Frit?AndyClaret wrote:Election on December 12th, is Corbyn frit ?
FRIT?
Did you go to Eton or something?
I've never heard anyone in my life say frit except that idiot Boris Johnson.
Frit?AndyClaret wrote:Election on December 12th, is Corbyn frit ?
Quoting Thatcher I assume.Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Frit?
FRIT?
Did you go to Eton or something?
I've never heard anyone in my life say frit except that idiot Boris Johnson.
Always good to learn something new isn't itClaret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Frit?
FRIT?
Did you go to Eton or something?
I've never heard anyone in my life say frit except that idiot Boris Johnson.
Lancasterclaret wrote:Guess we will see
Surprised we are not going for an election to be honest.
Only chance of Corbyn winning is if he has one with Brexit still not sorted.
One of the articles by a political commentator (think it was the FT) did make the point that after a while defeat, after defeat will start to look poor for BJ.Lancasterclaret wrote:Only chance of Corbyn winning is if he has one with Brexit still not sorted.
Devils_Advocate wrote:Anyone think the reason why the 31st Oct was die in a ditch time and now the urgency to get a Dec election has anything to do with the EU Tax Avoidance legislation coming into play from Jan 1st 2020?
I think its a reasonable assumption that a lot of the money behind Vote Leave and the MPs who do their dirty work has from day dot always been about separating themselves from this legislation that will really hit them hard in the pocket
Spijed wrote:One of the articles by a political commentator (think it was the FT) did make the point that after a while defeat, after defeat will start to look poor for BJ.
Give me strength. In short the answer is NO and your assumption is not reasonable. The UK tends to lead the way on anti avoidance rules and most of the new regs are already in place in the UK and have been for some time. If it helps, I am much more confident about this point than I originally was about the limbo thing. I'm not posting about it again though because it is really boring.Devils_Advocate wrote:Anyone think the reason why the 31st Oct was die in a ditch time and now the urgency to get a Dec election has anything to do with the EU Tax Avoidance legislation coming into play from Jan 1st 2020?
I think its a reasonable assumption that a lot of the money behind Vote Leave and the MPs who do their dirty work has from day dot always been about separating themselves from this legislation that will really hit them hard in the pocket
Macron would love that he's already wary of a longish extension now,how on earth can no deal be off the table,if there isn't an agreed deal,if you're right and this impasse carries into next spring the only winner that i can see is Nigel Farage,Johnson will lose votes to the BP and Corbyn will be accused of running scared of the electorate.KateR wrote:I think the EU will agree the delay until end Jan.
I think Labour and the opposition will agree some form of timetable to debate the WA, I think they will also vote against an election and say they want to see the outcome of the WA first.
I think Gov. will put forward the GE for December next week and have it rejected.
I think Labour/opposition will tear the WA apart, will request numerous amendments.
Jan likely to see Labour and opposition armed with all the failings of this WA say ok now we can look at a GE in March but ONLY if you get another 3 month extension to end April and we are assured that no deal is off the table.
Possible but that would require parliament finding a uniting figure to be a temporary PM,the Lib Dems have already made it clear they'll never approve a Corbyn premiership,even a stop-gap one,and the other parties don't appear enthusiatic.Lancasterclaret wrote:I suspect Johnson might have to resign to get his GE.
Of course, that opens up the possibility of a government of National Unity.
The government knows a 2nd referendum would be the death of Brexit so they seek a GE a minority vote thanks to FPTP will give them the pretense of a mandate to push through this pig of a deal.Elizabeth wrote:If I've read it right, at this moment in time, Parliament have been offered a couple of weeks to scrutinise the new deal bill. In addition Parliament are being asked to grant a GE after they have scrutinised it.
Parliament wanted more than the couple of days that had been offered previously to scrutinise the bill. They have got it.
Parliament want a GE. They can have it.
Only MPs and members of the public wanting to stop Brexit would have any argument with this.
This seems absolutely right.Elizabeth wrote:If I've read it right, at this moment in time, Parliament have been offered a couple of weeks to scrutinise the new deal bill. In addition Parliament are being asked to grant a GE after they have scrutinised it.
Parliament wanted more than the couple of days that had been offered previously to scrutinise the bill. They have got it.
Parliament want a GE. They can have it.
Only MPs and members of the public wanting to stop Brexit would have any argument with this.
There are two problems with having a second referendum:CombatClaret wrote:The government knows a 2nd referendum would be the death of Brexit so they seek a GE a minority vote thanks to FPTP will give them the pretense of a mandate to push through this pig of a deal.
This is all about Brexit, a general election is to cover all issues of the UK. So stop pretending and have a proper binary question referndum now there is a deal which should have been in place when the question was asked in the first place instead of the blank cheque Brexit presented to the country which turned out to be only exchangeable for monopoly money.
We've had one yes, but this could also be the third general election in four years so don't say we have to stick to one vote forever.
You’d be looking at 3 referendums if remain won, & they will be likely thousands of people (elderly) who have died since 2016 who didn’t live long enough to see there vote honoured & the younger generation who are more pro remain & didn't vote in the first one now would be eligible to vote, it’d be morally wrong & disrespectful to 1s that have passed away.claret_in_exile wrote:There are two problems with having a second referendum:
1) It negates the will of the 52% who voted to Leave in the first one - those who voted Leave in 2016 will have the (very good) argument that they would be expected to win two referendums whereas Remain would only have to win 1 out of 2.
2) It doesn't change the Parliamentary arithmetic, which has been the problem since 2017. Of course, another hung Parliament is quite within the realms of possibility after another General Election, but leaving the numbers as they are right now has proven to be gridlock.
Weird you say this, because I think precisely the opposite. I think the only hope in hell of Labour winning is to get back most of the Labour leave vote that has recently deserted them. If Brexit is still in the balance, they'll go with the Tories to get it over the line. If Brexit is already dealt with, they might (might) forgive Labour and reluctantly return. They might (might) also get some of the ultra-remainers back from the Lib Dems, too.Lancasterclaret wrote:Guess we will see
Surprised we are not going for an election to be honest.
Only chance of Corbyn winning is if he has one with Brexit still not sorted.
I’ve decided you’re a parody account. That’s got to be it.Jakubclaret wrote:You’d be looking at 3 referendums if remain won, & they will be likely thousands of people (elderly) who have died since 2016 who didn’t live long enough to see there vote honoured & the younger generation who are more pro remain & didn't vote in the first one now would be eligible to vote, it’d be morally wrong & disrespectful to 1s that have passed away.
Is it not also morally wrong to ignore these newly enfranchised young citizens now eligible to vote but denied a say in a choice that will effect the rest of their lives in favour of people who no longer exist so therefor will not effect them in any way?Jakubclaret wrote:You’d be looking at 3 referendums if remain won, & they will be likely thousands of people (elderly) who have died since 2016 who didn’t live long enough to see there vote honoured & the younger generation who are more pro remain & didn't vote in the first one now would be eligible to vote, it’d be morally wrong & disrespectful to 1s that have passed away.
That’s your opinion not fact on a predicted future, I’d trust the older generation myself personally because of the experience & more importantly living when things were different, it’s the only way to compare change, the younger generation don’t have that same gift.jontybfc wrote:I’ve decided you’re a parody account. That’s got to be it.
It’s disrespectful because old people who voted leave don’t get to see the wreckage they leave and the people who’s very future they voted about don’t get a say?!
1) it's been shown there is no one will of the people many wills of groups of people all lumped into one. This next referendum is the one which should have taken place in the first place, with a deal, everyone can read and scrutinize, no promises that can be broken. Ink on a page, vote for it or don't.claret_in_exile wrote:There are two problems with having a second referendum:
1) It negates the will of the 52% who voted to Leave in the first one - those who voted Leave in 2016 will have the (very good) argument that they would be expected to win two referendums whereas Remain would only have to win 1 out of 2.
2) It doesn't change the Parliamentary arithmetic, which has been the problem since 2017. Of course, another hung Parliament is quite within the realms of possibility after another General Election, but leaving the numbers as they are right now has proven to be gridlock.
So the only people you don’t trust are experts. Your fantastic common sense abilities don’t stretch as far as experts. Economists don’t meet that criteria. But old people who lived before we used computers do.Jakubclaret wrote:That’s your opinion not fact on a predicted future, I’d trust the older generation myself personally because of the experience & more importantly living when things were different, it’s the only way to compare change, the younger generation don’t have that same gift.
How on earth can you respect the older generation without meeting every single one of them face to face?Jakubclaret wrote:That’s your opinion not fact on a predicted future, I’d trust the older generation myself personally because of the experience & more importantly living when things were different, it’s the only way to compare change, the younger generation don’t have that same gift.
Here you go, DA,Devils_Advocate wrote:Anyone think the reason why the 31st Oct was die in a ditch time and now the urgency to get a Dec election has anything to do with the EU Tax Avoidance legislation coming into play from Jan 1st 2020?
I think its a reasonable assumption that a lot of the money behind Vote Leave and the MPs who do their dirty work has from day dot always been about separating themselves from this legislation that will really hit them hard in the pocket
I’ll predict something involving common sense.martin_p wrote:How on earth can you respect the older generation without meeting every single one of them face to face?
Yes that true, it’s absolutely impossible it’s a irrefutable fact, you cannot replace the wisdom of say a 70 year old men/women probably even older who maybe served in the war with somebody almost straight out of school/college, it’s absurd.jontybfc wrote:So the only people you don’t trust are experts. Your fantastic common sense abilities don’t stretch as far as experts. Economists don’t meet that criteria. But old people who lived before we used computers do.
They all lived during the ‘let him have it Chris’ generation. Times were different then, great times.
My mates mum who’s seventy voted leave because of the bus. Can’t replace that wisdom.Jakubclaret wrote:Yes that true, it’s absolutely impossible it’s a irrefutable fact, you cannot replace the wisdom of say a 70 year old men/women probably even older who maybe served in the war with somebody almost straight out of school/college, it’s absurd.
Hi jonty. I was born before computers were common. In 1970 I chose "data processing" as an A-level subject. The "computer" came to school on a bus; it filled the whole of the bottom deck: input device (punch card reader), processor (I think the power of a very small light 5w bulb, hard to tell when it was switched on and when it was switched off....) and an output device (I can't remember whether this was also punch cards, or was readable print on the A3(ish) green lined computer printing paper. If there was a monitor, it was about 5 inches square and either white on black or orange on black! School cancelled the class because only 3 of us signed up.jontybfc wrote:So the only people you don’t trust are experts. Your fantastic common sense abilities don’t stretch as far as experts. Economists don’t meet that criteria. But old people who lived before we used computers do.
They all lived during the ‘let him have it Chris’ generation. Times were different then, great times.
That’s great, so do you understand we’re all going to be poorer and people’s lives tougher?Paul Waine wrote:Hi jonty. I was born before computers were common. In 1970 I chose "data processing" as an A-level subject. The "computer" came to school on a bus; it filled the whole of the bottom deck: input device (punch card reader), processor (I think the power of a very small light 5w bulb, hard to tell when it was switched on and when it was switched off....) and an output device (I can't remember whether this was also punch cards, or was readable print on the A3(ish) green lined computer printing paper. If there was a monitor, it was about 5 inches square and either white on black or orange on black! School cancelled the class because only 3 of us signed up.
In my 45 year career I've experienced the progress with computers. Yes, I'm an "older guy" but still able to keep up with the under 30s, recent grads with MScs and the like.
So, yes, being "born before computers" isn't a barrier to a bit of understanding as what's going on today.
1 reason 1 person that doesn’t apply to all the old people, you might be comfortable disregarding the democratic votes of people dead when the wishes haven’t been enacted, I’m not. Night I’ll sleep well.jontybfc wrote:My mates mum who’s seventy voted leave because of the bus. Can’t replace that wisdom.
Perhaps that's the point. Older people have got past the "Janet and John" approach to politics.jontybfc wrote:That’s great, so do you understand we’re all going to be poorer and people’s lives tougher?
Jakubclaret wrote:1 reason 1 person that doesn’t apply to all the old people, you might be comfortable disregarding the democratic votes of people dead when the wishes haven’t been enacted, I’m not. Night I’ll sleep well.
To be fair, those youngsters will be able to spend most of their life regretting their decision, and thinking the old farts had a very valid point.Jakubclaret wrote:You’d be looking at 3 referendums if remain won, & they will be likely thousands of people (elderly) who have died since 2016 who didn’t live long enough to see there vote honoured & the younger generation who are more pro remain & didn't vote in the first one now would be eligible to vote, it’d be morally wrong & disrespectful to 1s that have passed away.
Hi jonty, is that you making that decision about "all going to be poorer and people's lives tougher?" How do you reach that conclusion and back it up?jontybfc wrote:That’s great, so do you understand we’re all going to be poorer and people’s lives tougher?
Plenty of respect for anyone who served but when it comes to complex situations, say for example macro economics. I'll take the 28 year of with a doctorate earned through a decade of learning on the subject over the 'wisdom' of a 90+ year old veteran who failed his O level math but got a couple weeks of basic rifle training.Jakubclaret wrote:Yes that true, it’s absolutely impossible it’s a irrefutable fact, you cannot replace the wisdom of say a 70 year old men/women probably even older who maybe served in the war with somebody almost straight out of school/college, it’s absurd.
You can’t have a discussion with people who won’t listen, more or less every post on this thread discussing the benefits of the eu involves facts or expert predictions. We were promised so much once we left and now we want to make sure we damage so little. In any other circumstance it would be a disgrace. I just don’t get it. No one gives reasons to leave.dsr wrote:Perhaps that's the point. Older people have got past the "Janet and John" approach to politics.
In general, when anyone has the attitude of "I know all the answers and anyone who disagrees is wrong", their opinions are not reliable. And there are plenty of them on here.
If you could present an economic model or forecast that predicts the benefits to us for leaving then I’d love to see it. I’m just going off what almost every expert says. I’m yet to read a better deal situation than the one we already have. If you have it, let me know, might change my mind.Paul Waine wrote:Hi jonty, is that you making that decision about "all going to be poorer and people's lives tougher?" How do you reach that conclusion and back it up?
I can discuss economic models and economic forecasting with you, if you'd like.
How does someone mid-60s stack up - with an economics degree plus 40 years real life experience on top?CombatClaret wrote:Plenty of respect for anyone who served but when it comes to complex situations, say for example macro economics. I'll take the 28 year of with a doctorate earned through a decade of learning on the subject over the 'wisdom' of a 90+ year old veteran who failed his O level math but got a couple weeks of basic rifle training.
That applies if all you want to boil life down to is macroeconomics and university doctorates. I would rather have the old bloke than the permanent student when it comes to knowing what to do when the pipes start leaking.CombatClaret wrote:Plenty of respect for anyone who served but when it comes to complex situations, say for example macro economics. I'll take the 28 year of with a doctorate earned through a decade of learning on the subject over the 'wisdom' of a 90+ year old veteran who failed his O level math but got a couple weeks of basic rifle training.
Hi jonty, I can show you my economic model - but, I would like you to show me your's first. Is that a deal?jontybfc wrote:If you could present an economic model or forecast that predicts the benefits to us for leaving then I’d love to see it. I’m just going off what almost every expert says. I’m yet to read a better deal situation than the one we already have. If you have it, let me know, might change my mind.
Depends if they hate foreigners.Paul Waine wrote:How does someone mid-60s stack up - with an economics degree plus 40 years real life experience on top?
Is money all that matters to you? Do you choose your wife (or husband) that way? That's all we hear from Remainers - money, money, money. If they aren't getting more money, they don't want to know.jontybfc wrote:If you could present an economic model or forecast that predicts the benefits to us for leaving then I’d love to see it. I’m just going off what almost every expert says. I’m yet to read a better deal situation than the one we already have. If you have it, let me know, might change my mind.
???? I was at an event this evening - part of celebration of Black history month. The (well known) key speaker is a British Nigerian. He was speaking about Britain's black history - and lancashire cotton is a big part of it. I think we might all have been foreigners to one or two on here. We were all friends at the celebration.jontybfc wrote:Depends if they hate foreigners.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -recession" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Paul Waine wrote:Hi jonty, I can show you my economic model - but, I would like you to show me your's first. Is that a deal?