• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Brexit

Brexit, Stay or Leave.

  • Stay

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Leave

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Total voters
    47
Here's my thought of the day...

People of all persuasions are mixing personal or private convictions with outright political expressions/opinions.

The lines between what is a personal /social/religious/ideological/economic preference.....then what is worth saying as an opinion for mass exposure are getting very blurred.
The internet and social media has played a huge part in this.

The lady who said Isreal should move people to America has stated a deep personal conviction but as a political opinion it puts her in no mans land. I think the whole thing has gone way over the top, but her personal misgivings and viewpoints are not necessarily to be shared as a member of parliament. This isn't taking a key role in democracy and representing your constituants, its just information spilling!

The crux of the case indicate the media dug something out she said on Facebook about a million years ago, so she has been unlucky.
But wherever you look these days you are seeing people getting the personal conviction and the public viewpoint confused. There is nothing wrong with having a viewpoint you don't (and won't) be sharing....
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Here's my thought of the day...

People of all persuasions are mixing personal or private convictions with outright political expressions/opinions.

The lines between what is a personal /social/religious/ideological/economic preference.....then what is worth saying as an opinion for mass exposure are getting very blurred.
The internet and social media has played a huge part in this.

The lady who said Isreal should move people to America has stated a deep personal conviction but as a political opinion it puts her in no mans land. I think the whole thing has gone way over the top, but her personal misgivings and viewpoints are not necessarily to be shared as a member of parliament. This isn't taking a key role in democracy and representing your constituants, its just information spilling!

The crux of the case indicate the media dug something out she said on Facebook about a million years ago, so she has been unlucky.
But wherever you look these days you are seeing people getting the personal conviction and the public viewpoint confused. There is nothing wrong with having a viewpoint you don't (and won't) be sharing....
Click to expand...

this is complete nonsense marble

the post used the lovely word "transportation". She would have to be extremely ignorant not to have understood the connotations .

if you are going to post such stuff on your personal page then accept the consequences.
 
Not sure what any of the above has to do with the referendum but, as far as I can see, the leaders of USA, Australia, India and China, who would probably represent the major portion of our trade outside the EU, have all indicated that an exit is undesirable. Seems like it's only Putin and ISIS who favour a vote to leave.
 
And for who's purposes have they said that?

Maybe a highly competitive uk freed of eu regulations is unwanted competition in certain sectors?

The last people you want to advise you on your trade is your competitors. Tata steel in the uk should go to china with its steel dumping or the us with its heavy protectionism and ask "what should we do???"

Im not for brexit but it needs better arguments than this
 
Aren't Tata Steel consolidating EU operations in the Netherlands? If you don't take advice from your trading partners​ then who do you listen to?
 
I'm not sure what that's got to do with it exactly but it's a rough example. If we listened to our trading partners in the eu a few years back...we would have joined the euro

"partners" are competitors too. The us competes heavily on financial services and is losing ground. China wants to build its aerospace industry fast and the U.K. Is the second biggest in the sector. And so on

i think it's naive to assume it's advice purely in the uks best interest

why listen to anyone? The U.K. Had the best decision makers when it came to the euro didn't it? On both political sides and adamant too. We have plenty of world class expertise in economics and security and so on. Why the fck do we need to ask India
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
if you are going to post such stuff on your personal page then accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. She is one of thousands and thousands of cases of people expressing a private opinion in a public arena..... then having to say sorry afterwards. That's the point I was making.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
The last people you want to advise you on your trade is your competitors.
Click to expand...

Trade agreements are always a compromise between yourself and your competitors.

My interpretation of the US (and others) positions, is that they frankly cannot be arsed to have a separate trade agreement with the UK, when they can have a perfectly workable one under the EU framework. Securing trade agreements is (rightly) considered a priority by the Leave campaign, but by their nature, these need two willing participants, and a bespoke arrangement with the UK, will not appear anywhere near the top of their priority-list. I believe this is what Obama was telegraphing when he mentioned "5-to-10 years".

There is a lot of talk about British industry being freed of the yoke of EU regulation, as part of Brexit. But, if we wanted to continue to trade with the EU, wouldn't we need to be compliant with their standards anyway? In which case, where is the perceived benefit claimed by the leave campaign? Honest question.
 
That's complete bollocks. Truly awful. We are one of their biggest trading partners so of course they will be "arsed" to have agreements

no. We could trade and they could with us but we would not have their non trade regulations which many businesses, especially smes, consider to be too onerous
 
Takes 10 seconds. We are their fifth biggest export market

you entirely miss the point. God forbid anyone here gets put in charge of a business. Of course there are so called compromises but there is also a seeking of advantage too isn't there.

talk about bleedin obvious

simple fact is that the vast bulk of trade would continue just as it in or out . It's in no ones interests on eitehr side to have tariffs and other such tit for tat nonsense . But the key is that when out you can make your own agreements in your own time

the idea that countries desperate to export will willingly ignore one of the worlds largest economies is nonsense

(that should kick off the anglophobes lol)
 
Last edited:
If we need to be compliant with EU standards even if we're out of the EU (and we do, if we want to trade with the EU bloc), is there any real saving to be made through 'reduced EU bureaucracy/red-tape?

In fact, wouldn't Brexit mean added bureaucracy, in real terms?
 
Fukc kmows is a good answer to that Question Grassy........Having left the UK I don't get it. Scotland bid to leave the UK the UK bid to leave Europe and London has a Muslim as Mayor...........the countries fooked come and live in Thailand folks :lol:
 
You have trouble reading posts. Too many senior moments by the looks of it and its only going to get worse

The savings were on the non trade regulations
 
I'm reminded of the IndyRef, when platitudes were offered as replacement for answers. I view such imposters with equal distaste.

What a confused country I find myself living in.

Not so long ago, I had Angleterres telling me that Scotland exiting the Union would be an impossibly-risky step into the unknown. Now I have the same cunts advocating Brexit.

Let me quite clear. If the UK votes for Brexit, it will be a false-dawn, because I can guarantee it will be swiftly followed by a 2nd Scottish IndyRef which would assuredly result in the break-up of the Union. Even I would vote for it, because a UK in the absence from the EU, is a greater retreat into parochialism to than a Scottish exit from the UK.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
the uk is the least "parochial" country in the whole eu. It is the most international with the most international city in the world. There is no chance that that would change eitehr because it's a massive strength. It's an absolute nonsense to say that independence from a useless flabby lazy body is "parochialism"

internatiolism in the eu is German taxpayers bailing out Greeks who don't pay taxes. Fck that

It's a ridiculous assertion that you have to belong to the eu to reach out to the rest of the world and for the rest of the world to reach out to here. Just today I'm consulting with a team led by a kosovan with a team of Burmese and Ghanaian and Londoner. No one bats an eyelid. Also none of the states is in the eu

Take a walk round London and then Paris Berlin Rome or most of all Madrid. Tell me which city is the most multicultural. Which has the most international businesses which has the gamut of cuisines and cultures
 
Last edited:
One other country in the eu would be close but others can work that out and that nation is having doubts too

andyou really can't see why Scotland's independence was an economic catastrophy waiting to happen whereas the far more diverse uk economy is not ?

Or is the oil price just English propaganda ?
 
Last edited:
Just as a matter of interest Clive, since I seem to recall you were about 52/48 in favour of staying in, are you still of this view, or are your sands shifting?
 
Comparing Scotland leaving the uk with uk leaving the eu is seriously economically illiterate. Clearly the uk is currently an independent economy whereas Scotland is not.
 
Clivex, there is no dispute that London is a melting-pot, and a largely successful one at that. But Brexit represents a different kind of parochialism - the 'Johnny Foreigner is holding us back' kind.

I made no economic comparison between Scotland/Independence and UK/Brexit. My argument was based around the risks inherent in both - as both are/were a step into the unknown. This is indisputable, imo.
 
That's a very limited and patronising argument. Yes some will put that as a reason but it certainly isn't the only one and not expressed in those terms. and anyway if can be demonstrated that the eu has a negative impact in certain areas then why not say so?
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top