Off Topic The Politics Thread

[GoldhawkRoad]

I don't understand why you're asking these questions. My point was that the Conservatives promoted him because he was a high flying achiever at Uni and in banking/finance before entering politics. He has moved on from his birth background. In other words, they selected a middle class high flyer because he was "one of us" and not because he is/was a Muslim, or his family were Pakistani immigrants or because he has a brown skin.

I suppose the fact he wasn't rejected out of hand just for being the son of an immigrant is progress of a sort in politics....

My final point was nothing to do with Javid specifically. He (and I) both benefitted from the opportunity to transcend the limitations of our backgrounds and have a fair chance to achieve our potential. However, those opportunities were not available to everyone, but rationed somewhat because of cost and the number of places available. For every success story there are dozens of people just as good who could have done just as well but there weren't enough places to enable them to do what they were capable of. They never got the start in the right school or university that would allow them to become Home Secretary. We should strive for better so everyone has that chance.

I'd say the educational opportunities in this country are pretty good. There are more going to university now than there ever have been. Not that uni is everything. Apprenticeships also give huge opportunities. I still don't understand why you're having a go at Javid or those like him for being a self-made and successful businessman. May be you'd prefer that he was a professional politician, an activist from birth that never soiled his lips with the words "making money"

 

[TheBigDipper]

I'd say the educational opportunities in this country are pretty good. There are more going to university now than there ever have been. Not that uni is everything. Apprenticeships also give huge opportunities. I still don't understand why you're having a go at Javid or those like him for being a self-made and successful businessman. May be you'd prefer that he was a professional politician, an activist from birth that never soiled his lips with the words "making money"

I'm not having a go at Javid. Why do you think I am?

And stop putting words into other peoples mouths just so you can make a point. Your last sentence has nothing to do with me or what I've been writing.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I'm not having a go at Javid. Why do you think I am?

And stop putting words into other peoples mouths just so you can make a point. Your last sentence has nothing to do with me or what I've been writing.

Have a look at your post 17857. It's all about Javid! You don't like his business background because it's stereotypically Tory, but you don't say what background you'd rather he had.

 

[bobmid]

1. If we remain in the Customs Union after Brexit, we won't have say in any rules made going forward.

2. The European Court of Justice will rule on disputes the UK may have with the EU, but have no judges on the panel. It's like the UK agreeing to a Russian Court adjudicating on any dispute the UK has with Russia. There's a conflict of interest.

3. EU member states cannot enter into trade agreements with third party countries. Such agreements can only be entered into by the EU itself.

What rules? Nobody ever says what they are......

 

[Stroller]

This is almost certainly not true because it's not in the Daily Mail, but it is reported that the Tories have taken control of Pendle council by one seat after re-instating a councillor (and former Mayor) who had been suspended for a racist tweet.

Rosemary Carroll had re-tweeted this 'joke'.......

“I took my dog to the dole office to see what he was entitled to. The bloke behind the counter said “You idiot, we don’t give benefits to dogs”

I argued “Why not?” He’s brown, he stinks, he’s never worked a day in his life, and he can’t speak a f*cking word of English.

The man replied “the first payment will be Monday”

 

[Stroller]

Wait a minute, it is in the Mail.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uspended-racist-joke-reinstated.html?ITO=1490

That's a relief, I thought I'd made it up.

 

[West London Willy]

1. If we remain in the Customs Union after Brexit, we won't have say in any rules made going forward.

2. The European Court of Justice will rule on disputes the UK may have with the EU, but have no judges on the panel. It's like the UK agreeing to a Russian Court adjudicating on any dispute the UK has with Russia. There's a conflict of interest.

3. EU member states cannot enter into trade agreements with third party countries. Such agreements can only be entered into by the EU itself.

1. Doesn’t answer my question. What rules do we have and didn’t agree on that you think are bad?

2. ECJ rulings are between member states. Over EU law. But you can’t name any that we haven’t agreed to, so are you saying that there shouldn’t be accountability for breaking the law? And which laws?

3. Not even remotely true. We have trade agreements with many non-EU countries that we negotiated ourselves. So does Germany, France, Holland, and every other EU country.

 

[bobmid]

1. Doesn’t answer my question. What rules do we have and didn’t agree on that you think are bad?

2. ECJ rulings are between member states. Over EU law. But you can’t name any that we haven’t agreed to, so are you saying that there shouldn’t be accountability for breaking the law? And which laws?

3. Not even remotely true. We have trade agreements with many non-EU countries that we negotiated ourselves. So does Germany, France, Holland, and every other EU country.

Genuinely surprised and shocked when people bang on about making our own rules and laws yet fail mention a single one that upsets them so much. Must really really bother them!?!?!?!?!

 

[durbar2003]

1. Doesn’t answer my question. What rules do we have and didn’t agree on that you think are bad?

2. ECJ rulings are between member states. Over EU law. But you can’t name any that we haven’t agreed to, so are you saying that there shouldn’t be accountability for breaking the law? And which laws?

3. Not even remotely true. We have trade agreements with many non-EU countries that we negotiated ourselves. So does Germany, France, Holland, and every other EU country.

No 3. You can only have trade agreements with non EU countries if they follow EU Rules and Regs.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

1. Doesn’t answer my question. What rules do we have and didn’t agree on that you think are bad?

2. ECJ rulings are between member states. Over EU law. But you can’t name any that we haven’t agreed to, so are you saying that there shouldn’t be accountability for breaking the law? And which laws?

3. Not even remotely true. We have trade agreements with many non-EU countries that we negotiated ourselves. So does Germany, France, Holland, and every other EU country.

Why are you referring to past laws? I referred to laws, rules and regulations made in the future, over which we have no influence or input. If the EU brought in regulations designed to encourage financial institutions to move from London to Paris and Frankfurt, we'd be bound by them.

Clearly you have no problem giving powers to a foreign court with foreign judges to preside over the UK in relation to an organisation that appoints them and to which we do not belong.

If we can enter trade agreements, how is it that the EU have specifically prohibited the UK from entering trade talks with the US and Canada until we officially leave the EU?

 

[West London Willy]

No 3. You can only have trade agreements with non EU countries if they follow EU Rules and Regs.

Well China won’t, and lots of EU countries have their own arrangements.

 

[West London Willy]

Why are you referring to past laws? I referred to laws, rules and regulations made in the future, over which we have no influence or input. If the EU brought in regulations designed to encourage financial institutions to move from London to Paris and Frankfurt, we'd be bound by them.

Clearly you have no problem giving powers to a foreign court with foreign judges to preside over the UK in relation to an organisation that appoints them and to which we do not belong.

If we can enter trade agreements, how is it that the EU have specifically prohibited the UK from entering trade talks with the US and Canada until we officially leave the EU?

You were always thinking about FUTURE laws? Yeah....

Anything related to problems negotiating now is completely down to the current position we have stupidly put ourselves in.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

You were always thinking about FUTURE laws? Yeah....

Anything related to problems negotiating now is completely down to the current position we have stupidly put ourselves in.

ok, oh wise one, this is what I said in my earlier post:

"What's best for the country is not being tied into EU rules over which we have no influence..."

This was not intended, indeed could NOT apply to past laws, because at the moment, we do have influence (albeit 1 part in 28) over EU rules and laws. When we leave, we will not. That's the point I was making. It's a key reason not to be bound into the Customs Union after we leave, because effectively we don't really leave and have the worst of all worlds with loss of influence over laws that bind us.

 

[QPR999]

Imagine if you will, that you purport to be a QPR fan. And that you then come onto a QPR football forum, you head straight to a politics thread and not post on anything about the football team you say you support. Does anyone else find that a bit strange? There's about four of them on here who do this and they're about to be culled. None of these four have commented about QPR in their last 100 posts. ( That's as far back as I could be bothered to look.)

One of these four has made one comment on a match day thread but that had nothing to do with the game. Personally I find it rather odd.

 

[Stroller]

Imagine if you will, that you purport to be a QPR fan. And that you then come onto a QPR football forum, you head straight to a politics thread and not post on anything about the football team you say you support. Does anyone else find that a bit strange? There's about four of them on here who do this and they're about to be culled. None of these four have commented about QPR in their last 100 posts. ( That's as far back as I could be bothered to look.)

One of these four has made one comment on a match day thread but that had nothing to do with the game. Personally I find it rather odd.

As far as I am concerned they are welcome, Nines. I seem to recall an out-of-the-blue plain clothes intervention on this thread by someone who turned out to be a Not606 Supermod.

Come one, come all for me.

 

[sb_73]

Imagine if you will, that you purport to be a QPR fan. And that you then come onto a QPR football forum, you head straight to a politics thread and not post on anything about the football team you say you support. Does anyone else find that a bit strange? There's about four of them on here who do this and they're about to be culled. None of these four have commented about QPR in their last 100 posts. ( That's as far back as I could be bothered to look.)

One of these four has made one comment on a match day thread but that had nothing to do with the game. Personally I find it rather odd.

If Bobby and Dan are two of the 4 I don’t think they are QPR fans, and I guess they post on here because their own boards don’t have an equivalent thread and they recognise the superiority of QPR intellects.

No such excuse exists for the rest of us.

 

[West London Willy]

ok, oh wise one, this is what I said in my earlier post:

"What's best for the country is not being tied into EU rules over which we have no influence..."

This was not intended, indeed could NOT apply to past laws, because at the moment, we do have influence (albeit 1 part in 28) over EU rules and laws. When we leave, we will not. That's the point I was making. It's a key reason not to be bound into the Customs Union after we leave, because effectively we don't really leave and have the worst of all worlds with loss of influence over laws that bind us.

Actually, it couldn’t possibly refer to laws that don’t exist. If you voted to leave because you were afraid that the big bad EU might decide something needs to be legislated and you might not like it, that’s possibly the weakest reason to vote leave I’ve heard.

 

[QPR999]

As far as I am concerned they are welcome, Nines. I seem to recall an out-of-the-blue plain clothes intervention on this thread by someone who turned out to be a Not606 Supermod.

Come one, come all for me.

I think you're missing the points Strolls. The Supermods are rarely seen on our board, so if you was otherwise unaware you wouldn't know who they were. Even so, it's still quite transparent. If you 'click' on the 'not606' logo in the top left corner and scroll down ... you will see various menus. Live activity, which shows you who has posted what and liked across the whole forum. There is then a section of new profile posts, followed by who's online now. After that is another sub-section which shows 'Staff Online Now,' these are the Supermods so you know who they are.

Anyway, regardless, it's still a bit odd that anyone would come on a QPR forum and head straight for a politics thread and post on there before having anything to say about QPR. In fact having nothing to say about QPR.

 

[QPR999]

If Bobby and Dan are two of the 4 I don’t think they are QPR fans, and I guess they post on here because their own boards don’t have an equivalent thread and they recognise the superiority of QPR intellects.

No such excuse exists for the rest of us.

They're not two of the four. We can see who the poster's teams are that they follow. Bobby is a Chelsea fan, Dan is a Watford fan.

We also have a lot of 'ghost posters' that stalk our boards who's accounts lurk in the shadows who may have to disappear too.

 

[Stroller]

I think you're missing the points Strolls. The Supermods are rarely seen on our board, so if you was otherwise unaware you wouldn't know who they were. Even so, it's still quite transparent. If you 'click' on the 'not606' logo in the top left corner and scroll down ... you will see various menus. Live activity, which shows you who has posted what and liked across the whole forum. There is then a section of new profile posts, followed by who's online now. After that is another sub-section which shows 'Staff Online Now,' these are the Supermods so you know who they are.

Anyway, regardless, it's still a bit odd that anyone would come on a QPR forum and head straight for a politics thread and post on there before having anything to say about QPR. In fact having nothing to say about QPR.

No mate, I think you are missing my point.

We have what I like to think is a lively and valuable Politics thread that attracts posters from other boards because they don't have a similar thread of their own. There was a supermod (brb) who intervened in a discussion on here to question the validity of something I had posted. I PM'd him to ask him who he was and why he had suddenly appeared on our board, but all was cool. We should welcome all comers if you ask me.