brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

Excellent news that our PM will halt tank chasing lawyers by placing our troops outside of the European Human Rights laws for future conflicts. This will really piss off Strasbourg and its unelected morons. Perhaps the first step in ridding ourselves of all this Eu crap.

The lefties and Labour spastics that incorporated the ECHR into British Law should be exposed and then hung drawn and quartered for treason.

Thal

[ahinton]

Excellent news that our PM will halt tank chasing lawyers by placing our troops outside of the European Human Rights laws for future conflicts.

You use the word "will" far too often in these contexts. All that she has done - and, indeed, all that she can do - is announce a desire to do this; nothing can be achieved without a Parliamentary majority in support of it. Has a debate on this been scheduled there yet?

In any event, however, it would be foolhardy to make too much of this, not least because the amount of time that will elapse between now and the close of UK's Brexit negotiations will be 2½ years at the very least, during which UK will remain a full member of EU.

Why, in any case, would you (or May or anyone else) seek to accord to hard working and dedicated members of UK's armed services, who sometimes function under the most stressful conditions imaginable on behalf of the country, less human rights than to ther members of UK society? And how far would you go with this? The police? The fire department and other emergency services?

This will really piss off Strasbourg and its unelected morons. Perhaps the first step in ridding ourselves of all this Eu crap.

Do you not imagine that it will "piss off" UK's armed services personnel a good deal more (in the unlikely event that the UK government were to get away with it)?

Anyway, how come MEPs, for example, are "unelected"?

The lefties and Labour spastics that incorporated the ECHR into British Law should be exposed and then hung drawn and quartered for treason.

Leaving aside how many of those who did this are still alive, you once again seem to forget that leaving EU will make no difference to UK's duties and responsibilities under ECHR because ECHR is not an EU institution; it is an instrument of the much larger 47 member state Council of Europe (which, as I mentioned before, includes all EU member states and 19 others) so, even if UK does leave EU, it will remain a Council of Europe member.

In any event, UK will also remain subject to ICCPR and UDHR, which are United Nations human rights conventions/declarations; I don't see UK leaving Council of Europe, let alone United Nations and I rather doubt that you would do either - and, while we're about it, let's not forget that one of the legal challenges soon to be heard has bypassed ECHR and been referred direct to the United Nations...

In the meantime, here's a piece not from your favourite newspaper, the Guardian:
https://www.ft.com/content/7b78f276-8940-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1

...and another two, from what is hardly known as UK's most "leftie" rag, of which the first focuses more on the possible differences in outcome of remaining in or leaving the single market and the second covers one of a number of senior EU statesmen's view of the mistake that UK is making and which it will come to regret:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/this-is-the-only-way-brexit-wont-plunge-us-over-the-cliff/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/01/austrian-minister-predicts-britain-will-regret-brexit-and-re-joi/

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Why, in any case, would you (or May or anyone else) seek to accord to hard working and dedicated members of UK's armed services, who sometimes function under the most stressful conditions imaginable on behalf of the country, less human rights than to ther members of UK society?

Eh??, what are you on about??

The reason behind this is to stop the stupid tank chasers from harassing our brave soldiers, not to deny the soldiers themselves any rights.

Thal

[ahinton]

Eh??, what are you on about??

The reason behind this is to stop the stupid tank chasers from harassing our brave soldiers, not to deny the soldiers themselves any rights.

I know that, but can you not see the link between the two? In any case, this kind of interference simply won't work because it won't be accepted. When anyone joins the armed services, the police or other security or emergency organisations, he/she has to take on board that kind of harrassment because such organisations are ripe for it; they themselves need ever more legal representation and, given that lawyers are always involved whichever side they're on, there's nothing that any government can do by way of legislation to protect either side - the rule of law and legal practice has to take precedence on a case by case basis. In other words, "soldiers" and other such personnel put themselves in the legal as well the physical firing line simply by virtue of taking up positions with their employers.

Wherever you find a member of a profession, you'll find a lawyer ready and willing to take up his/her case whenever one arises; merely describing such people as "stupid tank chasers" helps no one.

That said, once again the thread risks going off-topic as was the case a while back with all the stuff about population movement; what's the UK armed services go to do with Brexit?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

what's the UK armed services go to do with Brexit?

My turn for a link

https://www.rt.com/uk/361516-human-rights-convention-troops/

It has everything to do with Brexit.

Thal

[ahinton]

My turn for a link

https://www.rt.com/uk/361516-human-rights-convention-troops/

It has everything to do with Brexit.

I don't see a single reference to Brexit in your link, valuable as it is in many wqays, including confirmation that ECHR is an instrument of Council of Europe, not EU; that this therefore has nothing to do with Brexit, since its subject matter would pertain whther or not UK was contemplating leaving EU.

In fact, it raises another issue altogether - that of vexatious litigation, a phenomenon by no means confined to military issues; you would probably regard what you've described as "silly Court cases" in relation to Brexit, the referendum conduct and like matters as "vaxatious". However, in such instances, as with all others, it is up to a Court to throw a case out before it's tried should it deem it to be vexatious and, if a trial has already commenced and its judge deems the case to be vexatious, he/she has the power to terminate it on those grounds rather than wasting further Court and other professionals' time on seeing it through.

There is no reason to treat potentially or actually vexatious military cases any differently to any other vexatious cases; legal and judicial expertise suffices in all other such instances, so why single out military ones for special treatment?

Another even more importan issue that this raises is that of the nature of the military circumstances in which such cases might arise. You have yourself poured rather more than mere scorn on Mr Blair's military reputation and actions and, unless I misread you, would be willing to accept the possibility that he merits being be tried for war crimes.

In considering that aspect of the matter, what needs to be separated out is therefore the exceptions, if any, to the provisions of ECHR that might reasonably be deemed acceptable in times of legitimate war (insofar as war can ever be "legitimate") and those that are questionable in other instances of military intervention. By this, what I'm highlighting is the difference between, for example, the circumstances affecting UK and Germany during WWII when war between those nations had officially been declared as distinct from those that pertained as a direct consequence of UK's military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in none of which had UK officially declared war on any of them nor they on UK.

Here's one from me - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/03/plan-uk-military-opt-out-european-convention-human-rights .

Should this wish be granted, the risk of dangers to the entire fabric of human rights legislation in all circumstances is not to be ignored.

It's good that you've raised this impotnt subject but, as with the population movement issue, proper discussion of it merits a thread to itself rather than its being forced in a Brexitian straitjacket.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There is no reason to treat potentially or actually vexatious military cases any differently to any other vexatious cases; legal and judicial expertise suffices in all other such instances, so why single out military ones for special treatment?

Well they shouldn't be treated at all because such claims against soldiers should not even be allowed in the first place. If our soldiers are sent out to these shitholes where their lives are at risk, i for one do not particularly care what they do to do their extremely difficult job.

If this idiocy existed 75 years ago, we would be holding this conversation in German. You can't have a soldier think twice about shooting someone because he fears he will be prosecuted at a later date. That is simply moronic.

Untenagling ourselves from the ECHR crap will protect our soldiers, so it is relevant to Brexit.

Bollox.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well they shouldn't be treated at all because such claims against soldiers should not even be allowed in the first place.

Why not? Claims against one person are as valid as claims against any other; the military thing has no bearing upon natural human justice, which should apply in all circumstances. I absolutely agree with you that armed forces personnel should not have to be the victims of vexatious litigation, but then nor should anyone else.

If our soldiers are sent out to these shitholes where their lives are at risk, i for one do not particularly care what they do to do their extremely difficult job.

I do not disagree, but what concerns me is whether and why they should be sent to places where UK is not officially at war - hence the questions surrounding Blair and legal/illegal military interventions but armed forces personnel who could otherwise ave been doing far more useful work within UK in a peacetime situation using their expertise.

If this idiocy existed 75 years ago, we would be holding this conversation in German. You can't have a soldier think twice about shooting someone because he fears he will be prosecuted at a later date. That is simply moronic.

It's not the point. 75+ years ago, UK was officially at war with Germany. In the past 20 years or so, UK has not been officially at war with those nations where its governments various have sent troops to do whatever they've been charged to do. Big difference. None of the places where they've been sent are countries with which UK is officially at war.

Untenagling ourselves from the ECHR crap will protect our soldiers, so it is relevant to Brexit.

You just don't get it, do you?! Brexit's about "disentangling" UK from EU but, as ECHR's nothing to do with EU because it's an instrument of the Council of Europe of which UK will remain a member even if it parts company with EU, this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.

Bollox

Do they have anything to do with Brexit?

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Well they shouldn't be treated at all because such claims against soldiers should not even be allowed in the first place. If our soldiers are sent out to these shitholes where their lives are at risk, i for one do not particularly care what they do to do their extremely difficult job.

If this idiocy existed 75 years ago, we would be holding this conversation in German. You can't have a soldier think twice about shooting someone because he fears he will be prosecuted at a later date. That is simply moronic.

Untenagling ourselves from the ECHR crap will protect our soldiers, so it is relevant to Brexit.

Bollox.

Thal

Gonna step in here for a minute, then back to engraving work.
You CANNOT, under any circumstance, give a blank check to soldiers/other military personnel to do whatever they "need to do" at war. War tears and warps minds, and that's how you end up with things like the Vietnam massacres done by the United States.
If you wish to hono(u)r your soldiers, give them aid when they come back home, or don't get involved in wars we shouldn't be in (ie regime change and/or nation building in the Middle East). If the country(ies) in question are shitholes, that sucks for them, but leave them be. We learned from Iraq that you can almost never do it well, and we learned that the hard way with ISIS being the result.

[mjames]

Shitholes...Western and Soviet meddling had a LOT to do with turning many middle eastern states into shitholes. Of course instead of helping them out properly, we impose sanctions, regime changes, and invasions. One can easily learn that one of the important factors to the civil unrest in Syria was a massive 6 year drought that severely damaged the country's agriculture. Ofc instead of collaborating with the government in power, we arm rebels and initiate drone strikes!
I don't think countries like the USA have the right to say "leave it alone" at this stage, instead they should take an active role in properly helping and developing the region. You can't go back to some sort of quasi-isolationist mindset after meddling in the affairs of these countries for decades. And when I say "countries like the US", I mean the UK too.  

Anyways, if you don't care about what your soldiers do abroad, as a Westerner, don't you feel like that illegitimatizes the International Court of Justice? Well, thank god that European countries don't (openly) mock the concept of war crimes like you do, because that's exactly how make international enemies. It is in your country's interest to gain the trust of other nations, regardless of their (barbaric) nature. I should change that to *most* Europe countries, UKIP's Britain isn't doing a good job at being nice to others --- and with all that vitriol their policitians are spweing, they still expect to make awesome trade deals in the near future. Don't know if it's confidence or arrogance.  

Theresa May by the way, is a terrible prime minister. Well at least they are not wussing out of brexit, because it'll certainly make things a lot more interesting.

[chopinlover01]

Shitholes...Western and Soviet meddling had a LOT to do with turning many middle eastern states into shitholes. Of course instead of helping them out properly, we impose sanctions, regime changes, and invasions. One can easily learn that one of the important factors to the civil unrest in Syria was a massive 6 year drought that severely damaged the country's agriculture.

All undoubtedly true, but not really what I was getting at.

Ofc instead of collaborating with the government in power, we arm rebels and initiate drone strikes!

Yup. Thanks, Obama!

I don't think countries like the USA have the right to say "leave it alone" at this stage, instead they should take an active role in properly helping and developing the region. You can't go back to some sort of quasi-isolationist mindset after meddling in the affairs of these countries for decades. And when I say "countries like the US", I mean the UK too.  

While I agree with you in that these countries should be given sort of reparation aid, I don't think it should be just the country that made it a "shithole", whether that be US, UK, or Russia (nor would it be practically feasible). If we're going to help out countries like Syria (which currently is impossible at this point; the "moderate rebels" are Al Nushra [Syria's Al Qaeda] and Assad is a dick), it should be with involvement through the UN, and with the help of other countries that haven't been a total dick.

[mjames]

When (or if) the war in Syria ends,  i do believe that countries with the resources to do so should volunteer to help its reconstruction. All I'm saying is that the countries that get their foreign policy from Civilization video games have a responsibility to take part in it.

[mjames]

---Interestingly enough i read about a few big businesses demanding compensation for future Brexit related [optimists will say that these will be short term  ] problems after May's announcement. A British politician by the name of Hammond I think has already promised corporations financial compensation, but again interestingly enough, how exactly will the British government essentially be able cover such costs along with the ones associated with the structural development? How will they determine which businesses deserve compensation? That will be pretty complicated and expensive...  

Nissan, which has a big influence over rural English regions, has already blackmailed, threatened to halt investment if they don't get their cut. If the costs ARE covered by the government, how will it affect the citizens? If they costs aren't covered, how will that affect the citizens..I wonder?

Still not seeing the benefits of Brexit. Aside from the "no-more-brown-people" angle of course!

[thalbergmad]

Theresa May by the way, is a terrible prime minister. Well at least they are not wussing out of brexit, because it'll certainly make things a lot more interesting.

Could end up being the greatest as she is the first since Thatcher to actually put her own people first.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Still not seeing the benefits of Brexit. Aside from the "no-more-brown-people" angle of course!

Racist nonsense normally puked up by brainless leftie retards.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

When (or if) the war in Syria ends,  i do believe that countries with the resources to do so should volunteer to help its reconstruction. All I'm saying is that the countries that get their foreign policy from Civilization video games have a responsibility to take part in it.

Better to help reconscruct than take in millions of their people, but you would need a bottomless pit of money to do so.

Thal

[mjames]

Racist nonsense normally puked up by brainless leftie retards.

Thal

It was a joke, and I'm not a "leftie." lol
Anyways Britain's, or at least racism in England has been well documented for the past few months. To claim that it's merely a fabrication of the zeh left is hilarious.  

[thalbergmad]

Why not? Claims against one person are as valid as claims against any other; the military thing has no bearing upon natural human justice, which should apply in all circumstances. I absolutely agree with you that armed forces personnel should not have to be the victims of vexatious litigation, but then nor should anyone else.
I do not disagree, but what concerns me is whether and why they should be sent to places where UK is not officially at war - hence the questions surrounding Blair and legal/illegal military interventions but armed forces personnel who could otherwise ave been doing far more useful work within UK in a peacetime situation using their expertise.
It's not the point. 75+ years ago, UK was officially at war with Germany. In the past 20 years or so, UK has not been officially at war with those nations where its governments various have sent troops to do whatever they've been charged to do. Big difference. None of the places where they've been sent are countries with which UK is officially at war.
You just don't get it, do you?! Brexit's about "disentangling" UK from EU but, as ECHR's nothing to do with EU because it's an instrument of the Council of Europe of which UK will remain a member even if it parts company with EU, this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.
Do they have anything to do with Brexit?

Best,

Alistair

It is to do with brexit as it is all part of the nonsense that we have to put up with due to increasing EU influence.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It was a joke, and I'm not a "leftie." lol
Anyways Britain's, or at least racism in England has been well documented for the past few months. To claim that it's merely a fabrication of the zeh left is hilarious.  

It is grossly overstated by left leaning press.

One Polish man gets killed and it is all over the media. Hundreds of white girls are raped by Muslims and they can barely bring themselves to mention it.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is to do with brexit as it is all part of the nonsense that we have to put up with due to increasing EU influence.

I'm afraid that this is clerly not the case. Should other EU nations follow UK's apparently avowed desire to quit EU, EU would eventually collapse altogether (as indeed some extremist Brexiteers covertly or overtly desire), following which Europe will likely return to a sitation similar to - albeit probably even worse than - that which pertained between the two world wars of the previous century, with every "sovereign, independent state" (to coin a phrase) doggedly pursuing its own interests in broad rejection of the very kind of international / cross-border co-operation which has ensured that no EU nation has declared war on any other one for more than 70 years. That such an end product would be fraught with immeasurable danger should be obvious to an averagely intelligent 12 year old.

You write of "increasing EU influence" but do not specify what this is or what kind of influence you're writing about. Do you believe that EU exerts more and/or more adverse influence over UK than over any of its other member states, such as, for example, those in which such cities as Strasbourg, Brussels, Maastricht and Lisbon are situated?

As I've stated, the powers and responsibilities of ECHR are nothing whatsoever to do with EU and, as such, entirely outside its influence, so anyone or any nation that is subject to the provisions of ECHR are not and indeed cannot be so as a consequence of "EU influence". Council of Europe is not only a quite different and far larger organisation than EU, it has a longer history than EU's oldest predecessor.

You omit to answer why it is you appear to believe that vexatious litigation against UK armed services personnel ought to be treated differently to vexatious litigation against any other UK citizen. Clearly, it should not be so, otherwise government would be conferring - and be seen to confer - a special citizenship privilege upon UK armed services personnel which would be divisive, inequitable, immoral and illegal and it is the last of these considerations that should - and, I hope, will - ensure that no such legislation will find its way onto UK's the statute books. Amerd forces personnel have as many but no more human rights than any other UK citizens.

It would also look extremely suspect were UK's Parliament to pass legislation conferring such privileges upon its military personnel if, in so doing, it were to isolate itself from other European nations who do not do this, for an uneven playing field would thereby be created in which, for example, French, German and UK armed services personnel might be involved on the same side in such interventions but only the UK ones would be privileged by their government's statutory exoneration of them from responsibility for their actions while on duty (and funded by UK taxpayers). I can't imagine that going down too well with military personnel in other EU nations.

"One Polish man killed"? I thought that there were two, actually. In any event, whilst no more condoning those murders than the rape of "white girls" by "Muslims", a due sense of proportionality determines that proper consideration be given to the fact that the murders concerned were the most serious but by no means the sole instances of additional racist hate crimes committed in UK as a direct consequence and in the immediate aftermath of publication of the opinion poll result.

There are also plenty of rapes committed in UK by non-Muslims against girls, boys, women and men of all races, colours and creeds and some, though by no means all, of these are instances of racist hate crimes. Crimes are crimes and, as such, breaches of UK law including human rights law (after all, rape and murder are, amongst other things, breaches of their vitcims' human rights).

Others' remarks here about illegal military interventions and other such interventions of questionable legality, whilst again nothing to do with Brexit, are most pertinent in and of themselves; again, however, although you now imply coyness in your omission to respond to the war crimes issue, you have in the past expressed a desire in principle to witness one particular UK politician being hauled into the dock and tried for such crimes (even though the International Criminal Court is situated in one of those EU nations from which you'd like UK to sever many fundamental connections).

If anyone here feels impelled to initiate new threads about war crimes, illegal or questionably legal military interventions, racist or other hate crimes or indeed any of the other peripheral topics that have from time to time found their respective ways into this thread about Brexit (such as has already happened in respect of the population movement issue), they are of course welcome to do so and would, I believe, be doing this thread a service in helping to keep it on track to discuss Brexit only.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"One Polish man killed"? I thought that there were two, actually. In any event, whilst no more condoning those murders than the rape of "white girls" by "Muslims", a due sense of proportionality determines that proper consideration be given to the fact that the murders concerned were the most serious but by no means the sole instances of additional racist hate crimes committed in UK as a direct consequence and in the immediate aftermath of publication of the opinion poll result.

You disgust me. You diminish what was a horrific prolonged and sustained attack against young white females by predatory Muslims. No doubt some of those girls wish they were dead and they have a life full of torment ahead of them.

Yes there were cases of racist hate crimes after the poll result, but it was extremely small whilst worrying.

Racism against whites by immigrants rarely get reported and to lefty imbeciles like you, probably doesn't exist.

Thal

[ahinton]

You disgust me. You diminish what was a horrific prolonged and sustained attack against young white females by predatory Muslims. No doubt some of those girls wish they were dead and they have a life full of torment ahead of them.

That is entirely uncalled for. I deprecate that wholly and unequivocally. I merely point out in addition that such crimes are deplorable whoever commits them against whichever victims.

Yes there were cases of racist hate crimes after the poll result, but it was extremely small whilst worrying.

I do not have the detailed comparative statistics and I wonder if you do, but not only were these crimes utterly inexcusable (as were the ones to which you draw attention), they also create an impression of a country - your country, of which you are proud - that is contemptible (not that certain other countries aren't equally guilty, of course).

Racism against whites by immigrants rarely get reported and to lefty imbeciles like you, probably doesn't exist.

Of course it exists and merits reporting just as much as any other, as it is no less criminal; all racist crimes ought to be reported wherever and whenever possible and punished equally wherever and whenever possible. I will ignore your ad hominem but correct your description of me as a "leftie", since I have never been a member of any left-leaning political party and have no intention of changing that; you should note that some of the links that I have provided in good faith have not been from "leftie" sources. In any event, attitudes of mind in respect of racist hate crimes know no "left", "centre" or "right" political boundaries as long as they are regarded, as indeed they should and must be, as crimes against the person and/or property irrespective of politics and individual political viewpoints.

But this should be for another thread, not for a Brexit thread. The racist hate crimes of which I and others wrote may have occurred in the wake of publication of the opinion poll result, but that does not mean that they are indelibly associated with Brexit; do you suppose that, had the outcome favoured Remain, the increase in such crime would still have occurred and, if so, whether it might instead have been perpetrated by immigrants against non-immigrants?

You're an intelligent fellow, Thal; give yourself the extra time and space that you deserve to think more rationally and pragmatically about such issues.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm afraid that this is clerly not the case. Should other EU nations follow UK's apparently avowed desire to quit EU, EU would eventually collapse altogether (as indeed some extremist Brexiteers covertly or overtly desire), following which Europe will likely return to a sitation similar to - albeit probably even worse than - that which pertained between the two world wars of the previous century, with every "sovereign, independent state" (to coin a phrase) doggedly pursuing its own interests in broad rejection of the very kind of international / cross-border co-operation which has ensured that no EU nation has declared war on any other one for more than 70 years. That such an end product would be fraught with immeasurable danger should be obvious to an averagely intelligent 12 year old.

Imbecillic nonsense. If you truly think that the break up of the EU could lead to armed conflict, then you need to start writing for the Guardian or other leftie crap that you digest.

Some Countries are already "trying" to pursue their own interests, but have one hand tied behind their back because of the EU. The existence of this EU nonsense is already seeing widespread disruption and riots (Greece for instance) and this will only get worse until the idiots that run it come to the obvious conclusion that one size does not fit all.

Perhaps a history class for the under 10's might be of use to you.

Thal

[ahinton]

Imbecillic nonsense.

"Imbecilic" has only one "l"; if you must call people imbeciles, at least do them the courtesy of spelling the word correctly.

If you truly think that the break up of the EU could lead to armed conflict, then you need to start writing for the Guardian or other leftie crap that you digest.

"If" is the operative word here; please read what I wrote more carefully.

I referred to the time "between the two world wars" in which there was no such armed conflict; I referred also to the fact that, since the formation of CoE and then EU's forerunner the only armed conflict in which EU member states have been involved is in their intervention on other people's wars outside Europe.

Neither statement concludes that the break-up of EU would necesarily give rise to armed conflict and I'm not for one moment suggestging that it would, although it cannot realistically be discounted.

I have no intention of writing for the Guardian, I digest a wide variety of news sources aas far as time permits and, as I have stated but you have for some reason chosen to ignore, I am no more "of the left" than many who support UK's continued membership of EU; you have only to consider the number of Conservative MPs, including UK's current Prime Minister, who opted for Remain for evidence of this - you'd not call them "lefties", would you?

Some Countries are already "trying" to pursue their own interests, but have one hand tied behind their back because of the EU.

There's nothing wrong with countries trying to pursue their own interests as long as, in so doing, they do not directly disadvantage those of others. You do not specify in what ways EU "ties the hands" of countries "behind their backs" and, in any case, more European countries are not EU member states than belong to that union.

The existence of this EU nonsense is already seeing widespread disruption and riots (Greece for instance) and this will only get worse until the idiots that run it come to the obvious conclusion that one size does not fit all.

In this I agree with you. Of course one size does not and for the foreseeab le future cannot fit all, not least because the economies of the various EU member states are so very different to one another; it is dismayingly clear that EU fails to take this into due account.

Ideed, for this very reason, both the expansion of EU into a group that embraces Germany and Romania and the launch of the Eurozone were woefully premature. What concerns me here, however, is that, the dire need for reform of EU will only increase, yet at the same time become ever more unattainable, should UK leave it.

Perhaps a history class for the under 10's might be of use to you.

I don't even teach composition, let alone give history classes, to anyone!

Given the vast administrative and legal burden that will be imposed by UK's attempts to attain Brexit will be so horrendously expensive and that aspect of the negotiations are likely to be vulnerable to fundamental disagreement that might well lead to increasing acrimony between UK and EU, can you imagine the utter chaos that would arise should UK unwittingly find itself having set a precedent for a few other EU member states also try to leave EU, resulting in its possible dissolution?

In what kinds of mess might you suppose that this would leave all 28 member states, some of whom have been part of that union for less time and some for longer than UK, when that dissolution would require that EU be replaced with something else? It hardly bears thinking about.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Given the vast administrative and legal burden that will be imposed by UK's attempts to attain Brexit will be so horrendously expensive and that aspect of the negotiations are likely to be vulnerable to fundamental disagreement that might well lead to increasing acrimony between UK and EU, can you imagine the utter chaos that would arise should UK unwittingly find itself having set a precedent for a few other EU member states also try to leave EU, resulting in its possible dissolution?

I hope other Countries do vote to leave as the EU is an organisation that is due to fail anyway..

However much it costs us, it will be worth it in the long run and I refuse to believe it would be anywhere near the annual sum that we give to these incompetent mobsters.

Thal

[ahinton]

I hope other Countries do vote to leave as the EU is an organisation that is due to fail anyway

That's rather as I thought your view to be and, in expressing it, you neatly illustrate some fundamental differences between Brexiteers, of whom some want UK out of EU but for it to remain within the single market, some want UK out of EU and the single market and others want EU to disintegrate altogether so that no country can any longer remain a member thereof and no single market will any longer exist; clerly, you fall into the last of tehse groups.

However much it costs us, it will be worth it in the long run

It would amount to a very dangerously dogmatic piece of speculation indeed to credit an action such as UK leaving EU as justifying its cost come what may (pardon the pun) without any consideration or concern whatsoever for what the as yet unspecified and indeed unspecifiable cost might be - in other words, without imposing any limits whatsoever on it.

and I refuse to believe it would be anywhere near the annual sum that we give to these incompetent mobsters

The significant difference here is that the net cost per annum of UK's EU membership is known year on year, whereas that of its leaving EU is not. What I referred to, however, was not just the cost incurred by UK should it alone leave EU but that which it would incur should sufficient other EU member states follow its example and bring EU down altogether.

This would unquestionably be a case of the totality exceeding the sum of its parts; whilst the costs of UK's unilateral departure from EU (albeit against its own and EU's interests) would be immense, it would be as nothing compared to those that it would incur were all the other member states to leave EU as well and bring the entire edifice down upon the lot of them.

In so saying, I note once again that you have put forward no idea as to how 28 of Europe's states would continue to function as "independent sovereign" ones should EU collapse, especially bearing in mind how long EU's founder member states have been a part of that organisation.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That's rather as I thought your view to be and, in expressing it, you neatly illustrate some fundamental differences between Brexiteers, of whom some want UK out of EU but for it to remain within the single market

Do you think all trade between Countries will cease if the EU collapses?. Of course not.

I as a Brexiteer wish to carry on trading with other Countries, I wish to share skills, intelligence and controlled population movement, but many like me simply don't want anything to do with the corrupt and overbearing and unrequired organization that has gradually spawned over the years.

It is simply not necessary for independent sovereign nations to get along. We do not all have to sing from the same hymn sheet.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In so saying, I note once again that you have put forward no idea as to how 28 of Europe's states would continue to function as "independent sovereign" ones should EU collapse, especially bearing in mind how long EU's founder member states have been a part of that organisation.

Errrrr, let me think.

How about as they did before, for hundreds of years.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

But you can hardly erase the fact that the EU existed. Even with the fact that EU is just over 20 years old, something else will have to take its former place. Not necessarily an actual union, of course; the relations between countries can remain strong through organizations like the UN, for example, or by direct diplomacy between nations. However, the idea that you don't need to care about relations with other countries (or lack thereof) is also imbecilic to me. The tensions leading to the start of WW1 to me are a prime example of this; nearly every country west of the Urals and east of Spain were at odds with some other nation in there, hence the development of all the war alliance agreements (ie; "If Austria attacks Italy, France will retaliate; if France attacks Austria, Germany will retaliate; if Germany attacks anyone, the Soviet Union will commence attacks, etc). These lead to tensions so tight that when an unrelated assassination of an Austrian Archduke occurred, millions of Europeans were sent to die on behalf of the royal families that nobody gave a sh*t about.

To me, the need for foreign relations is exactly this; preventing tensions like this from rising. You don't have to be best friends with everyone, obviously, but preventing another World War is quite necessary when you have distinctly different countries and cultures right next to each other.

[thalbergmad]

The conditions that were present at the outset of WW1 are hardly there now, and yes, we do not some kind of Union or Parliament, but nothing like the horrid institution we have now that soaks up billions of pounds of its members money and is trying to create a EU superstate.

Thal

[ahinton]

The conditions that were present at the outset of WW1 are hardly there now, and yes, we do not some kind of Union or Parliament, but nothing like the horrid institution we have now that soaks up billions of pounds of its members money and is trying to create a EU superstate.

...which it must not do and, provided that UK remains within it (and if there's anything positive to have come out of the Brexit threat it might be tht EU will sit up and notice); by "not" I presume you to mean "need" and I agree that we do. Conditions aren't as in the 1930s, to be sure, but 70+ years of no war within what's now EU does compare rather favourably to there having been only 2 decades between the end of WWI and the start of WWII.

In the meantime, it would seem that the biggest threat to Corbyn's Mr Labour Party is Ms May's new socialist conservatism (if it comes off) that overtly seeks to embrace "the state as a force for good"; it'll be the "nanny state" next and then we'll have come full circle (albeit an ever-decreasing circle) since Mrs Thatcher's overturning of the status quo with the every-man/woman-for-him/herself "property owning democracy" in the 1980s...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

In the meantime, it would seem that the biggest threat to Corbyn's Mr Labour Party is Ms May's new socialist conservatism

The biggest threat to Mr Corbyn's Labour Party is his own MP's first and foremost. Secondly, it is the long overdue boundary changes which will lose him a few seats.

I am more than happy with our current PM thus far and look forward to a healthy deal on the Brexit.

Thal

[ahinton]

The biggest threat to Mr Corbyn's Labour Party is his own MP's first and foremost.

Much as it looks that way - and inded is that way - what matters above all is how many people voite Labour next time around and the incrase in the party;s members might suggest that it could do better on this front than last year. A lot could change in the mentime, though, of course.

Secondly, it is the long overdue boundary changes which will lose him a few seats.

Electoral boundary changes that are made by a party in power purely for the purpose of seeking electoral advantage for itsef are cynical and immoral; they're in the interests of the party in power, not of the electorate. We don;t yet know if they'll be made or what challenges to them might arise if they are.

I am more than happy with our current PM thus far and look forward to a healthy deal on the Brexit.

I'm not sure whether her extreme pragmatism, wise or otherwise, is down to coyness, uncertainty or what. She's been handed a poisoned chalice by her predecessor, for sure and her task will be one of the hardest that will ever have faced a PM in peacetime, so I do not envy her that. What will happen or not on Brexit or indeed anything else remains to be seen.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Electoral boundary changes that are made by a party in power purely for the purpose of seeking electoral advantage for itsef are cynical and immoral; they're in the interests of the party in power, not of the electorate.

These are long overdue and have been unfair to the Tories for years. It simply balances things up a bit and if more Labour lose there seats than any other party, then tough titties.

Thal

[ahinton]

These are long overdue and have been unfair to the Tories for years. It simply balances things up a bit and if more Labour lose there seats than any other party, then tough titties.

Why do you reckon that they're "long overdue" and that they've been "unfair" to anyone? There are ways to get around these for some people in any case, by re-registering in a different constituency between implementation of such changes (whatever, if any, they may be) and the next General Election if they're sufficiently concerned about the possible consequences.

It would be far fairer to all, however, were the alleged reasoning for and motivation behind any such proposed changes to be revealed before they're debated in Parliament in any case.

As I wrote, such boundary changes are not available to be made for the sole purpose of trying to advantage any political party and, were Labour in power and they tried to pull a stunt like this in the hope of screwing the Tories, I'd be equally opposed to it and for the very same reasons.

As it happens, no such changes are being proposed that would affect people where I am, but one might wonder if that's because the entire area comprises safe Tory seats...

And the UK pound continues to slide; fine for Eurozone nations wanting to buy stuff on the cheap from UK but bad news for UK people and firms trying to buy from them. Bad news especially for UK tourists wherever they want to go, for that pound's doing badly against other currencies besides the Euro...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The boundaries have long favoured Labour and it needs to changed.

It is as simple as that.

Thal

[ahinton]

The boundaries have long favoured Labour and it needs to changed.

It is as simple as that.

I suspect that this would be hard to prove and, in any case, not only can at least some of those sufficiently concerned about any possible changes to them re-register elsewhere (as I mentioned) but the very population movement of which there's another thread is not all about immigration and emigreation but also about such movement within UK and so, when work or other considerations prompt people to relocate within UK, the effect of any such those boundary changes wil itslef change.

Constituency boundaries should favour no political party but it would be well-nigh impossible to determine where, whether and to what extent they might do so, whether they remain as they are now or are changed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

And the UK pound continues to slide; fine for Eurozone nations wanting to buy stuff on the cheap from UK but bad news for UK people and firms trying to buy from them. Bad news especially for UK tourists wherever they want to go, for that pound's doing badly against other currencies besides the Euro...

So what??. You cannot judge a marathon on the first hundred metres.

I could make a point about the FTSE and the growth forecasts, but I would not wish to lower myself to your level.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/the-great-boundary-reform-might-kill-off-the-labour-party/

 

[ahinton]

So what??. You cannot judge a marathon on the first hundred metres.

I could make a point about the FTSE and the growth forecasts, but I would not wish to lower myself

Of course you can't; what have I been saying about uncertinty and that there's a long way to go before the realities for the economy, the currency (which has just taken quite a tip) and the rest.

All that's likely is that if the pound continues to approach parity with the Euro the FTSE will rise; the overall effect is of such in-tandem movements is unlikely to favour UK at all.

As an indicator of the value of UK shares (insofar as it can be so), FTSE has to be taken in accordance with the value of UK's currency; if that latter value plummets below parity with the Euro - or even with the US dollar - the extent to which growth will occur in UK just because of increases in FTSE will be questionable indeed.

UK's imports will be ever harder hit, which means that inflation will be inevitable (oil/petrol being just one significant example), it's therefore likely that UK interest rates will have to fall considerably farther and, of course, that will have an even worse impact upon the UK pound.

The only way in which such a flow could be stemmed would be if UK were vastly more self-dependent than it is or can be; if it manufactured most of its energy, transportation vehicles, food, etc., that might help to rescue it from its currency woes, but that's simply not going to happen. How much of a so-called "independent sovereign state" could UK be while it's so dependent upon importing from elsewhere and its currency slumps to make that ever more expensively impractical?

Mr Farage recently claimed that he wanted his country back, to which (if its currency continues to collapse) one can only realistically answer "be careful what you wish for"; what price a country without a viable currency?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/the-great-boundary-reform-might-kill-off-the-labour-party/

 

Were it to happen and were it to have such an effect, what would the government do for an opposition? It would be left stranded.

The proposed boundary changes are being promoted as an economy measure becvause they'll largely be effected by reducing the number of UK MPs from 650 to 600. I have no idea as to what the ideal number of MPs should be; have you? - and, if so, based upon what considerations? Might 600 still be too many? What would be your ideal average number of constituents per MP?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The only way in which such a flow could be stemmed would be if UK were vastly more self-dependent than it is or can be; if it manufactured most of its energy, transportation vehicles, food, etc., that might help to rescue it from its currency woes, but that's simply not going to happen. How much of a so-called "independent sovereign state" could UK be while it's so dependent upon importing from elsewhere and its currency slumps to make that ever more expensively impractical?

Well, now that it appears we are going to start fracking (barring silly court cases), we will be a lot less energy dependent. Regretfully, silly lefties, greenies and unemployable tree huggers have slowed this down.

Again, you are going into overdrive and judging a marathon on the first hundred metres.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The proposed boundary changes are being promoted as an economy measure becvause they'll largely be effected by reducing the number of UK MPs from 650 to 600. I have no idea as to what the ideal number of MPs should be; have you? - and, if so, based upon what considerations? Might 600 still be too many? What would be your ideal average number of constituents per MP?

If we were to continue as part of the EU, the number of MP's might have well have been 0.

Now perhaps they can do their job, earn their money and start standing up for ordinary hard working Brits that have been second class citizens in their own Country for too long.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, now that it appears we are going to start fracking (barring silly court cases), we will be a lot less energy dependent. Regretfully, silly lefties, greenies and unemployable tree huggers have slowed this down.

Again, you are going into overdrive and judging a marathon on the first hundred metres.

I am not actually judging anything by anything; I have stated on several occasions that the only certain thing right now is uncertainty, not only as to what UK might do and what its effect will be but what EU will do and what impact that will have. Since we agree on that at the very least, I see no point in suggesting that we do not.

Fracking might eventually make UK more energy self-dependent but that can't and won't happen overnight. UK's big mistake has been to invest so little over the years on renewables which would not only have made it much more energy self-dependent by now but would also have pleased those whom you patronisingly call "silly lefties, greenies and unemployable tree huggers". What the outcome fracking will not do, however extensive it becomes, is effect any material reduction in UK's oil dependency; I don't see a new generation of imported cars, truck and the like into UK (if it can still afford such imports) that have been manufactured to run on UK shale gas, can you?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If we were to continue as part of the EU, the number of MP's might have well have been 0.

How do you figure that out? What would cause the total to reduce to zero? ONe thing that is certain, however, is that, should UK leave EU, the number of its MEPs will reduce to zero.

Now perhaps they can do their job, earn their money and start standing up for ordinary hard working Brits that have been second class citizens in their own Country for too long.

Some MPs have already been trying their hardest to do just that, but how and why might you suppose that merely reducing their numbers from 650 to 600 will encourage this? - and how many MPs do you think that UK ought ideally to have?

Of course, howewver many there might be, they'll soon have nowhere to go to ply their wares and practise their magic when they have to vacate HoC for the long overdue £4+bn refurbishment of its buildings...

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

Now I understand why Thal loves May so much. Considering all the effort May has done to derail British advancements on renewable energy, consideration on environmental damage, and research on climate change, I was baffled to hear so much praise from Thal. Apparently he considers these things to be "tree hugging leftie bullshit", so everything's cleared up now. Well luckily for him he's in his what, 50s? So I doubt he'll live to see the consequences of these decisions. Good for him.


Perhaps what annoys me the most is baseless arrogance, so I think this might lead me to enjoy Brexit even further.

[thalbergmad]

Regretfully, there is not enough room in the Country for sufficient silly windmills and solar farms to provide us with the energy we need.

What annoys me the most are the unemployable leftie hippies and the tossers that inhabit the Green party who cannot see this.

Fracking will employ thousands of people in areas that have long been blighted by unemployment, so hopefully, some of those smelly long haired protesters might actually get a job when they have sufficiently milked the benefits system.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Fracking might eventually make UK more energy self-dependent but that can't and won't happen overnight. UK's big mistake has been to invest so little over the years on renewables which would not only have made it much more energy self-dependent by now but would also have pleased those whom you patronisingly call "silly lefties, greenies and unemployable tree huggers". What the outcome fracking will not do, however extensive it becomes, is effect any material reduction in UK's oil dependency; I don't see a new generation of imported cars, truck and the like into UK (if it can still afford such imports) that have been manufactured to run on UK shale gas, can you?

I am pretty certain you could run on gas. You have been blowing it out your backside for years.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

How do you figure that out? What would cause the total to reduce to zero?

If they are not in control, what would be the point of their existence.

Thal

[ahinton]

Now I understand why Thal loves May so much. Considering all the effort May has done to derail British advancements on renewable energy, consideration on environmental damage, and research on climate change, I was baffled to hear so much praise from Thal. Apparently he considers these things to be "tree hugging leftie bullshit", so everything's cleared up now. Well luckily for him he's in his what, 50s? So I doubt he'll live to see the consequences of these decisions. Good for him.

Perhaps what annoys me the most is baseless arrogance, so I think this might lead me to enjoy Brexit even further.

I don't think that one can blame May for derailing advancements on UK renewable energy; this iss something for which successive governments over the years are all responsible to one degree or another.

Best,

Alistair