brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

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.

I suppose that you'd advocate "some of those smelly long haired protesters might actually get a job" in the fracking industry, would you?

Whilst your first paragraph is obviously correct, the same can be said for the outcome of fracking and for the Hinckley nuclear project; no single source of energy will go anywhere near meeting UK's needs.

I'm no advocate of fracking because the environmental credentials of any further fossil fuel dependency are far from good and, in any case, any fossil fuel source is by definition a finite resource, so it will be bound to run out eventually. That said, both fracking and nuclear power are vital to UK's needs because insufficient effort has been made in research and development of renewables since WWII, for which grave and short-sighted omission successive UK governments have been responsible for decades.

Fracking will not, however, provide a fuel that will run transport, which will continue to be oil dependent until and unless renewables make far more of a mark in that field than has happened so far.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

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

Another pointless and irrelevant ad hom from you rather than responding to valid points made and questions asked.

Let's try again.

I wrote
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".
So how soon do you imagine that the tap may be turned on so that shale gas begins to make a conribution to UK's energy needs?

I then wrote
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?
Do you believe on the contrary that fracking will indeed impact substantially and positively upon UK's transportation needs?

All of this stuff is not about "lefties", "tree huggers" and the rest; it's about how to meet UK's increasing energy requirements without risking damage to its environment and successding with the former won't count for much if the latter fails.

Not only will the product of fracking inevitably be a finite resource like all other fossil fuels but also nuclear power stations won't last forever even if they're part French owned and invested in with Chinese funds.

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

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

Yes I can. She not only diminished funds, but also completely shut down entire government departments related to these issues. What's even worse, some of these departments also helped with funding research to scientists in public and private universities. These are literally policies she took within her first weeks of office, I even posted it a few pages back. I can certainly blame her for the actions she takes. And no, don't you dare pull the "everyone does it anyways" card on me. There is a good portion of countries (Western and non-western) that are making quite an effort to work study climate change, and work on creating sustainable energy supplies. This includes first rates countries like Norway and Switzerland, and third-world (sh*t holes, as Thal would say) like Mozambique. What's even worse is that she ratified the Paris treaty, even though her domestic policies don't reflect it at all.

A first world Western country, a state that was once the patron of science and philosophy, the home of Isaac Newton and James Maxwell now has a government that deliberately tries to put its head in the sand in the face of evidence.

[ahinton]

Yes I can. She not only diminished funds, but also completely shut down entire government departments related to these issues. What's even worse, some of these departments also helped with funding research to scientists in public and private universities. These are literally policies she took within her first weeks of office, I even posted it a few pages back. I can certainly blame her for the actions she takes. And no, don't you dare pull the "everyone does it anyways" card on me. There is a good portion of countries (Western and non-western) that are making quite an effort to work study climate change, and work on creating sustainable energy supplies. This includes first rates countries like Norway and Switzerland, and third-world (sh*t holes, as Thal would say) like Mozambique. What's even worse is that she ratified the Paris treaty, even though her domestic policies don't reflect it at all.

A first world Western country, a state that was once the patron of science and philosophy, the home of Isaac Newton and James Maxwell now has a government that deliberately tries to put its head in the sand in the face of evidence.

Whilst I do not disagree in principle with much of what you write here, the reason for my exoneration of Ms May from most of this is predicated upon due proportionality, in that she's only been in office for five minutes whereas successive UK governments have been largely pushing to one side investment in renewables R&D for decades and, had they not done so, UK would be in a far better position in terms of energy self-sufficiency than it is now. Many UK PMs and the governments that they've headed are therefore responsible for this parlous situation, not just the one that's been in office for only around three months.

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

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

"leftie hippies"
"long haired protesters"
"get a job"
"benefits"

You are pretty much a walking stereotype of conservatives, or whatever the hell you are. First you say fracking will employ people ( I wasn't even talking about fracking, btw), and yet you also support policies that endanger the jobs of people in the UK. r o f l

[ahinton]

"leftie hippies"
"long haired protesters"
"get a job"
"benefits"

You are pretty much a walking stereotype of conservatives, or whatever the hell you are.

In fairness, that's not true, actually, to the extent that such attitudes as are epitomised by the use of such wearisome and weary clichés are not typical of UK Conservatives; whilst there are some who do think and talk like that, they're by no means in the majority.

First you say fracking will employ people ( I wasn't even talking about fracking, btw), and yet you also support policies that endanger the jobs of people in the UK. r o f l

Nothing can be relied upon to employ people unless there's the money with which to pay the employees.

In any event, were Thal a major employer, would he really welcome with open arms (and cheque book) the kinds of undesirable people that he describes as employees in the fracking industry or indeed any other walk of working life?

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

In fairness, that's not true, actually, to the extent that such attitudes as are epitomised by the use of such wearisome and weary clichés are not typical of UK Conservatives; whilst there are some who do think and talk like that, they're by no means in the majority.
Nothing can be relied upon to employ people unless there's the money with which to pay the employees.

In any event, were Thal a major employer, would he really welcome with open arms (and cheque book) the kinds of undesirable people that he describes as employees in the fracking industry or indeed any other walk of working life?

Best,

Alistair

Stereotypes aren't usually representative of an entire group of people, I'm not actually insulting conservatives - I'm just laughing at how eerily Thal mimics the stereotype.

In any event, were Thal a major employer, would he really welcome with open arms (and cheque book) the kinds of undesirable people that he describes as employees in the fracking industry or indeed any other walk of working life?

Lol...

[ahinton]

Stereotypes aren't usually representative of an entire group of people, I'm not actually insulting conservatives - I'm just laughing at how eerily Thal mimics the stereotype.

No, I understand that; it's just that the "stereotype" that Thal mimics is so overtly mythical and such a risible blend of Colonel Blimp and Alf Garnett as to illustrate beyond doubt that there is no such "type" and that what takes the pace of it most fortunately does not express itself in "stereo".

In fact, this latest "state as a force for good" mantra that's now being forced to replace that "Brexit means Brexit" one sounds to run so contrary to such Thalesque characterisations that it might almost be taken to suggest that, as I opined earlier, the most substantial threat to a Labour victory at the next UK General Election might be the socialist principles now supposedly about to be propounded by the Tory party...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I suppose that you'd advocate "some of those smelly long haired protesters might actually get a job" in the fracking industry, would you?

No doubt all the jobs would go to your immigrant friends whilst the British workers are left on the scrapheap.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

You are pretty much a walking stereotype of conservatives, or whatever the hell you are. First you say fracking will employ people ( I wasn't even talking about fracking, btw), and yet you also support policies that endanger the jobs of people in the UK. r o f l

I do not recall supporting policies that will endanger jobs. If you are referring to Brexit, then we will simply have to wait and see.

As there are still some silly court cases to be heard, perhaps it will never happen and the Guardian and its retarded leftie readers can claim a great victory.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In any event, were Thal a major employer, would he really welcome with open arms (and cheque book) the kinds of undesirable people that he describes as employees in the fracking industry or indeed any other walk of working life?

If i were a major employer, i would go back to the days when people were employed on ability alone.

Nowadays there is too much discrimination against the white british worker. Too often one hears of some politically correct twat announcing they haven't got sufficient "diversity". One employer had the nerve to apply for Polish only.

Thal

[ahinton]

No doubt all the jobs would go to your immigrant friends whilst the British workers are left on the scrapheap.

That might depend to a large extent upon whether or not and to what extent Brits want the jobs; however, I doubt that any of my personal friends, immigrant or otherwise, would want any of them.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If you are referring to Brexit, then we will simply have to wait and see.

Indeed so.

As there are still some silly court cases to be heard

I didn't know that.

, perhaps it will never happen and the Guardian and its retarded leftie readers can claim a great victory.

I don't know what kinds of people read the Guardian but, if Brexit doesn't happen for any reason/s, there will be no consequent "victory", since this is not a war.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If i were a major employer, i would go back to the days when people were employed on ability alone.

Even if they're immirgrants?

Nowadays there is too much discrimination against the white british worker.

...some of which is expressed by certain white British workers themselves.

One employer had the nerve to apply for Polish only

I should imagine that this would be illegal unless the jobs concerned required those who applied for them to be fluent in Polish.

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

My apologies, Thal, but the narrative of "the poor common man being too PC to be accepted" is pure bullshit. That kind of rhetoric borders on white nationalism (a watered down version of White Supremacy; at least that's the terminology used in the states).
While ability is, of course, the most relevant factor to any job application, there's more than just that. Background, ethnicity, religion, et. al all play a role; you'd hardly want an Islamist Muslim running an arms store, would you? I'm not advocating this, but these seem to be your views.
The fact that diversity is more common now than ever is not an indictment of discrimination against whites.
The reason that employers need diversity (aside from having sufficiently positive reception by the public) is to promote a better understanding of other races, cultures, viewpoints, etc. Obviously, this doesn't apply to those cultures or viewpoints that are inherently intolerant; the view that female genitals should be mutilated to ensure women don't cheat on their husbands is primitive bullshit.
On the other hand, promoting nationalism and an "us vs them" mentality, where it's the "Good Brits and other Western Europeans" and the "others", respectively (the latter including Poles, Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, etc.) is a dangerous thing to do. This is how you give rise to leaders who, while at first seeming ridiculous, lead millions to ovens.
Of course, I know (or at least hope very much!) that you're not speaking of all members of these races when you speak of them, and that you acknowledge that the majority of most people are decent people trying to do well. Although, by your last post, it would appear not to be the case.

In addition, with regard to what you said about WW1, the conditions leading up to it, and whether or not they're present in UK today; that isn't the point. The point is to PREVENT that kind of situation from arising. While I'm definitely not an EU apologist and never have been (nor do I plan on it), I fear that with so many differing nationalities and cultures and their respective politics, it's still all too easy for tension therein to rise. It's just over 2,000 miles (about 3400 km) from France to Turkey, but in between there are several if not a dozen distinct cultures (to say nothing of the two themselves). With this in mind, and the fact that European countries don't have the luxury of huge swathes of sea (or a channel), foreign relations become absolutely essential.

[stevensk]

Omg! Stop this and focus on the central problem for the people in the world today!
 For example; fingerings in various pieces! How to sit on the pianobench" -Thats a hugely underestimated problem for most people today, "what shall I play next" tragedies, Who is the best pianist in the world?? Nobody knows?? Thats a deeply theoretical problem. How can we go further without knowing that?? How can we handle these problems?

[chopinlover01]

The search button.

[thalbergmad]

That might depend to a large extent upon whether or not and to what extent Brits want the jobs; however, I doubt that any of my personal friends, immigrant or otherwise, would want any of them.

Indeed not. They would be too busy hugging trees and starting silly court cases.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I don't know what kinds of people read the Guardian but, if Brexit doesn't happen for any reason/s, there will be no consequent "victory", since this is not a war.

It is a war and democracy must be the victor.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I should imagine that this would be illegal unless the jobs concerned required those who applied for them to be fluent in Polish.

Regretfully it doesn't seem to be and i did not realise it is only the Polish who are fluent in Polish.

If it were an advert requiring English only, i bet there would be a silly court case.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The fact that diversity is more common now than ever is not an indictment of discrimination against whites.
The reason that employers need diversity (aside from having sufficiently positive reception by the public) is to promote a better understanding of other races, cultures, viewpoints, etc. Obviously, this doesn't apply to those cultures or viewpoints that are inherently intolerant; the view that female genitals should be mutilated to ensure women don't cheat on their husbands is primitive bullshit.

I do not have a problem with diversity but i do have a problem with quotas and positive discrimination that rears their ugly heads too often.

When i used to work for a bank, some PC twat decided they did not have enough ethnic minorities in managerial positions, so low and behold none of the next 20 or so appointments were white British, and in fact, they were told they could not even apply.

People were employed purely to fulfill some moronic quota and not on ability. This trash has even infested the BBC, the Police and unsurprisingly the imbeciles at the Labour Party.

I know several business that are all Pakastani. I bet they don't operate the same stupidity.

Thal

[ahinton]

Indeed not. They would be too busy hugging trees and starting silly court cases.

Well, even though they'd not get work in the fracking industry, they could at least go for employment as tree surgeons/arborists and Court clerks if they possess the appropriate qualifications.

I've never seen anyone hug a tree, by the way - and I know no one with arms long enough to manage to encircle most such in any case.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It is a war and democracy must be the victor.

Vesting militaristic analogies into what are essentially political processes (should they begin) is unhelpful and inappropriate; if democracy actually emerges directly from all this mess, I imagine that most people would in any case eat their hats.

So it's a "war", is it (in your view)? Who was/is "fighting" whom in it? It's a similarly misplaced analogy as that which has brought into common UK parlance the expression "the Fire Brigade" and the use of the term "firefighters", as though the former is a branch of UK's armed services and the latter are military personnel who are employed by the WBrigade"; in US, the terms are more sensibly "the Fire Department" and "fire officers". Those who work on active service for fire departments do not and are not employed to "fight" fires; they aim to put them out and minimise damage to life and property, which is what they're paid to do.

Seeking to determine that the outcome of an opinion poll held last June that imposed no legal obligation upon UK's Parliament is somehow "democracy in practice" (the "will of the people" and all that stuff) presumes an equal determination to pervert English usage. Democracy has no partical existence without laws and lawmaking procedures and, as that opinion poll could not of itself obligate Parliament to pass any laws, it cannot correctly be regarded as "democratic".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Regretfully it doesn't seem to be and i did not realise it is only the Polish who are fluent in Polish.

If it were an advert requiring English only, i bet there would be a silly court case.

Again, it would not be silly; as I stated, I believe that to advertise a job for Polish workers only - or for English or Albanian or Bolivian ones only - would in most cases breach the law, so any subsequent Court cases on the basis of such racial discrimination oin the workplace would be anything but "silly"; you do believe in upholding the law in your country, don't you?

As you point out, it's not only Poles who are fluent in Polish, although as at least 830,000 people living in UK are Polish, it might be reasonable to assume that the majority of people living there who are fluent in Polish are indeed Polish.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I do not have a problem with diversity but i do have a problem with quotas and positive discrimination that rears their ugly heads too often.

As do I; this kind of thing should be about ensuring that particular people are not excluded as a matter of "principle", not about trying to shoehorn people of all races and persuasions into every job going in order to prove some kind of PC point.

When i used to work for a bank, some PC twat decided they did not have enough ethnic minorities in managerial positions, so low and behold none of the next 20 or so appointments were white British, and in fact, they were told they could not even apply.

Someone ought perhaps to have brought a "silly" Court case about that; again, employers have to be very careful about such matters, reverse discrimination being as dangerously risky as discrimination.

As I've mentioned before, however, some employers just can't get Brits to agree to take on certain work, particularly in the farming industry and, contray to popular misapprehension, that's by no means all about unscrupulous employers underpaying foreign workers; a fruit farm not far from me depends each year not only upon Bulgarians, Romanians and Poles (from within EU) but also upon Moldovans and Ukrainians (from outside it) for its seasonal pickers because, even though they pay at least £2 per hour above the UK national minimum wage, the Brits just don't want to know. That's not discriminating against British workers; were these employersy forced to accept a quota of British workers they'd go under because that would not mean that they'd be able to attract them for that work.

People were employed purely to fulfill some moronic quota and not on ability. This trash has even infested the BBC, the Police and unsurprisingly the imbeciles at the Labour Party.

I know several business that are all Pakastani. I bet they don't operate the same stupidity.

Perhaps not - but maybe you should ask them, although I don't know the size (in terms of employee numbers) of those businesses and am not sure how or to what extent the smallest SMEs are affected by legislation on this anyway.

Oh - and "Pakistani", by the way...

As to the Labour Party, who in particular are you talking about? Their MPs? Their staff? (Or just Diane Abbott?!)...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A first world Western country, a state that was once the patron of science and philosophy, the home of Isaac Newton and James Maxwell now has a government that deliberately tries to put its head in the sand in the face of evidence.

Well said. It is deeply sad that a country which once led the way in science and technology now has to allow itself to sign very dubious deals with France and China in order to mitigate power supply problems. When Britain truly was 'Great Britain', we led the way in such research and development.

[ahinton]

Well said. It is deeply sad that a country which once led the way in science and technology now has to allow itself to sign very dubious deals with France and China in order to mitigate power supply problems. When Britain truly was 'Great Britain', we led the way in such research and development.

That is indeed so very true. Even if such investment into R&D over the past few decades for renewable energy could only have been made by and for the benefit of "tree huggers", as some might opine, the savings in costs and environmental damage for everyone would have been so immense as to make UK the envy of the "civilised" world.

Large scale solar farms are not impossible in UK, although I accept that space for them is limited, but solar installations for individual homes, shops, farms, factories &c. are perfectly possible and have the additional advantage of providing greater control over the budgets of those who own, operate or otherwise use such buildings and considerably weakens the stranglehold of big corporations that supply energy.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Large scale solar farms are not impossible in UK

Unfortunately, large scale sun is, as you should be aware living on the Welsh borders.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

As I've mentioned before, however, some employers just can't get Brits to agree to take on certain work, particularly in the farming industry

It was made even harder when the Labour Party were trying to buy elections by pouring benefits down the throats of the Nations bone idle.

The Tories have tried to make people better off in work.

Thal

[ahinton]

Unfortunately, large scale sun is, as you should be aware living on the Welsh borders.

I did not suggest that solar farms can be built on every possible available bit of space in UK - that would be absurd - although whether one could be built atop the Black Mountains (the northern end of which which I can see from where I'm now sitting) might be a question worth asking. The point, however, is tha, as I stated, individuals and businesses can have their own installations in their own premises, thereby reducing the clout of the big energy supply corporations, improving the environment and cutting their bills all at the same time.

That said, this kind of thing should have been developed many years ago; had it been so, we'd be in a far more advantageous position today.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It was made even harder when the Labour Party were trying to buy elections by pouring benefits down the throats of the Nations bone idle.

They've now been in government for more than six years but, in any case, I don't see how the party of government at any given time is in itself likely to be able to influence whether or not Brits are prepared to do particular work.

The Tories have tried to make people better off in work

Well, they've not made a very good job of it; for all that unemployment figures appear to have fallen, one has only to consider the number of people in paid work and on benefits beacuse their employed work pays so poorly (including but by no means limited to those on the notorious zero hours contracts) to realise that.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I did not suggest that solar farms can be built on every possible available bit of space in UK - that would be absurd - although whether one could be built atop the Black Mountains (the northern end of which which I can see from where I'm now sitting) might be a question worth asking.

I am sorry, but you need something called sun for solar to work. The Black Mountains is not a place i associate with sun, but i have not checked the weather records.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am sorry, but you need something called sun for solar to work.

You don't necessarily, actually. You need daylight, even without sun as well as unimpeded access to that light from the panel surfaces. Of course sunlight helps greatly in terms of how much you can get from it, just as south facing panels produce more than any that are sited facing west or east (and north is the only real problem).

The Black Mountains is not a place i associate with sun, but i have not checked the weather records.

It shouldn't be too bad, actually. However, as I said, you don't have to have massive solar farms supplying hundreds of buildings; each individual building can have its own. Indeed, the roofs of the buildings of the fruit farm that I mentioned in the context of its being unable to source Brit seasonal pickers incorporate scores of solar panels and I imagine that the entire premises are run on solar energy.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Well, with UKIP falling apart as a consequence of its MEPs bashing one another up and giving rise to wild fluctuations and uncertainties in what passes for its "leadership" (as in Farage's recent vacillatory "I just wanted my country back - now I want my life back - but not yet" stances) while the Labour Party wrestles with its growing differences of approach and the LibDems have yet to achieve any material resurgence, it now requires only the Tories - charged with getting Brexit off the ground despite their small majority while nevertheless struggling to face up to the threat of continuing support for Remain within their ranks - to find themselves riven with sufficient inconsistencies in their aims and objectives as to risk leading towards a situation in which their own electability likewise becomes ever more questionable (especially if the task of negotiating with the remainder of EU presents itself in practice).

It could indeed be argued that, in such a climate, the Tories' only (or at least best) chance of success in uniting UK - or rather England and Wales - behind it would be for it to find some way to ditch Brexit altogether and concentrate on devising and pursuing policies for the good of UK in a bid to restore a kind of order that will become no more than a pipe-dream following invocation of Article 50.

Whilst every "democratic" country's government needs a viable opposition, it also needs to maintain its own credibility to govern; at the moment, the UK Tories' small majority and the evident instability at least in the administration and infrastructure of the Labour Party that is almost sufficient to warrant SNP being regarded as the official opposition in Westminster, at least for the time being, are indicators of both a government and an opposition that's insufficiently strong. The Tories ought to give due consideration to this important fact if England and Wales are to have anyone in power governing them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It could indeed be argued that, in such a climate, the Tories' only (or at least best) chance of success in uniting UK - or rather England and Wales - behind it would be for it to find some way to ditch Brexit altogether and concentrate on devising and pursuing policies for the good of UK in a bid to restore a kind of order that will become no more than a pipe-dream following invocation of Article 50

Absolutely not. You would be simply ignoring the votes of 17,000,000 plus people. Brexit will happen and politicians and others in high places are simply making the markets more nervous by trying to reverse or stall procedures.

Interesting snippet on the BBC webpage.

"MPs will not get to vote on how Brexit negotiations are handled but could still be asked to approve the "final" deal, a government source has said"

This makes good sense and failed idiots like Clegg and Milliband and delusional Labour and the Green idiots, should have no say during the actual negotiations.

The Tories should call a General Election immediately in which they will get a much greater majority and wipe the lefties off the face of British politics.

Thal

[ahinton]

Absolutely not. You would be simply ignoring the votes of 17,000,000 plus people. Brexit will happen and politicians and others in high places are simply making the markets more nervous by trying to reverse or stall procedures.

...instead of ignoring the votes of 16,000,000+ people, which I suppose is OK as far as you're concerned.

Do you really believe, for example, that the falls in value of the UK pound against not only the Euro but also all other major currencies are solely because "politicians and others in high places are simply making the markets more nervous by trying to reverse or stall procedures": I think that you confer undue influence upon such people!

Interesting snippet on the BBC webpage.

"MPs will not get to vote on how Brexit negotiations are handled but could still be asked to approve the "final" deal, a government source has said"

This makes good sense and failed idiots like Clegg and Milliband and delusional Labour and the Green idiots, should have no say during the actual negotiations.

As long as the people whom you mentioned remain MPs, they will have - and indeed be entitled to have - as much say in what happens as any other UK MPs.

That the matter might not be put to Parliamentary vote would be a disastrous abnegation of due democratic Parliamentary process, so one can only hope that ways be found to stall progress on it until that has indeed occurred; should Parliament then vote in favour of proceeding with Brexit, then so be it.

That said, for Parliament not to have a say in approving the "final deal" would be even more absurd, especially if, as is far from unlikely, that "deal" would be "no deal".

The Tories should call a General Election immediately in which they will get a much greater majority and wipe the lefties off the face of British politics.

But Ms May, in whom you place such faith, has stated that she has no intention of calling such an election; indeed, at present, her intent is to go full term. On what grounds would you support a snap General Election in contradiction of the PM's wishes?

Even were such an election to be called in the near future, the likelihood of its resulting in a landslide Tory majority looks very small indeed, especially given the fundemantal divisions within each party; perhaps recognition of this vital fact is what influences her to refrain from calling one.

In any event, were "the lefties" - by which I can only presume you to mean members of every other party besides the Tories and UKIP - to be "wiped off the face of British politics", what do you suppose government would do for an opposition? Such a situation, in the highly unlikely event that it were to pertain, would effectively amount to an elected dictatorship; what price "democracy" then?

What I think that you also overlook here is that the outcome of the opinion poll in June was as much a protest against the establishment as anything else; the widespread and increasing distrust of politicians of all hues and of political process was undoubtedly behind what occurred.

The government of the day held a referendum but, in overtly declaring its support for the Remain side, put some £10m of our money where its mouth was on pro-Remain marketing; nevertheless, a tiny minority of the distrustful and disillusioned electorate protested against this and voted to defy the government position, hence the outcome of that opinion poll.

Many who voted on each side and quite a few who abstained were at the very least annoyed that the government's cynical marketing exercise conveniently omitted mention of the fact that the referendum on which it spent taxpayers' funds was not even legally binding.

The possibility of predicting the outcome of future General Elections is thus severely compromised.

As to "Brexit will happen", it remains uncertain what form it might take (if any) and will continue to be so at least until the very last word of negotiations (should they commence) has been uttered / written - in other words, several years down the line if indeed it ever gets to the finishing line.

The various Court cases are just a drop in the ocean of things that might fall apart over Brexit - an ocean that includes but is by no means limited to the state of the UK pound, interest rate decreases throughout EU and their effect on all EU member states' economies, the outcome of next year's elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands, whether Parliament gets involved in voting for or against anything to do with Brexit at any stage and the progress or otherwise of any negotiations should they commence.

What must be recognised at all times is that the uncharted waters into which going forward with Brexit will take the whole of EU but especially UK (there is, after all, no precedent for an EU member state leaving EU) are ones in which UK could lose its way or indeed drown at any moment.

What's also vital to remember is that Brexit should not ultimately be ratified if the deal on the table following the close of all negotiations is deemed by the government of the day (which ever one that might be) to be unduly disadvantageous to UK; going ahead with it in such circumstances would likely cause a national riot. Even you stated that you would favour ditching Brexit at that stage and in such circumstances - and you were of course quite right to do so.

It also remains (sorry!) the case that many MPs of all parties except UKIP - i.e. not just those whom you indiscriminately describe as "lefties" - favoured Remain and it is likely that most if not all of those who did so still do so.

So, whilst at one point you assert that "Brexit will happen", at several others you far more wisely urge readers to "wait and see", recognising as you do that the only thing that appears to be certain right now is uncertainty.

Incidentally (given that this is a piano forum!), I have yet to encounter a single professional musician, either in UK or elsewhere, who has anything other than fears about and disdain and contempt for Brexit.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am so glad you are not part of the negotiations. It would take a hundred years.

Thak

[thalbergmad]

Incidentally (given that this is a piano forum!), I have yet to encounter a single professional musician, either in UK or elsewhere, who has anything other than fears about and disdain and contempt for Brexit.

Perhaps because you only speak to leftie idiots. Anyone who shows contempt for Brexit shows contempt for democracy.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am so glad you are not part of the negotiations.

So am I, for that matter, although I have no idea why you write this because there's no way in which I could possibly have been involved in them; I'm not an MP, MEP, senior government civil servant or anything else of the kind.

It would take a hundred years.

It would take nothing of the kind. Had it been down to me, were I PM, I would either not have had the subject raised in the form of a manifesto promise in the first place and, even if I had done so, I would without question have made unequivocally clear that it would be raised and debated in Parliament where a decision would become law rather than put it to an opinion poll in the form of an in/out referendum where it need not do so because the outcome would not be legally binding and therefore not have the endorsement of Parliament that is possible only when due Parliamentary process has been followed.

If on the other hand I had become PM following a General Election that took place after the opinion poll had been held and its result made known, I could simply have scrapped it altogether but I would instead have ensured that the matter be properly debated in Parliament and then accepted the result of a vote following this even if it were for Brexit.

Arranging, holding and voting following a debate of this kind wouldn't even take 100 days, let alone as many years!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Perhaps because you only speak to leftie idiots.

No; because I speak and write to, as well as hear from and of, professional musicians and the views of all of which I am aware are unanimously in favour of UK remaining within EU.

For one thing, you merely describe people here as "idiots" because they happen not to share your view on Brexit, not because they actually are "idiots"; for another, you ignore the facts that
(a) by no means all of those who supported Remain were/are "lefties" and
(b) by no means all of those who supported Leave were of right-wing disposition.

Anyone who shows contempt for Brexit shows contempt for democracy.

When one considers how the possibility of Brexit came about - i.e. by means of the outcome of a non-legally binding opinion poll rather than by legitimate democratic Parliamentary debate and vote - it is abundantly clear that the only "contempt for democracy" that pertains here is in the manner in which the matter was handled.

What on earth is the point of having - that's to say electing and paying for - a Parliament to debate and vote on and make (and repeal) laws if something as important as this can instead be thrown to the wolves of non-binding referenda? To me, that constitutes abnegation of Parliamentary responsibility of the worst kind, committed by the very Parliamentarians whom we elect and for whom we pay.

It's important to distinguish between the subject matter and the methodology. OK, I supported Remain and still do, not least because I do not wish to have my European citizenship withdrawn from me against my will, but then I accept that some people voted Remain, some Leave and some abstained; each member of the electorate had the option of doing any one of those three things.

However had the matter been debated and voted on in Parliament and had that vote favoured Brexit, I would, albeit with great reluctance, have accepted this outcome because it had been reached in the same democratic manner as is the case with any other law.

In sum, then, whilst I regret the outcome of the opinion poll, had the same outcome instead arisen from proper Parliamentary debate, I would have accepted "the will of the people's Parliament" even though I disagree with that view. After all, one could always hope that, following a future General Election, the matter could be reversed in any case, especially as hardly anyone in the remainder of EU wanted/wants UK to leave; I'm sure that Parliamentarians of all parties and of all views on Brexit would accept that fact in principle.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

After all, one could always hope that, following a future General Election, the matter could be reversed in any case, especially as hardly anyone in the remainder of EU wanted/wants UK to leave

Hardly anyone, what a moronic thing to suggest. Don't tell me, you have been in correspondence with musicians all over Europe and none wants us to leave. The politicians might not want us to leave, as it is a gravy train for failures and they need our money to waste on their pathetic projects, but I wonder what the European people think??

I know a few that hope they get the chance to leave as well, and one of them is a rabid leftie.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

However had the matter been debated and voted on in Parliament and had that vote favoured Brexit, I would, albeit with great reluctance, have accepted this outcome because it had been reached in the same democratic manner as is the case with any other law.

I somehow doubt that you would ever accept it.

It was a referendum and did not and does not need to be voted on in Parliament. People vote for politicians and people voted to leave the EU. It is their duty to carry out the will of the majority.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hardly anyone, what a moronic thing to suggest. Don't tell me, you have been in correspondence with musicians all over Europe and none wants us to leave. The politicians might not want us to leave, as it is a gravy train for failures and they need our money to waste on their pathetic projects, but I wonder what the European people think??

By "hardly anyone" I refer, of couse, to politicans, captains of industry and other in positions of influence. As to musicians, I have spoken to and heard from many and all of them support Remain. By the "European people" I presume you to mean other European people outside UK; I cannot speak for them all any more than anyone else can, but had there been a strong will within the remainder of EU for UK to leave, we'd surely have heard about it long before now.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I somehow doubt that you would ever accept it.

It was a referendum and did not and does not need to be voted on in Parliament. People vote for politicians and people voted to leave the EU. It is their duty to carry out the will of the majority.

I would accept that, had the issue been properly debated in Parliament and a vote for Brexit resulted, I would indeed have accepted it, albeit with great reluctance, as I stated; that doesn't mean that I'd agree with it and, in any event, I would possibly have the get-out clause of applying for dual UK / Scottish nationality should Scotland vote to leave UK following invocation of Article 50, but I do realise that not everyone has that available to them as a means to retain their EU citizenship.

"People vote for politicians", indeed - but why? They vote for them in order that they be represented by them in Parliament by means of contributing to debate, vote and the passage and repeal of laws in a democratic manner.

The problem here, however, is that a majority of politicans favoured - and no doubt still do favour - Remain. The obvious corollary of that is that "the people" voted in the General Election for far more Remain supporting MPs than they did for Leave supporting ones. You can surely see that division between what elected members of Parliament support and what the opinion poll resulted in! This is one aspect of it that illustrates the anti-establishment attitude that helped to fuel the referendum result.

If you still believe that, despite this division, the referendum was democratic, it must follow that you consider Parliament and its procedures to be less than democratic!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If parliament does not represent the will of the people, it is not democratic.

When I voted for an MP, it did not even come into the equation whether he/she was remain or leave. Had I known, it would have been irrelevant as I would have voted Tory anyway.

Thal

[ahinton]

If parliament does not represent the will of the people, it is not democratic.

When I voted for an MP, it did not even come into the equation whether he/she was remain or leave. Had I known, it would have been irrelevant as I would have voted Tory anyway.

OK, so if the majority of MPs support/ed Remain but a tiny majority of those who voted in the referendum didn't, what does that tell you about the representation of the people by MPs? If it tells you that Parliament is or at least can show itself to be less than democratic, why would you support a government that lauched a referendum on UK's EU membership knowing that its result would have no legal validity and declare its allegiance to Remain by funding a marketing campaign in support of it?

What, then, would you do about Parliament? If it were scrapped or even undermined on the alleged grounds of its undemocratic nature, UK could not leave EU because, even were Parliament to decide against debating and voting on that issue, only Parliament can invoke Article 50!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Oh dear, you are struggling with the basics.

Thal

[ahinton]

Oh dear, you are struggling with the basics.

I'm struggling with nothing whatsoever to do with this but, as industries with bases in UK prepare to leave and relocate all or parts of their operations outside UK, you should perhaps direct your concerns at them instead.

In the meantime, here's the latest fate of the UK pound against other currencies:

GBP/EUR   1.09615    1.09712    1.11162   1.09162   -0.0120    -1.08%    23:00:21   
GBP/USD   1.21178    1.21294    1.2351   1.20797   -0.0226    -1.83%    23:00:21   
GBP/AED   4.4488    4.4513    4.5344   4.4437   -0.0821    -1.81%    23:00:03   
GBP/AUD   1.60736    1.60833    1.63285   1.60302   -0.0171    -1.05%    23:00:20   
GBP/CAD   1.6063    1.60752    1.62698   1.60188   -0.0194    -1.19%    23:00:23   
GBP/CHF   1.19806    1.19875    1.21571   1.19558   -0.0144    -1.19%    23:00:24   
GBP/JPY   125.497    125.533    128.37   124.706   -2.5270    -1.97%    23:00:21   
GBP/NZD   1.71761    1.719    1.74508   1.71293   -0.0142    -0.82%    23:00:19   

Not all down to the threat of Brexit, of course, but certainly influenced thereby - and I don't believe that all of these currency manipulators are "Guardian reading lefties".

Earlier today, the pound was down to a little over €1.09. Whatever opportunities an increasingly weak pound might offer to other countries purchasing from UK, the fact remains that UK itself is in for inflation as it's not seen it for some time, due largely to the increasing cost of imports including but by no means limited to food and energy. Once UK interest rates fall below 0%, this will undoubtedly worsen.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh dear, you are struggling with the basics.

And you are doing what, precisely?

Since you linked to the BBC news website, try this for size:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308

Has that site now suddenly morphed intoa "lefty hippie" one, by chance?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

HAHA, everyone with a brain knows the left leaning BBC are anti Brexit.

You are funny.

Thal