Forum menu
We're going to be looking outward in the same way that folk do at Broadmoor.
How does that work then?
A simple example would be say under current EU regulations you have to have records of 20 client details to make a sale/provide a service, we could decide 10 are sufficient. Less time is spent getting the customer details, which means it costs less to do and that client is cheaper to provide the service or product to.
Do you guys all punch the air when your companies bring in more admin?
No idea, ask them. Certainly there is plenty of finance stuff that achieves very little apart from generating costs to the consumer
Pensions mis-selling
PPI mis-selling
Mortgage mis-selling
Barings collapse
Gigantic costs to consumers. But nothing to do with the EU.
A simple example would be say under current EU regulations you have to have records of 20 client details to make a sale/provide a service,
But... you have a computer right? At least one of them anyway? Try doing this:
#define MAX_CLIENT_DETAILS 20See, not that hard.
A simple example would be say under current EU regulations you have to have records of 20 client details to make a sale/provide a service, we could decide 10 are sufficient.
So what are the reasons behind needing 20? Why would 10 be better? What if we decide 18 are good.
Do you guys all punch the air when you companies bring in more admin?
I generally prefer to ask, find out the reasons and then make up my mind. Though I have worked with people who simply find asking or reading the reasoning too hard and just complain about pointless things getting in the way (like health and safety law)
So basically we might have 1 possible example but as we have no context as to why 20 are asked for and what that does to protect people or increase the level of service or reduce things like misselling which the financial industries used to specialise in then we probably can't make up our minds.
?
Parties don't vote. People do. So if they vote for something that is stupid, who is responsible?
That's simply not true. People don't vote for things, they vote for representatives. Those representatives (in parties) then make decisions. Are you new to democracy?
i have only been in the UK since 1996 , what wonderful things have I been missing out because of EU regulations ?
Buying sweets in ounces, I think.
A simple example would be say under current EU regulations you have to have records of 20 client details to make a sale/provide a service, we could decide 10 are sufficient. Less time is spent getting the customer details, which means it costs less to do and that client is cheaper to provide the service or product to
Or how about leaving the customs union and having to fill out custom documentation, plus all the related VAT claims, duties and rebates on all sales? surely all that extra paperwork will be saving loads of time and money.
^^^ 😆 That is good. Very good.mefty - Member
Do you guys all punch the air when your companies bring in more admin?
A simple example would be say under current EU regulations you have to have records of 20 client details to make a sale/provide a service, we could decide 10 are sufficient. Less time is spent getting the customer details, which means it costs less to do and that client is cheaper to provide the service or product to.
But why did the EU decide on 20? Just to piss us off? Or was there a real reason? Why does that reason no longer apply? What if 10 isn't enough?
Well Theresa May appears to have changed her tune since April last year...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38653681 ]April 2016 to now...[/url]
I'm still hoping she's a remainer and she's secretly putting in the most extreme scenario she can plausibly get away with, which will most likely satisfy as few people as possible in order to generate as much protest as possible, leading to the electorate demanding another vote... it would come at the cost of her political career so it's a hopeful hope I agree... but the alternative scenario is she's gone utterly bonkers...
I don't know but the industry I work in means that reducing admin overhead usually amounts to thisBut why did the EU decide on 20? Just to piss us off? Or was there a real reason? Why does that reason no longer apply? What if 10 isn't enough?
kind of thing.Pensions mis-selling
PPI mis-selling
Mortgage mis-selling
List me a few.
KYC is the obvious one, how much are we really gaining compared to the huge costs incurred.
MIFID2 is going to cost billions, there are some sensible changes, but there is a huge additional amount of work that needs to be done for little real benefit. Many of the benefits could be achieved with far less prescriptive record and data keeping.
^^^ agreed.
Currently what's on offer appears to be some incompatible hybrid of protectionist xenophobia and a level of corporate capitalism even the USA would baulk at
Zokes why don't you spend 25 mins and listen to May's speech ? Why don't you see a Brexit Britain in the same way you see Australia who may be in Eurovision but are not in the EU
You mean we're still going to be in Eurovision?
**** that. I wish I'd voted Remain now!
What is wrong with KYC?
Is the post EU plan for London to return to being the money launderer of the world?
ah I have the transcript here
And those parties — who embrace the politics of division and despair; who offer easy answers; who claim to understand people’s problems and always know what and who to blame — feed off something else too: the sense among the public that mainstream political and business leaders have failed to comprehend their legitimate concerns for too long.
Would that include UKIP and Leave? They certainly played on division and despair.
And I want to explain how, as we do so, the United Kingdom — a country that has so often been at the forefront of economic and social change — will step up to a new leadership role as the strongest and most forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade anywhere in the world.
By running away from europe
Let us not underestimate the magnitude of that decision. It means Britain must face up to a period of momentous change. It means we must go through a tough negotiation and forge a new role for ourselves in the world. It means accepting that the road ahead will be uncertain at times, but believing that it leads towards a brighter future for our country’s children, and grandchildren too.So while it would have been easy for the British people to shy away from taking such a path, they fixed their eyes on that brighter future and chose a bold, ambitious course instead.
They chose to build a truly Global Britain.
Truly global by retreating from the loargest trading block in the world, wanting strict immigration control and what would appear to be demands for more protectionist policies.
It was simply a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy and national self-determination. A vote to take control and make decisions for ourselves.
Demonstrated by her speed at going to the courts to be able to avoid the legal and democtratic process of the UK's democracy - classy
So at the heart of the plan I set out earlier this week, is a determination to pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the European Union. But, more than that, we seek the freedom to strike new trade deals with old friends and new allies right around the world as well.
Didn't we have one alreeady?
I am pleased that we have already started discussions on future trade ties with countries like Australia, New Zealand and India. While countries including China, Brazil, and the Gulf States have already expressed their interest in striking trade deals with us.
Are some of those places where the Eu is already negotiating deals that we would have got anyway?
To use this moment to provide responsive, responsible leadership that will bring the benefits of free trade to every corner of the world; that will lift millions more out of poverty and towards prosperity; and that will deliver security, prosperity and belonging for all of our people.
But no clue as to how....
So basically it's still just ideology around the EU, very little of what she wants couldn't have been achieved within the EU and it just adds another level of complexity as now the UK needs to deal with the EU differently and all the countries the EU had deals with differently.
As for the Australian comparison I reckon we wouldn't mind some of the EU benifits like trade.
will step up to a new leadership role as the strongest and most forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade anywhere in the world.
Anyone else think that sounds a lot like exploitation?
As mike says - a lot of wishful thinking and very little actual plan.
I have a plan to retire by the time I'm 40. Yay me! I'm successful!
So what are the reasons behind needing 20? Why would 10 be better? What if we decide 18 are good.
We implement 18, you are struggling with this, aren't you?
Or how about leaving the customs union and having to fill out custom documentation, plus all the related VAT claims, duties and rebates on all sales? surely all that extra paperwork will be saving loads of time and money.
No of course it won't, it has the potential to be costly for both sides, so hopefully we can find a compromise. There will almost certainly be some cost increase. But these sort of issues has been widely discussed on here.
By starting this train off, I was trying to correct the common misconception that as the majority of our trade would still be with the EU we would still, de facto, be bound by their rules. I wanted to highlight how this doesn't need to be the case.
We implement 18, you are struggling with this, aren't you?
Not at all, you want to change something collect the evidence, present it and prove why it's a good change. You picked that one out as an example and came up with a magic figure of 10. The EU isn't like a school where you just do what you are told it's a place where people can work together to make things better. The assumption seems to be that we can't influence EU rules/laws. Our MEP's have some of the lowest attendance rates in the EU (The only one worse had a guy ill with cancer I think for the year)
By starting this train off, I was trying to correct the common misconception that as the majority of our trade would still be with the EU we would still, de facto, be bound by their rules. I wanted to highlight how this doesn't need to be the case.
Of course what you have proposed is a multi layered approach where by to deal with the EU in any form you would need to do all the UK regs plus any Eu ones. Also failing to really come up with this massive list of things that are wrong with the EU ones and ignoring the fact the UK had a hand in shaping these (when it could be bothered)
It is not up to me, I am a mere peon. But it will be up to our own government and they will carry out a very thorough review. We have far more influence over our own government than the EU.
I don't accept it needs to be muli-tiered, particularly if you take a subset approach. But even I did, something like 75% of businesses don't trade out side the UK so the ones who are worse off are far fewer than the ones who gain.
Great idea, though nodoby seems to have this massive list of problem regs do they. If your in an industry that has these regs prove they are pointless and they could be looked at.
Like the many millions of Poles and the other BS lines it would really help the case of people complaining about these things to produce a detailed list of regs that apply to them, add no value to health, safety, best practice etc. and how they should stand for the UK. I'd have to say if it were the case this list would have been in all the press releases and being waved around, maybe even put on the side of a bus
Zokes why don't you spend 25 mins and listen to May's speech ? Why don't you see a Brexit Britain in the same way you see Australia who may be in Eurovision but are not in the EU
There's little point in listening to her whole speech as it will likely contain as much self-contradictory vacuous nonsense as her previous ones, notably the guff she clearly has no intention or interest in achieving such as a fairer society etc. Perhaps you could listen to Corbyn, Farron, or Sturgeon for 25 minutes every now and then, it might make you slightly more compassionate to others, and frankly, slightly less of a loony.
I see Australia as an oddly backward ex-colony that is far less relevant in its regional area than it could be thanks to a significant amount of harking back to the good old days of empire. It's a small and fairly inconsequential population in the grand scheme of things, not too unlike Britain actually. Also, thanks to its many protectionist rules, the cost of living here is higher than almost anywhere else on the planet, especially the EU.
Nope, Brexit is going to be the making of a new, modern and outward looking United Kingdom. One which is going to be more successful as a result.
The ridiculous notion that we will be more outward looking because of a vote for xenophobia has been dealt with already.
Let's try "new, modern". A vote where 2/3 of pensioners (give or take, of those who voted) voted for it and 2/3 of the under 35s voted against, and our government response is to try from trade deals with former colonies / recreate the British Empire. Modern? Well only if we're post-modern and modern means old. New? No, sorry, we tried that decades ago and it didn't work.
I found this passage of May's speech interesting.
To use this moment to provide responsive, responsible leadership that will bring the benefits of free trade to every corner of the world; that will lift millions more out of poverty and towards prosperity; and that will deliver security, prosperity and belonging for all of our people.
Given in Britain even the poor are relatively wealthy in global terms, the British poor should start to worry, because however well intentioned and executed there will be a see-saw effect as the poor of other nations become less poor. And May is not well intentioned and her track record suggests not good at execution.
But she probably didn't mean what she said - it was just meant to sound good.
Nope, Brexit is going to be the making of a new, modern and outward looking United Kingdom. One which is going to be more successful as a result.
Hasn't it been outward looking for years? What a truly bizarre thing to say.
More successful than what? Where's the supporting evidence?
I think youre reading too much into this, I know four people who vote leave.
One with a fairly well structured argument about representitive democracy.
Two to stop muslim and gypsy immigration.
One (my sister) just to be bolshy with a hint of anti immigration.
Soros isn't a fan:
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/george-soros-theresa-may-wont-last-and-donald-trump-is-would-be-dictator ]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/20/george-soros-theresa-may-wont-last-and-donald-trump-is-would-be-dictator[/url]
Can we have a knee-jerk ad-hom on George from a Beleaver, please?
BTW- can't believe we're arguing about KYC being onerous. It came about in the UK cos: terrorists. Do the Beleavers want to fund ISIS now or something?
Well the typical leave voter apparently supported the death penalty and public flogging (I referenced the research on this thread months ago) so leave and ISIS do have significant common ground.
[I]Will we stop seeing that "CE" mark on the back of stuff?[/I]
The CE mark was AFAIK setup by the UN originally and only came under EEA use in the mid 80's. Without out you'll probably find it very hard to sell in most countries (ignoring selling very, very low quality stuff to really poor places) around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking
[i]BTW- can't believe we're arguing about KYC being onerous. It came about in the UK cos: terrorists. Do the Beleavers want to fund ISIS now or something? [/I]
It's this kind of complaint that makes you realise that the likes of Jamba and co just want to get rid of 'controls' that stop them making more money, irrelevant of the (society) cost.
Its a bit like a client I've been working at where they've been paying commission on the sales team generating the order, not the actual invoice been paid - and a consequential monster aged debt...
Careful Cougs you are turning into Ernie and having an argument with yourself
That's simply not true.
Yes it is. Have you ever seen a party lining up ostide a polling booth. No, me neither.
People don't vote for things, they vote for representatives.
What like, should we remain in or leave the EU? Did I miss the fact that the last referendum was vote for Bojo and the Brexshiteers versus vote for sane people?
Those representatives (in parties) then make decisions. Are you new to democracy?
For the second time, you are muddling democracy and representative giovernment. I won't be so rude as t ask if you are new to both! 😉
Find wil services regulation may becoming onerous but just compre it with the UK tax code!!!
It's not just the EU that can create monsters.
KYC is still dominated by box ticking rather than proper KYC.
You are arguing for the sake of it THM, of course MPs (and MEPs, and MSPs and even unelected politicians in the HoL) vote. This is how our laws are passed. Do they always vote along party lines? Not always, no, but that doesn't negate what Cougar said.
So, aside from regulations on the financial sector (put in place in response to money laundering and past banking crashes), what other regulations will non exporting UK companies be able to drop, and how will they effect consumers, employees and the environment?
If the only "freedoms" we're buying at the expense of leaving are deregulation for the financial sector (which have proven time and time again they need tighter regulation really) I think a lot of people will feel had.
Thank you Kelvin, you are proving my point again. Anyway we are getting sidetracked from the core issue of whether individuals have any responsibility for the results of their democratic choices or not. This stemmed from the fact that many of the people who voted OUT are the most exposed to the negative impact of that decision. To what extent, if any, are they to blame?
Cougs does make an accurate comment about representative government as I noted before, but that is not what is being discussed. It is an interesting issue in itself though and worthy of future debate!
Without out you'll probably find it very hard to sell in most countries (ignoring selling very, very low quality stuff to really poor places) around the world.
Isn't that what the brexshitters are planning to do?
We will have a wall of paperwork coming if we need up falling back on the WTO. Far more onerous than we have now.
To what extent, if any, are they to blame?
And to what extend can MPs (and the other politicians I listed) wash their hands of their responsibilities, just because an advisory referendum narrowly went one particular way?
This stemmed from the fact that many of the people who voted OUT are the most exposed to the negative impact of that decision. To what extent, if any, are they to blame?
Isn't that a bit like saying that criminals are not to blame for robbing pensioners, because they come from broken homes, were abused by their priests, etc.? To an extent it's sort of true, but people do have a choice and could choose to take the time to make a sensible choice and not some emotional reaction based on what Elsie next door said. I have been criticised here before for suggesting that poor people are on the whole poor decision makers, but this looks like another example. <hides behind sofa>
This stemmed from the fact that many of the people who voted OUT are the most exposed to the negative impact of that decision. To what extent, if any, are they to blame?
Thing is, we never see what we *could* have won.
Brexit isn't falsifiable.
How is it possible to prove we'd have been better off staying in to people who are convinced otherwise??
I made a conscious effect on Twitter, on the run up to the 2015 election, to "break the bubble" and follow lots of people with very different voting intentions. As a result, I'm following lots of Leave voters who normally vote Labour and Tory. The fact that many of them are angry that we haven't already left the EU (they were led to believe that we could be fully out by Christmas) is alarming. And I don't think it's linked to wealth at all [b]DrJ[/b], plenty of high earners just didn't have the time and inclination to consider the effects, timescales, implications and costs of leaving, beyond the soundbites. [i][I'm not saying this is true of only Leave voters by the way, or of all Leave voters][/i]
This stemmed from the fact that many of the people who voted OUT are the most exposed to the negative impact of that decision
I think it's very much the case that many who voted Leave could see no real benefit from the EU. "What's it done for me ? Answer nothing positive and a long list of negatives". The EU is seen to be favourable to the City and that's a Remain vote loser, decades of complaining about "bankers" showed in the Referendum result. Pointing to broad bursh economic studies on immigration do not persuade the average citizen, GDP is a meaningless statistic to them.
As for environmental benefits you can set your Blue Flag beaches against poisoning our air with polluting diesels permitted by toothless emissions test and the flacid responce by the EU (swayed by massive vested interests). The Mayor of Paris will do more for the environment if she does follow through on her plan to bN diesels totally from the city. We now have to have a small sticker on the car grading it's pollution amd it's clear to me this will be used to ban vehicles next time the pollution levels rise. That has more imoact than all the EU BS.
So, a "free UK" will have tighter financial and environmental regulations and enforce them more strictly Jamba? And we couldn't do this inside the EU?
And I don't think it's linked to wealth at all DrJ, plenty of high earners just didn't have the time and inclination to consider the effects, timescales, implications and costs of leaving, beyond the soundbites.
I'm sure that's true - but making a bad decision has more impact on the poor. For example - I'm sure jamba can afford the extra medical insurance, lawyers fees etc to enable him and his wife to live in the same country. Retired Brits stranded in Spain may not have that choice. EU partners of Brits stranded in the UK may not have that choice.
I think it's very much the case that many who voted Leave could see no real benefit from the EU. "What's it done for me ? Answer nothing positive and a long list of negatives"
This Christmas we had dinner with my sister's family, including her Brexit-voting parents-in-law. It's upsetting to think that when they totted up the list of positive things the EU did for them they considered their grand-daughter-in-law to be "nothing". I'm sure if someone had made that point (I kept quiet and had another mince pie) they'd have been mortified, but their heads had been so filled up with racist nonsense that they made a poor decision.
Isn't that a bit like saying that criminals are not to blame for robbing pensioners, because they come from broken homes, were abused by their priests, etc.? To an extent it's sort of true, but people do have a choice and could choose to take the time to make a sensible choice and not some emotional reaction based on what Elsie next door said. I have been criticised here before for suggesting that poor people are on the whole poor decision makers, but this looks like another example.
You do have a choice on whether to rob a pensioner whereas you don't have a choice on how intelligent you are (I don't think lack of intelligence means lack of morals).
If a person does not have the intelligence to work out decisions such as EU membership, they are at the mercy of press, populism, what someone tells them etc,. Not their own fault.
However, as it is a democratic country they have as much say as everyone else which only becomes dangerous when a referendum is allowed...
As I said before on that subject, I'm still not guaranteed to be allowed to stay in the UK.
I fully understand that negotiations cannot start till Article 50 is triggered but it must be very stressful for a lot of people.
I don't really care as I only have a few weeks left.
As I said before on that subject, I'm still not guaranteed to be allowed to stay in the UK.
I fully understand that negotiations cannot start till Article 50 is triggered but it must be very stressful for a lot of people.
Yep - My wife is Belgian as are both her parents and they have all been here since the 1960's so presume they are fine but not clear.
As for environmental benefits you can set your Blue Flag beaches against poisoning our air with polluting diesels permitted by toothless emissions test and the flacid responce by the EU (swayed by massive vested interests)
err: [url= https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/13/europe_to_launch_legal_action_against_countries_over_diesel_emissions_cheating/ ]The European Commission has begun legal action against seven member states over emissions cheating in the "dieselgate" scandal.[/url]
edit: road and fuel tax levels based on C02 that favoured diesels despite particulate emissions were a UK gov thing, not an EU thing, but you know, keep on blaming the foreigner.
Jamba - I'll take your diesels & pollution one and run with it. The next logical and technically achievable step in reducing vehicle air pollution is probably electric vehicles. Charging EVs is an issue. However part of the issue is eased if you have good access to electricity systems in different time zones (lack of coincidence if charging time, PV operating at different times, distance leading to wind diversity, etc - I work on this kind of thing nationally).
Now we had plans to increase the UK - European mainland interconnection which makes all this easier funded partly with EU money. We don't know if this will happen now.
So the EU would have assisted with vehicle air pollution in a very simple and straightforward way.
The EU (and UK) made mistakes on diesels - but the EU was recognising this adapting changing and moving on.
I know it doesn't suit the Brexy "the EU is incapable of change" party line, but it was on that issue.
Actually I think the EU has driven a lot of change and change scares Brexies.
As for environmental benefits you can set your Blue Flag beaches against poisoning our air with polluting diesels permitted by toothless emissions test and the flacid responce by the EU (swayed by massive vested interests). The Mayor of Paris will do more for the environment if she does follow through on her plan to bN diesels totally from the city. We now have to have a small sticker on the car grading it's pollution amd it's clear to me this will be used to ban vehicles next time the pollution levels rise.[b] That has more imoact than all the EU BS.[/b]
Taking all that at face value, I say good on her, but how exactly is the EU preventing her from doing this?
Your anti EU bullcrap is now just getting [s]funnier and funnier[/s] flimsier and flimsier. 😆 Actually it's pretty funny too.
It's really not worth engaging with him, igm. The moment you provide even a remotely meaningful counterpoint to his gibberish he finds another disingenuous tangent to prattle on about.
To be honest, he's a bit like chewkw, only slightly more literate.
People don't vote for things, they vote for representatives.
What like, should we remain in or leave the EU?
Oh, come now. The referendum was an extraordinary event, it was highly unusual, and in any case regardless of the result it's still ultimately the politicians making decisions on our behalf.
you are muddling democracy and representative giovernment.
I probably am. What's the difference?
I've just Googled (well, Bing cos we've got DNS issues with Google just now. This was the first result:
[i]dem|oc¦racy
[d??m?kr?si]
NOUN
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:
"a system of parliamentary democracy"
[b]synonyms: representative government[/b] · elective government
[/i]
This stemmed from the fact that many of the people who voted OUT are the most exposed to the negative impact of that decision. To what extent, if any, are they to blame?
It's an interesting question and I'm not sure it's a black and white answer. If a child sticks its hand in a fire, are they to blame or should the parents have put a fireguard in place?
People make bad decisions, all the time. If you asked a classful of kids whether they wanted chicken and vegetables for lunch every day for the next month, or whether they wanted ice cream instead, it's not hard to see which would win. And that innate blindness to the bigger picture never really leaves us. An ex used to get miserable because she thought she was fat (she wasn't), so would cheer herself up by demolishing a half kilo slab of Dairy Milk in a sitting.
There's a percentage of voters who have simply been misled, a percentage who lack the ability to properly weigh up the consequences, and a percentage who are just nasty pieces of work. Some have been swayed by the relentless tabloid headlines which day in, day out have been stirring up tension and resent, or by deliberate misinformation like the "swarms of immigrants" and that zarking bus. And some folk simply don't like brown people.
The xenophobes are surely culpable. But the rest, probably not, they're really just vulnerable people who have been shamelessly manipulated. Like the child near the fire they need protecting from themselves, which is why we have a democratic process rather than an ochlocracy, and why the referendum was an insanely bad idea.
If you're looking for someone to blame, I'd suggest it rests with the oligarchal tabloid press, demagogues like Farage, corporate greed in financial institutions which plunged us into recession, and an apathetic parliament who have ignored unrest for years until it's all boiled over and it's too late. In about that order. The rest of us, we're just pawns, impotent and sacrificial.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38689400
Labour woes. But at least some mps are reflecting how their area voted.
To be honest, he's a bit like chewkw, only slightly [s]more literate[/s] less entertaining.
FT
The moment you provide even a remotely meaningful counterpoint to his gibberish he finds another disingenuous tangent to prattle on about.To be honest, he's a bit like chewkw, only slightly more literate.
Impressive-sounding but unsubstantiated vague rhetoric, an unwillingness to respond to replies he doesn't like, and the wont to change the subject when someone does engage him. That's not chewkw, he's sounding and behaving more and more like JHJ every day.
Makes you think.
Hammond in Davos blaming Brexit on Blair.
it's still ultimately the politicians making decisions on our behalf.
Yes. It's May pushing hard brexit. We were never asked if we wanted hard or soft. Nor were MPs.
Though I've been quite a staunch supporter of Corbyn since the vaguely plausible notion of a Labour that is actually left wing appeared a couple of years ago, if he's daft enough to insist on a three line whip to support the Tories then I think even my patience will be over. I suspect a lot of his supporters who aren't complete Trots will be feeling the same way...
[i]Find wil services regulation may becoming onerous but just compre it with the UK tax code!!![/i]
Yep.
And sure how many of you are involved in actually running a business in the UK vs working for a business but the rules®ulations brought on by the UK Govt (these aren't EU ones) has been non-stop for years.
And the costs they expect us to 'absorb' is beyond a joke, they never consider our costs when implementing their rules - just that we have to, along with making the UK a LESS flexible place to do business (new off-payroll rules have just increased costs for all, including the public sector).
it was not even a question on immigration but she acts as if we seaid end immigration at all costs when it was not about thisMay pushing hard brexit. We were never asked if we wanted hard or soft. Nor were MPs.
Granted t was an issue in the debate but it was not about immigration and we did not vote to end immigration as that was not the question asked
Nothing he posts makes anyone think anything [other than poorly of him]Makes you think.
Like Zokes i agree its futile he gives the facade of a rational fact ish based approach [ like he can actually comprehend facts because he can] but he does not care for them and he does not care if what he says is provably incorrect he just finds something else to be wrong about and moves on
He is sometime brilliantly funny though
I think he views it as supporting the democratic wishes of the people rather than helping the Toriesif he's daft enough to insist on a three line whip to support the Tories
May pushing hard brexit. We were never asked if we wanted hard or soft.
Great now I have a mental image of May stood in her leather trousers, asking us if we want it hard or soft, then giving it to us hard anyway.
And Jamba loving it...
..,and that's before the three-line whips are used..
I think he views it as supporting the democratic wishes of the people rather than helping the Tories
He may think that, but given that we now at least have a vague idea of what Brexit may plausibly look like, he might want to consider a dose of pragmatism. If he doesn't want Britain to become a "bargain basement tax haven", the best chance he has of preventing that is blocking the probable Brexit bill in Parliament and negotiating a second referendum.
I suspect a lot of his supporters who aren't complete Trots will be feeling the same way...
*Raises hand*
I wouldn't exactly call myself a Corbyn 'supporter' (I support the policies, not particularly the man), but this one issue will stop me voting Labour. I'm sure a lot of other labour voters will be the same. As far as I'm concerned this 3-line whip is not a lot different to the lib dems selling themselves out by joining the coalition.
[quote=GrahamS ]May pushing hard brexit. We were never asked if we wanted hard or soft.
Great now I have a mental image of May stood in her leather trousers, asking us if we want it hard or soft, then giving it to us hard anyway.
And Jamba loving it...
..,and that's before the three-line whips are used..
#strangest
Jamba you say they couldn't see what the EU had given people and the long list of negatives.
What are the negatives, immigration aside? As has been proven immigration is beneficial. What are the other negatives, reclaiming our sovereignty ??? The leavers I have spoken/argued with can't even define what that is. Let alone how getting it back will effect us.
The Environment has been so improved by EU legislation, do you think we would have Otters in every county with out that legislation.
As far as I'm concerned this 3-line whip is not a lot different to the lib dems selling themselves out by joining the coalition.
Ironically, they'll be the likely benefactors for most, I reckon. I've certainly said I'd never vote for them again before now.
Lib dems will enjoy a huge surge in support at the next GE...
Yes but that will just wipe out labour. Not that I'm shedding any tears for them, but it won't help the country.
Jamba is no fool. Disagree with him all you like (you may have noticed I do), accuse him of assertion as fact, bending facts and generally being misleading if you wish, but ignore him at your peril. His sort of thinking will destroy this country.
The best method of combating his continual negativity is to throw up the positives of the EU, from daughters (DrJ) to electrical interconnectors.
Strangely I suspect I'd quite like him in real life - but then I enjoy an argument.
If a person does not have the intelligence to work out decisions such as EU membership, they are at the mercy of press, populism, what someone tells them etc,. Not their own fault.
They still have a choice. They can listen to others or make their own minds up. We are all alone in the polling both (apart from the parties in there with us! 😉 )
However, as it is a democratic country they have as much say as everyone else which only becomes dangerous when a referendum is allowed...
So what do you do then - respect their right to have a say or not. Why is that dangerous?
Cougs - i did notice the word "typically" in your definition ie, RG is one form of democracy it is not synonymous with democracy.
How can TM be pushing for a hard brexshit. She has stated many times that there is no such thing. Brexshit is Brexshit (its only the colours that matter!!!)
Strangely I suspect I'd quite like him in real life - but then I enjoy an argument.
You would, he's very nice
(despite ^ 😉 )
I'm afraid the best method of dealing with him is realising that he's an inconsequential anonymous poster on a mountain bike forum, and a particularly farcical one at that.
Sure, occasionally inconsequential nobodies can have severe effects in real life, and the king of those has to be Farage, but thankfully those people are very very rare. Personally I don't give Jamby that much credit. If anyone thinks this is playing the man and not the ball, I'd respectfully suggest that his comments over the last 600 pages make it clear that he has no intention of presenting a ball to play.
and yet zokes you seem to be drawn like a moth to a flame...
and yet zokes you seem to be drawn like a moth to a flame...
Not really, just making a statement on his modus operandi. I scroll past most of his guff unless I'm really bored.
That seems q often!
That seems q often!
I think I'm a bit overdone with all the T20 cricket on TV down here, and now the TDU too. Heaven forbid I'd have to talk to my wife otherwise 😀
His sort of thinking will destroy this country.
Watch Braindead on Amazon for a good illustration of this!
Jam's definitely a bugman.
Strangely I suspect I'd quite like him in real life - but then I enjoy an argument.
I've oft thought much the same. Always comes across as a good guy, one of the people on here I'd like to meet, and is knowledgeable in some areas (Apple stuff springs to mind) - but it's getting to a point where almost every "factual" post is a guide for what not to do. It's like STW's equivalent of a promoted post on Facebook.
Cougs - i did notice the word "typically" in your definition ie, RG is one form of democracy it is not synonymous with democracy.
Right. I'm not really sure how it matters, though. If I've understood you correctly it's like I'm describing a citrus fruit and you're arguing that it's not a citrus fruit but a grapefruit.
You didn't but no matter 🙂
I bet when it does "matter" those who voted for self harm will be quick to blame others - ironically May who is doing what they wanted, not what she wanted - because its tough taking individual responsibility when blaming others is so much easier!