Brexit negotiations

[Cobby]

Never claimed AV was PR. Another strawman of yours?

I mentioned Proportional Representation. You then tried to refute our not having PR by arguing about our rejection of AV+.

That's a straw man argument. You don't seem to understand what that is, so here's a link that explains it for you. Hopefully it'll help prevent making this mistake in future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

FPTP appears to be very bad in this country at upholding a 2 party system.

Jesus if it's not straw men it's gaslighting.

The last 70 years has seen nothing but Labour and Conservative led governments, and under FPTP that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

 

[Mr D]

I mentioned Proportional Representation. You then tried to refute our not having PR by arguing about our rejection of AV+.

That's a straw man argument. You don't seem to understand what that is, so here's a link that explains it for you. Hopefully it'll help prevent making this mistake in future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Jesus if it's not straw men it's gaslighting.

The last 70 years has seen nothing but Labour and Conservative led governments, and under FPTP that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

You just cannot accept that the voters make their own choices.
The reason we've had Labour and Conservative government is that the voters chose to vote as they did.

That appears to annoy you.

Last general election we had over 25 million voters choose Labour or Conservative. Over 80% of the voters chose one of those two.
There were multiple parties standing, a few other parties also won seats.

As has been proven last century a group can set up a party and go on to beat established parties and win election. Look at Labour who only appeared last century as a party. As I said in last 120 years there have been 3 different parties in government on their own in the UK. Not two, three.
If some new party gets set up or an old party not yet in power gains support we'll have a fourth party getting into government on its own at some point. Under that same FPTP responsible for the previous three.


Have you ever thought of moving to a country with just the one party to vote for? May suit you better.

 

[Cobby]

You just cannot accept that the voters make their own choices.
The reason we've had Labour and Conservative government is that the voters chose to vote as they did.

That appears to annoy you.

Last general election we had over 25 million voters choose Labour or Conservative. Over 80% of the voters chose one of those two.
There were multiple parties standing, a few other parties also won seats.

As has been proven last century a group can set up a party and go on to beat established parties and win election. Look at Labour who only appeared last century as a party. As I said in last 120 years there have been 3 different parties in government on their own in the UK. Not two, three.
If some new party gets set up or an old party not yet in power gains support we'll have a fourth party getting into government on its own at some point. Under that same FPTP responsible for the previous three.


Have you ever thought of moving to a country with just the one party to vote for? May suit you better.

This whole thing is a wildly bad faith argument.

Political parties from one hundred and twenty years ago? That's your argument in support of First-Past-The-Post in the year 2018? You must be joking, there's no way this is a serious argument.

 

[Mr D]

This whole thing is a wildly bad faith argument.

Political parties from one hundred and twenty years ago? That's your argument in support of First-Past-The-Post in the year 2018? You must be joking, there's no way this is a serious argument.

Yes why not go for 120 years?
FPTP came in towards end of 19th century.

Since coming in we haven't had a 2 party system, we've had 3. Given a couple of centuries that number could be a dozen.

Labour didn't exist when FPTP was first used.
They came into being as a party, then later won enough seats in government.

Because the voters who voted chose to vote for them in sufficient numbers in each area.

We have a few hundred political parties, including some that may be defunct for now. You could get some friends together and start one more.
Its up to other people to vote for you though.

Sure you are up to this political stuff? You appear annoyed you don't get to vote in parliament, you appear annoyed that other voters get equal right to vote you do and you appear annoyed that multiple parties take part in elections.

 

[Cobby]

Yes why not go for 120 years?
FPTP came in towards end of 19th century

Please explain why you on earth think the political landscape from 120 years ago is useful for defending the contemporary failures of FPTP and its preferential use in the future compared to PR.

Sure you are up to this political stuff? You appear annoyed you don't get to vote in parliament, you appear annoyed that other voters get equal right to vote you do and you appear annoyed that multiple parties take part in elections.

Listen if you're gonna try this weak-sauce trolling stuff, try throwing in a "calm down" with the "you're annoyed lol". It's just as irrelevant but makes your intent a little clearer to other readers.

 

[Mr D]

Please explain why you on earth think the political landscape from 120 years ago is useful for defending the contemporary failures of FPTP and its preferential use in the future compared to PR.



Listen if you're gonna try this weak-sauce trolling stuff, try throwing in a "calm down" with the "you're annoyed lol". It's just as irrelevant but makes your intent a little clearer to other readers.

You really don't get it do you?

You go on about FPTP while apparently being unaware how long its been used. Successfully.

FPTP is just over 120 years old. So in the time we've been using it in this country THREE parties have been in power. At some point FPTP will be responsible for a fourth then later a fifth party and so on.





You being calm or not, matters not at all to me. Presumably it matters to you but you are old enough now and can decide for yourself whether to be calm or not.

 

[Cobby]

You really don't get it do you?

You go on about FPTP while apparently being unaware how long its been used. Successfully.

FPTP is just over 120 years old. So in the time we've been using it in this country THREE parties have been in power. At some point FPTP will be responsible for a fourth then later a fifth party and so on.

Firstly, that doesn't address what you were responding to:
"Please explain why you on earth think the political landscape from 120 years ago is useful for defending the contemporary failures of FPTP and its preferential use in the future compared to PR."

Secondly, the thing it has been most successful at, for the last 70 years, is keeping only one of the two biggest parties in power while excluding the rest. So, thank you for supporting my argument.

Thirdly, if you wish to assert it will be responsible for allowing five parties to realistically compete to lead the government, you're going to have to back that assertion up with some evidence and reason. Which goes back to my original question which you avoided.

 

[Mr D]

Please explain why you on earth think the political landscape from 120 years ago is useful for defending the contemporary failures of FPTP and its preferential use in the future compared to PR.



Listen if you're gonna try this weak-sauce trolling stuff, try throwing in a "calm down" with the "you're annoyed lol". It's just as irrelevant but makes your intent a little clearer to other readers.

Because you referred to FPTP as a supporting a two party system. When its responsible for 3 parties being in power.

How you cannot see that I'll never know. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

I'm not the one trolling. I can see who is.

 

[Mr D]

Firstly, that doesn't address what you were responding to:
"Please explain why you on earth think the political landscape from 120 years ago is useful for defending the contemporary failures of FPTP and its preferential use in the future compared to PR."

Secondly, the thing it has been most successful at, for the last 70 years, is keeping only one of the two biggest parties in power while excluding the rest. So, thank you for supporting my argument.

Thirdly, if you wish to assert it will be responsible for allowing five parties to realistically compete to lead the government, you're going to have to back that assertion up with some evidence and reason. Which goes back to my original question which you avoided.

70 years two parties because the voters chose to vote for those parties. Previous to that 70 year period there was another party in power part of the time due to FPTP. Then the voters chose someone else to vote for in sufficient numbers to have someone else in power.


Keeping only one of the two biggest parties in power? Name the one and I'll give you the dates the other has been in power. To educate you in your ignorance.


Think you need to look at your history books again. Labour and Conservative have both been in government. They've both had a period of short term power and a period of long term power (multiple parliaments).

And now you are trolling by referring to five parties. I didn't say that five parties would compete to lead the government. How could I when there are hundreds of parties?
You and I both know that multiple parties win seats at general elections. All you need to have a government is one party winning more seats than any other party.

 

[Cobby]

Because you referred to FPTP as a supporting a two party system. When its responsible for 3 parties being in power.

Not in living memory. That's not relevant. The evidence for my assertion that FPTP inherently supports a two-party system is that for the last 70 years no other party has managed to get into power. Empirical evidence. The current polling for voting intention shows the next GE will still just be between Labour or The Conservatives.

 

[Cobby]

70 years two parties because the voters chose to vote for those parties.

Tail wagging the dog. Do you genuinely believe FPTP isn't a two-party system because theoretically people could vote for other parties? I mean, that's technically true but it's a useless simplification that doesn't actually apply in real life.

Keeping only one of the two biggest parties in power? Name the one and I'll give you the dates the other has been in power. To educate you in your ignorance.

My apologies. I get the distinct impression English isn't your first language and although you're clearly very good at it I may have been too ambiguous for you there. "One of" can also mean "either of" in that context, with the "only" referring to the exclusion of all but those two parties. I shall try to be clearer in future.

And now you are trolling by referring to five parties. I didn't say that five parties would compete to lead the government.

Except you did.

At some point FPTP will be responsible for a fourth then later a fifth party and so on

 

[Mr D]

Tail wagging the dog. Do you genuinely believe FPTP isn't a two-party system because theoretically people could vote for other parties? I mean, that's technically true but it's a useless simplification that doesn't actually apply in real life.



My apologies. I get the distinct impression English isn't your first language and although you're clearly very good at it I may have been too ambiguous for you there. "One of" can also mean "either of" in that context, with the "only" referring to the exclusion of all but those two parties. I shall try to be clearer in future.



Except you did.

Well seeing as people DO vote for other parties - we have several parties in parliament - then its a bit more than theoretical. Its what we call 'fact'. A concept I know you have trouble with but please do try and learn. Don't let your ideology blind you to reality.

Nice strawman on the 'one of', may want to learn some 20th century history too.
And your apology is accepted.

Five parties? You will of course be able to quote and give date and time of when I said five parties would compete to lead the government. Rather than quoting out of context with some words regarding parties that have been in power (another of those facts you appear to have trouble with) under FPTP (which is more than the two you claimed in error).

 

[Cobby]

Well seeing as people DO vote for other parties - we have several parties in parliament - then its a bit more than theoretical. Its what we call 'fact'. A concept I know you have trouble with but please do try and learn. Don't let your ideology blind you to reality.

Nice strawman on the 'one of', may want to learn some 20th century history too.
And your apology is accepted.

Five parties? You will of course be able to quote and give date and time of when I said five parties would compete to lead the government. Rather than quoting out of context with some words regarding parties that have been in power (another of those facts you appear to have trouble with) under FPTP (which is more than the two you claimed in error).

Okay, you keep avoiding answering simple questions (as usual) and have continually demonstrated that you aren't arguing in good faith. I've humoured you long enough and since you aren't getting a response from your personal attacks we'll just knock this particular tangent on the head and call it a day. I've made my point.

Have a lovely day.

 

[The Byre]

So this is just the 15-month argument and not the full half hour?

 

[Mr D]

Okay, you keep avoiding answering simple questions (as usual) and have continually demonstrated that you aren't arguing in good faith. I've humoured you long enough and since you aren't getting a response from your personal attacks we'll just knock this particular tangent on the head and call it a day. I've made my point.

Have a lovely day.

Ah another evasion by you.

I try and solve your ignorance of facts but it doesn't appear to make a difference.

One for the block list I think. Saves my time anyway.

 

[Gecko001]

Cobby you have a habit of asking questions of other members. Sometimes it is useful to ask questions if, for example, there is something you do not understand or you want some information, but in your case it seems to be done aggressively to goad other members into an argument where you practically take over this thread.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Cobby you have a habit of asking questions of other members.

I think it is my 'ignored member' Mr D who uses too many question marks who is either a troll or not very bright. I admire Cobby for his patience with someone out to goad him. I had enough of Mr D and put him on ignore and the forum has become much better for it.

 

[Cobby]

Cobby you have a habit of asking questions of other members. Sometimes it is useful to ask questions if, for example, there is something you do not understand or you want some information, but in your case it seems to be done aggressively to goad other members into an argument where you practically take over this thread.

Apologies if that's the case, it's unintentional. I ask questions usually where a member is making a fallacious argument (unintentionally or not) or being dishonest in arguing a topic because it helps highlight the lack of foundation in their argument. With important topics like Brexit I think it's important not to let lies or misinformation be allowed to go unchallenged.

I'll admit I'm easy to lead off topic, but I think it's always worth a little bit of a dance to leave a demonstrable trail for other readers to follow. It's hens-teeth hoping to change anyone's mind if they're actively debating you, but it's not about them as much as other readers; I was swayed from my middle ground position when the EU referendum was announced, in part by Scott's clear, reasoned based arguments in contrast to the emotional and circular arguments put forth by the euro-sceptics. One of my IRL friends has said she finds these threads interesting as well for similar reasons.

Again, apologies and I'll try and rein it in in future, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Gecko001]

I think it is my 'ignored member' Mr D who uses too many question marks who is either a troll or not very bright. I admire Cobby for his patience with someone out to goad him. I had enough of Mr D and put him on ignore and the forum has become much better for it.

Well I am not so sure who started it. It is just so noticeable, I could not resist mentioning it. None of us are TV presenters grilling others on the forum.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Hurrah! Brexiters rejoice. May has secured a trade deal with a handful of African countries.

Last year, Britain exported £2.4bn worth of goods to the six African countries included in Ms May’s deal - just 0.7 per cent of the value of its exports to the EU and the rest of the world combined, which were worth £339bn.
Speaking in Cape Town, the prime minister announced an additional £4bn of UK investment in African economies, with the hope of further match investment from the private sector to come.

At that rate of £4bn for .7% worth of trade it will only cost us £571bn to secure the rest of what we already get by EU membership.

(what also staggers me is that for a rich woman in her sixties this is her first visit to southern Africa. Does she have no curiosity about the world? )

 

[Newchodge]

Hurrah! Brexiters rejoice. May has secured a trade deal with a handful of African countries.

Last year, Britain exported £2.4bn worth of goods to the six African countries included in Ms May’s deal - just 0.7 per cent of the value of its exports to the EU and the rest of the world combined, which were worth £339bn.
Speaking in Cape Town, the prime minister announced an additional £4bn of UK investment in African economies, with the hope of further match investment from the private sector to come.

At that rate of £4bn for .7% worth of trade it will only cost us £571bn to secure the rest of what we already get by EU membership.

(what also staggers me is that for a rich woman in her sixties this is her first visit to southern Africa. Does she have no curiosity about the world? )

I don'y think she can have secured a trade deal, whatever she may say. As EU members we are not allowed to conclude trade deals with other countries. she may have secured an agreement in principle on a future trade deal, but that's not the xame thing at all.

More lies from May.

 

[Mr D]

I don'y think she can have secured a trade deal, whatever she may say. As EU members we are not allowed to conclude trade deals with other countries. she may have secured an agreement in principle on a future trade deal, but that's not the xame thing at all.

More lies from May.

Trade deals will require a lot more involvement. Either a trade deal has been negotiated for months / years prior to the visit or else they will start at some point.

Signing any deal will have to wait. Possibly until some time after the next government.

 

[KM-Tiger]

As EU members we are not allowed to conclude trade deals with other countries. she may have secured an agreement in principle on a future trade deal, but that's not the xame thing at all.

You are quite correct.

But the detail of this is a lot less than clear. I've just seen a tweet that indicates that what has been signed is a 'carryover' that means existing EU agreements with African countries will be continued with the UK after we leave.

If that is true that is rather good news I think.

 

[Newchodge]

You are quite correct.

But the detail of this is a lot less than clear. I've just seen a tweet that indicates that what has been signed is a 'carryover' that means existing EU agreements with African countries will be continued with the UK after we leave.

If that is true that is rather good news I think.

It would be excellent news, however it is also a trade deal, which we cannot yet conclude. Signing that deal on 30 March 2019 will be the actual deal.

 

[Mr D]

You are quite correct.

But the detail of this is a lot less than clear. I've just seen a tweet that indicates that what has been signed is a 'carryover' that means existing EU agreements with African countries will be continued with the UK after we leave.

If that is true that is rather good news I think.

Better than starting from scratch anyway.
And potentially can be used as a template for other deals - pointing to this as a successful deal in time.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

If that is true that is rather good news I think.

At a cost of £4billion??

 

[Cobby]

Well I am not so sure who started it. It is just so noticeable, I could not resist mentioning it. None of us are TV presenters grilling others on the forum.

No, but it's worthwhile wherever there's a serious public discussion on an important topic, that perpetrators of falsehoods and fallacies are held accountable (i.e. highlighted as such). Lies spread much more easily than truths.

 

[Newchodge]

No, but it's worthwhile wherever there's a serious public discussion on an important topic, that perpetrators of falsehoods and fallacies are held accountable (i.e. highlighted as such). Lies spread much more easily than truths.

That is true. I correct statements of fact, however I ignore opinions and pointless ramblings as anyone else can see them for what they are. Entering into a discussion only gives them more oxygen.

 

[Cobby]

That is true. I correct statements of fact, however I ignore opinions and pointless ramblings as anyone else can see them for what they are. Entering into a discussion only gives them more oxygen.

What about opinions expressed as statements of fact?

I agree with you almost 100%, but sometimes, and especially with the current topic, I think it's better not to let the common myths stand unchallenged; I know my replies are sometimes a bit wordy but it's very little time and effort. After all, embers will still catch.

 

[Mr D]

That is true. I correct statements of fact, however I ignore opinions and pointless ramblings as anyone else can see them for what they are. Entering into a discussion only gives them more oxygen.

Yes its important to have facts and correct untruthful / inaccurate information presented as fact.

 

[Steven001]

Theresa May believes so strongly in the European Union that she's willing to sacrifice the future of Britain to make her point that she disagrees with the referendum result. Whether you are a leaver or a remainer you must agree that we need to get rid of her very quickly.

 

[Mr D]

Theresa May believes so strongly in the European Union that she's willing to sacrifice the future of Britain to make her point that she disagrees with the referendum result. Whether you are a leaver or a remainer you must agree that we need to get rid of her very quickly.

Must I agree? Why?

Ok presuming you can persuade enough conservative MPs to force her out, what then?
Do you get Jacob, Michael or Boris replacing her? Would one of those 3 suit you better as PM than the current post holder?

 

[Steven001]

Must I agree? Why?

Ok presuming you can persuade enough conservative MPs to force her out, what then?
Do you get Jacob, Michael or Boris replacing her? Would one of those 3 suit you better as PM than the current post holder?

No, Johnson is a career politician who bows in the direction of money and Mogg isn't strong enough to be a leader so actually you're right, in a sense. She needs to stay and completely destroy Brexit as the vast majority of the conservative party is so riddled with remainers it's no longer salvageable. This is the only way a mass exodus will occur at the next general election as their core vote jumps ship to UKIP.
Only when we have a fairly nationalistic party in power will we ever get a real Brexit. It's going to be a rough ride though, the Cons will pull out all the stops and drive purposely bad policy to punish Brexiteers like me who had the nerve to vote again the establishment and the actual cheek to win too!

 

[Steven001]

Must I agree? Why?

Double post by mistake. Running very slow this am.

 

[Mr D]

No, Johnson is a career politician who bows in the direction of money and Mogg isn't strong enough to be a leader so actually you're right, in a sense. She needs to stay and completely destroy Brexit as the vast majority of the conservative party is so riddled with remainers it's no longer salvageable. This is the only way a mass exodus will occur at the next general election as their core vote jumps ship to UKIP.
Only when we have a fairly nationalistic party in power will we ever get a real Brexit. It's going to be a rough ride though, the Cons will pull out all the stops and drive purposely bad policy to punish Brexiteers like me who had the nerve to vote again the establishment and the actual cheek to win too!

Unfortunately for you the voters at the last general election voted in sufficient conservative MPs that her party is in government. Nothing will change that short of a bunch of by elections won by other parties or a general election where some other party wins. As the voters have voted in the Conservatives at last 3 general elections its quite possible they'll do the same again next time.

A real Brexit? We have one, whether we like it or not. The timescale to leave is end of March next year. Unless you get a change of government between now and then PLUS agreement by the other 27 to extend the time then you won't get a different Brexit.

Unless of course the Brexit is cancelled and we start again, next time perhaps with a few decades to work out all the details first before submitting the letter.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45351288

The first of many, I suspect.

It's just far easier for these companies to move their HQs and maintain the status quo.

There aren't many jobs involved in this case, but that's not the point. This is still a loss of tax revenue, a loss of economic prestige and leverage for future trade deals, and a strengthening of the EU at the expense of our own country.

 

[Mr D]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45351288

The first of many, I suspect.

It's just far easier for these companies to move their HQs and maintain the status quo.

There aren't many jobs involved in this case, but that's not the point. This is still a loss of tax revenue, a loss of economic prestige and leverage for future trade deals, and a strengthening of the EU at the expense of our own country.

Once the move is started there won't be a compelling reason to move it back even if we get a good deal or cancelled Brexit.
A chunk of tax revenue, staff wages and economic activity gone for good.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Once the move is started there won't be a compelling reason to move it back even if we get a good deal or cancelled Brexit.
A chunk of tax revenue, staff wages and economic activity gone for good.

The UK's problem is there's a lack of "unique selling point" to mitigate the loss of the single market.

For example, one idea is to massively reduce corporation tax to encourage business investment. The issue is that even if we get it down to the levels some have proposed, it'll still be higher than Ireland's rate. Plus, they have the same language/timezone/location advantages, AND they have seamless access to the world's second largest economy, AND they have access to all the free trade agreements with the economic clout of the EU behind them.

Yes, there are UK benefits such as the range of expertise on offer, but leaving the EU throws a spanner in that too. Set up shop in a country such as Ireland, or any other in the EU, and the company knows that it's effortless to bring European talent in when needed. The same can't be said for the UK when the time comes.

In the case of Panasonic in particular, they were set to benefit greatly from the recently agreed EU-Japan trade agreement. Now if they (and other Japanese companies) want to keep operations in the UK, they have to wave goodbye to that while dealing with all of the friction and uncertainty.

Meanwhile, I have two clients - one in retail, one in manufacturing - that must import specific products and materials from Europe to serve their UK customers. Right now, they're staring down the barrel of tariffs and quotas that will slash weekly profits unless the mother of all trade deals is somehow agreed.

What I fear most is that we appear to be sleepwalking into Brexit. I think it's greatly underappreciated just how beneficial it is to be able to import and export anything to the EU without any worry about tariffs, quotas, customs checks, delays, regulations or anything of that nature (all to such a degree that no FTA could never come close to replicating). So much of the UK economy benefits from that, and I fear the penny will drop once the costs and friction shoot up for British businesses with no ability to turn back.

 

[Steven001]

Unfortunately for you the voters at the last general election voted in sufficient conservative MPs that her party is in government. Nothing will change that short of a bunch of by elections won by other parties or a general election where some other party wins. As the voters have voted in the Conservatives at last 3 general elections its quite possible they'll do the same again next time.

A real Brexit? We have one, whether we like it or not. The timescale to leave is end of March next year. Unless you get a change of government between now and then PLUS agreement by the other 27 to extend the time then you won't get a different Brexit.

Unless of course the Brexit is cancelled and we start again, next time perhaps with a few decades to work out all the details first before submitting the letter.

It's at the next general election where things will get interesting, very interesting indeed. The upper echelons of all the mainstream parties including the conservative party are all massively in favor of the EU over our own British independence, that's indisputable. Logically the course pursued by the Conservatives will be one of capitulation to secure a long term relationship between the UK and the EU at any cost. This is something 17.4 million of us voted against, myself included. Prepare for a massive paradigm shift in 2022 after we end up with a raw deal!

As far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone in this - the two party system of Labour and Conservative has run its course, it's time for new contenders, not tied to the supranational EU or the mega corporations to rightfully earn public trust and act to propel our nation forward into the prosperous and opulent future we all deserve, one which is within our reach with the right leadership.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Mr D]

It's at the next general election where things will get interesting, very interesting indeed. The upper echelons of all the mainstream parties including the conservative party are all massively in favor of the EU over our own British independence, that's indisputable. Logically the course pursued by the Conservatives will be one of capitulation to secure a long term relationship between the UK and the EU at any cost. This is something 17.4 million of us voted against, myself included. Prepare for a massive paradigm shift in 2022 after we end up with a raw deal!

As far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone in this - the two party system of Labour and Conservative has run its course, it's time for new contenders, not tied to the supranational EU or the mega corporations to rightfully earn public trust and act to propel our nation forward into the prosperous and opulent future we all deserve, one which is within our reach with the right leadership.

Fingers crossed.

You mean pretty much describing the last general election?
Sorry I thought you wanted to describe the next one not the last one.

We have a few hundred political parties. Choose one and push it. Has worked multiple times in the past.

Don't expect the right leadership. The best people for the job have no interest in ever becoming a party leader.