Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
That really gaks me off. If private companies / individuals can make a fortune from council rents, then why can't the council? Why aren't the council buying/building up the housing stock and renting it out at a profit?
Because they were specifically prevented from doing so by the 1980s Conservative government on idealogical grounds. Council tenants were given the right to buy their previously rented accommodation (fair enough in principle, but it does make life more difficult for everyone living in a block when different flats are under different ownership)*, but the councils were specifically banned from investing the proceeds of those sales in new housing stock.
There are "Housing Associations", which are (I believe) non-profit organisations doing the same job as council houses (Glasgow either hived off the housing department as the GHA, or sold their housing stock to them, I'm not sure of the details), which appear to be building new public housing, but nowhere near enough of it.
*Because to get anything done in a block with multiple owners, you need to get the consent of everyone in the block. Which can be a problem when the one flat doesn't see the benefit in having the lawns mowed and the fences repaired, and is particularly bad when the guy in the ground-floor flat refuses to contribute to repairs to the roof.
The biggest issue right now is that Buy To Let is all but fool proof.
No matter how you pay for the property, you're allowed to charge the mortgage plus X% in rent - minimising any personal exposure to risk.
That needs to change. Rent Control in London alone would soon see this bizarre fetish of the middle classes die off, because the 'only going to get more expensive' safety net is removed.
And when London gets back to sanity, the home counties will too. Knock on effect, and housing becomes something you live in again, not a 'retirement investment'.
Negative equity is only a problem if you think of a house as an investment, and not, well, property. Everything else I buy depreciates.
Mind you, it's also an effect of a lack of job security. I mean, if I buy a house with the intent of living in it until I die (which is what my parents did in the 70s), then a reduction in the price is irrelevant, as I'm not intending to sell it. If I need to sell up every five years because I've changed job, then it's a problem.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Just need to build more social housing stock for new tenants, and tax second home and Buy-To-Let empires out the backside of next week.
It would also help massively if those currently struggling to save a deposit and that just stopped.
Why bust your hump now to buy your Starter Bijou Matchbox property, when you know it's massively overpriced and it's just a matter of time until the bubble bursts, and you're trapped in negative equity....
We have to be careful not to do too much damage though. Not everyone wants to buy (those in short terms jobs may want to rent) so you don't want to completely destroy the rental market. What should be taxed are empty properties that don't have a permanent resident in for at least 10 months per year (with exceptions for where you can show in the last three years it has been permanently used - effectively to stop people being penalised if there is a transition period between old/new residents). I'd base this as a percentage of the property (which could increase as the value increases). So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
On a lighter note here are two Christmas cracker jokes that are doing the rounds.
Why was Theresa May sacked as nativity manager???? She couldn’t run a stable government.
Theresa May has asked Santa for a home makeover this year..... First thing on the list was a new cabinet
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's not about destroying the rental market - just making it less of a sure-thing.
If it becomes no more or less risky than regular investments, interest will drop off - especially amongst the most unscrupulous.
That's difficult though because you make it too much of a risk then the banks won't loan the money which means then that the supply dries up completely. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the principles of what you are saying, but think it should be more related to the supply of properties that want them and renting is there for those that need to rent, rather than have no choice but to rent (and really hammering the buy it and leave it empty issues).
In other news. A well run state owned franchise rail network now costing the tax payer billions because the Tories put it into private hands....well done folks, well done (sarcasm!)
Its why we're engaging in Proxy Wars in Ukraine and elsewhere once again, we never relinquished our Cold War mentality and belligerence towards Russia. Russia should have been invited to join the European Union, or at least the Single Market.
We did it for our former enemy Germany, why not Russia?
The would imply Russia giving up it's cold war mentality and belligerence towards NATO countries as well, which never happened.
Today's Russia sure. Yeltsin's Russia went way out of its way to appease the west (to the point of being constantly accused of rolling over whenever the west whistled domestically).
Dismantling NATO would have been an excellent de-escalation measure at the time.
Why bust your hump now to buy your Starter Bijou Matchbox property, when you know it's massively overpriced and it's just a matter of time until the bubble bursts, and you're trapped in negative equity....
The thing is the bubble never really bursts by much. Any major drop in price would cause a flurry of people moving up market, and long term housing us always going to go up unless something really disrupts the market.
Negative equity is only a problem if you think of a house as an investment, and not, well, property. Everything else I buy depreciates.
Mind you, it's also an effect of a lack of job security. I mean, if I buy a house with the intent of living in it until I die (which is what my parents did in the 70s), then a reduction in the price is irrelevant, as I'm not intending to sell it. If I need to sell up every five years because I've changed job, then it's a problem.
Negative equity can have a huge impact on mortgage rates, and potentially leaves the owner trapped in what could become unsuitable property. That said it's only a matter of time until equity builds up.
There was no particular need to dismantle it because the Soviet Union collapsed.
There was never any threat from NATO towards the Russian Federation, however we now have clear evidence that Putin has been interfering in western countries in a most hostile manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other surprising news, Train Operating Companies are a bunch of lying gaks whom the government facilitates in their abuse of the public by not applying the relevant laws intended to prevent his kind of behaviour.
Investigation ordered into 'misleading' festive tickets
There was no particular need to dismantle it because the Soviet Union collapsed.
There was never any threat from NATO towards the Russian Federation, however we now have clear evidence that Putin has been interfering in western countries in a most hostile manner.
Seeing NATO is led by country invading foreign countries on trumped up charges I wouldn't be so sure about that...They invaded other countries far more openly than Russia has done topling over goverments. Russia hasn't done that open invasion.
Kilkrazy wrote:With regards to the tax contribution of the rich, the UK did not use to have a serious finance problem. It has developed while the tax rates on the rich and in particular on business have been reduced over the past generation.
The doubling of the national debt since 2007 was largely caused by the government bailing out the banks. Private businesses were saved from bankruptcy by tax payers' money.
From this perspective, while I acknowledge that demands have increased (e.g. housing benefit, paid to private landlords) I believe that low taxation is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
You have to be joking. You do realise that In 1976 we had to be bailed out by the IMF, which at the time was the largest bail out in the history of the IMF? Inflation adjusted it is still one of the highest bail outs ever given out by the IMF. There have been plenty of times in our history where the country has been an economic basket case. One of the reasons that a lot of older voters vote conservative (really most of them are just voting against Labour as opposed to any real affinity for the tories) is because historically the pattern has been one of Labour governments sinking the economy and the conservatives recovering it, usually through low taxation to let people keep more of their own money to spend as they please. The real key to this historically (talking about all nations now) has been to give the tax breaks to the poorest first, which is where I believe the country should be headed and where I fundamentally diverge from the corporate barstewards in the tory party.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
Or we could just build more houses in general. Or implement tax policies that relieve the pressure on the poorest. A lot of private landlords actually refuse people on housing benefit because they're an unreliable source of payment, which in turn drives up the cost for everyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote:This is what has led to Trumpism, the Brexit vote, and the revival of the hard left. Vast numbers of people no longer believe in neo-liberal market capitalism because it hasn't worked for them.
Probably more to do with 1) Hillary being an appalling candidate. Compare her to the adoration for someone Michelle Obama, 2) the state of the EU as a barmey, ineffective and unecessary political body which I for one will be glad to be shot of, coupled with governments not taking the immigration debate seriously and thus not engaging with those opposed to it in an effective manner. Politicos could have done a lot more to actually acknowledge that immigration has its negatives as well as its positives (something which they refused to believe and just stuck their fingers in their ears) and had they actually tried to engage the diehard racists they might have been able to put across a more cogent case about the positives of immigration. 3) the hard left has rebounded mainly because young voters are well meaning, if somewhat idealistic, and haven't had the misfortune of living as adults under labour rule. They can see the tories are a rotten bunch, but they've yet to learn just how bad Labour is.
To answer your question, because of a generation of governments who believed that the free market is automatically superior to any community or social effort, local councils are not allowed to buy or build new council housing stock.
Actually they are. In addition, when a private company builds new houses it has to build a certain number of "affordable homes" as part of the deal written in to the planning approval, or if such homes would be inappropriate due to insufficient space they can instead be required to pay a hefty sum (as much as 40% from the proceeds of their sales) to the council to fund affordable housing schemes.
Whirlwind wrote:
Because it is illegal for Councils to make a profit. They can only ever cover their overheads and costs. This all came about because of the pre1980s and 1990s Tory government (no surprise there) where they effectively forced Councils to dump anything that was profitable into the private sector.
Councils are allowed to make a profit. They have no shareholders though, so the money essentially just stays with them and gets recycled back into their budget.
AndrewGPaul wrote:There are "Housing Associations", which are (I believe) non-profit organisations doing the same job as council houses (Glasgow either hived off the housing department as the GHA, or sold their housing stock to them, I'm not sure of the details), which appear to be building new public housing, but nowhere near enough of it.
Yeah, housing associations are basically just an arms length body of the council used for managing their housing stock etc.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The biggest issue right now is that Buy To Let is all but fool proof. No matter how you pay for the property, you're allowed to charge the mortgage plus X% in rent - minimising any personal exposure to risk.
That needs to change. Rent Control in London alone would soon see this bizarre fetish of the middle classes die off, because the 'only going to get more expensive' safety net is removed.
And when London gets back to sanity, the home counties will too. Knock on effect, and housing becomes something you live in again, not a 'retirement investment'.
Fool proof? Not by a mile. Tenants trash the flat? Not much a landlord can do as the tenants likely don't have the cash even if the landlord opted to sue. Tenants refuse to pay the rent? Call the baliffs and hope the tenant has something valuable that can be sold off to try and recover the missing payments (if they're not paying the rent, chances are they don't, and once they get a warning from the court the savvy ones can easily offload their assets like a car or a nice TV to friends and family to hold on to for the time being). As for rent control, now you want the government to start dictating what someones property is worth? Most of them can't even fill out their expenses properly, now you want them to start dictating market prices?
Whirlwind wrote:So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
What do you imagine they'll turn into suddenly? Low cost housing? If it's worth £1m then it's far beyond the reach of most people already.
On a lighter note here are two Christmas cracker jokes that are doing the rounds.
Why was Theresa May sacked as nativity manager???? She couldn’t run a stable government.
Theresa May has asked Santa for a home makeover this year..... First thing on the list was a new cabinet
Those were actually pretty good
Whirlwind wrote:In other news. A well run state owned franchise rail network now costing the tax payer billions because the Tories put it into private hands....well done folks, well done (sarcasm!)
Not costing, might cost. Big difference. All depends on whether the tories let them squirm out and what the next franchisee offers to pay (you could end up in a situation where the company taking over the franchise pays more). And the state run company was many things, but "well run" is perhaps a bit generous. They had lower customer satisfaction ratings than Virgin on the West Coast mainline, which is saying something (the Virgin group of companies have a unique talent for being awful at basically everything they attempt). Part of the great myth about East Coast was that it was this super profitable company that was pouring money back to the taxpayer. In reality they had a number of advantages in their favour.
1) The previous franchise had spent quite a lot of money on upgrades in the run up to 2009 when East Coast took over and which East Coast inherited for free.
2) East Coast subsequently went on to invest the grand sum of £0 in upgrades over the six years (really five) that they ran the franchise. A big part of the bid process for those wanting to take over the franchise was how much they were prepared to invest. Think Virgin East Coast put in something like £100 million+ just in investment.
3) East Coast managed to pull off something that no other rail franchise has been able to; they convinced the government to allow them to significantly reduce the amount of services they had to provide, particularly the unprofitabe ones. This alone was probably their greatest key to success in that they were able to do the main thing that people normally acuse the private sector of trying to do i.e. hive off all the profitable bits and dump the unprofitable ones. If every train franchise was allowed to do the same (as they should be) they'd have blown East Coast out of the water.
I'll never understand why everyone is so keen to see a return to British Rail, an organisation that inspires more hate than GW. The railways were terrible when they were nationalised.
bouncingboredom wrote:Fool proof? Not by a mile. Tenants trash the flat? Not much a landlord can do as the tenants likely don't have the cash even if the landlord opted to sue. Tenants refuse to pay the rent? Call the baliffs and hope the tenant has something valuable that can be sold off to try and recover the missing payments (if they're not paying the rent, chances are they don't, and once they get a warning from the court the savvy ones can easily offload their assets like a car or a nice TV to friends and family to hold on to for the time being). As for rent control, now you want the government to start dictating what someones property is worth? Most of them can't even fill out their expenses properly, now you want them to start dictating market prices?
Cor, if only there was such a thing as Landlord insurance.
Oh wait. There is. And yes, such policies will cover such things. Never mind the cost of said policy, just tack it onto the rent....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rent control need only be tied to the average income for the area.
Yes, exclusive areas will always be a thing - I myself happen to live in a very pleasant private road, and pay a small premium on my rent for that and the off-street parking. But we shouldn't see sky-high rents in already deprived areas.
Believe it or not, the Tories kind of had the right idea with Housing Benefit caps, but again just went about it in such a backwards, self defeating way. Essentially, we can't continue with 'think of a number, and the benefits office will cough up'. That's a basis that harms tax payers, private renters, the buyers market and social housing tenants. The only person benefitting is the landlord. Everyone else suffers.
Consider Tunbridge Wells, where I live. Having worked in the town most of my adult life, I can personally confirm that wages aren't any higher than the rest of the country. Shame about the 'pretty much London' prices. When I last worked in the town, I worked 40 hours a week. By the time I'd paid for my shoebox flat and all bills, I had maybe £200 to myself at the end of the month. I've since started working in London, and seriously increased my income. My rent is now £800 a month - yeah, I can't think of anyone on minimum wage who could afford this flat, and it's by no means expensive for the area, despite the slight premium I mentioned earlier (others in the same street go for £1000 a month, give or take).
It has to stop. And rent controls are the best way forward.
Herzlos wrote: Other state owned railways run fine, so I don't think state ownership is the problem
The railways are essentially state-owned - or at least state-funded. Network Rail is state-owned after the disaster that was Railtrack (directly resulting in fatal rail crashes), and the government issues the franchises and has influence over pricing and service levels. It's just done really inefficiently in order to funnel our money to their mates.
Several "privatised" rail franchises are in fact directly state-owned. Just owned by a different state. Abellio (who run the Scotrail franchise and others) are the Dutch rail service.
The problem with state-owned services in the UK isn't that they're state-owned. It's that they're run by a government who think that things like the NHS and public utilities should be run for the benefit of their cronies/masters than for the benefit of the public. So they underfund them, run them down and when people complain about the service, they say "well, if we sell it off, it'll get better".
If anyone has missed it (it's been doing the rounds on social media), James O'Brian has a brilliant conversation with a leave voter that blames seeing too many brown faces in hospitals and supermarkets for voting leave.
I do wonder how many 10's, 100's of thousands, millions even thought the same....
Thebiggesthat wrote: If anyone has missed it (it's been doing the rounds on social media), James O'Brian has a brilliant conversation with a leave voter that blames seeing too many brown faces in hospitals and supermarkets for voting leave.
I do wonder how many 10's, 100's of thousands, millions even thought the same....
It's totally possible, especially in the more deprived parts of the UK.
However, seeing as many remainers are keen to tar all us leavers with the 'racist bigot' brush (as opposed to me, I just hate everyone! Get off my lawn!) I don't think there have actually been any large studies into why people voted leave. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.
However due to the great split that Brexit has caused, I also doubt that we'll see any such studies.
It's a bit like the Trump effect. A lot of people just assume that Trump voters are also racist bigots. But they are probably not. I can easily assume plenty of them were disillusioned people, and I know a few that despite the fact that Trump has backward views in some areas, at least he is honest about his backward views and that is better than someone who is opaque.
No doubt there are some people who voted leave who are racist, but racist people can vote either way. I'm sure there were many IndyRef voters who voted to leave out of racism towards the English, but that's just something that happens and it can't really be changed.
I mean I'm no social expert, but I do honestly think that Brexit is just many years of resentment and anger that sort of boiled over into a great big pot. Plenty of builders and 'traditional working man' probably do feel threatened by immigrants taking our jobs. A lot of factory jobs tend to go to foreigners. Is it because Brits are lazy workers? Not at all, but foreigners are far less likely to complain about working conditions than your average Brit is. You can pay them less and get away with it. But this sort of resentment has bubbled through society, people are annoyed about the Government talking about them and not too them. Look at the last few General Elections, where the choice has been "The Tories." or "The Tories, but in Red!" and you can see why people started building up a large amount of voter apathy.
Indeed, it's easy to lay the blame on Brexiteers, but not a lot is said and done about voter apathy. How do we get people to actually be interested in politics? And when you combine them to the Brexiteers, who have a very large group who either wanted to leave the EU, or simply didn't give a crap which way the pendulum swings.
So we just need to convince these voters to care. Which is going to be pretty hard considering how easily people insult and dismiss people who voted the other way.
In fact I would go further and say that even if if a proportion of Leave voters are racist, so are a proportion of Remain voters and perhaps simply understood better that the EU is totally dominated by white people anyway.
Either way it doesn't matter, because without some social infomation strategy to lead people away from racist views, the issue will not be resolved.
The trouble with the rise of the hard right and bigots like the one calling James O'Brian is the right wing press have been excusing the impact of certain policies by telling people it's all because of immigration, presenting it solely as a societal ill.
And it works. If you're some poor sod in a former mining town, you likely have pretty bleak prospects. When you see someone of a different skin tone, you're first thought isn't 'wonder if they're a Nurse or Doctor at the local hospital, on account we have a national need for such skilled workers', its 'bet they've taken my job. The Daily Heil, Scum and Express all say so'.
Facebook's investigation into Russian 'influence' during the Brexit referendum concludes that Russian 'influence' didn't add up to a bucket of horsegak.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Facebook's investigation into Russian 'influence' during the Brexit referendum concludes that Russian 'influence' didn't add up to a bucket of horsegak.
The Russian connection was the biggest load of straw clutching I have ever seen in my lifetime.
I'm only surprised that the North Koreans haven't been blamed for Brexit.
I've got to ask but did you read the article or just the headlines. It doesn't say anything of the sort. It states that there were minimal paid ads in the US election. Which is not really a surprise -- after all I don't think even the Russians would be daft enough to put. "Don't vote Hilary she's bad for Russia. Sponsored by the Russian state department"
So in case you didn't get past the first sentence I've quoted the actual MPs statement below:-
In response, Damian Collins, MP and chair of the digital, culture and media select committee, who had previously written to both Facebook and Twitter, seeking information about Russian influence, said: "I asked Facebook to provide the committee with details relating to any adverts and pages paid for, or set up by Russian-linked accounts."
"In their response to the Electoral Commission, Facebook responded only with regards to funded advertisements to audiences in the UK from the around 470 accounts and pages run by the Russian based Internet Research Agency, which had been active during the US Presidential election."
"It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation."
"No work has been done by Facebook to look for other fake accounts and pages that could be linked to Russian-backed agencies and which were active during the EU referendum, as I requested."
So there was no information about Wrexit, only covered sites already released as part of the US investigation and didn't even consider account fake accounts. You are reading what you want to hear rather than reading the article...
No doubt there are some people who voted leave who are racist, but racist people can vote either way. I'm sure there were many IndyRef voters who voted to leave out of racism towards the English, but that's just something that happens and it can't really be changed
The NatCen Panel post-Referendum survey asked what people thought the current priority for government should be. Those who voted Remain were significantly more likely to select education, poverty and inequality, and the economy as their concerns. Those who voted Leave were significantly more likely to select immigration. The biggest single distinguishing factor in terms of general priorities for government is immigration (47% of Leave voters compared to 16% Remain voters).
So yes there were distinct bigotry undertones to the vote. That doesn't mean everyone is, but it was a significant issue and as I have always alluded to that the actual racist/bigoted elements likely swung the vote. If there was no immigration I would surmise we would still be in the EU. On the other hand we would be a lot poorer and worse off overall.
I mean I'm no social expert, but I do honestly think that Brexit is just many years of resentment and anger that sort of boiled over into a great big pot. Plenty of builders and 'traditional working man' probably do feel threatened by immigrants taking our jobs. A lot of factory jobs tend to go to foreigners. Is it because Brits are lazy workers? Not at all, but foreigners are far less likely to complain about working conditions than your average Brit is. You can pay them less and get away with it. But this sort of resentment has bubbled through society, people are annoyed about the Government talking about them and not too them. Look at the last few General Elections, where the choice has been "The Tories." or "The Tories, but in Red!" and you can see why people started building up a large amount of voter apathy.
The report also confirms this, those worse off were more likely to vote Wrexit. There is no doubt that people left behind by the economy are feeling sore and lashed out. The irony is that Cameron and the Tories deliberately ran the poor into the ground and then were surprised when there was a backlash.
Whirlwind wrote:
Because it is illegal for Councils to make a profit. They can only ever cover their overheads and costs. This all came about because of the pre1980s and 1990s Tory government (no surprise there) where they effectively forced Councils to dump anything that was profitable into the private sector.
Councils are allowed to make a profit. They have no shareholders though, so the money essentially just stays with them and gets recycled back into their budget.
You are about 15 years out of date. So to help you with your lack of legislation knowledge and basic false facts.
Local Government Act 2003, Section 93(3):-
The power under subsection (1) is subject to a duty to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the costs of provision.
It is illegal for a Council to make a profit (i.e. income can't exceed the cost of providing that service).
The only exceptions that I know of are, if the Council set up a wholly owned company then the *company* can make a profit and a share goes back to the Council (but that's not really the Council making a profit and is quite rare and limited to large infrastructure projects); and also under the Controlled Waste Regulations a Waste Collection Authority can make a profit from business waste collections.
Otherwise no you are completely wrong Councils can't make a profit. They can however recover costs and for some areas these can be significant (especially when you add on all the on-costs)
Whirlwind wrote:So a 5% tax on a London investment flat worth £1m would be an additional tax of £50,000 per year which should be enough to stop them being used as an investment portfolio.
What do you imagine they'll turn into suddenly? Low cost housing? If it's worth £1m then it's far beyond the reach of most people already.
Yes they will continue to be expensive, but you remove the incentive for them to be bought solely to be an investment. Therefore the wealthy but not wealthy investors can afford to buy them and that will move all the way up the chain as there is less of a driver forcing people out of the city.
On the other hand maybe if they left these properties empty for too long (say 3 months continuously) then they have to allow homeless to live there free of rent. That might help solve one of the other scandals of this country.
I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
It's an open secret that Britain has always been the awkward squad in the EU, and now that Britain is leaving, the EU can push on with more integration, that Britain had always been opposed too, with a possible EU defence force in the offering.
Given that the EU was opposed to Russia in the Ukraine, how does an Brussels controlled EU defence force help Russia?
It doesn't.
Britain is still in NATO, Britain still has its veto at the UN, and Britain is still a hard place to invade, in the unlikely event that the Russians considered this.
And if Russia did attack or invade Britain, France, by sheer geographical proximity, would consider that a clear and present danger to France.
As I said weeks ago, we as a nation have had 40 years of anti-EEC/EU media headlines from the Mail/Sun/Express, and a hardcore of Brexit supporters that have been around since the 1970s.
These all pre-date Putin's premiership by decades. Feth me, Jeremy Corbyn has been anti-EU since the 1970s. Is he in on it as well?
The Moscow connection to Brexit is the biggest steaming pile of bullgak I've heard in a long time. It does not tally up with facts or logic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
Yeah was pleased to see this, but it's not over. The government still gets to write the amendment and carry on flaying the backs of those rebelling. I actually feel sorry for them standing up to May.
I imagine the Tory party HQ sounds something like this this evening.
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
1. Brexit strengthens the EU's goal of ever, closer union, because the main opposition to this is leaving. A more integrated EU, with its foreign policy in Ukraine, is more of a threat to Russia.
2. Let's say for argument's sake that you're right about a weaker Britain - it's still stronger than most other NATO countries, and of course, it's still in NATO.
3. Cyprus and Malta are EU members, and they're none too fussy about Russian money in their banks, so that's an obvious elephant in the room, and if the EU is as democratic as people say it is, then Cyprus and Malta could block any EU attempt at cracking down on this, anyway.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
I have an elderly father, and an elderly uncle, both in their 80s, who've never been on a pc or a laptop in their lives. Both of them would struggle with a VHS player.
Both voted Brexit, so I have no idea where they were getting their 'Russian' social media messages from. And they've been reading the same local newspaper for decades, which incidentally, supported Remain.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
Don't all nations inteligence services do this - isn't that part of their job?
Re Russia - Likely to be much more interested in the EU moving away from NATO given that the core European countries are either unwilling or unable to even spend the money they pledged to spend on tehri own defence. Germany is terrified of taking the lead in this area for obvious reasons which only leaves France which although willing to do stuff - has a colonial past even worse than ours.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I read the article Whirlwind, and all I can hear is the clunk of goalposts being moved around.
Hand on heart, and I say this to everybody on dakka, I cannot for the life of me see how Brexit benefits Russia. I really can't.
No goal posts being moved. No one ever accused Russia of providing paid for adverts online. What has been stated is that they used mass social media messages to 'carpet bomb' areas they thought were likely to be susceptible to wavering without any indication of the source they were coming from. We've already had research discussed on this forum that there is some evidence that points back to Russia, if it was easy then we would have seen it and it (likely) would have turned people against leaving (just as Obama getting involved polarised views when he mentioned it). To put it in paid adverts is the same as going over to the enemy line giving them a map of where you've hidden your tanks.
Of course Russia would prefer to have a divided Europe, that means responses would be less unanimous. It's the proverbial divide and conquer, little bit at a time with no consistent voice to hold it back (noting that this isn't the people we are talking about but exKGB Putin that's that problem).
Don't all nations inteligence services do this - isn't that part of their job?
They do, and it is, and it's ironic to talk of Russian meddling when you consider what we, The West, were doing inside 1990s Russia.
1. Brexit strengthens the EU's goal of ever, closer union, because the main opposition to this is leaving. A more integrated EU, with its foreign policy in Ukraine, is more of a threat to Russia.
2. Let's say for argument's sake that you're right about a weaker Britain - it's still stronger than most other NATO countries, and of course, it's still in NATO.
3. Cyprus and Malta are EU members, and they're none too fussy about Russian money in their banks, so that's an obvious elephant in the room, and if the EU is as democratic as people say it is, then Cyprus and Malta could block any EU attempt at cracking down on this, anyway.
There's more to disruption and dividing lines than full scale Nuclear war. Not every strategic decision needs to be done over plains and hills. Dividing hearts and minds is just as divisive - no one is going to start a war over crimea for example, but they may put forward sanctions. If those countries support each other then the impact of those sanctions can be lessened that might be more reliant on, for example Russian oil. If you divide them, make them squabble, then the deals they get are lessened, that makes both sides poorer and hence forcing them to look elsewhere to maintain trade and so on. If every country has a different solution to a problem then nothing may be achieved at all. Not every confrontation has to end, well, on the end of nuke!
I have an elderly father, and an elderly uncle, both in their 80s, who've never been on a pc or a laptop in their lives. Both of them would struggle with a VHS player.
Both voted Brexit, so I have no idea where they were getting their 'Russian' social media messages from. And they've been reading the same local newspaper for decades, which incidentally, supported Remain.
And as pointed out before they were never the target. Just because your old relatives weren't influenced doesn't mean that it wasn't going on. It's about subtle shifts to peoples attitudes that are affected that read news/stories/twitter and manipulation of our tendencies as a species.
Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.
I just hate the double standrads in our media that attacks Russia, whilst turning a blind eye to activities of Western intelligence agencies.
Feth me, in my lifetime, the CIA have rigged more elections, toppled more governments, and dreamt up more crackpot schemes than I've had hot dinners!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.
Didn't you contradict this a page or 2 ago?
If you know Russia does this; why do you doubt Russia did this?
Herzlos wrote:Other state owned railways run fine, so I don't think state ownership is the problem
Depends on your definition of "fine". Most of them achieve standards roughly comparable with our own (though their infrastructure tends to be more extreme weather resistant) and for that the Germans pay triple the amount of subsidy as Britain, the French four times the subsidy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cor, if only there was such a thing as Landlord insurance. Oh wait. There is. And yes, such policies will cover such things. Never mind the cost of said policy, just tack it onto the rent....
Have you ever tried to claim something off an insurance company? It normally involves a great degree of wrangling, as the insurance company attempts to squirm its way out of every conceivable expense. In theory insurance sounds great. In practice insurance is something of a minefield.
It has to stop. And rent controls are the best way forward.
Rent control has never been the way forward. Perhaps if the market for house building were liberalised somewhat we might actually see more houses being built. Ironically the demands of social housing supporters are one of the key contributors to the lack of housing.
Whirlwind wrote:So yes there were distinct bigotry undertones to the vote. That doesn't mean everyone is, but it was a significant issue and as I have always alluded to that the actual racist/bigoted elements likely swung the vote. If there was no immigration I would surmise we would still be in the EU. On the other hand we would be a lot poorer and worse off overall.
Can you not see that your prejudging of those people who mentioned immigration as an issue simply mirrors the same prejudiced attitude that was held (and still is held) by many senior politicians, which in turn led to the rise of groups like UKIP and had a massive impact on the failings of the Remain campaign? You're assuming that anyone who mentioned immigration as a concern is automatically a bigot/racist. In reality, a lot of the people who I've heard talk about immigration on things like radio phone ins and Question Time etc are not opposed to immigration in and of itself, they're opposed to the unrestricted element of it that comes from the EU. They're not saying "we don't want any foreign people in our country", they're saying "we want a cap of some form on foreign people, to stop the population rising faster than local service provision/the economy can cope with". You're either not listening to them properly or you're willfully misrepresenting their position because it's convenient to brand them as racists, which ironically enough allows you to fuel a sense of hatred among remain supporters against those you perceive as ignorant and ill informed.
I'm pro immigration, but even my preferred approach would recognise that there has to be limits on the amount of unskilled/low skill workers you allow in and has to have an absolute cap of some kind to give communities room to breathe and respond to their expanding populations.
You are about 15 years out of date. So to help you with your lack of legislation knowledge and basic false facts.
I get the sense you're a little rattled. My position on council profits was in relation to their annual budgets (their overall expenditure), which is why I specifically referenced them not having shareholders and having to put the money back into their budgets (or save it). I accept culpability for the error in that I should have said "surplus" not "profit", as this would probably have avoided the confusion.
If you do wish to be highly pedantic though, then social housing is administered by housing associations which are not part of the council and as such are allowed to make profits, which I believe is what someone originally inquired about. You also missed the point in your own legislation citation (section 5) which provides councils with a loophole to allow them to in effect charge "profitable" rates for a service, as they can charge different rates for the same service to different people, as it's only their annual income that has to be balanced with their annual expenditure on a given service.
Yes they will continue to be expensive, but you remove the incentive for them to be bought solely to be an investment. Therefore the wealthy but not wealthy investors can afford to buy them and that will move all the way up the chain as there is less of a driver forcing people out of the city. On the other hand maybe if they left these properties empty for too long (say 3 months continuously) then they have to allow homeless to live there free of rent. That might help solve one of the other scandals of this country.
How do you prove it's been bought solely as an investment. Do you think someone who can afford to rent a £1 million flat doesn't also have the cash (or credit) to buy other properties of their own further down the chain? You're doing nothing but trying to milk the rich and at the same time inflating the cost of housing again, worsening the cycle. As for seizing peoples property (which is what you're effectively suggesting), that sounds decidedly tyrannical. Are you a Tau player by an chance? Inquisition? Why aren't you advocating town halls and council owned community centres throwing open their doors to the homeless as a first resort, as opposed to state organised theft on a grand scale.
Kilkrazy wrote:You can't see how Brexit benefits Russia?
1. It weakens the EU, which is the main organised opposition to Russia in mainland Europe.
2. It weakens Britain, which is one of the main European components of NATO.
3. It weakens the EU's ability to influence tax policy in the UK and its overseas territories, which are a major haven for Russian oligarch cash.
1. I think you'll find that's NATO. And by NATO we of course mean the USA.
2. Brexit, properly conducted, will do the opposite.
3. Part of why your point 2 is incorrect (the UK will now be able to set tax policy as it pleases). Also I think someone has already mentioned Cyprus. You might also want to ask Ireland, Luxembourg, Holland, and some other countries about their approach to facilitating tax evasion and helping people to hide their money.
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
This has nothing to do with the sovereignty of parliament. Pretty much everyone accepts it's a naked attempt to try and put the brakes on Brexit by Remain sympathising MPs who have no problem with surrendering Parliamentary authority to the EU when it suits them. Remainers are celebrating right now, but I suspect all they've done is sow the seeds of a whirlwind that they most definitely do not want to reap.
The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.
This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.
A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!
This has nothing to do with the sovereignty of parliament. Pretty much everyone accepts it's a naked attempt to try and put the brakes on Brexit by Remain sympathising MPs who have no problem with surrendering Parliamentary authority to the EU when it suits them. Remainers are celebrating right now, but I suspect all they've done is sow the seeds of a whirlwind that they most definitely do not want to reap.
It is absolutely about parliamentary sovereignty. That argument does not wash. Powers were clearly handed to the EU under act of parliament. This is just the government trying to do what they want without any interference. Despite what some PMs think, we do not have a president, they are beholden to parliament.This is just more Brexit supporters attempts to bully valid criticism and due process to get what they want.
Waht whirlwind is that? Or is it just more of the vague brexit bullying that brought us judges being called traitors and MPs being named and shamed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:BB.....you’re talking to the wrong man about insurance.
Seriously.
Insurers can’t just decide not to play a claim. And if the terms are at all vague, well there’s mechanisms in place for that.
You have to prove your claim is valid first and falls within the terms of the contract. That's where the fun starts.
Steve steveson wrote:It is absolutely about parliamentary sovereignty. That argument does not wash. Powers were clearly handed to the EU under act of parliament. This is just the government trying to do what they want without any interference. Despite what some PMs think, we do not have a president, they are beholden to parliament.This is just more Brexit supporters attempts to bully valid criticism and due process to get what they want.
Waht whirlwind is that? Or is it just more of the vague brexit bullying that brought us judges being called traitors and MPs being named and shamed.
Nobody realistically thinks this has anything to do with parliament being sovereign, it's about attempting to insert clauses that they hope will stop brexit. Some of the same people touting it as a triumph of parliament are some of the same people who have openly suggested we should integrate more closely with the EU, for example by in the long run dispensing with Parliament. Corbyn and some others didn't even vote themselves, they abstained, then took to Twitter to talk aboue what a victory for democracy this is against the dangers of government. So dangerous they opted not to bother showing up for the vote.
Brexit bullying? You realise the names of all MPs are a matter of public knowledge. You can even look up their address if you want, see a list of their declared interests etc. The whirlwind will be for the rebelling MPs, who are likely to find themselves deselected at the next election. One has already been sacked from their job in the conservative party. This will also come across to voters as being what it really is; an attempt by MPs to defy the Brexit vote, essentially telling the public that "mum knows best" and treating the public like children, which was a significant factor in the Brexit vote in the first place.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.
Didn't you contradict this a page or 2 ago?
If you know Russia does this; why do you doubt Russia did this?
No contradiction from me. There's a big difference between a British agent getting bumped off in a park at 3am in St Petersburg and a supposed 'conspiracy' that somehow convinced 17 million people to vote for Brexit.
The former has happened. The latter is the worst kind of tinfoil hat, crackpot conspiracy theory you're ever likely to hear.
Are we to believe that the CIA, FBI, and the NSA, some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, with billions of dollars and thousands of personnel at their disposal, were unaware of a Russian plot to subvert the US election, only months after supposedly subverting the Brexit vote, was happening right under their noses? And nobody noticed?
BB. It’s really not that hard to have a successful claim. Take it from me, if it was really as hinky as you make out, I’d have no career, and nobody in this country would bother with anything except car insurance, which is a requirement.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: BB. It’s really not that hard to have a successful claim. Take it from me, if it was really as hinky as you make out, I’d have no career, and nobody in this country would bother with anything except car insurance, which is a requirement.
In other words, some things very much are up for debate. Insurance companies pay out quite frequently, but it's nowhere as certain as you're making out.
You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.
The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.
Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.
Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.
Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience
You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.
The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.
Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.
Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.
Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience
Damn Armchair insurance experts! What do they know?
But seriously, you can't just not pay out. A contract is a contract after all.
You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.
The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.
Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.
Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.
Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience
Those were just the first two off a loooonnnng list of different articles, sites (like citizens advice etc) all focused on how to stop insurance companies from dragging their heels or squirming out of a claim. I don't want to spam the board with external links so people can just shove the following into google if they want to have a closer look;
- Insurance firms can no longer wriggle out of paying up if customers make technical errors on applications or tell white lies that don’t affect the claim, courts have ruled. A decision made on Wednesday by the Supreme Court is likely to affect millions of household policies and increase the number of successful claims. Insurers have become notorious for refusing to accept claims over seemingly small inconsistencies or lies on forms - even if they have no bearing on the claim itself. Consumer experts said the change would overturn "centuries of insurance practice". It would seem the courts disagree about the self-proclaimed honesty of your industry
- Following a two-year battle and pressure from the Financial Ombudsman – the watchdog which arbitrates when consumers and companies cannot agree – Millennium was ordered to settle the claim with a £33,554 payout, plus 8pc interest and £350 compensation.
- A pipe-fItter who was horrifically injured in a workplace accident has won a £170,000 payout from insurance giant Aviva three years after it callously refused to pay his claim... It will be seen as the latest unedifying example of an insurance company attempting
to use small print to wriggle out of paying a legitimate claim. The payout is one of the biggest awarded by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in its ten-year history.
We could sit here all night going through further examples if you like.
welshhoppo wrote: Okay, but tell me, how many successful claims are made each day? What's the ratio between successful claim and a refused claim?
I'm not saying there aren't successful claims, I suspect there's lots of them. I'm trying to refute the idea that insurance provides a 100% foolproof protection.
No contradiction from me. There's a big difference between a British agent getting bumped off in a park at 3am in St Petersburg and a supposed 'conspiracy' that somehow convinced 17 million people to vote for Brexit.
Why do you keep thinking that the Russian involvement is responsible for all 17 million votes? It's a strawman we've burnt down 3 times already.
No-one is saying that the Russians caused Brexit. No-one. What we're saying is that the Russians paid for some pro-brexit propaganda, targeted at the undecided. That may have swayed some number of voters, and may or may not have been significant. Given the narrow margin, it may have nudged it over the line.
Why do you also think that killing agents is something an intelligence agency would do, but not tampering with elections/referendum? Disinformation is one of the biggest tools intelligence agencies use.
welshhoppo wrote: I'm not saying there aren't successful claims, I suspect there's lots of them. I'm trying to refute the idea that insurance provides a 100% foolproof protection.
It's never 100% foolproof but pretty close. If you adhere to the terms and conditions so you should get a full payout, subject to an excess. It should be sufficient for landlords to offset the risk.
Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)
tneva82 wrote: Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)
Not even that. Assuming Russia managed to sway 300,000 undecided's (not impossible), then that only leaves 334,751 other voters which swung it towards Leave for other reasons.
Russian involvement almost certainly didn't cause Brexit, but it could easily have been a contributing factor.
there were several pro-brexit social media accounts that had thousands of followers, and were seen by 10's thousands more. These were tracked back to russia.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)
Not even that. Assuming Russia managed to sway 300,000 undecided's (not impossible), then that only leaves 334,751 other voters which swung it towards Leave for other reasons.
Russian involvement almost certainly didn't cause Brexit, but it could easily have been a contributing factor.
Huh? Difference was 1269501 votes. If 300k went from remain to leave by russia then gap would still be 670k or so. So in that case russia's involvement wouldn't have made in the end difference.
I'm just going by your 634k number in the quoted post.
Difference was 1.2m votes, so a change of 610k would bring us to a 50:50. If Russia was responsible for 300k of them, that only leaves 310k down to other factors.
Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.
The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.
Herzlos wrote: I'm just going by your 634k number in the quoted post.
Difference was 1.2m votes, so a change of 610k would bring us to a 50:50. If Russia was responsible for 300k of them, that only leaves 310k down to other factors.
Yes but that would mean Russia still wouldn't have decided the result. I was interested in roughly how many votes Russia would have actually needed to affect for Russia to have changed the result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.
The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.
*shrug* all countries does that. So did France, German, US etc. More of interest is how much success they are having.
bouncingboredom wrote: Nobody realistically thinks this has anything to do with parliament being sovereign, it's about attempting to insert clauses that they hope will stop brexit. Some of the same people touting it as a triumph of parliament are some of the same people who have openly suggested we should integrate more closely with the EU, for example by in the long run dispensing with Parliament. Corbyn and some others didn't even vote themselves, they abstained, then took to Twitter to talk aboue what a victory for democracy this is against the dangers of government. So dangerous they opted not to bother showing up for the vote.
No, its about ensuring our parliament is the ultimate governing body of the UK. Or can you provide evidence of that? Because that is what MPs who rebelled have been saying.
Brexit bullying? You realise the names of all MPs are a matter of public knowledge. You can even look up their address if you want, see a list of their declared interests etc. The whirlwind will be for the rebelling MPs, who are likely to find themselves deselected at the next election. One has already been sacked from their job in the conservative party. This will also come across to voters as being what it really is; an attempt by MPs to defy the Brexit vote, essentially telling the public that "mum knows best" and treating the public like children, which was a significant factor in the Brexit vote in the first place.
Yes, they are public knowledge, but there is a big difference between saying "people can look up for themselves, and lobby their own MPs" which is how our democracy works, and posting their details front and centre, and all but asking for them to be attacked and abused for doing their job.
One of the key attractions of Brexit is supposed to be not to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in Brussels.
Why would you want to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in London?
Just because they speak English as a first language, it doesn't mean they will do a great job as they re-arrange your living condiitions without reference to your elected representatives.
Always remember that everyone ends up in opposition eventually. These "Henry VIIIth" laws will be deployed by Corbyn in a few years if they get on to the books now.
Yes but that would mean Russia still wouldn't have decided the result. I was interested in roughly how many votes Russia would have actually needed to affect for Russia to have changed the result.
I don't think anyone is trying to claim Russia decided the result. Like mentioned, any vote changed based on Russian sponsored information interfered with the result, and any changes will have contributed to the result.
It doesn't really matter why MPs are wanting parliamentary oversight, what matters is that parliamentary sovereignty suddenly isn't very important when it could block Brexit. It's holding the Brexit side of the debate to its own argument. Is it an attempt to stop Brexit? Sure, at least in part. It's also a natural consequence of talking up the importance of parliamentary sovereignty.
It's only an attempt to stop Brexit if you feel that Parliament would object to the deal, thus you know it's a bad one and it's a situation where Parliament should have sovereignty.
To be honest, the only Brexit argument that is consistent (regardless of merit) is that about migration.
You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.
The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.
Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.
Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.
Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience
Damn Armchair insurance experts! What do they know?
But seriously, you can't just not pay out. A contract is a contract after all.
Nowt armchair about me! It’s my scientific speciality.
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the key attractions of Brexit is supposed to be not to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in Brussels.
Why would you want to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in London?
It’s all about the policy terms, industry standards and the ABI guidelines.
Some claims fail because the claim itself just isn’t one any insurer would cover. For instance, unemployment claims when you were sacked or walked out. That’s not an unforseeable event, and thus uninsurable. With the caveat that if you win an employment tribunal and it’s ruled Constructive Dismissal, because that’s a different kettle of fish.
Car Insurance? Stuff like drink driving and attempting to park up a tree. Ain’t nobody gonna cover that, because that’s your own stupidity.
Landlord Insurance? Depends upon the claim. I’ve dealt with one where the landlord couldn’t prove there was a tenancy agreement. The last one ended around 3 months before the event, and the story as to why constantly shifted.
But then there’s others where I’ve found in favour of the insured, or have explained to the insured that sometimes delays are inevitable - such as car accidents involving a foreign driver, whether in the UK or abroad. Long story short, there’s a Third Party between the two insurers, and it can be difficult to get legal action involved, as it’s that third party who needs to nominate solicitors - and they simply don’t have to. Man that makes things a right ball ache.
BaronIveagh wrote: Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.
The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.
ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?
You're making a very broad claim. Do you have any proof that all intelligence services interfere in democratic elections in other countries using covert means?
Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're making a very broad claim. Do you have any proof that all intelligence services interfere in democratic elections in other countries using covert means?
Only from my own reading of books and any other material on the subject where it details Western interference in other nations including other western nations - the CIA was notorious for this in South and Central America. Russia does it, East Asia does it.
I am curious why you think they don't? As I said its part of their job to destabilise enemy nations and promote friendly regimes in them and notional friendly countries whilst discouraging unfriendly regimes. Many do this inside their own nations - which is often illegal.
Been that way for hundreds of years if not longer.
Future War Cultist wrote: Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.
We're not bound by law to leave in March 2019.
May also wants a legal date of leaving to be written into this bill. That wil come up for a vote next week and is again likely to result in a rebellion, partly because it's BLOODY fething STUPID to lay down specific legal restrictions within which our team can negotiate.
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
Parliamentary sovereignty - If you want to be highly, highly pedantic then MPs are the designated representative of a given area. They go to Westminster to vote so we don't have to. On that basis, brexit won by a landslide and you should be furious that MPs whose constituency voted leave aren't having their voice heard properly in parliament, but people who won't to remain are not interested in that line of argument. Nobody, not the MPs, the journalists, nobody seriously thinks that ammendment had anything to do with the sovereignty of parliament. We're all adults, we all know what happened and we all know what it was about, and that was shuffling in a clause that means if remain MPs can muster enough votes they can reject any deal and perpetually keep sending the government back to Brussels to negotiate, in what they hope will delay Brexit. The two problems standing in their way are the fact that the more politicians drag their heels against the vote, the more they just confirm everyones opinion of politicians as being arrogant, self-serving, lying and thus make it increasing likely that staunch remain MPs will lose their seats, and the small problem of the EU turning around after two years and saying "welp, times up, bye then", which is increasingly where they seem to be headed (Spain in particular has a strong interest in trying to deter future break away attempts...) and which the UK government can do nothing about.
All that's really happening then is that the governments negotiating position has been weakened and in all probability they'll over turn this ammendment later, so the whole thing will end up being a giant waste of everyones time.
bouncingboredom wrote: Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
While that may be true, the idea that your enemies view it in a positive manner and allies view it in a negative manner might suggest it's a bad idea, vote or not. But then reality has never stopped the British from shoving their own face in the meat grinder just to prove that they were right about it not being sharp at all. And once it being shaved off, demanded that some hero save them. Oh, Nelson, what would England have done without you!
bouncingboredom wrote: Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
While that may be true, the idea that your enemies view it in a positive manner and allies view it in a negative manner might suggest it's a bad idea, vote or not. But then reality has never stopped the British from shoving their own face in the meat grinder just to prove that they were right about it not being sharp at all. And once it being shaved off, demanded that some hero save them. Oh, Nelson, what would England have done without you!
Some of our allies, such as them down under, seem to think it's a positive. The US/UK also thought removing Saddam would be a good idea and that toppling Gaddafi would bring peace and prosperity to Libya. Both your government and ours is happy to turn a blind eye to what some of our allies in the middle east get up to, because it's convenient to do so. I wouldn't worry too much about what other people think, as frequently their opinions are driven by what's best for them, not for us.
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.
It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.
ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?
Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.
The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.
It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.
It's almost as if I imagined 40 years of Euro-Skeptics, 40 years of anti-EU propaganda from the Daily Mail, and Bojo admitting he started writing anti-EU columns, all those years ago...
It's a long shot, but maybe 40 years of being drip-fed that entered the minds of a lot of people ahead of June 23rd 2016?
I suppose Putin was there in the 1970s, laying the foundations for the Brexit vote. Maybe he inspired Tony Benn to campaign against Britain joining the EEC?
bouncingboredom wrote: The two problems standing in their way are the fact that the more politicians drag their heels against the vote, the more they just confirm everyones opinion of politicians as being arrogant, self-serving, lying and thus make it increasing likely that staunch remain MPs will lose their seats.
People already had that option in May but decided not to so your thinking is flawed. I don't think anyone would claim that Anne Soubry was anything but against Wrexit yet she is the MP that voted for Remaining. People voted for the Tories in Scotland despite being predominantly remain and so on (though god knows why the only place the Tories deserve to be is in the deepest darkest dankest sewer where all dense faeces end up).
the small problem of the EU turning around after two years and saying "welp, times up, bye then", which is increasingly where they seem to be headed (Spain in particular has a strong interest in trying to deter future break away attempts...) and which the UK government can do nothing about.
We are leaving the EU, their main responsibility is to the EU. This should come as no surprise. We simply don't have the clout to make the EU come to the table at all. The last couple of weeks should have shown that quite clearly.
ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?
Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.
The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...
Are you saying that successful manipulation of mass media in the 1970s influenced Britain to join the EEC? Because your argument about Russia cuts both ways.
There were an awful lot of people with a vested interest in seeing Britain in the EEC, operating back then...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.
According to The Guardian's live politics feed, two EU leaders have said that if The Commons rejects the deal, then the EU is not going to start another negotiation.
One of these days, Parliament is going to learn that its authority stops at Dover.
Parliamentary sovereignty - If you want to be highly, highly pedantic then MPs are the designated representative of a given area. They go to Westminster to vote so we don't have to. On that basis, brexit won by a landslide and you should be furious that MPs whose constituency voted leave aren't having their voice heard properly in parliament, but people who won't to remain are not interested in that line of argument.
Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t. And then it only made sense if you assume that all leave voters were “leave at all costs”. Perhaps many of those MPs are representing the people who voted for them and voted leave, but may not be the leave that is being offered?
Whirlwind wrote:People already had that option in May but decided not to so your thinking is flawed.
Back then the process had only just begun and things were moving forward. While Anna Soubry et al were still complaining, they were not actively preventing the process from going ahead.
We are leaving the EU, their main responsibility is to the EU. This should come as no surprise.
To me and you it doesn't, but it seems there are many MPs and some on the Remain side who seem convinced they can stop brexit or perhaps tie it up by using the ammendment to keep sending parliament back to the EU to negotiate, or that if parliament says no then brexit will just cease. The EU however has made it clear that this is all going ahead, whether some MPs like it or not.
Steve steveson wrote:Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t.
I would only respond to put forth in the kindest of terms that I think you're being incredibly naive.
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.
It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.
It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.
It's almost as if I imagined 40 years of Euro-Skeptics, 40 years of anti-EU propaganda from the Daily Mail, and Bojo admitting he started writing anti-EU columns, all those years ago...
It's a long shot, but maybe 40 years of being drip-fed that entered the minds of a lot of people ahead of June 23rd 2016?
I suppose Putin was there in the 1970s, laying the foundations for the Brexit vote. Maybe he inspired Tony Benn to campaign against Britain joining the EEC?
Why do you keep thinking that the Russian involvement is responsible for all 17 million votes? It's a strawman we've burnt down 3 times already.
No-one is saying that the Russians caused Brexit. No-one. What we're saying is that the Russians paid for some pro-brexit propaganda, targeted at the undecided. That may have swayed some number of voters, and may or may not have been significant. Given the narrow margin, it may have nudged it over the line.
Steve steveson wrote:Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t.
I would only respond to put forth in the kindest of terms that I think you're being incredibly naive.
And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.
Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?
To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.
I don’t disagree that it is possible for parliament to stop Brexit, I just don’t agree with the assertion that this is the aim of the rebellion on this vote. If that were the aim there are far better ways. If the majority of MPs wanted to stop Brexit they could just bring down the government with a vote of no confidence or have bloked the Brexit bill in full.
ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?
Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.
The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...
We have many more forms of media now than before so arguably its harder to manipulate populations without controlling a large proportion of them. Might be wrong there - but often the source of information for society as whole in the past was much more restricted as to access and the nature of the information.
Social media may be new - manipulation of a type media to achieve the goals of a foreign or domestic power is not at all new. Does it matter the exact tool of manipulation - again this is just something that one agency will be mroe effective until the others catch up or indeed counter it by their own manipulation of other media channels.
What interests me in this case is the outrage about one power doing it as a distraction technique by the other power/s or is it a straight counter?
Agree few in the media are looking much at the Crimea or indeed Syria but then who is looking at Yemen, Tibet or the Kurdish/ Turkish border or any of the other forgotton wars / outrages.
To me and you it doesn't, but it seems there are many MPs and some on the Remain side who seem convinced they can stop brexit or perhaps tie it up by using the ammendment to keep sending parliament back to the EU to negotiate, or that if parliament says no then brexit will just cease. The EU however has made it clear that this is all going ahead, whether some MPs like it or not.
I'm not sure that is correct. I'm sure the EU would be quite happy to keep us in the EU as that would benefit both sides (other than the damage done for losing institutions like the Banking and medicine authority). I'm also sure they would accept an ultra light Wrexit where we keep everything the same but have no voice at the table. What they won't accept is the UK trying to have its cake and eat it (so keeping all the good things and paying for none of it).
Now the argument is that for the hard Wrexit nutcase MPs like Boris the Clown, David the fool and so on they will quite happily take a no deal Wrexit deal despite the horrendous damage it would do to the future and our children's future prospects because it keeps them popular with a large part of the newUKIP faithful. A large proportion of these are elderly and in some ways will benefit from such a Wrexit as they will see their pensions jump massively. The younger generations will have to pay for it though (and likely again not see the benefits when they get to that age). So if an MP thinks that it is better to protect the younger generation then they are entitled to say "absolutely not" and send May back to the drawing board. If that in the end means we stay in the EU then fair enough because in the end that is what they as the MPs decide is best for the UK and that is what we vote them in for. I'd prefer they stand by what they think is best for the country rather than let May bribe them with chief whip positions despite using derogatory and racist language just so they can get some semblance of power. I've said it before if we had a referendum on the national speed limit then the chance are we would vote for 90mph or whatever. That doesn't mean it's a sensible or rational thing to do, so should MPs then just wave it through regardless of the damage?
We have many more forms of media now than before so arguably its harder to manipulate populations without controlling a large proportion of them. Might be wrong there - but often the source of information for society as whole in the past was much more restricted as to access and the nature of the information.
Social media may be new - manipulation of a type media to achieve the goals of a foreign or domestic power is not at all new. Does it matter the exact tool of manipulation - again this is just something that one agency will be mroe effective until the others catch up or indeed counter it by their own manipulation of other media channels.
It's the speed that such information can be disseminate now. There's little control and anyone can post anything (not that I would entertain any form of free speech being withheld). However it does open an avenue to persuading people without rational argument, just reinforcing stereotypes and "it sounds obvious" statements (although the Daily Fail, Sunday Distress and Scum aren't helping in this regard). That message can reach tens of thousands of people and become a monster before even traditional media can respond.
The problem is that many (if not all in different fields) of us don't have the ability to differentiate between unreliable information and challenge what is being said, but that's an education issue. The governments response is to try and control that flow of information instead, effectively resulting in state control of what you read and see which is never a good thing because it reduces peoples ability to challenge them.
Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.
Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces
Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.
Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.
Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?
I'm not sure you understand what the amendment entails. To clarify, the previous position was that Parliament would be allowed a vote on the deal; they either accept its terms or we leave the EU without a deal, which seems reasonable enough. The new amendment requires a seperate piece of legislation to be put through parliament, one which can be tied up and amended in turn. If that bill is changed then it effectively means the deal has changed and as such the government has to go back to the EU and get them to agree to a new deal, which they then have to put through their parliaments etc. It is designed to try and extend the process out for as long as possible. In theory (but unlikely in practice) it could be used to indefinitely delay the UK leaving the EU, which is why nobody is under any real illusion as to what this is about. It's not about sovereignty or the supremacy of parliament. It's about trying to prevent Brexit by any means possible.
I hope this helps clarify the argument.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.
Only if we assume that the EU would allow them to do so. The process has begun now and the EU has the power to basically say "nope, you're commited now and you're leaving when your times up, bye". Which they might use as an attempt to prevent other regions from considering using article 50 as a way of negotiating more favourable terms, e.g. (an albeit unlikely scenario) if Germany were to try and use an "article 50, but not really, lolz" tactic to try and force concessions from the EU that left it in a more favourable position.
Whirlwind wrote:Now the argument is that for the hard Wrexit nutcase MPs like Boris the Clown, David the fool and so on they will quite happily take a no deal Wrexit deal despite the horrendous damage it would do to the future and our children's future prospects because it keeps them popular with a large part of the newUKIP faithful. A large proportion of these are elderly and in some ways will benefit from such a Wrexit as they will see their pensions jump massively. The younger generations will have to pay for it though (and likely again not see the benefits when they get to that age). So if an MP thinks that it is better to protect the younger generation then they are entitled to say "absolutely not" and send May back to the drawing board. If that in the end means we stay in the EU then fair enough because in the end that is what they as the MPs decide is best for the UK and that is what we vote them in for. I'd prefer they stand by what they think is best for the country rather than let May bribe them with chief whip positions despite using derogatory and racist language just so they can get some semblance of power. I've said it before if we had a referendum on the national speed limit then the chance are we would vote for 90mph or whatever. That doesn't mean it's a sensible or rational thing to do, so should MPs then just wave it through regardless of the damage?
I'm picking up a variety of subtle hints which suggest you might be opposed to Brexit?
Our party system works on a fairly simple basis. The party funds your campaign, provides you with helpers and the like, and you also benefit (in theory) from the national exsposure and recognition that your party has. You go from being a nobody, perhaps a minor figure recognised among a handful of local business people or councillors, to being the labour candidate or the tory candidate. If your party wins you even have a shot at getting into the government as a minister. In return, you vote as you're told to. If you don't like your party's stance on an issue you can normally get away with voting against them (or really, by abstaining) on certain issues, such as when a free vote is offered or when the whip is just a one line, and as long as you don't do it too often. But on a vote like this, a three line whip, you're expected to tow the party line. If you don't, you can always attempt to get re-elected at the next GE on your own, with no party support and with a party candidate now running against you. This is the bargain that MPs make with their party. If they don't like it, they shouldn't stand for the party in the first place.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Are you saying that successful manipulation of mass media in the 1970s influenced Britain to join the EEC? Because your argument about Russia cuts both ways.
There were an awful lot of people with a vested interest in seeing Britain in the EEC, operating back then...
Maybe? Mass media does influence the population to a degree, advertisement works, and so on. I wasn't alive in the 70s but if some media owner had ways to benefit from Britain joining the EEC then they probably would have tried to influence their company to make that idea look better. That might not have decided everything but it could have swayed opinions to a degree. Add up enough misinformation and deception and you can make people vote against their own interest if better resources are not available or hard to identify. The internet has made that type of work more precise and effective (it's called microtargeting). Here are a few links that explore what's recently been going on with that type of media manipulation:
Mr Morden wrote: Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.
Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces
The thing is that a lot of people don't bother to get a variety of views and information from different sources, and try to consider an issue from all angles before making a decision about it. Instead they form opinions on what amounts to little more than prejudice and then gather scraps of things that feed their opinion through confirmation bias.
Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.
Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.
Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?
I'm not sure you understand what the amendment entails. To clarify, the previous position was that Parliament would be allowed a vote on the deal; they either accept its terms or we leave the EU without a deal, which seems reasonable enough. The new amendment requires a seperate piece of legislation to be put through parliament, one which can be tied up and amended in turn. If that bill is changed then it effectively means the deal has changed and as such the government has to go back to the EU and get them to agree to a new deal, which they then have to put through their parliaments etc. It is designed to try and extend the process out for as long as possible. In theory (but unlikely in practice) it could be used to indefinitely delay the UK leaving the EU, which is why nobody is under any real illusion as to what this is about. It's not about sovereignty or the supremacy of parliament. It's about trying to prevent Brexit by any means possible.
I hope this helps clarify the argument.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.
Only if we assume that the EU would allow them to do so. The process has begun now and the EU has the power to basically say "nope, you're commited now and you're leaving when your times up, bye". Which they might use as an attempt to prevent other regions from considering using article 50 as a way of negotiating more favourable terms, e.g. (an albeit unlikely scenario) if Germany were to try and use an "article 50, but not really, lolz" tactic to try and force concessions from the EU that left it in a more favourable position.
My point is that the parliament of the UK, not the government or the prime minister, is the body that holds sovereignty about this kind of decision.
Mr Morden wrote: Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.
Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces
The thing is that a lot of people don't bother to get a variety of views and information from different sources, and try to consider an issue from all angles before making a decision about it. Instead they form opinions on what amounts to little more than prejudice and then gather scraps of things that feed their opinion through confirmation bias.
Ah but my point is that how is that any different from history apart from the fact that most people can access much more information than ever before - should they choose to do so. Previously they were severely limited, now they are only limited by their own inclinations and time.
Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.
Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.
You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?
And in any case, who cares *why* parliamentary sovereignty was restored, you should be glad that it *was*. That was the point of Brexit, wasn't it?
To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
It is completely wrong for the 48% and the majority of people from the 52% who aren't hard Brexiteers, to be bounced into it through executive fiat propelled by a cabal of semi-private influences.
It's doubly true for MPs representing constituencies that voted Remain.
The reason why May does not have a majority is that she called an election to give her a good majority to support her Hard Brexit strategy. She completely failed. This shows that Hard Brexit is not what the people want.
Remember how during the campaign even Farage was saying 'nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market' yeah? 'Member? I 'member.....
Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed. So the people have very literally not voted for a Hard Brexit, because they were told nobody was seeking such a thing.
This is why we need a new referendum. Now things are beginning to crystallise, we the electorate need to be consulted from our position of greater clarity.
Remember how during the campaign even Farage was saying 'nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market' yeah? 'Member? I 'member.....
Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed. So the people have very literally not voted for a Hard Brexit, because they were told nobody was seeking such a thing.
This is why we need a new referendum. Now things are beginning to crystallise, we the electorate need to be consulted from our position of greater clarity.
This. SO MUCH THIS.
I still can't get over the Daily Heil having them on the front page, such a disgusting hate-filled mouthpiece. There were parties in the street when Thatcher died, I assume when Dacre dies the celebration will be seen from space.
Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.
Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.
The old "everyone knows" argument...
Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?
I'm not sure you understand what the amendment entails. To clarify, the previous position was that Parliament would be allowed a vote on the deal; they either accept its terms or we leave the EU without a deal, which seems reasonable enough. The new amendment requires a seperate piece of legislation to be put through parliament, one which can be tied up and amended in turn. If that bill is changed then it effectively means the deal has changed and as such the government has to go back to the EU and get them to agree to a new deal, which they then have to put through their parliaments etc. It is designed to try and extend the process out for as long as possible. In theory (but unlikely in practice) it could be used to indefinitely delay the UK leaving the EU, which is why nobody is under any real illusion as to what this is about. It's not about sovereignty or the supremacy of parliament. It's about trying to prevent Brexit by any means possible.
So your argument is that you are confident that the deal won't be too soft, and if it is we will have a no deal brexit, which is fine by you.
I understand exactly what the amendment entails. It entails ensuring that there is proper scrutiny by parliament and it's sovereignty is retained, rather than a puppet parliament where in reality the PM has all of the power, with the ability to put forward a "my way or the high way" situation. As it stood we had a situation where the government could come to parliament and say "Which dog gak sandwich do you want? The one with peanut butter or the one with jam?". That is not genuine scrutiny. Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes. As someone who is pro brexit you should be pleased with this. I thought that was the point in brexit. Remain supporters are not the ones calling for people to be sacked or deselected.
Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed.
I don't know about that. A lot of remain supporters said we could not stay in the single market but drop the related fundamental freedoms, but that was called "project fear" and dismissed as nonsense, by people who were either ignorant or being disingenuous wit the argument "the EU can't stop us selling in to the single market" as if membership of the single market was the same as being able to sell to EU countries, even with huge restrictions and tariffs.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
It is completely wrong for the 48% and the majority of people from the 52% who aren't hard Brexiteers, to be bounced into it through executive fiat propelled by a cabal of semi-private influences.
It's doubly true for MPs representing constituencies that voted Remain.
The reason why May does not have a majority is that she called an election to give her a good majority to support her Hard Brexit strategy. She completely failed. This shows that Hard Brexit is not what the people want.
And the people were offered a platform back into the EU by a party that ran on a vote for us and we'll head straight back to Brussels, campaign.
That party got 12 seats out of 650...
We had a referendum, and the public voted to leave.
We had a GE and the people sent the pro-EU Lib Dems packing.
We had a court case that said that A50 needs Parliamentary approval, and parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of activating A50.
The Government has won 35/36 amendments on the latest Brexit bill, and has promised a final vote on the deal...
So I don't know where this idea is coming from that people are getting bounced into Brexit.
The people have spoken. Parliament has spoken. What more do you need?
Remember how during the campaign even Farage was saying 'nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market' yeah? 'Member? I 'member.....
Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed. So the people have very literally not voted for a Hard Brexit, because they were told nobody was seeking such a thing.
This is why we need a new referendum. Now things are beginning to crystallise, we the electorate need to be consulted from our position of greater clarity.
Again, I can only say that it's a shame that a party, we'll call them Lib Dems for argument's sake, didn't run on that platform at the last election.
People could have voted for them. Oh wait, they did. Or except, they didn't give them that many votes.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, this has all played out pretty much in line with "project fear", with the exception of WW3 and a full blown recession.
It's depressing, but not surprising.
To be fair, no one claimed WW3 would happen, just that we would be less secure, which is a bit of an esoteric issue. Unless we go to war with the EU in the next two years it will be a difficult one to prove. For the recession, give it time. As pro-brexit supporters like to remind us, it's not happened yet.
Remember how during the campaign even Farage was saying 'nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market' yeah? 'Member? I 'member.....
Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed. So the people have very literally not voted for a Hard Brexit, because they were told nobody was seeking such a thing.
This is why we need a new referendum. Now things are beginning to crystallise, we the electorate need to be consulted from our position of greater clarity.
Again, I can only say that it's a shame that a party, we'll call them Lib Dems for argument's sake, didn't run on that platform at the last election.
People could have voted for them. Oh wait, they did. Or except, they didn't give them that many votes.
I know. It's shocking. The Lib Dems didn't get 48% of the vote. Its almost like people may have voted on more than one issue.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, this has all played out pretty much in line with "project fear", with the exception of WW3 and a full blown recession.
It's depressing, but not surprising.
To be fair, no one claimed WW3 would happen, just that we would be less secure, which is a bit of an esoteric issue. Unless we go to war with the EU in the next two years it will be a difficult one to prove. For the recession, give it time. As pro-brexit supporters like to remind us, it's not happened yet.
We had recessions when we were in the EU. Being in the EU doesn't make you immune to financial difficulty, the Greeks could tell you a thing or two about that!
I'm fully aware that I might annoy certain people on certain issues, but the risible performance of the Lib Dems at the last election, is something that gets my goat.
Whenever I mention that the pro-EU Lib Dems only got 12 seats from 650, people shift the goalposts and say there are other issues in a GE. Fair enough.
But we're constantly told that Brexit is the defining issue of the day, but nary a cheep from Remain supporters on the Lib Dems performance. Why didn't they rally to Farron if they support the EU so much?
Either Brexit is the defining issue or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Your implying a connection where there is non. For whatever reason many people voted remain but did not vote for the Lib Dem’s. No idea why, but that’s what happened. That doesn’t mean that these people are now anti EU.
You can't see why people who wanted to stay in the EU, didn't vote for the Lib Dems? You are aware they had other policies, and they were unpalatable to some, hense the voting.
Again, you are either educationally sub par, or a wind up merchant. It's the latter.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, this has all played out pretty much in line with "project fear", with the exception of WW3 and a full blown recession.
It's depressing, but not surprising.
To be fair, no one claimed WW3 would happen, just that we would be less secure, which is a bit of an esoteric issue. Unless we go to war with the EU in the next two years it will be a difficult one to prove. For the recession, give it time. As pro-brexit supporters like to remind us, it's not happened yet.
We had recessions when we were in the EU. Being in the EU doesn't make you immune to financial difficulty, the Greeks could tell you a thing or two about that!
Talk about goalpost shifting. No one said that being in the EU protected you from financial difficulty, only that leaving is hugely damaging to our economy. What your saying is like saying “Why shouldn’t I sit in the middle of he M25? People get run over every day not siting in the middle of a motorway.”. Even the most optimistic outcomes put us losing something like 4% of GDP.
Kilkrazy wrote: Their inclinations in many cases are to access only the very large amount of "information" which confirms their existing views.
The very fact that so many other people seems to agree with them, helps to confirm their bias.
In modern social media, the "people" agreeing with them are often bots.
Agreed - but only having a small part of the "story" that's nothing new - the difference is you can get the info "if" you want to, so much more easily than ever before, now the difference is it might be swamped in a morose of other information - or it might just be too much effort for most of us to bother along with a general apathy toward politics - again nothing new.
People no doubt felt the same when they voted in Ancient Greece and Rome - those very few that qualified of course in the former and most of them didn't matter in the latter.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, this has all played out pretty much in line with "project fear", with the exception of WW3 and a full blown recession.
It's depressing, but not surprising.
To be fair, no one claimed WW3 would happen, just that we would be less secure, which is a bit of an esoteric issue. Unless we go to war with the EU in the next two years it will be a difficult one to prove. For the recession, give it time. As pro-brexit supporters like to remind us, it's not happened yet.
We had recessions when we were in the EU. Being in the EU doesn't make you immune to financial difficulty, the Greeks could tell you a thing or two about that!
Talk about goalpost shifting. No one said that being in the EU protected you from financial difficulty, only that leaving is hugely damaging to our economy. What your saying is like saying “Why shouldn’t I sit in the middle of he M25? People get run over every day not siting in the middle of a motorway.”. Even the most optimistic outcomes put us losing something like 4% of GDP.
I've said many a time that it's foolish to predict anything, and that economic forecasts are like candles in the wind - unreliable.
I freely admit that we need, at a bare minimum, a solid 10 years before we can judge Brexit to be a success or failure.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
It is completely wrong for the 48% and the majority of people from the 52% who aren't hard Brexiteers, to be bounced into it through executive fiat propelled by a cabal of semi-private influences.
It's doubly true for MPs representing constituencies that voted Remain.
The reason why May does not have a majority is that she called an election to give her a good majority to support her Hard Brexit strategy. She completely failed. This shows that Hard Brexit is not what the people want.
And the people were offered a platform back into the EU by a party that ran on a vote for us and we'll head straight back to Brussels, campaign.
That party got 12 seats out of 650...
We had a referendum, and the public voted to leave.
We had a GE and the people sent the pro-EU Lib Dems packing.
The problem is you conflating how people voted in the GE to how they voted in the referendum and they are two entirely different things. The results would have been completely different if we had PR. In that case LD would have had much larger share of the seats, approximatyely 60. However you are happily ignoring that if MPs were voted in int he same ways PR was taken then Tories would nto be in power, LDs would have a sigificant say and we would almost certainly be having another referendum (and there would also be Green and SNP votes on top of this).
I've said this before I voted Labour at the GE not because I support their view on Wrexit but simply because I wanted to stop the nutcase Tories led by May with Emperor delusions taking us backwards to sometime in the 1950s. In that sense it is having some effect if not as much as I would have liked because May is doing everything she can to turn the Government into a Dictatorship. If I had PR I would have voted for a pro-EU party (proabably Greens). However in my area that is just a wasted vote and effectively worked against the prime aim of removing May and her cronies.
You've got to get round that the GE and Referendum were different ways of voting and hence are simply not comparable in the way you claim.
To be fair, no one claimed WW3 would happen, just that we would be less secure, which is a bit of an esoteric issue. Unless we go to war with the EU in the next two years it will be a difficult one to prove. For the recession, give it time. As pro-brexit supporters like to remind us, it's not happened yet.
But we are way behind in growth compared to the EU. That is a recession of sorts because the relative economic growth means that we are getting worse off. Recession and growth are too broad in reality as good comparisons. A recession is just when our growth contracts in two quarters, however relatively if our contraction is 1% and the rest of the world is contracting by 10% then *relatively* our economy is growing. However what we are currently seeing is that compared to the EU our growth is half that of the EU (and pretty much every other developed nation apart from perhaps Italy). That means our economy is shrinking relatively. From one perspective we already are in a recession (just not the one governments define as recession).
I freely admit that we need, at a bare minimum, a solid 10 years before we can judge Brexit to be a success or failure.
Brexit is already a failure in every metric beyond reducing the number of foreigners. 10 years won't change that.
I'm willing to bet that we'll be trying to get back in the EU within 10 years of a transisional deal ending. All it'll take is a bad deal and a general election or 2nd referendum.
Herzlos wrote:You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?
Sorry, but you must be the only adult in the country who doesn't see this at this point. I'm fairly certain that I could sit here, throw links at you from all directions, and you'll just sit there and say "proves nothing". I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there are many ways the amendment could have been worded to achieve that result without trying to put the permanent brakes on Brexit. At this point you're just willfully ignoring that and other points, so I'm not really sure what's the point in me going to any great lengths to try and provide you with citations etc. You have google, off you trot.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.
It is completely wrong for the 48% and the majority of people from the 52% who aren't hard Brexiteers, to be bounced into it through executive fiat propelled by a cabal of semi-private influences.
Except everytime the press interviews Brexit supporters "on the street" most of them are hard brexiteers. I personally think we should use the time we have to negotiate in good faith with the EU and try to come to some kind of agreement. But there's little doubt that the main mood among brexiteers is to leave asap.
It's doubly true for MPs representing constituencies that voted Remain.
This sounds oddly like the SNP after the last referendum, trying to argue that the opinions of the losing side should hold as much weight as the opinion of the winning side, despite the whole point of the vote being to deliver a result that went one way or another. What of the Leave constituencies? If it had been a GE leave would have won a comfortable majority.
The reason why May does not have a majority is that she called an election to give her a good majority to support her Hard Brexit strategy. She completely failed. This shows that Hard Brexit is not what the people want.
It had a lot more to do with her disasterous manifesto and accompanying campaign. As people have mentioned later in the thread, if brexit was the issue that drove the vote then surely the Lib Dems should have romped to half the votes, being the only party that was promising a re-vote?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Suddenly, we're leaving the Single Market - not something either side promoted or endorsed. So the people have very literally not voted for a Hard Brexit, because they were told nobody was seeking such a thing.
See above for the general mood about hard brexit. It was made abundantly clear during the vote that staying in the single market meant accepting the four freedoms, which nobody on the leave side was prepared to accept. I think Farage et al suggested that we could seek a Norway type deal (EFTA) or Swiss model, but hard brexit has always been something on the table. It was well known before the vote that a failure to strike a deal would result in what we now term the Hard Brexit, so to pretend that people didn't know this was an option is completely disingenuous. It's just another of the "leave voters didn't know what they voted for, let's make them vote again, and keep voting again until they give us the right answer" type arguments. Again, very EU.
Steve steveson wrote:I understand exactly what the amendment entails. It entails ensuring that there is proper scrutiny by parliament and it's sovereignty is retained, rather than a puppet parliament where in reality the PM has all of the power, with the ability to put forward a "my way or the high way" situation. As it stood we had a situation where the government could come to parliament and say "Which dog gak sandwich do you want? The one with peanut butter or the one with jam?". That is not genuine scrutiny. Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes. As someone who is pro brexit you should be pleased with this. I thought that was the point in brexit. Remain supporters are not the ones calling for people to be sacked or deselected.
As I said to Herzlos, I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there were ways to word it to achieve that desired aim. I've also already explained how the UK political party system works. You're welcome to go back and re-read them
Herzlos wrote:Yeah, this has all played out pretty much in line with "project fear", with the exception of WW3 and a full blown recession. It's depressing, but not surprising.
With the small exception that none of their predictions have come true.
Whirlwind wrote:But we are way behind in growth compared to the EU. That is a recession of sorts because the relative economic growth means that we are getting worse off.
So now that the predicted recession has failed to materialise, remain supporters are now trying to redefine what recession means, despite this being a widely accepted economic term? You couldn't make it up. It's almost like you're wishing the economy would fail so you can go "look, see!" regardless of what impact that might have on families etc.
I honestly think I've gone about as far as I can on this specific issue. I don't see anyone on the remain side in this thread listening. You're ignoring things right in front of you and now trying to redefine economic terms to make a tenuous case. I think more heat than light is being generated at this point so I probably will only reply to specifc points, probably unrelated to Brexit from this point. A nice debate, albeit a fruitless one I think.
There are times when I despair of this nation, but equally, there are times when I love this country.
God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.
Mate, Brexit was voted for by just over a third of the country. Don't try and dress up people getting their democratic representatives to delay an action they despise as some sort of evil plot to thwart what the majority of the country wants. A third of the country couldn't give a toss, and it is likely that if the vote was held again tomorrow it would be a 1% the other way,
Not to mention that 'The Will of the People' sounds like some sort of Neo-Communist punk rock band.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There are times when I despair of this nation, but equally, there are times when I love this country.
God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.
Common sense and plain peaking at its finest.
Gonnae stop pretending that not letting Maybot do whatever she damn well pleases with no scrutiny is the same as not leaving, yeah?
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.
Mate, Brexit was voted for by just over a third of the country. Don't try and dress up people getting their democratic representatives to delay an action they despise as some sort of evil plot to thwart what the majority of the country wants. A third of the country couldn't give a toss, and it is likely that if the vote was held again tomorrow it would be a 1% the other way,
Not to mention that 'The Will of the People' sounds like some sort of Neo-Communist punk rock band.
Yeah, I'm never going to understand the logic of "you lost the vote, so now you must bury your previous conviction FOREVER". It's not like the losers of a general election just shrug and say "well that's is stuffed, we'll try again in 5 years". Nope, they keep agitating against the winners. All the time. That's pretty much how it's supposed to work.
There seems to be a lot of fear from some of the Brexiteer side that Those Dastardly Remainers Will Take My Brexit Away From Me without a single ounce of appreciation that many on the remain side share equal horror that Those Vile Brexiteers Are Dragging Me Out Of The EU. It's "we won, no backsies" when if the result was the other way we'd probably be looking at another referendum in a decade at most...
Ketara wrote: [Mate, Brexit was voted for by just over a third of the country. Don't try and dress up people getting their democratic representatives to delay an action they despise as some sort of evil plot to thwart what the majority of the country wants. A third of the country couldn't give a toss, and it is likely that if the vote was held again tomorrow it would be a 1% the other way,
Not to mention that 'The Will of the People' sounds like some sort of Neo-Communist punk rock band.
If you don't vote in the referendum then presumably you're accpeting that whatever else people vote for, you'll be happy with. Otherwise you would have voted. If you don't like that, then vote. Of course I'm sure if Remain had won you wouldn't be talking about any of the people that didn't bother to vote who hoped we'd leave. You'd be telling them "welp, should have voted".
Honestly, some of the arguments on the Remain side just.... no words.
Ketara wrote: [Mate, Brexit was voted for by just over a third of the country. Don't try and dress up people getting their democratic representatives to delay an action they despise as some sort of evil plot to thwart what the majority of the country wants. A third of the country couldn't give a toss, and it is likely that if the vote was held again tomorrow it would be a 1% the other way,
Not to mention that 'The Will of the People' sounds like some sort of Neo-Communist punk rock band.
If you don't vote in the referendum then presumably you're accpeting that whatever else people vote for, you'll be happy with. Otherwise you would have voted. If you don't like that, then vote. Of course I'm sure if Remain had won you wouldn't be talking about any of the people that didn't bother to vote who hoped we'd leave. You'd be telling them "welp, should have voted".
Honestly, some of the arguments on the Remain side just.... no words.
As has been pointed out, Ketara's backing leave. You're making yourself seem extraordinarily silly.
If you don't vote in the referendum then presumably you're accpeting that whatever else people vote for, you'll be happy with. Otherwise you would have voted.
There's a mile of difference between 'Just over a third of the country voted to leave, just under a third to stay, and a third doesn't give a toss', and your somewhat bizare 'THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN'.
If we had an eighty percent turnout and a seventy percent vote to leave, you might have more grounds for what you're saying; but at the moment?Making such grandiose statements about what the British people do and don't want seems somewhat silly, when basic statistics would appear to indicate otherwise. If people want to back their MP's going out of their way to change the decision, let them. That's kind of the point of democracy, y'know? The 'will of the people' not only can change its mind, it does so quite frequently and perversely.
You've made a few good points earlier on in this thread, and it's nice to see another reasonably well read player in the debating game. Don't spoil it all by going off some kind of half-cocked general rant about what 'those damn Remainers are like'. It just sets everyone's teeth on edge and starts things devolving.
Ketara wrote: If we had an eighty percent turnout and a seventy percent vote to leave, you might have more grounds for what you're saying; but at the moment?Making such grandiose statements about what the British people do and don't want seems somewhat silly, when basic statistics would appear to indicate otherwise. If people want to back their MP's going out of their way to change the decision, let them. That's kind of the point of democracy, y'know? The 'will of the people' not only can change its mind, it does so quite frequently and perversely.
You've made a few good points earlier on in this thread, and it's nice to see another reasonably well read player in the debating game. Don't spoil it all by going off some kind of half-cocked general rant about what 'those damn Remainers are like'. It just sets everyone's teeth on edge and starts things devolving.
The context for this "will of the people" is simple. The debate over the EU has raged for several decades now. Some people are treating it as if this issue has only just popped up out of the blue and the public has had little time to digest any of the details. In reality this has been a battleground that has been as bitterly fought over as any from a GW setting. It ripped the tory apart for years, much to everyones amusement (except the tories). It spawned an entire party whose sole purpose was to extract Britain from the EU. They won seats in the European parliament and spent years arguing their case (with varying degrees of success and rationality....), constantly keeping the issue in the public eye. Finally Cameron cracked and decided to settle the issue once and for all.
And so we had an extended debate, on top of the millions of words that had already been written and spoken up until that point on the issue, we now added million mores. We had TV debates, Internet debates, Facebook pages, family and friends discussing their views, it was referendum fever for a long while till the point where people were sick of talking about it and sick of hearing about it. And then, finally we went to the polls. Some voted Leave. Others voted Remain. Others decided to give it a miss. Leave won.
I therefore find any kind of suggestion that this vote didn't reflect the opinion and will of the British public to be very odd, considering that it was one of the key issues for generations, was voted on a mass scale (over 72% turnout) and both sides amassed over 16 million votes a piece. It is about as decisive a result as you're ever going to get in modern British poltics at this scale. I also find it odd the suggestion that people didn't know what they were voting for. They knew exactly what was at stake, they'd been debating the issue for several decades. As for the rebel MPs*, they were elected on a party ticket of pushing ahead with Brexit. On such a key issue it would not be out of place for them to stand down having now voted against this interest.
*Just on a side note, I've just seen that Anna Soubry has been receiving messages from some people saying she should be hanged as a traitor. Needless to say I think that's disgusting and it does make me wonder sometimes what goes through some peoples heads. Air presumably, because it certainly isn't anything smart.
bouncingboredom wrote: I also find it odd the suggestion that people didn't know what they were voting for.
In which case I'm sure you can define what "leaving the European Union" entails for all of us in an unambiguous manner that isn't open to multiple mutually exclusive interpretations, no?
I therefore find any kind of suggestion that this vote didn't reflect the opinion and will of the British public to be very odd,
It's simple. The opinion and will of the 'British people' isn't some kind of homogenous singular hive mind. There are thoughts and opinions of every different shade. To make a generalised statement about the 'opinion and will of the British people', it has to be generally applicable; that is to say, an opinion held by the considerable majority of the British people. Which it very clearly isn't, given that just over a third of the population voted for it. You can say, 'Aha, but the non-voters don't count', but even then, the result only shows that barely over half hold that 'will and opinion'.
That's falling quite short of any reasonable conception of a substantial majority of the British people. It's certainly nowhere near enough to make vast generalised statements about the 'British people' as a collective whole. With a margin so narrow, I don't believe there's any reason an MP shouldn't to set out to represent the almost equivalent percentage of people who voted the opposite way, or people be forbidden from actively urging them to do so. It would be precisely the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
The only thing that has truly emerged from this vote is that 'the will and opinion of the British people' is thoroughly diffuse and divided on this issue. Which is highly problematic in and of itself, and trying to portray Remainers as somehow going against the grain and obstructing the will of the substantial majority of the population is the sort of thing which only makes it worse.
It was a stretch to claim a 51.9% majority on a vague question provided the will of the people on referendum day, beyond that it needs sorted out.
It's a total fabrication 18 months later. Not only I'd the outcome less clear, but on such a statically irrelevant majority there's every chance the will is now to stay.
I get the impression those shouting about the will of the people are those that want to leave with the least scrutiny, who'd be demanding another referendum if they lost, just like they are outraged with parliamentary sovereignty when it disagrees with them.
Citing "will of the people" just stinks of having no better reason to leave. But it's been done to death on here.
God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.
May not being able to do what she wants unchecked (a la dictator) is not keeping us in the eu by the back door, despite what Farage says. It's ensuring the parliamentary sovereignty brexiteers love so much.
If anyone's keeping us I'm the eu by the back door it's May will her EU in all but name brexit. You should be cheering for the parliament being able to overturn the incompetent spineless arch remainers.
“Will of the people” just seems to have become the default position of many (but not all) Brexit supporters when they have run out of arguments, which seems pretty quick nowadays. Just shout “it was the will of he people” in their face and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a traitor.
Herzlos wrote: It was a stretch to claim a 51.9% majority on a vague question provided the will of the people on referendum day, beyond that it needs sorted out.
It's a total fabrication 18 months later. Not only I'd the outcome less clear, but on such a statically irrelevant majority there's every chance the will is now to stay.
I get the impression those shouting about the will of the people are those that want to leave with the least scrutiny, who'd be demanding another referendum if they lost, just like they are outraged with parliamentary sovereignty when it disagrees with them.
Citing "will of the people" just stinks of having no better reason to leave. But it's been done to death on here.
God bless Yorkshire and all its people for putting some backbone back into Brexit, and sticking two fingers up to that rabble of Remain supporting MPs in the Commons, who are trying to keep us in the EU by the back door.
May not being able to do what she wants unchecked (a la dictator) is not keeping us in the eu by the back door, despite what Farage says. It's ensuring the parliamentary sovereignty brexiteers love so much.
If anyone's keeping us I'm the eu by the back door it's May will her EU in all but name brexit. You should be cheering for the parliament being able to overturn the incompetent spineless arch remainers.
I agree with you that the debate has been done to death, but I'll say this point anyway
This 52/48 number that keeps getting bandied around is pure horsegak - the most blatant attempt to dissemble you're ever likely to see.
Everybody knew the rules on June 23rd: 50% + 1 vote = victory. There were no clauses built into this referendum e.g 66% for victory or anything like that.
It was a straight shoot-out and Leave won.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: “Will of the people” just seems to have become the default position of many (but not all) Brexit supporters when they have run out of arguments, which seems pretty quick nowadays. Just shout “it was the will of he people” in their face and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a traitor.
The same could be said about soft Brexit and hard Brexit.
Before the referendum, people were already disillusioned with Westminster. Voter turnouts and participation, has been declining since the 1990s. It's a historical trend.
Brexit was one of the biggest democratic events in our history. And if Brexit is stitched up by the political elite, and they show every sign of doing this,
then people's faith in the democratic process in Britain will be shattered forevermore. They will wonder why they bother voting for anybody or anything.
I persoanally, who has never missed any election in decades, will never vote again if Brexit is sold down the river. And I'll say it to anybody who listens not to waste their time voting.
People keep banging on about the economy, but I am dismayed and surprised that people cannot see the danger to this nation's democracy and civic society.
I'm not talking about violence here, I'm talking about huge swathes of the populace note bothering to vote anymore.
This is a deadly danger for our country
And of course, it leaves the door open for demagogues and rabble rousers that will make Farage seem like a moderate EU supporter...
Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.
Within reason. If a clear majority of their constituents voted a certain way (say, 60% plus), then they should really be fighting for that in Parliament. Otherwise they're not representing the bulk of their constituency. They can refuse to do in line with their personal morals of course, but in such a situation they should really resign or be voted out next election because they're effectively showing that they think their personal beliefs trump those of the majority of the people they're meant to represent.
Problem is that the country is very divided whichever way you call it, a significant number of people will be very unhappy about any result of brexit. Remainers lost the vote by very little and are desperate to overturn it feeling they’re being run over roughshod, while Leavers have the (slim) majority giving the impression of more moral authority, and will be furious if they feel cheated by any government not delivering on the referendum. There is already a lot of well grounded suspicion that those in government and the EU do things to suit themselves and businesses, not people and communities, and confidence in referenda is seriously undermined if they suddenly say after the fact that ‘it wasn’t binding actually so we’ll ignore it’. And it is after the fact, Cameron and others in debates on both sides said over and over that the referendum was serious and that it would be followed through. It might not have said that it was binding on the voting paper but that’s what people were sold over and over in an effort presumably to motivate the public into getting out and voting remain.
It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.
No disagreement there, but with something so inconclusive they really need to consider everyone and be free to vote in commons the way they feel is best for their constituency.
I'd the constituents don't like the decision they can change representative. Being outed in the press and receiving death threats is not acceptable for anything ever.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In pure numbers, any form of Brexit will upset more of the voters than no Brexit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People who choose not to vote because they didn't get their own way should be deeply ashamed of themselves and give up any rights to complain.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.
I thought that a good majority of constituencies voted leave, the absolute numbers of votes being 50:50 are because remain areas like London have a very high population heavily weighted in favour of remain. This is why many Labour MPs find themselves in a bind, they we’re supposed to be backing remain but for most their constituents voted leave.
That the Government haven’t even bothered with impact studies should demonstrate this is no longer being driven by what may or may not be for the best, but a pretty extreme political ideology.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Problem is that the country is very divided whichever way you call it, a significant number of people will be very unhappy about any result of brexit. Remainers lost the vote by very little and are desperate to overturn it feeling they’re being run over roughshod, while Leavers have the (slim) majority giving the impression of more moral authority, and will be furious if they feel cheated by any government not delivering on the referendum. There is already a lot of well grounded suspicion that those in government and the EU do things to suit themselves and businesses, not people and communities, and confidence in referenda is seriously undermined if they suddenly say after the fact that ‘it wasn’t binding actually so we’ll ignore it’. And it is after the fact, Cameron and others in debates on both sides said over and over that the referendum was serious and that it would be followed through. It might not have said that it was binding on the voting paper but that’s what people were sold over and over in an effort presumably to motivate the public into getting out and voting remain.
It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.
Well Cameron is a liar and a coward - he specifically stated he would see the country through either way and fled as soon as the result was announced to get his snout into the trough of corporate speakers etc - of course after making sure his cronies were paid off by the tax payer.
I think he was hoping for a cushy well paid EU job (plenty of them) when he delivered a "remain" vote.
People who choose not to vote because they didn't get their own way should be deeply ashamed of themselves and give up any rights to complain.
Same as those who could not be bothered to vote in the first refendum and then whined about the result - its their fault their side lost given the narrow margin and they should be told so at every opportunity.
Whirlwind wrote:But we are way behind in growth compared to the EU. That is a recession of sorts because the relative economic growth means that we are getting worse off.
So now that the predicted recession has failed to materialise, remain supporters are now trying to redefine what recession means, despite this being a widely accepted economic term? You couldn't make it up. It's almost like you're wishing the economy would fail so you can go "look, see!" regardless of what impact that might have on families etc.
I honestly think I've gone about as far as I can on this specific issue. I don't see anyone on the remain side in this thread listening. You're ignoring things right in front of you and now trying to redefine economic terms to make a tenuous case. I think more heat than light is being generated at this point so I probably will only reply to specifc points, probably unrelated to Brexit from this point. A nice debate, albeit a fruitless one I think.
The problem is you are commenting on other peoples comments and then blanket washing those same comments on to everyone (which is just the same as saying that all Brexiters are bigots and racists, which they are not).
If you read any of my previous comments (which I doubt) you will see that myself and a lot of others have pointed out that relative growth is far more important than whether we are in a defined recession or not. If the global economy is growing then it is highly unlikely that we will go into recession simply because we'll get dragged along with it. Whilst we have a growing world and local population it is less likely to have a recession because there are more people that need goods. Conversely after 2050 when population is expected to start decreasing then recession becomes more likely. However recession and and growth are too arbitrary to really identify how well an economy is doing. Relative growth is much more important.
Take for example there were only two countries each that on day one of this hypothetical scenario had a £100 (basically a 50:50 split in global economic strength). Country 1 (e.g. the UK) has a growth on average of 1% over 25 years. Country 2 (e.g the EU has a growth of 2% over 25 years). After those 25 years Country 1 has a economic value of £128 and country 2 £164. Now lets suppose on day one that £100 bought 1000 bushels of wheat. If we assume inflation of 1.25% that means in year 25, £136 buys the same number of bushels of wheat. So for country 1 no can only buy 941 bushels of wheat whereas country 2 can buy 1205 bushels of wheat. Country 1's economy has contracted, country 2's economy has expanded. Country 2's economy is now 28% bigger than Country 1's economy. Country 1's economy has contracted, but it has *never* gone into recession yet it can afford less and is weaker.
This is why recession/growth are simply too basic to make a judgement but you can still have a relatively contracting economy even without a recession. This is exactly what we are seeing at the moment. Other developed nations are all growing faster than us apart from 1/2, the EU is double our growth rate; we can afford less because of inflation. Our economy is shrinking *relatively*.
Governments like to use recession/growth because it makes them look good because recession is much less likely than growth. But it is an arbitrary rather pointless method of analysing overall growth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: It could get quite a bit more nasty, and whatever comes out the end of these negotiations a large chunk of the population will be really angry. Cameron used to go on about ‘broken Britain’ a lot, but frankly he’s the one that broke this country in half for the sake of shoring up a few votes to get into government.
The only real solution, as I've said before is to have a referendum on the issue every five years so each successive government knows whether we should be in or not and work on that basis. That way you really do get the 'will of the people' and it will continue until one side or another has such a large majority that it is pointless to continue. Only those that want 'their own way' prefer to use one referendum as the basis of a long term decision and never providing that choice to the public again because that becomes the "will of me" which is the route to a dictatorship (and eventually fascism if they try and implement something regardless of cost).
People keep banging on about the economy, but I am dismayed and surprised that people cannot see the danger to this nation's democracy and civic society.
It's a danger to democracy when you provide a one-off vote that can't be over turned ever by another democratic vote.
It’s also a danger to democracy when one side sells a pack of lies they had neither the means nor intention of delivering, then do their best to head to the hills as soon as the result was known....
It’s a danger to democracy when the gutter media that supported those lies try to brand anyone not doing exactly as they demand ‘traitors’ and ‘saboteurs’.
It’s a danger to democracy when the Government is beholden to a small group of fringe lunatics, and are trying to pull us out of the Single Market when both sides said that wouldn’t happen.
It’s a danger to democracy when the main issue people have, that of immigration, was always in our power to control, and due to skills shortages also a national necessity. But has become a kick ball for the hard right to weave an ‘us and them’ narrative that simply isn’t based in truth.
It’s a danger to democracy when ‘the will of the people’ is touted as if it’s some kind of magic phrase to silence any and all dissent, regardless of where it’s coming from.
It’s a danger to democracy to pretend that the electorate never, ever changes its mind and so shouldn’t be consulted ever again, and especially not from a more informed stand point.
It's a danger to democracy when you provide a one-off vote that can't be over turned ever by another democratic vote.
Isn't that the basis of every EU "Yes" referendum that has been undertaken? The only way to change that decision is to leave the EU?
Of course no votes are treated differently.
The no vote by the French and Dutch on the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" which they then went ahead anyway and ignored by creating the Treaty of Lisbon which had pretty much the same things in it but without a refendrum that people might vote in as they might loose. Obviously they felt it was much better to have it decided by a select group rather than the great unwashed.
What I am interested in was why were all these issues about the referendum not brought up prior to the event itself rather than post. It may be Cameron being a weasel I suppose and not wanting to have clarity about what it was and was not.
How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...
and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?
WTF?
Parliamentary sovereignty?
There were no gunmen in the Commons when MPs voted overwhelmingly for a referendum.
Our 'fascist' government meekly accepted the independent judiciary's supreme court ruling, and introduced a new bill for activating A50.
Again, there were no gunmen in the Commons when MPs voted overwhelmingly to activate A50.
The government has won 35/36 Brexit Bill amendments. I follow these closely. Again, there were no gunmen in the Commons influencing the vote.
So could somebody please please please, pretty please,
tell me where this Fascist hijacking of our government and our MPs came from?
I keep hearing tales of defenceless MPs being intimidated in the Commons, and Blackshirts roaming the streets, and Polish plumbers getting burnt at the stake...
I suppose, being up here in the Scottish Highlands, I'm a long way away from London...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, MPs are meant to represent the best interests of all their constituents, including everyone who voted (no matter who they voted for), everyone who didn't vote and everyone unable to vote.
Edmund Burke would strongly disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People like me have been consistent with their anti-EU opposition for years. MPs like Kate Hoey and Jacob Rees-Mogg have also been consistent with their views for years. People know exactly what they get when they vote for them. Whether or not you agree with their views is another matter, but you know what it says on the tin.
And then we come to Remain MPs. Who make up the vast majority of the Commons.
If these people had the courage of their convictions, and loved the EU as much as they claimed, they could have stopped Brexit, kept us in the EU, and suffered the consequences at the next GE.
They didn't They put their jobs before their principals.
Remain supporters should be thanking people like me: we have shown you the true colours of those you look to for leadership.
If Brexit has done nothing else, it has exposed these weasels for the charlatans they are.
I you're looking for somebody to blame, blame them for their betrayal, not people like me who have always been upfront and honest about what they believe in.
Herzlos wrote:You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?
Sorry, but you must be the only adult in the country who doesn't see this at this point. I'm fairly certain that I could sit here, throw links at you from all directions, and you'll just sit there and say "proves nothing". I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there are many ways the amendment could have been worded to achieve that result without trying to put the permanent brakes on Brexit. At this point you're just willfully ignoring that and other points, so I'm not really sure what's the point in me going to any great lengths to try and provide you with citations etc. You have google, off you trot.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.
Brexit isn't the will of the people. That's just the slightly fascist sounding phrase that the Daily [Hate] Mail and other hardcode Hard Brexiteers use when they feel there is a danger to their icy skeletal grip control slipping a bit.
The UK is supposed to be a representative parlaimentary democracy.
A man whose rape trial collapsed after detectives failed to disclose vital evidence to the defence said he felt "betrayed" by police and the CPS.
Liam Allan was charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault but his trial collapsed after police were ordered to hand over phone records.
The 22-year-old student said his life had been "flipped upside down" and he wanted lessons to be learned.
The Met Police said it was "urgently reviewing this investigation".
The case against Mr Allan at Croydon Crown Court was dropped after three days when the evidence on a computer disk containing 40,000 messages revealed the alleged victim pestered him for "casual sex".
Met review after rape trial collapse
Police evidence failings 'harm cases'
He told the BBC his life had been "torn away" by the process, which included being on bail for two years.
"You just think the worst case scenario... People have to start planning for life without you," he said.
Mr Allan faced a possible jail term of 12 years and being put on the sex offenders register for life had he been found guilty.
He said he felt "pure fear" when he learned he had been accused of rape but would never be able to understand why the accusations were made.
Liam Allan with supporters outside courtImage copyrightNEWS UK Image caption
Liam Allan, seen here with his supporters outside court on Thursday
"There was no possible real gain from it other than destroying somebody else's life... It's something I will never be able to forgive or forget."
But he said he wanted to use his experience "to change the system".
"This wasn't a case of people trying to prove my innocence, it was a case of people trying to prove I was guilty," Mr Allan said.
Media captionCase barrister: It's just sheer incompetence
It is understood police had looked at thousands of phone messages when reviewing evidence in the case, but had failed to disclose to the prosecution and defence teams messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the allegations against Mr Allan.
Prosecution barrister Jerry Hayes accused police of "sheer incompetence" over the case.
Before the trial the defence team had repeatedly asked for the phone messages to be disclosed but was told there was nothing to disclose.
Mr Hayes, who demanded the messages to be passed to the defence, said he believed the trial had come about because "everyone is under pressure".
"This is a criminal justice system which is not just creaking, it's about to croak," he said.
Media captionThe BBC's Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman gives his analysis of the case
Mr Allan's lawyer Simone Meerabux said it had been "a very traumatic experience" for her client.
She said it was "amazing" the case had got to the stage it did "but it's not uncommon" because of problems with disclosure.
A Met spokesman said the force was "urgently reviewing this investigation and will be working with the Crown Prosecution Service to understand exactly what has happened in this case.
"The Met understands the concerns that have been raised as a result of this case being dismissed from court and the ongoing review will seek to address those," he said.
A spokesman for the CPS said: "In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.
"We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan Police to examine the way in which this case was handled."
Legally, any defence team has to be shown prosecution evidence.
Since Legal aid representation are paid per page funding reductions mean that defence teams are less likely to be able to view and understand what is being presented to them and THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ASK FOR INFORMATION WHICH MAY EXONERATE A CLIENT. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PRESENT A CASE BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE.
Also. lets not be in any doubt, the evidence which helped the defendant in case would have been available as soon as the phone of the supposed victim was investigated. The UK police have experts and software which reads this information, it is used on a daily basis. This is a case of the Police deliberately withholding information in order to get a conviction and log a solved crime.
"This wasn't a case of people trying to prove my innocence, it was a case of people trying to prove I was guilty," Mr Allan said.
An important quote. The Police and CPS are only ever interested in building a case.
And
A spokesman for the CPS said: "In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.
This, this is really important and something most people in the UK have no clue about. The police are not concerned about innocence. Never assume that if you are ever interviewed under caution that you can help your cause. They are not there to help you.
Herzlos wrote:You shouldn't have any issuing providing some sort of citation for this, then?
Sorry, but you must be the only adult in the country who doesn't see this at this point. I'm fairly certain that I could sit here, throw links at you from all directions, and you'll just sit there and say "proves nothing". I've already explained how if it was about sovereignty then there are many ways the amendment could have been worded to achieve that result without trying to put the permanent brakes on Brexit. At this point you're just willfully ignoring that and other points, so I'm not really sure what's the point in me going to any great lengths to try and provide you with citations etc. You have google, off you trot.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be frank, if someone's trying to derail Brexit from within Parliament, I fully support them.
Despite this being against the will of the people. How very EU.
Brexit isn't the will of the people. That's just the slightly fascist sounding phrase that the Daily [Hate] Mail and other hardcode Hard Brexiteers use when they feel there is a danger to their icy skeletal grip control slipping a bit.
The UK is supposed to be a representative parlaimentary democracy.
It is a representative parlaimentary democracy, and your side had a golden opportunity to reverse Brexit last June. But you lost...
Twice the British people have been asked about Britain's EU membership, and twice they have said we're leaving.
First in the referendum, and secondly, when they voted overwhelmingly for parties that had Brexit in their respective manifestos.
A neutral observor would look at that and conclude that the threat to British democracy is from the Remain side, who seem unwilling or unable to respect two major votes on Britain's EU membership.
And yet, we on the Leave side are the people who are called Fascists.
Mr Morden wrote: What I am interested in was why were all these issues about the referendum not brought up prior to the event itself rather than post. It may be Cameron being a weasel I suppose and not wanting to have clarity about what it was and was not.
They were, including by hardline leavers like Jacob Reese-Mogg, who always there should be two votes.
India in 1947 had rather less difficulty gaining its independence than we are having in 2017 leaving the Brussels empire. Time for Boris to go the full Gandhi.
The partition displaced over 14 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.[3][b] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues their relationship to the present.
How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...
and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?
I call troll again; there's no way you're stupid enough to believe this is a valid argument. I at least, am sick of correcting this and I know you know better.
The election wasn't just about brexit and the lib dens would never win with any manifesto.
Using your argument: the Tories lost their majority on the back of a hard brexit. So the will of the people ain't hard brexit.
How is it a one off vote, when months later, in a GE, a party gets to run on a vote for us, and we're back in the EU, platform...
and barely anybody bothers to vote for them?
I call troll again; there's no way you're stupid enough to believe this is a valid argument. I at least, am sick of correcting this and I know you know better.
The election wasn't just about brexit and the lib dens would never win with any manifesto.
Using your argument: the Tories lost their majority on the back of a hard brexit. So the will of the people ain't hard brexit.
It is a valid argument, and history backs me up on this. The UK general election of 1918 became a single issue election when Ireland overwhelmingly voted for Sinn Féin MPs.
Labour won a stonking landslide in 1945 on the creation of a welfare state.
As I say, if Brexit and the EU really was the defining issue of modern British politics, and I define modern from Thatcher's fall to 2017, then Remain support would have skyrocketed, and the Lib Dems would be kingmakers in The Commons.
The Remain coalition was splintered by party politics, and they only have themselves to blame for that.
reds8n wondered why UKIP MPs weren't in The Commons, but the answer to that is simple. Your average UKIP supporter naively believed that the referendum result would be respected, hence there was no need for UKIP.
75% of MPs back the EU. 52% of voters want out. Never has there been such a disconnect between the people and those who govern.
It's been clear to me for a long time that MPs don't like us, nor do they trust us. They surrendered this country's sovereignty to Brussels for decades, the people won it back last year, but what thanks did we get?
Twice the British people have been asked about Britain's EU membership, and twice they have said we're leaving.
First in the referendum, and secondly, when they voted overwhelmingly for parties that had Brexit in their respective manifestos.
A neutral observor would look at that and conclude that the threat to British democracy is from the Remain side, who seem unwilling or unable to respect two major votes on Britain's EU membership.
And yet, we on the Leave side are the people who are called Fascists.
Go figure.
At this point I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring any argument otherwise. You simply don't seem to want to accept that a GE is not a referendum on the EU.
Labours position on Wrexit is ambiguous at best. I voted for them to stop May. I have family members that voted for the Tories despite being opposed to Brexit. I have family members that voted Green despite being Wrexit supporter (basically because they want to stop immigration and people form elsewhere coming to this country, so yes bigotry).
Are you so blinded that you think that a GE is equivalent to a yes/no referendum despite there being a multitude of issues to consider at a GE. As I've pointed out before if you took the population vote then you would have either a very soft Wrexit or one where another referendum is called. The party in power is actually the minority but because of the way GE's are set up they simply don't provide a fair reflection of the voting populace as a whole. In comparison the referendum has two choices, not five or six on the ballot paper offering different solutions. If you wanted to compare directly the GE and a Wrexit vote then it should be a multi-option (type of Wrexit) with a first past the post system. Otherwise they are entirely not comparable.
No one is calling people on the leave side fascists. What is being said is that a one off referendum that is used to get a decision and then completely ignore that the populace have a democratic right to change their mind over and over is the route that dictators and fascists use to get what they want and then force it through regardless of the consequences or any democratic consideration that the populace should continue to have its say on an issue. If a government decides that an issue should be decided by a referendum then it should continue to do so. A GE is not an equivalent as it is not on one isolated issue.
reds8n wondered why UKIP MPs weren't in The Commons, but the answer to that is simple. Your average UKIP supporter naively believed that the referendum result would be respected, hence there was no need for UKIP.
That's because we have a FPTP system not PR. If we had PR then UKIP would have MPs. Although I despise their politics (even more so than the Tories which is saying something) I do believe that if a proportion of the populace votes for them then they should get that proportion of MPs. In that way it becomes more apparent just how much on an each one is.
75% of MPs back the EU. 52% of voters want out. Never has there been such a disconnect between the people and those who govern.
That depends on how you play the figures. About 30-40% of MPs are anti-EU, that is equivalent to the general populace. What we don't know what the 30% that didn't vote think. They could quite possibly be, we are OK with the status quo, thought it wouldn't change and generally pro-EU. In that case then yes parliament is representative of the populace. I can't say this because the 30% didn't vote, but in the same way nor can you say there is a disconnect between the MPs and the populace....
It's been clear to me for a long time that MPs don't like us, nor do they trust us. They surrendered this country's sovereignty to Brussels for decades, the people won it back last year, but what thanks did we get?
No they didn't, even the pro-Wrexit governments White paper on the issue said it wasn't true.
You want thanks? For costing the younger population, such as my niece and nephew of the additional possibilities that we would have by being in the EU, for some ideological nonsense. Sorry you aren't getting any thanks, ever...
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except for the fact that people still remember the university fees pledge, among others, broken by the Lib-Dems.
It isn't just about making the promises, it is also about people believing you'll keep them.
To be fair we also had Corbyn and his 'something something uni fees something' in order to try and sway the electorate.
Difference is Corbyn hasn't had to put it into practice yet. LDs had to the opportunity to, given it was one of their major promises but surrendered too much for a position of power. There's a big difference.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except for the fact that people still remember the university fees pledge, among others, broken by the Lib-Dems.
It isn't just about making the promises, it is also about people believing you'll keep them.
Because people are still incapable of understanding the difference between being the governing party and being the junior party in a coalition government. Many people are still angry at the Lib Dem’s just for joining with the Tory’s, and is nothing more than party tribalism.
It is a valid argument, and history backs me up on this. The UK general election of 1918 became a single issue election when Ireland overwhelmingly voted for Sinn Féin MPs.
Labour won a stonking landslide in 1945 on the creation of a welfare state.
We have a 2 party state. Labour or Tories. A vote for lib dem (who are still tainted from the tory coalition ) would have been wasted in most seats. There was no viable anti-brexit option except the snow in Scotland who still did well.
Most votes seem to haven been for anyone but tory or anyone but labour for whatever reasons.
And this may stun you; despite brexit being the defining issue of modern politics, people can vote in general elections for whatever reason you want.
It's been clear to me for a long time that MPs don't like us, nor do they trust us. They surrendered this country's sovereignty to Brussels for decades, the people won it back last year, but what thanks did we get?
Zero...
It's been clear to most of us for a long time that most MPs don't understand or like the electorate.
What thanks do you want? What have you done to benefit us?
All you've done is set us back economically and given extra power to people you don't trust to make decisions. Why should we thank you for screwing us over?
On sovereignty; we traded some for closer integration and gave some more of it away last year. You've got a cheek to claim we have more sovereignty since you seem to be dead against parliament getting any sovereignty that may impact you getting your own way. You should be thanking the remainers for ensuring you're getting the sovereignty you think you asked for instead of the dictatorship you voted for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it is incredible that you refuse responsibility for any bad side effects but want thanks for what you claim are the good bits?
The fallout has though and it's hit all the obvious criteria for being a failure. How much of a failure will become apparent if/when we start closing on trading deals that aren't eu clones.
Ketara wrote:It's simple. The opinion and will of the 'British people' isn't some kind of homogenous singular hive mind. There are thoughts and opinions of every different shade. To make a generalised statement about the 'opinion and will of the British people', it has to be generally applicable; that is to say, an opinion held by the considerable majority of the British people. Which it very clearly isn't, given that just over a third of the population voted for it. You can say, 'Aha, but the non-voters don't count', but even then, the result only shows that barely over half hold that 'will and opinion'.
I'll tell you what, why don't we have a giant vote that the whole voting age population of the country is allowed to participate in? That way people that want to leave can express that desire, people that want to remain can express that desire, and people that don't care enough either way because it's not important enougn to them can just not vote and as such abrogate the decision to whoever wins? As such we can determine what me might call "the will of the people" on this single issue. Do they want in, out, or do they not care enough to cast a vote?
Oh wait... no. No, we did that already, and Leave won. I can absolutely say that non-voters don't count, because they were given a chance to express a desire either way and they opted not to do that. They deferred the matter to the decision of others. That is their "vote" if you want to put it that way.
With a margin so narrow
The margin exceeded a million votes. That's more people than live in the entirety of Nottinghamshire or the City of Birmingham. More people voted Leave over Remain than the total number of people who voted for the SNP in the 2017 general election. This was not a narrow margin.
Herzlos wrote:It was a stretch to claim a 51.9% majority on a vague question provided the will of the people on referendum day, beyond that it needs sorted out.
There was nothing vague about the question. Do you want to remain in the EU or leave the EU?
but on such a statically irrelevant majority there's every chance the will is now to stay.
A million people + is not statistically irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination. Inconvenient for the remain side? Absolutely. But not statistically irrelevant.
I get the impression those shouting about the will of the people are those that want to leave with the least scrutiny, who'd be demanding another referendum if they lost, just like they are outraged with parliamentary sovereignty when it disagrees with them. Citing "will of the people" just stinks of having no better reason to leave. But it's been done to death on here.
Or, and here's a bonkers idea that I'd just like to throw out there, maybe we were promised a vote on the issue, had the vote, and the majority of the people that voted opted to Leave. Thus, as promised, we'd like to see that happen, as it was what the majority voted for. Parliament doesn't have much credibility these days, not that it really had any before, but if it were to attempt to over turn the result of the referendum then it might as well be closed because its last shred of any kind of dignity or semblance of democratic mandate would have just evaporated.
Steve steveson wrote:“Will of the people” just seems to have become the default position of many (but not all) Brexit supporters when they have run out of arguments, which seems pretty quick nowadays. Just shout “it was the will of he people” in their face and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a traitor.
I've been arguing back and forth with remain supporters for a couple of days now. I go to work, I come home, eventually make it on to here and try to answer as many points as possible to as many different people as possible. I try and put forth evidence and context, while not doing all the donkey work for others (you have to put in some for yourselves). And yet all I can see is people calling leave voters trolls for bringing up legitimate issues, or just hand waving everything they say and moving on, or shifting the goalposts endlessly. And you think Brexit supporters have run out of arguments? Indeed you've not addressed any arguments with your point, you've just hand waved away all the work of leave minded commentators to present our side of the story and - with no sense of irony - claimed we've run out of arguments. Is it any wonder you have a difficult time finding people to debate against from the Leave side? Honestly the effort is really not seeming worth it.
Herzlos wrote:Winning an advisory referendum doesn't automatically equate to the "will of the people" and it's dishonest to claim so.
Everybody quite clearly understood before the referendum that whichever side won was going to get their way. EVERYBODY knew that if Leave won, that was going to be implemented. What's dishonest is to now turn around and go "ah well, it was all just a game and a joke, and we didn't really mean it, and the side that won didn't really win it because we've arbitrarily decided now that they didn't win it by enough votes, even though you totally know if remain had won they would have tried to kill the debate for another three decades minimum".
Herzlos wrote:No disagreement there, but with something so inconclusive
See above for comments about million +, Birmingham/Nottinghamshire/SNP comparison.
In pure numbers, any form of Brexit will upset more of the voters than no Brexit.
Why? Brexit won the vote. We can surmise that those that didn't vote by definition didn't care about the result, otherwise they would have just gone to a nearby polling station and taken a few minutes to put an X in a box. You can even vote by post today, so anyone that was that bothered but is perhaps a little busy on a day to day basis could have just ordered one of those.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yet the referendum was solely advisory.
See above for comments about EVERYBODY knowing full well that a leave victory would result in us leaving the EU.
Whirlwind wrote:If you read any of my previous comments (which I doubt) you will see that myself and a lot of others have pointed out that relative growth is far more important than whether we are in a defined recession or not. If the global economy is growing then it is highly unlikely that we will go into recession simply because we'll get dragged along with it. Whilst we have a growing world and local population it is less likely to have a recession because there are more people that need goods. Conversely after 2050 when population is expected to start decreasing then recession becomes more likely. However recession and and growth are too arbitrary to really identify how well an economy is doing. Relative growth is much more important.
Take for example there were only two countries each that on day one of this hypothetical scenario had a £100 (basically a 50:50 split in global economic strength). Country 1 (e.g. the UK) has a growth on average of 1% over 25 years. Country 2 (e.g the EU has a growth of 2% over 25 years). After those 25 years Country 1 has a economic value of £128 and country 2 £164. Now lets suppose on day one that £100 bought 1000 bushels of wheat. If we assume inflation of 1.25% that means in year 25, £136 buys the same number of bushels of wheat. So for country 1 no can only buy 941 bushels of wheat whereas country 2 can buy 1205 bushels of wheat. Country 1's economy has contracted, country 2's economy has expanded. Country 2's economy is now 28% bigger than Country 1's economy. Country 1's economy has contracted, but it has *never* gone into recession yet it can afford less and is weaker.
This is why recession/growth are simply too basic to make a judgement but you can still have a relatively contracting economy even without a recession. This is exactly what we are seeing at the moment. Other developed nations are all growing faster than us apart from 1/2, the EU is double our growth rate; we can afford less because of inflation. Our economy is shrinking *relatively*.
Forgive my language, but this is complete and utter horse
For a start, inflation does not just rumble along statically at a single rate for decades as you make out. Generally as a country grows very rich its currency (barring market fluctuations like Brexit or active tampering, sorry "monetary policy", like China) appreciates in value as it accumulates wealth. Hence why our currency has been so high over such a prolonged period (our currency is typically over valued due to market actviity and its reputation for being quite safe, especially the constant flight of people away from other instruments to UK government bonds as a safe haven, as was demonstrated in the early 90s by George Soros et al). I get that your hypothetical is supposed to be just a hypothetical and not some kind of complex economic model, but the problem with your hypothetical is that it was like trying to explain a mission to Mars by slapping two pieces of toast together repeatedly... and without understanding which direction Mars is in.
I give you fair warning now that if you want to delve into the minuate of economics then by all means, but you'll be entering a dragons den of sorts. Right now this is me being kind about your apparent level of understanding of economics. Suffice to say that it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, or more likely, want it to. You don't get to turn around and just say "ah well, I know the economy is growing still, but really we're in recession". That's not how it works.
Governments like to use recession/growth because it makes them look good because recession is much less likely than growth. But it is an arbitrary rather pointless method of analysing overall growth.
No, they use it because it's a quantifiable way of measuring whether domestic economic output is expanding or contracting. It's not perfect, it's a very broad measure, but it has a decent amount of utility. You also understand that whether governments like it or not is irrelevant, because the press/markets etc could use a completely different measure if they wanted and there's nothing the government could do about it. Yet they don't, they use GDP as well, because it has broad utility as an economic indicator.
The only real solution, as I've said before is to have a referendum on the issue every five years so each successive government knows whether we should be in or not and work on that basis. That way you really do get the 'will of the people' and it will continue until one side or another has such a large majority that it is pointless to continue. Only those that want 'their own way' prefer to use one referendum as the basis of a long term decision and never providing that choice to the public again because that becomes the "will of me" which is the route to a dictatorship (and eventually fascism if they try and implement something regardless of cost).
You mean like how the EU keeps sending people back to the polls repeatedly until it gets the result it wants, at which point it mysteriously stops asking them, or if it doesn't look like it's going to get the answer it wants, it just bypasses the electorate anyway? A referendum every five years would cause chaos and be completely unworkable, not least because the EU would never agree to it and you know that full well, which allows you to throw it out there as if it were a serious suggestion. Or a strawman as it might otherwise be referred to. I also love that we've already started to wander off towards you callling leave voters fascists now because they insist on the terrible and authoritarian measure of having the result of a democratic vote be implemented, instead of the vote being repeated endlessly until you get the answer you're looking for.
Tell you what, let's do a bargain. We'll have a second referendum... in 2057, 41 years from now. Or in other words, the amount of time that elapsed between the referendum that took Britain into the then European Community and the one held last year to get us out. Fair?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It’s also a danger to democracy when one side sells a pack of lies they had neither the means nor intention of delivering, then do their best to head to the hills as soon as the result was known....
You may not have realised it, but you basically just described Cameron and Osbourne.
It’s a danger to democracy when the gutter media that supported those lies try to brand anyone not doing exactly as they demand ‘traitors’ and ‘saboteurs’.
Odd that I would have to defend a horrendous toilet paper rag like the Mail, but in fairness they're branding them traitors and saboteurs because they're trying to overturn a vote, the result of which everyone agreed would be respected
It’s a danger to democracy when the Government is beholden to a small group of fringe lunatics, and are trying to pull us out of the Single Market when both sides said that wouldn’t happen.
There was no question we would leave the single market, as this was necessary to revoke the four freedoms. What Farage and some others were suggesting was that we might seek something like the same deal that Norway has.
]It’s a danger to democracy when the main issue people have, that of immigration, was always in our power to control, and due to skills shortages also a national necessity. But has become a kick ball for the hard right to weave an ‘us and them’ narrative that simply isn’t based in truth.
Except that being a member of the EU specifically prohibts a nation from preventing the free movement of EU citizens to seek work.
It’s a danger to democracy when ‘the will of the people’ is touted as if it’s some kind of magic phrase to silence any and all dissent, regardless of where it’s coming from.
It's not a magic phrase. It is a figure of speech which encapsulates the idea that a question was put to the entire nation to vote on, and one side won said vote.
It’s a danger to democracy to pretend that the electorate never, ever changes its mind and so shouldn’t be consulted ever again, and especially not from a more informed stand point.
See above. Or rather, see you in 2057.
Kilkrazy wrote:Brexit isn't the will of the people. That's just the slightly fascist sounding phrase that the Daily [Hate] Mail and other hardcode Hard Brexiteers use when they feel there is a danger to their icy skeletal grip control slipping a bit.
There was a very large national vote on the issue, a democratic vote that was rigourously debated before hand for a prolonged period, on top of years of arguing about the issue before that. The vote returned a result. You're now trying to ignore the result by any means possible. Yet it's the Leave side that are "facist sounding" by your measure?
Herzlos wrote: The fallout has though and it's hit all the obvious criteria for being a failure. How much of a failure will become apparent if/when we start closing on trading deals that aren't eu clones.
A growing economy, export order books rising to record levels, manufacturer confidence at a 30 year high (how long have people been bleating endlessly about a need to rebalance the economy away from services towards manufacturing?) and inflation closer to the annual target rate set for the Bank of England back in the 2000s (and which remains the target rate for monetary policy even today) than it has been since the financial crisis? Employment at record levels. Joblessness at record low levels. Yeah, hitting all those obvious criteria for being a failure....
I understand perfectly well. It doesn't suit you to talk about a million plus more people voting one way than another being significant, despite this being the equivalent to the entire population of our second largest city. Your argument works much better in passing when you say "ah well, there was only a few percent in it, see. A minor edge".
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Been dealing with such things for years, not interested in hearing people trying to fudge the argument by manipulating the presentation of numbers. I've already sat through a fellow leaver being dismissed simply as a troll because he said something people didn't like, you're not pulling the whole "not statistically significant" routine here. Next argument please.
I'll say this to Herzlos, whirlwind, and any other Remain supporter on dakka.
What is one of the golden rules of British politics we all learn at a young age?
Parliament CANNOT bind future Parliaments with any law that is passes. It's why we had a referendum in the 1970s. It's why we had one in 2016.
So when people say that a General Election is not a referendum, then I say, with all due respect, that it is horsegak! Concentrated horsegak!
Any individual, any party, can run on 1 issue, or a million issues, if they so choose.
As we are so often reminded, Britain is a Parliamentry democracy. We have no written constitution. Referendums, in effect, go against our constitutional principles.
Remain MPs could have killed Brexit stone dead, and suffered the consequnces at the next election, if they had chosen this path. They did not.
Just because political parties have clouded the waters with the whip system, and reduced politics to the day to day management of bread and butter issues, does not mean that a grand, single issue can't define any General Election.
Enoch Powell, of all people, said in the 1970s after his side lost the EEC referendum, that Britain's EEC membership would undergo a referendum every 5 years. Tony Benn said the same.
That is the essence of Parliamentry Sovereignty.
So again and again I repeat: Parliament freely voted for a referendum. Parliament freely voted for Article 50. Parliament freely voted for 35/36 Brexit amendments.
And in all likelyhood, Parliament will freely vote for the agreement struck between the EU and UK this year. Will I like it? Who knows.
So where is this dictatorship we hear so much about?
I'll tell you what, why don't we have a giant vote that the whole voting age population of the country is allowed to participate in? That way people that want to leave can express that desire, people that want to remain can express that desire, and people that don't care enough either way because it's not important enougn to them can just not vote and as such abrogate the decision to whoever wins? As such we can determine what me might call "the will of the people" on this single issue. Do they want in, out, or do they not care enough to cast a vote?
Guv, you used a terribly generalised turn of phrase to describe the thoughts of a country of almost seventy million people. Just accept it and move on. Devising ever more twisted and torturous logic* to try and justify it is simply draining whatever credibility you manage to accumulate.
* And it is, this sort of logic would mean that a referendum won by one person in one vote twenty years ago would still be the 'Will of the British People' (whatever the hell that means). Timescales and percentages beyond 'who won a vote' do mean something in assessing the views and thoughts of a large body of people, however much you seem determined to argue otherwise.
The margin exceeded a million votes.
And your point is? Whether something is large or small is entirely relative to what is being measured. Your post has a much greater majority of words than one involving nothing but a meme post, and a much smaller number than the complete works of Shakespeare.
In this specific case, the number involved (the number by which Brexit was voted for) is approximately just under 2% of the voters. And is therefore 'a narrow margin'. And therefore, cannot in any reasonable way be considered to represent the views of a substantial majority of the British people, and therefore, their 'will and opinion'.
There was nothing vague about the question. Do you want to remain in the EU or leave the EU?
It is is fair, I think, to say that there are several modes of 'staying' within or 'leaving' the EU, and that the vote as worded really did not give any form of specification or detail. For example, depending upon who you ask, the Nordic model could be regarded as either 'leaving' the EU (we wouldn't be part of the main part of it) or 'staying' (we'd still be involved to a heavy degree). Likewise for the Common market, or the Swiss model, etc. What counts as leaving or staying beyond the two extremes (Hard Brexit and maintaining the status quo) is really rather questionable and varies entirely depending upon the person you ask.
By the same measure however, how one could account for this within a single vote is questionable. You'd really have to have done one or two subsequent votes which broke it down further to be able to say with certainty that you were doing what was wanted. This is still possible, and some people are promoting it as a way of trying to 'remain' within the EU (although paradoxically, the same people would in actuality likely still view it as 'Leaving').
There is some strength to the assertion that the precise type of relationship with the EU is being dictated/railroaded by the British Government with no further input sought, even from Parliament. At the same time however, there is also a strong case to be made that that is their job to decide the fine detail once the broad outline has been defined by the referendum, and that we don't seek these sorts of general population control over other foreign policy matters of the day.
You don't get to turn around and just say "ah well, I know the economy is growing still, but really we're in recession". That's not how it works.
I would broadly agree with the above statement, but with several caveats.
You mean like how the EU keeps sending people back to the polls repeatedly until it gets the result it wants, at which point it mysteriously stops asking them, or if it doesn't look like it's going to get the answer it wants, it just bypasses the electorate anyway?
This is somewhat unfair and unjust to the EU. It's not so much that they 'bypass' the people or keep asking the same question, as it is that they tend to retailor their proposals when rejected until their proposals become palatable enough to pass a vote.
It is noticeable however, that there is never a vote raised within the EU as to whether or not to to close a department previously opened, substantially reduce a budget, or surrender powers acquired. Once the EU gets their mitts on something, it stays theirs. They've yet to reach the stage of administrative maturity that they are willing to say 'This is done better by a body not under the control of or responsible to us'.
Ketara wrote:It's simple. The opinion and will of the 'British people' isn't some kind of homogenous singular hive mind. There are thoughts and opinions of every different shade. To make a generalised statement about the 'opinion and will of the British people', it has to be generally applicable; that is to say, an opinion held by the considerable majority of the British people. Which it very clearly isn't, given that just over a third of the population voted for it. You can say, 'Aha, but the non-voters don't count', but even then, the result only shows that barely over half hold that 'will and opinion'.
I'll tell you what, why don't we have a giant vote that the whole voting age population of the country is allowed to participate in? That way people that want to leave can express that desire, people that want to remain can express that desire, and people that don't care enough either way because it's not important enougn to them can just not vote and as such abrogate the decision to whoever wins? As such we can determine what me might call "the will of the people" on this single issue. Do they want in, out, or do they not care enough to cast a vote?
Oh wait... no. No, we did that already, and Leave won. I can absolutely say that non-voters don't count, because they were given a chance to express a desire either way and they opted not to do that. They deferred the matter to the decision of others. That is their "vote" if you want to put it that way.
I asked once, and you didn't respond, so I ask again: define what constitutes "leaving the EU" in an unambiguous manner and without any mutually exclusive interpretations being possible and we'll talk.
This is why recession/growth are simply too basic to make a judgement but you can still have a relatively contracting economy even without a recession. This is exactly what we are seeing at the moment. Other developed nations are all growing faster than us apart from 1/2, the EU is double our growth rate; we can afford less because of inflation. Our economy is shrinking *relatively*.
Forgive my language, but this is complete and utter horse
Ah...the argument of the I haven't got any better argument. You've rather missed the point. Inflation generally was in the example to show that despite growth in the figures you can still be worse off. That's what's happening right now. It not a recession per se but it is still a negative growth relatively. Absolute figures are poor because they don't give a good comparison to actuality. You can be in a recession and still be getting more if the deflation is greater than the negative growth. No it doesn't stay static over time but if a country's growth is consistently lower than another country's growth then you are consistently getting weaker relatively. It's not really that hard of a concept? If your recession is better than others then you are growing relatively to the rest of the world. It gets worse over time as the growth compounds.
Right now this is me being kind about your apparent level of understanding of economics.
Given the soundness of the rest of your arguments I can't say I'm too worried
No, they use it because it's a quantifiable way of measuring whether domestic economic output is expanding or contracting. It's not perfect, it's a very broad measure, but it has a decent amount of utility.
.
I think they use just a few more indicators than this somehow. Otherwise the Office of national statistics would be a very quiet place.
You mean like how the EU keeps sending people back to the polls repeatedly until it gets the result it wants, at which point it mysteriously stops asking them, or if it doesn't look like it's going to get the answer it wants, it just bypasses the electorate anyway?
The EU has never ran a referendum...it has never forced a referendum on people, never asked them to repeat a vote. Individual countries may have done but that's not the EU. I'm not even sure the EU can force a referendum on any country?
A referendum every five years would cause chaos and be completely unworkable, not least because the EU would never agree to it and you know that full well, which allows you to throw it out there as if it were a serious suggestion. Or a strawman as it might otherwise be referred to.
Anything is possible if you put you mind to it. You could set up a framework now as to what out and in the EU would mean. Have that agreed and then you would vote on that each time. You don't know the EU wouldn't agree to it.
Tell you what, let's do a bargain. We'll have a second referendum... in 2057, 41 years from now. Or in other words, the amount of time that elapsed between the referendum that took Britain into the then European Community and the one held last year to get us out. Fair?
No because that means two generations are skipped without ever having a say. I could push it to 10 years but beyond that you are affecting people's lives and they don't get a say on that influence. 16 year olds today would have to spend their whole working life without the option of changing it. Because we did something in the past a certain way is not a sound reason to do it in the same way in the future.
Odd that I would have to defend a horrendous toilet paper rag like the Mail, but in fairness they're branding them traitors and saboteurs because they're trying to overturn a vote, the result of which everyone agreed would be respected
Now you see you are now advocating fascism. Promoting violence against people that are elected representatives and have different views is not the basis for democracy or freedom of speech. Just rolling over and accepting everything one person wants is the basis of a dictatorship, once you start using language that implies violence or physical restraint that is fascism .
Ketara wrote:Guv, you used a terribly generalised turn of phrase to describe the thoughts of a country of almost seventy million people. Just accept it and move on. Devising ever more twisted and torturous logic* to try and justify it is simply draining whatever credibility you manage to accumulate.
A number of government documents have stated "The referendum enabled the will of the UK people to be expressed" or words of a similar vein but including the phrase "will of the people". I really cannot understand why it has become such a touchy phrase here on dakka, given that it seems the rest of the country is quite aware of the concept that a national referendum was held, in which all citizens of a legal age were permitted to vote (the people), in order to establish their opinion on whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave the EU(the will of). Outisde of dakka and certain remain leaning sites/twiiters, there is absolutely no dispute as to what this phrase means. It is not an archaic term, nor is it a new fangeld piece of management speak. It is a fairly plain, frankly fairly dull phrase that has had a common meaning for a very long time and is generally well understood, especially in this context.
If people are angry because the Daily Mail once used the phrase then fair enough, be angry at the Daily Mail or whomever. But people simply cannot pretend that the result of the referendum was anything other than the declared "will of the people".
And your point is? .... In this specific case, the number involved (the number by which Brexit was voted for) is approximately just under 2% of the voters.
My point is that people are dismissing the result by trying to pretend that it was a photo finish of some kind, that Leave won the race simply because the hairs on its chin were a little bit longer than those of remain. That's not the case. (and FYI, the winning margin represented 3.7% of the total votes cast, including spoiled papers).
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I asked once, and you didn't respond, so I ask again: define what constitutes "leaving the EU" in an unambiguous manner and without any mutually exclusive interpretations being possible and we'll talk.
Sorry, didn't see it. "Leaving the EU" was (and is) defined as the activation of article 50, which after a period of two years will remove Britain from the European Union in its entirety. The two year period permits the parties to negotiate a potential trade deal which would replace their current trading terms.
Whirlwind wrote: Ah...the argument of the I haven't got any better argument.
No, it was a slightly less polite and restrained way of saying that virtually everything in your post related to economics was completely and utterly wrong. To put it in other terms, based on that, you probably don't know a thing about economics. Not in the slightest.
Inflation generally was in the example to show that despite growth in the figures you can still be worse off.
But you made no account of how inflation works as a driving force for spending, which is precisely why the government has set the Bank of England a target of 2% inflation per annum, which is generally understood to be the minimum required to keep people spending and to keep the economy healthily ticking along.
That's what's happening right now. It not a recession per se but it is still a negative growth relatively.
It's not a recession at all, never mind per se. And no, it isn't negative growth. I get that you don't like the idea of Brexit, I don't know if you dislike the current government or not, but you don't get to just turn around and start redefining how the economy works to suit your argument. It works the way it works and that's that.
You can be in a recession and still be getting more if the deflation is greater than the negative growth.
Here's part of the proof that you don't understand economics in the slightest, because you're unable to see how deflation would be causing the negative growth and even more bizzarely you seem to think that a combination of recession coupled with deflation would be a good thing. I'll give you a hint; it's not. It's a very, very bad thing.
No it doesn't stay static over time but if a country's growth is consistently lower than another country's growth then you are consistently getting weaker relatively.
Except you haven't accounted for purchasing power parity, if you even know what that means, and you haven't considered the issues of growth vs absolute size (which helps explain why small countries accelerate rapidly while larger economies tick over more slowly), investment levels, debt ratios, asset holding etc.
If your recession is better than others then you are growing relatively to the rest of the world. It gets worse over time as the growth compounds.
I'm guessing you meant recession isn't as bad as others, in which case you're not growing at all. You're shrinking less rapidly than some (at least in theory) who are in recession as well, but you're not growing by any stretch of the imagination. You're still shrinking.
Given the soundness of the rest of your arguments I can't say I'm too worried
Juding by the soundness of yours, you should be
I think they use just a few more indicators than this somehow. Otherwise the Office of national statistics would be a very quiet place.
Yet GDP is the headline figure that everyone starts with.
The EU has never ran a referendum...it has never forced a referendum on people, never asked them to repeat a vote. Individual countries may have done but that's not the EU. I'm not even sure the EU can force a referendum on any country?
Lol, you can't be serious.
Anything is possible if you put you mind to it. You could set up a framework now as to what out and in the EU would mean. Have that agreed and then you would vote on that each time. You don't know the EU wouldn't agree to it.
You seriously think the EU would allow the UK to having rolling votes on membership every 5 years? That in 2021 say the UK could vote in and they'd be allowed in, then in 2026 they vote out and leave again and so on and so forth? Do you seriously think the people of the UK would want this?
If I had read this bit first, I wouldn't have bothered typing the rest above, but I'll leave it in for giggles. I guess that'll teach me to start a reply before going the whole way down a post.
I am actually sitting here near speechless. I don't know what you say to you other than goodnight, as I have to be up in the morning.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I asked once, and you didn't respond, so I ask again: define what constitutes "leaving the EU" in an unambiguous manner and without any mutually exclusive interpretations being possible and we'll talk.
Sorry, didn't see it. "Leaving the EU" was (and is) defined as the activation of article 50, which after a period of two years will remove Britain from the European Union in its entirety. The two year period permits the parties to negotiate a potential trade deal which would replace their current trading terms.
That's not what the referendum said though, is it? The question was worded as such, and I quote:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
with the two options being
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
You'll note that nowhere is Article 50 mentioned, making that your interpretation of the question being asked. The interpretation is a reasonable one, but it also not the only reasonable interpretation. Thus, you know that there is a mandate to begin investigating how to remove Britain from the EU, but no sort of mandate for anything specific whatsoever.
To use a silly example, let's assume we have four people: Bob, Billy, Janet, and Sarah. Every year the four go on a vacation to the wonderful town of Slough. One year, though, Billy and Sarah suggest that the quartet go on vacation to somewhere more fun, like anywhere else on the planet. Janet would rather keep vacationing in Slough, but Bob agrees to consider someplace else.
This is not a carte-blanche for Billy and Sarah to charter a flight to Abu Dhabi based on the fact that Bob was open for going somewhere other than Slough. Similarly, the umbrella of "Brexit" covers everyone from "leave the EU but stay in the common market and other similar organizations" to "OUT OF THE EU! RULE BRITANNIA!". Britain voting to leave the EU in an advisory referendum without any sort of definition of what exactly leaving entails simply means the government should try to put such a plan to the electorate for further consideration, not that they should have free reign to make up whatever they feel like.
Ideally I'd like to see the British government negotiate the terms of withdrawal from the EU and then put that to a binding referendum once the specifics are known, or alternatively just call a binding referendum on whether the UK should leave and revert to WTO rules or not. Neither side can make an informed choice when the specifics aren't known. There's a mandate for the UK withdrawing from the EU, so the British government should pursue that goal, but once the specifics are known the British public, not Parliament, should get a final say in a binding referendum.
A number of government documents have stated "The referendum enabled the will of the UK people to be expressed" or words of a similar vein but including the phrase "will of the people".
Just because it's in a government document doesn't make it a valid point. This us the same government using terms like "brexit is brexit" and "red white and blue brexit". It's an attempt at avoiding any kind of valid argument.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I asked once, and you didn't respond, so I ask again: define what constitutes "leaving the EU" in an unambiguous manner and without any mutually exclusive interpretations being possible and we'll talk.
Sorry, didn't see it. "Leaving the EU" was (and is) defined as the activation of article 50, which after a period of two years will remove Britain from the European Union in its entirety. The two year period permits the parties to negotiate a potential trade deal which would replace their current trading terms.
But what does that mean? WTO? Canada?
What about the customs union and single market? The 4 freedoms?
The balot could have easily contained additional questions but I don't think anyone had done any basic research since noone thought the population would be stupid enough to vote leave.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:That's not what the referendum said though, is it?
Yes it was. It said "Leave". Triggering article 50 is how you leave. This was made clear to everyone before the referendum. The sheer level of rules lawyering at this point would rival even the most childish of gaming groups.
Herzlos wrote:Just because it's in a government document doesn't make it a valid point. This us the same government using terms like "brexit is brexit" and "red white and blue brexit". It's an attempt at avoiding any kind of valid argument.
Honestly, the rest of the country doesn't seem to be struggling with this term. Everyone else seems to have the savvy to put the term into its correct context. It appears Dakka is one of the few places where such a simple, plaing meaning term would consume several pages worth of back and forth and as such I intend to cease discussing the phrase or its meaning (but not necessarily using it).
And unless there is some sort of meaningful argument to be had about a topic, cease with this thread probably. At this point we're down to people trying to argue alternate meanings for things that everyone else in the country seems to understand pretty clearly. It's gone beyond ridiculous now.
No, it was a slightly less polite and restrained way of saying that virtually everything in your post related to economics was completely and utterly wrong. To put it in other terms, based on that, you probably don't know a thing about economics. Not in the slightest.
That's still not a rational argument. You are just saying I don't understand when the reality is you have no idea whether this is the case or not. It's just point scoring (or badly trying to) whilst not actually contributing anything to the debate because you've ran out of arguments.
But you made no account of how inflation works as a driving force for spending, which is precisely why the government has set the Bank of England a target of 2% inflation per annum, which is generally understood to be the minimum required to keep people spending and to keep the economy healthily ticking along.
It's not a recession at all, never mind per se. And no, it isn't negative growth. I get that you don't like the idea of Brexit, I don't know if you dislike the current government or not, but you don't get to just turn around and start redefining how the economy works to suit your argument. It works the way it works and that's that.
Here's part of the proof that you don't understand economics in the slightest, because you're unable to see how deflation would be causing the negative growth and even more bizzarely you seem to think that a combination of recession coupled with deflation would be a good thing. I'll give you a hint; it's not. It's a very, very bad thing.
Except you haven't accounted for purchasing power parity, if you even know what that means, and you haven't considered the issues of growth vs absolute size (which helps explain why small countries accelerate rapidly while larger economies tick over more slowly), investment levels, debt ratios, asset holding etc.
I'm guessing you meant recession isn't as bad as others, in which case you're not growing at all. You're shrinking less rapidly than some (at least in theory) who are in recession as well, but you're not growing by any stretch of the imagination. You're still shrinking.
The problem is you still aren't grasping the concept very well. You are looking at everything in absolute terms. If the figure is positive that means growth, if the figure is negative that means contraction. This is correct from an absolute perspective by country. However it fails to recognise that we live in a global market and their is only a fixed amount of 'pie' at any one time. The share of that market is in principle more important than any absolute local growth figure as it implies the overall purchasing power relative to the overall pie. Yes some circumstances aren't to be preferred at a local level (deflation and recession) however if the rest of the world (especially developed nations) is doing worse than you then as a country relatively you are getting a larger share of that pie. We can have growth but if other countries/groups (like the EU) are growing at double the rate (as is the case) then we our global position is weakening because the share of that limited pie is substantially decreasing. This growth compounds over time so that double can become a much larger figure over time than the difference would suggest. This can doubly impact if you have a higher inflation relatively to that growth, because as a country we can afford less whilst others can afford more at a simplistic level. This is the situation that we find ourselves at the moment. Yes it doesn't consider the detail of economic models and that some countries have more potential to grow faster, but then that's not really what is being compared to but rather the UK in or out of the EU. So to come full circle your initial challenge was that all Remainers were claiming a immediate recession, which is demonstrably incorrect (you are just pushing that view to try and make a point) whereas many have pointed out that what is more important is our growth relatively and that over time will make the UK smaller, more isolated and less influential which means we will more at the mercy of the world, rather than trying to drive it in a certain direction (effectively the little England view).
You seriously think the EU would allow the UK to having rolling votes on membership every 5 years? That in 2021 say the UK could vote in and they'd be allowed in, then in 2026 they vote out and leave again and so on and so forth? Do you seriously think the people of the UK would want this?
That's for the UK populace to decide, not you or me. That's why it's called a democratic process.
A number of government documents have stated "The referendum enabled the will of the UK people to be expressed" or words of a similar vein but including the phrase "will of the people". I really cannot understand why it has become such a touchy phrase here on dakka,
Whether you personally agree with the colloquial and logical meaning of the phrase you're choosing to use is entirely up to you, as is whether you choose to mean something else by it or whatever media you've chosen to consume makes of it. That's really not the point under discussion here.
If you use a phrase that indicates the substantial holding of an opinion by the population of a country, and both statistics or the literal breaking down of the sentence into component form demonstrably make that statement untrue (which they do), people are going say 'Hang on a minute, that's not true'. Rules lawyering has nothing to do with it. If you want to persuade people, you need to use language in a precise and accurate fashion. Otherwise they'll just dismiss you, both people who might agree and/or disagree with you.
My point is that people are dismissing the result by trying to pretend that it was a photo finish of some kind, that Leave won the race simply because the hairs on its chin were a little bit longer than those of remain. That's not the case. (and FYI, the winning margin represented 3.7% of the total votes cast, including spoiled papers).
Guv, if I did a vote of a trillion people, and the result was decided by a billion votes, it was a photo finish. If it was decided by a dozen billion, it was a narrow margin. The numbers who voted are irrelevant. A win by a few percent of the total number of votes cast is a narrow margin of victory. It's basic comparison by relativity.
Your problem here is outlined in your post. You see the pointing of this out as 'people trying to dismiss the result', and so reject the idea of a narrow victory for Leave. It's a political narrative where you're trying to deny statistically accurate statements because you believe that they give weight to your political opposition. Whilst you're not alone in doing it (most people with a firm interest in politics will do it from time to time), it just leads to partisan politics and the American style of politics where two sides can't agree that the sky is blue.
Sorry, didn't see it. "Leaving the EU" was (and is) defined as the activation of article 50, which after a period of two years will remove Britain from the European Union in its entirety. The two year period permits the parties to negotiate a potential trade deal which would replace their current trading terms.
So would doing a Nordic style deal involve leaving or staying with the EU? I mean, it would involve Article 50 and meet your criteria, but we'd still be involved to a heavy degree.
bouncingboredom wrote: Honestly, the rest of the country doesn't seem to be struggling with [what 'leave' means]. Everyone else seems to have the savvy to put the term into its correct context. It appears Dakka is one of the few places where such a simple, plaing meaning term would consume several pages worth of back and forth and as such I intend to cease discussing the phrase or its meaning (but not necessarily using it).
This a joke? Arguing over what leave means, and what it should mean, has consumed our entire media almost wall-to-wall for a year, never mind the coverage prior to ahs during the campaigning.
Sorry, didn't see it. "Leaving the EU" was (and is) defined as the activation of article 50, which after a period of two years will remove Britain from the European Union in its entirety. The two year period permits the parties to negotiate a potential trade deal which would replace their current trading terms.
But it's silly to claim that such an binary vote represents really "will of the people"(especially as it's what 37% of Brits actually showing that will). How many leave voters actually wanted hard brexit and how many voted when lied britain would still remain in single market and keep banking bonuseses? How many of those would have voted leave if they hadn't been lied and would have known UK will be out of single market and lose the banking benefits thus resulting in lots of bankig industry leaving UK? (it has already started and will increase once it's done deal)
For true "will of the people" people should have actually been asked EXACTLY what they want. There was tons of different scenarios but only 2 were chosen. And thanks to that UK people narrowly voted themselves to wreck UK. Good job! Well on the flip side that's good for EU.
People keep banging on about the lies of the leave campaign, but the remain campaign had a fair bit of scaremongering and nonsense itself, and some dubious tactics such as the government spending more than the allowed campaign budgets on a leaflet sent to every house in the UK, which was allowed because it was apparently the ‘government’s postion’ By obviously was pro-remain.
I would agree that the leave campaign overall was the poorer conducted, but his backing remain did not cover themselves in glory either. Generally the quality of debate was appalling in the mainstream media and televised debates, which is where the majority would have accessed it. Stock phrases on both sides, sweeping statements and hyperbole, little real debate or reason. It was dreadful, smacked of dishonesty and embarrassing to watch at times. Shortly after we had the general election and it was worse, we just had May saying ‘strong and stsble’ All the time like some kind of repetive brainwashing. The frequency with which I waned the throw stuff at the TV these last couple of years has been at its worst.
The issue is, even if the remain side were to actually try and debate in good faith it wouldn't have worked due to the populist nature of the Leave campaign.
When your opposition just throws out everything that it thinks sounds good, at a machine gun rate of fire, without worrying about whether or not it is factually accurate or possible to achieve, you cannot keep up with debunking everything. It is the exact same tactic which Trump uses. You throw out a hundred false statements in a press conference/debate/article, knowing that it will take a week or more to gather the evidence to disprove them. By the time that happens, you've moved on and made new incorrect statements which then need to be disproved. People forget about the previous lies when you tell them something new which they like the sound of, if they even hear about the evidence against your position due to only taking in media from certain papers/websites which won't post the debunking against their own arguments.
When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.
When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.
'Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside'
The Brexit tiger is eating anyone who gets close, simply because it was built on a foundation of mutually exclusive promises.
From a bookcase, I randomly select the biography of John Adams.
And I flick through it, and I come across this chapter. Adams Vs. Thomas Jefferson for POTUS.
George Washington has stepped down after 2 terms because he's had enough of media attacks, lies, scandal, and smears.
And Adams Vs Jefferson is a campaign of lies, scandals, dishonesty, and smears, with Alexander Hamilton lurking in the background and co-ordinating attacks on Jefferson.
So here we have 4 founding fathers, 4 of the greatest men in American history embroilled in lies, scandals, smears and dishonesty - either dishing it out, or suffering the attacks as in Washington's case. You'd think the media would be grateful to the man that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the New York campaign? Not a chance.
That was over 200 years ago.
2000 years ago, and here's Cicero complaining about Julius Caesar's demagogue oration and political tricks when Caesar was First Consul...
Nobody on Dakka seriously thinks that Brexit was unique in human history for Bullgak?
As Nixon's advisor said when JFK defeated Nixon in 1960 - they cheated better than we did.
If British Dakka members want quality European debates, go on youtube and get stuff from the 1970s on the EEC referendum.
When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.
'Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside'
The Brexit tiger is eating anyone who gets close, simply because it was built on a foundation of mutually exclusive promises.
May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.
Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.
The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.
welshhoppo wrote: I mean I could have done better remain arguments than the government, and I don't even like the EU.
The Leave campaign was criminally dishonest.
The Remain campaign was criminally incompetent and arrogant.
sad really.
Pretty much sums up the referendum as a whole and really why there should be at least another referendum where a lot of the nonsense spouted by both sides is now exposed for the nonsense it was and still is.
The calls for a second referendum do seem to becoming more focussed now.
Here's a poll that shows that Leave vote is now 10 points behind those thinking we should now Remain (although noting the usual caveats with regards polls) but the general trend is the same.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The issue is, even if the remain side were to actually try and debate in good faith it wouldn't have worked due to the populist nature of the Leave campaign.
When your opposition just throws out everything that it thinks sounds good, at a machine gun rate of fire, without worrying about whether or not it is factually accurate or possible to achieve, you cannot keep up with debunking everything. It is the exact same tactic which Trump uses. You throw out a hundred false statements in a press conference/debate/article, knowing that it will take a week or more to gather the evidence to disprove them. By the time that happens, you've moved on and made new incorrect statements which then need to be disproved. People forget about the previous lies when you tell them something new which they like the sound of, if they even hear about the evidence against your position due to only taking in media from certain papers/websites which won't post the debunking against their own arguments.
When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.
That is a very good description of thousands of years of political history.
Let's face it, both sides were shockingly bad in the referendum. I don't think anybody can point the finger at anybody.
I though my side's Turkey claim was utter bollocks, and as I've said before, I've never had a problem with migration. Farage's poster was also horsegak. It's impossible to keep peope out in this world.
I ask only that the British people have the final say on who gets to enter our country. 1 person a year? Fine. 10 million a year? Fine.
As long as everybody's happy, because after all, we all decided on who gets into our own homes, so to me, the nation is no different.
There is no human right for non-Brits to get into Britain, unless we legally agree: Commonwealth, EU citizens, or other legal things like wives, husbands, etc etc before anybody jumps down my throat.
There can't be a GE declared until at least the end of January, and the only way that May can be forced out is resign, or heaven forbid...death. As much as I dislike May, I wouldn't wish death on her.
And by the 1922 rules, if memory serves, It would take at least a few weeks for a leadership contest. It's Xmas, MPs are looking to enjoy the holidays, or plot and scheme for the New Year.
Nobody on Dakka seriously thinks that Brexit was unique in human history for Bullgak?
The problem is that if you base everything on bullgak then you tend to end up neck deep in the stuff.
I freely admit that Leave didn't exactly cover itself in glory, and I can safely say on your behalf, judging by your past posts, that are norrmally reasoned and balanced, that it wasn't exactly Remain's finest hour, either.
I don't know if you've ever read Tim Shipman's book on Brexit 'All out War,' but surprisingly, only George Osborne off all people comes out of the Remain side with any credit. If Osborne had been more front and centre, Remain might have won it. In public he was on message, but privately, he was scathing of Remain's campagn, but Dave was convinced it would be all right on the night, so he was far too casual about it.
On such things are battles won or lost...
Nick Clegg and Tony Blair should have been told to feth off by Remain. They did a lot of damage to your side. People just did not trust them.
May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.
Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.
The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.
Things are not as bad as people predicted.
May's still there because the leading contender decided that it is a good idea to show that he has about the same diplomatic ability as a rabid Cujo.
Only a few thought recession would be immediately forthcoming, the more sensible reports suggest that we would see a period of decline. Whether we will actually get a recession is unknown. If we do and the rest of the world is growing that is really bad news (because relatively our economy will decline significantly to others, but that might happen even without a referendum). A lot might depend on what happens early next year. My anecdotal impression is that retailers are having a bad Xmas. There are reports of heavy discounting now and I drove past a shopping park today (Fosse Park). Usually around Xmas you don't go anywhere near the place if you can avoid it because you spend an hour just sitting in the car waiting for car park spaces to arrive. There were large numbers of car parking spaces in the main areas (and it hadn't expanded over the last year), I've never seen that (even in the recession period) a week before Christmas.
I freely admit that Leave didn't exactly cover itself in glory, and I can safely say on your behalf, judging by your past posts, that are norrmally reasoned and balanced, that it wasn't exactly Remain's finest hour, either.
I don't know if you've ever read Tim Shipman's book on Brexit 'All out War,' but surprisingly, only George Osborne off all people comes out of the Remain side with any credit. If Osborne had been more front and centre, Remain might have won it. In public he was on message, but privately, he was scathing of Remain's campagn, but Dave was convinced it would be all right on the night, so he was far too casual about it.
On such things are battles won or lost...
Nick Clegg and Tony Blair should have been told to feth off by Remain. They did a lot of damage to your side. People just did not trust them.
It wasn't meant to be personal, if it came across that way I apologise. I'm trying to note that if policies and direction arise from 'bullgak' then, because it is not data and evidence driven, you tend to find that the end result is a big pile of 'bullgak' because the impacts were never properly considered.
Yes the Remain campaign was appalling and horrifying to watch. The problem was DC thought fear would work as it seemed to have done in the Scottish Referendum. So instead of demonstrating the benefits the EU bring in they instead tried to scare people. Of course for those that are already suffering because of the way Tories are dividing the pain for trying to get the Country out of the mess then talking about being thousand's of £'s worst off is pretty pointless (and can be counter productive).
The lack of challenge on key points on the Leave campaign were also pretty shocking. I think the result would have been different if the campaign had at any point actually come out and said "so what is Leave's plan for exiting the EU and achieving what you have stated", because we all know now they had no plan and expected others to produce it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: People keep banging on about the lies of the leave campaign, but the remain campaign had a fair bit of scaremongering and nonsense itself, and some dubious tactics such as the government spending more than the allowed campaign budgets on a leaflet sent to every house in the UK, which was allowed because it was apparently the ‘government’s postion’ By obviously was pro-remain.
I would agree that the leave campaign overall was the poorer conducted, but his backing remain did not cover themselves in glory either. Generally the quality of debate was appalling in the mainstream media and televised debates, which is where the majority would have accessed it. Stock phrases on both sides, sweeping statements and hyperbole, little real debate or reason. It was dreadful, smacked of dishonesty and embarrassing to watch at times. Shortly after we had the general election and it was worse, we just had May saying ‘strong and stsble’ All the time like some kind of repetive brainwashing. The frequency with which I waned the throw stuff at the TV these last couple of years has been at its worst.
This is all true, and it is the reason why the debate continues to rage now.
The Leave campaign never offered a clear vision of what Brexit actually meant, so people voted for whatever idea they formed by themselves. This was helpful in winning the referendum because it's much easier to get a coalition of voices to vote for a woolly proposition, but it makes fulfillment of the promise much harder.
The Hard Brexiteers of course want to bounce the country into their private version of extreme Brexit, but everyone else, including all of the Remain voters, has the right to expect a range of options to choose from.
It really would help get Remainers on board if they were presented with something better than the dreadful state of drift, irresolution and sheer incompentence that the government has been displaying for the past 18 months.
This post is kinda a reply to Kilkrazy as well, but I honestly believe that modern politicians don't read enough history books these days.
Take David Cameron. Here is a man with a party divided over Europe, and a referendum campaign on his hands. Where could he turn to for advice?
The 1970s and Harold Wilson. A man with a party bitterly divided over Europe and a referendum on his hands.
I would like to think that Cameron might have read something about this, but I'm not too sure.
Wilson and Thatcher are probably the last two capable PMs we've had. Wilson would have looked at the 52/48 result and been all over EFTA like a bad rash, and got the compromise deal through the Commons.
Thatcher, and I say this as somebody who loathed her, would never have allowed herself to be boxed in like Cameron in the first place.
Since Thatcher's fall, we, the British people have been badly served on a whole host of issues by a whole gang of incompetent politicians.
I think there is a lot in what you say. Cameron, Osborne and Bozo are a pretty bad advert for the quality of education you get from Eton and Oxford.
That said, whoever's fault it was, the country HAS managed to get itself into a dreadful pickle, and there is a great need for some clear, effective LEADERSHIP to get us out.
IMO Maybot seems to be a pretty effective operator, but she is a micromanager not an inspiring leader, and she's dealing with a cabinet assembled not for competence but for maintenance of the delicate balance within the Tory Party of the various pro- and anti-EU factions of different stripes. (I mean just look at that idiot Davis, and that clown Bozo.)
This is Labour's opportunity. They should bear down hard on the government, get a vote of no confidence, then fight an election on a clear platform of a soft Brexit (e.g. membership of EFTA and the customs union.) I'm not sure Corbyn has the vision himself, though.
Alternatively, since the Maybot would clearly be unseated by a vote of no confidence. perhaps Ruth Davidson would take her place, and run a Tory campaign also based on a clear platform of soft Brexit.
I'll be up front and declare a political bias against Ruth Davidson, but honestly, she would be a disaster for the Tories.
We get more exposure to Davidson up her, and quite frankly, she's terrible.
After Scottish Indy referendum, Unionists had nowhere to go - so Davidson cashed in by being in the right place at the right time, not because of any great political acumen.
The Scottish Media, mostly Unionist owned, go easy on her. She's big on soundbites, but has zero policy beyond SNP bad.
3 Tory councillors had to resign for racist comments only days after Davidson had called out Trump for it. Not her fault, but she compounded the calamity by saying they had spoken to an anti-racism charity for guidance, only for the charity to say nobody had contacted them.
She went into hiding for a few days after that.
In the last Scottish Parliament election, she accused the SNP of voter intimidation at the polling booths. Not a shred of evidence was presented for such a serious accusation, beyond Davidson tweeting that it had happened in a place 100 miles away from her.
She bitterly opposed Brexit, but has fallen into line behind May. She claimed that her 12 Scottish MPs were kingmakers in the Tory party, but has yet to get anything like what the DUP got for Northern Ireland.
In short, big on soundbites, zero policy, and would quickly be found out in England.
A female version of David Cameron. If that's your political preference, Davidson is the right person for the job.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll be up front and declare a political bias against Ruth Davidson, but honestly, she would be a disaster for the Tories.
We get more exposure to Davidson up her, and quite frankly, she's terrible.
After Scottish Indy referendum, Unionists had nowhere to go - so Davidson cashed in by being in the right place at the right time, not because of any great political acumen.
To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now both in terms of intelligence and charisma. I'm not sure Tories have got that much talent left that can meet both criteria.
At least with SNP you do seem to have a party that wants to try and correct some of the problems with society. The recent changes to Income Tax where the poorest are helped and the wealthiest pay a bit more is definitely the correct direction to go in. The type of policy and idea I'd support.
Whirlwind wrote:That's still not a rational argument. You are just saying I don't understand when the reality is you have no idea whether this is the case or not.
I do. Allow me to demonstrate;
However it fails to recognise that we live in a global market and their is only a fixed amount of 'pie' at any one time.
Wrong. We extract oil, gas, coal, diamonds, metals and all manner of other desirable products from the ground on a daily basis. We even use heat from the Earth's core for electricity generation. We generate electricity from what is basically just trapped rainwater. We generate it from the wind, the sun and the tide. We generate it from splitting atoms. We use cows to turn grass into milk, cheese, butter and other sundry items. We use all manner of undesirable food stuffs to turn healthy pigs into bacon rashers. We turn trees into beautiful ornate furniture. IKEA turns trees into furniture that doesn't fit together properly and defies any kind of practical construction technique, while also being incompatible with virtually every form of screw and mattress known to mankind, except the ones they sell. We turn seeds into fields of wheat (for Theresa May to run through when she's feeling a bit naughty). Some people turn pigments of coloured powder into awe inspiring works of art, while the rest of us sit around admiring it and muttering "How the did they do that?" under our breath. Equally we can destroy things with wanton abandon, consume products at a ferocious rate and through away the stuff we don't want callously. And if all else fails, central banks can just push the magic money button and literally create money out of thin air.
Sorry, got carried away. TL;DR An IKEA joke, a Theresa May joke, and there is no fixed pie.
The share of that market is in principle more important than any absolute local growth figure.
Wrong. People in Ethiopia couldn't care less how muck of a share of the global market they possess. What matters is how are they doing in relation to themselves, growing or receeding? It's the same for us. By your logic we'd be doing brilliantly if the rest of the world was disappearing down the toilet hole but we were still sliding down the sides. Following your logic, the last human left alive after a nuclear apocolypse would be at the peak of possible human economic output, having achieved 100% of the global share of GDP.
We can have growth but if other countries/groups (like the EU) are growing at double the rate (as is the case)
Which it isn't. Quite aside from the fact that we're still in the EU.
then we our global position is weakening because the share of that limited pie is substantially decreasing.
There is no pie.
This growth compounds over time so that double can become a much larger figure over time than the difference would suggest.
Wrong. The reverse is actually true. The bigger you get, the harder it is to keep growing by say 2% per year, because the real value of that percentage point increases with each year. Take the UK and the eurozone for example. The UK has been kicking the out of the Eurozone since 2008, which makes it harder to sustain real terms year on year growth with each passing year. The Eurozone has been doing... shall we say less well, which means they have plenty of room for growth. Spain has until fairly recently been in a deep recession. Right now they're doing pretty well (sort of), but a lot of that is them just filling in the holes of their economy that developed during their recent economic woes, just by doing things like putting their staggeringly high amount of unemployed youths back to work. You'll note if you look a GDP figures for the EU nations individually that the weaker countries and those that have had a rough time in the last few years are now those growing the fastest, while the larger economies rumble along a little more sedately.
This can doubly impact if you have a higher inflation relatively to that growth, because as a country we can afford less whilst others can afford more at a simplistic level.
Wrong. Inflation is not tied to the value of your currency (which is where purchasing power parity resides). In the modern world currency still has an impact on inflation, but the two are not the same. Observe the historical nature of price inflation in cities during sieges for an example of this effect. Or the fact that the Pound dropped significantly more against the dollar than inflation has risen in the UK.
So to come full circle your initial challenge was that all Remainers were claiming a immediate recession, which is demonstrably incorrect (you are just pushing that view to try and make a point)
Wrong. The reason we're talking about the economy and GDP like this is because you have quite literally been arguing that we're in a type of recession.
whereas many have pointed out that what is more important is our growth relatively
Wrong. See above. I'm also pretty sure you're the only person I've seen arguing that, at least in the last few pages.
and that over time will make the UK smaller, more isolated and less influential which means we will more at the mercy of the world, rather than trying to drive it in a certain direction (effectively the little England view).
Wrong. You can jump on a plane in London and be in Beijing in less than a day. There you can do business before returning home again. You do realise that after Brexit we're not going to suddenly shut all the doors and windows and start chasing people away with brooms right? One of the key opportunities of Brexit is the ability to escape the EU's narrow minded view of trade and to open our economy in a bold new direction. We also have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN security council, unlike the EU. You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded... most of the known world, and having premier league football). Oh, and our Foreign Office is the one government department with a history of not being pants on head insane and actually commands a lot of respect abroad (because basically we're sneaky with access to a lot of capital and loose morals when required).
That's for the UK populace to decide, not you or me. That's why it's called a democratic process.
I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get the EU to agree to your "every five years we might change our mind" approach? The level of naivety of what would be involved in that process would qualify someone for a place in the nativity, and not as one of the three wise men.
Ketara wrote: So would doing a Nordic style deal involve leaving or staying with the EU? I mean, it would involve Article 50 and meet your criteria, but we'd still be involved to a heavy degree.
It would qualify as leaving, yes.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The issue is, even if the remain side were to actually try and debate in good faith it wouldn't have worked due to the populist nature of the Leave campaign.
Except that the reverse of that is actually true, due to something called "Status Quo Bias". Basically it's much, much harder to get people to embrace some sort of change than it is to just let them keep doing what they were doing before. A good example of this is one of my sisters, who was unsure either way and wasn't strongly swayed by either sides arguments. In the end she voted to remain, not because she's a devotee of the EU and its vision of ever closer union, but simply because of status quo bias. She voted to stick with the thing she knew. It's one of the reasons we get governments that remain in power across several elections, even if they're not performing that well. For many people who are undecided It's just easier to vote for something you know (the tories) than something that is unknown (Corbyn).
When your opposition just throws out everything that it thinks sounds good, at a machine gun rate of fire, without worrying about whether or not it is factually accurate or possible to achieve, you cannot keep up with debunking everything.... When the debunkers finally catch up with you, you instead switch to discredit them rather than try to defend your positions ("Tired of experts"/"Project fear"/"Fake news"). By that point you've solidified a core of rabid followers due to you promising each of them their own personal moon, sun and stars and they've bought in enough that to accept that they've been scammed would be a huge kick in their ego, so it is easier for them to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their wondrous brexit/president rather than pointing out serious issues.
Like - just for examples sake - if the government were to produce a document from the Treasury that was made up on the fly, threatening half a million job losses at best and 800,000 odd at worst, along with a crippling recession, were the country to vote Leave? A document which has that air of being written by people that know what they're doing (it was produced by the treasury after all), even if it proved to be complete rubbish, as was noted by some within a day of its release, but which got picked up by the media and just endlessly repeated as fact, despite its being complete nonsense, which in turn proved quite hard to counter with people that didn't/don't really understand economics. And by the time the debunkers had caught up with it, the remain camp switched to discrediting leave voters by calling them fascists, racists, bigots etc. And by that point they had acquired a rabid core of followers who had been promised that there wouldn't be any steps towards ever closer union and that the path of prosperity, milk, honey and all the wealth you could dream of lay with the EU, who are unable to accept that they'd been scammed by Osbourne and co as it would be a huge kick in their ego, so it's easier for the to just go along with it and actually believe that it is the other side which is making stuff up to ruin their place in the wonderous EU paradise?
Like that you mean?
Mr Morden wrote:The Leave campaign was criminally dishonest. The Remain campaign was criminally incompetent and arrogant.
Granted, it's probably just hyperbole, but I'm interested in whether you think anyone on the leave side was actually criminally dishonest? Unlike, say, a certain chancellor of the exchequer who authorised the release of an official treasury document that was later proven to be a complete pack of lies while also allowing the remain campaign to circumvent the cap on campaign spending?
Whirlwind wrote:Only a few thought recession would be immediately forthcoming, the more sensible reports suggest that we would see a period of decline.
See above about the treasury document and how warmly and eagerly it was embraced by the remain campaign, official and otherwise. Or is this an example of the 'post-truth era' in action?
My anecdotal impression is that retailers are having a bad Xmas.
As a counter anecdote from someone involved in retailing (Christmas Day is my next day off ) aside from the country grinding to a complete halt the other day because of a few hours worth of snow, things have looked quite good down these parts. I've kept surpassing budgets without having to do too much special. Everyone else around seems to be doing quite well, even despite the cold and the allure of the Internet.
To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now...
Now you really are pulling my chain. That wally?
At least with SNP you do seem to have a party that wants to try and correct some of the problems with society. The recent changes to Income Tax where the poorest are helped and the wealthiest pay a bit more is definitely the correct direction to go in. The type of policy and idea I'd support.
If by "wealthiest", you include anyone earning over £33,000 which includes a good portion of public sector workers in Scotland and a great many other people not even close to being wealthy. I guess they're on the wealthiest end, but not by much.
Sorry, got carried away. TL;DR An IKEA joke, a Theresa May joke, and there is no fixed pie.
Barring that was very rambling, to make one point. But yes at any one time there is a fixed amount of pie. What you are detailing is how that pie develops or grows (or declines) over time which is not up for argument. However at any one point there is only a certain amounts assets, production and so on. Any other solution means there is an infinite potential from the worlds resources (including human labour) on any day and we are just not utilising it. But then that is plainly ridiculous as there is only a limited number of people and a third are asleep at any one time. We are not talking about potential at any one time. We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)
Wrong. People in Ethiopia couldn't care less how muck of a share of the global market they possess. What matters is how are they doing in relation to themselves, growing or receeding? It's the same for us. By your logic we'd be doing brilliantly if the rest of the world was disappearing down the toilet hole but we were still sliding down the sides. Following your logic, the last human left alive after a nuclear apocolypse would be at the peak of possible human economic output, having achieved 100% of the global share of GDP.
Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat. However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*). The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down. I do appreciate that everyone in recession is not a good thing, but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense especially when we exclude the WWIII scenarios (which at that point we don't really have to worry about global economic output anyway).
We can have growth but if other countries/groups (like the EU) are growing at double the rate (as is the case)
Which it isn't. Quite aside from the fact that we're still in the EU.
There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information
then we our global position is weakening because the share of that limited pie is substantially decreasing.
There is no pie.
This growth compounds over time so that double can become a much larger figure over time than the difference would suggest.
Wrong. The reverse is actually true.
Wrong. Inflation is not tied to the value of your currency (which is where purchasing power parity resides). In the modern world currency still has an impact on inflation, but the two are not the same. Observe the historical nature of price inflation in cities during sieges for an example of this effect. Or the fact that the Pound dropped significantly more against the dollar than inflation has risen in the UK.
I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.
I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. . And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is. If inflation goes up faster than the economic output then the country can afford less. We can already see this with things like Hinkley Point and the Trident replacement where the costs have gone. That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.
Wrong. The reason we're talking about the economy and GDP like this is because you have quite literally been arguing that we're in a type of recession.
Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology. For a lot of people (more than average numbers) they are in recession because they can't afford to buy as much as they use to.
Wrong. You can jump on a plane in London and be in Beijing in less than a day. There you can do business before returning home again. You do realise that after Brexit we're not going to suddenly shut all the doors and windows and start chasing people away with brooms right? One of the key opportunities of Brexit is the ability to escape the EU's narrow minded view of trade and to open our economy in a bold new direction. We also have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN security council, unlike the EU. You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded... most of the known world, and having premier league football). Oh, and our Foreign Office is the one government department with a history of not being pants on head insane and actually commands a lot of respect abroad (because basically we're sneaky with access to a lot of capital and loose morals when required).
We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France. However when we consider voted positions (such as on the World court) we are losing influence. And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be. And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force. Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .
I'm still waiting to see how you're going to get the EU to agree to your "every five years we might change our mind" approach? The level of naivety of what would be involved in that process would qualify someone for a place in the nativity, and not as one of the three wise men.
Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from (something May is trying to do already).
As a counter anecdote from someone involved in retailing (Christmas Day is my next day off ) aside from the country grinding to a complete halt the other day because of a few hours worth of snow, things have looked quite good down these parts. I've kept surpassing budgets without having to do too much special. Everyone else around seems to be doing quite well, even despite the cold and the allure of the Internet.
We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).
To be honest Sadiq Khan seems to be the best politician we have right now...
Now you really are pulling my chain. That wally?
Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?
If by "wealthiest", you include anyone earning over £33,000 which includes a good portion of public sector workers in Scotland and a great many other people not even close to being wealthy. I guess they're on the wealthiest end, but not by much.
Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)
I think a lot of the economic stuff above is ultimately just two parties talking past each other. One talks about the macro, the other instead refers to perceptions and links it to the micro, the other responds by linking perceptions to that of historical trends, and so on. You're actually both right for the larger part of it.
-We are not in actual recession (the economy is growing).
-Growth is not high in comparison to certain other economies right now, but we have outperformed most of them until recently. It is also usually easier to achieve a larger percentage of growth immediately after having been in a recession, as the economy recovers and that figure then stabilises. So it's not great that we're showing poorer growth, but it's not nearly as bad as a simple comparison as like for like indicates without taking into account other factors.
-Having a smaller overall percentage of the total amount of world trade is not necessarily a bad thing. This is because so long as the actual amount of world trade/wealth/pie/whatever term you use is still increasing, it is possible to have a smaller overall percentage, but a higher amount than before in real terms.
-Despite not being in an actual recession, people can feel as if they are in one somewhat if their earning power is reduced. This can be achieved through property values increasing out of reach, basic living costs increasing whilst wages remain stagnant, and so on. Such things are never quite as bad as an actual recession however, because a recession has all of the same things plus lots of companies going bankrupt and raising unemployment/actively depressing wages. Nonetheless, the perception does mean something, and it is the case that being in growth does not automatically equate to everything going well.
-Trying to estimate economic conditions in even fifteen years time is a fool's game that consistently goes wrong in 99% of cases. No trend lasts forever, real world events always end up altering conditions more and more substantially the further from the present you get. There are likely to be times after Brexit that are bad, and times that are good. Beyond that? Who can say what state the world will be in a decade from now.
-Likewise, talking about an 'economic voice' or position is, for the most part, not particularly relevant to anything. It's like talking about someone's 'diplomatic voice'; there is something to it, but its so intangible as to be impossible to pin down, and it originates from a thousand other more concrete factors.
our editing was a bit all over the place so forgive me if things end up out of place;
Whirlwind wrote: We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)
You don't seem to be getting this idea that your percentage of this now infamous global pie is virtually irrelevant. What matters is how your economy is fairing in relation to itself. If it's growing, things are going well. If it's receeding = bad. Trying to shift the goal posts and pretend there's some sort of fantasy recession taking place because that would serve your position is just a waste of everyones time.
Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat
Driving what, a cockroach drawn cart?
However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*).
Given the state of some of your spelling and grammar errors, you're probably well advised not to get too haughty. The point of the example was to demonstrate that under your definition of what success looks like economically, the last man/woman on Earth after the rest of the world has burned away would have achieved a perfect economic position in your model, irrespective of the fact that they now live alone on a desolate wasteland. It's an extreme example designed to highlight the absurdity of your position.
The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down.
I'm not sure you understand how geopolitics works. How has Germany been getting on the last few decades when it comes to influencing American global policy vs how the economically smaller UK has fared?
... but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense
When that treasury document came out, the remain side was all over it like a rash. Right here in this thread you've been trying to convince us that despite the economy being in growth, we're in some kind of quasi-recession that you've invented. Though it now seems you're trying to back out of that and now it's become about longer term concerns.
There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information
I've been keeping an eye on them for a while as it happens. The annual comparison is 1.5% to 2.5%, which isn't double. I guess to match the EU what we really need is a bunch of allied economies that have been in the dumps for several years to come help us out by making our overall growth figures look better.
I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.
It only seems that way because you don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You don't see to understand the concept that as an economy grows in size it becomes progressively harder to sustain a certain percentage growth rate, because each year the raw figure in pounds and pence terms has risen. 2% growth for this year will be harder to achieve than 2% growth was last year, because the baseline figure you're measuring against is 2% bigger than it was last year. I pointed out our growth history vs the eurozone because you need to understand that we've ended up so far ahead of them that it becomes progressively harder for us to sustain that level of growth with each passing year. Spain finds it easy because until a few years ago they were in a serious recession, from which it is very easy to recover. Our government policy isn't helping. Also keep in mind that we've wound up most of our quantitative easing, while the EU central bank is still part way through the process.
I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. .
I'm hoping you understand the context of what I was saying, but given the way things are going I'm not so sure.
And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is.
Because you were trying to tie inflation to purchasing power parity, when it's the currency value that affects this.
That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.
No, you've conflated wages with economic growth. If wages don't rise with inflation then people have less money. As was discussed much further back in the thread (might have been the GW share price thread? I might be mistaking the two), we've enjoyed almost a decade of wages outstripping inflation (which strongly suggests our currency was over valued even before the referendum result brought the pound down a peg or two). This is how come you don't see everyone grovelling on their knees to their boss looking for a pay rise, because we already had a decent cushion to absorb the increase. And once again we need to point out that the economy has grown.
Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology.
No, let's start this sort of thing again. Recession is a very specific, very defined term. It has nothing to do with points of view and it is not a government methodology. A country is either in recession or it isn't. Ours is not.
We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France.
Aside from being amused at the idea that you think France will act in any way other than what is in the interests of France, you're basically agreeing that that the UK will not lose its seat. So its influence on that stage will not be diminished in any shape or form.
And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be?
No, I mean the EU's idea of trade is to do everything it can to avoid opening its market in any way shape or form. Canada is already starting to murmur with a pang of regret about the deal it signed. The EU talks a good talk about trying to help countries in Africa for example, while quietly using every non-tariff barrier to trade that it can to prevent African farmers from getting their produce into the EU market. The EU is concerned chiefly with protectionism and very little with what is actually good for its citizens.
And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force
I'm not sure you understand what the term fascism actually means. For example you don't see the irony in calling people fascists while arguing that the result of a democratic vote should be over turned because it delivered the wrong result. You're probably best not using that term till you've looked it up in a dictionary. Besides, who said anything about applying military force to people we disagree with? I mentioned the carriers as an example of how we'll be better able to contribute effectively to future coalition operations against organisations like ISIS and the influence that brings with it.
Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .
I hate to tell you this, but we already do. They're undergoing qualification testing in the US and are due to marry up with the Carrier fairly soon, providing everything stays on schedule. You seem oddly excited though by the thought of the UK not getting any planes?
Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from
No, it's not workable. The reason I'm calling you naive is because you're showing a truly staggering lack of understanding about politics. I honestly just can't put it into any better words. You seem to think we could magically flip flop back and forth between being in or out every five years and that this would have no consequences for the economy, and that the EU would be totally chill with this.
We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).
I do not live in a wealthy area just for reference. The fact that sales are up by value, presuming they've been adjusted for the exchange rate, should be seen as a good sign. It means people are spending more money. As for sales, you have to remember that last year we tried that whole Black Friday business in this country and people went mental. This year people largely didn't bother with it, not least because of the chaos that it caused last year. Retailers are trying to compensate for this.
Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?
I don't need evidence to think Sadiq Khan is a wally. It's an opinion. Or are you the thought police now? If you're that interested, he hasn't really done anything apart from promote himself endlessly and shut down Uber in order to protect Labour voting taxi drivers from having to compete for fares. I've certainly seen no evidence that would lead me to think of him as being the best poltician in the country at the moment.
Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)
Lol, it's not that far over the average. You also seem to be omitting the point that someone on £30,000 a year is not exactly raking it left right and centre. They're doing well, but calling nurses and coppers wealthy is something of a stretch.
All I can say is if England built walls of stone like their walls of text, the entire island would be fortified to a degree that they'd never need fear foreign refugees, though trade might be a bit tricky.
-Growth is not high in comparison to certain other economies right now, but we have outperformed most of them until recently. It is also usually easier to achieve a larger percentage of growth immediately after having been in a recession, as the economy recovers and that figure then stabilises. So it's not great that we're showing poorer growth, but it's not nearly as bad as a simple comparison as like for like indicates without taking into account other factors.
The question is why. Has there been any fundamental change in the British economy that has caused it to lag behind other economies of similar makeup? (big, western countries with a developed service sector).
The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.
The only question left is whether Brexit is just a short-term shock or a long-term liability to Britain's future growth prospects. Arguing that he UK is not in a recession when everyone around is having sound growth figures is missing the wood for the trees. Especially when Brexit hasn't actually happened.
our editing was a bit all over the place so forgive me if things end up out of place;
T
Whirlwind wrote: We are talking about how the pie changes over time and how even with growth you can have growth of that pie but end up with a smaller portion of it (and hence the overall influence on the pie becomes less)
You don't seem to be getting this idea that your percentage of this now infamous global pie is virtually irrelevant. What matters is how your economy is fairing in relation to itself. If it's growing, things are going well. If it's receeding = bad. Trying to shift the goal posts and pretend there's some sort of fantasy recession taking place because that would serve your position is just a waste of everyones time.
Strictly speaking yes you would be correct, but then that last person would also then have a 100% say in everything that went forward. So from an economic perspective they would be in the driving seat
Driving what, a cockroach drawn cart?
However I'm not sure the economics of post WWIII really add much to the conversation (btw it's *apocalypse*).
Given the state of some of your spelling and grammar errors, you're probably well advised not to get too haughty. The point of the example was to demonstrate that under your definition of what success looks like economically, the last man/woman on Earth after the rest of the world has burned away would have achieved a perfect economic position in your model, irrespective of the fact that they now live alone on a desolate wasteland. It's an extreme example designed to highlight the absurdity of your position.
The argument is though that by having a larger share of the world economic system the voice is louder and has more say on the influence that brings. Having less growth and dwindling share will result in less economic power overall (even if it means that we are sliding down the toilet bowl slower to use your analogy. But then I'd prefer that than charging headlong into the diarrhoea if the whole world was going down.
I'm not sure you understand how geopolitics works. How has Germany been getting on the last few decades when it comes to influencing American global policy vs how the economically smaller UK has fared?
... but I keep coming back to the point that you originally raised in that every remainer jumped on the recession is going to happen immediately which isn't correct and that others have larger longer term concerns than a relatively arbitrary growth/reduction scale in absolute sense
When that treasury document came out, the remain side was all over it like a rash. Right here in this thread you've been trying to convince us that despite the economy being in growth, we're in some kind of quasi-recession that you've invented. Though it now seems you're trying to back out of that and now it's become about longer term concerns.
There are plenty of figures that compare the UK and the EU27 countries. They've been posted on here several times. Go and search for them if you want the actual information
I've been keeping an eye on them for a while as it happens. The annual comparison is 1.5% to 2.5%, which isn't double. I guess to match the EU what we really need is a bunch of allied economies that have been in the dumps for several years to come help us out by making our overall growth figures look better.
I'm not sure how you can even argue this. If our growth is 1% for two years then the overall growth is 2.01%. If it is 2% then the overall growth is 4.04%. That's a factor of 2.01 increase over the original date. That compounds over and over given time. I'm not sure what our growth since 2008 has anything to do with things. All you are pointing out is that by being in the EU means our growth is larger than the EU and hence giving us a greater economic voice over time. Since we decided to leave that trend has reversed. Your argument seems to be pointing out exactly what I'm saying about leaving.
It only seems that way because you don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You don't see to understand the concept that as an economy grows in size it becomes progressively harder to sustain a certain percentage growth rate, because each year the raw figure in pounds and pence terms has risen. 2% growth for this year will be harder to achieve than 2% growth was last year, because the baseline figure you're measuring against is 2% bigger than it was last year. I pointed out our growth history vs the eurozone because you need to understand that we've ended up so far ahead of them that it becomes progressively harder for us to sustain that level of growth with each passing year. Spain finds it easy because until a few years ago they were in a serious recession, from which it is very easy to recover. Our government policy isn't helping. Also keep in mind that we've wound up most of our quantitative easing, while the EU central bank is still part way through the process.
I'm happy to stand corrected but I'm not sure any EU city or country is currently under siege so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. .
I'm hoping you understand the context of what I was saying, but given the way things are going I'm not so sure.
And there was also never any argument that the exchange rate directly relates to an inflationary increase, I'm not even sure what your point is.
Because you were trying to tie inflation to purchasing power parity, when it's the currency value that affects this.
That means less money for other things. We haven't had the economic growth to counter these cost pressures.
No, you've conflated wages with economic growth. If wages don't rise with inflation then people have less money. As was discussed much further back in the thread (might have been the GW share price thread? I might be mistaking the two), we've enjoyed almost a decade of wages outstripping inflation (which strongly suggests our currency was over valued even before the referendum result brought the pound down a peg or two). This is how come you don't see everyone grovelling on their knees to their boss looking for a pay rise, because we already had a decent cushion to absorb the increase. And once again we need to point out that the economy has grown.
Depends on your point of view. Recession is just a government methodology.
No, let's start this sort of thing again. Recession is a very specific, very defined term. It has nothing to do with points of view and it is not a government methodology. A country is either in recession or it isn't. Ours is not.
We have a seat on the UN security council because each of them has an overriding veto on the issue. The UK is unlikely to give up such a position just like any other Country wouldn't. The EU does have a seat anyway indirectly through France.
Aside from being amused at the idea that you think France will act in any way other than what is in the interests of France, you're basically agreeing that that the UK will not lose its seat. So its influence on that stage will not be diminished in any shape or form.
And what would the EU's narrow minded view of trade be, do you mean to hell with the consequences and just trash the planet for a few coins? Open trade regardless of how obnoxious the country may be?
No, I mean the EU's idea of trade is to do everything it can to avoid opening its market in any way shape or form. Canada is already starting to murmur with a pang of regret about the deal it signed. The EU talks a good talk about trying to help countries in Africa for example, while quietly using every non-tariff barrier to trade that it can to prevent African farmers from getting their produce into the EU market. The EU is concerned chiefly with protectionism and very little with what is actually good for its citizens.
And I see we are back the fascism route again . If someone disagrees and we don't get what we want we'll apply military force
I'm not sure you understand what the term fascism actually means. For example you don't see the irony in calling people fascists while arguing that the result of a democratic vote should be over turned because it delivered the wrong result. You're probably best not using that term till you've looked it up in a dictionary. Besides, who said anything about applying military force to people we disagree with? I mentioned the carriers as an example of how we'll be better able to contribute effectively to future coalition operations against organisations like ISIS and the influence that brings with it.
Fortunately we won't have any aircraft to use on those aircraft carriers to pursue those dreams... .
I hate to tell you this, but we already do. They're undergoing qualification testing in the US and are due to marry up with the Carrier fairly soon, providing everything stays on schedule. You seem oddly excited though by the thought of the UK not getting any planes?
Back to insults again I see? There would be no reason why there can't be an agreement in how this work. In principle (assuming the Tories aren't completely incompetent) you'll have an agreement that is ready yo go in a few years. Should a leave vote win then you apply that from a specified date. With a remain we get what we already have. We'd still lose some things because of the potential unreliability, but it's not unworkable. You just set a date from when things apply from
No, it's not workable. The reason I'm calling you naive is because you're showing a truly staggering lack of understanding about politics. I honestly just can't put it into any better words. You seem to think we could magically flip flop back and forth between being in or out every five years and that this would have no consequences for the economy, and that the EU would be totally chill with this.
We'll have to see on this one, not everyone is going to struggle, wealthier areas probably see less impacts. We know sales by value are up especially on food, but by volume is down in November. I never think that Boxing Day sales starting early (more than week before is a good indication of issues (i.e. done to increase sales at the expense of post Xmas sales).
I do not live in a wealthy area just for reference. The fact that sales are up by value, presuming they've been adjusted for the exchange rate, should be seen as a good sign. It means people are spending more money. As for sales, you have to remember that last year we tried that whole Black Friday business in this country and people went mental. This year people largely didn't bother with it, not least because of the chaos that it caused last year. Retailers are trying to compensate for this.
Any reason for this or just a general statement without evidence?
I don't need evidence to think Sadiq Khan is a wally. It's an opinion. Or are you the thought police now? If you're that interested, he hasn't really done anything apart from promote himself endlessly and shut down Uber in order to protect Labour voting taxi drivers from having to compete for fares. I've certainly seen no evidence that would lead me to think of him as being the best poltician in the country at the moment.
Average wage in Scotland is about £27500 so quite a bit above this (so affects probably about 30% of the population)
Lol, it's not that far over the average. You also seem to be omitting the point that someone on £30,000 a year is not exactly raking it left right and centre. They're doing well, but calling nurses and coppers wealthy is something of a stretch.
OT - Checked out your brothers band, not a band tune that.
TLDR If you're looking for examples of arguments designed to either bore the gak out of people, or completely fail to convince anyone of your arguments, you can do worse than copy this chap.
You've certainly chosen an apt name.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ...It really would help get Remainers on board if they were presented with something better than the dreadful state of drift, irresolution and sheer incompentence that the government has been displaying for the past 18 months.
Absolutely this. At the moment, nothing convinces remainers that this is a terrible idea that should be totally resisted, than the rabid frothing of hard brexiteers, and talk of traitors and saboteurs.
The leave side have made absolutely no effort to try and bring pro-EU, and waiverers along, and frankly it causes people to dig their heels in. Threats and recriminations do nothing to promote positivity and teamwork, and no one on Leave has grasped that.
If there was less fear and anger on the Leave side, then maybe they would get more support, as it us, they're getting none.
Someone needs to convince us that they are not all nutcase idealogues who want to see us crash out of our biggest trading deal, and provide a reasoned, and reasonable, alternative. If they did that, they'd probably be surprised at the support they'd receive.
Rather than just attacking us they need to give us some idea of there it is going. At the moment it basically seems to go:
Leaver: We voted to leave the EU. You should all get behind it!
Remain: Ok. I'm fine to get behind it as long as you give me a reasonable plan and something to get behind.
Leaver: Stop trying to derail everything! The UK voted to leave.
Remain: I know we did. It was a very slim margin, but I know we are leaving, but you need to give me a good idea of what your vision is so I can decide if it is the kind of country I want to live in.
Leaver: YOU HAVE NO SAY ANYMORE! THERE WAS A VOTE!
Remain: I know. I accept the what, but still want input in to the how.
Leaver: TRATOR! BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.
And so on. I am feeling that many still in the leave camp (or the loudest) only want to leave the EU for ideological reasons and have no good arguments.
I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.
Yeah I don't get it either since the national average wage is supposedly ~£24k, and that includes part-time workers. So I wonder if the £27,500 is just full time employees, but even then that's above minimum wage so must be skewed.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.
That would depend on the average used. If it is the mean wage, then yes. If it is the median wage, then no.
However when you break it down by region then Scotland ranks third for highest median gross weekly pay for full time workers, behind London and the South East of England.
And so on. I am feeling that many still in the leave camp (or the loudest) only want to leave the EU for ideological reasons and have no good arguments.
The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.
I very much agree. Frankly, I was expecting a minor recession, and it's actually a mark of the resilience of the UK economy (and a demonstration that the pound was rather overinflated) that it hasn't happened yet, through the most uncertain part. If it were Spain in our position, they'd be thrashing around in the middle of a very nasty economic storm about now.
As you say:
The only question left is whether Brexit is just a short-term shock or a long-term liability to Britain's future growth prospects.
This is the crunch point. I personally would speculate that it'll be a short term shock, but our long term prospects will be roughly the same once things settle down. It's the nature of capitalism that we were likely to have a minor recession at some point in the period anyway, we are just likely to have a rather stagnant patch in the middle on top. Which isn't earth shatteringly awful in and of itself, Japan has put up with such a thing for the longest time.
.. seem to recall being told over and over again the exact opposite of this and how it was going to be all sunshine and effortless trade deals propelling us into some awesome future.
Inequality, air pollution, tax dodging, poverty: we can't afford the cost of putting these things right.
But Brexit? Damn the cost consequences.
elsewhere..
this would presumably be the overtime we can already do yeah ?
I seem to recall things like rights cropping up before..
The fundamentals haven't really changed much, and Brexit is pretty much the only explanation for the UK growing very modestly at the time other big, western economies with a developed service sector are growing significantly more.
I very much agree. Frankly, I was expecting a minor recession, and it's actually a mark of the resilience of the UK economy (and a demonstration that the pound was rather overinflated) that it hasn't happened yet, through the most uncertain part. If it were Spain in our position, they'd be thrashing around in the middle of a very nasty economic storm about now.
Thing is, Brexit hasn't happened yet. This is just people betting on one thing or the totally opposite.
It all hinges on the terms the trade deal is struck.
At least it's largely made Farage go away on a semi-permanent basis, meaning I need no longer be subjected to racist, bigoted bile and lies spewing from his frog like face?
Somehow I get the feeling we won't be getting rid of his smug face for a long time. The man's going to keep coming back as long as anyone will listen to him :(
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: At least he's not showing up on the news or Question Time with alarming regularity.
Give him some time. Wasn't he complaining a couple days ago that he was single and broke? That sounds like he'll end up on some reality show, strictly come dancing anyone?
.. seem to recall being told over and over again the exact opposite of this and how it was going to be all sunshine and effortless trade deals propelling us into some awesome future.
Inequality, air pollution, tax dodging, poverty: we can't afford the cost of putting these things right.
But Brexit? Damn the cost consequences.
elsewhere..
this would presumably be the overtime we can already do yeah ?
I seem to recall things like rights cropping up before..
hail to the new chief, remarkably like the old chief.
The working time directive as it stands in the UK is meaningless. At the moment it is set at 48h, which is a 10 hour working day 5 days (with the so generous 20 min break in the middle), which can also be averaged over a month, PLUS anyone can sign out of it, and whilst it’s not legal to force people to sign out of it I know several people who have either been given the form with their contact and basically told “sign the form or don’t bother returning your contract” or been told that there industry is not covered, both of which is nonsense and illegal, but who is able to say no to a company like that?
This is exactly why I want to remain in the EU. The government want to remove what little protections we have (after saying they would not). I hope that this makes a few people wake up and realise what leaving is going to do to the UK. How many lies have to be uncovered before people change their mind?
The EU does have a lot of inneficiencies and pointless regulation that needs to be addressed.
The EU apparently makes travel around it much easier than in the past - although Not experienced it myself but it seems a good thing.
Travelling round Europe is brilliant. No stopping at checkpoints within she gen, minimal stops outside it. Can travel anywhere in eu on a whim with no planning beyond train/plane tickets or fueling up car.
Snore....it would be helpful if you actually used paragraphs rather than just repeat the same thing line by line. So I'm going to pick up a few points that you are managing to make in half a page that most people could do in a few small paragraphs and I've got more interesting things to do than go through it line by line.
I'm not sure you understand what the term fascism actually means. For example you don't see the irony in calling people fascists while arguing that the result of a democratic vote should be over turned because it delivered the wrong result. You're probably best not using that term till you've looked it up in a dictionary. Besides, who said anything about applying military force to people we disagree with? I mentioned the carriers as an example of how we'll be better able to contribute effectively to future coalition operations against organisations like ISIS and the influence that brings with it.
Definition of fascism (Collins Dictionary):-
"Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition. "
You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded most of the known world..."
"Odd that I would have to defend a horrendous toilet paper rag like the Mail, but in fairness they're branding them traitors and saboteurs because they're trying to overturn a vote, the result of which everyone agreed would be respected "
You do the maths....the point of a democracy is a result can be overturned, again and again if that is how people vote. All you are seeing is political opposition to overturning the result you want and that should be stopped at all costs. What I'm advocating is a continual process where the population gets to choose.
It only seems that way because you don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You don't see to understand the concept that as an economy grows in size it becomes progressively harder to sustain a certain percentage growth rate, because each year the raw figure in pounds and pence terms has risen. 2% growth for this year will be harder to achieve than 2% growth was last year, because the baseline figure you're measuring against is 2% bigger than it was last year. I pointed out our growth history vs the eurozone because you need to understand that we've ended up so far ahead of them that it becomes progressively harder for us to sustain that level of growth with each passing year. Spain finds it easy because until a few years ago they were in a serious recession, from which it is very easy to recover. Our government policy isn't helping. Also keep in mind that we've wound up most of our quantitative easing, while the EU central bank is still part way through the process.
I do not live in a wealthy area just for reference. The fact that sales are up by value, presuming they've been adjusted for the exchange rate, should be seen as a good sign.
No I get the point that the larger you grow can be more difficult to sustain growth (though in reality it is more likely down to untapped potential). But anyway it doesn't matter what the percentage is (I was using a simplistic maths example). If in any year the growth is half the other then overall there is still a cumulative impact (so rather than 2/1% per annum continuously then the next year it's 1.8% vs 0.9% and so on). Over each year the differential becomes larger than double than purely the growth figures would indicate. It's also questionable whether sales are up by value is a good sign whereas sales by volume are down. It takes more people to make two TVs than one for example (arbitrary example). Therefore less things bought means less people in work (although the business owners do get to rake in more profit).
Aside from being amused at the idea that you think France will act in any way other than what is in the interests of France, you're basically agreeing that that the UK will not lose its seat. So its influence on that stage will not be diminished in any shape or form.
Conveniently ignoring that we've lost the seat on the World Court. It's not like we are going to lose all influence overnight...unless Boris the Clown has his way anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m amazed the average wage in Scotland is £27,500, but it’s likely skewed by a few very high earners. I bet average wage would look quite a bit different if you excluded the top few percent of earners from your calculation, say base an average on the 95th percentile. That gives you a real impression of the spending power of the majority. I’m not on much more than that as a teacher on a London pay weighting. And people wonder why staff retention is so low in London schools when no one can afford a home.
Average is never really a good indicator when you have a large sample especially if their is a skewed distribution as you've noted, the median is better but a quick scan couldn't find the specifics I was looking for and it isn't worth boredom to go and find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote: So the BBC has decided to try and declare an Xmas truce asking people to say one thing good about the opposite position.
From my point of view I think that the EU as a trading block and common market was a laudable and admirable aim.
BaronIveagh wrote:All I can say is if England built walls of stone like their walls of text, the entire island would be fortified to a degree that they'd never need fear foreign refugees, though trade might be a bit tricky.
Perhaps we can build your wall for you. The only question is who's paying for it, you or Mexico? I apologise for not being able to sit at the computer all day and respond to each post individually as it comes up. I basically have to sit down and do it all in bulk.
jouso wrote:The question is why. Has there been any fundamental change in the British economy that has caused it to lag behind other economies of similar makeup? (big, western countries with a developed service sector).
The main problem was the first two quarters of the year, when the GE was happening. Close run elections tend to affect business confidence because we don't know who will win and what kind of government/framework we'll end up with on the other side. There's normally a short period of lag following something like this (can be up to 12 months, but 6-9 is more common) as the results of the decision making unwind themselves.
r_squared wrote:TLDR If you're looking for examples of arguments designed to either bore the gak out of people, or completely fail to convince anyone of your arguments, you can do worse than copy this chap.
You've certainly chosen an apt name.
Economics is seldom an exciting subject fella. It's not meant to be. I'm also going to take an educated guess and suspect your view on Brexit had a slight hand in your view, which makes your next comment all the more ironic.
Someone needs to convince us that they are not all nutcase idealogues who want to see us crash out of our biggest trading deal, and provide a reasoned, and reasonable, alternative. If they did that, they'd probably be surprised at the support they'd receive.
At this point we have to ask, what's the point? The case has been made over and over again. We've had years of debate about it. I've gone back and forth with some people to try and explain some of the elements of the economics of it and you just brushed it off with one sentence. Perhaps if more people on your side of the fence were better prepared to actually listen and to think about the advantages, and agree to work towards them as some have (so called "ReLeavers"), then we might actually make more progress, rather than just dismissing everything related to Brexit and deciding that your sole course of action will be to try and prevent it happening. Your side lost the vote, the onus is on you to try and convince people why we should accept certain limitations on the possible, not the other way around.
Steve steveson wrote:Rather than just attacking us they need to give us some idea of there it is going...And so on. I am feeling that many still in the leave camp (or the loudest) only want to leave the EU for ideological reasons and have no good arguments.
That depends on what you class as "ideological" vs good arguments. As far as I can tell every argument put forth by someone on the Leave side gets brushed off as being ideological. Not wanting to end up in a European superstate for example might be considered a solid argument on the Leave side, but get brushed off by opponents as being ideological.
Herzlos wrote:I've largely given up trying to ask what I need to do to make it a success, or where any of the upsides come from.
You don't do anything at this stage. The government is still negotiating, so at this point you just wait like everyone else.
AndrewC wrote:So the BBC has decided to try and declare an Xmas truce asking people to say one thing good about the opposite position.
The underlying idea of a Europe wide, limited customs agreement with some regulatory harmony, especially if that's used to try and drive international standards towards a single unified standard, is a good principle. Making Visa arrangements much smoother between the countries is a good idea. There is much to be said for the benefits of single, unified processes across an entire area the size of the EU, where we all sign up to a given standard on something like medication and agree to recognise any drug that meets set standard. If the scope of the EU was scaled back dramatically I'd be more than happy to support it.
Herzlos wrote:Somehow I get the feeling we won't be getting rid of his smug face for a long time. The man's going to keep coming back as long as anyone will listen to him :(
Farage is already positioning himself for a return to politics, probably trying by trying to jump on the Westminster gravy train. One of the grand ironies of all this anti-brexit work is that it makes the return of Farage more likely and makes the return of UKIP more likely (voters flooded from them on mass to join Labour in many constituencies) which makes a coalition between the Tories and UKIP more likely, which in return makes a hard brexit more likely.
Steve steveson wrote:The working time directive as it stands in the UK is meaningless. At the moment it is set at 48h, which is a 10 hour working day 5 days (with the so generous 20 min break in the middle), which can also be averaged over a month, PLUS anyone can sign out of it, and whilst it’s not legal to force people to sign out of it I know several people who have either been given the form with their contact and basically told “sign the form or don’t bother returning your contract” or been told that there industry is not covered, both of which is nonsense and illegal, but who is able to say no to a company like that? This is exactly why I want to remain in the EU. The government want to remove what little protections we have (after saying they would not). I hope that this makes a few people wake up and realise what leaving is going to do to the UK. How many lies have to be uncovered before people change their mind?
So you're saying we should stay in the EU so we could remain protected by a piece of legislation that doesn't actually protect anyone? A piece of legislation that encapsulates the EU process by sounding good in theory but in reality being nothing more than a token gesture to working people, while making sure the cosy relationship between corporate bosses and top politicians doesn't get harmed.
Or, here's an alternative, we could leave the EU and now you can elect a left wing government that will do what the EU couldn't, that will give you the rights you seek, irrespective of what anyone else in the world thinks about it, remembering that this country created the welfare state and the NHS long before the EU was even a glint in some European leaders eyes. This to me actually represents one of the more tragic elements of the EU, in that it has somehow managed to dupe entire generations of people into thinking that it is the font of all that is good and right with the world. While everyone fawns over the European Convention on Human Rights, they forget that there was an international decleration of human rights that preceeded it, which was inspired in large part by the US bill of rights, which was itself inspired by the English bill of rights that dates back to 1689, which itself was basically just a codification of certain English common law principles such as the right of Habeus Corpus which goes back to 1305, and the principles of the Magna Carta from 1215.
Or put another way, the European legal system is about 800 years behind the UK one, but it is gradually catching up. Could add in here about womens suffrage beginning in the UK in 1918, while many of our European neighbours didn't get around to it till the 1930s/40s (though the Finns and Norwegians beat us to it), but then I don't want to upset the apple cart too much about the supposed legal benefits of being in the EU. It's also worth noting that unlike many of our neighbours we've not had a fascist government in power here in the UK. A lot of the European rules are not designed to protect us, they're designed to protect people living in countries with a very (very) shaky history when it comes to things like freedom of expression.
Whirlwind wrote:Snore....it would be helpful if you actually used paragraphs rather than just repeat the same thing line by line. So I'm going to pick up a few points that you are managing to make in half a page that most people could do in a few small paragraphs and I've got more interesting things to do than go through it line by line.
Careful there cowboy, don't want you falling off the bandwagon and hurting yourself. But in the spirit of cooperation and Christmas goodwill I'll do the rest of this in paragraphs and without quotes, which I always find is worse because the specific points get lost in a blob of text, but hey ho and away we go.
You brought up the the dictionary definition of Fascism, none of which apply to people on the leave side. You're basically just throwing that word out there because it sounds good and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy at the idea that the opposing side are somehow all connected with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. I've already explained to you, though you opted to ignore it, that I mentioned things like the carriers in relation to fighting ISIS. Or do you consider the EU to be fascist because it has a formal military mission to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia? You higlighted my comment about our country's past when it comes to invading people, a slightly tongue in cheek reference to the fact that a great many nations legal systems are based on ours, they use English as their secondary language (a language which has become something of an international standard) and the nature of how widespread elements of our culture are, such as all the sporting events that we created at which the rest of the world now kicks the out of us at. Which is virtually all of them. We have incredibly strong ties with a massive number of countries around the world, some of whom we owe an informal debt that we can never truly repay, but who have stood by us in our darkest hours in the past. The UK is unbelivably influential, more than you seem to realise.
Economically, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant the opposite of what you actually said, i.e. that it's actually harder for large economies to grown because they've exahuasted a lot of their untapped potential, whereas the smaller countries benefit from having more room to grow (UK unemployment rate is nearly half that of the EU). I do find it odd though that you think sales being up by value is a bad thing? It looks decidedly like you're still just trying to find the bad in anything, whether real or perceived, which rather hints that you'd decided in your head that the economy is doing badly and you're working backwards from there, an approach that is always going to get you into trouble. You mentioned the world court, by which I presume you mean the International Court of Justice? In which case my understanding is that we had the support of the rest of the security council but opted to withdraw our candidate to avoid tying the place up for years in legal wrangling. Not least because our candidate was the guy that approved the legal case for the Iraq war....
bouncingboredom wrote: You brought up the the dictionary definition of Fascism, none of which apply to people on the leave side.
Nope didn't say that at all. There are plenty of people on here that support Leave that wouldn't come anywhere near a view that is close to fascism. I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.
I again point out your previous quotes and the definition:-
Definition of fascism (Collins Dictionary):-
Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition. "
You'd be amazed how much influence that buys, along with a willingness to apply military force (got some shiney new aircraft carriers now) and a history of sharing our language and culture with the world (re; having previously invaded most of the known world..."
"Odd that I would have to defend a horrendous toilet paper rag like the Mail, but in fairness they're branding them traitors and saboteurs because they're trying to overturn a vote, the result of which everyone agreed would be respected
If you can't see it (or don't want to) look again and look *harder* and question what you yourself are saying.
Economically, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant the opposite of what you actually said, i.e. that it's actually harder for large economies to grown because they've exahuasted a lot of their untapped potential
Erm China says hello. What second biggest economy and consistently high growth. Of course it does help that it has huge resources in both land and people.
You mentioned the world court, by which I presume you mean the International Court of Justice? In which case my understanding is that we had the support of the rest of the security council but opted to withdraw our candidate to avoid tying the place up for years in legal wrangling.
This is just plain denial now. How can you possibly that losing a position on the International Court is not a loss of prestige. You keep on claiming the UK is powerful and influential yet doesn't seem to be able to influence, well, much at all.
bouncingboredom wrote: ... Your side lost the vote, the onus is on you to try and convince people why we should accept certain limitations on the possible, not the other way around...
Really, the onus is on me to convince you that a hard Brexit is a bad idea and that we should limit that? If you can't see that yourself, then there's nothing much I can say that will convince you otherwise.
My complaint is the lack of plan and leadership on the side that have lead us down this path. All the most prominent Leavers pretty much abdicated their responsibility the second they could, with only a talentless handful left at the helm. Realising that it was a fething stupid idea to begin with, they've been more than happy to let a bunch of bumbling clots and half-hearted Remainers run the show, because they can sit back and blame everyone else for the gak storm.
At the moment Leave lacks a plan, leadership and integrity, and have left it to those who didn't want this to pick up the pieces, and have the audacity to blame us for not convincing Leave to not feth the whole economy into the ground. Exactly as you just tried to do then.
jouso wrote:The question is why. Has there been any fundamental change in the British economy that has caused it to lag behind other economies of similar makeup? (big, western countries with a developed service sector).
The main problem was the first two quarters of the year, when the GE was happening. Close run elections tend to affect business confidence because we don't know who will win and what kind of government/framework we'll end up with on the other side. There's normally a short period of lag following something like this (can be up to 12 months, but 6-9 is more common) as the results of the decision making unwind themselves.
Whirlwind wrote:I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.
So let me get this straight, you think I'm a fascist because - as was established much earlier in the thread - I opposes strong state intervention in society and especially oppose state intervention in the economy, I mentioned that our armed forces have in the past been willing to join in international operations such as those against ISIS (a genocidal religious group). in the Balkans (to bring a genocide to an end), Libya (where the government was about to slaughter its own people with tanks) and the first Iraq war (where we helped liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation), and because I would like to see parliament enact the result of a democratic vote?
Yeah, right old fascist I am. Can't stop, I need to grab my copy of mein kampf, slip some jack boots on and goose step my way down to the nearest Britain First rally. In the meantime I would suggest you reflect on just how utterly pants on head barmy your position has become and what it says about the quality of your arguments that you've now resorted to just chucking the word fascist at people that you disagree with.
r_squared wrote:Really, the onus is on me to convince you that a hard Brexit is a bad idea and that we should limit that? If you can't see that yourself, then there's nothing much I can say that will convince you otherwise.
My complaint is the lack of plan and leadership on the side that have lead us down this path. All the most prominent Leavers pretty much abdicated their responsibility the second they could, with only a talentless handful left at the helm. Realising that it was a fething stupid idea to begin with, they've been more than happy to let a bunch of bumbling clots and half-hearted Remainers run the show, because they can sit back and blame everyone else for the gak storm.
At the moment Leave lacks a plan, leadership and integrity, and have left it to those who didn't want this to pick up the pieces, and have the audacity to blame us for not convincing Leave to not feth the whole economy into the ground. Exactly as you just tried to do then.
A bunch of the leavers tried to run for the PM job but the remain heavy party opted to back a remain candidate for the leadership. I'm not sure what you expect leave voters to do about this? Said new PM is now in the process of trying to negotiate the best deal she can, at least when everyone isn't desperately trying to undermine her negotiating position. Or did you think the government was just going to appoint Nigel Farage or someone like that as its chief negotiator?
As for a hard brexit, it has its advantages and disadvantages. One thing I've learned from discussing the issue with remain sided individuals is that most of them don't really understand much about the economics of it in the slightest, only that they've read "hard = bad" somewhere and adopted that position, and that much of the fanfare around the intellectual superiority of remain voters over leave voters has proved decidedly lacking when actually put to the test on the matter e.g. the day after the vote when thousands of young people took to twitter to moan endlessly about the pound dropping in value and how it had ruined their futures, because they don't understand the first thing about currency movements or how a weaker pound could lead to the sort of results that were released yesterday when manufacturing businesses posted 30 year highs in their order books.
Do you know something the World Bank, BoE, US Treasury, EcB, LSE and many other economists don’t? Or are you just picking one fact that suits your needs and dismissing all others whilst insulting the other side?
Of course you will get more manufacturing in the short time as exports go up, but a weak currency has all sorts of negative effects. Dismissing details like this and attacking anyone who disagrees (see the statements about being “done with experts) are the hallmarks of the leave campaign overall. I’m no economic expert, but I know other people here are, and almost certainly more of an expert than you, so I will let someone else point out the details of how you are wrong.
Steve steveson wrote: Of course you will get more manufacturing in the short time as exports go up, but a weak currency has all sorts of negative effects. Dismissing details like this and attacking anyone who disagrees (see the statements about being “done with experts) are the hallmarks of the leave campaign overall. I’m no economic expert, but I know other people here are, and almost certainly more of an expert than you, so I will let someone else point out the details of how you are wrong.
Maybe he hasn't lived through period when that happens. Or maybe he's from rich family. Generally it's the poorer side who gets hurt by currency dropping in value. Rich ones can often by with less effect.
One of the effects of a weak pound driving export growth (and tourism) is that it leads to a strengthening of the pound, as foreign customers have to buy pounds to pay for their orders, and the increased demand for pounds tends to push up their value.
There is a way around this, to trade in USD or Euros, which is not unusual for big multi-national companies. Of course, it also means such companies get less benefit from the weakening of the pound in the first place, and if they want to return their profits to UK shareholders, they have to buy pounds in the end. But it can be useful to hedge in different currencies.
These sorts of transactions are greatly helped by the status of London as the major financial centre of Europe. Which, sadly, will fall away once passporting rights are lost due to Brexit, unless we stay in the EFTA.
The UK's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is leaking because of a faulty seal.
The Royal Navy's future flagship, which was commissioned by the Queen earlier this month in Portsmouth, has a problem with one of its propeller shafts.
The fault on the £3.1bn carrier was first identified during sea trials.
A Royal Navy spokesman said the ship is scheduled for repair and the fault does not prevent it from sailing again early in the new year.
According to the Sun newspaper, HMS Queen Elizabeth has been taking on up to 200 litres of sea water every hour because of the fault.
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the problem was "highly embarrassing" for the Royal Navy and was just one of a number of snags still to be rectified.
A Royal Navy spokesman said: "An issue with a shaft seal has been identified during HMS Queen Elizabeth's sea trials; this is scheduled for repair while she is alongside at Portsmouth.
"It does not prevent her from sailing again and her sea trials programme will not be affected."
The government want to remove what little protections we have (after saying they would not). I hope that this makes a few people wake up and realise what leaving is going to do to the UK. How many lies have to be uncovered before people change their mind?
May's answers are very telling :
Note how any of these laws we're going to keep can now, of course, be changed without the effort of going through parliament.
At the moment Leave lacks a plan, leadership and integrity, and have left it to those who didn't want this to pick up the pieces, and have the audacity to blame us for not convincing Leave to not feth the whole economy into the ground. Exactly as you just tried to do then.
exactly.
We were amongst the strongest and most influential members of the EU.
The most favoured Brexit "plan" was to negotiate individual trade deals with other EU countries, though it turned out EU members don’t make individual trade deals precisely because they are stronger as a bloc. https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770127564607489
who'd have known ? Apart from those on the Remain side of things of course.
One can't help but note that Davis lacked the ability to even thread that twitter stream correctly.
From there we moved onto simply saying "Brexit means Brexit" -- as if a fething slogan can actually make up for there not being a coherent policy tom operate.
So we quickly wound up pushing the next great lie :
Not long after this fiasco Disgraced Minister Liam Fox suddenly decided to start pushing the pro-hard brexit trading under WTO rules as being great -- which was a bit of a change from before
But remember apparently everyone who voted leave knew that we would be leaving the common market, despite all those people telling them we wouldn't be.
Thankfully the leave campaigners stepped up a gear to get us ready :
UK Foreign Secretary @BorisJohnson:
"Brexit means #Brexit and we're going to make a #Titanic success of it"
we're suddenly being told that having no deal at all will actually be really great for us.
A person with a memory might note that this is somewhat contradictory with all the preceding talk about deals but then you get called unpatriotic and/or a traitor as you don't believe in the project enough. or something.
Then there was that whole election thing ..
.. that went well eh ?
So instead of a strong Govt. with a clear mandate and majority we wound up with a weakened Govt, unable to sack ministers even when people from both sides of the Brexit debate/political spectrum agree that they're useless and/or incompetent -- or possibly making their own power play or so forth.
The irony being here that to prop up the Govt. they were forced to rely upon the support of a party who do not want a/the Hard Brexit that was the latest policy-de-jour
which has led us nicely into the recent delight that has been the Irish border issue.
Now it's quite fair and reasonable that Joe Public did not take that issue into account when they cast their vote. No one really thinks about every issue and even if they did people are always going to prioritise.
What isn't -- or shouldn't be -- acceptable is people lying about the issue and/or MPs and the like ignoring the issue. It was raised wwaayy before the election and..well...
Note that this issue now is being spun as some hideously fiendish ploy by the EU to snatch NI away from the UK
British officials have quietly abandoned hope of securing the government’s promised “cake and eat it” Brexit deal, increasingly accepting the inevitability of a painful trade-off between market access and political control when the UK leaves the EU.
From there we moved from not paying a penny and telling the EU to go whistle to agreeing that in fact we do have to pay some money over and will have to do that before we can start the talks that people like Disgraced Minister Liam Fox had said could be half over by now as they'd be so easy.
So we're currently left with having no influence over the EU rules, but we're going to follow them anyway as it's impractical to do so otherwise.
My favourite moan from the Leavers remains 'The EU are playing hardball, no fair! Big bullies!'
Like we expected anything else? Because any international negotiation isn't all about both sides trying to take the upper hand and keep it.
I mean.....yeesh. That level of naivety as to how the world actually works, whether genuine or contrived naivety, that alone should trigger a second referendum.
That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.
Ketara wrote: That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.
RedS8n's post was the first I'd seen of this and my reaction was the same as those RN you mention. Anybody who thinks this is a major problem, or that it is embarrassing, clearly has no knowledge on the subject of bringing large scale machinery into comission. Being military adds a whole extra bunch of problems on top. That boat's log book was probably riddled with accepted faults and limitations before it ever saw water. Some running in snags aren't just expected, they're factored into its servicing.
Whirlwind wrote:I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.
So let me get this straight, you think I'm a fascist because - as was established much earlier in the thread - I opposes strong state intervention in society and especially oppose state intervention in the economy, I mentioned that our armed forces have in the past been willing to join in international operations such as those against ISIS (a genocidal religious group). in the Balkans (to bring a genocide to an end), Libya (where the government was about to slaughter its own people with tanks) and the first Iraq war (where we helped liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation), and because I would like to see parliament enact the result of a democratic vote?
Yeah, right old fascist I am. Can't stop, I need to grab my copy of mein kampf, slip some jack boots on and goose step my way down to the nearest Britain First rally. In the meantime I would suggest you reflect on just how utterly pants on head barmy your position has become and what it says about the quality of your arguments that you've now resorted to just chucking the word fascist at people that you disagree with.
No actually I don't think you are fascist nor do I think you want to be (or I hope not and I don't get that impression). I do however think you are espousing ideals that lead to fascism without realising it and when this is pointed out, rather than recognise the risks with what you are saying and what that means politically you try and make 'excuses' for why it should be like this. You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people. Using it as a means of 'powerful' political influence is not something we should pursue. The same goes with comments like it's OK for the Daily Fail to call people traitors and saboteurs because we shoud get on with Wrexit without any political opposition and so on. In history people didn't just get out of bed and decide they want to be fascists 'just because'. It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications. In all of this argument, this is what worries me the most. I ask again, look at what you are saying and really reflect on it don't just be defensive and live in denial because that is the most dangerous path of all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.
Yeah it's a pointless story really. It would be more worrying if they found it in armed operations at some later point. Every construction project has snagging issues, nothing is perfect, somebody had a Friday afternoon moment; the material chemically didn't set properly and so on. What would worry me more is that they have no real way of testing the landing/lift off of the high powered aircraft that they will use until seven years into the future.
Compel wrote: It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...
I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.
Whirlwind wrote:I am saying your views are very close to supporting fascism even if doesn't seem to be registering.
So let me get this straight, you think I'm a fascist because - as was established much earlier in the thread - I opposes strong state intervention in society and especially oppose state intervention in the economy, I mentioned that our armed forces have in the past been willing to join in international operations such as those against ISIS (a genocidal religious group). in the Balkans (to bring a genocide to an end), Libya (where the government was about to slaughter its own people with tanks) and the first Iraq war (where we helped liberate Kuwait from an illegal occupation), and because I would like to see parliament enact the result of a democratic vote?
Yeah, right old fascist I am. Can't stop, I need to grab my copy of mein kampf, slip some jack boots on and goose step my way down to the nearest Britain First rally. In the meantime I would suggest you reflect on just how utterly pants on head barmy your position has become and what it says about the quality of your arguments that you've now resorted to just chucking the word fascist at people that you disagree with.
No actually I don't think you are fascist nor do I think you want to be (or I hope not and I don't get that impression). I do however think you are espousing ideals that lead to fascism without realising it and when this is pointed out, rather than recognise the risks with what you are saying and what that means politically you try and make 'excuses' for why it should be like this. You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people. Using it as a means of 'powerful' political influence is not something we should pursue. The same goes with comments like it's OK for the Daily Fail to call people traitors and saboteurs because we shoud get on with Wrexit without any political opposition and so on. In history people didn't just get out of bed and decide they want to be fascists 'just because'. It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications. In all of this argument, this is what worries me the most. I ask again, look at what you are saying and really reflect on it don't just be defensive and live in denial because that is the most dangerous path of all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: That aircraft carrier leak 'story' made me laugh when I saw it yesterday. Primarily because it was posted up in a forum full of RN personnel who were greatly entertained that their equivalent of office snagging was being portrayed as some sort of actual issue.
Yeah it's a pointless story really. It would be more worrying if they found it in armed operations at some later point. Every construction project has snagging issues, nothing is perfect, somebody had a Friday afternoon moment; the material chemically didn't set properly and so on. What would worry me more is that they have no real way of testing the landing/lift off of the high powered aircraft that they will use until seven years into the future.
For a ships its size and complexity, that's reflexively minor and easily handled.
It was somthing like 200 lites a hour. The ship weighs 70,000 tons. The fraction of flooding vs the vessels mass and water tight bulkheads is frankly not even worth calculating.
When the Titanic sank it was estimated to flooding at a rate of 400 tons per minute.
Compel wrote: It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...
I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.
This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.
Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.
As long as the leak is simply a flawed mechanical part that can be replaced and isn’t a permanent problem with the design that causes it to be ongoing.
Compel wrote: It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...
I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.
This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.
Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.
It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.
Compel wrote: It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...
I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.
This is what happens when you try to apply "common sense" to highly complicated situations that are best left to experts. You end up making snappy statements that sound reasonable, but actually end up terribly wide of the mark and ignore all the details that actually matter.
Luckily we shan't be having a referendum on the boat.
It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.
Nelson must be spinning in his grave.
Maybe we can hook up his corpse to power the fleet?
But yes, this is an incredibly minor point for the ship. And is pretty much the whole reason we don't just launch expensive vessels without testing them.
Whirlwind wrote: You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people.
If you're worried about our military going on some sort of WWII-esque rampage across the low countries, I wouldn't worry to much. The army would struggle to field a properly functioning and supported armoured division at the moment. We do have a wide range of capabilities that make us a very useful, very capable ally when needed though, whether it's fighting pirates, Islamic nutjobs, or out-of-control dictators. We don't intentionally set out to build and utilise our armed forces for the sole purpose of brokering influence around the world, it's more a beneficial side effect that they offer.
It happened over time as these sorts of views became more entrenched allowing governments to grow out of it. What worries me more is that people just don't seem to see what they are saying or the implications
There's a massive leap that would need to take place between the rhetoric of today and fascism. To even compare the two is a very, very broad stretch of the imagination, though I did like the little jab you took at the end which basically implied that while you don't think I'm a fascist, you do think I'm in denial about saying fascist things, which of course is an entirely different thing... To you sir I would only suggest you stop throwing that word at people. I have fairly thick skin, but you're basically acusing me of being sympathetic to the viewpoint of a certain Austrian Corporal, which I think is a pretty rancid thing do to. If you don't like my viewpoints, that's fair enough, but don't pretend they have anything at all in common with fascism.
----
Now I think someone asked earlier about what I thought were the possible benefits of a "hard" brexit?
Let me preface this by saying I would prefer us to come to some kind of agreement with the EU. It doesn't have to be a super duper deal to end all deals, I was only expecting something modest on certain elements of mutual interest to both parties. But I'm of the opinion that no deal is better than a bad deal; a bad deal by my definition being one that retains many of the negative elements of being in the EU while sacrificing most of the opportunities that brexit presents (some of the more onerous/ridiculous regulations, having to pay money to the EU, the ongoing legal supremacy of the ECtHR, the unrestricted movement of people). A no deal in this regard is I think the better option. It's also worth noting that for May to be able to negotiate seriously she needs to have the ability to walk away at any moment. Even if she has no intention of actually exercising that option, she at least needs to have it in her back pocket and the EU needs to know that she does. Otherwise they're just going to curb stomp the government throughout the talks, something they've been doing to a degree so far.
Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability. I'm a firm believer that great challenges bring out the best in people. When we look across the atlantic and see what the Americans took from going to the moon, it was more than just the bragging rights to one of history's truly great achievements. The Apollo program brought out the best in America; the brightest and best minds, pulling together as a team and applied to a singular task that broke new ground and achieved something wonderous. It's why i find the attitude of some on the remain side so disheartening, because I'd prefer to see some of those bright minds applying themselves to the task at hand and helping the country to be the best that it possibly can be.
I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway. But even in cases where the EU does have a deal, such as the new deal with Japan, not that much dramatically changes at this initial stage either. That's largely due a clause in the WTO rules known as "Most Favoured Nation" (sometimes referred to as Most Preferred Nation). In essence what this means is that when two groups who are party to the WTO rules (such as the EU countries and Japan) strike a deal, they must offer the same tariff rates to all other WTO members. This also covers things such as intellectual property. In effect, when the EU negotiates a tariff reduction with one country it is negotiating the same deal with all countries, including the EU. Now granted there are a lot less obvious benefits derived from a deal beyond mere tariffs and plenty of stuff that isn't covered as such by WTO rules, but a good chunk of it is.
And this is where I'd like to see our innovative streak kick in, where i'd like to see our intellectual talent deployed to its fullest. One of the major problems that the EU has when negotiating trade deals, in common with the US, is the vast scope of the geography involved. The EU is not negotiating for a country, it's negotiating for a continent, which partly explains why the EU has no deal with China but New Zealand does. The reason we can't access the incredibly low cost solar panels that China has been pumping out of late is because of the EU's need to protect large solar power manufacturers in places like Germany. This is the perennial problem for the EU; the difficulty in achieveing concensus across such a broad range of interests. Here is where I think we not only have an advantage, but with a bit of ingenuity could set about breaking the mold of international trade. By keeping our deals more tightly focused and limited to a more narrow range of issues I believe we could set a new trend in what would effectively be mini-deals, designed to cover only those most pressing factors between ourselves and a partner nation. By the necessity and self imposed pressure of needing to get things moving I genuinely think we can radically reshape the nature of international trade negotiations between certain nations.
It's a tough ask, but like I said earlier I think we thrive under tough circumstances. Steel is after all forged in the heat of the crucible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's the lack of jets to fly off it, and the fact that we have more Admirals than fighting ships, that bothers me - not some minor mechanical problem.
Nelson must be spinning in his grave.
To put it into context, 200 litres is the equivalent of your average bath tub. The rate of inflow is just over 3 litres a minute, or about enough to fill two kettles, but not a 6 pint jug. This coming from the seal around a massive propellor shaft. You could pump this amount of water out using a basic garden fish pond pump. The jets meanwhile are also in their trials. Not much point having planes ready to roll before the ship itself is ready to receive them.
Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability.
So a bit like sleeping rough because you don't want to pay rent or being subject to the house rules?
The UK joined the EU for some very good reasons, namely these:
That's per capita PPP GDP UK vs an average of the original EU6 (EU5 is the same minus Luxembourg, because it skews the numers somehow).
Here is just isolating the 3 bigger economies. The UK has more than recovered their ground vs France and Germany by embracing the new service economy (vs a more industrial-oriented France and Germany, the same is happening for example in the Netherlands, which of late has overperformed both countries as well). And that's been achieved by re-orienting their post-industrial economy towards the common market (with a bit of help from North Sea oil, to help with the transition, but that's a once in history event).
I am of the opinion, along with most experts, that it is the UKEU membership that has allowed them to outperform continental economies, adapting and reorienting faster and better. Leaving the house without a deal will not just be a massive short term shock, but also cripple future growth. It won't come to that, because even the most rabid leave backers in the government know that a bad deal is better than no deal, no matter their political rhetoric. We're talking about undoing 40 years of economic policy in 2 years. Even the UK proven record of adaptability won't come close to being enough.
That's why the UK has little leverage in the negotiations and will instead try to sell whatever concession they get as a massive victory. That's why David Davis talks tough in the local press but conveys a totally different message when sitting at the Brussels table. It's all about keeping face after whipping (part of) the public to a frenzy or, in PM May words "give me a deal I can sell to my people".
bouncingboredom wrote: I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway.
But there are. There are literally dozens of agreements and treaties between the EU and China and the US. The UK would start at the ground level there. Trade deals are incremental, and build over previous work. There's no way the EU would have signed CETA if there weren't before a myriad of smaller sectorial agreements before that.
The EU has deals with most countries, and most countries have details with other countries. There is one country that trades only on WTO, Mauritania. It has a GDP of about £5billion. Or twice that of the company I work for. Not an excellent example to follow. What we are doing is running flat out towards a cliff shouting “It’s fine. I saw someone on TV jump off a cliff the other day. I’m sure we will be fine” and dismissing anyone pointing out that that person was an experienced BASE jumper, with a parachute and years of experience.
Compel wrote: It kinda sounds like the point of having sea trials to me...
I assumed sea trials were for the RN to test it out and convince themselves that they are happy with it. I'd have expected something like a leek to have been discovered before RN took delivery of it since "is it watertight?" seems to the absolute minimum expectation for a boat.
All boats leak. The question is how much and why. The first is important for obvious reasons, and how much is acceptable depends on the type of boat. The second is important because there are many reasons. Some of which should be found in building, some of which are totally normal, some of which will get worse, some won’t and some will only become apparent once in use, which can’t be done without a crew. It’s like a central heating system. You would hope it would not leak, but sometimes it needs full pressurisation and a few heat/cool cycles the tank to empty a few times for any micro cracks in solder or imperfections in plumbers tape turn in to leaks.
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,
and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.
A lot of Britain's food is grown in East Anglia, which is also very vunerable to sea level changes. This is where money should be spent, not white elephants like HS2.
All the trade deals in the world don't matter a damn if your car is floating down the street.
That great ball of fire in the sky does not give two hoots for trade deals
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
Only when it applies to their back yard. They couldn't give a stuff about anywhere they can't see.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.
Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
Only when it applies to their back yard. They couldn't give a stuff about anywhere they can't see.
I watch countryfile. There seems to be a lot of environmental protection going on in the UK.
According to Parliament’s figures, 2,040 individuals work at the House Of Commons (in both full and part-time capacities) – so that’s roughly 16 attempts per person to access pornography in September. Or, to put it another way, every single employee in the HoC trying to peek at porn every other day.
However, this makes the assumption that everyone working in the House Of Commons is equally horny – and we know from the volume of pornography allegedly on Damian Green’s computer that that simply cannot be possible. If everyone was perpetually as horny as Damian Green, even less would get done in Parliament.
So perhaps it’s more useful to divorce these numbers from people, and look at it in terms of time.
There are (famously) 30 days in September. 32,164 attempts to access of porngraphy across 30 days works out at an average of 1,072 attempts a day.
That’s 45 attempts an hour, or, if you prefer, one attempt made every 80 seconds.
.... welll.... have to admire the work ethic there eh ....
bouncingboredom wrote: The jets meanwhile are also in their trials. Not much point having planes ready to roll before the ship itself is ready to receive them.
Yeah there is, the planes could have always operated from a land base but an aircraft carrier without aircraft isn't much more than a massive and very expensive target. At least they could use it for helicopters while they wait for the planes I guess.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.
Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.
You can by forcing their hand through trade deals. For example the EU trade deal with the Caribbean nations includes sustainable development policies (if you pollute, your goods will now incur in tariffs) as well as including renewable energy joint policies, funds for sustainable development, etc. The forthcoming treaty with MERCOSUR will go on a similar vein.
India and China want Western economies to open up, there's leverage there. And there'd be more of that if the US wasn't on an isolationist phase and the developed economies stick together on that. Fat chance of that happening though.
"Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.
Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.
You can by forcing their hand through trade deals. For example the EU trade deal with the Caribbean nations includes sustainable development policies (if you pollute, your goods will now incur in tariffs) as well as including renewable energy joint policies, funds for sustainable development, etc. The forthcoming treaty with MERCOSUR will go on a similar vein.
India and China want Western economies to open up, there's leverage there. And there'd be more of that if the US wasn't on an isolationist phase and the developed economies stick together on that. Fat chance of that happening though.
It doesn't happen often but I mostly agree with this point, but with a few caveats.
A lot of Caribbean nations are small islands with small populations, so yeah, a 27 nation trading block with 500 million people, will get its own way.
China and India are a different kettle of fish. Both have populations of 1 billion people. both have a lot of resources. This we all know. China in particular is forging trade deals in Africa. It's not too fussy about environmental regulations. So yeah, extracting concession from China or India is a different ball game from extracting concessions from the Caribbean.
"Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."
We're not going back to coal fires and steam trains
we had our smog crisis in London after the war. Brexit or no Brexit, nobody will put up with the bad old days of smog. The country has moved on too far.
It would be like asking people to swap their Coca Cola for budget Tesco Cola. Never going to happen.
He's a vocal, backbench MP, who shows no interest in even a junior cabinet position. IMO, his influence is limited to a few news night appearances etc etc
Yet he's being touted as the most likely successor for Theresa May.
No-one will agree to these changes happening, but they will bit by bit as the wedge widens. Once all the protections are removed it'll be hard to resist.
China is bigger than us, but the EU still has some sway with them, pop 0.5bn Vs pop 1bn is always going to have more sway with a pop 0.005bn Vs pop 1bn.
To say that we don't care about our lack of influence because the EU doesn't have enough influence is to miss the point entirely.
China is bigger than us, but the EU still has some sway with them, pop 0.5bn Vs pop 1bn is always going to have more sway with a pop 0.005bn Vs pop 1bn.
Plus China is going there on their own, pollution is taking a toll on their citizens public health and people are more aware every day. They have introduced cap-and-trade emission programmes and are planning to phase out fossil fuel powered cars at around the same time as European countries.
Leave the EU and the government will rip up environmental agreements and standards the second the right wing press start screaming. Just look at the recent fuss they made over hair dryers and vacuum cleaners. The EU have been far more forward thinking and ambitious with targets and aims to combat climate change than any of the other large industrialised nations.
Whilst this clearly started as an attempt at deflection from a Brexit supporter who had run out of economic arguments, it’s hust another reason we should be in the EU.
TBH I don't think either of those visions look especially great.
I don't think emotionless robots would be bothered by protests, and I'm not sure about them having to apply for jobs or clock in/out like that either.
Whilst the Tory visions of giant driverless police cars, backed up by flying death machines of which it takes 5 of them to deliver 1 package -- whilst a lone man desperately tries to 3d print out a weapon to try and kill the human traitor who sold us out to the robots, forcing the rest of us to live in some matrix style VR looks especially appealing either.
Frankly I'm not sure making your report look like one of those " really makes you think" type of memes which are, inevitably, produced by morons, and recycled endlessly on twitter et al is a good idea either.
TBF it is Xmas so one cannot blame them too much for phoning it in and then slacking off early to go on the piss eh ?
The collapse of two rape cases in one week was an "appalling failure" of the criminal justice system, Attorney General Jeremy Wright has said.
Two young men were cleared when it emerged that Met Police officers had failed to disclose crucial evidence.
Around 30 rape cases about to go to trial are to be reviewed immediately and "scores" more will be looked at.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted that police and prosecutors had made mistakes.
She said the 30 cases would not be reinvestigated, but would be reviewed to make sure everything that should have been disclosed had been.
The police have a duty to disclose any material to the defence that might support their case. If disclosure fails, innocent people go to jail, says the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman.
"We need to learn lessons," Ms Dick told BBC Radio London, and insisted her officers were professional and fair with a "very complex job" to do.
Collapsed rape trial accused 'betrayed'
Why disclosure failings can prove crucial
'It's just sheer incompetence' - says prosecutor
Isaac ItiaryImage copyrightSOCIAL MEDIA
Image caption
Isaac Itiary was charged with raping a child in July but the case collapsed
The trial of student Liam Allan, 22, was thrown out at Croydon Crown Court last week.
The case collapsed three days into the trial when the police were ordered to hand over phone records showing the alleged victim had pestered Mr Allan for casual sex.
Days later, another prosecution case collapsed against Isaac Itiary, who was facing trial at Inner London Crown Court, accused of raping a child.
He was charged in July but police only disclosed "relevant material" in response to his defence case statement as his trial was about to start.
The same Met Police officer had worked on both men's cases. He remains on full duty.
The Met said it would review both these cases separately, as well as carrying out the wider review of other live rape cases.
'Deeply worrying'
Justice minister Dominic Raab said it was "absolutely right" for the Met to carry out the review, adding: "The basic principle of British justice is at stake."
"The proper disclosure obligations in these two cases have not been discharged, and that is deeply worrying," he told BBC Radio 5 live.
"This is not a new thing. It should be made easy by technology," he added.
Grey line
Analysis
By BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw
The cases of Liam Allan and Isaac Itiary are very different.
As far as Mr Allan is concerned, the Met has accepted the case "clearly went wrong".
Crucial information was disclosed to defence barristers so late that the trial was already well under way.
In Mr Itiary's case, procedures appear to have been followed, though it's possible police could have acted more quickly.
What the cases have done is shine a light on the importance of following disclosure rules.
Undoubtedly the squeeze on resources, with cuts in the Crown Prosecution Service and policing and a national shortage of detectives, together with the increased caseload for sexual offences units, have played their part.
An inspection report this year also pinpointed inadequacies in training and supervision.
Some see the problems as a direct result of a misplaced culture of "believing" the victim, where police don't look for or withhold contradictory evidence - but that's an assertion for the attorney general's inquiry to examine.
Grey line
Last week, Attorney General of England and Wales Jeremy Wright ordered a review to look at disclosure processes - including codes of practice, guidelines and legislation relating to sex offences and other crimes - which is expected to report back next year.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Wright said the two cases of the young men were "obviously appalling failures of the criminal justice system".
"We need to understand and understand urgently what went wrong in those cases," he said.
He added that there were already concerns about the disclosure system due to the large amounts of digital information that needed filtering and sifting to find evidence that ought to be disclosed.
I'm going to say that in the two cases above the information that defence requested was deliberately withheld.
Desperation to secure convictions and thus solved cases stats to be increased has resulted in the breaking of the law.
Legal Aid desperately needs a rethink as these cases would have gone unnoticed without some diligence on the part of barristers and legal firms involved.
The CPS needs a very urgent independent review into how they treat cases.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?
Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.
If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.
The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.
But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.
Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.
...
That's not true, of course.
The EU is a large powerful trading bloc with the ability to go toe to toe with China -- The EU agreed with China on the Paris Accord, for example.
While the UK was one of the three most powerful members of the EU, we had a lot of say in EU environmental policy.
According to Parliament’s figures, 2,040 individuals work at the House Of Commons (in both full and part-time capacities) – so that’s roughly 16 attempts per person to access pornography in September. Or, to put it another way, every single employee in the HoC trying to peek at porn every other day.
However, this makes the assumption that everyone working in the House Of Commons is equally horny – and we know from the volume of pornography allegedly on Damian Green’s computer that that simply cannot be possible. If everyone was perpetually as horny as Damian Green, even less would get done in Parliament.
So perhaps it’s more useful to divorce these numbers from people, and look at it in terms of time.
There are (famously) 30 days in September. 32,164 attempts to access of porngraphy across 30 days works out at an average of 1,072 attempts a day.
That’s 45 attempts an hour, or, if you prefer, one attempt made every 80 seconds.
.... welll.... have to admire the work ethic there eh ....
Presumably this was the Brexit team looking for impact ass sessments.
Herzlos wrote: Why would anyone let May, who has no charisma, backbone, presence and can't be trusted, mediate on anything?
Any involvement from us will be seen for what it is; an attempt to interfere in A50 discussions on the EU27 side.
But it's a moot point; she has no political acumen.
May could give Barnier a kidney and it still wouldn't help her get consessions; she's just that outclassed.
It's strange times indeed when I agree with both Jouso and Herzlos in the same day!
Bt yeah, you're right - May would struggle to outwit a dead parrot.
None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?
Hell, use a smokescreen and talk to Poland under the cover of NATO if need be. Say that because of Russia, we're only in Warsaw to sell them more guns or something. Something. Anything.
If I were May, I'd dropping into Hungary as well. This EUunited front of the 27 is not as solid as Tusk, Juncker, and Barnier would have us believe. There are cracks and tensions there.
I keep banging this drum, but God damn it, what I wouldn't give for a Foreign Sec. with the acumen and diplomatic skill to be all over these division like a bad rash.
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary and Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal with that aftermath.
None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?
Because it's blatant interfering. Why do they need an intermediary anyway? The eu knows what it's doing. Same with Hungary; we aren't allowed to court them individually.
What a missed opportunity...
Brexit in a nutshell. Were you ever expecting anything else?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?
None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?
Because it's blatant interfering. Why do they need an intermediary anyway? The eu knows what it's doing. Same with Hungary; we aren't allowed to court them individually.
What a missed opportunity...
Brexit in a nutshell. Were you ever expecting anything else?
Blatant intefering? See my above point about the SNP and the EU. It's common knowledge what the SNP stand for, and to be fair to the EU, we're not getting Juncker and Tusk having meetings with Alyn Smith, a very pro-EUSNP MEP. That would be a blatant breach of protocol, and Tusk and Juncker are too smart for that.
But Smith is meeting with MEPs who have the ear of Juncker and Tusk, so we can draw our own conclusions from that.
I have no grudge against the EU for doing this - I'd do the same in their position, but I see nothing wrong with May getting cosy with Warsaw or Budapest.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?
Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?
It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.
I can bet you a million quid the uk offering to station troops there wouldn't go down well with anyone. We can't play at realpolitik because the eu forbids it, end of. We'd get caught or screw it up, because we're hopeless, and it'd get messy.
If we were to meddle for our advantage we'd be best to keep politicians out of it.
As I understand it, the snp are courting the eu, to make sure they understand we're leaving against our will and don't want screwed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?
Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?
It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.
But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.
This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.
Herzlos wrote: I can bet you a million quid the uk offering to station troops there wouldn't go down well with anyone. We can't play at realpolitik because the eu forbids it, end of. We'd get caught or screw it up, because we're hopeless, and it'd get messy.
If we were to meddle for our advantage we'd be best to keep politicians out of it.
As I understand it, the snp are courting the eu, to make sure they understand we're leaving against our will and don't want screwed.
Ah, but you're forgetting the trump card here: this has nothing to do with the EU - it's one NATO member helping out another NATO member.
Of course, Estonia is also an EU member, but if it were kept in strictly NATO channels, there's not a lot the EU could do.
Brussels wouldn't be told to mind its own business - nothing as harsh as that, but the paperwork would have NATO headings embossed on it.
This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.
Trump is threatening to cut off aid money to nations who don't support the USA on this, but seeing as we paid off our WW2 loans 10 years ago, what could they do?
This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.
Seeing as how its likely that almost every country is going to vote against the US, there are going to be a lot of bridges in need of burning. At the end of the day its only going to be strong-arming the countries that don't really 'matter' on the international stage, that are more susceptible to this pressure. Incredibly counterproductive to US foreign policy, but then again
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?
Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?
It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.
But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, nobody will be looking to Brussels - we'll all be on the phone to Washington and the HQ of the 1st Marine Division.
As a side note, does the US military still have the 1st Marine Division? They have de-activated historical units over the years, so I'm not sure on this, and I'm on an old phone here so it's fiddly to check things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And how do we pay for those troops in Estonia when apparently there’s No Magic Money Tree?
Two weeks ago, there was an article in The Guardian saying we could pay the EU the 50 billion by printing more money with QE, and it wouldn't affect the national debt that much.
If push came to shove i.e something as serious as a war, it's always an option. Granted, not a perfect option.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.
Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.
Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNPMPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.
From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?
It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.
Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?
Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?
It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.
But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, nobody will be looking to Brussels - we'll all be on the phone to Washington and the HQ of the 1st Marine Division.
As a side note, does the US military still have the 1st Marine Division? They have de-activated historical units over the years, so I'm not sure on this, and I'm on an old phone here so it's fiddly to check things.
But the moment bullets start flying a few thousand British troops won't be worth looking at either, seeing as they would have the same function a speed-bump on the road has. Poland would have to look to its immediate NATO neighbours for serious support. But this is all basic NATO stuff, nothing that the UK can really pressure Poland with unless they choose the Trump NATO act.
Also yes, the 1st Marine Division still exists as one of three marine divisions, likely the last to be ever scrapped if ever comes one day.
Vaktathi wrote: I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.
Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.
The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?
Vaktathi wrote: I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.
Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.
The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?
Who knows...
As of now nobody has the presence to really step in, so we would be moving to a multipolar world of the EU, the BRIC and the US likely, possibly some other regional players. Further into the future? Possibly China, if the PRC manages to hold steady and actually develops a comprehensive approach and drive to take over a hegemonic position, but there doesn't seem to be such an inclination in China currently. If it develops, it will be very different to Western hegemony, that is the only sure thing.
I would assume whatever administration comes in after this one will attempt to return things to the pre-trump era, as long as stuff doesnt get too weird, id expect a return to that status quo for as long as it would have otherwise been sustainable, but we'll see what happens.
It's certainly been interesting to see how much Germany's position has risen in the meantime, and China looks to be eagerly exploiting the US retreat.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, the Marine 1ID exists, but it's probably not going to be the first unit to respond, particularly given that it's based in San Diego.
San Diego? How far is that away from Eastern Europe?
I really need to check up on what the US military actually has in Europe before I make sweeping statements like this.
Vaktathi wrote: I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.
Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.
The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?
Who knows...
As of now nobody has the presence to really step in, so we would be moving to a multipolar world of the EU, the BRIC and the US likely, possibly some other regional players. Further into the future? Possibly China, if the PRC manages to hold steady and actually develops a comprehensive approach and drive to take over a hegemonic position, but there doesn't seem to be such an inclination in China currently. If it develops, it will be very different to Western hegemony, that is the only sure thing.
History shows us that having one or two global super powers running the show usually results in stability, but if you have 4 or 5 powers, you end up with armed camps and a 1914 situation.
Whirlwind wrote: You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people.
If you're worried about our military going on some sort of WWII-esque rampage across the low countries, I wouldn't worry to much. The army would struggle to field a properly functioning and supported armoured division at the moment. We do have a wide range of capabilities that make us a very useful, very capable ally when needed though, whether it's fighting pirates, Islamic nutjobs, or out-of-control dictators. We don't intentionally set out to build and utilise our armed forces for the sole purpose of brokering influence around the world, it's more a beneficial side effect that they offer.to receive them.
You still don't really seem to get it. It's not what I think the government will do, it's about what you think is acceptable as without challenge that leads to the populace slowly not recognising what they are saying actually means.
bouncingboredom wrote: ...Now I think someone asked earlier about what I thought were the possible benefits of a "hard" brexit?
Let me preface this by saying I would prefer us to come to some kind of agreement with the EU. It doesn't have to be a super duper deal to end all deals, I was only expecting something modest on certain elements of mutual interest to both parties. But I'm of the opinion that no deal is better than a bad deal; a bad deal by my definition being one that retains many of the negative elements of being in the EU while sacrificing most of the opportunities that brexit presents (some of the more onerous/ridiculous regulations, having to pay money to the EU, the ongoing legal supremacy of the ECtHR, the unrestricted movement of people). A no deal in this regard is I think the better option. It's also worth noting that for May to be able to negotiate seriously she needs to have the ability to walk away at any moment. Even if she has no intention of actually exercising that option, she at least needs to have it in her back pocket and the EU needs to know that she does. Otherwise they're just going to curb stomp the government throughout the talks, something they've been doing to a degree so far.
Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability. I'm a firm believer that great challenges bring out the best in people. When we look across the atlantic and see what the Americans took from going to the moon, it was more than just the bragging rights to one of history's truly great achievements. The Apollo program brought out the best in America; the brightest and best minds, pulling together as a team and applied to a singular task that broke new ground and achieved something wonderous. It's why i find the attitude of some on the remain side so disheartening, because I'd prefer to see some of those bright minds applying themselves to the task at hand and helping the country to be the best that it possibly can be.
I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway. But even in cases where the EU does have a deal, such as the new deal with Japan, not that much dramatically changes at this initial stage either. That's largely due a clause in the WTO rules known as "Most Favoured Nation" (sometimes referred to as Most Preferred Nation). In essence what this means is that when two groups who are party to the WTO rules (such as the EU countries and Japan) strike a deal, they must offer the same tariff rates to all other WTO members. This also covers things such as intellectual property. In effect, when the EU negotiates a tariff reduction with one country it is negotiating the same deal with all countries, including the EU. Now granted there are a lot less obvious benefits derived from a deal beyond mere tariffs and plenty of stuff that isn't covered as such by WTO rules, but a good chunk of it is.
And this is where I'd like to see our innovative streak kick in, where i'd like to see our intellectual talent deployed to its fullest. One of the major problems that the EU has when negotiating trade deals, in common with the US, is the vast scope of the geography involved. The EU is not negotiating for a country, it's negotiating for a continent, which partly explains why the EU has no deal with China but New Zealand does. The reason we can't access the incredibly low cost solar panels that China has been pumping out of late is because of the EU's need to protect large solar power manufacturers in places like Germany. This is the perennial problem for the EU; the difficulty in achieveing concensus across such a broad range of interests. Here is where I think we not only have an advantage, but with a bit of ingenuity could set about breaking the mold of international trade. By keeping our deals more tightly focused and limited to a more narrow range of issues I believe we could set a new trend in what would effectively be mini-deals, designed to cover only those most pressing factors between ourselves and a partner nation. By the necessity and self imposed pressure of needing to get things moving I genuinely think we can radically reshape the nature of international trade negotiations between certain nations.
It's a tough ask, but like I said earlier I think we thrive under tough circumstances. Steel is after all forged in the heat of the crucible...
Just a couple of points. I appreciate the positivism, I think you and DINLT are kindred spirits in that regards, however just to make sure I'm clear...
The ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) is not part of the EU and we will still be subject to that, I'm guessing you meant the ECJ (European Court of Justice)?
I definitely agree that we need to get a deal that is at least positive, but I recognise that the chances are it will absolutely not be better than the one we had in economic terms. If we do get a deal, then we do need to maintain as much of our own independence and freedom to negotiate as possible,but I don't think there will be much wriggle room in that regard. I think the whole premise of threatening to walk away from the table with no deal is blatantly false and actually counter-productive. There's no point in making an insincere threat, and the EU knows our threats to walk are insincere, and therefore pointless. They are concerned, however, that May's weakness in her own party will make achieving a deal harder for her to guarantee, and they are really not happly about that at all. Bizarrely, our strength comes not from threatening to walk away, but May's weakness as a leader.
WTO rules are a base framework for those to use who haven't negotiated a better deal, we shouldn't be relying on them for very long at all if possible. They don't cover a huge amount of legislation and agreement wrt to air travel, science and security for example. It will take a huge amount of effort and expense to sort out those deals and agreements all over again from scratch, and we will very much be the weaker cousin if we come to sort out a deal with the EU after spending time operating under WTO rules. It really should be avoided, which is why the vast majority of other nations try to avoid relying on them solely.
Your last paragraph is basically talking about the UK rationalising and specialising, however we actually have already done this as a service economy. The problem is that the service economy relies on being a member if the single market, or a deal being struck that means we can continue to rely on the banks. Hopefully they will come up with something that allows our economy to continue to function as it is for the time being before we restructure it into something else, maybe a giant silicon valley? Tech companies and IT innovation across the whole country. You never know.
That's actually vastly preferable in my mind to a reliance on the spivs and speculators of the city. It would in fact be a hugely positive thing to come out of this mess, if only we had a Govt with some vision and leadership to not feth it up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,
and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.
Sea levels will rise, but the rest is largely uncertain. One potential theory is the gulf stream will move south because of extra cold water from the poles. That would make the UK more akin to what Canada experiences at the same latitude. The EU would then get mild and very wet (especially on the coast). We simply don't know how everything will pan out and that's the great risk with climate change. We are charging headlong, in reality ignoring the experts with a blind hope it will be all right on the night. What is probably likely to happen though is that it will generate mass migration that makes what is going on now seem like nothing.
Herzlos wrote: Do you honestly think the eu would be fooled by some NATO headed paper?
Of course not. The point I;m trying to make is that NATO is NATO and the EU is the EU. Sure, they'll co-operate on some things, but they'll have their secrets they keep from each other.
It's like the FBI and some small town sherriff department. Yeah, they're on the same side, want to catch the bad guy, but their official channels will be seperate from each other.
Let's not forget that there are non-EU NATO members, including some that are in Europe, Iceland and Norway being prime examples.
and thus make it increasing likely that staunch remain 
) aside from the country grinding to a complete halt the other day because of a few hours worth of snow, things have looked quite good down these parts. I've kept surpassing budgets without having to do too much special. Everyone else around seems to be doing quite well, even despite the cold and the allure of the Internet.
