BBO Discussion Forums: EU Brexit thread - BBO Discussion Forums

Just heard the audio recording which was aired on Sky News. Andrea Leadsom comes across as a horrible person, and clearly made pointed references to Theresa May's childlessness.

Petty, crude.... and indications of a narrow-minded person.

Not my leader!

shyams, on 2016-July-09, 14:13, said:

She starts the conversation with "I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible but...." and then goes on to say nasty things. Does she really believe that the preamble to her nasty remarks absolves her of the nastiness??? Outrageous!

Why does it matter? Leadsom is just an untested and kind of quite bad politician; she was also one of only 5 Tory MPs who abstained on the gay marriage bill (another odd way of expressing that she is, actually, in favour of gay marriage). She is also the only Leave campaigner still running to, like, actually, be in charge of Leaveing the EU. Anyone with any kind of competence would know what kind of ***** they would get into.

Bit surprised that fellow Grove did not garner more support from what little I read about him over the past few weeks.

Ms May seems like a solid sort, dont know anything about her leadership skills.

mike777, on 2016-July-09, 16:56, said:

People didn't forgive him for stabbing Boris in the back.

May hasn't ruled out ejecting EU residents in the UK, so that rules her out in my book. Both are financially competent having worked in the financial sector for 20+ years.

May also has a nasty habit of sacking/suspending people who disagree with her.

I understand a couple of years ago Ms. May was responsible for destroying a new "point system" immigration bill.

OMG! (Oh my God!) Just found this thread - currently 23 pages long - post Brexit.

Interesting comments from most - I have read many. It's interesting to read what intelligent (bridge-playing) people were saying about the EU referendum as opposed to the dross in the national newspapers.

All I do know is that the rollercoaster ride starts here

Well, one (sort of) question is now settled, it's May. Now they can get on with sorting out what they're going to do about the situation. It been a bit of a car crash in the dark so far with nobody seemingly quite sure what hit them or what to do next but spending time trying to figure out who's in charge rather than dealing with the situation.

One of UKIP's advisers in the EP is showing remorse: http://www.independe...s-a7127461.html

mike777, on 2016-July-09, 16:56, said:

I am not a Conservative, never mind in the range of Republican (frankly, never mind in the range for U.S. Democrat). But all I've heard about Ms. May is that Thatcher would have thought her extreme, and that is the woman that needs a guard on her grave to stop people from "paying their respects".

Of course, my family is from Sunderland; and the Tories in general, and Thatcher in particular, are personae non gratae there. So I might be biased™.

However, on Gove, what I've heard before seems well encapsulated in this piece from the Grauniad.

[Edit: that'll teach me for not testing. More particularly, not expecting the most stupid behaviour from those "enter links" boxes. Sorry Zel, all.]

mycroft, on 2016-July-11, 10:17, said:

That is a clever site - it tells me my computer is offline.

mycroft, on 2016-July-11, 10:17, said:

I don't think that is at all true. This piece from the Guardian seemed reasonably accurate:-
http://www.theguardi...-from-the-abyss

Thanks for that. We can hope.

My own take on Brexit (in a slightly comical way) is as follows:

We are a somewhat elderly team of four. We have tried various conventions, tweaked our system, asked experts, analysed results, conferred and discussed, but we've never quite got it together as a team. The winning formula was never quite there. We are still at loggerheads with our teammates and partners now and again, and we never qualified for anything of any note.

Then one of the team decided that's enough's enough. They are going to leave. There are other options available: go it alone, maybe even give up bridge, or find other teams, move on from the status quo.

"No, that can't be right," say the other members of the team, "we must persevere because we have played bridge as a team for so long, that one day we will eventually win."

"If we can't win after 43 years together" says the leaver, "then we will never win."

The other teammates look at him anxiously, trying to gauge his determination, but he still leaves reluctantly.

"Damn" says one, "he was the best player in the team, and without him we will definitely never win!"

Another pipes up, "I blame all the rules and regulations, those tournament directors made his life so difficult!"

The third member remaining ponders this and says "Even I agree that maybe we should have adopted European-style 5 card majors along the way instead of playing British 4 card major Acol for all these years"

The_Badger, on 2016-July-11, 15:22, said:

We are a somewhat elderly team of four. We have kept our system up to date but each year fall a little further back as age catches up with us.

Then one of the team, let's call him Phil, decides that enough is enough."We were much more successful 50 years ago, we should go back to using those methods," he says. The other three point out the advances made in the intervening years but Phil is adamant: "These are all conventions made by foreigners," he rants, "they are obviously not as good as traditional English Acol!"

"Damn," says one of the remaining players one day. "He was such a nice fellow. Now his system is a disaster and he might soon sink into the bottom group of players."
"That is nothing," says his partner, "the real problem is that he is now abusive towards half of the club members and has raised a motion to have them removed for not being English enough. Not to mention bringing in new system regulations to force everyone to play Acol without any conventions. If things continue like this, noone in the area is going to want to have anything to do with us."
"You are right. Perhaps we should consider switching to the Purple Flower bridge club instead."

Very confusing last two posts. Were you guys and gals winning or losing before Brexit? Are you winning or losing today?
Do you want to be more English or less English and say more Scottish, Irish or Canadian?
You say you are elderly; do you want to get older or say younger with for example all sorts of young, hungry, eager immigrants from around the globe who are having many more babies than you did?

Good luck Ms May!

Trinidad, on 2016-July-07, 08:18, said:

The problem is that many if not most politicians (at least in North America,it may be different in Europe), DO favor multinational corporations over the people they are supposed to represent. A fine example is the DARK act, which with enormous pressure from the public, got defeated, and yet here it is again this week, slightly modified so that some of the information will be on labels but in such tiny print and in such a complicated manner that it is virtually NOT there for most people. This is clearly a sop to the chem-ag people, as the vast majority of people want GMO labelling and the politicians KNOW that but are ignoring it as best they can. This is not any sort of meaningful representation for, of and by the people.

Medical researchers and doctors called on the FDA to upgrade the food pyramid, which is not only extremely outdated according to the science of at least the last dozen years but also it seems, based on carefully selected data in the first place. In response the politicians have watered down their recommendations to miniscule changes with no excuse other than putting out the more accurate data would interfere with the profits of multinationals. What is there to respect?

In the US, politicians move in and out of the business arena, eg, ex Monsanto employees control the FDA and it was an ex Monsanto lawyer on the Supreme Court who drove the decision to allow patenting of genetic material. A Monsanto lawyer has been suggested as a possible VP for Clinton. There may be separation of church and state but there is decidedly no separation of multinational corporations and state and this is leading to a lot of very bad laws which are working directly against the interests of the people in favor of the interests of the multinationals. When San Salvador banned glyphosate because of the clear connection between it and an epidemic of farmer's deaths, Obama threatened to withdraw foreign aid unless they reversed the ban, it was only after it was made public by Salvador and there was a fuss about it did he retract..and then only for Salvador, not for three other countries also trying to ban it for the same reason.

Scientists have unfortunately now got a relatively well earned reputation as a group as being for sale and much of the supposed "research" supports that reputation. This is their own fault as a group for not policing their peers and calling them to account for lousy if not actually false reporting of studies and their results.

Scientists who have been libelled and harassed, their reputations slandered and their jobs jeapordized by special interest groups should not have to go to a court of law to defend themselves if the scientific community was doing an adequate job to ensure that the "science" that's put out there actually IS science. Right now, the first question which has to be asked, is "who is paying for this study?" as it seems as though you can almost predict the results if you know that. That can hardly be science, that's simply justification and as such is highly suspect, and it's no wonder people don't trust scientists anymore. Prescription drugs which "cure" symptoms but kill as a side effect are a prime example, properly prescribed medications taken according to instructions are said to be among the leading causes of death in the US now, even by the AMA. How can that be if the studies are properly done and reported as to risk analysis?

Too many politicians and scientists, (without question there are exceptions, possibly many more than the duds, but the point remains) have discarded ethical behaviour in the pursuit of personal financial gain. And their peers are NOT holding them responsible, so by passivity are to a degree complicit. Life is complicated now and people generally don't have the time to track down and investigate everything for themselves,if they even know how, or they have no way to determine what actually are "the facts". So they choose who to believe - if anyone- and otherwise don't trust anyone or anything. This is a very very sad state of affairs and entirely of the politicians and scientists own making. Respect has to be earned and clearly large numbers of these groups clearly hold respect as very small potatoes indeed in the face of what they have to gain if they don't care about it.

I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man, but he is clearly that, people know where they stand with him, he won't let them down.( not that there's anywhere much lower to go). Clinton is a much more sophisticated politician even if she has tripped up a few times, but she is of almost equally doubtful ethical convictions, she is much smoother at masking her beliefs and intentions. She may not want to build a wall between Mexico and the US or feel that anybody ought to be booted out of the country because of their religious beliefs but there is really little reason to think she has any real interest in the citizenry except as a necessary evil to be pacified so as to get to power. It's long been an accepted truism that promises made during an election campaign are understood to be null and void as soon as the politician actually gets in. That May isn't taking hold of the various excuses not to follow up on the Brexit vote is fairly astonishing in that light and suggests that she DOES have a sense of ethics; however it happened the majority of the people voted for Brexit, so Brexit it is. I very much doubt Clinton would have chosen the same path.

Brexit seems to have had quite the impact on UK Academia already:
https://www.theguard...t-funding-fears

onoway, on 2016-July-12, 13:30, said:

You say the majority of the people want gmo labeling.....the majority of people also want dna labeling...if a food product has dna in it they want it put on the label.......

It just proves people are scared of science.

---
"...I tend to think that's part of Trump's appeal, he is a selfcentred racist misogynist con man,..."

As far as the Trump bashing goes it just seems like one more personal attack on the man.
saying he hates people of color(racist) and women pretty much ends the conversation. Saying that is why people support him because hates people of color and women attacks the voters.

mike777, on 2016-July-12, 14:11, said:

GMO labelling while an issue is particularly difficult (some GMOs are fine, how you distinguish those from the ones that sren't is really awkward) . It's part of a whole debate over here, the sort of thing we're much more worried about is not being to label US hormone laden beef and this was why a lot of people were up in arms over TTIP.

I think there are enough statements straight out of Trump's mouth that indicate that many of the attacks on him are not without foundation.