Voice of reason

1 hour ago, L00b said:

You did that jumping off, when you asked "how have Japan and Canada reacted to the pooling of their sovereignty", in reply to a post clearly distinguishing the pooling of sovereignty entailed by EU membership, from more trade agreements at arm's length requiring significantly less encroachement on national sovereignty.

 

So, was that yet another strawman of yours, after all that? Or have we reached your threshold of understanding about international trade here?

No. Both Japan and Canada have fairly comprehensive fta's starting from a position of very little alignment, and have no pooled sovereignty.

I'm just interested in why a jointly beneficial fta requires the pooling of sovereignty that we have engaged in so far.

24 minutes ago, L00b said:

'Tirade'?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK rivals Japan in productivity, innovation capacity and strategic economical assets?

 

Seems to me that you have a problem with anything that jars your (perceivably-) nationalistic worldview.

 

About your documentary:

 

Nobody is holding the UK in the EU, but the UK itself.

 

Nobody else is liable for the consequences of Brexit, good and bad, than the UK.

 

Nobody in the EU27 (bar BritsinEU) is begging the UK to stay.

 

Nobody is telling the UK that it is pathetic, useless and would be nothing without the EU: plenty are saying all that about the UK's political class, however. Deservedly.

 

After all that, if you want to leave the EU in a huff because you don't like to hear some hard truths, well hey, fill your boots: I'm as much for full freedom of individuals' life choices, as for individuals' full responsibility for the ensuing consequences of their life choices 

In all of that, you jumped off the pooling of sovereignty in relation to free trade.

How is that squared in the Japanese and Canadian examples?

46 minutes ago, bendix said:

By saying what is lacking now is intellectual curiosity, I wasn't suggesting it's an age thing.  At the end of the day, education is what it is - a force-feeding of pre-set 'facts' about a range of subjects such as history or geography or whatever.  I dont think that has changed much over the generations - it impacts young and old alike.

 

Intellectual curiosity comes from within.  I see little of it anywhere today, regardless of age.  It's not a young or old thing; it's a cultural and historical development.  Instead i see a population binging on factoids and memes and becoming increasingly dogmatic and unthinking and uncritical in their worldviews.

 

I can't recommend Popper enough.   The greatest thinker of the 20th century.

 

 

Do you mean you used to see intellectual curiosity but don't anymore?

If so, the biggest change factor is the internet. In many aspects of life, people expect things instantly, whether it's a pizza, an Amazon delivery or 'facts'.

Somebody who has the mentality to do that is a sick dangerous individual.

Strict punishment in order.

1 hour ago, bendix said:

I have said nothing of the sort.  Specifically i have not suggested that because the young are not intellectually curious, then the old necessarily are.   Herein lies one of the problems of modern debate; particularly online debate.  Too many people scribe views to others that are not, in fact, held.  This is done by taking one aspect of a proposition and amplifying it to prove a wider theory, while ignoring anything that disproves it.

 

Karl Popper would have a field day here.  He argued that there are no scientific 'facts', only theories (ie opinions) which have yet to be verfied.  This is because when we have opinions, our natural instinct is to find evidence that supports it whereas in fact the true pursuit of knowledge is only achieved by doing the exact opposite - find ways to destroy your theory.  If your theory or opinion manages to withstand the assault of attempted falsification, then it can be deemed stronger, but never totally true or a total fact; there could be a stunning revelation around the corner to kill it, which hasn't been thought of.

 

In other words, like Socrates, I prefer to know only one thing:  that I know nothing.

 

Your comment:

The issue is not whether education standards are better now or not - that can't be measured in what is taught and what is learned.

 

What is lacking now is intellectual curiosity

Has led to that conclusion.

I do like your description of facts and opinions btw. It would be well remembered by lots of people, in lots of fields.

2 hours ago, L00b said:

You're in danger of convincing me that you're not worth the discussing effort.

Well that's fine.

But your tirade against this country is hardly the inspiration to stay in an organisation you so vehemently support is it?

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an abusive husband who constantly belittled his wife. She said she was going to leave him, and his criticism intensified, telling her how pathetic and useless she was, and she would be nothing without him. She left him.

21 minutes ago, L00b said:

So, going it alone it is?

 

You've got neither Japanese productivity, innovation culture and strategic economic assets; nor Canadian resources and the convenience of an immediate land neighbour the size of the US (-long telling the Canadians how it is, in relation to trading). 

 ..........

You've convinced me what should be done.

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Then you can't solve your problem (figure of speech) with the EU: it's designed as a sovereignty-pooling club (hence the Parliamentary system), not an arm's length trade agreement like e.g. NAFTA.

 

Feel free to try Trump, Putin or Xiping instead (with the UK just as much of a rule-taker -and arguably much more so: none of these are pushing egalitarian trading models like the EU between its member states). 

 

They're your only alternatives, now and in the foreseeable future, short of going it completely alone (I'm assuming the Swiss or Norwegian options are no-go, since they take EU rules exactly within the meaning of your issue, but unlike EU member states, they don't get to contribute to their making).

How have the Japanese and Canadians reacted to the pooling of their sovereignty?

18 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.

They've worked damn hard to build that enterprise up. Late nights, weekends the lot. Oh, hold on.....

3 minutes ago, GivenToFly said:

Regarding this private life thing with Boris, its reached a point now it seems that people respect his stance of no comment and journalist after journalist are just making an ass of themselves now by asking him about it.

They need to move on. There's enough over stuff to grill him on. He's proposing increasing the threshold for higher rate taxpayers for example. Is that really worth spending billions on?

7 hours ago, bendix said:

The issue is not whether education standards are better now or not - that can't be measured in what is taught and what is learned.

 

What is lacking now is intellectual curiosity.  That is not the same as being educated, although historically the fomer usually came as a result of the latter.  Today, the latter seems to inhibit the former.

 

 

 

There seems to be some reversal going on here.

Often in this forum it's claimed that the younger generations tended to vote Remain, and the older generation voted to Leave.

Now, if you are saying the younger generation are less intellectually curious, and therefore older ones more intellectually curious, would it not also hold true that this older Leave voters had been able to sort out good sources of information, whereas the younger Remainers hadn't?

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

But the exact same type of organisation, which is the default setting if we "no deal" plenty of brextremists are and have argued for WTO terms so your soveriegn nation arguement is nonsense as we will still be under a foreign trade organisations rules.

Tell me how we will be better off and under none of "their" rules.

EU rules and WTO rules are completely different things. WTO sets out general rules for countries to trade (i.e the whole world) unless they have their own trading agreements. The WTO don't have any product standards, or legislation that covers aspects of day-day life.

Whether we should opt for a WTO option (ie no Deal) or go for an EU deal is a completely different matter, with pros and cons of both. I personally prefer an EU deal.

But comparing the WTO and the EU is a misunderstanding completely.

3 hours ago, alchemist said:

Must admit it took longer than I expected for the typical anti-royal backlash to turn up!!

As a matter of interest, how much each is that when spread out amongst the taxpayers?

Not the re-furb, but the total Royal cost is reported on Sky as £1.24 per person (not per taxpayer).

Lots of costs can be wittled down to so much each.

When their income is so vast, from wealth of dubious origin, there's no reason for the refurb to be publicly funded.

53 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Royal family should be like the TV license fee. Those who want that service, pay for it.

Is there an option for just Kate and Meghan? 😜

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

As I’m sure you’ve been reminded many times, leave won a slight majority of those who participated yes, but a minority of the electorate and an even bigger minority of UK citizens.

 

Trying to make a democratic argument for leaving the EU makes you look silly. Even trying to say that 80% of electors voted for a Brexit party in 2017 is nonsense as the majority of Labour supporters prefer to remain and certainly didn’t vote Labour in 2017 in the hope that Corbyn would take the UK out of the EU.

 

Your discredited referendum was over three years ago now and at some point you need to let it go! 😵

I'm sure it's been mentioned before about the % of the electorate that leads to a government being formed? It's been done many times over the decades, and with a much lower number than voted in the referendum.

Those governments have shut down industries, reformed the NHS and took us to war. Presumably that is also discredited too?

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

What the poster known as Lockdoctor and others repeatedly refuse to acknowledge, is that the 2016 referendum was an advisory only vote with no legislative power of enforcement. It doesn’t matter a jot what various corrupt and discredited politicians said at the time, the only thing which had any legitimacy was the Act of Parliament  which allowed the referendum.

 

When the referendum was held, 35% of the electorate voted remain and 36% voted to leave, so the result was only 1% between the two options and neither side reached even 40% let alone a majority.

 

Trying to claim that an inconclusive, advisory only referendum which showed that there was no majority popular will to leave the EU, as some kind of democratic mandate, is clearly bonkers.

I think you mentioned that before. 🙄

You always seem to miss the fact that everybody else knew the result was supposed to be implemented.

30 minutes ago, melthebell said:

But you want us under the thumb  of the WTO instead Oo

exactly the same situation but probably a lot worse, out of the frying pan comes to mind

completely different organisations. Unless you are going to tell us what wto legislation we implement periodically???

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Eminently sensible and democratic.

 

But if the next GE occurs after Brexit, by then it would be too late for the majority of the electorate not liking what they've done and voting them out, to 'undo' it: from Brexit day+1, deal or no deal, the UK could only ever be in accession talks under Art.49 TEU.

 

In these post-Lisbon Treaty days, that's with  compulsory Schengen signing and € adopting (for England, can't see that happening in our lifetimes). 

 

The next PM has that outcome (and the corresponding transfer of further power to the EU in post-Brexit horse trading) to weigh up, in case there's no extension nor a timely withdrawal of Art.50 TEU. 

 

Likewise the next EU Commission President, because that's going to be their first and main job.

I'm talking about the situation that has been for the last few decades, not what will happen if we left and asked to be re-admitted. Any democracy should expect its own government to implement laws required by its own electorate. Having that overruled by another body (and some people might like that over-ruling) is unnecessary and not what democracy should be about.

I know we elect mep's blah de blah, to which the reply is we only have 10% in-line with our proportion of population etc etc etc.

This situation sounds very much to me like 'we don't like what our government is doing, we'll get another one to overrule it' . That is part of the whole issue.

If the current government is doing something that is against the wishes of the electorate, they'll be out at the the next GE. If it is in line with what the electorate want, they'll probably stay in power.

So, if you don't like what the government is doing, get them out, don't expect somebody else to implement it for you.

24 minutes ago, iansheff said:

Don't forget Johnson also used cocaine.

Mr Johnson has made conflicting statements about his past use of cocaine.

The leading Brexiteer previously said he took cocaine at university but then also claimed he had not actually snorted the drug in a separate interview.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-cocaine-use-tory-leadership-contest-illegal-drugs-policy-a8954011.html

 

Maybe. I don't really care what any of them did 10,20, 30 years ago, within certain bounds, whether it be Gove, Boris or Corbyn. I find the concept of microscopically investigating peoples distant past a bit pointless, personally.

In terms of offside, I agree with the OP. The principle of offside is not giving yourself an adavantage over the defence. And to stop what, as kids, we called bog lining. The fact your toe is offside is irrelevant.

I don't like attacking players standing offside near the goalie, and goals been given. Even if technically they aren't affecting play, I can't see how it isn't off-putting to the goalie. That is a way bigger advantage to the attacking team than being a toe in front.

I'd use VAR after the event for diving, and faking offences much more. Issuing bans to stamp it out.

it depends on the topic. Gove taking coke is a criminal offence and needs discussing. Boris had a row with his girlfriend, and doesn't. If he'd been arrested, or there'd been an altercation where the Police had to be involved directly, then yes.

He could say they had a big row, but anything more than that is personal. It seems more concerning that he is pulling out of debates.

21 minutes ago, melthebell said:

But the point is our government could've but didn't, the Tories are everything carboot is railing against. It is the eu that has put in regulations to keep their excesses in check

Is the fact that the eu 'keeps a national government in check' part of the whole issue???

I don't like lots of things the tories do , and probably wouldn't like lots of things that Labour would do. BUT whoever it is, is the democratically elected government of this country. Being restricted by someone else isn't acceptable imo. What if a future far-right eu starts keeping legislation protecting minorities 'in check' ?

10 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Not an odd metaphor at all.

 

Britain’s post-imperial prosperity has largely been as a result of our membership of the EU.

 

Within seconds of the Sunderland result in the referendum three years ago yesterday, Sterling took a tumble on the world’s markets from which it has still not recovered. As soon as Article 50 was triggered the prospects for Britain’s economic well-being took another tumble as did Sterling again.

 

So yes, the UK’s strength in any negotiations with the EU can be likened to trying to sell a scrap car to a wealthy car dealer. We need the EU more than the EU needs us so yes, we are at a massive disadvantage in any negotiations. Every single credible economic forecaster will agree with that.

 

Have you ever wondered why when news emerges which makes Brexit look more likely, Sterling falls, yet when news emerges which makes Brexit look less likely, Sterling rallies?

 

Strange that! 😏

This country, and our economy is not akin to a scrap car. There's no point arguing the toss between each other when your view of the country is that.

8 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Yeah, but a fact is a fact. The problem we’re suffering from is opinion is being dressed as fact.

Some facts are what they are, with no subtleties. Reporting otherwise is a plain lie. Other 'facts' are dressed in emotive language to change their impotance or scale. We see things like 'illegal immigrants flooding into the countery over the Channel' , 'Brexit wrecking the economy' .  Both statements can have some element of fact but are phrased emotively to change the scale and resonse of the reader.

15 minutes ago, L00b said:

Did you have any useful contribution to make to this thread about the EU Commission President, or are you lost?  

Why is that not useful? Perhaps understanding why people are dissilusioned is useful, and ovoids propogating a we-know-best atitude that has caused so many problems.

38 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Only in a negotiation between equal parties.

 

Look at it like taking a wrecked car to a car dealer and wanting the dealer to give you top book price for it when it’s not worth anything like that. Telling the dealer that if they don’t offer you the price you want, you will take the car to the scrappies isn’t a good negotiating tactic as yes, the dealer will lose the sale but you will lose your car and end up with nothing.

 

(or as my little sis said, you don’t go into a post office and try to rob it by putting a gun to your own head and threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t give you the money! 😂)

What an odd metaphor, do you really see this country as the scrap car, and the eu as the shiny new car dealership? What a low opinion you have of it, and us all.

13 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We aren’t discussing views and opinions, we are discussing facts.

We are dicussings facts and opinions concluded from facts and opinions concluded from events.

That's where previously held views and previous experiences make different people reach different conclusions.