EU dirty rats

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

EU dirty rats

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

So if I read this correctly, Europe is in a mess and the undemocratic EU needs to restructured. And we need to get rid of mediocre politicians and bureaucracy. Isnt this why people voted to leave?

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bob-geldof-letter-warns-theresa-may-of-brexit-danger-1.3655419

The open letter

To Theresa May:

Imagine Britain without its music. If its hard for us, then its impossible for the rest of the world. In this one area, if nowhere else, Britain does still rule the waves. The airwaves. The cyberwaves. The soundwaves. It is of us. It is our culture.

We dominate the market and our bands, singers, musicians, writers, producers and engineers work all over Europe and the world. In turn, Europe and the world come to us. Why? Because we are brilliant at it. No one quite knows why this should be but everyone understands it to be so. The sound and the words seem universal. It reaches out, all inclusive, and embraces anyone and everyone. And that truly is what Britain IS! That is proper Global Britain.

But Brexit threatens, as it does so much else, this vast voice. This huge global cultural influencer. We are about to make a very serious mistake regarding our giant industry and the vast pool of yet undiscovered genius that lives on this little island.

Why are we closing down these possibilities for ourselves and for those as yet unknown to us? Brexit will impact every aspect of the music industry. From touring, sales, copyright legislation, to royalty collation. Indeed it already has. As a result of the referendum vote, the fall in the pound has meant hugely increased equipment costs, studio hire, and touring costs all now materially higher than before and not forgetting that squeezed household incomes means less money to go to clubs and buy tracks, T-shirts, gigs and generate the vast income necessary to keep the up and comers on the road and musically viable.

A massive 60 per cent of all royalty revenue paid to the UK comes from within the EU. And at home, any increase in import duty will mean that anything that comes to us from outside will cost significantly more. We have decided to put ourselves inside a self-built cultural jail! The very opposite of wall-destroying, prejudice-denying, ideas-generating that is the very essence of contemporary music. And yet it is the much-mocked freedom of movement that so effortlessly allows our troubadours, our cultural warriors, to wander Europe and speak of us to a world that cannot get enough of [them], and which generates countless billions for our threatened institutions.

This is all a serious madness. We must take back our future.We must reform and restructure the EU. When Europe is in a mess, the Brits get stuck in. They dont withdraw, they double down. They get in close and messy. Make Europe the continent that we and the people of Europe want. Not the one dreamt up in another time by the ideologues, or by the undemocratic fiat of mediocre politicians or the dull exhortations of a pallid bureaucracy. A new one. A different one. An exciting one. A rocknroll one.

Lets rock Europe and lets save our music, our musicians, our music jobs and our songs. Lets save our voice.

Yours, Bob Geldof and friends.

Mark L · Loudmouth

Pete Bremain opines that Article 50 should be revoked and we should stay in the EU. What about respecting the democratic result of a referendum?

Imagine if John Travolta or Gary Numan had announced they were not respecting the result of the charts in the weeks the Rats were number one? The public did not know what they were buying, the margin was too slim etc etc

What if we had another referendum and Remain won? What then? Best of 3 anyone? Quite apart from what should the question be?

Noel · Dave

Think of all the s#ite music the poor Europeans may be spared if Geldof's doomsday scenario actually happens. Btw great oxymoron 'we must take back the future.... 'lol smile

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
Pete Bremain opines that Article 50 should be revoked and we should stay in the EU. What about respecting the democratic result of a referendum?
Imagine if John Travolta or Gary Numan had announced they were not respecting the result of the charts in the weeks the Rats were number one? The public did not know what they were buying, the margin was too slim etc etc
What if we had another referendum and Remain won? What then? Best of 3 anyone? Quite apart from what should the question be?

According to an image on Pete Bremain's facebook "77% of us don't want Brexit". Well 77% according to OFOC, whoever they are.

"72.2% of the electorate participated in the referendum, 51.89% of them voted to leave i.e. just 37.46% of the country. - Somehow this math (sic) means 77% (actually 72.54%) don't want Brexit.

100% of Brexit Party voters do want Brexit. Over 5 million of them.

Who to believe?

I would be happy to have another referendum, why not? Another three years dicking around doing nothing. Quite obvious the UK government and civil service don't want to leave because they will have to do some work for the first time in 45 years rather than copying and pasting the latest EU directive. In the meantime, they are taxing and spending like no tomorrow, building up massive debts for the young generation who will never pay off their student loans and will be expected to pay their gold plated pensions.

And the spectre of Trotsky (aka Corbyn) with his plans to adopt the Venezuelan economic model.

Banana Kingdom.

PS - Leave won't win again because it won't be an option. UK Gov wont make that mistake again.

As an aside, this is something that was sent to nearly 50,000 voters in the Bristol area

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/29/voters-in-the-eu-referendum-told-to-vote-for-remain-in-postal-vo/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-forced-ditch-biased-eu-8083347

The Pete Bremain guide to voting.

The How to Vote By Post guide has a pencil and hand indicating the Remain box'

-- Edited by ArrGee on Monday 17th of June 2019 08:49:16 PM

Mark L · Loudmouth

The question is not how did Leave manage to inch past Remain, it is how did Remain manage to achieve such a high level of support. The answer to that is obviously because the government, the civil service and all its allies did all it could muster. Foreign politicians and international organisations were all wheeled out to tell people that this was a disastrous idea and even hint at it on postal votes, if Bristol is anything to go by! Mays deal was the most extraordinary set of constitutional innovations. It would have given, for an indefinite period, power over a large part of our economy and legislation not only to a foreign power but also to an unelected committee. The EU would have had the power to decide upon and implement a whole load of laws and regulations. We would have been required to accept them and pay up and smile. I cannot think of any historical precedent for this certainly not in any democratic country. It is astonishing that any government could for a moment have considered this acceptable.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
The answer to that is obviously because the government, the civil service and all its allies did all it could muster. Foreign politicians and international organisations were all wheeled out to tell people that this was a disastrous idea...

Agreed. From the moment the referendum was announced, the UK population were told what disasters would unfold by the vested interests and still a majority preferred that (seeing through the lies) to the undemocratic and anti-democratic EU.

The EU is a gravy train for failed politicians along with their army of bureaucrats. They have a wine cellar with 42,000 bottles of fine wine for Jean Claude Drunker along with an extensive art collection and a massive property portfolio. The salaries and expenses are eye-wateringly large and their pension scheme is particularly generous. Meanwhile we will be taxed until the pips squeak to pay for their vast number of sinecures. Unelected and unaccountable committees and councils decide everything. Even your own parliament cannot override their decisions.

The Maastricht Treaty with the formation of the Central European Bank and the euro has been a disaster for Southern European countries. Greece is bankrupt and in the other countries, youth unemployment (under 25) is anything from 20-40%.

For me, the UK leaving the EU is not enough. Other countries need to be encouraged to leave. En masse. The EU cannot and will not be reformed via the ballot box so it must be destroyed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

Mark L · Loudmouth

Agree wholeheartedly. Project Fear was an outrage, fortunately confirmed and condemned for what it was by the passage of time. Regrettably, about the only good thing to come of the last 36 months of dither and delay. Nevertheless, rather than the Police speaking with George Osborne or Canada Carney about misconduct in office or unnecessarily causing alarm and distress, it is Boris who is summoned to court and the Brexit Party whose funding is meticulously being investigated. These people will never stop abusing their position until Remain is achieved. I know a number of older people who, terrified by Project Fear, voted Remain when their hearts were Leave.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I dont know why people want to remain. All I have read, like the Geldof open letter above makes no sense.

Let me explain. Somehow 167 countries around the world manage to survive outside the EU. So imagine all of these 167 countries without music. Like USA and Canada and Korea. How do their artists manage? Pretty well, looking at the various line ups at all the big London concerts and festivals (BTS, Neil Young, Barbara Streisand, The Killers Bob Dylan, P!nk, Eagles, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Celina Dion) this summer. No acts outside the UK from the EU. Well none I can see.

And every time I read about the disaster, I dont see it. It is all simply a matter of political will. Immigration will continue. In fact most immigration is from outside the EU. No need to change currency which would not have been an option has the euro been inflicted on the UK (ironically Geldof was against that for reasons of democracy at the time). No need to introduce border controls because they are already there. No need to introduce tariffs. No need to retrospectively change legislation. The first day outside the EU need not be any different to the day before. Over time the UK and the EU will diverge, but there is nothing to stop co-operation between the two. No need for the backstop. That is just Eurocrat nonsense.

I would love someone who wants to remain in The EU to tell me why it is preferable to being an independent state rather than the doomsday rhetoric.

Mark L · Loudmouth

There can be no doubt the backstop is a huge delusion. There is no hard border to return to. It never existed.

Remainers invented it to thwart Brexit and know it.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Because I am fair minded, I thought I would look for the benefits of EU membership. I found 98 on https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/remain-eu/.

Of the 98 below, I could only see 8 that are really benefits for UK passport holders, and 4 of them could be side stepped quite easily by the likes of me who qualifies as an Irish citizen if I obtained an Irish passport. #97 is pretty ironic in that the EU supports democracy yet is entirely undemocratic. When Drunker was voted in, his was the ONLY name on the ballot paper. Likewise Tusk. European Union not entirely unlike the Soviet Union.

1. Membership of the world?s largest trading bloc with over 500 million consumers, representing 23% of global GDP Why shouldn't UK continue to use that trading bloc?

2. The UK has greater global influence as a member of the EU ? As opposed being one of the five permanent members of the UN?

3. The EU provides a counterweight to the global power of the US, Russia and China ?UK like these is a permanent member of the UN, the EU is not.

4. With Trump in the White House the UK?s strongest natural allies are France, Germany and our other West European neighbours ? A matter of opinion, many US companies set up in UK and there are more UK companies in US than any other country. Can't just base this on current POTUS

5. Tariff-free trade within the EU ? no need to change

6. The abolition of non-tariff barriers (quotas, subsidies, administrative rules etc.) among members ? no need to change

7. Participation in free trade agreements with Japan and Canada as an EU member ? Japan and Canada could allow UK to trade on same basis

8. The EU accounts for 44% of all UK exports of goods and services ? no need to change

9. The EU accounts for 53% of all UK imports of goods and services ? no need to change

10. Cheaper food and alcohol imports from continental Europe ? However given the excise duties imposed, the cost of alcohol is hardly significant. And much of our food is imported from all around the world and is cheaper from those countries

11. As a member of the EU the UK maintains a say in the shaping of the rules governing its trade with its European partners ? Admittedly this could be an issue if it restricts exports

12. 3.1 million jobs in the UK are directly linked to exports to the EU ? no need to change

13. Free movement of labour has helped UK firms plug skills gaps (translators, doctors, plumbers) ? Immigration won?t be stopped

14. Free movement of labour has helped address shortages of unskilled workers (fruit picking, catering) ? Immigration won?t be stopped

15. The Single Market has brought the best continental footballers to the Premier League ? Trivial nonsense, besides what about the footballers from South America and Africa

16. The EU accounts for 47% of the UK?s stock of inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), worth over $1.2 trillion ? no need to change

17. Access to the EU Single Market has helped attract investment into the UK from outside the EU Admittedly this could be an issue if all companies want is access to the single market

18. No paperwork or customs for UK exports throughout the single market ? no need to change

19. Price transparency and removal of commissions on currency transactions across the Eurozone - Nonsense you still have to exchange sterling for euro

20. FDI into the UK has effectively doubled since the creation of the EU Single Market ? May have doubled regardless

21. The UK?s net contribution to the EU budget is around ?7.3bn, or 0.4% of GDP (less than an eighth of the UK?s defence spending) ? What are we getting for our ?7.3bn?

22. No time consuming border checks for travellers (apart from in the UK) ? so nothing changes does it!

23. The City of London, as a global financial hub, has acted as a bridge between foreign business and the EU market ? no need to change

24. British banks and insurance companies have been able to operate freely across the EU ? no need to change

25. Cornwall receives up to £750 million per year from the EU Social Fund (ESF) ? So fund that direct from the UK government

26. Structural funding for areas of the UK hit by industrial decline (South Wales, Yorkshire) - fund that direct from the UK government

27. Support for rural areas under the European Agricultural Fund for Regional Development (EAFRD) - fund that direct from the UK government

28. EU funding for infrastructure projects in the UK including £122 million for the ?Midlands engine? project - fund that direct from the UK government

29. Financial support from the EU for over 3,000 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the UK - fund that direct from the UK government

30. EU funding for the British film industry - fund that direct from the UK government

31. EU funding for British theatre, music and dance - fund that direct from the UK government

32. EU funding for British sport, including football apprenticeships, tennis and rugby league - fund that direct from the UK government

33. Glasgow (1990) and Liverpool (2008) benefitted from being European capitals of culture, stimulating their local economies ? Have a UK equivalent

34. EU competition laws protect consumers by combatting monopolistic business practices Admittedly this could be an issue but UK has its own monopolies and mergers function though admittedly not a pan-European one

35. Strict controls on the operations of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in the EU ? UK can implement same

36. Human Rights protected under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - UK can implement same

37. The death penalty can never be reintroduced as it is incompatible with EU membership ? UK has no intention of reintroducing death penalty.

38. Minority languages such as Welsh and Irish are recognized and protected under EU law ? These are UK languages and back in the early 70s there were bi-lingual signs in both countries. EU has nothing to do with it.

39. The right to reside in any EU member state Admittedly this could be an issue

40. The freedom to work in 28 countries without visa and immigration restrictions Admittedly this could be an issue

41. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications has facilitated the free movement of engineers, teachers and doctors across the EU ? no need to change, UK recognises qualifications from all around the world

42. The mutual recognition of educational diplomas ? no need to change

43. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has standardized assessment of language proficiency across the EU ? So what?

44. The freedom to study in 28 countries (many EU universities teach courses in English and charge lower fees than in the UK) ? Maybe UK should charge less. Very few students take advantage of this.

45. The Erasmus programme of university exchanges (benefitting 16000 UK students a year) ? Nice for 16,000 students, but could be done regardless of EU membership

46. The freedom to set up a business in 28 countries Admittedly this could be an issue

47. The ability to retire in any member state Admittedly this could be an issue

48. Pension transferability Admittedly this could be an issue

49. The right to vote in local and European Parliamentary elections if resident in any member state ? Nice, but not wholly essential

50. EU laws making it easier for British people to buy property on the continent ? Don?t know what laws, but will take your word for it

51. The right to receive emergency healthcare in any member state (EHIC card) ? Applies in Switzerland, so not EU exclusive

52. Consular protection from any EU embassy outside the EU ? Nice but there is normally a British Embassy in most countries.

53. The EU has played a leading role in combatting global warming (Paris 2015 climate change conference) ? No reason UK couldn?t do that

54. Common EU greenhouse gas emissions targets (19% reduction from 1990 to 2015) ? No reason UK couldn?t do that

55. Improvements in air quality (significant reductions in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) as a result of EU legislation ? No reason UK couldn?t do that

56. Reductions in sewage emissions ? No reason UK couldn?t do that

57. Improvements in the quality of beaches and bathing water ? No reason UK couldn?t do that

58. EU standards on the quality of drinking water ? The EU has brought the standards of the rest of the EU up to those in the UK, so irrelevant

59. Restrictions on landfill dumping No reason UK couldn?t do that

60. EU targets for recycling No reason UK couldn?t do that

61. Common EU regulations on the transportation and disposal of toxic waste No reason UK couldn?t do that

62. The implementation of EU policies to reduce noise pollution in urban areas No reason UK couldn?t do that

63. EU policies have stimulated offshore wind farms ? With excessive subsidy

64. Strict safety standards for cars, buses and trucks ? UK did that anyway. MOT

65. Protection of endangered species and habitats (EU Natura 2000 network) No reason UK couldn?t do that

66. Strict ban on animal testing in the cosmetics industry No reason UK should remove ban and besides the French were main culprits in this

67. Membership of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) which monitors the quality and safety of medicines (until recently located in London) No reason UK couldn?t do that

68. 13% of EU budget earmarked for scientific research and innovation No reason UK couldn?t fund that

69. The UK receives £730 million a year in EU funding for research No reason UK couldn?t fund that

70. EU funding for UK universities No reason UK couldn?t fund own universities

71. Cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy as a member of Euratom No reason UK couldn?t continue

72. Minimum paid annual leave and time off work (Working Time Directive) No reason UK couldn?t continue

73. Equal pay between men and women enshrined in European law since 1957 No reason UK couldn?t continue

74. The right to work no more than 48 hours a week without paid overtime No reason UK couldn?t continue

75. Minimum guaranteed maternity leave of 14 weeks for pregnant women No reason UK couldn?t continue

76. Rights to a minimum 18 weeks of parental leave after child birth No reason UK couldn?t continue

77. EU anti-discrimination laws governing age, religion and sexual orientation No reason UK couldn?t continue

78. EU rules governing health and safety at work No reason UK couldn?t continue

79. The rights to collective bargaining and trade union membership are enshrined in EU employment law No reason UK couldn?t do likewise

80. The UK enjoys an opt out from the single currency and maintains full control of its borders as a non-member of the Schengen area ? So what will change? How is that a benefit?

81. Since 1985 the UK has received a budget rebate equivalent to 66% of its net contribution to the EU budget - Hang on that is not a benefit, that is just a discount

82. EU cross-country coordination offers greater protection from terrorists, pedophiles, people traffickers and cyber-crime- Yes, but no reason to stop that

83. The European common arrest warrant Yes, but no reason to stop that

84. Europe-wide patent and copyright protection Yes, but no reason to stop that

85. EU consumer protection laws concerning transparency and product guarantees of quality and safety Yes, but no reason to stop that

86. Improved food labelling Yes, but no reason to stop that

87. A ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives Yes, but no reason to stop that

88. Cheaper air travel due to EU competition laws ? Matter of opinion doesn?t explain budget flight outside EU and elsewhere in the world

89. Common EU air passenger rights - no reason to stop that

90. Deregulation of the European energy market has increased consumer choice and lowered prices Matter of opinion doesn?t explain same outside EU and elsewhere in the world

91. Mutual recognition of the common European driving license ? UK Driving License is recognised in US, So what?

92. The introduction of the European pet passport ? Never going to take my cat abroad

93. The abolition of mobile telephone roaming charges ? Nice, but no reason why mobile operators can?t continue with that. Also why do I pay £52/month to watch Premier League football in UK, whereas in France it only cost 10euro/month

94. The EU acts as a guarantor of the Irish Good Friday Agreement ? Not sure why EU thinks it matters in this matter

95. A frictionless Irish border ? It was in 1972

96. The EU acts as a guarantor of the special status of Gibraltar ? Not sure why EU thinks it matters in this matter

97. The EU helped support and maintain democracy in Spain, Portugal and Greece from the 1970s and these countries have become major destinations for British tourists ? Nice, but not a tangible benefit and people went to Iberia on holidays before these countries joined.

98. EU membership has helped facilitate intercultural dialogue ? Again not a tangible measurable benefit

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I need to fix formatting of above!

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

The irony!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2080930.stm

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/geldofs-no-to-euro-campaign-6303737.html

The big screen campaign, unveiled by the anti-euro No Campaign, is designed to destroy the Prime Minister's [Tony Bloody Liar] repeated jibe that sterling's supporters are an extremist c0cktail of little Englanders, Tory Rightwingers and elderly xenophobes.

Geldof describes the euro as "hugely undemocratic" and insists: "It's not anti-European to be against the euro. I just have not heard an argument that stacks up for Britain entering the euro."

Both advertisements end with him appealing to people to join the No movement, saying: "I don't believe in the inevitability of the euro for the UK simply because people are free here to say no and be listened to - unlike in Brussels."

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee writes:
"It's not anti-European to be against the EU. I just have not heard an argument that stacks up for Britain remaining in the EU.I don't believe in the inevitability of the EU for the UK simply because people are free here to say no and be listened to - unlike in Brussels."

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Geldof needs to be renamed Brexit Bob. He is putting one hell of a case forward to leave the EU! 100% agree with this.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2016/12/15/news/anti-brexit-campaigner-bob-geldof-warns-eu-does-not-work-839503/

"Europe needs reform - it is sclerotic," he told Trinity College Dublin's Law Society, which awarded him its Praeses Elit medal for his contribution to music and the greater good. "The whole system is constipated. It needs a laxative to clear it out."

Geldof said half of Europe is desperately unhappy.

"It doesn't function," he said. "It is ignoring the wishes of European citizens. What worked for six (member states) doesn't work for 28."

Though the article does take a nasty sordid turn towards the end...

The poverty campaigner urged students to stop venting their spleen on social media - which he said was "just cyber-w@nking".

How do you cyber w@nk? I cant fit my dick in a USB port!

-- Edited by ArrGee on Wednesday 19th of June 2019 02:11:09 PM

Mark L · Loudmouth

My parents enjoyed frictionless travel through the continent in the 1960s, well before the EEC. Great list, hard to disagree with a word of it. What I do disagree with is the BBCs increasingly absurd claims that they are impartial in all of this. The viewers on the BBC leaders debate show looked like they were hand picked from Jeremy Corbyns address book. Any good news is preceded by despite Brexit. How much longer can it go on that we pay £150 a year to be propogandised to.? Imagine the howls of outrage from the Islington elite if Nigel Farage had joked about acid over Jo Brand?

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
The BBCs increasingly absurd claims that they are impartial in all of this. The viewers on the BBC leaders debate show looked like they were hand picked from Jeremy Corbyns address book. Any good news is preceded by despite Brexit. How much longer can it go on that we pay £150 a year to be propogandised to? Imagine the howls of outrage from the Islington elite if Nigel Farage had joked about acid over Jo Brand?

I think the BBC is trying to be impartial, but quite naturally as a state broadcaster, it is overwhelmingly populated by people who couldn't hold down a proper job in the real world

I don't mind paying the licence fee as I enjoy so much of the BBC programming and I think it is a good thing that many over 75s will have to pay it going forward. I was at my wife's pensioners tea party recently and was on a table with a couple (both over 75) who proudly stated they were paying 40% tax on their income. A good number of pensioners are better off than those who work.

As for the howls of outrage, depends on who you joke about. Danny Baker was lucky to not be sent to the Tower. Jo Brand stuck to a safer target. And as for the Islington elite, as someone who went to school in Islington, supports the greatest football club in the world which resides in Islington and will be in Islington tonight enjoying a few beers, I love being part of it! Shame I can't afford to live there

PS - Just read this... https://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-20/jeremy-corbyn-shrugs-off-islington-elite-suggestion-and-points-to-widespread-poverty/

Jeremy Corbyn shrugged off suggestions he is part of an "Islington elite" despite admitting many people in his constituency "drink cappuccino every day".

"It's absolutely true, there are people in Islington who buy and drink cappuccino every day and I know many of them."

Every day! OMG how decadent. I actually have two caffè lattes every day. How fcuking elite is that? There will be no drinking any fancy artisan coffees when Corbyn moves into number 10. You will get Victory Coffee and be on your knees morning noon and night thanking Jezza for it.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I have one reason to remain. The UK government are so incompetent they need to be told what to do. And it might get rid of BoJo the clown. The UK is politically bankrupt. The likely choices for PM at next general election are BoJo the clown, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage....

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
I have one reason to remain. The UK government are so incompetent they need to be told what to do. And it might get rid of BoJo the clown. The UK is politically bankrupt. The likely choices for PM at next general election are BoJo the clown, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage....

I think Bojo might get rid of himself if he continues like this. Assuming he continues to breathe, he will. Why not say, we are a couple, couples row. I don't know why somebody else called Plod, ask them. Police were happy, Carrie and I are happy again, what's the next question?

If pushed again, I'd have said look labourites called the Guardian and the Mirror (well they would wouldn't they) AFTER the Met said case closed nfa. Go figure.

But to totally dodge the question was a bit silly, guaranteeing the story now runs....

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
I have one reason to remain. The UK government are so incompetent they need to be told what to do. And it might get rid of BoJo the clown. The UK is politically bankrupt. The likely choices for PM at next general election are BoJo the clown, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage....

It was true then and truer now.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
Mark L wrote:
The answer to that is obviously because the government, the civil service and all its allies did all it could muster. Foreign politicians and international organisations were all wheeled out to tell people that this was a disastrous idea...
Agreed. From the moment the referendum was announced, the UK population were told what disasters would unfold by the vested interests and still a majority preferred that (seeing through the lies) to the undemocratic and anti-democratic EU.
...
For me, the UK leaving the EU is not enough. Other countries need to be encouraged to leave. En masse. The EU cannot and will not be reformed via the ballot box so it must be destroyed.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

Sadly looks like we now have the the undemocratic and anti-democratic UK. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Now What?

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Now What?

We don't know. The Establishment knows. I suspect revocation of Article 50 or we will be asked to vote again and again, until it gets the answer it wanted first time round, which is usual when the people* vote the 'wrong' way.

*As if animals or bacteria voted on June 23, 2016 so we need a 'people's vote.

Any Brexit, if it does come, will be so soft and watered down, that re-entry will be a straightforward parliamentary procedure one cold, wet March morning. And this is the date, March 28th.

Mike menzies · V Deep

Someone told me nothing happened today I just hope harry hooper still Ives at no 10

Mike menzies · V Deep

Sorry I couldn't resist the pun

Mark L · Loudmouth

The resident at No. 10 looks like he has toupee but it's probably a genuine mop of blonde hair.

Can't tell the difference these days

Mike menzies · V Deep

Keep it up.i heard it let you down sometimes sorry I'm at it again

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

So parliament agrees Brexit, but not yet...

Mark L · Loudmouth

More pointless delay. 90% of the latest deal is Theresa come what May's deal. Why can't they look at the differing 10% in 3 days. Thank Goodness this lot don't run companies in the private sector.

Second reading of bill not as important as third. You can be sure people like Dominic Aggrieved and Hilary Bend the rules will want to get past this stage so they can start tacking on things like confirmatory votes and customs unions to the bill.

I don't much like the border down the Irish Sea but the clever bit is if Stormont can get its act together, they can vote to end it in every 4 years. An incentive to get back to work!

I wonder if another bung would help the DUP 'reconsider'

Come on Arlene!

Mark L · Loudmouth

MPs are now doing things in the Commons that they explicitly told voters in the General Election of 2017 they would not do. The two main parties guaranteed they would not prevent the enactment of the 2016 referendum result. Candidate after candidate in the General Election said they would not seek a confirmation referendum. Millions upon millions of voters voted for them on this basis. Now, numerous MPs are betraying yes, betraying those voters by doing the exact things they said they wouldnt. Theyre blocking Brexit. Theyre campaigning for a confirmatory referendum. Many MPs are no longer even in the parties they stood for in 2017. Theyve switched to parties whose political outlook, especially on Brexit, are entirely contrary to the outlook of their voters. It's outrageous. They're terrified of the next General election so keep blocking it. After the expenses scandal, you wouldn't think any MP would dare to shaft us all again. Think again.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
MPs are now doing things in the Commons that they explicitly told voters in the General Election of 2017 they would not do. The two main parties guaranteed they would not prevent the enactment of the 2016 referendum result. Candidate after candidate in the General Election said they would not seek a confirmation referendum. Millions upon millions of voters voted for them on this basis. Now, numerous MPs are betraying yes, betraying those voters by doing the exact things they said they wouldnt. Theyre blocking Brexit. Theyre campaigning for a confirmatory referendum. Many MPs are no longer even in the parties they stood for in 2017. Theyve switched to parties whose political outlook, especially on Brexit, are entirely contrary to the outlook of their voters. It's outrageous. They're terrified of the next General election so keep blocking it. After the expenses scandal, you wouldn't think any MP would dare to shaft us all again. Think again.

I'm not surprised as that has always been the case. Circumstances change, so minds and policies can as well.

I don't have a problem with a referendum to confirm the deal if it is done very quickly. Has to be before end of year. I would vote to leave with the deal, but it is too important a decision for politicians alone. And quite honestly, most have been found wanting in the last three years.

No one could possibly claim they didn't know what they were voting for with another referendum. The problem before was there were lots of different interpretations, now it will be clear to everyone.

Mark L · Loudmouth

There is no way it could happen before the end of the year. Primary legislation is required and the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to assess the intelligibility of any referendum question, a process that normally takes 12 weeks. The AV referendum in 2011 was the fastest to organise in recent history and that took around 10 months from inception to polling day. The legislation would take ages as the MPs would be unable to quickly agree the question. Should Remain even be an option? If they started now, I suspect the earliest date it could be held would be Nov 2020. There will be a General Election before a referendum. But why have one anyway? We didn't have a second referendum after Remain won in 1975. And we can be sure people did not know what they were voting for back in 75. It was a trading block and nobody knew it would turn into corrupt federalism with it's own Court, Army etc. It is undemocratic, taxpayers and voters count for nothing. Why anyone wants to stay in this Franco - German circus is beyond me.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
...we can be sure people did not know what they were voting for back in 75. It was a trading bloc and nobody knew it would turn into corrupt federalism with it's own Court, Army etc. It is undemocratic, taxpayers and voters count for nothing. Why anyone wants to stay in this Franco - German circus is beyond me.

I agree. And who knows what future direction the EU will take.

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Mark L wrote:
...we can be sure people did not know what they were voting for back in 75. It was a trading bloc and nobody knew it would turn into corrupt federalism with it's own Court, Army etc. It is undemocratic, taxpayers and voters count for nothing. Why anyone wants to stay in this Franco - German circus is beyond me.
I agree. And who knows what future direction the EU will take.

The future path is the rather frightening bit.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Before or on 31 January 2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-50205603

Mark L · Loudmouth

Flextension!

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote :

Now what?

------------------

General Election 12/12/19

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Agenda?
General Election 12/12/19
Rats Single?
Leave EU? 31/1/2020
Rats LP?

Of course, there may need to be another General Election if there is no overall control...
...just a question of how many seats the Lib Dems get. If enough Remain voters back them.
As it currently stands, according to polls...
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
With far less votes, conservatives could get far more seats. Also SNP very over represented.

Current Prediction: Conservative majority 76
Party 2017 Votes 2017 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 43.5% 318 35.3% 363
LAB 41.0% 262 25.3% 186
LIB 7.6% 12 18.1% 31
Brexit 0.0% 0 11.3% 0
Green 1.7% 1 4.1% 1
SNP 3.1% 35 3.2% 48
PlaidC 0.5% 4 0.7% 3
UKIP 1.9% 0 0.4% 0
Other 0.7% 0 1.7% 0
DUP 10 9
SF 7 7
Alliance 0 1
NI Other 1 1

Mark L · Loudmouth

Dominic Aggrieved has been asking EU leaders for a 6 to 8 month extension in order that a second referendum can be organised. This guy is beyond the pale. The Attorney General? More like The Turncoat General. Hope he gets his come uppance in the GE.

I'm far from sure there will be that kind of Tory majority. They will be more or less wiped out in Scotland and London and the Lib Dems will make a killing in the South West. The absurd Labour position continues in that they will go to Europe to get a 'better' deal and then bring it back to campaign against it, in a second referendum. According to Jezza, it's 'not complicated'

Maybe, but it's completely bonkers.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
The absurd Labour position continues in that they will go to Europe to get a 'better' deal and then bring it back to campaign against it, in a second referendum. According to Jezza, it's 'not complicated'
Maybe, but it's completely bonkers.

Hard to believe, but I just read this...

Jon Trickett, the MP for Hemsworth - where 68% of voters backed leave - is asked what Labour offers Brexit voters in his constituency, an area the Brexit Party may be targeting.

"To the country as a whole what we're saying is whether you're Remain or Leave there's a route through for you for voting Labour."

He must have splinters up his ar$e with all the fence sitting!

Mark L · Loudmouth

Labour trying to look in opposite directions at the same time. Trickett is one of those ludicrous MPs trying to control the dictionary. We cannot say 'betrayal' or 'surrender' but they can call anyone not signed up to ultra left wing Venezuela - type policies, 'fascist' or 'racist'.

.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Heading towards hung parliament?

Current Prediction: Conservative majority 28

Party	2017 Votes	2017 Seats	Pred Votes	Low Seats	Pred Seats	High Seats
CON	43.5%	318	42.7%	256	339	432
LAB	41.0%	262	32.9%	141	229	306
LIB	7.6%	12	12.9%	11	15	45
Brexit	0.0%	0	3.1%	0	0	6
Green	1.7%	1	2.5%	0	1	1
SNP	3.1%	35	3.7%	23	44	48
PlaidC	0.5%	4	0.6%	0	4	5
UKIP	1.9%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Other	0.7%	0	1.5%	0	0	1
DUP		10			8
SF		7			7
Alliance		0			3
NI Other		1			0

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Heading towards hung parliament?

Current Prediction: Conservative majority 28
Party 2017 Votes 2017 Seats Pred Votes Low Seats Pred Seats High Seats
CON 43.5% 318 42.7% 256 339 432
LAB 41.0% 262 32.9% 141 229 306
LIB 7.6% 12 12.9% 11 15 45
Brexit 0.0% 0 3.1% 0 0 6
Green 1.7% 1 2.5% 0 1 1
SNP 3.1% 35 3.7% 23 44 48
PlaidC 0.5% 4 0.6% 0 4 5
UKIP 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0 0
Other 0.7% 0 1.5% 0 0 1
DUP 10 8
SF 7 7
Alliance 0 3
NI Other 1 0

Isn't Jo Swinson going to walk it? Or has her plan to be illiberal and undemocratic backfired spectacularly?

Looks like a hung parliament or slim Tory majority.

Mark L · Loudmouth

The biggest laugh this week was JC trying to blag it that he watches the Queen's address. Trust in politics Jezza?

People seem to round on Johnson for this kind of thing, but Jezza's entire utopian campaign is a huge deception. If he sneaks it propped up by Kranky, there will be millions of disappointed people.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
The biggest laugh this week was JC trying to blag it that he watches the Queen's address. Trust in politics Jezza?

I reckon if he simply said he doesn't watch it at all it would have been fine. Only 6 million people watch it. I am not one of them. One thing I do agree with Corbyn on is the abolition of the monarchy. Save us all from sweaty princes.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
Heading towards hung parliament?

Current Prediction: Conservative majority 28
Party 2017 Votes 2017 Seats Pred Votes Low Seats Pred Seats High Seats
CON 43.5% 318 42.7% 256 339 432
LAB 41.0% 262 32.9% 141 229 306
LIB 7.6% 12 12.9% 11 15 45
Brexit 0.0% 0 3.1% 0 0 6
Green 1.7% 1 2.5% 0 1 1
SNP 3.1% 35 3.7% 23 44 48
PlaidC 0.5% 4 0.6% 0 4 5
UKIP 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0 0
Other 0.7% 0 1.5% 0 0 1
DUP 10 8
SF 7 7
Alliance 0 3
NI Other 1 0
Isn't Jo Swinson going to walk it? Or has her plan to be illiberal and undemocratic backfired spectacularly?

Maybe, but SNP with less than 4% of the vote get a disproportionate 44 seats (their constituencies are significantly smaller to boot). Liberals with over 3 times the votes will get less than half that number of seats. That written, if SNP had a candidate in my constituency I would vote for them, and happily wave them goodbye.

Size of constituencies by electorate

The number of people able to vote (the electorate) differs by constituency. The Office for National Statistics gives the average electorate across constituencies of about:

72,200 in England
67,200 in Scotland
68,300 in Northern Ireland
56,000 in Wales

Mark L · Loudmouth

Ultimately, whatever we replace the monarchy with is going to cost money. And probably a lot of money too. An elected President will still need a suitably grand home and office, as well as all of the security and staff which would come with the office. Unless we decide to destroy all totems of our former monarchy, Buckingham Palace and former royal residences will need paying for as historic buildings. Tourism would take a massive hit. I can't see what would be the point. And President Corbyn scares me more than Prime Minister Corbyn!

-- Edited by Mark L on Friday 6th of December 2019 09:35:57 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
Ultimately, whatever we replace the monarchy with is going to cost money. And probably a lot of money too. An elected President will still need a suitably grand home and office, as well as all of the security and staff which would come with the office. Unless we decide to destroy all totems of our former monarchy, Buckingham Palace and former royal residences will need paying for as historic buildings. Tourism would take a massive hit. I can't see what would be the point. And President Corbyn scares me more than Prime Minister Corbyn!

No need to replace it with anything. Not obligatory to have a president. UK doesnt have a constitution. PM can be head of state and live in Downing Street. US dont have a PM. The French seem to do OK with tourism and their old palaces. Hereditary public office has no place in a democracy.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

The closer it gets, the smaller the majority...

Current Prediction: Conservative majority 20

Party	2017 Votes	2017 Seats	Pred Votes	Low Seats	Pred Seats	High Seats
CON	43.5%	318	42.6%	255	335	432
LAB	41.0%	262	32.9%	142	233	306
LIB	7.6%	12	12.8%	10	15	45
Brexit	0.0%	0	2.9%	0	0	5
Green	1.7%	1	2.7%	0	1	2
SNP	3.1%	35	3.8%	25	44	48
PlaidC	0.5%	4	0.6%	0	4	5
UKIP	1.9%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Other	0.7%	0	1.6%	0	0	1
DUP		10			8
SF		7			7
Alliance		0			3
NI Other		1			0

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Mark L wrote:
Ultimately, whatever we replace the monarchy with is going to cost money. And probably a lot of money too. An elected President will still need a suitably grand home and office, as well as all of the security and staff which would come with the office. Unless we decide to destroy all totems of our former monarchy, Buckingham Palace and former royal residences will need paying for as historic buildings. Tourism would take a massive hit. I can't see what would be the point. And President Corbyn scares me more than Prime Minister Corbyn!
No need to replace it with anything. Not obligatory to have a president. UK doesnt have a constitution. PM can be head of state and live in Downing Street. US dont have a PM. The French seem to do OK with tourism and their old palaces. Hereditary public office has no place in a democracy.

All of that is true and if a majority of the nation wanted to put an end to monarchy, then it might have to go. But most emphatically a majority does not want that. While a majority would want to kick out the present lot of corrupt, self-serving politicians, bankers, mandarins and BBC executives, for the Queen they still have great affection and respect. Which is not surprising since of all our great institutions, the monarchy is the only one which actually works reasonably well. One day Labour will throw its weight behind Republicanism, definitely after the Queen dies, but that time is not now. Like Leave and Remain, I probably won't win a Republican round and you won't win me round as a Monarchist. I definitely prefer what we have a wise, well respected and rather witty female head of state who is part of our global identity, recognised in Africa, Asia, the Americas to the boredom of, say, a President Corbyn or President Swinson. Elizabeth has tried to be the Queen of all the people, and Charles is serious about the big things: education, global warming, conservation. Harry and William command my full respect. Yes, they occasionally bring a kind of embarrassment but would we be better off with a series of heads of state tied to the two-party system? I personally don't think so.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

No one should have titles bestowed on them simply because of one of their parents in this day and age. There is enough nepotism in the world without it being enshrined by the state. I don't care what it costs to get rid of monarchy and hereditary lords, it is simply wrong.

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
No one should have titles bestowed on them simply because of one of their parents in this day and age. There is enough nepotism in the world without it being enshrined by the state. I don't care what it costs to get rid of monarchy and hereditary lords, it is simply wrong.

Beyond doubt between monarchists and republicans there exists a philosophical chasm that makes the leave/remain divide look like a mere tiff. Except it ain't a 52 : 48 affair.

Most polls put support for the monarchy at 70 to 75%. I don't care what it costs (and it is not much in the scheme of things) to maintain the monarchy, it will always be cost positive to the UK and huge numbers of people derive pleasure from it. So long as we believe in nation states and so long as we need government to govern nation states, then we will need heads of state and one who does not owe their position to either the vote or patronage can more properly represent the people. An elected President is often there because a minority of a minority voted for them so how do they speak for all the people? An appointed President is a worse situation because they owe their position to a clique. Accident of birth on the contrary is the best way to appoint a head of state, as they have no political axe to grind or special favours to pay back to vested interests. The allegiance is then to all the people not just to a certain party or those who voted. A monarchy is therefore not wrong, it is completely compatible with a democracy and ours has woven well with governments of all colours, enhancing them along the way.

Long live the monarchy!

-- Edited by Mark L on Saturday 7th of December 2019 10:01:14 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
No one should have titles bestowed on them simply because of one of their parents in this day and age. There is enough nepotism in the world without it being enshrined by the state. I don't care what it costs to get rid of monarchy and hereditary lords, it is simply wrong.
Beyond doubt between monarchists and republicans there exists a philosophical chasm that makes the leave/remain divide look like a mere tiff. Except it ain't a 52 : 48 affair.
Most polls put support for the monarchy at 70 to 75%. I don't care what it costs (and it is not much in the scheme of things) to maintain the monarchy, it will always be cost positive to the UK and huge numbers of people derive pleasure from it. So long as we believe in nation states and so long as we need government to govern nation states, then we will need heads of state and one who does not owe their position to either the vote or patronage can more properly represent the people. An elected President is often there because a minority of a minority voted for them so how do they speak for all the people? An appointed President is a worse situation because they owe their position to a clique. Accident of birth on the contrary is the best way to appoint a head of state, as they have no political axe to grind or special favours to pay back to vested interests. The allegiance is then to all the people not just to a certain party or those who voted. A monarchy is therefore not wrong, it is completely compatible with a democracy and ours has woven well with governments of all colours, enhancing them along the way.

Long live the monarchy!

-- Edited by Mark L on Saturday 7th of December 2019 10:01:14 PM

What a load of crap.

Mark L · Loudmouth

We obviously hold strongly to opposite beliefs on this subject and no two people agree about everything. Let's be friendly and arrgee to disarrgee biggrin

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

What you wrote is a load of crap with no facts to back it up at all. Example Always be cost positive". There are many ways and means of replacing a monarchy, your comments are too narrow. As I stated there is no need to replace a hereditary monarch with an elected president. Many countries dont.

Mark L · Loudmouth

In May 2012, in the run up to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, a Ipsos MORI poll of 1,006 British adults found that 80% were in favour of the monarchy, with 13% in favour of the United Kingdom becoming a republic. This was considered a record high figure in recent years in favour of the monarchy. I would have thought allowing for even a wide margin of error, my previous comment that most polls show 70 to 75% support for the monarchy to be far from a load of rubbish. A leading consultancy firm, Brand Finance, found that the Royals contributed £1.766 billion to the economy in 2017.

Maintaining the monarchy costs around £292 million £4.50 per person. That's cost positive to me and I see no evidence from republicans to the contrary. Many republicans simply fail to recognise the monarchy's indirect effect on tourism, trade, arts and the media, the benefits enjoyed by charities and institutes under Royal patronage and the commercial boost to brands endorsed by the Royal family.

However, we are poles apart on this, so as much as I respect your point of view, I completely disagree with it and am never going to be won round to it hearing my opinion dismissed as a load of rubbish so I politely request that we agree to disagree.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I want my £4.50 back. Is that per day? More than Fingers gets for Mondays.

Plenty of people have a vested interest in this, and impossible to quantify any of these numbers except for the amount the tax payer pays to them. I suspect if there were a poll in a republic to restore a monarchy, fewer than 13% would be in favour. There are other polls in recent history that have not been as conclusive and some showing a preference for a republic, although there again, there was probably a vested interest in that at the time. Also polls are not always correct, especially without any sort of debate on the issue. Not many countries have restored a monarchy, the UK is one of the exceptions. But then Charles I and Cromwell were both such total utter bastards.

Mark L · Loudmouth

No, if it was per day, it would be around £1500 each every year and even I would have a problem with it. It's per year. Sky say it's lower than that, but they're talking just about the Sovereign Grant. With other factors on top most estimates say between £3.50 and £5 each per year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I still want my money back. And so do my wife and kids.

Mark L · Loudmouth

We will be up to £166 per person per year better off if we ever leave the EU. That's according to the ONS.

There are lots of other things my taxes and NI get spent on which I don't agree with either, but there's sweet FA I am going to be able to do about it, without considerable mither.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Your figures are hokum. And conveniently ignore the half a billion pounds plus they have in ~~stolen~~ inherited wealth.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-royal-family-richest-people-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
There are lots of other things my taxes and NI get spent on which I don't agree with either, but there's sweet FA I am going to be able to do about it, without considerable mither.

I can probably avoid or at least reduce income tax, NI, CGT, stamp duty etc. But VAT and council tax is another matter. Still I guess when I leave UK they wont be squandering my money on their gold plated pensions.

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Your figures are hokum. And conveniently ignore the half a billion pounds plus they have in ~~stolen~~ inherited wealth.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/british-royal-family-richest-people-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

Ah, good old Ben Chu when he was at the Independent. An ultra left wing Remoaner Republican who regularly churned out biased rubbish about the Tories, the Monarchy and, naturally, Brexiteers. Still does on Twitter. I think he also did, or is doing a spell on Newsnight on the BBC, but then with his credentials, why wouldn't he? He'll fit right in at the BBC!

If you're a Brexiteer, he's on record as smearing you as a Xenophobe. As soon as any Remoaner resorts to that, or the twin sister racism, they've no argument and they know it.

The increasingly absurd claims of the Independent to be err independent and of the BBC to be impartial are laughable. If Ben(d) the truth thinks the monarchy is a net drain on the UK economy or that a majority of people favour republicanism, he's on the last chu chu train to Barksville.

-- Edited by Mark L on Monday 9th of December 2019 11:56:39 AM

-- Edited by Mark L on Monday 9th of December 2019 12:35:17 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
Your figures are hokum. And conveniently ignore the half a billion pounds plus they have in ~~stolen~~ inherited wealth.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/british-royal-family-richest-people-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

Ah, good old Ben Chu when he was at the Independent. An ultra left wing Remoaner Republican who regularly churned out biased rubbish about the Tories, the Monarchy and, naturally, Brexiteers. Still does on Twitter. I think he also did, or is doing a spell on Newsnight on the BBC, but then with his credentials, why wouldn't he? He'll fit right in at the BBC!
If you're a Brexiteer, he's on record as smearing you as a Xenophobe. As soon as any Remoaner resorts to that, or the twin sister racism, they've no argument and they know it.
The increasingly absurd claims of the Independent to be err independent and of the BBC to be impartial are laughable. If Ben(d) the truth thinks the monarchy is a net drain on the UK economy or that a majority of people favour republicanism, he's on the last chu chu train to Barksville.

I don't believe he stated that. He seems to have taken all the figures you touted and gave some context. His concluding statement...

In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.

I can't understand the inconsistency of not wanting an un-elected over-funded monarch yet wanting to remain in the EU to be kowtowing to un-elected over-funded eurocrats. If that makes me a xenophobe, then so be it.

Ultimately, I believe less is more in the case of government. Not sure why I have EU then UK then London Mayor then local council. All of which I pay for along with all the bits in between. A fully accountable single national government and single local authority is enough. Ridiculous that three quarters of the UK has its own governments and in classic tail wagging the dog, the Scotch have say over policies in England but not vice versa.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Anyone going to or ever been to an election party? I got invited to one, but getting home from West London will be a pain, so have to decline. Most memorable one was back in 1992 in Wandsworth held by some hard core Labour supporters who were certain Labour would win and had a big bash. Have to confess I was quite indifferent to it all at the time and from my point of view it was more about getting laid. Yes I am that shallow! Anyway, was a total damp squib as the results came in and most people went home just after midnight. Ended up with my friend and me eating all the food and drinking all the booze as we had to wait until the wee small hours to get the tube home!

Also have to confess on Brexit night, I went to bed at 11pm believing it was a foregone conclusion, and was shocked when I heard the result on the radio,

I think this one could be pretty exciting.

Mark L · Loudmouth

I am helping on Thursday (phoning around, leaflet dropping) and I suppose there may be a few drinks if it's going well. Labour have a majority of just under 40 here so it's a real marginal.

I stopped up until 4am in June 2016 when it was reasonably clear Leave had won.

There will be some surprises and shocks this time round, none more so than if JC does even better than 2017. Far from 'bringing the country together' if Labour triumph, with or without Sturgeon's help, Brexit is sunk and then how will 17.4 million Leave voters feel?

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
how will 17.4 million Leave voters feel?

As one of them, I am happy to have another vote. I dont think the result would be different. I dont want anyone to be saying they didnt know what they were voting for. I am pretty sure that if the vested interests were sure the result would have been different there would have benn another referendum by now.

-- Edited by ArrGee on Monday 9th of December 2019 10:56:58 PM

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Mark L wrote:
I am helping on Thursday (phoning around, leaflet dropping) and I suppose there may be a few drinks if it's going well. Labour have a majority of just under 40 here so it's a real marginal.

As I am in the 33rd safest Labour seat in the UK, little point in leaflets etc, but 40, that is exciting!

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
Mark L wrote:
I am helping on Thursday (phoning around, leaflet dropping) and I suppose there may be a few drinks if it's going well. Labour have a majority of just under 40 here so it's a real marginal.
As I am in the 33rd safest Labour seat in the UK, little point in leaflets etc, but 40, that is exciting!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000653

48 Lab majority in 2017

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

So people chose what they didn't want???

Yvette Cooper : "I think we do clearly have to change because it hasn't worked and we've got the fewest Labour MPs since 1935 and a big drop in working class support with low income voters choosing the Conservatives even though they didn't want to"

With this sort of double think, maybe Labour actually won the election. Maybe people chose to leave the EU but that wasn't what they wanted to do either ?!!?? Don't worry, if ever elected, highly unlikely, very wise people like Yvette Cooper will take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us. No one will chose what they don't want again.

(PS - I paraphrased Thomas Sowell in case I am accused of plagiarism)

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
Mark L wrote:
The BBCs increasingly absurd claims that they are impartial in all of this. The viewers on the BBC leaders debate show looked like they were hand picked from Jeremy Corbyns address book. Any good news is preceded by despite Brexit. How much longer can it go on that we pay £150 a year to be propogandised to? Imagine the howls of outrage from the Islington elite if Nigel Farage had joked about acid over Jo Brand?
I think the BBC is trying to be impartial, but quite naturally as a state broadcaster, it is overwhelmingly populated by people who couldn't hold down a proper job in the real world

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive. - Thomas Sowell

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
So people chose what they didn't want???
Yvette Cooper : "I think we do clearly have to change because it hasn't worked and we've got the fewest Labour MPs since 1935 and a big drop in working class support with low income voters choosing the Conservatives even though they didn't want to"
With this sort of double think, maybe Labour actually won the election. Maybe people chose to leave the EU but that wasn't what they wanted to do either ?!!?? Don't worry, if ever elected, highly unlikely, very wise people like Yvette Cooper will take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us. No one will chose what they don't want again.

(PS - I paraphrased Thomas Sowell in case I am accused of plagiarism)

There is delusional drivel spewing from the mouths of Corbyn and his supporters all the time now. Corbyn absurdly claims he 'won the arguments' and new MP Claudia Webbe is dementedly opining that her Labour party has 'lots to celebrate from the election'

The increasingly unhinged Andy Mcdonald, Labour's transport secretary, accuses the BBC of vilifying Corbyn and says it's the fault of the media. He thinks their position on Brexit went down well on the doorstep.

Meanwhile, Ken Livingstone declares Corbyn made no mistakes and he's a victim of a smear campaign.

Very likely the next election is just four and half years away. They could turn it round if they learn from what's just happened, but this kind of moronic nonsense will not help one bit.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

All Over Now. Bye Bye EU.

Mark L · Loudmouth

Or is it Au Revoir?

Democracy dictates that any Party can put it in their manifesto to rejoin the EU and if they win a majority, in we could go again. Probably many many years off but anything is possible. 1975 to 2016 not that long. 41 years, which was how long ago Rat Trap was number one.

Seems like yesterday.

manatthetop · In the Long Grass

Thank God the DUP does not have a say in England anymore. You guys just get on and do what suits England best. Nothing holding you back now. As Paul Mc Cartney once sang Give Ireland back to the Irish

Mark L · Loudmouth

ArrGee wrote:
I dont know why people want to remain. All I have read, like the Geldof open letter above makes no sense.

Let me explain. Somehow 167 countries around the world manage to survive outside the EU. So imagine all of these 167 countries without music. Like USA and Canada and Korea. How do their artists manage? Pretty well, looking at the various line ups at all the big London concerts and festivals (BTS, Neil Young, Barbara Streisand, The Killers Bob Dylan, P!nk, Eagles, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Celina Dion) this summer. No acts outside the UK from the EU. Well none I can see.

And every time I read about the disaster, I dont see it. It is all simply a matter of political will. Immigration will continue. In fact most immigration is from outside the EU. No need to change currency which would not have been an option has the euro been inflicted on the UK (ironically Geldof was against that for reasons of democracy at the time). No need to introduce border controls because they are already there. No need to introduce tariffs. No need to retrospectively change legislation. The first day outside the EU need not be any different to the day before. Over time the UK and the EU will diverge, but there is nothing to stop co-operation between the two. No need for the backstop. That is just Eurocrat nonsense.

I would love someone who wants to remain in The EU to tell me why it is preferable to being an independent state rather than the doomsday rhetoric.

Tomorrow will be no different to today. Not one, not one single, Project Fear threat came true. Osborne should be investigated by the Met for behaviour likely to cause alarm, harassment and distress. We are leaving at 11pm. All will be well. If it isn't, then it is likely to be nothing to do with Brexit. Just as when there were strikes in the 70s, recession in the 90s, the 2008 crash, it was not the direct fault of the EU. Neither was Black Wednesday in 1992, moreover it was the ludicrous John Major, who shouldn't run a cricket club let alone a country, together with Norman Lamont who tried to tie us to the ERM.

Of course, Remoaners will blame all future ills on Brexit but they should remember the last 47 years have not been plain sailing. Here's to life outside the EU and if it goes well, then maybe the nightmare of the last 3 and a half years will have been worth it.