kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Bigus wrote: » Fight to win what ? Is it not all about soft power today , like Ireland does diplomatically? And anyway who gives a damn about UN seats ? Does This enrich a nation ?
Calina wrote: » Dunno who you are hanging out with cos where I am there is a lot of derision at how idiotic the Brits have been along with some relief that the EU places more value on a remaining member rather than a leaving member. The hardline approach will be tempered by the need to trade. There are no hardliners reafy to step up because such as exist, Johnson and Rees Moggs, have shown no desire to step up to the mark. The UN permanent seat is entirely separate to this debate. Russia still has a seat, after all. India had an argument for one. Also, please note this mess was completely self inflicted.
cryptocurrency wrote: » There seems to be a lot of anger at how the EU has treated the UK there and despite what the media is saying or our own commentators saying “ it’s of their own making, they could back down and cancel it all” the fact is that eventually there will be a more hardline approach from the UK once this government they have goes. I just worry that we’ve backed the wrong horse in the long race. If the UK capitualates here they will have to hand back that UN seat as even Uganda won’t take them seriously. This is their biggest challenge since WW2 and they either take it or come out swinging. If I was British I’d be 100% behind the salvaging of national pride. We do live the a age where people are softer and weaker so I don’t expect they will but you have to say that many developing nations would have had a much stronger will, both at public and government level then this lot in the UK. They’ve no grit to dig down and fight for the win.
cryptocurrency wrote: » Britain have been humiliated on the world stage by the communist EU. The UK is a permanent seat holder of the UN Security Council and is getting humiliated like this. They have only one real course of action to save face here and the credibility as a power on the world stage and that’s to get rid of May, go for a no deal and severe security ties with the EU citing the unfriendly threats they’ve made to them. A few months of military brinkmanship would seen see the EU offer a simple free trade deal.
theguzman wrote: » This is why so many voted for Brexit, the arrogance of the Remainers and pontificating drove moderates to vote for it. The language and tone used against Brexiteers was the best recruiter they had. Brexit was a fight back against the left and against political correctness and liberalism.
charlie14 wrote: » My point was that from the 2016 referendum vote some, myself included at the time, appear to feel there is support for a more moderate brand of unionism as per the UUP rather than that of the DUP. That seems a very faint hope imo when you consider the subsequent 2017 Westminster elections compared to the same in 2015 where both were on a FPTP. DUP increased their vote by 10.3%. The UUP vote decreased by 5.8%
hill16bhoy wrote: » I agree that it would have been more democratic for UKIP to have 10-15% of the seats in the House of Commons after the 2015 election, but paradoxically, had the UK had PR and multi-seat constituencies for the last 40 years, I think it would have been a lot harder for UKIP to achieve their aim of leaving the European Union as the issue would likely have been a much more fringe one because in a PR system the Tories would likely not have had the vocal pro-Brexit minority that they did - they would probably have been a mainstream, pro-Europe centre-right party a la Fine Gael with a support base of around 25-30% and a seat count in that range too, ie. they would never have gotten a majority.Instead the whole Eurosceptic/Brexit issue has infested the Tories for 30 years. All the Eurosceptics crowded into the Tories and set the agenda when they were in government, which because of the UK system is almost always majority, one party goovernment. This Eurosceptic agenda been led to a large extent by the UK right-wing media. The media is business which relies on advertising and it skews right for that reason. I think a two party system also leads the media, particularly the right-wing media, to be more rabid and sensationalist in how they frame things because the "threat" of a Labour government is ever-present. That is certainly what happened in the UK. I certainly would have complaints about how certain issues are framed in the Irish media, but overall, we don't have anything like the rabid, frothing at the mouth sensationalism of the Daily Mail or The Sun. That's because there's no real prospect of a genuine left-wing government here. We always end up with centre-right governments. That's where the needle always lands. I don't agree that there is a desire for single party government in Ireland - I think it's very much the opposite, and I'm quite happy with that. It's stronger in the long run.
seamus wrote: » What a coincidence then that the first pan-european political and economic union in 2,000 years happened at the exact same time that Europe has experienced the longest period of unbroken peace in 2,000 years. It's just a correlation though, one has nothing to do with the other. It's not like any other large economic blocs are at peace. The Russian Federation, sure jaysus they're bombing the crap out of each other constantly. And the United States? Endless interstate warring.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Explain what happens to the service industry your economy relies on under WTO rules. We go on the WTO General Agreements on Trade in Services, we already trade on them with many countries. LOL Todays word is Passporting. It's the advantage you have over places like India and the Philippines when selling services into the EU at the lower end of the market. At the higher end of the market relocations to the EU are happening. Explain the WTO Rules Of Origin and vehicle exports to the USA, note that the UK Read the Rules of Origin on the WTO site for yourself. We currently export to America on WTO anyway. We export vehicles to the USA under WTO rules. Your cars have lots of EU parts. Today they are EU cars. After Brexit they won't be EU cars , in fact they may not even be considered 'UK' cars and so will attract heavier tariffs. Tell us how the UK will get a good deal with India etc. without accepting lots and lots of immigration. Refer to the billions promised to Southern Africa in your answer. Negotiation. Anyway, we currently have a lot of immigrants from India and are happy to have more if it is for our benefit. What do you want me to say about UK foreign aid? We give a great deal of foreign aid - in 2015 we gave slightly more than 0.7% of our Gross National Income, Ireland gave just over half of that. Some of the aid is worthwhile, some is not, we need to use it properly and perhaps provide more of it in return for trade. You spent about £4Bn in aid to get prospective deals with countries who only buy 1-2% of your exports. Also to be blunt, team UK hasn't increased market share despite the fall in sterling. BTW Irishaid consistently comes out as being very cost effective because it's not used as a political football. Comment on the 2.5% shortfall in tax revenue so far since the referendum. Contrast and compare to every other OECD country that isn't a potential war zone. Feel free to provide details of the statistics you are using and your definition of "tax shortfall." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week Seriously if you could get that artificially inflated £350 million figure on that big red bus you'd still be down billions. All that loss of revenue means higher taxes or less public spending on stuff like the NHS. How long will it take the UK economy to grow 2.5% ? How long will it take to grow 2.5% more than the OECD average ? If you look at things like Excess Winter Mortality you can see one aspect of the human cost of tanking your own economyhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45876204 Unless you can address these points, and more, you are in cloud cuckoo land. Not at all, living in Cloud Cuckoo Land is not dependent on whether a person can address particular points, unless you are Humpty Dumpty.
We go on the WTO General Agreements on Trade in Services, we already trade on them with many countries.
Read the Rules of Origin on the WTO site for yourself. We currently export to America on WTO anyway. We export vehicles to the USA under WTO rules.
Negotiation. Anyway, we currently have a lot of immigrants from India and are happy to have more if it is for our benefit. What do you want me to say about UK foreign aid? We give a great deal of foreign aid - in 2015 we gave slightly more than 0.7% of our Gross National Income, Ireland gave just over half of that. Some of the aid is worthwhile, some is not, we need to use it properly and perhaps provide more of it in return for trade.
Feel free to provide details of the statistics you are using and your definition of "tax shortfall."
Not at all, living in Cloud Cuckoo Land is not dependent on whether a person can address particular points, unless you are Humpty Dumpty.
Folkstonian wrote: » But correlation does not equal causation, and I simply queried the credibility of the claim, offering the rebuilding of Germany after WW2 and the Cold War/ the NATO-Warsaw Pact stand off as alternative explanations
Sand wrote: » Agreed, effective political representation is a guard against a feeling of disenfranchisement and resentment. However disagreeable people may feel UKIP's agenda was and is, it was surely better that roughly 10-15% of HoC seats were held by UKIP in 2015 than what did occur where the clear break between the people and their MPs was expressed in Brexit. The vast majority of MPs backed Remain, but can we really say the MPs were representative of British society? I think there is a persistent desire for a strong/single party government in the UK (and indeed Ireland - the last election and a minority government were viewed almost as the end of civilisation by some). Seeking consensus is seen as weakness. A refusal to even entertain or engage with the opposition parties is seen as admirable. Elections are a contest, and the winner takes all. Modern democracy is apparently 30-40% of the voters ruling the remainder of the people without consultation. Multi PR might have made the HoC much more uncomfortable for either of Labour or the Tories, but it surely would have been better for the UK as a whole. In hindsight, Brexit should not have been a shock. That the Tories have decided to disregard the genuine complaint expressed in Brexit and instead reinterpret it as a demand for more of the same is depressingly not a shock either. The UK is a society at war with it's own constituent parts.
theguzman wrote: ...some people may know the price of everything but the true value of nothing.
theguzman wrote: There is far bigger things at play than mere financial markets.
Anthracite wrote: What confuses me about this question is that you clearly have some means of accessing the internet.
Deleted User wrote: »
theguzman wrote: » Financial markets, some people may know the price of everything but the true value of nothing. There is far bigger things at play than mere financial markets.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » The most intriguing questions of the last 48 hours : Where is Boris and what is he up to ?
Folkstonian wrote: » Well I think the contrary is true, actually. YOU appear to be defending the assertion that the EU is the single most important factor in the maintenance of peace, so the onus in any debate would be on YOU to provide a compelling case for the motion. But correlation does not equal causation, and I simply queried the credibility of the claim, offering the rebuilding of Germany after WW2 and the Cold War/ the NATO-Warsaw Pact stand off as alternative explanations. Remarkable how quick people can be to jump on even gentle examinations or critiques of the EU in this thread
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Explain what happens to the service industry your economy relies on under WTO rules. We go on the WTO General Agreements on Trade in Services, we already trade on them with many countries. Explain the WTO Rules Of Origin and vehicle exports to the USA, note that the UK Read the Rules of Origin on the WTO site for yourself. We currently export to America on WTO anyway. We export vehicles to the USA under WTO rules. Tell us how the UK will get a good deal with India etc. without accepting lots and lots of immigration. Refer to the billions promised to Southern Africa in your answer. Negotiation. Anyway, we currently have a lot of immigrants from India and are happy to have more if it is for our benefit. What do you want me to say about UK foreign aid? We give a great deal of foreign aid - in 2015 we gave slightly more than 0.7% of our Gross National Income, Ireland gave just over half of that. Some of the aid is worthwhile, some is not, we need to use it properly and perhaps provide more of it in return for trade. Comment on the 2.5% shortfall in tax revenue so far since the referendum. Contrast and compare to every other OECD country that isn't a potential war zone. Feel free to provide details of the statistics you are using and your definition of "tax shortfall." Unless you can address these points, and more, you are in cloud cuckoo land. Not at all, living in Cloud Cuckoo Land is not dependent on whether a person can address particular points, unless you are Humpty Dumpty.
oscarBravo wrote: » You're entitled to your beliefs, but if an organisation is set up with the express purpose of preventing war between its member states, and half a century later there hasn't been war between its member states, a reasonable application of Occam's Razor would suggest that it has certainly been effective. It's easy to argue that Europe would have been at peace anyway, insofar as it's always an exercise in navel-gazing to boldly assert what would have been. But if you're going to argue that the EU hasn't achieved one of its core objectives, despite that core objective having been achieved, I think the onus is on you to make a convincing case for your counterfactual.
PlasticPatrick wrote: The world and European economies will not always be so buoyant and make no mistake the Germans and French will look after themselves when the time comes.
PlasticPatrick wrote: If you sell your soul to the devil he will eventually be dropping by to collect.
hill16bhoy wrote: » In a multi-seat PR system, the Liberal Democrats for instance, would become a far more attractive electoral proposition. If the Lib Dems had, say, a solid 20% of the vote and seats, British politics would have a far more efffective bulwark against extremes.
Itssoeasy wrote: » Was one of those no confidence votes that succeeded in the 1970s and it passed by one vote ? It involved an SDLP MP who got langers in a pub near Westminster and it played a part.
theguzman wrote: » Please demonstrate to me the self-harm caused by Brexit?
