EU referendum...THE RESULT...and aftermath...

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I have not insinuated that anybody on these boards is racist.

It starts and ends there.

At no time did I call you a Paedoe.

Czarcasm wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

He hasn't called him a racist, I don't see that at all.

Not directly. No. But the insinuation is there, not just towards Ears tbf.

I’ve not met Franny in real life but if he mirrors his online persona, there’s a major lack of social skills and awareness of how what he’s saying will be perceived.

and has got the reaction he was looking for.

Why do't you just look at what you've just posted Czarky....
You say of Sir Frank

Quote :

there’s a major lack of social skills and awareness of how what he’s saying will be perceived.

While almost condoning the old style excuse of earwig  

Quote :

Obviously Eãrs calls a spade a spade

You can't have it both ways. You're judging one person totally differently than another. I haven't see any inferring, let alone accusation of Earwig being a racist. That's just smoke and playing the victim. He's certainly a nationalist, of that we can all be sure, given the years of flag waving across Le channel, but nationalists are not racist. If Earwig can't handle a bit of condescension as some call it, others might call it taking the piss, then he should wind his neck in. Frank probably sees it as straight forward logic. That's not a crime is it ? it's not even a social misbehaving, it's just how many people speak, although, granted there's not much chance to accustom to that articulate style in the wilds of West devon.... or the Muff for that matter   .
In fact, I'll go further, there's a rising tide of fascism, which clearly UKIP has encouraged and people have latched on to. But even fascists aren't necessarily racist, they're authoritarian, and WILL NOT tolerate other views, similar to Putin, Dueterte, Erdogan, and of course, wouldn't trump like to go down that road if he could.  Almost always of the right with a flag often involved, but not exclusively

And here's the other one. Nationalist flag waving across the channel? With my Trumpy T shirt on? Feckin up the environment for people like you with my chelsea tractor and aversion to solar panels. Lol.
You're still smarting from the beasting you got the other day so jog on prick.

beesrus wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

He hasn't called him a racist, I don't see that at all.

Not directly. No. But the insinuation is there, not just towards Ears tbf.

I’ve not met Franny in real life but if he mirrors his online persona, there’s a major lack of social skills and awareness of how what he’s saying will be perceived.

and has got the reaction he was looking for.

Why do't you just look at what you've just posted Czarky....
You say of Sir Frank

Quote :

there’s a major lack of social skills and awareness of how what he’s saying will be perceived.

While almost condoning the old style excuse of earwig  

Quote :

Obviously Eãrs calls a spade a spade

You can't have it both ways. You're judging one person totally differently than another. I haven't see any inferring, let alone accusation of Earwig being a racist. That's just smoke and playing the victim. He's certainly a nationalist, of that we can all be sure, given the years of flag waving across Le channel, but nationalists are not racist. If Earwig can't handle a bit of condescension as some call it, others might call it taking the piss, then he should wind his neck in. Frank probably sees it as straight forward logic. That's not a crime is it ? it's not even a social misbehaving, it's just how many people speak, although, granted there's not much chance to accustom to that articulate style in the wilds of West devon.... or the Muff for that matter   .
In fact, I'll go further, there's a rising tide of fascism, which clearly UKIP has encouraged and people have latched on to. But even fascists aren't necessarily racist, they're authoritarian, and WILL NOT tolerate other views, similar to Putin, Dueterte, Erdogan, and of course, wouldn't trump like to go down that road if he could.  Almost always of the right with a flag often involved, but not exclusively

Beez, what you either ignore or simply don’t see, is that Ears is doing to Franny exactly what Franny does in many past debates. There will be little nuances and get-out clauses in Frannys arguments that when someone pulls him on something, he’ll say “I didn’t say that”. And yeah, technically word for word he didn’t. But he does it over and over.

Eãrs is playing him at his own game. He didn’t call him a peado. But of course, Franny won’t like the insinuation will he? Of course he won’t. Exactly the same as Eãrs has got sick of the constant racist connotations that Franny brings into the Brexit debate.

Save your breath Czarks Bees and Frank are both propenents of this form of trolling. And both are never wrong, ever, not once ect, ect.
The other huge yawning gulf between me Bees and Frank is that I'm man enough to admit when Im wrong.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Rules and laws eroded"... Remember?

Obviously not.

Not even one.

sleepy byes for me old chap but i guess you spend most of your time in the dark, but in response I don't see the need to prove my thoughts to you or anybody else, and as you've already proved yourself wrong, I'll leave that for you to investigate, google or whatever else it is you get up to in the dark

So no then. You can't provide a single example of "rules and laws eroded".

Nor can you provide a single argument as to how leeaving the biggest and most succesful free trading bloc in the world iwhich accounts for 44% of our export market is going benefit the nation.

Night night.

As I mentioned to SFD look it up, I did and have done for many years


The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.
When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.


European companies seeking English contract law advice – lose significant amounts of work (although City lawyers would still benefit from a short-term spike in work advising on the transfer to the new rules).

The EU is, of course, well aware of this. Behind its public claim that the goal of a single contract law is to foster economic growth is a private enthusiasm to wrestle some influence away from English law and promote its own hybrid civil code alternative. This ambition is rarely articulated directly, and certainly not to British journalists, but it was hinted at by the decision last week of European justice commissioner Viviane Reding – who launched the single contract law proposal – to select this quote from the German bar association as "quote of the moment" on her website: "A widespread European contract law would be an important advantage in the global competition between the civil and common law systems, particularly in view of a growing Asian market."

Still, a European contract law would have a long way to go before it toppled English law (and New York law) as the dominant jurisdiction for international transactions. But it could be helped to become a serious global player if, in the future, it were to be made compulsory across the EU (rather than optional as is the case under the current proposal), or extended beyond sale of goods contracts.

The possibility of creeping influence worries Law Society president John Wotton. "If the new law is established, there would likely be pressure to expand it to other areas like financial services and insurance," he says.

On a broader level, it was this fear of Europe's capacity to gradually erode our sovereign powers that was behind the decision of 81 Tory MPs to defy the whips and vote in favour of the holding of a referendum on Britain's EU membership. How much the government is influenced by the rebellious Eurosceptic mood among its backbenchers will doubtless influence the stance it takes on the single contract law proposal.

Brexit and Trump: A disaster for liberalism caused by liberal elites


by Robert Wragg

2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?

In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.

Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.

No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.

That's hit the nail on the head Pat. Their feeling of righteousness enables them to use any dirty trick to try and overthrow the democratic will of the majority.

PatDunne wrote:

Brexit and Trump: A disaster for liberalism caused by liberal elites


by Robert Wragg

2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?

In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.

Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.

No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.

Spot on

PatDunne wrote:

Brexit and Trump: A disaster for liberalism caused by liberal elites


by Robert Wragg

2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?

In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.

Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.

No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.

Nonsense

Frank Bullitt wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

Brexit and Trump: A disaster for liberalism caused by liberal elites


by Robert Wragg

2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?

In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.

Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.

No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.

Nonsense

Perhaps you have a better explanation for how both votes went?

PatDunne wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

PatDunne wrote:

Brexit and Trump: A disaster for liberalism caused by liberal elites


by Robert Wragg

2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?

In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.

Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.

No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.

Nonsense

Perhaps you have a better explanation for how both votes went?

Yes I do.

Here's another point of view, from The Guradian,

t’s all about immigration. It’s not about trade or Europe or anything like that …” boldly declares an interviewee on a Channel 4 news video going viral on Facebook. He continues: “The movement of people in Europe – fair enough. But not from Africa, Syria, Iraq, everywhere else, it’s all wrong.” I don’t know what’s more astounding – the fact that this man’s xenophobia was the sole motive for his Brexit vote or the fact that he is so uninformed, he doesn’t realise that his vote has actually secured the opportunity for more migrants from Africa, Syria, and Iraq.

UK voted for Brexit – but is there a way back?
Read more
If this were a view shared by the 52% of those who voted in the referendum to leave the EU, I might be able to identify with the fury and frustration directed towards Brexit supporters. However, this just isn’t the case. The Brexit populace consists of more than grumpy white 55-year-old men who reside in northern England and are angry at eastern Europeans for taking all the jobs they never applied for. I – a 20-something member of an ethnic minority who works in London – am a case in point.

My decision was far from easy. The democratic deficit and national sovereignty were issues of concern, especially given the trajectory of the EU. The European commission consists of unelected officials who lack democratic accountability. And given how far we’ve come since joining the EEC in 1973, it’s at least a little unnerving to consider how much more politically integrated the EU will be in 10 or 15 years’ time. Our politicians may still make awful decisions, but at least they are accountable to us.

Economics and trade were also factors in my decision-making. Although, make no mistake, I didn’t view the short-term economic implications through rose-tinted spectacles. The stakes were always high – with a large number of UK-based firms relying on access to the single market, and particularly the banks on passporting rights, its removal was likely to result in jobs being moved elsewhere within the EU. And the shock of a Brexit victory (accompanied by uncertainty) was always going to have a detrimental effect on markets. However, given our economic strength within the EU, and the level of trade that currently takes place between the UK and the EU, I believe the UK can negotiate a favourable deal. And greater control of immigration would allow for better planning of public services, and would provide more opportunities for non-EU migrants. Although I won’t pretend that the degree of control doesn’t depend on any deal made with the EU.

Sadly, many remain voters care little for the reasoning or rationale behind the decision of Brexit voters. I’ve seen Brexiters being grouped together and called “idiot”, “racist”, and other derogatory terms, simply by virtue of being Brexit voters. Their rationale is redundant, and their motives irrelevant. The only thing being placed on trial is the positioning of their X on the ballot paper.

Some remain voters have descended into the barbarism and intolerance that they fight against so valiantly in others
These remain voters have descended into the barbarism and intolerance that they fight against so valiantly in others. They condemn the notion that all Muslims should be held responsible for the atrocious actions of Isis, but then proceed to implicate all Brexiters in the recent post-Brexit racist attacks. They advocate the importance of tolerance and an understanding of different viewpoints. And yet, I can’t help but notice the intellectual arrogance that has exuded from many remain voters, and their failure to distinguish between Brexiters desiring to make “Britain white again” and those who made a genuine attempt to consider all the arguments and implications before casting their vote. Among the latter, you’ll find voters who did their best to make an informed decision; whose parents are immigrants; and who abhor the racist motivations of other Brexiters just as much as remain voters do.

Moving forward, the UK needs a leader entering into these impending negotiations with the understanding that he or she represents the whole nation, not merely the 52% who voted for Brexit. The new prime minister will need to work with prominent figures across the leave-remain divide to obtain the most favourable outcome for the UK. But we as a nation, made up of both remain and leave voters, must engage in dialogue, accompanied by mutual respect, in order to heal the deep divide exposed by this Brexit outcome.

Graiser wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Rules and laws eroded"... Remember?

Obviously not.

Not even one.

sleepy byes for me old chap but i guess you spend most of your time in the dark, but in response I don't see the need to prove my thoughts to you or anybody else, and as you've already proved yourself wrong, I'll leave that for you to investigate, google or whatever else it is you get up to in the dark

So no then. You can't provide a single example of "rules and laws eroded".

Nor can you provide a single argument as to how leeaving the biggest and most succesful free trading bloc in the world iwhich accounts for 44% of our export market is going benefit the nation.

Night night.

As I mentioned to SFD look it up, I did and have done for many years


The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.
When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.


European companies seeking English contract law advice – lose significant amounts of work (although City lawyers would still benefit from a short-term spike in work advising on the transfer to the new rules).

The EU is, of course, well aware of this. Behind its public claim that the goal of a single contract law is to foster economic growth is a private enthusiasm to wrestle some influence away from English law and promote its own hybrid civil code alternative. This ambition is rarely articulated directly, and certainly not to British journalists, but it was hinted at by the decision last week of European justice commissioner Viviane Reding – who launched the single contract law proposal – to select this quote from the German bar association as "quote of the moment" on her website: "A widespread European contract law would be an important advantage in the global competition between the civil and common law systems, particularly in view of a growing Asian market."

Still, a European contract law would have a long way to go before it toppled English law (and New York law) as the dominant jurisdiction for international transactions. But it could be helped to become a serious global player if, in the future, it were to be made compulsory across the EU (rather than optional as is the case under the current proposal), or extended beyond sale of goods contracts.

The possibility of creeping influence worries Law Society president John Wotton. "If the new law is established, there would likely be pressure to expand it to other areas like financial services and insurance," he says.

On a broader level, it was this fear of Europe's capacity to gradually erode our sovereign powers that was behind the decision of 81 Tory MPs to defy the whips and vote in favour of the holding of a referendum on Britain's EU membership. How much the government is influenced by the rebellious Eurosceptic mood among its backbenchers will doubtless influence the stance it takes on the single contract law proposal.

Now where to begin?

It has taken you 4 days to come up with that reply. 4 days! And it's the most boring ATD post I have ever read.

It doesn't even read like an internet post and certainly not one of yours.

In fact it bears an uncanny resemblance to a Guardian article dated 28/10/11 so it is over 6 years old which should be long enough to assess any of the fears that it raises (not that they registered strongly with me because it is as dull as dishwater and I was losing the will to live long before the end).

Also as a c&p job it clearly wasn't front and foremost in your mind as an example of one of the laws that erodes blah di blah di blah.

You asserted there was oodles of these things and can't name one off the top of your head. I find that incredulous - especially when it's the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] factor affecting your choice of vote.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anyway apart from it being staggeringly dull its core (as I understand it) worry is:

Quote :

The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.
When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.

... and it has patently failed to materialise in the near 7 years since that fear was propounded.

So not only are you unable to articulate even one of the host of awful laws to which you refer but having googled for an example of them you have come up with the boring article ever.

And then not only that you chose the most boring article ever which the passage of time has proven to be utter cack.

I know people get cross when I suggest stupidity is a core Brexit quality but it is hard to think otherwise when presented with guff like this.

Well Frannie... When the most boring post ever is based on an article from the Guardian, perhaps it gives an indication of how boring you are when you constantly quote from it?


Talking of four days to come up with something?

How's that "Big big shit" coming along? Ever feel like you've been suckered?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"Rules and laws eroded"... Remember?

Obviously not.

Not even one.

sleepy byes for me old chap but i guess you spend most of your time in the dark, but in response I don't see the need to prove my thoughts to you or anybody else, and as you've already proved yourself wrong, I'll leave that for you to investigate, google or whatever else it is you get up to in the dark

So no then. You can't provide a single example of "rules and laws eroded".

Nor can you provide a single argument as to how leeaving the biggest and most succesful free trading bloc in the world iwhich accounts for 44% of our export market is going benefit the nation.

Night night.

As I mentioned to SFD look it up, I did and have done for many years


The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.
When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.


European companies seeking English contract law advice – lose significant amounts of work (although City lawyers would still benefit from a short-term spike in work advising on the transfer to the new rules).

The EU is, of course, well aware of this. Behind its public claim that the goal of a single contract law is to foster economic growth is a private enthusiasm to wrestle some influence away from English law and promote its own hybrid civil code alternative. This ambition is rarely articulated directly, and certainly not to British journalists, but it was hinted at by the decision last week of European justice commissioner Viviane Reding – who launched the single contract law proposal – to select this quote from the German bar association as "quote of the moment" on her website: "A widespread European contract law would be an important advantage in the global competition between the civil and common law systems, particularly in view of a growing Asian market."

Still, a European contract law would have a long way to go before it toppled English law (and New York law) as the dominant jurisdiction for international transactions. But it could be helped to become a serious global player if, in the future, it were to be made compulsory across the EU (rather than optional as is the case under the current proposal), or extended beyond sale of goods contracts.

The possibility of creeping influence worries Law Society president John Wotton. "If the new law is established, there would likely be pressure to expand it to other areas like financial services and insurance," he says.

On a broader level, it was this fear of Europe's capacity to gradually erode our sovereign powers that was behind the decision of 81 Tory MPs to defy the whips and vote in favour of the holding of a referendum on Britain's EU membership. How much the government is influenced by the rebellious Eurosceptic mood among its backbenchers will doubtless influence the stance it takes on the single contract law proposal.

Now where to begin?

It has taken you 4 days to come up with that reply. 4 days! And it's the most boring ATD post I have ever read.

It doesn't even read like an internet post and certainly not one of yours.

In fact it bears an uncanny resemblance to a Guardian article dated 28/10/11 so it is over 6 years old which should be long enough to assess any of the fears that it raises (not that they registered strongly with me because it is as dull as dishwater and I was losing the will to live long before the end).

Also as a c&p job it clearly wasn't front and foremost in your mind as an example of one of the laws that erodes blah di blah di blah.

You asserted there was oodles of these things and can't name one off the top of your head. I find that incredulous - especially when it's the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] factor affecting your choice of vote.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anyway apart from it being staggeringly dull its core (as I understand it) worry is:

Quote :

The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.
When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.

... and it has patently failed to materialise in the near 7 years since that fear was propounded.

So not only are you unable to articulate even one of the host of awful laws to which you refer but having googled for an example of them you have come up with the boring article ever.

And then not only that you chose the most boring article ever which the passage of time has proven to be utter cack.

I know people get cross when I suggest stupidity is a core Brexit quality but it is hard to think otherwise when presented with guff like this.

Bugger when you get it wrong you really get it wrong, it hasn’t taken 4 days to come up with a reply, unlike you I have a life away from the keyboard.
However my views on the EU have been built up over many years.
At the 1975 referendum I voted to stay in the European Economic Community, didn’t have much of an issue with it then only the nagging feeling I had at the time of what seemed to me the dumping of our Commonwealth friends which sort of reeked to me as “sod you I’m off”

But over years of being royally shafted by our “Leaders” and lo and behold becoming a member of the European Union with uncontrolled borders, rules being imposed on us by unelected beaurocrats, being governed by a body who cannot agree their own accounting, fisheries industry being devastated, I could go on and on but a bit of a waste of time as far as your concerned, as I’ve mentioned before, look it up and not just the bits you want to believe.

Just for clarity

I’m not racist

I’m not a sexual deviant

I’ve never voted Tory

I’m a disaffected Labour voter, haven’t voted labour since 2005

Whatever the reason it has taken 4 days.

We are not in Schengen so we so not have uncontrolled borders.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Whatever the reason it has taken 4 days.

We are not in Schengen so we so not have uncontrolled borders.

Schengen - Freedom of movement, either notion to me means uncontrolled.

“The role of the European Commission should be strengthened so that it can investigate and enforce the free movement rules more efficiently and fulfil its mission as guardian of the EU Treaties.
Member States should deepen their collaboration on the free movement of persons, with an expert group to research and share information on best practices. Existing rules must be better enforced.
Civil Society groups should be empowered to inform and assist mobile citizens to ensure that they can effectively exercise their rights.
All political actors and institutions in the EU and its Member States must abstain from exploiting the issue of free movement for populist campaigns, which sows xenophobic and Eurosceptic sentiments.”

In other words do as I say or else

Not copied from the Guardian

This 4 day delay has really got to you hasn’t it, would you like a breakdown of my diary and do you have anymore interesting snippets from the Guardian to enlighten us all ?

This is where the entire immigration debate from a Brexit point of view falls down.

I can't be arsed to look up the actual figures but we currently enjoy around 400,000 as a net immigration figure. This is split roughly 50/50 between EU and non-EU immigrants so, say, 200,000 each. (All figures indicative so but the logic holds so please do not quibble if it is a few thou out either way.)

We could, if we so desired, instantly cut immigration by half simply by closing the door to non-EU people. But we have not.

Similarly once we Brexit we could cut immigration by half by excluding EU nationals but we would still, either way, have a net immigration level of 200,000.

What is the proposed government target? 30,000.

This figure has been noticeably unachievable to this point and will remain unachievable afterwards.

Why?

Apart from it being a figure plucked out of thin air to appease the Daily Mail to start with it is pure fantasy from the get go.

When we go to, say, India (or Brazil or China or anywhere) to negotiate one of these wonderful post-Brexit deals the first thing they will say is "we want freedom of movement between our countries - deal or no deal?".

The 30,000 target is a complete nonsense. The idea that immigration to this country is a bad thing is also complete nonsense.

In stark terms it boils down to:

"Do you want Brexit or an NHS?"

... because you can't have both. Not if you want to hit the 30,000 target.

There's many other reasons why the debate around this is complete baloney but this scenario distills it simply.

Still at least it is a debate we are now having - unlike the Brexit/Racism one which it appears we aren't allowed to talk about anymore.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I can't be arsed to look up the actual figures but we currently enjoy around 400,000 as a net immigration figure.

I, Enjoy wouldn't have been my word of choice.

2, Do you think those figures are sustainable over a prolonged period, ie 100 years where, when you figure in the increased birth rate that comes with immigrants the population of this small island would more than double?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

When we go to, say, India (or Brazil or China or anywhere) to negotiate one of these wonderful post-Brexit deals the first thing they will say is "we want freedom of movement between our countries - deal or no deal?".
.

Rubbish. Does Britain have that deal currently with the USA? With Japan? With countless other Non - Eu countries it trades with?

SFD - 'The idea that immigration to this country is a bad thing is also complete nonsense'.


What's your upper limit per year? would say a million be too many? 2 million? 3 million?
Unlimited immigration is good, is that what you are saying?

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I can't be arsed to look up the actual figures but we currently enjoy around 400,000 as a net immigration figure.

I, Enjoy wouldn't have been my word of choice.

2, Do you think those figures are sustainable over a prolonged period, ie 100 years where, when you figure in the increased birth rate that comes with immigrants the population of this small island would more than double?

They have to be.

It won't be long before our population has over 50% who are retired. Kids born today have a life expectancy of around 100.

Somebody has to do the actual work that will support them (me one day, hopefully) practically and in terms of paying the taxes that give them (and me, hopefully) a pension and "we" are not breeding fast enough "ourselves" to do it.

There's loads of spare capacity for fitting people in. Loads of empty housing, loads of unused (that could be used) land. The problems which exist around supply and demand of services, housing and so on are caused at least as much by our inability to plan and resource them properly as they do from, the far more obvious, strains due to demand.

Back to the NHS: who do you think uses the NHS more if you consider a Polish brickie and my 93 year old mother?

And who is actually fixing my Mum's teeth (a Pakistani) or testing her eyesight (an African)?

Who was the midwife that delivered my son (a West Indian), who was the paediatrician who dealt with him afterwards (an Italian) , where does my dentist come from? (Sweden)...

None of this is new. My son is 20 years old now. Just go up to Derriford and have a look around.

There it all is in microcosm as a pro forma for the whole country.

Except being in the SW we have rather fewer foreigners than they do elsewhere.

This cannot be fixed quickly. It takes years to train a doctor or a dentist. It would take planning of twice that long to implement the investment we need to make it even vaguely possible.

Still we're out next April. Fairy dust, unicorn manure and tubthumping will fix it!!

Except it won't. And nobody who has considered it properly thinks it will.

And if you think it will all come right when we chop immigration back to 30,000 overnight then you are a dickhead. Firstly because it will not and secondly because it'll never happen. Not ever.

PatDunne wrote:

SFD - 'The idea that immigration to this country is a bad thing is also complete nonsense'.


What's your upper limit per year? would say a million be too many? 2 million? 3 million?
Unlimited immigration is good, is that what you are saying?

Any number suggested is arbitrary nonsense.

Unless you state what you believe to be an optimum number for immigration per year you cannot say whether the UK admits too few or too many.