In other news | Vital Football

In other news

Indeed. Ultimately thwarted by the snowflakes who simply couldn’t handle something not going their way. Hey ho (touché ?)
 
If the objective of the brexit vote was to bring down the government it seems to be going rather well. However if it was to make our country a better place to live I fear we are gonna need to be patient.
 
Only in this country could you have a vote where the options were to stay with the known status quo or a completely unknown, unplanned future that might be better , might be worse, might be the same, no-one knows and no-one has the first clue how to go about it. These were the choices, the fact it went to the vote based on the above is ludicrous in the extreme. That the most important political decision since the 2nd world war was reduced to what you already have on the table or the mystery prize is a disgrace. These are peoples lives not Take Your Pick hosted by Des O'Connor.

The referendum was brought about purely on the back of Cameron's arrogance and ego. It was never entertained as being a realistic option by the politicians and when the result came in the likes of Cameron walked away from the mess they'd steered us to. Leaving us at the time with an unelected Prime Minister who was so vulnerable she made the frankly appalling judgement call to go to a general election (costing the taxpayers £140 million) in an effort to legitimize her position rather than focus on the future they'd failed to see as realistic possibility.

Neither of the main parties during the election present much in the way of policy or even strong opinion in regards to leaving the EU. Leaving us with hollow platitudes "like strong and stable , the will of the people" . We then have the closest election since the 70's and a Conservative government buying power by making deals with the D.U.P. ,potentially usurping the Good Friday peace agreement and a Prime Minister who voted remain in charge of negotiating our exit.

Personally I'm a Labour man, a staunch Corbyn supporter and a remainer. It's my belief that when parliament agrees on a deal, if they can agree on a deal and if it's voted through, that there should be a 2nd referendum. There should be a clear information campaign that presents in bullet point form in plain English exactly what the new deal would give us , what we would lose and the same should we remain and if there were no deal. All of those options should be available. It shouldn't be a case of we're leaving and whatever the consequences are it's just tough luck. How can that be democratic ? At the moment we seem handcuffed to making an ill informed decision work and not one person can explain to me why that should be so and what exactly is wrong with giving people the chance to make a decision or to change or not change their mind based on the realities of the situation.
 
Last edited:
All interesting stuff and creates a bit of drama.

In truth, both sides of the referendum campaign were poorly managed with little in the way of fact coming out. Were it to be re-run, I doubt that the quality of argument would be any better, given the disdain which MPs (and Lords) hold for the electorate. However, there was some fantastic stuff going on in parliamentary select committees which provided me with a bit of an income, writing for an American news outlet.

There are just two things I would challenge there, Keggy. The first is the "known status quo". One of the things that was kept quiet, surprisingly from the Leave side, was the route to further integration., particularly the 5 Presidents' report. Just as the Euro was a leap in the dark, there is more to come.

The other is the Corbyn angle and I appreciate that there is a range of thought even within wings of the party. I find it hard to reconcile Corbynista remainers on the basis that nationalisation is effectively ruled out if EU rules are adhered to. We can't predict what the Labour, Conservative or indeed any other flavour of government will look like in 10-20 years time and beyond.

Clear information in bullet points could be a good idea but for one thing. Ultimately, staying in means accepting further integration, in turn more regulation from the EU. Leaving means (as Tony Benn articulated far better than I could) that we can change our governments, therefore change direction, should we so choose. In essence, the Leave side gives people a chance to change their minds in the longer term. I guess it depends on your time horizon which path you choose.
 
Rexn said:
All interesting stuff and creates a bit of drama.

In truth, both sides of the referendum campaign were poorly managed with little in the way of fact coming out. Were it to be re-run, I doubt that the quality of argument would be any better, given the disdain which MPs (and Lords) hold for the electorate. However, there was some fantastic stuff going on in parliamentary select committees which provided me with a bit of an income, writing for an American news outlet.

There are just two things I would challenge there, Keggy. The first is the "known status quo". One of the things that was kept quiet, surprisingly from the Leave side, was the route to further integration., particularly the 5 Presidents' report. Just as the Euro was a leap in the dark, there is more to come.

The other is the Corbyn angle and I appreciate that there is a range of thought even within wings of the party. I find it hard to reconcile Corbynista remainers on the basis that nationalisation is effectively ruled out if EU rules are adhered to. We can't predict what the Labour, Conservative or indeed any other flavour of government will look like in 10-20 years time and beyond.

Clear information in bullet points could be a good idea but for one thing. Ultimately, staying in means accepting further integration, in turn more regulation from the EU. Leaving means (as Tony Benn articulated far better than I could) that we can change our governments, therefore change direction, should we so choose. In essence, the Leave side gives people a chance to change their minds in the longer term. I guess it depends on your time horizon which path you choose.
Click to expand...

How is nationalization ruled out ? EU law doesn't prohibit the Corbyn plan. There is no "ban" on nationalized industries, for example the likes of Article 106 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU just regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises. In essence, enterprises with a dominant position in the market due to state action cannot use that position to behave unreasonably.

It could ultimately be a decision for the European Court of Justice as might almost any piece of legislation and even if (and they may well not) decided Corbyn's plans were a breach of Article 106 there are exceptions included within the treaty that allows a state supported entity to operate without or with limited competition if it is in the national interest.

There is nothing in EU Law to immediately prohibit a properly managed nationalization (see also Article 345 “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.”)

As for the 5 presidents report it's long been a favourite of both Gove and Johnson when it comes to the leave argument and something they either repeatedly misunderstand or deliberately distort for their own purposes how is it unknown ? It's been published (heres the pdf of it: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf available in 22 languages) and has been knocking around since summer 2015 if i remember correctly.

The focus of it is shoring up the euro zone, but we're not in the single currency so wouldn't be directly affected by the eurozone treasury. It also wouldn't lead to a control of our taxes despite what Micheal Gove has alleged. It's a reach for the leave camp to imply it would lead to a Eurozone superstate as the report states “this would not mean centralisation of all aspects of revenue and expenditure policy”.

Old Boris says we cannot avoid a superstate because the Five Presidents are calling for a “deepening of the single market”. “They want to harmonise insolvency law, company law, property rights, social security systems – and there is no way the UK can be unaffected by this process.”

Johnson is right that the Five Presidents want a deeper single market. Why is this such a bad thing ? British governments have been pushing for this for decades. Even Boris in the past has sung the single market’s praises.

There are no guarantees that the 5 presidents will get their way . Lots of countries do want fiscal union for example but they have no agreement on what form it would take. The German view is very different to the Italian view for example.

The current single market is optimised for goods, where Germany excels. Deepening it would optimise it also for services, capital markets and the internet – where we excel. If we quit the EU, we will miss out on these opportunities.
 
Some great points, Keggy. You hit the nail on the head about ECJ. Ultimately, there are different strand of legislation and you are right to allude to competition legislation, given the penetration of EU countries in some of those industries that could be targets to be re-nationalised. Ultimately, the ECJ is bound by the guiding principle of the acquis.

It depends what you take from the 5 Presidents' report, detail on its own or context. Just on the point where you seem to agree, the choice comes back to whether we want a deepening single market or not. Personally, I think it is great that people were given the opportunity for this to be debated, even if the debate lacked quality. Ultimately people should, in theory, have had the chance to choose where we most closely align.

I go back to when I had the fortune to meet Mikio Wakatsuki who was deputy governor of the Japanese central bank who gave a different perspective on the SEM from outside. SEM can be defined in different ways, the nice way is as a free market between member states with a level playing field for competition. The not so nice way is as an introspective unit blocking competition from outside.

Again, you're right, the 5 presidents might not get their way. We can all have our own perspectives on how other EU treaties have been pushed through and how decisions have moved from unanimity to QMV. The principle of acquis means that any small steps are essentially irrevocable. Ultimately, some believe that these should be decisions for the people rather than politicians who may have a vested interest in their future careers. It will be interesting to see how Italy plays out over its budget.

Taking a different issue, I always question the use of "would" and "will" instead of "could" and "may". On definitions, "optimise" also becomes a question of perspective (pareto v potential pareto optimality).

Yes, you are correct, at the moment we do have an advantage in services. There may also be a danger that future optimisation from an EU perspective transfers some of that expertise to perhaps Frankfurt or Paris. Again, is is for people to draw their own conclusions from their own perspectives.
 
Rexn said:
Some great points, Keggy. You hit the nail on the head about ECJ. Ultimately, there are different strand of legislation and you are right to allude to competition legislation, given the penetration of EU countries in some of those industries that could be targets to be re-nationalised. Ultimately, the ECJ is bound by the guiding principle of the acquis.

It depends what you take from the 5 Presidents' report, detail on its own or context. Just on the point where you seem to agree, the choice comes back to whether we want a deepening single market or not. Personally, I think it is great that people were given the opportunity for this to be debated, even if the debate lacked quality. Ultimately people should, in theory, have had the chance to choose where we most closely align.

I go back to when I had the fortune to meet Mikio Wakatsuki who was deputy governor of the Japanese central bank who gave a different perspective on the SEM from outside. SEM can be defined in different ways, the nice way is as a free market between member states with a level playing field for competition. The not so nice way is as an introspective unit blocking competition from outside.

Again, you're right, the 5 presidents might not get their way. We can all have our own perspectives on how other EU treaties have been pushed through and how decisions have moved from unanimity to QMV. The principle of acquis means that any small steps are essentially irrevocable. Ultimately, some believe that these should be decisions for the people rather than politicians who may have a vested interest in their future careers. It will be interesting to see how Italy plays out over its budget.

Taking a different issue, I always question the use of "would" and "will" instead of "could" and "may". On definitions, "optimise" also becomes a question of perspective (pareto v potential pareto optimality).

Yes, you are correct, at the moment we do have an advantage in services. There may also be a danger that future optimisation from an EU perspective transfers some of that expertise to perhaps Frankfurt or Paris. Again, is is for people to draw their own conclusions from their own perspectives.
Click to expand...

Rexn , always a pleasure to think with you, but as I've answered your questions on Corbyn and the 5 presidents could you answer mine ?

(and anyone else who voted leave or remain, I'm interested in your answers)
What exactly is wrong with giving people the chance to make a decision or to change or not change their mind based on the realities of the situation ?

Also for anyone who voted leave why did you do so and what Eu law are you looking forward to being unaffected by?
 
I can do a few in one here, Keggy.

It's not a disguised position that I took, having made what I call a 55/45 decision in favour of Leave.

I agree with you on people being given the chance to make a decision and change their minds. I suspect your perspective is for a 2nd referendum, which I respect. In a different context and time horizon, the acquis means that we can not change our minds about further integration. In the spirit of Tony Benn (whose legacy of words became my deciding factor) we can change our minds on who governs us every 5 years max and change direction should the people decide to vote a government out and a new one in.

I would also add that whether it is every 5 years or once in a lifetime, I abide by the decision of the majority or at least the winning party in a constitutional voting system.

Additionally in our democracy, even though I respect the majority view, it doesn't stop me holding my MP to account or campaign on any issue where, with others, I can seek to help influence.

Just to answer about the change in EU laws, bearing in mind I live in North Yorkshire- Common Fisheries Policy. Instead of British cod being predominantly landed on the continent, I look forward to having it at home on a Friday night instead of having Icelandic, Norwegian or Russian cod which is landed at Whitby. However, under May's "deal" that won't be for another 20 years or more when I will only be able to suck it slowly.

Just adding this:
 
Last edited:
If, they had an option of :-

Stay In Europe, control our own immigration and borders, slacked off on the euro legislation, and allow us to run our own country.

Then the outcome would have bee different at the voting stations.

The fact they did not shows the abject arrogance of those in power, if they have another referendum and the vote is to stay, what next, best of 3, what if the vote is leave, do we have another one until they get the result they want.

People south of Leeds are in many cases bordered by ghetto's created by out of control immigration and controlled by extreme politically motivated groups.

Because nobody in this country has the bollocks to confront, and do something about it, the country has been lost, and those involved are piss scared of saying a word, in case they get called racist, grow a set of bollocks man.

If we have another election, pound to a pot of piss the political led religious attacks will start again, they are just waiting, then people may start and realise the disgraceful job that has been done over the past 15 years with immigration, those down south are blind to it, indoctrinated, all the best to them.
 
Ahhh immigration the big lie of recent years . The people you say South of Leeds who are bordered by ghettos because of immigration aren't suddenly going to find the people already here deported just because we're out of the EU. Those here will stay .

Have a look at Article 7 of The EU Rights Directive, DLG . You don't hear it being mentioned too much, perhaps because certain papers and politicians aren't given much mileage by it . We've always had the power to kick people out after 3 months we just haven't chosen to use it, other members have Belgium and Germany for example are far more adherent to Article 7 than the U.K.

http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/CitizensRightsDirective/ByPage/Article_07

Also DLG you haven't answered the questions :


What exactly is wrong with giving people the chance to make a decision or to change or not change their mind based on the realities of the situation ?

Also for anyone who voted leave why did you do so and what Eu law are you looking forward to being unaffected by?
 
Maybe we get a set of laws that allow us to get rid of the problem makers, and control our own population, would be a start, instead of pussy footing around a problem that grows by the minute.

I am all for giving people a second chance, firstly speak the native tongue of the country you join, join in with our beliefs, don't make your own community, join in ours, and certainly don't expect preferential treatment, maybe pay your taxes, don't become a burden on us, the list goes on.

People refuse to say, the whole exit/stay argument was based on immigration, and controlling it, that's why many have no confidence in those that rule, they are piss soft, and wont do anything about it. Australia has the right idea.

As for the EU laws jibe, we are affected by too many now, and nobody knows what is around the corner, we could be a Great country again, it has certainly been spoilt for a decent amount of time, as being ruled from Brussels has been an unmitigated disaster.

The big thing people say to you when you argue this is that you are "racist", like you are a member of the Nazi party, sorry no, just see life for what it is, turning shit down south, coming our way, and I don't want it.
 
daftladguy said:
Maybe we get a set of laws that allow us to get rid of the problem makers, and control our own population, would be a start, instead of pussy footing around a problem that grows by the minute.

I am all for giving people a second chance, firstly speak the native tongue of the country you join, join in with our beliefs, don't make your own community, join in ours, and certainly don't expect preferential treatment, maybe pay your taxes, don't become a burden on us, the list goes on.

People refuse to say, the whole exit/stay argument was based on immigration, and controlling it, that's why many have no confidence in those that rule, they are piss soft, and wont do anything about it. Australia has the right idea.

As for the EU laws jibe, we are affected by too many now, and nobody knows what is around the corner, we could be a Great country again, it has certainly been spoilt for a decent amount of time, as being ruled from Brussels has been an unmitigated disaster.

The big thing people say to you when you argue this is that you are "racist", like you are a member of the Nazi party, sorry no, just see life for what it is, turning shit down south, coming our way, and I don't want it.
Click to expand...


Well what would the point be of having an Australian points system if we didn't adhere to it ? Just like we chose not adhere to Article 7 of The EU Rights Directive.

I've simply asked a few questions you've refused to answer.

What exactly is wrong with giving people the chance to make a decision or to change or not change their mind based on the realities of the situation ?

Also for anyone who voted leave why did you do so and what Eu law are you looking forward to being unaffected by?

You've twice alluded to being called racist or a nazi and I've done nothing of the sort.

Do you see yourself as a racist or a nazi ?
 
Grand to see the tories in turmoil & ripping each other apart,here's hoping the bloodbath continues.
After 10 yrs of systematically disbanding our N.H.S,schools, housing,police,fire service,housing,arts etc etc & making the poor & vulnerable pay for their miserable austerity fiasco they're imploding.
It's taken brexit to expose their narrow thinking ideologies.
Hope they rot!
 
keggy_keagal said:
Well what would the point be of having an Australian points system if we didn't adhere to it ? Just like we chose not adhere to Article 7 of The EU Rights Directive.

I've simply asked a few questions you've refused to answer.

What exactly is wrong with giving people the chance to make a decision or to change or not change their mind based on the realities of the situation ?

Also for anyone who voted leave why did you do so and what Eu law are you looking forward to being unaffected by?

You've twice alluded to being called racist or a nazi and I've done nothing of the sort.

Do you see yourself as a racist or a nazi ?
Click to expand...

Don't see myself as a racist or Nazi, just a bloke (and there are loads like me, loads), who have had enough of the shit shovelled, you can blame the tories, but the whole thing started with Tony Blair, so both lots are to blame.

Do I see Corbyn as a legitimate alternative, fuck me might as well jump into the frying pan, he has shown his cards by supporting the IRA, and applauding Chowdry at Finsbury Mosque, do you trust him???

And as for the politicians, my local one, wants to stay, when his electorate voted to leave, how does that work.

As for Australian system, ours doesn't work, theirs does, give it a go....
 
'speak the native tongue of the country you're coming to'

If only all the English ex pats and colonial settlers all over the world had also followed this rule

The irony and double standards never cease to amaze me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.