Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Back to Brexit, I see on the news a joint press conference between the two premiers of France and Germany, which is fair enough as two separate nations, and in the background a French flag, a German flag and an EU flag. In front of this they spell out the aims of the EU. Just the two of them.

To paraphrase Orwell, every EU member is equal, but some are more equal than others.
 
712 said:
Back to Brexit, I see on the news a joint press conference between the two premiers of France and Germany, which is fair enough as two separate nations, and in the background a French flag, a German flag and an EU flag. In front of this they spell out the aims of the EU. Just the two of them.

To paraphrase Orwell, every EU member is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, that’s why now the UK have left Trump will be tapping up the Austrian Premier for influence, cause they all have a veto and equal influence....right?..
 
Maybe the EU should have an elected president, prime minister or whatever that could speak for it. The key being elected, by the citizens of all the countries, not just some.
 
Last edited:
712 said:
Maybe the EU should have an elected president, prime minister or whatever that could speak for it. The key being elected, by all the citizens, not just some.
Click to expand...

How would that vote work?

Germany get ~60m votes? France and England ~40m, Ireland ~3m?
 
Pexbo said:
How would that vote work?

Germany get ~60m votes? France and England ~40m, Ireland ~3m?
Click to expand...

Well you missed out Poland, Belgium et al, but a lot of options, could be a country's vote based on population, or why not the simple 'one man one vote' as the old slogan goes, although maybe updating that for women in some way would be a good idea.

My point is that an Italians or whatever's vote should count the same as a Germans. If the leaders of France and Germany had delivered their speech in front of their own flags that would have been fine, but they didn't, it was the EU flag in the middle, and I don't see what right they have to appoint themselves as EU spokesmen.
 
712 said:
Well you missed out Poland, Belgium et al, but a lot of options, could be a country's vote based on population, or why not the simple 'one man one vote' as the old slogan goes, although maybe updating that for women in some way would be a good idea.

My point is that an Italians or whatever's vote should count the same as a Germans. If the leaders of France and Germany had delivered their speech in front of their own flags that would have been fine, but they didn't, it was the EU flag in the middle, and I don't see what right they have to appoint themselves as EU spokesmen.
Click to expand...

I didn’t miss out anyone it was just examples to make a point. If it’s one person one vote then you’re going to see blocks like France and Germany formed where media and governments guide their populations to vote how they want them to vote and then you have a voting power which dwarfs the total number of votes the 10 smallest countries combined can make.

Conversely, if it’s an electoral college style vote where each country gets one vote, you’re going to have countries with 3m voters having the same power as countries with 50m.


There’s no such thing as “fair”. People will always moan at perceived inequalities. It just has to be a collective effort to operate in the best interests of everyone. It’s not perfect but it’s a damn sight better than having a bunch of paranoid isolationists who only give a shit about themselves. Note, “themselves” rather than “their country” because for all the Union Jack profile pictures it’s only their own interests they care about otherwise they’d have stopped this self harm ages ago.
 
Pexbo said:
I didn’t miss out anyone it was just examples to make a point. If it’s one person one vote then you’re going to see blocks like France and Germany formed where media and governments guide their populations to vote how they want them to vote and then you have a voting power which dwarfs the total number of votes the 10 smallest countries combined can make.

Conversely, if it’s an electoral college style vote where each country gets one vote, you’re going to have countries with 3m voters having the same power as countries with 50m.


There’s no such thing as “fair”. People will always moan at perceived inequalities. It just has to be a collective effort to operate in the best interests of everyone. It’s not perfect but it’s a damn sight better than having a bunch of paranoid isolationists who only give a shit about themselves. Note, “themselves” rather than “their country” because for all the Union Jack profile pictures it’s only their own interests they care about otherwise they’d have stopped this self harm ages ago.
Click to expand...

If it were one person one vote then it wouldn't matter which country they lived in, would it?
Which is my point, and hopefully what the EU should be about, I'm just questioning whether it is or not.

I'm not sure if the perceived, paranoid, shit and themselves jibes are aimed at me or not, in any case I'll put them down to the time of night unless you say different.
 
Last edited:
The Outsider said:
Unless you have your own accountant and solicitor I doubt you are part of the upper middle class perhaps lower middle class.

Here's my thoughts on voting patterns -

2015 Election we had sizable votes for UKIP and Greens, Tories panicked and promised a referendum since then politics has become polarised although that may have happened anyway as neither Greens or UKIP got any additional seats.

This is how I see the main voting split:


Labour

Workers in state industries and state services mostly vote Labour.

Benefit recipients mostly vote Labour.

Recent immigrants mostly vote Labour.

Socialist ideologues.


Tories

Business interests mostly vote Tory.

Self-employed mostly vote Tory.

Libertarian idealogues.


Groups that switch depending on policy and whether that policy is trusted.

Pensioners

Working classes in private industries and services.
Click to expand...

I can afford and probably I should use both an accountant and a solicitor. However I can't get arsed doing so. I can take care of my accounts. I have no intention of avoiding paying tax as I think its one's duty to do so and I also love living a simple life. There again, I do feel that my taxpayer's money should be invested well which means more on the NHS and education and far less on military, the monarchy and bribes to the DUP.

All I am saying is that I don't understand how a party whose so dedicated to a tiny minority of people (ie the wealthy) can still win GE. It doesn't make sense to me
 
devilish said:
I can afford and probably I should use both an accountant and a solicitor. However I can't get arsed doing so. I can take care of my accounts. I have no intention of avoiding paying tax as I think its one's duty to do so and I also love living a simple life. There again, I do feel that my taxpayer's money should be invested well which means more on the NHS and education and far less on military, the monarchy and bribes to the DUP.

All I am saying is that I don't understand how a party whose so dedicated to a tiny minority of people (ie the wealthy) can still win GE. It doesn't make sense to me
Click to expand...

You convince the middle they are wealthy or going to be wealthy. You convince them that cutting taxes will make them rich. You convince the middle that the poor are poor by choice so deserve nothing, so cut the services that keeps your taxes high
 
Mozza said:
You convince the middle they are wealthy or going to be wealthy. You convince them that cutting taxes will make them rich. You convince the middle that the poor are poor by choice so deserve nothing, so cut the services that keeps your taxes high
Click to expand...
The right, still convince the poor to vote for them.
 
Mozza said:
You get the white poor to hate the brown poor by saying they are the reason you've got no money
Click to expand...

Then you explain to the brown poor that you are not racist, you just want to give equal chances to everyone which is good for him.
 
He often speaks sense.
The problem is that he isn't aware him saying these things won't help matters.
 
Adisa said:
He often speaks sense.
The problem is that he isn't aware him saying these things won't help matters.
Click to expand...

The problem is that those from the left shout down the only person in politics who seem to be actually opposing what the Tories are doing.

Tories: Hard Brexit! Which means leaving the single market and customs union!
Labour: Soft Brexit! But we must leave the single market and customs union!
Blair: Um..how about no Bre-
The Left: Shut up! War criminal!


Might not like Blair but at some point it has to be acknowledged he's pretty much the ONLY person of note making the case the majority of Labour voters want someoen to be making. And that isn't that we should rethink the whole thing. Constantly shouting him down if you're going to make the anti-Brexit point is one thing. Shouting him down and not doing so then all you're doing is aiding the Tories. Trust me, I'm not thrilled nobody of note in the Labour party are saying what he is either.

I don't really get Labour's position. It seems to be:

"We were lied to! So let's deliver the thing that we were lied to about!"
 
Last edited:
Maybe Blair should shut up? He's the last person anyone is going to listen to, least of all the Brexiters.
 
And no matter how sensible it may be, just cancelling Brexit isn't really an option when any claim that they 'lied' can be countered with lies of the Remain side, even if those lies may have paled in comparison to what Boris et al were spewing.
 
It's worth saying that Corbyn has said many times that if there's a case to bring Blair to trial then it should happen, so it's easy to see why old tony doesn't want a Labour government.
 
rcoobc said:
The saddest thing about Brexit, is the rhetoric used by the Conservative party was complete guff. They never used the tools given to them to curb immigration, because they didn't want to.

Tool 1 - Changes to taxation.

I've mentioned this many times on here, but simply changing taxation could have cut immigration fairly drastically. They actually made it worse, by increasing the 'take home pay' from low paying jobs (not that I am against that).

https://infacts.org/government-use-taxation-restrict-immigration/

Now there are sensible reasons not to have implemented this, you can question whether it's fair, whether it will increase poverty, how it will affect returning ex-pats and why the government should have to resort to such backwards taxation anyway... but it was a tool that no government chose to use to curb immigration.

And actually, when the worst part if EU immigration is the reduction in low-skilled wages over time, this would have reversed that.

Tool 2 - Ask migrants without a job for three months to leave.

David Cameron claimed he'd got a concession that allowed migrants that haven't had a job here for 6 months to be asked to leave. But we already had that right.


And we (Theresa May/David Cameron) just didn't use it.

Tool 3 - Ask migrants to register with the local government,

Pretty much every other country requires you to register with the local government.

Tool 4 - Ask everyone to get Health Insurance (UK Citz would use the NHS)

A bit of a weird one. Healthcare is entirely devolved to the countries in question. This goes against the whole point of the NHS, but...

You are allowed to require people working in the UK to have private Health Insurance. You could also give everyone who has been in the UK for over a year "NHS Health Insurance." EU migrants would still get this NHS Health Insurance after a year, but would need to get their own Health Insurance to start with...

There are any number of tools available. And yet, the Conservative government didn't choose to use any of them. Why? Because Immigration is good for the UK.

It's all bollocks.
Click to expand...

JPRouve said:
EU citizens aren't entitled to benefits until they are permanent residents though which is 5 years, before that they can be deported on the ground that they are a burden on the welfare system.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974
Click to expand...

hmmm

Home Office policy to deport EU rough sleepers ruled unlawful
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...olicy-deport-eu-rough-sleepers-ruled-unlawful
 
Sweet Square said:
It's worth saying that Corbyn has said many times that if there's a case to bring Blair to trial then it should happen, so it's easy to see why old tony doesn't want a Labour government.
Click to expand...

But there isn't really a case. Calling Blair a war criminal is something George Galloway does. So far nobody who matters has at all been convinced there's anything for him to answer to. Thinking someone is guilty of something is fine, but it doesn't it so.
 
Cheesy said:
And no matter how sensible it may be, just cancelling Brexit isn't really an option when any claim that they 'lied' can be countered with lies of the Remain side, even if those lies may have paled in comparison to what Boris et al were spewing.
Click to expand...

Remain didn't win. If you were conned into buying double glazing, the company that conned you can't argue that it doesn't matter because the other company that was courting your business were trying to con you too.
 
Oscie said:
But there isn't really a case. Calling Blair a war criminal is something George Galloway does. So far nobody who matters has at all been convinced there's anything for him to answer to. Thinking someone is guilty of something is fine, but it doesn't it so.
Click to expand...

Oh there's plenty who regard Blair as a war criminal beyond that clown Galloway. Start with Michael Mansfield QC for example. Teflon Tony gets a free pass though due to his ability to hide behind immunity and the vagueness of UK law when it comes to a crime of aggression.

Or you could listen to this chap..



....or indeed any of the relatives of the estimated (ORB survey 2007) 1.2 million casualties since 2003. I guess they don't matter at all really do they?
 
Oscie said:
The problem is that those from the left shout down the only person in politics who seem to be actually opposing what the Tories are doing.

Tories: Hard Brexit! Which means leaving the single market and customs union!
Labour: Soft Brexit! But we must leave the single market and customs union!
Blair: Um..how about no Bre-
The Left: Shut up! War criminal!


Might not like Blair but at some point it has to be acknowledged he's pretty much the ONLY person of note making the case the majority of Labour voters want someoen to be making. And that isn't that we should rethink the whole thing. Constantly shouting him down if you're going to make the anti-Brexit point is one thing. Shouting him down and not doing so then all you're doing is aiding the Tories. Trust me, I'm not thrilled nobody of note in the Labour party are saying what he is either.

I don't really get Labour's position. It seems to be:

"We were lied to! So let's deliver the thing that we were lied to about!"
Click to expand...
Are those the same Tories Blair was telling people to think about voting for at the last election? Five minutes after saying Corbyn's Labour was only interested in protest, not power - a viewpoint he's done a complete 180 on in the last 24 hours?

So which of these people do they listen to again?
 
JPRouve said:
If you read the article, there is no abuse of welfare system and these people for a big part allegedly have employment, also you can't use a systematic method to deport people you have to prove that they are a burden case by case.
Click to expand...
I am aware re benefits. I am not talking about that. That situation changed only after recent pressure when Cameron asked for a ‘negotiation’ in Feb 2016 didn’t it?

Anyways my point is, forget benefits etc. We can’t even deport folks if they are blatantly sleeping rough for any period of time!
 
afrocentricity said:
People need to think about more than themselves...
Click to expand...
This. The government isn’t there to benefit individuals or groups, it’s there to provide for everyone the best they can. At the moment it’s way off doing that.
 
Member 5225 said:
I am aware re benefits. I am not talking about that. That situation changed only after recent pressure when Cameron asked for a ‘negotiation’ in Feb 2016 didn’t it?

Anyways my point is, forget benefits etc. We can’t even deport folks if they are blatantly sleeping rough for any period of time!
Click to expand...
Good. These people are clearly in trouble and need help, not deportation.
 
The UK could implement the EU role to deport EU immigrations after three months with no job upon arrival, but they don't. Why? Because EU migrants MAKE the government money.
 
Member 5225 said:
I am aware re benefits. I am not talking about that. That situation changed only after recent pressure when Cameron asked for a ‘negotiation’ in Feb 2016 didn’t it?

Anyways my point is, forget benefits etc. We can’t even deport folks if they are blatantly sleeping rough for any period of time!
Click to expand...

Are you having some troubles? I literally gave you the law, it has nothing to do with Cameron since it exists since 2003.

Also this ruling has nothing to do with the EU, it's a ruling from a british judge of the High court of England and Wales, it's her opinion that the Home Office has no ground for removal while the Home office claims that EU directives give them the right to do it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42354864
 
It all becomes clear.

DRSKvwZX0AAYXy1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.