'It'll be carnage': British companies dread a Brexit border breakdown

[RayC]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

Swanson? That's even better! 

Err, who? If you mean Swinson, then you've got the wrong party????????

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

I was disputing your comment that ' the opposition parties voted against May's deal because they believed her deal was wrong' - not answering your strange question.

 

I know why the opposition voted against May's deal because of what they said at the time. Maybe they were lying; but how do you know if they were or not?

 

 How is the question strange?

 

The Brexiteer self contradiction of a Remain Parliament thwarting a Remain Prime Minister is certainly strange; hence the question!

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed along with reply.   I suggest you self-moderate your posts or there will be no choice but to issue suspensions.   Please, keep it civil. 

 

[vogie]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

It's probably best that we park this discussion. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the concepts of accountability and responsibility. I wouldn't presume to know which it is. 

I grasp everything, we have had a referendum, leave won so we are leaving. It is you that cannot understand the simplicities of how democracy works. Blaming others all the time is a remainers 'get out of jail card' 

[Rookiescot]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I used the example of the UK and Switzerland but referendums occur far less frequently in the UK. I think only 6 years is too soon for a vote on the same question, yes.

 

What I personally agree with does not matter. I am sure that any government would not ask for my individual blessing for any referendum. 

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

Labour and the SNP triggered the last one did they not?

[evadgib]

9 hours ago, RayC said:

Err, who? If you mean Swinson, then you've got the wrong party????????

In which case please accept this correction:???? (????)

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by evadgib

[nauseus]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 Were the electorate as a whole (Remainers and Leavers) more informed than MPs when it came to the pros and cons of Brexit? If they were, they shouldn't have been. After all, we elect politicans to make informed decisions on our behalf. 

 

Although we probably disagree about who is responsible, I assume that we agree that the referendum result has caused an enormous divide in UK society? I would contend that if the decision to leave had been made by government, it would not have opened such a schism, although I accept that this is pure conjecture.

 

I think that it's not hard to see that the ratio of "informed" (elected) politicians to those that are ill-informed has been declining for years, although a being "well informed" MP does not necessarily guarantee that an MP will serve the best interests of his voters, anyway. I think MPs are elected if they are seen as the candidates most likely to vote for the interests of individual voters, whether these interests, or policies, are local or national. 

 

I can agree that the referendum result has highlighted a division but I think that had been there for years. I would say that If the government had just decided to leave (with no referendum) then the kickback from remain would have been harder than it has been but that there would have been more justification for it. 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Same question but completely different circumstances. 

Following your logic we should not be having general elections every 5 years. Or indeed even sooner than that when it suits the Conservative party. 

 

If you want to highlight completely different circumstances you should start with general elections and referendums. 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, vogie said:

I grasp everything ....

And now you are omnipotent...

[evadgib]

More 'getting on with it' from HMG:

Breadth of UK food, drink and innovation set to shine at the 2020 China International Import Expo

Quote

The UK will showcase the best of British at the third China International Import Expo (CIIE), following a record-breaking year of £100 billion in trade between the two nations.

And again:

Finance Ministers Sunak and Sitharaman hold landmark dialogue

 

(Note: I'm unable to shrink the font on this device or inc a quote from the 2nd link)

Edited October 30, 2020 by evadgib

[RayC]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think that it's not hard to see that the ratio of "informed" (elected) politicians to those that are ill-informed has been declining for years,

I'm not so sure. I agree that there currently appear to be few stand-out MPs on either side of the Commons, but has it ever been that different? Yes, in the relatively recent past there have been the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke, but they are few and far between. In fairness, it's easy enough for us to put the country to rights on TVF, it's quite another thing to do so in practice.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

although a being "well informed" MP does not necessarily guarantee that an MP will serve the best interests of his voters, anyway.

I think that it is impossible to have that guarantee although I (prefer to) believe that most MPs act with honesty and integrity.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think MPs are elected if they are seen as the candidates most likely to vote for the interests of individual voters, whether these interests, or policies, are local or national. 

I don't understand. This seems to contradict your previous comment?

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I can agree that the referendum result has highlighted a division but I think that had been there for years. I would say that If the government had just decided to leave (with no referendum) then the kickback from remain would have been harder than it has been but that there would have been more justification for it. 

Certainly a possibility and, yes the division has been there for years; however, the problems associated with this division remained (no pun intended!) under the surface: 'Time may be a healer' but the UK is a nation split (almost) down the middle on so many issues nowadays. I'd contend that the Brexit referendum was the catalyst for this exposure of these divisions, hence one reason why I am against referendums. Was/ Is it worth it? A matter of opinion of course.

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

If you want to highlight completely different circumstances you should start with general elections and referendums. 

So you get asked the same question every time you vote in a general election but you think we should not be asking the same question in a referendum after 6 years when the circumstances have completely changed.

Yeah ok. I suppose inconsistency is a Brexiteer constant. 

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So you get asked the same question every time you vote in a general election but you think we should not be asking the same question in a referendum after 6 years when the circumstances have completely changed.

Yeah ok. I suppose inconsistency is a Brexiteer constant. 

 

Referendums suit single issues. General elections do not. That's why the word 'general' is included. 

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Referendums suit single issues. General elections do not. That's why the word 'general' is included. 

They are both campaigns dealing with many arguments for and against.

You are splitting hairs again. You either agree with democracy or you dont.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

I think that it's not hard to see that the ratio of "informed" (elected) politicians to those that are ill-informed has been declining for years, although a being "well informed" MP does not necessarily guarantee that an MP will serve the best interests of his voters, anyway. I think MPs are elected if they are seen as the candidates most likely to vote for the interests of individual voters, whether these interests, or policies, are local or national. 

 

How wonderfully naïve!

 

Individual MPs have been seen as mere lobby fodder by their party leaders and whips since at least the 18th century! Follow the party line or at best have the whip withdrawn, be too critical of your leader and be expelled.

 

There may be a handful of voters in any constituency who vote for the individual; but most vote for the party regardless. Where I live the Tories could put up a one legged donkey and it would win. Even floating voters tend to vote for the party rather than the candidate. That is why there are so few independent MPs elected.

 

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

I can agree that the referendum result has highlighted a division but I think that had been there for years. I would say that If the government had just decided to leave (with no referendum) then the kickback from remain would have been harder than it has been but that there would have been more justification for it. 

 

If any government had decided to leave without reference to the people then you are probably right. Look at the resentment caused by the government forcing it's WA on us without giving us a say. I include May's attempts to do that as well as the agreement Boris has since decided he signed with his fingers crossed behind his back.

 

But had Remain won in 2016 I suspect that many Brexiteers would have been echoing Farage's call for another referendum when he thought Remain was going to win by 52% to 48%. Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second referendum

Quote

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way

 

As we all know, when Leave won by that margin he hailed it as a magnificent victory!

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

They are both campaigns dealing with many arguments for and against.

You are splitting hairs again. You either agree with democracy or you dont.

 

You can't seem to take in and accept what I say. Just as you can't take in and accept the referendum result. 

 

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

More 'getting on with it' from HMG:

 Really?  A trade show and discussions. 

 

More clutching at straws. The deals signed so far will not get anywhere near replacing what we will lose if there is no deal with the EU.

 

OK, there are other potential deals in the pipeline such as the Japanese deal, which has yet to be confirmed by the Japanese parliament and wont result in much, if any, additional trade than that already carried out between us under the EU agreement!

 

As Johnson has shown he is willing to renege on international agreements and treaties whenever it suits him; who will trust him to stick to one he signs with them?

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You can't seem to take in and accept what I say. Just as you can't take in and accept the referendum result. 

 

 

Perfectly aware of the referendum result but a nice try at deflection.

So do you believe in democracy or not?

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

How wonderfully naïve!

 

Individual MPs have been seen as mere lobby fodder by their party leaders and whips since at least the 18th century! Follow the party line or at best have the whip withdrawn, be too critical of your leader and be expelled.

 

There may be a handful of voters in any constituency who vote for the individual; but most vote for the party regardless. Where I live the Tories could put up a one legged donkey and it would win. Even floating voters tend to vote for the party rather than the candidate. That is why there are so few independent MPs elected.

 

 

If any government had decided to leave without reference to the people then you are probably right. Look at the resentment caused by the government forcing it's WA on us without giving us a say. I include May's attempts to do that as well as the agreement Boris has since decided he signed with his fingers crossed behind his back.

 

But had Remain won in 2016 I suspect that many Brexiteers would have been echoing Farage's call for another referendum when he thought Remain was going to win by 52% to 48%. Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second referendum

 

As we all know, when Leave won by that margin he hailed it as a magnificent victory!

 

I was referring to the low number of seemingly "informed" politicians these days (like some of your naïve heroes and heroines no doubt). Some of the goons exposed these days are just a national embarrassment. The uses and effects of the party whips are a different issue. Smart individual politicians will stand out, whip or no whip.   

 

If Remain had won there would not have been a call for another referendum, whatever Farage did. Unlike remainers, leavers are capable of respecting a democratic vote.

 

It was indeed a magnificent victory! Hurrah!

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Perfectly aware of the referendum result but a nice try at deflection.

So do you believe in democracy or not?

 

Of course I believe in democracy.

[evadgib]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

who will trust him to stick to one he signs with them?

Just about everyone.

HTH

[7by7]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Referendums suit single issues. General elections do not. That's why the word 'general' is included. 

 Not really.

 

They are called 'general' elections because all registered voters in the general population can vote.

 

Different from an election, such as a by-election, where only a specific section of registered voters can vote.

 

There have, of course, been single issue general elections. Heath's February 1974 "Me or the miners" one; Johnson's December 2019 "Back my WA or sack me" one both spring to mind.

[Rookiescot]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Of course I believe in democracy.

Then you should have no problem with Scotland having another referendum then. 

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Not really.

 

They are called 'general' elections because all registered voters in the general population can vote.

 

Different from an election, such as a by-election, where only a specific section of registered voters can vote.

 

There have, of course, been single issue general elections. Heath's February 1974 "Me or the miners" one; Johnson's December 2019 "Back my WA or sack me" one both spring to mind.

 

Very wobbly now.

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Then you should have no problem with Scotland having another referendum then. 

 

Every year then?

[Loiner]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Every year then?

No, only until they get their desired result, then it will have been the final one.

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I was referring to the low number of seemingly "informed" politicians these days (like some of your naïve heroes and heroines no doubt). Some of the goons exposed these days are just a national embarrassment. The uses and effects of the party whips are a different issue. Smart individual politicians will stand out, whip or no whip.  

 Then you are indeed both naïve and ill informed about our party system and the power of the whips! But right about the goons you call a national embarrassment. But 'twas ever thus; in all parties.

 

Having said that, their are some backbenchers who do stand out, such as Frank Field, now Baron Field, but they are, regrettably, few and far between.

 

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If Remain had won there would not have been a call for another referendum, whatever Farage did.

 If you believe that I have a bridge for sale! The 2016 referendum was called because Cameron was afraid of losing votes to UKIP; do you really think that the same threat and pressure would not have resulted in another one? 

 

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Unlike remainers, leavers are capable of respecting a democratic vote.

Remainers, or most of us at least, respect the result; but in a democracy we are allowed to voice our criticism of it.

 

In a democracy we are also allowed to campaign for a say on the effects of that result via a referendum on the WA. 

 

It is the Brexiteer attempts to stifle all debate on the subject that is undemocratic.

 

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It was indeed a magnificent victory! Hurrah!

I know the Brexiteer thinking: 52% to 48% victory for Remain; too close to call. 52% to 48% victory for leave; magnificent victory!

 

Yes, it was a victory for your side; but hardly magnificent. A narrow scrape is more accurate.

 

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Every year then?

No. There has not been one every year as you are perfectly aware.

However polls now show a substantial majority in favor of another referendum.

Are you going to deny them democracy? Or will you, as you profess to believe in democracy, support the wishes of the Scottish electorate?

[Loiner]

That chaos of the original post looks like it will actually be in German industry and not at the UK docks. Can they beat down Macron & Co to save the fatherland's business in time?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1354080/brexit-news-eu-uk-trade-deal-no-deal-brexit-germany-london