Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Groose

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Groose

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

There is a brake clause or flextension which mean we can leave before that date.  

 

There are no excuses for not having a General Election in December, if Parliament don't support the new Withdrawal Agreement on offer.

Really?

 

I'm waiting for Bojo to be found dead in a ditch. Then we can have a new election. Until then he's hoist on his own petard of spite from getting rid of all his MP's.

 

Bojo can have an election when everyone else says he can and not before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, L00b said:

Parliament isn't blocking Brexit: it has been for the last 3 years, and still is now, failing to agree on a particular flavour of Brexit (having however agreed to rule out the extreme 'no deal' version, commonsensically).

 

There is no democratic deficit in Parliament after 2017: quite the contrary. What you're seeing, is your representatives collectively attempting to grasp the sheer complexity of the mechanics underwriting your simplistic 'single issue' referendum outcome.

The red bus (and those who created and organised it) says you couldn't be more wrong.

The red bus wasn't on the referendum voting paper, the majority of those voting leave had little say in using the red bus, the only choice they had was where to put their cross. The next time they use that cross may not suit the REMAINERS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, L00b said:

With the UK out, there is an opening, with strong FDI outcomes (that have already started to play out in some sectors).

 

That is Macron's long game and, with reference to his 'bad cop' act in the extension talks, why he's gradually pushing you out.

That's interesting.  So this is really all about squabbling over who gets what from foreign (or globalized) billionaires / corporations / sovereign wealth funds?  How did Western Europe come to this?  The colonizers have been colonized.

Share this post


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

I agree.  The Parliament is doing exactly what they are paid to do, which is act in the best interests of the country by scrutinising any proposed deal for issues, weaknesses and unforeseen consequences.

Pity they didn't scrutinise the referendum act properly then instead of dismissing the outcome as a certain win for remain. They were not worried about the best interests of the country when they were screwing it over by claiming expenses they weren't entitled to either. Parliament has shown that it's not about scrutiny but about how MP's and political parties can now survive the aftermath of brexit. Jo Swinson and Jeremy Corbyn's only interest is to become PM and nothing more and they are using brexit as one way to get them nearer to their goal. Both were for an "in-out" referendum but now are against it to win votes. They need to be careful for what they wish for.

 

Share this post


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

Oh dear, democracy is not your strong suit.  A referendum is the most democratic way to decide the outcome of one single issue.  The parliament we have at the moment is a rogue dishonest parliament because both the Labour Party and Tory Party  won 80% of the 2017 General Election vote had manifestos to implement the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result.  Implementation of the EU Referendum result can  been done in either of two ways which is either to accept the Withdrawal Agreement on offer or leave the EU by the legal no-deal default position.   Blocking Brexit  which the current Parliament continues to do is not implementing the  2016 EU Referendum result.

 

 

 

The trouble with single issues is that they generally turn out to be not single issues. Only a simpleton would think that EU membership was simply a question of being in, or out.

 

As Margaret Thatcher said , referenda are devices of dictators and demagogues.

Share this post


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

The red bus wasn't on the referendum voting paper, the majority of those voting leave had little say in using the red bus, the only choice they had was where to put their cross. The next time they use that cross may not suit the REMAINERS.

Fair cop, with the absence of punctuation I misread Lockdoctor's last paragraph.

 

But as to a next box-crossing exercise, don't hold your breath.

33 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

That's interesting.  So this is really all about squabbling over who gets what from foreign (or globalized) billionaires / corporations / sovereign wealth funds?  How did Western Europe come to this?  The colonizers have been colonized.

Well, I could point to Nissan's FDI in Sunderland, to Airbus' FDI in Wales, to £bns' worth of EIB and private firms' VC FDI into Brit start-ups <etc>, that have all created, and until not so long still created, real British jobs putting real food on real British tables in recognition indeed of the UK's foremost capitalistic pragmatism amongst the EU28, wherein it's not so much a case of Western Europe getting colonized by parasitic disaster capitalists, than Western Europe (the EU28, specifically) being recognised as the world's largest and wealthiest integrated economy attracting investment in consequence... 

 

...if your post did not suggest an amount of sour grapes at France (amongst others, but arguably -and demonstrably- with the least grace about it) opportunistically pulling the FDI blanket to itself at the UK's self-made expense ;)

 

Macron sees that opportunity only too well, and is after exploiting it. I don't particularly like or dislike that: I'm just sanguine and matter-of-factly about it (others and I long warned about this eventuality, going back to before the referendum; the fact that it's France  is neither here nor there for me: I (still) don't live there and am (still) not invested in the place).

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, L00b said:

 

 

...if your post did not suggest an amount of sour grapes at France (amongst others, but arguably -and demonstrably- with the least grace about it) opportunistically pulling the FDI blanket to itself at the UK's self-made expense ;)

 

Macron sees that opportunity only too well, and is after exploiting it. I don't particularly like or dislike that: I'm just sanguine and matter-of-factly about it (others and I long warned about this eventuality, going back to before the referendum; the fact that it's France  is neither here nor there for me: I (still) don't live there and am (still) not invested in the place).

Speaking of blankets,more disastrous news.

Warning from the meat packers association that Pigs in Blankets will be in scarce supply at Christmas due to the difficulties in recruiting Eastern European’s for this labour intensive work.

Is there no end to the misery of Brexit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, L00b said:

Well, I could point to Nissan's FDI in Sunderland, to Airbus' FDI in Wales, to £bns' worth of EIB and private firms' VC FDI into Brit start-ups <etc>, that have all created, and until not so long still created, real British jobs putting real food on real British tables in recognition indeed of the UK's foremost capitalistic pragmatism amongst the EU28, wherein it's not so much a case of Western Europe getting colonized by parasitic disaster capitalists, than Western Europe (the EU28, specifically) being recognised as the world's largest and wealthiest integrated economy attracting investment in consequence... 

Well that's one way of looking at it!

 

I wouldn't say that the colonizers are all disaster capitalists, they're just normal globalized capitalists.  I'm just pointing out that FDI is the 21st century version of colonization.  All those Foreign Direct Investors wouldn't be making all that Foreign Direct Investment if they didn't get more out of the country than they put into it, would they?  That was the basic point of colonization, and that's why the UK's GNP was less than its GDP the last time I checked (which is admittedly a while ago).

 

The fact that putting food on our tables has come to depend on Foreign Direct Investment is exactly why many people voted Leave in the first place, even if they wouldn't necessarily articulate it that way.

 

28 minutes ago, L00b said:

...if your post did not suggest an amount of sour grapes at France (amongst others, but arguably -and demonstrably- with the least grace about it) opportunistically pulling the FDI blanket to itself at the UK's self-made expense ;)

No sour grapes.  It was you who said that Jupiter was oiling the wheels of Brexit deliberately in order to draw all that Foreign Direct Investment away from the UK and into France.  I hadn't even thought of that before.

Edited by CaptainSwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Well that's one way of looking at it!

 

I wouldn't say that the colonizers are all disaster capitalists, they're just normal globalized capitalists.  I'm just pointing out that FDI is the 21st century version of colonization.  All those Foreign Direct Investors wouldn't be making all that Foreign Direct Investment if they didn't get more out of the country than they put into it, would they?  That was the basic point of colonization, and that's why the UK's GNP was less than its GDP the last time I checked (which is admittedly a while ago).

 

The fact that putting food on our tables has come to depend on Foreign Direct Investment is exactly why many people voted Leave in the first place, even if they wouldn't necessarily articulate it that way.

You're allowed to go back much earlier than 21st century, you know ;)

(Nissan's in Sunderland was in the 80s under Thatcher, if memory serves?)

 

The UK had long attracted much of the EU-borne US and Asian FDI, precisely for the reasons you mentioned earlier (most liberal / pro-business / politically-stable EU member state). That state of affairs has since changed, rather dramatically.

 

But FDI is only one aspect of the whole socio-economic balance for any given country, and for most it is still dwarfed by domestic investment ('DI'): it's never FDI alone, which puts food on most tables.

 

British people came to vote Leave, not because their livelihood has come to depend on FDI, but because successive UK legislatures stopped nurturing that which made them strive, allowing mass-uberisation of the economy with ZHCs, overlong borderline-needless austerity policies, and generally enacting policies to divide rather than unite people.

 

And I do not follow you on the colonization analogy: any investment by a private business, big or small, and domestic or overseas, is always done for economic gain, not for geopolitical gain. FDI has to be justified, to be enacted by a board, and the core justification is habitually the economics (and long term prospects) of the local (regional) market, in light of market access conditions (logistics relative to shipping, customs tariffs, NTBs, differring standards and more).

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, L00b said:

You're allowed to go back much earlier than 21st century, you know ;)

(Nissan's in Sunderland was in the 80s under Thatcher, if memory serves?)

Let's follow Eric Hobsbawm and call it the long 21st century.  [And I'm old enough for the 80s not to seem "much earlier" than the 21st century ...]

 

12 minutes ago, L00b said:

The UK had long attracted much of the EU-borne US and Asian FDI, precisely for the reasons you mentioned earlier (most liberal / pro-business / politically-stable EU member state). That state of affairs has since changed, rather dramatically.

 

But FDI is only one aspect of the whole socio-economic balance for any given country, and for most it is still dwarfed by domestic investment ('DI'): it's never FDI alone, which puts food on most tables.

 

British people came to vote Leave, not because their livelihood has come to depend on FDI, but because successive UK legislatures stopped nurturing that which made them strive, allowing mass-uberisation of the economy with ZHCs, overlong borderline-needless austerity policies, and generally enacting policies to divide rather than unite people.

The things you mention in your last paragraph (along with earlier policies moving in the same direction) are precisely what made the UK the most liberal, pro-business EU member state (if not, in the long run, the most stable one).  Divide and rule is a classic kleptocrat tactic.

 

18 minutes ago, L00b said:

And I do not follow you on the colonization analogy: any investment by a private business, big or small, and domestic or overseas, is always done for economic gain, not for geopolitical gain. FDI has to be justified, to be enacted by a board, and the core justification is habitually the economics (and long term prospects) of the local (regional) market, in light of market access conditions (logistics relative to shipping, customs tariffs, NTBs, differring standards and more).

I'd argue that economics was the main driver of colonialism.  The East India Company was first and foremost a Company.  The geopolitical stuff was secondary to that, [the ruling classes of] France / England / Netherlands / etc. protecting their economic interests against each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Obelix said:

Really?

 

I'm waiting for Bojo to be found dead in a ditch. Then we can have a new election. Until then he's hoist on his own petard of spite from getting rid of all his MP's.

 

Bojo can have an election when everyone else says he can and not before...

Let's be honest whatever Boris does you will criticise him.  Honest people acknowledge that Boris has done everything in his power to try to get the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result  implemented on 31st October.  The people who supported Boris becoming Tory leader and Prime Minister will continue to support him after 31st October has passed.  Only losers who have no respect for democracy will try to use the 'dead in the ditch' comment against him.

 

2 hours ago, Pettytom said:

The trouble with single issues is that they generally turn out to be not single issues. Only a simpleton would think that EU membership was simply a question of being in, or out.

 

As Margaret Thatcher said , referenda are devices of dictators and demagogues.

If referendums are such a bad idea then why did 550 MPs vote in favour of holding the democratic 2016 EU Referendum?

Edited by Lockdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

When a ruling party loses it's working majority it 's normal to have a General Election. 

And when an advisory referendum no longer reflects the views of the electorate, it is normal to reconsider the result of that referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.