The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[John145]

Breadvan72 said:

Occasionally Brexit World becomes delightfully Lewis Carroll. We are told that Britain became great because of, amongst things, queuing, and a bit of old deference, and the law of private property (So long as the property doesn't belong to the King of Benin, obvs. Tough st, dusky dudes, you shoulda got some Martini action rifles and Maxim guns. Now we have all your cool stuff. Property rights forever! ). This recalls the old UKIP manifesto that promised to make the Circle Line a Circle and to make cab drivers wear a uniform. By the way, nowadays it's always a massive punch up and Devil take the hindmost at London bus stops, and, no, that is not because of the foreigners.

I do not suggest that hooking up with others is always what is needed to be big, but the post Imperial UK has realistically to accept its limitations, and being internationalist and open and inclusive can go with bigness. There are some Brexiteers (maybe not many here, but some) who actually want smallness -
and they do not wish for openness and inclusion. Others (maybe many here) hope that bigness etc will come from leaving the EU. Make Britain great again might be the slogan for go it alone, or go it with all the (thus far imaginary) mega bigly big trade deals that Mr Davis promised would be getting on for half way done or would even be passed half way done by now. Some of you (I think more realistically) may accept that going it alone will mean being smaller, but say that is OK, because democracy. I think that Britain may be losing something difficult to measure in terms of its profile and presence in the World.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk...

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 26th September 17:55

I've seen that NY Times article before. Comparing a peaceful departure from a political union to the worst military defeat of WW2 might to some seem a tad hyperbolic.

Now to tackle the snide remarks of your first paragraph. I made the distinction between England and Britain. I suggest you travel more to see what countries are like without all our niceties that you belittle. "Dusky" is an interesting turn of phrase, I guess you're just gunning for the classic all Brexiters are racists despite ignoring the actual racist policies of the EU. Interesting you should belittle the idea of deference but rely on it to sell your dream of a European State. I'm proud of England and what it is and how I contribute to it but surprisingly did not vote UKIP.

In future it's easier to just quote me when you try and take the piss.

[turbobloke]

jsf said:

Breadvan72 said:

I think that Britain may be losing something difficult to measure in terms of its profile and presence in the World.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk...

I guess you used that New York Times piece as a reference to the world view of the UK.

This is who wrote it. Jenni Russell (@jennirsl), a journalist and broadcaster, is a columnist for The Times of London.

So the view of a staunch remainer in London, not the view from New York.

An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice doesn't offer much presence, the EU grabs all available attention in an effort to maintain two things: confidence in the dysfunctional supranational project, and the egos of its main players. Member states are tolerated when useful to the project, either as net contributors or making up the numbers to boost 'size matters' creds, at other times the EU matters more than anything and wins at any cost - ask the Greeks.

[turbobloke]

John145 said:

I've seen that NY Times article before. Comparing a peaceful departure from a political union to the worst military defeat of WW2 might to some seem a tad hyperbolic.

Just a tad!

John145 said:

Now to tackle the snide remarks... In future it's easier to just quote me when you try and take the piss.

That would never do, it would get in the way of snideyisms.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

No, I was well aware of who wrote the piece, because I can, er, read. I don't care which paper the piece was published in (save perhaps to note that it's in a credible international paper, not the Mustard Pickle Fancier's Gazette or MX 5 Rims Weekly*). It strikes me as a well argued piece, that is all.



* I intend no dissage to either of those fine organs.

I see, so it was unintended to link your comment of the world view of the UK with a piece published in a major world city publication. Fair enough.

[anonymous-user]

John145 said:

I've seen that NY Times article before. Comparing a peaceful departure from a political union to the worst military defeat of WW2 might to some seem a tad hyperbolic.

Now to tackle the snide remarks of your first paragraph. I made the distinction between England and Britain. . "Dusky" is an interesting turn of phrase, I guess you're just gunning for the classic all Brexiters are racists despite ignoring the actual racist policies of the EU. Interesting you should belittle the idea of deference but rely on it to sell your dream of a European State. I'm proud of England and what it is and how I contribute to it but surprisingly did not vote UKIP.

In future it's easier to just quote me when you try and take the piss.

You are right - quoting you is better than any amount of satire, as your posts are skits that write themselves.

(1) Brexit = Dunkirk? The article makes no such comparison. Try, er, reading it?

(2) Brexiteers = racist? I make no such accusation . The dusky comment is historical and satirical. I was laughing at the idea that attachment to property law is one of the makings of greatness. There was and is such an attachment, but views about it were a tad elastic when it came to lesser breeds without the law,. That, by the way, is a line from a poem by a bloke. You can look him up.

(3) My reference to deference is to old societal deference - class in Brit society. It has nothing to do with deference to the EU, and I don't regard being a strong member of a union as deference.

(4) You really do appear to have some very serious comprehension difficulties, or have the weirdly persistent Brexit disease of deliberate obtuseness.


Comprehension? This sentence: "I suggest you travel more to see what countries are like without all our niceties that you belittle" is hard to comprehend, probably because it fails to mean (in the English language) what I suspect you wanted it to mean (the irony of the passionate Englander's inability to use the English language is often seen in NPE). I travel a lot. I am not sure, however, which "niceties" you are referring to, and am indeed not sure that "niceties" was the word that you really wanted. Nor am I sure what I am said to be belittling. I do belittle little Englandism. If you are (as you appear possibly to be, but apols if I am mistaken in this) a little Englander, then I laugh at and deride you, and you deserve it, because to be a little Englander is a laughable and derisory thing, but if you aren't, then I don't. I don't belittle any of the things that are fab about England (or even Britain) eg the common law and all that. I am sad that Brexit may possibly signal Britain turning its back on some of the coolest and most British things, things which Britain has shared with the World, to the great benefit of the World (the King of Benin excepted, obvs).

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th September 19:02

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

I see, so it was unintended to link your comment of the world view of the UK with a piece published in a major world city publication. Fair enough.

The identity and journalistic affiliation of the author are displayed on the page that has the article itself, so pretty rubbish sneaky stealthing there. Are you worried that some of the stout and true hearted but not very loftily browed Brexit chums might miss something that is so bleedin' obvious? It's an article, in a paper. It's just an opinion expressed by one person. That's all. I think it is a good one, others can disagree. If you are perhaps accustomed to being deferential to certain media outlets (I wonder which ones those might be?), or to investing authority in pronouncements contained in media sources, that's your issue, not mine.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

The identity and journalistic affiliation of the author are displayed on the page that has the article itself, so pretty rubbish sneaky stealthing there. Are you worried that some of the stout and true hearted but not very loftily browed Brexit chums might miss something that is so bleedin' obvious? It's an article, in a paper. It's just an opinion expressed by one person. That's all. I think it is a good one, others can disagree. If you are perhaps accustomed to being deferential to certain media outlets (I wonder which ones those might be?), or to investing authority in pronouncements contained in media sources, that's your issue, not mine.

Just a coincidence then. As I said, fair enough.

The only print media I purchase is Motorsport Magazine, have that on subscription. I haven't spotted anything Brexit in there so far.

[John145]

Breadvan72 said:

John145 said:

I've seen that NY Times article before. Comparing a peaceful departure from a political union to the worst military defeat of WW2 might to some seem a tad hyperbolic.

Now to tackle the snide remarks of your first paragraph. I made the distinction between England and Britain. . "Dusky" is an interesting turn of phrase, I guess you're just gunning for the classic all Brexiters are racists despite ignoring the actual racist policies of the EU. Interesting you should belittle the idea of deference but rely on it to sell your dream of a European State. I'm proud of England and what it is and how I contribute to it but surprisingly did not vote UKIP.

In future it's easier to just quote me when you try and take the piss.

You are right - quoting you is better than any amount of satire, as your posts are skits that write themselves.

(1) Brexit = Dunkirk? The article makes no such comparison. Try, er, reading it?

(2) Brexiteers = racist? I make no such accusation . The dusky comment is historical and satirical. I was laughing at the idea that attachment to property law is one of the makings of greatness. There was and is such an attachment, but views about it were a tad elastic when it came to lesser breeds without the law,. That, by the way, is a line from a poem by a bloke. You can look him up.

(3) My reference to deference is to old societal deference - class in Brit society. It has nothing to do with deference to the EU, and I don't regard being a strong member of a union as deference.

(4) You really do appear to have some very serious comprehension difficulties, or have the weirdly persistent Brexit disease of deliberate obtuseness.


Comprehension? This sentence "I suggest you travel more to see what countries are like without all our niceties that you belittle" is hard to comprehend, probably because it fails to mean (in the English language) what I suspect you wanted it to mean (the irony of the passionate Englander's inability to use the English language is often seen in NPE). I travel a lot. I am not sure, however, which "niceties" you are referring to, and am indeed not sure that "niceties" was the word that you really wanted. Nor am I sure what I am said to be belittling. I do belittle little Englandism. If you are (as you appear possibly to be, but apols if I am mistaken in this) a little Englander, then I laugh at and deride you, and you deserve it, because to be a little Englander is a laughable and derisory thing, but if you aren't, then I don't. I don't belittle any of the things that are fab about England (or even Britain) eg the common law and all that. I am sad that Brexit may possibly signal Britain turning its back on some of the coolest and most British things, things which Britain has shared with the World, to the great benefit of the World (the King Of Benin excepted, obvs).

1) "No Dunkirk Spirit Can Save Britain From Brexit Defeat"

2) The inference is from your use of language generally in this thread. I seem to remember a comment of "not all Brexiteers are racists but all racists are Brexiteers" to which you agreed. Despite you repeatedly ignoring the EU's clear racist policies.

3) Please clarify what makes a strong position within the EU. If it is being a doormat that funds huge road networks that never get used in countries such as Spain then yes, I suppose we are a strong player.

4) If you believe I'm misinterpreting what you write and that you need to qualify every statement you make for me to see it then it is badly written.

Do you travel a lot or don't you? I'm sorry your post isn't clear.

Indeed the niceties that make England England and not Germany or anywhere else for that matter are important. Even the simple things such as queuing. When discussing this with a German colleague he commented that he was surprised that for a country that will ignore a don't cross symbol the people are very disciplined with the queue. I remarked perhaps it is because of a greater respect for one another than an authority.

Try going to China where your laughable property laws are none existent. Bought that house? Oh that'll only be for 40 years drone then you can buy it from the state all over again.

What is your definition of a Little Englander?

For me I would say it is someone who thinks England in splendid isolation will thrive. This is not me. England has and will always be dependent on its trade, communal and security connections throughout the world. If you see Brexit as an end to this then you are the naive one.

I guess my confidence and pride in England comes from seeing what other countries and cultures are like. I'm sure most people who travel long for home and think where they come from is best. I just know it for a fact

On the topic of my poor use of English language, it was never my strong point and it makes learning other languages all the more difficult. However I earn my money from my skill behind a steering wheel and thorough knowledge and application of chassis systems.

Edited by John145 on Tuesday 26th September 19:15

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

No, I was well aware of who wrote the piece, because I can, er, read. I don't care which paper the piece was published in (save perhaps to note that it's in a credible international paper, not the Mustard Pickle Fancier's Gazette or MX 5 Rims Weekly*). It strikes me as a well argued piece, that is all. ...

Bugger me BV72 (not an offer btw, I'm not physically helping you out with your Kingston dilemma)....if you think that piece was well argued, I do hope I'm never in a position to need you as a lawyer!

She highlights some genuine problems (thumbs up). But also seems to point out that being part of the EU has actually exacerbated them without seemingly realising that is what she is doing.

The rest is opinion and conjecture or tired old cliches that don't stand much arguing (a lot of people seem to think manufacturing is dead in this country...I think they are very wrong. Though I would agree that our economy is badly balanced).

Will us leaving the EU automatically fix the inherent problems that have been baking themselves into our being for the last 40yrs? Nope. We will then need politicians bright enough to acknowledge the problems and to do something about it. Who we must shout for and vote for.

[anonymous-user]

John145 said:

Some stuff

Really, I just give up. You appear from the above to be borderline functionally illiterate (at least judging by your apparent inability to understand English, but if you are just pretending, then yay you), and life is too short to spell everything out for you in crayon. I am off out to flirt with some Germans, as at least they can understand English.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

...

We will then need politicians bright enough to acknowledge the problems and to do something about it.
...

Hmmm.... I think that I may see a slight snag in your otherwise exemplary and cunning plan.

[Murph7355]

John145 said:

...
Now to tackle the snide remarks of your first paragraph. ...

Just ignore the first paragraphs. He's getting into a habit of first paragraphs that I think are intended to make people assume he is the very definition of "metropolitan elite" but I think most of it's in jest and he just enjoys saying st that he's not allowed to at work.

Paragraph 2 onwards is usually more sensible debate.

The forum doesn't need technology to make you ignore, just self filter (first paragraphs for BV; anything that ///ajd and jj post; 90% of what Eddie does when he's not buys not contributing to these threads; etc).

[John145]

Breadvan72 said:

John145 said:

Some stuff

Really, I just give up. You appear from the above to be borderline functionally illiterate (at least judging by your apparent inability to understand English, but if you are just pretending, then yay you), and life is too short to spell everything out for you in crayon. I am off out to flirt with some Germans, as at least they can understand English.

I'm sure your girlfriend in Kingston or wherever will be glad that you're taking your intellectual superiority out on the pull.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Murph7355 said:

Just ignore the first paragraphs. He's getting into a habit of first paragraphs that I think are intended to make people assume he is the very definition of "metropolitan elite" but I think most of it's in jest and he just enjoys saying st that he's not allowed to at work.

Paragraph 2 onwards is usually more sensible debate.

The forum doesn't need technology to make you ignore, just self filter (first paragraphs for BV; anything that ///ajd and jj post; 90% of what Eddie does when he's not buys not contributing to these threads; etc).

Reading tips for the hard of thinking. Finally a message tailored for the target audience!

[anonymous-user]

The joy of my job, Murph, is that I am allowed to say pretty much anything. I get to be mean to people for money. It's ace.

The Germans are late. Bloody efficient Teutonic blondes, eh?

But Eddie is here now, so I can punch out and let him do the next shift.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

The joy of my job, Murph, is that I am allowed to say pretty much anything. I get to be mean to people for money. It's ace.

The Germans are late. Bloody efficient Teutonic blondes, eh?

The efficiency tag comes from their industrial complex founding by the British army post WW2. Most of the Germans I know are brunette.

[anonymous-user]

Collars and cuffs?

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Collars and cuffs?

They weren't wearing either.

[Funkycoldribena]

John145 said:

Breadvan72 said:

John145 said:

Some stuff

Really, I just give up. You appear from the above to be borderline functionally illiterate (at least judging by your apparent inability to understand English, but if you are just pretending, then yay you), and life is too short to spell everything out for you in crayon. I am off out to flirt with some Germans, as at least they can understand English.

I'm sure your Imaginary girlfriend in Kingston or wherever will be glad that you're taking your intellectual superiority out on the pull.

EFA.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Breadvan72 said:

Collars and cuffs?

They weren't wearing either.

Dude, you can always try a bit of light BDSM as Germans are super broad minded, but I was actually referring to something else, in the noble spirit of Sean Connery as 007 putting the cheesy moves on Jill St John as Tiffany Case.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th September 19:56