Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Buce

What's in the news?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

They are also saying a Village called Wool should change it's name to Vegan Wool as it's detrimental to sheep yet I believe it's a derivation (?) of Well/Spring

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bah-d-idea-peta-asks-dorset-village-wool-to-change-name-to-vegan-wool-11561410

 

 

I’ll try not to beat around the bush (mainly because they’ll find that terminology problematic) but they really are a waste of space. There’s so much work to be done in protecting animals and wildlife but they’re constantly campaigning on the wrong bloody things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I’ll try not to beat around the bush (mainly because they’ll find that terminology problematic) but they really are a waste of space. There’s so much work to be done in protecting animals and wildlife but they’re constantly campaigning on the wrong bloody things. 

Along the same lines

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46425160

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/12/2018 at 23:00, Buce said:

 

I've often thought of how cool it would be to travel the route taken by Alexander the Great.

 

I've always wanted to travel the whole of the great silk route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Don’t get me started. A friend of mine starting whining about The Pogues song on Facebook, and then told me I’m not allowed an opinion on it because I’m not gay.

 

I should’ve left it.

 

How dare he make assumptions about your sexual preferences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Heard the "no one voted to make themselves poorer" line numerous times last night, from the usual suspects like Lucas and Soubry.

 

Again, it's just not true.

 

I'd hope that most people would realise that this is the case - some things are both monetary value so it stands to reason that some folks think that "national sovereignty" (in their eyes) would be more important too.

 

It's not a position I'll ever truly understand or sympathise with either idealistically (the idea lends itself far too well to competition and eventual conflict) or practically (do those who value one people and one nation above others to the extent of economic loss really think that attitude will save them from problems facing the whole world in the future?) but I can see why people think it.

 

 

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Matt can speak for himself, obviously. Insofar as I understand his politics, though, I'm not sure "stability" would sum it up. He seems to favour some traditional social values (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with) and to oppose what he'd see as excessive immigration. But all the libertarian / free market values that he and others promote do not represent stability, so much as a continuation of a revolution - the laissez-faire, "markets know best" revolution that started in the 70s/80s.

 

I know what you mean - and "attachment to stability" probably applies more to some Brexit voters, mainly less political, less informed voters, I'd say. But they don't want things to be "like today", indeed they're very dissatisfied with how things are today. Some want today to be like yesterday, or even an imagined yesterday. That often doesn't apply to the more informed, political Brexit supporters, though - they foresee a bright new revolutionary post-Brexit future after their revolution has eliminated an unwanted stability. That's a heavy irony, because in practice Brexit really is a revolutionary project if the logic of a global, free-market, free-trade Britain is followed through.

 

To me, it logically leads to a Britain competing globally through low corporate taxation, low public spending, deregulation, elimination of workers' rights / environmental protection etc. I know some (including Brexiteers on the Left) believe that Britain could be successful post-Brexit through the genius of business being unchained and/or clever strategic investment by the state. I suppose that I'm just pessimistic about how clever either British business or the British state are - and they'd have to be cleverer than their competitors if, as a medium-sized nation, they want to compete successfully against major trading blocs like the EU, major economies like the USA & China, developing economies like India etc. Even if this "positive Brexit" is feasible, I'm also sceptical about the public having the patience to wait for it to come to fruition. People are already getting "bored with Brexit" after 2 years, yet such a revolutionary transformation of the UK might require 10-20 years before we saw any tangible benefits - with a lot of negatives in real lives in the meantime. Are people going to put up with that? Or are they going to vote in govts that promise instant improvements for them or that attack scapegoats, be that "benefits scroungers", "chav criminals", "illegal immigrants" etc? And how quickly could we end up with violent riots as in Paris or with someone like Tommy Robinson as a leading political figure?

 

As you can see, I'm an instinctive "reformist", as the Hard Left would spit at me, and naturally suspicious of revolutions - particularly this one, knowing that some of the leaders of Brexit are true believers in a laissez-faire, deregulated, low-tax, low-spend revolution, even if that isn't what a lot of Leave voters want....

I'm reminded of something Sam Vimes says:

 

"Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes."

 

The more I look at this stuff, the more any ideology bar one that includes a sustainable future for humanity above all else just strikes me as lots of bald men fighting over a comb, while rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

The more I look at this stuff, the more any ideology bar one that includes a sustainable future for humanity above all else just strikes me as lots of bald men fighting over a comb, while rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

lol

 

Love the mixed metaphor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Heard the "no one voted to make themselves poorer" line numerous times last night, from the usual suspects like Lucas and Soubry.

 

Again, it's just not true.

 

 

I absolutely accept your point that some Leave voters would be happy to make themselves a bit poorer in exchange for having more control/national sovereignty, as they see it.

Likewise, I'd be happy to make myself a bit poorer (within reason - I'm no saint) in exchange for better public services, less poverty or whatever.

 

There's an argument that some people voted Leave for more control/sovereignty, having been misled into believing they'd be better off.....we might or might not find out, depending on what happens now.

 

I'd question the validity of that poll as evidence, though. "Future economic growth" is a very vague concept, a statistic on the TV news that doesn't affect people personally.

 

It would have been more interesting if they'd personalised it:

- "I'd be prepared to take a 5%-8% pay cut for the rest of my life to complete Brexit properly" (or "....to stay in the EU")

- "I'd be prepared to accept a 10% risk of losing my job to complete Brexit properly" (or "....to stay in the EU")

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Feed a fed horse?

So over feed a horse, isn’t that cruel?

 

Taking a flower by the thorns is an assault on our plant brethren, too.

 

I'd prefer:

- Kill two PETA activists with one stone

- Flog a dead PETA activist

- Take a PETA activist by the throat

:ph34r:

 

I quite like "Be the test tube", though.

 

"Don't be the problem, be the test tube" :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

By that logic they shouldnt care about Shame Macgowan's opinion either then

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

How dare he make assumptions about your sexual preferences. 

I tried making similar points but then one of his friends got involved and I said “I can only handle one at a time” which is apparently the wrong thing to say to 2 gay men. :dunno:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I absolutely accept your point that some Leave voters would be happy to make themselves a bit poorer in exchange for having more control/national sovereignty, as they see it.

Likewise, I'd be happy to make myself a bit poorer (within reason - I'm no saint) in exchange for better public services, less poverty or whatever.

 

There's an argument that some people voted Leave for more control/sovereignty, having been misled into believing they'd be better off.....we might or might not find out, depending on what happens now.

 

I'd question the validity of that poll as evidence, though. "Future economic growth" is a very vague concept, a statistic on the TV news that doesn't affect people personally.

 

It would have been more interesting if they'd personalised it:

- "I'd be prepared to take a 5%-8% pay cut for the rest of my life to complete Brexit properly" (or "....to stay in the EU")

- "I'd be prepared to accept a 10% risk of losing my job to complete Brexit properly" (or "....to stay in the EU")

Not some, the comfortable majority in every poll I've seen states it. It would be impossible to get any depth to such a question I think unless you had all day on the phone with the public quoting different scenarios and I doubt Comres have the desire to do that.

 

(Same would apply to you and many Labour voters as well, you might be prepared to be poorer for better public services but you wouldn't make yourself homeless for it I'd imagine or lose your job etc)

 

Although I'd imagine the numbers are stronger for this opinion now than we both would have thought a while back because of the trust now in the treasury and the economic doom predicted by most economists in the aftermath of a Leave vote being proved wrong. Many might be thinking that if the worst they can predict is 10% the reality is probably less than half of that.

 

They know it as well, someone from the BoE was on politics live earlier this week reminding us that these are "scenarios" and not "forecasts" - which did make me chuckle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW @Alf Bentley

 

Can remember another situation in your lifetime where a government has proceeded with such an important vote it is going to lose? (Predicted numbers appear to anywhere between 50 and 150)

 

I'm still racking my brains on why they are, are they hoping to get close then bring it forward again with amendments? 

 

It doesn't really make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

@MattP

 

I'm trying to PM you dude but it says you can't receive messages - what gives? 

No idea. 

 

Come to think of it I've not had a PM for months and I used to get a few I'll have a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, at least we now know why May so desperately didn't want to publish the legal advice:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46451970

 

Brexit: Release of full legal advice sparks political row

Theresa May's Brexit backstop plan risks a "stalemate" and "protracted rounds of negotiations" with the EU, the full legal advice on her deal says.

Newly published documents show the PM was told an arrangement designed to prevent a hard Irish border could last "indefinitely" and the UK could not "lawfully exit" without EU agreement.

The Democratic Unionists said this would be "devastating" for the UK.

But Mrs May rejected SNP claims she has misled Parliament on the issue.

Ministers were forced to publish Attorney General Geoffrey Cox's full advice after ministers were found in contempt of Parliament on Tuesday for providing only a legal overview earlier this week.

Speaking in the Commons, the prime minister said there was "no difference" between the two documents and the legal position on her proposed "temporary" customs arrangement with the EU was clear.

While the UK would have no unilateral right to withdraw from the backstop - a measure designed to prevent the return of physical checks on the Irish border by the UK and EU sharing a single customs territory - she insisted neither the UK nor the EU wanted it to come into force in the first place.

But the Democratic Unionists said they could not accept Northern Ireland being subject to different regulation and judicial oversight from the rest of the UK and effectively becoming a "third country" from Britain.

What does the full advice to PM say?

The government argued that Mr Cox's analysis of the Brexit deal, published on Monday, was adequate and disclosing his full and final advice would be against the national interest.

Labour and other opposition parties said ministers had "wilfully" refused to comply with a binding vote in the Commons last month which demanded full disclosure and MPs agreed in a vote on Tuesday.

In the six-page letter published on Tuesday, Mr Cox said the "current drafting" of the backstop "does not allow for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK to lawfully exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement".

"Despite statements that it is not intended to be permanent… in international law the protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place," he wrote.

"In the absence of a right of termination, there is a legal risk that the UK might become subject to protracted and repeated rounds of negotiations...The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political."

The backstop has become a defining issue for many Tory critics of the PM's deal - who say that it infringes the UK's sovereignty and will prevent the UK from being able to negotiate its own trade deals.

Mr Cox has warned the backstop is a "calculated risk" and entering into is would be a political decision.

"This risk must be weighed against the political and economic imperative of both sides to reach an agreement that constitutes a politically stable and permanent basis for their future relationship," he wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

@MattP

 

I'm trying to PM you dude but it says you can't receive messages - what gives? 

Try that I've deleted a few, was full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...