I’m not opposed to those who wish to go down the route of political and monetary union doing so. I’m saying those who don’t agree should be given the opportunity to say so and have their views respected. I’m pro European cooperation and friendship but against the EU as currently constituted. We’ve listened to the arguments, weighed up the pros and cons, and come to a decision. Simply going over old ground and lecturing people that they’ve got it wrong will get you nowhere.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
No one on Bluemoon ever said anything racist (except about the Germans or French of course - there was plenty of that) and there was some delight yesterday that Banks used his own money for the Leave UK campaign - so I could assume some approval of how he spent that money. On racist posters.Tbh I don't see refugees/immigration mentioned by leavers on here at all, it always seems to be remainers using it as a means to excuse rejection of their economic argument. Of course, it may be the case that leavers are just all thick racists with just enough cunning to conceal their hatred of foreigners behind other arguments, but that seems a little paranoid.
https://images.app.goo.gl/rv1JvcbibCh4vTmH8
Not before time...TBF - Remainers have deployed that tactic so often most of us Leavers are starting to question ourselves and wonder if we really do have ingrained prejudices that we were hitherto blissfully unaware of;-)
Prize by the way if you can find a post that says Leavers are all thick racists.
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 20,404
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Yes but that's 2016. Since then the posters, the side of the bus, the shady funding were all exposed - and once all this was known the public by a huge majority voted in the last GE to reject anything except GTFO of the EU. Of course they all were desperate to remain really and it was all about rejecting Corbyn the nasty racist and his evil un-costed socialism :-)No one on Bluemoon ever said anything racist (except about the Germans or French of course - there was plenty of that) and there was some delight yesterday that Banks used his own money for the Leave UK campaign - so I could assume some approval of how he spent that money. On racist posters.
https://images.app.goo.gl/rv1JvcbibCh4vTmH8
Obviously not desperate to Remain but Leavers were desperate to avoid another referendum. And I think we all know that if Starmer had been leader of the Labour party we'd still be in the EU.Yes but that's 2016. Since then the posters, the side of the bus, the shady funding were all exposed - and once all this was known the public by a huge majority voted in the last GE to reject anything except GTFO of the EU. Of course they all were desperate to remain really and it was all about rejecting Corbyn the nasty racist and his evil un-costed socialism :-)
We've lost but we're not going to let you say there was no "tangible" case for the economic advantages of membership. I can't grasp why it's so important to some Leavers to pretend it wasn't a damn close-run thing (and that includes the GE vote with more support for pro-2nd referendum or pro-cancel Brexit parties than pro-get-on-with-it parties).
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 20,404
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
You are right, Starmer was the architect of labours disastrous brexit policy and it was rejected. As I recall it involved negotiating a 'better' deal with the EU that was terrible, presenting it to the UK public as a sincere attempt to honour the referendum result, while campaigning against it themselves. I think the idea was for leavers to feel content they'd had a 'turn' and then to calmly revoke/remain. For some reason this seemed not to gain universal support - can't think why.Obviously not desperate to Remain but Leavers were desperate to avoid another referendum. And I think we all know that if Starmer had been leader of the Labour party we'd still be in the EU.
We've lost but we're not going to let you say there was no "tangible" case for the economic advantages of membership. I can't grasp why it's so important to some Leavers to pretend it wasn't a damn close-run thing (and that includes the GE vote with more support for pro-2nd referendum or pro-cancel Brexit parties than pro-get-on-with-it parties).
Yep - it was a mystery to me as well why such a policy was so soundly rejected - surely we should have all found it such a compelling offering - lolYou are right, Starmer was the architect of labours disastrous brexit policy and it was rejected. As I recall it involved negotiating a 'better' deal with the EU that was terrible, presenting it to the UK public as a sincere attempt to honour the referendum result, while campaigning against it themselves. I think the idea was for leavers to feel content they'd had a 'turn' and then to calmly revoke/remain. For some reason this seemed not to gain universal support - can't think why.
I think you recall wrongly (even again allowing for a bit of irony). The plan was to negotiate a better deal (though it would obviously have been softer than any Tory deal so some would have called it terrible) and put that to the people. (That had of course been an idea espoused in times past by Rees Mogg and Johnson - though Johnson explicitly wanted a No vote only in order to force the EU to give us a better deal so we could Remain.)You are right, Starmer was the architect of labours disastrous brexit policy and it was rejected. As I recall it involved negotiating a 'better' deal with the EU that was terrible, presenting it to the UK public as a sincere attempt to honour the referendum result, while campaigning against it themselves. I think the idea was for leavers to feel content they'd had a 'turn' and then to calmly revoke/remain. For some reason this seemed not to gain universal support - can't think why.
But Starmer "architect" of the policy? I don't think he joined in the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" chants at the party conference when Corbyn supporters threw out the proposal that the party should campaign for Remain in a second referendum (no matter how good a deal was available). If you mean Starmer wanted a second referendum to try and avoid the damage of Brexit he didn't design that policy - it was what most Labour party members wanted and what most Labour voters voted for in the GE. We'd have lost some seats to the Lib Dems if we'd not offered a way to stop Brexit but worse we'd have lost votes to the Lib Dems and let the Tories win in many seats.
Even if Starmer was "architect" of the policy of trying to please Remainer and Leaver Labour supporters, having Corbyn as the mad client changing the plans didn't help.
No Corbyn, no Brexit. (Remain would have won the referendum with a different Labour leader and - less certain - the Tories would not have won the 2019 GE with a workable majority "no deal" majority - not least because the Tories would probably not have risked a GE.)
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 20,404
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
You sort of sum up the problem there. While labour engaged in factional in fighting the tories came up with something simple (probably simplistic) and to a larger extent got behind it. Had labour the sense to go either all out remain or all out brexit they might have acheived at least another hung parliament and remainers would have either had their way or continued the stalemate. History will judge that remainers were brainwashed into hating corbyn more than they hated brexit, which is why in the end the tories got a thumping majority and we left. The tories have always been as divided as labour, but on the whole they are better at putting aside their petty personal feuds for power and party (sadly).I think you recall wrongly (even again allowing for a bit of irony). The plan was to negotiate a better deal (though it would obviously have been softer than any Tory deal so some would have called it terrible) and put that to the people. (That had of course been an idea espoused in times past by Rees Mogg and Johnson - though Johnson explicitly wanted a No vote only in order to force the EU to give us a better deal so we could Remain.)
But Starmer "architect" of the policy? I don't think he joined in the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" chants at the party conference when Corbyn supporters threw out the proposal that the party should campaign for Remain in a second referendum (no matter how good a deal was available). If you mean Starmer wanted a second referendum to try and avoid the damage of Brexit he didn't design that policy - it was what most Labour party members wanted and what most Labour voters voted for in the GE. We'd have lost some seats to the Lib Dems if we'd not offered a way to stop Brexit but worse we'd have lost votes to the Lib Dems and let the Tories win in many seats.
Even if Starmer was "architect" of the policy of trying to please Remainer and Leaver Labour supporters, having Corbyn as the mad client changing the plans didn't help.
No Corbyn, no Brexit. (Remain would have won the referendum with a different Labour leader and - less certain - the Tories would not have won the 2019 GE with a workable majority "no deal" majority - not least because the Tories would probably not have risked a GE.)
Sense would be nice. Unfortunately Labour is a democratic party. So much easier to make it up as you go along and expel dissenters like Johnson did.You sort of sum up the problem there. While labour engaged in factional in fighting the tories came up with something simple (probably simplistic) and to a larger extent got behind it. Had labour the sense to go either all out remain or all out brexit they might have acheived at least another hung parliament and remainers would have either had their way or continued the stalemate. History will judge that remainers were brainwashed into hating corbyn more than they hated brexit, which is why in the end the tories got a thumping majority and we left. The tories have always been as divided as labour, but on the whole they are better at putting aside their petty personal feuds for power and party (sadly).
Bovril
Well-Known Member
Unbelievable post, I told myself to stop posting in these threads as it was pointless. Labour is the most divided undemocratic party out there, stop reading the Guardian and face reality, Starmer has the almost impossible job of reuniting your party it is imploding and which in my opinion will split the party in two. I may vote for the split Starmer centre party but never for the left... wake up,Sense would be nice. Unfortunately Labour is a democratic party. So much easier to make it up as you go along and expel dissenters like Johnson did.
Great. So you don't like decisions made by let's say a 52/48 majority. That's got the thread back onto the point.Unbelievable post, I told myself to stop posting in these threads as it was pointless. Labour is the most divided undemocratic party out there, stop reading the Guardian and face reality, Starmer has the almost impossible job of reuniting your party it is imploding and which in my opinion will split the party in two. I may vote for the split Starmer centre party but never for the left... wake up,
UK/US trade talks to begin this week
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/post-brexit-trade-talks-us-a4430391.html
Talks will be led on the UK side by UK-US chief negotiator Oliver Griffiths, while all UK trade negotiations are being overseen by the Department for International Trade's chief trade negotiation adviser Crawford Falconer.
I couldn't find much on the experience of Griffiths - just this summary:
Oliver Griffiths
Director, Americas Negotiations and Strategic Engagement
Department for International Trade
Oliver Griffiths joined the Department for International Trade in August 2016 as Director, Americas Negotiations and Strategic Engagement, overseeing the build-up of the UK’s trade policy function. He now leads the UK’s trade policy relationships with the Americas and the Department’s external engagement on trade policy. Prior to joining the Department for International Trade, Oliver had been President at a FinTech start-up based in Shoreditch. Between 2002 and 2013 Oliver worked as a civil servant, specialising in trade policy (in London and at the British Embassy in Washington DC) and corporate finance (including setting up the UK Green Investment Bank). He started his career as a corporate lawyer at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/post-brexit-trade-talks-us-a4430391.html
Talks will be led on the UK side by UK-US chief negotiator Oliver Griffiths, while all UK trade negotiations are being overseen by the Department for International Trade's chief trade negotiation adviser Crawford Falconer.
I couldn't find much on the experience of Griffiths - just this summary:
Oliver Griffiths
Director, Americas Negotiations and Strategic Engagement
Department for International Trade
Oliver Griffiths joined the Department for International Trade in August 2016 as Director, Americas Negotiations and Strategic Engagement, overseeing the build-up of the UK’s trade policy function. He now leads the UK’s trade policy relationships with the Americas and the Department’s external engagement on trade policy. Prior to joining the Department for International Trade, Oliver had been President at a FinTech start-up based in Shoreditch. Between 2002 and 2013 Oliver worked as a civil servant, specialising in trade policy (in London and at the British Embassy in Washington DC) and corporate finance (including setting up the UK Green Investment Bank). He started his career as a corporate lawyer at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
Ha ha ha, I just stumbled on this thread, Christ some of you guys have good stamina.
has anyone made a new argument in the last, say, 2 years.
has anyone made a new argument in the last, say, 2 years.
In a word, no.has anyone made a new argument in the last, say, 2 years.
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
In a word, no.
Following city for over 40 years now , I never knew our fan base was so interested in politics .
I bet when you set up this website you never thought so too!
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
I'm not having that.In a word, no.
There was an interesting nuance in June 2018.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha, I just stumbled on this thread, Christ some of you guys have good stamina.
has anyone made a new argument since the referendum campaign.
Edited for you
Is it a new argument that the economy and the currency slumped after the referendum? That we've lost EU workers from the NHS? And from the fields?Edited for you
A few reports out this morning emphasising the EU's increasing level of exasperation with the UK (AKA not doing what the EU want)
Veiled suggestions that this could lead to fatigue and perhaps even a 'No-Deal'
The increasingly desperate Barnier has stated:
"“It’s exceptional. Never in the history for such important negotiations with any third country, have we been under such time pressure,” an exasperated chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said after the last round concluded without progress in the most contentious areas....."
And you have Phil Hogan bleating with increasing frequency - and now using the pandemic as a sole reason to extend. No need for that - they just have to accept the positions we have declared. If they are not - what point is there in an extension of any length?
It just emphasises that time pressure is helpful to the UK and not the EU.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...singly-jaded-with-uk-s-brexit-drama-1.4246777
I also found a feeling of irritation and frustration from Hogan in this article - let alone a high level of hypocrisy - why will the UK representatives not just do as they were told like they did in 2016-2019!!!!!
Must be so annoying for them.....
I liked this comment from Gove:
“It is the case that we seek a zero-tariff, zero-quota arrangement,” he said.
“But if it is the case that we end up like CETA with tariffs on a small number of goods, we will regret that, we will think it is a missed opportunity, but if that is the price we have to pay, then there you go.”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18430654.eu-hits-uk-making-brexit-proposals-in-airwaves/
Veiled suggestions that this could lead to fatigue and perhaps even a 'No-Deal'
The increasingly desperate Barnier has stated:
"“It’s exceptional. Never in the history for such important negotiations with any third country, have we been under such time pressure,” an exasperated chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said after the last round concluded without progress in the most contentious areas....."
And you have Phil Hogan bleating with increasing frequency - and now using the pandemic as a sole reason to extend. No need for that - they just have to accept the positions we have declared. If they are not - what point is there in an extension of any length?
It just emphasises that time pressure is helpful to the UK and not the EU.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...singly-jaded-with-uk-s-brexit-drama-1.4246777
I also found a feeling of irritation and frustration from Hogan in this article - let alone a high level of hypocrisy - why will the UK representatives not just do as they were told like they did in 2016-2019!!!!!
Must be so annoying for them.....
I liked this comment from Gove:
“It is the case that we seek a zero-tariff, zero-quota arrangement,” he said.
“But if it is the case that we end up like CETA with tariffs on a small number of goods, we will regret that, we will think it is a missed opportunity, but if that is the price we have to pay, then there you go.”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18430654.eu-hits-uk-making-brexit-proposals-in-airwaves/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.