• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Brexit: Now What? Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrison said:
And meanwhile:

Theresa May: Brexit plans to be laid out in new year

Includes this gem:

She added: "It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever."
Click to expand...

Well the massive cuts in services and promises of tax breaks for corporations are a sort of change...
Click to expand...

Wow, that's quite a mandate that she's claimed for herself there, what a shock :rolleyes:

Sorry to keep banging on about it but that just reinforces my opinion that she's an out-out-outer. The lack of a coherent opposition in England means that IMO the Conservatives will be in power for a generation and we'll have the death penalty back by 2026. :mad:

"The change in the way that the country works and for whom" she refers to presumably means that she's going to try to ensure that it's white, middle-class, Conservative voters who will be front and centre. Not that it's much of a change to the current situation but it'll be explicit instead of implicit.

We're heading back to the 1950s, we'll able to call people "darkies" and "pakis", discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual identity - whoop-di-friggin-doo :mad:
 
Garrison said:
And meanwhile:

Theresa May: Brexit plans to be laid out in new year

Includes this gem:



Well the massive cuts in services and promises of tax breaks for corporations are a sort of change...
Click to expand...

From that same article, it looks like moves are afoot to rebase the immigration figures by simply removing students.

The prime minister was repeatedly questioned on the future of immigration policy by Mrs Cooper, the Commons Home Affairs Committee chairwoman.

She asked whether it was "time to remove" foreign students from figures, but Mrs May responded that this was "in the international definition of migration figures".

Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Liaison Committee, told Mrs May: "Most people think that students are a huge success story for this country - a great British export. Don't you think it might be a good idea to reconsider that decision?"
Click to expand...


Theresa May is going through the motions of refusing but I reckon that it'll be a very easy way to claim "success" on immigration post-Brexit.
 
Those pesky Europeans strike again!

EU data retention ruling goes against UK government

So which traitor to queen and country wanted the ECJ involved in the first place?
The challenge was initially championed by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who was then a backbench Conservative MP.
Click to expand...

Yes the man who took this to the ECJ is in charge of a process one of whose goals is to ensure no one else can ever do the same. But don't worry, the government must be trying to repatriate control of all those laws and rights to make them stronger and increase our protections right?
 
Last edited:
The discussion of plural voting has been split to a separate thread, where it should receive the wider audience it deserves.
Posted By: Agatha
 
Theresa May 'lacks courage to admit complexity of Brexit'
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...admit-complexity-of-brexit-say-civil-servants

Theresa May is struggling to summon enough political courage to admit there will be difficulties in Britain’s exit from the European Union, according to the head of the senior civil servants’ union.

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, said the prime minister’s inability to talk openly about the complexity of Brexit could lead to a breaking point in Whitehall as staff struggle with an immense workload on limited resources.
Click to expand...
Realism is not a prominent feature of the May government. There'll be tears before bedtime, mark my words.
 
Garrison said:
So Lord King, former head of the Bank of England has weighed in:

Lord King says Brexit brings 'real opportunities'

Yes the man who was in charge of the BoE during the 2008 crash is a Brexit supporter.
Click to expand...
More to the point, in charge during the years before the 2008 crash. A man for whom the word "vacuous" might have been invented.

Of course there are great opportunities for business courtesy of Brexit, just ask Trump's new Commerce Secretary:

Brexit is 'God-given' chance to steal business from Britain, Donald Trump's trade aide declares
Click to expand...
It's never good for a country to come across as needy, which is what Britain's doing right now courtesy of its hapless government. Boris Johnson and Farage are its public face in the wider world.

I've never felt more Welsh, and I'm sure all true Scots have a similar response. Being English is no escape.
 
Garrison said:
Yes the man who took this to the ECJ is in charge of a process one of whose goals is to ensure no one else can ever do the same. But don't worry, the government must be trying to repatriate control of all those laws and rights to make them stronger and increase our protections right?
Click to expand...
Of course. How hard can it be?
 
And if you ever wondered how we wound up with a referendum in the first place:

Brexit: How rebel MPs outfoxed Cameron to get an EU referendum

The article talks about the 'cunning' of the backbench morons, but what comes across to me is that it only worked because Cameron was utterly inept and spineless. A better leader would have seen it coming and realized that giving these idiots any encouragement would be disastrous. Instead Cameron simply retreated and retreated until he was backed into a corner and lost the job he was so desperate to cling on to.
 
No. Cameron was right to hold a referendum - as was proved when a majority of voters used it to get the policy change they wanted. Cameron's mistake was to pin his colours to the remain camp and to attempt to frighten voters to support him. If he'd adopted a statesmanlike neutral position, saying that his duty as Prime Minister was to carry out the public's wishes, then he would be in his old job still.
 
ceptimus said:
No. Cameron was right to hold a referendum - as was proved when a majority of voters used it to get the policy change they wanted.
Click to expand...

Sorry which policy was that? The £350 million pound a week extra for public services? Or maybe the we can keep all the benefits of the single market without the red tape? Or re-establishing the sovereignty of Parliament and British courts? You keep pretending the no vote meant leave at any price, when you know full well that many no voters only voted leave because of those false promises. I realize that you are prepared to pay any price to indulge your xenophobia, but please don't assume you speak for all those conned into voting Leave by false promises.

Cameron's mistake was to pin his colours to the remain camp and to attempt to frighten voters to support him. If he'd adopted a statesmanlike neutral position, saying that his duty as Prime Minister was to carry out the public's wishes, then he would be in his old job still.
Click to expand...

His job as Prime Minister was to campaign for whichever side he believed was in the best interests of the country, he did so, he failed disastrously. And the people who were trying to frighten voter were the Leave campaign. doing their best to appeal to xenophobes like you with threats of a flood of Turkish immigrants, not to mention all those wild promises they reneged on the moment the vote was over.
 
ceptimus said:
No. Cameron was right to hold a referendum - as was proved when a majority of voters used it to get the policy change they wanted. Cameron's mistake was to pin his colours to the remain camp and to attempt to frighten voters to support him. If he'd adopted a statesmanlike neutral position, saying that his duty as Prime Minister was to carry out the public's wishes, then he would be in his old job still.
Click to expand...

His job as Prime minister was to govern the country well on behalf of everyone in the country not just the majority. It was certainly not to keep certain factions in his own party happy or to carry out the public's wishes. Again we have a parliamentary democracy not a populist democracy a fact you seem incapable of understanding.
 
You don't really believe that yourself. Everyone knows that a leader in a democracy who doesn't have sufficient popular support has to go. Cameron didn't need to choose a side on this issue; but he chose to do so anyway and he chose the losing side: that's why he's now toast.
 
ceptimus said:
You don't really believe that yourself. Everyone knows that a leader in a democracy who doesn't have sufficient popular support has to go. Cameron didn't need to choose a side on this issue; but he chose to do so anyway and he chose the losing side: that's why he's now toast.
Click to expand...
The Prime Minister didn't need to "choose a side" on a matter of such constitutional significance as to require a referendum? I don't think being head of government permits such detachment.
 
ceptimus said:
You don't really believe that yourself. Everyone knows that a leader in a democracy who doesn't have sufficient popular support has to go. Cameron didn't need to choose a side on this issue; but he chose to do so anyway and he chose the losing side: that's why he's now toast.
Click to expand...

And you are representative of the worst side of democracy : "get the job and keep the job at all cost, no matter if it sinks the country" is essentially the message you want to send.

What rational people expect , and as said twice before to you, is that the leader does what is good for UK , not for himself.

If democracy fails , it will be because the majority expect , no : ASK politician to do what is good for themselves rather than for the country.
 
Aepervius said:
What rational people expect , and as said twice before to you, is that the leader does what is good for UK , not for himself.
Click to expand...
Cameron did that.

1. He gave us the referendum we wanted.
2. He resigned after he'd backed the losing side.

Both those actions were good for the UK, but not for Cameron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom