Off Topic UK / EU Future

No, the last words were not meant in humour Leo. I regard it as 'middle of the road' to be irritated by strikes and then shrug them off - but not to call for their banning. Naturally that you are fully prepared to regulate in this case but not in terms of such things as wage capping at the top. From previous texts of yours I can see that you are also irritated by any kind of controls on wealth concentration, or any kind of regulation of the free market. These are not 'middle of the road' ideas Leo but ideas which place you fully at the neo liberal end of the economic scale, just like your trust in so called 'trickle down' theories - which are no longer believed by most economists of repute. I do not regard it as an insult when you call me far left, so why should you take offence if it comes in the other direction. You describe my ideas as 'odd ball' yet call for more mutual respect amongst posters ! Instead of lectoring others as to what you think is good debating I suggest you look at your own texts more often and judge yourself by the same criteria.

 

So difficult you see to tell when you are serious or humorous.
You make up opinions for others don't you.
Yes - I think strikes are old fashioned, outdated and completely unnecessary in a world where arbitration can be compulsory. The extreme view is yours to think that government regulation of the arbitration process would somehow be unacceptable.
I am not irritated by controls on wealth. I support higher death duties for example but continue to invent views for me if it suits you.
I am in favour of proper regulation of the free market. Indeed without regulation I do not believe the free market operates fairly but continue to invent views for me if it suits you.
My trade union views are right wing. I balance that by believing that when the economy is strong we should have a kind and better social society.
I believe in higher taxes all round for improvements to the NHS - a Lib Dem policy but invent it as me being far right if it suits you.
You have a stupid hang up about trickle down theories as you call them - no doubt some Kropotkinist view. All I have ever said is that when you sell luxury goods (or anything for that matter) then a salesman and a worker benefits too. Buy an expensive car and the salesman gets a commission (he is not rich) and he takes his wife out for a nice meal ( the restaurant and its not rich employees benefit); maybe he buys his wife flowers - the florist benefits - and so on. It is a well known and fully accepted economic fact about how money moves around the economy and a term called the accelerator which concerns the speed of it etc. It is FACT. It is neither left nor right wing and to deny it and call it trickle down theory and then put those words in my mouth is another example of your false reasoning. Money spent benefits rich and poor. What I have NOT said is that it is a way of redistributing income or any form of poverty equalisation measure. That again is your pure invention but continue to invent views for me if it suits you.
I happen to believe in progressive income tax brackets to help redistribute income - but ignore that as it would not fit with your invention of me as a far right person.
I do not consider it offensive to call someone far left or far right and if I were in either position I would be proud of it. But inventing your own thoughts of what I believe is stupid. Either criticise what I say or just give your own views.
I called your views odd ball and stand by that. Most people would regard Kropotkinist views as odd ball and you champion them often enough. If you do not want to be associated with it then go mainstream.
I think very carefully how I post. I criticise ideas and views not people. Saying your ideas are odd-ball when they are is the truth. Saying that inventing your own ideas of anther person's views is stupid is correct - and it is offensive as you are the first to not like words being put in your mouth (even when they are not)
You clearly are in a very bad mood and are taking it out on me so good luck to you.Get off your high horse.
I look forward to the day when you can argue against a view I actually do have rather than invent your own straw man to destroy and pretend it is my view.

 

Maybe I could gently guide this debate towards the title of the thread. A question was asked today in PMQs about the seemingly illegal activities of the Vote Leave campaign, something that the PM didn't wish to talk about. Under the Vienna Convention, something that the UK is signed up to, it states that illegal activity should see the result as invalid, and a new poll held. It has been used rarely, but was used in London not so long ago. Now that it has been exposed by the leader of of that campaign, it is being said that nothing can be done because the referendum was never binding, purely advisory. Gove anticipates that this will end up in the courts, but will another fine be sufficient punishment? Should the people responsible for breaking electoral law if proven, be liable to a spell behind bars?

 

If I am in a bad mood Leo it is because of the aggressive nature of your posts in my direction recently. Is there any need to capitalize 'IT IS FACT' in that way as if there were no discussion of the whole thing ? My ideas here are not 'Kropotkinist' as you suggest - in fact they were mainstream to Maynard Keynes. This 'trickle down' theory is one of the central cornerstones of neo liberal thinking, justifying ever higher concentrations of wealth - you have often said that you are against controls on wealth. There is at least a valid argument in claiming that it generates more wealth to ensure that the base of the pyramid have more spending power. Give one man twenty million and a great deal of it will disappear - more of this will circulate if you distribute that money evenly over a larger group of people because 20-30 people will have more spending power than one alone. There is nothing fancifull about Keynesian economics and they are at least as logical as what you have presented as fact. How many times have you criticized this or that poster for suggesting that someone actually earns too much ? This suggests that you have absolutely no problem with the accumulation of wealth - which places you on the far right of the political spectrum whether you like it or not.

 

Inaccurate and untrue - not even worth trying to make you debate what I say rather than "you have often said" I am going to ignore that post and in fact everything you write for a week so that you can recover your normal sense of balance.

 

In a nice dream world OFH the result of the referendum would be overturned - but I am not holding my breath.

 

If you read my post you would have seen that the question I was asking was is fining people sufficient punishment for breaking electoral law. I do not expect for one moment that the result would be overturned, although it has happened, but I cannot believe that fining people as wealthy as Gove, Johnson or Cummings is of the slightest interest to them.

 

Everyone is getting tetchy. I did read your post and have nothing to add re fines or other punishment - I have no idea how effective or not they might be. I was not trying to answer your question.
The point in your post which interested me and which caused me to respond was the lovely idea that "illegal activity should see the result as invalid, and a new poll held" and I just commented on that. I thought the idea of a thread was to post on bits that interest you. Yes?

 

This, unfortunately, has been the style of much of your debating recently Leo. Pomposity plus I'm afraid. Once you have grown up enough to realise that your ideas cannot be expressed as 'THAT IS FACT', as if no rational person could think otherwise, then debate may be possible again. You have often said that we should respect each other on here - yet you have tried to ridicule ideas of mine, criticized Yorkie's posts, driven BB away from the forum, insulted Andy in a very deep, personal and public way, and taken it upon yourself to try to lector us all into what you call proper debate. Look at yourself first !

 

If that was the only bit that interested you, so be it. However for the sake of democracy which has been discussed at length, I was trying to ask if the punishment fits the crime.

 

This is a storm in a teacup and is based on whether two 'leave' groups cooperated or colluded with a 'common plan'. I fully expect there to be a challenge through the courts. Even if one or two individuals were found to have acted inappropriately they would still need to pin it on the main players in vote leave.

Is this the last of the vast number of promised legal challenges that were meant to halt Brexit?

 

Sufficient punishment for breaking electoral law would normally be disenfranchisement Frenchie, together with temporary barring from public office. I would say that fining is not enough for this.

 

I will answer all that after all. But tomorrow.
If you want to start throwing accusations around though be prepared for an honest response - and look in a miirror about who drives people off of here.
Your problem is you like to seem the gentle nice guy but when someone dares challenge your thiniking you go all guns blazing.

 

I will await your response with anticipation.

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall during the Brexit meeting at Chequers tomorrow. May's 'third way' has already been shot down by David Davis and the EU. The EU negotiators are demanding complete capitulation by the UK government but surely most cabinet members, leave and remain, will not want to see that happen. I expect either resignations or total failure to agree a way forward. A 'no deal' is looking extremely likely now.

 

It was not a question of interest. I just have no idea about electoral misdemeanors and what an appropriate punishment would be. I just liked your bit on the chance of declaring the referendum null and void - we could hope but........

 

Jaguar Land Rover have now joined the list of companies saying that anything that alters the current customs arrangements will have serious repercussions for the UK manufacturing industry. The much crowed over £80 billion investment is on hold until the outcome is known. "If I’m forced to go out because we don’t have the right deal, then we have to close plants here in the UK and it will be very, very sad" said CEO Ralf Speth. A new plant is being built in Slovakia, a deal has also been agreed to manufacture cars in China, so I think that JLR are gearing themselves up to continue in business even if not in the UK.
We have also seen that the train services into London have been brought to a halt this morning by a signalling failure. Another piece of technology goes wrong and there is chaos. So the government is still pushing for a technological customs system that doesn't exist yet, but just might be developed in the next couple of years. No wonder that the business world is making plans to safeguard their future.

 

1 I am sorry you do not like my debating style - in my opinion (and others recently expressed here) yours has a lot to be desired too. Still we all have our style and others can engage or ignore as they choose.
2 Your mask has slipped and you reveal your true nature - insults to the person not their views "once you have grown up" - and you do not consider that "pomposity plus"?
3 Again you quote incorrectly. Twice in the post your refer to I included a single word in capitals. FACT and NOT. Both were intended to add emphasis just like where I have used underlining in his sentence - hopefully you do not object to that form of emphasis. My arguments do not consist of those single owrds and yor failure to understand that reflects more on your debating skills than mine.
4 Respect is for a person - and unlike you I have focussed on attacking views not people. I do not respect a lot of views on here - both by yourself and many others. If you were honest you would say the same. It is perfectly possible to consider certain views as crazy without thinking that of the individual. Over the years I have looked into Kropotkin and regard his views as at best odd-ball . Yet you think I am not allowed to say that.
5 Then you move into your "clique" mode. You bring up a few members of that clique as if I am the only person to have disputes. Let me answer your specifics. I argue against your ideas and when they are the most outlandish I do ridicule them - because they are ridiculous. Unless you mean ordinary differences of opinion the only criticsm I have of Yorkie (and you for that matter) is you, along with others, target almost every post by SH and incorrectly accuse him of personal abuse when his abuse is of views or is in self defence. Both of you have said you would like him banned - or do you deny that? BB - show how I drove him from the forum. I made one unnamed request that on a thread I had started and requested genuine debate and not the posting of soundbites. If he chooses to not post that is his choice but that was the only request I made. Andy and one other insulted me deeply and personally both on threads and in PMs so do not comment on matters you are missing full details. I see you now take his side (of course you would, he is left wing clique) but I was prepared to walk away unless his most offensive posts were removed by the Mods. Some were.
6 Now in the spirit of look at yourself and check back on how many people you belittle when they take issue with your views. You were prime in driving W-Y from this board and he now harbours a hatred for you and other members of what he has identified as the clique - which as a member you deny. You would get rid of SH if you could - and me - and every other right wing poster who used to be on this board. You pretend you are innocent of that but the absence of any balance on this forum tells otherwise.

 

I am not wasting time answering any of this because I can see that you are still in the 'battle mode', and anything I say will be twisted and used as a weapon against me as long as that is the case. So any reply by me can only accelerate animosities which have developed, so the question is 'why bother' ?

 

Why bother? I always answer lies and personal attacks which you cannot deny is what your post was. I told you I would. I did not twist a single of your words but replied accurately to unfounded attack. I was very restrained rebutting your falsehoods and pointing out your own hypocritical posting. I am pleased you do not intend to attack me again as I would be forced to respond. If you are honest to your words you will not pursue this. Good.
I intend to ignore every post you make for the next week to let you cool off unless you name me or attack me.
We will then see whether there is any possibility of the two of us crossing swords again in the future - with criticism of views but not the man.
I have always enjoyed discussion with you as despite our wide difference you do argue a case unlike some who think posting a video or cartoon is a debate.