[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

Following the British Empire's abolition of slavery in 1834,there was an almost continuous state of war with the Dutch settlers,who wanted to keep their slaves.The British Empire's abolition of slavery in 1834,was very unpopular with a lot of natives who had a lucrative business selling the slaves to Dutch and German settlers.The two main Boer wars were the final settlement of who controlled South Africa and it's vital trade route to the sub-continent.Oh,did I mention the British Empire abolished slavery in 1834.The German Empire was still practising it until 1945!So,muppet,there were plenty of wars with the Boers.

Among other inaccuracies, the German Empire ended in 1918, and had anti Slavery laws from its inception, German settlers in Africa did buy slaves, but these were freed after working off the debt, a bit of a work around, like the Indian indenture system work around for British colonies. The Republic that succeeded it had no part in slavery, until the Nazis came to power, and then they had state forced labour, which is what I guess you are referring to, no German legally owned slaves.
The British had control of the Cape which was the part most useful as far as trade routes are concerned, and had left the Boers in Transvaal alone until diamonds were discovered. Lost that one, and lost interest, until Gold came into the equation as well.
There was not continuous war with Boers, the ones that really couldn't stand British rule at first moved out of the Cape and set up the Orange Free State, and later the Transvaal republic, which is where the wars took place.

I am done with this diversion, you know and I know that your memory let you down and confused the fact that more British soldiers died of disease than from combat, as the falsity that more British died from disease than Boers died in concentration camps.

 

[Two Professors]

Jesus wept! Really? He's a hired gun. His loyalties lie with whoever is paying him at tha time.
Ask your Dad if you see till don't understand.

I thought you liked Tony Blair?

 

[Two Professors]

Or any area which will be swamped with cheap imports. At the very least farmers and fishermen should be worried.

I would imagine the French and German car industry would have more reason to worry!

 

[Two Professors]

Among other inaccuracies, the German Empire ended in 1918, and had anti Slavery laws from its inception, German settlers in Africa did buy slaves, but these were freed after working off the debt, a bit of a work around, like the Indian indenture system work around for British colonies. The Republic that succeeded it had no part in slavery, until the Nazis came to power, and then they had state forced labour, which is what I guess you are referring to, no German legally owned slaves.
The British had control of the Cape which was the part most useful as far as trade routes are concerned, and had left the Boers in Transvaal alone until diamonds were discovered. Lost that one, and lost interest, until Gold came into the equation as well.
There was not continuous war with Boers, the ones that really couldn't stand British rule at first moved out of the Cape and set up the Orange Free State, and later the Transvaal republic, which is where the wars took place.

I am done with this diversion, you know and I know that your memory let you down and confused the fact that more British soldiers died of disease than from combat, as the falsity that more British died from disease than Boers died in concentration camps.

Well,you seem more than a bit confused,because the Third Reich (Reich means Empire,by the way) enslaved many people,and a great many of them were owned by private industry.Indeed,many private companies made use of concentration camp labour,even going as far as building facilities in the camps.The women's concentration camp at Flossenburg being a perfect example.Does your statement saying they were state owned,mean it was less bad than private ownership?I don't really care how your ilk view history,but you haven't managed to get it re-written yet.

 

[The Clamp]

I thought you liked Tony Blair?

I used to. Back in '97. He's since proven himself to untrustworthy.

 

[BigGully]

Or any area which will be swamped with cheap imports. At the very least farmers and fishermen should be worried.

I am genuinely not trying to start a fight, can you just elaborate a bit more.

What exactly are the negative consequence of being 'swamped by cheap imports', why are cheaper goods a bad thing ? and why would the EU currently 'protect' me form accessing cheaper goods and what benefit is it to me ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would imagine the French and German car industry would have more reason to worry!

So what? Why would you worry about them? And what bearing would this have on the uk?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I would imagine the French and German car industry would have more reason to worry!

Our point of reference here is a leading Leave economist's view that introducing tariff-free trading would lead to the virtual elimination of British manufacturing. Why would BMW and Renault be more worried about this than a British manufacturer? Is someone suggesting that they would be completely eliminated?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Carry on Grizzling ,still leaving the EU
regards
DR

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I am genuinely not trying to start a fight, can you just elaborate a bit more.

What exactly are the negative consequence of being 'swamped by cheap imports', why are cheaper goods a bad thing ? and why would the EU currently 'protect' me form accessing cheaper goods and what benefit is it to me ?

I would guess that if, for example, Britain became a tariff-free depository for millions of Chinese cars produced at very low cost in far eastern factories the effect on the British motor industry and its hundreds of thousands of workers would amount to the 'virtual elimination' predicted by Leave campaigner Prof Minford.

 

[Baldseagull]

Well,you seem more than a bit confused,because the Third Reich (Reich means Empire,by the way) enslaved many people,and a great many of them were owned by private industry.Indeed,many private companies made use of concentration camp labour,even going as far as building facilities in the camps.The women's concentration camp at Flossenburg being a perfect example.Does your statement saying they were state owned,mean it was less bad than private ownership?I don't really care how your ilk view history,but you haven't managed to get it re-written yet.

A bit cheeky of you to accuse me of rewriting history with the beaulocks you have been coming out with. I was making a distinction between Slavery as in the legal ownership of another human being, has been abolished throughout the world, and forced labour imposed on people by the state, often in Prisons, as was practiced in the USA until 1941 so they could be contracted out to private industry, and as is practiced within Japanese prisons, Chinese prisons etc. today. Giving me a segue back to Brexit, this dropping of all tariffs, should it include products produced by forced labour in Japan, China and elsewhere?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would guess that if, for example, Britain became a tariff-free depository for millions of Chinese cars produced at very low cost in far eastern factories the effect on the British motor industry and its hundreds of thousands of workers would amount to the 'virtual elimination' predicted by Leave campaigner Prof Minford.

Exactly. Obviously cheap cars might be good for the punter but, as with most things in life, and looking at the bigger picture, you need a balance between what's good for the punter and what's good for the worker and the economy etc etc. To achieve this balance you need some form control against Britain being flooded with cheap foreign imports.

I will also suggest that the nation would be better off if it bought quality products as opposed to cheap shit but this is a different argument.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Dangerous outbreak of common-sense from David Davis? A crack in the wall of hard Brexit? If so let's hope that he doesn't get torn to shreds by the more rabid members of the Conservative party...............

Davis’s pledge in his Sunday Times article to end the “direct jurisdiction” of the ECJ was interpreted by some lawyers as a softening of the official UK position on withdrawing from the ECJ.

I'm no great fan of DD but I've never got the impression that he comes across as an ideologue - more a deal-making fixer.

 

[pastafarian]

I have dealt with this typical misreading about a million posts ago but you may have been in one of your frenzies at the time - enraged by gemen bitches perhaps - and missed it. Xenophobia and crude nationalism were certainly among the reasons people voted Leave - the Daily Express among others continue to make a living out of it - and politicians from Nigel Farage upwards have cynically traded on the unease people have in the presence of people talking, as they put it, jibber-jabber (in some cases I understand some of that unease btw, but I loathe the wholescale trading on it). You have previously explained that everyone you know entered the referendum period with an open mind and subsequently decided, after due consideration of issues such as sovereignty and democratic processes, to vote Leave. Some people did for sure. One of my closest friends (a person who has no problem with unlimited immigration as it happens) voted Out for those very reasons. But in my view vast numbers voted Leave for baser causes. You disagree.

I am not misreading you in the slightest.
You do believe most people arguing against the EU are using that as a cover for their deep distrust of foreigners. Its pointless to keep denying it.
You can try and weasel your way out of it anyway you like,I don’t blame you for trying to distance yourself from the accusation, its a pretty horrid, sneering and bigoted viewpoint for anyone to hold. But it’s a viewpoint many Anti EU people are familiar with over the years as this sort of argument was used as a spurious tool to quash any bad talk of the EU.
Rather than trying to deny this is what you believe with some ridiculous jiggerypockery perhaps it would have been better if you didn’t air your real thoughts so publicly on NSC in the first place all that time ago.

Of course there's an argument against the European Union. There can be an argument against almost anything. But for most people arguing against the EU is just a cover for a visceral distrust of foreigners,

 

[Jim in the West]

Dangerous outbreak of common-sense from David Davis? A crack in the wall of hard Brexit? If so let's hope that he doesn't get torn to shreds by the more rabid members of the Conservative party...............

Davis’s pledge in his Sunday Times article to end the “direct jurisdiction” of the ECJ was interpreted by some lawyers as a softening of the official UK position on withdrawing from the ECJ.

I'm no great fan of DD but I've never got the impression that he comes across as an ideologue - more a deal-making fixer.

I think you're right - hence, in relation to the two biggest issues covered by the "position papers":

- On immigration, we have a proposal which is almost exactly the same as the current system (albeit the UK government chooses not to exercise many of the powers it already has);
- On ECJ, the proposal seems to be an EFTA court, which follows virtually all the judgments of the ECJ.

So - we will soon be out of the EU, but in fact have regulatory systems which are virtually identical to those which already exist. At least the Brexiteers can claim they have "taken back control"

 

[pastafarian]

Anyone know who is paying the dosh to the mouths of the hired guns (Minford, Balasubramanyam, Blake, Bootle, Burrage, Congdon, Dowd, Greenwood, Halligan, Howe, Lightfoot, Leach, Mackinnon, Matthews, Miller, Paton, Whittaker) of Economists for Free Trade to come up with their economic assessment of £135bn? This could destroy and undermine the whole pro Brexit process if this incredible conspiracy is uncovered.
Anyone?.................................................................Anyone?............................................Bueller?...............................................Anyone?..................................

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I am not misreading you in the slightest.
You do believe most people arguing against the EU are using that as a cover for their deep distrust of foreigners. Its pointless to keep denying it.
You can try and weasel your way out of it anyway you like,I don’t blame you for trying to distance yourself from the accusation, its a pretty horrid, sneering and bigoted viewpoint for anyone to hold. But it’s a viewpoint many Anti EU people are familiar with over the years as this sort of argument was used as a spurious tool to quash any bad talk of the EU.
Rather than trying to deny this is what you believe with some ridiculous jiggerypockery perhaps it would have been better if you didn’t air your real thoughts so publicly on NSC in the first place all that time ago.

I hope you didn't spend too long on this. Yes, I will stick with my view that the position of most people I have heard leading off against the European Union is underpinned by a distrust of foreigners. I will also stick with my previously given view that other Leave voters have more rationally-based opinions and that there are valid arguments against the EU.

Horrid, sneering and bigoted? You may have been looking in the mirror too long.

 

[pastafarian]

- On immigration, we have a proposal which is almost exactly the same as the current system (albeit the UK government chooses not to exercise many of the powers it already has);

An effective border control controls permission at the point of entry.
Which powers that we have which we dont exercise could stop EU people gaining entry?

- On ECJ, the proposal seems to be an EFTA court, which follows virtually all the judgments of the ECJ.

Oops you will be stepping on a few remainer toes, some remainers have been saying an EFTA deal will seperate us from The ECJ.......wish you lot would make your mind up.

 

[pastafarian]

I hope you didn't spend too long on this. Yes, I will stick with my view that the position of most people I have heard leading off against the European Union is underpinned by a distrust of foreigners. I will also stick with my previously given view that other Leave voters have more rationally-based opinions and that there are valid arguments against the EU.

Horrid, sneering and bigoted? You may have been looking in the mirror too long.

Then why are we arguing?
You believe most people arguing against the EU have nothing more than a deep distrust of foreigners, you admit it, you are a bigot.
End of conversation.

 

[beorhthelm]

- On ECJ, the proposal seems to be an EFTA court, which follows virtually all the judgments of the ECJ.

So - we will soon be out of the EU, but in fact have regulatory systems which are virtually identical to those which already exist. At least the Brexiteers can claim they have "taken back control"

there is subtle but significant difference. today, if i raise an issue against my local trader for goods/services in the UK, it can rise up through the courts to the ECJ. in the future, out of EU and ECJ, it would stay within UK courts. ECJ would only apply if i had a dispute with a German, Italian, Estonian trader. over 80% percent of all economic activity is within the UK, so less than 20% is with EU, yet 100% comes under ECJ jurisdiction, with a legal framework and interpretation of law that is not consistent with UK case law and common law ideals.