The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Enda]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Apart from the fact increasingly everything coming out of the government suggests that no deal is the entire aim. Perhaps they might try to spin it, Dunkirk style, as a victory, to walk away with nothing.

Idiots.

 

 

[Chindie]

Davis proving he is capable of stating the bloody obvious there.

[Enda]

Yeah, but it warrants repeating: Plan B is pretty miserable. 30% tariffs on agricultural products (before the decline in sterling), 10% tariffs on cars, product checks on any exports to the EU, and restrictions on flights to the US. I'd say, pre-referendum, 55% (more?) would have voted Remain over Plan B.

Apologies for the clusterbomb of Tweets, but I think this is insightful and might actually be what's happening:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chindie]

Calling it a plan gives it too much credit. It's disastrous.

Of course its all fine though because there's all these other markets open to us rather than the huge one on our doorstep, and they'll come crawling because BMW, champagne, and other such stereotypes...

[ml1dch]

41 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Calling it a plan gives it too much credit. It's disastrous.

Of course its all fine though because there's all these other markets open to us rather than the huge one on our doorstep, and they'll come crawling because BMW, champagne, and other such stereotypes...

 

[peterms]

This is all pretty exaggerated in my view.

Here in Scotland we have plenty of turnips, and oats.  We can easily feed ourselves, and it is but a small step for one of our many entrepreneurs to start exporting turnip champagne, oat trousers, turnip and oat energy bars, oooh, all sorts of things.

You can take your Peruvian avocados and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

[limpid]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

You can take your Peruvian avocados and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

Do you mean Scotland?

[MakemineVanilla]

57 minutes ago, peterms said:

This is all pretty exaggerated in my view.

Here in Scotland we have plenty of turnips, and oats.  We can easily feed ourselves, and it is but a small step for one of our many entrepreneurs to start exporting turnip champagne, oat trousers, turnip and oat energy bars, oooh, all sorts of things.

You can take your Peruvian avocados and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Do you mean Scotland?

Lots of sunshine in Scotland.  Lower angle than further south, but present all the same.

And many more palm trees than Birmingham.

[Chindie]

Goldman Sachs shedding UK jobs, switching to Frankfurt and Paris.

[Demitri_C]

Yay let the carnage begin...

[snowychap]

[Risso]

On 2/9/2017 at 16:25, blandy said:

You're drawing a completely false case there, AWOL. the MPs are elected to serve the interests of their CONSTITUENTS, which inlcudes constituents born elsewhere in the EU but now legally resident in the UK (and in most cases paying taxes and contributing to local life etc.).

You're just wrong about their primary duty. Crap, crap argument.

A pedant writes:

A constituent is defined as "a member of an area which elects a representative to a legislative body".  An EU national may legally be in the UK, but won't be eligible to be voting in the General Election for an MP.  Unless they're Irish, Cypriot or Maltese of course.  So only partially incorrect I suppose, errrrr, where was I again?

[Risso]

On 3/15/2017 at 23:27, peterms said:

Lots of sunshine in Scotland.  Lower angle than further south, but present all the same.

And many more palm trees than Birmingham.

Loads on the west coast.  Same as the also eternally sunny Isle of Man, thanks to the Gulf Stream.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Risso said:

A pedant writes:

A constituent is defined as "a member of an area which elects a representative to a legislative body".  An EU national may legally be in the UK, but won't be eligible to be voting in the General Election for an MP.  Unless they're Irish, Cypriot or Maltese of course.  So only partially incorrect I suppose, errrrr, where was I again?

It is pedantry, but eligibility to vote is not relevant. Children can't vote, but MPs still represent them, etc. So Totally incorrect, as I said.

[Awol]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

Goldman Sachs shedding UK jobs, switching to Frankfurt and Paris.

The Vampire Squid moves a few hundred bankers into Europe from London staff of 6000, cracks on with building new 9 storey regional HQ in London.

The sky is not yet falling in - but your concern for the 1% is admirable  

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Awol

[Awol]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

It is pedantry, but eligibility to vote is not relevant. Children can't vote, but MPs still represent them, etc. So Totally incorrect, as I said.

Yep, you've got me on loose use of language. Fair enough. As I think you know I was trying to say the U.K.  Parliament is elected to serve the interests of the U.K. electorate at the inter-state level.

As you demonstrated it's possible to find a form of words to technically disprove that, but if you asked the public a yes or no question on whether Parliament was supposed to serve the interests of the UK, I'd bet on a majority for yes.

 

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The Vampire Squid moves a few hundred bankers into Europe from London staff of 6000, cracks on with building new 9 storey regional HQ in London.

The sky is not yet falling in - but your concern for the 1% is admirable  

 

I'd have thought any job loss was a bad thing.

Apparently not.

I also don't particularly care for the 1%. I'd just rather not see jobs going in any sector or capacity.

Sky falling in? Where's that straw man...

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Yep, you've got me on loose use of language. Fair enough. As I think you know I was trying to say the U.K.  Parliament is elected to serve the interests of the U.K. electorate at the inter-state level.

As you demonstrated it's possible to find a form of words to technically disprove that, but if you asked the public a yes or no question on whether Parliament was supposed to serve the interests of the UK, I'd bet on a majority for yes.

This argument doesn't work for me, for two reasons:

1) One reasonable way to define 'the interests of the UK', is as the sum total of interests of constituents nationally, expressed through the medium of parliamentary democracy, which is consistent with @blandy's definition. Indeed, I can't really think of a logical way 'the interests of the UK' can be expressed without reference to the interests of constituents expressed through Parliament. 

2) Your argument is based on the notion, expressed in the initial comment in this chain, that politicians are 'choos[ing] to prioritize the interests of foreign nationals over the interests of their own in the EU' by attempting to get May to commit to stop using the future residency rights of currently-residing EU citizens as a bargaining chip. But your argument is now being dressed as 'the interests of the UK', which is a much bigger and broader claim, and consequently much harder to prove. I can think of any number of ways in which it could legitimately be argued that it is not in 'the interests of the UK' to insist on the ability to threaten the future residencies of EU citizens. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

As you demonstrated it's possible to find a form of words to technically disprove that, but if you asked the public a yes or no question on whether Parliament was supposed to serve the interests of the UK, I'd bet on a majority for yes.

If there's one thing we've learned from this sorry episode it's that asking the public is a surefire way to get a stupid answer to the question you've asked.