Brexit: give me a positive effect... XII

[SteveS1]

Scotland will return a pro- independence government tomorrow ( SNP outright majority or SNP+Green), no question. I firmly believe the referendum has to be timed correctly, the ground prepared for voters.

My fear as someone who doesn't want to see Scotland leave is that they don't need a campaign while Johnson is there.

 

[eternumviti]

Not including you in that description EV. Sometimes you maybe borderline but you are correct you certainly don't disappear. I would question the volume of deflective content though

I don't see my content as being deflective at all. I am, and always have been, more anti-EU than pro-brexit, so I tend to come at it from that angle.

 

[TheDecameron]

Its not really Brexit related but the Cornish Lithium deposits are likely to have a knock on effect on future E-Car production at Swindon

https://www.mining.com/cornish-lithium-finds-globally-significant-grades-in-uk-project/

The words that stood out were “start-up said it had found globally significant deposits”. There was a fracking company in the North East that hit the headlines- it was a guy, two caravans and a fenced off area of about four acres on the news.

 

[chartz]

Scotland: history repeating?

 

[PsB]

I don't see my content as being deflective at all. I am, and always have been, more anti-EU than pro-brexit, so I tend to come at it from that angle.

Your hatred of the EU is very pure and consistent, and generally quite impressive. I sometimes wonder what could have caused such an extreme expression. Is it because of your farming roots and early brushes with the CAP?

 

[eternumviti]

I think I support the concept of a USE, while acknowledging that the current arrangement is not without flaws.

The reason I support the notion of a USE is that I believe that the biggest threats to this planet come from geopolitical inequalities. We have big, powerful, power blocs, and we have small, vulnerable countries. That leads to inequality, not just within countries, such as we see here at home or in the USA between wealthy and poor, but also between nations, so the difference between the UK and, say, Somalia, or Afghanistan. Until those (and all other) countries are part of one global alliance, we can't hope for proper equality. That's a very, very long way off, and somewhat idealistic (as a species, we still have some growing up to do before it'll work, I suspect), but it's not impossible; and if the direction of travel is towards ever closer, ever larger union, then in principle at least, we're heading in the right direction.

I think that those functions are potentially better served by a truly global organisation, one without an overtly political agenda of its own. The problem (or one of them) with the EU is that its own political and geopolitical aspirations render it potentially another belligerent, albeit one without the teeth required to counter Russia, China or even the US, let alone the unity.

I would suggest that what you aspire to is a global organisation devoted to peace, justice, and the rule of law, equality of opportunity regardless of race, religion or gender, so a levelling up of health, education and the production and supply of food, transport infrastructure and governance, of technical and safety standards, of issues around global warming and sustainability, and of human rights.

We could call it, let's think...how about the United Nations?

Ugly sarcasm aside, I know the UN has its shortcomings, but its membership is 193 nations, it has what is effectively the highest court of justice on the globe, a rather better record than the US on peacekeeping since 1945, it encompasses numerous subdivisions such as the WHO, WFO, UNHCR etc..

And although its founding charter talks of 'world governance', its agenda is not to accrue power for its own sake, or for the personal benefit of its officials, but to improve the lot of humanity as a whole.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I would suggest that what you aspire to is a global organisation devoted to peace, justice, and the rule of law, equality of opportunity regardless of race, religion or gender, so a levelling up of health, education and the production and supply of food, transport infrastructure and governance, of technical and safety standards, of issues around global warming and sustainability, and of human rights.

We could call it, let's think...how about the United Nations?

Ugly sarcasm aside, I know the UN has its shortcomings, but its membership is 193 nations, it has what is effectively the highest court of justice on the globe, a rather better record than the US on peacekeeping since 1945, it encompasses numerous subdivisions such as the WHO, WFO, UNHCR etc..

And although its founding charter talks of 'world governance', its agenda is not to accrue power for its own sake, or for the personal benefit of its officials, but to improve the lot of humanity as a whole.

Well, yes. But the big question is how we get from here to there. And if we're going to take hearts and minds with us, then the sort of insular Brexit mindset is utterly counterproductive. We need to find ways to accept progressively larger and more global governance and geopolitical frameworks. It feels to me that, being a member of something like the USE, provided people saw the benefits, would make movement in the desired direction more attainable because it would start to generate that feeling of common cause - of being part of something greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Brian]

I won't be taking lessons from you on anything, so you can try not wasting your breath. I understand why you don't stick to what you know because you'd have nothing to say.

See the reply to Colin below. It’s a dose of reality for you too.

In response to your 3 questions, if my auntie had bollocks she’d be my uncle.

The fault for not voting for Labour lies with Labour for being a shit opposition party and not giving the voters a credible option. It lies not with remainers, but with English voters, many hard of thinking northern types who bought into right wing agitated xenophobia and believed the lies about Brexit and Tory “economic competence”.

Not me then.

It also lies with voters in Scotland, people like you. 41-40=1.

Brian, the democracy king castigates remainers for being anti-democratic for not accepting a dodgy referendum.
Brian, the democracy king castigates non-labour voters and doesn't accept that Tories, who have won the last 3 general elections, are the peoples choice as government.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?

I don’t castigate anyone, Colin. That’s a hard remainer behaviour. Nor am I talking about why people didn’t vote Labour, as I’ve said many times before, vote however you like, it’s your choice but understand the consequences. What I’ve posted is explaining the consequences of your vote, eg Brexit. You can be in denial all you like, but it won’t alter the facts.

I’m well aware the tories have won those elections and I don’t suggest ignoring the outcome of those elections. Again, ignoring a democratic vote is another hard remainer behaviour, along with castigating anyone not 100% in their camp.

 

[SteveS1]

See the reply to Colin below. It’s a dose of reality for you too.

I'm not interested in your reality Brian, it would be about as far from reality as anyone can get and is likely to change for the next poster, depending on whether you think you can get a reaction.

 

[Brian]

I'm not interested in your reality Brian it' would be about as far from reality as anyone can get and is likely to change for the next poster, depending on whether you think you can get a reaction.

I’m not concerned about any reaction and my position hasn’t changed on this at all over the years since the referendum.

You really should try to break that lying habit.

 

[Colin L]

See the reply to Colin below. It’s a dose of reality for you too.
Not me then.
It also lies with voters in Scotland, people like you. 41-40=1.

Explain your maths...The tories have an overall majority of 80 in Westminster.
If all those SNP seats were Labour the tories could have an overall majority of erm....80.
SNP wins didn't put the tories in power. Labour losses in England did.

 

[SteveS1]

I’m not concerned about any reaction and my position hasn’t changed on this at all over the years since the referendum.

You really should try to break that lying habit.

Ah there you go again, accusing others of your own shortcomings. Not interested Brian, save your breath.

 

[Brian]

Ah there you go again, accusing others of your own shortcomings. Not interested Brian, save your breath.

There are no lies from me.

 

[Brian]

Explain your maths...The tories have an overall majority of 80 in Westminster.
If all those SNP seats were Labour the tories could have an overall majority of erm....80.
SNP wins didn't put the tories in power. Labour losses in England did.

41-40=1.

I’m not sure that I need to explain a reduction of 40 seats makes it more difficult for Labour to gain a majority. What are you finding difficult about that, Colin?

 

[Colin L]

41-40 is indeed 1. Please explain the relevance.

Losing Scottish seats from Westminster if Scotland gains independence does indeed make it more difficult for Labour win Westminster, but they clearly aren't capable of doing that either way.
Why does Scotland owe it to Labour to stay in the union just to help them? When you are in an abusive relationship its best to leave.

 

[TheDecameron]

The halfwits in Hartlepool are about to deliver another Labour seat to Johnson.

 

[ff1d1l]

"Barnier never saw the point of Brexit."

No shit Sherlock.

Indeed, he probably clocked it as pointless self mutilation. Which it is.
No Holmsian acuity of perception needed to see the obvious.

 

[wacko]

I think that those functions are potentially better served by a truly global organisation, one without an overtly political agenda of its own. The problem (or one of them) with the EU is that its own political and geopolitical aspirations render it potentially another belligerent, albeit one without the teeth required to counter Russia, China or even the US, let alone the unity.

I would suggest that what you aspire to is a global organisation devoted to peace, justice, and the rule of law, equality of opportunity regardless of race, religion or gender, so a levelling up of health, education and the production and supply of food, transport infrastructure and governance, of technical and safety standards, of issues around global warming and sustainability, and of human rights.

We could call it, let's think...how about the United Nations?

Ugly sarcasm aside, I know the UN has its shortcomings, but its membership is 193 nations, it has what is effectively the highest court of justice on the globe, a rather better record than the US on peacekeeping since 1945, it encompasses numerous subdivisions such as the WHO, WFO, UNHCR etc..

And although its founding charter talks of 'world governance', its agenda is not to accrue power for its own sake, or for the personal benefit of its officials, but to improve the lot of humanity as a whole.

All very laudable EV but not happening in our lifetime; or, probably, those of our grandchildren.
Compared to Russia, China or what the USA has become in the last 20 years, the EU looks positively benevolent: internally (healthcare etc) or externally (waging war cyber or real). The EU has enough teeth for defence and, frankly, that is enough for me. It had 2 nuclear powers, but 1 will do I guess.
The UN will never be able to impose 'peace, justice, rule of law (whose law ?), equality' etc on any country. It has no territory and cannot lead by example either.
The EU failings you perceive were relatively minor (IMO) and the UK had the chance to tilt the direction of the only organisation that could possibly deliver a better world, or at least our continental sized part of it.

 

[Brian]

41-40 is indeed 1. Please explain the relevance.

Losing Scottish seats from Westminster if Scotland gains independence does indeed make it more difficult for Labour win Westminster, but they clearly aren't capable of doing that either way.
Why does Scotland owe it to Labour to stay in the union just to help them? When you are in an abusive relationship its best to leave.

I’ll play along.

The relevance is 40 fewer seats for Labour means it is 40 seats more difficult for Labour to win more seats than won by the tory party.

Scotland doesn’t have to help Labour, kindly show me where I said that? What I am pointing out is the consequences of turning your back on Labour is a tory govt and their policies which you don’t like, such as brexit.

 

[matt j]

Are we sending Gun Boats into the Channel with this recent Jersey skirmish on the brink? Just the sort of thing Boris would love to use to distract everyone from him being a lying shit. The Falklands 2.