• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

SpurMeUp said:
Woah there. Where have I said that? I was referring to the narrative (which I can understand) which looks back and says, well in my day, you'd get up and take any bloody job you could when you were 16 etc. And I'd agree. But the reality is, when British people picked fruit they were bordering on destitute. We're richer, and that's ultimately a good thing. With less wealth there are positives - more social cohesion as we rely on others more for example creating stronger social bonds - but you can't halt change and go back to world where plucky roosterneys spent their summers picking fruit.

Maybe what made you so defensive is that the gaps are being filled in with EU work migrants. But we all seem to agree, post Brexit we'll allow (or should) at least some of this migration to continue.

The logical progression of this, is to start asking, what changes will we see then, if we are going to allow some migration anyway (and half of our migration is ex-eu anyway), is the control we'll get over immigration worth the sacrifices of giving up customs union membership? Hard to answer that without knowing the full EU deal etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that you have said it, that's why I asked you the question. But you have vehemently argued against posters in this thread who have advocated a moderate, controlled approach. It therefore seemed like a reasonable enough enquiry to make.

You state that your 'go backwards' remark was referring to a narrative, but I'm not sure who in this thread has put forward the narrative that you describe - and your question did seem to have been specifically addressed at posters here. Admittedly I haven't read every post in detail, but all I've seen are (what I interpretted to be) genuine & honest questions from other posters about how such positions were filled historically, and the actual true extent to which we have become reliant upon immigration to fill them. That first question doesn't necessarily have to refer back multiple decades. Seeing as we're talking about predominantly eastern European fruit pickers, I took it more to mean pre-2004 actually. Looking at the data annual EU arrivals, gross, hadn't got anywhere near 100,000 before that year. More recently they've been running at roughly 3x their pre-2004 level.

And in any case, I conceded the fruit picker point way back. This is what I find so puzzling about the strength of your opposition. I'm only suggesting control, as opposed to an open door. No more than that. We very well might still need every single one of those Polish fruit pickers...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
There in lies the rub. There is an assumption, and again - accepted truth - that we will simply be worse off, that really grates me.

I full accept that we could be, and fully accept in the short term we likely will be (any change or transition comes with some pain), but it doesnt follow that WE WILL FOR SURE BE WORSE OFF. It just doesnt, there is much possibility.

Personally I am still VERY much of the opinion that the EU needs to deal as much as we do. And that, with that in mind, compromises can be found that suit all. Isnt that really what any successful negotiation is about?


In the case of immigration, I think it is a must that it is reduced, the current rates simply cannot be sustained.

I think it is only right that a country gets to choose those it accepts, ideally with the majority being required.

This in turn helps support sectors/services where they need it, and relieve pressure on things like welfare and housing at the same time*.

As Scara points out, if we need less hotels and coffee shops, we also need less workers to operate them. It is not necessarily a bad thing to have a reduction in both.




*No, I dont think the NHS, Welfare or housing issues are immigrations fault. I do, however, think high immigration adds pressure to an already faulty system
Click to expand...

Would you support another vote once we know what it is we’re getting? So many variables and unknowns...even now just over a year away.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
scaramanga said:
Nor is it the experience of almost anyone I know.

The most successful people I know are the ones that have taken the biggest risks and put in the most time/effort. The ones I know who support Corbyn have spent half their lives dossing in Bali or surfing somewhere and are now upset that those who were their peers are now living in big houses and driving nice cars.
Click to expand...
And some of us fall into both those camps.:)
 
SpurMeUp said:
Would you support another vote once we know what it is we’re getting? So many variables and unknowns...even now just over a year away.
Click to expand...

Interesting question.

My first thought was, "why not? It would at least put any disent to rest".

Then I thought, "but why would you?"

Isnt the point of a vote for a decision to be made? Should we open up the option to vote and re vote on everything?

And yes, I do appreciate the argument that we didnt necessarily know what we were actually voting for, but I think its a question that is (likely unintended) rather loaded and would need some major thought.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Would you support another vote once we know what it is we’re getting? So many variables and unknowns...even now just over a year away.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
The problem with that is it's just like P hacking. The Irish govt and the EU colluded to do the same over the Lisbon "Treaty".

Why not hold a new referendum every time something changes until we get the result we want and then stop there?
 
Parklaner81 said:
I'm not aware that you have said it, that's why I asked you the question. But you have vehemently argued against posters in this thread who have advocated a moderate, controlled approach. It therefore seemed like a reasonable enough enquiry to make.

You state that your 'go backwards' remark was referring to a narrative, but I'm not sure who in this thread has put forward the narrative that you describe - and your question did seem to have been specifically addressed at posters here. Admittedly I haven't read every post in detail, but all I've seen are (what I interpretted to be) genuine & honest questions from other posters about how such positions were filled historically, and the actual true extent to which we have become reliant upon immigration to fill them. That first question doesn't necessarily have to refer back multiple decades. Seeing as we're talking about predominantly eastern European fruit pickers, I took it more to mean pre-2004 actually. Looking at the data annual EU arrivals, gross, hadn't got anywhere near 100,000 before that year. More recently they've been running at roughly 3x their pre-2004 level.

And in any case, I conceded the fruit picker point way back. This is what I find so puzzling about the strength of your opposition. I'm only suggesting control, as opposed to an open door. No more than that. We very well might still need every single one of those Polish fruit pickers...
Click to expand...

So would you happy to stop Brexit if we can negotiate a level of control? What will the minimum level of control Be?

And

What would be too high a price to pay for that control?

Also what the fudge are they doing? No fudging impact assessments?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Interesting question.

My first thought was, "why not? It would at least put any disent to rest".

Then I thought, "but why would you?"

Isnt the point of a vote for a decision to be made? Should we open up the option to vote and re vote on everything?

And yes, I do appreciate the argument that we didnt necessarily know what we were actually voting for, but I think its a question that is (likely unintended) rather loaded and would need some major thought.
Click to expand...

Well the first vote was advisory for a start. This vote would be final.
 
galeforce said:
I don't believe for a second they've not done impact assessments. I do believe they are scared brickless of releasing the conclusions though.
Click to expand...

I think that would be better. But that would have them in contempt of parliament. Amongst other things
 
Gutter Boy said:
I believe in rigour and due diligence - of course

But I do also see some sense in the argument that economics is a social science, not a hard science, and therefore is basically guesswork and conjecture. Slow journalism.
Click to expand...

That arguement just doesn't cut it. The government does impact assements on near enough everything. But the biggest economic shake up since the fall of the Empire... and they decide that is the time not to bother??? Seriously what the fudge?
 
DTA said:
So would you happy to stop Brexit if we can negotiate a level of control? What will the minimum level of control Be?

And

What would be too high a price to pay for that control?

Also what the fudge are they doing? No fudging impact assessments?
Click to expand...

Personally, no, I wouldn't be happy to do that. I just don't like the idea of being asked to vote again and provide the correct answer this time, nor the precedent it would set (or perhaps rather, as Scara suggests, the precedent it would follow).

Having said that, there was a time that I was open to voting remain prior to the referendum (believe it or not), and yes this was one of the larger influencing factors in my eventual decision. I've said before that I don't have all of the detailed answers; none of us here are politicians, or policy experts (are we?!). This isn't my job, I'm just an interested observer. I'd be fairly confident however that the minimum level of control most voters would find acceptable would be a higher degree than the EU are willing to cede...

To be honest I haven't caught up yet on the furore over the impact statements, so I can't really offer much comment on that. It doesn't sound great on the surface, I'll readily admit. Then again, what did the impact assessments about us not joining the Euro say...?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Interesting question.

My first thought was, "why not? It would at least put any disent to rest".

Then I thought, "but why would you?"

Isnt the point of a vote for a decision to be made? Should we open up the option to vote and re vote on everything?

And yes, I do appreciate the argument that we didnt necessarily know what we were actually voting for, but I think its a question that is (likely unintended) rather loaded and would need some major thought.
Click to expand...

Brexit may be the biggest change to the UK economy in our lifetime. And we're passengers on this train. We got on it with a simple destination in mind. But after the doors closed we found out the track wasn't even laid let alone knowing what the destination is. Now what might be delivered is a broad spectrum - from EU light - to a radical change to a tax haven like Singapore (and that's not even covering immigration). Its crazy that we glibly follow. What is delivered might not make you happy. Suppose May says look we need to be like Norway, we'll keep free movement but be in the customs union. You're up for it regardless?

Of course the truth is, leave supporters don't want another vote, because it may jeopardise the original vote. Conversely, Remain sympathisers want another vote. Why beat around the bush!
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Brexit may be the biggest change to the UK economy in our lifetime. And we're passengers on this train. We got on it with a simple destination in mind. But after the doors closed we found out the track wasn't even laid let alone knowing what the destination is. Now what might be delivered is a broad spectrum - from EU light - to a radical change to a tax haven like Singapore (and that's not even covering immigration). Its crazy that we glibly follow. What is delivered might not make you happy. Suppose May says look we need to be like Norway, we'll keep free movement but be in the customs union. You're up for it regardless?

Of course the truth is, leave supporters don't want another vote, because it may jeopardise the original vote. Conversely, Remain sympathisers want another vote. Why beat around the bush!
Click to expand...
Isn't it a little convenient that this vote would be at the time that will be the most difficult for the UK no matter what the end game?

That's the very reason we don't vote on every little decision - people get cold feet and flip flop all the time. No decisions would ever be followed through if we allowed the public to keep voting like that. We have to hope our politicians have the courage of their convictions and follow through on the decisions made.

Just look at how the party in power polls a year or two after an election - people who voted for a manifesto run scared when the work gets tough. When the policies they voted for are in place the party in control starts polling well again.

A vote in the next couple of years would only reflect how tough implementation is, not the end result. Wait 5-10 years after the interim period finishes and then another referendum would make sense, because we won't know what we're voting for until then.
 
milo said:
This interesting too from someone involved in the leave campaign

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/12/hard-brexit-has-reached-dead-end.html
Click to expand...

"The Tories have tried their version of Brexit (note: not the version) and it has slammed forcefully into a brick wall. It now seems obvious to me that the only people that can save them from themselves are the electorate."

The author campaigned for Leave? Not many Leave campaigners seem to be able to reverse their position. Credit to them for their honesty and lack of prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Parklaner81 said:
Personally, no, I wouldn't be happy to do that. I just don't like the idea of being asked to vote again and provide the correct answer this time, nor the precedent it would set (or perhaps rather, as Scara suggests, the precedent it would follow).

Having said that, there was a time that I was open to voting remain prior to the referendum (believe it or not), and yes this was one of the larger influencing factors in my eventual decision. I've said before that I don't have all of the detailed answers; none of us here are politicians, or policy experts (are we?!). This isn't my job, I'm just an interested observer. I'd be fairly confident however that the minimum level of control most voters would find acceptable would be a higher degree than the EU are willing to cede...

To be honest I haven't caught up yet on the furore over the impact statements, so I can't really offer much comment on that. It doesn't sound great on the surface, I'll readily admit. Then again, what did the impact assessments about us not joining the Euro say...?
Click to expand...

But we didn't join the euro. I don' know what they said but I know that joining the euro was good for the big economies of the EU... But brick for the smaller economies. Anyway what did they say?

Let me ask you this. Are you happy with how the Brexit talks have gone so far?

What do you predict for the next stage?

And please answer this one:

What would have to happen in these negotiations to make you think Brexit was a bad idea?
 
scaramanga said:
Isn't it a little convenient that this vote would be at the time that will be the most difficult for the UK no matter what the end game?

That's the very reason we don't vote on every little decision - people get cold feet and flip flop all the time. No decisions would ever be followed through if we allowed the public to keep voting like that. We have to hope our politicians have the courage of their convictions and follow through on the decisions made.

Just look at how the party in power polls a year or two after an election - people who voted for a manifesto run scared when the work gets tough. When the policies they voted for are in place the party in control starts polling well again.

A vote in the next couple of years would only reflect how tough implementation is, not the end result. Wait 5-10 years after the interim period finishes and then another referendum would make sense, because we won't know what we're voting for until then.
Click to expand...

Sure we get that, but this is an exceptional event. Furthermore the "decisions" have not been decided! People haven't voted at all on anything concrete. That is fundamental in this instance. A Norway model is a world apart from a hard WTO Brexit. I'm not sure how a vote would work either, but to allow dictatorial control to decide Brexit - May's decision - when there are such hotly debated considerations, just doesn't seem right in a democracy.
 
scaramanga said:
We have to hope our politicians have the courage of their convictions and follow through on the decisions mad
Click to expand...

But the majority of the house think Brexit is a bad idea. They are only continuing down this path because it's the 'will of the people..... except and this is crucial, the people were lied to when making their decision. As has been proved beyond doubt in the negotiations so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back