How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
powerstroke said:
Gina Millar and her Quisling banker mates perhaps ???
Considering Miller forced the government to pass law through Parliament & the entire point of leaving the EU is to ensure only our Parliament makes law, can you explain to me what the problem with her is? And moreover why the ire isn't directed at a Prime Minister who attempted to bypass our law making body in order to force legislation like some tin pot dictator?b2hbm said:
///ajd said:
b2hbm said:
Stuff
It's reported as a leaked treasury report. If you take at face value it is a treasury report, then odds are it is balanced, especially if for internal use only. I'm not sure how many reports you think the treasury create that are "complete rubbish" but I'd suspect not many, if any. You may disagree or question assumptions, but they are unlikely to be the sort of breitbart/Farage utter garbage/lies that you imply. Civil servants don't tend to get away with telling whoppers, or perhaps you think they do.
Although you're right I suppose, Osborne and Cameron didn't get away with telling those whoppers about economic armageddon and emergency budgets last year, did they ? Even Mark Carney had his 2 cent's worth of dire predictions as well IIRC. Obviously they were ill advised, I wonder where they got their forecasts from ?
///ajd said:
I'll give you 1/10 for trying to pretend treasury concerns over WTO are complete rubbish. Hammond is saying it - where do you think he's getting his advice?
only 1 ? ah well, as one of those stupid brexit voters, I don't suppose I can expect any more. Never mind, I'll get over it.Do you really think civil servants regularly lie & get away with it? Interesting.
I don't know for sure of course, but my impression is that they don't tend to - they have to play with a straight bat as I understand it.
Anyone any experience of civil servants lying/making stuff up?
This was written by civil servants I assume - is any of it actually wrong? Any bits are untrue or spun in a properly dishonest way?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 July 18:20
Eddie Strohacker said:
powerstroke said:
Gina Millar and her Quisling banker mates perhaps ???
Considering Miller forced the government to pass law through Parliament & the entire point of leaving the EU is to ensure only our Parliament makes law, can you explain to me what the problem with her is? And moreover why the ire isn't directed at a Prime Minister who attempted to bypass our law making body in order to force legislation like some tin pot dictator?PurpleMoonlight said:
alfie2244 said:
So nice of them to fund, even with our own monies, the very organisation that had the No1 ambition of getting the UK out of the biggest Ponzi scheme on earth....money well spent I would say.
It's not a Ponzi scheme.jjlynn27 said:
In case that you didn't conjure them out of thin air for the purpose of that post, they don't seem to be representative.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/remain-...
No need to conjure anyone out of thin air. Do you really believe that people aren't fed up with the EU ?. As another has just said it doesn't appear that any great numbers have changed their mind since the referendum. It could still be 52/48, or 51/49 - or 55/45.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/remain-...
Nice that you have found another poll, there have been quite a few others I gather.........
alfie2244 said:
See that's how Ponzis work........anyone that joins lives in ever hope they will get something out and cling on to the belief until the bitter end, a bit like the Stockholm syndrome in a way perhaps.
It's the exact opposite of a Ponzi scheme.A Ponzi scheme uses new investors money and gives it to existing investors. The EU uses existing investors money and gives it to new investors.
PurpleMoonlight said:
alfie2244 said:
See that's how Ponzis work........anyone that joins lives in ever hope they will get something out and cling on to the belief until the bitter end, a bit like the Stockholm syndrome in a way perhaps.
It's the exact opposite of a Ponzi scheme.A Ponzi scheme uses new investors money and gives it to existing investors. The EU uses existing investors money and gives it to new investors.
The interesting thing about people in a Ponzi scheme is that they have a tendency to buy into their own hype and would often try to keep the scheme going long after the "scheme" has been exposed.
PurpleMoonlight said:
alfie2244 said:
See that's how Ponzis work........anyone that joins lives in ever hope they will get something out and cling on to the belief until the bitter end, a bit like the Stockholm syndrome in a way perhaps.
It's the exact opposite of a Ponzi scheme.A Ponzi scheme uses new investors money and gives it to existing investors. The EU uses existing investors money and gives it to new investors.
Hmm ???? You are begining to get it
///ajd said:
Osbourne and Cameron are politicians, not civil servants. I would not doubt that many politicians are not adverse to porkies or extreme spin.
Do you really think civil servants regularly lie & get away with it? Interesting.
I don't know for sure of course, but my impression is that they don't tend to - they have to play with a straight bat as I understand it.
Anyone any experience of civil servants lying/making stuff up?
This was written by civil servants I assume - is any of it actually wrong? Any bits are untrue or spun in a properly dishonest way?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
An interesting question, do they lie or make things up? Do you really think civil servants regularly lie & get away with it? Interesting.
I don't know for sure of course, but my impression is that they don't tend to - they have to play with a straight bat as I understand it.
Anyone any experience of civil servants lying/making stuff up?
This was written by civil servants I assume - is any of it actually wrong? Any bits are untrue or spun in a properly dishonest way?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 22 July 18:20
I don't believe anybody can say they don't lie as they are human beings and some civil service member will risk it if they think it is a useful thing to do and that they can get away with it.
Perhaps rather than lying we should look at their history nasty and integrity and this is where the short comings are in my view.
We had the "dodgy dossier" and evidence about WMD apparently being sexed up for Blair that took us to war.
You'll ever truly know the veracity about anything they tell you really.
On a personal experience note with local civil servants the council were pushing a certain strategy and projected population growth as a reason to turn over acres and acres of green field to development. They were claiming projections as being hard fact, despite evidence of previous projections having been totally inaccurate by tens of thousands.
So I asked under FOI for the underlying data and formal they had used. Shock horror. They tried to stop me getting the information by claiming various get outs for them in the FOI legislation but I eventually cut through that.
,so determined that I should not get the data a council officer just refused to provide it to me and it wasn't until I pointed out he was acting with no legal standing and could be guilty of misconduct in public office did I get the data. Apparently I was the very forst person to ever request it.
Anyway, my worst fears were realised in that the projections had no foundation whatsoever and required so many assumptions to come true that they were useless.
So something that was presented as fact simply wasn't.
Lying? Who knows. Dishonest and integrity issues? Certainly .
Personally I don't trust them at all without verification and is why on issues to do with the EU I trust Richard North far more than our civil servants and politicians.
The thing about distrusting all experts that disagree with you and refusing to engage with them other than to accuse them of dishonesty is that you end up behaving exactly like a toddler.
'No. I'm right! I'm right!'
It's a failure of our education system: we have told children for decades that their opinions are 'valid' and people have taken that to mean 'valuable'.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions on the economics of crashing out of the biggest free trade area in the world with no proper transitional arrangements and no replacement deals in place with other countries. You're entitled to those opinions, but they are utterly without value unless they are based on either (1) faith in an expert consensus or at least a respected and well-evidenced viewpoint or (2) your own detailed study and analysis (with the benefit of expertise in the relevant fields). Anything less than that makes you like amateur lawyers pretending to understand how domestic and EU law interact. Putting faith in the leading Brexiteers (who are notoriously dishonest and/or blitheringly stupid) is sheer madness.
Tin foil hat, writing books in your garden shed, brown trousers kind of stuff.
As for the Govt knowing what it is doing, you can only laugh. Most of them are below pond life in intellectual terms and have a fantasy of Britain racing to the bottom in an orgy of deregulation and low taxation that is simply never going to happen.
As for Labour, does anyone genuinely not know why they are pro-Brexit? Corbyn is a Marxist. You cannot nationalise major industries or confiscate private property within the EU. That's why Labour supports Brexit: so it can unleash economic Armageddon when it comes to power.
'No. I'm right! I'm right!'
It's a failure of our education system: we have told children for decades that their opinions are 'valid' and people have taken that to mean 'valuable'.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions on the economics of crashing out of the biggest free trade area in the world with no proper transitional arrangements and no replacement deals in place with other countries. You're entitled to those opinions, but they are utterly without value unless they are based on either (1) faith in an expert consensus or at least a respected and well-evidenced viewpoint or (2) your own detailed study and analysis (with the benefit of expertise in the relevant fields). Anything less than that makes you like amateur lawyers pretending to understand how domestic and EU law interact. Putting faith in the leading Brexiteers (who are notoriously dishonest and/or blitheringly stupid) is sheer madness.
Tin foil hat, writing books in your garden shed, brown trousers kind of stuff.
As for the Govt knowing what it is doing, you can only laugh. Most of them are below pond life in intellectual terms and have a fantasy of Britain racing to the bottom in an orgy of deregulation and low taxation that is simply never going to happen.
As for Labour, does anyone genuinely not know why they are pro-Brexit? Corbyn is a Marxist. You cannot nationalise major industries or confiscate private property within the EU. That's why Labour supports Brexit: so it can unleash economic Armageddon when it comes to power.
Depends what you mean by confiscate ORD, you need to read what Article 17 says as there is lots of scope for governments to one way or the other take your property. The most obvious means for a socialist democratic government would be to crank up a massive LVT or rates rise, this would then force people out via "The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
Coolbanana said:
I'm not posting but occasionally browse this Thread for mild amusement: I voted Remain and Lib-dems.
I've also left the UK....but that process began 6 months before the Referendum and has finally been completed in June this year. Yay me
I now live in The Algarve and Amsterdam.
I still strongly believe that the UK has embarked upon an unnecessary period of pain - brought about by greedy, self-serving Politicians eager to mark their territory rather than truly and honesty debate what is best for the Country - only to ultimately find itself no better off than before; successive UK Governments will provide no real legislative or financial benefits in the long run vs remaining in the EU where they had great influence anyway - it is all smoke and mirrors in my opinion that any UK Government will make life any better out of the EU than in. They will adopt all EU Laws in the short term and...watch...none of any significance will actually be changed to make any fundamental difference to the average chap or chappess.
While I do wish all in the UK well, I am convinced most will suffer financially in the short to medium term during and immediately after Brexit but will emerge eventually to the brave new World post-Brexit at an uncertain Date to find nothing is much changed at all. No real benefits and that includes immigration concerns as the UK brings in the same number of people under the guise of much-needed work-force because the majority of the local population who decried jobs being taken from them prove unwilling when their bluff is called.
So all for nothing. In my opinion.
We'll see. Too early to call for sure right now and I watch with interest at how, so far, the UK negotiating Team is looking increasingly foolish and not up to a task they seem to be finding is out of their depth.
One last point if I may...I do not agree Remainers should be expected to adopt the Brexiteers stance just because they lost the vote and make the best of a bad situation if they still strongly believe that their view is correct. Indeed, those Remainers should be expected, as in every Democracy, to fight against what they do not believe in!
When the Conservatives win Power you do not see Labour Supporters suddenly supporting the Tories because, "they won' get behind them!" No! If anyone in the UK feels the Referendum result is wrong then it is their Democratic right to campaign for what they feel they can get behind.
If there are enough Remainers who feel that way and it does jeopardise what the Brexiteers believe would be a better end game if only everyone now adopted the wishes of the majority then it just proves that the result was too close to guarantee a solution in the best interests of all and should therefore be debated further!
Again, all in my own opinion, you understand. Right, I'm off for a swim. Have a good weekend all.
Refreshing read.I've also left the UK....but that process began 6 months before the Referendum and has finally been completed in June this year. Yay me
I now live in The Algarve and Amsterdam. I still strongly believe that the UK has embarked upon an unnecessary period of pain - brought about by greedy, self-serving Politicians eager to mark their territory rather than truly and honesty debate what is best for the Country - only to ultimately find itself no better off than before; successive UK Governments will provide no real legislative or financial benefits in the long run vs remaining in the EU where they had great influence anyway - it is all smoke and mirrors in my opinion that any UK Government will make life any better out of the EU than in. They will adopt all EU Laws in the short term and...watch...none of any significance will actually be changed to make any fundamental difference to the average chap or chappess.
While I do wish all in the UK well, I am convinced most will suffer financially in the short to medium term during and immediately after Brexit but will emerge eventually to the brave new World post-Brexit at an uncertain Date to find nothing is much changed at all. No real benefits and that includes immigration concerns as the UK brings in the same number of people under the guise of much-needed work-force because the majority of the local population who decried jobs being taken from them prove unwilling when their bluff is called.
So all for nothing. In my opinion.
We'll see. Too early to call for sure right now and I watch with interest at how, so far, the UK negotiating Team is looking increasingly foolish and not up to a task they seem to be finding is out of their depth.
One last point if I may...I do not agree Remainers should be expected to adopt the Brexiteers stance just because they lost the vote and make the best of a bad situation if they still strongly believe that their view is correct. Indeed, those Remainers should be expected, as in every Democracy, to fight against what they do not believe in!
When the Conservatives win Power you do not see Labour Supporters suddenly supporting the Tories because, "they won' get behind them!" No! If anyone in the UK feels the Referendum result is wrong then it is their Democratic right to campaign for what they feel they can get behind.
If there are enough Remainers who feel that way and it does jeopardise what the Brexiteers believe would be a better end game if only everyone now adopted the wishes of the majority then it just proves that the result was too close to guarantee a solution in the best interests of all and should therefore be debated further!
Again, all in my own opinion, you understand. Right, I'm off for a swim. Have a good weekend all.
NJH said:
Depends what you mean by confiscate ORD, you need to read what Article 17 says as there is lots of scope for governments to one way or the other take your property. The most obvious means for a socialist democratic government would be to crank up a massive LVT or rates rise, this would then force people out via "The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
Good point. But the nationalisation point stands. And he would also come a cropper on competition law grounds for a lot of his approach. ///ajd said:
Ha ha!
Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
The German people did stick with him, right until the time he committed suicide when he realised the war was lost.Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
The reason the people of Germany are now free of such tyrants is because of people like my Grandparents, their friends and family and all those allies from every corner of the globe who made the required sacrifices.
jsf said:
///ajd said:
Ha ha!
Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
The German people did stick with him, right until the time he committed suicide when he realised the war was lost.Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
///ajd said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
jsf said:
babatunde said:
jsf said:
That would be the British public. Why people think we need a foreign body that has no skin in the game to protect us is beyond me, it's bonkers. If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out.
Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.
Brexit, because Hitler, is the most Godwin argument ever, pray tell which recess of your mind thinks that is a good negotiating pointMainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.
"If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out. Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century."
Who is the "bunch" doing horrific things? Who are you proposing to "chuck out"?
It sounds like more than an individual, more like a defined group.
Hitler had a record for getting rid of a "bunch" he persuaded his nation were doing "horrific things" and who were the source of the ills of Germany.
Or were you suggesting Germany should have "chucked out" Hitler? Chucked out to where? He was elected by the people of course. Are you suggesting Germany should have somehow ignored the "democratic will of the people" in getting rid of Hitler? Perhaps had another vote? He made that quite tricky in 1933 of course; fancy that, a government bring in an act to sweep away democracy & parliamentary powers (Great Repeal Bill anyone?).
Lets just all dwell on the clear linkage between small minded Nationalism, its association with blaming foreigners for our ills, and some of the key motivations behind brexit.
You throw around the words idiot and stupid, and yet you decided to try and look clever by bringing up Hitler in the context of brexit.
How do you think it went?
Yet more testimony to the driving mindset.
You have a well trodden MO of taking what people write and responding to it in such a way that your response does not engage with the narrative of the original post, but instead makes some wild assertion based on what your twisted mind requires.
I've spent over a year trying to engage with you in a civil manner, but my patience has run out.
No one is falling for it anymore slasher, you are a laughing stock.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff