Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Politics


miamiwhite

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

According to Paul Hanley we have it anyway 

Italian tomatoe growers have vetoed a free trade deal with Australia, they clearly couldn’t do that without Sovereignty 

It mustn’t have been about Sovereignty afterall

tgat leaxes freedom of movement and blue passports 

Triffic 

You and others talk about the power of working as a bloc - but in trade talks that power gets undermined by the fact that there are 28 nation states, each with different interests and trade patterns. The fundamental point is that if you try to manage the trade policies of 28 nations via one route  (the EU) it is by definition going to be cumbersome and someone will always have an objection/vested interest. The EU has not been great at signing trade deals with the 90 per cent of the world outside its borders and it is for these reasons . That's a problem given how the rest of the world has moved on since 1975, it affects our economic potential day in and day out.

In short, we just need to go back to friendly neighbouring nation states co-operating with each other, sharing bi-lateral free trade with each other, trading with the rest of the world as suits them and us and continuing to be part of NATO for our collective security. Portugal and Poland might share some common interests but will also have great differences, for instance. It might have made more sense in 1978 with 8 or 9 members  in the EEC looking out at an under developed world. In 2019 with 28 members its just badly out of date and unwieldy and its hindering us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, paulhanley said:

There will always be fans of consensus politics. However people who have/still go further left (Tony Benn/Peter Shore/Michael Foot) or further right (Jacob Rees Mogg/Margaret Thatcher/Nigel Lawson) are not "extremists". There's far too much use of that word on here and elsewhere by people who say they are fans of the middle ground and consensus. What they are trying to do is shut down/silence people who have opinions other than their own. It's a dangerous trend, it is deeply undemocratic and it is liberal bigotry. It is born of the zealous cult of political correctness. People who do this clearly think their views are all powerful - but they need to articulate those views to make them persuasive and allow them to be challenged and therefore refined by the arguments of those  with whom they disagree. They shouldn't attempt to shut down the debate by pejoratively labelling those people as "extreme". Arguments can be vociferous and heated and I've had such debates with you on here  - but argument there must be. The political discourse cannot be cleansed of trains of thought that are viewed as "extreme" by the self appointed morally superior.

The Brexit debate has elements of this on the remain side. For instance for many years people had legitimate points to raise about immigration but they were labelled rabid racists. There are other examples. 

This post isn't aimed at you specifically - it's aimed generally at what I see is a very unhealthy trend.

 

 

5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

 In my humble opinion, one of the best posts I have ever read on here about the sad state of political discourse in this socially engineered PC world we have allowed the liberal elite to forge.

 

5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Her credibility? That man is an utter fucking slimeball. He and Soubry would be first against the wall.

If ever there was a perfect representation of Brexiteers it is here. Agreeing with a post bemoaning the current political discourse and not wanting different views dismissed or branded as extremists having the previous post, a mere minute before wanted someone who has different views to you ‘up against the wall’. Then the post after waffling on about the NZ PM being anti-British.....

Moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May has now engineered a position where her deal is effectively remain, Parliament has all be it advisory voted to take no deal off the table, the remain lobby are now looking for a second referendum to vote on remain or TM deal which is virtually remain, Tusk then boxes it all off by making the extension conditional on parliament agreeing Mays deal, there you have virtually a fait accompli, my position and no doubt many’s folks position will now change and harden for us to go down the no deal route, the ERG and DUP have been conclusively proved correct and should refuse to back Mays deal.

What a horrible bunch of cunts we we have in parliament, voting to take no deal off the table, utter traitors and deserve everything they get come the next election. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

You and others talk about the power of working as a bloc - but in trade talks that power gets undermined by the fact that there are 28 nation states, each with different interests and trade patterns. The fundamental point is that if you try to manage the trade policies of 28 nations via one route  (the EU) it is by definition going to be cumbersome and someone will always have an objection/vested interest. The EU has not been great at signing trade deals with the 90 per cent of the world outside its borders and it is for these reasons . That's a problem given how the rest of the world has moved on since 1975, it affects our economic potential day in and day out.

In short, we just need to go back to friendly neighbouring nation states co-operating with each other, sharing bi-lateral free trade with each other, trading with the rest of the world as suits them and us and continuing to be part of NATO for our collective security. Portugal and Poland might share some common interests but will also have great differences, for instance. It might have made more sense in 1978 with 8 or 9 members  in the EEC looking out at an under developed world. In 2019 with 28 members its just badly out of date and unwieldy and its hindering us.

So

Do the Italian’s have Sovereignty or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

So

Do the Italian’s have Sovereignty or not?

Pointless keep pushing the Italian angle. They'll be the next ones to have a referendum on leaving the EU if my soundings are correct.

They have the Euro which they generally despise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

In short, we just need to go back to friendly neighbouring nation states co-operating with each other, sharing bi-lateral free trade with each other, trading with the rest of the world as suits them and us and continuing to be part of NATO for our collective security. 

Hallelujah! More common sense. This is the basis on which we went in - not some overly bureaucratic federal super state with a bunch of unelected gravy trainers making the rules which all must abide by.

We'd all be Remain voters for the original Common Market (even though I did vote 'No' back then).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Pointless keep pushing the Italian angle. They'll be the next ones to have a referendum on leaving the EU if my soundings are correct.

They have the Euro which they generally despise.

I’m not pushing any angle 

I’ve been told on here time and again that when we leave we get our ‘Sovereignty’ back 

Then in the next breath the EU doesn’t work because the 28 countries all have the ability to shape what goes on It’s too cumbersome 

It really is one or the other 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

 

 

If ever there was a perfect representation of Brexiteers it is here. Agreeing with a post bemoaning the current political discourse and not wanting different views dismissed or branded as extremists having the previous post, a mere minute before wanted someone who has different views to you ‘up against the wall’. Then the post after waffling on about the NZ PM being anti-British.....

Moronic.

Correct. Absolute Hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I’m not pushing any angle 

I’ve been told on here time and again that when we leave we get our ‘Sovereignty’ back 

Then in the next breath the EU doesn’t work because the 28 countries all have the ability to shape what goes on It’s too cumbersome 

It really is one or the other 

 

I've been following this thread and I don't recall too many comments along these lines so 'time and time again' sounds a bit dramatic as does 'in the next breath'. This would suggest almost consecutive posts which I definitely can't find? Maybe you could enlighten me by presenting the evidence?

I am curious about where Remainers stand on a giant, federalised European super state. Is that really something you would find desirable or is it simply the concept of standing on your own two feet which inspires such fear (and fear mongering)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

As are supposed democrats who won’t accept a democratic vote. 

The government has been running the process. However they have spent three years arguing amongst themselves. #sovereignty

Edited by Farrelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

The government has been running the process. However they have spent three years arguing amongst themselves. #sovereignty

Sovereignty and democracy has enabled the default position to be agreed so that we leave on the 29th March I would hope you agree that’s what we should be doing? 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Sovereignty and democracy has enabled the default position to be to leave on the 29th March I would hope you agree that’s what we should be doing? 

But the democratically elected government says that leaving with no deal is an economic disaster and people will lose their jobs. That is what they say. So what are you asking for? The government to knowingly damage our country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

But the democratically elected government says that leaving with no deal is an economic disaster and people will lose their jobs. That is what they say. So what are you asking for? The government to knowingly damage our country?

Round and round we go, all this was said before the referendum, folk voted to Leave,  that’s what parliament should be doing. It should not even be up for debate anymore. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Sovereignty and democracy has enabled the default position to be agreed so that we leave on the 29th March I would hope you agree that’s what we should be doing? 

Default position on a referendum given by a discredited leader to appease his own party and a campaign based on lies. Is that what you call democracy? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

Round and round we go, all this was said before the referendum, folk voted to Leave,  that’s what parliament should be doing. It should not even be up for debate anymore. 

They voted to leave. But the assertion they voted to leave with no deal is bogus. The assertion they voted to leave regardless of impact is bogus. You might be right but we simply don't know. Its no different to me saying "people want to stay now". 

We know in a binary choice they voted to leave. But IF the government believe that a no deal exit is calamitous and remember that is what their own independent analysis shows - are you saying they should ignore that and leave and if it does cause issues say "well its your fault you voted for it"? Because that isn't how government or parliament work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Default position on a referendum given by a discredited leader to appease his own party and a campaign based on lies. Is that what you call democracy? 

 

I call democracy enacting the people’s wishes. The aforementioned is your biased interpretation sadly your interpretation matters not a jot. Just like my interpretation that we were joining a trading bloc in the 70s which turned out in reality to be lies. That’s how the cookie crumbles. See you in 40 plus years we can have another try.

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

They voted to leave. But the assertion they voted to leave with no deal is bogus. The assertion they voted to leave regardless of impact is bogus. You might be right but we simply don't know. Its no different to me saying "people want to stay now". 

We know in a binary choice they voted to leave. But IF the government believe that a no deal exit is calamitous and remember that is what their own independent analysis shows - are you saying they should ignore that and leave and if it does cause issues say "well its your fault you voted for it"? Because that isn't how government or parliament work. 

The reason it’s not got through parliament is the deal negotiated is remain, plus labour will vote in the main for anything that brings the government down, labour being a remain party (despite their manifesto)should have got behind Mays deal if they did not morally want to go WTO. In reality labour don’t care about any possible downturn they just want an election, And I can guarantee if they win  there will be downturn. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I call democracy enacting the people’s wishes. The aforementioned is your biased interpretation sadly your interpretation matters not a jot. Just like my interpretation that we were joining a trading bloc in the 70s which turned out in reality to be lies. That’s how the cookie crumbles. See you in 40 plus years we can have another try.

I won't be here in 40 years but my kids will and they want us to remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I call democracy enacting the people’s wishes. The aforementioned is your biased interpretation sadly your interpretation matters not a jot. Just like my interpretation that we were joining a trading bloc in the 70s which turned out in reality to be lies. That’s how the cookie crumbles. See you in 40 plus years we can have another try.

Quite.

As for no deal, we'll never know exactly what it could have been like. So much negativity will hinder it should it happen.

And similar doomsday scenarios as those of an immediate post brexit Britain.

And this from someone is isn't particularly in favour of no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The reason it’s not got through parliament is the deal negotiated is remain, plus labour will vote in the main for anything that brings the government down, labour being a remain party (despite their manifesto)should have got behind Mays deal if they did not morally want to go WTO. In reality labour don’t care about any possible downturn they just want an election, And I can guarantee if they win  there will be downturn. 

You haven't answered the question. The government and MPs (mainly) believe based on evidence supplied that no deal is incredibly damaging. If they choose no deal and it is as damaging or even half as damaging as predicted - who will be blamed? The people who voted to leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.