Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

ben501

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I didn't change any headline. I said:

The Express making things up? The thing (I cannot call it a newspaper) which "asked" if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy?

So you think

Did EU regulation mean deadly cladding was used on Grenfell Tower?

and

if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy?

are asking the same question? It appears that you do as you're still claiming you've not changed it. Strange as I've just rechecked the Express article and it doesn't even contain the word 'responsible'.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I was keen on showing what a biased, racist, xenophobic, unreliable source the Express has always been.

I'll not disagree with that. As I said, it's blocked from my feed so I don't even see their stupid articles.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Are you now ready to admit your mistake and apologise?

What mistake? The only mistake I can see I've made is replying to someone who appears to add words to tabloid articles and then complain about them.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

is that the EU's fault?

Sorry, I must have overlooked something. You appear to be trying to start a blame game. I don't even see why you're asking the question.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

No, it is not:

So why even bother asking a question if you're not willing to consider any replies?

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

If you really wanted to split hair, you could say that:

• IF , AND
• IF, AND
• IF

THEN

At last, you're starting to grasp how the gutter press works. :T

They run a story and twist the words to suit their own agendas (much like many on MSE;))
So returning to the article that has you so infuriated.
They ask if 'deadly cladding was used' because of regulations.

It's well known that companies will often cut corners to save money where they can. I think it quite reasonable to assume that if the owners of a tower block wanted to give the building a 'facelift' for aesthetic reasons, they would be unlikely to spend extra money on unnecessary insulation (weren't there a large number of tower blocks in the UK that also had sub-standard cladding, i.e. cheap stuff, to save money?) They don't pay the heating bills, so the fact that it costs more to heat them is likely of little concern. The only reason they'll add insulation is because regulations require them to.

And that takes us back to the Express headline that has you so upset, which I've only just realised is from the day after the tragedy. So an (i assume) anti EU tabloid writes a headline designed to appeal to its anti EU readers asking if the cladding was fitted because of the EU.
If you still can't read that headline for what is is after all this time, you really shouldn't be looking at stuff you don't agree with.

SouthLondonUser

ben501, I genuinely do not understand you.


I am not too sure what the huge difference is between


"asked" if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy?



and



Did EU regulation mean deadly cladding was used on Grenfell Tower?


I didn't change any title. I didn't say: the title was X. I said that the Express asked if EU regulations were responsible. I could have written that the Express tried to blame EU regulations, that it tried to imply EU rules played a role, etc. It's all the same concept. What gets you so worked up and why is beyond me.



The point of the article was to blame the EU. It shows how racist and unreliable the Express has always been. I made the example to discredit the source, since its article on the old FCO document had just been mentioned.

BikingBud

Takedap wrote: »

Thanks for the link to the full document rather than the extremely selective quotes from the Express article.

It's a long tome running to over 200 pages but the main thrust is in the first 10 or so with the rest being mostly "Legales" explanation although it does go into the concept of the UK's idea of what being "British" means.

It is not a tome it is a collection of papers, relating to internal preparation of documents and discussion regarding joining the European Communities, FCO file number 30/1048. It is but part of a story the first enclosure is 52 so there were 51 document previous to those in this file and likely many more elsewhere and afterwards.

Nevertheless it's all opinion! Some of it prepared by Sir Dennis Greenhill for Sir Geoffrey Rippon. Think Sir Humphrey. It was passed to politicians for them to pontificate upon.

But what you have failed to highlight that is very clear is the difficulty in not only answering Q 16 but even including it in the Planning Paper/Factsheet.

If we start at Enclosure 52, which responds to producing a pamphlet on Sovereignty, (we saw some of those for the 2016 Referendum I seem to recall) it comments:

"I realise that we do not want to falsify the Sovereignty issue or give our future Community partners that idea that we are frightened to commit ourselves in this respect. But you will also be aware of the Conservative Group for Europe's wish to play down this issue as far as possible and reassure the people in Parliament and in the country who get emotional about loss of Sovereignty"

So as far as we can establish from the outset this was designed to placate those that had doubts about joining the Community.

In enclosure 100 (note E101 has been removed) covering note; Para 2
"I hope I have not gone too far in voicing our continued worries about Question and Answer No 16. EID feel it would be better to leave this out"

Also within the factsheet:

Quote: We are rather worried about the impact upon Parliamentary opinion of question and answer 16. The fact of primacy of community legislation cannot be denied But I feel there is a case for omitting it altogether.

So did it make it into the pamphlet or not? Doesn't really matter as the pint here is about the manipulation of the "evidence" provide to the public. Echoes of 2016 again?

Furthermore, within the LM Planning Paper at E 99, there is at least one page missing, Page 1? Para 3, last sentence states: "Externally, therefore, sovereignty is a technical concept......" but is not completed as the next page is Page 3 and Para 7 is the next identified para.

There is also a point made about the technical legal aspects of sovereignty, both internal and external, and the realities of power. And goes on to say:

"It is therefore generally recognised that sovereign states can lose some degree of independence of action in external relations without forfeiting their international legal status. But it is always a question of degree in each particular case whether the restraints are so extensive as to be incompatible with continued existence as an equal and independent member of the international community..."

and

"and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none: "

and

"The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples'. "

and

"It would clearly be in the interests of the UK that British Parliamentarians should acquire a position of influence in the European Parliament against a day when it assumes effective powers"

So although loss of sovereignty may have been recognised and advised to politicians in 1971, there was a desire to leave it out entirely in any advice that passed on to the general population.

It seems logical to deduce therefore that at the time of the 2016 Referendum the UK electorate decided that they were no longer content with the loss of sovereignty and the lack of influence of British Parliamentarians in the European Parliament.

The particular reasons underpinning the swing of the pendulum may be different for each and everyone of those that voted to leave, but it is clear how they cast their vote.

ben501

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I am not too sure what the huge difference is between

"asked" if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy?
and
Did EU regulation mean deadly cladding was used on Grenfell Tower?

My apologies. I didn't realise you had limited understanding of the language.

My legalese is a little rusty at this time of the morning. Perhaps you should ask a lawyer the difference between saying something was used, and something was responsible.
I believe there's an actual legal term for what you're doing. Something similar to slander?:think:

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What gets you so worked up and why is beyond me.

Me. Worked up?

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

The Express making things up? The thing (I cannot call it a newspaper) which "asked" if EU regulations were responsible for the Greenfell tragedy?

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I'd still love to know

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Still refusing to answer the original question, I see. This speaks volumes...

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Remind me again, how is Greenfell the EU's fault?

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

unreliable the Express has always been. I made the example to discredit the source,

And it backfired massively :rotfl:

Here's a tip. If you're going to accuse a publication of making things up, don't make things up yourself.
Then again if you hadn't accused them of writing something that they clearly didn't, I doubt I'd have entertained you with the response you were so desperately seeking. (forgive me. a massive assumption on my part, but after 3 days of asking for a reply, what else could I think)


Anyway, now you've had a chance to vent, how about you let the topic get back on track? If you really want to discuss other stuff there's a whole sub forum for it (DT)
Be warned though that you will encounter many opinions that you disagree with, so you'll probably want a good supply of pills to keep your blood pressure down before you start.

Herzlos

BikingBud wrote: »

It seems logical to deduce therefore that at the time of the 2016 Referendum the UK electorate decided that they were no longer content with the loss of sovereignty and the lack of influence of British Parliamentarians in the European Parliament.

Perceived loss of sovereignty, sure.

I'm not sure what influence people are expecting Westminster to have in Europe? It may be better if some of the MEPs turned up.
We're a member of the EU, but some people seem to want the EU to be a part of the British Empire.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Perceived loss of sovereignty, sure.

I'm not sure what influence people are expecting Westminster to have in Europe? It may be better if some of the MEPs turned up.
We're a member of the EU, but some people seem to want the EU to be a part of the British Empire.

That's a novel twist on the usual Leave voter concerns about the EU you've made there.
Speaking personally, its not that I view the EU as an empire that I want the UK to dominate, its more of a wish to see the UK distance itself from an organisation with whose stated aims and objectives I disagree with.
The need by Remainers to shoe-horn in a British Empire trope is laughable. I'm 52 years old and have no lived experience of the UK being a colonial power at all.
It was just a vote on EU membership, that was it.

SouthLondonUser

@Ben501, you really crack me up.

The Express wanted to insinuate the doubt that EU rules may have had something to do with the Grenfell tragedy. Now, you may express this concept in multiple ways: you may say connected, linked, indirectly linked, responsible, partly responsible, to blame, maybe to blame, etc etc etc - the concept remains the same. And it's total nonsense - biiig fake news.

How my discrediting the Express backfired massively is beyond me, but whatever.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

Speaking personally, its not that I view the EU as an empire that I want the UK to dominate, its more of a wish to see the UK distance itself from an organisation with whose stated aims and objectives I disagree with.

So what aims do you disagree with and how will the UK perceive different aims by going it alone?

I presume you don't want the UK to be a hermit country like North Korea, right? On what basis will the UK deal and trade with the rest of the world? What bargaining power will the UK, alone, have with the rest of the world, and how does that compare with the bargaining power it has as part of the larger EU block?

Do you want chlorinated chicken, looser food safety standards, less power for the NHS to set the price of the drugs it buys etc? Being part of the larger EU block has made it easier for the UK to refuse these things when dealing with countries like the US. Will it be able to do the same once it's alone? To me, having these things forced down our throat as a result of a trade deal would be a much worse blow to 'sovereignty' .

SouthLondonUser

BikingBud wrote: »

It seems logical to deduce therefore that at the time of the 2016 Referendum the UK electorate decided that they were no longer content with the loss of sovereignty and the lack of influence of British Parliamentarians in the European Parliament.

What utter nonsense...

It's not like the UK electorate was made up of well-informed scholars in international and comparative constitutional law, who appreciated all the intricacies of EU law, and made an informed decision on that basis. Most people don't know the difference between the EU Council and the EU Commission. Most people have no clue how the EU actually works.

One of the most googled terms after the vote was "What is the EU", for * sake!

Have you watched Carole Cadwalladr's speech on Facebook and how political ads skewed the Brexit vote in Wales? You can also read the transcript
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy

She makes the case of a specific town in Wales with little to no immigration, which benefited massively from lot of EU aid, yet lots of voters were worried about non-existent immigrants etc etc etc.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

So what aims do you disagree with and how will the UK perceive different aims by going it alone?

I presume you don't want the UK to be a hermit country like North Korea, right? On what basis will the UK deal and trade with the rest of the world? What bargaining power will the UK, alone, have with the rest of the world, and how does that compare with the bargaining power it has as part of the larger EU block?

Do you want chlorinated chicken, looser food safety standards, less power for the NHS to set the price of the drugs it buys etc? Being part of the larger EU block has made it easier for the UK to refuse these things when dealing with countries like the US. Will it be able to do the same once it's alone? To me, having these things forced down our throat as a result of a trade deal would be a much worse blow to 'sovereignty' .

I do understand that sovereignty means different things to different people, and no doubt we both voted accordingly back in 2016.
You raise US chlorinated chicken, I suppose I can rebuff that with the Irish horsemeat scandal. That said, if bent banana's is an oft used bit of Brexit propaganda by those of the Leave persuasion then the chlorinated chicken issue is becoming a rather hackneyed argument by your mob.
Again speaking personally, I'd be happy with the clout that comes with being the Worlds 5th biggest economy rather than worry about the concerns of French wine and cheese makers when the EU strikes a trade deal on our behalf.
In era that is supposedly going to be defined by free trade, hitching ourselves to a protectionist entity like the EU is not the way forward in my opinion.
The EU has stated that the Eurozone will continue its journey toward fiscal autonomy and the EU nation states outside of the Eurozone will be faced with some difficult choices as Brussels will quite naturally have prioritise the needs of the Eurozone.
It seems to be the right time to leave to me.

NB.
North Korea... really?