INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2861 Postby Nick » January 2nd, 2018, 1:19 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


1. To avoid continuing to move in the same disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically.

2. The damage is being inflicted by the EU as a deliberate policy. Not least to frighten the others. They don't have to but they
do. Sometimes a terrible price has to be paid. No doubt our GDP would have done nicely under nice Mr Hitler......

3. The enforcement of the prohibition of the ECB to act as lender of last resort, thus condemning entire countries to penury, and destroying the hopes of entire generations.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2862 Postby Alan H » January 2nd, 2018, 2:37 am

Nick wrote:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


1. To avoid continuing to move in the same disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically.
That really just won't do, Nick. I didn't ask you what damage you believed might be incurred if we didn't leave: I asked what the benefits of leaving would be. Do you understand the difference and do you have an answer? Let me help you: I seem to remember that £350 million a week for the NHS was promised. Do you remember that one? There were loads more, generally characterised as promising rainbows and unicorns for everyone...

2. The damage is being inflicted by the EU as a deliberate policy. Not least to frighten the others. They don't have to but they
do.
LOL! Please try to focus: I didn't ask what damage you believe the EU may inflict - deliberately or otherwise and for whatever reason - as a consequence of leaving. I asked you what damage was acceptable for the benefits of leaving - once you've told us what you believe those benefits are, of course.

Sometimes a terrible price has to be paid. No doubt our GDP would have done nicely under nice Mr Hitler......
Godwin's Law. You lose. But what, precisely, is this terrible price (which is the question I was asking) and why was it not mentioned on either the ballot paper or by the Leave campaign? Perhaps we really never knew what we were voting for after all? Why is it, after eighteen moths, no one still has a clue? If no one knows, how do we know what the right decision is?

3. The enforcement of the prohibition of the ECB to act as lender of last resort, thus condemning entire countries to penury, and destroying the hopes of entire generations.
The ECJ certainly got a few mentions by the Leave campaign (although some clearly thought they were the same as the ECHR) but I certainly don't remember them mentioning that one (which was about the Eurozone of which the UK is not a member)! Can you cite any instances of them complaining about this as reason to leave?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2863 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 1:21 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


1. To avoid continuing to move in the same disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically.
That really just won't do, Nick.
Yes, it will! It'll do perfectly.

I didn't ask you what damage you believed might be incurred if we didn't leave: I asked what the benefits of leaving would be.
You might think avoiding disaster is not a benefit, but I do.

Do you understand the difference and do you have an answer?
The difference is semantic, the benefit is real.

Let me help you: I seem to remember that £350 million a week for the NHS was promised.
Straww man. You lose!!

Do you remember that one? There were loads more, generally characterised as promising rainbows and unicorns for everyone...
So what? I didn't cite them did I? So your comment is irrelevant.

2. The damage is being inflicted by the EU as a deliberate policy. Not least to frighten the others. They don't have to but they
do.
LOL! Please try to focus: I didn't ask what damage you believe the EU may inflict - deliberately or otherwise and for whatever reason - as a consequence of leaving. I asked you what damage was acceptable for the benefits of leaving - once you've told us what you believe those benefits are, of course.
Sigh. The benefit of leaving the EU is not being beholden to Brussels and their agenda of ever-closer union, which even as we watch is coming apart. I believe the eventual damage we would suffer by remaining is worse than the cost of remaining. I might as well ask you why you think a bit of extra money today is worth a catastrophe tomorrow.

Sometimes a terrible price has to be paid. No doubt our GDP would have done nicely under nice Mr Hitler......
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Sure, it's an example of Godwin's Law, but that doesn't mean it is not relevant. So, Alan, what political costs do you think are justified?

But what, precisely, is this terrible price (which is the question I was asking) and why was it not mentioned on either the ballot paper or by the Leave campaign?
That all depends on the EU, and they're not telling, are they? I didn't notice the Remainers outlining quite how nasty and repressive the EU would be, not only to use, but to any sign of dissent in Europe. And so far, the dire warnings of Remainer, immediate recession, etc, have simply not materialised, have they? And quite what would you propose should actually be on a ballot paper...?

Perhaps we really never knew what we were voting for after all?
Sure, it's complex. And if we are to live in a democracy, then votes by the great unwashed have to count too, and they aren't going to examine it in a great detail, are they?

Why is it, after eighteen moths, no one still has a clue?
18 Moths...? :wink: Because we have no idea what the EU will decide. That's hardly the fault of Leavers, is it?

If no one knows, how do we know what the right decision is?
On that basis, we'd never do anything. I take it you will be refraining from voting from now on, because you can't know what a Corbyn Government would do....?


3. The enforcement of the prohibition of the ECB to act as lender of last resort, thus condemning entire countries to penury, and destroying the hopes of entire generations.
The ECJ certainly got a few mentions by the Leave campaign (although some clearly thought they were the same as the ECHR) but I certainly don't remember them mentioning that one
But it's the one I'm mentioning. You might be happy with the devastation of Southern Europe and the waste of millions of fellow Europeans lives, but I'm not.

(which was about the Eurozone of which the UK is not a member)! Can you cite any instances of them complaining about this as reason to leave?
I don't have to, any more than you have to support any other hare-brained scheme by any lefty loons. I gave you an answer which you have failed to address.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2864 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 1:46 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
1. To avoid continuing to move in the same disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically.
That really just won't do, Nick.
Yes, it will! It'll do perfectly.

I didn't ask you what damage you believed might be incurred if we didn't leave: I asked what the benefits of leaving would be.
You might think avoiding disaster is not a benefit, but I do.

Do you understand the difference and do you have an answer?
The difference is semantic, the benefit is real.

Let me help you: I seem to remember that £350 million a week for the NHS was promised.
Straww man. You lose!!

Do you remember that one? There were loads more, generally characterised as promising rainbows and unicorns for everyone...
So what? I didn't cite them did I? So your comment is irrelevant.

Let's stick to this one before moving on to any others and try again:

What do you believe to be the significant and tangible benefit(s) of leaving. Please list it/them.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2865 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 10:58 am

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few hours ago.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2866 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 11:25 am

Nick wrote:I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few hours ago.
So, your answer to my question about tangible and significant benefits of leaving is the, "disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically."

If you think those airy-fairy, hand-waving, nebulous, imprecise notions answer my question in any way then I don't think I can help you further but leave you to your thoughts.

But, no, let's try one more time and make it even simpler: How will the average person in the UK benefit from the UK leaving the EU?

An auxiliary question: why is it impossible to get ardent/strident Brexiters to give an answer to that very straightforward, simple question?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2867 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 11:38 am

A close reading of David Davis’ delusional Telegraph piece on Brexit
The wild optimism of this piece is summed up in the headline. Yes, Brexit talks are set to finish in October in order to deliver the draft final deal in time – but 2018 does not mean the end of it all. For example, the EU could decide that the transition period isn’t long enough, and vote to extend it (although this is unlikely), and the EU has suggested it could take up to 2020 to decide trade terms.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2868 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 11:43 am

Nick

On another thread, you opined:
TH seems to have descended into a lefty cut-and-paste site, not a discussion forum. Very sad.
Perhaps you could redress the imbalance you perceive by providing us with, say, some good news about Brexit so we can discuss that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2869 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 4:44 pm

Dystopia has started early this year. The Home Office tried to rebut a Times article about 'black' passports, saying:
Since its introduction in 1921, there have been a few variants of that navy blue colour but it has never been black, as some commentators have suggested. Below is an example of the design circulating in 1971.
...and showing this photo:

Blue-passport-1971-1972-620x898.png
Blue-passport-1971-1972-620x898.png (1.21 MiB) Viewed 98 times


The filename even says it's blue.

However, a search for this image finds it all over the Internet from years ago:

_90609700_passport10.jpg
_90609700_passport10.jpg (37.71 KiB) Viewed 98 times


The Home Office, presumably unable to find a photo of this fabled, true-blue patriotic blue passport from the halcyon days before the EU forced us to go red, had to Photoshop it.

Here's my old passport, with a black Sharpie for comparison:

IMG_2336.JPG
IMG_2336.JPG (131.21 KiB) Viewed 98 times


I tweeted this to the Home Office, saying:
Hi. Can you confirm what the colour of my old passport (shown here with a black Sharpie for comparison) will be after we leave the EU? Will any other colours be redefined? Or just blue and black?


What idiot thought that denying we ever had black passports and doctoring one to make it look blue was a good idea?

Als, as the Tweets above show, the Passport Office at least know there used to be black passports:

DSjmoKvX4AIHx-2.jpg
DSjmoKvX4AIHx-2.jpg (68.13 KiB) Viewed 98 times


What the fuck are they playing at?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2870 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 4:50 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few hours ago.
So, your answer to my question about tangible and significant benefits of leaving is the, "disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically."

If you think those airy-fairy, hand-waving, nebulous, imprecise notions answer my question in any way then I don't think I can help you further but leave you to your thoughts.
So you think the devastation of half the continents economy is airy-fairy? Or the rise of the far-right in response is just hand-waving? Really?

But, no, let's try one more time and make it even simpler: How will the average person in the UK benefit from the UK leaving the EU?
So you don't care a stuff for anyone outside the UK, then? Very nice. With any change there will be winners and losers. Just because someone is moving your chees, doesn't entitle you to take theirs.

An auxiliary question: why is it impossible to get ardent/strident Brexiters to give an answer to that very straightforward, simple question?
Dunno, but probably the same reason as it is to get lefties to work with the way the economy actually works, rather than how they might want it to work... :wink:

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2871 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 4:58 pm

Alan H wrote:Nick

On another thread, you opined:
TH seems to have descended into a lefty cut-and-paste site, not a discussion forum. Very sad.
Perhaps you could redress the imbalance you perceive by providing us with, say, some good news about Brexit so we can discuss that?
As your only response to my post was a smiley, (yet again!) and you have failed to discuss the points I raised above, I don't have any confidence that it will change anything, so why bother? But yes, it really is sad. Any discussion of humanism has just about disappeared, along with many, many posters and their contributions. I've made some real friends, but they scarcely bother here any more. But it's your forum, so it's up to you....

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2872 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 5:28 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few hours ago.
So, your answer to my question about tangible and significant benefits of leaving is the, "disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically."

If you think those airy-fairy, hand-waving, nebulous, imprecise notions answer my question in any way then I don't think I can help you further but leave you to your thoughts.
So you think the devastation of half the continents economy is airy-fairy? Or the rise of the far-right in response is just hand-waving? Really?

But, no, let's try one more time and make it even simpler: How will the average person in the UK benefit from the UK leaving the EU?
So you don't care a stuff for anyone outside the UK, then? Very nice. With any change there will be winners and losers. Just because someone is moving your chees, doesn't entitle you to take theirs.

An auxiliary question: why is it impossible to get ardent/strident Brexiters to give an answer to that very straightforward, simple question?
Dunno, but probably the same reason as it is to get lefties to work with the way the economy actually works, rather than how they might want it to work... :wink:
What bit of specific and tangible don't you get, Nick?

If the question was the other way round - and it is clearly not in case you try it on - if someone were to say that the benefit of being in the EU was, say, a warm, fluffy feeling of neighbourliness, then you'd be quite right to challenge them on that and demand actual specific and tangible benefits. That's what I'm asking of you - and still waiting for, despite many, many requests.

You want discussion? Please start by thinking.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2873 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 5:35 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick

On another thread, you opined:
TH seems to have descended into a lefty cut-and-paste site, not a discussion forum. Very sad.
Perhaps you could redress the imbalance you perceive by providing us with, say, some good news about Brexit so we can discuss that?
As your only response to my post was a smiley, (yet again!) and you have failed to discuss the points I raised above, I don't have any confidence that it will change anything, so why bother? But yes, it really is sad. Any discussion of humanism has just about disappeared, along with many, many posters and their contributions. I've made some real friends, but they scarcely bother here any more. But it's your forum, so it's up to you....
Nick. There are several discussions going on here - including occasionally on this thread - but there is no compunction on you to become involved in any of them. Anyway, I did respond to your substantive point - it awaits a response. However, don't you think that what is happening to this country in terms of Brexit, austerity, the NHS, etc are discussions that humanists can and indeed should contribute to? We are about to face an almighty and unnecessary upheaval to our country, our economy and our society. That is most certainly a humanist issue and it would be truly bizarre if you did not share that view.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 634
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#2874 Postby coffee » January 3rd, 2018, 6:43 pm

For Brexit news, please see these links

https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Late ... DAB59A0B52

-------

BrexitCentral‏

@BrexitCentral

Following Following @BrexitCentral
--------


Westmonster‏

@WestmonsterUK

Following Following @WestmonsterUK

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2875 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 7:23 pm

coffee wrote:For Brexit news, please see these links

https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Late ... DAB59A0B52
That is just a general search for Brexit news. Is there something specific you think we should be reading?

BrexitCentral‏

@BrexitCentral

Following Following @BrexitCentral
Seems to be full of much the same waffle, dreams and hopes, but very little substance. Their tagline says "Promoting a positive vision of Britain after Brexit." Can anyone see a problem with that?

Westmonster‏

@WestmonsterUK

Following Following @WestmonsterUK
All I'm getting from their website is continuous popup ads for GoSkippy car insurance.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2876 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 9:15 pm

As the Tories possibly conspire to pack the House of Lords with Tory Peers, this thread by George Peretz QC is well-worth reading.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2877 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 9:25 pm

No, not from the Onion: 'Cloud cuckoo land': UK government mocked over plans to join Pacific trade bloc after Brexit
Theresa May's government has been ridiculed over reports that it has held informal discussions about joining the Trans-Pacific trade group once it has left the European Union.

Liam Fox's Department for International Trade is developing a plan for Britain to join the group and become its only member state that borders neither the Pacific Ocean or South China Sea, the FT reports.

UK trade minister, Greg Hands, said that geographical distance between Britain and TPP members was not an issue.

"Nothing is excluded in all of this," Hands told the FT. "With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction."


Someone posted this map to help:

DSkkPjkW0AA9u7U.jpg
DSkkPjkW0AA9u7U.jpg (178.86 KiB) Viewed 73 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2878 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 9:32 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick

On another thread, you opined:Perhaps you could redress the imbalance you perceive by providing us with, say, some good news about Brexit so we can discuss that?
As your only response to my post was a smiley, (yet again!) and you have failed to discuss the points I raised above, I don't have any confidence that it will change anything, so why bother? But yes, it really is sad. Any discussion of humanism has just about disappeared, along with many, many posters and their contributions. I've made some real friends, but they scarcely bother here any more. But it's your forum, so it's up to you....
Nick. There are several discussions going on here
Nothing like there used to be. These days its just tumbleweed.

- including occasionally on this thread
a single post,occasionally, but no discussion. So sad.

- but there is no compunction on you to become involved in any of them.
..which is why I haven't.

Anyway, I did respond to your substantive point - it awaits a response.
Lol! No, you just tried to wrench discussion away from the points I raised!

However, don't you think that what is happening to this country in terms of Brexit, austerity, the NHS, etc are discussions that humanists can and indeed should contribute to?
As individuals, certainly, but is there really a "humanist" response to Brexit? Any more than there is a vegetarian reponse? Or are you now claiming a political perspective to being humanist? Insisting on a particular set of glasses? Ridiculous.

We are about to face an almighty and unnecessary upheaval to our country, our economy and our society.
Southern Europe has already had one, and the developing world continues to suffer from it, but you seem totally blind to it. So much for your "humanism".

That is most certainly a humanist issue and it would be truly bizarre if you did not share that view.
As a humanist I certainly have a view, but being a humanist does not mean I must be a Remainiac. To think it does is bizarre! IMO, rather the reverse is true. Splitter! :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2879 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 9:58 pm

Nick wrote:
Anyway, I did respond to your substantive point - it awaits a response.
Lol! No, you just tried to wrench discussion away from the points I raised!
In what reality was that? Please go back and re-read.

However, don't you think that what is happening to this country in terms of Brexit, austerity, the NHS, etc are discussions that humanists can and indeed should contribute to?
As individuals, certainly, but is there really a "humanist" response to Brexit? Any more than there is a vegetarian reponse? Or are you now claiming a political perspective to being humanist? Insisting on a particular set of glasses? Ridiculous.
Bizarre. Perhaps you better explain what you think humanism is if not a concern for the wellbeing and welfare of your fellow human. That certainly does not implicitly mean you would be on any particular place on the political spectrum on any particular topic and I certainly have never said it did, have I, Nick? Please stop leaping to unwarranted conclusions.

We are about to face an almighty and unnecessary upheaval to our country, our economy and our society.
Southern Europe has already had one, and the developing world continues to suffer from it, but you seem totally blind to it. So much for your "humanism".
WTF? Can you not see that what the flying fuck might have happened elsewhere has not one jot to do with the travails being inflicted on us by the Tories pushing an unnecessary Brexit on us?

That is most certainly a humanist issue and it would be truly bizarre if you did not share that view.
As a humanist I certainly have a view, but being a humanist does not mean I must be a Remainiac. To think it does is bizarre! IMO, rather the reverse is true. Splitter! :wink:
Another bizarre one. Who the fuck said you had to be a remainer if you were a humanist? Yet another silly straw man and a red herring, Nick.

Now, to get back to what I thought we were trying to discuss, what are the specific and tangible benefits of Brexit? If there are some, great! Let's hear about them and how they will affect us. If there are none that you can identify, please explain why the fuck we're doing this? You'll note I've had to ask that question on numerous occasions but still await a cogent answer.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2880 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 10:29 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Anyway, I did respond to your substantive point - it awaits a response.
Lol! No, you just tried to wrench discussion away from the points I raised!
In what reality was that? Please go back and re-read.
Lol! Rubbish! You have totally failed to address the issues I raised.

However, don't you think that what is happening to this country in terms of Brexit, austerity, the NHS, etc are discussions that humanists can and indeed should contribute to?
As individuals, certainly, but is there really a "humanist" response to Brexit? Any more than there is a vegetarian reponse? Or are you now claiming a political perspective to being humanist? Insisting on a particular set of glasses? Ridiculous.
Bizarre. Perhaps you better explain what you think humanism is if not a concern for the wellbeing and welfare of your fellow human. That certainly does not implicitly mean you would be on any particular place on the political spectrum on any particular topic and I certainly have never said it did, have I, Nick?[/quote]That is the logical conclusion one draws form your posts.

We are about to face an almighty and unnecessary upheaval to our country, our economy and our society.
Southern Europe has already had one, and the developing world continues to suffer from it, but you seem totally blind to it. So much for your "humanism".
WTF? Can you not see that what the flying fuck might have happened elsewhere has not one jot to do with the travails being inflicted on us by the Tories pushing an unnecessary Brexit on us?
That is exactly my point: what has been inflicted on our fellow humans is exactly the erm.. "flying fuck" it means to have regard for ones fellow man, which to my mind, is an important part of humanism. Substitute "black" for "Greek" and listen to yourself. As for "Tories" pushing anything, Brexit is the official policy of Labout too. As well as the wish of the British people, as shown in the referendum. Or are you no longer a democrat?

That is most certainly a humanist issue and it would be truly bizarre if you did not share that view.
As a humanist I certainly have a view, but being a humanist does not mean I must be a Remainiac. To think it does is bizarre! IMO, rather the reverse is true. Splitter! :wink:
Another bizarre one. Who the fuck said you had to be a remainer if you were a humanist? Yet another silly straw man and a red herring, Nick.
Neither, just the logical conclusion to your posts.

Now, to get back to what I thought we were trying to discuss, what are the specific and tangible benefits of Brexit? If there are some, great! Let's hear about them and how they will affect us. If there are none that you can identify, please explain why the fuck we're doing this? You'll note I've had to ask that question on numerous occasions but still await a cogent answer.
I regard the avoidance of an even greater disaster as a benefit. If you don't, then that explains your continued dash headlong, despite warning signs left, right and centre. It's like the parachutist who's forgottn his parachute. Al the time he's falling through the air, he thinks "So far, so good!"

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#2881 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 10:31 pm

Alan H wrote:No, not from the Onion: 'Cloud cuckoo land': UK government mocked over plans to join Pacific trade bloc after Brexit
Theresa May's government has been ridiculed over reports that it has held informal discussions about joining the Trans-Pacific trade group once it has left the European Union.

Liam Fox's Department for International Trade is developing a plan for Britain to join the group and become its only member state that borders neither the Pacific Ocean or South China Sea, the FT reports.

UK trade minister, Greg Hands, said that geographical distance between Britain and TPP members was not an issue.

"Nothing is excluded in all of this," Hands told the FT. "With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction."


Someone posted this map to help:

DSkkPjkW0AA9u7U.jpg

So, Alan. Why should geographical limits apply?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest