cake and eat it)"
Remain said "we would go into an instant recession with a vote to leave."
The list went on and on with outrageous claims from both sides.
So people were voting having being lied to. The Leave campaign has since been proven to have broken electoral rules. Had it been a General Election the vote would have been classed as null and void. Where's the democracy there?
To answer your second point regarding "democracy must be respected", yes , I totally agree but I refer back to my previous answer, if you are lied to how is that a democracy? Also, if the vote must be respected then why wasn't the 1973 vote respected as the leave campaigners basically rumbled on for year until they got a second vote.
To answer your third point about it "not being a democracy if the losing group keeps campaigning until their views prevail". If that were the case we'd not need a General Election every 5 years. Opinions do change and opinions have changed as the "facts" become clearer. If we have a second vote based on the facts we now have and the result is Leave then I agree it must be accepted as it's based on the facts. If it's not then we should keep the status quo.
In the event of a second referendum the facts should be agreed by both sides and presented, then there should be a press embargo on the type of verbal diarrhoea clap trap that both sides spewed in the first referendum. I do genuinely believe we wouldn't have had all this fiasco had the facts been laid out on the table beforehand. We should probably have done all the wheeling and dealing before having the first vote, not the other way round.
It was never as clear cut as that because the IN and OUT campaigners stated facts that were untrue or can't be proven.
£350m a week pledge for the NHS
Leave said "Europe will be bending over backwards to do deals with the UK"
Leave said "We'll remain in the single market if we leave"
Leave said "If we leave we will get a deal we want (have our cake and eat it)"
Remain said "we would go into an instant recession with a vote to leave."
The list went on and on with outrageous claims from both sides.
So people were voting having being lied to. The Leave campaign has since been proven to have broken electoral rules. Had it been a General Election the vote would have been classed as null and void. Where's the democracy there?
To answer your second point regarding "democracy must be respected", yes , I totally agree but I refer back to my previous answer, if you are lied to how is that a democracy? Also, if the vote must be respected then why wasn't the 1973 vote respected as the leave campaigners basically rumbled on for year until they got a second vote.
To answer your third point about it "not being a democracy if the losing group keeps campaigning until their views prevail". If that were the case we'd not need a General Election every 5 years. Opinions do change and opinions have changed as the "facts" become clearer. If we have a second vote based on the facts we now have and the result is Leave then I agree it must be accepted as it's based on the facts. If it's not then we should keep the status quo.
In the event of a second referendum the facts should be agreed by both sides and presented, then there should be a press embargo on the type of verbal diarrhoea clap trap that both sides spewed in the first referendum. I do genuinely believe we wouldn't have had all this fiasco had the facts been laid out on the table beforehand. We should probably have done all the wheeling and dealing before having the first vote, not the other way round.
Aviador - You are quite justified in pointing out that the 'Leave' campaign made misleading claims during the referendum process. However, you would be equally correct in pointing out that the 'Remain' side did as well! The entire debate during the referendum was lamentable. And it still is. The notion that the general public didn't understand the issues then but supposedly does now is laughable.
Firstly, we need to understand that the EU is NOT a trading bloc. That was the EEC. The EU is an entire apparatus of government. And the key decision-makers are 'commissioners' who cannot be voted out by the electorate. They are appointed from within. And they have a long track-record of ignoring the wishes of the public. I refer to them as the 'Politburo', as they are exactly that in all but title.
The commissioners have a long rap-sheet of misdeeds to answer for. But the standout amongst these was the imposition of the scandalous 'Treaty of Lisbon'. In order to encourage 'ever closer union' (beyond trade alone) it was decided that a European Constitution was required. A document was duly drawn up by Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, but this had to be ratified by each member state. However, in late May / early June 2005 France and the Netherlands voted NO. This was viewed as a political earthquake at the time, and the proposal was proclaimed dead by the media. Plans for polls in other member states were scrapped. The voters wanted a free trade bloc, nothing more.
But the Commission never lets the public stand in the way of its agenda. They sought legal advice on how they could introduce the Constitution anyway. The response was that it would need to be rebranded as a TREATY (which does not trigger national referenda except in Eire). And they would need to alter the wording so that they could legally claim that the documents were different beasts. This was done, though the actual substance remained virtually unaltered. Thus the 'Constitution' was directly replaced by the 'Treaty of Lisbon'. Eire alone required a referendum to ratify this. And the Irish duly voted NO. They were then subjected to their own version of 'Project Fear' for several months before giving the Commission the answer they demanded in the October 2009 forced re-run. At the final ratification ceremony in Lisbon, Gordon Brown sneaked in by a back door and signed away from the cameras. He knew how shameful his action was.
The Treaty of Lisbon is the reason I voted 'Leave'. Not because I'm a racist. Not because I'm a thick Northerner (though OK, I am!). Not because I didn't understand the issues. No, I voted 'Leave' because tyranny must not endure. The Commission imposed its own vision in direct violation of the expressed wishes of the electorate - even the French founder-members were thwarted.
Since then the EU has made a string of decisions which highlight the 'Democratic Deficit' issue. They pursue their own agenda against the will of the public and they can't be voted out. Do you remember the BBC outrage when Hong Kong demonstrators protested against rules which may see China nominate the HK leader two decades hence? Well, the EU commission is way ahead. They imposed their nominee Mario Monti on Italy for eighteen months in 2011-2013. Where was the BBC outrage then? And don't even mention how they stitched up Cyprus.
Yes, leaving the EU does come at a price. But so does staying in. Not least supporting the Euro. There was no pain-free option on offer. Short-term trade disruption is a small price to pay. And I really do mean short-term as the EU27 trade surplus with the UK stood at EUR75 Billion in 2017. So that will mean quite a windfall for us if we default to WTO tariffs, won't it? Maybe we could give that money to the NHS until the EU feel they have made their point! And we could also chuck in the £36Bn 'divorce settlement' sum which the EU27 won't be entitled to in the event of "no deal". Germany's trade surplus alone with the UK is EUR21Bn in their favour ... and they don't want a free trade deal? Pull the other one! Isn't it one in every three German-built cars sold in the UK?
And if the UK need not be a supplicant on trade, consider our other strengths. It is primarily British troops who are providing protection on the EU's eastern frontier. We're one of the few countries which has maintained sufficient defence spending for this. Perhaps Frau Merkel and Monsieur Macron would like to step up if we withdraw? And as for anti-terror intelligence, GCHQ is right up there on that front. Does the EU27 genuinely want to exclude themselves from that? No, the UK does have cards to play. Though the BBC and the Guardian etc don't appear to have noticed.
And if you know any millennials who lament "having our future stolen" by snowflakes and racists, remind them to look up youth unemployment data for Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Cyprus. Utter despair and record levels of youth-suicide courtesy of Euro interest rates geared to the needs of the German economy.
And all those EU citizens facing 'cruel uncertainty' re their future residential status in the UK. Following the referendum, Theresa May proposed a rapid agreement to resolve this. Angela Merkel said NEIN: nothing is to be discussed until Article 50 is triggered! So blame her for the angst. Politicians here have continued to reassure EU migrants resident here that they are welcome.
Finally, aviation. Let's suppose - hypothetically - that the worst-case scenario played out. All G- reg flights to the EU27 grounded. And all EU27 aircraft unable to use UK airspace (ATC licences would be 'invalid' too) including flights onto the North Atlantic. How long do we really think that state of affairs would be allowed to persist? Hours? Days - at a stretch? My bet is they'll make darned sure it doesn't happen at all. Unless they fancy being lynched by the public.
Negotiations are in progress at the moment. Barnier and co will play hardball till the end so that the UK is seen to be punished. We can't be seen to cherry-pick, can we? But of course, the big win for them would be a commitment by HMG to a referendum on the deal offered. Then all they need to do is offer a totally unacceptable package and await the inevitable poll outcome. And the UK will then be properly under the boot this time. And paying in (more) again. And joining the failing Euro. Democracy ... nah, who cares about that?
Apologies for straying somewhat 'off-topic'. But so has everyone else on here by the look of things!
Firstly, we need to understand that the EU is NOT a trading bloc. That was the EEC. The EU is an entire apparatus of government. And the key decision-makers are 'commissioners' who cannot be voted out by the electorate. They are appointed from within. And they have a long track-record of ignoring the wishes of the public. I refer to them as the 'Politburo', as they are exactly that in all but title.
The commissioners have a long rap-sheet of misdeeds to answer for. But the standout amongst these was the imposition of the scandalous 'Treaty of Lisbon'. In order to encourage 'ever closer union' (beyond trade alone) it was decided that a European Constitution was required. A document was duly drawn up by Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, but this had to be ratified by each member state. However, in late May / early June 2005 France and the Netherlands voted NO. This was viewed as a political earthquake at the time, and the proposal was proclaimed dead by the media. Plans for polls in other member states were scrapped. The voters wanted a free trade bloc, nothing more.
But the Commission never lets the public stand in the way of its agenda. They sought legal advice on how they could introduce the Constitution anyway. The response was that it would need to be rebranded as a TREATY (which does not trigger national referenda except in Eire). And they would need to alter the wording so that they could legally claim that the documents were different beasts. This was done, though the actual substance remained virtually unaltered. Thus the 'Constitution' was directly replaced by the 'Treaty of Lisbon'. Eire alone required a referendum to ratify this. And the Irish duly voted NO. They were then subjected to their own version of 'Project Fear' for several months before giving the Commission the answer they demanded in the October 2009 forced re-run. At the final ratification ceremony in Lisbon, Gordon Brown sneaked in by a back door and signed away from the cameras. He knew how shameful his action was.
The Treaty of Lisbon is the reason I voted 'Leave'. Not because I'm a racist. Not because I'm a thick Northerner (though OK, I am!). Not because I didn't understand the issues. No, I voted 'Leave' because tyranny must not endure. The Commission imposed its own vision in direct violation of the expressed wishes of the electorate - even the French founder-members were thwarted.
Since then the EU has made a string of decisions which highlight the 'Democratic Deficit' issue. They pursue their own agenda against the will of the public and they can't be voted out. Do you remember the BBC outrage when Hong Kong demonstrators protested against rules which may see China nominate the HK leader two decades hence? Well, the EU commission is way ahead. They imposed their nominee Mario Monti on Italy for eighteen months in 2011-2013. Where was the BBC outrage then? And don't even mention how they stitched up Cyprus.
Yes, leaving the EU does come at a price. But so does staying in. Not least supporting the Euro. There was no pain-free option on offer. Short-term trade disruption is a small price to pay. And I really do mean short-term as the EU27 trade surplus with the UK stood at EUR75 Billion in 2017. So that will mean quite a windfall for us if we default to WTO tariffs, won't it? Maybe we could give that money to the NHS until the EU feel they have made their point! And we could also chuck in the £36Bn 'divorce settlement' sum which the EU27 won't be entitled to in the event of "no deal". Germany's trade surplus alone with the UK is EUR21Bn in their favour ... and they don't want a free trade deal? Pull the other one! Isn't it one in every three German-built cars sold in the UK?
And if the UK need not be a supplicant on trade, consider our other strengths. It is primarily British troops who are providing protection on the EU's eastern frontier. We're one of the few countries which has maintained sufficient defence spending for this. Perhaps Frau Merkel and Monsieur Macron would like to step up if we withdraw? And as for anti-terror intelligence, GCHQ is right up there on that front. Does the EU27 genuinely want to exclude themselves from that? No, the UK does have cards to play. Though the BBC and the Guardian etc don't appear to have noticed.
And if you know any millennials who lament "having our future stolen" by snowflakes and racists, remind them to look up youth unemployment data for Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Cyprus. Utter despair and record levels of youth-suicide courtesy of Euro interest rates geared to the needs of the German economy.
And all those EU citizens facing 'cruel uncertainty' re their future residential status in the UK. Following the referendum, Theresa May proposed a rapid agreement to resolve this. Angela Merkel said NEIN: nothing is to be discussed until Article 50 is triggered! So blame her for the angst. Politicians here have continued to reassure EU migrants resident here that they are welcome.
Finally, aviation. Let's suppose - hypothetically - that the worst-case scenario played out. All G- reg flights to the EU27 grounded. And all EU27 aircraft unable to use UK airspace (ATC licences would be 'invalid' too) including flights onto the North Atlantic. How long do we really think that state of affairs would be allowed to persist? Hours? Days - at a stretch? My bet is they'll make darned sure it doesn't happen at all. Unless they fancy being lynched by the public.
Negotiations are in progress at the moment. Barnier and co will play hardball till the end so that the UK is seen to be punished. We can't be seen to cherry-pick, can we? But of course, the big win for them would be a commitment by HMG to a referendum on the deal offered. Then all they need to do is offer a totally unacceptable package and await the inevitable poll outcome. And the UK will then be properly under the boot this time. And paying in (more) again. And joining the failing Euro. Democracy ... nah, who cares about that?
Apologies for straying somewhat 'off-topic'. But so has everyone else on here by the look of things!
Very well said and constructed argument EGCC-MAN not much I personally disagree with there and you did not even mention the scandalous system of payments to MEPs, 400,000 plus euros salary at a special euro 22% tax rate, 200,000 plus euros per anum expenses no paperwork or recepts reqiured plus 330euros per day allowance when one of the TWO parliaments are sitting, yes there are two as the French insisted that one must be in France and naturally 1st.class travel is laid on between the two at our expense because as everyone knows governments do not have any money only other peoples.
One area I sort of disagreed with is when stating about Britains military contribution i do not perceive that as E.U. thing, but something that NATO has and continues to guarantee and that is hugely dependant on the U.S.A although the UK. is an important player Given the size and strategic location Germanys contribution is lamitble although there are historical reasons, as for Europes second biggest military power France is not even in NATO.
The EUs contributions to relative peace in Europe has been through trade which binds countries together for mutual benefits which is what the Common Market was in 1975 when we had our first referendum and I voted to stay in (note we were never asked in 1972 when we joined if we wanted to) little did l know as a gulable 23 year old.
As you say we are way off topic so may get a telling off.
One area I sort of disagreed with is when stating about Britains military contribution i do not perceive that as E.U. thing, but something that NATO has and continues to guarantee and that is hugely dependant on the U.S.A although the UK. is an important player Given the size and strategic location Germanys contribution is lamitble although there are historical reasons, as for Europes second biggest military power France is not even in NATO.
The EUs contributions to relative peace in Europe has been through trade which binds countries together for mutual benefits which is what the Common Market was in 1975 when we had our first referendum and I voted to stay in (note we were never asked in 1972 when we joined if we wanted to) little did l know as a gulable 23 year old.
As you say we are way off topic so may get a telling off.
I'm so pleased someone has mentioned defence. We have a massive inventory of artillery prepositioned in Europe precisely because of Russia, we also have Typhoon currently based in one of the Old Eastern bloc countries.
Barnier suggested
"we can't be members of the club anymore".
Fine , over to you France, Germany, Spain , Italy etc.
And I'm so pleased someone has mentioned aviation. If there is no deal the inference and screaming headlines suggest planes grounded with no UK planes having access to the EU.
Well here's news this includes legacy air traffic control agreements which means no EU registered planes will be allowed to cross UK/ Scottish airspace, effectively all EU- USA/Canada flights will be rerouted over France or Scandinavian.
They must be worth a mention by the headline writers ?
Barnier suggested
"we can't be members of the club anymore".
Fine , over to you France, Germany, Spain , Italy etc.
And I'm so pleased someone has mentioned aviation. If there is no deal the inference and screaming headlines suggest planes grounded with no UK planes having access to the EU.
Well here's news this includes legacy air traffic control agreements which means no EU registered planes will be allowed to cross UK/ Scottish airspace, effectively all EU- USA/Canada flights will be rerouted over France or Scandinavian.
They must be worth a mention by the headline writers ?
Under this scenario, few affected aircraft would have the range to avoid UK-controlled airspace and still reach North America. Those which could would add hours to their journey and would incur substantial financial loss. Half of the North Atlantic is controlled by holders of UK-issued ATC licences. We're not just talking about the British Isles and associated territorial waters.