Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Frank Bullitt

RDQ 17/1/17 - Brexit Means...

So, Theresa has given us all the governments stated position - probably no surprise in the content generally even if there are of course more questions than answers raised, at least we now know what the questions are.

No single market isn't a shocker although some might not have expected a lack of Customs Union although if we want to form our own agreements with non-EU countries we couldn't, of course, be a member of the Customs Union. Tariff-Free trade is, of course, the golden nugget and how we keep an open border with the Republic of Ireland whilst having a controlled border to the rest of the EU is a challenge that if fixed, is a positive.

What is the general consensus?
PhilD

Brexit means Breakfast!
Bob Sacamano

Ten years ago I'd have been very worried but the World today seems very different and the status quo no longer seems an option. No idea whether the right choice has been made.
The EU seems an old product of the Cold War and I can't really see it lasting so maybe it is the right time to leave and make the best of it.
PhilD

Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?
Bob Sacamano

PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Some people like to rip a sticking plaster straight off, others like to slowly ease it off.
PhilD

Bob Sacamano wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Some people like to rip a sticking plaster straight off, others like to slowly ease it off.


And some like to leave it on until it falls off in the shower, exposing soggy and swollen skin, and not bothering to pick it up so that someone else has to clean up their mess.
JohnC

I say all of this on the understanding that I didn't want to leave but I now think she needs to take the stance that free trade can and will be left on the shelf if it has to be: the Europeans will get very worried that they can't sell stuff to us (BMW, VW and Mercedes all sell a shed load of cars to the UK). It is all about making the other side think they are going to have to blink first.

I know that our exporters will similarly be f*cked but are their exports to us more important to them than our exports are to us? Who knows but at least the Europeans now know that we won't do anything to keep the free trade deal.

This is all posturing before the two sides step in to the ring.

Do I want Brexit or has anything changed my mind: NO

Now the decision has been made, do I think we need to fight the best fight for the UK: Damn right I do.
Michael

PhilD wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Some people like to rip a sticking plaster straight off, others like to slowly ease it off.


And some like to leave it on until it falls off in the shower, exposing soggy and swollen skin, and not bothering to pick it up so that someone else has to clean up their mess.


The plaster is Brexit, the soggy mess Europe. So the shower must be Trump?
PG

PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Because she's a way better negotiator (on evidence so far) than Cameron or Bliar ever were. She's allowed people here to have their say; she's allowed the EU technocrats and political big wigs to make some pretty stupid statements; she's got a few quarters of continued UK economic growth to talk about.

It'll be interesting to see what the EU say back.
PhilD

Michael wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Some people like to rip a sticking plaster straight off, others like to slowly ease it off.


And some like to leave it on until it falls off in the shower, exposing soggy and swollen skin, and not bothering to pick it up so that someone else has to clean up their mess.


The plaster is Brexit, the soggy mess Europe. So the shower must be Trump?


Of course, all 18 carats of it.
PhilD

PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Because she's a way better negotiator (on evidence so far) than Cameron or Bliar ever were. She's allowed people here to have their say; she's allowed the EU technocrats and political big wigs to make some pretty stupid statements; she's got a few quarters of continued UK economic growth to talk about.

It'll be interesting to see what the EU say back.


I like that take on it.
Bob Sacamano

JohnC wrote:


I know that our exporters will similarly be f*cked but are their exports to us more important to them than our exports are to us? Who knows but at least the Europeans now know that we won't do anything to keep the free trade deal.

This is all posturing before the two sides step in to the ring.

Do I want Brexit or has anything changed my mind: NO

Now the decision has been made, do I think we need to fight the best fight for the UK: Damn right I do.


I'm of a similar opinion though I'm not sure our exporters are fucked - the fall in the value of the pound has outweighed the effect of any tariffs the EU would apply. If we apply the same tariffs to EU goods that they apply to us then there will be a double whammy to the EU - their goods will be more expensive due to the rise of the Euro to the pound and then the misery would be further piled on them by tariffs. I'm sure the EU don't want to go down this route, bit if they do then so be it.
gonnabuildabuggy

What John C and PG say.

Far more impressed with TM as a leader/statesman than DC though perhaps a question of the right person for the right time.
Frank Bullitt

PhilD wrote:
PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Why has it taken her this long to state the bleeding obvious?


Because she's a way better negotiator (on evidence so far) than Cameron or Bliar ever were. She's allowed people here to have their say; she's allowed the EU technocrats and political big wigs to make some pretty stupid statements; she's got a few quarters of continued UK economic growth to talk about.

It'll be interesting to see what the EU say back.


I like that take on it.


I wonder if your take is the same as mine - this was always going to be the starting point but it's lovely that it is being dressed up as some sort of incisive intelligence by May.
gonnabuildabuggy

The plan was always to kick the can as far down the road as possible to let "other stuff" unfurl.

I think May will be more single minded than DC about getting the best deal for Britain.
Blarno

Where's the "Haven't a sodding clue either way" option?
canadian bacon

There is no option for 'You're going to hell in a hand basket'.....speaking as an interested outside observer, its quite scary how little detail was in the speech, I am still not convinced Brexit in its current form will work, but I could be wrong.

If nothing else all this movement in the fx markets is at least keeping me gainfully employed,
Racing Teatray

I am underwhelmed. Darth May said nothing unexpected. Of course she wants to get shot of the single market and the ECJ, because her overriding preoccupation appears to be the nasty little obsession with immigration that she has brought with her from the Home Office. And that position takes the customs union with it. Sterling only rose because she affirmed that she wanted a transition period, which is what the markets wanted to hear. However, I really have doubts that we'll get one. Most constitutional experts think it is impossible to achieve in the available time frame. Plus I strongly think the FX markets are suffering from a collective delusion that Brexit won't actually happen, and that sooner or later the pound will tank when the markets finally wake up to reality.

I don't get where this boundless optimism comes from that holds that the EU will blink first because of trade concerns. I believe that fundamentally underestimates the EU's motivations. This is existential for the EU. Politics trumps trade every which way in this particular calculation. They cannot give Britain the cake and allow us to eat it, or all the other member states will ask why they can't do the same. I'm not excusing the EU's actions. I just acknowledge the entirely predictable logic of them.

So I think that May can say what she likes. Unless the rules of the game change through the election of Le Pen or some such similar shock (at which point all bets are off), it's odds-on that we will simply be out on our ear, operating on WTO rules and doing what Hammond threatened on the tax front. Will we get offered a quickie trade deal by the Donald? Possibly. Should we touch it with a barge pole? Almost certainly not. Particularly if you value the NHS. Will we get a trade deal with New Zealand? Possibly. But with all due respect to the Kiwis, I'm not sure that helps hugely – that bastion of international trade after all has a population barely half that of London.

So then where will we be. Arguments that other countries trade just fine on WTO rules are entirely meretricious. They are used to doing so and their economies are adapted to that model. We are not and our economy is not. It will hurt. A trade war with our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partner is not attractive either. And if the government slashes businesses taxes to boost the economy, where are they going to make up the tax shortfall from? Personal taxation? I feel us all getting poorer by the second here, and the hardest hit will be those who can least afford it.

Moreover, notwithstanding all the claptrap about democracy and taking back our sovereignty, Darth May's government seems to be developing a distinctly authoritarian bent that must be resisted. Exhibit A is the attempt to use frankly medieval Crown Prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 without any Parliamentary debate. More vitally, Exhibit B is the forthcoming Great Repeal Bill (which is actually nothing of the sort, since although it will repeal the European Communities Act 1972, it will at the same time actually act to incorporate all extant EU regulations (which currently have direct effect) into UK law). It's not yet been widely discussed in public but the government is out for a serious power grab by trying to ensure that the GRA contains a Henry VIII clause (named after a 1539 statute that gave the aforementioned king the power to legislate by proclamation). This would allow the government to repeal or amend a wide range of laws with very limited parliamentary scrutiny and thereby conveniently sidestep the proper legislative process that exists to protect us the people from undue caprice on the part of a government. You want this particular Tory government to have that power? Sounds all a bit Erdogan to me. More importantly it's undemocratic and actually undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.

So I ask: where on earth is the reality check in all this? There seems to be a collective belief in the power of positive thinking: the good things will come to pass if only we all bounce joyfully towards them together. Like lemmings on happy pills.

I get that most of you think I'm being wilfully Cassandra-ish about this, but I refuse to just "drink the kool-aid" on this one.
Stuntman

Racing Teatray wrote:
...

It's not yet been widely discussed in public but the government is out for a serious power grab by trying to ensure that the GRA contains a Henry VIII clause (named after a 1539 statute that gave the aforementioned king the power to legislate by proclamation). This would allow the government to repeal or amend a wide range of laws with very limited parliamentary scrutiny and thereby conveniently sidestep the proper legislative process that exists to protect us the people from undue caprice on the part of a government. You want this particular Tory government to have that power? Sounds all a bit Erdogan to me. More importantly it's undemocratic and actually undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.

...


This bit I find most interesting.  How does it work at the moment when laws are amended or repealed, how much actual, proper scrutiny is there?
Racing Teatray

It hinges, as I understand it, on the distinction between primary and secondary legislation.

Primary legislation must be passed by either an Act of Parliament (with the scrutiny by both houses which that infers) or by exercise of the crown prerogative.

Secondary legislation is the process by which laws are made by an executive authority (eg the Government) under powers delegated via primary legislation. Statutory instruments are examples of secondary legislation. They are commonly used to implement the finer details of laws established by primary legislation.

I don't believe primary legislation can ordinarily be repealed by secondary legislation unless it specifically provided for that (which starts taking you towards Henry VIII territory).

That's why the GRA is needed. The government cannot simply repeal the ECA72 on its own. That requires an Act of Parliament with all the checks and balances that implies. But if the GRA contains the H8 clause, going forward the Government could repeal laws willy-nilly...

As to how much scrutiny currently goes on, I strongly suspect it depends on how contentious the issues at stake are and how strongly MPs and Lords feel about them.
JohnC

Stuntman wrote:
This bit I find most interesting.  How does it work at the moment when laws are amended or repealed, how much actual, proper scrutiny is there?


I can tell you that laws which are enacted through Statutory Instruments almost always, in my experience, receive a serious dose of self interest from the Government department involved (HMRC in the stuff I have seen) which receives no proper scrutiny and on which all consultation with interested parties is ignored. Only after several years of pain and anguish are any changes made.

Law making of this kind is undemocratic and grossly unreasonable, being enacted by faceless civil servants who have no practical experience or knowledge and take no responsibility for their actions.

We need fewer laws which are considered much more deeply rather than the confetti of rubbish we get at the moment.
Racing Teatray

JohnC wrote:


We need fewer laws which are considered much more deeply rather than the confetti of rubbish we get at the moment.


Mmm. But that's definitely not what Darth May has in mind.
PhilD

JohnC wrote:
.

Law making of this kind is undemocratic and grossly unreasonable, being enacted by faceless civil servants who have no practical experience or knowledge and take no responsibility for their actions.



Thank god we will be free of those unelected European bureaucrats telling us what to do.
JohnC

Racing Teatray wrote:
I get that most of you think I'm being wilfully Cassandra-ish about this, but I refuse to just "drink the kool-aid" on this one.


Not at all Racing. I am in total agreement with you. I just feel when you are stuck in dead end alley with a group of heavies coming towards you, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope if we all stick together and fight as one: we might not be happy that someone else took us down this alley but we can't do anything about it now: I'm kicking the big guy in the nuts and running like f*ck.
JohnC

PhilD wrote:

Thank god we will be free of those unelected European bureaucrats telling us what to do.


It is certainly a mistake to think that those in power in the UK don't have the propensity to give us exactly the same.
Racing Teatray

JohnC wrote:
PhilD wrote:

Thank god we will be free of those unelected European bureaucrats telling us what to do.


It is certainly a mistake to think that those in power in the UK don't have the propensity to give us exactly the same.


And probably a bigger long-term mistake by the government to jettison the convenient Brussels scapegoat that successive governments have successfully utilised...
Racing Teatray

JohnC wrote:
I'm kicking the big guy in the nuts, nicking his watch and wallet and running like f*ck.


FYP.
Stuntman

^^^ Isn't that what some lawyers do anyway?  
Giant

Why do I consistently see far more balanced, informative and well reasoned debate on this topic in a motoring forum than I do anywhere in the press and media at large?!
BeN

Giant wrote:
Why do I consistently see far more balanced, informative and well reasoned debate on this topic in a motoring forum than I do anywhere in the press and media at large?!


Because, "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
Racing Teatray

BeN wrote:
Giant wrote:
Why do I consistently see far more balanced, informative and well reasoned debate on this topic in a motoring forum than I do anywhere in the press and media at large?!


Because, "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"


Very good...
Frank Bullitt

At least the houses will now have the opportunity to vote on the terms of the leaving of the European Union rather than the U.K. getting dealt the deal that a closed group of ministers decide upon based upon an opinion poll that had no manifesto to back up what 'Leave' would be.

Of course this highlights that the simplicity of a 'Remain' or 'Leave' vote was incredulous to start with.
Racing Teatray

I'm not sure whether it changes much. Legally it is entirely unsurprising. As I have said all along, had the SC not backed up the HC, it would have been astounding and legally suspect.

The Govt will get a short bill through without any difficulty.

But agreed that it means a Parliamentary vote to pass the necessary legislation is a legal necessity not a political gesture
Frank Bullitt

I don't think it will change anything either, however, it will allow the public to see the debate in parliament and understand the implications of the changes that will take place - assuming they actually give a toss.
Bob Sacamano

So Parliament decides by a huge majority of 544-53 to give the people a referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU. The people vote to leave and now Parliament has to agree to carry out their wishes which they already know because they asked them. It's a bit of box ticking really.
Frank Bullitt

I refer to my earlier point about it being a stupid question.

If you fuck-up, take the time to learn from your mistakes rather than perpetuating it.
Racing Teatray

Bob Sacamano wrote:
So Parliament decides by a huge majority of 544-53 to give the people a referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU. The people vote to leave and now Parliament has to agree to carry out their wishes which they already know because they asked them. It's a bit of box ticking really.


That overlooks the oft-ignored inconvenient fact that there are two types of referendum: "binary" referendums and "advisory" referendums. For example, the one on proportional representation was specifically stated to be binary (meaning that Parliament would in effect be bound to implement it, even though given that Parliament is sovereign, no referendum can ever really be legally binding as a matter of law). The ones on Scottish independence and Brexit were specifically stated to be advisory.

So you have to assume that this was deliberate on the part of both the Government at the time and Parliament, and it strongly suggests that Parliament made this choice because its intent was to check the nation's mood on Brexit whilst nevertheless maintaining complete control of any future debate and decision-making.

But since the distinction between types of referendums is lost on your average voter who wields their vote without feeling any need to acquaint themselves with the actuality of what they are voting for (instead the important thing seems to be what they thought they were voting for), and the gutter tabloids have decided Brexit is desirable, the referendum is entirely wrongly being treated as if it has all the legal might of an Act of God.

Even if I wasn't of the view that Brexit is a complete shit-show, as a lawyer I would find this completely wrong.
Racing Teatray

Reading the news today about the Trump petition this caught my eye:

"On Saturday afternoon the petition had just 60 signatures but reached the 100,000 needed to be considered for debate by Parliament just after midday on Sunday.

It is now second only to a petition signed by more than four million people calling for a fresh referendum on whether to leave the European Union
."

They kept that quiet...

Any other petition involving 4,000,000 people might get a hearing...but not that one because The People Have Spoken.
Big Blue

Yes selectiveness is king in politics.
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
Reading the news today about the Trump petition this caught my eye:

"On Saturday afternoon the petition had just 60 signatures but reached the 100,000 needed to be considered for debate by Parliament just after midday on Sunday.

It is now second only to a petition signed by more than four million people calling for a fresh referendum on whether to leave the European Union
."

They kept that quiet...

Any other petition involving 4,000,000 people might get a hearing...but not that one because The People Have Spoken.


Yeah but then someone would just start a petition not to have a fresh referendum and to let the original result stand and that would get more than 4 million signatures and then someone would start another petition to have that petition set aside. And on, and on. The Government petition website was not created to do anything useful other than to make useful idiots think they have a say.
Racing Teatray

Not sure that's right. It can be quite a useful guide to national sentiment on things.
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
Not sure that's right. It can be quite a useful guide to national sentiment on things.


You're right - in areas where the Government is trying to gauge national sentiment on things but as regards Brexit they know clearly what that is - there was a referndum - 17.5 million want to leave the EU, 16 million want to remain.
Racing Teatray

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Not sure that's right. It can be quite a useful guide to national sentiment on things.


You're right - in areas where the Government is trying to gauge national sentiment on things but as regards Brexit they know clearly what that is - there was a referndum - 17.5 million want to leave the EU, 16 million want to remain.


Yes, national sentiment is almost neatly split down the middle. The margin is less than 40% of those who have voiced a desire for a second referendum, and only 2% of the population at large.

I actually don't think a second referendum is a good idea. But I do pour complete scorn on any notion that it was any sort of ringing endorsement for Brexit-max as the tabloids would have it.

After all, Farage had already said he would contest the result and consider it irrelevant if it had gone 52/48 the other way. It would have been like the SNP and the Scottish referendum. So there's a total lack of consistency or fairness here. This is an attempt at tyranny of the majority, not democracy.
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
This is an attempt at tyranny of the majority, not democracy.


Every year 12 of us decide to go on a golfing holiday abroad. This year it came down to Spain or Turkey. 7 put their hands up for Spain, 5 put their hands up for Turkey. So we're going to Spain where we'll all have a good time. Sometimes the democracy is in asking the question in the first place not asking it again if you don't like the answer.
Racing Teatray

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
This is an attempt at tyranny of the majority, not democracy.


Every year 12 of us decide to go on a golfing holiday abroad. This year it came down to Spain or Turkey. 7 put their hands up for Spain, 5 put their hands up for Turkey. So we're going to Spain where we'll all have a good time. Sometimes the democracy is in asking the question in the first place not asking it again if you don't like the answer.


What's the potential harm or lasting damage in the choice of a golfing trip?
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
This is an attempt at tyranny of the majority, not democracy.


Every year 12 of us decide to go on a golfing holiday abroad. This year it came down to Spain or Turkey. 7 put their hands up for Spain, 5 put their hands up for Turkey. So we're going to Spain where we'll all have a good time. Sometimes the democracy is in asking the question in the first place not asking it again if you don't like the answer.


What's the potential harm or lasting damage in the choice of a golfing trip?


You're no golfer are you?  
Racing Teatray

Why spoil a good walk as the old adage goes...

I do actually know how to play having had many lessons as a child, but it never captured my attention as an adult, not even during four years in St Andrews!
Bob Sacamano

Racing Teatray wrote:
Why spoil a good walk as the old adage goes...

I do actually know how to play having had many lessons as a child, but it never captured my attention as an adult, not even during four years in St Andrews!


Well it's not for everyone. It does take some time to develop the extreme right wing opinions for use in the Clubhouse afterwards.
Racing Teatray

Mmm. I don't really dig the garb either.

Going back to that petition (the Trump one), it is literally something you can watch grow before you eyes.

If you keep it open on a tab, you can see what I mean. For example in the short time it has taken to write this post, the count has ticked up by over 200...

And over 3,000 just in the last 10 minutes since I first opened it.
Bob Sacamano

I certainly think May jumped the gun a bit inviting the Donald over for a State visit. I bet the Queen is highly delighted...
Racing Teatray

Bob Sacamano wrote:
I certainly think May jumped the gun a bit inviting the Donald over for a State visit. I bet the Queen is highly delighted...


I'm more intrigued by the potential Prince Philip vs Donald Trump dynamic...
Big Blue

Over the years HM the Q has met all manner of despots and lunatics, not least from within her own government. Trump will just be another one to put in the notebook.

Donnie and Phil will get on like house on fire.
Twelfth Monkey

Racing Teatray wrote:
Mmm. I don't really dig the garb either.

Going back to that petition (the Trump one), it is literally something you can watch grow before you eyes.

If you keep it open on a tab, you can see what I mean. For example in the short time it has taken to write this post, the count has ticked up by over 200...

And over 3,000 just in the last 10 minutes since I first opened it.


Total seems to increase at 5-600 per minute at the moment.  Not that Trump'll be shitting himself, but gratifying nonetheless.
gonnabuildabuggy

Bob Sacamano wrote:
I certainly think May jumped the gun a bit inviting the Donald over for a State visit. I bet the Queen is highly delighted...


Charles is looking forwards to giving him both barrels apparently.

Pity as I'd rather Phillip did it as he's more likely to do it physically rather than metaphorically.
Racing Teatray

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
I certainly think May jumped the gun a bit inviting the Donald over for a State visit. I bet the Queen is highly delighted...


Charles is looking forwards to giving him both barrels apparently.

Pity as I'd rather Phillip did it as he's more likely to do it physically rather than metaphorically.


"I say, Liz! That terrible orange fellow's wearing one of your corgis on his head! Shoot him!"
Chris M Wanted a V-10

^
I thought it was a fox hat that the Royals preferred ????

Cue old joke......
DetmoldDick

Bob Sacamano wrote:
I certainly think May jumped the gun a bit inviting the Donald over for a State visit. I bet the Queen is highly delighted...

I agree. I think she should have waited until he had his first 100 days in office.
Tim

They were talking about this on Radio 4 this morning and nowhere did I hear a decent justification for inviting a new incumbent on a state visit so quickly.

There was a lot of talk about the 'honour' and respect of the invite but I can't apply either of those comments to Trump at present.

Perhaps Trump slipped something gin May's drink or she had a weak moment when he held her hand (another error in my opinion)?

Also, am I alone in feeling slightly uncomfortable and, perhaps, embarrassed when various worthies drone on about the 'special relationship'?
Big Blue

Perhaps it was one of those "foreigners mistaking English meaning" moments (Racing knows what I mean) where May said: "You really must come over for a state visit" with the underlying meaning being "don't expect to get a formal invite". Some Secret Service man (love the fact that the POTUS is looked after by the SS!) overheard it and a press officer got carried away.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Maybe HMQ will have him thrown into The Tower, tied up in heavy chains secured to the thick stone walls
Racing Teatray

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Maybe HMQ will have him thrown into The Tower, tied up in heavy chains secured to the thick stone walls


She could just invite him for a private viewing to view the Crown Jewels and then accidentally trigger the alarm, sending it into lock-down with him in there. He'd be happy enough locked in there with all that bling and would the Americans really complain at this point?

That would just leave us with KKK Bannon and Propaganda Barbie to deal with...

...007...make it look deliberate...
Mike Amos

Not sure where all the guff about tarifs comes in to play.  Lots of big European companies want to sell to us from cars to fridges and back again.  If they want to do that they will have to be careful what they do with tarifs as tit for tat will NOT help them.  Common sense should win out over partly political nonsense.  However, as with anything political, we shall have to wait and see.  Planks, the whole lot of them.
Racing Teatray

An interesting read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
Michael

I'm not sure that comes as a surprise but it doesn't change the result either.
PhilD

Michael wrote:
I'm not sure that comes as a surprise but it doesn't change the result either.


Maybe not a surprise, but there has been a backlash against accusations that a bunch of old white racist thickos voted us out. And here's the evidence!
Michael

It doesn't say they were thick, it says they didn't go to university. Also those without qualifications are most likely to be affected by migration, to dismiss them as thick ignores the realities of their lives and why they arrived at the decision to vote leave.
DetmoldDick

Does an OU Honours Degree count as "going to university"? If not I must be a thicko then.
PhilD

DetmoldDick wrote:
Does an OU Honours Degree count as "going to university"? If not I must be a thicko then.


Did you spend most of the time in the pub and feed yourself with pot noodles? if you did you're safe  
Nice Guy Eddie

That was close, I nearly bit on that mighty large hook cast out by Phil.
DetmoldDick

PhilD wrote:
DetmoldDick wrote:
Does an OU Honours Degree count as "going to university"? If not I must be a thicko then.


Did you spend most of the time in the pub and feed yourself with pot noodles? if you did you're safe  

Nope. I must be thick then.
PG

I'm not sure I actually agree with the release of this data, whatever it shows. Isn't it supposed to be a secret ballot? And if you break it down by polling station that's getting quite low down the voting order. I don't think we ever see this data for general elections do we?
Michael

They'd have to suppress number ≤5 but I think all they've done is match the ward data for the referendum to existing demographic data for that geography.
These data are readily accessible.
Bob Sacamano

So the BBC is suggesting that young people not long out of university are more intelligent than older people who never went (who are also racists). Interesting.
Racing Teatray

More intelligent? No I don't think so. More progressive and more open-minded. Probably.
Michael

Have differing values and priorities would be the more even handed way of putting it.
Racing Teatray

Michael wrote:
Have differing values and priorities would be the more even handed way of putting it.


Has the tabloid press been even-handed about Remoaners? I believe Remain voters were all branded traitors...

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I fail to see why Remain must always turn the other cheek and desist from calling a spade a spade.
Michael

I agree that two wrongs don't make a right but the fact is we are where we are and blaming the result on the intelligence or vision of others is only going to polarise people's views.
I also think it's getting harder to win people over with reason and fact when the counterargument of 'fake news' is so easily slung. The position of that BBC article makes it more easier for that shit to stick.

That said, it cuts both ways, as you rightly point out. I read a Matthew Paris article on the Speccie that ended with this line:

Quote:
I, a Remainer, accept that Brexit may not prove a mistake. Ball’s in your court, Leavers: can you accept that it may?


He has a point.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...-need-some-ladders-to-climb-down/
Racing Teatray

He does indeed. Thanks for the article.
Big Blue

Racing Teatray wrote:

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I fail to see why Remain must always turn the other cheek and desist from calling a spade a spade.


Look we've dealt with the racism issue.....
Racing Teatray

Don't tar me with that brush!
Tim

I was massively disappointed by the result of the parliamentary vote last week.
If Parliament are going to represent the 'will of the people' then about a third of them should've abstained.

R4 spoke to a female Tory MP from Cambridge who said 74% of her constituents had voted to remain. Sadly I can't remember her name but it'd be interesting to find out how she voted. After all she was happy to accept the electorates decision in May 2015 so did she do the same again for the June 2016 vote?
PhilD

Tim wrote:
I was massively disappointed by the result of the parliamentary vote last week.
If Parliament are going to represent the 'will of the people' then about a third of them should've abstained.



According to May's intro to the White Paper the government has:

"The strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen"
Racing Teatray

A government alternative fact if ever there was one...
PhilD

To be fair, it's carefully drafted so that it could be argued that it says there is strength and support of 65 million people for successful negotiations.
Big Blue

Brexit means:

A cakewalk compared to what'll happen in France if Marine Le Pen holds any sway.

Just been reading her plans for the Franc, the banks, the rest of the EU. Hope she gets in: my mother will become a multi-millionaire overnight. In Francs.
Racing Teatray

Well indeed.
Racing Teatray

Oh dear...I fear the cause is now truly lost...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38996179
Bob Sacamano

Yes, anything Blair is for is most probably a bad thing. Maybe we are having a lucky escape after all.
Tim

I haven't watched that but it must be bad if Iain Duncan-Smith thinks its arrogant and patronising!
Racing Teatray

Tim wrote:
I haven't watched that but it must be bad if Iain Duncan-Smith thinks its arrogant and patronising!


Ian Duncan-Smith needs euthanizing. It would be for the best, really.
Boxer6

Racing Teatray wrote:
Tim wrote:
I haven't watched that but it must be bad if Iain Duncan-Smith thinks its arrogant and patronising!


Ian Duncan-Smith needs euthanizing. It would be for the best, really.


What would be even better would be if I was allowed to do it!      
Mike Amos

Tory Bleuch is just looking for a stage to demonstrate how much we should be needing him.  Sadly for him, like yet another hole in the head.  I noticed the news coverage of his blathering aimed itself at Cheery Bleuch too.  No finer example of self serving ba5tard5 exists.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum