|
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 01/07/2016 21:50, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: On 01/07/2016 21:28, Hils wrote: On 30/06/16 18:21, Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:21:22 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: Now that the entire population of the Middle East are no longer moving to London, are any major schemes about to be cancelled? Good grief. :-( Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless who are moving to Europe. So nobody fleeing for their lives in the face of murderous onslaughts by Assad or IS then? I assume Hils is a supporter of Assad, as they appear to share many of the same policies. A little unfair on Assad… -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 01/07/16 21:28, Hils wrote:
It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless who are moving to Europe. It seems most unlikely that those with learning disabilities and the feckless would have the means and enterprise to make their way across several thousand miles to Europe. Do you have any evidence to support this remarkable assertion? Ian |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of his money. Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?" The one you claimed not to have seen. why do you doubt that claim? I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions should be taken seriously. you are being ridiculous I didn't see the picture, so what? I did see all the media coverage of it how does that make me out of touch? Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at Calais are illegals Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told) reducing legal immigrants, Yeah, that's what I said as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants. Oh no it's not See the poster dear Liza. The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants" Not what the poster said. It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your minuscule little debating point. tim -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
On 1 Jul 2016 16:42:24 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote: wrote: Well hopefully once the law is re-adjusted and we no longer have to cowtow to that ****ing human rights act then once these illegals are found they can be booted out ASAP instead of parasite lawyers dragging the process out for years with some variation on right to family life or BS a`bout being tortured if they're sent back. The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human Rights, which is separate from the EU... See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving that no longer applies. -- Spud |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul
2016, d remarked: The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human Rights, which is separate from the EU... See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving that no longer applies. Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A completely different body. -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, d remarked: The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human Rights, which is separate from the EU... See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving that no longer applies. Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A completely different body. It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it. Robin |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
|
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
On 02/07/2016 13:52, bob wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, d remarked: The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human Rights, which is separate from the EU... See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving that no longer applies. Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A completely different body. It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it. Whether we are conforming to it should be a matter only for British courts. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2016 13:52, bob wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:52:09 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, d remarked: The recent vote was to leave the EU, not the European Convention on Human Rights, which is separate from the EU... See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...n_Human_Rights To be part of the EU you have to uphold said convention. Now we're leaving that no longer applies. Wrong. It applies as long as we are members of the Council of Europe. A completely different body. It's not wrong in that it is an EU requirement. The EU requirement isn't the only reason it is required, though. Given that we wrote it, though, it would seem rather inappropriate not to conform to it. Whether we are conforming to it should be a matter only for British courts. No, that's decided by the European Court of Human Rights (nothing to do with the EU, by the way) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro...f_Human_Rights Of course, the Labour government made decisions about compliance with the Convention a matter for the British courts, so fewer cases from Britain go to the European Court of Human Rights now. -- Jeremy Double |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
We've got a little off the transport in London topic here. Yes, I know I sort of started it, but my question was transport relevant. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and
Basil Jet wrote:
We've got a little off the transport in London topic here. Yes, I know I sort of started it, but my question was transport relevant. Coming back on topic, I wonder what effect Brexit will have on London? - Government interest rates are even lower now, and the goal of a surplus by 2020 has been dropped, so there's actually more scope for infrastructure investment. - Perhaps lower traffic growth rates? I don't think traffic will actually fall, but if there's a recession, growth will be less. That could, indeed, mean that CR2 is needed less urgently. But the need won't go away. - Maybe a requirement that future Tube trains (ie, the huge NTfL order) be built in the UK? Such a requirement would be legal if we're out of the EU. - There's now little chance of Heathrow getting its third runway. May is MP for Maidenhead, where more Heathrow flights would not be popular. But she's not as virulent an opponent as Boris. And there may be an argument that, more than ever, we need to be able to handle more long haul flights, to help grow our non-EU exports. - Will Eurostar's growth suffer? Certainly, there will be less Brussels traffic once the exit negotiations are complete. - EU air quality rules will no longer apply, but I doubt that Sadiq will back off on his restrictions on dirty vehicles in central London. - The drop in the £ will put fuel prices up. That may push a few more people to use public transport, but I suspect that the effect will be insignificant. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of his money. Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?" The one you claimed not to have seen. why do you doubt that claim? I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions should be taken seriously. you are being ridiculous I didn't see the picture, so what? I did see all the media coverage of it how does that make me out of touch? As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are clearly vastly underestimating its impact on the vote. Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at Calais are illegals Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told) reducing legal immigrants, Yeah, that's what I said as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants. Oh no it's not See the poster dear Liza. The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants" Not what the poster said. It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your minuscule little debating point. I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 04/07/16 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of his money. Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?" The one you claimed not to have seen. why do you doubt that claim? I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions should be taken seriously. you are being ridiculous I didn't see the picture, so what? I did see all the media coverage of it how does that make me out of touch? As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are clearly vastly underestimating its impact on the vote. Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at Calais are illegals Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told) reducing legal immigrants, Yeah, that's what I said as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants. Oh no it's not See the poster dear Liza. The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants" Not what the poster said. It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your minuscule little debating point. I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". I met someone who thought it meant exactly that as well as the fact that we had left the EU the moment the election was announced and they would be rounded up and kicked out within days. He was already sadly disillusion and probably even more so by now. The problem is that there are so many divorce possibilities that no leave person actually knew what they did vote for. It's a monumental muddle created by the leave political people. The stay political people are no better, they were just complacent. In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on.. It's an absolute muddle. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 04/07/2016 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul
2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won. So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
In message
-septe mber.org, at 08:37:49 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Recliner remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won. So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. Sounds like the Conservative leadership contest, except with a smaller electorate (the paid up party members). -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 04/07/16 09:37, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. That's far too sensible for our political people. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septe mber.org, at 08:37:49 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Recliner remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won. So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. Sounds like the Conservative leadership contest, except with a smaller electorate (the paid up party members). Yes, similar, though it's to choose whether to change from an existing to a new something. With something as irreversible as Brexit, it's more important to get it right than a general election, which is inherently reversible. Also the New Zealand approach was really three stages (the first was the committee stage to get down to a handful out of many possible options, which is effectively the MPs' part of the Tory leadership contest), with the public voting on both the latter stages. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
In message , at 09:08:25 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016,
Graeme Wall remarked: I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now. That was never going to happen because the majority have either permanent residency papers, have naturalised as UK citizens, or are on some form of work visa which means they'd be leaving at the end of their secondment anyway. What's different about the EU workers is they don't need any permission to arrive, or to stay, any more than the Scots currently do to live in London, and vice versa. It's that "permissionless" stay which has the prospect of being annulled, although I doubt it will be applied retrospectively to people who arrive before whenever the Brexit happens in ~2.5yrs -- Roland Perry |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 04/07/2016 10:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:08:25 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Graeme Wall remarked: I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now. That was never going to happen because the majority have either permanent residency papers, have naturalised as UK citizens, or are on some form of work visa which means they'd be leaving at the end of their secondment anyway. You know that, I know that, try telling it to the morons going up to "Muslims" & "Poles" and demanding they leave immediately. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:28:01PM +0100, Hils wrote:
Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless who are moving to Europe. Actually it's mostly the middle class who have the resources to move. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:28:01PM +0100, Hils wrote: Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless who are moving to Europe. Actually it's mostly the middle class who have the resources to move. I suppose that, to Hils, those are the equally evil rentiers and parasites. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning
|
Quote:
who are scratching around for some way to discredit the result and to smear those who voted to leave. I voted to leave and I have long recognised that large-scale immigration was bringing far more problems than advantages for our country. Most of my friends and acquaintances hold similar views, and none of us believed that voting leave would mean a general expulsion of immigrants from our country. Most of us will oppose any such nonsense in the extremely unlikely event of it being attempted. The suggestion that most "leave" voters were sufficiently ignorant, idiotic and depraved to want such a policy is just part of the smear campaign being conducted by fair weather democrats who don't like losing. I knew exactly what I was voting for. I knew that we were voting on one issue only, and that the following day we would still have our Parliamentary democracy and that the political parties would develop different policies about how to quit the EU. The fact that we "leave" voters did not yet have detailed policy statements in no way invalidates the referendum. In any General Election we are given scant information about how the parties intend to indulge their preoccupations, but that does not mean the election results are not valid. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouth London Orange?
On 04/07/2016 09:37, Recliner wrote:
So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. Would there be any possibility of the masses (rather than the uk.railway-reading elite) understanding such options? "I like oil and hats with horns[1] more than I like cheese with holes and misunderstandings about the origins of novelty clocks" wouldn't be much to go on. [1] their ancestors might not have done, but they do now. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and TurningSouthLondon Orange?
On 04/07/2016 16:29, Robin9 wrote: Martin Coffee;156680 Wrote: [...] The problem is that there are so many divorce possibilities that no leave person actually knew what they did vote for. It's a monumental muddle created by the leave political people. The stay political people are no better, they were just complacent. In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on.. It's an absolute muddle. It's not a muddle at all, except for those bad losers who are scratching around for some way to discredit the result and to smear those who voted to leave. I voted to leave and I have long recognised that large-scale immigration was bringing far more problems than advantages for our country. Most of my friends and acquaintances hold similar views, and none of us believed that voting leave would mean a general expulsion of immigrants from our country. Most of us will oppose any such nonsense in the extremely unlikely event of it being attempted. The suggestion that most "leave" voters were sufficiently ignorant, idiotic and depraved to want such a policy is just part of the smear campaign being conducted by fair weather democrats who don't like losing. I knew exactly what I was voting for. I knew that we were voting on one issue only, and that the following day we would still have our Parliamentary democracy and that the political parties would develop different policies about how to quit the EU. The fact that we "leave" voters did not yet have detailed policy statements in no way invalidates the referendum. In any General Election we are given scant information about how the parties intend to indulge their preoccupations, but that does not mean the election results are not valid. Therefore going by the letter of the referendum, you didn't actually vote to end free movement of people between the UK and the (rest of the) EEA. Of course migration that was one of the main points of the leave campaigners, so that's going to change. If you want to see a muddle, see Boris Johnson's muddle of a column the Monday after the referendum, promising the land at the end of the rainbow. He was one of the main figureheads for the official Vote Leave campaign. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 08:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won. Dunno how they 'whittled down' the list, but Kiwis ended up choosing from a miserable group of look-alikes... black and blue and silvery ferns... and an obsession with retaining four stars, which is the confusion point with Oz they were trying to break. At least, amongst kicking and screaming, the Federal Gummint of the time made a political decision to give Canada the Maple Leaf. You try to change that now! |
Quote:
immigration from the EU. I voted for the means to reduce it, amongst other things. I have no interest in anything Boris Johnson writes or says and I can well believe his column is confused and incoherent. I'm glad we Londoners are rid of him and I believe Michael Gove did the nation a great service. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon Orange?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:29:27 +0200
Robin9 wrote: Mizter T;156696 Wrote: Monday after the referendum, promising the land at the end of the rainbow. He was one of the main figureheads for the official Vote Leave campaign. Of course I didn't vote directly for a huge reduction in immigration from the EU. I voted for the means to reduce it, amongst other things. I have no interest in anything Boris Johnson writes or says and I can well believe his column is confused and incoherent. I'm glad we Londoners are rid of him and I believe Michael Gove did the nation a great service. Can't disagree there, though you have to wonder about Goves analytical abilities if it took him until last week to discover Boris was useless. Most of London could have told him that years ago (though he's still preferable to that dirty little weasel Kahn). Also no one trusts a backstabber no matter how well intentioned so he can kiss his high level political career goodbye. -- Spud |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul 2016, tim... remarked: So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of his money. Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?" The one you claimed not to have seen. why do you doubt that claim? I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions should be taken seriously. you are being ridiculous I didn't see the picture, so what? I did see all the media coverage of it how does that make me out of touch? As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are clearly vastly underestimating its impact on the vote. You have proof of that statement do you? No, I thought not - you made it up. I don't believe for one minute that one poster that was shown for one day made a significant impact on the result. (I'll give you that the 350 million pound to the NHS poster might have done, but that poster was show/discussed for the complete duration of the campaign) Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at Calais are illegals Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told) reducing legal immigrants, Yeah, that's what I said as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants. Oh no it's not See the poster dear Liza. The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants" Not what the poster said. It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your minuscule little debating point. I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, As seems to have been accepted by the Remainers on the discussion on last weekend's Sunday Pol (which I have just caught up with) and not something that I have specifically denied I think they thought "leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave". Only a small percentage are claiming that the majority understood it did not mean that tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"Martin Coffee" wrote in message ... I met someone who thought it meant ... ....snip first part... we had left the EU the moment the election was announced (I assume you mean "referendum result was announced") I was chatting with a couple of Danes on holiday last week and they said "have you actually left yet?" It seems that the misunderstanding of the process is widespread I accept that that wasn't the exact point you were making. tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Like the punishment budget, you mean? tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won. So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave? tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning SouthLondon Orange?
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... If you want to see a muddle, see Boris Johnson's muddle of a column the Monday after the referendum, promising the land at the end of the rainbow. He was one of the main figureheads for the official Vote Leave campaign. That's because (with the benefit of hindsight) Boris only did what he did and said what he said to enhance his leadership prospects (and look how that turned out), he doesn't have an ideological view of Brexit, unlike many of his colleagues, so what he says can be discarded. tim |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:59:41 +0100
"tim..." wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Martin Coffee remarked: In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered for the electorate to vote on. There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were retracted the day after the referendum. Like the punishment budget, you mean? Not to mention the dire warnings about the collapse of the pound. Which has gone down a bit , but nothing like what some were suggesting. Also ironically Osborne only last year was suggesting that perhaps it would be good if the pound did drop to aid exports. That god he's gone, useless plank. -- Spud |
Quote:
as one of the biggest failures we've ever had as Chancellor. Six years wasted, and all those cuts made in order to fail to balance the books, contrary to all his predictions. |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 and Turning South London Orange?
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put
finger to keyboard and typed: "Recliner" wrote in message ... So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave? There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options: 1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model). 2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model). 3. No European trade bloc membership at all. Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could usefully be voted on. What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU could do about that either. In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA. Mark -- Insert random witticism here http://www.markgoodge.com |
Will Brexit lead to the abandonment of Crossrail2 andTurning South London Orange?
Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put finger to keyboard and typed: "Recliner" wrote in message ... So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc. In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek. The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave? There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options: 1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model). 2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model). 3. No European trade bloc membership at all. Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could usefully be voted on. What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU could do about that either. In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA. The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave" we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained. Robin |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk