Brexit

[Black Monk]

Here

On 02/08/2016 at 11:48 PM, alibongo said:

In the meantime, our economy will contract.

.

 

 

Bull****. Haven't we just been told there will be no recession?

Had we stayed in the EU, however, there likely would have been one.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

Here's an interesting stat:

The referendum was a close-run thing, with 51.9 per cent voting Leave against 48.1 per cent for Remain. But look at the distribution of the vote around the country, constituency by Parliamentary constituency, and a remarkable picture emerges.

If Leave had been a political party standing at a General Election, according to a study at the University of East Anglia, it would have won a thumping landslide of 421 seats — 65 per cent of all seats (including Scotland) and 73 per cent in England and Wales.

In the words of Gary Bennett, chief executive of number-crunchers The Stats People: ‘If higher turnout in London and Scotland had tipped Remain over 50 per cent nationally, the result would have lacked a mandate in three-quarters of seats in England and Wales, leading to a historic democratic disaster.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3724691/TOM-UTLEY-94th-birthday-bash-mother-law-showed-bitterly-divided-country-is.html#ixzz4GSaLfbab

[Black Monk]

Quote

Alot of English people are unwilling to do such jobs, which I am ashamed to admit, they are lazy.

There's nothing lazy about it. The jobs are just ****ty and low-paid and many people, quite rightly, don't want to do them.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Black Monk

[stevewinn]

56 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

There's nothing lazy about it. The jobs are just ****ty and low-paid and many people, quite rightly, don't want to do them.

It always makes me laugh this British are to lazy to do certain jobs. generally the menial ones. picking fruit & veg or cleaning duties. what is never explained is exploitation that goes on, Theresa May refereed to it as "modern day Slavery" the street wise amongst us would realise that when a van load of Eastern European Fruit Pickers are picked up in the morning for a day in the fields before returning back to a three bedroom house where a dozen or more live, yes the employer bypasses the law very cleverly, he pays them the minimum wage, but then deducts a few pound here for rent, a few pound there for transport, a extra few pounds for water, gas electric, and so by the time its all worked out the worker is in fact getting less than the minimum wage. But hey, whose bovvered as long as we get our fruit and veg a few pence cheaper and the landowner/gang master makes a good living exploiting.

My own family, a factory/packer/picker for 25+ years - over them years he and his colleagues accrued annual wage increases 1% here 3% there etc.. so his hourly wage was £9'odd, British workers made up the majority of the work force. a work force of 3,000 - Then the firm was bough out, within 12 months it went from making profit to a loss. the company went into administration and eventually closed. only to re-open a few months later under a different name, and when i say a different name it was the same name with Ltd added on the end. everyone in the warehouse was made redundant except for the supervisors, who were invited back on the same pay and conditions. the packers/pickers were not invited back, but all replaced with EU migrants working for the minimum wage which was £6 o'dd back then. so the company went from paying a good proportion of its 3,000 staff, £9' odd to £6 'odd.

And now we have to factor in agency workers, thanks to the EU you can employ agency workers upto five years without offering a permanent contract. and whos employment can be stopped in a instant. I have a mate who finished work on the Friday had his name down for the overtime on Sat/Sun and got a text message Friday night from the agency saying he was no longer required. - just like that (click of the fingers) stopped and people wonder why British people wont take certain jobs. if your British, have a mortgage and family to support you cannot simply be as mobile or as flexible as cheap EU migrants its fact. - i know a lad who was in that boat lost his job signed on the dole was receiving unemployment benefit plus government help to keep his house so the government was paying the interest on his mortgage, He took on agency work so all his unemployment benefits stopped including his mortgage payments. the agency finished him less than two weeks later, and he had to re-sign back on the dole and go through all the rigmarole over his mortgage payments again, that two weeks agency work actually cost him more than he picked up in wages. So now he wont take a job unless he's guaranteed a minimum of 6 months. But i guess he's a lazy ar$e. one of them Brits, who's got a wife, kids and house to support.

But who cares, we want products cheap and made by cheap workers because that's what we like as a society and we don't care if that's locally or internationally, we'll pretend we have a conscience, but that Samsung TV made in Romania or whatever the latest device is - who cares if some kid in a sweat shop in China or India is on $1 Dollar a day knocking a Iphone together, as long as we get a Iphone and look cool at the end of the day, and we make the employer Billionaires in the process. Slavery is alive and well, we've just done away with the chains to not to give the game away.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by stevewinn

[Leonardo]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

But apparently we have suffered no loss of Democracy - Leonardo don't believe everything you think.

   

Nice strawman.

Where did I argue that Britain has "lost democracy" (or, in fact, "gained democracy") by voting Brexit?

My argument consists of rebutting the myth that Brexit was a vote "for democracy" - it wasn't. There has been no "gain" in how democratic British society is, all that has happened is there has been an adjustment in the number of people voting (it shrunk) and where those people live.

Brexit was a vote for "British people to determine what Britain does", according to those who led the campaign, rather than the flip side (Bremain) of "EU people determine what the EU does" - in other words, nationalism.

[stevewinn]

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

But the crux of the matter in British Democracy is redress of grievance, its why MP's are elected by their constituents, so that they the people can go along and redress any concerns they have, or if something goes wrong or someone is badly treated their MP can go to the minister in Parliament and the MP can say my constituent has been treated badly, if the MP is right and the constituent is right it can be redressed and changed in our Parliament, by elected members of our Parliament its why our British system works so well. BUT - with one exception, unless its in a area of European competence, and then there is nothing that can be done in our elected British Parliament. if the British Parliament was to take it upon itself it would be breaking EU rules and thus fined by the European Court. So is that Democracy as we know it in Great Britain? its a sorry excuse of a Democracy when a British citizen cannot get redress or grievance resolved in our Democratic elected Parliament but by a foreign political entity. 

But apparently there is no loss of sovereignty or democracy. But remember this before we Voted Leave, and until we Leave there is less democracy - when we walked into the polling station regardless of who we voted for 60% of our Laws are made on the basis on European agreements where as we discussed before - the Maltese proportionately out vote us by 15 to 1, whoever you vote for matters less than someone else who votes in Malta for the laws of our very own land of the United Kingdom and if your not happy with that, then go along to your local elected Member of Parliament and ask for redress, and you'll find they cant give you redress because the most ancient British democratic Parliament in the world as been made more powerless by being members of the EU.

I've quoted myself above:

43 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Nice strawman.

Where did I argue that Britain has "lost democracy" (or, in fact, "gained democracy") by voting Brexit?

My argument consists of rebutting the myth that Brexit was a vote "for democracy" - it wasn't. There has been no "gain" in how democratic British society is, all that has happened is there has been an adjustment in the number of people voting (it shrunk) and where those people live.

Brexit was a vote for "British people to determine what Britain does", according to those who led the campaign, rather than the flip side (Bremain) of "EU people determine what the EU does" - in other words, nationalism.

How can that be a strawman. - when in one of your earlier posts you state: " A vote for Brexit was not a "vote for democracy", because we've got the same degree of democracy in our national government as we had under the EU" - read the bold part in my quote above and then tell me our parliment once we leave as the same degree of democracy as we had under the EU. - when areas which fall under EU competence cannot be altered by the British Parliament, now with Brexit and once we leave these areas no longer exist and the UK Parliament can redress them, that is a regain for democracy and if we hadn't voted for Breixt this would not be possible, so a Vote for Brexit was a Vote for Democracy. sovereignty and bloody common sense.  - i hope you not one of them that believes everything they think, and a Brexit vote was for xenophobia and all that guff. 

 

 

[Leonardo]

2 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

I've quoted myself above:

How can that be a strawman.

Because, as the post you made that I quoted stated, you claimed my argument implied British people had "lost democracy" in voting Brexit. I never made that argument, nor did I imply it. That is what a "strawman" is.

[stevewinn]

1 minute ago, Leonardo said:

Because, as the post you made that I quoted stated, you claimed my argument implied British people had "lost democracy" in voting Brexit. I never made that argument, nor did I imply it. That is what a "strawman" is.

so you agree now then, a vote for Brexit was a vote for democracy, as I've explained. and so you imply different was a false argument.

[Leonardo]

Just now, stevewinn said:

so you agree now then, a vote for Brexit was a vote for democracy, as I've explained. and so you imply different was a false argument.

No, because "democracy" didn't change in degree at all. "British people voting for what Britain does" has the same "degree of democracy" as "EU citizens voting for what the EU does". The number of people voting, or where they live, has no bearing on the "degree of democracy" inherent in a system - I hope you understand that.

Brexit wasn't a "vote for democracy", it was a vote for British nationalism.

[glorybebe]

Basically from what I have read about the EU, it needs to be scrapped and rebuilt.  It shows favoritism and arrogance in it's ruling body.  I am hoping with Britain pulling out and maybe a few more to follow they may realize that there is need to get rid of Merkel and actually make it into a real European Union.

[alibongo]

On 03/08/2016 at 7:41 AM, alibongo said:

 

If our farmers can't get cheap labour they'll be priced out of international markets and go bankrupt. The farms will be bought by running nationals who do employ cheap labour. What price democracy!

[stevewinn]

5 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

No, because "democracy" didn't change in degree at all. "British people voting for what Britain does" has the same "degree of democracy" as "EU citizens voting for what the EU does". The number of people voting, or where they live, has no bearing on the "degree of democracy" inherent in a system - I hope you understand that.

Brexit wasn't a "vote for democracy", it was a vote for British nationalism.

ah nationalism, good or bad?

[Leonardo]

5 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

ah nationalism, good or bad?

It's neither good nor bad*. People determine what happens next.

The argument for Brexit was touted as being "the argument for democracy". I pointed out it wasn't, after which it seems various people who supported Brexit got their noses out of joint.

*That also depends on the degree of nationalism.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Leonardo

[stevewinn]

14 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

It's neither good nor bad*. People determine what happens next.

The argument for Brexit was touted as being "the argument for democracy". I pointed out it wasn't, after which it seems various people who supported Brexit got their noses out of joint.

*That also depends on the degree of nationalism.

We've already proved that statement is totally wrong.    

[Leonardo]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

We've already proved that statement is totally wrong.    

And so, we go back full circle.

Are you trolling Steve, or do you honestly not understand what "democracy" is?

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎02‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 11:48 PM, alibongo said:

I have spoken to so many people who voted out, who now regret their vote.

This is what the referendum was about (unofficially):

1) stop Syrian refugees entering the UK

2) stop eastern Europeans stealing our jobs.

with regard to 2),eastern Europeans drive our taxis, pick our fruit,service our hotels, and stack the shelves in our supermarkets. Brits could not afford to do these jobs for £700 per month. So this labour force will remain.

with regard to 1),in 12 months time, those Syrian refugees who have bothered to accept refugee status in Germany will have German passports and be allowed free entry to the UK

In the meantime, our economy will contract.

Well thats not a very good post OP.

I did the maths and according to you those Eastern Europeans are being paid about £3 per hour. No they aren't. Virtually everybody in the UK gets at least the minimum wage unless they are foolish enough to work for criminals. We have highly skilled Poles and an Indian at my place who are all on more than £25 per hour, and yes, there's a lack of skilled Brits to do their jobs.

The issue behind why the majority of my people voted for Brexit was anger at all the mass immigration not specifically Syrians or Eastern Europeans. All 10 million of them who have crammed our little island over the next 60 years completely changing the culture and demographic makeup of many of our major cities. Its out of order because it is going to far.

We need those highly skilled immigrants, the rest all need sending back unless they really have fled a situation where their lives or well-being have been under threat.

[alibongo]

On 03/08/2016 at 7:41 AM, alibongo said:

 

Well,i only know the reasons why I voted to leave.

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, Leonardo said:

And so, we go back full circle.

Are you trolling Steve, or do you honestly not understand what "democracy" is?

So, please correct me if I am wrong, under current EU membership

we:

1. elect our MP's to govern the UK and legislate.  
2. elect MEP's to send off to Brussels, mostly from the pool of number 1.
3. MEP's yay or nay EU legislation proposed by unelected civil servants.
4. EU courts then use said legislation to overrule number 1 because it may not be in the interests of a certain parts of the EU.

tell me how doing away with 2,3 and 4 is not a victory for democracy?

yes nationalism comes into it, of course it does, but that should not diminish the move away from this blanket bureaucratic law machine.

[questionmark]

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

So, please correct me if I am wrong, under current EU membership

we:

1. elect our MP's to govern the UK and legislate.  
2. elect MEP's to send off to Brussels, mostly from the pool of number 1.
3. MEP's yay or nay EU legislation proposed by unelected civil servants.
4. EU courts then use said legislation to overrule number 1 because it may not be in the interests of a certain parts of the EU.

tell me how doing away with 2,3 and 4 is not a victory for democracy?

yes nationalism comes into it, of course it does, but that should not diminish the move away from this blanket bureaucratic law machine.

2... wrong, people like Nigel Farage were never in the pool of #1 (In fact, by British electoral rules he would not have gotten much beyond his favorite pub).

3... wrong. The President of the Commission is the person who was as #1 on the list of the party that got most votes. In this case the Popular party. The rest have to be approved by the parliament.

 

[bee]

4 hours ago, Leonardo said:

And so, we go back full circle.

Are you trolling Steve, or do you honestly not understand what "democracy" is?

.

now you have made it very clear that you are disingenuous and just trying to wind people up -

Steve destroys your feeble argument about democracy and suddenly he's the troll -

. 

[Leonardo]

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

So, please correct me if I am wrong, under current EU membership

we:

1. elect our MP's to govern the UK and legislate.  
2. elect MEP's to send off to Brussels, mostly from the pool of number 1.
3. MEP's yay or nay EU legislation proposed by unelected civil servants.
4. EU courts then use said legislation to overrule number 1 because it may not be in the interests of a certain parts of the EU.

tell me how doing away with 2,3 and 4 is not a victory for democracy?

yes nationalism comes into it, of course it does, but that should not diminish the move away from this blanket bureaucratic law machine.

2 is fully democratic. 3 is exactly how legislation is passed (or not) in our own parliament. 4 our own judiciary can overrule legislation passed by the elected members of parliament.

Now, I know you're going to say "But in #4, some of the legislation may not be best for some parts of the EU - like I said." to which I'll reply "Well, some of the legislation the UK govt passes is not in the best interest of some parts of the UK, so what's the difference?" The EU executive legislates for the whole of the EU - not just parts of it. The UK govt legislates for the whole of the UK, not just parts of it.

How is "how the EU works" any different, and any less "democratic" than how the UK's national system of government works?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Leonardo

[Grey Area]

28 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

2 is fully democratic. 3 is exactly how legislation is passed (or not) in our own parliament. 4 our own judiciary can overrule legislation passed by the elected members of parliament.

Now I dont claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that in the EU it is the commission that make all the legislative proposals, where as the UK can be an individual, business or commonly elected members of parliament.  Which there is the most democratic process do you think?  In some cases the EU commission can even legislate without the approval of the parliament.

34 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

 

Now, I know you're going to say "But in #4, some of the legislation may not be best for some parts of the EU - like I said." to which I'll reply "Well, some of the legislation the UK govt passes is not in the best interest of some parts of the UK, so what's the difference?" The EU executive legislates for the whole of the EU - not just parts of it. The UK govt legislates for the whole of the UK, not just parts of it.

Well the scale, is the major sticking point here isn't it.. the impact is exponential.

 

41 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

How is "how the EU works" any different, and any less "democratic" than how the UK's national system of government works?

I think I just answered that.

[Leonardo]

5 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Now I dont claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that in the EU it is the commission that make all the legislative proposals, where as the UK can be an individual, business or commonly elected members of parliament.  Which there is the most democratic process do you think?  In some cases the EU commission can even legislate without the approval of the parliament.

Which still have to be enacted into law by passage through the chamber of elected members of the EU parliament (and even then, the UK had a veto and even an opt-out clause for some laws.) The Commission cannot legislate without the approval of parliament, it can only make recommendations without the parliament's approval. All law has to go through parliament.

In terms of "level of democracy" it is no different to how govt operates here in the UK.

Quote

Well the scale, is the major sticking point here isn't it.. the impact is exponential.

The scale is totally irrelevant to the "level of democracy".

Edited August 5, 2016 by Leonardo

[Grey Area]

19 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Which still have to be enacted into law by passage through the chamber of elected members of the EU parliament (and even then, the UK had a veto and even an opt-out clause for some laws.) The Commission cannot legislate without the approval of parliament, it can only make recommendations without the parliament's approval. All law has to go through parliament.

In terms of "level of democracy" it is no different to how govt operates here in the UK.

Yes yes we get to opt out of some EU law thank goodness, well matter settled then, who cares where they come from and who they are directed at, let's just veto them.

in terms of level democracy, I pointed out the major difference.  Most of UK legislation is proposed by elected officials, who will have (hopefully) a handle on their constituents and what they have to say.  Even private individuals can propose a bill, of course you can always lobbly in the EU for a set fee and set number of meetings which must be presented in person at Brussells.  Kinda like the vogon plans to build the intergalactic highway.  

Therein lies the difference.  Come on tell me I am wrong, prove me wrong, I am not a proud person, I will admit it if I am mistaken.

30 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

The scale is totally irrelevant to the "level of democracy".

Well sure if you discount my point above, then taken as a percentage of represented people then it is a level playing field.  Who cares that the level of representation or misrepresentation is almost 10 times as large?

[Leonardo]

17 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Yes yes we get to opt out of some EU law thank goodness, well matter settled then, who cares where they come from and who they are directed at, let's just veto them.

in terms of level democracy, I pointed out the major difference.  Most of UK legislation is proposed by elected officials, who will have (hopefully) a handle on their constituents and what they have to say.  Even private individuals can propose a bill, of course you can always lobbly in the EU for a set fee and set number of meetings which must be presented in person at Brussells.  Kinda like the vogon plans to build the intergalactic highway.  

Therein lies the difference.  Come on tell me I am wrong, prove me wrong, I am not a proud person, I will admit it if I am mistaken.

Well sure if you discount my point above, then taken as a percentage of represented people then it is a level playing field.  Who cares that the level of representation or misrepresentation is almost 10 times as large?

Who proposes what is entirely irrelevant to what becomes enacted into law, and any perceived "level of democracy".

Democracy is about representation, not about who has an idea or who stands up and makes a speech. The EU parliament is representative of the EU's citizens to the same degree the UK parliament is representative of the UK's citizens.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Leonardo