Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

We've got a deal. We're not leaving without a deal. And it's a deal in which we can now start setting our own course and trading with that 90 per cent of the world outside the EU that consistently has better growth rates than those experienced within the EU. Its a time for ambition. To be frank every one of those 27 EU nations would be better off it they took the same decision. Deadening centralisation and regulation drags Europe's back economically fosters inefficiency and leads to stitched up markets with big corporations being willing to put up with the EU in the knowledge that its endless rules prevent realistic competition from entering their markets as new competitors. Stagnation and complacency results. The EU is a racket and Europeans pay the price.

Here we go again with the growth rates 

Liz Truss was on 5 live the other day saying the key trade deals are US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - Broadly similar growth to the EU over recent decades 

Fuck all to do with growth rates, much more to do with alignment politically and in terms of standards. 

If it’s growth your after then it would be the likes of China, India et al. You’ll be waiting a long time based on what she was saying and it’s her department 

 

Edited by birch-chorley
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • miamiwhite

    4763

  • Mounts Kipper

    3422

  • boltondiver

    2933

  • Tonge moor green jacket

    2818

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll even name names. The following are massive cunts: Me. Bolty. Miami. Cheese. Kent. Casino. Kipper. Royal. Labour. Tories. Scotland. The Welsh. The EU. Americans. People from fucking Yorkshire

My last comment on this... There are people on here who apart from being Bolton fans I have nothing in common with & whose opinions I wheheartedly disagree with, however I would fight for their ri

And here we get to the heart of the sheer remoaner arrogance. Let's cut to the chase. You'd go to a court of law to stop Brexit because you disagree with the outcome of a referendum in which 17.4m vot

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Here we go again with the growth rates 

Liz Truss was on 5 live the other day saying the key trade deals are US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - Broadly similar growth to the EU over recent decades 

Fuck all to do with growth rates, much more to do with alignment politically and in terms of standards. 

If it’s growth your after then it would be the likes of China, India et al. You’ll be waiting a long time based on what she was saying and it’s her department 

 

Its not just China and India its many of what were once developing nations in Asia and elsewhere. In the 1970s it made sense to join the EEC from purely economic perspectives. Even disregarding the political/democratic arguments that's now not so - the world has changed dramatically. You go where the customer is. This is not a narrow British argument, it applies to every EU nation - but the EU seems to want to focus more inwardly than outwardly and put itself at a competitive disadvantage by over-regulating. We don't take full advantage of our links to the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. We need better links to big newly developing economies.

Overall - its healthy that we're having this debate after years of just not being able to do so. We're a nation state. We need to be able to shape our own trade policy based on our needs and wants at any given moment in time. Any nation state does. Nobody says its easy. But its easier and bespoke to your needs if you've got control of it yourself. I know you disagree - we've had the debate before. In ten years time we'll hopefully be able to look back and make a rational assessment of who was right. I think it'll be me and I hope my view will start to be put to the test in coming years. For now we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited by paulhanley
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

Its not just China and India its many of what were once developing nations in Asia and elsewhere. In the 1970s it made sense to join the EEC from purely economic perspectives. Even disregarding the political/democratic arguments that's now not so - the world has changed dramatically. You go where the customer is. This is not a narrow British argument, it applies to every EU nation - but the EU seems to want to focus more inwardly than outwardly and put itself at a competitive disadvantage by over-regulating. We don't take full advantage of our links to the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. We need better links to big newly developing economies.

Overall - its healthy that we're having this debate after years of just not being able to do so. We're a nation state. We need to be able to shape our own trade policy based on our needs and wants at any given moment in time. Any nation state does. Nobody says its easy. But its easier and bespoke to your needs if you've got control of it yourself. I know you disagree - we've had the debate before. In ten years time we'll hopefully be able to look back and make a rational assessment of who was right. I think it'll be me and I hope my view will start to be put to the test in coming years. For now we'll have to agree to disagree.

All along you have said that we need to leave the EU and build trade links with countries that are growing faster 

The person responsible for the new trade deals clearly disagrees with you, which puts you on the back foot straight away (in terms of being found right in a decade) 

She is going after trade deals with countries who are growing at a similar rate to the EU. She said this is because we share common standards and regulations! Just because we leave the EU it doesn’t mean that we will see a reduction in standards in order to make free trade deals. Along with Germany and France we made those rules, many say we set the highest standards of the lot 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Hmm

Don't know if The Labour Party would support, but here is the Booker stuff

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

If only..................

They would have supported it initially - Corbyn wanted to get a deal done.  It would have been a far more sensible way of resolving this and given us a lot of flexibility down the line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

All along you have said that we need to leave the EU and build trade links with countries that are growing faster 

The person responsible for the new trade deals clearly disagrees with you, which puts you on the back foot straight away (in terms of being found right in a decade) 

She is going after trade deals with countries who are growing at a similar rate to the EU. She said this is because we share common standards and regulations! Just because we leave the EU it doesn’t mean that we will see a reduction in standards in order to make free trade deals. Along with Germany and France we made those rules, many say we set the highest standards of the lot 

Truss knows that India are only after a trade deal if we offer a relaxed visa option with it. 

https://www.ft.com/content/56074dda-95bd-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229

Edited by Salford Trotter
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

All along you have said that we need to leave the EU and build trade links with countries that are growing faster 

The person responsible for the new trade deals clearly disagrees with you, which puts you on the back foot straight away (in terms of being found right in a decade) 

She is going after trade deals with countries who are growing at a similar rate to the EU. She said this is because we share common standards and regulations! Just because we leave the EU it doesn’t mean that we will see a reduction in standards in order to make free trade deals. Along with Germany and France we made those rules, many say we set the highest standards of the lot 

That’s correct and what we are looking for here is sustainable growth, not the fallacy of endless excessive growth, which is the odd nirvana a lot of the hardline Brexiteers seem to have bought into without realising it’s quite rightly not the aim of any western government.

Boom years have sizeable negative impact (as inevitable as the crash following them) Sustained growth is about a more balanced economy, with economic, lifestyle and environmental benefits working with trading partners working along the same regulatory and economic aspirations.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

Absolutely no one voted to join the EU.

Correct. It was to join a common market - that is all. It is the political project which the EU has become which is to be avoided at all costs. We want less government, not layers and layers of more.

Ignore the sycophants marching beneath the 28 rusty sheriffs badges and a blue behind. Just needy types who fear standing on their own two feet without a crutch to lean on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

But we have all benefitted from the peace and prosperity engendered by the union which was the original idea in the post war years. 

You know It’s getting desperate when this is wheeled out as a reason to stay in the EU, Blackford used same argument last week, laughable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

May and her government really do have a lot to answer for. Had she found a sensible middle ground of protecting our economy whilst taking us out the country wouldn't be half so divided. I'd have been in favour of a staggered approach where we first exit the political union then decide step by step on the SM, CU and alignment etc... But because she created a load of red lines and told everyone what she decided they wanted we are in this mess. 

A sensible option would clearly have won parliamentary support - enough Labour backbenchers for a start.

Now we have Amber Rudd saying "Its a far worse deal than May's and will make us far poorer by governments own admission. But I'll vote for it".

May and her lot put us in  a position whereby now its either accepting a bad deal that leaves us worse off or failing to move forward on the 2016 result. I clearly prioritise our future over the latter but its perfectly valid for others to see it the other way. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farrelli said:

But we have all benefitted from the peace and prosperity engendered by the union which was the original idea in the post war years. 

What happened during the 30 years prior to us joining ? Oh, thats right, no European war.

Its almost like it aligns to the formation of NATO, not the much later EU.

But that would not fit your narrative, so is ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

May and her government really do have a lot to answer for. Had she found a sensible middle ground of protecting our economy whilst taking us out the country wouldn't be half so divided. I'd have been in favour of a staggered approach where we first exit the political union then decide step by step on the SM, CU and alignment etc... But because she created a load of red lines and told everyone what she decided they wanted we are in this mess. 

A sensible option would clearly have won parliamentary support - enough Labour backbenchers for a start.

Now we have Amber Rudd saying "Its a far worse deal than May's and will make us far poorer by governments own admission. But I'll vote for it".

May and her lot put us in  a position whereby now its either accepting a bad deal that leaves us worse off or failing to move forward on the 2016 result. I clearly prioritise our future over the latter but its perfectly valid for others to see it the other way. 

 

Bollocks. Again. 

It’s the treacherous CUNTS who have and continue to refuse to vote for any deal that have and continue to cause this. Simple

lib undems, snp and the majority of Labour to the front of the queue 

Edited by Escobarp
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

May and her government really do have a lot to answer for. Had she found a sensible middle ground of protecting our economy whilst taking us out the country wouldn't be half so divided. I'd have been in favour of a staggered approach where we first exit the political union then decide step by step on the SM, CU and alignment etc... But because she created a load of red lines and told everyone what she decided they wanted we are in this mess. 

A sensible option would clearly have won parliamentary support - enough Labour backbenchers for a start.

Now we have Amber Rudd saying "Its a far worse deal than May's and will make us far poorer by governments own admission. But I'll vote for it".

May and her lot put us in  a position whereby now its either accepting a bad deal that leaves us worse off or failing to move forward on the 2016 result. I clearly prioritise our future over the latter but its perfectly valid for others to see it the other way. 

 

If labour had voted for mays deal it would have sailed through, they’ve played party politics throughout this process to attempt to get a GE and when offered it they bottled it and still bottling it, they’ve now engineered a Brexit that could mean less regulation and less alignment of workers rights, they’ve fucked it up for themselves and the unions who are their paymasters, what a pathetic excuse for a people’s party they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

If labour had voted for mays deal it would have sailed through, they’ve played party politics throughout this process to attempt to get a GE and when offered it they bottled it and still bottling it, they’ve now engineered a Brexit that could mean less regulation and less alignment of workers rights, they’ve fucked it up for themselves and the unions who are their paymasters, what a pathetic excuse for a people’s party they are.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Escobarp said:

Bollocks. Again. 

It’s the treacherous CUNTS who have and continue to refuse to vote for any deal unless that have and continue to cause this. Simple

lib undems, snp and the majority of Labour to the front of the queue 

Blaming the opposition for the government's failure is a little much. Plenty of Labour MPs want to vote for a deal. May did not offer them what they needed until it was too late. 

This is a Tory party internal battle that has gone on for decades and they indulgently thought they could solve it with a referendum. Then their leader quit. The new one couldn't find a consensus even within her own party and was thrown out. 

I don't agree with the deal - but I can understand why people would support it now. Calling MPs treacherous is IMO unacceptable - and its Brexiteers and remainers doing so - the bullying of Labour MPs voting against Letwin was completely unacceptable. As is calling MPs who genuinely believe as I do that not jeopardising our future currently is more important than honouring the vote in 2016. Its an opinion and they have different ones. 

I don't like much of the Tory front bench - I think personally they are a disgrace. But I think someone like Amber Rudd has integrity and wants a deal. I agree with her points but not conclusion. I don' think that makes her a traitor. Nor Ronnie Campbell for that matter. 

The narrative that the opposition are at fault is a clever one but does not uphold on any scrutiny. The government have had 4 years since announcing their referendum and cannot sort it out. In that time they've lost their majority via an election and via chucking their own MPs out. That's nobody's fault but their own. And given they lost their majority in 2017 - May very easily could have won a quick and sensible majority of backbench Labour MPs - she chose instead to try and hold her own hardliners on either side together - something that was always impossible. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Blaming the opposition for the government's failure is a little much. Plenty of Labour MPs want to vote for a deal. May did not offer them what they needed until it was too late. 

This is a Tory party internal battle that has gone on for decades and they indulgently thought they could solve it with a referendum. Then their leader quit. The new one couldn't find a consensus even within her own party and was thrown out. 

I don't agree with the deal - but I can understand why people would support it now. Calling MPs treacherous is IMO unacceptable - and its Brexiteers and remainers doing so - the bullying of Labour MPs voting against Letwin was completely unacceptable. As is calling MPs who genuinely believe as I do that not jeopardising our future currently is more important than honouring the vote in 2016. Its an opinion and they have different ones. 

I don't like much of the Tory front bench - I think personally they are a disgrace. But I think someone like Amber Rudd has integrity and wants a deal. I agree with her points but not conclusion. I don' think that makes her a traitor. Nor Ronnie Campbell for that matter. 

The narrative that the opposition are at fault is a clever one but does not uphold on any scrutiny. The government have had 4 years since announcing their referendum and cannot sort it out. In that time they've lost their majority via an election and via chucking their own MPs out. That's nobody's fault but their own. And given they lost their majority in 2017 - May very easily could have won a quick and sensible majority of backbench Labour MPs - she chose instead to try and hold her own hardliners on either side together - something that was always impossible. 

 

You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Treacherous cunts the lot of them and that includes a number of Tory mp’s also. 

A perfect barometer of this situation will be the GE that will inevitably follow in short order. If the opposition parties are to blame I expect a tory majority. If it’s the tories I expect them to get dismantled. 

Would you agree that the result of the GE will tell us who the “people” feel is to blame for this? Yes or no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

If labour had voted for mays deal it would have sailed through, they’ve played party politics throughout this process to attempt to get a GE and when offered it they bottled it and still bottling it, they’ve now engineered a Brexit that could mean less regulation and less alignment of workers rights, they’ve fucked it up for themselves and the unions who are their paymasters, what a pathetic excuse for a people’s party they are.

But ultimately it isn't the opposition's job to support the government. It is literally their job to oppose. 

Its ludicrous to suggest the Tories haven't used the whole thing to play internal party politics at our expense. They have. Blatantly. And we will all suffer for it. Of course Corbyn (or his advisers) have done the same - its literally politics and what every single party has done for decades. But there was a way forward - and the Tory government bottled it and tried to stop their party breaking up. As the government they were responsible. Corbyn did exactly the same - tried to heal the fracture in his party - but the key difference is - they are the opposition. Not the government. And they did not put a referendum in their manifesto. Having done so the Tories had no idea how to sort the mess out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

If labour had voted for mays deal it would have sailed through, they’ve played party politics throughout this process to attempt to get a GE and when offered it they bottled it and still bottling it, they’ve now engineered a Brexit that could mean less regulation and less alignment of workers rights, they’ve fucked it up for themselves and the unions who are their paymasters, what a pathetic excuse for a people’s party they are.

Fleeting connection with the northern working man these days and yet plenty of sheep still vote for them.

They now have far more in common with trendy types in back street wine bars and bistro's in London where committed socialists with names like Tristan and Hettie sip imported wines before heading off home to sprawling leafy suburb detached palaces paid for by their merchant banker fathers.

None is so blind as he who will not see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Treacherous cunts the lot of them and that includes a number of Tory mp’s also. 

A perfect barometer of this situation will be the GE that will inevitably follow in short order. If the opposition parties are to blame I expect a tory majority. If it’s the tories I expect them to get dismantled. 

Would you agree that the result of the GE will tell us who the “people” feel is to blame for this? Yes or no?

No. A General Election is fought on the spin of the media - and I don't think its ever a good barometer. You have Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid - all to one extent or another "remain" - and on the leave side you have the Tories and possibly the Brexit party. 

I suspect if you total all the votes up from one side and another they won't be a million miles apart. I expect the Tories to win - but I also think were there to be a 2nd referendum remain would have a very good chance of winning that. I also think were Starmer Labour leader - Boris wouldn't even think about pushing for an election. 

Particular political circumstances of a GE - do not reflect the wider public view. For very obvious reasons. Labour will struggle because people like me won't vote for them even in a marginal seat - not whilst Corbyn and his hidden cronies loiter. So my vote will be lost "seats wise". It won't count for a thing. 

If the Tories poll over 50% of the popular vote then I will accept I'm in the minority. It won't change my opinion though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

Correct. It was to join a common market - that is all. It is the political project which the EU has become which is to be avoided at all costs. We want less government, not layers and layers of more.

Ignore the sycophants marching beneath the 28 rusty sheriffs badges and a blue behind. Just needy types who fear standing on their own two feet without a crutch to lean on.

On this we agree

The reason I voted leave is the spectre of federalism that the EU is targeting.

The problem is that the trading aspect is now so intrinsically linked to the political aspect that it's all but impossible to prise the 2 apart.

European countries can definitely work together without having to pretend to be the Masons.

Unfortunately, the way it's all tied together means a "clean break" is damaging - even Mounts wouldn't deny that.

Whether the answer is to stay and try to change the EU system from within, or to leave but tell them we'll come back when they calm their tits on the politics, I don't really know.

For now, I've just had an email off an Irishman telling me it may be game over.

It's time the 2 sides here - remain and leave - started working together a bit more in my opinion

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a big day for Bercow today who will pull his strings will it be his allies in the EU who I feel must be pushing for him to allow the vote on the deal or will it be the likes of Grieve and his bunch of anti brexiteers.  I’m not sure which way he will turn but suspect he won’t allow the vote and if he does that I suspect big trouble ahead for him and parliament. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Casino changed the title to Politics

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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