It might be better to go for a run and forget about it.Originally Posted by SCOOT
It might be better to go for a run and forget about it.
I entirely agree with your conclusion! The philosophy of "hakuna matata" rules. As does running as a cure for all problems (except not being able to run!)
In english I was commenting on what Rees Mogg actually does which is very banal and "pension fund like", rather than what his critics on labour front bench allege he does which is "hedge funds" "betting against brexit" or "moving to ireland" which is simply not true! The trouble is with "sloganeer" student politics from labours front bench is that people start to believe such myths. The truth is far more mundane - but because most people do not understand the city Corbyn can keep peddling myths without being rumbled by most.
Last edited by Oracle; 27-03-2019 at 12:25 PM.
I often hear a principle of our system that a current Government cannot bind the hands of a future one.
This seems to have been over looked for a few decades now as evidenced the some of the excuses as to why we cannot leave the EU as those voting leave envisaged.
The Belfast Agreement for example, if we believe some commentators, it make sit impossible for us to leave unless we stay in such a close BRINO that we may as well still be in.
Now Trimble, who was an architect of the agreement says that's rubbish.
But in the back of my mind the prime movers here were Major, then Blair, with the UK Civil service putting it together.
They did so at a time when Europe was a huge issue post Maastricht and Black Wednesday.
I wouldn't put it past those EU lovers crafting the agreement to embroider some little snippets in there that might shore up our position in the EU for future use.
Then we have the proposals put forward by Starmer, backed by others. That they can accept the WA but they want the future declaration to be more specific and enshrine it in an act of Parliament.
To make that FD more specific, binds the hands of future Governments and it could well be negotiated by a future Govt who's make up is more pro Brexit than the current one.
The main idea of Brexit is to allow the prospective UK Governments the freedoms to put policies in their manifestos that they might not be able to do inside.
Immigration system. Nationalisation. Elimination or reduction of VAT.
Noel on an earlier post asked what type of leave.
For me a leave where we can take the decision here in the UK to remove the anti-dumping duty on footwear and abolish VAT.
If we can do that, we have probably left the EU in a way acceptable to the 17.4 million.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Well I've been for my run and I can understand this one so it's a bit clearer now ta.
Maybe they should do a lap of Hyde park before they can vote on matters.
Just out of interest, why do you want to remove that duty? Would that not wipe out EU and UK footwear manufacturing?
There’s very little left Pat. Footwear has been hit even harder than textile / clothing
Ya I would have thought the same. It seems to be an odd topic to be one of his major reasons for being anti EU.
I think they should do three laps instead of voting yes on matters and ten laps for any vote of no. Then maybe they might have many fewer votes and actually say yes to something.
It is of course a very large collection of "odd topics" that add up to the totality of excessive interference of EU in almost all matters.
EU actually like the "banana bend myths" because they can discount their critics as illinformed.
They would rather people did not comment on the reality of 1000 ways in which Eu provably intereferes unneccesarily in domestic politics, actively dissuades free trade instead of protectionism, and rank stupidity in many arenas. Indeed , many areas like totally crass EU banking rules that can and will sink banks, mostpeople do not understand them enough to see how stupid the EU really is. EU prefer people to comment on bent bananas. Easier to show them as a myth.
Here one more of many simple EU rules I hate, another "odd topic". Despite overwhelming evidence that men and women live different ages, EU forces the same life assurance rates to apply to all: so men are subsidising women which is totally discriminatory, since men will collect less from any amount they invest than women. Quite apart from the king canute mentality of EU trying to overrule nature by legal decree, it surely is a matter for us, whether we want to be so crass as to do the same.
That too you might dismiss as an "odd reason", but as Witton showed by example there are a multitude of odd reasons which when put together state clearly :a nation must decide its own laws. One size cannot fit all.
Last edited by Oracle; 27-03-2019 at 02:48 PM.
Not heard that one, what is it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote