EU and Brexit

All things British. Kidney Pie, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash

Moderator: chijohnaok

Forum rules
Harumpfh. English Gentlemen hardly need lectures on manners from some rabid colonial bumpkin
Message
Author
Mac
First Sergeant
Posts: 8380
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Location: The Cockney Paradise

Re: EU and Brexit

#2551 Post by Mac » Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:14 pm

Scotland btfo...
The UK government has formally rejected a call from Scotland's first minister for a second independence referendum.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said a referendum would "continue the political stagnation Scotland has seen for the past decade".

And he said First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had previously pledged that the 2014 referendum would be a "once in a generation" vote.

Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the Tories were attempting to "deny democracy".

She said Mr Johnson's formal refusal of her request for a referendum to be held later this year was "predictable but also unsustainable and self defeating", and insisted that "Scotland will have the right to choose".

The first minister also said the Scottish government would set out its response and "next steps" before the end of the month, and that the devolved Scottish Parliament would again be asked to "back Scotland's right to choose our own future".

Scottish voters backed remaining in the UK by 55% to 45% in the referendum in 2014.

Ms Sturgeon says she wants to hold another vote on independence, and made a formal request last month for the UK government to transfer powers - known as a Section 30 order - to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh that would ensure any referendum is legal.

The request came after Ms Sturgeon's SNP, which forms the Scottish government, won 48 of the 59 seats in Scotland in the UK general election.

In his written response to Ms Sturgeon, the prime minister said he had "carefully considered and noted" her arguments.

But he said: "You and your predecessor (Alex Salmond) made a personal promise that the 2014 independence referendum was a "once in a generation" vote.

"The people of Scotland voted decisively on that promise to keep our United Kingdom together, a result which both the Scottish and UK governments committed to respect in the Edinburgh Agreement."

Mr Johnson said the UK government would "continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise you made to them".

And he said he did not want to see Scotland's schools, hospitals and employment "again left behind because of a campaign to separate the UK".

The prime minister added: "For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums".

The formal rejection comes days after the UK government's Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, said another victory in next year's Scottish Parliament election would still not give the SNP a mandate to hold a referendum.

Ms Sturgeon has previously warned that a "flat no" from Mr Johnson to her request would "not be the end of the matter".

But she has made clear that she will not hold an unofficial referendum similar to the disputed one in Catalonia in 2017, arguing that it would not actually deliver independence as the result would not be recognised by the EU or wider international community.

The first minister said: "The Tories are terrified of Scotland having the right to choose our own future. They know that given the choice the overwhelming likelihood is that people will choose the positive option of independence.

"The Tories - and their allies in the leaderships of Labour and the Lib Dems - lack any positive case for the union, so all they can do is try to block democracy.

"It shows utter contempt for the votes, views and interests of the people of Scotland and it is a strategy that is doomed to failure."

The prospect of an independence referendum on Nicola Sturgeon's preferred timetable - the second half of 2020 - now looks very remote.

The first minister is confident that Mr Johnson's refusal will help make the case for independence in the longer term, but for now her options are limited.

In the first instance, she is planning another vote at Holyrood to underline the backing of MSPs for a new referendum. With the SNP and Greens holding a majority between them, this is sure to pass - but this has happened before, to little avail.

She has not ruled out going to court, but this would hardly accelerate matters - constitutional lawyers have warned that "there are no legal short cuts" around the political battlefield.

So the next clear opportunity to break the deadlock may be the 2021 Holyrood elections. Ms Sturgeon clearly has one eye on that poll already, talking about the Tories being on a "road back to political oblivion".

Between now and then, another year of constitutional stalemate beckons.

Image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-51106796
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20502
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: EU and Brexit

#2552 Post by nero » Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:24 pm

EUBanana wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:30 am
nero wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:54 am
This is hard to believe, just because the food poisoning prevalence is tenfold in the US compared to UK and other EU countries. Some 48 million Americans get a food poisoning a year according to CDC. In UK it would correspond 9.38 million Brits getting food poisoning every year. :shock:
Says the guy bluntly comparing two figures never intended to be comparable while shrugging off a body that actually tries to rank countries. Yeah, respect the science, eh? :lol:

https://fullfact.org/health/food-poisoning-US-UK/
I so arrogant that I compare the food poisoning numbers per 100,000 and conclude that food safety is substandard in one country where number is ten times higher than in the other. The reasons are another thing though. ;)

Perhaps in the UK people avoid to report food poisonings because they are afraid of potential high medical costs? :roll:
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12263
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: EU and Brexit

#2553 Post by EUBanana » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:31 pm

As the article says the definitions are different, the assumptions made estimating are different, etc.

ie, its BS. As that article above explains. I did use a more comparable source but that gives a politically inconvenient answer, doesn't it. Funnily enough it's even published by the Ecommunist, a notable pro-EU paper, I guess that one slipped through the net!

The first step to deprogramming yourself from the Euro-Youth is knowing that you're regurgitating bullshit propaganda. ;) Nobody gave a f*** or even heard about chlorinated chicken until it was in some newspaper article as a scare story, part of Project Fear. And it trundles on because brainwashed fools like yourself keep spreading the EU line.

Do you think tourists visiting the US make pains to avoid the chicken? Because I don't. Because it's ludicrous. I just ate some chocolate from San Francisco, should I be worried? I DOUBT IT ADHERED TO EU REGULATIONS!!! Shit. I'm a goner.

I mean seriously, What. The. Fuck. For someone who gibbers on about empire all the time you're actually probably the nuttiest nationalist on this board.
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20502
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: EU and Brexit

#2554 Post by nero » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm

EUBanana wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:31 pm
As the article says the definitions are different, the assumptions made estimating are different, etc.

ie, its BS. As that article above explains. I did use a more comparable source but that gives a politically inconvenient answer, doesn't it. Funnily enough it's even published by the Ecommunist, a notable pro-EU paper, I guess that one slipped through the net!

The first step to deprogramming yourself from the Euro-Youth is knowing that you're regurgitating bullshit propaganda. ;) Nobody gave a f*** or even heard about chlorinated chicken until it was in some newspaper article as a scare story, part of Project Fear. And it trundles on because brainwashed fools like yourself keep spreading the EU line.

Do you think tourists visiting the US make pains to avoid the chicken? Because I don't. Because it's ludicrous. I just ate some chocolate from San Francisco, should I be worried? I DOUBT IT ADHERED TO EU REGULATIONS!!! Shit. I'm a goner.

I mean seriously, What. The. Fuck. For someone who gibbers on about empire all the time you're actually probably the nuttiest nationalist on this board.
What different definitions there are for Salmonellosis.

But how many people die in UK for Salmonillis and the same number in the US? Or are different definitions for death in the countries mention?

Just curious.

But if you don't like the inconvenient facts I present, it is your problem with facts, not my assumed nationalism. Anyway where did I mention Finland? :roll:
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

jollypillager
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 3319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:46 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: EU and Brexit

#2555 Post by jollypillager » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:28 pm

nero wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm
EUBanana wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:31 pm
As the article says the definitions are different, the assumptions made estimating are different, etc.

ie, its BS. As that article above explains. I did use a more comparable source but that gives a politically inconvenient answer, doesn't it. Funnily enough it's even published by the Ecommunist, a notable pro-EU paper, I guess that one slipped through the net!

The first step to deprogramming yourself from the Euro-Youth is knowing that you're regurgitating bullshit propaganda. ;) Nobody gave a f*** or even heard about chlorinated chicken until it was in some newspaper article as a scare story, part of Project Fear. And it trundles on because brainwashed fools like yourself keep spreading the EU line.

Do you think tourists visiting the US make pains to avoid the chicken? Because I don't. Because it's ludicrous. I just ate some chocolate from San Francisco, should I be worried? I DOUBT IT ADHERED TO EU REGULATIONS!!! Shit. I'm a goner.

I mean seriously, What. The. Fuck. For someone who gibbers on about empire all the time you're actually probably the nuttiest nationalist on this board.
What different definitions there are for Salmonellosis.

But how many people die in UK for Salmonillis and the same number in the US? Or are different definitions for death in the countries mention?

Just curious.

But if you don't like the inconvenient facts I present, it is your problem with facts, not my assumed nationalism. Anyway where did I mention Finland? :roll:
According to this: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do ... .2015.4329 the EU in 2014 had a Salmonella rate of 23.4 cases per 100,000

According to this: https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pdfs/2014-f ... report.pdf the US in 2014 had a Salmonella rate of 15.29 cases per 100,000

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12263
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: EU and Brexit

#2556 Post by EUBanana » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:39 am

nero wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm
But if you don't like the inconvenient facts I present, it is your problem with facts, not my assumed nationalism. Anyway where did I mention Finland? :roll:
I''ve dealt with enough loony Remainers to recognise foaming EU nationalism when I see it. I think not eating any food from outside the Promised Land is pretty extreme.
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20502
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: EU and Brexit

#2557 Post by nero » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:47 am

EUBanana wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:39 am
nero wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm
But if you don't like the inconvenient facts I present, it is your problem with facts, not my assumed nationalism. Anyway where did I mention Finland? :roll:
I''ve dealt with enough loony Remainers to recognise foaming EU nationalism when I see it. I think not eating any food from outside the Promised Land is pretty extreme.
You have suffered from EU-paranoia as long as I can remember. How often do you still see bendy bananas? :lol:

PS. I have visited the US few times (Madison WI, Boulder CO), and I didn't fast there. And beer was especially good.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37424
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: EU and Brexit

#2558 Post by chijohnaok » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:56 am

nero wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:47 am
EUBanana wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:39 am


I''ve dealt with enough loony Remainers to recognise foaming EU nationalism when I see it. I think not eating any food from outside the Promised Land is pretty extreme.
You have suffered from EU-paranoia as long as I can remember. How often do you still see bendy bananas? :lol:

PS. I have visited the US few times (Madison WI, Boulder CO), and I didn't fast there. And beer was especially good.

Well if eating food in the US during those visits didn't negatively impact you, then what do you blame (or credit) your current state of mind on? ;)
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12263
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: EU and Brexit

#2559 Post by EUBanana » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:30 am

nero wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:47 am
PS. I have visited the US few times (Madison WI, Boulder CO), and I didn't fast there. And beer was especially good.
So why drone on about chlorinated chickens?

In reality most people would be totally fine with recognising FDA approved food as safe .Even if they put a massive Old Glory on the chickens ass in the supermarket I'm sure people would buy it. As I said, a complete non issue.

Except not really because there's quite a few more gullible people who are now genuinely afraid of perfectly fine US food imports thanks to propaganda. Which is pretty sad. Kinda ironic really given you think I'm the paranoid one, you're the one who bleated a scare story like a well programmed sheep. :lol:

Ultimately it's all political, the EU doesn't want the UK to divert too far from their own regulatory structure because that would upset their imperial ambitions, that's the bottom line. Hence why we have scare stories like this, hence why the EU doesn't want perfectly safe (but not regulated by the EU) produce over the Irish border, etc etc. There's no real reason why the EU or US don't mutually recognise each others standards tbh, aside from protectionism, which both sides are guilty of in reality. For some things, like medicines, sanity prevails, but for some reason agriculture is always a sacred cow when it comes to trade policy.
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

User avatar
LaPalice
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 4470
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:42 am
Location: France

Re: EU and Brexit

#2560 Post by LaPalice » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:23 pm

Another article about the left in GB, and the possibilities it has to raise again after the defeat at the elections. Of course, if it follows what it did before, its fate will be the same as the continental social democrats.

Labour must not just accept Brexit but embrace it
It is the only option that offers a way back for the party: then it can argue for a left version of Britain outside the EU.

Modern Britain has been shaped by two events: the banking crisis of 2008 and the Brexit vote eight years later. The reason Boris Johnson is sitting in No 10 is that the Conservatives have learned the right lessons from these episodes and Labour has not.

The Tories have understood that their response to the financial meltdown – a prolonged period of austerity that squeezed living standards – was unpopular and wrong. They also twigged that Brexit was a revolt against austerity and free-market economics more generally – so they have embraced the decision to leave the European Union and positioned themselves as the party of intervention and the working classes.

Labour got the first part of this narrative but not the second. In this general election it sought to divorce austerity from Brexit – with disastrous results. Labour won seats in 2017 when it said it would respect the referendum result, but saw its “red wall” breached when it moved steadily closer to remain. Having chosen not to listen to what voters in its former heartlands were saying, Labour now seems bemused to find that they have migrated to a party that did.

Labour needs to change – but it mustn’t forget what it got right
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Read more
Labour’s Brexit stance was not the only reason it lost the election. The number of seats won by the party has fallen, with one exception, at every election since 1997. Corbyn bucked the trend in 2017 and although he only managed to emulate Gordon Brown’s performance in the defeat of 2010, there was hope that Labour could avoid becoming as politically irrelevant as the social democratic parties in Germany and France. But to do so Labour had to keep its broad electoral coalition together.

The problem in doing so became evident as the campaign wore on. Voters in the former industrial parts of the country are not mugs. They could see that Labour’s stance on Brexit had moved from respecting the referendum result in 2016, to telling the public to have another think (and to come up with a different result) in 2019.

And when canvassing returns showed the likely loss of seats in the red wall, Labour made matters worse by coming up with a string of panicky, and expensive, electoral bribes. To many voters, these seemed an insult to their intelligence, which indeed they were.

All of which leaves Labour in a terrible place. It is not just that the Conservatives are in power for at least the next five years. It is not even that seats once thought impregnable have been lost. It is the failure – for a second time in a decade – to be able to exploit conditions that looked tailor-made for a party of the left.

The financial crisis marked a watershed for global economic liberalism, because its fundamental tenet – that markets worked best when governments took a back seat – came under scrutiny. Brexit was one of the ways in which the pushback against the orthodoxy manifested itself, but much of the remainer left in the UK has been unable to grasp this. Instead of seeing Brexit as a vote for a different sort of economy, it has demonised leave voters as nativists and racists. It decided early on that no matter what form Brexit took, it would be worse than the status quo.

This was a curious argument, because it presupposed that nothing ever changes: that there would be no new policies, no attempts to improve on what currently exists, no attempts to respond to any short-term problems that Brexit might cause. By this token, Labour’s national investment bank and its Keynesian infrastructure programme would have made no difference either.

Brexit has already been a catalyst for change. It has forced the government to spend rather than cut. The Conservatives are committed to increase both the minimum wage and have pledged to use the money saved by scrapping a planned reduction in corporation tax to spending on the NHS. The need for state intervention in the economy is now accepted: regional policy is back in vogue.

So Labour’s remainers face a choice. Option one is to move straight from supporting a second referendum to arguing for rejoining the EU. This is an entirely negative strategy and relies on UK voters looking at the dismal growth across the Channel and saying: “We want what they are having.” It seems a tad unlikely.

Johnson's Brexit needs to deliver economic benefits – and fast
Read more
Option two involves grudgingly accepting that Brexit is a reality and that Labour’s approach should be to make the best of a bad job. This would be a continuation of Corbyn’s triangulation strategy and have the same baleful result. The message sent to leave voters would be the same as it has been consistently from remainers since 2016: you got it wrong, you idiots. This doesn’t seem to be a particularly good way of rebuilding the red wall either.

Advertisement

Strategy three is the hardest for remainers to swallow but it is the only option that offers a way back for Labour: embrace Brexit and argue for a left version of Britain outside the EU. This could take many forms: a devolution of power to local mayors; a new deal for the north; state support for green industry that would provide well-paid jobs in every constituency. It means exuding optimism that things can get better rather than telling people who are struggling, but not destitute, that only state handouts can alleviate their misery.

The choice is simple: start putting together a post-Brexit progressive project or have a monster sulk and watch the Tories make the political weather.

• Larry Elliott is the Guardian’s economics editor

Post Reply