On 08/11/2016 21:18, ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:05:45 +0000, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it
being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could
have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM
advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is
only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because
"advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in
practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975,
Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish
independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Cameron promised to "implement what [we] decide" but then resigned
instead. Ball is now in May's
court.

We had a civil war in the 1640s. There was unrest in later
centuries to reform the franchise. In
1910 the House of Lords had to be faced down, and suffragettes broke
windows, chained themselves to
railings and one died in a spectacular way under the King's horse at
a race meeting. The Remoaners
had better be careful about provoking conflict today.


Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a
clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition


How does "The Remoaners had better be careful about provoking conflict
today." not fit that definition.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/11/2016 21:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:06:43 on Tue, 8 Nov
2016, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

since Norway and Switzerland have rejected political union, a similar
mini-Brexit to retain zero tariffs, freedom of business establishment,
and free movement of labour just like them would be acceptable.

On one hand they don't have all the free tariffs, on the other hand they
have to comply with European Directives without having had a say in
their drafting.

And doing away with the free movement of labour was a major part of the
Brexit campaign.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In article ,
lid (Arthur Figgis) wrote:

On 08/11/2016 18:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia,
Homophobia, idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not
having a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything
else is exciting and "other" in comparison.

Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

I find that travelling to places like Germany, Scandinavian and
Scotland, there is a perception amongst a surprising number of the
kind of people one meets in pubs that England does indeed lack
natives. This leads to some strange assumptions, particularly with
regard to life in contemporary London...

They're not entirely wrong. There are no indigenous English. Everyone here
is descended from immigrants, even if from many centuries ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:18:19 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 16:58, Peter wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:36, Graeme Wall wrote:

What makes you think I care about being British?

So presumably you don't?

Not the discredited narrow-minded, bigoted version of being British
currently being marketed, no.


The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

What foreign power? Or are you imitating the SNP with its pretence that
Westminster is a foreign power?

It is foreign to Scotland and quite a few other bits of the UK. The
so-called "British way of life" ignores that there is a collection of
several ways of life.


Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?


No but I can imagine Britain being told what to do by the USA, after all
we always have done.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe


mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty
much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have
had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile
campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity
[Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/



But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of
the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for


But you've just said that the economy trumps that.

no I didn't

I said that in the case of government spending, getting the Economy right
trumps doing the "right thing" on Welfare.

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Are there?

Many believe that there are

it will take 20 years to find out :-)

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



And just what is my like?

If the economy gets shafted it won't be just me that is affected.

But the argument is that the end result of leaving wont shaft the Economy

That it will be in turmoil because there are a lot of people in positions of
"power" who will be personally affected who shout louder (and whose voices
are given greater credence by "the markets") doesn't change that.

This is the fault of them being noisy whiners, not the effect of leaving.

(and FTAOD, I expect them to continue whining, and having an adverse effect
on the economy long after the leave process has completed.)

tim

On 08/11/16 21:38, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 21:18, ColinR wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 15:48, Optimist wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:37:59 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/11/2016 14:53, Optimist wrote:
Intersting how the exiters soon resort to threats of violence.

Not a threat, a warning of the likely consequences of overturning a
clear democratic vote.


That's a threat in anybody's language.

Oxford dictionary definition of threat:
"A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other
hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

The above does not meet the threat definition


How does "The Remoaners had better be careful about provoking conflict
today." not fit that definition.

I agree. The original statement does constitute a threat under the
dictionary definition.

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That
is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?

Over the next 20-30 years the relative importance of trade with the EU will
shrink whilst that of Asia and South America rises.

The freedom to make deals with these regions without being shackled by the
dead hand of EU, unelected, unaccountable administrators will reap benefits
for the UK Economy.

But it wont happen this week next week or the week after. It is a long term
thing

tim

On 09/11/2016 08:17, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...



Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe



mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years
later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty
much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have
had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to
let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile
campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity
[Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/




But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they
make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good
of the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing
what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for


But you've just said that the economy trumps that.

no I didn't

I said that in the case of government spending, getting the Economy
right trumps doing the "right thing" on Welfare.

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Are there?

Many believe that there are

it will take 20 years to find out :-)

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



And just what is my like?

If the economy gets shafted it won't be just me that is affected.

But the argument is that the end result of leaving wont shaft the Economy

It already has and we haven't left yet.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

wrote in message
news
In article ,
lid (Arthur Figgis) wrote:

On 08/11/2016 18:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/11/2016 18:27, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2016 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:

And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia,
Homophobia, idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?

People often forget that Britain (well, England) is unique in not
having a way of life. After all, it is just "normal", while everything
else is exciting and "other" in comparison.

Just as everyone else has accents and are natives.

I find that travelling to places like Germany, Scandinavian and
Scotland, there is a perception amongst a surprising number of the
kind of people one meets in pubs that England does indeed lack
natives. This leads to some strange assumptions, particularly with
regard to life in contemporary London...

They're not entirely wrong. There are no indigenous English. Everyone here
is descended from immigrants, even if from many centuries ago.

Well that's probably true of most countries in Europe

And if you go back far enough we were all "invaded" by indigenous Africans

tim

"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

Oh come on

The Tories are implementing it (because it was voted for), because to do
anything else would see them lose considerable support to UKIP at the next
election.

They are following the result of the referendum because politics forces them
to. not because they are legally required to do so.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have also
saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I predict, a
repeat in the Supreme Court).

They didn't bother to do that because they had no expectation of losing, not
because they wanted to leave Remoaners with a "get out" if they did (not
that any of that matters - see previous para)

tim