Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Macromia View Post
    You haven't demonstrated that there is a conspiracy, which is where the burden of proof really lies.
    Conspiracy theories, especially global 'conspiracies' that would require millions of people, including those in governments from all over the world, to be working together, are extraordinary claims that can basically be rejected if they aren't supported by evidence.
    By their very nature conspiracy theories don't have evidence - they are based on claims that either (1) the evidence that would 'prove' that the claims being made are true is being hushed up, or (2) that evidence supporting contrary positions has been falsified, meaning that the conspiracy theorists won't accept anything that contradicts what they believe. Sometimes both apply.

    As for watching the entire video...
    Firstly I didn't "refuse to watch the whole video" and, secondly, I watched over twice as much of the video that you told me to:


    The first 5 minutes of the video basically contain nothing more than David Icke saying the following:
    1. There are 'think tanks' that have been set up around the world.
    2. Some of these think tanks discuss things that they consider to be global issues and produce solutions that require governments around the world to work together.
    3. For some unspecified reason we should treat these think tanks and their suggested global policies as an attempt to scam people and reject the claims that are made.

    What is wrong with think tanks being set up where people with experience and knowledge in certain areas get together to discuss potential issues?
    If there are issues that are considered to affect the population of the world, or that need people in different parts of the wold to work together to achieve a goal, what is wrong with that?

    And how the hell do you think that it would be possible to get pretty much every single government in the world, and 97% of the world's scientists who actually study the issues, to 'pretend' that human affected climate change is actually happening?
    Seriously, how many people do you think you would need to 'pay off' to achieve this, and where do you think all that money would come from?

    As for "if we were discussing climate change",..
    If the last 5 minutes of the video don't show David admitting that everything that he has said about climate change prior to that point is blatantly untrue, and then giving an entirely different argument, there really is no point in watching it - the claims that he makes between 05:00 and just after 12:00 are sufficient basis on which to reject his position because he is either knowingly lying or severely misinformed. For instance, no one with any genuine knowledge about climate change is ingrate of the fact that there are factors other than carbon dioxide levels that influence global temperatures, climate change models do take solar cycles into account, and global temperatures have continued to rise despite the fact that solar activity has been in decline so we should currently be seeing cooling.
    Scientists openly discuss all of this.
    LOL. Well I'm glad I exercised your typing fingers.

    Comment


      Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
      Who mentioned Farage? Most countries in the world are NOT in the EU and still maange to get goods in and out of their countries quickly. It is this Stockholm Syndrome attitude which is so worrying to us Leavers...as for removing the "benefits" bring it on!
      #

      You have mentioned him before as the person who expresses your views better than you can.

      But regardless of the Tory decision to go for a pointless leadership election - pointless because a new Tory leader still has a divided party to try and whip into line - everything will be Ok.


      "Raven chicks hatched at the Tower of London for the first time in 30 years.


      The new generation of birds ensures a legend that claims the Tower will crumble and the kingdom will fall if they leave will not be fulfilled – at least for now."



      Comment


        Truly all is well. I do not think I ever said Farage expresses my views better than I can. I think I can manage that all by myself Buzzard. Why the vitriol? Plus ca change...Anyway feeling a little more optimistic than of late at Leaver Towers...lets see what the Euro elections bring. And as for a Tory leadership election well all we need is a PM who actually WANTS to leave. Then we will see...
        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

        Comment


          We're almost certainly going to get a Tory leader who wants to leave.

          It's going to be impossible for the parliamentary party to get to a short list of 2 without one of them being a hard brexiteer (and it's very likely to be Boris Johnson unless he bottles it again).
          The party membership will vote for that person by a landslide if the other person is less rabid.

          Then, one of two things will happen.
          Either the DUP will withdraw their support of the government, which makes parliament unmanageable or they won't.

          If they do, there will have to be a general election, which the tories will lose with a brexit manifesto.

          If they don't, the new PM will be as unable to achieve anything on brexit in parliament or negotiate anything new with the EU (or Labour) and nothing will change.

          Then it gets interesting, because the EU won't negotiate anything with a brexit PM (particularly Boris Johnson, who they despise), so they'll either refuse any future article 50 extension or insist on a massive extension. And then we'll see how much bottle the PM has got.

          Because a hard brexit kills the PM's reputation forever and destroys the Tory party for a generation.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            Very interesting viewpoint JP. I of course am happy if we get a leader who actually wants to leave rather than pretending to do so. However the DUP are hard brexiteers so why would they withdraw their support? The big problem will be the stalemate in Parliament as you predict. I would hope that the EU refuse point blank to negotiate or change anything so we leave without a deal in October. I also have the opposite view - I believe that not delivering Brexit kills the PMs reputation and destroys the Tory party. We live in interesting times - and as you have said before (and I agree totally) something off the wall which neither of us have predicted may well happen!
            Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

            Comment


              The DUP may withdraw their support because while they are ostensibly Brexiteers, they can't accept the current backstop proposal (because it keeps Norther Ireland in the customs area, which means it's treated differently than the rest of the UK ) or a hard border (because it's political suicide in NI).

              So my thinking is that because the backstop is part of the government's deal, they've supported the government but not the deal.
              Once the deal is off the table and government policy tends to no deal, they'll have to either abstain or withdraw support, because no deal means a hard border automatically (unless the UK can do a trade deal with Europe, which means the backstop).
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                Yes I get that JP and fair reasoning. I happen to believe however that a hard border is not necessary. In fact the UK has said it will not implement one so if one appears it will be the EU that creates it. However I do see the issue and know it needs to be worked on but it can be done. I think the DUP will go for no deal. They would never ever agree to the deal negotiated (I use that term ironically) by May...the backstop, as you say, is totally unacceptable.
                Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                Comment


                  Could be right about the DUP - they're essentially mad anyway.

                  The default WTO rules that will apply after a hard brexit require a hard border.

                  How (and I suppose whether) the WTO enforces the requirement is going to be interesting because the USA is blocking appointments at senior level which is making it difficult for them to act.
                  But the WTO will probably apply pressure on the EU and the Republic of Ireland to lock the border down.

                  But the EU will have to close the border if the UK does any trade deal that introduces anything into the UK that wouldn't be allowed into the EU (GM products for human consumption or US produced meat for example).
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    Yes I agree it would - though the scare stories about GM products and chlorinated chicken are simply that, scare stories!
                    Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                      ...though the scare stories about GM products and chlorinated chicken are simply that, scare stories!
                      So...
                      Which of the following do you think will be true if the UK leaves the EU without any deal:

                      1. The UK won't make any trade deals with the US.

                      2. Trade deals made between the UK and the US will exclude all food products.

                      3. We will agree to a trade deal for food that only allows non GM products, and meat that is produced to UK standards into the UK (this would mean that facilities for testing of US food imports would have to be put into place, at the expense of either the US producers or UK customers, which would likely make US imports economically unattractive to UK consumers. This also wouldn't guarantee that GM/chlorine washed products didn't get into the UK and would therefore make a hard border with the EU necessary.

                      4. The US will agree to a trade deal for food that requires their producers to bring their food standards up to the levels that currently apply in the UK (at a cost to all producers in the US).

                      Since GM and chlorine washing are allowed in the US, and US businesses and consumers are generally against any regulations that might increase costs, they will not want to agree to meet UK standards.
                      This means that UK food exports will not be unlikely to compete with US produced food in the US market, because of the higher costs involved, and US imports will either not be allowed into the UK or UK food standards will have to be lowered (and a hard border established with the EU).

                      It is true that we can maintain food/animal welfare standards and not allow imports from producers that don't have the same standards - but it's also true that this will be a big problem in trade talks with any country that doesn't already have the same standards - especially when that country has an economy almost ten times the size of the UK's and will therefore expect the UK to make concessions that favour them.

                      Comment


                        US food standards are different to the UK, but that's because the basis on which food regulations are created are different for historic reasons, not because one is better than the other.
                        European regulations for meat and eggs for example stress bacterial control from birth and then maintained through life, while US regulations broadly, work on the basis that hygiene at birth/source is unreliable and that bacterial control should be based on elimination of threats later in the lifecycle.

                        Hence treating meat post death and refrigerating eggs in the US which isn't required in the UK.
                        The US system works well and isn't in itself something that anyone should worry about (people in the USA aren't dying because their food isn't safe - the odd issue with lettuce recently, notwithstanding).

                        The fundamental problem is that mixing hygiene standards is next to impossible. On a practical day to day level, shops and supermarkets would have to cope with eggs that need to be refrigerated (with shorter life cycles) and some that don't (with slightly longer use by dates). And someone would have to make sure that they weren't swapped by shoppers and staff.

                        More relevantly, the EU (whose regulations would be unchanged) might have to ban some imports from the UK without complete lifecycle documentation, to prevent US products either coming into the EU via the UK, or contaminating UK products by intermingling during distribution.

                        And the kind of lifecycle documentation required would add to the cost of UK meat production, which is already often loss-making and maintained by subsidy.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          Truly all is well. I do not think I ever said Farage expresses my views better than I can. I think I can manage that all by myself Buzzard. Why the vitriol? Plus ca change...Anyway feeling a little more optimistic than of late at Leaver Towers...lets see what the Euro elections bring. And as for a Tory leadership election well all we need is a PM who actually WANTS to leave. Then we will see...
                          Go back to the first page and you'll see that I had confused you with someone else who wants Brexit.

                          You have a low threshold for pain if you think this is "vitriol" - so you'll be very unhappy if we leave the EU, the hard border is in place and whatever else happens to ford imports they are more expensive.

                          The Tory party deserves to be destroyed for letting us in for this just to win an election. However whatever replaces them is likely to be just as incompetent - and with an economy suffering from Brexit.

                          Comment


                            Well as someone who has never bought a Ford and is never likely to do so your threat falls on deaf ears sir. Your apology for confusing me with someone else is however accepted. I do not agree that our economy will suffer from Brexit but believe it will thrive outside the confines of the EU. Perhaps paying a few quid more for your next wee Fiesta is more important to you than freedom and if so, you are fully entitled to your viewpoint.
                            Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                            Comment


                              When will the moaning remainers stop being plonkers and accept the democratic vote? So Boris is going to be taken to the high court for telling porky pies. Which MP has never told a porky pie? If he is prosecuted then we could dissolve Parliament by prosecuting all the MPs.
                              The political establishment have been coning us the people, from dawn of democracy. Today we see a more professional con-machine at work by the establishment, by using the BBC, give us a slanted view.
                              No mention that BBC receives grants from the EU (you never bit the hand that feeds you).
                              No mention of the EU imposed the 5% VAT on fuel.
                              No reports on what is happening in other EU member states against their membership ( Irish are about to start a anti Europe party).
                              No reports on Japan taking their car industries back to Japan because they will not have to pay tariffs now on car exports to the EU.
                              Can't remember the name of that female MP who stood-up the other day and said more people voted for the remain parties than the leave parties in the RU elections. She was misleading people in that she was assuming that all labour and Tory votes were for staying. BBC never challenged her.
                              Nigel Farage for PM

                              Comment


                                More TPTB (BBC) conspiracy: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...eo-about-syria

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X