Soft Brexit defeated

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:36 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I merely asked you a question, I'll just make an assumption then instead.

Of course he's got a degree. No one can be that bloody minded about his own importance if he hasn't.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:41 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You can try an explain around the facts all you like but the fact is that people with a lower education overwhelmingly voted leave, while those who have proven themselves through academia to be capable of researching facts and accurately informing themselves overwhelmingly voted to remain.

How true. Because when it comes to important decisions like this, of course you would ask the person with a degree, not the person with no degree, wouldn't you? So suppose someone has parents who he respects and admires who do not have a degree, and a brother who he respects and admires who has just finished university. He wants the following advice:

1. Best way to go about finding a place to live.
2. Best way to arrange his finances, savings, credit cards.
3. Advice re. careers and apprenticeships.
4. Comfort and advice re. the sudden death of girlfriend's mother.
5. Advice on buying, insuring, and running a car.

Does he run to brother for advice, because brother has been to university, has proven himself to be capable of researching facts? Or does he go to parents who have less education but more experience of life?

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:45 pm

dsr wrote:Source?

Tory campaign, Smethwick, 1964

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:49 pm

boatshed bill wrote:Tory campaign, Smethwick, 1964

Link?

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:59 pm

dsr wrote:Link?

I can't do links, because I'm too thick, but type it into google if you want confirmation

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:06 pm

boatshed bill wrote:I can't do links, because I'm too thick, but type it into google if you want confirmation

OK, I've found the Guardian link now. I'm astonished how the Conservative party failed to expel someone like that in 1964, but in spite of the Guardian's peculiar effort to relate it to Margaret Thatcher's sales of council houses, and Nigel Farage's views that people with HIV (and other dread dieseases) shouldn't be allowed in (actually that's the policy of all parties, by and large); I do think things have improved.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:09 pm

dsr wrote:OK, I've found the Guardian link now. I'm astonished how the Conservative party failed to expel someone like that in 1964, but in spite of the Guardian's peculiar effort to relate it to Margaret Thatcher's sales of council houses, and Nigel Farage's views that people with HIV (and other dread dieseases) shouldn't be allowed in (actually that's the policy of all parties, by and large); I do think things have improved.

I don't really get the point the Guardian is trying to make.
I actually remembered that slogan when Eunoch Powell was constantly in the media, threatening "rivers of blood" etc.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:15 pm

I think the point is that going back 40 years we were not a very nice nation, and its not a good idea to try to go back to it.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:16 pm

Amazing dsr that you doubted boatshed bill there. That campaign is well known as one of the most disgraceful in our history.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:19 pm

After WW2 we were desperately short of manual labour and invited immigrants, West Indians among them.
They arrived looking for accomadation, often to find signs saying "No dogs, No Irish, No Blacks", we can be a singularly horrible nation.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:41 pm

dsr wrote:How true. Because when it comes to important decisions like this, of course you would ask the person with a degree, not the person with no degree, wouldn't you? So suppose someone has parents who he respects and admires who do not have a degree, and a brother who he respects and admires who has just finished university. He wants the following advice:

1. Best way to go about finding a place to live.
2. Best way to arrange his finances, savings, credit cards.
3. Advice re. careers and apprenticeships.
4. Comfort and advice re. the sudden death of girlfriend's mother.
5. Advice on buying, insuring, and running a car.

Does he run to brother for advice, because brother has been to university, has proven himself to be capable of researching facts? Or does he go to parents who have less education but more experience of life?

Succinctly put, my dear chap. However, the rabid Corbynistas, the Scots, the feckless and fuckw!ts would always say the brother because it fits in with their superior beliefs. It's pointless arguing the toss with such people because they have been brainwashed about said beliefs. Anybody who doesn't agree with them is automatically an aged, stupid, racist bigot

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:03 am

I don't anyone who gets on with their dad wouldn't ask him for advice on a lot of things, be they Corbynistas or otherwise.

But I don't think anyone would do exactly what they suggested without doing a bit of their own research either!

I'm liking this idea of you lot as some sort of Guru though!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:06 am

dsr wrote:Source?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... 0-years-on" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:06 am

BennyD wrote:As I've said, it doesn't always follow. I will put myself (non-graduate) against a number of graduates I know and I won't be found to be lacking. You are being a bit sweeping in your deductions; non-grads aren't always stupid, or lacking in skill.

As. A. Demographic.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:10 am

Interesting catching up on this thread.

40+ years ago less than 5% of the population went to university. 40+ years ago, there was no internet. 40+ years ago university degrees were not (just) about the ability to research subject.
Older people have lived longer than younger people. We can learn a lot, and research a lot, through our lives. It is not necessary to have attended university to learn the skills to "experience" life - and to learn from what you see every day.

So, are the young, many of whom have attended uni over the past 20 years correct in appearing to claim better judgement than an earlier generation who have (a) more life experience and (b) have comparable intellectual abilities to the young, but did not attend university and obtain a degree because there were only uni places for 5% of the cohort, rather than the 40% (and more) that is available today?

And, the internet is accessible to all. All are capable of using the internet (and other resources) to research topics.

Discuss: In what ways do university degrees contribute to the result of the brexit referendum?

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:23 am

In the latest news, tweeted in a frenzy by the Beebs arch Remainers like Laura K, James Chapman having left his post in the Brexit department is interviewed saying May has hamstrung David Davis in Brexit talks due to her red lines......

......only this is the same chap who was Osborne's chief communications guy and who strategised the "dodgy dossier" that the Treasury published (you know, the one that said there would be an economic hit, but hidden away in the detail was that it assumed migration would fall to nearly zero).

There seems no end to the Remainers tactics to undermine May. It'll work, eventually.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:28 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:In the latest news, tweeted in a frenzy by the Beebs arch Remainers like Laura K, James Chapman having left his post in the Brexit department is interviewed saying May has hamstrung David Davis in Brexit talks due to her red lines......

......only this is the same chap who was Osborne's chief communications guy and who strategised the "dodgy dossier" that the Treasury published (you know, the one that said there would be an economic hit, but hidden away in the detail was that it assumed migration would fall to nearly zero).

There seems no end to the Remainers tactics to undermine May. It'll work, eventually.

Wasn't it the position of your lot not to set out things like red lines and you people would defend that as not giving away strategy. Now that she's issued red lines, one of you is publicly criticising it and now you're criticising your earlier position purely to remain supporting to Dear Leader May.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:18 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:There seems no end to the Remainers tactics to undermine May.

I wouldn't worry about it. She's doing a perfectly good job of undermining herself.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:11 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:

Wasn't it the position of your lot not to set out things like red lines and you people would defend that as not giving away strategy. Now that she's issued red lines, one of you is publicly criticising it and now you're criticising your earlier position purely to remain supporting to Dear Leader May.

No, you've completely misunderstood that one. It has been suggested by "our lot" that we don't go into negotiations saying that we must get a deal no matter what; that's the opposite way round from May's red lines, which is saying that certain things (eg. control of borders and the justice system) are not negotiable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:54 am

dsr wrote:No, you've completely misunderstood that one. It has been suggested by "our lot" that we don't go into negotiations saying that we must get a deal no matter what; that's the opposite way round from May's red lines, which is saying that certain things (eg. control of borders and the justice system) are not negotiable.

Controls we already have, but have just chosen not to implement. I'm sure the EU are delighted with those red lines.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:19 am

I have just read the James Chapman comments from its high profile position on the BBC website. It is a very obvious attempt to undermine Brexit. The BBC should be ashamed of itself.

People like him seem to think that the EU can have as many red lines as they want, but we can't have any. In what sense would we be leaving the EU if the ECJ still rules us?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:37 am

Yup, we don't want a free press anymore, we need more Daily mail type coverage.

that's the opposite way round from May's red lines, which is saying that certain things (eg. control of borders and the justice system) are not negotiable.

The interesting thing in Chapmans article is that the person who is actually at the talks realises that certain things have to be negotiable, and the person who just lost her majority by pretending that everyone wanted her vision of Brexit doesn't realise that.

Now if David Davis is more switched on than you are, just in how much trouble are you in?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:01 am

Rowls wrote:I quoted it for you. Third post down on the second page.

You may not have realised you were using metaphorical language but you were.

And i asked you to clarify what metaphor I used which you interpreted as being a scary thing.

If you can explain how saying something is disastrous is a metaphor for saying something is scary i'll happily concede you were correct. Otherwise its just you being the usual dummy and getting called out on your own stupidity

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:21 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Germany and South Korea have had seventy years of investing in their manufacturing, high end manufacturing. In everything, the equipment, the infrastructure, the training, the markets. Have we? In certain sectors yes, but enough to reinvent our whole economy?

We are good, don't get me wrong but are we at that level? And able to expand to that level? Under a Conservative govt?

That pushing reality into the bounds of us winning the European Cup!

And we can't go down the road of low end manufacturing, cos we can't compete (thankfully) with the third and second world because of our much higher costs.

I want industry and jobs to flow into our old industrial heartlands just like you, but I don't believe your vision is achievable the way we are going with the EU.

Lancaster, local engineering has learnt to change the way it thinks.

Unfortunately that means less jobs but it means they can compete, its all moving towards robots and machines that need no manual intervention unless it goes wrong.

That means the initial investment ( non recuring costs) is the same no matter where you are in the world. A matsuura machine costs the smae no matter who buys it. Robots costs are low now so you can have machines robot loaded and unloading. This reduces the main cost which is the person.
I visited a factory last week that is 3 years old. The old facilty needed 450 people, the new 150 people making more part numbers and more volume than before.

That allows this country to compete for now.

Unfortunately robots are taking over and in the end I am worried about the effects on society . Google the new MacDonalds that has been robotised. They intend to roll that out worldwide, which means KFC etc will needs to follow.

So I think we can compete with low cost economies. The worry is by competing we significantly reduce the amount of people needed which means less taxes etc.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:And i asked you to clarify what metaphor I used which you interpreted as being a scary thing.

If you can explain how saying something is disastrous is a metaphor for saying something is scary i'll happily concede you were correct. Otherwise its just you being the usual dummy and getting called out on your own stupidity

I don't have the time or energy. Particularly for a poster with as transparent a user name as yours.

It's all there in your own writing though. Rather than beg me to teach you, I suggest you find out for yourself.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:55 pm

Yup Lowbank, there is that as well.

Massive changes whatever happens

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:36 pm

Rowls wrote:I don't have the time or energy. Particularly for a poster with as transparent a user name as yours.

It's all there in your own writing though. Rather than beg me to teach you, I suggest you find out for yourself.

Classic Rowls

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:38 pm

Yup, the messageboard equivalent of "stop talking Britain down" in the debating stakes.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:06 pm

Greenmile wrote:Classic Rowls

"Classic" Greenmile.

Here you go, you lazy heffers - this makes a nice, easy starting point for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_language" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:15 pm

Thanks for the lesson dummy but still doesn't change the fact that that stating Brexit is a disaster isnt a metaphor for saying it is scary

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:00 pm

Wikipedia.

Ace

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:37 pm

Sidney1st wrote: I vaguely remember you being a former soldier, so I'm referring to after you left the army.

He still is

: IMG_20170701_162226.jpg (195.16 KiB) Viewed 4118 times

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:12 am

I've a funny feeling we are definitely leaving the EU.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:39 am

Vino blanco wrote:I've a funny feeling we are definitely leaving the EU.

I've a funny feeling we aren't. I've a feeling 2019 is going to be an interesting year in the history of Western politics. I've a feeling our great-great grandchildren will be writing dissertations about it. (Assuming people still actually 'write' 100 years from now).

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:44 am

I'll bet you ten bob we do.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:52 am

Ha! Clever. By 2019 that 50 pence piece will be so worthless that even if you lose you won't actually lose anything.

No deal. Besides, gambling is for degenerates!

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:53 am

I'll bet you ten bob it isn't worthless.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:57 am

You're betting on a currency future in the same currency you're using to make the bet?

You are why the '08 global financial crisis happened!!!

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:03 am

No, I think you will find that that was Gordon Brown's fault. Interesting use of the word 'had' twice there in succession. Did you know it is possible to use the word 'had' seven times in succession in a sentence and it is grammatically correct?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:06 am

Vino blanco wrote:No, I think you will find that that was Gordon Brown's fault. Interesting use of the word 'had' twice there in succession. Did you know it is possible to use the word 'had' seven times in succession in a sentence and it is grammatically correct?

Gordon Brown caused the global financial crisis?

Jesus, the Tories got you ******* good with that one, didn't they?

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:06 am

Sorry getting confused with that and had, but my statement about 'had' is correct.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:14 am

Vino blanco wrote:No, I think you will find that that was Gordon Brown's fault. Interesting use of the word 'had' twice there in succession. Did you know it is possible to use the word 'had' seven times in succession in a sentence and it is grammatically correct?

Except that you, where he had had "had had", had had "had. "Had had" had had my approval.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:14 am

Vino blanco wrote:No, I think you will find that that was Gordon Brown's fault. Interesting use of the word 'had' twice there in succession. Did you know it is possible to use the word 'had' seven times in succession in a sentence and it is grammatically correct?

I haven't used the word 'had had had had had had had' in the thread but did you know that psychologically, conservatism stems from issues of misplaced masculinity and repressed homosexuality; a rejection of the notion that it's perfectly natural for one man to look out for another man?

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:16 am

I'll still bet you ten bob we leave the EU.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:17 am

I'll raise you ten bob you're gay.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:20 am

Not homosexual at all. I just help them out when they're busy.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:24 am

Vino blanco wrote:Not homosexual at all. I just help them out when they're busy.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:38 am

Spiral,
So now art le 50 has been enacted we have two options.

One is leave the EU.
The second is to go cap in hand back to EU and ask to stay in. The EU has already stated we can do that but it would be under new terms worse than the deal we have now. So the circa £200 million net contribution we make week would rise. Welcome to more EU austerity.

I serious dont think your going get the people of the UK to buy into that.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:44 am

Why not?

They believed that leaving would make it all better.

Anything is possible

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:00 am

True lots of people believed the crap the leave campaign spouted.
I didn't take in thier lies but I voted leave as I as do believe its in the best long term interest of the UK.

Unfortunately the remains campaign of impending apocalypse didnt happen either, so scare tactics didnt work and would not work in a future vote.

So lets say we decide to have an another vote, how could we convince the country to vote to stay in on worse terms. Honest question.

If the politicians told us the truth, we might be paying an extra £50 million a week which might equate to say £50 a month more tax for workers and £15 off everyones benefits to stay in.
You might argue untimately leaving the EU might be worse than that. Who knows they have not given us any idea what the future of the UK might be.

One thing is for sure, its going to be an interesting few years.