Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: shorting the £ Question: to anyone really? Wouldn't be lunacy anyway to short the pound on Brexit as the LSE is strongly connected to the US stock market rather than what goes on in the UK Parliament ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: Was blue passports not presented by some as a reason for leaving? I remember it well. I know it wasn't you specifically but many of the Brexit persuasion did. I didn't ask for war and peace just a simple "yes it'll be worth all these times of hatred in the end" or "no I never envisaged the division would get this bad" would have sufficed. Ok.... I didn’t envisaged the division being this bad but then I hadn’t expected remainers to be so fervent in their wish to ignore the outcome of the referendum Are death threats and the like worth it , absolutely no , as I’ve said before my personal view was to leave but not at any cost ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 26, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Xann said: Yes and no. Obviously that CAP money is for the environment and not the Social Security budget. Moors though? Farmers use moors certainly, they're often common ground. Stick your sheep on them and give your home pastures a break, but who owns lots of moorland? Middle class or working class people? Where would that money be better spent? Planting trees, reclaiming brownfield sites or quarries. Perhaps? Call me bonkers, but it seems to me the money needs to be spent to offset the effects of climate change. Waterways and coastal areas in particular. (I had a great diagram of how farmers could utilise running water on their land, and the life each method supported? Can I find it now? Nope). Funds for drainage and to offset erosion of environments that support ecosystems would also be welcome. Then there's the magic money tree. There isn't one, unless the rich need a tax break for voting Tory, or the DUP need bribed, or the public aren't taking to the Brexit for Billionaires and need a bit of cajoling or Chris Grayling has a brainfart... And there's me falling off the bike again because there's a crater in the middle of the road. Beggars piling up around transport in quite shitty parts of town and tent villages in the parks. So no, I don't think that CAP money make a couple of foodbanks disappear, but I do think the system favours the wealthy. The Tory filth treats Average Joe with disdain and cares nothing for their suffering, seeing them as a resource to be exploited by themselves and their chums. This all seems very confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: Question: to anyone really? Wouldn't be lunacy anyway to short the pound on Brexit as the LSE is strongly connected to the US stock market rather than what goes on in the UK Parliament ? Not one I can answer but I read that Napoleon labeled short sellers of government securities “treasonous.” Which made me smirk when you think the topic was originally around Mogg and shorting .... ok it’s probably just me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, bickster said: This all seems very confused Blandy thought I was directly linking CAP and foodbanks. I was trying to say that the CAP money was being spent oddly, in a way that favoured rich land owners and not the environment, which has a new set of problems. Then I moved on to examples of the Tory system favouring the follies of the rich, and the rest of us can go to hell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, Xann said: Yes and no. Obviously that CAP money is for the environment and not the Social Security budget. Moors though? Farmers use moors certainly, they're often common ground. Stick your sheep on them and give your home pastures a break, but who owns lots of moorland? Middle class or working class people? Where would that money be better spent? Planting trees, reclaiming brownfield sites or quarries. Perhaps? Call me bonkers, but it seems to me the money needs to be spent to offset the effects of climate change. Waterways and coastal areas in particular. (I had a great diagram of how farmers could utilise running water on their land, and the life each method supported? Can I find it now? Nope). Funds for drainage and to offset erosion of environments that support ecosystems would also be welcome. Then there's the magic money tree. There isn't one, unless the rich need a tax break for voting Tory, or the DUP need bribed, or the public aren't taking to the Brexit for Billionaires and need a bit of cajoling or Chris Grayling has a brainfart... And there's me falling off the bike again because there's a crater in the middle of the road. Beggars piling up around transport in quite shitty parts of town and tent villages in the parks. So no, I don't think that CAP money make a couple of foodbanks disappear, but I do think the system favours the wealthy. The Tory filth treats Average Joe with disdain and cares nothing for their suffering, seeing them as a resource to be exploited by themselves and their chums. Great, maybe it would but you would have to renegotiate CAP and as 18 countries receive more than they contribute to the EU Agriculture guarantee fund, I don't think you would have a chance. As for your last paragraph, as we are talking about CAP The French and Spanish receive loads more money and have loads more land. So the wealthy make loads more money. Is it the Tory filth or CAP which is the real problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 minute ago, colhint said: So the wealthy make loads more money. Is it the Tory filth or CAP which is the real problem. From our slice of the CAP? The way we see fit to distribute it. If we want to change CAP, or the way we're governed, you, I and everyone are going to have to be more involved. Looking at voter turnout and apathy in the UK, we've pretty much left the politicians to it, and they've taken the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 But the rules are pretty much laid out in CAP, there's not much room for negotiation. It's basically on how much land you have. You can't take money off those with moorland in the uk if they get it in France for example. There is no chance at all CAP will change. It's been around nearly 60 years. The majority of countries do very well out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, colhint said: But the rules are pretty much laid out in CAP, there's not much room for negotiation. It's basically on how much land you have. You can't take money off those with moorland in the uk if they get it in France for example. This was the crux of the conversation above. Every country is different and has different geology, flora and fauna and we don't distribute money the same way. We, the UK, decide which aspect of the environment gets the cash. We didn't have to throw it at moors. It was an odd choice for me. 3 minutes ago, colhint said: There is no chance at all CAP will change. It's been around nearly 60 years. The majority of countries do very well out of it. Nowt will happen if the will isn't backed by action. You know your MEP's stance on the CAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 The MEP makes no difference. after years and years of negotiation, the Mercosur countries (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay Uraguay and Venezuela) were going to sign a trade and Agriculture deal with the EU. Last week the Austrian government, not the MEP's vetoed it. This action was supported by Ireland. They feared imports would harm their farmers. 20 years of negotiating and 1 country stopped it. The MEP's didn't have a say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 26, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Xann said: Yes and no. Obviously that CAP money is for the environment and not the Social Security budget. Moors though? Farmers use moors certainly, they're often common ground. Stick your sheep on them and give your home pastures a break, but who owns lots of moorland? Middle class or working class people? Where would that money be better spent? Planting trees, reclaiming brownfield sites or quarries. Perhaps? Call me bonkers, but it seems to me the money needs to be spent to offset the effects of climate change. Waterways and coastal areas in particular. (I had a great diagram of how farmers could utilise running water on their land, and the life each method supported? Can I find it now? Nope). Funds for drainage and to offset erosion of environments that support ecosystems would also be welcome. Then there's the magic money tree. There isn't one, unless the rich need a tax break for voting Tory, or the DUP need bribed, or the public aren't taking to the Brexit for Billionaires and need a bit of cajoling or Chris Grayling has a brainfart... And there's me falling off the bike again because there's a crater in the middle of the road. Beggars piling up around transport in quite shitty parts of town and tent villages in the parks. So no, I don't think that CAP money make a couple of foodbanks disappear, but I do think the system favours the wealthy... Yeah, I agree pretty much with that. The current rules of the CAP as I understand it don’t allow some of that, but the sentiment I share, really. Like Bick’s says it’s a bit confused in places. But we’ve wandered away from the EU discussion anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 26, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2019 16 minutes ago, colhint said: . 20 years of negotiating and 1 country stopped it. The MEP's didn't have a say. Yeah, the veto thing. Sovereignty of nation states. Nasty EU imposing things on countries they don’t want...Hold on, something doesn’t add up. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Correct. The other 20 odd did, but couldn't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Watching sky press preview and another brexiteer supporting contributor labelling the benn bill the 'surrender act' as they say it allows the EU to set any extension date which we must abide Of course this is not true, parliament can veto any alternative date proposed by the EU, but did the presenter or the other (non brexiteer by her other comments) challenge this? Of course not. Yet again too many MPs and media getting into a pointless slanging match over whether Boris using the word surrender is appropriate language, instead of pointing out he is clearly lying again. Oh for one of them to simply ask him to explain why its a 'surrender', when uk parliament has the final say 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Just wondering how you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, colhint said: Just wondering how you know that? Because that is what the bill says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 But Doesn't Paragraph 4 of Article 50 say the Withdrawing member shall not participate in the discussions of the council or the decisions concerning it. So if we are a full member up to the point we leave we have to abide by it. And if so we won't be voting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 29 minutes ago, andym said: Watching sky press preview and another brexiteer supporting contributor labelling the benn bill the 'surrender act' as they say it allows the EU to set any extension date which we must abide Of course this is not true, parliament can veto any alternative date proposed by the EU, but did the presenter or the other (non brexiteer by her other comments) challenge this? Of course not. Yet again too many MPs and media getting into a pointless slanging match over whether Boris using the word surrender is appropriate language, instead of pointing out he is clearly lying again. Oh for one of them to simply ask him to explain why its a 'surrender', when uk parliament has the final say I am quite obviously remain based on my comments (essays!) on here but I have practically as much disdain for the 'Remain' parties as I do the Tories/ No deal factions. The Remain parties are weak, passive and unorganised. Labour bounce from fence to fence and the Lib Dems talk the talk but do nothing about it. It's ever so simple - call a VoNC, form a temporary government, negotiate the extension and then call the General Election. But both parties (I could include SNP in this) find working with anyone else to be a worse scenario than No Deal. Politics, once again, getting in the way of simple solution for the good of the country. I'd have Mickey Mouse as Prime Minister for two months if it secured the priority of a) No Deal being ruled out and b) A General Election immediately afterwards. Then all parties can split again and decide whatever manifesto they want without negotiating with another party. I can understand not wanting to form a long term coalition but this is two months. Get your priorities right. As for media/journalists/politicians on the Remain side of the argument, they tend (tend!) to be the quieter, more reasonable and law abiding which means it's more difficult to be heard. The shouty (Katie Hopkins), unreasonable (Rees-Mogg) law breaking (Johnson) type leavers will always make themselves heard in the face of facts or reasoned discussion. In fact, if you know nothing about politics just look at the prominent figures on either side; Leave; Boris, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Trump, Rupert Murdock Remain; Stephen Fry, (late) Stephen Hawking, Obama, David Attenborough, Brian Cox, Patrick Stewart, Martin Lewis Which side, on a human level, would you prefer to align to?! Admittedly I've slightly skewed choices to fit my argument BUT it's easy to do as finding respected Leave voters is practically impossible. I think the closest I could find was John Cleese! Much like voting patterns indisputably show, the greater your intelligence the more likely you were to vote Remain. But we've reached a tipping point now where laziness from the masses in their comfortable homes has meant they'll just listen to those who shout the loudest without question. So maybe I've finally done it, found a reason for Brexit; when they realise what they've lost they'll be forced to wake up. Unfortunately it'll be too late by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, andym said: Of course this is not true, parliament can veto any alternative date proposed by the EU, but did the presenter or the other (non brexiteer by her other comments) challenge this? Of course Parliament only gets to veto if the PM doesn’t agree to what ever proposed date the EU give was my understanding of it So , If for whatever reason the EU offered a 10 year extension the PM would have the right to say ok I agree and parliament would be powerless to stop it ( I think ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 Don't think that's quite right Tony. See my earlier post regarding paragraph 4, we don't get to vote on the decisions of the council under article 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts