Sunday, 20 August 2017
Leftist, PC meaningless cliches currently in common use
Politicians love meaningless coded cliches. It means they can never be wrong or understood. It originated in Orwell.s book 1984, War is peace etc. LibDems, the party of all things to all men and meaningless waffle originated many of these current non phrases.
I give a few below but I am sure I have forgotten some of the best so please add your particular favourites in the open comments section of this blog.
Soft Brexit,: this is code for staying in the EU . As they all 'accept' the result of the referendum they cannot use the simple phrase stay in the EU so they use Soft Brexit which has the identical effect to staying
Hard Brexit: sounds so much worse than the simple word leaving. It is so scary that Remainer, scare mongering politicians must use it. as much as possible. It is a favourite of the BBC.
Falling off a cliff edge: Favourite of fish finger Lib Dem Farron. Lemmings throw themselves of cliffs into the sea below from time. Making staying in the EU a core policy has politically the same effect.
Crashing out of Customs Union or Single Market or both:. Another emotive term originated by Clegg. It sounds so much worse than the truth, changing our terms of trade but that won't scare anyone so more emotive terms must be used
Progressive: A favourite of Nicola Sturgeon who flogged it to death before Mrs May's disastrous election. Ms Sturgeon', party, the SNP also campaigned on staying in the EU and suffered the same fate as the Lib Dems. I guess progressive means hard left but Jezza had already nicked that one. I am still not sure what it does mean. Constructive ambiguity maybe?
Called out: Puzzled me for a while. Used a lot by Labour. does it refer to being called out in front of the class for a spanking? Obviously only works with Labour. Spankings, beatings etc excite Tories of both sexes to a sexual frenzy so its an incentive not a deterrent.
Strong & stable: Comes from the wizard of Oz originally. Was a favourite of Mrs May but she seems to have stopped using it lately. I wonder why?
I hope with your help to greatly enlarge this obviously inadequate list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I disagree.
A 'Soft' Brexit seeks a smooth transition from the political EU while maintaining the status quo with all our existing trade while we work towards a new trading arrangement with all 51 countries in Europe controlled from UNECE in Geneva.
A 'Hard' Brexit, supported in the main by the Conservative 'Ultras', wants, for purely ideological reasons, to break free form the political EU but also, quite unrealistically,to ditch 45 years of trading involvement with the Single Market which just happens to be the most complex, sophisticated, comprehensive and yes successful trading block in the world.
The Efta/EEA option, sometimes called the Norway Option, frees us for the political EU but would maintain our trade very largely as it is today. The comprehensive trading relationship we currently have with the EU requires rules & regulations, associated costs and an adjudication process as would be required with any new trading agreement with any other country or trading block and would take many more years than the two we have under Article 50.
Those who believe a 'Hard' could work and maintain our existing level of 'frictionless' trade are placing dogma over common sense.
The acronym to remember is KISS, Keep it Simple Stupid and don't play the EU game cos they make the rules and you will lose. One of the most important attributes of an army commander is to choose the ground to fight on to suit your guys not the enemies.
Politically the EU is our enemy but on trade it is not and it very naïve and ill-informed to suggest otherwise especially given ANY successful trade deal involves rules & regulations, costs and an adjudication process.
@Niall Warry. There is no "soft" or "hard" Brexit. There is just Brexit. Even Wolfgang Schauble when pressed before the Referendum said that Britain will be outside the EU/Single market or in it. There is no halfway measure. EFTA membership would still have free movement - something many Britons do not want, and something you failed to mention. 51 countries in Europe - really? A full count comes to 50 and that is stretching it when you consider that Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Russia are considered to be “transcontinental” with portions of their countries on multiple continents. Vatican City is also listed as a country. The single market is no such thing - it's a customs union, and a failing one at that. GDP in the EU is shrinking - even Antarctica's GDP is growing.
Besides, I fail to see why we should be shackled to a corpse. Not everything revolves around Europe of the EU, there is the whole world to trade with.
Lastly if the EU want a trade deal, then fine, but they'd better get a move on. Political reality will strike at some stage, that's if the business leaders of Europe don't pressure their political leaders first.
I don't like the terms 'hard' and 'soft' and you are right anything is possible but given time. Canada's trade deal took seven years to complete and only covers a fraction of the items we current trade within the Single Market.
The point is do we want to maintain our current level of trade with our EU neighbours or not?If we do then we need to accept, as is the case with ANY trade deal that we will have to obey rules, regulations, pay our dues and agree to an adjudication system. These requirements have nothing to do with the EU but are the price for any successful and comprehensive trade deal with any country or existinmg trading block.
The SM needs reform but it is a sucessful trading block and if we leave it without completing a deal then that is our fault and not the EU's.
You don't need a trade deal to trade. You need products or services others want to buy.
Eric you are talking about trade back in the Dark Ages between different stall holders in the market square.
In 2017 ANY workable trade deal between countries or trading bloc requires rules & regulations, associated costs and an adjudication process.
If you want to eat unregulated food products, use unregulated electrical and mechanical goods or even fly in an unregulated airspace, to name but three issues then
I don't.
You really do need to get up to speed as you are living in the past.
So where is the EU Japan trade deal? EU US trade deal?
Stick to facts and lay off the personal insults.
If you think I've personally insulted you then you must have a very thin skin - I had NO intent to insult you it is just that I believe you are seriouisly behind the curve on how current trade works these days.
The EU does do trade deals with other countries but they take TIME, many years infact, and are not as comprehensive as the trading arrangements within the Single Market which have developed over 45 years. As to the USA and Japan they suffer from the same predictament as Canada which took seven years to negotiate a very basic deal that only covers a handful of products.
So yes we could work towards our own bespoke bi-lateral trade deal with the EU but it would be impossible to achieve in the two years we have allocated under Article 50 and if no deal is reached before March 2019 then, like it or not, we become a 'Third country' status with the EU and will be treated as such and the MULTIPLE aspects of our existing trade comes to a halt.
This is why it is common sense to go for a transitional deal that maintains the status quo and keeps ALL our existing trade with the EU going. The Efta/EEA option provides us with that certainty and importantly does free us from the political EU.
However it is important to realise that in this interconnected world ALL trade deals require rules & regulations, associated costs and an agreement on an adjudication process. Without these trading if allowed, which it wouldn't be, would operate in a legal vaccuum and NO sensible country or countries would risk trading on that basis.
All trade contracts since a last the 18th century specify an arbitration procedure to be used in event of disputes. Predates EU by 200 years at least.
I come on here occasionally, as I do, to try and convince you that your interpretation of how best to achieve a disruption free Brexit will not work as it simply takes no account of how the frictionless trade has been achieved, within the Single Market, over the last 45 years. However I doubt I will convince you but I'm still prepared to try!
Our government while still devoid of a Brexit plan is at least clear that they want to maintain our frictionless trade arrangements that we currently enjoy as members of the Single Market. As I've said before this is legally possible but, to incorporate every aspect of our current trading relationship, will take more time than the two yeas Article 50 gives us.
This is why years ago Richard North, supported by Christopher Booker, advocated in Flexcit that, while not ideal, the Efta/EEA option as a transitional measure is the least worse option to adopt to avoid going over the 'cliff edge' and causing an unnecessary shock to our economy.
Yes you and I know the moribund EU is bad for our health but so are many countries we have to deal with and on trading with the EU 27 I would have thought that you would be as keen as I am to ensure that we do not lose ANY trade because we are sticking dogma rather than deal with reality.
Produce a few verifiable facts not endless waffle and I will read it.
With a reply like that it appears to me you won't be interested in the facts but still here goes:-
Fact- May and Co have said they want a frictionless trade deal
Fact- Our government still doesn't have a Brexit plan on a par to Flexcit whether you agree with it or not.
Fact- The Single Market has taken the last 45 years to get where it now is and is the largest, most sophisticated, comnplex and sucessful trading bloc in the world.
Fact- Trade between countries or trading blocs needs rules, regulations,costs and a adjudication process.
Fact- Richard North and Christopher Booker have a distinguished career as Eurosceptics and both support Flexcit which advocates the Efta/EEA option.
Fact - with no deal in place by March 2019 we will be treated as a 'third' country by the rest of the EU.
Fact- Canada's limited trade deal took seven years to negotiate.
Fact- Ignoring Treaty obligations makes one a pariah state.
Fact- Article 50 gives us 2 years to negotiate a workable deal.
Fact- It is us leaving the EU and not the EU leaving us so the onus must be on us to come up with a workable plan.
Fact- Eric Edmond will probably disagree with the above!!
I did not know that Eurosceptism was a career. France has a long history of ignoring treaties. I remember when de Gaulle kicked your NATO army bosses out of their Paris HQ.
That is a historical fact.
You must distinguish fact from dodgy forecasts.
France's relationship with Nato that they continued to support has little to no bearing on the issues of Brexit.
To list my 10 facts as 'dodgy forecasts' does you no credit and shows you have a closed mind on this issue.
During our pending lunch date I suggest Brexit is one course we do not bring to the table!
Funny way to support Nato by kicking them out of their HQ. France supports Nato when it suits them.
The point I'm making is that France's relationship with NATO has nothing whatsoever to do with our trading relationship with the rest of the EU a complex and sophisticated system of trade built up over 45 years.
Post a Comment