Jump to content

The_godfather

Members
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by The_godfather

  1. What do you mean, what price Dave? Surely you should be the one to tell us that? With all these benefits being gained from Brexit, it would be a pretty heavy price indeed I'm sure, maybe you could elaborate. We'd lose our sovereignty for sure. The golden goose. The will of the people. We'd have to start kow-towing to Brussels. Who knows where it could end - prawn cocktail crisps, bananas, German manufacturing. We'd lose out on the 0.07% GDP boost from the Japanese FTA too. The shoemakers of Northern England would be devastated.
  2. RB, I only have 24hrs in a day, so unfortunately I just don't have time to rebut line by line the ill-informed nonsense that you continue to put on here, whatever the best intentions are. I do actually appreciate that you continue to try and piece together some sort of argument, even as I find it within it as many holes as the A500. It wasn't a tactic. I picked the central point of your post/argument to refute. If you would like me to elaborate on it, I will do so. No issue in relation to the content of your copy and paste. No issue in relation to acknowledgment that Clause 38 of the WAB does indeed state that Parliament is 'sovereign'. The key word in that paste is "notwithstanding" - it's doing a lot of heavy lifting. It means "even though". It's a posthumous addition of 'sovereignty'. The Withdrawal Agreement was already signed. The terms were agreed upon, deemed 'oven ready' indeed. Even though we signed it and agreed to it, we've decided internally after that we can just override it and change it. Our law is now incompatible, and we can do what we like. Flip it 180 degrees. The UK agree something, anything with someone, anyone. Then after, the other party internally decide - "well, look even though we've signed it, we've decided to change our mind". You'd be screaming bloody murder. How dare they? It's enshrined in law, blah blah blah. Go further. What's the point in having any kind of agreement, for anything? We'll just override the bit we don't like, we're sovereign don't you know? It's a graceless, limited argument. Even if you win the battle, so what? The war will be lost. In short, you cannot argue in good conscience, only in bad, that breaking the law is somehow a matter of choice based on culture. You cannot then, as evidence to back that up, say - "look Germany are doing it, you're not mentioning that!" (OK, I will do so. Germany break law. Germany bad. EU not punish Germany for break law. EU bad. Do you feel better now?) In particular, you cannot, to back your point up, cite as evidence a couple of especially poor supposed examples of this. First example Your first link to the Spectator article was written by a lawyer. While he says that Germany broke international law, and the EU have not yet done anything about it, he also says the following: 1) "There are endless examples of breaches of international law by the 193 nations. The UK is, rightly, one of the good guys. It is my view that the solution is to simply copy Germany. Germany’s constitution puts international law on the highest footing – at least expressly, because if I am right and ours moves to copy it them then ours will too." 2) In the associated, linked Spectator article (yes, I do the reading!), Britain should back the EU in the argument, not Germany. Why? Because "...what matters is that EU law is part of the international legal order. Honouring it is as important as honouring any other international treaty. Nobody in Britain should split here along any political fault line other than support for international law." Are we getting it? A lawyer says we should support the EU, and copy Germany. So far, so good. In addition, this example is just a bad one. I'm sure there are better ones. It relates to a legal ruling in Germany, from their court, relating to the European Central Bank's public sector purchase programme. It does not compare well to a very obvious and partisan political manoeuvre to try and escape from a deal that you yourself have negotiated, agreed, not properly ratified. Second example The second article you linked to refers to a 2015 report on cross border bribery. It specifically states that Germany is 1 of the 4 countries, along with the UK, that come out BEST. Did you read it? So, to return to your post: "I think we all know what is happening here... ...A bunch of people who don't care about international law suddenly care about international law because they think it harms brexit. It is a similar pattern of mud slinging, next week it will be something else and this heinous "illegality" will be completely forgotten about." Actually this is the literal opposite of what is happening. What is happening is that a bunch of people who care about international law (i.e embodied by a transnational, rules based organization such as, say, the EU), continue to care about it, and are advocating sticking to it, because they think it harms Britain, its integrity, its reputation to ignore it in such a flagrant way. And they are right! Other countries may not stop trading with the UK, but they will certainly stop working as closely with them, or trust them. Is that the Brexit dividend? And if something else comes up next week, it will probably be because next week the $hitshower in charge will find a new low to stoop to, a new/old target to blame for the latest cock-up (insert: No Deal preparation, customs, lack of trade readiness, immigrants as you see fit). Your questions: Why don't you tell me what law is sovereign in the UK, is it UK law or international law? We just had this discussion. We're sovereign baby. And who cares, really? The government don't worry about laws, so why should we? Who punishes us if we break international law? The answer is, there should be a legally enforceable mechanism overseen by a supra-responsible body with either a) mutually agreed punishments for transgressions, or b) the authority to hand out punishments. But again, what does it matter? We're sovereign, yeah! How can I hold the people who create international law, accountable? You can't now. We are not subject to international law, remember? Who creates international law? It's a co-operation between different groups. In the case of the EU, you could have voted for your democratically elected MEP to assist. It's just a shame most of them were right-wing grifters like Farage that never turned up for work while robbing a living and not actually contributing. How are you holding the current government accountable? They are laughing at you every single day for letting them do whatever the hell they want. Every. Single. Day. That must hurt a bit?
  3. Forget the hot mess of the rest of the reply, this is the key line; the emperor's new clothes. What kind of country doesn't have values, or culture that are conducive to international law? A tinpot dictatorship; an authoritarian state, a revolution? Loads of countries, apparently, only follow the law when it suits them. So on that basis, it's only fair, and reasonable that we should just pick and choose which laws we should follow, based on our values and culture; not the laws themselves. Maybe we should extend that train of thought, whereby individuals could also pick and choose which laws to break when they are not conducive to their values and culture. That seems like a sensible way to run a society.
  4. No-one is assuming that, no-one is saying that. It's clear, it's in black and white and it's agreed by both parties that a border is required. It depends on the detailed nature of what is agreed in the trade deal, which, at a high level, has already been agreed, and which the government is now pretending that it needs to change. It's only the British government that insists, contrary to the agreement (for the absence of confusion - deal, 2 parties having signed it after negotiation) in place: Goods don't need to be checked regardless of whether there is any kind of border. Magical, non-existent technology can replace established processes for customs. That points to a physical border, unless you want to get Trump's sharpie out and just draw a dotted line somewhere. That would be pretty advanced for this government. From a purely trade perspective, when you add in: a severe shortage of trained (that is to say, trained, but completely inexperienced) customs agents to fill in all the extra red tape that has been created, a lack of business knowledge, understanding and preparation because government consultation, communication and engagement is non-existent. Freight IT system that might just be ready on time, if it works and doesn't run even later. It doesn't take a superforecaster to see that it's likely to be a clusterf*ck. Who could possibly have any trust that there is any competence to deal with it? You can't culture war your way to an efficient trade system. A hard, hard rain is coming people.
  5. There's a definite Den Perry vibe to it...
  6. You clearly don't realize that this line of thinking is utterly crazy. Primarily, it's based on your bold text. Where is your evidence/source for asserting that 3rd party status was assumed and not part of any negotiation. The Sun? Telegraph? Bojo Fanclub? Even assuming that you are 100% right (which is highly unlikely), so what? The government negotiated, agreed, and signed up to a legally binding agreement. If they are so f*cking dumb that they didn't see that this could have been used against them, why did they agree to the loophole. Why didn't they 'close the loophole' back then? Because they "assumed" that the EU, that they've vilified the entire time, would act in the interests of the UK, and not themselves? I thought the UK "held all the cards"? Can "walk away"? That the EU ''need us more than we need them". There is a serious point to be made about the loss of intellectual capacity and ability through the EU managing things like negotiations. It's clearly evident in situations like this. As someone more witty than I put it, it's probably not the first time that Boris has reneged on a withdrawal agreement. And like most of the others, he'll piss off and let others deal with the fall out.
  7. Well that's clearly not true. Not going to go over old ground about 2016, it's been done to death. Are you suggesting that the 2019 election was based on people voting Conservative not for the Deal that was central to Johnson's election promise, but instead an abstract, unspoken concept of leaving that could be filled in later? Because that's just nuts.
  8. Howe has done a great job overall at Bournemouth but it's probably the right time for him to leave. They have spent a lot of money for a club of their size, and apparently are looking at potential financial difficulties. They will need to massively cut the wage bill and reshape the squad, and it makes sense to do it under a different manager/coach. It's not like Farke at Norwich who has only been there 3 years - Howe has been in place for 8 years, and this year they've gone stale. They've still got Cook, Francis, Smith, and Daniels there from years ago! Something that British coaches don't seem to do is take any time out - that seems to be more prevalent overseas. If I were him, I would take some time, get some rest (he's a workaholic by all accounts) to refresh himself, and go and learn some new skills or from other coaches. He failed in his last role away from Bournemouth, and he is still really young - young enough to still have a few more years at the top, he's clearly a decent coach. But he needs to choose his next role carefully. I wish him well, always liked Bournemouth being in the Premier League, they tried to be positive and play good football. Equally I think Bournemouth need to be careful or they will end up back in League 1 again pretty sharpish. Momentum is such a big thing, and works both ways.
  9. As an aside, the Mark ne-Francois Pas parody Twitter account is genuinely one of the best things on the whole internet, capturing through biting satire perfectly the combination of his small-man syndrome, and the daily epic stupidity of the current situation, and roping in a motley crew of characters to boot, with pictures. It's laugh out loud funny.
  10. Might as well, given the economic damage it will do - it would be appropriate. Just remember to tell people to breathe in deep lungfuls of that freedom. Taste it, savour it, enjoy it, feel it for that one day, so they have misty memories to be wistful about, like the Blitz, when they are back to their everyday lives.
  11. There is not a deal with Australia, it has just started negotiations, which are under the purview of Liz Truss, someone that shouldn't be trusted to run a cake stall at a jumble sale. Just to be clear, Australia is a country of 25 million people, who's biggest exports are mining and agriculture to Asia, and biggest imports appear to be petrol and cars. How many trade deals like that do you think it will take, just to replace what was in place previously (without even taking supposed 'growth' into account)?
  12. Send a few tins over with the TimTams and Vegemite Barry, there's a good lad.
  13. I can't see Cummings resigning, it's just not in his nature. He's not a Conservative in the party sense, they're just a vehicle for him. 50 odd Tory MP's have called for his removal - probably another 50 would be needed before it would be sizeable enough for it to be an untenable position for Johnson not to act. Maybe he will get 'furloughed' to be quietly brought back into the fold at a later date. Something else will be along shortly, the ongoing tragedy of the pandemic notwithstanding, to remove it from the front page. It's the nature of the news cycle.
  14. It's many things, but it's not stupidity Sage. (that can be found in an abundance elsewhere). It is no coincidence that it was Gove sent out this morning, and not an utter novice like Williamson (see, yesterday). Big guns were needed - there is no-one that can lie as convincingly and consistently as Gove. Truly, the man for the moment.
  15. You're right. It was the unelected bureaucrats all along that we were warned about!
  16. My 94 year old Nan has been diagnosed with Covid-19 in a care home in Kidsgrove. There are several other cases in the home. Currently, she appears to be ok, very mild symptoms. As far as I'm aware, there are no current plans to test again upcoming. I don't know if that is reflection of the home, local NHS policy, availability, or what. The only response to that can be; WTAF??
  17. It's utterly incredible really that someone could say with a straight face that it "shocked the room" and that it is also part of a pattern. These people still don't get it; they see the position, and not the person, and still think that Trump will somehow live up to that position, which he obviously never will. He's incapable, and even if he was he simply doesn't care and genuinely believes and can do or say whatever he wants so acts with impunity.
  18. Regal, I completely disagree with most of what you say, but I will continue to debate when I can. I will also continue to try and be reasonably civil, but will undoubtedly be snarky about a lot of things. I'm happy to agree that statements should be qualified. None of this debate is binary even though it gets presented that way, and often there is both a multitude of influences and nuance which is lost in the polarization of opinion. I get that and I'm often as guilty as anyone else, although I do try to be as specific as I can be deliberately - I do believe words have meaning. I'm going to split my posts, as it will get too large. I'll post something on migration in a bit. I not trying to gotcha anyone, just debate points - I asked for you to point out where I equated govt with Brexiteers in general, which is what it appears you assumed I did. If you can't, that's ok. You said that people were smearing Brexiteers. I was talking deliberately, and specifically about the government, (who are perfectly capable of smearing themselves) and not Brexit voters at large. Do you equate the two? I can distinguish a difference between Brexit voters and the government. Regarding nurses and Brexit, I genuinely don't understand your point - you seem to be confusing 2 separate points I raised, which are: 1) nurses of all nationalities left the NHS in increasing numbers since 2010, which can be linked to a lack of funding from the Conservative government resulting in increasing pressure. That's what the Telegraph article says. I did not link that to Brexit in any way, but I am quite content to link it to the Tories. How could it not be? 2) since 2016, there was a big jump in specifically EU nurses leaving the NHS. This can directly be seen as relevant to Brexit. Again, how could it not? It goes without saying, particularly on the evidence of the past 3 months, that nurses are, and should be regarded as critical. Where they are from is irrelevant. The UK can't generate and maintain enough to manage demand. The fact that the government has to make them an exception to their arbitrary new immigration rules, which are supposedly beneficial to the country, just shows a) how useless the rules are, and b) how they value nurses. In claps mainly.
  19. It's revealing how you interpret responses. But since you have, let's drill into them a bit: Firstly, can you pinpoint for me where I mentioned Brexiteers anywhere in my post please? That seems to be your biggest issue. A reference to the Brexit referendum is there, but not Brexiteers. The government is clearly referenced - am I clear in understanding that you are suggesting that the government should be regarded as Brexiteers, rather than simply the government? I thought Boris was bringing the whole country together and ruling for everyone including the red wall now? The fact that you extrapolate what I said indicates the fragility upon which you know your point rests. Secondly, your "evidence" from the Telegraph is: a) not relevant to my point - unsurprisingly, and b) undermining of other of your points. Have you actually read that article? It says 200,000 nurses have left since 2010 because the NHS is understaffed and under-resourced which impacted on their own health and wellbeing. Hmm, could we pinpoint something that happened since 2010 that might be a contributory factor to that? In the same way that could we say, for example, could we pinpoint something in 2016 that might be a contributory factor to the number of specifically EU nurses leaving jumping up afterwards? Thirdly, as regards your point about fruit pickers/low paid workers, are you actually listening to yourself?? Your argument is: Look, we want them to come here, we've expanded the positions available. Also, they can get an exemption, because it's a shortage so we need them. Do you understand why they are needed? Because there is a shortage of workers, because not enough are coming and not enough British people want or are trained for those jobs. You just posted me an article that told me 200,000 nurses have left since 2010. How the f*ck is there an uncontrolled immigration problem AND a shortage of required/low paid workers in industries where immigrants often work, at the same time? What are 200,000 former nurses doing? Here's how I imagine our conversation sounds to many people: You - foreigners will think they are not wanted if they listen to Remainers. That's a lie. Me - here is evidence the government wants to restrict foreigners from coming to our country in an elitist way, in their own words. (There are examples from different government ministers spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric, but I'll just add a quick additional Boris Johnson quote on freedom of movement, Dec 2019: “You’ve seen quite a large number of people coming in from the whole of the EU – 580 million population – able to treat the UK as though it’s basically part of their own country, and the problem with that is there has been no control at all". Apart from the fact his party had been in charge for a decade, that EU net migration rose substantially from 2012, and that it peaked at c. 190k in 2016 (a whopping 0.03% of the population Boris mentioned above) before dropping sharply - (surprise!), it may be that prospective immigrants themselves may have looked at that, and thought, "that doesn't suggest enormously to me that we are valued." Then again, it's possible that I might be wrong, maybe they have looked at the 10,000 seasonal work visas and thought - "blimey, they want loads of us on 6 month low paid contracts that clearly don't merit longer term visas because they can't fill the positions, that sounds ace." I stand to be corrected. You - that's a smear and a lie.
  20. There are too many utterly hysterical points to address in this post alone, but: As recently as Feb(?) this government introduced a new points-based system starting January 2021 with language, financial and a job offer from an "approved sponsor" as requirements. The scheme "will give top priority to those with the highest skills and the greatest talents, including scientists, engineers and academics,” the Home Office said. The same Home Office that has rejected academic A clear message to fruit pickers, health workers and social carers - 3 of the jobs in focus currently - how valued their work is. You focus on the NHS. Numbers of EU health professionals - doctors and nurses - have dropped by somewhere between 15-25,000 (full numbers seem hard to come by) since the 2016 Brexit referendum. So while people might still be coming, they're also definitively leaving in much larger numbers than they were before, hardly a clear indication of people "desperate to stay". As if they would be desperate to stay only for the work anyway, and not the life, the friends, the family that people build and grow. There's no need to listen to a "Remainer" argument. You just look at the facts.
  21. He's not arguing it's not a lie, he knows full well what it is. A clever use of language that separates 2 different things into individual sentences but makes them seem linked together. As individual sentences they can be both perfectly true, but throw them together, and they form a gross distortion. It's a classic tactic that is in use widely at the moment that is just not called out enough. As a non-government agency, even with prominent politicians in front, there was never any chance that it would happen, but it never needed to be; it wasn't a commitment in any way. It was just deliberately thrown out there to give the impression it could. It just underscores the fact that there was never a coherent plan for the people that came up with this, other than naked personal ambition. It's the malignant agendas of others that are linked in the background that people need to dig out.
  22. As horrific as many incidents have been that have involved the IRA, and in no way condoning terrorist activity, it's an unbelievably dumb thing to say, just to say something like "its in their blood". Read some history Dave. This stuff didn't start in the 1970's. If you still have questions why, by all means come back and I'd be happy to discuss with you at that point.
×
×
  • Create New...