ron obvious

Still reading! Getting near the end though. So I'm still learning. It struck me as being rather like a Corbyn speech. Tressell (not his real name) lived in a horribly impoverished section of society in bad times. As with Corbyn, he's dead right that there are terrible problems (though nothing like as bad now) that we need to solve. it's the solutions that I think are wrong. The vision of a regimented socialist society that's being discussed (as I read) are pretty chilling, but the orator is making an honest attempt to provide a solution to endemic poverty. There are some interesting arguments about money (the money trick), but some fairly rose-tinted views of history, especially feudalism. It's a preachy but interesting, sometimes amusing but more often intensely sad book. One thing I find odd is his often contemptuous opinion of his fellow workers. His lack of sympathy contradicts his realisation that workers & bosses are trapped in a system that is ultimately bad for everyone. Next up, Ayn Rand. That should be a bit of a contrast!

Then I really think you should Len! Sets out the case for a socialist utopia, presented as a novel. It was a seminal work for a lot of influential socialists in this country. Should be right up your street.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

I think I've said it already, but I want to form a new party, to be called PREMIC (or something similarly catchy).

You'r e wrong in your presumption Len. I think there's more likely to be a soft/no Brexit. BTW, have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists?

Something far more right wing than you would have liked Len.

If you think that means Mr. Corbyn becoming PM I'm afraid you're likely to be extremely disappointed.

I can only speak for myself, but I strongly suspect he only thought Cameron was telling the truth in respect of upholding the referendum result, something which was backed up by the entire political establishment. It's hardly our fault that they all turned out to be lying.

Agree with all of that. Though I personally wouldn't like it I suspect the peeling off of Scotland & NI might be best for all concerned in the long term (my principle is that if a large enough group of people with a distinct culture feel disconnected from a culture they're nominally part of then they should gain independence in a form that suits them).

I would add that smugglers are breaking the law. I do not subscribe to the view that because a law is hard to enforce & often broken then it should be abandoned. On that basis we should abandon all speed limits on the roads.

I don't think it does mean abandoning the GFA. It just means the EU has got to put a lot more (genuine) effort into methods to deter smuggling. I suspect there is a fair amount of smuggling going on already (with the connivance of the IRA & local population I should think) due to the existing differences in duties. This is quite good I think: http://theconversation.com/smuggling-in-the-irish-borderlands-and-why-it-could-get-worse-after-brexit-111153 which suggests smuggling would become more of a problem. I don't think it's a reason to not leave the EU though.

My policy is to leave the EU, which entails leaving the single market, customs union & the ECJ on non-trade related issues. Any trade deal should be just that, a trade deal. I think you'll find quite a lot of MPs would agree with that. Please bear in mind three quarters of MPs want to remain. So by definition they won't agree to anything that involves actually leaving the EU.

No, I'm suggesting we leave the EU as promised.

We can discuss all sorts of possible alternative options. After we've left.

Hi Badger. Just got in. I think we would voluntarily adopt whatever standards/tariffs were appropriate to us. If selling to the EU, then obviously our standards must mirror theirs. The EU would require checks for any goods imported into the EU that they weren't happy with; how they do this would be up to them.