After Brexit - am I stupid or what?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by ARMANDII, Jan 31, 2020.

  1. SimonZ

    SimonZ Gardener

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Ratings:
    +746
    I completely agree. I know it sounds simplistic, but I'm embarrassed and appalled at the to-ing and fro-ing over this when we are in the throes of a global pandemic. Both the EU and UK government are wasting time on a First World Problem. For me allowing the issue of Brexit to dominate Parliamentary business at a time like this is beyond belief. Whether we agree to a soft, hard, WTO or EFTA style Brexit, or even no Brexit at all, just pales into insignificance, I'm afraid.
     
  2. clanless

    clanless Total Gardener

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,201
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure.
    Location:
    North Wales
    Ratings:
    +7,618
    IMHO Gina Miller was trying to stop Brexit. She was hoping that Parliament would vote against triggering Article 50 - and this is why she went to Court.

    Anti democratic in my book - working against the wishes of the people - well, the last GE made the public's view crystal clear.

    She is no hero to me I'm afraid.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • ARMANDII

      ARMANDII Low Flying Administrator Staff Member

      Joined:
      Jan 12, 2019
      Messages:
      48,096
      Gender:
      Male
      Ratings:
      +100,834
      Unfortunately, Simon, Gina Miller didn't take the democratic way but resorted to going to the Courts to try to force the Government to ignore the results of the Referendum. But, she wasn't acting, in reality, as a private Citizen but was funded by several anti BREXIT organisations and so became the public figure for a time of those organisations.

      Blair was indeed a PM for a decade and voted in as one of the most popular figures promising a change in Politics, the prosperity of the Nation and Peace in our time. He led us, over time, into a decline of the economy, had public disputes with Gordon Brown the Chancellor, he took the UK into the Gulf War on the basis of Iraq having a store of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which turned out to be false.
      He then saw the recession coming and with the Treasury reserves nearly empty, got out and left Gordon Brown holding the Bucket of Manure. I don't think we can blame Brown solely for the outgoing Labour Chancellor for leaving a note for the incoming Tory Chancellor of .......

      "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam
      [​IMG]
      Liam Byrne's note to David Law"

      I really don't think Blair was a man from whose political reign we benefited and because of that, and the mess he had got us into financially, while leading us into War on the basis of untrue Intelligence, from which who we can say "there is a Man of Great Wisdom who was one of the greatest Prime Ministers we ever had."
      To me that would be like say Trump, because he is President of the USA, is a man we should take advice from.
       
    • JR

      JR Chilled Gardener

      Joined:
      Jul 19, 2020
      Messages:
      954
      Gender:
      Male
      Occupation:
      Retired oil magnate
      Location:
      Cotswolds
      Ratings:
      +2,381
      However Blair was voted in 3 successive times by a large majority of US!
      So that was our democratic choice.
      George Bush and co, assured Blair of the presence of WOMD.
      Hind sight is a wonderful thing..
      I would never compare Blair to Trump. The latter is a buffoon who had been very successful as a buisiness man, but far out of his depth as president.
      Obama by contrast was a breath of fresh air.
      Now Boris... The jury is out.
      If brexit does result in disaster he'll be historically slaughtered.
      But if the UK does just happen to succeed he could end up as a hero.
      It'll be one way or the other for Boris.
       
      • Like Like x 2
        Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
      • SimonZ

        SimonZ Gardener

        Joined:
        Feb 9, 2009
        Messages:
        895
        Ratings:
        +746
        She made no secret of her hope of stopping Brexit, but she wasn't anti-Democracy. She was trying to ensure that any constitutional change or loss of rights was enacted by our elected representatives in Parliament. We are a sovereign Democracy and should not be governed by plebiscite.
        I completely agree re the GE confirming it. So did the GE 2017 - when 85% voted for pro-Brexit parties. Ever since June 2017 there has been no doubt in my mind we were headed, legitimately, for Brexit, because while the referendum was advisory a GE is binding, and those Brexit manifesto commitments by both main parties were absolutely unequivocally clear. But we didn't know that in 2016 so I believe Gina Miller was right to proceed as she did.
        In many ways Gina is a woman after my own heart because she recently said she had been far more worried about Corbyn getting in than by Brexit, and that goes for me as well!
         
      • SimonZ

        SimonZ Gardener

        Joined:
        Feb 9, 2009
        Messages:
        895
        Ratings:
        +746
        We are foolish not to listen to anyone who has held high office, even if we totally disagree with or subsequently disregard their advice. They have had a unique proximity to the powers of the world, and in some cases have been those powers. In virtually every area of life now I see people casually disregarding others' professional or personal experience or expertise, in favour of what they "know" to be right. Never more so than over covid - where all and sundry seem to think the opinions of epidemiologists, virologists, health experts and more are a load of rubbish because they saw a meme on the internet or the proposed restrictions clash with their right to go to the pub.
         
        • Like Like x 1
        • Agree Agree x 1
        • ARMANDII

          ARMANDII Low Flying Administrator Staff Member

          Joined:
          Jan 12, 2019
          Messages:
          48,096
          Gender:
          Male
          Ratings:
          +100,834
          I think we would be foolish to think that categorising "anyone who has held High Office" as being automatically a person who we should listen to when that person's political policies or inability to be an effective Leader, while claiming to have been so, led to basically economic disaster or trying to keep us in the EU when the general feeling was it was time to gol:dunno:
           
          • Agree Agree x 2
          • ARMANDII

            ARMANDII Low Flying Administrator Staff Member

            Joined:
            Jan 12, 2019
            Messages:
            48,096
            Gender:
            Male
            Ratings:
            +100,834
            We are now, but were not before BREXIT.

            And I defend your right to do so:dunno: But my point was she didn't do it, in reality, as a Private Citizen but as someone being funded by organisations with a anti-BREXIT agenda who were using every method they could, including the Legal System, to stop BREXIT.
             
            • Like Like x 1
            • SimonZ

              SimonZ Gardener

              Joined:
              Feb 9, 2009
              Messages:
              895
              Ratings:
              +746
              Yes, we were. Parliament has always been Sovereign. Even when we incorporate international agreements into our laws (which almost every country in the world does) it is Parliament that has to sign them off. The UK tended to enact virtually all EU legislation in full as soon as required to do so. Various other EU member states, such as Germany and France, have often tended to do so less - which is odd as they are seen as the most federalism-friendly while we were always seen as the awkward squad. I was originally a Leaver and have always had concerns about the extent to which UK Law has been tied in with Brussels, but the fact is that this does not in its self negate the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. In the end, it alone had the power to enact the leaving of the EU.
              It is true that UK courts currently recognize the supremacy of EU Law on several areas. This, though, derives from the 1972 European Communities Act and was never applicable directly via the EU. MP's have always had to vote for or against any incoming EU Law. The European Communities Act its self was always subject to Parliamentary approval, the same as any Act of Parliament, and at any time a party could have run on a manifesto pledge to scrap it - think of Michael Foot in 1983, or of course UKIP at any election.
              As far as I know, the only state whose statue books do not incorporate any laws derived from external bodies whatsoever is North Korea.
               
            • SimonZ

              SimonZ Gardener

              Joined:
              Feb 9, 2009
              Messages:
              895
              Ratings:
              +746
              Yes, I strongly believe anyone who has held high office is at least worth listening to, even where we strongly disagree. In fact it may be even more vital to do so then. Psychiatrists will interview criminals in order to gauge something of the mentality of those who commit similar crimes, which isn't that far removed!
              But in all seriousness, most incoming PM's will take counsel on various matters from their predecessors, even from other parties and I think it would be odd not to. Refusing to do so or blanket-shunning particular individuals reminds me of Gordon Brown's stubborn refusal to take any advice whatsoever from his predecessor, even on simple things like the day to day running of admin side of No. 10 business, and the result was internal and external chaos. Blair was PM for a decade, and spent a huge amount of that time cultivating relations with Brussels. He knows his stuff.
               
            • ARMANDII

              ARMANDII Low Flying Administrator Staff Member

              Joined:
              Jan 12, 2019
              Messages:
              48,096
              Gender:
              Male
              Ratings:
              +100,834
              I'm sorry, Simon, but being Sovereign as a Nation is an entirely different matter and definition. Parliament, when the UK was in the EU, could not pass legislation with impunity and was accountable to the European Court of Justice and that is not a definition of a Sovereign Parliament. Now, the proposed Internal Market Bill will give Ministers full authority to propose and have legislation passed without the EU trying to amend, water down, or stop that legislation while also being forced to accept all EU legislation.... that was not ,and is not, the definition of Sovereignty. Parliament, after the transition period, will assume the full Sovereignty that it had before the UK joined the EU, but more Bills will have to be passed to disentangle the UK legally from some controlling facets of EU legislation.

              And, again, I defend your right to think so, Perhaps, being in the RAF, I was taught to think independently and evaluate orders from "Higher Up" before carrying out work and signing documents to say an aircraft was safe enough to let a Pilot take off and land again safely.
              My point, again, being that just because a person is in a superior position doesn't make them automatically deserving of blind subservience, leadership, and ability to give good advice. . We were taught to judge people in high places on their achievements and their cause and effects of their actions. When a leader of any Nation consistently makes, and carries out, policies that lead that country into Wars for purely political reasons, economic disaster, etc, then future "advice" from them should be questioned and not given the full weight that they, themselves, believe it should. So, No, I only give due respect to those people who have succeeded in achievements that were good for the Nation and not those who proved to be only interested in their own glory.
              So, again, I acknowledge you're right to believe that those who were in "higher authority", even though History has proved them to be disastrous Leaders, should not be dismissed even though they are still "pushing" the same thoughts and opinions that proved so harmful. I have always, in Life, respected the position of Authority that a person holds but that person has to earn, and deserve, the respect of the position.

              But, I think with respect, that we should agree to disagree about who is worthy of having their opinions listened to just because they were given High Office and that we have exhausted the area of debate and are merely reiterating what was said previously.
               
              • Agree Agree x 1
              • SimonZ

                SimonZ Gardener

                Joined:
                Feb 9, 2009
                Messages:
                895
                Ratings:
                +746
                By consequence of the European Communities Act 1972. Enacted by a sovereign UK Parliament, which had, at any time, the right to scrap it or amend it. And only accountable in relation to certain areas of legislation, again with Parliamentary approval. Even Nigel Farage argued that on issues like environmental policy there should be legislative uniformity between nations that trade together.
                UK Law will still incorporate many aspects of international law (regardless of the current mountain-out-of-molehill fracas over Brexit), in fact we may have to incorporate more if it goes to a No-deal scenario, depending on what happens re the WTO. Pretty much the ony country in the wordl to have 100% sovereignty is North Korea, and I don't think their regime is anything to emulate.
                 
              • shiney

                shiney President, Grumpy Old Men's Club Staff Member

                Joined:
                Jul 3, 2006
                Messages:
                61,004
                Gender:
                Male
                Occupation:
                Retired - Last Century!!!
                Location:
                Herts/Essex border. Zone 8b
                Ratings:
                +117,308
                My mind has gone blank and I'm falling asleep! :whistle: :heehee:
                 
                • Funny Funny x 3
                • Like Like x 1
                • pete

                  pete Growing a bit of this and a bit of that....

                  Joined:
                  Jan 9, 2005
                  Messages:
                  47,721
                  Gender:
                  Male
                  Occupation:
                  Retired
                  Location:
                  Mid Kent
                  Ratings:
                  +84,376

                  I really dont know why they are debating something that doesn't matter anymore.:roflol:
                   
                  • Agree Agree x 3
                  • Like Like x 1
                  • Cuttings

                    Cuttings Super Gardener

                    Joined:
                    Feb 21, 2020
                    Messages:
                    517
                    Gender:
                    Male
                    Occupation:
                    Horticulturalist
                    Location:
                    Keynsham north Somerset
                    Ratings:
                    +1,200
                    Your quotes, are erratic, its really quite simple, the withdrawal agreement was signed, s14 talks about respect for each parties sovereignty, after the WA a political decloration was signed, wich S4 declares an agreement has to respect the sovereignty and internal market of the UK, the deal the EU offer does not respect either the WA or the PD, so by the EU threats of not listing the UK as a third country in a deal term, the EU is in breach of both the WA and the PD, so they left this government with no choice but to protect itself, the EU has tried a stratergy to put the UK in a lose lose position, when it did not understand its own deal.
                    Now for the WTO arguement, if we buy a unit of oranges from Spain @£2 per outer delivered, and no tarrif, against if we go to south America and buy the same unit for £1 a unit delivered, lets say for arguements sake the most talked about a WTO tarrif of 22% duty is added, I will let you do the maths on that before you answer.
                    Everyone is concertrating on the negative, no positives at all, we have a commonwealth waiting to business again, just in the automotive sector, the UK is the 3rd largest importer of EU cars, 3rd only after the USA and China, just think about that in terms of populations.In my industry Horticulture, despite lockdown, not including cut flowers, the UK imported £98.4 million worth of plants, and garden centres where only open for 13 days in May, June £112.98 million of plants, this does not include, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, on average we import £100 million of plants a month, cut flowers is more diffcult because of the supermarkets do not divulge their figures, but it is believed to be in the region of £150 million a month, god knows what the value of cars and parts is, then we can talk about Commercial vehicles and parts, food, beers wines and spirits, the EU talk a good fight, but in real terms, they have more to lose than we do, google Kansas city shuffle, if you want to know what Boris and co are up to.
                     
                    • Like Like x 2
                    • Agree Agree x 2
                    Loading...

                    Share This Page

                    1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
                      By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
                      Dismiss Notice