Jen's Brexit Watch

[Red]

Hannan also said there was no way we'd leave the single market after Brexit.

I voted to remain, but that's not to say that I think the EU is a great institution, far from it and it's flawed in many ways. If I knew Corbyn would be the next PM then leaving the EU would sit more comfortably with me. It doesn't just concern me that the selfservatives are not handling it well, but that most ordinary people's lives will not qualitatively improve under them post Brexit, and that this government will not replace funding to deprived communities lost through the ESF etc with the revenue saved from not paying into the EU. I think a lot of the 'I voted Brexit because immigration is out of control' voters are going to be sorely disappointed when they find that their quality of life does not improve under the Tories.even though we're not in the EU

It also remains to be seen what happens to rights in the workplace that are enshrined in EU law. The government keeps saying that these protections will remain, but when they're running cap in hand to secure trade deals with countries who find workplace protections inconvenient then I think this government will incrementally erode our rights. Yeah, a lot of the people who voted Brexit thinking that the quality of their lives would tangibly improve are going to get a shock. My sympathy for them will amount to the square root of fuck all.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Quite right Red. I agree with all you say. I too do not believe that the EU is perfect.... far from it. I'm glad we didn't join the Euro and I also believe that there is much that needs reform. But I firmly believe that the best way to fight for reform is from within. If you have a seat at the table you can have an influence. We have given up our seat at the table and for that reason we can no longer influence anything.

As for migration, I believe that this is the most cost effective way of acquiring expertise. Consider:

When a migrant arrives from another EU nation to work in Britain he (we'll speak in the masculine but it could equally be a woman) brings two invisible cheques with him. The first is to the value of around £100'000 from his parents for the first 20 or so years of his life when they brought him up to adulthood.

The second invisible cheque is for around £50'000 for the amount his country of origin spent on his education from childhood to adult.

This is just for an unskilled worker. Often, the workers we see arrive here bring a third invisible cheque for the amount spent on any specialist training they may have had in their country of origin. Around £150'000 for a doctor and around £50'000 for a nurse.

I've used deliberately conservative figures. The true amounts could be much higher depending on where he comes from. So much the better for us.

Total..? By coming here to settle and work, an incomer is effectively donating between £150'000 and £300'000 to us. And these cheques are instantly cashable He is not starting from scratch, ie, a newborn Briton. These incomers arrive ready to work. They hit the ground running.

Multiply these figures by the number of incomers. If 50'000 come here the net gain to Britain is around £7.5bn. 100'000 incomers means around £15bn. And that's before they even start to work and pay taxes.

This is a glaringly obvious benefit of freedom of movement which is completely overlooked by all sides and for the life of me, I don't know why Remain aren't making anything of it.

 

[Fompous Part]

Possibly because it amounts to gloating about an arrangement through which developing nations can be drained of their most valuable human resources by their much richer neighbours.

It is a boon to us when an experienced heart surgeon trained at great public expense in Hungary takes advantage of FOM and emigrates to Birmingham. But it kinda sucks for Hungarian citizens and taxpayers, especially since there is little-to-no chance of a British equivalent going the other way.

Celebrating this isn't the best look, not in a country whose politics are mired in post-colonial guilt. It doesn't fit with the "EU as a vehicle of development, redistribution and social justice" script too well either.

P.S. The "in it to reform it" approach has been tried for decades and has demonstrably failed, at least if the desired reforms involve less integration. In what respects do you think the EU is imperfect, and what reforms would you want a remaining Britain to seek?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

The "vehicle of development, redistribution and social justice" line is demonstrably true, to some extent though. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that countries haven't benefited enormously from the investment/opportunities membership can bring (eg the likes of Spain and Portugal are largely unrecognisable from the nations which joined in the 80s).

And whilst the point is a reasonable one I'm not really sure what the alternative is to importing labour? If you're an affluent country with a modest birth rate and an increasingly ageing population it stands to reason that you need a growing workforce to support those people and sustain economic growth. Unless we want to demolish the whole global capitalist model then there's no easy solution to this particular conundrum. If the EU wasn't there I'd contend that developing nations would be even more prone to exploitation, as they'd still be drained of resources but receive little in return.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I wasn't really going to comment on the earlier exchange but I will just make the rather banal observation that people's perspectives are just fundamentally different depending on which side of the fence you fall down on. I may not think the likes of Blair or Major are beacons of integrity, I may not think their interventions are very politically useful, but I think I prefer their dose of realism, which I do believe is born out of a genuine concern, to the devoid of substance, "everything's going to be fine" rhetoric we're getting from HMG and the official opposition. Blair, Major, Adonis, Miller may be regarded as hate figures in Leave circles but I feel similarly about their poster boys - Farage, Rees-Mogg, Davis etc - who I'm inclined to view as an arrogant, privileged cabal, who can afford to agitate for something they know might be destructive because their standing and their wealth means they're largely insulated from any negative repercussions. I understand the annoyance with some Remainers but a lot of the Leave rhetoric is similarly counter-productive - I don't, for instance, think tabloid headlines shrieking about traitors in reference to anyone who shares the outlook of 48% of the population (or even those who are just executing a democratic function, like our judiciary) is a great barrel of laughs.

Personally, I think you can trace most of the current problems and divisions back to the campaign itself. I've made my distaste for referendums clear before, but one of the reasons I dislike them so is because they tend to generate a lot of sound and fury and little of genuine substance. In essence, we've attempted to reduce something which is very complex with great consequences for many areas of the economy and society down to a crude yes / no choice with no real idea as to what that looks like in practice. If the central problem of the Remain campaign was a failure to extol the virtues of continued EU membership then a chief issue with the Leave one was that it never articulated a coherent vision as to what Brexit would entail, and how it would be practically implemented. I think the difficulty with asking Remainers to buy into the whole "let's try to make the best of this and see what happens" stuff is that we still have little awareness as to what we're being asked to buy into. If there was a clear pathway to Brexit and it was clearly signposted from the start what would happen in the event of a Leave vote it would be a more reasonable demand. There was a point after the referendum took place, after some of my initial anger and anxiety had subsided, where I thought "perhaps let's wait and see" - but now, nearly two years on, the uncertainty and confusion remains. I increasingly get the sense that I'm aboard a ship that's careering at pace towards an iceberg, with the captain asleep at the wheel while the rum-sodden crew enjoys a bit of of a punch up (sadly, dashing hero Tony Blair, who spotted the iceberg from the crow's nest and tried to warn of the danger, perished after being made to walk the plank by some perfidious Scumbag).

Anyway, silly nautical analogies aside, I'm not really entirely sure what point I'm making. Basically, I think there's still a lot at stake so people are naturally trying to fight their corner. Without any real sense of agency over the end result I think there's a lot of understandable frustration from everyone with a fairly entrenched view on the matter.

 

[Fompous Part]

FWIW I would gladly throw Tony Blair in the sea.

P.S. Just tried to reply to your previous post but my verbiage was rejected for being "spam like". Not sure why. Will try again tomorrow.

 

[markwwfc1992]

FWIW I would gladly throw Tony Blair in the sea.

Would prefer a firing squad. On second thoughts, maybe that is too quick for him.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

FWIW I would gladly throw Tony Blair in the sea.

P.S. Just tried to reply to your previous post but my verbiage was rejected for being "spam like". Not sure why. Will try again tomorrow.

Did it content several URL links perhaps? That would probably flag the spam filter, which we've had to tighten a bit over the last 6-9 months.

I'd have a lot of time for John Major, if only he'd been more open in his dealings with the Maastricht treaty. He used the whip to smash it through with little consultation. There are grudges that go back even that far in the Leave camp, I believe.

As for Blair, I had to laugh last week when his "Tony Blair institute" (my god what narcissism) conducted a poll on social media, which disappointingly for them resulted in a leave result. So they put this down to 'trolls', and conducted a new poll, with a far far smaller sample size, which resulted in a remain result. They then publicised this second poll as conclusive proof that the mood of the nation had changed and how it was time to #stopbrexit and all that.

 

[Fompous Part]

Did it content several URL links perhaps? That would probably flag the spam filter, which we've had to tighten a bit over the last 6-9 months.

No URLs. I'll PM you the text. If you have time, let me know if there's anything wrong with it.

I'd have a lot of time for John Major, if only he'd been more open in his dealings with the Maastricht treaty. He used the whip to smash it through with little consultation. There are grudges that go back even that far in the Leave camp, I believe.

A brutal whipping operation headed by one David Davis, no less! But let's not dwell on that. Jen does the exposés around here...

Tories were disagreeing about the Europe project long before it was called the EU. The row can be dated back to the 1960s when we kept applying to join the EEC and de Gaulle kept vetoing us. But, yes, the early 1990s is where it worsened into a harmful schism. The fall-out over Maastricht and the deposing of Lady T (at least partly motivated by concerns about her growing EU-scepticism) were the key events.

 

[Fompous Part]

The "vehicle of development, redistribution and social justice" line is demonstrably true, to some extent though.

I’m not attacking the premise per se. Just saying that a one-way talent drain from East to West (an inevitable consequence of extending FoM to the former Soviet Bloc countries) is a part of the picture that doesn't support it very well.

At a cursory glance, it does look (and to an extent is) a bit lazy and exploitive. No need for a long-term strategy to ensure a steady supply of home-grown skilled labour; if we need skilled workers we’ll just import them ready-made from other countries, enticing them with the promise of higher wages, better pensions, superior welfare provision, etc.

You're right that the wider picture regarding intra-EU distribution is much more complex. But perhaps what I've highlighted, however narrow, explains the mystery Jen has highlighted. Just a theory. It's probably a question better answered by Remainers, TBH.

And whilst the point is a reasonable one I'm not really sure what the alternative is to importing labour? If you're an affluent country with a modest birth rate and an increasingly ageing population it stands to reason that you need a growing workforce to support those people and sustain economic growth. Unless we want to demolish the whole global capitalist model then there's no easy solution to this particular conundrum.

Yep, it's complicated. One of the complications is that young migrant workers are not immune to the ageing process and will, baring catastrophe, become old codgers too. And in a system that allows long-term/permanent residency (as opposed to a much harsher system where residency is contingent on being gainfully employed) they might eventually become part of the ageing population problem they were brought into address. After all, if someone has lived and worked here for decades, has started a family here and considers it home, who can blame them for wanting to retire here?

I know you weren't suggesting it as a panacea, but I do think the "we have an ageing population so we need to import young workers" thing is perhaps a short-sighted idea that, under the existing set-up, begs more questions than it answers. I think importing labour (which doesn't necessarily require FoM) is part of the solution; however, if it's the only solution I fear it's just another way of kicking the can down the road.

And, besides, I thought you pinkos were fairly sanguine about bringing down the global capitalist system...

If the EU wasn't there I'd contend that developing nations would be even more prone to exploitation, as they'd still be drained of resources but receive little in return.

As is often the case in EU politics, there isn't a right or wrong answer here; just a messy game of political and economic trade-offs that will suit some countries more than others.

While non-EU developing countries are vulnerable to talent drains, FoM obviously makes it easier. However, an EU country like Poland is compensated through things like being net beneficiaries vis-à-vis EU funding, increased tourism, superior access to foreign export markets, etc. FWIW, I think it's fair to say that if Poles felt hard done by, EU-scepticism there would be much higher.

P.S. Thank you, Mark, for doing whatever you did to allow this guff through the spam filters.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Thanks to Paranoid Pineapple for writing something rather sensible above. I agree with pretty much most of what he says.

So much for this thread being an echo chamber where I'm merely talking to myself.

While I appreciate the sensible input of those who aren't merely attempting to derail the thread with spam, we're straying somewhat from the purpose of this thread, which is to highlight and expose the farcical hyperbole, hypocrisy and contradictory statements, as well as the dubious actions of the self interested in the Leave camp.

Undeterred, I will continue to continue if only to see if any responses I can use (for my own purposes) in the mirror threads I've created elsewhere.... and (notwithstanding PP and those who seem to be trying to be objective rather than destructive) are getting more grown up responses..... are forthcoming.




Now, here's a thought on Liam Halligan, the Daily Telegraph's pet economics correspondent who told readers that immigration figures had been met with "claims that previously contented EU nationals are so upset by the intolerant, racist nation we have become that they're quitting Britain in droves. The Stop-Brexit crowd are whipping up as much angst as possible."

Actually, since the figures showed not much more than a slowing down of EU immigration, nobody else read much into it. The only paper to get really excited about the story was the pro-Brexit Daily Express whose February 22 front page hailed an "Exodus Of The EU Migrants."

Halligan also claimed that the drop in arrivals was partly down to potential EU migrants "reading the UK's international business press, which has been extremely negative about Brexit."

Yes, Liam. The average Polish plumber back in Warsaw or Gdansk regularly enjoys nothing more than reading The Economist or the Financial Times at breakfast.

 

[Fompous Part]

Corin – if you want to continue our discussion, maybe move it into the EU Referendum thread? A polite discussion between people who disagree does seem incongruous here; and it's silly to have the more general EU discussion spread across two threads when it could be concentrated in one. Since Jen apparently views this thread like a normal person would view a personal blog, it's probably best to leave her to it.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

We Must Do All We Can To Keep Brexit an "If" Not A "When"

I learned two important things in my time as an activist at Uni. The first was to always promote the message, not letting yourself be sidetracked on the way. The other was that often, you get the best answers by throwing questions back to those who ask them.

In one Brexit discussion on another site I was asked: With Brexit and Trump around, did I see much hope for Britain?. I replied by throwing it open to the group. "Who feels optimistic about politics right now?" Only one person replied positively, all the rest were all negatives.

I am confident that there will always be a Britain. What I'm not confident about is the Britain that Brexit is shaping up towards. Some may say this is overly pessimistic given that Britain has risen to major challenges before. Some may call me downright unpatriotic. To the first charge I plead Guilty, to the second, a resounding Not Guilty, M'lud.

One of the worst things about the whole issue is that "Pro-European" has been conflated into "Anti-British". This is clearly rubbish. My passion to halt the madness of Brexit comes not from a love of Europe, but from a love of Britain and a fear that we are opting for national, economic, political and cultural decline by ripping ourselves from an economic, political and cultural union that has served us well.

Getting back briefly to Trump.... he will go, be it after one term in office or two. Either way, he will go. Brexit won't unless we can prevent it happening at all. And that is what we must strive to achieve... to keep it as an "if" despite the overwhelming pressure for it to be "when".

This is the thing that keeps me going on this subject. If it were not the case I wouldn't be writing on so many discussion forums, ploughing through news items and arguing my case relentlessly. I do my best to ignore the cretins, bigots, racists and the sneering Little Englanders, whose only response is to attempt to howl me down... silence me.... Be destructive.

Some Brexiters are unsalvageable but just occasionally, I get a PM or an email that says "I didn't realise how much corruption and hypocrisy there is in this until now." There aren't many such messages, but they tell me, and others like me That we're getting through somewhere.

The last point though, is what can we actually DO? This vexed question is Brexit's best friend. It creates a space for fatalism. "Nothing can be done so do nothing." The shrug of the shoulder replacing the fire in the belly and the passion in the heart.

Hardcore Brexiters don't care what lies they're told.... the more untruths the merrier as far as they're concerned if it gets them what they want. To them, the end justifies the means.

But I sense that decent people don't like being lied to. They resent being treated with contempt by the liars and the hateful bigots and the racists. And if fatalism and confusion are the government's best friend, then the very Government itself is ours. Not trusted, not liked, not respected.

Remember what I said above about throwing questions back at people..? Well, right now, anywhere in the UK you can ask six questions and the answer will invariably be a resounding "NO."

* Do you think Teresa May is a strong leader?
* Do you think she has a clear strategy for Brexit?
* Do you think she has a united team?
* Do you think David Davis is doing a good job of negotiating with Brussels?
* Do you think Liam Fox will deliver trade deals which will fill the gap left by Brexit?
* Do you trust Boris Johnson?

To each of those questions, decent people will shout the loudest, clearest NO and it will resound around the country. We should use that.... Ask every audience those questions. Over and over. Sow the seeds of doubt and watch them grow.

There are good reasons for "If" gaining ground. The people know more now than they did at the Referendum. We keep exposing the lies and delusions peddled by Johnson, Gove, Mogg and co. The incompetent mess of negotiations and the inability of ministers to come up with a coherent strategy TWENTY MONTHS after the referendum.

No clear plan, no sense of direction,no agreed strategy, no clear destination in sight. What qualities has anybody seen in May and her hapless, hopeless, divided team that instills any confidence?

One year to Brexit. Still no plan. Why not?

They don't have the answers to that question and that gives me hope. As the clock ticks down the reality becomes clearer. The lack of trust grows. The fear that we are sliding into something the majority... including many moderate Leavers.... never wanted.

We cannot leave the outcome to the handful of incompetents in the government who would press ahead regardless of the damage they do.

The demand for a say on whatever deal they come back with MUST be met and if that is given to the people, then anything can happen. I am confident the people, given a second chance would choose a very different path to the one we are being herded down now.

It is possible that we may not be able to achieve our aim, but we have to try. If we love Britain, as I do, we have to keep fighting for that path to be opened. And to keep fighting, against all the odds, is a very British thing to do.

 

[shane]

Corin – if you want to continue our discussion, maybe move it into the EU Referendum thread? A polite discussion between people who disagree does seem incongruous here; and it's silly to have the more general EU discussion spread across two threads when it could be concentrated in one. Since Jen apparently views this thread like a normal person would view a personal blog, it's probably best to leave her to it.

Thats a shame.

You obviously couldn't hack it but its understandable. Jen covered feminism and the Iraq war at Uni. You never stood a chance.

Godspeed FP.

 

[slaphead]

Quite right Red. I agree with all you say. I too do not believe that the EU is perfect.... far from it. I'm glad we didn't join the Euro and I also believe that there is much that needs reform. But I firmly believe that the best way to fight for reform is from within. If you have a seat at the table you can have an influence. We have given up our seat at the table and for that reason we can no longer influence anything.

As for migration, I believe that this is the most cost effective way of acquiring expertise. Consider:

When a migrant arrives from another EU nation to work in Britain he (we'll speak in the masculine but it could equally be a woman) brings two invisible cheques with him. The first is to the value of around £100'000 from his parents for the first 20 or so years of his life when they brought him up to adulthood.

The second invisible cheque is for around £50'000 for the amount his country of origin spent on his education from childhood to adult.

This is just for an unskilled worker. Often, the workers we see arrive here bring a third invisible cheque for the amount spent on any specialist training they may have had in their country of origin. Around £150'000 for a doctor and around £50'000 for a nurse.

I've used deliberately conservative figures. The true amounts could be much higher depending on where he comes from. So much the better for us.

Total..? By coming here to settle and work, an incomer is effectively donating between £150'000 and £300'000 to us. And these cheques are instantly cashable He is not starting from scratch, ie, a newborn Briton. These incomers arrive ready to work. They hit the ground running.

Multiply these figures by the number of incomers. If 50'000 come here the net gain to Britain is around £7.5bn. 100'000 incomers means around £15bn. And that's before they even start to work and pay taxes.

This is a glaringly obvious benefit of freedom of movement which is completely overlooked by all sides and for the life of me, I don't know why Remain aren't making anything of it.

I’d be interested to know who employs and trains the youth of this country once these ‘hit the ground runningers’ take all the jobs because they are easier to employ, or do we just settle for 50% youth unemployment a la Spain as an acceptable price to pay for FOM?

 

[mowgli]

or do we just settle for 50% youth unemployment a la Spain as an acceptable price to pay for FOM?

It's 50% in Italy,Portugal and Greece as well as Spain.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Kate Hoey (Leave) tweeted on 23 Feb that Tony Blair "should stop trying to use Northern Ireland's special situation to stop Brexit. Nobody has suggested sacrificing the Belfast agreement."

Nobody, Kate..? Errr, you have.

Hoey is the MP who said on February 19; "There is a need for a cold, rational look at the Belfast agreement..... mandatory coalition is not sustainable in the long term. We need to face reality."

*****​

And of course, no Brexit Watch would be complete without the utterances of Nigel Farage.

"I've never taken money from the Russians" he told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference. If true (which I doubt) all that says to me is that Nigel should get himself a better agent.

Farage made 17 appearances on the Kremlin funded Russia Today TV channel between December 2010 and March 2014, and recently told German newspaper Die Zeit that he continues to appear on that channel "Two or three times a year."

Indeed, Russia Today claimed in 2013 that "Mr Farage has been known far longer to the RT audience than most of the British electorate."

And all without a single Kopeck in payment..? Believe that and you'll believe anything.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

The "Open Skies" Row shows how Trump will exploit Brexit at Britain's Cost.

Teresa May made securing a generous US trade deal one of the principal aims for Brexit. Her early trip to Washington to meet Donald Trump and her promise of a state visit were all part of the UK government's plan to forge a new stronger post-Brexit trading relationship with the US.

After a trip to Washington, Boris Johnson boasted that Britain would be "first in line" to do a trade deal with the US, while the International Trade Secretary boasted of dozens of new trade deals being ready to sign "the second after" Brexit.

However, two events this week show that it will not be anywhere near as easy as Brexiteers had promised. The first was Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on trade with Europe. The second is an alarming new row over Britain's rights to fly across the Atlantic.

The UK reportedly walked out of secret talks when Washington offered the UK its standard bilateral open skies deal.

The crucial sticking point was a technical but important one. Washington's bilateral offer excluded airlines if "substantial ownership and control" does not rest with UK or US nationals. That would mean three of Britain's biggest airlines — British Airways owner IAG, Virgin Atlantic, and Norwegian UK — did not have the right to fly across to the US.

However, the government hopes that the Trump administration will eventually make an exception for the UK. So is this likely? Aviation experts think not.

"There is no reason to assume the US will budge its position on ownership and control because it never has," said aviation consultant Andrew Charlton.

"It didn't when the Europeans — which included the British at the time — asked for it. They've never done it."

 

[Indian Dan]

Quote from Jen

‘Some Brexiters are unsalvageable but just occasionally, I get a PM or an email that says "I didn't realise how much corruption and hypocrisy there is in this until now." There aren't many such messages, but they tell me, and others like me That we're getting through somewhere.’

The EU auditors have refused to sign off the EU annual accounts for two decades because of widespread corruption.

 

[mowgli]

The EU auditors have refused to sign off the EU annual accounts for two decades because of widespread corruption.

Something the remoaners will ignore as it destroys their belief that The EU is the best thing to rule Europe even though drunken Juncker and Tusk have proved otherwise. Time we left the cabal and refused to pay a single penny and we can watch them implode which will be hilarious as without our billions they will go under unless Merkel makes up the difference.

 

[Indian Dan]

The EU - the cause of the rise of the extreme right throughout Europe. Hang your heads in shame. Should be grateful we are exiting this shit storm before it really implodes.

 

[Stevencc]

‘Some Brexiters are unsalvageable but just occasionally, I get a PM or an email that says "I didn't realise how much corruption and hypocrisy there is in this until now." There aren't many such messages, but they tell me, and others like me That we're getting through somewhere.’

'I do it so, one day, someone will go 'There goes David Brent. I must remember to thank him.'

 

[shane]

‘Some Brexiters are unsalvageable but just occasionally, I get a PM or an email that says "I didn't realise how much corruption and hypocrisy there is in this until now." There aren't many such messages, but they tell me, and others like me That we're getting through somewhere.’

'I do it so, one day, someone will go 'There goes David Brent. I must remember to thank him.'

I was thinking exactly the same. This is easily my favourite thread on the forum at the moment.

 

[Etty Abrics]

I was thinking exactly the same. This is easily my favourite thread on the forum at the moment.

Did I nearly vomit when I read the paragraph first time?

"Guilty M'lud"

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Corin – if you want to continue our discussion, maybe move it into the EU Referendum thread? A polite discussion between people who disagree does seem incongruous here; and it's silly to have the more general EU discussion spread across two threads when it could be concentrated in one. Since Jen apparently views this thread like a normal person would view a personal blog, it's probably best to leave her to it.

Sorry, really poor form of my not to respond. I haven't for the simple reason that I fear we might encounter some common ground, which should obviously be resisted at all cost! Seriously though - I don't think we're that far apart (I'd start a new thread in the EU ref thread if I thought as much). You make a lot of good points, many of which I would agree with. I think my basic contention was that FoM is/was an attempt to grapple with some of the pressures brought about by market capitalism. To some extent it succeeds; in other respects it fails, if you ask me.

Jen - ignore them, you're much better than some of the dolts on this site. Continue doing what you're doing.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Sorry, really poor form of my not to respond. I haven't for the simple reason that I fear we might encounter some common ground, which should obviously be resisted at all cost! Seriously though - I don't think we're that far apart (I'd start a new thread in the EU ref thread if I thought as much). You make a lot of good points, many of which I would agree with. I think my basic contention was that FoM is/was an attempt to grapple with some of the pressures brought about by market capitalism. To some extent it succeeds; in other respects it fails, if you ask me.

Jen - ignore them, you're much better than some of the dolts on this site. Continue doing what you're doing.

Thank you, PP. Yes, I can see that we're not that far apart and that's a good thing. It's not that I don't like to be challenged..... I have no objection to that at all, but it should be on the basis of the subject, not the sort of personal abuse from Fompous Part.... a person who I have now put on ignore even though he has decided to "follow" me. Perhaps he thinks he can unsettle me by stalking. Tsk. So yes, I ignore him although still read the input of others who are objective and make valid arguments.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

PLAYING CHICKEN IN THE CHANNEL TUNNEL - SKY NEWS

The dreadful events in Salisbury have rather distracted discussion on Brexit for a few days, but I found this and thought it worthy of throwing into the mix:

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-forensics-playing-chicken-with-the-channel-tunnel-11291767

No border plans, non-disclosure agreements, no infrastructure, no room for infrastructure, no planning applications... Fizal Aslam's report on Sky News. Even if there's no deal, WTO etc. The "Throw the border open" option. Yet without a deal the EU could well put checks on our stuff going out. "Pragmatic approach".

Farce, farce, a thousand times farce. Welcome to the real world of Brexit.

 

[Indian Dan]

Why do you never address any concerns brought up in here.

EU corruption, the rise of the extreme right in so many EU countries because of EU policies, the tragically huge % of young unemployed people because of imposed austerity of the EU.

You just seem to waffle on in some long winded diatribe as if everything in the EU is beyond criticism.

 

[mowgli]

Fizal Aslam's report on Sky News

He's a remoaner and hates the idea we're leaving The EU so he's hardly neutral,time and time again he has hissy fits but whoever he interviews that support Brexit he's left looking a numpty.

 

[Fompous Part]

For the record, Jen, the 'following' was unintentional. Sounds bizarre, I know, but I've done this a few times in the past. I think it's because the "follow" option is directly above the "messages" hyperlink that you click on when you want to see someone's posts.

FWIW, sorry if that creeped you out. 100% wasn't intentional.