What Next!!! (that Will Teach Them For Not Voting For Us At The Eurovision Song Contest!!!)

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by Exige, Jun 24, 2016.

  1. Don't try to defend yourself from the lafties, Rob. Standing up in the face of their invective triggers their over-developed victim response. Best to let them continue to feel speh-shul.
    • Love You Love You x 1
  2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-to-eu-lawsuit-over-rules-on-ordinary-courts

    It's in the eu's interest to create a them and us and a deal or no deal but people are missing the point under the fluff.

    We currently have a deal with the eu, when we leave we will still have a deal with eu.

    The only difference would be, is the deal under an agreement arranged between the eu and ourselves or will it be a deal between the eu and ourselves under wto rules so no matter what happens a deal will be there at the end.

    Currently and based on ONS figures it is being suggested that at a time of losing £10 billion a year from us, they also want wto that based on the last 12 months, the eu companies would lose the £42 billion difference per year, in what they sell to us and what we sell to them. I can see the powerhouse national companies within the eu countries, having some very stern talks with their leaders

    There is a cliff edge here however, but for the eu. Are they willing to sacrifice the balance of trade advantage in the tens of billions per year just to save the eu project?
    #9142 noobie, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  3. Yes. There's nothing and no one they're not prepared to sacrifice to save their crazy project, which is why it will die.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Unknown.jpg
    Hmmm, cute.
    • WTF WTF x 1
  5. Looks like this one is doing the rounds again... We have until October 20th to respond to this important EC consultation, details of which are attached - if we fail to secure the amendment we seek then the likely outcome is that all motorsport activity, in every EU Member State, will cease.

    Sent to race competitors with 9 days to respond. I assume this is the same that effects bikes on track days etc?

    Problem viewing this email? Click here for our online version |

    Many MSA members will be aware of Vnuk, a 2014 European Court judgement that threatens the future of all UK motorsport.

    The Court ruled that the requirement for compulsory insurance should cover any use of a vehicle, so long as that use is consistent with the normal function of the vehicle. This would require all competition cars in motorsport to have compulsory third party insurance.

    In responding to the Vnuk issue, the MSA has been working with a wide range of groups including the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA), and we are now calling on the motorsport community to respond to a European Commission consultation by 20 October. To view the MIA’s call to action, which the MSA fully supports, please
    click here. http://www.the-mia.com/Vnuk-Update

    The MSA has previously responded to a Department for Transport consultation on Vnuk. To view the MSA’s response to that consultation,
    click here. https://www.msauk.org/assets/msaresponsetodftvnukconsultationapril2017.pdf
  6. It won't happen - la,la,la,la,la,la,de,la,la - ITYS

    (I told you so........)

    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. What the hard line remainers are unwilling to challenge, is why the eu will move heaven and earth to stop a democratic vote by the people, for the people about belonging to the eu project? Why is it acceptable for the eu top table, who were never voted in by any countries election, demand that people see democracy as an abomination?
  8. From Brexit to Barcelona, liberals have lost faith in self-determination
    The Prime Minister must urgently involve more true Brexiteers in negotiations and push policy through
    • The Daily Telegraph
    • 12 Oct 2017
    • Allister heath
    To order prints or signed copies of any Telegraph cartoon, go to telegraph.co.uk/prints-cartoons or call 0191 603 0178  [email protected]

    There was a time, just a few decades ago, when most young radicals espoused a heady mix of Enlightenment values, Left‑wing economics and a liberalised personal morality. The Sixties’ generation embraced free speech, legal equality, religious freedom, the presumption of innocence and democratic empowerment. In foreign policy, they supported anti‑imperialism, and in economics the welfare state and big government.

    Some of these ideas were right, others dangerously wrong, especially the rejection of capitalism and the family, but they were coherent and inspired by many great Western philosophers of the past 350 years. They were grounded in reason, liberty and scepticism. As a result, conservatives and liberals, socialists and libertarians could still talk to one another, if merely to agree to disagree.

    The great tragedy of the 21st century is how it has become cool and edgy to repudiate these Enlightenment values and to embrace a darker, ultra‑adversarial ideology. Many of our best and brightest still agree with the baby boomers’ youthful rejection of conservatism and free markets: these are easy positions to hold. But the harder‑edged ideas have gone out of the window. Contemporary “liberals” – the dominant group in the civil service, academia, the cultural industries and among young, highly educated urbanites – have all too often become born‑again authoritarians.

    Far too many applaud when Balliol’s Junior Common Room bans the Christian Union from its freshers’ fair on the grounds that it would be “alienating” for followers of other religions and constitute a “micro‑aggression”; they cheer drastic restrictions to free speech in the name of “safe spaces”; and they no longer believe in national groups’ rights to self‑determination. Forget about democracy, people power and autonomy: the New Left loves authority, elite rule and cultural warfare. It’s out with John Locke, Montesquieu and David Hume, and back in with Plato.

    The trendy, right‑on classes now seem to oppose all independence movements. In the Fifties and Sixties, young idealists took to the streets to defend the right of the ex‑colonies to break free of the imperialist yoke. Today, those who see themselves as their political heirs spend their time decrying “nationalists” and cheering on those who threaten to ruin the secessionists.

    Take Brexit, Kurdistan and Catalonia: people who believe themselves to be progressive and enemies of oppression reflexively back the status quo. Big is beautiful; small is seditious. The way that Catalonia has been treated is one of the great scandals of our time, a disgraceful stain on Spain’s and the EU’S reputation. The province deserves a free and fair referendum. The violence, the intimidation, the bullying have all been outrageous, yet the New Left couldn’t care less. As to Kurdistan, which was originally promised a referendum on independence at the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, the silence from the “progressives” has been deafening, even though the only way forward in the Middle East is to ensure that states and nations are aligned.

    This ideological shift among Western elites is staggering: it risks undermining the foundations of much political progress of these past 250 years. The US Declaration of Independence argued that governments derived “their just powers from the consent of the governed”; and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”. The French Revolution also referred to the principle, which became hugely influential in the 1800s. Slowly but surely, the new battle was between the imperialists, who wanted the Great Powers to dominate, and the liberals, who wanted nations to set their own rules. There was much talk, after the First World War, of the “principle of the nationalities”.

    By the time of the Atlantic Charter of 1941, President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill pledged that there would be a “right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”, and six years later India and Pakistan were independent. The United Nations charter enshrined the principle of self‑determination into international relations.

    So are Western elites really seeking to renege on all this? Do they not see how they are playing with fire? Do they not recognise the connection between their support for oligarchy and the growth of populism in Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Eastern Europe and almost everywhere across the Continent? Britain was a pioneer in promoting self‑governance, despite our colonial history. The Balfour declaration, a hundred years ago, was a milestone, with the UK promising to set up “a national home for the Jewish people”. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 granted self‑government to the dominions. There have been two European referendums and one for Scotland, and the public still overwhelmingly backs self‑rule as an ideal at home and abroad.

    Yet all of this is now obsolete nonsense, as far as the new authoritarians are concerned. Self‑ determination is too messy, too complicated. It is in this context that the British government’s incompetent approach to Brexit and the establishment’s increasingly successful counter‑offensive to sabotage it needs to be understood. In such a hostile climate, those entrusted with pushing through Brexit need to be passionate, competent and as hard as nails. They cannot be mainstream centrists who just want to follow their civil servants’ advice, especially given that the latter will be dead set against the principle of self‑determination. They need to surround themselves with the best of the true believers.

    Crazily, neither Theresa May, Damian Green nor, of course, Philip Hammond can bring themselves even to say that they back Brexit, despite it being their policy. Revolutions are hard at the best of times: how can they be executed successfully by people who can almost not bear to enact them?

    Mrs May, assuming that she stays in office, must therefore urgently involve more Brexiteers. Boris Johnson should accompany her to the negotiations, to stiffen her resolve, and a newer generation needs to be promoted. Leaving the EU is an ideological project, grounded in hundreds of years of Western political philosophy, so now is the time to call in the ideologues to the rescue.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. There's a vast difference between "belonging to" and "being the property of".
  10. #9152 corrosio non forsit, Oct 12, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  11. This is the problem he has, he targeted students on social media, it's well known that they have the attention span of a Kumquat. They jump on social media viral campaigns, invest heavy but anything beyond a few months tires them out as they have many other campaigns to be offended in.

    This is a problem for Jeremy because if the next election does go to the full term, Jeremy will be 73 and most kids/students would have seen more of real life and as figures show, the idealism of youth, as it passes, see's people swing from socialism to conservatism.

    In effect when they have nothing, they think everything should be shared out (normally mum and dad are subsidising them though), but as they get older and through hard work get things for themselves, they tend to see the reality is they want to keep that which before, they would have wanted to share with everyone.

    Corbyn therefore, has to find a way, a bit like sturgeon having let her ardent supporters down also, of keeping their profiles high enough to keep being seen as relevant, you can only keep saying what about the nhs before people get bored of it.
  12. It has some good suggestions but again it fails as it falls into the trap of the self interested financial institutions. They quote what they consider the bad bits but make very little mention of the positives. This is the normal way they do this although I'm puzzled why they continue, the vote was out, we are going out, they can't change feck all but are constantly whinging.

    What you also have to understand is that most of these thoughts are a financial institutions thoughts using the macro-econometric modelling, Think when George Osbourne quoting 2030 figures before brexit. This model concentrates purely on the U.K. and eu with little acknowledgement of what the U.K. will be doing outside of the eu now we can do whatever we want in regards to trade with others, it's based on an incredibly thin narrative

    What he does say that seems to make sense is what many brexiteers have been saying all along, that the eu will lose far more than we will

    There was also bad news for other countries in the euro zone, with the rest of the nations seeing see a 2% hit to EU GDP by 2024. The Netherlands would suffer more than others due to its close trade relationship with the UK, incurring losses of up to €35 billion.
  13. The Netherlands should leave the EU as well then. Same goes for Ireland. And Italy, and Spain, and Portugal, and Greece...
  14. Opening paragraph of that piece. :rolleyes: "A ‘no deal’ hard Brexit would plunge the country into an immediate recession, according to a new report."

    I could have sworn I heard this in June 2016 :thinkingface: What happened then?


    "George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence."

    It's getting old now. :sleeping:
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Government Brexit Dept suppressing 30+ business plans supplied to them because of the panic they might cause.