Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
However, these nation states agree to these changes, it's not as if some office in Brussels is overruling all of the states. The UK has been resistant to a lot of it whilst the rest of the EU doesn't seem so against the idea. We had a veto.
The EU still cannot do what the nation states don't want it to do.
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You build infrastructure by saying you want it built, and then leave the detail for others to sort out. If the Prime Minister wants a new rail line between London and Birmingham, it's their job to provide the political vision and the funding. It's not their job to make sure that Joe the builder has enough concrete for the day's work! Lower level managers see to that. That's the detail I'm on about. David Davis is in Brussels today for round 4 of the talks, but he won't be thrashing out the details. That's for the civil servants. Davis is there to make sure it gets done and not to micro manage.
And when the lower-level servants tell you that building a castle on top of a swamp is an eminently silly idea, do you listen or do you brush them aside with a disparaging snort about "experts" and just keep going anyway because you know best?
And when the lower-level servants tell you that building a castle on top of a swamp is an eminently silly idea, do you listen or do you brush them aside with a disparaging snort about "experts" and just keep going anyway because you know best?
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
That isn't what I said though. I was noting that there is a myth that immigration has depressed wages and was exaggerated by populists to meet their own aims. The evidence is severely lacking. I used the Bank of England reference as it was widely advertised, but in principle is not much different from the OU report, so hence if you take this research as 'gospel' then the decrease in wages is still only pence per year which is insignificant compared to other factors. However the real test is how significant the results are, so if the wage change is -0.5% +/- 1.0% within 95% accuracy then you can't say anything meaningful about changes to wages other than they stayed approximately the same. We've had a previous discussion on other work which showed this no significant change in wages (and perhaps a small increase for some in the upper wage bands). However the general rule is that overall immigration is negligible impact on wage growth. However this was exaggerated to the extreme by populists feeding on fears that this was happening to meet their own personal goals. That there are likely to be other factors were completely ignored and washed over. I could easily suggest that wages are not a factor of the number of people but the 'relative worth' in terms of skills sets of those jobs. Simply if there are less people in the country then the number of 'coffee shops' or other low skilled businesses is less because the smaller population can only support a smaller number of them. By having less people you don't get wage rises, you just end up with less businesses paying the same amount to their staff.
You've misread. The phrases were 'waste' and 'oversight'. That doesn't mean purely expenditure that can't be traced properly in the accounts (although it includes it, and 3.8% is a terrible figure far in excess of what I expected for that). We're talking about pointless expenditure, wasteful expenditure, unnecessary expenditure. Things like the sorts of subsidies high ranking EU officials get, pet projects that achieve little of worth or meaning, and so on. You couldn't find a single government department in Britain that has the degree of lax sanctioning of expenditure that the EU indulges in. Too much pressure to squeeze the value from every penny on this side, and far too little on the other.
3.8% is not beyond the realms of normality. You will likely find a similar number for the UK. Council's and Government award grants/funding towards charities, research institutions, academy funding etc. There will be lots where there is little track of where the money actually went.
If you are referring to personal views of what money should be spent on then that shouldn't classed as 'waste' as it is sanctioned expenditure. You hold the UK in high regard however May just went to Florence to provide a speech with little content that could have easily been done in the UK. Why was it done in Florence, why not just in Parliament? Couldn't Davis just taken it to the next negotiating meeting. Did May do this to avoid the protesting crowds (and in that she failed). This is a waste is not. What about Lords that turn up clock in and clock out and not do anything but still get paid the subsidies? The list goes on. The EU and the UK are no difference in this regard. As for per projects what about HS2 (which many people here think is wasteful?) , or Hinkley Point Nuclear power station where the UK government has committed both the populace and future governments to overpay for the value of electricity it will generate using untried technology and that is causing all sorts of problems with the test reactor? What about Trident renewal? These are all 'pet projects'. It is being overly blinkered to say the EU does this and UK is some kind of angel. Personal perceptions of individual work/projects doesn't necessarily mean it is being 'wasteful'
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
However you don't know the specific's and how it will affect you. You just state it is a bad thing and that you know where it will lead, it's just fear-mongering with no substantial evidence. We've had a discussion about his speech before and i listed all the things that were proposed to be undertaken. If you think any of these are 'bad' then you need to be more specific (rather than hand wavy statements). Ever closer union doesn't mean the dissolution of individual states, it means that everyone in the EU is treated the same and fairly. For example some of this closer union includes that goods sold in one country are identical to that in another (for example I think the example was chocolate where the content of cocoa is different for the *same* product when you cross a line on a map. These are not bad things.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
And so what? If eventually we did become a United Europe what is the great fear in this happening?
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You make it sound like that since we joined the EU nothing like this happened, that basically we stuck our fingers in our ass and just let everyone else undertake everything. That we joined the EU and then all legislation stopped being written, we didn't build anything and so on...We never stopped doing any of these things. In some ways given that that we were the 'sick man' of Europe in the 70s and earlier it could be argued that we have done even more building since we joined as we had access to a large pool of funds that would never have been awarded by UK Governments. I also think you are ignoring that before the EU we rivers which were polluted sludges, acid rain, smog etc etc. So Are arguing that we are going to go back to these conditions as well? Perhaps I could remind 'older dakka members' that things weren't as rosy as they seem to recall before joining the EU.
If a politician gets elected on a pledge to build more roads and railways in the UK, then I expect that person as PM, to win the political battle (i.e get it passed in parliament) and make sure the money is there to build the stuff by whatever means are necessary (higher taxes, borrow money, whatever)
I don't expect that person to put on a high visibility jacket and start laying down some tarmac on a Monday morning.
I hope my fellow dakka members can grasp this simple concept. The difference between vision and detail.
When Churchill asked Monty to defeat the Germans in North Africa, it's not Churchill's job to check that the infantry have enough ammunition on the day of battle! That's Monty's.
And it's the same with Brexit. The PM sets the tone. It's May's job to make sure that Dover can cope, to hire more border staff, or 1000 other things are getting done.
If the civil service need more staff, May has to say to somebody hire more. But again, nobody expects May to conduct the interviews!
Leadership sets the tone, the direction. That is what is missing here in our Brexit position.
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
We had Juncker's speech the other day. What more evidence do they need?
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
That isn't what I said though. I was noting that there is a myth that immigration has depressed wages and was exaggerated by populists to meet their own aims.
I literally quoted what you said, which is that it is a myth that Eu immigration has depressed wages. Which it has in specific areas. I've just provided the evidence for it.
I used the Bank of England reference as it was widely advertised, but in principle is not much different from the OU report, so hence if you take this research as 'gospel' then the decrease in wages is still only pence per year which is insignificant compared to other factors.
The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
None. They know its the truth, they just either don't care (Whirlwind) or lie through their teeth and deny it.
For years I've been hearing from EU supporters that EU laws and regulations don't impact on sovereign nations or their ability to act independently etc etc
but the sheer difficulty of extracting ourselves from the embrace of this giant squid is proof enough that EU encroachment had crossed a line.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alternatively, it proves that you have precious little understanding of how terrifyingly complex international politics is.
Complex? The EU couldn't even cope with the simple parts of international politics.
Trouble in Ukraine? The EU's response was to send it's representative to meet with the protestors rather than follow diplomatic protocols and stop off at the Ukraine foreign ministry first.
I'll take no lectures on international politics from the EU or its supporters
I'll take no lectures on international politics from the EU or its supporters
And right there is the core of the problem.
It's all very well to criticise me for not knowing the complexities of international politics, but the EU on numerous occasions have clearly demonstrated they don't understand the complexities themselves.
If I make a mistake with these things all that happens is that a verbal scuffle breaks out on the interweb or something. If the EU does the same, money could be lost, a diplomatic incident could happen, or somebody important gets annoyed. That's a major difference with major consequences.
Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Yeah, since the UK can't do it anymore we need to rely on a German coalition.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We still need to get along with them and follow their rules, since they are our biggest and best export market.
All we've walked away from is the ability to have a say in things.
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
Witzkatz wrote: I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
r_squared wrote: Oh deary me, it seems that German opinion is that they are quite willing to let BMW take a hit to secure the single market..
Kundnani said Germany was indeed driven by economic interest, but its economic interest was “long term rather than short term … which means preserving the cohesion of the EU and the single market”, not protecting the German car industry from the limited effects of a hard Brexit.
It would seem that the assertion that the Germans will ensure we have a smooth Brexit to secure German jobs and industry maybe misplaced. Any German members out there care to comment?
Right now, the papers are mostly filled with discussions about yesterday's elections and the surge of voters for our right-wing AfD (12% overall and actually more votes than Merkel's CDU/CSU in some voting districts) and what kind of coalition exactly will form, since Merkel's CDU will need not one, but two partner parties to form a strong government.
International politics has, at least for the next few days, taken a bit of a backseat, at least in the news. However, there's a little bit of possible impact on EU/Brexit forming:
Most possibly, the CDU will ally with the FDP, our liberals and party of business owners and rich people in general, to simplify it a bit. Their boss, Christian Lindner, has recently spoken out quite vocally against Emanuel Macron's recent plans for an EU finance minister. It's a "red line" that he wouldn't cross. German newspaper "Der Spiegel" is calling it a harsh dampening to "recent EU euphoria after Macron's win". http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/emmanuel-macron-bundestagswahl-gefaehrdet-seine-plaene-fuer-eu-reformen-a-1169717.html
So, in short, the CDU won't ally with the far-right AfD, but they will have to form a coalition most likely involving the FDP, and while they are not full-blown Euro sceptics, they seem to oppose any quick, overt plans for strengthening the EU's overall powers and further integration. What I can't tell you right now is what exactly that means for Brexit negotiations, the papers here mostly report about what May is or is not doing these days, kind of on page 2, not so much about what German politics are up to in regards to that.
Personal take on this, if the FDP is opposed to further EU integration because they don't want Germany to pay for other countries' "failures like in Berlusconi's Italy" (Lindner, FDP, roughly quoted), I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to play nice with Germany taking a hit for the benefit of the UK in any way, shape or form any time soon. I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the EU from the inside, but oh well...
If I'm wrong on this, any other Geman poster back me up, our politics are a bit more complex than America's Red vs Blue and it's hard to keep track.
German politics certainly is more nuanced than we have come to read about in other nations over the last year. I've been reading up on parts to see if I can understand how this will effect Merkels position, and how it may shape future negotiations, and it's complicated to say the least.
The best thing I can see was an article I read in the Telegraph earlier which suggests that many Brits simply don't understand how Germans feel about the EU and see it as a good thing that needs protection. It was suggested that Germans have invested themselves fully in it's future. Whereas we have always been, and have made ourselves, outsiders.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So the German elections, depending on who Merkel forms a coalition with, may serve as a brake (however temporary) on EU expansion and integration? Well thats some good news at least.
Surely that's irrelevant to the UK now?
We are only leaving the EU, we aren't moving to the Caribbean.
So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
I would argue that tighter integration would actually provide a more stable and coherent trading partner.
But I gathered from Captain Edithae's post that tighter integration is to be resisted, even if we're not involved, which is why I questioned his objection.
r_squared wrote: So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
You've hit the nail on the head here, I'm impressed. Thats remarkably astute of you.
The Left deliberately pursued policies of mass immigration (New Labour in the late 90's), then ignored the problems caused by mass immigration and denounced anyone who cared about these issues as racists. People are sick of being ignored and abused and labelled as bigots, so they turn to the only parties they perceived as being willing to listen to their concerns - the Right and Far Right.
Perhaps if our Governments had been more balanced and less dogmatic, and actually acknowledged the problems that come with Mass Immigration and the concerns that ordinary folk might have with it, then things might not have gotten to this point, and we might not have voted for Brexit.
I am not myself fundamentally opposed to immigration, but I think the massive waves of immigration and subsequent social upheaval we've experienced (both the UK and Europe) in the last couple decades has been horrifically mismanaged.
r_squared wrote: So? How does greater EU integration affect us now we're leaving? If they want to do that, it's up to them surely and won't really affect us?
I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
What makes you think Europe will become one large nationless/characterless superstate?
Empires have been trying to remove our identify for millenia now without any success - the Romans tried it with the Gauls, the Vandals, the Celts, the Brits.
Even in the UK, each county has it's own distinct flavour and identity despite being more closely integrated than any superstate.
Germans will still always be Germans (or Bavarians, etc), no matter how closely integrated the EU becomes.
welshhoppo wrote:Having a stable neighbour is always good. It's no fun for everyone else if they start rocking the boat.
The UKvoted for Brexit. If that's not rocking the boat then I don't know what is. Having a predictable neighbour would have been nice during that referendum :/
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I do not want to see the Nations of Europe coalesce into one massive Superstate, whether we're a part of it or not.
The UK as part of the EU could have influenced that but once the UK is out what is it their business what others do? I would love that massive Superstate where bureaucratic bs gets unified (and hopefully simplified and reduced), where different cultures are protected and can work together a bit easier, and where the chance of a war inside Europe gets reduced even more.
Do you want some veto power for the UK? Sorry but those are independent countries and not colonies. The UK can't just start meddling in their affairs anymore. Besides I would really love the UK to stay in the EU but it's not my place to dictate what the UK does, and even less once they are out.
...The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
I personally think immigration is a great thing, and wouldn't do it any differently. But at the same time, it has to be recognised that it does have an impact on those who compete with them for the lowest paid jobs. By doing so, we can then pressure the government to make better financial provision for the poorer off in those areas, and stop votes going the way of the Immigrant-hate mob. The way to defuse xenophobic tendencies isn't to deny that there are problems, but to address and fix them. Simply saying 'Let's get rid of the immigrants' is stupid and impractical on every level, from personal to macro, but the people saying these things and voting in accordance with them are only doing so because they've been let down by a lack of central forward planning by the Government.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
I tend to agree. Having spoken to a number of people locally, and extensively with one of my brothers from Farage's neck of the woods, the frustration and anger about the issue being ignored is real, and needs to be dealt with properly. If it hadn't been ignored and dismissed, Brexit might never have happened.
The right wing resurgence is a worrying trend though, nationalists and other less reputable groups are trying to turn this into some validation of their beliefs and that leads down a dark path that we've only recently emerged from.
It's almost as if people are resistant to learning from history, even very recent history.
It is, but in any case the first big rift in AfD has happened even before they've had time to take their seats. One of the biggest names scoffing that is one thing to gain votes and sorry totally different thing to actually be in a position of power.
There's quite a rift between the as close to Nazis as you can get in today's Germany and the "just slightly to the right of Merkel"
Apparently the only thing you need to discredit the far right is give them a sniff at power.
That might be the case, however the fact that people feel comfortable voting for the further right wing parties is the issue. Just because, at the moment, they're not coordinated and effective is not the issue, but the groundswell of support for that kind of thinking is the issue. Perhaps people feel ignored and left behind and without a voice, and they're voting for people who reflect their anger and frustration.
You've hit the nail on the head here, I'm impressed. Thats remarkably astute of you.
The Left deliberately pursued policies of mass immigration (New Labour in the late 90's), then ignored the problems caused by mass immigration and denounced anyone who cared about these issues as racists. People are sick of being ignored and abused and labelled as bigots, so they turn to the only parties they perceived as being willing to listen to their concerns - the Right and Far Right.
That's not true if you look at the whole picture. Greece got left-wing populists in the government, Spain's largest anti-establishment party (3rd overall, and one that was very close to make a ruling coalition with the Socialist party) is left-wing, in Portugal the Communist party brought themselves to the ruling coalition with the Socialists. In Italy, the 5-star movement can't decide whether they're left or right wing but are happy to collect votes from both camps. In Germany everyone is raving about AfD now, but a couple elections back it was Die Linke that put the establishment pants in a twist (and it's not like they're dead and buried, they still got some 4 million votes).
Angry people cast protest votes to whoever they think will carry their voice further.
As I said before, let them rule. The best way to expose a populist is to have them put their policies in practice. Either they won't dare, or they fail. And in the unlikely event that they were right indeed, everyone benefits.
Labour Party conference will now be asked to adopt tougher line on dealing with antisemitism
Labour’s national executive committee has unanimously passed a proposal for tougher action against antisemitism at a meeting this afternoon.
A motion from the Jewish Labour Movement called for the implementation of a robust solution to tackle the problem of antisemitic harassment of party members.
At the meeting of the party’s NEC, at which Jeremy Corbyn spoke to senior party officials for more than an hour, the constitutional amendment submitted by the JLM received unanimous backing.
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "Jeremy welcomes the decision of the NEC to expand democracy and participation in the party.
"Labour's membership has nearly tripled in the last two years - and the enormous benefits of that were felt at the general election. Our members have the talent, energy and skills to win elections so that we can transform our country for the many not the few.
"Jeremy is delighted that the NEC backed plans to tackle discrimination in the party. As the party of equality, there can be no place in Labour for prejudice.
"Jeremy thanks all those involved with drafting this motion, including the Jewish Labour Movement and Shami Chakrabarti."
Jeremy Newmark, the JLM chair, said: “We are heartened that the NEC has adopted our rule change proposals and will be taking them forward to party conference next week.
“This is another step forward, however our campaign will not end until these proposals are adopted in full by conference itself - this is not a given and will require the firm support of the leadership.
“These constitutional amendments, if passed, will simply bring Labour’s rules to the place that should have been expected from a political party rooted in values of equality and anti-racism.
“The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
“That means that if passed at conference the new rules will need to be firmly implemented to create a zero-tolerance environment for antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. The party will then need to take steps to rebuild its relationship with the Jewish community.”
Currently, party members cannot be disciplined for “the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions”.
The JLM says passing the motion would win back support from many former Jewish supporters of Labour – and would have led to a different punishment for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, who is currently suspended from the party for his comments on Hitler and Zionism.
The Labour Party's ongoing spat over the Jews and Israel continues. It seems the lead want to have both the anti-Zionists and the JLM on their side with the current motion. So much for one group ranting about how they want the pro-Israeli elements kicked out of their party leading up to this (and you know, all the Nazi comments).
The proposal to return PFIs on expiration is to be welcomed, they are a hugely expensive con. I would also suggest that whilst they are still running, a look at taxation on these specific business structures would be an idea so that the tax payer can scoop back a greater percentage of the outrageous costs these companies have been charging us.
I also whole heartedly welcome proposals to renationalise key industries. It's long overdue. Our infrastructure should be in our hands, not the hands of foreign governments.
r_squared wrote: The proposal to return PFIs on expiration is to be welcomed, they are a hugely expensive con. I would also suggest that whilst they are still running, a look at taxation on these specific business structures would be an idea so that the tax payer can scoop back a greater percentage of the outrageous costs these companies have been charging us.
We should definitely learn from the PFI mistakes and ditch them as soon as we can, though I'm not sure we want to try and screw over the people who agreed to the contracts because it just makes us look petty. We should be making sure they pay all the appropriate taxes though.
I also whole heartedly welcome proposals to renationalise key industries. It's long overdue. Our infrastructure should be in our hands, not the hands of foreign governments.
Absolutely, there are so many things that really shouldn't have been privatised in the first place, so we should learn there too and do our best to undo it.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
But that was never the point or the issue, more that the issue was exaggerated out of all proportion and has been seen to be the reason people are not being paid more when compared to all the other issues the country faces. It is used as a 'scapegoat' because it provided an easy 'myth' as to why people are struggling. However that is simply not the case, there are multiple push factors for keeping wages low (competitiveness in a global market, business greed etc etc). Immigration is a tiny issue relatively to people's wages and has negligible impact or perhaps none depending on the statistical significance of the results. I used the BoE results as they are accepted but I still state the caution that unless figures include their significance then it really means nothing because we don't know how large the variance could be.
The OUP summary says that for every 1% rise in immigrants of working age, there's roughly a 0.5% decrease in the wage of the lowest 5% paid workers. Not that overall there's been a 0.5% decrease, but 0.5% decrease per 1% increase. It also leads to a boost in the earnings of the highest paid, meaning that there's no net overall depression in pay, but the lowest 5% get shafted.
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%. When you're struggling by on the bare minimum wage, being told you're taking a 2.5% pay hit so that people richer than you can earn more is something of a depressing thing, don't you think?
As I pointed out before these are the same figures. Assuming a minimum wage of £8 (for ease) then 2.5% is £0.2 over the 20 years - effectively a 1 pence per hour decrease in wages per year over that period. And even this is exaggerated as I have used the 2.5% on the current figure whereas I should be applying the 0.125% on the average wage for each of the years (but I'm not that bored ). Effectively it's about £20 per year. On the other hand inflation at the moment is equivalent a 23p per year drop (assuming fixed wages); and a cautious approach of 1% is still 8p per year. Relatively the upper decrease in wages due to immigration is negligible and is simply 'lost' in any variance in inflation.
Additionally if we then consider actual wage increases over a similar period then wages have increased significantly during that same period (mainly because of the minimum wage). Therefore disentangling all these issues is a nightmare. In effect what studies then have to do is compare different regions with different immigration levels and see if they can tease out one particular factor when many are applying all at once. There is no method for creating a true baseline to determine what the variation would be without immigration. Effectively you'd want to rerun the scenario with no immigration so you could determine what the non-immigration variance would be between different areas. It could quite possibly be that such variance would be still present even without immigration, that some areas will be poorer than others and have depressed wages simply because of natural statistical variability. In the case of Thanet for example is that more of the people with the better jobs have moved out because there is nothing there; hence the area generate less GDP. That leaves only low paid jobs remaining, meaning that the low skilled jobs (coffee shops etc) need to employ people at lower wages to be able to survive. On the other hand, areas in London might be able to afford higher wages because there are both more people with more money, however this leads to more competition leading to having to lower prices and wages and so (and this is extremely basic)
On top of that, as stated before, that's nation wide. If you break it down further and look at areas with higher than usual immigration (the South essentially), that wage depression only gets worse. It's no secret that Farage's power base was Thanet, and this is a good part of the reason why. If you look at the population of London alone, the immigrant population has roughly doubled from 1.4 million in 1991 to 3 million in 2011. They have, in effect, made up virtually the entire population increase of London from 6.8 to 8.2 million people in those 20 years. In terms of percentages, that's an increase (in rough, without reaching for a calculator) from about 20% of the makeup of London through to around 35%. That's around a 7.5% depression in wages for those on the bottom rung of life, who also inconveniently live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
And yet this is the problem with looking at things locally. Leicester for example has not seen a depression in wages. It's not a rich city, but not poor either. Yet it is has the most diverse population per head than anywhere else in the Country, indeed there are more non-UK people living in Leicester than UK citizens. Yet they do not have a Nigel Farage running around and never have had. Indeed it was also one of the areas outside the SE and Scotland that voted to Remain. Yet if immigration was the major factor in peoples voting choices then you would have expected a NF in Leicester a long time ago. There are almost certainly larger issues in Thanet being that it is poor for other reasons due to lack of development, infrastructure and the draw of London leaving poorer older people in the area perhaps (a quick look shows that the wages in Leicester are about £3k on average higher than in Thanet). It also depresses house prices making it easier for people on lower wages to live there. There is no question that immigrants do a lot of the low skilled jobs when they come to this country, that might mean they find Thanet a more cost effective place to live, and therefore they move there. The question is then whether it is because Thanet is poor that is increasing the local immigration population who earn lower wages rather than the increasing immigration population is making the area poor and depressing wages? Yet it is easier for people to blame the latter rather than the former (as that is something they could do something about). NF uses the frustration of both being in a deprived area and concerns that 'different' people are living in the area to stoke anti-immigration ideas despite the fact that they are massively, and dangerously, exaggerated.
So rather than focusing on the macro and saying 'well, there's no overall wage depression from immigration', the best way to defang Farage and those like him, is to make appropriate provision for those who suffer the short end of what is (I believe) a forward facing and necessary attitude towards immigration.
You'll have no complaint from me that people on the lowest wages should be paid more and that a better distribution of wealth is needed (and in reality globally as well) and the that the minimum wage is really a joke for people trying to survive (especially in the SE). However UKIP, Tories all use the same wording (and Labour just duck and run for hills as soon as it is asked) because it provides those people that vote for them the impression that they support the immigration wage myth and that it is a major factor in their effective decrease in wages. Rather than having a sensible open conversation they just repeat this same myth over and over, not only making more bigoted against immigration but further ingraining a poor chain of thinking in the populace at large.
As I said before, let them rule. The best way to expose a populist is to have them put their policies in practice. Either they won't dare, or they fail. And in the unlikely event that they were right indeed, everyone benefits.
We have been there before though, it didn't end well...
We have been there before though, it didn't end well...
I'd like to think that there are much more robust checks and balances today.
But if it's the will of the people what can we do? I mean in my own Spain we seem to be unable to elect anyone but a bunch of loons whose only loyalty is towards those who put them in power (no, not the voters), their pocket and their comrades-in-theft. On roughly that order.
We have been there before though, it didn't end well...
I'd like to think that there are much more robust checks and balances today.
But if it's the will of the people what can we do? I mean in my own Spain we seem to be unable to elect anyone but a bunch of loons whose only loyalty is towards those who put them in power (no, not the voters), their pocket and their comrades-in-theft. On roughly that order.
The question is though whether there really are more checks or whether our recent history makes us more wary and aware? However the change doesn't happen overnight, a slow slide can not be noticed until it has gone way too far. Of course history won't repeat exactly, but there is a side to less tolerance at the moment of people from different backgrounds across part so the western world. Trump for example is only one or two steps from a really problematic leader.
The problem with the electorate is that as a group they are generally quite stupid and focus on what they think is best for them now (rather then the future overall). Hence the same people funding the parties also have a large visible voice that a standard citizen does not. That's means they can influence policy, and positively reinforce those policies that benefit them (through for example the media that some of them control) and negatively those that they think will cause them harm financially etc. The UK is the same as our parties are heavily influenced by those that fund them, the Tories by wealthy donors (and strangely hence favour low tax, low state policies everything that benefits the wealthy), Labour by the Unions (and hence favour higher tax, high state because that grows their influence) and so on. I would question whether any political party really has the best interest of the country at heart but rather their own best interest. Some of fringe parties (such as the Greens) might be better as they have little to lose and everything to gain by being closer to 'what's best for the country' but if they gained power I'd question how long that would last.
I'm simply establishing that stating these things in absolute generalities rarely encompasses any real complexity. Additionally, when you look at things in large scale abstract statistical form, you can miss that even small statistical variations can be significant in real life. For example, Grenfell tower is a single tower block out of so many thousands that went up in flames, and the people who died are a tiny fraction of the population. Statistically at a national level, the impact of the event was negligible, and we shouldn't make any adjustments to existing safety procedures. Not quite how it works out in real life, eh wot?
As I pointed out before these are the same figures. Assuming a minimum wage of £8 (for ease) then 2.5% is £0.2 over the 20 years - effectively a 1 pence per hour decrease in wages per year over that period.
I'm aware that you're better with the finer points of statistics than me, so I'm going to have to ask you to explain the discrepancy between a quick calculation of mine and what you've just posted. Assuming an £8 wage is depressed by 2.5% to £7.80, that's £0.20 lost per hour, £1.60 in an eight hour day, £8 in a five day week, and £416 over the course of the year (52 weeks). That's not quite pence? If there's some statistical quirk I'm not noticing here, please do point it out, but assuming the above is accurate, that's hardly pennies for somebody on a low income. That's a significant chunk of change. Losing £32 plus per month is a lot of money when you're at subsistence level and the kids need new shoes.
Additionally if we then consider actual wage increases over a similar period...... Yet it is easier for people to blame the latter rather than the former (as that is something they could do something about). NF uses the frustration of both being in a deprived area and concerns that 'different' people are living in the area to stoke anti-immigration ideas despite the fact that they are massively, and dangerously, exaggerated.
As said, statistics are as good as the person gathering them.
Since most of us don't have the time or energy to gather them though, we have to rely on the efforts of people who do it, and assume that they did it right. Ain't nobody got the time to read in depth analysis from more than one field and have the expertise to judge it by!
So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!
Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.
So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!
Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.
Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.
Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."
It's official. It's in the open for all the world to see: United States of Europe is on its way. This is not a drunken ramble from Juncker that can be dismissed out of hand as some EU focus group gone wrong. . This is the President of France now saying it.
God bless the British people for getting us the feth away from it.
I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%
Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU. Freedom is our birth right.
How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?
So the Prime Minister of Great Britain humiliated herself in the eyes of the world for feth all!
Somebody pull the plug on this sham of a negotiation. Instead, throw the billions at Dover for customs infrastructure and new staff, phone the WTO, and let's be done with it, because all we're doing is wastng our valuable time here.
Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.
I think the no deal scenario is getting some serious traction in Whitehall, and rightly so.
Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."
It's official. It's in the open for all the world to see: United States of Europe is on its way. This is not a drunken ramble from Juncker that can be dismissed out of hand as some EU focus group gone wrong. . This is the President of France now saying it.
God bless the British people for getting us the feth away from it.
I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%
Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU. Freedom is our birth right.
How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?
They want a foreign minister, a military force, a finance minister with the power to intervene in other nation states, even closer political union, and they have a currency, a flag, an anthem, a parliament, and numerous presidents...
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
If the rest of Europe want to roll up the white flag to Brussels, then good luck to them. Thank God we got out whilst we could.
Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.
Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.
Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.
Witzkatz wrote: Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.
Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.
Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.
Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.
I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.
Witzkatz wrote: Yyyeah. Europe, the continent that has been at constant war for centuries, is finally not fighting anymore for a bit of its history, and some people prefer the idea of working closer together. Of course, that must mean that "freedom" is under attack and somebody is twirling a mustache and stroking a white cat while laughing maniacally, because cooperation MUST be to the detriment. Goddamnit.
Again, this is stuff member countries VOTE on because there's a PROCESS, not a Sith Lord declaring the Galactic Empire tomorrow morning.
Your "white flag" and "freedom" talk still ignores that the other EU members are mostly on board with working together, and right now they are discussing ideas, not incarcerating dissenters while murdering the resistance elite. You make it sound like it's a battle, a war, but it's just international politics trying to get along WITHOUT battles and wars on this continent.
Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.
I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.
Yes, Germany pays more than it gets out of it, in pure financial terms. The question is if this is a question where that's the only metric that matters. You are happy to accept some pains and problems along the way while getting out of the EU, what makes you think other people might not be fine with a little bit of hardship here and there in favour of the EU?
The thing is, the EU will always be the perfect target for local politicians to rail against, Britain is just one example, Poland and the other Eastern European nations do the same these days, because people like to hear what you are saying, basically - freedom from the oppressors! Down with tyranny! don't let THOSE guys far away decide our lives!
However.
I believe that there is a way to ensure that Europeans hopefully will never fight Europeans again, and will feel a bond close enough that, on the world stage, they can act as one powerful bloc that can't be bullied by the other super nations, be it Russia, China or even the US (you guys are far more of an ally than the previous ones, of course! ). I believe the EU might be one way to achieve that. I might be wrong and there might be a BETTER way to do it, but so far there's no alternative in sight, and "Let's get out of the EU with any really cohesive plan and then invoke the powers of "vision" and "leadership" until stuff turns out to be fine" doesn't seem to be an alternative that will inspire other countries to follow suit.
And as long as there's not better or more promising alternative in sight, I'll rather throw my hat in with the EU and accept a long, bickering, difficult way with some hardships instead of jumping on the hype train for "freedom", thank you very much.
Watched some of the Labour conference, not my thing usually. But renationalising the railways was a big topic. They kept talking about how it's in 'private' hands, but let's look at it, the thing they didn't mention was that our railways are heavily owned, effectively, by foreign governments. Those soaring ticket prices subsidise deutchesbahn and others. If our railways were owned by private UK firms, money would stay inside the UK economy. But as I see it, profits from tickets go straight to foreign investors and governments. No wonder we hemmorage money on subsidies while they pay out dividends and have no scruple about pushing up the prices as much as allowed. Would be far better in UK government owned our railways, then any profits would come back to us and it could be run as a public service instead of a profit seeking venture.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Watched some of the Labour conference, not my thing usually. But renationalising the railways was a big topic. They kept talking about how it's in 'private' hands, but let's look at it, the thing they didn't mention was that our railways are heavily owned, effectively, by foreign governments. Those soaring ticket prices subsidise deutchesbahn and others. If our railways were owned by private UK firms, money would stay inside the UK economy. But as I see it, profits from tickets go straight to foreign investors and governments. No wonder we hemmorage money on subsidies while they pay out dividends and have no scruple about pushing up the prices as much as allowed. Would be far better in UK government owned our railways, then any profits would come back to us and it could be run as a public service instead of a profit seeking venture.
Maybe but unless they got very deep pockets to buy out. At least a 5 year process to take full ownership of the system.
Short of taking it and not paying out which would cause some major waves. I see it being a long term project and thr first few sections will take a while to show change.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A state made out of nations. Like, you know, Scotland, Wales, England, a slice of Ireland and a bunch of scattered bits all over the place make the UK.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Nations cooperate with each other all the time. There is nothing that says they need a common currency to do so. Britain joined a common market back in the 1970s, not a United States of Europe.
And there's also nothing that forbids a common currency. It makes some stuff much easier like a vacation to explore a different culture inside the EU. The ominous and almighty EU bureaucracy hasn't homogenised that part, it actually invests in the preservation of the cultural heritage of all member states. Of course the monetary union has some problems on its own.
I feel sorry for you, because the German taxpayer will have to bankroll this crackpot scheme.
There's a name for that: Solidaritätsprinzip. It means that when you live in a community you try support each other so that nobody has to fight their problems alone. Germany as one of the bigger economies in the union supports the rest (because we have the means). On the other hand the unified economic landscape means everybody saves a bit financially when it comes to transaction inside the EU and there are less roadblocks so trade is easier. That creates more economic activity (and also taxes) that makes the EU payments less of an issue.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It would be slow, but Corbyn has described that leases coming up won't be renewed, so that stuff comes back over time, rather than a hostile takeover.
I was expecting that. Hostile takeover sounds good to the very far left but it's just not practical or sensible.
The above plan makes far more sense. Is far more coat neuteral and also it gives more time to build the systems needed, and the skills needed to manage a national railway.
Cannot go from zero to everything g. And it's been a while since they ran the entire system.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state
I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.
It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.
Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.
Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.
You can hold more than one ethnicity. An ethnicity is just a social construct. I can feel that I'm Scottish, British, Jewish, with a dash of Zimbabwean all at the same time.
I think you're laying the criteria for a nation state on a spot thick there. People in America get to be Texan and American at the same time. It's quite clear (both in this thread and at a more abstract level) that people are beginning to consider themselves European as well as any individual nationality. The EU has deliberately spent large sums of money to generate such a belief.
I do not say that any of these things are bad necessarily, but they are occurring.
We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.
Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.
But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more
More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.
Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.
But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more
More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc
Sadly, they cannot see this.
Being close to democratic institutions is a good thing, which is why I'm pretty sure many people are much more involved in their local politics concerning their town or rural area than they are about the larger, more distant questions of governance. Nevertheless, this planet holds a few billion people by now, and there ARE extremely large nations. Having nothing but close, local democracy won't cut it in the future.
Furthermore, like Ketara mentioned just now, people in the US can feel Texan and American at the same time - and while the local state governments seem to love to rail against the "damn feds", similar to like EU member state governments like to rail against the EU to catch votes, they seem to be doing quite well as the US of A, without any serious talks about secession or revolution, or "Texit".
It's not ideal, and won't be either easy or pretty, but viable to have something like the USE. It doesn't have to follow the exact same pattern as the USA or other Unions, of course - I'm pretty sure if the will is there, there are options for more autonomy and independence within this theoretical USE than the different US states have within the USA, for example.
Just on a personal note: I get the idea of "local government" and "independence" and "freedom", I really get it. I'm from the North of Germany, very much near the coast, and the culture here is certainly a bit different than that of deep Bavaria, I think both sides agree. Sometimes I wonder if we have much more in common with the Danes, maybe even the Swedes than Southern Germany. There's jokes all around about cutting Germany and half, since those damn Prussians and those damn Bavarians don't get along anyway, hurr hurr. And I do feel closer to the North with its coast lines and old thatched-roof fishing houses than to the South, and I'm sure Bavarians feel closer to their mountains and onion-shaped church towers. And sure there's internal political bickering going on about money distribution between states inside Germany, and not everybody is always happy. So it's fun to wonder how one of our tiny states would do on its own.
But taking the thought of Schleswig-Holstein leaving the German states for good, for the sake of "freedom" and "independence" seriously, even for one second? Hell naw. It's ludicrous, it's very much evident that it's economical suicide with far less weight in political decisions in the neighboring countries. There's literally nothing to gain from it, apart from that fleeting feeling of autonomy, while pissing off all the other states. We're better off together, and I like it that way.
So while I get that regions are different culturally, economically, even politically - there is a dire need to work together, with strong bonds between small states and then larger nations. With consistent loyalties and, most of all, stability. Voices might not be heard completely equally, but everything is easier to be solved if you're still part of the team, where entities support each other because they pledged to do so.
Leaving unions just to say "We don't need you guys, we'll make our own deals, with Blackjack and hookers!" seems like the worse of two (not necessarily great) options to me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We can argue about semantics til the cows come home, but if the rest of Europe want to press on with USE then good luck to them. I'm just glad we're out of it.
Like I said a few months back, I have always believed that the closer the people are to the democratic institutions that rule them, then the better it is. Governments govern by consent in Europe, that goes without saying.
But a USE with all the extra layers added on? People feel cut off from Brussels as it is. This would only make it worse. Our current situation gave us UKIP, FN, and AFD plus more
More Europe will produce worse than the above, who will be all to ready to cash in on people's grievances about immigration, globalization, the Brussels elite etc etc
Sadly, they cannot see this.
Being close to democratic institutions is a good thing, which is why I'm pretty sure many people are much more involved in their local politics concerning their town or rural area than they are about the larger, more distant questions of governance. Nevertheless, this planet holds a few billion people by now, and there ARE extremely large nations. Having nothing but close, local democracy won't cut it in the future.
Furthermore, like Ketara mentioned just now, people in the US can feel Texan and American at the same time - and while the local state governments seem to love to rail against the "damn feds", similar to like EU member state governments like to rail against the EU to catch votes, they seem to be doing quite well as the US of A, without any serious talks about secession or revolution, or "Texit".
Precisely. I come from a region in Spain with a very strong identity, its own language, flag, anthem, you name it. I wouldn't even mind it having their own sports teams à la Wales, Scotland, etc. I feel very strongly attached to it, I use our own language every day with family, friends and at work, I support devolution in most issues, etc.
But I'm also Spanish. A full half of my family comes from elsewhere in Spain, I've lived for years in one of the most culturally Castillian areas of the country and I fully identify with my passport, flag and Spanish language.
And on top of that there's a vague thing hovering around the EU which I also fully identify with. Last night I spent the night on a Slovenian town just on the border with Italy. By default we were speaking Italian, but when a sales rep from Rijeka heard I was Spanish they all tried to add a bit of their soap opera Spanish, and in turn I tried to join in with the little Southern Slavic I've been able to muster from my 2 years of Russian and a few visits here and there. And whenever the whole thing became too messy, we defaulted back to English which was the only language everyone had formally studied at some point, then on to Italian and so on.
There is an identity in diversity. It's not just a passport with European Union written in small print. Some of these guys might have been shooting each other just 20 years ago, I still remember my first time in Bosnia when I was told not to hike a particular mountain because there were still landmines in place and every now and then a cow or sheep would end with a few less limbs.
While everyone is certainly free to pick and choose what to identify with, it's not true that identities come at the expense of each other. Unless you define your own identity by opposition to everyone else's of course.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state
I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.
It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.
Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.
Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.
You can hold more than one ethnicity. An ethnicity is just a social construct. I can feel that I'm Scottish, British, Jewish, with a dash of Zimbabwean all at the same time.
Sure, never stated anything to the contrary.
I think you're laying the criteria for a nation state on a spot thick there. People in America get to be Texan and American at the same time.
I'm not sure how this contradicts what I said, for example Finland can be a nation state even if there are minorities in the country that consider themselves Swedish or Jewish.
Also, the US would probably be a bad example as I would argue that it's not a nation state to begin with.
It's quite clear (both in this thread and at a more abstract level) that people are beginning to consider themselves European as well as any individual nationality. The EU has deliberately spent large sums of money to generate such a belief.
Sure, I said myself that the United States of Europe could become a nation state if a general European culture became dominant, I just said that I think the chances of that happening is low.
In reply to Witzkatz and others, I make the following points:
The USA works because it was designed that way from Day 1.
They didn't try and take 28 nations, all with their own different systems and history, and try and squeeze them into a one size fits all system.
Yeah, you can be Texan and American, but Texas makes a lot of its own decisions, knows where the federal line is, and functions under a system that was designed to allow it to function.
The EU seems to make the rules up as it goes along.
Macron is trying the old French trick of France riding the German horse. Will the German taxpayer put up with that forever? I doubt it.
At any rate, the Eastern bloc countries will probably torpedo this, but sadly, the EU are thinking about USE, that's fact now, and we know they play the long game.
If Britain had stayed in the EU we'd be dragged into this USE. Cameron would have rolled up the white flag.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state
I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.
It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.
Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.
Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.
They bribe us with our own money, and surprisingly, a lot of people fall for the propaganda that they are a generous lot.
I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.
Speaking of which, anyone who's into Rome should check out the History of Rome by Mike Duncan. It's a great podcast.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
That logic won't wash with the Americans on this forum
At any rate, the Romans left Britain, and we welcomed our Saxon overlords with open arms
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.
Just like how Nazi Germany collapsed due to Russian immigration?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I might be a tad late, but 2000 years ago (well, 1974 years ago, close enough) Britain was part of the United States of Rome. If we're making appeals to history, Britain should be thrilled to be part of the EU, no?
And then the western half collapsed due to immigration issues.
Just like how Nazi Germany collapsed due to Russian immigration?
Exactly, marauding bands of Russians migrated to Germania and then sacked the Capital.
I'm simply establishing that stating these things in absolute generalities rarely encompasses any real complexity. Additionally, when you look at things in large scale abstract statistical form, you can miss that even small statistical variations can be significant in real life. For example, Grenfell tower is a single tower block out of so many thousands that went up in flames, and the people who died are a tiny fraction of the population. Statistically at a national level, the impact of the event was negligible, and we shouldn't make any adjustments to existing safety procedures. Not quite how it works out in real life, eh wot?
What you are missing here is how statistics actually work. You are confusing that because an event happens on a local scale is a direct consequence of current actions rather than a statistical probability function. What you can't say is at a local, narrow level that there is a direct cause and effect when it could be natural variation. If you found somewhere with no immigration there still would be areas with depressed wages versus those with higher wages which will follow a statistical distribution. If you take the same case where immigration exists and you get the same statistical distribution then you can be reasonably confident that any depression in wages (and conversely increase) is not due immigration but simply a natural fluctuation that would get with or without immigration. This is why I'm always keen to impress that figures are meaningless without the errors.
Although I hesitate to use Grenfell as an example, I will use this as you've brought it up. You can design buildings that are ultra secure from fire to reduce significant casualties. However it is not possible to make them completely fool proof. However despite this you can't account for all possibilities. There for there is slim median chance of a fire that will cause significant casualties. Lets say the median value is 1/1000 years. However this does not preclude an event tomorrow, next week or in 100 years. The event will happen at some point regardless, you could even have multiple events in a short period of time. That doesn't mean 1/1000 is wrong, it's just a statistical group of events that eventually once the sample is large enough will give you the median and subsequent distribution. Now lets suppose you live somewhere with more lax safety control meaning the result is 1/100 chance. In this case you might not get any serious event for 500 years. This does not mean the result is wrong, it is again a statistical grouping of events. As such no one individual event can be used to infer a cause. You have to look at the wider larger picture to see the overall impact. If you don't you fall into this trap where you associate directly two events - this can result in policies or changes that actually make things worse overall because you are reacting to events not the drivers.
I'm aware that you're better with the finer points of statistics than me, so I'm going to have to ask you to explain the discrepancy between a quick calculation of mine and what you've just posted. Assuming an £8 wage is depressed by 2.5% to £7.80, that's £0.20 lost per hour, £1.60 in an eight hour day, £8 in a five day week, and £416 over the course of the year (52 weeks). That's not quite pence? If there's some statistical quirk I'm not noticing here, please do point it out, but assuming the above is accurate, that's hardly pennies for somebody on a low income. That's a significant chunk of change. Losing £32 plus per month is a lot of money when you're at subsistence level and the kids need new shoes.
The issue you are missing is that the research is only valid at the time it was undertaken; it can't be back inflated like you are doing because there is no research to determine whether the rate today is the same as yesterday or will be tomorrow. Effectively what it demonstrates that the research has determined that based on the last 20 years if the same increase happens at the time of the research then this would lead to a decrease in wages by 2.5%. You could say that based on this research if the same number of immigrants that have arrived over the last 20 years turned up tomorrow then this might lead to a median decrease of 2.5% +/- the error. What you can't do is then use this to infer what the decrease (if any) was over 20, 19, 18 and so years ago because the research was not reviewing the impact that many years ago. We've taken a slightly abstract view that immigration increases are the same each year (which isn't particularly correct which is why the research works in percentages). However if we use this abstraction and assume the research stands firm for a least a few years then we can imply that the median immigration levels reduces wages by 1p per hour. Future research in 2018 may show that immigration increases wages by 5p an hour at that time. As such you could then start aggregating figures in the way you want to, but you can't aggregate figures in the way you are else why couldn't you extrapolate it back another 20,000 years which would be plainly ridiculous.
Since most of us don't have the time or energy to gather them though, we have to rely on the efforts of people who do it, and assume that they did it right. Ain't nobody got the time to read in depth analysis from more than one field and have the expertise to judge it by!
You don't need to, all you need is the error on the result. That way you can be more clear on how realistic a result is. if someone quotes a decrease of 2.5% +/- 0.01% (95% probability ) then you can reasonably be comfortable that the result is very close to 2.5%. On the other hand 2.5% +/- 50% (95% confidence) means that you can't actually say whether there is an decrease or not. Both results are accurate, the latter however is not very precise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First we had Juncker, now Macron has decided to double down on the EU super state.
Macron wants: "giving the 19-member eurozone a finance minister, budget and parliament, as well as creating a Europe-wide “rapid reaction force” to work with national armies."
You know you are bit like a stuck record. Every so often you repeat the same thing over and over in some weird abject horror. All of this was pretty much in Juncker's speech anyway. A centralised military force already operates, but it is disjointed because there is no one command and control. The current government has already said that Brexit or not we will be including UK forces in this combined force. You want our government to make a decision on this and they have, independently decided they will provide the EU with military forces that will not be under direct UK control.
You complain that the EU has no financial oversight, yet when they look to change this, you complain this is just further evidence of integration.
You complain that the EU does not have enough democracy, but when they introduce a democratically elected parliament you complain that this is further integration
The EU already has a budget of about £150bn all they are doing is making sure there is an elected person directly responsible for this, something complained about.
You are just spouting emotional nonsense and rather than argue intelligently why these are 'bad things' you just use the same old hyperbole and thanking some higher power. If you disagree with something state it and argue your point.
I demand a second EU referendum now! Why? Because by playing Juncker's speech on a loop, and now Macron's, Leave would win by 99.9%
Every man, woman, and child in Britain would demand we leave the EU.
Start a petition then...asking for one if you are so confident. It might be 99.9% leave in a bingo club... , however I'd point out that there is one man in Britain that vote to Remain, but I can't talk about anyone else.
How can anybody defend this crackpot scheme? Are we to surrender 2000 years of British history on the altar of the EU super state?
Freedom is our birth right.
What on earth are you babbling on about. Where does it state in the EU that we'd be surrendering British history, or that our 'birth right freedoms' will be thrown away. Strictly speaking I was born an EU citizen and my 'birth right' to work and play anywhere in the EU is being removed. I could argue that in fact Leavers have removed my 'birth right freedoms'?
Yeah it was always going to be pointless taking to the EU. Plans for WTO should have been made from the very beginning.
Just to point out why WTO is not a good idea. Basically under WTO rules you have to apply the same WTO rules to every country you trade with. If you apply certain WTO rules with the EU then you have to comply with those same rules with everybody. I'll let that sink in...
What you are missing here is how statistics actually work. You are confusing that because an event happens on a local scale is a direct consequence of current actions rather than a statistical probability function.
I think you missed my point. My point being (to be explicit and unambigious) that you can issue a batch of statistics on practically anything; but that the relevancy of those statistics to any one individual subject or situation is entirely a matter of debate and perspective when relating to the point at hand.
I can take Grenfell tower and claim that statistically speaking, there's clearly been many towers which have not burnt down, and therefore existing safety regulations and oversight are satisfactory. Yet such a broad brush 'statistic' fails to take into account how evenly those safety regulations are applied, how old individual buildings are, how many towers are made of that specific material, and so on. There are oodleplexes of variations one could run when generating one's statistics, and you could use such data to prove or disprove practically anything. In the real world meanwhile, everyone recognises that having buildings burning down is a bad thing, and saying something which technically isn't incorrect (like that the percentage of the population which die through such incidents are statistically insignificant when compared to say, car accidents) will just get you funny looks in the pub.
Likewise, one can claim that there is no national wage depression, but when all the plumbers in London suddenly find they can't make a living due to a sudden large influx of immigrants who do the same job for half the price? They're not really going to appreciate a grand 'national statistic' much. (Note; I've no idea how true that one is, I'm just illustrating my point)
The issue you are missing is that the research is only valid at the time it was undertaken; it can't be back inflated like you are doing because there is no research to determine whether the rate today is the same as yesterday or will be tomorrow.
Errr......with all due respect, going 'Well, just because it's resulted in wage depression for the last twenty years doesn't mean it will do in the future or a different scenario!' is kind of stating the obvious. The point under discussion was whether or not immigration had, in the past, in this country, resulted in wage depression. The answer appears to be 'No generally on a national level, but Yes when specifically considering the bottom 5% of earners' if the OUP summary is one to go by. Whether that will continue to be the case in the future is really by the by.
Not to mention (and I'll be blunt here) you appear to be claiming that somehow even though a 2.5% decrease adds up to the sums previously given by me, and that this was the average in the years assessed by the studies, somehow through some statistical quirk (which I'm not quite following) you equate it to a decrease of 1p per hour as opposed to the 20p basic math would indicate (assuming you were referring to that bottom 5% and not generally). You need to explain this better because I'm not following, and if I'm not following, I'm reasonably sure few other people will be. Communication is key in cases like these. Break it down some more.
I can understand there being room for statistical variation, but you appear to be indicating that their research does not reflect the reality of the situation (and is consequently irrelevant and misleading to the layman), which is quite a charge to make in the academic world.
If that's not a nation state, I don't know what the hell is!
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
So no, a United States of Europe would not be a nation state
I don't know mind, they are banging the we are Europe drum pretty hard.
It's gotten to the point where quite a few people dont know that there is a difference between Europe and the European Union.
Well sure if they convinced people to seems themselves as ethnic and culturally European rather then their current ethnicity then it could become a nation state, I just think the odds of that happening is slim.
Thats exactly what they're trying to do. They spend millions on pro EU propaganda to that effect.
Ok, then whirlwind, let's put emotion to one side and have a measured discussion about Macron and Juncker's speech.
Why does a common market need a rapid reaction force? Are they worried that French farmers might not follow EU regulations?
Most EU members are also NATO members. So what's it all about? I keep hearing Trump's name getting mentioned, so because one US president isn't keen on NATO, then the logic goes that every future US president won't be keen on NATO...
But the US defence secretary backed NATO 100% and US troops remain in Europe...
Something does not compute here...
Foreign policy: why does a common market need a foreign policy? If it is a union of sovereign nations, then why does it need a foreign policy? Surely every member nation is free to pursue their own foreign policy goals? If the Ukraine debacle is anything to go by, the EU needs a foreign policy like the Titanic needs an iceberg.
Why can't this democractically elected EU parliament propose its own legislation like other parliaments? Sounds more like a sham to me. A talking shop.
Finance minister: why does this union of soveeign nations need a finance minister? Every nation has it's own, so why the need for an EU one?
The answer to these questions is pretty simple: they have power and they want more, and more, and more, and more...
As always, I admire the EU's honesty, they ain't hiding it anymore. Just a pity they won't ask the 400 million other people in the EU want they think about all this.
Ordinary citizens usually find out when it's a fait accompli...
Herzlos wrote: They spend millions preserving cultural identity.
The knee jerk reaction to that is "Who's cultural identity?"
Which is unfair to all sides, but relevant to a sizable portion of the UK populace.
I do not trust the present direction of the EU. I do not trust their ability to quietly grab power while no one is looking. I do not trust my own Government to not sell out our country to the EU while no one is looking. I want the UK Government to be held accountable for its actions, which in the present climate, I feel, we can not do unless the UK leaves the EU and such treaties become visible as a matter of parliamentary scrutiny and debate, which the present climate does not provide.
As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the single market, was that good intention. The single market was what we were asked to decide upon in the seventies. How did that single market get to todays present Machiavilian organisation?
The USA works because it was designed that way from Day 1.
Actually, it wasn't. There were serious teething problems for the first few decades of our history, as our various presidential administrations found out that what the Founding Fathers designed didn't always function properly when confronted with reality.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: They didn't try and take 28 nations, all with their own different systems and history, and try and squeeze them into a one size fits all system.
Yeah, we kind of did. We had to shoot 250,000 of our own countrymen in the face about 80+ years into the show specifically because the 'one size fits all' didn't sit well with a whole lot of people...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, you can be Texan and American, but Texas makes a lot of its own decisions, knows where the federal line is, and functions under a system that was designed to allow it to function.
It does now, yeah. Mostly because we showed them where the federal line was when we shot 250,000 of our own countrymen in the face. Prior to that, there was a lot of debate. Heck, even after the face-shooting there is still a lot of debate. Federal powers have changed and expanded several times through all the decades since 1865.
efra is under fire after choosing to withhold a report on the food prices changes it expects as a result of the UK leaving the European Union.
It follows a freedom of information request by the union Unite, which represents food, drink and agriculture workers.
Unite asked Defra to publish details of any assessment or estimate made of the increase in food prices in the run-up to Brexit and the first five years afterwards.
The union said any price increases were likely to have a major effect on consumers – as well as on the UK’s food industry, which employs more than three million workers.
But Defra said the requested information was being withheld because it fell under an exemption in Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act.
The exemption relates to the formulation and development of government policy.
Appeal
Unite said it would appeal against the decision to withhold the information, arguing that release of the report was in the public interest.
If an internal review was rejected, Unite said it would appeal further to the information commissioner’s office.
Unite national officer Julia Long said: “If the government knows that Brexit is going to affect food prices, then it needs to tell the general public and not pretend that there isn’t a problem.
She added: “The type of Brexit that the UK chooses will clearly have major implications on the nations shopping basket and we need to know what those factors will be.
“Unite will do everything it can to ensure that this report is published.
Public interest
Defra said the department had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure.
It said: “At this early stage of the policy process, where the UK is formulating its negotiating position with the EU, a public authority needs a safe space to formulate policy effectively and to ensure the information it is preparing is timely and accurate.
Defra said its EU exit policy development work was ongoing.
It added: “We consider that premature disclosure of information could seriously mislead the public and is not in the public interest.
“In the meantime, however, Defra will continue to monitor food prices.”
TBF to May she has managed something truly unique :
I think you missed my point. My point being (to be explicit and unambigious) that you can issue a batch of statistics on practically anything; but that the relevancy of those statistics to any one individual subject or situation is entirely a matter of debate and perspective when relating to the point at hand.
Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis. A full statistical analysis will ask a specific question at hand. For example does immigration reduce wages etc. As you've correctly pointed out research has been undertaken by Dustmann amongst others on the larger UK scale. There results show that to a three sigma level (i.e. 99.7%, noting this would be the lowest value in scientific circles that a result would be considered significant) that immigration at the levels you stated result a national wage change in the lowest5% quartile of +0.181% to -1.51% with the mean result being -0.665%. Therefore we can conclusively say that at the 3 sigma level the result of whether wage increases or decreases is not significant. That more data needs to be collected and analysed to refine the results. You can expect variances nationally on similar sized data groups (for example the lowest 5%) there will be some worse than the mean result, but conversely to maintain the mean there will also be those in the 5% bracket that do better than the mean. However what we do not know is whether this variance would be the same without immigration; we can also not say that plumbers in London are worse off because of immigration because this specific question has not been researched. This data would need to be gathered and statistically analysed at this level. Claiming that the results in the papers mean that plumbers in London are worse off due to immigration is very poor interpretation of the results. It does not say this, a supposition has been made without appropriate evidence. It could quite possibly be that plumbers in London are better off because of immigration. We simply don't know as the research hasn't been carried out. All we can say specifically is what happens on a national scale. The latter is the correct interpretation, the former is where the 'myths' start (or misquoted). The reason plumbers can't make a living could be due to other factors (as a random example all lots of new builds all with modern plumbing requiring less plumbers per household)
Errr......with all due respect, going 'Well, just because it's resulted in wage depression for the last twenty years doesn't mean it will do in the future or a different scenario!' is kind of stating the obvious. The point under discussion was whether or not immigration had, in the past, in this country, resulted in wage depression. The answer appears to be 'No generally on a national level, but Yes when specifically considering the bottom 5% of earners' if the OUP summary is one to go by. Whether that will continue to be the case in the future is really by the by.
As I pointed out though the result isn't actually statistically significant at the 99.7% confidence level though (3 sigma). Therefore it is questionable at this time without more data that this is actually happening. The report sticks to 95% confidence interval which effectively means that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result is outside their stated range. That's just too high probabilities to have much confidence in the conclusion.
Not to mention (and I'll be blunt here) you appear to be claiming that somehow even though a 2.5% decrease adds up to the sums previously given by me, and that this was the average in the years assessed by the studies, somehow through some statistical quirk (which I'm not quite following) you equate it to a decrease of 1p per hour as opposed to the 20p basic math would indicate (assuming you were referring to that bottom 5% and not generally). You need to explain this better because I'm not following, and if I'm not following, I'm reasonably sure few other people will be. Communication is key in cases like these. Break it down some more.
2.5% was calculated by yourself over a 20 year period
Between 1991 & 2011, the percentage of the foreign born population in Britain has shot up from 6.7% to 12.7 % according to the census. If we were to assume that 5% of that 6% increase is of working age (not unlikely, given that immigrants tend to be of working age), that's a overall depression in the wages across the nation of 2.5%
. The problem is that you've calculated it over the 20 years and inferred a wage decrease of this amount at the current time, but excludes other potential factors such as the minimum wage. We can't actually say this. The reports only refer to a wage change in relation to changes in the percentage of immigration levels (not over a time period). Therefore you need to correct for the aggregation bias by considering things over 20 years. I made an arbitrary decision to accept your figures and pro-rata them to a by year rate on the assumption that immigration levels remained the same each year over that time. This is a bit of a generalisation and a better method would be to look at the latest year figures and calculate the current year value from that. As such £0.20 per hour over the stated 20 years assuming equal immigration changes over all years hence equates to 1p per hour; to iterate this is likely to be different based on actual immigration figures, although it is reasonable first estimate without having to dig out specific figures.
Why does a common market need a rapid reaction force? Are they worried that French farmers might not follow EU regulations?
Armed forces don't just go to war. They also can also provide support for crises, or the prevention of some crime operations. For example a rapid reaction force could be used to support EU islands devastated by a hurricane (noting the UKs poor response to other countries here). Rather than multiple forces all with ad hoc fleets about you could have one co-ordinated effort, where resources can be pooled (such as man power, storage vessels etc). Alternatively the active and co-ordinated campaigns to stop illegal people smuggling, rather than different countries doing different things. Support for those trapped by an earthquake in Greece and so on. Armed forces aren't just there to go to war, they also provide a lot of other support and humanitarian roles.
Foreign policy: why does a common market need a foreign policy? If it is a union of sovereign nations, then why does it need a foreign policy? Surely every member nation is free to pursue their own foreign policy goals? If the Ukraine debacle is anything to go by, the EU needs a foreign policy like the Titanic needs an iceberg.
If you have common market then you also need common foreign polices for how this applies globally. Such as the EU has stated it wants to be seen as a 'moral compass' in how they trade and deal with other countries that it trades with; they want to introduce a EU wide requirement to protect EU assets being bought out by other countries (for example ports). If you want to have trade deals then it want's to be seen as acting fairly to all countries and hence these countries need to know what principles they need to agree to get the trade deals.
Why can't this democractically elected EU parliament propose its own legislation like other parliaments? Sounds more like a sham to me. A talking shop.
It can propose legislation...here's a simplified guide
Finance minister: why does this union of soveeign nations need a finance minister? Every nation has it's own, so why the need for an EU one?
Because as noted before the EU has it's own budget of approx. £150bn and believes that there should be more oversight on how this is spent and who is responsible. It's not there to take away the budget control of individual country's finances.
My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.
Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.
The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75
The PM is a lame duck, the cabinet is useless, and their annual jolly (where they pretend to be Tories for a few days) will struggle to do anything of note other than divide the party further.
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.
As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way, and so we come to UKIP.
I'm not a UKIP supporter or member, but by God, we desperately need somebody to stand up for Brexit.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.
Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.
The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75
The PM is a lame duck, the cabinet is useless, and their annual jolly (where they pretend to be Tories for a few days) will struggle to do anything of note other than divide the party further.
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.
As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way, and so we come to UKIP.
I'm not a UKIP supporter or member, but by God, we desperately need somebody to stand up for Brexit.
UKIP, well with Brexit seemingly a given and the whole thing going ahead it seemed that they where redundant and they rapidly failed.
Now with things in doubt there bvoter base might start coming back as they become the Brexit party again. and become the lobby for presure to make things move forward.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
To anyone who keeps up to date with political, social, andd economic theory, they have extremely up-to-date solutions to very modern problems - they're the only major party in UK politics (both the English and Welsh Greens and Scottish Greens are onto it as well) who've even used phrases like internet of things or smart factories, never mind acknowledged that we need to coompletely reform our economies before everyone gets replaced by machines, whilst everyone else is wandering about thinking petrol cars are at the forefront of technology and economic systems from the 1900s are here forever. Hell, the Tories and Lib Dems slaughtered Corbyn when he mentioned the internet of things on the basis that he was using meaningless buzzwords - but it's Labour that are out of date?
He has previous experience of running for the role of Kent Police and Crime Commissioner. And that's it.
If memory serves, reds8n was a big fan of the police and crime commissioners, so maybe he knows something about this
At any rate, who knows how long he'll last for? UKIP seems pretty fractured these days.
And? So? Whats your point? UKIP is a 2nd rate party. Its hardly surprising it has 2nd rate leaders.
Although I'm opposed to what UKIP stands for, I don't believe that because someone isn't known should be a reason to consider them second rate. UKIP also has the same problem as the Tory party. The majority of their supporters are old and hence their potential voter bases is declining in numbers. In the end UKIP was used by Farage to get what he wanted. Once he had achieved that then he discarded it like yesterdays cold congealed curry.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
To anyone who keeps up to date with political, social, andd economic theory, they have extremely up-to-date solutions to very modern problems - they're the only major party in UK politics (both the English and Welsh Greens and Scottish Greens are onto it as well) who've even used phrases like internet of things or smart factories, never mind acknowledged that we need to coompletely reform our economies before everyone gets replaced by machines, whilst everyone else is wandering about thinking petrol cars are at the forefront of technology and economic systems from the 1900s are here forever. Hell, the Tories and Lib Dems slaughtered Corbyn when he mentioned the internet of things on the basis that he was using meaningless buzzwords - but it's Labour that are out of date?
It may surprise some people to know that when I was a lad
I was quite into the Labour party. That was when Neil Kinnock was leader. Corbyn reminds me a lot of him: speaks well, can fire up a crowd, but ultimately falls flat at the end.
But a very effective one at that. Farage will be remembered for a long time as somebody who was skilful enough to panic the governing party into a ill-timed referendum that ultimately brought it down.
Though to be fair to Henry Bolton having read up on his career, he sounds like exactly the sort of Politician who should be leading our political parties. He's an ex-soldier and Policeman who was recognised for bravery. He's a completely different breed of politician to the usual cretins who lead British political parties.
Its a shame he's not leading the Conservative Party.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Though to be fair to Henry Bolton having read up on his career, he sounds like exactly the sort of Politician who should be leading our political parties. He's an ex-soldier and Policeman who was recognised for bravery. He's a completely different breed of politician to the usual cretins who lead British political parties.
Its a shame he's not leading the Conservative Party.
the luvies, cliches and others in the mainstream would not let someone like that take charge.
they have some degree of sense and worked outside the Westminster bubble. SUch is a threat to the bubble dwellers and they will defend there bubble aggressively.
they did the right courses, right school ties, or right trade unions.
There nothing normal about the rat hole of westminster.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.
Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.
Ha, if you think it is bad now, wait until they vote Boris in as the next party leader. If he becomes PM we might as well dress up in clown suits whenever we go anywhere in the world.
Ruth Davidson might be a decent replacement and better than May but I can't see it for two reasons. Firstly she is quite strongly pro-EU and secondly in the 2015 election there was a strong anti-Scotland controlling things message from the Tories.
The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75
I've noted this before, It also means that the quality of potential MPs is also drying up (which could go someway to explaining the poor choice we now have). There's an article on this today but it reads as if the younger generation are just ignored anyway.
Hopefully the Tories will realise this by far too late...
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.
Although I have more sympathies for current Labour ideals I disagree with a number of ways they are implementing it. They are stifling debate and quietly removing anyone that isn't a frothing Corbynite. I don't think this is healthy either and not really any better than May's approach. Effectively we have the same issues on both the left and right in that they want to barrel through anything and will happily squash any dissent rather than have the debate.
As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way.
The problem you have is the voting system. LDs are not feeble by voting percentage, they should have closer to 50 seats. The Green party also should also have about 10 (whereas they both have closer to a tenth of this). People also know this and hence are less willing to consider alternatives if it means their vote is wasted. It forces people to two party politics simply from not having a choice. I would suspect both parties would get a larger share if voting was more proportional (for example I wouldn't vote Labour, I'd vote LDs or Greens assuming similar policies are kept). I voted Labour to try and stop May not because I particularly agreed with what Corbyn was doing. As for SNP I think they were always vulnerable if the Unionist group sided with either Tories or Labour. At the time of the election I think a lot of Unionists sided with Tories because they were the best chance to block SNP. That might change now that Corbyn has shown that he actually has a decent chance. This might split the vote more giving SNP the way back in.
Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis.
Actually, I've closely read what you've written here, and I think I understand what you're saying now. Namely that anything underneath a 2.3% variation in statistics is not 'significant', meaning that these results do pass muster for a general conclusion. But only just, there's a 1 in 20 chance of serious error, and they would therefore usually require further scrutiny/ study before drawing any more specific conclusions beyond those at the national level.
I've also cottoned on to how you got the 1p figure and see where the confusion came from; I was calculating the final cumulative effect upon wages as of today whilst you were looking at it on a year by year basis. So we're on the same page.
At the same time however, I still maintain that original point, which is more of an observation on the cumulative impact of wage depression across the extended period of time measured. Acknowledging that it may only have been an incremental depression on a year by year basis (and qualifying that I understand that we're generally excluding more detailed potential analysis involving minimum wage and economic impact), even knocking only a penny or two earned per hour every year still adds up to a significant impact upon the budget of a barely managing family in the bottom end of the labour market. Even if we go to the extreme and assume that my previous calculations are 66% out of whack due to the previously mentioned variations, that's still an extra ten quids worth of earning power per month lost to those at the bottom of the food chain by 2011.
And speaking as someone who grew up in a household so poor that their parents used to count out their coppers on the table to try and meet the electricity bill? I can see why if there's any chance that the figures are even remotely close to those more general calculations, people at the lower end of the economic strata would be against immigration.
Ruth Davidson might be a decent replacement and better than May but I can't see it for two reasons. Firstly she is quite strongly pro-EU and secondly in the 2015 election there was a strong anti-Scotland controlling things message from the Tories.
Plus, you know, she loves racists and bigots, wont expell them from the party, and supports them standing for election. That wont fly under UK-level press scrutiny.
Table 1 shows some of the main measures of global trade in 2015, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available. The EU either with or without the UK is the world’s second largest economy, and together the USA, EU27 (minus the UK), and China command 48% of the global economy, 42% of global trade in goods (not counting internal EU trade), and 43% of global trade in services. The UK outside the EU would be the fifth largest economy, but would only command 2.4% of global GDP, 2.1% of global trade in goods, and 4.3% of global trade in services. In short, the UK would not be in the “premier league” as a global trading power. This is not to say that the UK could not be a successful economy outside the EU, but does suggest that the UK is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining situation when negotiating free trade agreements, particularly with the world’s dominate trading powers: the US, the EU, and China.
To shed more light on the free trade prospects for the UK outside the EU, let us look at the situation from the point of view of South Korea, which will be a similarly-sized trading power to an ‘independent’ UK. South Korea is the world’s 9th largest economy (counting the EU as a single bloc), and in terms of global trade (not counting internal EU trade), South Korea’s combined trade volume (exports plus imports) in goods and services was larger than the UK’s in 2015, at €1,059bn compared to the UK’s €777bn.
South Korea already has an FTA with the EU, which hence currently covers the UK. So, South Korea is likely to be near the “front of the queue” for a new free trade agreement with the UK, as Liam Fox has suggested. Could this agreement be concluded quickly? What would the terms of such an agreement be? And would these terms be more or less beneficial for the UK than the current EU-South Korea FTA?
To answer these questions, let us look in more detail at the EU-South Korea FTA, which entered into force on 1 July 2011. Because the EU and South Korea had been working on a series of mutual assistance and trade agreements for some time, the EU-South Korea FTA was concluded relatively quickly. Negotiations started in May 2007 and were concluded in October 2009. It then took a further 2 years for the deal to be adopted and implemented. The European Parliament did not ratify the EU-South Korea FTA until February 2011, and only after South Korea had made several further concessions, including a new “safeguard” clause to protect European industry and a guarantee that new Korean car emissions limits would not be detrimental to European car manufacturers.
Two issues make the EU-South Korea agreement particularly interesting from a trade point of view. First, the agreement is the most ambitious of the 30 or so trade agreements that the EU has signed so far, in that it covers a larger volume of bilateral trade than any other agreement between the EU and a third country. For example, in 2015 EU-South Korea trade was €90bn, whereas EU-Canada trade was only €64bn. The EU trades more with the United States and China, but the EU does not yet have free trade agreements with either of these countries.
Second, the EU-South Korea agreement is interesting because it is the most comprehensive agreement the EU has implemented to date, and is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements signed between any two partners anywhere in the world. Import duties (tariffs) are eliminated on almost all products. The agreement also goes far beyond the liberalisation of services market that both parties have already implemented under their GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) commitments. For example, the treaty includes stronger intellectual property rights (including geographical indications), regulatory co-operation, sustainable development provisions, aims to open up public procurement, as well as specific commitments to reduce non-tariff barriers in many sectors, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and electronics. As a result, the EU-South Korea agreement is often seen as a model “second generation” trade agreement.
From the UK’s point of view, a comprehensive FTA with South Korea would also be attractive. As Table 2 shows, South Korea is the UK’s 11th largest trading partner (treating the EU27 as a single trade entity). In fact, South Korea is the third largest trading partner of the UK outside the EU with which the UK currently has a trade status as a member of the EU. Norway is in the single market via the European Economic Area (EEA), and Turkey is part of the EU’s Customs Union, so these two states would be covered by any FTA with the EU/EEA. The US, China, Hong Kong, Japan and India will be high on the UK’s priority list, but any negotiations with these states would need to start from scratch, whereas potential agreements with Switzerland, Canada and South Korea could start from the terms of the current EU (and hence UK) agreements with these three countries. Also, as the final column shows, the UK currently has a positive trade balance with South Korea.
Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, the volume of UK exports and imports between the UK and any of these states is tiny compared to the current volume of trade between the UK and the EU. Hence, the overwhelming top priority for the UK must be a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU. Theresa May has tried to claim that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. But, given the dependence of UK industry and UK consumers on trade with the EU, this claim must be treated with some scepticism. For example, even if the UK could sign quick agreements with the 10 other countries in Table 2 – and this is a big “if” – this would only cover 37% of the UK’s current exports and 33% of the UK’s current imports, compared to the current 44% of exports to and 53% of imports from the EU27.
Assuming the UK could do a deal with South Korea, what would it cover? Table 3 shows the main products traded between the UK and South Korea in 2015. As the data show, the removal of tariffs has led to a significant year-on-year increase in trade in several sectors. Producers in these sectors, and consumers of these products will be eager not to reintroduce tariffs once the UK leaves the EU, and hence the current EU-South Korea FTA.
At face value, a quick cut-and-paste of the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA into a new UK-South Korea FTA seems like the simplest, least disruptive, and quickest solution. However, this is not as simple as it sounds. The precise terms of the EU-South Korea FTA were the result of a delicate compromise between a very large and powerful economy, the EU, and an economy and trading power less than one-tenth of the size of the EU. As a result, the EU had a much stronger negotiation position than Korea, and, as discussed, Korea had to make even more concessions to secure an agreement in the European Parliament. In contrast, the South Korean economy is about half the size of the UK economy. Because of this, Seoul will be reluctant to simply replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA in a new UK-South Korea FTA, as South Korea will expect a more equal ‘partnership’ with an independent UK.
In addition, in many specific areas the EU-South Korea agreement goes well beyond Korea’s GATS commitments. For example, in financial services, it allows EU firms the right to offer new financial services as they will develop. It also opens telecommunications markets by reducing local ownership requirements, as well as the legal services and accountant services markets. Markets for medical, education and audio-visual services were excluded on the request of the EU. The level of market liberalisation in this area was similar to that of the US-South Korea FTA.
In terms of services trade, it will not be easy for the UK to get better terms in a future UK-South Korea FTA than the current level of liberalisation. For example, in chapter 7 of the EU-South Korea FTA, on Trade in Services, Establishment and Electronic Commerce, each party is required to extend to the other any market liberalisation that it may grant in any future FTA that it signs with another third country. This implies that South Korea cannot agree any further services market access to the UK, in a future UK-South Korea agreement, without also extending it to the EU. In addition, if South Korea extends market access to the UK, the US may demand a similar level of access under its agreement with Korea. Ever since Korea negotiated the respective FTAs with the EU and the US in parallel, the US has tried to make sure that the US obtain a similar level of market access to Korea to that granted to the EU. As a result, it is unlikely that South Korea would be willing to offer better market access to the UK than that currently granted under the EU-South Korea FTA.
One aspect of the services market is legal services. The terms of the EU-South Korea agreement in this area were almost solely for UK interests, since all of the top 50 law firms in the world are either US or UK based. The agreement allows UK law firms to set up Foreign Legal Consultant offices in Korea. Under the agreement, lawyers licensed in the UK can provide advisory services regarding the jurisdiction in which they are licensed and public international law in Korea. It also provides for cooperation and joint ventures between UK and Korean law firms in order to deal with cases in which domestic and foreign legal issues are mixed. Five EU-based law firms have opened offices in Korea under the agreement, and all 5 of these are British. If the UK leaves the EU without a new agreement with South Korea, the interests of UK law firms, and the millions of Pounds of contracts they have signed will be put in jeopardy.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, even if the UK and South Korea could agree to apply the current terms of the EU-South Korea FTA, this would not be as beneficial for the UK once it leaves the EU. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the reason for this is because of the way “rules of origin” work in international trade. Under the EU-South Korea FTA, there are two main scenarios for a product to be considered as “originating” in the EU or South Korea. The first scenario is that it has been wholly produced in the EU or South Korea. The second is that it has been sufficiently processed in the EU or South Korea. The criteria for determining “sufficient processing” are described for each product in the product-specific rules in the text of the agreement.
For instance, for cars, base on value added, a car will be deemed to have “originated” in the EU if no more than 45% of the value of the inputs have been imported from outside South Korea or the EU to manufacture it. Under the current agreement, any product originating in the UK is counted as originating in the EU if the component parts are manufactured anywhere in the EU and South Korea (the EU and Korea mutually recognise each other’s origins when calculating rules of origin). But, once the UK leaves the EU, these components from the EU will be considered to be from outside the UK, which will mean that many UK products will not count as “originating” in the UK and so will not be covered by the terms of the deal. Currently, the percentage of UK components in British-built cars is 41% on average, which is short of meeting the required 55% of local contents under a UK-South Korea FTA that replicates the rules-of-origin in the current EU-South Korea FTA. This could mean, then, that cars manufactured in the UK would suddenly be subject to an 8% tariff when exported to Korea (which is the current WTO most-favoured-nation level), even if the UK and South Korea agree to continue to apply the current EU-South Korea agreement!
To summarise, viewed from Seoul, the prospects for a “Global Britain” can be summarised as follows:
1) The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China;
2) It will be easier for the UK to sign trade deals with the 53 countries with which the UK already has free trade agreements, via its current EU membership;
3) One of the countries high on this list will be South Korea, which has a very comprehensive FTA with the EU, covering services and non-tariff barriers, which has already reaped important benefits to both the UK and South Korea;
4) But, South Korea will be reluctant to replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA for the UK, because it would expect a better deal with the UK than it managed to negotiate with the EU (because the EU has an economy 10 times larger than South Korea, whereas the UK economy is only twice the size of South Korea);
5) If the UK fails to reach an agreement with South Korea, this would lead to the re-imposition of tariffs on UK-South Korea trade, and would jeopardise the significant services trade that has developed between these two economies; and
6) Even if South Korea and the UK could agree to replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea agreement, the “rules of origin” in the deal could mean tariffs on many manufactured goods from the UK (such as cars) as a result of the large content of parts from elsewhere in the EU, which would count as made in a “third country” once the UK has left the EU.
In short, Global Britain does not look quite as attractive from Seoul as it might initially seem from London!
.. still Blue passports eh ?!
On a lighter note, the most telling story of the week :
The Tories were unprepared for a snap election says Theresa May, who called the snap election
In a frank interview, the Prime Minister, who refused to do head to head debates complains there wasn't enough 'coming together for debates' in the campaign
Extraordinary.
I don't think I've ever seen a UKPM look quite so out of their depth so often, it's almost a special skillset.
Completely agree with you on May. I'm 1000% in agreement with you. That's how much I agree with you.
May is totally out of her depth. It's so bad it's embarrassing.
Her delivery is as wooden as a IKEA coffee table, her authority has been shot down in flames, she seems petrified of interacting with the general public, and only remains PM by virtue of the fact that the Tories are so hopeless, they have nobody suitable to replace here. That is a damning indictment of the state of the nation, and of the Conservative party.
Corbyn is only marginally better IMO. He campaigns and acts as though Brexit never happened. They all do, because our political class are bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists.
I can hear the groans, but I'll bang the vision drum again.
There is no vision from anybody. I heard a Labour politician bang on about 500 million for the NHS. My reaction as always was whoop tee doo.
Proposing a complete root and branch NHS reform to get it fit for the 21st century would have gotten my ear, but 500 million as a sticking plaster solution? same old same old...
As always, I could go on and on about so many areas, but I'll spare people that.
I don't doubt the veracity of the economic data you have provided, and as always, I'll say what I've been saying this from the start: Brexit won't be easy.
Having a plan, and a vision, would, IMO, go a long way to help.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?
I am not, and have never been, an elected official.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.
I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?
I am not, and have never been, an elected official.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.
I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.
There's nothing more I can do.
You can potentially become an elected official, that's an option available.
Also voting for Brexit knowing full well that bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists are the ones currently in charge.
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
Nice sound bite, oft repeated. But what does it mean in a world where things go in natural cycles? The politics of 2017 are not working in 2017, maybe a look at the past is what we need instead of people trying to pull nonsense out of their ass. Just because something mirrors that of decades ago does not make it worthless. Frankly what Corbyn says resonates with a lot of people who are tired of centre politics appeasing the right, so that corporations and greed are served by Labour and Tory governments alike.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?
I am not, and have never been, an elected official.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.
I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.
There's nothing more I can do.
You can potentially become an elected official, that's an option available.
Also voting for Brexit knowing full well that bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists are the ones currently in charge.
At least with the EU they're further away from us
I agree, except I would say (with a view coloured by 40 years of Private Eye) that Murdoch, Dacre and Desmond are the ones ones in charge, and as some of the most reprehensible people on the planet, that's worse.
The foreign secretary has been accused of “incredible insensitivity” after it emerged he recited part of a colonial-era Rudyard Kipling poem in front of local dignitaries while on an official visit to Myanmar in January.
Boris Johnson was inside the Shwedagon Pagoda, the most sacred Buddhist site in the capital Yangon, when he started uttering the opening verse to The Road to Mandalay, including the line: “The temple bells they say/ Come you back you English soldier.”
Kipling’s poem captures the nostalgia of a retired serviceman looking back on his colonial service and a Burmese girl he kissed. Britain colonised Myanmar from 1824 to 1948 and fought three wars in the 19th century, suppressing widespread resistance.
Johnson’s impromptu recital was so embarrassing that the UK ambassador to Myanmar, Andrew Patrick, was forced to stop him. The incident was captured by a film crew for Channel 4 and will form part of a documentary to be broadcast on Sunday about the fitness of the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip to become prime minister.
The previously unbroadcast footage shows the diplomat managing to halt Johnson before he could get to the line about a “Bloomin’ idol made o’ mud/ Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd” – a reference to the Buddha.
The gaffe came on the first visit to Myanmar by a British foreign secretary in five years. He had taken part in a ritual involving pouring water over a golden statue of what he described as “a very big guinea pig”, when he approached a 42-tonne bell, rang it with a wooden stick and spontaneously started reciting Kipling’s poem.
A visibly tense ambassador stood by as Johnson continued: “The wind is in the palm trees and the temple bells they say ...” Then Patrick reminded him: “You’re on mic,” adding: “Probably not a good idea...”
Advertisement
“What?” Johnson replied. “The Road to Mandalay?”
“No,” said the ambassador sternly. “Not appropriate.”
“No?” replied Johnson looking down at his mobile phone. “Good stuff.”
“It is stunning he would do this there,” said Mark Farmaner, director of the Burma Campaign UK. “There is a sensitivity about British colonialism and it is something that people in Burma are still resentful about. British colonial times were seen as a humiliation and an insult.
“It shows an incredible lack of understanding especially now we are seeing the impact of Buddhist nationalism, especially in Rakine state [where Rohingya muslims have been been the subject of violent persecution].”
Kipling hardly knew Myanmar at all and only travelled there for three days in his 20s, but his poems and short stories about the place helped forge the image of the country in the imagination of colonial Britain.
Rushanara Ali, the Labour MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy in Myanmar, said: “I can think of a long list of reasons why Boris Johnson isn’t fit to be prime minister. This can be added to that list.”
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office declined to comment.
Maung Bo Bo, a Burmese doctoral student in London whose family campaigned alongside Myanmar’s current leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, said offence could be taken because the poem talks about kissing a girl, something that would be frowned on in the context of a temple.
Later in the documentary, titled Blond Ambition, Jacob Rees-Mogg describes Johnson as “a colossus on the political stage” and former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell says he is “impossible to dislike”.
It captures multiple awkward moments in Johnson’s career at the Foreign Office. In Ankara in September 2016 it shows him being asked whether he would apologise for writing a crude limerick about the Turkish president which included the line that he had “sowed his wild oats with the help of a goat”. An initially shifty-looking Johnson rallied and replied with typical bluster that “nobody has seen fit to raise it”.
In London last year he stood alongside former US secretary of state John Kerry and was asked about describing Hillary Clinton as looking “like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital”.
It shows him insulting European leaders in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory as he complained about the “winge-o-rama” that greeted Trump’s win, and shows how Downing Street had to disown his remarks on Saudi Arabia in Rome – that it was puppeteering and playing proxy wars in the region.
He is also seen comparing President Hollande of France to a wartime prison guard who wants to “administer punishment beatings to anybody who chooses to escape, in the manner of some world war two movie”.
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
Nice sound bite, oft repeated. But what does it mean in a world where things go in natural cycles? The politics of 2017 are not working in 2017, maybe a look at the past is what we need instead of people trying to pull nonsense out of their ass. Just because something mirrors that of decades ago does not make it worthless. Frankly what Corbyn says resonates with a lot of people who are tired of centre politics appeasing the right, so that corporations and greed are served by Labour and Tory governments alike.
As I said earlier, and a few times before, when I was growing up in the 1980s, I was quite involved with the Labour party (attending meetings, volunteer work at election time, that kinda thing) so I can hardly be accused of being a mindless Tory bashing the workers.
Corbyn is spouting a lot of the things I heard back then. Back then, Labour had massive trade union support and obviously the working-class supporting them...and nothing came off it. In 2017, the unions are a pale shadow of the past, and the working class is an endangered breed.
So the idea that Labour, in this day and age, shorn of its historic trade union and working-class strength, can make it, is nonsense IMO.
Corbyn talks a good game, but it's always jam tomorrow with Labour, a lesson I learned the hard way some years ago...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?
I am not, and have never been, an elected official.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.
I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.
There's nothing more I can do.
You can potentially become an elected official, that's an option available.
Also voting for Brexit knowing full well that bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists are the ones currently in charge.
At least with the EU they're further away from us
Just because the Tory party would struggle to find its rear with a map, compass, 3 SPADs, and a think tank assissting, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea.
The idea is very sound IMO, the execution is just gak poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ darkjim.
Yeah, Bojo is a fething disgrace, and in better times, he'd be ran out of town.
We, the British public, share some of the blame for electing this clown to high office.
Society gets the leaders it deserves, and that doesn't reflect well on us
Just because the Tory party would struggle to find its rear with a map, compass, 3 SPADs, and a think tank assissting, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea.
The idea is very sound IMO, the execution is just gak poor.
The idea only seems sound if you buy the Tory wishful thinking, half truths and straight up lies about how the EU works, how the process of leaving will develop and the future prospects of a EU-less UK.
Assemble a crack team of the best of the very best and they would still struggle to get anything with the hand the UK has been dealt by the Brexit vote.
Can I ask how old you are, having grown up in the 80s?
I'm disappointed with how the unions have been broken. There are deliberate efforts against unions, from the government and the media to undermine them. And the dumb public soak it up forgetting that many of their rights at work were won through union action. The pay and conditions we have now were not volunteered freely by government and business.
The attitude now is that we have it good at work now, so all unions do is create inconvenience for others. That's what it boils down to, I get the same as a teacher. If I strike, I read criticism from parents because their kids can't go to school for the day. They don't look beyond that to the funding and quality of education heir child gets, it's just that right now we're the enemy because we've inconvenienced them.
Or maybe it's jealously - the RMT are one of the more militant unions and lo and behold, railway drivers are well paid. People working in jobs with weak or no unions get taken advantage of. But instead of questioning why they don't have similar representation that gets results, they read sh-t in the papers and go on the attack, all unions are evil and greedy, they'll ruin the country, etc.
It's shows that the conspiracy between government and media works to oppress workers. It's not just Tories, Blair rolled out the red carpet for Murdoch and his ilk just as quickly.
I'm disappointed with how the unions have been broken. There are deliberate efforts against unions, from the government and the media to undermine them. And the dumb public soak it up forgetting that many of their rights at work were won through union action. The pay and conditions we have now were not volunteered freely by government and business.
The attitude now is that we have it good at work now, so all unions do is create inconvenience for others. That's what it boils down to, I get the same as a teacher. If I strike, I read criticism from parents because their kids can't go to school for the day. They don't look beyond that to the funding and quality of education heir child gets, it's just that right now we're the enemy because we've inconvenienced them.
Or maybe it's jealously - the RMT are one of the more militant unions and lo and behold, railway drivers are well paid. People working in jobs with weak or no unions get taken advantage of. But instead of questioning why they don't have similar representation that gets results, they read sh-t in the papers and go on the attack, all unions are evil and greedy, they'll ruin the country, etc.
It's shows that the conspiracy between government and media works to oppress workers. It's not just Tories, Blair rolled out the red carpet for Murdoch and his ilk just as quickly.
You may ask my age, but I refuse to tell.
Let's just say I'm the wrong side of 40 and we'll leave it at that.
Regarding the unions, I agree - they are needed in a healthy democracy.
Sadly, the history of trade unions in the UK is one of extremes. They were either too powerful in the past, or too weak like they are today.
The right-wing press tried to destroy them, no argument there, but on the other hand, some of the horror stories about unions and strike activity also happened.
British Leyland being a notorious example of trade unions being a law unto themselves.
Add to that memories of the winter of discontent, the British public's default mode of suispicion when trade unions are mentioned, and we have the situation we have today.
It's a bloody shame, but we are where we are.
Labour, in power for 13 years, could have reversed some of the anti-trade unions laws, but Blair was Blair
Just because the Tory party would struggle to find its rear with a map, compass, 3 SPADs, and a think tank assissting, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea.
The idea is very sound IMO, the execution is just gak poor.
The idea only seems sound if you buy the Tory wishful thinking, half truths and straight up lies about how the EU works, how the process of leaving will develop and the future prospects of a EU-less UK.
Assemble a crack team of the best of the very best and they would still struggle to get anything with the hand the UK has been dealt by the Brexit vote.
After Juncker and Macron's speeches, and the crackpot plans they have for the EU's future, I'm amazed anybody would want to remain in the EU.
Let's be honest here, the UK's heart was never really in the EEC/EU. It's probably for the best that this happened.
The worst law against union recently was the one requiring 50% of members to vote before strike action can go ahead. I think a lot of people are not quick to vote because they are unsure of the feeling of others, but are very willing to stand with the decision. I didn't vote last time, but when we went on strike I stood alongside my comrades, I was happy to go with the majority because I was unsure of the general mood when voting.
Let's not forget that if you held the 50% rule to the government there are general elections that would barely pass, referenda that would fail, and council elections falling my far short. It's a blatant attempt to stifle union action.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I'd love someone who votes Tory to explain to me why the youth of today can't have the same perks and privileges Baby Boomers enjoyed.
How come we suddenly can't afford X,Y and Z when our economy is far larger than it was when Baby Boomers enjoyed free University?
Because we've had about 30 years of bad investment. Roughly half Tory and half labour.
Magic Money Trees seem to exist when it's ideologically convenient, such as bribing the DUP to cling on to power,, or to pay a private company more than is being saved to hoof people off benefits, and many unfairly so,
Magic Money Trees seem to exist when it's ideologically convenient, such as bribing the DUP to cling on to power,, or to pay a private company more than is being saved to hoof people off benefits, and many unfairly so,
They're a national disgrace.
Party before country: the motto of the Conservative party.
For as long as I live, I'll never understand why anybody would vote Tory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollow wrote: There is absolutely no financial reason for there to be university fees. It's purely ideological.
I would also increase the entry level to university.
Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis.
Actually, I've closely read what you've written here, and I think I understand what you're saying now. Namely that anything underneath a 2.3% variation in statistics is not 'significant', meaning that these results do pass muster for a general conclusion. But only just, there's a 1 in 20 chance of serious error, and they would therefore usually require further scrutiny/ study before drawing any more specific conclusions beyond those at the national level.
That's good, I'd written the last part after 36 hours travelling from South Africa so I was a bit worried I'd read it today and realise it was gibberish! Anyway you shouldn't consider it as a 'serious error'. It does not mean the result is 'wrong' or been applied incorrectly. When you take any statistical value and undertaking sampling each data point will be different slightly just to random fluctuations you can't predict. The strength of statistical analysis is that by taking a large sample of data points, assuming the same conditions (which can also be difficult). These data point should cluster around the median value but they will distributed (assuming white (random) noise only) around this value with a Gaussian probability distribution. For any particular data point you do not know where it 'sits' in this distribution. With lots of data points you get the distribution however allowing you determine the most likely value. The less data points you have the wider the Gaussian distribution will be (less precise), conversely the more data points the tighter the Gaussian, the more precise you can make the result.
In effect the result that is generally quoted is the most likely result where most of the data points are clustering around, preferably being the median result when talking large number statistics (the average can be easily skewed by a few outliers). However the 'error' tells you the range that the actual result could exist in. As you get further away from the most likely result the probability decreases that the actual result could exist at this value. Generally for something to be considered a 'real' result you need to be in the regime that there is not more than approximately a 1/1000 chance that the result exists outside your stated values. Anything less than this then you are running a significant risk that the actual result is outside this range, basically you have been unlucky with your sampling. Here we have a position where there is a 5% chance that the actual result is outside of the stated range. That is by far too high to be claiming anything (and indeed can lead to policies and decisions being made that are counter to the actual result). It does appear that humanities seem to be more loose on this though. You wouldn't convict someone using DNA evidence where there is a 5% chance that the DNA could be someone else's etc. In particle physics the requirements are even higher and usually sit it in 100,000s - it has happened where even a 1/1000 result was found to not real at the 1/100000 level. But none of this means the initial result was erroneous, simply that it hadn't been sampled enough.
At the same time however, I still maintain that original point, which is more of an observation on the cumulative impact of wage depression across the extended period of time measured. Acknowledging that it may only have been an incremental depression on a year by year basis (and qualifying that I understand that we're generally excluding more detailed potential analysis involving minimum wage and economic impact), even knocking only a penny or two earned per hour every year still adds up to a significant impact upon the budget of a barely managing family in the bottom end of the labour market. Even if we go to the extreme and assume that my previous calculations are 66% out of whack due to the previously mentioned variations, that's still an extra ten quids worth of earning power per month lost to those at the bottom of the food chain by 2011.
And speaking as someone who grew up in a household so poor that their parents used to count out their coppers on the table to try and meet the electricity bill? I can see why if there's any chance that the figures are even remotely close to those more general calculations, people at the lower end of the economic strata would be against immigration.
The problem I have is that the figure is tiny. Inflation at 1% is the same as eight years of immigration at the median rate. The 3% inflation (driven by the Wrexit vote) is equivalent to 24 years of immigration at these identified rates (noting of course the proviso I have previously quoted about such a timespan and immigration rates). Then we have the changes to the minimum wage, how do you factor this in or the changes to tax thresholds? Would these have happened without immigration? Were these changes partially in recognition of ensuring the populace as whole wasn't exploited by businesses (although the gig economy is trying to get round this)? Which all comes back to my original point, that immigration as a significant wage driver is a myth that was exploited to allow certain people to achieve what they wanted. They ignored the larger wider impacts and how it fits together - feeding the lower immigration, means lower wages. If they were truly concerned why didn't they just increase the minimum wage further? If they wouldn't because of the fear of the impact on businesses then surely that suggests they believe that these markets can't sustain these levels of wages anyway, resulting in businesses going under, reducing the available jobs, which then decreases wages as there are more people than jobs and so on.
Hence I still state that the immigration = low wages argument was massively over exaggerated by populists who fed a simple solution to a complex problem and rather than pointing out all the interconnecting issues they used the general myth to gain what they wanted. I do not disagree however that those on the lowest wages are struggling that £20 per year is a lot and that changes are needed to help them improve their lot in life (for example you could have an immigration offset adjustment to the minimum wage per year if politicians thought it was an issue), however the populists have no interest in this overall, they just exploited such people to get what they wanted.
I think you're wrong about Bojo, though. In last year's leadership election, he bottled his big opportunity. He had his chance and threw it away.
Yeah, but that was because Gove stabbed him in the back, I think both of them will be wary of the same thing happening again. Boris is according to the report the most popular amongst the Tory faithful (god knows why) and his recent garbage is definitely a move to shore up that support. Davis's support looks surprisingly low. I think both Gove and Boris will agree a position before the next round of "who wants to be PM bingo". Gove doesn't have the support to be leader, but could probably have a large amount of influence in some of the papers.
Plus, you know, she loves racists and bigots, wont expell them from the party, and supports them standing for election. That wont fly under UK-level press scrutiny.
I said she was likely better than May, it's still the Tory party though...
Boris Johnson believes Theresa May will be driven from Downing Street within a year and plans one last tilt at the Tory leadership.
In a move that will unleash civil war at the Conservative Party conference this weekend, allies of the foreign secretary warned that Tory donors were preparing to move their money offshore because the prime minister was “driving the party into the ground”.
One leading Eurosceptic said a coup to remove May could “take off fast” unless she got a grip.
In a further blow to May’s authority, it emerged that Johnson privately mocked the prime minister, joking that her former aides Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy held her in a state of “modern slavery”.
His jibes were revealed by Channel 4 after Johnson gave an interview laying out four “red lines” for Britain’s Brexit deal, which go further than the prime minister’s speech in Florence last month, and pressed her to increase public-sector pay.
Johnson’s move prompted one minister to call for May to fire the foreign secretary or stand down herself: “Either she sacks Boris or she goes. It’s that simple.”
MPs said that if the prime minister was too weak to maintain cabinet discipline, she should make way for someone who could.
A leading Eurosceptic who has been talking to Johnson said: “I detect a change of weather among MPs and donors. People who said to me in July that she must stay until 2019 are now saying: ‘I don’t think she’ll make it’ or ‘She shouldn’t make it.’
“A bunch of top donors are making preparations to move things offshore because they think May is running the whole party into the ground. If conference is a mess, it could all take off fast.”
The belief among some MPs that Johnson wants to be sacked was fuelled by claims that he recently told a friend that he was running out of money and could not afford to live on a cabinet minister’s salary — £141,505 — because of his extensive family responsibilities.
The eruption overshadowed May’s attempts to get her premiership back on track with an £11bn offer to young people to ease the pain of university tuition fees and help them onto the housing ladder.
May will promise to:
■ Freeze tuition fees at their current level
■ Raise the threshold at which graduates start paying off their debt from £21,000 to £25,000 — saving graduates £360 a year. This will cost taxpayers £1.2bn
■ Set up a commission to examine whether to slash existing debt and force universities to charge less than £9,000 for courses that give students less value for money.
In an effort to help young people onto the housing ladder, the government will:
■ Plough an extra £10bn into the Help to Buy scheme, allowing an extra 135,000 to get a low-cost loan to buy a first home
■ Ban letting fees, which cost the average tenant £327
■ Extend the code of practice that governs letting agents to private landlords
■ Devise tax incentives to encourage landlords to offer longer tenancies.
The Sunday Times has learnt May is also considering a radical plan to slash or axe stamp duty for first-time buyers, although that will not be unveiled at the conference. The proposal was considered by Timothy before the election but rejected because it would have been paid for by capital gains tax raids on the better off and second-home owners.
The claims about Johnson’s ambitions are sourced from Gary Gibbon, political editor of Channel 4 News, who has made a documentary on Johnson, which is broadcast today. “He thinks she’s got a year at most,” one friend of the foreign secretary said.
Gibbon reported: “Those close to Johnson say he thinks he probably has one more go at the top job in him and then it’s really over.”
The row enraged senior Eurosceptic backbenchers, who want May to survive in order to pursue a hard Brexit. “We would like the conference to go well and the government to pull together,” said one.
May denied there had been a breakdown in cabinet discipline and claimed that Johnson setting out his own policy “red lines” was not unique in government. She told The Sunday Telegraph: “If you look back in the records of newspapers you’ll see that cabinet ministers giving different views is not something that only has happened in the last year and a half, that it’s actually happened before.”
May pledged to fight the next general election, which has to take place by 2022, as Tory leader. She said: “I’m in it for the long term.”
A source close to Johnson said the interview in which he laid out his red lines had been authorised by No 10.
May will use Tuesday’s conference speech to outline plans to tackle the “burning injustices” in British society.
.... that's a very polite way of putting it.
Possibly shouldn't have spent all that money on super-injunctions and the like perhaps ?
The 'Tory donors preparing to move their money offshore' are precisely the people who claim decrying Brexit issues is somehow 'unpatriotic'.
May announced most of this today, costing about £12 Billion or so ...
.. no plan mentioned about where this is to come from...
... clearly the magic money tree which cannot pay for things like pay rises for nurses or sprinkler systems but can magically sprout branches to prop up a minority govt or fix a poxy bell/tower has been relocated again.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I see the Tories have decided to launch operation insanity by pledging more money for help to buy...
A property bubble is the last thing we need, and a shameless bribe for votes sees the national debt go up even more
There is some analysis to suggest that all it does is increase house prices. That's not really helpful for younger people. I'm also not sue that the offer on tuition fees is really going to persuade many young people to vote for them.
Effectively you are just increasing the debt of first time buyers to increases the value of builders today. I'd be extremely wary of buying an over inflated house (when you are already paying a premium for new builds) that would effectively saddle you with more debt at a time when public debt is increasing massively again and my suspicion is that we will eventually hit another housing crash when house prices over inflate.
What the government really needs to do is have government/council building plan where they bring forward developments at lower prices to act as real competition for the housing market.
Saying the already vast fees, that generations before didn't have to pay, won't go up again is just the sort of 'offer' we've come to expect form the government.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017
Spoiler:
To anyone who keeps up to date with political, social, andd economic theory, they have extremely up-to-date solutions to very modern problems - they're the only major party in UK politics (both the English and Welsh Greens and Scottish Greens are onto it as well) who've even used phrases like internet of things or smart factories, never mind acknowledged that we need to coompletely reform our economies before everyone gets replaced by machines, whilst everyone else is wandering about thinking petrol cars are at the forefront of technology and economic systems from the 1900s are here forever. Hell, the Tories and Lib Dems slaughtered Corbyn when he mentioned the internet of things on the basis that he was using meaningless buzzwords - but it's Labour that are out of date?
It may surprise some people to know that when I was a lad
I was quite into the Labour party. That was when Neil Kinnock was leader. Corbyn reminds me a lot of him: speaks well, can fire up a crowd, but ultimately falls flat at the end.
Eh, ok? Doesn't really seem like a response to the argument. A shame, because the idea that Labour are only pedalling 1970s solutions to 1970s problems is a common position taken and is worth discussing - tackling why people think that would probably shift a lot of vvoters one way or the other.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?
I am not, and have never been, an elected official.
I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.
I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.
There's nothing more I can do.
But then you voted whilst being aware that the incumbent party was incapable of making a good job of it.
I do agree the implementation of Brexit so far has been a shambles, but yo be honest I'm nt sure what else you were expecting.
We're getting to the stage that not only will Trump outlast May, but also to the stage that in comparion to May, Trump looks stable and statesman like
Who could have predicted that? Not I.
As much as I despise Bojo, and God knows I loathe him, I would welcome his appointment as PM for two reasons:
1.He supports Brexit.
2. The huge boost to the Scottish independence campaign that Bojo as PM would provide.
Yeah, the country might go down the pan, but I'm playing the long game here
I find it more than a little concerning that you'd be happy with prime minister Johnson just because he supports Brexit, and you're happy to let the country go down the pan to do so.
Is there any red line for you where you'd decide brexit was a bad idea? Would we need to revert to rolling brown outs and rationed chocolate before you agree it was a failure?
As one half of a couple that casually Chung along on the minimum wage line, Help to Buy houses are still too expensive, and even then they are quite shoddy too. I haven't heard many good things about their construction.
welshhoppo wrote: As one half of a couple that casually Chung along on the minimum wage line, Help to Buy houses are still too expensive, and even then they are quite shoddy too. I haven't heard many good things about their construction.
I'm guessing you are referring to affordable houseing rather than Help to Buy?
The biggest issue with all housing in the UK is the cost of the land rather than the building. It's a stupid situation that is entirely a construct of our planning laws and protectionism of the baby boomers and right wing media.
welshhoppo wrote: As one half of a couple that casually Chung along on the minimum wage line, Help to Buy houses are still too expensive, and even then they are quite shoddy too. I haven't heard many good things about their construction.
I'm guessing you are referring to affordable houseing rather than Help to Buy?
The biggest issue with all housing in the UK is the cost of the land rather than the building. It's a stupid situation that is entirely a construct of our planning laws and protectionism of the baby boomers and right wing media.
It's a bit of both.
There are too many investors around buying up all the cheap houses that normally end up going to first time buyers. They then do these up and knock the things out of our price range.
I could wait around until my parents die I suppose, what's another 20 odd years?
Herzlos wrote: I find it more than a little concerning that you'd be happy with prime minister Johnson just because he supports Brexit, and you're happy to let the country go down the pan to do so.
Is there any red line for you where you'd decide brexit was a bad idea? Would we need to revert to rolling brown outs and rationed chocolate before you agree it was a failure?
While I have no particular gripe with your opinion, it is at this present moment in time an opinion.
You don't know that Brexit is going to be a failure, you don't know that we're going back to the 70s with brownouts and rationing, so quite acting as if its the inevitable result despite everything that's going on.
Now that's not to say that Brexit is going to be a resounding success and everything's going to be nice and shiny.
I think that in light of recent developments we should all consider the fact that we got to make that decision and can all sit here and discuss it without an appointment at the local A&E (where there is one...)
We don't know a great deal about what brexit will be at all.
I'm not saying it'll actually take us back to brown outs, though I think it'll certainly be bad.
I'm just curious as to how bad brexiteers are will for it to get for brexit to be justified.
Herzlos wrote: We don't know a great deal about what brexit will be at all.
I'm not saying it'll actually take us back to brown outs, though I think it'll certainly be bad.
I'm just curious as to how bad brexiteers are will for it to get for brexit to be justified.
Firstly, I can only speak for myself. I do not think that Brexit is ever going to unjustified. Now, before saying about how its going to affect others, I have young children who will need to be supported and educated and housed and employed in the future. I know that employment and travel will be one of those areas hit in the early stages. But I am optomistic for the future. I think that the EU is in the process of fracturing and getting out now is vital.
Whatever good intent was there at the beginning is long gone and only a husk remains that in the words of the late Carrie Fisher "The more you tighten your grip the more systems will slip through your fingers"
Scottish Independence, Brexit and now Catalan all show that the EU is not prepared to lose any of their aquired power over others.
I have similar reservations. Now I'm not entirely against the idea of Brexit, but I'm absolutely against the idea of a Brexit without a plan, executed by incompetents.
I can only see it as being justified if we're better off afterwards - bigger economy, less debt, less underemployment. I.e. change for a benefit.
What I'm seeing a lot of though, is people like DINLT who seem happy for seemingly anything to happen as long as he gets his Brexit. I mean, he's acknowledged Boris Johnson would be an awful Prime Minister, but is happy with him getting the job because he supports Brexit. I'm just trying to establish if there's a point where he's no longer happy to pay to get his Brexit, or if he's all for it at literally any cost. More generally, polls have shown that a large number of brexiteers are willing for family members to lose jobs in order to get Brexit.
I'm not picking on you directly, DINLT, but I can never get an answer from this from anyone when I'm discussing it elsewhere, and whilst I don't agree with your stance, I respect your right to have it and the way you're happy to discuss.
I can only see it as being justified if we're better off afterwards - bigger economy, less debt, less underemployment. I.e. change for a benefit.
The problem is how you quantify the intangible benefits (for example, the constant buck-passing to Brussels and back)/harms (collaboration on various things) and the timescale involved (do we have to be financially better off immediately? Or in five years? Or ten?) and how you'd compare that as against a Britain that had hypothetically stayed within Europe on the same timescale. Ultimately, it's kind of impossible to do.
At the end of the day, nations are resilient things for the most part, and Britain moreso than most out there. Deals can always be renegotiated, alternative links forged, and public memory is short. It is likely nobody will care by 2025 let alone 2040, when we'll all still be sitting here on Dakka complaining about the fact plastic SOB still haven't arrived.
That is of course a big problem that's not possible to satisfactorily answer.
I guess for most you can boil it down to quality of life after a reasonable transition. How do people feel their quality of life (freedoms, security, comfort/wealth) has changed in the 5 years since we leave, compared to the same changes in the Eurozone.
Or we can look at the economic numbers; GDP, tax revenue, inflation, since we can at least compare them directly with UK and EU27.
I think most of us can accept a bit of teething pain, but I'd assume most of us would be expecting things to be looking up by the time we hit the 5 year mark.
All it takes is another global recession though, and your data is thrown completely out of whack. Or a totally incompetent UK government for that period where a better one might not have made the same mistakes. Not to mention the difficulties in comparing against our hypothetical nation that stayed within the EU, as we have no idea if events really would have been better, the same, or worse.
For me? The concept that the EU is a guarantor of any kind of human rights beyond those granted by national government was flushed away yesterday when people who dared to stand within 100 metres of a polling booth got their heads cracked in and the EU said nothing. And economics are a rollercoaster that goes up and down all the time anway. Bust and boom is a regular occurrence in our economy.
I suspect the real outcome of Brexit will be 'Minor pain for half a decade followed by a readjustment, and then nobody cares anymore'. Which, to be honest, I'd be satisfied with.
Yeah, there are certainly other events that may skew it, but there will still be a perception about how well it's gone.
How well we handled the next global recession Vs EU27, whether we'd have that recession without Brexit, whether Joe Bloggs would still have a job without Brexit, and so on.
I doubt we'll agree on whether or not it is a success, but I'm sure everyone will have their own metric. I've stated mine, and I'm curious as to what the other side are using as a success metric.
I'm certainly not impressed that the EU has been silent about Catalonia, but it takes them a while to react to anything so we'll see what happens. I don't yet see it as a reason to leave over.
Ketara wrote: All it takes is another global recession though, and your data is thrown completely out of whack. Or a totally incompetent UK government for that period where a better one might not have made the same mistakes. Not to mention the difficulties in comparing against our hypothetical nation that stayed within the EU, as we have no idea if events really would have been better, the same, or worse.
For me? The concept that the EU is a guarantor of any kind of human rights beyond those granted by national government was flushed away yesterday when people who dared to stand within 100 metres of a polling booth got their heads cracked in and the EU said nothing.
According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.
The Commission was more diplomatic:
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.
The Commission was more diplomatic:
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
I'm sure all those battered old ladies will sleep better at night knowing that the German Premier dared to be slightly terse with the man responsible. If he orders the killing of a few thousand, will the EU Commission send him to bed without supper?
No, the EU's been very clearly shown to be a bunch of hypocritical fethheads more interested in their own political mongering than their human rights policies. Not that our Government isn't the same, but it certainly punches a hole in any arguments that leaving the EU is making Britain vulnerable to human right abuses by our own government. It turns out your government can literally send the police out by the thousands to kick the crap out of you and the EU doesn't give a damn if it doesn't suit them.
According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.
The Commission was more diplomatic:
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
I'm sure all those battered old ladies will sleep better at night knowing that the German Premier dared to be slightly terse with the man responsible. If he orders the killing of a few thousand, will the EU Commission send him to bed without supper?
No, the EU's been very clearly shown to be a bunch of hypocritical fethheads more interested in their own political mongering than their human rights policies. Not that our Government isn't the same, but it certainly punches a hole in any arguments that leaving the EU is making Britain vulnerable to human right abuses by our own government. It turns out your government can literally send the police out by the thousands to kick the crap out of you and the EU doesn't give a damn if it doesn't suit them.
What would you expect the EU to do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote: ...Scottish Independence, Brexit and now Catalan all show that the EU is not prepared to lose any of their aquired power over others...
In what way? Scottish independence, Brexit and Catalan are all different events, and were approached differently by the EU as I remember?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Yeah, the country might go down the pan, but I'm playing the long game here
If it wasn't for the smiley, I'd almost think you're being serious. But based on your past posts, perhaps you are and you are willing to effectively tear up the country to suit your ideology. Nationalists, generally are prepared to destroy other countries for their nation, not their own. It kind of defeats the point.
I'd at least expect the EU to tell Spain off for sending the police after its own citizens. Seeing as they claim to be the defender of human rights and thus is probably in breach of a few articles.
And seeing as sone people had this notion that us leaving the EU would cause the Tories to strip our human rights away.
Yeah I'm not sure what the EU could have done here. Send in the task force and risk being mistaken for an invasion? Phoned Spain to demand it's stopped?
The EU will, I'm sure, deal with the Spanish human rights abuses but it'll take more than 36 hours.
It's not as if the Spanish government could have done much beyond sending in the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I'd at least expect the EU to tell Spain off for sending the police after its own citizens. Seeing as they claim to be the defender of human rights and thus is probably in breach of a few articles.
They still can do. The Spanish citizens can also take the police and government to the ECJ to get it dealt with.
Give the EU some time to so something about it before condemning them for inaction.
And seeing as sone people had this notion that us leaving the EU would cause the Tories to strip our human rights away.
And they seem to be. It's not invalidated by this. But if it happens in the UK once we leave we won't have the EU or ECJ to fall back on.
According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.
The Commission was more diplomatic:
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
I'm sure all those battered old ladies will sleep better at night knowing that the German Premier dared to be slightly terse with the man responsible. If he orders the killing of a few thousand, will the EU Commission send him to bed without supper?
No, the EU's been very clearly shown to be a bunch of hypocritical fethheads more interested in their own political mongering than their human rights policies. Not that our Government isn't the same, but it certainly punches a hole in any arguments that leaving the EU is making Britain vulnerable to human right abuses by our own government. It turns out your government can literally send the police out by the thousands to kick the crap out of you and the EU doesn't give a damn if it doesn't suit them.
I'm not really sure what people are expecting the EU to do. They've put out a public statement condemning the violence (and that in itself is a political as doing things in the public light is making a strong point). Also we've had several EU MEPs coming out and saying similar things.
On the other hand we haven't heard anything from TM as far as I am aware. Even if there are consequences for Spain (and there probably will be) it's not going to happen overnight and is more likely to be in the form of political/economic pressure to ensure the rights of its populace. What Spain stupidly did was try and prevent the vote through violence (despite being against Catalan's own constitution); what they have managed to do is show a proportion of its population how little it cares and that will result in an inevitable backlash.
At the very least, have issued a statement along the lines of what Nicola Sturgeon said (which was exceedingly tame itself). Sturgeon has her own game to play with regards to independence shennanigans, but what we saw yesterday could have been copied right out of Franco's playbook. The European statement was the most wishy washy not taking sides load of baloney I've heard in a while. Juncker appears to be very quick off the mark to leak a conversation slagging off the Brexit negotiationing team within 24 hours of meeting them, but when it comes to hundreds of people getting their head kicked in? It appears you can't hear anything for the silence. Where's the joint statement by the EU commission? The public protests by EU champions Merkel and Macron? Where's the leaked conversation from Juncker's office where he decrys the violence and barbarism being endorsed by the Spanish Government?
Where, in short, are all these principles that the European project supposedly upholds? Because from where I'm sitting? When the EU elite has stronger words for the British negotiating team sitting opposite them than the Prime Minister who is quite -literally- ordering and justifying police to illegally bludgeon people's heads in? It puts the lie to the entire European project as being any better than any Tory government. They care about the Realpolitik, and nothing else.
As I said before, I know our government is no better. I'm disgusted by our premier's lack of spine on the matter. But I'm pointing out now that never again can someone claim that by leaving Europe we're being abandoned from the protection of the benign caring EU to the clutches of the evil Tories. Because as we have just seen, a European government can quite literally kick the crap out of their citizens and the EU elite won't say a thing if it doesn't suit them to do so.
And seeing as sone people had this notion that us leaving the EU would cause the Tories to strip our human rights away.
No that comes from the statement/actions the Tories have previously put forward. Such as removing the primacy of the UK courts and allowing UK Parliament over ride any judgement,
or allowing UK authorities access to your personal internet data regardless of whether they think you are up to no good (and without court judgements)...those sort of things
As I said before, I know our government is no better. I'm disgusted by our premier's lack of spine on the matter. But I'm pointing out now that never again can someone claim that by leaving Europe we're being abandoned from the protection of the benign caring EU to the clutches of the evil Tories. Because as we have just seen, a European government can quite literally kick the crap out of their citizens and the EU elite won't say a thing if it doesn't suit them to do so.
I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting here. They have put out a statement condemning the violence, individuals MEPs have spoken out (which like out UK government is way of leaking a response 'informally'). The EU is not an individual countries police, it is not going to send people in to sort it out or start meddling with what in some ways is an internal affair (otherwise they get accused of federalising). What is important will be the consequences from Spain's actions and how the EU deal with it internally. They are not making public statements because it is not in there interest to do so (whereas with Wrexit it is). This is no different from any other political organisation. There is no doubt that what happened in Spain is unacceptable, but to criticise the EU, when we do not have the full response internally and externally, is being a bit quick of the mark as evidence of the evil EU not upholding its own values.
I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting here.
A statement that boils down to 'We unilaterally reject the Spanish Government's use of force to resolve internal political problems instead of diplomacy' would be nice. Or as mentioned, a 'leaked' article from Juncker's desk decrying the barbarism inherent in deploying police to smash in people's heads? Or, again as said, a public joint protestation from Macron & Merkel in favour of democracy? I mean, come on, seriously? Me posting on the internet here is about as much as the EU has done on the matter.
Which is in line with what I thought was the case, in all honesty. It's one of the reasons I voted to leave. But I take absolutely no joy in seeing it proved like this, and I've already written to my MP asking him to make a public statement. Won't happen (he's a Tory who fancies himself leader in twenty years), but in that, it would appear that he demonstrates the same actual values as the EU does.
The fundamental problem the Tories face is that free market economics have not made everyone better off.
There are vast swathes of people who haven't benefitted at all from the system. It is also obvious that austerity has been chipping away at public services like the NHS, social care and the roads (potholes, etc.)
Meanwhile the rich, who don't need to worry about healthcare and so on, have kept on getting richer.
Given this clear failure of conventional modern liberal regulation of the free market and redistribution of wealth, May's position is full of contradictions while Corbyn's position makes complete sense.
AndrewC wrote: ...Scottish Independence, Brexit and now Catalan all show that the EU is not prepared to lose any of their aquired power over others...
In what way? Scottish independence, Brexit and Catalan are all different events, and were approached differently by the EU as I remember?
Scottish Independence was greeted from the EU with dire warnings of being at the back of the queue and not being able to get back in. In effect telling us that we should remain with the Union to stay within the EU.
Brexit is a contentious one. But with us constantly being stonewalled at the talks (Lets be fair here talks are going nowhere). The EU negotiation team and the EU President talking at cross purposes. The talk at which the lead EU Negotiator saw his position as to teach the UK the ramifications of leaving. Again, in effect telling us that we should remain within the EU.
And now Catalan in which a member state of the EU uses a level of force that I would expect of a tyrant against unresisting public wanting to exercise their right to freedom of expression of their opinion is met with silence from the EU because the action keeps an area of Spain in the EU.
Seems pretty clear to me. The EU does not want any present members of the EU to leave because they want control and power.
AndrewC wrote: ...Scottish Independence, Brexit and now Catalan all show that the EU is not prepared to lose any of their aquired power over others...
In what way? Scottish independence, Brexit and Catalan are all different events, and were approached differently by the EU as I remember?
Scottish Independence was greeted from the EU with dire warnings of being at the back of the queue and not being able to get back in. In effect telling us that we should remain with the Union to stay within the EU.
That's what the unionist spokespeople and the bulk of the media told everyone the EU was saying. No official statements were every made by the EU. The opinions given by EU commissioners, lawyers, and negotiators were pretty mixed and ranged from 'you'll get straight in' to 'back of the queue' via 'a new entrant but with accelerated access'.
That's what the unionist spokespeople and the bulk of the media told everyone the EU was saying. No official statements were every made by the EU. The opinions given by EU commissioners, lawyers, and negotiators were pretty mixed and ranged from 'you'll get straight in' to 'back of the queue' via 'a new entrant but with accelerated access'.
I would disagree since the Spanish Ambassador stated that they would veto any application as they didn't (rather ironically) want to encourage Catalan voices for independence.
Can we agree that the general consensus was not encouraging? And required more investigation than that which was carried out?
I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting here.
A statement that boils down to 'We unilaterally reject the Spanish Government's use of force to resolve internal political problems instead of diplomacy' would be nice. Or as mentioned, a 'leaked' article from Juncker's desk decrying the barbarism inherent in deploying police to smash in people's heads? Or, again as said, a public joint protestation from Macron & Merkel in favour of democracy? I mean, come on, seriously? Me posting on the internet here is about as much as the EU has done on the matter.
Which is in line with what I thought was the case, in all honesty. It's one of the reasons I voted to leave. But I take absolutely no joy in seeing it proved like this, and I've already written to my MP asking him to make a public statement. Won't happen (he's a Tory who fancies himself leader in twenty years), but in that, it would appear that he demonstrates the same actual values as the EU does.
Yeah, but you aren't going to get anyone condemning a state in this way, such strong language is going to be reserved for places like North Korea. However for example Guy Verhofstadt response was this " I don't want to interfere in the domestic issues of Spain but I absolutely condemn what happened today in Catalonia". There is more subtlety in the statement from the EU than is people realise as well. It in particular points out Spain's Prime Minister as responsible for the Police's actions and that they 'trust' that he will sort things out (i.e. not to let it happen again). they also reiterate that peoples rights are not to sacrificed.
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
The EU are not going to fully support the referendum because in the end it was illegal, so there is a careful line to be drawn between "having words" and not encouraging other potential illegal votes in other countries. I do not agree with Spain's approach (and in fact think it will be counter productive for them) but at the same time recognise that the EU have only so much control and are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater where diplomatic channels might result in a better outcome.
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
Sorry is that the constitution that states that Spain is indivisible?
Kilkrazy wrote:Given this clear failure of conventional modern liberal regulation of the free market and redistribution of wealth, May's position is full of contradictions while Corbyn's position makes complete sense.
That's why I found that comment (a few pages ago in this thread, don't remember who made it) about Corbyn's policy ideas being stuck in the 70s kinda funny. The 70s are kinda when we (we being more or less all western democracies) have started to cut social services, privatise as much as possible, and cut taxes (we just didn't see the effect that early). That were our sacrifices at the altar of economic prosperity at the cost of overall stagnant wages for the poor and middle class while nearly all of the benefits of those polices were funnelled to the already rich. Maybe going to 70s policy ideas (higher taxes for the rich and more wealth redistribution) wouldn't such a bad idea to rediscover the prosperity of the "good old times" instead of cutting whatever bits of our social services are left and at the same time reducing the tax burden on the already rich.
According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.
The Commission was more diplomatic:
"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."
I'm sure all those battered old ladies will sleep better at night knowing that the German Premier dared to be slightly terse with the man responsible. If he orders the killing of a few thousand, will the EU Commission send him to bed without supper?
For the record, I think both president Rajoy and whoever was joint police chief at the moment should resign but:
The people on the receiving end knew exactly what was going to happen. Simple as that. For the last 2 weeks the main item in the news was there's a court order that says the referendum is illegal, ballots and voting boxes will be seized. Some people decided exercise their right to assemble and protest the court order, and the police exercised their duty to comply with a court order, which for the most part was proportionate. In the cases when it was not, complaints have been filed in court and will go through due process.
I bet you didn't see the video of a man throwing his own 10-ish year old child to a policeman trying to get him to push or hit him? Or the woman whose fingers were "broken" on live TV (with a thick bandage and that) be bandage-less on a separate location a couple hours later? As a father I have very little sympathy for anyone putting their children in front of riot police, at least the seniors knew where they were getting themselves into.
The government fell for the trap, and should pay for it, but I'd like to see the same treatment thrown at the local government calling for their own people to act as human shields to cover for their own incompetence at getting a proper referendum law passed on their own regional parliament.
Amusingly enough, it is taking me months to order an upgrade to fibre broadband, because BT Openreach told the numerous broadband providers they had wired up my local street-side cabinet, but they hadn't actually done it properly. This allowed me to order the upgrade, have it "installed" and start to be charged for it, without any benefit of higher speeds.
I am not allowed to communicate directly with BT, who own and maintain the hardware. I have to go through my provider, who are operating on the basis of wrong information. This makes it much harder to resolve the situation than if there was a single company in charge of the system.
Yeah, but you aren't going to get anyone condemning a state in this way, such strong language is going to be reserved for places like North Korea. However for example Guy Verhofstadt response was this " I don't want to interfere in the domestic issues of Spain but I absolutely condemn what happened today in Catalonia". There is more subtlety in the statement from the EU than is people realise as well. It in particular points out Spain's Prime Minister as responsible for the Police's actions and that they 'trust' that he will sort things out (i.e. not to let it happen again). they also reiterate that peoples rights are not to sacrificed..
How about we actually look at the statement? Because that interpretation sounds a mile off to me.
EU Statement on Catalonia wrote:Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday's vote in Catalonia was not legal.
For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.
We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.
Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.
We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.
The first thing that they bother to state is that the vote isn't legal. Interesting first priority for a statement supposedly regarding a considerable amount of violence, no? They then vaguely call for unity, generally say that violence isn't a tool (without specifying who was committing it) before finally very actively endorsing the 'leadership' of the Spanish premier with an allusion to a hope that he'll do it line with (very explicitly) the rights contained within (or 'therein') the Spanish Constitution. Not, I hasten to add, those within a European legal framework, just very specifically the Spanish one.
That's not so much rapped knuckles as practically being given a metaphorical box of chocolates given how many people got their heads kicked in on camera by policemen. For an alternative view of things, let's look at the statement wheeled out by the UN Human Rights High commissioner:
I am very disturbed by the violence in Catalonia on Sunday. With hundreds of people reported injured, I urge the Spanish authorities to ensure thorough, independent and impartial investigations into all acts of violence. Police responses must at all times be proportionate and necessary.
I firmly believe that the current situation should be resolved through political dialogue, with full respect for democratic freedoms.
I call on the Government of Spain to accept without delay the requests by relevant UN human rights experts to visit.
He very explicitly states that police responses must be proportionate, for a legal process to be established to investigate the violence used, and demands for the Spanish Government to allow UN human rights officials to visit. I mean, when even the UN, that wonderful body run by the world's biggest hypocrites, is issuing harsher statements? That tells you something. If you're going to tell me that the EU can't or won't match even that statement, then they're clearly no good whatsoever when it comes to standing up for the rights of their citizens, and accordingly losing their 'protection' is little to care about in that regard.
.. a pigsear and brexit ... this stuff writes itself doesn't it eh ?
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
Load them with what, exactly?
Duchy Originals?
I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
Load them with what, exactly?
Duchy Originals?
I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc
It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.
I mean other than the majority of the Indian populace being unable to afford those things/ prohibited by their religion, sure you're on to a winner, up until the EU walks up with it's selection of stuff and larger market share for trade going the other way.
However, the issue of visas quickly surfaced with a senior Indian official saying “mobility issues are of importance to us; we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments”. And S Irudaya Rajan, an advisor to the Indian government on migration issues added: “India is an important country for the UK and curbing the flow of good minds, whether they are students or skilled workers, cannot be good for the UK
I'm sure the IMMIGRATION IS THE #1 ISSUE brexit crowd would be absolutely fine at letting in increased numbers of people from India/Asia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No genuinely democratic country is indivisible. Trying to enforce such an attitude leaves people with no recourse but violence.
Would Spain prefer a peaceful independence referendum, or a USA style Civil War?
This is not strictly true. The Spanish Government has given a large amount of independence to Catalonia. The Catalonian parliament can call for a vote on independence but that needs to have majority support in their Parliament. They didn't get it, but it was actioned anyway. Hence strictly speaking the vote wasn't constitutional. If people wanted a vote on independence then when it comes to the Catalonian elections they should vote for someone that supports it. That is how the democratic system is set up. It doesn't excuse attacking people protesting (but that's hardly unique to the western world, e.g. the UK miners strikes and 2010 student protests), however the parties wanting a referendum have also played their part in stoking tensions by not following the democratic process. Something that you have advocated for before. We can't pick and choose which parts we want to apply because it is inconvenient. Otherwise I could hold an referendum tomorrow on staying in the EU and I'd win. Does that mean the UK then has to stay in the EU? It's not a legal vote but this is what you are advocating. The people behind the vote probably wanted to inflame the situation because that can only benefit them if the Spanish government over-reacted, which they by far did. The Spanish government would have been far better to let them have the vote and then point out how much money these people wasted on something that really didn't hold any weight.
EU Statement on Catalonia wrote:Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday's vote in Catalonia was not legal.
For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.
We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.
Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.
We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.
The first thing that they bother to state is that the vote isn't legal. Interesting first priority for a statement supposedly regarding a considerable amount of violence, no? They then vaguely call for unity, generally say that violence isn't a tool (without specifying who was committing it) before finally very actively endorsing the 'leadership' of the Spanish premier with an allusion to a hope that he'll do it line with (very explicitly) the rights contained within (or 'therein') the Spanish Constitution. Not, I hasten to add, those within a European legal framework, just very specifically the Spanish one.
That's not so much rapped knuckles as practically being given a metaphorical box of chocolates given how many people got their heads kicked in on camera by policemen. For an alternative view of things, let's look at the statement wheeled out by the UN Human Rights High commissioner:
I am very disturbed by the violence in Catalonia on Sunday. With hundreds of people reported injured, I urge the Spanish authorities to ensure thorough, independent and impartial investigations into all acts of violence. Police responses must at all times be proportionate and necessary.
I firmly believe that the current situation should be resolved through political dialogue, with full respect for democratic freedoms.
I call on the Government of Spain to accept without delay the requests by relevant UN human rights experts to visit.
He very explicitly states that police responses must be proportionate, for a legal process to be established to investigate the violence used, and demands for the Spanish Government to allow UN human rights officials to visit. I mean, when even the UN, that wonderful body run by the world's biggest hypocrites, is issuing harsher statements? That tells you something. If you're going to tell me that the EU can't or won't match even that statement, then they're clearly no good whatsoever when it comes to standing up for the rights of their citizens, and accordingly losing their 'protection' is little to care about in that regard.
It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote. Given that it is a democratic country that is reasonable. When you ignore this and just do what you want then effectively you have a dictatorship. They then clearly lay the blame in political speak at the doorstep of the Spanish PM, they have named him specifically immediately after stating violence is not an answer. It may not be directly accusing him but the sentences are linked and they are clearly laying it at his door. It might not be "you should take responsibility" but there is a large amount of political subtlety in these statements because that is how the world works. Only Trump/Boris ploughs in without any consideration. More stronger words come through individuals as that is how the message can be put out more plainly.
Erm.... you want to sell Whiskey to a country where many think that alcohol should be banned because of their religious beliefs? And you want to sell guns after what we have just seen in Las Vegas?
Also given that we don't yet grow enough food to sustain our own populace why does selling expensive food abroad actually help at all especially those on the lowest wages?
MEPs are urging delay in trade talks decision unless 'progress' is made.
I thought you liked Democracy? They voted pretty unanimously on how far talks had gotten to and almost all (probably with the exception of UK MEPs) that not enough progress has been made. If the UK had made more progress then perhaps the vote would have been tighter. You can't complain in one moment that the EU isn't democratic and then in the next moment complain that a democratic vote was had and it didn't go the way you wanted?
It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote.
The vote is not the issue. They could have given out half a dozen other statements of equal length talking about the legalities of the vote. The discussion at hand is their lack of spine (or concern) for the quantity of violence doled out by the police by the instruction of the government.
Given that it is a democratic country that is reasonable. When you ignore this and just do what you want then effectively you have a dictatorship.
I keep hearing this bizare 'Oh, but if the EU dared to say anything stronger, they'd be interfering in the affairs of other countries, etcetc', and it's a huge steaming pile of disingenous rubbish as far as arguments go. Not only is it taking the most ridiculous hyperbolic extreme interpretation of 'interfering', we've seen over Brexit and a dozen other issues that when the EU feels its interests are at stake, rhetoric, briefings, and funding flow freely from their desks in short order. The only difference here is that the EU has no realpolitik gain to make from doing the same here. None whatsoever. Not even enough to justify a harshly worded admonition that everyone would forget in a month.
They are exactly the same as any other bunch of self-serving mendicants squatting in government. And this has proven it.
They then clearly lay the blame in political speak at the doorstep of the Spanish PM, they have named him specifically immediately after stating violence is not an answer.
No. I do not see or agree with this frankly, strange interpretation. They very explicitly refer to the Spanish Constitution, no mention is made of the violence specifically committed by the police, no blame is specifically attributed, and an endorsement is publically made of the Spanish Prime Minister. The statement very literally states the precise opposite of what you are attempting to interpret it as.
You can attempt to claim that 'We have full faith in the power of Mr Rajoy to resolve this process in line with Spanish law' actually means 'We are very cross with Mr Rajoy and hope he enforces law in line with EU human rights', but by that logic you can claim it means anything at all in the name of subtlety. You might as well claim that they're talking about going fishing next weekend.
Not to mention the very simple fact that even if I completely agreed with you, it would still be a pisspoor, mealy mouthed vague statement when they should have made a far stronger one. My general point stands regardless of the interpretation you choose to make.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No genuinely democratic country is indivisible. Trying to enforce such an attitude leaves people with no recourse but violence.
Would Spain prefer a peaceful independence referendum, or a USA style Civil War?
This is not strictly true. The Spanish Government has given a large amount of independence to Catalonia. The Catalonian parliament can call for a vote on independence but that needs to have majority support in their Parliament. They didn't get it, but it was actioned anyway. Hence strictly speaking the vote wasn't constitutional. If people wanted a vote on independence then when it comes to the Catalonian elections they should vote for someone that supports it. That is how the democratic system is set up. It doesn't excuse attacking people protesting (but that's hardly unique to the western world, e.g. the UK miners strikes and 2010 student protests), however the parties wanting a referendum have also played their part in stoking tensions by not following the democratic process. Something that you have advocated for before. We can't pick and choose which parts we want to apply because it is inconvenient. Otherwise I could hold an referendum tomorrow on staying in the EU and I'd win. Does that mean the UK then has to stay in the EU? It's not a legal vote but this is what you are advocating. The people behind the vote probably wanted to inflame the situation because that can only benefit them if the Spanish government over-reacted, which they by far did. The Spanish government would have been far better to let them have the vote and then point out how much money these people wasted on something that really didn't hold any weight.
You're arguing against a Straw Man, things I have never said.
I have never advocated for the democratic process of Parliament to be ignored. Please provide a citation or kindly withdraw that false accusation.
That the Catalan Referendum is illegal is not in doubt. It was not approved by the Catalan Parliament, so it was illegal under the Catalan Constitution.
But I wasn't talking about this, the legality of the referendum was not touched on in my post. I was referring to the Spanish Government's claim that Spain is indivisible. The Spanish Government doesn't care if the Catalan Referendum was illegal or legal.
In stark contrast to the UK Westminster Government which agreed for a legal Scottish Referendum to be held, the Spanish Government rejects the Catalan Referendum outright. They would have still sent in the stormtroopers regardless of whether the Referendum was legal or not. If the Catalan Referendum was approved by the Catalan Parliament, the Madrid Government would still have labelled it illegal under the Spanish Constitution and sent the Guarda Civil to shut it down.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ...But I wasn't talking about this, the legality of the referendum was not touched on in my post. I was referring to the Spanish Government's claim that Spain is indivisible....
Clearly some of the people of Catalonia think otherwise.
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
Load them with what, exactly?
Duchy Originals?
I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc
It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.
You have accelerated so far over the bulls hit horizon, you've actually hit sanity escape velocity.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We know what the EU's idea of progress is: Britain putting £100 billion on the table as a bare minimum
Do we? I thought that was the maximum?
I don't see the problem, we agreed on day 1 that we wouldn't talk trade until the divorce was dealt with, and we don't seem any further forward on it.
There's only one side trying to negotiate here, and it ain't the EU.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: it's high time we pulled the plug on this sham of a negotiation and walk away.
Well,the current thought process that has come to my attention and tbf, makes sense of their position, is that they are determined that the taxpayers of the 27 don't pay for the decision of the ex-28th.
It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote.
The vote is not the issue. They could have given out half a dozen other statements of equal length talking about the legalities of the vote. The discussion at hand is their lack of spine (or concern) for the quantity of violence doled out by the police by the instruction of the government.
And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.
I keep hearing this bizare 'Oh, but if the EU dared to say anything stronger, they'd be interfering in the affairs of other countries, etcetc', and it's a huge steaming pile of disingenous rubbish as far as arguments go. Not only is it taking the most ridiculous hyperbolic extreme interpretation of 'interfering', we've seen over Brexit and a dozen other issues that when the EU feels its interests are at stake, rhetoric, briefings, and funding flow freely from their desks in short order. The only difference here is that the EU has no realpolitik gain to make from doing the same here. None whatsoever. Not even enough to justify a harshly worded admonition that everyone would forget in a month.
Actually I think the argument has been that as part of Wrexit people have claimed leaving was because the EU got too involved in countries own internal affairs, yet when the EU take a stand offish approach to these then the same people complain the at the EU isn't getting involved. Of course the EU get involved when it affects the EU as a whole. That is there remit. Wrexit will affect the whole of the EU therefore they have a say. Catalan is strictly speaking Spain's affair therefore they have little remit to directly influence what is going on. That there is almost certainly pressure I the back halls on Spain is inevitable (just like we have whips etc in the UK parliament). That it is not public facing doesn't mean it isn't going on. However condemning the country can be counter productive. If a member of the public in Catalan took the Spanish government to the ECJ then it would dealt with just as any other rights issue would be.
They are exactly the same as any other bunch of self-serving mendicants squatting in government. And this has proven it.
They are human beings, we are all the same. Why are you surprised? No one ever said they were angels. Just that it was best for the UK to be in that club and not out of it
You can attempt to claim that 'We have full faith in the power of Mr Rajoy to resolve this process in line with Spanish law' actually means 'We are very cross with Mr Rajoy and hope he enforces law in line with EU human rights', but by that logic you can claim it means anything at all in the name of subtlety. You might as well claim that they're talking about going fishing next weekend.
That is because the English language links sentences so "The mat was in the hall. There was a terrible smell" means the mat was smelling. The same goes for the statement from the EU. The sentences are linked...basically that they noted the abuse and they fully expect the PM to not do it again and actually talk to Catalonia.
However in other news the Tory conference is a barrel of laughs.
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
DINLT is a true populist; he has easy fixes to complicated problems, ignores the fact that said 'fixes' won't really fix anything and when asked to explain how anyone (either himself or the politicians of the UK) would go about to actually implement these fixes in the first place, his responses usually boils down to "huh? just do it!" or "It's not for me to decide, but for someone else.", while not even considering if said fixes are possible to implement in the first place or where the money required to implement said changes should be coming from.
Edit: I'm still waiting for his reply in regards to if he has an actual pain threshold for Brexit, or if he thinks the UK should go trough with it no matter the costs, even if it (hypothetically) turns England, Scotland, Wales and NI into third world countries for decades to come.
You won't get one, I've been asking that question in a general way for months and got nowhere.
I'm not against the idea if trading more with India, but I don't think it's a replacement for the EU. They've got some very wealthy people who are ideal customers for high end goods. We can sell them more Indian or German owned cars.
But India wants more free movement in exchange for trade, and there are some deep rooted political issues based on our prior occupation and damage.
Of all the trade deals we're talking about, I can see the benefit for them but not so much for us. No one has been able to suggest the benefits either.
Herzlos wrote: You won't get one, I've been asking that question in a general way for months and got nowhere.
I'm not against the idea if trading more with India, but I don't think it's a replacement for the EU. They've got some very wealthy people who are ideal customers for high end goods. We can sell them more Indian or German owned cars.
But India wants more free movement in exchange for trade, and there are some deep rooted political issues based on our prior occupation and damage.
Of all the trade deals we're talking about, I can see the benefit for them but not so much for us. No one has been able to suggest the benefits either.
This is a general reply to yourself and a few others.
1. What's wrong with trading with India? It's a faster growing economy than say, Germany, has more people, and there is the obvious historic link with the UK. Send forth the British cargo ships. Yeah,, our history with India is obviously not ideal for obvious reasons, but the Indian middle class, by all accounts, are Anglophiles, so let's cash in on that.
2. Indian immigration. People have cited this as a stumbling block to a UK/India trade deal. I don't think it's a problem. The vast majority of British people would welcome skilled Indian doctors/nurses/dentists whatever, for the NHS. None but the most extreme racist would disagree with high skilled Indian immigrants entering the UK.
3. The EU/India trade deal. reds8n seems to think that the EU would get there first. I beg to differ knowing the EU, it will take at least 10 years, 12 committees, 3 commissions, and even then, a 3 man parliament in Latvia would probably veto it or something. The EU moves at the pace of a snail suffering from arthritis.
DINLT is a true populist; he has easy fixes to complicated problems, ignores the fact that said 'fixes' won't really fix anything and when asked to explain how anyone (either himself or the politicians of the UK) would go about to actually implement these fixes in the first place, his responses usually boils down to "huh? just do it!" or "It's not for me to decide, but for someone else.", while not even considering if said fixes are possible to implement in the first place or where the money required to implement said changes should be coming from.
Edit: I'm still waiting for his reply in regards to if he has an actual pain threshold for Brexit, or if he thinks the UK should go trough with it no matter the costs, even if it (hypothetically) turns England, Scotland, Wales and NI into third world countries for decades to come.
I've never pretended to have all the answers, and yeah, I'd be the first to admit that I don't do detail, but a grand vision and drive? That's what I propose.
Like I say, if I were British PM, I'd be pushing hard for massive infrastructure building from Land's End to John O'Groats, as an example.
Does that mean to say I know how to build a bridge or a road? Of course not. Leaders provide leadership and direction. Subordinates do the details. That's how it works, and that's what the UK is missing right now.
On India, it's a fast growing economy but the majority of the 1bn population are too poor to want to buy anything from us The vast majority of the population don't touch alcohol or meat, so what we can actually sell to those that can afford goods is limited.
They have a growing middle class with new wealth, but beyond cars and hi-fis I'm not sure what we make that they'll want and can't get elsewhere. They are closer to China than us.
I'm not sure we'll negotiate a deal first, the EU has already started.
Do you really think brexiteers won't be up in arms at all those Indians taking our jobs and houses? The argument I keep hearing is that we're over crowded so this is moving one set of migrants yo another. Worse, we're changing from white Christian migrants to brown Hindu migrants. The bigots will love that, even if they can get their head around the fact they are brown but not Muslim.
India wants to sell us stuff tariff free, but they won't have any problem screwing us over after the whole colony thing. There's still a huge amount of resentment going on since we gakked them over pretty bad.
Grand vision is fine, but without seemingly basic consideration of the practicalities it's not great for a discussion. I agree that on an idea level this stuff is fine, but it's orders of magnitude harder to actually do, for less reward.
For instance, it's easy to say we should have a motorway that runs from John o groats to lands end, thats the easy bit. You'll have years figuring out the route, junctions etc, years to build, lots of devices to move, lots of land to buy. Building the road alone is about a million a mile. I think we should do it, but there's literally thousands of details to consider, not least what else we could do with the money or time.
I'd say our problem is that current leadership has some vague ideas, but no clue about how they'd actually work. Like the I'm open Irish border.
Whirlwind wrote: =
And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.
Is that how'd you'd qualify the UN statement? 'Yelling abuse at a country'? Because it's considerably stronger worded, but still hardly Donald Trump v Kim Jong Un now, is it? There is something in between 'actively endorsing the actions of a country's premier' and 'declaring to have his head removed and family shot'.
Eh. I think I'm done with this one. If we've reached the stage where you can read a statement which declares they support X, and interpret it as them saying they oppose X, there's not really any further we can go on this one. Not to mention that as said before, even the UN are making stronger statements than them, and they have even less of an interest/mandate on the matter. If you honestly believe that that is anywhere near an appropriate reaction, I can't imagine that we'll find any common ground on this one.
Let's say for argument's sake we cut a deal with India, and part of that deal includes immigration. Let's assume that it's high-skilled immigration.
And let's say that we take in 1000 doctors a year or something.
Those Indian doctors will save lives and because of their high pay, obviously won't be claiming dole money.
Who would argue against Indian doctors in Britain? Not I. And I bet 99% of the British public would roll out the red carpet for them.
If we get highly skilled immigrants from India, it won't be a problem IMO.
If we cut a deal with India, it'll be for 100,000 highly skilled individuals (doctors, accountants, whatever). People are already outraged that we have Eastern European doctors and they are buying everything up*. The deal will probably include the highly skilled individuals families.
The biggest point of Brexit was that we want to control immigration, because we're full. They aren't going to like anything that isn't controlling immigration. Like I said, it'll be worse when the migrants are obviously foreign and different. Plenty will be outraged at the continued Islamification of the UK (despite the fact they are almost all Sikh or Hindu).
As for 99% rolling out the red carpet, that's a stretch. Maybe 50% won't care, 25% will think it odd and 25% will be outraged at the fact house prices haven't gone down.
*That's one big thing India wants is investment potential; so any trade deal is going to result in Indian companies buying up a lot more UK stuff - buildings, businesses, etc.
Whirlwind wrote: =
And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.
Is that how'd you'd qualify the UN statement? 'Yelling abuse at a country'? Because it's considerably stronger worded, but still hardly Donald Trump v Kim Jong Un now, is it? There is something in between 'actively endorsing the actions of a country's premier' and 'declaring to have his head removed and family shot'.
Eh. I think I'm done with this one. If we've reached the stage where you can read a statement which declares they support X, and interpret it as them saying they oppose X, there's not really any further we can go on this one. Not to mention that as said before, even the UN are making stronger statements than them, and they have even less of an interest/mandate on the matter. If you honestly believe that that is anywhere near an appropriate reaction, I can't imagine that we'll find any common ground on this one.
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
Theresa May's speech has been one of the most relentless political car crashes in history. Even if you loved every written word in it, she's only managed to say about half of them, and they've mostly been through coughs.
I believe the Tories have driven themselves into a poltical blind alley. It is obvious by now that the kind of free market policies that Tories have pursued since Thatcher and Labour since Blair, have failed large numbers of people and chunks of the national infrastructure like rail, energy and housing, while other chunks such as broadband and water are inefficient, or are returning to public ownership (sometimes other country's ownership.) Finally, Brexit needs to go really well to rescue the government from another disaster, and it probably won't go well (the way things are going ATM.) The Tories own Brexit.
Meanwhile, Labur have broken out the Red Flag and announced a lot of social democratic policies which address the previous Tory failures and appeal to a lot of people. While the Tories are trying to counter this by talking about "return to failed socialism" and so on, the actual Corbyn programme is less socialist than the UK was from the late 40s to the early 80s.
For example, Harold McMillan was building 300,000 council houses a year. That's what we tackle the housing crisis. Instead, the Tories offer more Help To Buy, a cash handout to people who've already got enough money to consider buying a house, but would like some extra money off the government, which only results in distorting the market and raising prices.
On short, the Tories can't carry on with their current policies because they don't work and are unpopular, but they can't abandon them because that plays right into the Labour hands. Therefore we get these half-baked ideas like raising the salary level where graduates have to pay their loans back. (This certainly will help a bit, but in the long term it's just building up a massive liability for the tax payer.)
We don't have free market policies in the UK. Failed banks don't get bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds in a free market!
What we have is crony capitalism, and 30 years of governments who are unwilling to take on the NIMBY property owners and BTL mob, because they want to keep the property bubble going (it creates a false bubble of a vibrant economy) and also, because they don't want to upset these people at election time.
That's why they don't build more homes in this country, and why we get more help to buy bribes.
PM DINLT would be advocating a national policy of 1 million new homes every year as a bare minimum.
Free markets are what the Tories currently say they need to defend and remake the case for, in opposition to Labour's newly rediscovered enthusiasm for nationalisation.
Makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to look like a shambles, or if they've just run out of anyone competent. I mean, membership is at an all time low with an all time highest average age.
A nervous, coughing, spluttering, prankster interrupted, letters falling down, shambles of a conference speech from a party dying on its rear.
May's speech pretty much summed up the last 7 years of Tory rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to look like a shambles, or if they've just run out of anyone competent. I mean, membership is at an all time low with an all time highest average age.
Yeah, today, we might have witnessed the death of the Tory party.
Only Ed's tombstones can top this truly awful performance from a modern, British political leader
PS what happened to those tombstones?
It turned up in some warehouse in South London, I think. Looked it up a while ago to try and work out it's mass for a tutorial talking to undergrads about henge monuments
Only Ed's tombstones can top this truly awful performance from a modern, British political leader
PS what happened to those tombstones?
It turned up in some warehouse in South London, I think. Looked it up a while ago to try and work out it's mass for a tutorial talking to undergrads about henge monuments
Thanks for the info
Ed's tombstones and Farage's battle on the Thames against Geldof are two of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
Edit: Did you mean EU or UN?
I'm deriding the EU statement by comparing it to the UN one. Which is watered down also, but nowhere near as much as the EU one. If the EU had come out with a statement along the lines of the UN, I'd consider arguments of diplomacy/subtlety on the part of the EU to actually have some merit. As things stand, the EU's statement directly endorsed the President, the Spanish Constitution, and refused to attribute any form of culpability. When the UN, a place filled with representatives of dictators, is issuing more vehement statements than you on behalf of human rights? It speaks volumes.
I've never pretended to have all the answers, and yeah, I'd be the first to admit that I don't do detail, but a grand vision and drive? That's what I propose.
Like I say, if I were British PM, I'd be pushing hard for massive infrastructure building from Land's End to John O'Groats, as an example.
Does that mean to say I know how to build a bridge or a road? Of course not. Leaders provide leadership and direction. Subordinates do the details. That's how it works, and that's what the UK is missing right now.
But build what? 20 motorways, 30 airports, 2000ft giant concrete phalluses one for each cabinet member? You can't just build and end expect things to be all right. There's also not that much money, even HS2 and Hinkley Point are a squeeze (with the latter effectively being on credit).
On the other hand would you really trust the current lot to build anything. They can't even put a sign up. By the end of the speech it was even worse...
I'm deriding the EU statement by comparing it to the UN one. Which is watered down also, but nowhere near as much as the EU one. If the EU had come out with a statement along the lines of the UN, I'd consider arguments of diplomacy/subtlety on the part of the EU to actually have some merit. As things stand, the EU's statement directly endorsed the President, the Spanish Constitution, and refused to attribute any form of culpability. When the UN, a place filled with representatives of dictators, is issuing more vehement statements than you on behalf of human rights? It speaks volumes.
The first and second are correct, the latter is not in terms of culpability. The UN and EU statements are effectively the same just turning the words around. The only real difference is that the UN stated they could send mediators in.
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
I'm afraid some folks just want to gun for the EU regardless of what they do and nothing will be correct. It's 'justification' as to why we should leave because how bad they are compared to our own rule (despite the fact our government said nothing about was going on). So realistically what the EU did was infinitely better than anything we did, but it is still a reason to leave. On the other hand if the best people can come with as justification to leave is a PR statement then really the EU aren't doing that bad at all...
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
Load them with what, exactly?
Duchy Originals?
I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc
It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.
I mean other than the majority of the Indian populace being unable to afford those things/ prohibited by their religion, sure you're on to a winner, up until the EU walks up with it's selection of stuff and larger market share for trade going the other way.
Not to mention trying to sell medicines to one of the largest producers of generic drugs in the world.
Trying to imply that Labour constituency's are all in urban areas so they don't care about the countryside? Gotta protect the green and pleasant land from those socialist city folk and there brown friends
Trying to imply that Labour constituency's are all in urban areas so they don't care about the countryside? Gotta protect the green and pleasant land from those socialist city folk and there brown friends
They should fire their joke writer and hire Frankie Boyle.
Not to mention trying to sell medicines to one of the largest producers of generic drugs in the world.
Very good point. It seems the biggest thing we sell to India is aircraft and other engines. I'm not sure how much a trade agreement will grow that.
They sell a huge number of cars to us though, and even the high end ones we sell to them are Indian owned (Jaguar Land Rover) or German owned (Bentley, Rolls Royce).
From an import point of view, it might get us slightly cheaper cars, and textiles.
But I'd have expected this discussion to have been made by the Brexiteers, trying to sell us on why these deals are good and what we can gain from them.
I'm afraid some folks just want to gun for the EU regardless of what they do and nothing will be correct. It's 'justification' as to why we should leave because how bad they are compared to our own rule (despite the fact our government said nothing about was going on). So realistically what the EU did was infinitely better than anything we did, but it is still a reason to leave. On the other hand if the best people can come with as justification to leave is a PR statement then really the EU aren't doing that bad at all...
I think that's the crux of it; some people just don't like the EU for whatever reason and can't be impartial about it.
I'd like to think I was fairly impartial about the EU; I'm certainly not it's biggest fan and it does a lot of things in an extravagent and wasteful way. But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
Thats a delusion. There is only one direction in which the EU can ever and will ever reform, and that is "Ever closer union". For anyone who opposes further integration and blurring of national boundaries and sovereignty, the only long term solution is withdrawal.
But for anyone that wants integration and the eventual establishment of a European Super State, then I'm sure its all fine and dandy for you.
I understand your opinion, but it is only your opinion. The EU will be reformed in the ways that the member states want to reform it, influenced more by the most important states like Germany and the UK. If you don't want the EU to become a United States of Europe, the way to prevent that is to stay inside and work against it.
As a Leaver, you think the EU has already gone too far in terms of trade and free movement, that's why you voted to leave. That is why Brexiteers in general are against a transition period. There's no danger of the EU becoming a mighty federal dictatorship in the next 18 months. You want to stop free trade and free movement as soon as possible
"Our current government is utterly incompetent. This is the perfect opportunity to completely change our trade interactions with the entire world!"
There's a thread here in the off-topic forum discussing some way of nominating the most preposterous statements of the year and have them compete to be crowned the Most Preposterous. I'd like to make a nomination...
Kilkrazy wrote: Not you, then, but a lot of Brexiteers want to get out immediately, whatever the consequences.
Considering how incompetent the Tories are right now, Brexiting ASAP is looking like the sensible option at this moment.
How the gak do you come to that conclusion?
Considering how incompetetnt the Tories are right now, you want them as far away as possible as something like Brexit. Whether that's handing over to Corbyn to do it now, or kicking it 5 years down the road, it's going to be better than letting these guys loose on our economy.
But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
Thats a delusion. There is only one direction in which the EU can ever and will ever reform, and that is "Ever closer union". For anyone who opposes further integration and blurring of national boundaries and sovereignty, the only long term solution is withdrawal.
It'll go in the direction the member nations want. Some of them (all?) have veto abilities and things are voted on. It's delusional to think that the EU is going towards "ever closer union" against the will of all 28 member states. The presidents talk about "ever closer union" in their plans, but they need to get parliamentary approval, they aren't dictators.
The UK agreed with the EU the terms under which the EU quotas would be split between the EU-27 and the UK but:
In a fast-developing second trade spat, Washington has teamed up with Brazil, Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Thailand to reject Britain’s proposed import arrangements for crucial agricultural goods such as meat, sugar and grains after Brexit. The fact that the U.K.’s opponents include the U.S., Canada and New Zealand is a significant setback because Britain is trying to style its former colonies as natural strategic and commercial allies after it has quit the EU.
ERLIN (Reuters) - German firms with a presence in Britain should make provisions now for a “very hard Brexit”, Germany’s biggest industry group said on Thursday, because the government in London does not know what it wants.
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) accused British Prime Minister Theresa May’s government of lacking a clear strategy on how to exit the European Union after last year’s referendum.
“After four rounds of negotiations, German industry looks with concern at the progress of the Brexit negotiations,” BDI Managing Director Joachim Lang told reporters in Berlin. “The British government is lacking a clear concept despite talking a lot.”
The annual conference of May’s Conservatives showed her party remained deeply divided over Brexit and that a lack of strategy was complicating the negotiations with the EU about Britain’s divorce talks, Lang said.
“German companies with a presence in Britain and Northern Ireland must now make provisions for the serious case of a very hard exit. Anything else would be naive.”
A so-called hard Brexit means no agreement with the EU and Britain falling back on World Trade Organization rules rather than being in a tariff-free single market and customs union with the bloc.
Britain is Germany’s third most important single export destination and its fifth biggest overall trading partner.
The industry group confirmed that it had set up a task force, including major companies, to prepare for a disruptive British departure from the EU.
Sources told Reuters in September that big players such as Airbus (AIR.PA), Siemens (SIEGn.DE) and Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) were taking part.
“The aim of the task force is to identify potential and acute risks arising from Britain’s departure and to present constructive proposals for solutions,” Lang said.
Germany’s VDA automobile association, which represents major manufacturers such as BMW (BMWG.DE), is also involved in the task force meetings on Brexit, a VDA spokeswoman said.
The UK is the second-biggest export market for German car manufacturers with a value of nearly 29 billion euros ($34 billion). German carmakers and suppliers also employ roughly 9,000 people at 95 production sites in Britain.
The BDI and VDA did not name individual companies taking part in the task force meetings.
GROWING NERVOUSNESS
The industry preparations are the result of growing nervousness after slow and acrimonious negotiations so far between Britain’s Brexit minister David Davis and his counterpart at the European Commission, Michel Barnier.
In Europe’s biggest economy, companies are now preparing for the worst, including the imposition of tariffs and the risk of a loss of access to London financial markets.
Foreign direct investments from both sides amount to some 140 billion euros and German companies employ roughly 400,000 people in the UK, according to BDI.
The task force, established in early summer, is accelerating its work in regular meetings in Berlin, Lang said. It is expected to present conclusions in December and this could also help shape the position of the next coalition government.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly made clear that she regrets the British decision to leave the EU but that London should not expect a special deal and that keeping the remaining 27 member states together is more important for her.
Dampening hopes among some Brexiteers that London could succeed in driving a wedge between governments and companies in other European countries, Lang said German industry fully backed the EU’s negotiation strategy.
“To make it clear: Yes, German industry wants to keep a very close relationship with Britain. But have no doubt: We prioritize the further development of the EU,” Lang said.
“The ball now lies in Britain’s court. The speech by the British prime minister in Florence two weeks ago by no means brought the clarity that had been hoped for,” Lang said, referring to May’s attempt to speed up negotiations.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Tuesday that the fourth round of negotiations did not produce enough agreement for the EU to yield to May’s demands for immediate talks on a free trade deal and a transition to it after Brexit.
This is, of course, the trade body that many Leavers swore blind would pressure Merkel to meet their absurd demands.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not you, then, but a lot of Brexiteers want to get out immediately, whatever the consequences.
Considering how incompetent the Tories are right now, Brexiting ASAP is looking like the sensible option at this moment.
The Tories are that incompetent, they'd probably end up giving Hadrian's wall back to the Italians.
Is was almost an inevitability from voting Brexit regardless of which party was in power. Just like any project if you start out with no real plan, no idea as to what you want or how to get there then there is only one inevitable outcome. You will get a complete mess, just like any other project.
This all came about because of a political battle in one party, which no one expected to go the way it did. But by doing so there is no idea what anyone wants and they are all scrambling around fighting for different things (apart from Boris the Clown who just wants to make an idiot out of himself).
However I do have a new slogan for the Tory party, one that is more realistic to their aspirations:-
"Strong and Absorbent - because you'll need something to wipe your ass on when you *insert expletive* yourself when the poo hits Wrexit fan"
Boris is like Farage. He wants all the attention and adulation but none of the responsibility and blame. Seems to me like he wants May to fire him so he can go back to being the adored outspoken outsider.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU will be reformed in the ways that the member states want to reform it, influenced more by the most important states like Germany and the UK. If you don't want the EU to become a United States of Europe, the way to prevent that is to stay inside and work against it.
I have to disagree with this supposition. The UK has always been the outsider in the EU Club. You know the type, the scholarship lad in the fee paying college. Tolerated, but never good enough.
The UK has always seen itself as separate from the EU and the EU sees us in a similar light. De Gaul, never wanted the UK in the single market and I think that attitude prevails even today. With that, the UK was never going to influence the workings of the EU as France and Germany have been and are the historic leaders of the countries on mainland Europe, and to be fair I can see why. There is easy access to them with a land border, whereas there is a psychological barrier to the UK as a result of the channel.
People are also forgetting their British history here.
For 300 years, it has always been British policy not to let one power dominate Europe, and to remain aloof, but an active observer of what was going on in Europe. Semi-detached in other words.
In many respects, us being in the EU, but never really at home in the EU, kind of fits this long term national trend.
There's a quote from 1713 or something from the Prime Minister, can't remember who, and it goes along the lines of: "10 battles in Europe this year, and not one dead Englishman. A happy state of affairs."
We're never going to lose our island mentality, that's the bottom line here. It's too deep within our national DNA.
For 300 years, it has always been British policy not to let one power dominate Europe, and to remain aloof, but an active observer of what was going on in Europe. Semi-detached in other words.
In many respects, us being in the EU, but never really at home in the EU, kind of fits this long term national trend.
There's a quote from 1713 or something from the Prime Minister, can't remember who, and it goes along the lines of: "10 battles in Europe this year, and not one dead Englishman. A happy state of affairs."
We're never going to lose our island mentality, that's the bottom line here. It's too deep within our national DNA.
So we should be staying in the EU just to annoy them.
But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
Thats a delusion. There is only one direction in which the EU can ever and will ever reform, and that is "Ever closer union". For anyone who opposes further integration and blurring of national boundaries and sovereignty, the only long term solution is withdrawal.
But for anyone that wants integration and the eventual establishment of a European Super State, then I'm sure its all fine and dandy for you.
Reform and integration aren't incompatible. Integration doesn't necessarily end in a single state.
For 300 years, it has always been British policy not to let one power dominate Europe, and to remain aloof, but an active observer of what was going on in Europe. Semi-detached in other words.
In many respects, us being in the EU, but never really at home in the EU, kind of fits this long term national trend.
There's a quote from 1713 or something from the Prime Minister, can't remember who, and it goes along the lines of: "10 battles in Europe this year, and not one dead Englishman. A happy state of affairs."
We're never going to lose our island mentality, that's the bottom line here. It's too deep within our national DNA.
So we should be staying in the EU just to annoy them.
That's something I can get behind.
What I'm saying is that us leaving makes sense in terms of historic trends.
What I'm saying is that us leaving makes sense in terms of historic trends.
Saying that something makes sense because of how things once where doesn't really make sense. If we all used that kind of logic then germany should still always work against france seeing as they were "arch-enemies" for quite some time...
Yeah, you can use historic trends to try and predict the future, but the world is hugely different from 300 years ago. We're a lot closer with our neighbours now than we used to be and have been reaping the benefits of that relationship.
It's no longer a valid thing to sit back and let the French and Germans chase each other round fields with pike and musket.
After that conference I think getting rid of her is the only way the party can save face. It's the absolute worst timing, do we need to waste even more time on a 3rd leadership contest during Brexit negotiations?
She's an embarrassment and needs to go. Her only ability that got her where she is now is "submarining" and knowing when to shut up when everyone around her is making a fool of themselves. She's got no drive, vision or charisma.
Of all of the replacements circling, who's least terrible? Can we get Cameron back?
Leaders can be loved, and leaders can be feared, but once people start feeling sorry for leaders, it's all over, their authority slowly slips away.
May is the Tory answer to Ed Miliband: well meaning, but totally out of her depth.
I'll tell you one thing, George Osborne must be kicking himself, because if he had held on as an MP for a few more months, he'd be in prime position for a serious crack at the leadership.
TIme for May to go, and the Tories to wreck Brexit with their incessant infighting.
That done, they Evil Party will be left with absolutely no scape goats this time. Nobody else to pin the blame on. And it will bury them and their politics for a good long while.
And that is what this country needs. When the Express and the Heil can't spin the heat off the Tories, they lose their influence. That is also what this country needs.
It's going to be a terrible time in the short term, but if it destroys the Tory Party as it stands today, it may prove worth it.
Okay, so you want to get rid of May because she's so bad and all, that's nice. Just a question though ; what about the negociations ? Do you really think changing the head once again will go in your favor ? Do youknow how much time left before the date for Brexit happens effectively ? It's not wonder the german industry union is warning their industries to stock from now. Given how far are the negociations and how many months are left, it's really naive to think that they can set everything up in such a short amount of time.
It's time the UK finally do something to get themselves out of this horrible mess. And by that, I mean its people. Or maybe you want to wake up when the whole thing is done and all bridges are burned ? I'm telling you, it will be too late.
I'm still not convinced that we'll actually leave the EU. The Tories will feth up so bad that another election will have to be called, then Labour will get in and cancel the whole shebang at the 11th hour.
Kilkrazy wrote: Cameron is the twonk who got us into this mess.
And yet some people think he's better than May.
Thing is, I don't think "getting rid of her" will solve all the problems. She's a representative, there are many others people thinking the same behind her. If another of the same kind takes her place, it will change nothing.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. And I don't think EU will be ready to make gifts to UK. Sure, UK has a fine history and all. But assuming from it that everything will be fine in the future is foolish. Something must be done, and quick. You just can't wait and hope sunshines and flowers will suddenly appear from the sky, just because in the past you always managed to get back on your feet. A lot of empires and countries have fallen in the past because of the pride of their people. UK is no exception to that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm still not convinced that we'll actually leave the EU. The Tories will feth up so bad that another election will have to be called, then Labour will get in and cancel the whole shebang at the 11th hour.
I've a feeling that's what's going to happen. Then we'll have to learn why Corbyn's kind of politics don't work all over again.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm still not convinced that we'll actually leave the EU. The Tories will feth up so bad that another election will have to be called, then Labour will get in and cancel the whole shebang at the 11th hour.
I've a feeling that's what's going to happen. Then we'll have to learn why Corbyn's kind of politics don't work all over again.
Unless, of course, they do work this time. Mays kind of politics clearly isn't working.
Kilkrazy wrote: Cameron is the twonk who got us into this mess.
And yet some people think he's better than May.
More that he's less dreadful than May. He had a bit of character, and you could almost like him if you weren't so creeped out. May has, as far as I can tell, no redeeming features.
Cameron would hopefully stayed vaguely on track and caved in to all EU requests - so we'd get somewhere.
Thing is, I don't think "getting rid of her" will solve all the problems. She's a representative, there are many others people thinking the same behind her. If another of the same kind takes her place, it will change nothing.
It'll solve a problem in that she's directionless and has no control over her cabinet., both of which are undermining our position when it comes to the EU negotiations. There's contradictory reports coming out between May/Davis/Johnson on a weekly basis, she keeps changing her mind about everything and so on. If we can get a replacement that can make a decision and stick with it, and can get his/her staff to stop contradicting him/her every statement, then we'd be getting on much better.
Even a poor stance is better that whatever May is doing, if it's consistent. That way we can get some closure and then we can plan around it and move forward. Currently it's impossible to make any plans or do any negotiating because we still don't know anything about (a) what they want and (b) which of the 3 stooges they should actually be listening to.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm still not convinced that we'll actually leave the EU. The Tories will feth up so bad that another election will have to be called, then Labour will get in and cancel the whole shebang at the 11th hour.
I've a feeling that's what's going to happen. Then we'll have to learn why Corbyn's kind of politics don't work all over again.
Well neo-liberalism hasn't exactly pulled a blinder for the average Joe. Unless you rate success by how many billionaires a country has. The Tories are well meaning, but sometimes callous, buffoons, and many people have had enough of their BS.
Of all of the replacements circling, who's least terrible? Can we get Cameron back?
David Davis. I regard him as a bit of a Cincinnatus type figure.
David Davis has been quoted as saying he is leaving after 2019...he's happily preparing his life raft whilst the rest of us drown (and I'm sure he'll find some cushy job somewhere...)
Sarouan wrote: Okay, so you want to get rid of May because she's so bad and all, that's nice. Just a question though ; what about the negociations ? Do you really think changing the head once again will go in your favor ? Do youknow how much time left before the date for Brexit happens effectively ? It's not wonder the german industry union is warning their industries to stock from now. Given how far are the negociations and how many months are left, it's really naive to think that they can set everything up in such a short amount of time.
It's time the UK finally do something to get themselves out of this horrible mess. And by that, I mean its people. Or maybe you want to wake up when the whole thing is done and all bridges are burned ? I'm telling you, it will be too late.
I'm afraid you are thinking too highly of the UK government and populace. Our approach to Wrexit is more along these lines:-
Bart = EU, Homer = UK, children = rest of world watching, helicopter and ambulance = Trump's US
Of all of the replacements circling, who's least terrible? Can we get Cameron back?
David Davis. I regard him as a bit of a Cincinnatus type figure.
David Davis has been quoted as saying he is leaving after 2019...he's happily preparing his life raft whilst the rest of us drown (and I'm sure he'll find some cushy job somewhere...)
Right...which only reinforces my perception of him as a Cincinnatus-like figure.
Of all of the replacements circling, who's least terrible? Can we get Cameron back?
David Davis. I regard him as a bit of a Cincinnatus type figure.
David Davis has been quoted as saying he is leaving after 2019...he's happily preparing his life raft whilst the rest of us drown (and I'm sure he'll find some cushy job somewhere...)
Right...which only reinforces my perception of him as a Cincinnatus-like figure.
Do you even know who Cincinnatus was?
Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?
If this was a Chairperson of a football club I'd be expecting the manager to be gone in a month...."Theresa May says cabinet 'fully behind' her leadership"
And apparently the office of budget responsibility has been overestimating by quite some margin our productivity...that means budget forecast are off by a wide margin.
Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?
I'm promoting him as someone who should be Prime Minister, not as someone who will or is likely to be.
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Roman history, Cincinnatus was a Roman patrician who did not desire power, he just wanted to tend to his farm but was cajoled and coerced into accepting a Dictatorship to deal with a crisis threatening Rome not once but twice, and both times he willingly gave up his powers of Dictatorship and retired back to his farm once the crises were resolved.
Theres also a famous quote by the writer Douglas Adams I believe which goes (paraphrased): "Anyone who desires power is unsuited to wield it".
I'm drawing a (however tenuous) parallel between Cincinnatus and David Davis. Given that he's already announced his retirement, Davis clearly has no ambition for power (at least, not anymore. He did run for the Tory party leadership in 2005), therefore he's more suited to hold power than a greasy career politician like David Cameron or Tony Blair who desire power for power's sake.
If we were living in the Roman Republic and I were a Roman Senator, I'd be forwarding a motion that we should drag David Davis kicking and screaming into Number 10 to deal with the crisis of Brexit.
Alas were are not living in Ancient Rome, and I am not a Roman Senator.
tl;dr I'm a fan of principled back benchers like David Davis and Frank Field over career politician scum bags like Blair or Cameron.
Yes, I thought you were actually promoting him as the next leader. Maybe I was taking your comment too literally?
I'm promoting him as someone who should be Prime Minister, not as someone who will or is likely to be.
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with Roman history, Cincinnatus was a Roman patrician who did not desire power, he just wanted to tend to his farm but was cajoled and coerced into accepting a Dictatorship to deal with a crisis threatening Rome not once but twice, and both times he willingly gave up his powers of Dictatorship and retired back to his farm once the crises were resolved.
Theres also a famous quote by the writer Douglas Adams I believe which goes (paraphrased): "Anyone who desires power is unsuited to wield it".
I'm drawing a (however tenuous) parallel between Cincinnatus and David Davis. Given that he's already announced his retirement, Davis clearly has no ambition for power (at least, not anymore. He did run for the Tory party leadership in 2005), therefore he's more suited to hold power than a greasy career politician like David Cameron or Tony Blair who desire power for power's sake.
If we were living in the Roman Republic and I were a Roman Senator, I'd be forwarding a motion that we should drag David Davis kicking and screaming into Number 10 to deal with the crisis of Brexit.
Alas were are not living in Ancient Rome, and I am not a Roman Senator.
tl;dr I'm a fan of principled back benchers like David Davis and Frank Field over career politician scum bags like Blair or Cameron.
David Davis isn't some principled messiah, he's a knob end with an EU axe to grind who's suddenly found himself having to sort out his own gak sandwich. I hope it chokes the witch.
I think perhaps a better look at David Davis's approach might be more helpful. So to begin:-
David Davis worked for Tate and Lyle for almost 20 years. This is an American company that uses sugar cane to make sugar. This has to be imported and the majority comes from what were former British colonies. Effectively this in areas where work is cheap and conditions poor.
Tate and Lyle's major competitor is British Sugar (a British company) which uses sugar beet to manufacture sugar. Sugar beet is one of the staples of arable UK farmers (as well as other European countries, especially France). In comparison the UK and EU have high labour costs but good conditions.
Sugar beet is relatively easy to grow (no issues supermarkets demands for perfect specimens) and has a good demand hence it being a staple of a lot of farmers.
When it comes down to it, it is cheaper to grow and import sugar cane than it is to grow sugar beet in the UK.
The EU however place considerable import duties on sugar cane to protect the sugar beet industry and EU farmers (including UK farmers). In the end this makes Cane sugar and sugar beet relatively comparable in terms of cost (sugar beet is slightly better off in terms of market share).
Tate & Lyle campaigned for Brexit as they are opposed to the duties placed on cane sugar.
Leaving the EU and with a driving ambition of free world trade these duties will disappear although it is unlikely the EU will drop the duties on this. Hence any UK sugar will suddenly become taxable.
So what are the consequences of this...
Dropping duties will suddenly make sugar beet much more expensive compared to cane sugar. In post Brexit land where costs will be everything, noting sugar is in pretty much everything we buy, this will give Tate and Lyle a huge advantage. They can suddenly make a much cheaper product that British sugar can't compete with. This will leave British Sugar to either convert to cane sugar or, probably, in the end go bust. This will lead to a large number of UK arable farmers to lose a significant source of income. It almost certainly some will have to pack up the bags and leave the industry. The EU will still be protecting its own sugar beet industry, so selling sugar to the EU isn't likely to be viable.
For Tate & Lyle free trade is a boon. If British Sugar don't switch to sugar cane (and even if they do they have to source suppliers not already working for Tate & Lyle), then Tate & Lyle will corner more and more of the market as the demand to control costs grow. They will likely go from having 40% of the market share to 80% or more in the UK in just a small number of years.
So what has this to do with David Davis. He worked his way up through T&L for a good number of years. I would suspect that should he decide to leave politics an opening for a Directors position (if not higher) will suddenly appear at T&L with a nicer sweetner for DD to join them. He will then be in a position over a decade or so where T&L become the dominant supplier in the UK (destroying the UK wide industry in the process).
So why does DD want to leave after 2019?, because in the end he is a business person. He does not want to take on the poison chalice of trying to repair the damage from Wrexit. If we remain in the EU (we change our mind) then the Tories will lose enough support that go to UKIP again that they will lose power for decades. Conversely as the economy likely crashes, times get harder then people will blame the Tories and again likely not get in again for decades. Businesses will not want people that have such a tainted histories (e.g Blair). Leaving in 2019 means he won't be tainted, be able to get a job that almost certainly guarantees large growth year on year almost certainly paying more than the a PMs position does. In five years we will have forgotten about DD and whichever clown is in charge will subject to our ire.
You can of course try and buy exclusively from British sugar, but in all those packets of cakes, sweets, chocolates etc there will be T&L sugar cane products rather than UK grown sugar beet.
A more detailed article can be found here if anyone is interested.
When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money. Do you trust Davis with Brexit when his only concern is a retirement gig? Or May who is most concerned about her husbands investment company?
I don't know what Johnson us after though; power? Where's he hoping to get richer from?
Herzlos wrote: When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money.
One should always be careful however, not to blithely assume corruption or pecuniary self-interest on the part of government officials. Private Eye has turned the implication of such things into something of a art. As someone combing through historical public sector sub-contracting correspondence and paperwork however, it isn't the case far, far more frequently than it is. For every fifteen such implied cases, only one of them ever seems to actually have any substance to it.
It is too easy at times to believe the worst in people with no evidence. For example, looking at the matter under discussion, Davis hasn't worked for Tate and Lyle for over twenty years, in which time it's actually been sold as a company to an American food giant. Certainly, there's no executives left there he would have an attachment to, and if he wanted to get a job in consultancy or lazy fake directorships, there are infinitely better prospects for a man of his connections than mumping for sugar.
Too often in politics, insinuations of corruption are just an extended game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. 'Ah, they must be corrupt, because they went to school with someone who now works as an executive aide for a newspaper owner' or some such bollocks. Such things wouldn't even be enough to get a police file opened, let alone a conviction in court; yet far too many people sagely nod and go, 'Ah, so that's where their interest is' because it aligns with their existing political beliefs (left or right). The fact that you can draw such lines between practically all people and professions at the top levels never crosses their minds.
So Theresa May maybe demoting Boris, and a cabinet re-shuffle maybe on the cards to bring in fresh young blood. Quite where they've managed to scrape fresh young blood from is anyone's guess. Younger than current incumbents certainly, but new ideas and fresh thinking? Doubtful, probably more of the same old neo-liberal BS.
Also, a FOI request has has been submitted to find out what legal advice the Govt has received about stopping Brexit. Politically it's probably suicide for any party that tried it, and unlikely to happen considering the damage it would do to the party, much better to feth the country over instead.
Satisfying though it would be to stop this debacle, it would only rear it's ugly head again and we'd end up in a worse place I feel. Even though it is an idiotic decision, it must stand because otherwise our application and integrity of democracy would be questioned and people would perhaps decide that if the Govt doesn't have to follow the rules....
More concerning to me was the quote at the end...
A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.”
I'm not sure if the Dept for Exiting the EU has the authority to do anything other than remove us from the EU, it has no mandate to prevent us rejoining if we wish.
Herzlos wrote: When it comes to politics, and especially the Tories, it's always worth following the money.
That's true, indeed. This is in fact a deep problem for our modern society, something that is easily dismissed by politicians themselves or, to be honest, any people who don't see what is the trouble with potential conflict of interest. It doesn't mean conviction of corruption, but the bias is still somewhere, in any form.
The fact there are lobbies and companies investing a lot of money to keep having contact with politicians, even if it's not illegal, isn't innocent. You don't invest time and money in something inefficient. There is a reason, and it is simple : someone who is in power and has friendly contacts with a particular category of people will be influenced in some way by them, even unconsciously. It's human nature ; when someone is friendly towards you, you tend to be more open to what they are saying - or at least, you listen to them and that may be all they want.
Don't listen to right wing people who say that this is not a problem. It is. Getting paid for that, having gifts for that, being helped to find a job for some relatives or finding a job for relatives, all of that have the same roots and consequences and will affect the people in some ways (sometimes little, sometimes big), no matter what they say. A lot of problems find their roots because someone at the top is in a conflict of interest. Usually, it's not something sudden; it is gradual and takes a lot of time before small things add to each other until it becomes such a big problem that it can becomes a case of conviction, or worse.
This is what leads to corruption. It always starts with a conflict of interest. And it always starts small, with the man or woman thinking it's not a big deal.
Follow the money, it's always telling something about those who are behind. And yes...it's usually the right wing people who are the most prone to defend this ; because they are the ones who have the most contact with people with a lot of money/influence, and thus most prone to conflict of interest. The fact right wing people have ties with the private sector isn't innocent as well. And when you give all the powers to people who are used not to care about conflict of interest, thinking they are "above" all of this legal stuff and are grown up enough to decide for everything...it usually ends into deep corruption, no matter what.
Of course, you will have people who say that they are not influenced and don't listen to lobbies. The fact they let them exist is already a warning sign ; and when they say it, you should really ask yourself why you would believe them at all.
Boris needs booting out, he's not stupid but crafty. His buffoonish act of being an undiplomatic clod is tiresome and proves that he values self promotion over all else. Anything to be the centre of attention. This embarrassment that wants to be PM is a snake in the cabinet. May should kick him out and face any leadership challenge head on, but I doubt he would push for one.
No doubt this minister will be 'persuaded' to retract his comments in due course
It's hardly that dramatic, it's the Danish finance minister offering his opinion. He's not "accusing" anyone of playing a game;
Jensen said: “In any political negotiations, there is not enough time, not enough money, not enough this, not enough that. This is part of the game.
Meaning that it's all part of normal negotiations, you're just spinning it.
Meanwhile, Priti Patel, I've seen her on QT on occasions and often thought she came across as pretty arrogant and loathsome, until I checked her voting record, and found she is infact, very arrogant and loathsome.
Votes for greater use of the armed forces in foreign conflicts whilst simultaneously voting against the armed forces covenant
Votes to crease the full range of taxes that affect the poor, middle and working class' the most whilst voting against any tax reform for the most wealthy
Voted to sell of our forests, against climate change regulation, against powers for the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament, votes for local councils to only have access to the business rates produced in their areas thereby slashing funds available in small and rural communities, I could go on, but the thought that this woman has been touted for higher office in the conservative party is giving me high blood pressure.
It's not me it's spinning it - it's the newspaper. I'm just the messenger
At any rate, the idea that the EU 27 are united as one, is a total nonsense. There are cracks there, especially with the Danes and the Eastern European nations that could have been exploited for Britain's gain.
Of course, that would require a Foreign Secretary with some diplomatic sense, and political acumen, and not the complete and utter buffoon we have now!
The EU27 is negotiating as one; we've tried talking to Macron/Merkel independently and shut down. So I don't think there are any cracks we can exploit directly.
Herzlos wrote: The EU27 is negotiating as one; we've tried talking to Macron/Merkel independently and shut down. So I don't think there are any cracks we can exploit directly.
What they say in public and what they say in private are two different things.
I am convinced that with a half-decent foreign secretary, instead of one that is mistrusted and despised by the 27, we could be making ground somewhere, especially with Hungary and Poland, who have had their own run ins with the EU these past months.
This all seems like stuff that should have been thought about before June 2016, not just starting to be looked at in Oct 2017 Theresa May sets out Brexit options including 'no deal' http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41546701
The UK has set out how it could operate as an "independent trading nation" after Brexit, even if no trade deal is reached with Brussels.
Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs "real and tangible progress" had been made in Brexit talks.
But the country must be prepared for "every eventuality," as the government published papers on future trade and customs arrangements.
Vaktathi wrote: This all seems like stuff that should have been thought about before June 2016, not just starting to be looked at in Oct 2017 Theresa May sets out Brexit options including 'no deal' http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41546701
The UK has set out how it could operate as an "independent trading nation" after Brexit, even if no trade deal is reached with Brussels.
Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs "real and tangible progress" had been made in Brexit talks.
But the country must be prepared for "every eventuality," as the government published papers on future trade and customs arrangements.
You are making the assumption that Wrexit was only meant to be a political game by the Tory party and was never meant to happen. That not enough people came out to vote and they weren't stuck in limbo land where a third of the population are happy in the EU, a third aren't and a third we have no idea about. You've now got Wrexiters who are desperately clinging to push it through whilst general opinion is swinging against leaving and they'll push it through regardless of the consequences which will affect the poorest and less socially mobile than those with the money. In a rational UK we would have had well laid out documents showing the strengths and weaknesses of each option. Unfortunately "rational" and "UK" don't really go hand in hand anymore and instead we had a battle over pointless soundbites and immigration.
I think this is all May softening us up now to go full WTO. Now where is that video of homer crashing down a cliff again? I think she might have realised she is losing supporters to Labour who want to Remain and hence she is trying to shore up support with the hard liners.
Still secret meetings are being had for future trade deals - maybe this is one that is being lined up . Diamonds perhaps....?
Commenting on suggestions by the Prime Minister that a Brexit ‘no deal’ was now an option, BALPA General Secretary Brian Strutton said:
“The entire UK aviation sector which employs nearly a million people and carries more than 250 million passengers per annum would be devastated by a Brexit ‘no deal’.
“Unlike most other sectors there are no World Trade Organisation or any other rules to fall back on for aviation if there is no deal.
“UK airlines could find they have to stop flying – it’s that serious. And this would impact passengers long before March 2019 because airlines couldn’t sell advance tickets and, frankly, would passengers risk buying them?
“It is utter madness for anyone to think that a Brexit ‘no deal’ would be anything but a total disaster for our world leading UK aviation sector and beyond. After all, without air cargo we will not be able to export or import freely. The entire industry has said that we have to see evidence of the post-Brexit plan for aviation now if we are to avert a catastrophic crisis of confidence.”
We need them far more than they need us though....
I'm still hoping this is all a cunning ruse to force a second referendum. Make such an absolute mess that they feel 'duty bound' to present the deal to the populace.
Good way of showing the fringe lunatics for the nutters they are, and just how utterly unpracticeable their demands are.
Then of course, I remember this is The Tories, and it is in all likelihood completely genuine shocking incompetence, and there is no plan, let alone a basic if quite cunning one.
Then why are they so desperate to squeeze a massive divorce payment out of us, and expect us to continue paying alimony for years to come?
Because they need us and our money...
I'd have thought it was because of all the science funding projects and other various that we'd signed up to, but that's far less interesting a headline.
Then why are they so desperate to squeeze a massive divorce payment out of us, and expect us to continue paying alimony for years to come?
Because they need us and our money...
I'd have thought it was because of all the science funding projects and other various that we'd signed up to, but that's far less interesting a headline.
All of which will suffer significant funding shortfalls if we withdraw.
Then why are they so desperate to squeeze a massive divorce payment out of us, and expect us to continue paying alimony for years to come?
Because they need us and our money...
I'd have thought it was because of all the science funding projects and other various that we'd signed up to, but that's far less interesting a headline.
All of which will suffer significant funding shortfalls if we withdraw.
Ergo...they need our money.
They need you to stand by your word. Evidently that's much more of a stretch than you'd think.
They're expecting us to continue paying without any guarantee that we'll continue to have access to the things we're paying for. They're literally demanding a blank cheque, without any agreement on what we get in return.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They're expecting us to continue paying without any guarantee that we'll continue to have access to the things we're paying for. They're literally demanding a blank cheque, without any agreement on what we get in return.
Nope. Read again.
The so-called exit bill refers to commitments the UK took while a part of the EU.
Future payments (if any) are conditional on the kind of relationship the UK wants from the EU.
This whole shebang has been a debacle from the get-go.
The Leave campaign did nothing but lie, lie and lie again. They blamed all the UK's ills on immigration, and not on successive decades of failed government policy. They told shocking lies about how the EU actually works (fun fact, fact fans - the EU has never been able to impose anything on the UK. Vetoes rule)
Something like this should never have been put to the popular vote. At all.
But here we are, floundering in the poop and the bile of the Daily Heil and Express.
This whole shebang has been a debacle from the get-go.
The Leave campaign did nothing but lie, lie and lie again. They blamed all the UK's ills on immigration, and not on successive decades of failed government policy. They told shocking lies about how the EU actually works (fun fact, fact fans - the EU has never been able to impose anything on the UK. Vetoes rule)
Something like this should never have been put to the popular vote. At all.
But here we are, floundering in the poop and the bile of the Daily Heil and Express.
Daily Heil is a bit of a stretch (although it isn't great), and the express really isn't that bad, unless there's a large body of terrible things the Express has said that I'm not aware of.
I'm reminded of that old phrase, if I owe you a hundred I'm in trouble, but if I owe you a million, you're in trouble. They need our money, especially if they want to keep things as they are without either cutting the budget or getting the others to put their hands in their pocket and fork out for the difference.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm reminded of that old phrase, if I owe you a hundred I'm in trouble, but if I owe you a million, you're in trouble. They need our money, especially if they want to keep things as they are without either cutting the budget or getting the others to put their hands in their pocket and fork out for the difference.
Of course, if you owe someone money and don't pay up, that's theft.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm reminded of that old phrase, if I owe you a hundred I'm in trouble, but if I owe you a million, you're in trouble. They need our money, especially if they want to keep things as they are without either cutting the budget or getting the others to put their hands in their pocket and fork out for the difference.
Of course, if you owe someone money and don't pay up, that's theft.
But it could be said we don't owe anything, they're just demanding it as a divorce payment.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm reminded of that old phrase, if I owe you a hundred I'm in trouble, but if I owe you a million, you're in trouble. They need our money, especially if they want to keep things as they are without either cutting the budget or getting the others to put their hands in their pocket and fork out for the difference.
Of course, if you owe someone money and don't pay up, that's theft.
But it could be said we don't owe anything, they're just demanding it as a divorce payment.
Nope, but don't expect to use the swimming pool unless you do.
Want to know a lovely little titbit about the Universal Credit debacle?
The helpline for people awaiting payments costs 9p/min from a a landline and 55p/min from a mobile. So out of reach for virtually everyone who has been left for six weeks without any money.
Is it really 46% or is that the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect?
46% of British exports in goods and services end up in the EU.
Those are hard, easily verifiable facts.
Well we'll just to look elsewhere for export markets then. As difficult as it may be.
That we will. It really runs rather roughshod over any 'they need us more than we need them' malarkey though. I've no doubt we can eventually make up for the lost revenue but we're talking about needing absolutely vast increases in exports elsewhere to buffer even a small percentage of lost revenue to the EU. All this stuff about how fast our exports are increasing to developing markets is absolutely true, but they're doing so because they're starting from a very low baseline compared to extremely high pre-established trade to the EU. We'll have a long, long, long way to go to make up for the likely shortfall.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Isn't the whole point of Brexit that the UK leaves the swimming pool? We've paid while we've been using it and now we're off.
I don't know. All I hear is "seamless trade" and "market access" and other buzzwords without actual definite meaning in trade terms. Swimming pools may or may not be involved, but so far May won't tell.
Future War Cultist wrote:Well we'll just to look elsewhere for export markets then. As difficult as it may be.
The UK racked up a record trade in goods deficit in August, confirming the failure for the slump in sterling to help improve the UK's trade balance.
(...)
There had been hopes that the major fall in the pound in the wake of the Brexit vote in 2016 would boost manufacturing exports, helping to bring down the UK's chronic trade in goods deficit.
But, so far, such hopes have been disappointed, as import values have risen in line with exports and UK firms seem not to have seized the opportunity of the more competitive exchange rate to increase their market share abroad.
Is it really 46% or is that the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect?
46% of British exports in goods and services end up in the EU.
Those are hard, easily verifiable facts.
Well we'll just to look elsewhere for export markets then. As difficult as it may be.
That we will. It really runs rather roughshod over any 'they need us more than we need them' malarkey though. I've no doubt we can eventually make up for the lost revenue but we're talking about needing absolutely vast increases in exports elsewhere to buffer even a small percentage of lost revenue to the EU. All this stuff about how fast our exports are increasing to developing markets is absolutely true, but they're doing so because they're starting from a very low baseline compared to extremely high pre-established trade to the EU. We'll have a long, long, long way to go to make up for the likely shortfall.
It will take a long time and there will be hardship along the way but I think in the long term it'll be worth it. In the meantime, the EU can go deal with the massive black hole in its finances and the reduced income from trade our leaving will inflict upon them.
@ jouso
If companies won't move to take advantage of the low pound for exports then that's their problem.
Is it really 46% or is that the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect?
46% of British exports in goods and services end up in the EU.
Those are hard, easily verifiable facts.
Well we'll just to look elsewhere for export markets then. As difficult as it may be.
That we will. It really runs rather roughshod over any 'they need us more than we need them' malarkey though. I've no doubt we can eventually make up for the lost revenue but we're talking about needing absolutely vast increases in exports elsewhere to buffer even a small percentage of lost revenue to the EU. All this stuff about how fast our exports are increasing to developing markets is absolutely true, but they're doing so because they're starting from a very low baseline compared to extremely high pre-established trade to the EU. We'll have a long, long, long way to go to make up for the likely shortfall.
It will take a long time and there will be hardship along the way but I think in the long term it'll be worth it. In the meantime, the EU can go deal with the massive black hole in its finances and the reduced income from trade our leaving will inflict upon them.
They don't have a massive black hole. They'll need to make up the shortfall, but in relative terms their hole is really pretty small whilst ours is potentially galactic. The only point I'm making is that saying they need us more than we need them is nonsense. Some of their influential businesses need us a lot and certain EU nations need us more than others, but as blocs, the EU is vastly more fundamental to the UK economy than the UK is to the EU's.
Is it really 46% or is that the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect?
46% of British exports in goods and services end up in the EU.
Those are hard, easily verifiable facts.
Well we'll just to look elsewhere for export markets then. As difficult as it may be.
That we will. It really runs rather roughshod over any 'they need us more than we need them' malarkey though. I've no doubt we can eventually make up for the lost revenue but we're talking about needing absolutely vast increases in exports elsewhere to buffer even a small percentage of lost revenue to the EU. All this stuff about how fast our exports are increasing to developing markets is absolutely true, but they're doing so because they're starting from a very low baseline compared to extremely high pre-established trade to the EU. We'll have a long, long, long way to go to make up for the likely shortfall.
It will take a long time and there will be hardship along the way but I think in the long term it'll be worth it. In the meantime, the EU can go deal with the massive black hole in its finances and the reduced income from trade our leaving will inflict upon them.
Let's put that massive in perspective:
The combined EU budget is 1% of the EU GDP, UK net contribution to the EU is 0,3% of the UK GDP. This means the EU will have to make up a shortfall of 0,06% of their GDP.
It will take a long time and there will be hardship along the way but I think in the long term it'll be worth it. In the meantime, the EU can go deal with the massive black hole in its finances and the reduced income from trade our leaving will inflict upon them.
@ jouso
If companies won't move to take advantage of the low pound for exports then that's their problem.
So the opposite of what was claimed during the referendum then.
Brexit really is a cult indeed.
facts be damned.
meanwhile.....
That's the tariff for the Universal Credit helpline - 3p to 55p a min
Yeah I posted about it above. People who get zero money for six weeks and are faced with a whole range of issues that slow their payments even further have to call a 55p/min phone number (because many wont have landlines) and wait in long queues to find out about what they can do.
Unlimited minutes often don't include certain numbers. My girlfriend ran into this issue when she had to call Student Finance to deal with issues with her loan. Her contract was capped (couldn't exceed her minutes/data but also meant no calls to numbers not included in her minutes), so she had to use my phone to call them up. Ended up costing me quite a bit that month, a lot of pints were owed
I'd still have preferred if you Brits had stayed and made your voice heard as 4th strongest country in the 
...
same old same old...
