This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 cpfc_chap  koh samui 25 Apr 17 4.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Wasn't ukip formed to disrupt the EU hence why they have so many MEPs which was NF's plan?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Stirlingsays  25 Apr 17 4.21pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I challenge you to point out where I have supported uncontrolled immigration. Do we even have uncontrolled immigration or is that a fallacy perpetuated by the media? Fair enough, but since you supported the Labour party and hence uncontrolled EU immigration and really dislike Ukip to the point of calling its former leader a 'cu-t'...I kind of naturally assumed it. I don't recall reading about any problems you have with uncontrolled EU immigration into the country. Maybe I have missed a few posts. Here is your opportunity to educate me and others. What is the Gusset opinion on how immigration into the UK should be handled?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Apr 17 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
You seemed to suggest UKIP warranted more or equal press compared with the SNP based on number of votes. I disagreed with that. Irrespective of what Nick said. We had a vote on changing the voting system and the Tories wanted to keep FPTP and that's what happened. That's the system we've got and so that's what is relevant. I'd prefer a system closer to PR myself but that's not the system we have. Under the current system their press coverage was unwarranted. You're perfectly right that UKIP have had a significant impact in the past 7 years, however this has been driven by the press giving them disproportionate air time largely as a result of the points I mentioned previously. A lot of their coverage has come for non-policy based reasons! Sorry I think you are frankly deluded to suggest that Ukip's press was undeserved. It already had press editors in the paper media who agreed with it before it even started. Polls had shown for years that anti EU feeling was there and growing and was frankly unrepresented by the major leaderships in the parties. Yes we have fptp but that doesn't mean that we don't try to cover for its weaknesses by ignoring popular movements who take significant voter share. Ever since Thatcher said, 'No, no, no' to the gradual encroachment that she realised she had played a part in. A space for an anti EU party was evident. While the Tory party was moving more and more onto its ground it was always going to find it hard to actually take seats. It's ended up being more successful with former Labour supporters in the north, who quite rightly grew to understand that those who actually run the Labour party look down at them....Like you with your fondness for name calling. Still I agree that to a certain extent coverage beyond these parties remits is problematical. Ukip becoming more than a one policy party was perhaps a mistake and the SNP sticking its noses into English politics, where it has very little support, is plainly wrong....Their excuse that English politics affects Scottish politics is sheer expediency. But for you to say that Ukip only succeeded because of press just shows the total lack of understanding that many on the left still have about those who disagree with them. Every party goes cap in hand for coverage and who is to say whether their support would be there without it. Former Tory my foot....My Michael Foot more like. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 4.47pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 25 Apr 17 10.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
UKIP are all for selling off the NHS. That's enough for me. The blokes a self serving charlatan
Edited by nickgusset (25 Apr 2017 7.51am) More fake news Nick! Can you show me the bit in the UKIP manifesto that says they "are all for selling off the NHS". Farage admires Putin, wow! Corbyn is friends with Hamas and the IRA.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 25 Apr 17 11.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
More fake news Nick! Can you show me the bit in the UKIP manifesto that says they "are all for selling off the NHS". Farage admires Putin, wow! Corbyn is friends with Hamas and the IRA. [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 25 Apr 17 11.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
As a starting point? A one-size fits all solution like that is way, way too simplistic. There are just so many factors/variables from country to country that will influence relationships and deals. Personalities, positional strengths and weaknesses, public opinion, length of time to finalise a deal, hubris, etc. Don't forget, these are politicians we are talking about. Canada won't rely on EU fruit and veg pickers, for example, to maximise productivity in that sector nor have nearly 20% of Uni Academics from EU countries as we have here [Link] so, perhaps, aspects which are convoluted for the UK/EU are much more black and white for Canada/EU This is not the time for naive idealism. That ended with Article 50 being invoked. Hard practical solutions, please. Translation: because one (in fact more) country achieved the parameters of a deal we seek, we can't do it because wibble. You're claiming a "one-size-fits-all" approach is simplistic (I agree - blanket multilaterals as espoused by the EU are slow and ill-matched, glad we're getting out). Where is the relevance to taking CETA as a basis? We need fruit pickers? How the hell does the rest of the world cope? EU academics? Give me a break. Academia is global. The turnover is phenomenal, and your origin is largely irrelevant (except now perhaps for some of the EU H2020 grants - only whites can apply for them, the racists). There are equally, no doubt, issues that are black/white for the UK that were anything but for Canada. Fact remains - no FoM, nearly 100% tariff-free access, no budget payments, no "fax democracy", no ECJ. It's utterly pathetic you're so blinded by it all you can't even concede that such a deal already exists, and could, with modification, exist for the UK-EU. It IS this simple: the EU have negotiated, with a smaller, less economically-connected nation, a deal with core features that we would like. Our trade with the EU is more important to them than Canada's. Relative to Canada all your "factors/variables" are weighted in our favour. The EU is more dependent on us than Canada. If they value it, they need to provide is with these same core features. This is not the time for petulant foot-stamping-wailing because we're not doing things your way any more. That ended with Article 50 being invoked. Toys in pram, please.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 26 Apr 17 12.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Canada and the USA are the biggest trade partners in the world 75% of Canadian exports go just over the border. The deal was a last minute political fix but I don't think much actual trade is expected between the EU and Canada its an add-on really. The EU includes us so are in this deal in case we have forgotten we are actually in the EU. It seems most trade is with the country near to you as its just so much easier so its pretty silly not to continue in the single market particularly as its a British initiative from a conservative PM Mrs Thatcher. I am sure I would be quite happy to buy Canadian things but I cannot remember seeing any perhaps McDonalds will do moose-burgers.......
This post is so full of stupid, I don't even know where to start. A "last minute political fix" that took 7 years to negotiate? An "add-on" to what? I don't even know what you're talking about with respect to Canadian trade with the US, the EU, and the UK. This is about how the features of the Canadian-EU trade deal align well with what the UK wants, moreover that we have a stronger negotiating hand than Canada did, suggesting we should be seeking to secure the same features at the very least. But yes, well done: "moose-burgers". Slow clap.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 26 Apr 17 6.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
[Tweet Link]He may have said that years ago – he references "coalition government" – but that is not the UKIP policy! The 2015 manifesto vowed to end the use of PFI contracts, privatisation by the back door, set up by Labour. It was also for scrapping TTIP which could have led to privatisation of parts of the NHS if we were in the EU – and Labour wanted us to remain. Come on Nick, you know full well how politics works. MPs and MEPs all have their own opinions, especially on blogs. However, there is only one party policy and scrapping the NHS is not in UKIP's manifesto. It's not going to happen. Fake news! Edited by Penge Eagle (26 Apr 2017 6.35am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 26 Apr 17 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
He may have said that years ago – he references "coalition government" – but that is not the UKIP policy! The 2015 manifesto vowed to end the use of PFI contracts, privatisation by the back door, set up by Labour. It was also for scrapping TTIP which could have led to privatisation of parts of the NHS if we were in the EU – and Labour wanted us to remain. Come on Nick, you know full well how politics works. MPs and MEPs all have their own opinions, especially on blogs. However, there is only one party policy and scrapping the NHS is not in UKIP's manifesto. It's not going to happen. Fake news! Edited by Penge Eagle (26 Apr 2017 6.35am) If the last paragraph is the way forward then I expect no one will bang on about trident and Corbyn as his view is different to Labour policy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 8.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
If the last paragraph is the way forward then I expect no one will bang on about trident and Corbyn as his view is different to Labour policy. Not really, Nuttall says this is no longer his view. Does Corbyn say the same about pressing the nuclear button then? Not he doesn't. And as Prime Minister that would be his call....Not the 'Labour Party'. No equivalency.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 26 Apr 17 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
As Mark Carney said, London is "effectively, the investment banker for Europe" and the City is the financial capital of the European Union. Whatever we think of brexit we can hardly blame the EU for wanting EU financial control to be within the EU itself. Consequences.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 26 Apr 17 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
This post is so full of stupid, I don't even know where to start. A "last minute political fix" that took 7 years to negotiate? An "add-on" to what? I don't even know what you're talking about with respect to Canadian trade with the US, the EU, and the UK. This is about how the features of the Canadian-EU trade deal align well with what the UK wants, moreover that we have a stronger negotiating hand than Canada did, suggesting we should be seeking to secure the same features at the very least. But yes, well done: "moose-burgers". Slow clap. An addition to the 75% of their trade they do with the USA it doesn't mean it's not worth it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.