Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
That's an argument that always makes me laugh when Amazon or someone makes it. My favourite is where they say 'We have invested x amount of money in Britain and created x number of jobs', as if they expect us to be grateful that they graciously deign to run their business here, when we all know that the only reason that they've done such things is because they think that they can turn a profit by doing so.
The obvious retort that 'Many other large companies have also done those things and yet somehow find it in their hearts to pay their taxes' never quite seems to be aired by the newspapers, however. Probably because the owners of those papers are doing exactly the same thing. How much did the Barclay Brothers pay last year again? Or Mr Lebedev? A quick check shows Mr Murdoch hasn't paid corporation tax in over a decade!
The whole thing is laughable. Yet governments refuse to prosecute it because donations from these people is what keeps the party coffers full.
Yeah, we all find ourselves in the unusual position of having a consensus on an issue.
Companies like Amazon and Apple forget that it's British tax money that funds the police, the judiciary, the roads, the houses for the workers etc etc
that allows Britain to be a stable country where the rule of law is respected, which makes it attractive to Apple and Amazon.
Let's see how long Apple and Amazon last with their Kabul or Mogadishu branches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes indeed. My head was spinning by the end of the explanatin of Lewis Hamilton's jet.
His company in the British Virgin Isles bought it then leased it to his company somewhere else. This second company then leased it to a third company which provides his servicing and crew. Hamilton then rented it back at an inflated rate. In end, Hamilton was able to land it in the Isle of Man, claim £3.5 million refund of VAT, and fly all around Europe and the rest of the world.
I don't understand what the IoM got out of all this, and I don't understand why all of us ordinary people can't form similar Human Caterpillars of companies and lease our own houes, cars and clothes to each other to save the VAT.
Maybe we can? Maybe we should start doing that and watch the country spin down the plughole under the lack of taxes.
Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
At this point, it's usually traditional in British history for the masses to march on parliament and turf the fethers out and start again!
Yeah, for sure, the Queen doesn't manage her portfolio, but ultimately, the buck stops with her. She may not know where every penny is going, but it's her duty to ask where her money goes and why it went there.
Should she also check that every food item entering the palace was make in a clean environment where all workers rights are satisfied? That none of the paint bought for the palace is lead free? That every staff member are getting breaks on time? That the PAT testing has been done for every appliance?
No. She has delegates she trusts to do that management (same as Monty and ammo). Sure, she's entitled to ask for a breakdown of her investments, but she's also perfectly entitlted to leave the details to her investment managers. There may even be a few levels of indirection, like her manager has invested some money in a 50/50 fund or a FTSE100 or something, of which that fund has some offshoring.
As already pointed out, none of this seems to be illegal, and HRH isn't under any actual obligation to pay tax anyway, so can't really be accused of tax evasion.
No, I don't expect the Queen to know the exact number of every paperclip in Buckingham palace, but it's her job to watch the delegates and ask the touch questions.
It's a principal akin to command responsibility under the Geneva convention. The buck stops here, as Harry Truman once said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skullhammer wrote: And of course the queen is a vitural 'prisioner' as her every move out side of her residence is strictly controlled and monitored. Hell she would have to ask permission to go to the coner shop (if she ever did). She is under vertual house arrest and has been scince birth, i wouldnt like the lack of freedom, even if payed a fortune.
There 's a lot of people on a lot of council estates the length and breadth of Britain who'd love to be that kind of 'prisoner.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: Boris indignantly refusing to apologise and, to boot, has just claimed in parliament that his words have nothing to do with what is happening to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
I watched Bojo's statement to the house, and it was a sham from start to finish.
He even talked about the Syrian Democratic forces with a straight face.
You also seem to forget the Queen is a 91+ year old who is still in daily public service. To simply expect her to follow and ask constant questions is unrealistic to say the least.
Kilkrazy wrote: .Maybe we can? Maybe we should start doing that and watch the country spin down the plughole under the lack of taxes.
You can do this, but it's not straightforward.
You set up a company which you own. You then employ yourself on minimum wage. Your company contracts out it's employee to another company. Because you're on minimum wage you (employee) pay little tax and can claim from yourself (company) bonuses and business expenses.
You (company) are so small you don't pay a great deal in business tax. You also get the bonus of giving your employee a pension scheme that, because you (company) are employing you (employee), the government has to match.
One difficult part is in finding a company that will subcontract to your company. If you're working for a tech company that's pretty easy, but you won't be able to do it stacking shelves at Tesco.
The really difficult part is keeping on top of your accounts. Unless you're skilled or have the time to learn you'll need to hire an accountant, at which point if you're on a low wage you've just spent all that money you were trying to save.
Once again, it's a situation where only those with the money can afford to take advantage and financially benefit.
Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
It's true. But when the top 10% has 50% of the money they bloody well better pay that much.
Kilkrazy wrote: .Maybe we can? Maybe we should start doing that and watch the country spin down the plughole under the lack of taxes.
You can do this, but it's not straightforward.
You set up a company which you own. You then employ yourself on minimum wage. Your company contracts out it's employee to another company. Because you're on minimum wage you (employee) pay little tax and can claim from yourself (company) bonuses and business expenses.
You (company) are so small you don't pay a great deal in business tax. You also get the bonus of giving your employee a pension scheme that, because you (company) are employing you (employee), the government has to match.
One difficult part is in finding a company that will subcontract to your company. If you're working for a tech company that's pretty easy, but you won't be able to do it stacking shelves at Tesco.
The really difficult part is keeping on top of your accounts. Unless you're skilled or have the time to learn you'll need to hire an accountant, at which point if you're on a low wage you've just spent all that money you were trying to save.
Once again, it's a situation where only those with the money can afford to take advantage and financially benefit.
Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
It's true. But when the top 10% has 50% of the money they bloody well better pay that much.
IR35 attempts to solve this fake contractor issue, as they are all over the place. The issue is that these contractors come up with more and more elaborate lies to pretend they are not employees. The contractor legislation as it is harms everyone.
There are low paid contractors who get screwed over with pretend contractors status so companies are not bound by minimum wage, pension, holiday or unfair dismissal laws.
There are high paid contractors who know they are employees who come up with more and more elaborate lies to ensure that they pay less tax, but they also know that they are too vital to a company to get rid of or are in an industry where most of the people are contractors, for example project manager. Where I work we lost a load of contractors recently because being public sector we are now being audited on IR35 compliance and have obligations not to let our contractors commit this from fraud.
With regards to the top 10% paying 50% and owning 50%, they are not the problem. By income I am in the top 10%, but I don’t even pay higher rate tax (buy wealth I am not, but mostly due to not being old enough to have paid off much mortgage). Even the top 1% includes “normal” people like your GP or local solicitors. The issue is the top 0.1% who pay a far smaller amount of tax but own the vast majority of that 50%. But they like to push this story that they pay a fair amount of tax buy lumping themselves in with the right percentage of middle class who happily pay most of the tax, or using statistics about their contributions to the economy by including all the contributors of the people that work for them, as if the CEO of a building company (for example) is key to the bricklayers skills. Lies, dam lies and statistics.
Personally speaking my well-being improved immensely as I went from unemployed to skivvy to off-licence manager to anti-piracy officer at OUP.
I found the same thing when I worked at OUP. Mostly because I love an office where you can get a cooked breakfast or a latte at any time. Probably good I left. At least at the time my pay was low enough that it was an occasional treat. Now I would be so unhealthy if I was still there!
Steve steveson wrote: IR35 attempts to solve this fake contractor issue, as they are all over the place. The issue is that these contractors come up with more and more elaborate lies to pretend they are not employees. The contractor legislation as it is harms everyone.
Well that explains why you can't do it working for Tesco. But most of the time it's got to be tough for HMRC to prove that these contarcted one employee companies are doing the job of a full time employee and not that of a contractor.
He also accused the EU of being guilty of "extreme protectionism".
Mr Ross, who met Theresa May and other senior ministers during a two-day visit, identified continued "passporting" of financial services, compliance with EU food standards on GM crops and chlorine-washed chicken and future trade tariffs as areas that could pose problems in negotiations between the nations.
But he said it would not be possible to identify specific points of contention until the shape of the divorce deal is known andinsisted he hopes a UK-US free trade agreement will take less than 10 years to negotiate.
10 years.
gotta laugh at someone from the Trump administration accusing others of being too protectionist
Ketara wrote: Edit:- This is a ludicrous line of argument to be pursuing, so I'm actually going to erase my last comment and leave it there. Suffice to say Whirlwind, I think you and I have some exceptionally fundamental disagreements about the definition of the word 'racism'.
Wait you've only just worked this out? I think I could have pointed that this was the case many months ago...
No doubt reds8n will be along with pie charts and graphs to prove otherwise
but we have black and white evidence that Brexit was a sound move
The problem is that there has been a general trend of increasing well being since way before the Wrexit vote. The increases is roughly the same as the increases we've seen for a number of years. These statistics are generally meaningless without a detailed review of people across the employment spectrum. I doubt for example the poorest who have to use food banks more and more because of increasing food prices as a direct result of Wrexit are more content with life. There are too many factors that could easily be at play here (for example those suffering under the current cruel Tory regime may simply be dropping out of the system as they can no longer afford phone lines, internet access and so on.
On the other hand if you are clinging to such a ridiculous notion I would point out that this is probably the feeling from going out on town, getting blind drunk and going home with someone. It's just you have not yet rolled over in the morning to find the person is an absolute basket case - just like Wrexit is...
Of course it shouldn't be a surprise that some might think its all green fields and it's going to be a wonderful thing. In reality though retail is stalling (except food)
On the other hand there are whole organisations that manage day to day activities that our politicians haven't even considered as to how to cost and implements - that includes Aviation Safety Agency, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control all of which we'd drop out of in case of a hard Wrexit.
It's fine! We will be getting £350 million a week to cover the cost! (Actually amount may differ. In fact it will probably be about 3s6d by the time we have paid off all the stuff we owe, taken out what we get back in rebate, EU funding and grants, revalued for the horrific damage to our currency and returned to the 1950s.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is not illegal behaviour, it is that the authorities have allowed this kind of behaviour (e.g. Lewis Hamilton's VAT refund for his private jet) to be legal.
Aye. You see one statement repeated over and over with every fresh revelation from people's spokesmen. Namely 'Everything is perfectly legal'. Which is, in and of itself, the problem. It's legal for the richest people not to pay any tax.
And it's only legal because the people who are already rich and have the power made it legal. It's not like the population in general decided that it would be a great idea for the rich to be able to avoid paying taxes with a few extra steps while the same accounting tricks are, more or less, useless for the rest of us.
Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
That's an argument that always makes me laugh when Amazon or someone makes it. My favourite is where they say 'We have invested x amount of money in Britain and created x number of jobs', as if they expect us to be grateful that they graciously deign to run their business here, when we all know that the only reason that they've done such things is because they think that they can turn a profit by doing so.
The obvious retort that 'Many other large companies have also done those things and yet somehow find it in their hearts to pay their taxes' never quite seems to be aired by the newspapers, however. Probably because the owners of those papers are doing exactly the same thing. How much did the Barclay Brothers pay last year again? Or Mr Lebedev? A quick check shows Mr Murdoch hasn't paid corporation tax in over a decade!
The whole thing is laughable. Yet governments refuse to prosecute it because donations from these people is what keeps the party coffers full.
Amazon and other companies should pay more (in % and amount) than us regular people. If I use public transportation (or a car if I had one) I use a tiny amount of public resources (wear and tear for rails/road, environmental pollution,…) while Amazon has fleets of trucks, trains, and planes that "work for them" (so to speak) by delivering stuff. The companies benefit from that in addition to the general bonus of being afforded an educated population that they can employ as needed (giving them flexibility) and general law and order (making commerce, and their profits, possible).
I think it was some Austrian politician who said that some random independent local retail store pays more in taxes than Apple because Apple sells their own products to their own stores (in Austria) for an inflated price. That way their stores make no profit (lease, employees, and so on cost them something) but their Irish subsidiary with the lowest tax rate collects all the money. In addition to that Apple has/had some deal with Ireland that the EU is contesting. It gave them a 0.001% tax rate (or something similarly ridiculous low).
Whenever a company mentions that what they are doing is perfectly legal you can be sure that they are fething somebody over in some way (otherwise they wouldn't mention the legality of the situation). It's how some people defend some rubbish statement they made with the free speech argument when their speech has no other merit besides being legal. They are most probably just being a dick to someone and can't stand the fact that people are pushing back.
Priti Patel breaks the ministerial code and meets with Israeli officials unofficially 12 times. Apparently UK policy has not been changed, but strangely she has suggested that part of the UK's foreign aid budget should go to the Israeli army to help with humanitarian causes.
Got to say, I don't like her anyway, she seems arrogant, pompous and self righteous. But this sort of gak is really playing into her detractors hands.
With luck, she'll get the boot too. I honestly cannot see how this Govt can even function at the moment. It seems to be spiralling wildly out of control on all fronts. I have to ask, have the Conservatives actually lost their minds?
One scandal follows another -- bigger, smaller, bigger, smaller --like those serial explosion scenes in an episode of Thunderbirds.
There are half a dozen Tory MPs who would be sacked immediately if May wasn't a broken reed of a PM with no working majority.
Mrs Patel is clearly unfit for her office. So is Bozo. The assistant PM is under investigation for extreme porn. A Welsh assembly member commits suicide after being accused of sexual harassment and left out to hang in the wind.
Meanwhile the country faces its most difficult international situation for decades, and the economy wobbles uncertainly.
Mario wrote: Whenever a company mentions that what they are doing is perfectly legal you can be sure that they are fething somebody over in some way (otherwise they wouldn't mention the legality of the situation).
Pretty much what the royal estate has responded with now its revealed the Queen and Prince Charles have offshore investments. When you know your actions are morallly or ethically indefensible, saying ‘it’s legal’ is the bare minimum. It also puts people’s backs up because it smacks of rubbing their faces in it.
The reason these tax loopholes don’t close up is that people running our country profit by them. And they don’t look beyond their own wealth to the good of the country.
In unrelated news, Priti Patel has been summoned back from Uganda early, following more revelations about unauthorised meetings.
My money says she's toast.
It's getting much worse than that. Jewish Chronicle have revealed that No. 10 knew about all meetings as of Friday, including the September one (which they told Patel to omit from her statement on Monday), and knew about most of the summer ones whilst they were taking place, but seems to have chucked Patel under the bus - maybe because they were trying to conduct diplomacy without the involvement of the foreign office/Boris?
In unrelated news, Priti Patel has been summoned back from Uganda early, following more revelations about unauthorised meetings.
My money says she's toast.
It's getting much worse than that. Jewish Chronicle have revealed that No. 10 knew about all meetings as of Friday, including the September one (which they told Patel to omit from her statement on Monday), and knew about most of the summer ones whilst they were taking place, but seems to have chucked Patel under the bus - maybe because they were trying to conduct diplomacy without the involvement of the foreign office/Boris?
Some laugh, whatever is happening.
Agreed. The stench of decay hangs over this government in a way that reminds me of the dying days of the John Major premiership.
A lame duck PM, a washed up chancellor, renegade cabinet ministers, a sack of gak for a foreign secretary, corruption and incompetence...
99 times out of 100, I would be dancing in the streets at the collapse of another Tory government
But we're in the most important talks this country has ever been involved in since the war. These talks will determine our future for decades to come...
And we have a government who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard...
Party before country. It really should be the Conservative party motto.
Which is why you should take into consideration whether the government is capable enough to handle such talks and negotiations before insisting they do so.
It was pointed out many times that the UK lacked negotiation experience compared to the EU and that our cabinet ministers were useless. Don't blame the government for being useless in important negotiations when you knew they were useless but insisted they begin negotiations anyway.
But we're in the most important talks this country has ever been involved in since the war. These talks will determine our future for decades to come...
And we have a government who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard...
A Town Called Malus wrote: Which is why you should take into consideration whether the government is capable enough to handle such talks and negotiations before insisting they do so.
It was pointed out many times that the UK lacked negotiation experience compared to the EU and that our cabinet ministers were useless. Don't blame the government for being useless in important negotiations when you knew they were useless but insisted they begin negotiations anyway.
And as I've pointed out before, just because the Tories are useless, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea
If we were to judge aviation solely on the basis of the Wright brother's plane, we'd have never have gotten off the ground.
But we're in the most important talks this country has ever been involved in since the war. These talks will determine our future for decades to come...
And we have a government who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard...
We told you that in May last year :(
To use another analogy, we don't yet have the tech for a manned space flight to Mars, but who would argue against it? Very few people I'll wager.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Which is why you should take into consideration whether the government is capable enough to handle such talks and negotiations before insisting they do so.
It was pointed out many times that the UK lacked negotiation experience compared to the EU and that our cabinet ministers were useless. Don't blame the government for being useless in important negotiations when you knew they were useless but insisted they begin negotiations anyway.
And as I've pointed out before, just because the Tories are useless, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea
If we were to judge aviation solely on the basis of the Wright brother's plane, we'd have never have gotten off the ground.
Except the Wright Brothers did get off the ground, thus proving the feasibility of heavier than air powered flight.
Nobody has yet proved any feasibility of our government to successfully negotiate Brexit.
The tories being useless does make Brexit a terrible idea at this time. That does not mean it is a terrible idea in the future when we (supposedly) have a competent government and more civil servants with trade negotiation experience.
To use another analogy, we don't yet have the tech for a manned space flight to Mars, but who would argue against it? Very few people I'll wager.
Not many would insist we should send the first shuttle in no less than two years, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ha'aretz now reporting that there was a 13th meeting in Israel in the summer. At an IDF field hospital in the Golan (which the UK does not recognise as being Israeli).
To use another analogy, we don't yet have the tech for a manned space flight to Mars, but who would argue against it? Very few people I'll wager.
Not many would insist we should send the first shuttle in no less than two years, either.
Or to do so without the required experience in our mission controllers and engineers.
If Nasa proposed a manned flight to mars without even having completed a remote controlled sample return and several manned tests of the craft flying out to Mars and performing docking dry runs, I would certainly be arguing against it and I strongly believe that we should get people on other planets.
And as I've pointed out before, just because the Tories are useless, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea
Under the Tories it does. The implementation is part of the decision. You may think getting your damaged car is a good idea, but you probably think having your damaged car repaired by someone who doesn't know what a car is is a really bad idea.
To use another analogy, we don't yet have the tech for a manned space flight to Mars, but who would argue against it? Very few people I'll wager.
But we wouldn't vote to get an incompetent team to launch it within 2 years whether or not we've figured out how to do it.
For the record I'm not even that against the notion of Brexit itself, had there been any competence and diplomacy at the helm, and some sort of majority. This can only turn out to be a complete clusterfeth because we've handed the control over the biggest decision in living memory to some of the least competent career politicians we've ever encountered.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I keep banging this drum, but the problem is the lack of vision and can do attitude.
I agree entirely, however...
Brexit is the opportunity for this nation to roll up its sleeves and get stuck in with building stuff.
And it's a missed opportunity because we've still got the same feckless gaks in charge, but with less oversight.
Lots of stuff was getting built... with EU grant money, or to comply with EU directives. We're now going to lose both of those sources or incentives.
Any economic drop due to Brexit (inevitable - even the cost of Brexit itself will hurt here) takes money directly away from these great projects you're dreaming of.
You've set us back decades. There's none of your grand vision we couldn't do more easily before Brexit.
A proud, resonant, patriotic, lower lip trembling "YES!!!!!!"
"The parachute might not work"
"PFFT PROJECT FEAR!!!!!!"
... on the way down ...
"WHY ISN'T THE PARACHUTE WORKING??????"
Well, if I was travelling on Juncker Airways, and heading for a military base being operated by an EU army which we're told will never exist (yeah right) I'd probably want to get off that plane as well.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I keep banging this drum, but the problem is the lack of vision and can do attitude.
I agree entirely, however...
Brexit is the opportunity for this nation to roll up its sleeves and get stuck in with building stuff.
And it's a missed opportunity because we've still got the same feckless gaks in charge, but with less oversight.
Lots of stuff was getting built... with EU grant money, or to comply with EU directives. We're now going to lose both of those sources or incentives.
Any economic drop due to Brexit (inevitable - even the cost of Brexit itself will hurt here) takes money directly away from these great projects you're dreaming of.
You've set us back decades. There's none of your grand vision we couldn't do more easily before Brexit.
The reason why it will be difficult is because the tentacles of the EU have established such a hold on this nation, we will need a crowbar and TNT to prise them away. And the fact that a generation of politicians have forgotten how to run a nation.
We will learn those skills again. We had them for 300 years and they'll come back.
Well, if I was travelling on Juncker Airways, and heading for a military base being operated by an EU army which we're told will never exist (yeah right) I'd probably want to get off that plane as well.
Only you would chose a quite serious chance of death over some hypothetical that isn't even that bad. What's the big deal if there's an EU army? That's essentially what we've already got, but with some cost savings thrown in.
The reason why it will be difficult is because the tentacles of the EU have established such a hold on this nation, we will need a crowbar and TNT to prise them away. And the fact that a generation of politicians have forgotten how to run a nation.
Can you name a single thing in your grand vision we can't do because of the EU?
Or are you trying to claim our politicians are crap because we're in the EU? That's... incredible. It's even further out there than that £350m a week.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Which is why you should take into consideration whether the government is capable enough to handle such talks and negotiations before insisting they do so.
It was pointed out many times that the UK lacked negotiation experience compared to the EU and that our cabinet ministers were useless. Don't blame the government for being useless in important negotiations when you knew they were useless but insisted they begin negotiations anyway.
And as I've pointed out before, just because the Tories are useless, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea
If we were to judge aviation solely on the basis of the Wright brother's plane, we'd have never have gotten off the ground.
Except the Wright Brothers did get off the ground, thus proving the feasibility of heavier than air powered flight.
Nobody has yet proved any feasibility of our government to successfully negotiate Brexit.
The tories being useless does make Brexit a terrible idea at this time. That does not mean it is a terrible idea in the future when we (supposedly) have a competent government and more civil servants with trade negotiation experience.
But we would never have gotten another chance for Brexit. It was now or never.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Can you name a single thing in your grand vision we can't do because of the EU?
But we would never have gotten another chance for Brexit. It was now or never.
And you chose making a royal arse of it now?
You'd have been able to do it again later if the will of the people was really there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Can you name a single thing in your grand vision we can't do because of the EU?
Negotiate our own trade deals.
That's not in DINLT's list of grand things we should be doing. It's a plus point for the EU (as long as we don't get roflstomped for not having the same weight as the EU).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We had workers rights long before the EU rolled into town. We legalised same sex relations in 1967, which predates our 1973 EEC entry.
We legalised same sex marriage years before Germany, but of course, it's Britain that's the nation of oppression and bigotry and so on...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I keep banging this drum, but the problem is the lack of vision and can do attitude.
If we need more nurses. Train them.
If we lack negotiators. Hire more.
If we need better port facilities at Dover, then build them.
I appreciate the fact that these things take time and money, but all we get from government these days is managed decline.
Brexit is the opportunity for this nation to roll up its sleeves and get stuck in with building stuff.
Shame our Government is using it as an excuse to potentially slash workers rights and turn us into a tax haven, yeah?
Live in the now man. Brexit continues to be a disaster. It’s not gonna all come out in the wash. We did tell you so.
We had workers rights long before the EU rolled into town. We legalised same sex relations in 1967, which predates our 1973 EEC entry.
We legalised same sex marriage years before Germany, but of course, it's Britain that's the nation of oppression and bigotry and so on...
Not the country, the current Government.
My only hope here is that the Tories screw this up so hideously, that their lack of a scapegoat this time round buries them and neoliberalism for good, it’s been nothing but destructive.
Well, if I was travelling on Juncker Airways, and heading for a military base being operated by an EU army which we're told will never exist (yeah right) I'd probably want to get off that plane as well.
Only you would chose a quite serious chance of death over some hypothetical that isn't even that bad. What's the big deal if there's an EU army? That's essentially what we've already got, but with some cost savings thrown in.
The reason why it will be difficult is because the tentacles of the EU have established such a hold on this nation, we will need a crowbar and TNT to prise them away. And the fact that a generation of politicians have forgotten how to run a nation.
Can you name a single thing in your grand vision we can't do because of the EU?
Or are you trying to claim our politicians are crap because we're in the EU? That's... incredible. It's even further out there than that £350m a week.
Eh? The evidence is all around us. We're struggling to negotiate with the EU because we've never had to negotiate these things for decades...because the EU done it for us.
When a government delegation went to the USA a few months back to talk potential trade deals with the Yanks, it was like Homer Simpson hiring Lionel Hutz and putting him up against Mr Burns' army of Ivy league lawyers.
Again, that was because normally, Brussels' army of top class lawyers would have previously fought that battle for us.
We as a nation have abdicated responsibility for far too long.
The Tories are incompetent, and their lies have landed us in a complete mess.
Nobody has been able to offer a single law ‘foisted’ upon us by the EU. Nobody.
The whole anti-EU rhetoric is bull poop. And always has been. But here we are. In a mess. And now you’re blaming it on the EU. Then top it off by saying we’ve abdicated responsibility? Like you just did. Blaming the EU for lies you continue to repeat.
But we would never have gotten another chance for Brexit. It was now or never.
And you chose making a royal arse of it now?
You'd have been able to do it again later if the will of the people was really there.
No we wouldn't.
The EU is coalescing into a State in its own right - thats the whole point of the European Project. Eventually at some point in the future, we [the UK] will no longer be a sovereign nation anymore. Which is the express desire of many people in this thread, to erase national boundaries and form a European super state.
It'd be like the American South trying to secede from the USA in the 19th century - it just would not be permitted by the rest of the Union.
Eh? The evidence is all around us. We're struggling to negotiate with the EU because we've never had to negotiate these things for decades...because the EU done it for us.
We've still had to negotiate and deal with stuff though, just not trade deals.
When a government delegation went to the USA a few months back to talk potential trade deals with the Yanks, it was like Homer Simpson hiring Lionel Hutz and putting him up against Mr Burns' army of Ivy league lawyers.
Yeah we're a joke. But you voted to let that joke make the decisions.
Again, that was because normally, Brussels' army of top class lawyers would have previously fought that battle for us.
An army of lawyers that got us good deals whilst we only paid a fraction of their upkeep. Another reason to stay in the EU.
We as a nation have abdicated responsibility for far too long.
The Tories are incompetent, and their lies have landed us in a complete mess.
Nobody has been able to offer a single law ‘foisted’ upon us by the EU. Nobody.
The whole anti-EU rhetoric is bull poop. And always has been. But here we are. In a mess. And now you’re blaming it on the EU. Then top it off by saying we’ve abdicated responsibility? Like you just did. Blaming the EU for lies you continue to repeat.
Eh? For months I've been saying we should build more stuff, go out and get our own trade deals and build this nation up for the future. I'm arguing we need to be more responsible for our own destiny.
The EU is coalescing into a State in its own right - thats the whole point of the European Project. Eventually at some point in the future, we [the UK] will no longer be a sovereign nation anymore. Which is the express desire of many people in this thread, to erase national boundaries and form a European super state.
It'd be like the American South trying to secede from the USA in the 19th century - it just would not be permitted by the rest of the Union.
This is our last chance to secede peacefully.
Bullgak. There's no plans anywhere to turn the EU into a United States of Europe, and if it did, it could only do it with the consent of all of the nations under it. We're not going to lose any national identity, or national boundaries, or anything. Parts of the UK have been under various empires for the last 2 millenia, and we haven't lost any real boundaries (beyond those lost in conquest). The Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Anglians, etc all are still identifiably distinct entities. We've been a UK for a few hundred years now and there's still no consensus on what a gakking bread roll is called. So why do you think we're suddenly going to become generic Europeans?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Nobody has been able to offer a single law ‘foisted’ upon us by the EU. Nobody.
I've found one, involving the certifications for deactiving guns. It's become stricter and thus anyone with a UK deactivated gun needs to get it re-deactivated and taken to an armoury in Birmingham or London for certification, should they want to sell it.
People affected: a few hundred? Cost? A few hundred £ per gun.
Eh? The evidence is all around us. We're struggling to negotiate with the EU because we've never had to negotiate these things for decades...because the EU done it for us.
We've still had to negotiate and deal with stuff though, just not trade deals.
When a government delegation went to the USA a few months back to talk potential trade deals with the Yanks, it was like Homer Simpson hiring Lionel Hutz and putting him up against Mr Burns' army of Ivy league lawyers.
Yeah we're a joke. But you voted to let that joke make the decisions.
Again, that was because normally, Brussels' army of top class lawyers would have previously fought that battle for us.
An army of lawyers that got us good deals whilst we only paid a fraction of their upkeep. Another reason to stay in the EU.
We as a nation have abdicated responsibility for far too long.
Which is the fault of our government, not the EU.
The situation is what is it, and there's nothing anybody on dakka can do about it, even if we were all 100% pro-EU, which we're obviously not
I'm happy to extend the hand of unity and friendship to my country men and women who voted Remain.
Eh? For months I've been saying we should build more stuff, go out and get our own trade deals and build this nation up for the future. I'm arguing we need to be more responsible for our own destiny.
Trade deals with who for what gain?
What was stopping us build the nation up from within the EU, using all that EU development money and a strong and stable economy?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Nobody has been able to offer a single law ‘foisted’ upon us by the EU. Nobody.
Another especially stupid one was that we used to have an intuitive colour coded system for our fire extinguishers - until Europe decided we had to follow them and have ours all the same colour with the concession that a bit of colour would be allowed to make it easier oh and pictograms.
We were spending our own money, but somehow, the EU convinced us we should be grateful for getting our own money.
Goebbels was an amateur compared to the Brussels propaganda machine.
God almighty, this is worse than I thought.
I don't blame you, Herzlos, I blame a system, that for decades, convinced large swathes of the British population that we should be grateful for getting money that was ours anyway.
The insidiousness of the EU is something I respect and fear in equal measure.
We were spending our own money, but somehow, the EU convinced us we should be grateful for getting our own money.
Do you honestly thing our gakshow of a goverment would spent that money in the places the EU is doing it? Have we even proposed spending that money on the sort of development projects the EU did, now that we're not sending it? Is that because we're probably going to be paying more to access the EU now we've left?
You're somehow assuming I think that the EU is building stuff for free but I'm well aware of how it works. I just feel that (a) the membership fee is well worth the benefits it brings and (b) the EU makes better decisions on how money is spent than our current group of country-club-over-country politicians.
I'm not saying the EU is perfect; it's got a lot of problems, and wastes a lot of money. But it's an order of magnitude better than our own government; I view them as the single most dangerous thing to our country.
We were spending our own money, but somehow, the EU convinced us we should be grateful for getting our own money.
Goebbels was an amateur compared to the Brussels propaganda machine.
God almighty, this is worse than I thought.
I don't blame you, Herzlos, I blame a system, that for decades, convinced large swathes of the British population that we should be grateful for getting money that was ours anyway.
The insidiousness of the EU is something I respect and fear in equal measure.
I need to lie down...
You are now comparing the EU to Nazi Germany while complaining about propaganda. Let that sink in for a while.
The EU's market share is shrinking compared to the new money of Asia and South America.
I believe that the British cargo ships should be heading for India and China, and not be stuck in the EU.
Not for a minute am I saying we should stop trading with the EU
but we should be chasing the future, not the past, and making Asia the focus for trade.
Since the EU is the best part of a decade further into trading deals with most of Asia, and have about 10x our clout, what are you expecting we'll manage to do better with regards to Asia than we get within the EU? Is this hypothetical increase in trade to Asia worth risking any of our trade with the EU?
Bear in mind that some Asian trade goes through the EU.
We already buy and sell a lot of stuff from/to Asia from within the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: OMG! Totally worth wrecking our economy and international prestige to avoid!
We had Black Wednesday and the debacle of the Iraq invasion when we were in the EU, so Brexit can't be blamed for something we were doing pre-Brexit anyway.
A healthy debate is one thing, but let's not get after each other's throats!
Besides, relax. Kronk has it all figured out!
We have football! And cheerleaders! And Bourbon!
And dodgy chicken. And funds wanting our juicy NHS. And a trade deal, in a decade, which will have us over a barrel, though admittedly we decided to lie over the barrel in the first place.
And something else so unutterably bad he is literally unutterable on here. But thanks for The Muppets
Kilkrazy wrote: OMG! Totally worth wrecking our economy and international prestige to avoid!
We had Black Wednesday and the debacle of the Iraq invasion when we were in the EU, so Brexit can't be blamed for something we were doing pre-Brexit anyway.
A healthy debate is one thing, but let's not get after each other's throats!
Besides, relax. Kronk has it all figured out!
We have football! And cheerleaders! And Bourbon!
And dodgy chicken. And funds wanting our juicy NHS. And a trade deal, in a decade, which will have us over a barrel, though admittedly we decided to lie over the barrel in the first place.
And something else so unutterably bad he is literally unutterable on here. But thanks for The Muppets
15 minutes until a pilot wishes a minister well on her onward journey. Before she gets sacked for organising meetings that may well have been ordered by the person who's about to sack her.
nfe wrote: 15 minutes until a pilot wishes a minister well on her onward journey. Before she gets sacked for organising meetings that may well have been ordered by the person who's about to sack her.
I wonder if she has a director or consultancy position already lined up.
Kilkrazy wrote: OMG! Totally worth wrecking our economy and international prestige to avoid!
We had Black Wednesday and the debacle of the Iraq invasion when we were in the EU, so Brexit can't be blamed for something we were doing pre-Brexit anyway.
A healthy debate is one thing, but let's not get after each other's throats!
Besides, relax. Kronk has it all figured out!
We have football! And cheerleaders! And Bourbon!
And dodgy chicken. And funds wanting our juicy NHS. And a trade deal, in a decade, which will have us over a barrel, though admittedly we decided to lie over the barrel in the first place.
And something else so unutterably bad he is literally unutterable on here. But thanks for The Muppets
The EU's market share is shrinking compared to the new money of Asia and South America.
I believe that the British cargo ships should be heading for India and China, and not be stuck in the EU.
Not for a minute am I saying we should stop trading with the EU
but we should be chasing the future, not the past, and making Asia the focus for trade.
Since the EU is the best part of a decade further into trading deals with most of Asia, and have about 10x our clout, what are you expecting we'll manage to do better with regards to Asia than we get within the EU? Is this hypothetical increase in trade to Asia worth risking any of our trade with the EU?
Bear in mind that some Asian trade goes through the EU.
We already buy and sell a lot of stuff from/to Asia from within the EU.
The news coverage of Priti Patel's arrival in Britain is becoming farcical. I've had an email alert from a news app, the BBC helicopter is tracking her car from Heathrow to Downing street
and the media is treating Patel as though she were Chamberlain returning from Munich and promising peace in our time...
Country is going to the dogs. Where's the sense of perspective? It's a junior cabinet minister getting the boot, not the WARSAW pact steamrolling through Europe!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The news coverage of Priti Patel's arrival in Britain is becoming farcical. I've had an email alert from a news app, the BBC helicopter is tracking her car from Heathrow to Downing street
and the media is treating Patel as though she were Chamberlain returning from Munich and promising peace in our time...
Country is going to the dogs. Where's the sense of perspective? It's a junior cabinet minister getting the boot, not the WARSAW pact steamrolling through Europe!
I'm confused
The sharks can smell blood. This is not so much about Patel as what happens next. With the slim majority, party infighting and number of MPs in deep water there is a good chance we will have another election soon, and no one wants to miss that moment, not in the 24h rolling news world we live in.
If there are by elections and the government loses their majority (even with the help of the DUP), there will be a lot of deal making going on out of sight. If Labour believe they can form a government they can bring a vote of no confidence. If that passes May will be forced to inform the Queen she can no longer hold the confidence of parliament and dissolve the government.
Corbyn will then be invited by the Queen to form a government if he believes he can command the confidence of parliament, then he will be PM, no general election required.
It'll piss a lot of people off and we'll get the normal ignorant squaking of "we didn't vote for that", and likely Corbyn will feel the pressure to hold a general election.
This is of course only if the current governments majority wobbles so far that it topples. There's no guarantee in that, no matter how bad it looks for May now.
Henry wrote: If there are by elections and the government loses their majority (even with the help of the DUP), there will be a lot of deal making going on out of sight. If Labour believe they can form a government they can bring a vote of no confidence. If that passes May will be forced to inform the Queen she can no longer hold the confidence of parliament and dissolve the government.
Corbyn will then be invited by the Queen to form a government if he believes he can command the confidence of parliament, then he will be PM, no general election required.
It'll piss a lot of people off and we'll get the normal ignorant squaking of "we didn't vote for that", and likely Corbyn will feel the pressure to hold a general election.
This is of course only if the current governments majority wobbles so far that it topples. There's no guarantee in that, no matter how bad it looks for May now.
If another election happens and the Tories lose, they will still likely hold more seats than Corbyn. For all his big talk about the people having spoken, and how his party should prepare for government, his showing was still utterly terrible when you looked at the figures. Gaining the barest handful of seats and remaining seventy odd behind was not a good result. If we run another election and the Tories shed twenty seats to him, they'll still have a damn sight more than him, and form the subsequent minority government. That would be an even worse result than what we have now. You think the country is running badly? Wait until it stops running at all.
Safe seats for Tories became marginals, and they’ve done nothing to win voters since as a party.
Plus it's been constant tory scandals since the election, and the DUP seem less supportive. Tories are in an even worse position now for a GE than back in May
Considering they’ve already failed to back Frau May, I’d say they’re laughing already.
The Tories fatal flaw is again being utterly beholden to a group of fringe lunatics in their ranks. Their constant civil war now threatens to screw the entire nation.
100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
Well considering that we had a strong Tory government at the time of the Referendum, with a relatively strong PM David Cameron who explicitly promised that HE would enact Article 50 the day after the Referendum in the event of a Leave vote and lead the UK's withdrawal from the EU...then immediately broke that promise and proved himself to be a liar...
...You can hardly blame people for expecting it to go better than this.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
Well considering that we had a strong Tory government at the time of the Referendum, with a relatively strong PM David Cameron who explicitly promised that HE would enact Article 50 the day after the Referendum in the event of a Leave vote and lead the UK's withdrawal from the EU...then immediately broke that promise and proved himself to be a liar...
...You can hardly blame people for expecting it to go better than this.
That Tory government was not that strong, they had the same distant relationship with facts that the current one does, such as Theresa May using incorrect figures for people outstaying visas during her time as home secretary even after she was told they were incorrect.
The fact that David Cameron made a promise to enact article 50 the day after the referendum should have been warning enough about how this would go down as there was zero chance we would have been in any kind of position to do so. See the current debacle for proof of that, where it was close to a year later and the government still had next to nothing prepared.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
Well considering that we had a strong Tory government at the time of the Referendum, with a relatively strong PM David Cameron who explicitly promised that HE would enact Article 50 the day after the Referendum in the event of a Leave vote and lead the UK's withdrawal from the EU...then immediately broke that promise and proved himself to be a liar...
...You can hardly blame people for expecting it to go better than this.
But the vote was brought but to silence internal party rebels he couldn't otherwise deal with.
Don’t give me that. Although Cameron’s reasons for having the referendum were selfish, it was only right that we were asked if we wanted to remain in the eu or not.
It wasn't right for Cameron to organise a referendum on the basis of 36% of the popular vote.
It wasn't right to make the ballot a Yes/No without graduations in between. E.g. there's not reasons we cant have Norway style treaty, but that has been ruled out "because reasons".
It wasn't right to treat the referendum as binding when it wasn't..
If another election happens and the Tories lose, they will still likely hold more seats than Corbyn. For all his big talk about the people having spoken, and how his party should prepare for government, his showing was still utterly terrible when you looked at the figures. Gaining the barest handful of seats and remaining seventy odd behind was not a good result. If we run another election and the Tories shed twenty seats to him, they'll still have a damn sight more than him, and form the subsequent minority government. That would be an even worse result than what we have now. You think the country is running badly? Wait until it stops running at all.
Possibly, but he was hamstrung at the start because he looked weak. That likely still had an influence at the election. However he now looks much more commanding than May does and the important swing voters might decide that May is just a joke and back Corbyn who looks stronger each day. A large part depends on where the votes turn up though. The Tories have only 800,000 votes more than Labour (approx. 2%), but the deck is stacked in favour of the Tories in that they need to work less to get more seats. Labour need to get a larger vote share than Tories to gain the same number of seats because of the corrupted system we have. However it's not inconceivable that a significant swing could happen. I would actually eye Scotland as where that could happen. At the last election Tories presented themselves as the only unionist opposition because of Labour's apparent weak leadership. Now that is changed I wonder how many voted Tory just to keep SNP out will now swing back to Labour now they look stronger.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you've got a complaint, press the yellow triangle.
I've got lots of complaints about the UK Government, can I use the yellow triangle?
On an aside and I see Priti Patel has resigned. So our weak PM has again managed to squirm her way out of doing anything at all to control problems in her own party. Basically Priti will have got what she wanted, a clear CV. A firing would have blotted her copy book for any future roles -give it 6-12 months and she'll be back in. Unless we vote her out of course (here's hoping).
Here are some of her voting / statement records:-
Voted against gay marriage
Campaigned against the smoking ban
Advocated for bringing back the death penalty in the past
Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
I had a tiny bit of hope.
Just a little bit.
I'm always amazed about these statements (and DINLT states the same thing). We had a weak and poor government before the referendum that DC couldn't manage and put forward a decent argument against (and there is no question he tried to use Project Fear) when there are lots of arguments for staying in the EU and very few, non-idealistic, ones for leaving. However it's almost as like some people think that once we voted to leave the UK government would have an epiphany and then become well considered, adaptable and strong politicians! Almost as if they were all schizophrenic and had a Wrexit personality just waiting to get out.
Of course it was going to go badly because we have a poor government (noting we vote the fools in) - you knew what the government was like when you voted Leave, so why was there even any thinking that it wouldn't become a total shambles?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
When you say support, exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting they were giving them weapons, going on raids or blowing up hotels with the Tories in?
The irony with Priti though is that she and her family are immigrants themselves and fled Uganda from persecution, yet she now wants to reduce immigration and stop people coming here. I would suggest that if the same policies applied when her parents fled then she wouldn't actually be here at all and would have been thrown in a containment cell/immigration centre and then sent home. You have got to wonder what her parents think of her views.
Safe seats for Tories became marginals, and they’ve done nothing to win voters since as a party.
The Tories ran an absolutely cack-handed election last time. They still beat Corbyn by fifty six seats. And Corbyn would need more than that to have a majority.
You seriously think that in the space of a bare handful of months, the public will suddenly swing en-masse behind our good pal Corbyn? That he'll somehow pull the sixty five seats he needs out of a hat? And furthermore, that even if he manages to do that and scrape a bare majority, that he won't be afflicted by the exact same scenario May is currently in? Where you're unable to get any kind of reform or controversial policy through because you rely on a bare handful of seats and the whims of a few backbenchers?
Pull the other one. The likely scenario is that we sit here with both Tories and Labour at around 280 seats, no-one has a working majority, and we end up rudderless for another six months whilst both parties endlessly campaign. In the best case scenario (for you), we get a Labour Government that can barely pass a motion to adjourn for dinner, much like the current one.
Possibly, but he was hamstrung at the start because he looked weak. That likely still had an influence at the election.
That was offset by the shambles of a Tory campaign (if you could even call it that). May didn't want to do debates, public appearances, campaign trail, or indeed, any aspect of actually trying to get votes at all. Corbyn'll have a minimally better appearance this time around in the media, but the Tories will actually make a fight of it this time. I still expect that they'll shed seats, but nowhere near enough to give him a solid majority. It has to be remembered that half the Parliamentary Labour party hates him. Even if he wins a slim majority, he'll have no luck at all getting through any kind of radical reforms when all it needs is a dozen New Labour MP's (of which there are still well over a hundred) acting in concert to scotch him.
The Tories have only 800,000 votes more than Labour (approx. 2%), but the deck is stacked in favour of the Tories in that they need to work less to get more seats. Labour need to get a larger vote share than Tories to gain the same number of seats because of the corrupted system we have.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
If there's another GE, surely there's no chance that May will be leading the Tories. And if they have even an ounce of sense, Labour will be aiming for a coalition rather than outright majority.
That was offset by the shambles of a Tory campaign (if you could even call it that). May didn't want to do debates, public appearances, campaign trail, or indeed, any aspect of actually trying to get votes at all. Corbyn'll have a minimally better appearance this time around in the media, but the Tories will actually make a fight of it this time. I still expect that they'll shed seats, but nowhere near enough to give him a solid majority. It has to be remembered that half the Parliamentary Labour party hates him. Even if he wins a slim majority, he'll have no luck at all getting through any kind of radical reforms when all it needs is a dozen New Labour MP's (of which there are still well over a hundred) acting in concert to scotch him.
True Mays campaign was dreadful. The question is who would actually take over from her. Pretty much everyone is now scarred by some blunder. The Tories also have a growing problem - the only group that votes for Tories more than Labour are the elderly. Tories are effectively propped up by an aging and dying population (one could argue most of the government is geriatrics either in mind or body too). Every group under 60 votes for Labour in the majority. Eventually that will swing against the Tories. They do recognise this to some extent but fortunately their approach appears to be to alienate as many younger voters as possible.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
Yes Labour did have the opportunity to change the voting method and stuck with the idea that they would be loved forever more. It should have been changed then and should be changed now. The clamour is getting louder on this. There are more petitions, more arguments on the case for PR. I think eventually it will become inevitable. I would expect that the next minority government with Labour/LDs/SNP are likely to implement it as it would then effectively condemn the Tories to being permanently in opposition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Vocal support. Acting as cheerleaders mostly. John McDonnell in particular.
That doesn't mean Labour actively supported them then now does it? One person who now regrets what he said does not make Labour IRA spokespeople
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
Not quite what we're discussing. We're talking about perceived imbalances to the system, the idea the system is 'loaded' in some regard.
In reality, every party has heartlands, areas where they do well, and areas where they do poorly. Places that rarely change the result that they deliver due to a particular combination of population size, wealth, social strata, etcetc. When a party has more of them, they loftily disregard the issue, because it works to their benefit, helps to supplement their majorities, and means that they have to work that little bit less hard to convince the swinging areas. They can sit down and say 'Well, we know we'll win these seats', and then calculate their campaign strategy and focus accordingly.
Scotland was such a place for the Labour Party. There have been accusations that in the latest boundaries review, the Tories have been pushing to try and make a few seats more advantageous for them. But then again, the Labour Party has has an inbuilt advantage to the way the Inner London seats are drawn up for quite some time. You'll note that the issue of redrawing those lines more accurately rarely made it into their most recent calls on the subject. Heck, the Labour Party is still officially the only party to actually try and rig the system through very clear official gerrymandering (back in 1969/70).
The lesson to be learnt here is that advantages/disadvantages in the system exist for any given party depending on which part of it you choose to focus on, and all parties will bleat about something that doesn't work for them, and smugly ignore those which do.
welshhoppo wrote: 100 years on from the Russian Revolution, the British shall also revolt!
I mean seriously, it's pretty grim. I really hoped that Parliament could actually put on a unified face for Brexit. But they couldn't find Europe with both hands at the moment.
Did anyone not see this coming?
I had a tiny bit of hope.
Just a little bit.
I'm always amazed about these statements (and DINLT states the same thing). We had a weak and poor government before the referendum that DC couldn't manage and put forward a decent argument against (and there is no question he tried to use Project Fear) when there are lots of arguments for staying in the EU and very few, non-idealistic, ones for leaving. However it's almost as like some people think that once we voted to leave the UK government would have an epiphany and then become well considered, adaptable and strong politicians! Almost as if they were all schizophrenic and had a Wrexit personality just waiting to get out.
Of course it was going to go badly because we have a poor government (noting we vote the fools in) - you knew what the government was like when you voted Leave, so why was there even any thinking that it wouldn't become a total shambles?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Because voting against the smoking ban is worse than actively supporting the IRA in their heyday. The latter of which a lot of labour top brass have done, among other things.
She’s still deplorable though, no doubt about that.
When you say support, exactly what do you mean? Are you suggesting they were giving them weapons, going on raids or blowing up hotels with the Tories in?
The irony with Priti though is that she and her family are immigrants themselves and fled Uganda from persecution, yet she now wants to reduce immigration and stop people coming here. I would suggest that if the same policies applied when her parents fled then she wouldn't actually be here at all and would have been thrown in a containment cell/immigration centre and then sent home. You have got to wonder what her parents think of her views.
I'd argue against that. The government was far from weak prior to the referendum. It was a strong Tory majority, Cameron was an established leader, the cabinet was established, labour was too busy trying to cut its own nose off to spite it's face and things generally seemed to be on the rise.
Hindsight is annoying because you can look back and see where things went wrong. I think having a referendum was generally a good idea, it helped to curb UKIP, and they have since fallen into nothingness as their job is now completely and it would have been a good bat to beat people back into line with. Again, I reiterate the point that if the referendum was the other way, you wouldn't be arguing that there should be another referendum because we didn't know what we were voting for.
The problem is that he really misjudged the situation, the same way the US misjudged Trump.
I think there is so much of a gap between citizen and government, that people are willing to do anything to get their voices heard. UKIP wasn't peeing in the wind, they were telling people "look we know you've had problems, you've lost your jobs and we can't control the situation, we need to regain control." Whereas the Remainers were basically declaring "anyone who votes Brexit is a bigot, and idiot or a racist." And you can't deny it, I've seen plenty of people insult Brexiters as being idiots or racists, we've had entire studies done showing that Brexiters are less educated etc etc.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
welshhoppo wrote: Whereas the Remainers were basically declaring "anyone who votes Brexit is a bigot, and idiot or a racist." And you can't deny it, I've seen plenty of people insult Brexiters as being idiots or racists, we've had entire studies done showing that Brexiters are less educated etc etc.
This thread is a microcosm of that wider phenomenon.
The funny thing is that it was the the opposite way around a scarce decade ago. Labour control of Scotland was thought to be so solid that the Tories had an automatic impediment when it came to winning votes. There are far fewer people per seat than in London that you have to convince, and they all despised the Tories. It's only since the SNP stole that voterbase away that suddenly Labour are complaining that it's not fair. Fifteen years ago, the shoe was considered to be well on the other foot in that regard, and Labour were perfectly content with it.
In how many elections were the scales tipped by Scottish Labour MPs?
Not quite what we're discussing. We're talking about perceived imbalances to the system, the idea the system is 'loaded' in some regard.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
I don't think he was right to call it at all; it was for the wrong reasons and I'm not sure there was any popular support for it, beyond the UKIP defectors. It was poorly thought out, and since no one expected a leave result to be possible it was half-assed into the mess we're in now.
It was purely a ploy to bring party rebels under control, it was badly implemented and it backfired massively.
Had we had PR, and UKIP got its fair share of the votes (not that I like UKIP, but it's only fair), and pushed through a proposal to leave the EU beyond "lets leave", then it'd have been the right thing to do.
If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
It was serious, geopolitical stuff.
These days, a government minister has resigned over secret meetings with Israeli officials, and it all added up to some crackpot scheme of supplying the Israeli army with halberds and cannonballs or something!
We can't even do scandal in this country anymore - that's how far we've fallen.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Cameron was right to call a referendum even if he did it for the wrong reasons, but you can't make a move like that and then proceed to call a large amount of the population idiots, it merely drives them towards the extremes.
I don't think he was right to call it at all; it was for the wrong reasons and I'm not sure there was any popular support for it, beyond the UKIP defectors. It was poorly thought out, and since no one expected a leave result to be possible it was half-assed into the mess we're in now.
It was purely a ploy to bring party rebels under control, it was badly implemented and it backfired massively.
Had we had PR, and UKIP got its fair share of the votes (not that I like UKIP, but it's only fair), and pushed through a proposal to leave the EU beyond "lets leave", then it'd have been the right thing to do.
But...but...David Cameron had confidence! CONFIDENCE!
That was one of the bullgak reasons that I heard some Tory voters give when they explained why they voted Tory in 2015.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Accountability wasn't as big a thing back then. In this case, independent of why she was there, her actions as contradicted the official stance on the occupation of Golan Heights.
The biggest scandal however, is that she resigned for having meetings without No. 10 knowing, but we've had various statements that No. 10 did in fact know. This reeks of coverup, and she was involved in something dodgy - presumably more arms sales to the Israelis. There was also this thing about using UK aid money to fund Israeli Army work. That's all sorts of wrong, and people should be getting jailed for this. In reality though, Patel is still an MP, and has got away with essentially no disgrace.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Yup. We are. We're losing international credibility by the day.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
Yet you felt he was still capable of generating the Brexit you wanted.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
That's an interesting way of saying 'ah yes, sorry, I was wrong about Scotland being a boon to Labour that they never acknowledged because it actually had no part in deciding elections'.
Edit: in other news, I've just seen that some 'senior EU figures' are apparently planning for the potential impact on Brexit talks of a May departure. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Accountability wasn't as big a thing back then. In this case, independent of why she was there, her actions as contradicted the official stance on the occupation of Golan Heights.
The biggest scandal however, is that she resigned for having meetings without No. 10 knowing, but we've had various statements that No. 10 did in fact know. This reeks of coverup, and she was involved in something dodgy - presumably more arms sales to the Israelis. There was also this thing about using UK aid money to fund Israeli Army work. That's all sorts of wrong, and people should be getting jailed for this. In reality though, Patel is still an MP, and has got away with essentially no disgrace.
We're a laughing stock. Non-British dakka members must regard this nation with pity and wonder what the feth is going on.
Yup. We are. We're losing international credibility by the day.
Confidence? Yes. Ability? one of our worst PMs ever.
Yet you felt he was still capable of generating the Brexit you wanted.
I didn't expect Cameron to abandon ship and head for the lifeboats. And I certainly didn't expect him to tell the Civil Service not to plan for a Leave victory.
Funding other countries militaries could be in our interest though. You can still be a fan of "Britain First" whilst paying someone else to do something for you.
Funding other countries militaries of dubious intention via some misused aid budget is deplorable though. All the cloak and dagger shows the know how dodgy/unpopular it'll be.
I mean, I doubt we'd be paying the Israeli army to build infrastructure in Palestine or anything.
I didn't expect Cameron to abandon ship and head for the lifeboats. And I certainly didn't expect him to tell the Civil Service not to plan for a Leave victory.
But you must have been expecting an incompetent PM who's hand was forced to be, well, incompetent and reluctant?
Edit: in other news, I've just seen that some 'senior EU figures' are apparently planning for the potential impact on Brexit talks of a May departure. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead.
This last scandal is nudging Mays departure much closer to "when" from "if". I'd be worried if people weren't considering it as an option.
I know. I'm saying that Scotland was never part of that loading for Labour (or for the Tories when they dominated it) because it's been an electoral irrelevance in almost every Westminster election ever.
Well, considering we're talking about historical perceptions in the past (the SNP wave has long since engulfed Scotland), you can put it at the top of your 'Wrongs to right' list for when you invent a time machine.
That's an interesting way of saying 'ah yes, sorry, I was wrong about Scotland being a boon to Labour that they never acknowledged because it actually had no part in deciding elections'.
Mate, it had every part in helping to decide an election. They're seats. Seats in Parliament. The more of them that you can count on, the less of them you need elsewhere. I'm not sure how much more of a part in 'deciding' elections you want. It works in exactly the same way as every other batch of super-safe home seats with various factors contributing to that status. If the Tories split off another five 'super safe seats', they'd function in exactly the same way as seats in Scotland used to for Labour, both in prior political calculations and the final election results.
What you're trying to pick a fight on (and why I have no idea) is the concept that Scottish votes alone should be the difference between winning and losing an election for Labour. Which is a very separate and distinct idea from what I'm discussing. I'm not sure what else I can do here to differentiate the two for you.
If you look back to my original statement, the item under discussion is how the Labour Party didn't used to care about boundaries, or evening out the electoral system so long as they though they had a greater inbuilt advantage in terms of 'super safe seats'. They didn't perceive it as a problem, and the Tories correspondingly did. Now that they have lost a goodly chunk of their earlier 'super safe seats', and the Tories look to be maybe scraping a small handful extra together for themselves, it's the greatest injustice the world has ever seen, and requires immediate redress.
In other words, their issue isn't with the system. It's just that the system is working less in their favour than it used to, and they don't like the shoe being more on the opposition's foot than theirs.
This last scandal is nudging Mays departure much closer to "when" from "if". I'd be worried if people weren't considering it as an option.
Well, the Tory majority, even with DUP support, is two or three seats right now. If Labour/the Lib Dems/SNP can scrape even half a dozen Tory rebels, they can issue a vote of no confidence, and bring down the Government. Why haven't they done so?
Simple really. If they take over now, they become responsible for Brexit. Corbyn is in favour of Brexit and wants it to happen, but wants to avoid any fallout. So he'll not move in any capacity until the ink is dry on whatever treaty is signed. May's government is competent enough to keep the country ticking over, and undisputed legislation flowing. He's banking on her keeping the place running until he picks that moment after Brexit, and then we'll go to the polls.
My foreign policy position can be summed up in one sentence: keep the hell away from the Middle East
We'll call it the DINLT doctrine for short.
Back in the day of Empire, Britain bankrolled the Prussians, so they could buy muskets for the new armies raised against the French.
This was in Britain's interest, because we were obviously at war with France back then.
If we still had Egypt, and needed to safeguard the Suez canal to India, then yes, bankrolling the Israeli army would be a sound move. It would provide a friendly country with military help.
But we don't and it's not.
Israel has a powerful patron called the USA. Let the Americans waste their time and money in the Middle East, and let them learn the hard lesson that empires before them have learned:
That the Middle East is not worth the bones of one good US Marine...
There's no suggestion that the UK is going to bankroll the Israeli Army.
Patel's idea was to give some funding to an Israeli Army hospital operating in the Golan Heights are, which was providing medical services to Palestinian inhabitants.
This idea was shot down very quickly once it got into the hands of competent foreign office staff.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Can I ask a serious question - do you play Dwarfs in WFB?
Trust and respect your allies, but never ever ever forget that they are foreigners.
Germans, French, Americans, Israelis...
Britain first, first, and always first.
No they are not, they are human just like everyone with the same hopes and fears. If you treat everyone with suspicion then they will respond in kind. We really don't need a return of petty kingdoms all looking after their own leaders personal interests as that just leads to squabbling and arguing whilst the world suffers. Working together together towards a united front is in Britain's interest so I guess you support Remaining in the EU now?
Anyway don't you support Scottish Independence? How is that in Britain's interest?
On the whole 'international credibility' thing....
How many countries actually *have* that right now?
America, well, no comment.
Australia is currently racing back to the 1950's themselves.
Canada's heading further back centuries earlier with various issues involving indigenous peoples...
Spain, well... Catalan...
And so on and so on...
I think the world is just going down the pan as a whole, to be honest...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
Meanwhile British PM celebrates with Dacre, editor of the pro-Brexit Nationalist Daily Mail, which is based in Bermuda and whose proprietor lives in France, to avoid paying taxes in Britain.
The British government pushed to water down key parts of an EU crackdown on corporate tax havens at a European Council meeting this week, days after the Paradise Papers leak revealed more evidence of tax dodging in UK overseas territories.
Ahead of Tuesday’s ECOFIN meeting of European finance ministers, EU commissioner Pierre Moscovici had called for countries to “rapidly adopt a European tax haven list” in light of the revelations, as well as arguing that such a list should be enforced with “credible and meaningful” sanctions.
The UK, however, is reported by Politico to have teamed up Luxembourg and Malta to push back against the inclusion of such sanctions, which would likely include British territories such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which were implicated in the Paradise Papers.
... hmmm ..
how does it go again ...
I'm not against joining things that are in Britain's national interest e.g NATO.
....Britain first, first, and always first
... remember this next time Scottish independence crops up yeah ?
Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, "confidence but no ability" might as well be the Brexit slogan by this point. Alternatives are "how hard can it be?" and "here, hold by beer!".
Meanwhile British PM celebrates with Dacre, editor of the pro-Brexit Nationalist Daily Mail, which is based in Bermuda and whose proprietor lives in France, to avoid paying taxes in Britain.
The British government pushed to water down key parts of an EU crackdown on corporate tax havens at a European Council meeting this week, days after the Paradise Papers leak revealed more evidence of tax dodging in UK overseas territories.
Ahead of Tuesday’s ECOFIN meeting of European finance ministers, EU commissioner Pierre Moscovici had called for countries to “rapidly adopt a European tax haven list” in light of the revelations, as well as arguing that such a list should be enforced with “credible and meaningful” sanctions.
The UK, however, is reported by Politico to have teamed up Luxembourg and Malta to push back against the inclusion of such sanctions, which would likely include British territories such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which were implicated in the Paradise Papers.
... hmmm ..
how does it go again ...
I'm not against joining things that are in Britain's national interest e.g NATO.
....Britain first, first, and always first
... remember this next time Scottish independence crops up yeah ?
You are making the critical mistake to think that the UK is not run by the owner of the Daily Mail.
I assume the timeline goes something likes this...
EU want to try and introduce controls on offshore tax havens -> Daily Fail invite TM over for dinner -> Daily Fail warn TM that those damn EU people are trying take their money again and use it to help the populace -> TM warned that this might have impacts on their support -> TM metaphorically goes to Brussels to state although it is terrible the populace is missing out on £billions that it really is important than millionaires and billionaires minimise their contribution to the world whilst large numbers of people suffer (oh and my friends at the Daily Fail don't like paying).
So far France, Germany, Italy, Spain and around 16 other EU countries have pledged to join the pact, which could formally be launched when EU leaders meet in December. Some other members, including Denmark, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, have yet to commit themselves publicly.
But it was clear that Britain, which intends to leave the bloc following the Brexit referendum of June 2016, would not participate, officials said. Britain has long sought to block EU defense cooperation, fearing it could result in an EU army.
Asked where he first found the freeman ideology, his answer is telling and explains how the idea has travelled from North America to the UK: “I think the internet opened our eyes to a lot of this. Before the internet you had to go to the library and read all this. But now it’s at your fingertips. And everyone has a smartphone or a computer at home and it’s opened up this world of information.
I like his home and it's a pity it is going to be torn down. If he had got planning permission it would have been okay.
It's amusing to read that freemen don't think the law applies to them, but somehow expect the protection of the law they don't believe in when the police arrest them.
Kilkrazy wrote: I like his home and it's a pity it is going to be torn down. If he had got planning permission it would have been okay.
It's amusing to read that freemen don't think the law applies to them, but somehow expect the protection of the law they don't believe in when the police arrest them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
Of all the people on dakka, you'd be the last person I'd expect to buy into the myth of the 'Russian Empire.'
But they invaded Ukraine!
Yes, they did, but what about those 100,000 US Marines and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They must have gotten lost en route to Artic warfare training in North Canada.
Its being signed into final stage on monday and yes the uk is planning to sign up......even after the brexit vote.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
He who must not be named in Washington must have obviously made this up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're familiar with your British history, then you'll know that back in the day when Britain was a serious country with proper politicians, whenever we had secret meetings with Israeli officials, it was usually in an isolated barn in the middle of France, and the goal was to take back control of the Suez Canal with France and Israel along for the ride.
Can I ask a serious question - do you play Dwarfs in WFB?
Trust and respect your allies, but never ever ever forget that they are foreigners.
Germans, French, Americans, Israelis...
Britain first, first, and always first.
No they are not, they are human just like everyone with the same hopes and fears. If you treat everyone with suspicion then they will respond in kind. We really don't need a return of petty kingdoms all looking after their own leaders personal interests as that just leads to squabbling and arguing whilst the world suffers. Working together together towards a united front is in Britain's interest so I guess you support Remaining in the EU now?
Anyway don't you support Scottish Independence? How is that in Britain's interest?
In answer to your first question, no, I don't play Dwarves.
In answer to your second point, I see the world how it is, and not how I want it to be...
Of course the French and the Germans and North Koreans etc etc are human beings, and we'd all love to live in a Star Trek utopia.
But human nature is what it is. I know it, you know it, and NM certainly knew it what he wrote the Prince and was demonised for it.
NM wasn't telling rulers they should be despots, he showed them the world was already full of despots, and told people how to survive in that world. Sometimes you have to be a despot to defeat a despot.
In WW2, Britain and the USA had to ally themselves with a wicked regime in order to defeat another wicked regime.
I take a pragmatic and IMO realistic approach in dealing with the world as it is.
So for example, if for argument's sake people say the EU should be a United Europe, my response is to say, well, people are quite attached to their national flag, and might take it badly i.e Brexit.
And yet, because I have that simple understanding of human nature and people's emotional attachment to a flag, a nation, I'm seen as a racist, a bigot etc etc
Please note, I not accusing you of calling me that, Whirlwind, but others outside of dakka have.
But the bottom line is this: The French want to be French. The Germans want to be German. The Italians want to be Italian. Loyalty to a nation, a flag, an idea, has been built into European DNA for at least a 1000 years. Do you honestly think that attachment will vanish overnight?
Do you not think that some people will reactly badly to that identity being absorbed into an EU project?
It's why I'm against the EU, Common market? sign me up. Loose cooperation on security and environmental issues? No problem. I'm wearing the T-shirt.
A system that leaves people feeling cut off from the elites and mourning their national identity? Never x 1000
because it leads to trouble, to violence, to the rise of AFD and UKIP.
And it leads to Brexit. And they in EUHQ can't see it. They'll never see it. And they still can't see it when one of their most important members is heading for the exit door.
Who can argue against peace and prosperity in Europe? Not me. Never. But the path we're going down will ironically, IMO, lead to a situation that threatens that peace and prosperity.
The Scottish nationalist is worried that we'll lose national identity if we end up merging into a European super state. Colour me exceedingly confused.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
Of all the people on dakka, you'd be the last person I'd expect to buy into the myth of the 'Russian Empire.'
But they invaded Ukraine!
Yes, they did, but what about those 100,000 US Marines and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They must have gotten lost en route to Artic warfare training in North Canada.
I must have missed the part where the US held a referendum confirming the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to join the glorious United States
Alternative: what if they took a massive vacation for the group discount?
I saw this post on Quora today and thought it very neatly sums up the conflicting positions and ethos of the UK and the EU.
Spoiler:
What did the EU do wrong to drive the UK away? Is the EU really a bloated bureaucracy?
It wasn't the EU’s fault. It wasn't the UK’s fault. What they did to drive us away, is nothing.
I like to go back to the words of Winston Churchill, who declared that there should be an EU. We must create a sort of United States of Europe, he said after WW2. But we shouldn't be in it.
The UK and the EU see things differently. They have a different view of politics, a different view of economics, law and most fundamentally of all, a different view of the malleability of political institutions in response to change.
When I was a young lad, I knew all these things. But I hoped that over time, our differences would be ironed out, that we would slowly converge and become a successful union. I expected give and take from both sides.
Today, as a professional of 20 years’ standing, working in the domain of EU regulation, single market and economic policy, I see the differences as fundamental and irreconcilable. The give and take required to make it work, just isn't there, on either side.
To consider these differences individually:
Political. Fundamental in the UK is the notion of legitimacy and consent. The EU doesn't work like that. The EU’s mindset is, we lead, you follow. Public opinion is a bit dirty. This provokes an extreme and highly emotional reaction in the UK, which is never sustainable in the long term. Call a UK politician “out of touch” and he knows there's a problem. Call an EU politician out of touch and the response is a bemused, “your point is?”.
Economic. The UK has a much more Atlanticist world view. It believes more in pure competition, market outcomes, private ownership and freedom to act within the law. The EU on the other hand is an uneasy fusion between the French and German models. On the one hand you have the German model, which is about occupying the commanding heights; to caricature a little (but only a little) it translates to “we make the rules, you obey them, we do when it suits us” and the French model, which is fundamentally protectionist and is hostile to free market outcomes.
Law. There is a difference in legal cultures. The UK believes in light regulation, prohibition by exception, general guidelines and case history to assist in complying with the spirit of a terse and sparsely worded primary law. The EU’s legal philosophy is pretty much the opposite; it is centered around permission by exception, detailed rules and voluminous primary legal documents.
Malleability. The UK believes, if something doesn't work, change it. Most complaints in the UK are about things not changing fast enough. Every political arrangement is viewed pragmatically as existing for a time and for a purpose. The UK is concerned about the future of the House of Lords, yet such a discussion could never happen in the EU, except as a result of a major trauma. Witness also the difference between the UK’s flexibility when faced with the threat of Scotland leaving the union by promising devolution, with the EU’s inflexible response to the UK potentially leaving. The UK couldn't understand why the EU wouldn't show any flexibility at all in response to very real and genuine concerns. The EU meanwhile misjudged the climate in the UK. We have a clash of mindsets: one pragmatic, the other dogmatic. Neither understands the other.
Those incompatibilities are being played out today in front of our very eyes in the phoney war over the negotiation. The EU is still of the belief that it runs the negotiation. It will not show flexibility because that's not how it works. The UK on the other hand will not do as it’s told. That's not how the UK works. It will not comply with the EU’s negotiation strategy of meekly signing up to a large financial settlement before being fobbed off with a lousy trade deal. The UK would rather be damaged than humiliated by the EU.
The EU believes it will win because it refuses to believe the UK will walk. It will sign whatever is put in front of it. But this is to make the exact mistake that it has always made; it’s a misjudgement of how UK politics work.
There are increasing signs of concern in the ranks of the EU that their strategy is not working. Witness the shock of Juncker when he finally came to understand that May was serious that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, and the childish behaviour that ensued. Much of the tough-talk on the EU side is because they really do think we are bluffing. The occasional reality checks that we’re not, are met with sanctimonious fits of rage. This is what happens when a dogmatic voice speaks to a pragmatic ear and vice versa. The one literally does not hear the other.
We are seeing a microcosm of the EU-UK relationship playing out in front of our very eyes, in all the wretched disfunctionality that has plagued its history from the outset.
The EU has misjudged the UK at every turn. Their response to Cameron’s warning that “you better take us seriously or we could leave” was “yeah right”; their response to “Brexit means Brexit” was laughter; “no deal is better than a bad deal” was met with pitying derision. Reading the German press leaves one with the impression that the decision to leave the EU has yet to be taken. They do not believe we are serious. Their mindset does not allow for the possibility that we are. Each proof is met only with a hardening of their line. They think they have to go that little bit further to make us see “sense”.
There is today, a very real risk of a no-deal outcome. This would be a traumatic and disruptive exit and bad for both sides. We have to hope this doesn't happen. But if the EU think that it can be avoided by carrying on as they are, they've misjudged (again). The UK and the EU are approaching the situation from different universes. Each side truly believes the other is deluded.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Because NATO and none of those other entities are a Political Union with a shared Government and political structure, slowly coalescing into a super state. NATO is strictly a military alliance. Cooperating closely with military allies is one thing; cooperating closely and establishing integrated chains of command and task forces with countries that you are closely politically integrated with is quite another thing entirely, and arguably a precursor and building block to a future European Union Army.
Comparing NATO to the EU is disingenuous, they are not at all equivalent and you bloody well know it.
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Speaking as someone with some knowledge of these things; this is quite untrue. 'Modern warfare' is no different to warfare of the last hundred years in its fundamentals. There are a few grains of truth within Mary Kaldor's conception of the Baroque Arsenal, and any form of genuine need would quickly result in an alternative form of procurement, industrial strategy, and logistics being adopted.
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Speaking as someone with some knowledge of these things; this is quite untrue. 'Modern warfare' is no different to warfare of the last hundred years in its fundamentals. There are a few grains of truth within Mary Kaldor's conception of the Baroque Arsenal, and any form of genuine need would quickly result in an alternative form of procurement, industrial strategy, and logistics being adopted.
I have to disagree. Modern procurement and development of defense equipment makes it very difficult for small and medium-sized countries to keep a modern military.
A few decades back any decent-sized country could afford to keep a domestic defence industry. Build and design their ships and combat aircraft almost to specification, with today's development and unit costs that's just not possible anymore.
That's why the UK and France got within a hair of sharing aircraft carriers, that's why NATO keeps a common fleet of AWACS and C-17 planes paid by different European countries (the E3As registered in Luxembourg and the C17s in Hungary, all with NATO markings, where each participating country gets use shares), and the trend seems to continue on that direction. Aircraft and navy fleets get smaller every decade because each unit is much more expensive to build and maintain than the one it replaced.
It's not new, and we'll see more and more of it in the future basically because it makes economic sense.
I have to disagree. Modern procurement and development of defense equipment makes it very difficult for small and medium-sized countries to keep a modern military.A few decades back any decent-sized country could afford to keep a domestic defence industry. Build and design their ships and combat aircraft almost to specification, with today's development and unit costs that's just not possible anymore.
With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic, patronising, or offensive), unless you have some degree of specialism in the field of military procurement, you will find it difficult to convince me otherwise. My preferred area of historical study/research is military procurement within the pre-WW1 era; but I read very widely and generally outside of that time period on the subject. I have to, in order to contrast and apply different methodologies and perceptions of military-industrial interaction over technological development and military procurement.
If you do have that knowledge, then please do say, and we can have a damn interesting discussion/debate on the matter via PM! Otherwise, I'll leave this one there, as it'll spin off track exceedingly fast, and far OT from British politics.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shocking. In this age of mass migration, Islamic extremist terrorism, the rise of the Russian Empire, and nationalist authoritarianism in Turkey, it's absolutely disgraceful that the UK is not cutting itself off from EU defence co-operation.
Of all the people on dakka, you'd be the last person I'd expect to buy into the myth of the 'Russian Empire.'
But they invaded Ukraine!
Yes, they did, but what about those 100,000 US Marines and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They must have gotten lost en route to Artic warfare training in North Canada.
I must have missed the part where the US held a referendum confirming the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to join the glorious United States
Alternative: what if they took a massive vacation for the group discount?
In what way does your argument address the point about collective security?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: The Scottish nationalist is worried that we'll lose national identity if we end up merging into a European super state. Colour me exceedingly confused.
This reply is also for reds8n as well.
My political position has not changed one inch. Out of the UK and out of the EU has always been my vision for Indy Scotland.
But I'm fighting one battle at a time here, and the current battle is against the EU.
I suport indy Scotland, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the rest of the people on this island and Northern Ireland as well.
And I'll be damned if I see them getting humiliated by pen pushers in Brussels trying to shake them down for 50 billion!
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
Fake news. 100% fake news. Remainers have been telling me for years that the EU has NEVER been interested in EU defence cooperation or an EU army or anything like that.
The realities of modern warfare make cooperation a must. No country other than the USA can go at it alone.
Because NATO and none of those other entities are a Political Union with a shared Government and political structure, slowly coalescing into a super state. NATO is strictly a military alliance. Cooperating closely with military allies is one thing; cooperating closely and establishing integrated chains of command and task forces with countries that you are closely politically integrated with is quite another thing entirely, and arguably a precursor and building block to a future European Union Army.
Comparing NATO to the EU is disingenuous, they are not at all equivalent and you bloody well know it.
I have to disagree. Modern procurement and development of defense equipment makes it very difficult for small and medium-sized countries to keep a modern military.A few decades back any decent-sized country could afford to keep a domestic defence industry. Build and design their ships and combat aircraft almost to specification, with today's development and unit costs that's just not possible anymore.
With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic, patronising, or offensive), unless you have some degree of specialism in the field of military procurement, you will find it difficult to convince me otherwise. My preferred area of historical study/research is military procurement within the pre-WW1 era; but I read very widely and generally outside of that time period on the subject. I have to, in order to contrast and apply different methodologies and perceptions of military-industrial interaction over technological development and military procurement.
If you do have that knowledge, then please do say, and we can have a damn interesting discussion/debate on the matter via PM! Otherwise, I'll leave this one there, as it'll spin off track exceedingly fast, and far OT from British politics.
Not too cheapen your expertise, which is well beyond mine, but military tech is vastly different from 100 years ago When tanks were introduced they were little more than tractors with plate armour added, and until the 50's were pretty much so simple you could change a tractor/shovel/whatever factory over to tank production and still produce something usable (like the T-34). Now they can cost upwards of £10m a piece and are full of very sophisticated (and export controlled) computerized equipment. You can't realistically build a modern tank equivalent without being one of the few companies with the patents and production facilities.
The same applies to aircraft, ships, etc. They've all become far too specialist to just crank them out when needed. I suspect the same applies to infantry stuff as well - an SA-80 is going to be a lot harder to make than a carbine, and the rest of the equipment is more advanced and specialised. Even jeeps/trucks are more complex.
If it was so easy for anyone to have a standing army, why are we sharing aircraft carriers with France? We're one of the biggest armies in the world, and we still aren't capable of independent military action.
I'm sure any country to cobble together a well organized militia on their own, but I doubt many would be able to hold of an invasion of anything more organized than pirates.
I take a pragmatic and IMO realistic approach in dealing with the world as it is.
err, no, you really do not.
For example when it comes to Brexit or Scottish independence all you do is bleat on endlessly about some mythical vision and plans for the future that we should have but blatantly do not have in any way shape or form, whilst making halcyon appeals to some nostalgic era that never really existed.
Every practical argument with regards to things like actual economics is simply waved aside with a shrug of the shoulders and yet another appeal to some romantic notion of Albion's messianic destiny.
You're more than happy to slate Farage, Bojo, Corbyn, Gove etc etc and agree they they are seemingly clueless or flailing around with no regards except for their own careers/financial worth and yet your one of the people who voted to put the countries future in their hands.
In none of your postings on here have you ever come across as being " pragmatic or realistic" when it comes to politics.
Not too cheapen your expertise, which is well beyond mine, but military tech is vastly different from 100 years ago
I'll try (and likely fail) to keep this short and sweet, to stop it spinning far off course.
Putting aside Kaldor's wafflings about the lack of technological spin off and corresponding economic benefits of more modern day munitions (which I disagree with), she establishes something of reasonable value in discussions over modern day military R&D; namely how the life of an armament in this day and age involves it becoming ever increasingly more complex and difficult to manufacture/maintain whilst providing an ever correspondingly smaller increase in performance , strategy and utility.
To completely make up an example for illustrative purposes, let's say that someone invents a bomb. It costs $10,000, has a yield of 1 kiloton, and is relatively simple. The nature of how our defence industries are constructed and economically stimulated to be constantly 'improving' upon munitions means however, that fifty years down the line, that bomb now has a yield of 20 kilotons, a delivery system twice as good, and a price tag of $5,000,000 ( to account for covering patents, staff development costs, new rare metals involved in the targeting system, enhanced maintenance and storage costs, etcetc).
The logical equation is that financial spending being at the same level, I now have one really great bomb, but it costs as much as two hundred and fifty of the old bombs. The result is that which you and Jouso have picked up on; namely that we can afford far fewer of these weapons. This pushes us towards defence co-operation, because when every single weapon costs many times over what the old one did. Yet from a military perspective, is the increased cost and complexity of this new munition (which can now only be manufactured by one specialist facility staffed by a hundred people with doctorates) better than the old one (which could be thrown together in any factory with machine tools)?
The answer is: yes and no. It's a better weapon, sure. More efficient. More deadly. But somebody who gets hit with this new weapon is just as dead as they were with the old one. And we could afford to drop two hundred and fifty of the old bombs for one of these new ones. From a tactical perspective, assuming the target is reasonably well known, I could have just dropped fifty of the old ones to make sure the target is dead, with a combined much higher explosive yield, and saved a crapton of cash.
Now, before you reach for your keyboards, the point of outlining the above isn't to say that we should go back to bashing each other with rocks because it's all the same at the end of the day. It's demonstrating the material consequences of the military procurement strategy currently prevalent in the West. Some of those upgrades on our hypothetical bomb were doubtless of great use and increased the utility vastly. But here's the key; most of them will have occurred around the first ten years of our bomb's life. After that, you pay increasingly staggering sums for increasingly minor improvements, which build up until the bomb is just so ridiculously expensive, yet not really achieving that much more than that bomb did at first.
The reason behind this is a doctrinal one. It goes back to conceptual military strategists like J.F.C. Fuller, the slow embedding of scientific method into the military from 1880's, and the cultural impact of two world wars, where technological innovation was proffered and afterwards hailed, as the key to success. The belief was that superior technology offers victory. It makes the difference between a victory and a loss. Our military institutions and private contractors were correspondingly stimulated with ever greater sums of money to keep up research, to keep developing existing weapons to get even that most marginal increase in effectiveness at any cost. The Cold War helped considerably with ensuring that the funding flowed untrammelled, and inertia/people who still believe those things have kept it going ever since. The American military frequently struggles with this dilemma, because military procurement has become such a politicised issue over there. The result being vast sums expended upon munitions with exceedingly limited utility. (trying really hard not to use the term military-industrial complex here, can you tell?)
Yet we have seen on multiple occasions how 'Better Tech' does not automatically translate into 'Victory'. Vietnam is the classic case in point where superior tech had nothing to do with 'winning' or 'losing'. The Falklands are a good example of where despite fighting a military considerably less advanced than their own, the British had to end up borrowing considerable quantities of munitions from the States, because they couldn't afford to stockpile the quantities needed for even that small scale conflict.
(I'm going to speed up the end of this post because I've already gone on waaaay too long).
It is clear that the current model is relatively unsustainable when it comes to fighting wars between two even remotely equivalent opponents. Neither would be able to sustain a conflict for any period of time with such high end munitions involved. The manufacturing logistics and expense make it impossible. Unless the war is settled in the space of a week (Blitzkrieg style), the inevitable result would be to fall back upon older, cheaper, more easily produced munitions (assuming that the manufacturing base is there to make it a possibility).
Likewise, a nation which explicitly and deliberately geared for war in this day and age could quite easily win a war against an opponent of the same or even larger stature as themselves with superior technology, so long as they were capable of sustaining a solid flow of cheaper and more easily manufactured weaponry. Within reason of course, I'm not talking about throwing Sopwith Camels at Harrier jump jets. But to carry on with this (arbitrarily picked and thoroughly unresearched) aircraft example, if I have a means of producing lots of Harrier equivalents at a rate of knots against my opponent's small handful of the new F-35s? The natural result in a sustained conflict is that the F-35's will break down, run out of their (very expensive hard to produce) munitions, get destroyed on the ground, and generally suffer the many vagaries of war. Whilst my Harriers might take vastly increased casualties, I can keep producing them at a rate of knots (where you need to source slowly internationally), conduct multiple missions (where your limited number of craft restrict your operating area at any one time), and afford to keep doing so (whereas your economy will break after losing that first handful).
You might argue that it's not an issue, because our F-35 owner can borrow aircraft from and utilise the manufacturing capabilities of the rest of NATO. Which is true. Much like Britain/America in the Falklands, allies make wars considerably easier from a procurement aspect. But the logical result is that you then become dependent on those allies, and unable to fight a war without that massive international support. You gut your own manufacturing base to become part of a whole, to specialise in producing a handful of munition components, and so on. That's largely what we've done here, and again, it's why the perception is that we can't fight a war on our own.
As outlined above however, the reason we've fallen into that position is as a direct result of a procurement strategy designed upon the assumptions that even minor technological increases are the most important factor in design, that we have many allies to produce goods for us, and that we are never going to have to fight a serious sustained conflict. If our government abandoned those motivations/assumptions tomorrow, they could quite easily begin to restructure affairs, to design simpler, cheaper, and more easily produced (if slightly less advanced) munitions. In such a way, we would become capable of going to war in an independent fashion. It's why places like Iran can sustain a domestic armaments industry under even the most trying of international sanctions.
And I'm going to stop now, because I never intended to write anything of this length.
The tl;dr of the above is that most nations in the West can't fight a proper war independently because we've very deliberately (for many reasons) structured our military procurement to be that way. But it's not a permanent thing, and could easily be reversed given five year's notice.
The problem with convoluted topics like this is that there's really no quick and simple way of explaining it in any detail. Apologies to anyone who doesn't care and came here for British politics!
I get what you're saying, and agree that volumes of lower tech stuff is usually better than less of the higher tech especially in the realms of diminishing returns, but even to make functional knock-offs, you still need a lot of the facilities that just aren't worthwhile.
You also have the risk that whatever you can make is functionally useless against it's younger relatives. Can a T34/76 penetrate the armour on a Chieftain? Can it even keep up with one?
Does a 70's MIG have a chance of engaging with a Eurofighter and actually take it down?
Should hypotheticlandia engage in a war, does it then have the ability to drop back a couple of decades worth of tech to churn out the cheaper stuff?
More importantly, could the UK, with it's non-existing steel and marginal heavy engineering industries?
I'm pretty sure any state could keep a functioning military, but would it on it's own be capable of any serious military action?
I actually think we're agreeing here, in a roundabout way. As do most of the states, hence the sharing of resources.
If Britain was so damn sensitive to legitimacy as that Quora article believed you wouldn't have made a referendum that was impossible to draw conclusions from and then drawn conclusions from it anyway. Or still be using first past the post, for that matter. Or running Brexit referendum campaigns with blatantly ridiculous messages. Or... etc etc ad nauseum.
The notion that Britain cares about legitimacy while the EU does not is borderline fetishism.
I'd argue that the UK's defining national trait is stubbornness or, more charitably, tenaciousness. Churchill was almost an incarnation of this, being brilliant when he got it right ("We shall never surrender!") and a downright disaster when he got it wrong (Gallipoli). 14 years ago experts told you that Iraq had no WMDs and that going in with troops was dangerous. You didn't listen to the French or Germans then, because you had stubbornly decided you were right and that's that. Take care that you don't get another Iraq -03 rather than a Dunkerque -40.
Likewise, a nation which explicitly and deliberately geared for war in this day and age could quite easily win a war against an opponent of the same or even larger stature as themselves with superior technology, so long as they were capable of sustaining a solid flow of cheaper and more easily manufactured weaponry. Within reason of course, I'm not talking about throwing Sopwith Camels at Harrier jump jets. But to carry on with this (arbitrarily picked and thoroughly unresearched) aircraft example, if I have a means of producing lots of Harrier equivalents at a rate of knots against my opponent's small handful of the new F-35s? The natural result in a sustained conflict is that the F-35's will break down, run out of their (very expensive hard to produce) munitions, get destroyed on the ground, and generally suffer the many vagaries of war. Whilst my Harriers might take vastly increased casualties, I can keep producing them at a rate of knots (where you need to source slowly internationally), conduct multiple missions (where your limited number of craft restrict your operating area at any one time), and afford to keep doing so (whereas your economy will break after losing that first handful).
You might argue that it's not an issue, because our F-35 owner can borrow aircraft from and utilise the manufacturing capabilities of the rest of NATO. Which is true. Much like Britain/America in the Falklands, allies make wars considerably easier from a procurement aspect. But the logical result is that you then become dependent on those allies, and unable to fight a war without that massive international support. You gut your own manufacturing base to become part of a whole, to specialise in producing a handful of munition components, and so on. That's largely what we've done here, and again, it's why the perception is that we can't fight a war on our own.
As outlined above however, the reason we've fallen into that position is as a direct result of a procurement strategy designed upon the assumptions that even minor technological increases are the most important factor in design, that we have many allies to produce goods for us, and that we are never going to have to fight a serious sustained conflict. If our government abandoned those motivations/assumptions tomorrow, they could quite easily begin to restructure affairs, to design simpler, cheaper, and more easily produced (if slightly less advanced) munitions. In such a way, we would become capable of going to war in an independent fashion.
And I'm going to stop now, because I never intended to write anything of this length.
The tl;dr of the above is that most nations in the West can't fight a proper war independently because we've very deliberately (for many reasons) structured our military procurement to be that way. But it's not a permanent thing, and could easily be reversed given five year's notice.
Not with 2% GDP of spending.
Your basically advocating Russia's approach to defence. Maintain and prop up independent defence capabilities no matter the cost.
Where is English Electric? Hawker? De Havilland? Fairey? Blackburn? Supermarine? Gloster?
We aren't in an age where a visionary could build a fighter plane in his shed and expect to receive an order for 200.
All that's left of the British aircraft industry is making bits and bobs (very important ones at that) leaving Rolls Royce as the only really global player left but even them have had to partner with turbomeca to make helicopter engines, with GE and PW to make civilian engines and so on.
When not even RR can profitably develop a new engine that should tell you everything about today's cost of development and manufacturing.
Things have gotten exponentially more expensive to develop leading to smaller unit productions runs, which in turn makes them even more expensive. It's a vicious circle with no likely end unless we go back to prop planes, coal boilers and machine guns with the odd dumb rocket.
Herzlos wrote: I get what you're saying, and agree that volumes of lower tech stuff is usually better than less of the higher tech especially in the realms of diminishing returns, but even to make functional knock-offs, you still need a lot of the facilities that just aren't worthwhile.
You also have the risk that whatever you can make is functionally useless against it's younger relatives. Can a T34/76 penetrate the armour on a Chieftain? Can it even keep up with one?
Does a 70's MIG have a chance of engaging with a Eurofighter and actually take it down?
Should hypotheticlandia engage in a war, does it then have the ability to drop back a couple of decades worth of tech to churn out the cheaper stuff?
These are all excellent questions; and the answer to all of them has to be; it depends. Some new technological improvements will be of more importance to others. One given strategical situation will favour a crap ton of lower tech stuff whilst another would not. And so on.
The primary point that I was addressing earlier was the concept that in this day and age, a military cannot function independently due to the expenses of modern military technology. What I was trying to outline above was why a country can be in the position whereby that technology costs so much, the upsides and downsides of that approach to procurement, and that alternatives can (and in fact do) exist. The best response to any given procurement situation is usually dictated by certain strategic, economic, and political imperatives which generally hold true across the ages, be it now or back in Napoleon's day.
We exist in a fashion at the moment which shares our defence burden, prioritises continual scientific and technological advancement (or 'the machine' to use Lewis Mumford's words)and assumes that barring nuclear catastrophe, we are safe. That is our strategic situation, and we have geared our procurement methodology and munitions design accordingly. But just because things are that way at the moment does not mean that it is the only way of doing things, and if the situation changes again in the future, so likely will our approach to procurement.
Your basically advocating Russia's approach to defence. Maintain and prop up independent defence capabilities no matter the cost.
Judging by your response, I don't think arguing with you will get either of us anywhere, because I'm not 'advocating' anything. I'm not putting forward an argument myself, so much as attempting to briefly outline about seventy years worth of complex academic thought on technology, finance, and their relation to military procurement in one forum post.
Why does Britain always have to do the running on the money issue? Somebody needs to tell Barnier that in a negotiation, both sides negotiate!
Is it beyond the EU to tell Britain what it owes the EU? Is it beyond the EU to say, Britain, you owe us 2 billion for pensions. 10 billion for budget payments until 2019 and 5 billion for science programmes or whatever else.
It's like Britain is a customer walking into Asda or Tesco, looking to buy some groceries, and then finding they have no price tag, and then Britain has to tell the store manager what Britain thinks their worth, and the store manager is shaking their head.
Pull the plug on this
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If Britain was so damn sensitive to legitimacy as that Quora article believed you wouldn't have made a referendum that was impossible to draw conclusions from and then drawn conclusions from it anyway. Or still be using first past the post, for that matter. Or running Brexit referendum campaigns with blatantly ridiculous messages. Or... etc etc ad nauseum.
The notion that Britain cares about legitimacy while the EU does not is borderline fetishism.
I'd argue that the UK's defining national trait is stubbornness or, more charitably, tenaciousness. Churchill was almost an incarnation of this, being brilliant when he got it right ("We shall never surrender!") and a downright disaster when he got it wrong (Gallipoli). 14 years ago experts told you that Iraq had no WMDs and that going in with troops was dangerous. You didn't listen to the French or Germans then, because you had stubbornly decided you were right and that's that. Take care that you don't get another Iraq -03 rather than a Dunkerque -40.
Most of the British population was against the Iraq war. I myself was against it.
Ketara wrote: [
Judging by your response, I don't think arguing with you will get either of us anywhere, because I'm not 'advocating' anything. I'm not putting forward an argument myself, so much as attempting to briefly outline about seventy years worth of complex academic thought on technology, finance, and their relation to military procurement in one forum post.
You are however, free to disagree of course.
Let's reword advocate as present lower tech mass production as a viable alternative. I don't think those times are coming back. Especially if your country intends doing some power projection, however modest it may be.
Some countries are trying the old tech approach (super tucanos have been relatively successful), some countries are basically subcontracting air power entirely (Ireland, New Zealand, etc) and there's always the option of picking up scraps of the USAF for peanuts but clinging to old tech has its own set of setbacks as Australia proved lack of spares was a major issue in retiring their F-111.
And of course there's the perennial discussion on how manned air power will be a thing of the past entirely. But that's reading tea leaves.
In any case I'm just providing an economic and industrial explanation on why military procurement costs have ballooned. I'm leaving the whole historical and political conjurings aside.
I take a pragmatic and IMO realistic approach in dealing with the world as it is.
err, no, you really do not.
For example when it comes to Brexit or Scottish independence all you do is bleat on endlessly about some mythical vision and plans for the future that we should have but blatantly do not have in any way shape or form, whilst making halcyon appeals to some nostalgic era that never really existed.
Every practical argument with regards to things like actual economics is simply waved aside with a shrug of the shoulders and yet another appeal to some romantic notion of Albion's messianic destiny.
You're more than happy to slate Farage, Bojo, Corbyn, Gove etc etc and agree they they are seemingly clueless or flailing around with no regards except for their own careers/financial worth and yet your one of the people who voted to put the countries future in their hands.
In none of your postings on here have you ever come across as being " pragmatic or realistic" when it comes to politics.
At all.
Naturally, I disagree with this. When I talk vision, of building ships and bridges, or motorways or train stations or whatever, of course I know that these take time, need planning permission, and above all, cost money.
But this nation has become bogged down with inertia, and red tape, and a political class that are like bank managers fretting over boxes of paperclips.
You need somebody that is prepared to burn through the red tape, and give our civil servants a boot up the rear and get them doing things.
Did Brunel sit around all day? Or Faraday or Newton? No, they rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in.
When I use examples like that, people accuse me of wanting Britain to return to a mythical age and send the gunboats to Africa and re-launch the Empire. That's absolute hogwash
I say these things, because I want us to be inspired by their work ethic, their intellectual curiosity, to be inspired by their achievements, and to remember where we came from and where we can go.
It's the fabric of our national story.
Every time somebody proposed a new runway at Heathrow, what did we get? Delay after delay and the Green party moaning about a rare flower in the Scottish Highlands being affected by extra pollution or something equally as daft.
Somebody needed to take that project by the scruff of the neck and start demanding some tarmac get put down.
Hundreds of years ago, people were content to have trade ships hug the coast and go short distances. Nothing wrong with that.
But from time to time, you need a Chris Columbus to come along and say to hell with this- I'm heading for the new world.
Some of the greatest innovations and inventions have come about because our ancestors took risks. It's why I'm typing this message to a stranger on the other side of the country, who I've never met.
No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
Let's reword advocate as present lower tech mass production as a viable alternative. I don't think those times are coming back. Especially if your country intends doing some power projection, however modest it may be.
'Lower tech' is frankly a conceptual misnomer to begin with if you actually consider any given munitions technology in depth. I think we've dragged this thread OT enough however, so I'm leaving it there.
Moving swiftly on, from what I've been reading, apparently we've more or less settled the european citizens right thing, they've mostly worked out the Irish issue, and everything is boiling down to the money now before EU trade talks can advance. It will be interesting (if catastrophic) to see if that Quora article is right on the whole affair.
A day or so ago, Laura Kuenssberg's analysis was that Citizens' Rights was a green light, Irish Border an amber, and Money a red.
The thing is, the money question is the easiest one to solve in practical terms; "Here's loads of wonga!"
It's the most difficult in political terms, though, because the emphasis in the referendum campaign about the EU sucking our cash and so on, means that a lot of people wuold rather pay nothing and Brexit Hard.
However, I think enough of the cabinet know we are heading for a cliff edge and need to swerve around very soon. Businesses (and Customs, etc) will in March 2018 start to configure things for the worst option if nothing has been decided. They won't be able to avoid it. Therefore the talks need to get un-log-jammed before Christmas.
What are we going to get in return for that cash? If we just hand over a massive wad of cash, we've lost our leverage and the EU could simply fob us off with a crap trade deal.
Paying our [alleged] bills is a bargaining chip that we should be averaging to our advantage.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What are we going to get in return for that cash? If we just hand over a massive wad of cash, we've lost our leverage and the EU could simply fob us off with a crap trade deal.
Paying our [alleged] bills is a bargaining chip that we should be averaging to our advantage.
I'm glad that somebody is alert to the danger of handing over vast sums of cash in return for a vague promise about some 'future' trade deal.
On the 2 week deadline, I know you see it is the EU overreaching because you're against pretty much everything the EU does. Try to see it from their side, or even just be pragmatic about it.
The EU gave us a list months ago, and we (as far as I can tell) have yet to respond to it in any detail. Why should the EU give us a £ breakdown when we're refusing to pay or discuss any of it? Pragmatically, a deadline is the only way to move onto stage 2 - it forces team UK's hand to actually produce something. All this stuff gets done in the last minute remember, so all they've done is bring the last minute forwards.
Or would you rather they just let this clown show drag on?
I say these things, because I want us to be inspired by their work ethic, their intellectual curiosity, to be inspired by their achievements, and to remember where we came from and where we can go.
Inventing was an awful lot easier back then, when mechanical machines could be designed by any old toff in their sheds, and constructed by an army of barely paid peons.
We've hit a technical barrier where the old shed invention is largely a thing of the past (hacker-space style electronics being the outlier here), and a workforce issue in that we have to treat them like humans now.
It's the fabric of our national story.
Getting rich off the back of others certainly is.
Every time somebody proposed a new runway at Heathrow, what did we get? Delay after delay and the Green party moaning about a rare flower in the Scottish Highlands being affected by extra pollution or something equally as daft.
Somebody needed to take that project by the scruff of the neck and start demanding some tarmac get put down.
NIMBYs are a huge problem, but we also have things like the environment to concern ourselves with. We can't just slap down a few acres of land and think "to hell with it".
Some of the greatest innovations and inventions have come about because our ancestors took risks.
Again, different world. There's very little I can discover or invent by reading a few books and swanning off to explore with my fathers money.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
Nah, leaving the cave is fine. But at least gakking look where you're going.
Though I have to say, all of this is wildly idealist and not in any way pragmatic. You keep talking about how we should do big things and then say it's not up to you to determine the petty details, when it's the petty details that contain all of the hard work.
"Leaving the EU" may be a good plan on paper, taking all of 8 seconds to think up. But it requires the analysis, negotiation and confirmation of literally hundreds of thousands of little details. Some may make it a brilliant plan, some that may sink it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If Britain was so damn sensitive to legitimacy as that Quora article believed you wouldn't have made a referendum that was impossible to draw conclusions from and then drawn conclusions from it anyway. Or still be using first past the post, for that matter. Or running Brexit referendum campaigns with blatantly ridiculous messages. Or... etc etc ad nauseum.
The notion that Britain cares about legitimacy while the EU does not is borderline fetishism.
I'd argue that the UK's defining national trait is stubbornness or, more charitably, tenaciousness. Churchill was almost an incarnation of this, being brilliant when he got it right ("We shall never surrender!") and a downright disaster when he got it wrong (Gallipoli). 14 years ago experts told you that Iraq had no WMDs and that going in with troops was dangerous. You didn't listen to the French or Germans then, because you had stubbornly decided you were right and that's that. Take care that you don't get another Iraq -03 rather than a Dunkerque -40.
Most of the British population was against the Iraq war. I myself was against it.
Which in turn proves that a concern over legitimacy as an intrinsic British value is bollocks.
That cash absolves us from our ongoing liabilities within the EU. Paying it over gives us a clean break from the EU from which we can start negotiating a new agreement.
Why do people still keep treating this settlement figure as a made up "leaving EU service charge"? If you do, you're going to be pretty upset when it's settled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm glad that somebody is alert to the danger of handing over vast sums of cash in return for a vague promise about some 'future' trade deal.
You're supposedly quite politically alert, so why do you still regard this as a palm greasing payment to negotiate trade? The 2 negotiations are entirely unrelated, except that the EU wants to know the terms of the split before it negotiations the terms of the new relationship.
Let's reword advocate as present lower tech mass production as a viable alternative. I don't think those times are coming back. Especially if your country intends doing some power projection, however modest it may be.
'Lower tech' is frankly a conceptual misnomer to begin with if you actually consider any given munitions technology in depth. I think we've dragged this thread OT enough however, so I'm leaving it there.
It's easy to disagree if you're talking munitions and I'm talking fighter jets and aircraft carriers (even though a smart 155mm artillery shell costs some 50K$).
It's not about the booms anymore, but shooting those booms first exactly where you want them.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.
Questions for you:
1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?
I take a pragmatic and IMO realistic approach in dealing with the world as it is.
err, no, you really do not.
For example when it comes to Brexit or Scottish independence all you do is bleat on endlessly about some mythical vision and plans for the future that we should have but blatantly do not have in any way shape or form, whilst making halcyon appeals to some nostalgic era that never really existed.
Every practical argument with regards to things like actual economics is simply waved aside with a shrug of the shoulders and yet another appeal to some romantic notion of Albion's messianic destiny.
You're more than happy to slate Farage, Bojo, Corbyn, Gove etc etc and agree they they are seemingly clueless or flailing around with no regards except for their own careers/financial worth and yet your one of the people who voted to put the countries future in their hands.
In none of your postings on here have you ever come across as being " pragmatic or realistic" when it comes to politics.
At all.
Naturally, I disagree with this. When I talk vision, of building ships and bridges, or motorways or train stations or whatever, of course I know that these take time, need planning permission, and above all, cost money.
But this nation has become bogged down with inertia, and red tape, and a political class that are like bank managers fretting over boxes of paperclips.
You need somebody that is prepared to burn through the red tape, and give our civil servants a boot up the rear and get them doing things.
Did Brunel sit around all day? Or Faraday or Newton? No, they rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in.
When I use examples like that, people accuse me of wanting Britain to return to a mythical age and send the gunboats to Africa and re-launch the Empire. That's absolute hogwash
I say these things, because I want us to be inspired by their work ethic, their intellectual curiosity, to be inspired by their achievements, and to remember where we came from and where we can go.
It's the fabric of our national story.
Every time somebody proposed a new runway at Heathrow, what did we get? Delay after delay and the Green party moaning about a rare flower in the Scottish Highlands being affected by extra pollution or something equally as daft.
Somebody needed to take that project by the scruff of the neck and start demanding some tarmac get put down.
Hundreds of years ago, people were content to have trade ships hug the coast and go short distances. Nothing wrong with that.
But from time to time, you need a Chris Columbus to come along and say to hell with this- I'm heading for the new world.
Some of the greatest innovations and inventions have come about because our ancestors took risks. It's why I'm typing this message to a stranger on the other side of the country, who I've never met.
No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
So, once again, nothing practical or realistic, just some nostalgic longing.
Did Brunel sit around all day? Or Faraday or Newton?
that would be Newton whose most famous discovery occured whilst sitting down under a tree yes ?
I want us to be inspired by their work ethic, their intellectual curiosity, to be inspired by their achievements
which we'll do by breaking off the closest links we have with our neighbours and driving out the brightest minds who work here...?
thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave
No, it's much more you're the guy saying we should stick with flint and don't need that new fangled bronze as, after all, did not Great Ugg kill the hairy beast with a humble flint spear ?! Sure that bronze is shiny and sharper and better than what we have been using but, you know, it was fine in the past !
Every time somebody proposed a new runway at Heathrow, what did we get? Delay after delay and the Green party moaning about a rare flower in the Scottish Highlands being affected by extra pollution or something equally as daft.
Once again -- and this'll shock everyone ! -- you're lying.
It's nothing to do with rare scottish flowers, and more to do with things like £17.5 Billion is not a sum to be casually thrown around. A lot of people might not want their homes forcibly purchased, they might like living there.
Then there's the noise issue too of course, but why let a trifling thing like people's quality of life get in the way of whatever rhetoric you want to throw around , once again, instead of actually making a reasoned argument.
It's quite funny watching you now demand that London be the beneficiary of this govt. largess given the number of times before you've banged the drum -- and not not incorrectly at times TBF -- about how London soaks up too much of our infrastructural spending.
Some of the greatest innovations and inventions have come about because our ancestors took risks.
Yes, that's why many of us are keen to try things like the EU as an attempt to try and do things differently than the usual murderous horror stories we've had to endure before.
You're the one who wants to run away from the future and hide in the glories of the past.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
They don't need to. They have all the cards.
Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.
But... you're talking about how we have no vision... and then complaining that we're committing to projects that last more than 2 years.
Which one is it you want? Big vision means committing to things that take time. Short-termism (not looking beyond 2 years or the next election term) is why we're so far behind in almost every way.
How long do you think the Heathrow runway you're banging on about will take to do? Should we commit to doing that or just commit to the first 2 years of it? I know you'll come back with "we could do it in a month without all that regulation" but you need to be pragmatic; we have the regulation, we need to "get over it" and start working on it.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.
Questions for you:
1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
But... you're talking about how we have no vision... and then complaining that we're committing to projects that last more than 2 years.
Which one is it you want? Big vision means committing to things that take time. Short-termism (not looking beyond 2 years or the next election term) is why we're so far behind in almost every way.
For all we know, Cameron might have agreed to fund the refurbishment of Juncker's office!
I think we can all agree that Cameron's judgement and political nous is not worth a bucket of horsegak.
But his, and anyone else, commitments need to be settled. We don't have much beyond our word at this stage; we can't come out of this looking untrustworthy.
1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
And what about the stuff we've committed to that runs beyond 2019?
To be realistic, the EU isn't looking for £60 billion. They want a firm assurance of a realistic sum and a schedule by which it will be paid. For one example, the UK's default contribution through to 2020 should be guaranteed, which the Maybot has said a number of times, so doesn't she just Do It?
This really is a very simple thing to do. The reason it isn't being done is because of people like the guys who are going "Hock" Shorror! EU Vapours!! £60 BILLION!!!" Yet, £60 B is only about 2% of UK GDP. It's certainly not trivial, but paid over the course of several years, it won't be noticed nearly so much as the drag on growth there is going to be from a hard Brexit.
We have widdled away our time. We have allowed the situation to come to the point that we need to resolve it in the next round of talks, because if we don't the EU goes on holiday until February, which means we won't get anything done until March, which is too late for industry and government agencies to make their plans for 2019.
They will therefore be compelled to plan for the worst situation, a Hard Brexit. Once the plans and money are committed to that, it's going to be very hard to turn it back.
The only way out would be to postpone Brexit for a year, maybe, and the Maybot has already announced the government's intention to legally pin it to March 2019, so that will not be able to happen.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
They don't need to. They have all the cards.
Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe. The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.
Questions for you:
1a. How much should we pay them? 1b. How can you justify that figure?
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
You lose all claim to take inspiration from the greats of our history with this answer. Newton, Faraday and Brunel didn't just pluck random crap out of the air.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
They don't need to. They have all the cards.
Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
Planning for no deal means shooting our country in the head. Our country cannot survive a no deal scenario.
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?
Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddenly got tariffs and quotas on everything? Protests and civil unrest demanding we rejoin the EU ASAP?
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.
Questions for you:
1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
You lose all claim to take inspiration from the greats of our history with this answer.
That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.
They don't need to. They have all the cards.
Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
Planning for no deal means shooting our country in the head. Our country cannot survive a no deal scenario.
The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.
Whilst our politicians stay in £19 a night travellodges?
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?
Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?
The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.
Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.
Whilst our politicians stay in £19 a night travellodges?
No, but our politicians can be voted out by the people who voted them in. Who can vote out Juncker, or Tusk, or even Barnier?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: To be realistic, the EU isn't looking for £60 billion. They want a firm assurance of a realistic sum and a schedule by which it will be paid. For one example, the UK's default contribution through to 2020 should be guaranteed, which the Maybot has said a number of times, so doesn't she just Do It?
This really is a very simple thing to do. The reason it isn't being done is because of people like the guys who are going "Hock" Shorror! EU Vapours!! £60 BILLION!!!" Yet, £60 B is only about 2% of UK GDP. It's certainly not trivial, but paid over the course of several years, it won't be noticed nearly so much as the drag on growth there is going to be from a hard Brexit.
We have widdled away our time. We have allowed the situation to come to the point that we need to resolve it in the next round of talks, because if we don't the EU goes on holiday until February, which means we won't get anything done until March, which is too late for industry and government agencies to make their plans for 2019.
They will therefore be compelled to plan for the worst situation, a Hard Brexit. Once the plans and money are committed to that, it's going to be very hard to turn it back.
The only way out would be to postpone Brexit for a year, maybe, and the Maybot has already announced the government's intention to legally pin it to March 2019, so that will not be able to happen.
If were up to me, they'd be getting their 60 billion. At a tenner a week!
Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.
There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.
Kilkrazy wrote: Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.
There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.
Shame some of our MEPs don't bother to turn up then.
The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.
Not at all. If we leave the European aviation agency, whatever it's called, then UK based operators with no EU base suddenly lose their license to operate in EU airspace until a deal is reached. We'd make one pretty quickly, but it requires action beyond refusing to negotiate.
Realistically though, most of the operators aren't going to risk us stuffing it up and have created EU subsidiaries, and thus are funneling some of their tax away from us.
As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.
The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.
I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.
The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.
I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.
I wish them the best of luck, but it' not for me.
As the Leavers are so keen on pointing out - no-one is forcing you to stay
I agree that the future is Asia, but we can still leverage that future much better off as part of the EU, because it gives us about a 10x clout boost.
Plus whilst the future is Asia, the present is Europe.
I doubt the future will really be South America or India. Maybe after China has had it's day and we're making shoes.
Kilkrazy wrote: Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.
There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.
Even if every single British MEP turned up and opposed Juncker's candidacy, we'd still get him.
Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy
On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.
The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.
I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.
I wish them the best of luck, but it' not for me.
As the Leavers are so keen on pointing out - no-one is forcing you to stay
I agree that the future is Asia, but we can still leverage that future much better off as part of the EU, because it gives us about a 10x clout boost.
Plus whilst the future is Asia, the present is Europe.
I doubt the future will really be South America or India. Maybe after China has had it's day and we're making shoes.
I don't deny the EU has some clout in trade deals, but by the time the EU wrap it up in volumes of regulations and standards, we're usually 10 years behind where we should be.
The Canada trade deal being a good example of that.
If every Labour MP turned to oppose Maybot as PM, we would still get her.
If the UK doesn't want Juncker for President of the Commission, it's up to our MEPs to get together with MEPs from the other nations, and form a voting bloc to keep him out. That's how things work in a representative democracy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.
There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.
Even if every single British MEP turned up and opposed Juncker's candidacy, we'd still get him.
Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy
I don't like Sweden's economy being dependent on the UK, so I say we should annex you to make sure you don't do anything silly!
See how silly this gets? You're always dependent on other countries, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. In this sense, not even Britain is an island.
That's a big ask. We can barely get some of them to turn up for comissions they are a part of.
Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy
No, you're idea of a democracy is getting your own way all of the time and refusing to let anyone else have their way.
Only after he was hand picked by Merkel.
So are you saying that the vote was somehow rigged? Or that a well respected national president isn't allowed to recommend someone?
I don't deny the EU has some clout in trade deals, but by the time the EU wrap it up in volumes of regulations and standards, we're usually 10 years behind where we should be.
The Canada trade deal being a good example of that.
Then why don't we use what little influence we have left to hurry them up?
Are they slow because the EU is lumbering, or are they slow because there's a lot of detail?
Do you think we'll fare better without them, in terms of the quality of deal we get or how long it takes?
Our population is a rounding error for China, and our economy some way behind theirs. Why would they give us anything that suits us but not them?
This is the same China that (AIUI) still insists that any company trading in China has a partially state-owned subsidiary, will clearly favor Chinese interests and has no issues with wholesale copyright violations? That's not even getting into the vast cultural differences that makes negotiating with them on a person-to-person or busines-to-business level really difficult for a westerner.
Or the same China that's in the process of funding a cargo rail line all the way to Paris? So we'll get to use air or sea mail whilst most of Europe can take advantage of high speed rail haulage.
The same China that wants to use the UK to gain cheap access to the EU markets?
THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.
He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.
THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.
He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.
And what'd happen if the result was a no?
Whilst I'd rather see a few candidates, I'm fine with a proposal and approval approach, since it's a commission role. Saves a lot of overhead with elections.
THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.
He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.
Replace Juncker with Theresa May. Pot. Kettle. Black.
The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.
THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.
He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.
Very misleading isn't it? Because there were other candidates in the election. Juncker was the only one on the 'ballot' because his party got the most votes in parliament. It like complaining that if Labour wins, parliament can't confirm May as PM. If you wanted another President, you should have voted for another party in the EP elections. If another party had gained more votes their candidate would have been on the 'ballot'. Therefore he got the first attempt at setting up his commission, which is not unelected btw, it is by indirect democracy through the government of the member states, that we get to vote for.
This is like complaining the EP didn't overturn the party with the biggest share of votes, they saw no problem with how Juncker had set up the commission and confirmed him. How is that undemocratic?
Described as a Brussels insider and a federalist, Juncker was chosen because he hails from the largest political group in the European Parliament, the centre-right EPP. Elections results handed the party 213 seats, 23 ahead of its closest rival the centre-left S&D.
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
And the governments of those member states are dictatorships? Or do their populations elect them? Every member states has an elected government that picks a representative. That's what indirect democracy means. Come on now... This is like complaining you can't directly elect ministerial positions on the national level. Its just as democratic.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If Britain was so damn sensitive to legitimacy as that Quora article believed you wouldn't have made a referendum that was impossible to draw conclusions from and then drawn conclusions from it anyway. Or still be using first past the post, for that matter. Or running Brexit referendum campaigns with blatantly ridiculous messages. Or... etc etc ad nauseum.
The notion that Britain cares about legitimacy while the EU does not is borderline fetishism.
I'd argue that the UK's defining national trait is stubbornness or, more charitably, tenaciousness. Churchill was almost an incarnation of this, being brilliant when he got it right ("We shall never surrender!") and a downright disaster when he got it wrong (Gallipoli). 14 years ago experts told you that Iraq had no WMDs and that going in with troops was dangerous. You didn't listen to the French or Germans then, because you had stubbornly decided you were right and that's that. Take care that you don't get another Iraq -03 rather than a Dunkerque -40.
At this point, you have to be here to understand it.
However, if you want to give it a try - sit in a dark room with a bottle of good whisky. Put Pink Floyds The Wall on full blast, and constant repeat, and start drinking. After several hours, and the pain, anguish, fear, narcissism, rage, and the sad. pitiful regret for a time that never was have completely taken over your soul - then shall ye know Brexit.
"Would you like to see Britannia rule again, my friends?"
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?
Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?
The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.
Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.
Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.
Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.
One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.
It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.
You go through my post history and what do you see?
You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.
I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc
And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.
I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?
Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?
The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.
Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.
Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.
Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.
I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?
No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.
I make that claim on the basis of reading newspapers, listening to experts being interviewed, and my long years of following politics.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?
There is always grounds for improvement to allow the people that put them there to have more say. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed it is a more enlightened view than our own government which stubbornly refuses to make things more democratic and representative and actively do the opposite through wanting boundary changes, forcing committees to have majority tory representatives even though they don't have a majority, not even debating or voting on parliamentary issues, bringing in laws that allow them to make changes to legislation without parliamentary oversight and so on. You are happy to condemn the EU for trying to improve and reasons to go 'independent' but why would you want that when the politicians that will be in power are doing exactly the things you are misrepresenting the EU as doing.
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?
No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.
I can only speak for the UK, but 99 times out of 100, a government minister will be an MP, so he or she will be accountable to somebody, somewhere.
Well as the eu want the money im sure the eu accountants can supply a break down of the charges (in money and not just direction) they want us to pay over and above membership untill 2019. Then talks can start.
Its like leaving a restaurant you get a bill, you dont get asked how much you want to pay.
If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.
What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?
Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?
The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.
Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.
Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.
Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.
I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.
That's a bit different than just walking away (your words).
A quick compromise still requires negotiation to get there.
1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.
2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.
And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.
I make that claim on the basis of reading newspapers, listening to experts being interviewed, and my long years of following politics.
How does that make you know how much we owe now? Which newspapers, how do you know they don't have a vested interest either way. The experts, who are they, what is there source, did you validate this. The BBC have put plenty of climate change deniers on as 'experts' for the case against - 99.9% of the scientific community are aghast that they are considered experts. Why does following politics give you an advanced understanding of accountancy surrounding EU capital and revenue budgets?
Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.
Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.
I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.
That's a bit different than just walking away (your words).
A quick compromise still requires negotiation to get there.
I'm not sure you really understand the complexities involved. Suppose the UK does walk away, the UK does not have the infrastructure or resources at the time to replicate the current aviation controls. Either the UK would have to pay (something you are opposed to) or it could set something up. But then it has to interact with the European version. That requires specific dialogue that has nothing to do with negotiations but at the operational level - e.g. how does then handover work, where does it, what are the communication codes etc. It's unlikely to stop all flights but it will cause disruption because of the lack of interaction in a reasonable time frame. That means less flights possible simply because of safety. Still it would solve the Heathrow problem
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
You strike me as the kind of person who would cheerfully strike out, on your tod into the wilderness whilst the rest of the tribe were preparing and getting their hunting gear together. They'd find your well chewed bones a couple of miles away after you'd tried to domesticate a pack of wolves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.
It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.
You go through my post history and what do you see?
You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.
I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc
And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.
I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.
It's a mad world.
You keep invoking Newton and Brunel, and how we could do this and that in the past, and should just get on with stuff now with no oversight.
So you've been using the past to justify us doing modern things using outdated methods.
So maybe we've misinterpreted you. But that's easy done because you run away from questions like a tory cabinet member.
I've never been a professional football player, but I've watched hundreds of matches in my life time, and as a result, I have a good working knowledge of tactics, formations, and player ability.
Does that make me good enough to be a manager? No, but I could hold my own in a discussion and offer a reasoned opinion.
Similarly with the EU budget, am I an accountant? No. Can I vouch for every Euro spent in a multi-billion Euro budget? No.
But I've read enough articles over the years, and listened to enough experts and often they were pro-EU politicians, to come to an informed opinion.
Informed citizens like me are perfectly capable of drawing conclusions on political issues and voting accordingly.
We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.
That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
No there would be a thoughtful discussion as to what might be best for all tribes that would make them safer, build stronger housing and a Stonehenge monument. You approach is to say "I don't like another tribes leader telling me what to do, I'm going that way" pointing to a hill. The other tribes point out that the hill ends in a cliff, but they are naysayers so off we march blindfolds on happily believing that on the other side of the hill is a fair and pleasant land (and not as the evidence suggests a cliff edge, ragged rocks and rough seas!).
Skullhammer wrote: Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........
I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.
However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK
More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?
No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.
I can only speak for the UK, but 99 times out of 100, a government minister will be an MP, so he or she will be accountable to somebody, somewhere.
Accountability wasn't originally mentioned. But the Commission is accountable to the directly elected EP, who can dismiss the Commission. So yes the Commissioners are accountable to somebody somewhere too.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.
You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.
You strike me as the kind of person who would cheerfully strike out, on your tod into the wilderness whilst the rest of the tribe were preparing and getting their hunting gear together. They'd find your well chewed bones a couple of miles away after you'd tried to domesticate a pack of wolves.
Just saying.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
And somebody did succeed in domesticating those wolves a long time ago
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.
It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.
You go through my post history and what do you see?
You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.
I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc
And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.
I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.
It's a mad world.
You keep invoking Newton and Brunel, and how we could do this and that in the past, and should just get on with stuff now with no oversight.
So you've been using the past to justify us doing modern things using outdated methods.
So maybe we've misinterpreted you. But that's easy done because you run away from questions like a tory cabinet member.
I try my best to reply to the many posts replying to my original post.
Sometimes, it's not possible, because obviously, I can't sit at the computer all day, however much I'd like to. Often, I'm away for days on end getting stuff done.
But even my most vocal critics can't accuse me of ignoring people.
I may not give the answer people want to hear, but I try my best to be polite and attempt to answer the question.
I've never been a professional football player, but I've watched hundreds of matches in my life time, and as a result, I have a good working knowledge of tactics, formations, and player ability.
Your analogy is flawed. Your interpretation should read that you watch someone on TV talking about football having no idea whether they have a grasp of the game or not. You also don't know whether they are telling all the parts of the game (let's suppose they concentrate on the goalkeeper but rarely talk about the centre half) - does that give you a good view of how it works altogether) However based on this you are confident that you know how a good game is played.
If you said you had watched hundreds of accountants doing multibillion finances then I might believe what you are saying. But listening to someone on TV where the articles are selective (i.e. not give the full picture) is not grounds to say you have expertise enough to know about the EU/UK finance agreement.
We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.
That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.
OK what about the EU Galileo GPS system that is running to about £10bn in capital costs and then the ongoing revenue costs for maintaining it (replacing faulty satellites and so on). Did you account for this project? The UK has signed up to the whole project are you saying we should stop funding it and walk away now despite that it will probably fully operational in the next five years or so. The UK has spent and has committed money to this project.
I’m going to call absolute bollocks on this. We had several candidates to vote from, and ultimately it was a choice between May and Corbyn.
.. Actually, if you recall, May was already Pm prior to the general election, having been, so to speak, the last candidate standing from the Cons' MPs who stood for the role after Cameron stood down.
So in fact we did not get a chance to approve May's initial appointment.
In fact to hold the election she had to use parliament to be able to so this, due to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011.
IIRC she could have been Pm for .. about 3 years or so without having to call for an election.
And, of course, it looks quite likely she might not see out her current term doesn't it ?
Presumably our elected officials will then decide which plucky young rogue will draw the short straw step forwards into the role.
Future War Cultist wrote: The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.
The council is made of elected members of parliaments of EU nations. The EU parliament also is elected.
Future War Cultist wrote: The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.
The council is made of elected members of parliaments of EU nations. The EU parliament also is elected.
Exactly. I still don't understand how people can say Juncker wouldn't have been chosen, as during the EP election it was pretty clear that the party with the most votes would likely get their pick in as President (similar to a PM). Guess what, people still voted for Juncker's party in the EP election. Maybe the majority of the electorate didn't like Juncker, but then the majority doesn't care enough to show up and actually vote. Now what was that thing people said about the opinions of people who don't show up to vote?
I think both sides are being a bit disingenuous here, to be honest. We've had this discussion in the past at least twice.
IIRC, it boils down to the fact the the European system is slightly less directly democratic than the British one, but not by much. Some people don't mind that fact, others do. It's also less answerable purely to the British people than their own elected body is. Some people are happy with that. Some aren't.
It really depends what level you think democracies function best at, and how much control you like to exert as a voter over what appointments. Which is a personal opinion. No right or wrong answer. Which sadly, means no internet points for winning the debate.
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
Will leaving the EU solve these problems?
Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.
And I also hope that this allows us to take the massive scapegoat that hangs around parliament and shoot it like its Old Yeller.
Herzlos wrote: Do we just need some time alone to discover ourself as a nation? We have got a lot of internal issues we need to sort out.
Unfortunately what we will discover is a marginalised backwater with massive civil disunity and an entire generation abandoned to scrounge from the scraps the rest of the world leave behind.
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
Will leaving the EU solve these problems?
Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.
This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?
I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-
NATO
UN
WTO
all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
Will leaving the EU solve these problems?
Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.
This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?
I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-
NATO
UN
WTO
all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?
Haven't we just been over this on the last few pages? Also none of those are massive multinational policital systems. Ones a Trade Organisation, the other is in case the Russians fall to Communism again and the last is a Gentlemans agreement club more or less.
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
Will leaving the EU solve these problems?
Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.
This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?
I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-
NATO
UN
WTO
all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?
You still don't get it, do you? You still do not understand why people oppose the EU.
None of those institutions are a threat to national sovereignty and independence.
One is a military alliance with a narrow purpose (containing Russia).
One is an international assembly that barely functions and is little better than a talking shop.
And one is a trade organisation.
None of those entities are a political union which seeks to politically integrate 28 European Nations in all matters financial, economic, political, cultural, governmental, military...
If you don't understand us Brexiters and what we think, how the feth do you expect to defeat us? Read some Sun Tzu man! Know your enemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I suppose it depends on what you call "political". A lot of people get very exercised about the politics of the UN, for instance.
Yes, but its not a political union that undermines the national independence of its Member States, is it?
In my view, a lot of the Leave vote is a protest by people inflicted with a generation of economic exclusion and increasing precariousness.It's a vote against an elite class who don't listen (e.g. Grenfell Tower and subsequent inquiry.)
Will leaving the EU solve these problems?
Probably not. I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries.
This is nonsensical twaddle. EU Parliament is democratically elected by the populace of the EU. I could point out that you must acknowledge this due to the Wrexit negotiations - whether they proceed or not is down to a vote from these same representatives. The commission puts forward a recommendation and they vote on it. If the EU is undemocratic and decisions are just made by unelected officials then why these strict deadlines?
I'd also point out that you seem to be happy with:-
NATO
UN
WTO
all of which are much less democratic but also meddle in other countries, are you opposed to these as well?
You still don't get it, do you? You still do not understand why people oppose the EU.
None of those institutions are a threat to national sovereignty and independence.
One is a military alliance with a narrow purpose (containing Russia).
One is an international assembly that barely functions and is little better than a talking shop.
And one is a trade organisation.
None of those entities are a political union which seeks to politically integrate 28 European Nations in all matters financial, economic, political, cultural, governmental, military...
If you don't understand us Brexiters and what we think, how the feth do you expect to defeat us? Read some Sun Tzu man! Know your enemy.
No, that wasn't your point and to reiterate you stated :-
"I mean it solves my issue of undemocratic meddling in other countries."
And I pointed out that a) the EU is democratic, b) there are other organisations that are not democratic but do meddle in other countries (basically militarily - Afghanistan for example has nothing to do with Russia); the UN does much more than be a talking shop and implements global sanctions, policies etc; and a trade organisation that forces trade rules on every country where there no agreement in place. Yes you have no issues with these. That makes your original point invalid as the reason you stated you do not apply to other organisations. That would imply other motives for leaving and this is a convenient argument that is brought up to try reinforce you view, yet when looked at logically makes no sense because of other things you are not opposed to.
And when has the EU ever been a threat to national sovereignty and independence?
The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.
Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.
The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.
Talk about failures in understanding points of view is somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
ANY political union undermines national independence. Do you think Scotland as a member of the United Kingdom has national independence? Do you think Texas has National Independence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.
Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.
The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.
I don't want ANY entity to be a higher power than Parliament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: No, that wasn't your point and to reiterate you stated :-
Not it wasn't, that was Welshhoppo not me.
And when has the EU ever been a threat to national sovereignty and independence?
From the day it was founded. Its a political union, with a mission statement of "Ever Closer Union". Its very existence is a threat to national sovereignty and independence, because its very purpose is to [slowly] erase national sovereignty and independence and bind the nations of Europe together.
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.
Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?
Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?
Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.
The talk of "ever closer political union" as the EU mission statement made me google whether there actually is a mission statement resembling something like that.
I'm not sure if this has been in this thread before - I've been reading from the start and can't remember seeing it before - here are the goals as stated by the EU currently:
promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens;
offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders;
sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive market economy with full employment and social progress, and environmental protection;
combat social exclusion and discrimination;
promote scientific and technological progress;
enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among member countries;
respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity.
I'm guessing the points "without internal borders" and "cohesion and solidarity" could be seen as code for "ever closer political union", but it's a stretch to me to see this as a mission statement that is a "clear threat" to sovereignity and independence.
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.
Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?
Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?
.
I know, I was responding to you. Sovereignty isn't a vague and barely understood concept. It's clear as Crystal in this country due to a lack of a codified constitution. I gave you the definition straight from the horses mouth. And it's been that way for a couple of centuries now.
welshhoppo wrote: The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.
Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.
The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.
EU courts aren't 'higher' than anyone's courts. It's a misnomer to think this. It's about whether laws have been applied fairly and correctly and is an independent view. The reason they are generally gone to last is because they deal with conceptual points of law and that they are being applied fairly and consistently without political or business interference. For example our government has mooted that after Wrexit they want to make parliament higher than the courts. That can lead to political decisions (caving to public pressure) being made on judgements rather than what is enshrined in law.
The ability as to whether you can take something to the EU courts is subject to your own courts (basically a reasoned opinion) agreeing that this is an issue that has wider EU implications in the interpretation of law. The UK courts have primacy, it is their decision as to whether it can be taken or not. If they do not believe there is a case you cannot take it. If you were convicted of burglary in a UK court, the EU courts will not get involved if you tried to take it to them (and wouldn't even be allowed to), this is a state matter. On the other hand if their is an issue about whether as a member state we are not taking forward actions as we have democratically agreed to as part of the EU (e.g. air pollution) then that can be grounds to take the UK government to ECJ if the UK High Court thinks there is grounds to do so.
nfe wrote: Talk about failures in understanding points of view iit's somewhat problematic when presented alongside the use of phrases like 'undermines national independence' like they're objective. Maybe it would be worth considering that sovereignty is a vague and variably understood concept?
Except your wrong. I was talking about parliamentary sovereignty.
Go read the developments affecting Parliamentary Sovereignty section. What multinational organisation does it mention?
Good thing I wasn't responding to you, eh?
Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.
You might not care, but I do.
I don't care, but that aside, you're still presenting a subjective position as objective, and then arguing on the basis that it is unchallenged.
First, in an absolutist sense, yes, any union undermines national independence. However, unless you advocate an isolationist UK, this is irrelevant. What we're really talking about is the level to which that loss of independence is acceptable.
Second, the loss of degrees of independence is not synonymous with a loss of sovereignty unless it occurs through external, irrevocable force.
Parliamentary sovereignty is the very basis of our national independence. The EU undermine's Parliamentary sovereignty. Ergo it is a threat to our national independence.
The EU does not undermine out national independence. Even the Wrexit government released a white paper on this and stated in the first couple of pages that it doesn't. This is our UK governments view. How can you argue that the EU undermines this when the own organisation you are trying to protect doesn't agree with you?
Witzkatz wrote: The talk of "ever closer political union" as the EU mission statement made me google whether there actually is a mission statement resembling something like that.
I'm not sure if this has been in this thread before - I've been reading from the start and can't remember seeing it before - here are the goals as stated by the EU currently:
promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens;
offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders;
sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive market economy with full employment and social progress, and environmental protection;
combat social exclusion and discrimination;
promote scientific and technological progress;
enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among member countries;
respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity.
I'm guessing the points "without internal borders" and "cohesion and solidarity" could be seen as code for "ever closer political union", but it's a stretch to me to see this as a mission statement that is a "clear threat" to sovereignity and independence.
Its in the Solemn Declaration of the European Union 1983.
welshhoppo wrote: The EUs while sctick is removing control from national sovereignties.
Hence the EU courts being higher than national courts, having to follow EU directives.
The whole issue in Britain is that we believe in Parliamentary Sovereignty and how parliament is the highest power in the land. But that mind set doesn't work with the EU around.
EU courts aren't 'higher' than anyone's courts. It's a misnomer to think this. It's about whether laws have been applied fairly and correctly and is an independent view. The reason they are generally gone to last is because they deal with conceptual points of law and that they are being applied fairly and consistently without political or business interference. For example our government has mooted that after Wrexit they want to make parliament higher than the courts. That can lead to political decisions (caving to public pressure) being made on judgements rather than what is enshrined in law.
The ability as to whether you can take something to the EU courts is subject to your own courts (basically a reasoned opinion) agreeing that this is an issue that has wider EU implications in the interpretation of law. The UK courts have primacy, it is their decision as to whether it can be taken or not. If they do not believe there is a case you cannot take it. If you were convicted of burglary in a UK court, the EU courts will not get involved if you tried to take it to them (and wouldn't even be allowed to), this is a state matter. On the other hand if their is an issue about whether as a member state we are not taking forward actions as we have democratically agreed to as part of the EU (e.g. air pollution) then that can be grounds to take the UK government to ECJ if the UK High Court thinks there is grounds to do so.
Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.
The ECJ has primacy over national courts. It has too otherwise the whole system doesn't work. You couldn't have an equal or lesser court telling a national court or parliament what to do because then the whole system doesn't work.
Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?
We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.
Herzlos wrote: Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?
We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.
I think the idea is that the national states haven't lost their national identity yet. But the push for intergrarion means it might happen in the future.
Hence the whole we are European thing. Rather than we are British, we are French etc.
On the topic of national identity, and since I was just reading that document - apart from the whole "European spirit" thing, there's also lines like the following...
examination of the advisability of undertaking joint action to protect, promote and safeguard the cultural
heritage;
...which don't make it sound like there's a desire to undo national identity and culture, but rather build - on top of that - a second cultural awareness as "Europeans", I guess.
I don't buy any nonsense about losing national identity. People cheerfully (and indeed, sometimes aggressively!) identify as Doric, Scottish, British. and European, or Cornish, English, British and European, or Bavarian, German, and European or whatever else. People hold national identities derived from communities that pre-date the Roman Empire and have survived more or less through dozens of political unions, shifting borders, invasions, and occupations. That being part of the EU risks losing Britishness is farcical. Almost as farcical as believing Britishness is an identifiable thing. It's hard to see that fear as borne of anything other than 'now my village has an Aldi and no local Butchers' or 'several kids in my granddaughter's class have difficult-to-pronounce names'.
The EU is bad because it's a supranational organisation that will submerge individual national identity. At the same time it's bad because the nations of Europe are too greatly different to each other to be able to work together within the EU.
One of the main sticking points on the issue of citizens' rights during these Brexit talks is the EU's insistence that the ECJ have jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK post Brexit.
As I, and many others have pointed out time and time again, no other non-European nation on God's Earth would entertain this for a nano-second.
If the EU pushed for a role for the ECJ with regards to EU citizens in the USA, the EU would get laughed out of Washington.
Naturally, when the UK says no to the ECJ the pro-Remain media conjure up images of xenophobic Brexiteers, and mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets and burning them at the stake.
Herzlos wrote: Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?
We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.
I think the idea is that the national states haven't lost their national identity yet. But the push for intergrarion means it might happen in the future.
Hence the whole we are European thing. Rather than we are British, we are French etc.
Do I have to point out the Scottish nationalist again?
Or the (don't know about the rest of the country) various Lancashire/Yorkshire events that play up the historic rivalry and emphasize regional identity.
Why in United Kingdom are we worried about losing national identity, when the bits and pieces that make up that kingdom haven't yet?
Can any Europeans comment on it? I'm legitimatly curious. How often will someone respond with I'm European rather than their nationality. Or their local nationality I.e Welsh or Barvarian?
I've never heard somebody introduce themselves as a European. But then again, questions about where you are from are often asked by people from other European countries to people from European countries, so "I'm European" really doesn't give any further information there.
I was in India for two weeks recently and met my in-laws for the first time. Their view on Europe is, naturally, a bit less detailed and makes less distinctions between countries or even sub-states, so when I was there I had the feeling that some people did not classify myself really as a German, but more as a European. Subsequently I realized I was also speaking a bit more from a European standpoint in some discussions, maybe because I got the feeling nobody was really highly interested in the minute differences in policy or standpoint between European nations over there in India.
The only times I heard somebody actually affirm a "European" identity is on that one rare party or get-together here and there where people talk a bit of international politics, in context of that discussion, never as a standalone statement.
(And to be frank, those were usually people from academic fields involved in politics that have travelled a bit to study in different countries, so comparably "international" folk anyway.)
On the other hand, I have met tons of Germans happily engaging in semi-friendly rivalry between Bavaria, the North, West and East and whatnot else. Very similar to what you guys describe between the different regions of the UK, I'd assume. I think this little bit of tribalism is universal, here in Europe, just as much in India (Bengalis have rivalries with Biharis, both have opinions on the Tamils, etc. ... and they are all supposed to be "Indians" but tend to favor their "local" identity, in my (small) experience. )
I think it'll continue to be that way in Europe, too, even if the EU would actually merge into some type of superstate. Regional identities are not "erased" by waving a magic identity wand, they managed to exist for centuries now.
Herzlos wrote: Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?
We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.
National identity =/= national independence.
You can retain a national identity, whilst being wholly and utterly under the thumb of another Government.
Just look at Scotland and how strong their national identity is despite being under the rule of Westminster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: I don't buy any nonsense about losing national identity.
Neither do I. Losing national identity is not my complaint, losing national independence is.
And entering into a political union with Europe is an inherent loss of national independence, in the same way that Scotland loses its national independence by entering into a political union with England, Wales and N.Ireland.
We can all agree that it is possible to hold multiple forms of identity. I have a name, a family name, an area of England I live in, the area I was born in, my country (English), and my nation (British). That is of course, aside from any ethnic or religious identities that I might possess. None of these necessarily removes the other.
That being said, it is easy to see how one feel as if one identity could be partially supplanted or topped by another. For a case in point, one simply has to look to Catalonia, or Bavaria, or any other region which was once an individual nation but is now merely a region of a greater whole. When people from those regions identify their 'nationality' these days, they don't say 'I'm Bavarian', they say 'I'm German'. They don't lose their former identity, but it is subsumed into a greater one. There are a few which retain it to a greater extent (see Scotland, for example), but it is no given thing, and the more time that rolls by, the less important the earlier national identity usually becomes.
There's been a reasonably solid attempt to build up the European Union as a national bloc in recent years, not purely in terms of administrative/executive power, but also as a cultural identity which has never previously existed.
Historically speaking, Europeans have never really identified as such, they might come from 'Europe' per se, but they were always French, German, Dutch, Russian, and so forth. The moniker 'European' tended to be applied by people from outside of Europe to those from within it, rather than from those people themselves. It is likely (to speculate) that this is because of the intensely competitive/war filled nature of Europe, and the lack of any kind of cohesive central government post the Romans.
Part of asserting a national identity inevitably involves pinning down your culture as being somehow separate and different to others around it in order to justify it. If you're building it from scratch, often that involves violent repression (see the various ways locals have been suppressed by colonialists all over the world), but even more peaceful movements (see the recent Scottish independence issue) feature it quite strongly. National identities are illusive things to begin with, and we feel the need to differentiate ourselves generally in order to justify our national boundaries. In reality, there is a considerable amount in common between an American and an Irishman, far more than there is between either and a Chinese citizen, yet both would fiercely resist any attempt to amalgamate the two nations and call them 'The Trans-Atlantic Federation' or somesuch. Any 'European' identity is ultimately a social construct, and no more real than a 'Trans-Atlanticist' one however.
I do not think it is can be deemed inherently wrong to reject the 'European' brand identity, anymore than it is to not be too keen on the 'Trans-Atlantic' version. It's also not unjustified to personally decide that you want your 'National' level of identity to remain as it is instead of being gradually supplanted at that level by a different one.
Likewise of course, there is nothing wrong with deciding that you'd like it the other way around. Wanting to be a 'European' national is completely fine. As before, these are matters of personal choice, opinion and feeling. No right or wrong answer. The best way to deal with these feelings (that being what all this is ultimately based upon) is to acknowledge that both perspectives are entirely personal and reasonable and move on.
Compared to the Scotland I grew up in and the Scotland today, I, personally, feel, people have been trying very hard to corrupt its national identity into being 'national independence.'
I remember the last time I was up, I was walking down the street and beside the local SNP party office was an activist style shop/office. In the window was a poster that said something along the lines of. "Thanks to Faslane, Glasgow will burn first due to England's wars."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:One of the main sticking points on the issue of citizens' rights during these Brexit talks is the EU's insistence that the ECJ have jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK post Brexit.
As I, and many others have pointed out time and time again, no other non-European nation on God's Earth would entertain this for a nano-second.
No non-European nation has had its citizens move to a nation (frequently encouraged by that nation) on the basis of their home and host nations presenting them with a range of enshrined rights only for the host nation to bin them. Consequently, whether non-European nations would entertain this is totally irrelevant.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Again, lets distinguish between National Identity and National Independence. You can have one without the other, just look at Scotland and Catalonia.
Nobody has conflated the two. People are discussing two distinct issues.
I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.
r_squared wrote: I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.
I won't disagree with that. Though I'd say that applies to both sides.
r_squared wrote: I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.
I won't disagree with that. Though I'd say that applies to both sides.
TBF I did say that it was about both those who voted to leave, or remain.
All aggression and accusation does is solidify the opposing position. It's time we stopped talking so much, and started listening more.
Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.
I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....
The ECJ has primacy over national courts. It has too otherwise the whole system doesn't work. You couldn't have an equal or lesser court telling a national court or parliament what to do because then the whole system doesn't work.
Have a read of this.
Put it this way, the ECJ has the ability to overturn Supreme Court (previously HoL) rulings, and even affect parliamentary acts.
The ECJ doesn't have primacy. It has deferral on issues that relate to EU law. All courts, in theory, should interpret the law in the same way. That they don't is generally down to either poor legislation or conflicts between national and EU law. The ECJ will not make a decision on someone's conviction for burglary. It can be deferred on matters that impact the whole of the EU (let's say procurement law). This avoids having individual countries introduce laws that do not comply (or has uncertainty) with EU Directives or legislation. The High Court will make a decision but it considers UK law as set out by parliament (and lets assume there isn't any case law). If there is a potential conflict between that law and a EU Directive (noting that an individual state decides how to implement into their own laws) then they will allow a deferral to ECJ because the UK courts can only consider UK law. There is a distinct difference. Primacy implies that the ECJ automatically has rights to challenge every UK law, but it does not. It can be requested to make a decision on EU law however and its implementation. It has deferral rights considering all of the EU. More recent examples are the UK governments desire to incarcerate people without due process for example.
welshhoppo wrote: Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.
I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....
While we're measuring willy lengths...I have a degree in Crime Scene Forensics. (No seriously I do).
r_squared wrote: I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.
That's not really going to happen though. There is sea change in both politics and people in the UK I think with the a divide between "sticking with what was in the past" and "what we need to do to preserve the future". There's a change in the dynamics of the population and depending on which way things end up it won't settle down until then. My personal view is that a younger generation (that are generally more outward looking) are now migrating into political circles whereas an older generation that was dominant are now starting to fade. At some point there was going to be a crossover, until that crossover is finished there isn't going to be much of a break.
....Unless we nuke the whole country anyway that would timeout everyone!
welshhoppo wrote: Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.
I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....
While we're measuring willy lengths...I have a degree in Crime Scene Forensics. (No seriously I do).
I'm not sure it really matters? The point is that people can have degrees but doesn't make them experts. I've come across plenty of people that have no degree that know way more than someone with a degree and so on. The point is that a degree doesn't make you 'right'.
Anyway I did poorly at Uni so I don't claim to be any sort of authority on Forensics even with a degree...at best it makes me a half educated-layman.
Hence why I use my degree to argue on the internet.
Plus I hate lawyers, I hate the whole system and I hate everything!
But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll elaborate more, the EU won't get involved with minor cases or anything below the national level. But it's superior in the regard that it tells nation states that they are doing things wrong and get them to go fix it.
They correct our interpretation of EU law, but that only works if they are the superior court. You can't leagally correct a court above your own.
welshhoppo wrote: But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.
Nevermind your degree, I learned that in my Politics A-Level.
welshhoppo wrote: But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.
Nevermind your degree, I learned that in my Politics A-Level.
I never did politics for A level. 19th Century British History and Nazis for me!
But I do fondly remember the moment when I asked why the EU had supremacy. And she looked at me like I called her a...... You get the idea.
I have yet to see any reason why that is a bad thing, other than "ugh, I don't want dirty foreigners telling me what to do."
Exactly. You don't understand. You don't care. But we do. We've explained why ad nauseam, you're just being ignorant. Go back and read the last 5 or so pages to inform yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ugh...More Government infighting...Can someone please just shoot Gove and Boris already? Pair of self serving
Boris and Gove's plot to 'hijack' Number 10 exposed: Menacing secret memo to Theresa May dictating terms for a hard Brexit triggers new Cabinet rift
Oh I care, I care deeply. I care about text removed Reds8n
There is nothing in the last five pages, or anywhere else in this thread, that says why the ECJ is a bad thing, point to a single, simple, reason as to why.
While I agree that there's been an assumption that less sovereignty is bad without discussing why that is the case you might want to tone back the hostility a bit, it's not helping.
I apologise, but when you see you country being dragged to the dogs it is very hard to remain civil, particularly when I am called ignorant for asking someone to justify their assertion.
No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.
The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?
