Technology1 min ago
Just Whose Side Is This Guy On?
How disappointing. I would have thought better from him.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jackdaw33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// not controlled, but part of a whole//????
Controlled, bribed, coerced with financial inducements,(with our own money)made compliant using fear as a weapon...…..Yep controlled fits.
Remind us again......were you not bemoaning that funds for research...Meehh, bless, would dry up if we voted out when the referendum campaign was in full swing......now who would tell you such a blatant lie?
Controlled, bribed, coerced with financial inducements,(with our own money)made compliant using fear as a weapon...…..Yep controlled fits.
Remind us again......were you not bemoaning that funds for research...Meehh, bless, would dry up if we voted out when the referendum campaign was in full swing......now who would tell you such a blatant lie?
the problem is jim that we are only ever told the horrific things that will happen if we don't stay. Why is it that the remain crowd do not have anything positive to say about staying? ....and if there are good reasons, why didn't any of them come out during the referendum campaign instead of the many chapters of project fear?
A very good point Tora. If there’s to be another referendum the remain side needs to be more positive. The last time (easy to be wise after the event) the assumption was that the economic argument - which Remain won easily: there was no attempt by the other side to seriously counter it - would carry the day. It didn’t.
Ironically, of course, if all the positive human factors that people could relate to WERE emphasised then the VB nonsense would look even sillier then it already does.
Ironically, of course, if all the positive human factors that people could relate to WERE emphasised then the VB nonsense would look even sillier then it already does.
The trouble is, and as much as I regret it, Mr Fox has a point. If Mrs May’s “deal” (which effectively keeps us in the EU in all but name) is not accepted by Parliament there is no stomach in that esteemed house for much else. There is no way The House will allow a “No Deal” exit although this, even in the short term, is far and away the best option and is the only way that a proper Brexit will be countenanced by the EU. So with that in mind it is hard to say what will happen if we decline the BRINO that will follow from Mrs May’s deal.
ich: "the economic argument - which Remain won easily: there was no attempt by the other side to seriously counter it - would carry the day. It didn’t. " - err no, the economic argument contained only fear no substance, BOE and other "experts'" predictions where later found to not happen. The remain camp lost because they refuse to comprehend the views of the brexiteers. As far as we are concerned the remain camp only had one message: "you are a moron if you don't want to remain" - the British never respond well to ultimatums.
A ludicrous caricature of the truth Tora just for a change.
Brexit hasn’t happened yet: so it’s not possible to say that the forecasts are not correct. I think everyone accepts that Britain will be poorer after Brexit. For a long time. The only argument really is by how much: from only slightly to disastrously. No serious attempt was made by the other side to counter that, which was the wise and correct thing for them to do of course. They concentrated on what they imagined the benefits would be. And targeted the voters to whom those arguments would appeal. Very effectively and well done them.
Brexit hasn’t happened yet: so it’s not possible to say that the forecasts are not correct. I think everyone accepts that Britain will be poorer after Brexit. For a long time. The only argument really is by how much: from only slightly to disastrously. No serious attempt was made by the other side to counter that, which was the wise and correct thing for them to do of course. They concentrated on what they imagined the benefits would be. And targeted the voters to whom those arguments would appeal. Very effectively and well done them.
It's not quite true that Remainers have nothing positive to say about the EU, but certainly in the run-up to the referendum the main tactic was indeed to big up the negatives about leaving. But being in the EU has been good for the UK's economy, it has been good for its trade, good for science, good for technology, good for the environment, and so on and so forth.
If, in spite of all that, people want to leave, they are of course free to choose to do so without being morons. Where the moronic tendencies come is when you scream and rant and rave about treason, treachery, and "Project Fear" whenever anyone points out the rather obvious truth that leaving an institution means losing access to its many benefits; or when you simultaneously insist that the EU has interfered deeply with the UK since we joined yet seem to insist that undoing that interference will be virtually as simple as clicking our fingers and wishing it all away.
The Remain side *did* win the economic argument, by the way: a survey that I linked to a few weeks back demonstrated rather conclusively that a good deal of Remain supporters primarily voted that way for economic reasons, whereas the Leave vote was focused on trying to reclaim full sovereignty *despite* this. Remainers have still won that argument, even if the last couple of years have seen only a minor impact on growth as a result of the referendum. There are barely any economists of note who expect the UK's economy to emerge from, in particular, a No-Deal Brexit with no meaningful impact; study after study has shown that growth will suffer, to one degree or another, if the UK leaves without a proper Withdrawal Agreement.
As a result, Liam Fox is probably right: if No Deal is the only way to secure Brexit, then it is highly likely that Parliament will vote to delay Brexit or even stop it altogether. If you want to change that, then vote for a party that is prepared to deliver such a Brexit and do so without fear of the economic risk; otherwise, your choices are likely to be between accepting a drawn-out transition, that ties the UK to rules it loses any say in for possibly a decade or so, or to stay in the EU and at least have *some* influence as one voice in 28.
If, in spite of all that, people want to leave, they are of course free to choose to do so without being morons. Where the moronic tendencies come is when you scream and rant and rave about treason, treachery, and "Project Fear" whenever anyone points out the rather obvious truth that leaving an institution means losing access to its many benefits; or when you simultaneously insist that the EU has interfered deeply with the UK since we joined yet seem to insist that undoing that interference will be virtually as simple as clicking our fingers and wishing it all away.
The Remain side *did* win the economic argument, by the way: a survey that I linked to a few weeks back demonstrated rather conclusively that a good deal of Remain supporters primarily voted that way for economic reasons, whereas the Leave vote was focused on trying to reclaim full sovereignty *despite* this. Remainers have still won that argument, even if the last couple of years have seen only a minor impact on growth as a result of the referendum. There are barely any economists of note who expect the UK's economy to emerge from, in particular, a No-Deal Brexit with no meaningful impact; study after study has shown that growth will suffer, to one degree or another, if the UK leaves without a proper Withdrawal Agreement.
As a result, Liam Fox is probably right: if No Deal is the only way to secure Brexit, then it is highly likely that Parliament will vote to delay Brexit or even stop it altogether. If you want to change that, then vote for a party that is prepared to deliver such a Brexit and do so without fear of the economic risk; otherwise, your choices are likely to be between accepting a drawn-out transition, that ties the UK to rules it loses any say in for possibly a decade or so, or to stay in the EU and at least have *some* influence as one voice in 28.
-- answer removed --
"If you want to change that, then vote for a party that is prepared to deliver such a Brexit and do so without fear of the economic risk; otherwise, your choices are likely to be between accepting a drawn-out transition, that ties the UK to rules it loses any say in for possibly a decade or so, or to stay in the EU and at least have *some* influence as one voice in 28."
And which party would that be then, Jim?
And which party would that be then, Jim?
It would have been UKIP, until, perhaps a tad prematurely, the Electorate decided to stop voting for them once they'd got the referendum. Presumably it won't be UKIP now, as the party is in a parlous state; and, in any case, they remain nowhere in the polls. To be sure, the violently pro-EU Lib Dems are not much further forward.
That would be lovely, if only Brexiteers were the ones taking the economic hit. But they will instead drag the entire country with them -- and for that matter the rest of Europe -- in pursuit of this goal. Since presenting slavery as an alternative is, to say the least, an exaggeration, can you be sure the country and the future will really forgive you for taking such an ideology to its extremes?
Liam Fox's point, then, is that, whatever the merits of this deal, it will at least end up forcing the UK to leave the EU in the long run. Maybe you should accept that as a pragmatic way to achieve your long-term aims, rather than constantly chasing the shortest but most destructive and divisive path. Or maybe not. But it isn't treachery to support this deal, nor to condemn the entire process. All Remainers want is what is best for the country. To disagree on how to achieve that is not treasonous.
Liam Fox's point, then, is that, whatever the merits of this deal, it will at least end up forcing the UK to leave the EU in the long run. Maybe you should accept that as a pragmatic way to achieve your long-term aims, rather than constantly chasing the shortest but most destructive and divisive path. Or maybe not. But it isn't treachery to support this deal, nor to condemn the entire process. All Remainers want is what is best for the country. To disagree on how to achieve that is not treasonous.
