Boris Johnson is the new Prime Minister

[Regal Beagle]

9 hours ago, TheSage said:

Dunna talk so much common sense on here Fosse. 

Clearly there is no mandate for a crash and burn Brexit by mop-head and his far right chums, and hopefully Parliament will block it and/or there will be another vote so that we can kick him out. Hopefully he will also lose his Uxbridge seat.

If we go down the worst case scenario path and endure another economic recession and things like shortages of cancer drugs (flagged up today) then I feel sure that it's only a matter of time before we see sense and reapply to join the EU once again. Young people do not want to be sold down the river and there are plenty of MPs of the centre left and centre right who will see that wisdom prevails.

The lunatics are running the asylum at present but their freedom will be short lived. 

 

To be fair we could reapply in a few years and not be a net contributor because our economy will have tanked that hard, according to you.

In the real world, we'll be ok, the eurosceptic countries will see us being ok and also want to leave. The EU collapses.

A trade union is created in its place.

[TheSage]

5 hours ago, Aussie Rules said:

I suppose it depends on one's view of contemporary populism. If we agree that an authoritarian form of politics lead by a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his/her own power at the expense of Party politics then yes - populism in Australia currently haunts us. 

Interesting. I have to say, as in the UK, you hint at some unsavoury elements in that synopsis but we know how history tends to repeat itself and go round in circles.

I can't argue too much (although I will!) with the referendum result here. It was a narrow win for the leavers. It was originally a consultative operation and if you check the records of Parliament advisory in nature, but all the parties, anxious for votes, wanted to jump on the bandwagon and said they'd implement the result and sort out Article 50. I get all that. 

However, since 2016, we have learned a lot about dirty money, misleading and at times quite shameful propaganda based on nationalism and immigration, illegal use of people's on-line profiles, and so on, that makes me seriously question what truthfully went on. Others will cry sour grapes and sore losers and what a load of codswallop (Fake news!) but there is undoubtedly a lot of issues surrounding the legitimacy of the vote that I've never come across before in any election in this country, going back to the fifties.  

And no-one will convince me that there is an overwhelming mandate for No deal that is already costing us billions in preparation to mitigate an event of self harm, entirely of the government's own choosing. Johnson gets elected PM on less than 0.01% of the popular vote, including 15 year olds. And now he can try and railroad through this most extreme and divisive policy. The vote was to leave. No one voted on how we'd leave and no one knew the ramifications back then. Which is why we need perhaps another consultation exercise, just as we would all do if we were having a serious operation. Before theatre we have to give our consent for a second time. 

If it was a minor thing and had little impact then it wouldn't matter. But with such a tumultuous political, social and economic earthquake in the offing, then a 52:48 result is simply not convincing enough to claim that it is the will of the people. Remember that no-one under 18 could vote (they did in the Scottish referendum). Most ex-pats working and living in the EU could not vote (over 1 million). And no EU citizens living and paying taxes in the UK could not vote, a lot of them having lived here for over 20 years. If you're a suspicious person you might wonder why these three groups were excluded from voting.

So we have around 37% of those allowed to vote who voted to leave - in some non specified, shape or form. There was no threshold whatsoever. The government will not allow a union to strike unless it gets over 40% share of the vote. But we can leave the EU with as little as 37%. 

Had the vote been say 80:20 or 70:30, or if some of the groups mentioned had been allowed to cast a vote, then we could all accept and acknowledge (me included) that most people did indeed vote for this shambles and upheaval. But they didn't.

 

[TheSage]

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

To be fair we could reapply in a few years and not be a net contributor because our economy will have tanked that hard, according to you.

In the real world, we'll be ok, the eurosceptic countries will see us being ok and also want to leave. The EU collapses.

A trade union is created in its place.

Don't be silly. I've never said that but it's crystal clear now that if we left with No Deal our economy will take a hit, a big one. The Bank of England reckon a 1 in 3 chance of recession. Esquire Mogg said it might take 50 years to reap the benefits. Well I won't be around to see many of them. Do you not listen to the news each day?

Your failure to recognise the facts alarms me. For the umpteenth time, membership of the EU has been an outstanding success story. GDP up, better than Germany or France. Inward investment massively up. Sterling up. Trade up. Tens of thousands of businesses based here to get access to the single market. 1000 Japanese firms are not here for the weather. Most of our trade back and forth is with the EU. 3 million jobs are linked to the EU. Crucial workers like those in the NHS come from the EU, including 300 at North Staffs. The numbers coming here now have dropped like a stone. 

Only yesterday the boss of BMW was telling mop-head that he might pull production of the mini in Brum if there isn't a deal. 

These are all facts but ones you choose to ignore.

[Aussie Rules]

39 minutes ago, TheSage said:

Interesting. I have to say, as in the UK, you hint at some unsavoury elements in that synopsis but we know how history tends to repeat itself and go round in circles.

I can't argue too much (although I will!) with the referendum result here. It was a narrow win for the leavers. It was originally a consultative operation and if you check the records of Parliament advisory in nature, but all the parties, anxious for votes, wanted to jump on the bandwagon and said they'd implement the result and sort out Article 50. I get all that. 

However, since 2016, we have learned a lot about dirty money, misleading and at times quite shameful propaganda based on nationalism and immigration, illegal use of people's on-line profiles, and so on, that makes me seriously question what truthfully went on. Others will cry sour grapes and sore losers and what a load of codswallop (Fake news!) but there is undoubtedly a lot of issues surrounding the legitimacy of the vote that I've never come across before in any election in this country, going back to the fifties.  

And no-one will convince me that there is an overwhelming mandate for No deal that is already costing us billions in preparation to mitigate an event of self harm, entirely of the government's own choosing. Johnson gets elected PM on less than 0.01% of the popular vote, including 15 year olds. And now he can try and railroad through this most extreme and divisive policy. The vote was to leave. No one voted on how we'd leave and no one knew the ramifications back then. Which is why we need perhaps another consultation exercise, just as we would all do if we were having a serious operation. Before theatre we have to give our consent for a second time. 

If it was a minor thing and had little impact then it wouldn't matter. But with such a tumultuous political, social and economic earthquake in the offing, then a 52:48 result is simply not convincing enough to claim that it is the will of the people. Remember that no-one under 18 could vote (they did in the Scottish referendum). Most ex-pats working and living in the EU could not vote (over 1 million). And no EU citizens living and paying taxes in the UK could not vote, a lot of them having lived here for over 20 years. If you're a suspicious person you might wonder why these three groups were excluded from voting.

So we have around 37% of those allowed to vote who voted to leave - in some non specified, shape or form. There was no threshold whatsoever. The government will not allow a union to strike unless it gets over 40% share of the vote. But we can leave the EU with as little as 37%. 

Had the vote been say 80:20 or 70:30, or if some of the groups mentioned had been allowed to cast a vote, then we could all accept and acknowledge (me included) that most people did indeed vote for this shambles and upheaval. But they didn't.

Nick, to the day I cross over I will never understand how the good folk of the UK were conned, yes conned, to simply vote Leave or Remain. The mind boggles. I remember thinking at the time of the Referendum that it was akin to giving a packet of aspirin to a patient needing a heart operation.

  

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Aussie Rules said:

Nick, to the day I cross over I will never understand how the good folk of the UK were conned, yes conned, to simply vote Leave or Remain. The mind boggles. I remember thinking at the time of the Referendum that it was akin to giving a packet of aspirin to a patient needing a heart operation.

  

I think Barry it (brexit) was meant as a rhetorical question so any additional questions or information were superfluous to the expected result..... it was a question that had been promised so had to be asked but the answer was assumed and assured.... until it happened.

[Heatwave]

Boris was made Prime Minister on 24th July.

The shortest ever tenure of a British Prime Minister is 119 days (George Canning).

24th July plus 119 days is 20th November.

Can anyone see Boris lasting that long?

[geosname]

23 minutes ago, Heatwave said:

Boris was made Prime Minister on 24th July.

The shortest ever tenure of a British Prime Minister is 119 days (George Canning).

24th July plus 119 days is 20th November.

Can anyone see Boris lasting that long?

Yes

[Aussie Rules]

42 minutes ago, Heatwave said:

Boris was made Prime Minister on 24th July.

The shortest ever tenure of a British Prime Minister is 119 days (George Canning).

24th July plus 119 days is 20th November.

Can anyone see Boris lasting that long?

Touch and go - his mob have just lost a seat in a by-election.

[For Us All]

16 hours ago, TheSage said:

Dunna talk so much common sense on here Fosse. 

Clearly there is no mandate for a crash and burn Brexit by mop-head and his far right chums, and hopefully Parliament will block it and/or there will be another vote so that we can kick him out. Hopefully he will also lose his Uxbridge seat.

If we go down the worst case scenario path and endure another economic recession and things like shortages of cancer drugs (flagged up today) then I feel sure that it's only a matter of time before we see sense and reapply to join the EU once again. Young people do not want to be sold down the river and there are plenty of MPs of the centre left and centre right who will see that wisdom prevails.

The lunatics are running the asylum at present but their freedom will be short lived. 

 

See sense and reapply to join up,you're having a laugh?

It seems that young people in Europe have already been sold down the river judging by the unemployment figures.You may find that all the lunatics are in Brussels and don't have a plan to solve this issue,so we certainly don't want to follow their example.

Probably why it's never mentioned and brushed under the carpet.

[Fosse69]

51 minutes ago, For Us All said:

See sense and reapply to join up,you're having a laugh?

It seems that young people in Europe have already been sold down the river judging by the unemployment figures.You may find that all the lunatics are in Brussels and don't have a plan to solve this issue,so we certainly don't want to follow their example.

Probably why it's never mentioned and brushed under the carpet.

Define employment and unemployment across the EU if you want to quote figures.

[For Us All]

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

Define employment and unemployment across the EU if you want to quote figures.

I see where you are coming from.

Employment in the EU is defined for groups between the ages of 20-64,youth unemployment in the EU is defined between the ages 15-24,whereas in the UK it's taken from a slightly lesser sized group 16-24.

The latest figures show that UK youth unemployment rate was 10.4%,compared to 14.4% for the EU as a whole.

Italy and Spain's youth employment figures were both over 30%.

 

[Regal Beagle]

7 hours ago, TheSage said:

Don't be silly. I've never said that but it's crystal clear now that if we left with No Deal our economy will take a hit, a big one. The Bank of England reckon a 1 in 3 chance of recession. Esquire Mogg said it might take 50 years to reap the benefits. Well I won't be around to see many of them. Do you not listen to the news each day?

Your failure to recognise the facts alarms me. For the umpteenth time, membership of the EU has been an outstanding success story. GDP up, better than Germany or France. Inward investment massively up. Sterling up. Trade up. Tens of thousands of businesses based here to get access to the single market. 1000 Japanese firms are not here for the weather. Most of our trade back and forth is with the EU. 3 million jobs are linked to the EU. Crucial workers like those in the NHS come from the EU, including 300 at North Staffs. The numbers coming here now have dropped like a stone. 

Only yesterday the boss of BMW was telling mop-head that he might pull production of the mini in Brum if there isn't a deal. 

These are all facts but ones you choose to ignore.

"it's crystal clear now that if we left with No Deal our economy will take a hit, a big one."

So the Bank of England reckon a 2 in 3 chance of avoiding recession?

For the umpteenth time, membership of the EU has been an outstanding success story.

Who exactly are you arguing with? I don't know who is denying that? We're talking about the future and you are obsessed with the past. I thought it was a <ovf censored> remainer lie that brexiters are obsessed with the past?

Your failure to recognise the facts alarms me.

Delusional.

For the umpteenth time, membership of the EU has been an outstanding success story. GDP up, better than Germany or France.

It will possibly be even better in 10 years time when we're out of the customs union.

Inward investment massively up. Sterling up. Trade up.

It will possibly be even better in 10 years time when we're out of the customs union.

Tens of thousands of businesses based here to get access to the single market.

How many businesses will be based here when we can set our own policies and trade deals with whoever we want?

1000 Japanese firms are not here for the weather.

So? I honestly could not give a <ovf censored> about Japanese firms and they should f*** right off getting involved in telling us what we should and shouldn't do. That's exactly what we voted against.

Most of our trade back and forth is with the EU. 3 million jobs are linked to the EU.

We can still trade with the EU when we're outside it?

Crucial workers like those in the NHS come from the EU, including 300 at North Staffs. The numbers coming here now have dropped like a stone. 

Crucial workers like those in the NHS come from outside of the EU too, yet they will find it much more difficult to get into the country. Those numbers have not dropped like a stone.

Also, brexit would mean we could actually allow more EU citizens in if we wanted to do so.

Only yesterday the boss of BMW was telling mop-head that he might pull production of the mini in Brum if there isn't a deal. 

He might? I might win the lottery.

[Fosse69]

52 minutes ago, For Us All said:

I see where you are coming from.

Employment in the EU is defined for groups between the ages of 20-64,youth unemployment in the EU is defined between the ages 15-24,whereas in the UK it's taken from a slightly lesser sized group 16-24.

The latest figures show that UK youth unemployment rate was 10.4%,compared to 14.4% for the EU as a whole.

Italy and Spain's youth employment figures were both over 30%.

 

No not really, although some sources show UK ages as 18-24, my main scepticism  is  what constitutes employment in the UK especially with the under 25s.

[For Us All]

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

No not really, although some sources show UK ages as 18-24, my main scepticism  is  what constitutes employment in the UK especially with the under 25s.

Well I should imagine that anybody who is 16 years and over is classified as an employee if they do the required minimum number of hours work which they signed up to do.

[TheSage]

Context is everything.

Simply taking unemployment figures for young people across Europe and claiming that this automatically means that the EU isn't working productively isn't fair. It's one small aspect of the whole and not a major factor among very many variables.

I agree the stats are disappointing. We need to do better. But the way they are calculated will produce some variation in the figures. I hope everyone on here realises that as long as you work for as little as 60 minutes a week in the UK you are deemed employed and not part of the unemployment figures. Every country collects data slightly differently. But, yes, I agree, those figures you quote are disappointing which is why the EU is putting aside tens of billions to target young people. 

Youth employment is of course primarily the responsibility of member states. We control our own fiscal policies.

That said, you were selective with your figures and deliberately chose the worst ones to back up your argument. There are 6-7 countries where the rate isn't in double figures but you missed them off. 

Far more significant is what I've posted before and these are the facts that prove to us that since 73 our annual GDP growth rate has been higher than in France or Germany. About 2.4% higher each year than would otherwise have occurred. 3 million jobs are linked to the single market. Inward investment into the UK has boomed - principally because we have access to the single market. I don't know why all these things are not hard to accept. Why don't you quote those examples of astonishing economic growth?

Context is all important. Selecting a piece of evidence in isolation like that means very little. We agree it could and should be better but that lone example doesn't mean that the EU has not been a success overall. All the major economic indicators between 1973 and 2016 prove it. 19/20 academic/university economists will say the same. It's disingenuous not to recognise the enormous benefits we've enjoyed.

Maybe you can't remember the fact that we spent 15 years trying to get in precisely because our economic growth had stalled and "we'd missed the bus" in the fifties/sixties