You think you've got problems America...

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think you've missed my point, the police and army are interchangable and subject to the same hierarchy and so too the laws of that hierarchy. 

Not in the UK. The army and the police are separate and have different functions. In some countries like Italy or France, the police (or some of the police) are a part of the army.

The role of the legislature (which includes the courts and the police) is to uphold the laws of the country. This is, quite rightly, separate from and independent of the executive and the legislature.

The laws are created by government and parliament, together. In the UK, parliament is sovereign. The government can suggest legislation, but it is decided by parliament. The government does not have power or the right to overrule parliament. Nor, as we have seen, to close it down so that parliament is not able to scrutinise and control the government.

So, I take it that your cryptic comment "police means city" is somehow supposed to mean that you disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court? Have you read the judgment and considered the case law they cite? Can you point out the flaws in their reasoning? (It looks pretty compelling to me.)

(Also, the cases heard by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Brexit. Just the relative power of the government and parliament.)

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, I take it that your cryptic comment "police means city" is somehow supposed to mean that you disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court? 

Not at all, the supreme court is the sole arbiter of our pronunciation despite my protestation, my point is, that can and has changed,, like any constitution with an amendment. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Not at all, the supreme court is the sole arbiter of our pronunciation despite my protestation, my point is, that can and has changed,, like any constitution with an amendment. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsKJYWsBJCA

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Not at all, the supreme court is the sole arbiter of our pronunciation 

This is complete unadulterated gibberish. And irrelevant.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Strange

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Police just means city, unless I'm pronouncing it wrong.

You're thinking of the word origin, 'polis', the greek city states.

Policy, Politics, Politician, are some other words with the same origin.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Police just means city, unless I'm pronouncing it wrong.

No, though they have got the same linguistic root.

So has "politician".
And your pronunciation is not the issue.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think you've missed my point, the police and army are interchangable and subject to the same hierarchy and so too the laws of that hierarchy. 

Those who decide on pronunciation also decide its meaning.

And by way of illustration...

 

It's easy to fuck a sheep, but if you want to fuck a moose you'd better have a plan.

Why illustrate dishonesty?
It's not as if anyone here is unaware of the concept.

Incidentally, in the UK the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen- not the government or the people.

The police are controlled and funded locally.

If they were on opposite sides there's no doubt who would win.

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not at all, the supreme court is the sole arbiter of our pronunciation despite my protestation, my point is, that can and has changed,, like any constitution with an amendment. 

We don't have a constitution.

It might work better if you talked about things you actually know about.

[mistermack]

There's a load of old bull spoken and written about what we voted for in the referendum. Remainers bang on that we didn't vote for "no deal".

I actually was right on the fence on the day of the referendum. I simply couldn't pick a side, it was too close, so I abstained.  But I know fully well what we were voting for. 

The ballot paper said, to paraphrase " do you want to leave the EU, or remain in it? "       And that was it. There was nothing about deals. 

Basically, everybody who voted knew full well what that meant. If we vote leave, we leave, and it's understood by all that the terms of leaving are the best that can be negotiated at the time, by the government of the time. If no deal is the best we can get, that's what we voted for. If some deal acceptable to parliament is negotiated, THAT'S what we voted for. 

We simply voted to leave, and the conditions are whatever deal can be done. 

Right now, there is NO DEAL on offer that parliament will accept, so no deal it is. The referendum vote covered that scenario. The duty of any current government is to leave, and it should never have taken this long. That's the real disgrace of it.

Deals don't take years, unless one or both parties don't want a deal. In this case, the EU don't want our deal, and Parliament doesn't want the EU's deal. So no deal it is.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

The ballot paper said, to paraphrase " do you want to leave the EU, or remain in it? "       And that was it. There was nothing about deals. 

Possibly. Except the idea of leaving without a deal was never raised. All the leave campaigners promised an easy deal; that the UK would stay in the single market after leaving the EU, etc (even though that is obviously impossible).

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

The duty of any current government is to leave

The duty of a government is to do what is best for the country. They do not have to be bound by the meaningless promises of a previous PM who ran away when things didn't go his way.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Deals don't take years, unless one or both parties don't want a deal. In this case, the EU don't want our deal, and Parliament doesn't want the EU's deal.

The EU are happy with the deal they agreed with the UK government. Not completely happy, because they had to make at least one major compromise. The UK parliament then decided to walk away from the deal that the government had agreed to. Mainly because people in favour of Brexit repeatedly voted against it. Strange days.

A sensible government would have decided what they wanted from Brexit, and a plan for achieving it, before making the Article 50 notification.

A sensible government would have flexibility about "red lines" in order to make a deal that was acceptable to Parliament.

Instead, the government has used increasingly polarising language and tactics, that has made Brexiters move from "we could leave with a deal like Norway or Switzerland" to saying that a deal like that is completely unacceptable and that only leaving without a deal is "really" leaving.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Strange
spelling

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

A sensible government would have flexibility about "red lines" in order to make ideal that was acceptable to Parliament.

What deal would that be? 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What deal would that be? 

I guess we will never know now, because the increasingly divisive attitudes probably make any such deal impossible.

But, for example, leave campaigners were originally promoting something like the EEA to remain in the single market, etc. And that is close to what Labour are still arguing for. That would probably have been acceptable to quite a few Remain voters, as a way of maintaining most of the advantages of EU membership.

But now Leavers say it isn't "really" Brexit.

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

But now Leavers say it isn't "really" Brexit.

They've always said that. If you remain in the single market, you HAVE to obey it's rules. Both sides agreed, in the referendum debate, that leaving meant leaving the single market. If you don't leave that, there's no point in leaving at all.

Like it or not, it was the free movement of labour that the public voted against in their millions. That was number one on the list. There  would have been public outrage, if we had "left" but still kept that.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

They've always said that. If you remain in the single market, you HAVE to obey it's rules. Both sides agreed, in the referendum debate, that leaving meant leaving the single market. If you don't leave that, there's no point in leaving at all.

That is not true. Before, and immediately after, the referendum pretty much all campaigners for leave said things like "we will keep all the benefits of membership", "it would be crazy to leave the single market", and so on. For example:

Michael Gove: "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone"

Daniel Hannan: "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.” (He also claimed that EU citizens would not lose any of their legal rights.)

Owen Patterson: "Only a madman would actually leave the Market"

Nigel Farage: "Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing"

Arron Banks, (Leave .EU founder): "Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK"

And so on

 

It is, of course, entirely possible to leave the EU and remain in the single market. (Whether that is what you want, is a different question.)

 

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Like it or not, it was the free movement of labour that the public voted against in their millions. That was number one on the list. There  would have been public outrage, if we had "left" but still kept that.

And yet, if you say that to many who voted leave, they say "it's not about immigration, it's about 'sovereignty'."

 

[mistermack]

There are no links for any of that, so there is no context available. 

I must say in all the discussions I remember, leaving the single market was considered fundamental to leaving. Even in discussions in the last few weeks, the same thing has been said and agreed. 

Staying in the single market is not leaving, in all but name. I fail to see the point in leaving, on those terms. It's like leaving the army, but still having to take orders and fight.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

There are no links for any of that, so there is no context available. 

Here is one source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

Quote

Staying in the single market is not leaving, in all but name. I fail to see the point in leaving, on those terms. It's like leaving the army, but still having to take orders and fight.

It is possible to stay in the single market and leave the EU. This would obviously be entirely consistent with the referendum result. As you said, the vote was to leave the EU. The way in which the UK leaves was not part of the vote.

It would have the advantage of being the least damaging way of leaving. 

 

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

It would have the advantage of being the least damaging way of leaving.

Yes, because it's not leaving. You're just giving up your EU rights, with what gain? Anyway, it's academic. There's no chance at all of that getting through Parliament. I don't think you would even get all Labour MPs to back it, let alone the Tories. And the Libs would argue, with great justification, that it would be better staying in. I can't see who would vote for it.

I personally feel that there are only two worthwhile options. Leaving fully, or staying in. What's in the middle is worth less than either.

[Strange]

Just now, mistermack said:

Yes, because it's not leaving.

Yes it is. Obviously. Switzerland is not in the EU. Norway is not in the EU.

There is no point lying about that.

Just now, mistermack said:

You're just giving up your EU rights, with what gain?

A lot of people (including leave campaigners) thought it was a good idea. 

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I personally feel that there are only two worthwhile options. Leaving fully, or staying in.

Only one of those has any value. The other just causes immense damage to the country's economy and leads to decades of further argument and attempting to negotiate trade deals with the EU and other countries (including all the ones that the UK currently has trade deals with). 

This article highlights both the blatant dishonesty of some modern politicians and that leaving without a deal is a Really Bad Idea: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49833221

Quote

when asked if Mr Gove had been told by the car industry that it was ready, replied: "No! We said we are planning as best we can, but cannot prepare for all eventualities and tariffs alone undermine our viability. We want a deal. No deal is not an option. Catastrophic."

...

"leaving without a deal is the worst possible outcome"

...

"it is impossible to completely mitigate the significant disruption which would be caused by no-deal" 

 

[mistermack]

It's funny. Years ago I used to like the idea of a United States of Europe. Then, even on referendum day, I was exactly fifty fifty for stay or leave, so I didn't vote. It's what I've seen since that has convinced me that it's better to leave. 

A United States of Europe is going to be run by dictat from Brussels, and the individual countries will have no say in anything. The countries are being slowly strangled. They might think they are doing their own thing, but they are like a struggling fish, being given a little bit of line now and then, but gradually being reeled in. If we don't leave now, it will only get harder. 

It won't do immense damage. That's just hype. WW2, that did immense damage. But we're still here. A few percentage points off growth? It's a bargain to get out. 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It won't do immense damage. That's just hype.

Does your crystal ball also tell you what tomorrow’s lottery numbers will be?

Even if you personally don’t care, saying it’s all hype is absurd. People will be hurt unnecessarily. Again, you may not care, but it will happen. 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

A United States of Europe is going to be run by dictat from Brussels, and the individual countries will have no say in anything.

There is no basis for believing that. For one thing “Brussels” is a democratic organisation run by elected representatives of the member states. Also, those member states all have a veto of changes like that. 

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It won't do immense damage.

You will, I hope, forgive me if I believe the experts in multiple industries rather than some random guy on the Internet. 

I know Michael Gove said we don’t need experts but, you know what, he’s wrong. It’s just an attempt to encourage people to think that their gut feeling and emotions are just as valid as knowledge, data and analysis. I would hope no one on a science forum, in particular, falls for that sort of populist demagoguery. 

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It won't do immense damage. That's just hype.

So, take farming for example. The govt has said that they will set import tariffs to zero to avoid the price of food going up. But, because of good old WTO rules, that will apply to imports from everywhere. This means imported lamb, for example, will be more competitive. And British farmers, who now export tariff-free to the EU and several other countries (because of trade deals) will suddenly face tariffs of 20%, 40% and even as much as 70% on some goods (from memory, so it may not be quite that high). 

The same is true for many other industries. 

Then there are the extra costs and time for bureaucracy. A lot of workers will lose a good part of their work and income. Musicians are typical: they often get work at short notice. 

“Hey Bob, can you come and play in Paris next week?”

”I’d love to but I’m not sure I can get a visa in time.”

”Oh never mind. We will get someone from one of the 27 EU countries instead”

And so it goes. 

41 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's just hype. WW2, that did immense damage.

Millions died. But I’m glad you survived and enjoyed the experience 

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

Basically, everybody who voted knew full well what that meant.

We still don't.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Does your crystal ball also tell you what tomorrow’s lottery numbers will be?

I was replying to the previous post, where Strange claimed that leaving will cause immense damage. You would know that, if you followed the thread that you were commenting on. So why not ask Strange about his crystal ball and the lottery numbers?  

 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Even if you personally don’t care, saying it’s all hype is absurd. People will be hurt unnecessarily. Again, you may not care, but it will happen.

Your post makes the ridiculous assumption that staying in will hurt nobody. Without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It's a childlike view of a black and white world. In my opinion, the choice is between two imperfect alternatives. As it nearly always is in the real world. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I was replying to the previous post, where Strange claimed that leaving will cause immense damage.

And that is based on assessments of experts in industry, agriculture, the supply chain, health, and many other sectors.

However, you did claim that this would not happen. Based on .... well, what exactly?

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Your post makes the ridiculous assumption that staying in will hurt nobody.

How can maintaining the status quo suddenly cause extra levels of harm?

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

And that is based on assessments of experts in industry, agriculture, the supply chain, health, and many other sectors.

People do take sides, you know. You can always get quotes, from people on your own side of the argument. It means nothing. 

Having said that, I don't recall any claiming immense harm. They are generally more realistic.

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

How can maintaining the status quo suddenly cause extra levels of harm?

Try asking a drowning man.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

People do take sides, you know. You can always get quotes, from people on your own side of the argument. It means nothing

This is not about "sides". This is about experts analysing the facts. You can, of course, take Michael Gove's line and disregard experts. But you have to admit, in that case, that you are basing your claims of "little harm" purely on belief and not on evidence. 

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Having said that, I don't recall any claiming immense harm. They are generally more realistic.

From the automotive industry, cited earlier: "No deal is not an option. Catastrophic."

Maybe you think "catastrophic" does not quite amount to "immense harm". 

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Try asking a drowning man.

I can't follow your logic here. Are you suggesting that people are claiming that remaining in the EU would suddenly fix all the problems the UK has?

One of the reasons so many voted for Brexit was because of problems in the poorer areas of the country: lack of jobs, low salaries, poor infrastructure, etc. None of these are caused by the EU (in fact, in many parts of the country the EU provides assistance). But people voted from a sense of dissatisfaction (and some tabloid papers like to blame problems on "others" including the EU).

So leaving the EU is not going to address any of those problems. In fact it will probably make them worse because another recession will mean more austerity and more problems for the hardest hit. Leaving with no deal will make this even worse.

The government will also be distracted by another decade or more of debate and argument as they attempt to renegotiate trade deals to replace the 50 or so they walked away from, as well as they extra ones they claim they want (USA, etc).

On the other hand, remaining in the EU would have allowed a government to focus on addressing those domestic issues that have been highlighted by Brexit. (I am not confident they would have done though.)

Maintaining the status quo would not necessarily help a drowning man (but there is more chance than when everyone is busy arguing about something else). But neither would maintaining the status quo cause anyone to start drowning.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I was replying to the previous post, where Strange claimed that leaving will cause immense damage.

Yes, and in that reply you asserted an opinion about a possible future outcome as if it were an absolute fact. Since you appear confused about this and didn't understand my response, I will confirm for you here that this is specifically where I directed my challenge.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

You would know that, if you followed the thread that you were commenting on.

Thank you for your concern and guidance. I have been following the thread. No need to be such a priss. You merely misunderstood the context of our exchange. This is why I explained it here again in this post above, but in simpler terms to make it easier for you to grasp and comprehend.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Your post makes the ridiculous assumption that staying in will hurt nobody. <...> It's a childlike view of a black and white world.

Here again, you display problems with basic reading comprehension. I made no such assumptions, nor did my post. If you need to lie about what I'm actually saying in order to make your point, then you should consider instead making better more valid points.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

In my opinion, the choice is between two imperfect alternatives. As it nearly always is in the real world. 

Agreed, which is why it's so important for all of us to avoid sharing personal opinions about what MIGHT happen in the future is it's already confirmed and accepted fact. Strange is correct. Everyone who studies this agrees there will be damage. The only disagreement is over the magnitude and secondary/tertiary effects. Suggesting otherwise does little more than further erode your already limited credibility.