Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,173 comments
- 578,892 views
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
It is a bit stupid the "news" coming out from the Tory conference such as "a letter fell off the wall", "some idiot gave her a P45", "she was coughing", "people complained about them legally using their music" and now "she wore a bracelet with a communist on it". It really is pathetic when you, people in this thread, and the media think that these things are not only worthy of talking about but apparently more important than the content of her actual speech, you know the stuff that tells us how the entire country is going to be run?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,242
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Because some media outlets like to make it nice and easy for it's audience.
Politics, marketing and brand are so intermingled that attempting to separate one from the other is almost impossible. Hence the reason why the issues at the conference are news worthy, the brand took a hammering and that has an impact, regardless of if it should it not.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
You seem to be discussing a completely different point.
Yes, Theresa May had a nightmare of a conference. Yes, she wore a bracelet of a woman with vastly different political opinions.
My point of contention is the Hannah-Jane Parkinson chose to emphasise Kahlo's romantic association as if that defines her opinions.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,242
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
In the piece she wrote the phrase was "that’s Frida Kahlo, the signed-up member of the Mexican Communist party who dated Trotsky."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...moments-theresa-may-speech-p45-prime-minister
It would seem that the emphasis was on both, is the part about Trotsky relevant? Arguably no, but it wasn't the lead point or only point.
How that got transferred to a different position on Twitter I have no idea, but then I think Twitter is an appalling communication medium.
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
There are several RTAs up and down the country ever day. Terrorists win when they happen in the capital and it has to be stated that it isn't a terrorist attack.
Although fortunately this one didn't lead to too much froth, that oxygen thief Katie Hopkins went on a tirade about how unsafe London is now and that tourists should stay away before, as the facts came to light, she said that she was deleting the last two hours worth of tweets. Stephen Yaxley also weighed in on the issue, only to be disappointed that it was a simple but unfortunate RTA.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Why should they accept it? Because it was voted? That doesn't make it sacred or for any other reason "un-challengeable". It only means the only way to reverse such a (voted) decision is to call another vote. Which is very debatable (if it should be called), but that is a political discussion and ultimately a political decision, and that's what political parties are supposed to discuss and propose.
The way I see it - from a great distance, and probably I am wrong - the voters were blissfully unaware of what they were deciding. "Sod the EU", "Rule Brittania", "Death to the Eurocrats", "Let's save our NHS", "We're full of immigrants", "Britain for the British" .... all this and much more was probably shouted in many pubs (and rallies) all over the UK.
Oh, and regarding economics, it was "They (Europe) need us more than we need them" or "BMW will want to keep selling cars here" or "We will find new markets and, with freedom, we will make our own deals" "We are a global power" "There's always the Commonwealth" "if the italians don't behave we'll stop drinking Proseco" ... and other such nonsense. To talk sense was to be with "Project Fear" anyway.
Of course, guys as intellectually dishonest as Johnson and Gove cut through all this like a hot knife through butter. With the Labour party tied to a post-marxist leader that wants to re-nationalize or put Government's Money in struggling companies (something the liberal EU doesn't allow), all the UK's political class was either half-heartdly with "Remain" or passionately with "Leave". In the end, everything that was wrong with the country was the EU's fault. The writing was on the wall really.
So, starting on June 23rd 2016, the world has been witnessing a slow motion train wreck of huge proportions in progress.
I don't think there's any turning back too, and it won't be the Lib Dems actions that will achieve that. For the UK to reverse its decision it would take some humble pie eating, of such enormous significance that it just can't be done.
Also, and although some nice people say that the UK could return to the EU in the future, or even before if Brexit is reversed, a price will have to be paid. And it is a heavy one. For all I know, read and hear, the UK would need to beg. And would have to accept the Euro. And the rebate would cease. Meaning: all the magnificent opt outs very clever UK politicians in the past got through clever negotiation and in a position of strengh (some of them unique to the UK, like the rebate) are now forever gone.
I do think the UK will leave, probably it won't visibly crash out (because nobody will want a "crash", and cosmetics will be put in place), but from all I see it still amazes me how Brexit is ruining the entire political credibility of the country and of its politicians.
In the end, the Lib Dems are the only ones that get it right. But they have no votes, and will make no difference.
The way I see it - from a great distance, and probably I am wrong - the voters were blissfully unaware of what they were deciding. "Sod the EU", "Rule Brittania", "Death to the Eurocrats", "Let's save our NHS", "We're full of immigrants", "Britain for the British" .... all this and much more was probably shouted in many pubs (and rallies) all over the UK.
Oh, and regarding economics, it was "They (Europe) need us more than we need them" or "BMW will want to keep selling cars here" or "We will find new markets and, with freedom, we will make our own deals" "We are a global power" "There's always the Commonwealth" "if the italians don't behave we'll stop drinking Proseco" ... and other such nonsense. To talk sense was to be with "Project Fear" anyway.
Of course, guys as intellectually dishonest as Johnson and Gove cut through all this like a hot knife through butter. With the Labour party tied to a post-marxist leader that wants to re-nationalize or put Government's Money in struggling companies (something the liberal EU doesn't allow), all the UK's political class was either half-heartdly with "Remain" or passionately with "Leave". In the end, everything that was wrong with the country was the EU's fault. The writing was on the wall really.
So, starting on June 23rd 2016, the world has been witnessing a slow motion train wreck of huge proportions in progress.
I don't think there's any turning back too, and it won't be the Lib Dems actions that will achieve that. For the UK to reverse its decision it would take some humble pie eating, of such enormous significance that it just can't be done.
Also, and although some nice people say that the UK could return to the EU in the future, or even before if Brexit is reversed, a price will have to be paid. And it is a heavy one. For all I know, read and hear, the UK would need to beg. And would have to accept the Euro. And the rebate would cease. Meaning: all the magnificent opt outs very clever UK politicians in the past got through clever negotiation and in a position of strengh (some of them unique to the UK, like the rebate) are now forever gone.
I do think the UK will leave, probably it won't visibly crash out (because nobody will want a "crash", and cosmetics will be put in place), but from all I see it still amazes me how Brexit is ruining the entire political credibility of the country and of its politicians.
In the end, the Lib Dems are the only ones that get it right. But they have no votes, and will make no difference.
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,508
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Accept what? That a non legally binding vote went 52% to 48% in favour of leaving? Or to put it another way 32% voted to leave 30% voted to stay and 28% not voting at all? Perhaps it's time for the others to work out that 27 other heads of state are not going to agree to give the UK a workable deal.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
You can't have endless votes because nothing would get done. If there was another vote and it was just in favour of remain, what next? Have another one a year later and see if its gone back to leave? How many votes do you need to have before the government make a decision? At the end of the day people had plenty of time to come to a decision under the impression that there would only be one vote, so the outcome is the outcome. Now the government can decide to go against that decision if they really want to but it would be political suicide and a good way to alienate half of the voters.
They weren't unaware of what they were deciding and you will be surprised to hear that 17 million people aren't racist idiots, by making such a generalisation it doesn't seem you have any idea what you're talking about, and that your only source of information must be incredibly biased.
The main argument is that we would have more freedom to make trade agreements with other parts of the world, which considering how inept the EU is at doing that, and how our trade with the EU has been steadily decreasing over the past decade and a half, I would hardly call it nonsense. As for Europe needing us more than we need them, although it is a bit of a stupid comment, it comes from the idea that neither side wants a bad deal, that people in the EU selling into the UK won't want to lose sales due to increased costs, and people in the UK won't want increased costs.
The predictions of immediate economic doom and gloom doesn't seem to be happening either, there were talks of an immediate recession after the vote, albiet only -0.4% over a year, far from the -7% in 2008, not that you would think that listening to the remain campaigners. In reality we've had 1.7% growth since the vote which is nothing particularly special, but definitely nothing to worry about. The FTSE 100 and 250 have also grown nicely since the vote at similar rates to what they were before it. The only major chance is in the value of the pound which seems to be creeping up again and the effect that has on the economy is a bit complicated.
If you don't think the UK political class was mostly for remain you really don't know what you're talking about, off the top of my head I think it was about 80% of MPs were in favour of remaining with a fairly small minority campaigning to leave. Every party leader, with the exception of UKIP obviously, was campaigning for remain, granted with varying degrees of enthusiasm when it comes to Corbyn but still.
As covered above, I don't know what you've been watching, but were doing just fine so far thanks.
Again more nonsense, and so speculative that I have no idea how you can base an opinion on it. We don't even know what the details of trade deal will be after we've left, so I have no idea why you pretend to know the details of an imaginary deal that we would make if we were to come back to the EU sometime in the far future.
As for the deal, the 3 main changes that were talked about in the campaign were an end to freedom of movement, the ability to make our own trade deals with countries outside of the EU and an end to the payments into the EU.
Freedom of movement is seen as a benefit by the EU, so if we no longer want it, surely that should make the deal worse for us in the EUs eyes, so why wouldn't they accept it if it's such a good thing? Just because we asked for it? If we asked to pay more money into the EU, I doubt they would say no to that, so either they think that freedom of movement is not beneficial to us, and were better off without it, or they don't want to give us a worse deal, both of which would be stupid positions for them to hold.
The ability to make our own trade deals doesn't really affect the EU as long as we still abide by our agreements with them, so I have no idea why they care. As for payments into the EU, although it is the least important of the 3, I really don't see why we should, most countries don't pay for access to the EU, in fact they receive money from it. For some weird reason, the countries that benefit the EU the most by being part of the trade agreement, also put the most money into it, and vice versa for the countries that contribute the least, which you would think if there were to be any payments for a mutually beneficial agreement is completely backwards.
Last edited:
- 86,387
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
We've had governments elected on less.
In fact I'm not sure we've had governments elected on more since the 70s... And just checking into it:
1945 - Attlee (Labour) - 34.7%
1950 - Attlee (Labour) - 38.7%
1951 - Churchill (Conservative) - 39.6%
1955 - Eden (Conservative) - 38.2%
1959 - Macmillan (Conservative) - 38.9%
1964 - Wilson (Labour) - 34.0%
1966 - Wilson (Labour) - 36.4%
1970 - Heath (Conservative) - 33.4%
1974 - Wilson (Labour) - 29.3%
1974 - Wilson (Labour) - 28.5%
1979 - Thatcher (Conservative) - 33.4%
1983 - Thatcher (Conservative) - 30.8%
1987 - Thatcher (Conservative) - 31.8%
1992 - Major (Conservative) - 32.6%
1997 - Blair (Labour) - 30.8%
2001 - Blair (Labour) - 24.2%
2005 - Blair (Labour) - 21.6%
2010 - Cameron (Conservative) - 23.5%
2015 - Cameron (Conservative) - 24.4%
2017 - May (Conservative) - 29.2%
32% is a pretty decent showing in the light of that. As is 72% turnout - we've not managed that in a GE since 1997 (1992 was a high point at 77.7%).
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
@Spurgy 777, just a few notes:
On racism and idiocy my sources are the Daily Telegraph's comment boxes. They make for some hilarious reading but give you a hint on the level of delusion some people have.
On the UK's political class backing remain I stand by what I wrote, remainers were nowhere to be seen during the referendum campaign (bar Cameron and Osbourne, obviously). Neither Tory nor Labour.
On the effects of the referendum to the UK economy I won't argue if what has happened so far to your economy is or isn't worrying (I think it is but maybe I am biased). In any case, for all intents and purposes the UK is still part of the EU, and is now asking for a transitional period.
The way I see it, since June 2016 to the end of such transition period the UK has been trading and will continue to trade as a member of the EU, but since last year with little to no influence in rule-making, and starting from the transition period onwards, with absolutely no say on the rules of trade within the single market, or the rules on the products being traded. That's not taking back control, that's giving it away.
On racism and idiocy my sources are the Daily Telegraph's comment boxes. They make for some hilarious reading but give you a hint on the level of delusion some people have.
On the UK's political class backing remain I stand by what I wrote, remainers were nowhere to be seen during the referendum campaign (bar Cameron and Osbourne, obviously). Neither Tory nor Labour.
On the effects of the referendum to the UK economy I won't argue if what has happened so far to your economy is or isn't worrying (I think it is but maybe I am biased). In any case, for all intents and purposes the UK is still part of the EU, and is now asking for a transitional period.
The way I see it, since June 2016 to the end of such transition period the UK has been trading and will continue to trade as a member of the EU, but since last year with little to no influence in rule-making, and starting from the transition period onwards, with absolutely no say on the rules of trade within the single market, or the rules on the products being traded. That's not taking back control, that's giving it away.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
So, your evidence that leave voters are racist idiots are some comments on the Telegraphs website? That's hardly enough evidence to generalise 17 million people.
Then you weren't paying enough attention to the referendum campaign, which isn't your fault being in another country and all, but remain campaigners and politicians were just as vocal as leave ones, if not more so, and arguments from the remain campaign were everywhere in the news and on TV.
Our current growth is nothing out of the ordinary and is far better than the predictions. Obviously yes, we are still part of the EU, but the predictions of what would happen to our economy said there would be an immediate recession after the vote, not after we leave, so as I'm comparing to that, the fact that we haven't actually left yet is irrelevant.
Yes, we won't have any say in the rules of the single market, the point is we won't be forced to follow all of the same rules, that is the point of leaving and making a different deal.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Well... the discount (ie free trade tariff) will be lost. Will we make a better deal than that? Logically unlikely.
We also go from having an elected body overseeing certain laws to an unelected one. Hardly seems sensible.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Why will we lose free trade? That's one of the main objectives that both sides will be trying to maintain, you could argue that's the main point of a trade deal, so to say it will be lost as a fact doesn't make any sense.
And the EU shouldn't be able to make laws in the UK once we leave, the final decision will be with our government, so we won't have an unelected body overseeing any laws. Assuming of course we actually leave and not just in name.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
So the free trade that EU members enjoy will be given to none EU members? That rather undermines the point of tariff-free trade. The UK (quite rightly) wouldn't have allowed it and there's no reason to think that other EU member states would make the exception for the UK, even after it's paid the subsidy advances back. The only way it might be possible is if the UK agrees to free movement - for the majority of EU countries that's the deal-breaker. Given that Brexit was fought mainly on immigration it's very unlikely that free movement will remain.
The final decision won't be with government, it will be with the House of Lords. They are not elected by the people - what made you think they were? The representatives that we're losing are elected and are accountable to their constituents, us included. I think you're understanding it the wrong way around.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Considering free trade is only a part of the EU, I don't see how maintaining it after we leave is going to undermine it as we still won't have other "benefits" such as freedom of movement. And as I said before, if they refuse to free trade without freedom of movement that means they either don't want to give us a worse deal, or the don't see freedom of movement as beneficial, which goes against one of their core principles. Either way doesn't make much sense.
Oh, that's what you meant, I seem to have given you more credit than you deserve on that one. So do you want the EU to make all of our laws? Is that what you would prefer? I mean after all if your reasoning for not bringing oversight of laws currently made by the EU back to our political system is that the "final decision" is made by an unelected body, then surely we should get the EU to make all of our laws and get rid of our government completely.
That's a pretty pathetic argument, ignoring the fact the House of Lords don't generally do a lot to get in the way of government anyway, just because there are issues in our own system, doesn't mean we should just hand off responsibility to the EU. The sensible thing to do would be to just keep all law making in this country, and the fix the system by replacing the House of Lords with an elected body, that way 100% of the UK's vote will go to making UK laws, and not about 7% (off the top of my head).
Our relationship with the EU should be about proposing ideas to improve trade and cooperation and not about enforcing them, if a country thinks that certain laws won't be beneficial then they should be able to opt out of adopting those laws, unless you can think of an example where if some of the EU countries didn't adopt a law, it would hurt the countries that did? Unfortunately the EU doesn't like that, because if they can't enforce laws then they have less power, which is no good for an ideological body that wants to grab as much power from as many countries as it can. As it is, the EU just takes power further away from individuals in an effort to try and create a United States of Europe if they can get away with it, so that they can control all of the laws everywhere, and it's probably fairly safe to say that that is the opposite of what most Europeans want.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That's not what you're getting though, you're losing the body whose elections you take part in for a senior body whose elections you don't. It's all very well saying "ideally it would be different" but it won't be. Brexit gives up democratic power, fact.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I agree, I just think you're being pedantic and I don't really see giving control of our law making over to the EU as a preferable alternative.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I feel that the MEPs are more representative than a bunch of monied snorters, and that's seemingly the part we disagree on
