/ 'Brexit-light' and other grumblings...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 16 Sep 2016

Thinking about how the population (by a small margin) was encouraged to vote Brexit, with the 350 million a week sum on the side of Boris's bus and the statement that it could be spent on the NHS instead, it seems a bit much for Farage and Ukip to be asking for the government to hurry up with a 'full Brexit', given what miss-truths were used to help them to victory (in this case that it wan't and isn't 350 million because of the rebate given back), ie; 'We benefited from the truth being bent, now hurry up and do what we're calling for.'

From the perspective of having integrity, it seems to me that their means of victory undermines some of the grounds they have for grumbling at the pace of change.
Post edited at 23:18
11
Bootrock on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
- integrity.

- EU.


Pick one.
Post edited at 23:50
39
Timmd on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
What kind of logic is that?

Seriously.

If you benefit from bending the truth and win, where are your grounds for grumbling when you think what you've won isn't happening soon enough?

Post edited at 00:00
6
Bootrock on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Integrity.

EU.

They don't go hand in hand.
43
Timmd on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
So what, what's that got to do with it?

Doesn't it weaken democracy here if people win on the back of miss-truths?

Why shouldn't other parties now lie too, to achieve other things which you might not want to happen?

If it was fair enough to lack integrity in opposing the EU, it's fair enough in opposing something you're in favour of
too, or if that isn't fair enough - it never is.

I just don't think they have any grounds to grumble, given things like the 350 million sum being used - you can be sure Farage wasn't unaware of it.
Post edited at 00:12
3
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:


The EU has no integrity.

I would rather the money never left to fund the gravy train.

Tell you what, You pay me your wages every month, and I will pay you it back, but only after I feed and clothe myself. And I will make you thank me for the pleasure.
35
Lusk - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Stop banging on about the 350, it was just blatant electioneering, anyone with half a brain cell knew 350 wouldn't be spent extra per week on the NHS.

(this thread is as good a place as any to mention this) Have you noticed how the array of flags outside the EU buildings used to be all the flags of the member countries, but in recent years they've all been replaced by a blue flag with a ring of yellow stars? Speaks volumes. It's meant to be a community of nations, not a United States of Europe.
39
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

So, what you seem to be saying is that it's fine for politicians to lie, because that's what's expected of them in election campaigns.

Given that the single biggest complaint about politicians is that they tell lies, and say anything to get power, I dont think that argument is particularly persuasive
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

It would appear that brexiteers don't do irony.
4
summo on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

I think juncker's speeches and YouTube interview this week justify brexit alone. Shame he didn't do them in early June.
2
Dax H - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

According to remain the UK can't survive without the EU, our economy was going to collapse overnight, we were going to head directly for WW3, there would be a plague of locusts, the first born male would die in every family.

One side went very ott on how good things would be if we left and the other side went very ott on how bad things would be if we left.
It's how politics works.

One thing that did strike me was the way remain based most of their campaign on the doom and gloom and fear we would all feel if we left rather than focusing on the good points of staying.
The good points got a mention but the majority was sack cloth and ashes time.
6
Jim C - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think juncker's speeches and YouTube interview this week justify brexit alone. Shame he didn't do them in early June.

I watched hours of the EU member states attack Tusk and Junkers one after another telling them that their policies and attitudes were going to cause more countries to leave, and that the reform that was needed was not forthcoming, and led to the UK voting to leave.

Watch this space for more EU referendums if this failing project does not do a sharp turn off the path that it is on.

I am for leaving, but considering the dereliction of duty where Cameron's Government deliberately did not mak any contingency plans ( and May was a a part of that Government) it is obvious that they now have to make up time on this and not enter negotiations unprepared.

Also as the EU have said that they wanted us to invoke A50 quickly, that should tell us that such a negotiating error would be a bad idea.
MG - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

>
> (this thread is as good a place as any to mention this) Have you noticed how the array of flags outside the EU buildings used to be all the flags of the member countries, but in recent years they've all been replaced by a blue flag with a ring of yellow stars? Speaks volumes.

Indeed. It says there is a group of nations with a set of common aims working peaceably together, particularly on big problems where individual states are insufficient. A group we are insanely in the process of leaving.

Do you object to the UN flag too?
5
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Dax H:

You are right. Though of course we haven't actually brexited yet, indeed we are no closer to the knowing what it will mean. The cost will only become clear some years down the road, and are likely to be impossible to prove one way or another, as there will be other events also impacting on the economy.

Osborne's 'emergency punishment budget' was a lie though, and the remain campaign a botch job from the start.

Two wrongs don't make a right though; the disregard both sides showed for the truth has further corroded trust in politics, and further embedded the practice of making up ever more blatant lies to win. When even supporters of the side that wins feel they were lied to by their own side, that's a sign that trust in the political system is at a dangerously low ebb.
1
Mike Stretford - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Dax H:

> According to remain the UK can't survive without the EU, our economy was going to collapse overnight, we were going to head directly for WW3, there would be a plague of locusts, the first born male would die in every family.

No, that was the remain campaign according to the leave campaign. Osborne's punishment budget was a cock up up but other than that the warnings were sober and justified. The difficulties are obviously the reason we are in this limbo.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21707251-britain-will-not-find-it-easy-strike-comprehensive-tr...



2
Greasy Prusiks on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

People voted for leaving the EU all disagree on what that actually means. Do we stay in the common market, reduce immigration, keep workers rights, reduce workers rights, which EU laws do we scrap, do still pay in to European projects or did they just not like eurovision?

52% isn't a majority if you don't know what you're majority wants in any detail.
2
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Dax H:

The cardinal rule which remainers have adopted

1) Any bad news is because of Brexit...you idiots
2) Any good news is because Brexit hasn't happened yet...you idiots

;-)
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

And is the ying to the brexiteers' 'its been 25 minutes since the vote results were known and the world hasn't spontaneously combusted, so that means there aren't going to be any bad effects of brexit, ever' yang....

;-P
3
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Yes, I should have included the Brexiteers adopted rule book for balance..

1) Any bad news is because Brexit hasn't happened yet...you idiots
2) Any good news is because of Brexit...you idiots

I think that has the ying and yang all sewn up ;-)
Dax H - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No one knows what's going to happen now just like no one knows what would happen if we stayed in.
Leaving what many perceive to be a sinking ship might be the best move thus country has ever made, alternatively staying on board and fixing the leaks might have been the best for the country.
Or maybe the EU isn't a sinking ship at all or maybe it is now a sinking ship because when the UK voted to leave we rigged the rudder to head directly for the biggest iceberg (that has not been melted due to global warming yet) we could find.
No one knows and it is probable we will never know.

My own opinion ion is the UK will carry on as normal, a few businesses will pack up and move but others will come and fill the gaps.
I suspect a few more of the more developed states will push to leave the EU and that the powers that be might just wake up and bring about the reforms that are needed.
Regardless of what does happen to the UK and the EU in the coming years either remain or leave will claim it as a win/proof they were right depending which way things go but even then we won't know if it was down to the vote or not.
1
Tyler - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> (this thread is as good a place as any to mention this) Have you noticed how the array of flags outside the EU buildings used to be all the flags of the member countries, but in recent years they've all been replaced by a blue flag with a ring of yellow stars? Speaks volumes. It's meant to be a community of nations, not a United States of Europe.

Which EU buildings have changed?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Dax H:

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of that. My own suspicion is that there will be a negative effect overall; but that this will in the end be impossible to prove as the signal will be lost in the noise generated by other events.

This thread was more about the level of dishonesty in the campaign, from both sides but especially remain. There was a blithe acceptance of the use of lies, and a dismissal of informed opinion just because it *was* informed, rather than engaging with the case being made, to a degree ive not seen before, and which will be very damaging, much like trumps is being in the US
2
Darren Jackson - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

That John Clawed Yunker was around my gaff last night. Banging on the door at 3am, clutching a cold chippy tea and a half-empty bottle of Blue Nun. Bawling summat about wanting to integrate with me.... He's a sodding nuisance.
1
bouldery bits - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Can we keep Aldi? Thanks.
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

We have NATO the UN for that, and they don't piss on us and tell us it's raining, nor control our economy, or undermine our democratically voted national government, destroy our values and traditions, demand we adopt a flag and anthem, decimate industries, force workers wages down, etc etc.

The UN and NATO are about Nations working together for peace and recognising each nation. The EU is about pissing on nations to become a superstate, a behemoth establishment that ignores the will of the people and is a facade of democracy, destroying nations to feed the gravy train of unelected fat cat elite.

I don't get it, you left wing hipster, liberal, special snowflake types usually fight back against "the man" and against the rich elite, yet with the EU, you all seem to want to bend over and take it harder than Keith Vaz on Coke with no lube.
23
Darren Jackson - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Maybe go and have a nice lie down?
4
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's politics. Jellyfish have more spine. Getting lied to is nothing new. Christ, even going into the EU and how it developed was lie after lie.

Maybe now we have got rid of one corrupt unelected government we can work on this next one, and try and sort our own corrupt and broken system out.

We demanded reform. They said no. Everyone else demanded reform. They said no. So we did something about it. And hopefully everyone else will too and we can finally see this behemoth brought to its knees and crumble.

6
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Nah mate. Lying down is for sleeping, or dead.


Get motivated and get going big lad. Get yourself a coffee. Take hold of your testicles and smash your day up. Let's have it.



11
Pekkie - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Stop banging on about the 350, it was just blatant electioneering, anyone with half a brain cell knew 350 wouldn't be spent extra per week on the NHS.

Lots of people believed it. In an article about Remain and Leave voters in Sunderland, a lady who was a social worker (You have to be fairly intelligent to be a social worker don't you?) said that she had been undecided but because her friend had recently died of cancer she wanted the £350 million per day to go to the NHS. How many Leave voters carried out careful research into, say, the likelihood of Turkey joining the EU within the next 20 years? How many checked out the likelihood of remaining in the single market without free movement of labour? There's three lies that were widely believed to be going on with.
2
Pekkie - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I don't get it, you left wing hipster, liberal, special snowflake types usually fight back against "the man" and against the rich elite, yet with the EU, you all seem to want to bend over and take it harder than Keith Vaz on Coke with no lube.

Wow, dude, you are angry!
3
summo on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> How many Leave voters carried out careful research into, say, the likelihood of Turkey joining the EU within the next 20 years? How many checked out the likelihood of remaining in the single market without free movement of labour? There's three lies that were widely believed to be going on with.

perhaps the remain campaign should have been a little more on the fence, the same with the Tory party in general. Just giving out reasoned fact based information for the public to absorb, rather than embarking on project fear? Cameron & Osbourne are like marmite, it doesn't matter what they say or do, some folk won't ever support them.
Gordon Stainforth - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Maybe now we have got rid of one corrupt unelected government we can work on this next one, and try and sort our own corrupt and broken system out.

To call the EU an 'unelected government' is quite simply factually incorrect. See for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/13/is-the-eu-undemocratic-referendum-reality-check

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/european-laws-are-made-by-unelected-bureaucrats/
4
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Its nothing to do with having spine. You may be entirely relaxed about politicians being flexible with the truth, but you appear to be in a minority on that one. The most consistent complaint about politicians is that they are liars. People seem to genuinely believe, and get very angry, about that.

And the biggest liars won the vote. So good luck with your quest for probity in politics, your going to need it given the track record of the winners.

Of course, it could be that you are one of those people who have similarly flexible relationships to the truth as the politicians they complain about- ie lies are ok as long as they serve the ends you wish to see come to pass, it is your opponents' lies that are the corrupt ones. it certainly looks that way; its hard to see how anyone claiming telling whoppers like the brexit campaign did is a good thing, because it is a way to improve honesty in politics, can be anything other than a massive hypocrit...
3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't think offering reason or logic is going to get you very far with someone whose best advice is for us to get a good hold of our scrotum and smash something. It might work for him, but judging by his posts I very much doubt it.
3
Darren Jackson - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I'd prefer it if you made me a coffee. And held my testicles... You could whisper about the EU, while you're doing it?

What do you think? Fancy smashing my day up, cupcake?
Post edited at 11:44
1
Pekkie - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> I don't think offering reason or logic is going to get you very far with someone whose best advice is for us to get a good hold of our scrotum and smash something. It might work for him, but judging by his posts I very much doubt it.

Oh I don't know, with someone who's idea of a reasoned argument is to threaten you with a jolly good rodgering, with no lube, at least you know where you stand. Er...hang on to the doorframe with eyes screwed shut.
1
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Darren Jackson:


You tease!
Bootrock on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

Smashing in a metaphorical sense.

And I wasn't threatening anyone. Read the post again.
1
stevieb - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
Why should we have 'full brexit'? 52% voted to leave the EU, there is no evidence that a majority wanted to leave the single market, so there is no democratic requirement to leave the single market. False representations made by farage of what leaving meant count for nothing.
5
MG - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:


> Wow, dude, you are angry!

I think mental is the technical term.
6
Pekkie - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to stevieb:

> Why should we have 'full brexit'? 52% voted to leave the EU, there is no evidence that a majority wanted to leave the single market, so there is no democratic requirement to leave the single market. False representations made by farage of what leaving meant count for nothing.

Yes, but you can't restrict freedom of movement (which is what most leavers wanted) and stay in the single market. Most reputable economists agree that leaving the single market would lead to a recession in the UK (do the leavers who want us to leave immediately and thus leave the single market want this?) So we go round in circles. My head is spinning. I think the problem is that the EU treaty architects knew this and made it extremely difficult for anyone to leave. Which when you think about it is right. If you shake hands on a deal you can't renege on it a few years down the line. Just talking practicalities, not principles.
2
stevieb - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

No disagreement there. I just think that if people had been given a clear choice to leave the single market, the vote may have been different. This point was deliberately obfuscated, so people voted for their favourite flavour of brexit. So to now claim yours (Nigel's not your's) is the one true brexit is disingenuous.
3
andyfallsoff - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:
Most leavers is not the same as most voters altogether, is the point. If all remain + some leavers want EEA / single market, then that may well be a majority, which would outweigh the 'hard brexit' voters. So to say 'most leavers' want something is not sufficient reason to do it.

It is fundamentally a problem with a vote where the question is framed as one thing (remain) or anything else (leave). There is a high likelihood of the ultimate outcome being one that is only favoured by a minority.


Post edited at 17:27
1
Xharlie on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to stevieb:
Wait! I'm confused. Wasn't remaining in the single-market one of the "promises" that was repeated again and again by the brexiteers in a vain hope of assuring people (EDIT: i.e. bluffing) that the economy and currency wouldn't be tanked by voting leave?

Who are these people who want out of the single-market? Surely there's no political will for that?
Post edited at 18:41
6
wercat on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

People didn't need to believe lies in some cases. Border TV showed a dimwit manager from Stobarts who talked about how he couldn't think which way to vote, "so I asked the coin and the coin said vote leave".

I am less a fan of democracy than I was
3
ads.ukclimbing.com
wercat on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to wercat:

are the dislikers disliking me for disliking the stupidity of such a vote or disliking the man who voted so stupidly? Or perhaps just me?

??

Are the likers liking my dislike or liking the man from Stobarts?

I wish the button could be used to deposit a symbol of agreement/disagreement/sympathy/no sympathy/have a dislike for the poster etc etc - then we'd all know where we stood!
6
Pekkie - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to wercat:

> are the dislikers disliking me for disliking the stupidity of such a vote or disliking the man who voted so stupidly? Or perhaps just me?

Two dislikes isn't much of a hill of beans in this world. I liked it though I didn't post it. So there you are, you've already broken even.

2
RomTheBear - on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Wait! I'm confused. Wasn't remaining in the single-market one of the "promises" that was repeated again and again by the brexiteers in a vain hope of assuring people (EDIT: i.e. bluffing) that the economy and currency wouldn't be tanked by voting leave?

> Who are these people who want out of the single-market? Surely there's no political will for that?

There is. It's all about stopping EU immigrants from coming here. Being out of the single market is the price for this absurdity.
6
Dave the Rave on 17 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Full breakfast?
'You can stick your croissants and bratwurst up yer arse'
Moley on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Here's an interesting take on Brexit and other problems. If you fancy a rather depressing read.....

https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd15471...
In reply to Dax H:

> No one knows what's going to happen now just like no one knows what would happen if we stayed in.

This applies to pretty uch any political decsion, it doesn't mean people can't have a good idea of whther things would have bettere or worse had another oath been taken. It's also a common argument for people who want to vote for something irresponsible just because they feel like it.

> Leaving what many perceive to be a sinking ship might be the best move thus country has ever made, alternatively staying on board and fixing the leaks might have been the best for the country.

We'll be effected by the good ship EU sinking whether we're in or out. If we were in the euro then leaving the sinking ship argument might make sense.

> Or maybe the EU isn't a sinking ship at all or maybe it is now a sinking ship because when the UK voted to leave we rigged the rudder to head directly for the biggest iceberg (that has not been melted due to global warming yet) we could find. No one knows and it is probable we will never know.

Again, the call of the irresponsible voter - nobody knows so I'll just do what feels nice, instead of thinking about the risks before we vote.

> My own opinion ion is the UK will carry on as normal, a few businesses will pack up and move but others will come and fill the gaps.

Agree plus most people will be a little it poorer than they'd have otherwise been. It won't make much noticable differnce to most people though. But for those that it does things will be bad.



1
andyfallsoff - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Agree completely with this. In particular, the "no one knows" argument annoys me because it makes out as if "no one can say with absolute certainty (although we can make a reasoned estimate)" is the same as "no one has any idea whatsoever"...
krikoman - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> .................., decimate industries, force workers wages down, etc etc.

You're partly right, we have the Tories to do that for us.
3
bonebag - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

" It's meant to be a community of nations, not a United States of Europe".

Well said Lusk.
2
bonebag - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

" Doesn't it weaken democracy here if people win on the back of miss-truths? "

So Timmid, tell me which election has ever been won without miss truths whatever party it is.
2
Timmd on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to bonebag:
> " Doesn't it weaken democracy here if people win on the back of miss-truths? "

> So Timmid, tell me which election has ever been won without miss truths whatever party it is.

Like any flaw in (what) humans (do), that's no reason not to aim for better.

Or else we could end up with our own Donald Trump going around telling lies while people cheer and vote for him.
Post edited at 18:06
2
alastairmac - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

So how can the pro Brexit advocates seriously ask that the referendum result be respected when the promises made to secure that result aren't being respected?
2
In reply to bonebag:

> So Timmid, tell me which election has ever been won without miss truths whatever party it is.

None, but that's besides the point. This was a straight choice* between remain and leave, leave lied more and better, now we're leaving and we woudn't be if people had been properly informed.

(*except that we don;t really know what leave means)
5
Bootrock on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Wait, wasn't the KKK an arm of the Democrat party? Killing, and threatening white and black republics to get people to vote Democrat?

Swapping opposing civil rights, for dependency, and calling anyone that disagreed, a racist?






3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Congratulations! You are the winner of this week's 'Most Irrelevant Post' award. Now see if you can go for back to back wins!
2
Bootrock on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Cheers big lad,

I would like to thank all you lefties for suppling me with material and a good chuckle.

And thanks to my mother for spawning me.


bonebag - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

"Like any flaw in (what) humans (do), that's no reason not to aim for better"

"Or else we could end up with our own Donald Trump going around telling lies while people cheer and vote for him"

Yes, good points Timmid I have to admit.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
You're very welcome- every good thread needs its entertainer, this one wouldn't have made it past lunchtime yesterday without you...

;-)
Post edited at 21:27
2
Bootrock on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sometimes you just gotta put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I actually posted that in the wrong thread. But I couldn't be hooped to change it.


Pete Pozman - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

You wonderful irrepressible free spirit
1
girlymonkey - on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Moley:

> Here's an interesting take on Brexit and other problems. If you fancy a rather depressing read.....


That is quite a scary read. I hope he's wrong, but sadly it is possible that he is right.
1
0Unknown0 on 18 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Does no one else think we might end up in a reformed EU?
2
summo on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Dominicandave:

> Does no one else think we might end up in a reformed EU?

Zero chance. Before July or August I would have said yes, but their heads are too deep in the sand.

The vote is cast and EU / Juncker's answer; Call the UK liars or idiots, push ahead with further integration and initiate an EU army.

By reform, I presume you mean try to tie them together even more, so it's impossible to leave? What next a new EU treaty banning countries holding individual referendums on decision making, better to leave that to Brussels as they know best.
2
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Dominicandave:

They don't want reform. They don't want a union of nations. They want the Superstate. The want a totalitarian behemoth.


9
Moley on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to girlymonkey:

> That is quite a scary read. I hope he's wrong, but sadly it is possible that he is right.

Yes, it didn't exactly fill my day and plans for the future with light. He does make some interesting points and possible scenarios, hope he is wrong but there are some potentially dangerous personalities on the world stage.
1
GrahamD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Dax H:

> According to remain the UK can't survive without the EU, our economy was going to collapse overnight, we were going to head directly for WW3, there would be a plague of locusts, the first born male would die in every family.

No. Thats the Brexit interpretation of the arguments for staying.
2
andyfallsoff - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Interestingly enough, the effects so far (drop in sterling but relatively contained thus far) broadly match the treasury's assessment of the potential risks / effects of leaving (given where we are in the process). All the worst effects would occur once we actually leave, but a sudden hit is probably less likely than a slow death from a thousand papercuts, as individual businesses / investment decisions are put off or decided against, and as trade gradually slows as people find it harder to import / export goods (if we leave the single market).
1
Bellie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
I suppose technically we aren't even in the process of leaving yet, so everything so far is market shock and positioning by businesses etc. Only when the Article 50 is invoked, does the fun begin and shock Pt2, and proper signs of what might be.


Just adding to Andyfallsoff - sorry I misread your bracketed part as - given we are in the process, not given where we are. Apologies.
Post edited at 11:49
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> They don't want reform. They don't want a union of nations. They want the Superstate. The want a totalitarian behemoth.

Bootrock, could you expand on what you mean by a 'totalitarian behemoth'- in what way will it be totalitarian?
2
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Also, I've never heard anyone say they want one state. Those old buddies France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and Italy etc as one state? He's got to be joking.
1
GrahamD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Also, I've never heard anyone say they want one state. Those old buddies France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and Italy etc as one state? He's got to be joking.

That'll be the mythical "they" referred to by Farage et al.
2
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Certainly!


Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an "elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society."

Widespread us of terror, maybe not the best wording, but the lack of reaction, and a knock on effect of other political views and policies certainly have bred home grown terrorism.
1
Michael Hood - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> now we're leaving and we woudn't be if people had been properly informed.

That may be right, or it may be wrong - it's possible that if people had been properly informed the brexit vote would have been stronger.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

But the terror in totalitarian regimes is from the state to its citizens. And its a key feature of totalitarianism, not a luxury optional add-in. Have you read 1984? That's what totalitarianism looks like- the state controlling every aspect of life, down to the language itself, with catastrophic consequences for people who try to defy it, even in trivial ways.

These regimes really have existed, and continue to exist- East Germany under Honecker, the USSR under Stalin, North Korea currently. They had secret police, massive networks of informants, arbitrary detention on political grounds, forced labour camps, disappearances and assassinations.

So, now that we have established what totalitarian means, can you show how that in any way whatsoever resembles the EU or any likely future development of it?

PS and any cult of personality based around Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker looks doomed to failure from the outset!!
2
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
If you can't put the peices together from that definition, then there isn't much point in me trying to explain it. We may not be there now. But that is what they want.
I am pretty certain people held a similar viewpoint about the Nationalist Socialist Party. Look how that turned out.

An anthem, an Army and a flag, ignoring the will of the people and undermining democratically elected Governments. Looks more And more obvious to me.

"The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes"
President Gorbachev



‘If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
Jean-Claude Juncker
Post edited at 13:14
6
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Also, I've never heard anyone say they want one state. Those old buddies France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and Italy etc as one state? He's got to be joking.

"Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.

"We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.

Mrs Reding's vision, which is shared by many in the European institutions, would transform the EU into superstate relegating national governments and parliaments to a minor political role equivalent to that played by local councils in Britain.

Under her plan, the commission would have supremacy over governments and MEPs in the European Parliament would supersede the sovereignty of MPs in the House of Commons. "

DT, 2014
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

So, to you, there is little difference in the experience of living life in the UK in 2016, from life in East Germany in 1980? Or to life in North Korea currently?

Do you realise how frankly absurd that looks? For a start, if it really was like life in one of those places, a black car would currently be pulling up outside your door, and some expressionless men wearing long black coats would be about to knock on your door. There would be no more posts on here from you, ever again.

That's what happened, and still happens, in totalitarian regimes. The fact that the state allows you to freely promulgate your views, with no adverse consequences, proves by definition that this is not a totalitarian regime...
2
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

You should really spend some time swotting up on the German federal democracy: how it works, why it works, and why it was implemented on the back of vast political will (domestic and foreign) after the War and strengthened after the re-unification of East Germany. At every level, it has been structured to ensure that a totalitarian ruler simply cannot emerge from the system. It has its problems, as does every political system, but it not only prevents a reversion to totalitarianism, its very existence is a sure sign that at least 80 million people within the EU would have a problem with your projection of the EU's path.
2
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
You're quoting Gorbachev (WTF? ok, to be fair, he did give up on the wall but only when he realised that he'd lost control anyway) and Juncker - both out of context. You're claiming that the existence of an army, flag and anthem equates to a totalitarian state/regime/nation/union (you're not quite clear what. only slapping the word "totalitarian" on the EU and hoping it sticks) and you're blaming everyone else for not magically "putting the pieces together"?

With debaters like you, who needs politicians?

Here's an idea: stop spewing bile for a few days and go and actually READ about some totalitarian states and the people's accounts from survivors of those regimes. Also read accounts from people who lived through wars. Hell, if you can't read those things with the bits of paper stuck down the side, go talk to some real life survivors. Your argument is a gross disservice to the realities of both war and totalitarianism and YOU need some perspective. Once you have that, and FACTS, come back and argue all you like.
Post edited at 13:27
5
neilh - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

That is not a totalitarian state.

You are missing a fundamental part - the citizen is completly subservient to the state.

Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to neilh:

It's not yet...
1
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

As far as I can see, we are not living in the US of E, today, and there's little sign that we ever will be. That was posted two years ago. This Reding woman and her "many" supporters couldn't have held much sway, could they?
3
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

Already have mate. I lived in Germany for a number of years.


Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> As far as I can see, we are not living in the US of E, today, and there's little sign that we ever will be. That was posted two years ago. This Reding woman and her "many" supporters couldn't have held much sway, could they?

Odd reply
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> It's not yet...

Ok, well, when we actually have some sort of charismatic Supreme Leader of a United States of Europe in power, and people expressing views contrary to those prescribed by him/her are subject to arbitrary detention, then come back to us on this one.

Worryingly, and back in the real world, we appear to have a totalitarian state brewing on our doorstep, in Turkey. That's something we should all be genuinely concerned about, not some sort of Euro-bogeyman fantasy.

2
ads.ukclimbing.com
lummox - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

It would be great if you and Simon4 could produce a whole litter of swivel eyed loons. Brightens up a dreary Monday afternoon.
2
In reply to Michael Hood:

> That may be right, or it may be wrong - it's possible that if people had been properly informed the brexit vote would have been stronger.

I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Odd reply

Seems a totally reasonable reply. Allow me to translate. "Okay, so this lady has argued for one state/super state, but we're not there yet and haven't heard much about it since, so this lady and this view can't have much support, can she?"

You could then respond by explaing why you think it is a real possibility, the likilhood of it happening, that you think it does have support etc.
1
jkarran - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> If you can't put the peices together from that definition, then there isn't much point in me trying to explain it. We may not be there now. But that is what they want.

Why not help him because he's not the only one struggling to take seriously your bizarre assertion that the EU is somehow a totalitarian entity.

> I am pretty certain people held a similar viewpoint about the Nationalist Socialist Party. Look how that turned out.

Pretty bad. Now look how it started and developed... I'll give you a clue: nothing like the EU. Not really sure what your point is here.

> An anthem, an Army and a flag, ignoring the will of the people and undermining democratically elected Governments. Looks more And more obvious to me.

The EU's administration is made up of representatives from those nations democratically elected by their populations, ministers of their governments and appointees of those ministers. I think perhaps you're confusing the need for careful compromise in a large organisation with some sort of evil overarching plan.

jk
2
Andy Hardy on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

>[...]
> Maybe now we have got rid of one corrupt unelected government we can work on this next one, and try and sort our own corrupt and broken system out.

>[...]

Who pulls the strings for Brexit? Arron Banks, Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothermere and Richard Desmond. How many of them got elected? What will the quid pro quo prove to be, and why are they so keen to have a hard brexit?

Instead of 'sticking it to the man' your naiviety has handed it to the man, with a little bow on the top.
2
Dave Garnett - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> An anthem, an Army and a flag, ignoring the will of the people and undermining democratically elected Governments. Looks more And more obvious to me.

There is no EU Army, nor ever likely to be (although I suspect you would be sympathetic to the idea of a some sort of beefed-up, coordinated EU border force). There is an EU flag, but it doesn't replace national flags and at every EU institution I've ever visited they have both all the member state flags and the EU flag. The anthem is part of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, so not exactly exclusive or unfamiliar and I don't recall it being mandatory at school assemblies or anything.

As for undermining democratically elected governments, let me know when the EU rapid reaction force lands to overturn the referendum in the name of fraternal European solidarity and I'll give you that one.
3
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:



> You could then respond by explaing why you think it is a real possibility, the likilhood of it happening, that you think it does have support etc.

Why? Gordon said he'd never heard anyone say they wanted one State. Now he had, or as near as dammit.

Why on earth should one then be asked to defend the proposition that it exists now or is imminent? Very odd indeed.
1
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Why ARE they so keen to have Brexit, actually? I can't fathom it.

My first guess is that they're rocking the markets in order to make a buck. They're insulated from any negative effects and quite capable of accurately predicting the way the markets will react, putting them in a perfect position to profit from the instability through speculation.

My second guess is that they actually want a war - it's good for business and a stronger, more harmonious EU only makes the world boring.

Whichever way I look at it, I end up in tin-foil-hat territory. I hate my tin-foil-hat - my Tilley is so much more comfortable and looks way cooler.
3
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission and the longest serving Brussels commissioner, has called for "a true political union" to be put on the agenda for EU elections this spring.

> "We need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States," she said.

A United States is not the same as one State. Let's remember the well-known words of the famous gentleman who first proposed the idea in Zurich in 1946:

'We must build a kind of United States of Europe. … If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family …

'I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. … The structure of the United States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the common cause.'

Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ok. I understand and I concede the point: we, including Gordon, have now all heard of at least one member who wants the EU to become the US of E.

I maintain my opinion that there's no political will behind this, despite Reding's acknowledged existence and the alleged existence of "many" supporters of her idea. Here are some facts:

Reding is one of the six MEPs from Luxembourg, one of the nations with the lowest number of seats on the Euro Parliament, along with Malta, Cyprus and Estonia, all of whom have six seats. The UK has 73 seats, to put that in perspective. (EDIT: Note that the Commission gets one seat per member state, so, when she WAS the commissioner for Luxembourg, she was theoretically as influential as the commissioner from the UK. She isn't a commissioner any more, so this is irrelevant.)

She isn't Vice-President of the European Commission any more. Today, two years after her declaration for the US of E, she is just an MEP, on two committees.

She did try to run for Vice-President of the European Parliament and came plumb last, in 2014.

We can conclude that she has support inside Luxembourg and thus wins one of their six seats in their internal elections for the Euro Parliament. That's all.
Post edited at 14:54
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> The EU's administration is made up of representatives from those nations democratically elected by their populations, ministers of their governments and appointees of those ministers. I think perhaps you're confusing the need for careful compromise in a large organisation with some sort of evil overarching plan.

The latest conspiracy theory? The earth is flat, the yanks never landed on the moon, Sonny Liston took a dive on instructions from the CIA...and the EU is an evil empire controlled by shape-changing lizards?

(Sorry, had to correct the above - Sonny Liston took a dive on instructions from the mafia not the CIA - they masterminded 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.)
Post edited at 14:58
5
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well, actually, there already is an EU Army.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

And:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/711969/Brussels-bureaucrats-EU-army-headquarters-plans-move-clos...


And we won't need a "beefed up" border force, if we aren't in it. And the EU would never use Beefed up Border Force, that goes against their agenda.
1
GrahamD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Who is this "they" you keep referring to ?
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

That military structure sounds awfully like "the Allies" during WW2: comprised of the armed forces of several member states. As far as I remember, the US of A weren't "in it" up until Pearl Harbour... at which point they suddenly realised that not being "in it" wasn't going to do them any favours.

> Complete integration is an option that requires unanimity in the European Council of heads of state or government.

So, yes, "complete integration" is possible, but it only takes one vote to stop it. And guess what? The UK had a vote. After Article 50 resolves, the UK will NOT have that vote.
2
summo on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:

> The latest conspiracy theory? The earth is flat, the yanks never landed on the moon, Sonny Liston took a dive on instructions from the CIA...and the EU is an evil empire controlled by shape-changing lizards?
> (Sorry, had to correct the above - Sonny Liston took a dive on instructions from the mafia not the CIA - they masterminded 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.)

Who knows, the truth in some events when it eventually comes to light is often even stranger that the fiction people make up in the years in between.
summo on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> There is no EU Army, nor ever likely to be

I think there will be, but voluntary for existing members and like the Euro any new EU member nations will have no choice. As it goes against some members foreign policy like Sweden's, which also isn't in NATO. The EU can't afford to risk losing another net contributor.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Who knows, the truth in some events when it eventually comes to light is often even stranger that the fiction people make up in the years in between.

maybe in some cases, though i'm struggling to think of an example- usually its much more boring than, for example, the fevered imaginings of the Truther brigade....
2
Dave Garnett - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> Well, actually, there already is an EU Army.



No, there isn't. Have you actually read the Wiki article? There are number of bilateral military agreements between member states, there is a common security and defence policy, there are various proposals and discussions which may or may not get any further (although perhaps slightly more likely to progress without our opposition) . The closest you get are the EU Battlegroups (actually led by a member state, with contributions from cooperating member states) which have never actually been used.

All this amounts to much less of a EU army than the NATO European forces, to which, presumably, you don't object.

As for the border force, you can't have it both ways. If the EU 'agenda' is so opposed to any effective action to protect its borders, why on earth would 'they' be so determined to have an army?
Post edited at 16:12
1
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> A United States is not the same as one State. Let's remember the well-known words of the famous gentleman who first proposed the idea in Zurich in 1946:

> 'We must build a kind of United States of Europe. £ If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family £

>
Well, of course he also thought that the UK should not be part of it

Can we agree that the USA is State?

As shelby foote put it, "Before the war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'.

So would a USE be an "is" or an "are"? Depends who one asks.,.
Post edited at 16:58
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well, of course he also thought that the UK should not be part of it

That's not correct – or at least tell me where he says this. He was somewhat ambiguous about it. Read the speech in full.

> Can we agree that the USA is State?

No, it's what it says it is: the United States. How otherwise can we distinguish the federal republic from the states within it and, for example, federal laws from state laws?



MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>
> No, it's what it says it is: the United States. How otherwise can we distinguish the federal republic from the states within it and, for example, federal laws from state laws?


Err. By saying federal law, for example! Clearly the USA is a state, as are it's constituent parts under a slightly different definition of state.
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
I've never heard the United States of America being called the United State of America. We can call it a nation, but not a nation state. Or we can call it a republic, because that's what it is; just as the USSR was a republic of states.

Back to work.
Post edited at 17:27
2
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
So what?
Post edited at 17:27
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. States may or may not be sovereign. For instance, federated states are members of a federal union, and may have only partial sovereignty, but are, nonetheless, states."

States within states
Post edited at 17:28
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I've never heard the United States of America being called the United State of America.

>
Shelby Foote's point surely covers that??
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

The original point was that the claim that the EU wants to be 'one state' is incorrect. But it does still talk about a United States of Europe occasionally. Can anyone seriously imagine recent historic enemies becoming (part of) 'one state'?
KevinD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I've never heard the United States of America being called the United State of America.

It is a Sovereign State though in the same way the UK is. So both can be accurately called a State. Although in the US case it is made up of constituent states.
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

States don't have their own foreign policy or army; those belong to the federal nation. The 50 states are also subject to the constitution of the USA and, although they can have their own laws, those laws are not allowed to contravene the national constitution.

The USA, as a nation, is sovereign - independent of any other constitution and possessing its own army and foreign policy.
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
The 'is' refers to the republic. Each state still has a certain amount of autonomy.

... As I said a few minutes ago, I have to get back to work now, and anyway Xharlie is probably expressing it a bit better.
Post edited at 17:34
KevinD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Can anyone seriously imagine recent historic enemies becoming (part of) 'one state'?

Maybe, maybe not. After all various US states didnt exactly have happy relations with the rest of the US. If you look at the history of Utah for example it isnt exactly all roses.
For that matter look at the history of France, Germany, Spain and the UK for historical enemies becoming part of one state. Although some still arent overly chuffed about.
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Maybe, maybe not. After all various US states didnt exactly have happy relations with the rest of the US. If you look at the history of Utah for example it isnt exactly all roses.

> For that matter look at the history of France, Germany, Spain and the UK for historical enemies becoming part of one state. Although some still arent overly chuffed about.

OK, last point (before I go). France and Germany are very recent enemies, just as Britain and Germany are. You have to go back 400 years before you can call Scotland a traditional enemy. It is just conceivable that in many generations, possibly several centuries, France and Germany could unify, but I doubt it.
KevinD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> OK, last point (before I go). France and Germany are very recent enemies, just as Britain and Germany are.

Yes since Germany didnt exist until relatively recently. I was specifically referring to those states which make up Germany today. I think the most polite way of putting it is they didnt always get along.

> You have to go back 400 years before you can call Scotland a traditional enemy.

oddly enough thats the same date we had the same ruler in charge of both countries. Then another 100 before the single state.

Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Yes.
felt - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

-lite
John2 - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

'Can anyone seriously imagine recent historic enemies becoming (part of) 'one state'?'

I seem to remember that there was a civil war in America 150 years or so ago.
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm really not sure what you are arguing. The USA is clearly now a single State , albeit made up of a federation of States. They don't of course, have the option to leave so are not independent.

In saying that the EU cannot do this because of the ancient differences of its constituent parts is to make pretty much the same point the eu sceptics make. The problem is the relentless ambition of junckers of this world for "ever closer union" which, as brexit demonstrates, is having the opposite result.
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The problem is the relentless ambition of junckers of this world for "ever closer union" which, as brexit demonstrates, is having the opposite result.

But if we were members we could veto closer political union along with other like-minded members. Just like we were not members of Schengen and the euro.

In reply to Postmanpat:

> Why? Gordon said he'd never heard anyone say they wanted one State. Now he had, or as near as dammit.

> Why on earth should one then be asked to defend the proposition that it exists now or is imminent? Very odd indeed.

The proposition is that's a single state isn't going to happen. He suported this by saying he's never heard anyone call for it. You then pointed out someone had called for it, and he's ackowledged this but suggested it's a fringe idea. So far all so normal debate.

You've then said that's an odd response which is just, well, odd. You've then said you've been asked to defend his original proposition, which you've not. Pretty weird.
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
> The proposition is that's a single state isn't going to happen. He suported this by saying he's never heard anyone call for it.

> You've then said that's an odd response which is just, well, odd. You've then said you've been asked to defend his original proposition, which you've not. Pretty weird.

Wrong. I simply responded to Gordon's claim that nobody had argued for a single State. You chose to assume that I had an axe on the previous points.

You then asked me to defend a set of points that I had never given any view on except, it seems, in your imagination.

Pay attention to what people write, not what you imagine they wrote.
Post edited at 19:46
summo on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> maybe in some cases, though i'm struggling to think of an example- usually its much more boring than, for example, the fevered imaginings of the Truther brigade....

Nixon, Profumo, cuban missile crisis, Turing/Enigma, mk ultra, manhattan project, Iran Contra affair, Ajax/Iranian oil, Argo.


Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Nixon, Profumo, cuban missile crisis, Turing/Enigma, mk ultra, manhattan project, Iran Contra affair, Ajax/Iranian oil, Argo.

All within the realms of possibility for a reasonable person - conspiracy theories not required.
1
summo on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pekkie:
> All within the realms of possibility for a reasonable person - conspiracy theories not required.

Are you suggesting that what Turing did, anyone could have done? Most people didn't grasp computers in the 70s, yet he built one in the 40s.

Prior to the manhattan project going public I don't think anyone barr, a few scientists could imagine that scale of destruction.

Argo, is that really a sane plan for extracting people from a country where they are being hunted down and their colleagues were held hostage for over a year?

etc.. etc... I would suggest all are fairly unique events for one reason or another, and at the time were pretty hard for the average layman to comprehend or believe.
Post edited at 21:18
In reply to Postmanpat:
I didn't choose to assume anything about your position (although my guess from your original comment is you voted leave). Regardless of your views on brexit you chipped in to a debate to say that someone had, in fact, called for a super/single state europe. Xarlie then suggested this is a fringe view without support. You then called his comment odd. Which, somewhat ironically, is a pretty weird thing to do seeing as his comment's clearly relevant to the general debate.

I also didn't ask you defend any set of points. I gave an example of how a person enagaged in reasonable debate might have responded. Which makes your, "pay attention to what people write" a little ironic too.
Post edited at 21:22
1
Michael Hood - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> I'm not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?

The assumption seems to be that if everyone was properly informed, the vote would have resulted in a remain win. I don't believe that assumption is necessarily true. It depends largely on what "properly informed" means.

If the campaign had been pretty much as was but with no lies/exaggerations then maybe remain would have won. But what if the views of all the leading EU politicians/bureaucrats on what they would want the EU to look like in 10/20/30 years had been publicised - I suspect that would have reinforced the leave vote.

Of course we'll never know unless another referendum is held which seems unlikely at the present time.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Nixon, Profumo, cuban missile crisis, Turing/Enigma, mk ultra, manhattan project, Iran Contra affair, Ajax/Iranian oil, Argo.

All interesting and sometimes unexpected,but compared to the CIA using space lasers (or mini nukes that leave no trace of radioactivity) to bring down the WTC, or the royal family being space lizards, truth sseems mostly considerably more mundane than fiction. ...
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
Pekkie - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

The difference between your list and conspiracy theories is that yours involve advances in technology - eg Turing and his computer - which indeed would have amazed laymen at the time, or crises which were foreseeable - such as the Cuban missile crisis. A good conspiracy theory involves many steps on the road of disbelief. Example the moon landing hoax theory which would have involved the complicity of thousands and many government agencies. This has been comprehensively debunked - check Wikipedia entry. Not to say that a good conspiracy theory doesn't make for a good book or film.
1
MG - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Are you suggesting that what Turing did, anyone could have done?

People have been breaking codes for millennia. Assuming a code is unbreakable is rather rash, rather than the reverse .
elsewhere on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Are you suggesting that what Turing did, anyone could have done? Most people didn't grasp computers in the 70s, yet he built one in the 40s.

So did Konrad Zuse in 1941.

Computers were the state of the art technology but probably inevitable* development for the era. The ideas were there since Babage a hundred years earlier, telephone exchanges and relay logic had been around 50 years since Strowger. No idea when valve logic developed.

*inevitable and obvious for a few geniuses like Turing and Zuse, inconceivable for almost everybody else.
KevinD - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> Are you suggesting that what Turing did, anyone could have done? Most people didn't grasp computers in the 70s, yet he built one in the 40s.

Everyone nope. Some people yup. After all Colossus, which was the actual programmable electronic computer as opposed to the Bombe, was designed by Tommy Flowers with input primarily from Max Newman.
Turing did some amazing stuff but I am not sure it wouldnt have been achieved by others at some point.

1
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> I didn't choose to assume anything about your position (although my guess from your original comment is you voted leave). Regardless of your views on brexit you chipped in to a debate to say that someone had, in fact, called for a super/single state europe. Xarlie then suggested this is a fringe view without support. You then called his comment odd. Which, somewhat ironically, is a pretty weird thing to do seeing as his comment's clearly relevant to the general debate.

> I also didn't ask you defend any set of points. I gave an example of how a person enagaged in reasonable debate might have responded. Which makes your, "pay attention to what people write" a little ironic too.

What charlie said was irrelevant to the point I made to Gordon. So was yours.
It was a different argument and therefore odd to think a response was required.

If you dont get that, so be it. Goodnight x
5
wercat on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
worth also pointing out for those who didn't know that an automatic electrical calculator was used at CH Radar stations even earlier (also developed by the Post Office at Dollis Hill where Flowers worked) . It converted azimuth and range information taken from the radar set into height and grid using an electrical lookup table, effectively an early form of ROM, and could correct for station specific factors. It was farsightedly seen as essential to convert raw data into useable information before passing into the air defence system.


Principles of data processing facilitated by Hollerith (later IBM) machines were used from the 1930s to manage what became the Holocaust
Post edited at 22:33
RomTheBear - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> In saying that the EU cannot do this because of the ancient differences of its constituent parts is to make pretty much the same point the eu sceptics make. The problem is the relentless ambition of junckers of this world for "ever closer union" which, as brexit demonstrates, is having the opposite result.

Certainly better than the relentless ambition of the Farages of this world for ever greater separation.
I'm not to sure what's so terrifying, or so badly wrong, with ever closer union of the people of Europe either, if anything, the opposite terrifies me.
Post edited at 23:29
1
Big Ger - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> Seems a totally reasonable reply. Allow me to translate. "Okay, so this lady has argued for one state/super state, but we're not there yet and haven't heard much about it since, so this lady and this view can't have much support, can she?"

Just her?

> "We will... take further steps toward a political union in Europe, and we invite the other European states to join us in this endeavour," Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Jean-Marc Ayrault wrote in a joint position paper. The top diplomats of the two core EU founding members and biggest economies said that "Germany and France have a responsibility to strengthen solidarity and cohesion within the European Union".


> “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens,” said excerpts of the proposal. “We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”

3
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> People have been breaking codes for millennia. Assuming a code is unbreakable is rather rash, rather than the reverse .

The code was unbreakable by humans, it changed daily and no person/s had the intellect to break it within 24hrs, before it changed.

one person building a machine that breaks a code, then keeping it secret from pretty much the world, shortening a world war by an estimated 2 years, but then being prosecuted afterwards for being gay.... is fairly unique and at the time or even afterwards would have sounded pretty far fetched.

ps. I'm not suggesting all the various current conspiracy theories are true at all. Only that sometimes proven events in history still seem mind bogglingly impossible or amazing.
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Everyone nope. Some people yup. After all Colossus, which was the actual programmable electronic computer as opposed to the Bombe, was designed by Tommy Flowers with input primarily from Max Newman.
> Turing did some amazing stuff but I am not sure it wouldnt have been achieved by others at some point.

I agree he wasn't the only person of his intellect around at the time, after all some bright spark built the enigma machine in the first place. It's easy looking back to say many people 'could' have done that, or 'would' have done that. But, only one person did, that is what makes some events or people stand out from the crowd.

Anyway we are digressing away from the EU master state conspiracy. ;)
In reply to Postmanpat:

Of course Xarlie's point is relevant to the point you made to Gordon! You said someone had called for a single state and then Xarlie said he can't see that happening and suggested the lady and her view didn't have much support.

Imagine your down the pub discussing Brexit related things and this happens -

Gordon - single state europe ain't gonna happen. I've never heard anyone calling for one
PostlogicPat - well, lady x has called for one
Xarlie - I can't see it happening, she can't have much support can she?
PLP - odd response

You'd be sort of drinking chums pretty quickly.

My response as to your "odd response" comment.
MG - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

Obviously impressive but basically it was an intellectual endeavour (and not only Turing by any means). There is no hint of conspiracy style mass secrecy, "they" and fantasy about it.
Postmanpat on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
If my drinking chums couldn't make the simple distinction between adressing a specific point in a specific post and embracing a whole set of views, and then demanding i defend those views, I'd be happy to lose them.
Post edited at 08:39
KevinD - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> But, only one person did, that is what makes some events or people stand out from the crowd.

He made several leaps forward but so did various other people. Part of why Bletchley did so well is they had the Polish work to kick it all off. wercat gives another example.

> Anyway we are digressing away from the EU master state conspiracy. ;)

true but its more fun. From the conspiracy theory side of things that so many people kept quiet about Bletchley for so long is impressive. Unlike the Manhattan project where only a small subset actually knew what it was they were working on even junior admin bods at Bletchley would have had a clue.
1
wercat on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:
While I enjoyed watching "The Imitation Game" I think it was as far from the true picture of how things happened as the TV dramatization of the development of Radiolocation last year(?). They both painted a rather unrealistic idea of the "lone genius" doing it all with a couple of friends. The film "Enigma" probably gives a more accurate impression of how things were conducted (lots of tiny cogs in a big picture) even though it is fiction.

Lots of people made big steps - look at Bernard Lovell's and his team's contribution to airborne radar (H2S) - no wonder he was later to be such a champion of Radio astronomy even if by accident. But even his work wouldn't have been much use without the development of a practical cavity magnetron.


If there was one man who really made a crucial difference in the scientific and technological intelligence war it would be possible to look at R.V. Jones even though he was not very modest in his memoirs. I tend to prefer the group effort story. If there was a British genius it was for generally getting a lot of very capable people into places where they could make great contributions. How else, for instance, would it have been possible to plan and execute the greatest amphibious operation of all time without even a pocket calculator?


btw the leap in applied science and technology during WWII has been the subject of discussion for decades. It changed life - for instance the general use of antibiotics in a military setting that began during the war so fewer people died of infection and disease.
Post edited at 09:58
Tyler - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

What is the conspiracy theory around Bletchley/Enigma? Is it a conspiracy that has kept me from knowing this conspiracy?
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> From the conspiracy theory side of things that so many people kept quiet about Bletchley for so long is impressive.

like nasa and the moon landing? ;) (I am joking, just in case you think I really believe the conspiracy)

My point was, is only that often truth is stranger than conspiracy fiction.
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Tyler:

> What is the conspiracy theory around Bletchley/Enigma? Is it a conspiracy that has kept me from knowing this conspiracy?

my point if you read up the way, was that there are many events in history, which afterwards turned out to be fairly exceptional, which to the lay person at that time were or would have been pretty hard to believe. I never said that Bletchley / or breaking enigma was a conspiracy. Only that it along with things like Profumo, Nixon, Argo, Cuban Missile Crisis etc.. are real events which could easily have been fictional writings from an over imaginative mind.
Trevers - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Am I the only one thinking that Boris and the others clamouring for a swift hard Brexit know that it won't happen and and therefore back to their old games to try and move one step further up the power ladder?
2
KevinD - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> My point was, is only that often truth is stranger than conspiracy fiction.

It does seem rather rare to get conspiracies running for so long. One of my favourite bits about the Enigma story is that the UK/USA flogged off a whole load of captured machines after the war to various countries forgetting to mention they could listen in.

If I was going for comparisons with a European master project I would choose Otto von Bismarck since he was a master of political maneuvering in aim of greater power/unity.
Postmanpat on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

> My point was, is only that often truth is stranger than conspiracy fiction.

John Major and Edwina Currie spring to mind......a lot of coffee spluttered over that one.

MG - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Otto von Bismarck since he was a master of political maneuvering in aim of greater power/unity.

With a name like that what other possible role could there be for him!?
In reply to Postmanpat:

But 1. nobody's demanded you defend any views 2. it's perfectly normal in any discussion and particularly in an internet forum discussion such as this, to raise points related to a specific point that someone makes, 3. the points that I and Xarlie have made to you don't assume anything about your views on Brexit. I do guess you voted leave, but a remain voter might equally have pointed out that the lady you mentioned had called for a single European state.

1
Tyler - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to summo:

Ah I see, the opposite of what I understood you were all talking about; an example of something somethig that was truthful but would be dismissed as a conspiracy if someone mention it at the time.
Tyler - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Am I the only one thinking that Boris and the others clamouring for a swift hard Brexit know that it won't happen and and therefore back to their old games to try and move one step further up the power ladder?

I agree, he went quite for a while to see which way the wind was blowing and then decided to comeback more hard line than he was immediately post the result because it suited him.
KevinD - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> John Major and Edwina Currie spring to mind......a lot of coffee spluttered over that one.

That was one possible exception to rule 34.
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> John Major and Edwina Currie spring to mind......a lot of coffee spluttered over that one

It would have made spitting image even better if the story came out earlier.
In reply to Michael Hood:
> The assumption seems to be that if everyone was properly informed, the vote would have resulted in a remain win. I don't believe that assumption is necessarily true. It depends largely on what "properly informed" means.

> If the campaign had been pretty much as was but with no lies/exaggerations then maybe remain would have won. But what if the views of all the leading EU politicians/bureaucrats on what they would want the EU to look like in 10/20/30 years had been publicised - I suspect that would have reinforced the leave vote.

I see your point. My judgement is that proper information would very likely have swung the vote remains way, but you're right, we don't know that.

> Of course we'll never know unless another referendum is held which seems unlikely at the present time.

We'll just never know - we'd get the same nonsense all over again
Post edited at 18:16
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.