Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Funniest thing to happen in years. Have been following the craziness on the FT. Despite the implications if our current crop of retards manage to push it through I can't remember when I've read the news everyday without fail and learned something new. What does everyone think of the possibility that we stay in the single market, retain freedom of movement. Pay into the EU coffers and lose our vote ??

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not a crap hole.  Like I said, really loved the City. But the drug abuse was horrendous. I'm talking off their face smackheads just wandering down the streets in the middle of the day like scenes out of the Walking Dead.

But is is a small highly affluent city therefore 'integration' is always going be easier to manage.

London is more diverse, Toronto still remains majority white. To put it in context - the number of non-ethnic/white people in London is more than double the entire population of Toronto.

As I said earlier, Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet. http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2016/05/16/toronto-the-diverse.html

Keep headbutting that brick wall, though.

Opinion piece from a local rag??

According to census data, Toronto is majority ethnic white (52%) whereas London is majority non-ethnic/white (55%).

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Last cencsus had London 45% ethnic white. Toronto last census was 52%.

Depends on what you count as London's population I guess, pop growth has been significant since the 2011 census but that kicks out a figure of 4.5m which isn't far short of double Toronto's total 2.6 population.

Point being, it's significantly greater - more than an entire city's worth greater.

Newsflash for the Tory, diversity is not Whites vs. "The Rest".

Wonder if you'd be so tedious without the protection of being a Mod able to sling what they lack and admonish who they don't.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not a crap hole.  Like I said, really loved the City. But the drug abuse was horrendous. I'm talking off their face smackheads just wandering down the streets in the middle of the day like scenes out of the Walking Dead.

But is is a small highly affluent city therefore 'integration' is always going be easier to manage.

London is more diverse, Toronto still remains majority white. To put it in context - the number of non-ethnic/white people in London is more than double the entire population of Toronto.

As I said earlier, Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet. http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2016/05/16/toronto-the-diverse.html

Keep headbutting that brick wall, though.

Opinion piece from a local rag??

According to census data, Toronto is majority ethnic white (52%) whereas London is majority non-ethnic/white (55%).

Did you read it? No, thought not. It was a BBC study. And as I said, the GTA is different to central Toronto.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Last cencsus had London 45% ethnic white. Toronto last census was 52%.

Depends on what you count as London's population I guess, pop growth has been significant since the 2011 census but that kicks out a figure of 4.5m which isn't far short of double Toronto's total 2.6 population.

Point being, it's significantly greater - more than an entire city's worth greater.

Newsflash for the Tory, diversity is not Whites vs. "The Rest".

Wonder if you'd be so tedious without the protection of being a Mod able to sling what they lack and admonish who they don't.

This doesn't make sense.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I also saw nothing as diverse or more integrated in Toronto than I do daily in London. That's Toronto as a very piddly city on the global scale, not 'huge' in the slightest.

What a condescending thing to say. Having lived in both London and Toronto I can claim with some personal experience that Toronto is more diverse and there is far less tension than in London.

And that's Toronto as the fourth largest city in North America. Hardly "piddly".

2.6m is almost a quarter the size of London and not even Top 50 gloablly. So yes, not 'huge' at all.

Everyone loves blowing smoke up the arris of new places they move to and like.  I have never, not anywhere in the world I've lived or travelled, come across such rampant drug abuse just wandering the streets downtown as I have in Toronto.  Actually loved the city, but that was genuinely shocking.

You 'claim' verus I 'claim'. You've clearly seen and experienced something different to me.

Except I've lived in both places and I have far more experience to draw from.

Also, the population of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) which includes places like Mississauga and Brampton - generally considered to be part of Toronto - is almost 6.5m.

I'm not going to indulge your ego on populations any more but integration is just better here, in my experience. And my experience happens to me more than yours.

Your experience of Toronto is certainly greater.

Your experience of London has always come across as petty churlish and bitter. Therefore I hold it in little regard as it's always sounded likely you simply failed to ever take advantage of living here to the full.

But I've lived in both. You haven't. You have visited Toronto and that's it.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Last cencsus had London 45% ethnic white. Toronto last census was 52%.

Depends on what you count as London's population I guess, pop growth has been significant since the 2011 census but that kicks out a figure of 4.5m which isn't far short of double Toronto's total 2.6 population.

Point being, it's significantly greater - more than an entire city's worth greater.

Newsflash for the Tory, diversity is not Whites vs. "The Rest".

Wonder if you'd be so tedious without the protection of being a Mod able to sling what they lack and admonish who they don't.

This doesn't make sense.

I think he was emotional when he wrote it.....

C'mon fella's, think it's been a decent debate today, knock the silly stuff on the head (especially the insults, no need).

*off to sit in the corner and sulk now

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not a crap hole.  Like I said, really loved the City. But the drug abuse was horrendous. I'm talking off their face smackheads just wandering down the streets in the middle of the day like scenes out of the Walking Dead.

But is is a small highly affluent city therefore 'integration' is always going be easier to manage.

London is more diverse, Toronto still remains majority white. To put it in context - the number of non-ethnic/white people in London is more than double the entire population of Toronto.

As I said earlier, Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet. http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2016/05/16/toronto-the-diverse.html

Keep headbutting that brick wall, though.

Opinion piece from a local rag??

According to census data, Toronto is majority ethnic white (52%) whereas London is majority non-ethnic/white (55%).

Did you read it? No, thought not. It was a BBC study. And as I said, the GTA is different to central Toronto.

Good to know that a BBC study based on a limited sample size is more accurate and relevant than national census data.

Will drop a note to ONS, they'll be able to save a bomb every 10 years now.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:I also saw nothing as diverse or more integrated in Toronto than I do daily in London. That's Toronto as a very piddly city on the global scale, not 'huge' in the slightest.

What a condescending thing to say. Having lived in both London and Toronto I can claim with some personal experience that Toronto is more diverse and there is far less tension than in London.

And that's Toronto as the fourth largest city in North America. Hardly "piddly".

2.6m is almost a quarter the size of London and not even Top 50 gloablly. So yes, not 'huge' at all.

Everyone loves blowing smoke up the arris of new places they move to and like.  I have never, not anywhere in the world I've lived or travelled, come across such rampant drug abuse just wandering the streets downtown as I have in Toronto.  Actually loved the city, but that was genuinely shocking.

You 'claim' verus I 'claim'. You've clearly seen and experienced something different to me.

Except I've lived in both places and I have far more experience to draw from.

Also, the population of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) which includes places like Mississauga and Brampton - generally considered to be part of Toronto - is almost 6.5m.

I'm not going to indulge your ego on populations any more but integration is just better here, in my experience. And my experience happens to me more than yours.

Your experience of Toronto is certainly greater.

Your experience of London has always come across as petty churlish and bitter. Therefore I hold it in little regard as it's always sounded likely you simply failed to ever take advantage of living here to the full.

But I've lived in both. You haven't. You have visited Toronto and that's it.

Did you not read the bit where I fully acknowledge your experience of Toronto was greater than mine? Or was I not clear enough that I meant in quantum terms??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Not a crap hole.  Like I said, really loved the City. But the drug abuse was horrendous. I'm talking off their face smackheads just wandering down the streets in the middle of the day like scenes out of the Walking Dead.

But is is a small highly affluent city therefore 'integration' is always going be easier to manage.

London is more diverse, Toronto still remains majority white. To put it in context - the number of non-ethnic/white people in London is more than double the entire population of Toronto.

As I said earlier, Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet. http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2016/05/16/toronto-the-diverse.html

Keep headbutting that brick wall, though.

Opinion piece from a local rag??

According to census data, Toronto is majority ethnic white (52%) whereas London is majority non-ethnic/white (55%).

Did you read it? No, thought not. It was a BBC study. And as I said, the GTA is different to central Toronto.

Good to know that a BBC study based on a limited sample size is more accurate and relevant than national census data.

Will drop a note to ONS, they'll be able to save a bomb every 10 years now.

Did you miss the part when I said the census was based on central Toronto and not the GTA?

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Can't believe it's so quiet on here, what's everyones thoughts of what happened yesterday,

Is the SNP asking for independence a good idea or is it going to backfire on them terribly, does it make the whole situation look like a mockery as it was touted originally as 'once in a generation' - I think it makes them look really bad and that if they ever don't agree with anything they'll just throw the independence card out there.

What about the bill going through that May can start Brexit negotiations or whatever last night (got to admit I was half asleep so didn't really catch what was said)

Happy Tuesday everyone

When Scotland last time went to the vote I was very much against it, now after Brexit I'm thinking good for them, might move up there myself!

Hero wrote:When Scotland last time went to the vote I was very much against it, now after Brexit I'm thinking good for them, might move up there myself!

Why? No guarantee that we'd be in the EU and even if we were, our deficit means that we would have massive cuts in public spending forced upon us.

All the SNP care about is independence and some of there more rabid membership would be prepared to live in a cave as long as they had independence. They've spent the last few years obsessed with constitutional matters and have f*cked up Education and Policing with the health system not too far behind.

While it economically might not make sense, I completely understand why they're pushing for it. They've been left completely out of the loop by May who is unbelievably complacent.

The vote isn't really about economics. It's about what kind of country the Scots want, whether they want to just tow the line behind the English and be dictated to. The vote transcends economics and is more about national identity.

Sound familiar?

I wonder if the areas of Scotland that voted for Brexit get the opportunity to vote to stay in the UK if Scotland votes to leave?

What a stupid question.

Scotland as a whole voted overwhelmingly to stay.

What an objectionable response....

There were areas that didn't, it was not 100%

It was a hypothetical question which was supposed to prompt debate, rather than an insult, but thanks for joining in Pr4wn.

No, it was a feeble question. I'm sure there were tiny pockets of the Scottish population that voted to stay but an enormous majority voted to remain.

You might as well fence of all of the UK's big cities and keep them in the EU if that's the case.

Pr4wn wrote:No, it was a feeble question. I'm sure there were tiny pockets of the Scottish population that voted to stay but an enormous majority voted to remain.

You might as well fence of all of the UK's big cities and keep them in the EU if that's the case.

Potentially, it was more a debate of where democratic boundaries will lie, and where the mandate stops, it appears however that my somewhat leading question was too feeble, so can only apologise for bringing the debate down.

I fear that continuing this will be much like playing a pigeon at chess, so I will retire, and allow the debate to continue, and to raise to the heights that you want and deserve.  Good to see the mods upholding the values of the board though Pr4wn, fair play.

Responding to "insults" with insults, nice. Saying you asked a stupid question is not an insult, by the way. It was a stupid question.

You're asking the wrong question, that's what I'm cross about. The majority for remain was very large in Scotland, so it's a pointless question to ask. Democratic boundaries lie exactly where they are and the mandate stops at the referendum, clearly. Anything else would be a double standard from rUK.

I can only apologise for making you cross, and will think my questions out more in future and make them more appropriate for the audience.

Not willing to engage in debate then? Or would you like me to tone it down a little so you don't get upset?

Toning it down would be just super, thanks.

"The majority for remain was very large in Scotland, so it's a pointless question to ask. Democratic boundaries lie exactly where they are and the mandate stops at the referendum, clearly. Anything else would be a double standard from rUK."

Was this ok? Or should I send you some flowers?

It was a UK referendum. It's not relevant if Scotland voted to remain.

It's like arguing that California voted for Clinton so should have a separate president.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen! Decorum please. This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Scottrf wrote:It was a UK referendum. It's not relevant if Scotland voted to remain.

It's like arguing that California voted for Clinton so should have a separate president.

If they get another Indy ref then it's very relevant.

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It was a UK referendum. It's not relevant if Scotland voted to remain.

It's like arguing that California voted for Clinton so should have a separate president.

If they get another Indy ref then it's very relevant.

Because then they could apply to join the EU...which would put them in the same situation as the rest of the UK.

Doesn't mean it's irrelevant, though.

I honestly hope they leave. Their political beliefs are so far divorced from those of the English that I don't see how a full union can work any more.

I think Rick's questions was perfectly reasonable.  About a third of the SNP's membership voted Leave and there's clearly a conflict between the idea of wanting to be independent from Westminster and the idea of not being independent from the EU.  

I could take a pretty good guess at why some Scottish independence voters are happy to be subject to EU laws, but not happy to be subject to Westminster laws, but it doesn't paint my fellow countryman in a good light.  

What happens if Edinburgh & Lothians, Aberdeen (and the rest of the Highlands) and Orkney and Shetland vote to stay in the UK (highly likely).  Can they do so?  Can they secede from Scotland? If not, why not?  Hell, if there's an upturn in North Sea oil revenues, then Orkney and Shetland would, in relative terms, have Qatar like levels of wealth.

Also - I don't think it's a great idea to promote political movements on the basis of national identity - there are some warnings from history.

Derbymanc wrote:Can't believe it's so quiet on here, what's everyones thoughts of what happened yesterday,

Is the SNP asking for independence a good idea or is it going to backfire on them terribly, does it make the whole situation look like a mockery as it was touted originally as 'once in a generation' - I think it makes them look really bad and that if they ever don't agree with anything they'll just throw the independence card out there.

What about the bill going through that May can start Brexit negotiations or whatever last night (got to admit I was half asleep so didn't really catch what was said)

Happy Tuesday everyone

They were lied to too. We're not staying in Europe they're not getting some of the things promised to them and TM used her typically abrasive 'do what you're told' which got people's backs up no end. The Irish spoke to TM and got similar treatment so are now looking for places on their borders for customs checks. I don't want them to leave but if it's going to be a disaster you might as well take advantage of it.

Thanks for toning down Pr4wn, the floral gift is not necessary, but the gesture is appreciated.

Thanks for not missing the point superfly.

superflyweight wrote:I think Rick's questions was perfectly reasonable.  About a third of the SNP's membership voted Leave and there's clearly a conflict between the idea of wanting to be independent from Westminster and the idea of not being independent from the EU.  

I could take a pretty good guess at why some Scottish independence voters are happy to be subject to EU laws, but not happy to be subject to Westminster laws but it doesn't paint my fellow countryman in a good light.  

What happens if Edinburgh & Lothians, Aberdeen (and the rest of the Highlands) and Orkney and Shetland vote to stay in the UK (highly likely).  Can they do so?  Can the secede from Scotland If not, why not?  Hell, if there's an upturn in North Sea oil revenues, then Orkney and Shetland would, in relative terms, have Qatar like levels of wealth.

Also - I don't think it's a great idea to promote political movements on the basis of national identity - there are some warnings from history.

This was basically the basis for Brexit, sadly.

SecretFly wrote:Gentlemen, Gentlemen!  Decorum please.  This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Really? I thought it was both...especially when Dave was in the house.

So happy that Parliament finally told the Lords to shut up and just let the government get on with triggering Article 50. No amendments, no voting on the terms of leaving. All the filibustering by the Remoaners and underhanded attempts at derailing the process by Gina Whatserface have come to naught.

Its hilarious watching Labour and the SNP getting their collective knickers in a twist.

Not that I bear the Scots any particular ill will...indeed they seem as divided over indyref2, as the UK was over Brexit. I say let Sturgeon have her way...she may be unpleasantly surprised at the result, given the stuff I've been hearing on the radio. She might even have to resign...which might come as something of a relief to our northern cousins...

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Gentlemen, Gentlemen!  Decorum please.  This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Really? I thought it was both...especially when Dave was in the house.

So happy that Parliament finally told the Lords to shut up and just let the government get on with triggering Article 50. No amendments, no voting on the terms of leaving. All the filibustering by the Remoaners and underhanded attempts at derailing the process by Gina Whatserface have come to naught.

Its hilarious watching Labour and the SNP getting their collective knickers in a twist.

Not that I bear the Scots any particular ill will...indeed they seem as divided over indyref2, as the UK was over Brexit. I say let Sturgeon have her way...she may be unpleasantly surprised at the result, given the stuff I've been hearing on the radio. She might even have to resign...which might come as something of a relief to our northern cousins...

Or as it's alternatively known, ensuring that the constitution is observed and that due legal process is followed.

Oh yeah, isn't it fantastic? Who needs political accountability and the rule of law when we have Theresa May at the helm?

rick_dagless wrote:I wonder if the areas of Scotland that voted for Brexit get the opportunity to vote to stay in the UK if Scotland votes to leave?

Excellent question, has certainly upped the quality of debate on this thread. It's bound to tug on a few tampon strings though.

I don't believe that any Scottish districts as a whole voted for leave.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028

superflyweight wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Gentlemen, Gentlemen!  Decorum please.  This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Really? I thought it was both...especially when Dave was in the house.

So happy that Parliament finally told the Lords to shut up and just let the government get on with triggering Article 50. No amendments, no voting on the terms of leaving. All the filibustering by the Remoaners and underhanded attempts at derailing the process by Gina Whatserface have come to naught.

Its hilarious watching Labour and the SNP getting their collective knickers in a twist.

Not that I bear the Scots any particular ill will...indeed they seem as divided over indyref2, as the UK was over Brexit. I say let Sturgeon have her way...she may be unpleasantly surprised at the result, given the stuff I've been hearing on the radio. She might even have to resign...which might come as something of a relief to our northern cousins...

Or as it's alternatively known, ensuring that the constitution is observed and that due legal process is followed.

Sure, whatever makes you feel better. I'm too happy just now to argue.

pr4wn wrote:
Oh yeah, isn't it fantastic? Who needs political accountability and the rule of law when we have Theresa May at the helm?

I find your lack of faith in the Empress May disturbing.

Seriously, I don't get why people think the government aren't going to do their utmost to get us a good deal. Even if we walk away with nothing, we can still fall back on WTO terms of trading...which nobody has complained about when it comes to doing business with the rest of the world...

Okay it'll hurt us a bit...but it hardly constitutes an economic disaster.

Pr4wn wrote:Doesn't mean it's irrelevant, though.

Their political beliefs are so far divorced from those of the English that I don't see how a full union can work any more.

Spot on. That is basically the crux of the matter. A growing number of Scots are fed up being taken as mugs by Westminster governments false promises. It is echoed by the vast change in the political landscape of Scotland.


As for why another one? Well the promises or was it 'Project Fear' made by Better Together last time warned Scots the only way to guarantee remaining in Europe was by voting no and now look what is happening. Many Scots last time were swayed on that issue and by Brown's  eleventh hour turning it into a Devo-Max issue that was totally wrong.


Imagine a government winning a general election and not sticking to their mandate? Say one party was pushing to abolish the NHS and the other party promised to keep it then swiftly reneged on that when elected. On such issues we see a new election.


The Union is like a marriage and independence like a divorce. Divorces happen when trust is lost and for a growing number of Scots that trust in Westminster has gone.

As for Scottish Tories etc calling this move as divisive then the same can be called of Brexit - in fact that is even more divisive in Scotland. 62% voted to remain in Europe whereas last time 55% voted to remain in UK under different circumstance.


I say what will be will be but this is all about anti-Westminster sentiment and not anti-English as many wrongly confuse it with.

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Gentlemen, Gentlemen!  Decorum please.  This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Really? I thought it was both...especially when Dave was in the house.

So happy that Parliament finally told the Lords to shut up and just let the government get on with triggering Article 50. No amendments, no voting on the terms of leaving. All the filibustering by the Remoaners and underhanded attempts at derailing the process by Gina Whatserface have come to naught.

Its hilarious watching Labour and the SNP getting their collective knickers in a twist.

Not that I bear the Scots any particular ill will...indeed they seem as divided over indyref2, as the UK was over Brexit. I say let Sturgeon have her way...she may be unpleasantly surprised at the result, given the stuff I've been hearing on the radio. She might even have to resign...which might come as something of a relief to our northern cousins...

Or as it's alternatively known, ensuring that the constitution is observed and that due legal process is followed.

Sure, whatever makes you feel better. I'm too happy just now to argue.

pr4wn wrote:
Oh yeah, isn't it fantastic? Who needs political accountability and the rule of law when we have Theresa May at the helm?

I find your lack of faith in the Empress May disturbing.

Seriously, I don't get why people think the government aren't going to do their utmost to get us a good deal. Even if we walk away with nothing, we can still fall back on WTO terms of trading...which nobody has complained about when it comes to doing business with the rest of the world...

Okay it'll hurt us a bit...but it hardly constitutes an economic disaster.

www.eureferendum.com

Mr Brexit himself says otherwise - repeatedly.

dyrewolfe wrote:

I find your lack of faith in the Empress May disturbing.

Strong, independently minded Leaders are not in fashion anymore. People prefer their politburos.

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Gentlemen, Gentlemen!  Decorum please.  This is a debating chamber not a public house of ill repute!

Really? I thought it was both...especially when Dave was in the house.

So happy that Parliament finally told the Lords to shut up and just let the government get on with triggering Article 50. No amendments, no voting on the terms of leaving. All the filibustering by the Remoaners and underhanded attempts at derailing the process by Gina Whatserface have come to naught.

Its hilarious watching Labour and the SNP getting their collective knickers in a twist.

Not that I bear the Scots any particular ill will...indeed they seem as divided over indyref2, as the UK was over Brexit. I say let Sturgeon have her way...she may be unpleasantly surprised at the result, given the stuff I've been hearing on the radio. She might even have to resign...which might come as something of a relief to our northern cousins...

Or as it's alternatively known, ensuring that the constitution is observed and that due legal process is followed.

Sure, whatever makes you feel better. I'm too happy just now to argue.

Are you one of the "enemies of the people" brigade?  

https://behindthepaywallblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/brexit-faces-fresh-hurdles-leaked-whitehall-papers-reveal/

Now Sinn Fein are saying a border poll should be very soon.....

This is all your fault, Scots!

Can't say I blame SNP for going for another referendum though. I do hope Scotland vote to remain in the UK, but I can understand why many wouldn't be happy with Brexit being forced on them.

I guess whether they decide to go independent or not depends on what it means to their bank balance.

If they go for Independence again, I'll say: "Welcome Scotland to the League of Independent Nations! Now quick! - get your gun and your helmet and your flak jacket, 'coz there is a war on and we're all trying to get back our sovereignty from them eejit bureaucratic goose-stepping meddlers in Brussels!"

You've moved to Texas, Pr?

Good choice. Nice sane Republican part of the world Yee Ha!!!

To be fair I think there was some merit in the question asking if towns will start succeding (or whatever it's called).

Think another debate on independancy is a massive waste of time (and money) it's been voted on already lets move on (or did we really expect the SNP to let it drop).

Also can anyone explain why Scottish and Welsh residents can get prescriptions for free (or cheap) when I gotta pay full whack just cause I live in a crappy part of England?