299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
59456
Post by: Riquende
The Guardian's headline is "May urges Britain to come back together".
I assume this 'urging' is in lieu of any actual effort to make it happen, like compromising on things that will see this country stay a functioning entity.
Far more acceptable is if we all just line up behind one of the extreme positions that keep the Tories in power and her in the top spot.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
"May begs the Tory party to come back together" I think would be more accurate.
It's just a more polite version of the papers who keep calling people traitors. I'm reasonably sure that it is my democratic right to not agree. I'm rather fed up with this Brexit idea that we must all come together and support something we don't agree with.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I wonder what the spread of support now is, between the various Brexit options.
We keep being told that the opinion polls haven't changed much, but we also keep being told that opinion polls are so 20th century nowadays.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
Isn't the idea of smaller political parties having more influence what proponents of Proportional Representation want? What deals are done behind closed doors in other nations?
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Kilkrazy wrote:We keep being told that the opinion polls haven't changed much
Even though they are still changing, and it doesn't take much to shift a 52/48 to a 48/52.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
Isn't the idea of smaller political parties having more influence what proponents of Proportional Representation want? What deals are done behind closed doors in other nations?
We don't have proportional representation in the UK Parliament.
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
On very sad news.
Woke up this morning to no snow at all.
Seriously Swansea, why are you like this?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
The thing that really worries me about the Hard Right Brexiteers?
It’s the way they act as if the referendum was on very specific point outcomes of potential Brexit scenarios, and not a simpleton’s binary poll. And don’t forget, the worst of them during the campaign said nobody was talking about leaving the single market, or the customs union.
Yet more bloody lies that dogged the issues.
That alone is reason for further scrutiny, a cross party group to negotiate Brexit, and ultimately a ‘are we sure?’ Second referendum.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You're probably the only place in the country with no snow.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I've commented before that May seems to be unlucky with her timing, and the fact that bad things seem to happen just when you think she's on top of things.
But with Britain fighting off the Beast from the East, and everybody burning books to keep warm...
Is anybody really paying attention to May's speech?
If you've been stuck on the M6 for 20 hours in -10 temperatures, I doubt if even the most ardent EU supporter would give two hoots right now, if such a scenario applied to them. Automatically Appended Next Post:  welshhoppo wrote:On very sad news.
Woke up this morning to no snow at all.
Seriously Swansea, why are you like this?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha  
In contrast, up here, it's like Stalingrad.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
A bombed out wasteland surrounded by Nazis? 
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
No, biting cold, and snow drifts so deep, you'd never be seen again if you fell into one.
We could do with some T-34s up here to pull out cars stuck in the snow.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I've commented before that May seems to be unlucky with her timing, and the fact that bad things seem to happen just when you think she's on top of things.
She's never actually been on top of things though. She's barely calling the shots, keeps contradicting herself, and keeps fudging issues to kicking them into the long grass.
The only time she's vaguely "in control" is for the few days between a fudge being announced and reality hitting that the fudge is still unworkable.
On the snow: it's not actually that cold up here (if you stay dry), but there's a lot of blocked roads. Currently only one road out of my town is passable, sorta, if you're careful.
At least the red warning has been downgraded to amber. I did get to take the kid up and down the street on a sledge though, so it's not all bad.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Waitrose have just called to tell me that the delivery driver might be late due to the snow. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!! ANARCHY REIGNS!
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
I think we are.
Cardiff, 40 miles down the road. 52cm of snow. Bridgend, has snow.
What do I have? Half a centremeter of grey sludge. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Steve steveson wrote:Waitrose have just called to tell me that the delivery driver might be late due to the snow. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!! ANARCHY REIGNS!
5394
Post by: reds8n
..makes you proud eh ?
But our Govt. has been busy :
UK will allow imperial pint bottles of Champagne again
which I'm sure we will all agree was a major pressing concern.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
 r_squared wrote:Nigel Farage is still on QT, puffed up like the blubbery, pink bullfrog that he is.
However, what's interesting is that the support from the crowd in Blackpool for his bluster and hyperbole is quite lacklustre. Considering that's a Leave heartland, it's quite interesting.
There's an interesting assessment here of MEPs that have been on the BBC and concerns over bias....
https://twitter.com/RCorbettMEP/status/969343499937243136 Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it is a good example of the where Conservative priorities lie in reality. After all how many people on the street are bothered about such things. How many born into wealth like Boris would be?
And I'm a bit concerned about the argument as well. After all the Champagne regions are protected in the EU. They will hence still make Champagne is the standard bottles. Ergo there still won't be the small bottles they want.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I never knew there used to be pint bottles of champagne, even though I am over 45.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Steve steveson wrote:Waitrose have just called to tell me that the delivery driver might be late due to the snow. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!! ANARCHY REIGNS!
Though surprisingly we are never that far from anarchy. At any one time the UK has only about 7 days stock of food. If there was ever a major issue then we could really have trouble. We are so reliant on an efficient network anything that knocks it over for even a small amount of time is a real problem.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Kilkrazy wrote: Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
Isn't the idea of smaller political parties having more influence what proponents of Proportional Representation want? What deals are done behind closed doors in other nations?
We don't have proportional representation in the UK Parliament.
Yes I know - I wondered if things like this would be more common with it.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Kilkrazy wrote: Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
Isn't the idea of smaller political parties having more influence what proponents of Proportional Representation want? What deals are done behind closed doors in other nations?
We don't have proportional representation in the UK Parliament.
You didn't miss anything, you would have just come out of it thinking you've just wasted a bit of an all too valuable life. There was nothing in the speech really, nothing new, no solutions to problems. Still wanting a unique solution that doesn't exist. Has no idea over NI, but does want us all to align behind her in her grand vision of idiocy.....erm no....
19970
Post by: Jadenim
 Whirlwind wrote: Steve steveson wrote:Waitrose have just called to tell me that the delivery driver might be late due to the snow. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!! ANARCHY REIGNS!
Though surprisingly we are never that far from anarchy. At any one time the UK has only about 7 days stock of food. If there was ever a major issue then we could really have trouble. We are so reliant on an efficient network anything that knocks it over for even a small amount of time is a real problem.
I have experienced that in a very real way; back in 2000 I was at University when we had the first fuel strike. Our shared house had only a small fridge and no freezer, so we relied on nipping to the shops every couple of days. It became truly terrifying a few days into the strikes, when you go to the shops and find there is no bread, no milk, no eggs and very little canned goods, because panic buying has cleared the shelves and there were no deliveries. I was genuinely about a day away from having to bail back to my parents house as we had no food in the house and no way of buying any.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't bother to read anything that's been trailed for May's speech today.
I've given up on her and the government.
They are a quasi-democratic regime barely sustained in power by a small group of social hard-right-wingers in return for an illegal bribe of £1 billion.
Isn't the idea of smaller political parties having more influence what proponents of Proportional Representation want? What deals are done behind closed doors in other nations?
We don't have proportional representation in the UK Parliament.
Yes I know - I wondered if things like this would be more common with it.
A PR system is about a fairer representation of the public voting intention. A £1bn bung was given to DUP because they are really only interest in NI and hence will happily let the Tories get on with acting like a mini dictatorship and allowing very hardline views to dominate because May is more spineless than a jellyfish after it is has been run over by a jumbo jet, scraped up and then put into a liquidiser. DUP gave Tories what they want because they get vastly more MPs than their voting proportion represents. In a PR system you have much less chance that hard line elements will dominate forcing more compromises and more realistic solutions because the outcomes will be better challenged rather than having one party railroad them through.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
On the subject of weather.
Why the feth do the news and their production partners need to send reporters out into parts of the country that are dangerous to then report that the locations are dangerous?
I can undertsand reporting from warzones etc but, I can look out of the window and know its bad.
I also saw a reporter interviewing someone last night - unrelated to the beast from Emma or whatever its called - out in the fething blizzard....WHY?!! What possible reason is there?
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
 Jadenim wrote:
I have experienced that in a very real way; back in 2000 I was at University when we had the first fuel strike. Our shared house had only a small fridge and no freezer, so we relied on nipping to the shops every couple of days. It became truly terrifying a few days into the strikes, when you go to the shops and find there is no bread, no milk, no eggs and very little canned goods, because panic buying has cleared the shelves and there were no deliveries. I was genuinely about a day away from having to bail back to my parents house as we had no food in the house and no way of buying any.
Just don't ask about electricity transformers then. IIRC there are only about 7 spare at any one time (because they blow so infrequently). There are historic records that shows we have had solar storms that would blow every single one of our transformers if they happened today. Can you imagine what would happen if you didn't have electricity for months on an end (and in this case most western countries would be affected as well?)
Even individuals can cause major disruption as these sites are hardly protected. A co-ordinated campaign to take out several major sites around the country would leave us reeling. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Mr. Burning wrote:On the subject of weather.
Why the feth do the news and their production partners need to send reporters out into parts of the country that are dangerous to then report that the locations are dangerous?
I can undertsand reporting from warzones etc but, I can look out of the window and know its bad.
I also saw a reporter interviewing someone last night - unrelated to the beast from Emma or whatever its called - out in the fething blizzard....WHY?!! What possible reason is there?
Maybe their staff bill is too high????
65463
Post by: Herzlos
What's the point of a 584ml bottle of champagne, where a 750ml bottle won't Do?
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Herzlos wrote:What's the point of a 584ml bottle of champagne, where a 750ml bottle won't Do?
Did anyone, apart from a dead prime minister, miss a pint of champers?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Sadly, since Champagne is made in France, which will still be in the EU, there won't be any pint bottles produced anyway.
Another bonzer Brexit bonus!
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Kilkrazy wrote:Sadly, since Champagne is made in France, which will still be in the EU, there won't be any pint bottles produced anyway.
Another bonzer Brexit bonus!
Only if we keep the protection on champagne.
Is it still allowed to be called champagne if it's produced in champagne but bottled in the UK?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.
I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Kilkrazy wrote:No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.
I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.
I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.
Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?
38077
Post by: jouso
 A Town Called Malus wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.
I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.
I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.
Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?
Actually plenty of people do, and that's why there's such a thing as a démi (half) bottle which holds, you guessed it, 375ml. It's perfect on a dinner for two if you have to drive afterwards, or a more leisurely meal when only one person drinks (like when my wife has been pregnant, for example)
There's even the médium which is half a litre, but it's not seen much outside Switzerland. The nichest of niches.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Well, for those who were worried about losing their EU citizenship, Cyprus has hit upon a novel scheme: just turn up with a suitcase full of readies, and hey presto, you're a valued citizen of the EU again 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/eu-citizenship-for-sale-as-russian-oligarch-oleg-deripaska-buys-cypriot-passport
Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.
92104
Post by: r_squared
 reds8n wrote:https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180129/local/major-brexit-supporter-obtains-maltese-passport- ft.669224
And people complain over EU beaurocrats "exercising power" over us when they can't even see the foreign born billionaires pulling their own strings. 
If this story wasn't a perfect example of the motivations of the billionaire elite of the right wing press and establishment ensuring they are further enriched at a the expense of the people of a country they neither share a place of birth, or give the slightest gak about I don't know what is.
If you supported leave, these are the people who told you why it was a good idea, and you can examine for yourself their motivations for doing that.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I'm not sure anybody here is really such a staunch EU supporter that they'll claim it has "moral high ground" or is "sailing along serenely", as you put it in your last posts. I think most EU supporters here would tend to agree that it is an institution with flaws and full of compromises that leave nobody really happy, but still better than going solo, either militarily or economically. To be honest, some of your last posts start to sound more and more like you are trying to find flaws in the EU rather than positives in Brexit, but maybe I'm reading too much into it?
The very..."pragmatic" sale of passports like in the articles linked by you and reds8n should be restricted, in my opinion, yes. However, I'm sure any legislation trying to achieve that would look like more EU tyranny...
92104
Post by: r_squared
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:.... but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.
This is another example of the problem you have specifically DINLT. I don't remember seeing anyone in these threads suggest the the EU enjoys "moral superiority" over the UK. Please provide a quote or something to support that statement, otherwise it suggests that you're actually arguing against an imagined position.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
jouso wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:No. The important final stage of production, the secondary fermentation, happens in the bottles. You can't re-bottle it after that.
I suppose it may be possible to negotiate some kind of special clause to allow the champagne producers to make pint bottles for export to the UK. We are a large market, after all, though I'm not clear why people want smaller bottles.
I doubt the french winemakers will go for it. Because how many people will buy a smaller bottle of champagne? That would just mean you need to buy more bottles if you're putting on a party.
Unless this is aimed at the lonely champagne drinker?
Actually plenty of people do, and that's why there's such a thing as a démi (half) bottle which holds, you guessed it, 375ml. It's perfect on a dinner for two if you have to drive afterwards, or a more leisurely meal when only one person drinks (like when my wife has been pregnant, for example)
There's even the médium which is half a litre, but it's not seen much outside Switzerland. The nichest of niches.
That's even less of a reasons to make a pint bottle because there is already a variety of options anyway.
I wasn't aware that this was the case, hence I've come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than some old person wanting to go back to the days when things were presented in imperial units.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
r_squared wrote: reds8n wrote:https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180129/local/major-brexit-supporter-obtains-maltese-passport- ft.669224
And people complain over EU beaurocrats "exercising power" over us when they can't even see the foreign born billionaires pulling their own strings.
If this story wasn't a perfect example of the motivations of the billionaire elite of the right wing press and establishment ensuring they are further enriched at a the expense of the people of a country they neither share a place of birth, or give the slightest gak about I don't know what is.
If you supported leave, these are the people who told you why it was a good idea, and you can examine for yourself their motivations for doing that.
If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?
I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...
What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.
Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...
Feth me, if you can't see that choice was an illusion...
5394
Post by: reds8n
Obviously a great idea to vote for economic self mutilation then.
Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq..
http://time.com/4293818/aimen-dean-isis-brexit/
"Former al-Qaeda Fighter Warns ISIS Would See Britain's Exit From Europe as a Victory"
Note how the brexit narrative has once again changed from "everything will be better and sunshine and sparkly unicorns for all" to the current "at least we won't have to eat each other ".
Reality is funny like that.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
What happened to "they just lack vision!"? To all the claims of how there'd be a bunch of opportunities for the UK and how it'd work out alright? Are we now down to "well, we had two gak choices"? How much longer until you finally admit that you messed up?
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
reds8n wrote: Obviously a great idea to vote for economic self mutilation then.
Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq..
http://time.com/4293818/aimen-dean-isis-brexit/
"Former al-Qaeda Fighter Warns ISIS Would See Britain's Exit From Europe as a Victory"
Note how the brexit narrative has once again changed from "everything will be better and sunshine and sparkly unicorns for all£ to the current "at least we won't have to eat each other ".
Reality is funny like that.
ISIS? Well, they would say that. If I slipped on a banana skin, they'd claim credit for it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Tony Blair, die-hard EU supporter, probably still holding out for a plush EU post, is a war criminal. How many people did Farage Kill? For every Farage you give me, I'll raise you a Blair. Every Rees-Mogg, I'll give you Nick Clegg, and for every Bojo you give me, here's a George Soros for you. Your side is just as bad as my side.
And for the record, I opposed the Iraq war back then - a blind man could see it was a disaster in the making. My record against Middle East intervention is very consistent on this forum. 
And back to my main point: leaving the EU is the jolt that is needed to wake this country up - we've been sleep walking into disaster for years. None of this is the EU's fault, but we've shrugged our shoulders at trade unions being diminished, citizens rights going down the pan, the surveillance state.
If people want their rights back - they'll have to fight for them, just like their ancestors did before the EU rolled into town. That is a good thing in my back, and active population, instead of this nation of sleepwalkers we seem to have, who rely on others doing the fighting for them.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?
I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...
What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.
Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...
Feth me, if you can't see that choice was an illusion...
If you voted leave because you didn't want to side with the Tories then you're a moron. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Given your dilema id vote to stay in the organisation that's been ensuring my rights, protecting the environment and keeping the fans in check. I'd also go for the option that didn't screw our economy and gives me an option to live somewhere else.
I don't actually like the eu on the whole, but staying in I'd a gal of a lot better than leaving.
Decide based on the issues and not the personalities.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/
Though it has been controversial for over a decade, the invasion was actually popular at the time. In 2003, YouGov conducted 21 polls from March to December asking British people whether they thought the decision by the US and the UK to go to war was right or wrong, and on average 54% said it was right.
If we've learnt anything recently it's that 52% or more is an overwhelming mandate, so it must've been a good thing.
UKIP had 3 MEPS at the time, 2 voted for the war motions.... whilst Farage abstained.
As per fething usual.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/07/eu.politics
a blind man could see it was a disaster in the making
No no no, that's just fear talking.
Sure all the experts might've pointed out it would be a disaster, but with strong leadership and vision it'll all turn out fine, and democracy and sunshine and unicorn flavoured cake will be for all !
.... errr... oh hang on
every Bojo you give me, here's a George Soros for you
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/philanthropist-george-soros-donates-most-of-his-net-worth-to-charity.html
"The billionaire philanthropist transferred $18 billion to Open Society Foundations, a sprawling international group of charities that works in more than 100 countries on projects focused on refugee relief, public health and many other topics.
The $18 billion figure amounts to almost 80 percent of the financier's total net worth. Before the transfer, Soros had a net worth of $23 billion, according to a Forbes tally Tuesday. The site ranks him as the 29th wealthiest person in the world."
clearly they're a great comparison.
Shall we compare to that to "your" Dacre, Murdoch and Rothmere ..?
If people want their rights back -
like all the ones we're about to lose thanks to people like you ?
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
@DINLT: Call me cynical, but I'm not so sure if you'll get a more "awakened" or "active" population in politics after this clustermunch. I have a feeling the number of people saying "feth it, those guys up there do what they want anyway and we suffer" and feeling more disenfrachised and off-put by the whole political system will increase, and those guys will probably not make their voice heard by founding new parties or voting at all...
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?
You had the choice to read beyond the hysterics and the headlines of the right wing gutter press and catchy slogans on a bus. You didn't. And even now, you seem pretty oblivious to it all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...
The alternative, apparently was doing the national version of 'cutting off ones nose to spite ones face'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What choice did ordinary people like us really have? It was the devil and the deep blue sea.
Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...
Except both choices were not equally bad so the comment of the devil and the deep blue sea is nothing more than your usual blinkered histerics. Feth me, but the mental gymnastics you are capable of should put you on the Olympic team.
Lol. Says the man riding unicorns on rainbows in cloud cookoo land.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...
Which side is meant to be which? Because the leave side was anything but honest about screwing anyone over.
As for allying with Nick Clegg being a bad thing because of Tory cuts. What do you think is going to happen when the UK economy suffers due to Brexit? More austerity. You voted for cuts by voting for the option that would damage the UK economy.
38077
Post by: jouso
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Somebody will probably be along to say that you can do the same with Britain, and I don't doubt it, but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.
Well, of course.
The ‘golden visa’ deal: ‘We have in effect been selling off British citizenship to the rich’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/04/golden-visa-immigration-deal-british-citizenship-home-office
Just about every country does it. The question is, what exactly has this to do with the issue at hand?
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If I'm being honest with people on this forum, really honest, what choice did a working man like myself really have?
I don't deny that the Brexit side has some right pieces of dog dak supporting them, but what was the alternative? Join forces with Tony Blair, a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq... Or Nick Clegg, who waved through brutal Tory cuts when in power, the result of which harmed tons of people in Britain...
That's not really a rational way of approaching decision making. Blair also supports the NI peace process and GFA. Would you hence vote against this if it went to a referendum? Same goes for the middle east peace process (though the person that shall not be named is doing his best to dismantle it). If you just choose a side that doesn't have people you don't like in then you are running the risk of being blind to the implications of what those people represent. You should be making a decision on the issue at hand not who or who does not support it. Lashing out at the EU because of those people is an irrational response because the people you have highlighted, relatively will be unaffected by such changes because they have the wealth to avoid it. On the other hand by doing so you have condemned the people at the bottom to a lot of economic pain (and likely leave them more open to exploitation by the people you oppose).
65463
Post by: Herzlos
I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Herzlos wrote:I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.
In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.
Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?
92104
Post by: r_squared
Mr Morden wrote:Herzlos wrote:I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.
In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.
Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?
It's because there's a certain type of person that likes people like Farage, Trump and Rees-Mogg because they "speak their mind" and they offend the sort of people that they don't like anyway, which makes it better.
Those sort of people tend to be dicks.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Yes, people who think being offensive is equivalent to being honest.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mr Morden wrote:Herzlos wrote:I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
Some definately did see it that way a great deal of establishment figures adn organisations did and still do advise against it - including former Prime Minsters and the arch coward Cameron who paid if his mates and then slunk off.
In the same way as Trump is seen that way despite being someone who grew up with vast sums of money and has done nothing but work with specific eleements of the establishment.
Its very difficult to find anyone with any power who is not beholden to some form of establishment?
"The Establishment" in Britain means the informal power structure you join based on having been born in the right family, gone to the right school and university, and thereby having the right friends and connections, so that you do things the "right way".
It's the Old Boys Network, the Chumocracy.
It's the apparatus that allows someone like Boris Johnson to get to one of the highest public offices in the land, despite his many failures and bad qualities.
The Establishment influences a lot of the system of government and society (the legal system, the banks, and so on) though it is not the same thing.
In one sense this means we are all beholden to The Establishment. It doesn't that everyone who gets into a position of power is part of The Establishment. Automatically Appended Next Post: Given a day for the impact to sink in, Theresa May's speech has not had the lasting effect she wanted.
Tories’ Brexit unity fades as Heseltine slams May’s speech
Meanwhile, Hard Brexiteer magical thinking is as strong as ever. Jacob Rees-Mogg attacks 'absurd' EU plan for Irish border
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.
In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?
There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.
So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Herzlos wrote:I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
It's about 'blame'. All humans have a tendency to blame a figure head / those in control when times are bad (just look at the football managers, they get the blame but the players rarely do). The same goes for here.
We have had ten years of austerity. A lot of people's lives are 'worse' relatively compared to 10 years ago, goods and property are more expensive whereas wage growth at the bottom has not kept up. That leaves people seeing themselves fall further behind and many of the very wealthy are quite happy to see that continue it provides them control (another human trait). It is then easy for people to 'blame' the existing establishment for their woes. Rather than looking at their own actions and introspection into these it is easy to point a finger at a distant leader/establishment and say "it's their fault". Hence when an opportunity comes to sticking it to them that is what happens.
Now enter politicians that are not part of the existing ruling establishment that recognise that stoking such ideas and give rise to them being seen as a saviour, a person saying it 'as it is' etc. These are people like Boris, Farage, Trump and so on. Despite being in the establishment they are at the fringes, not seen as part of the controlling establishment (which they aren't because they are idiots). They hence become popular by reinforcing incorrect assumptions of populace, and encouraging simplistic messages that "things will get better" without any evidence to show that is the case. In reality they are only using that support to get them into the power and into that establishment. The proverbial populist. Once they are there then they can entrench themselves and those people that got them there can simply be left hanging in the wind.
The danger with this though is that this cycle can continue, until you get someone truly obnoxious because politicians have exploited this populism.
92104
Post by: r_squared
welshhoppo wrote:With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.
In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?
There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.
So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?
As a nation we are wealthy enough to provide crisis accommodation for those in need. I don't think it's unreasonable that we should aspire to, and achieve changes in society where it is unacceptable for people to be sleeping on the streets.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Well said. And I think there's also something to be said about stuff like this deliberately being a governmental program by the state, as a sign of support, rather than something to be done by charitable organizations. Their work is to be lauded, of course, but I tend to think that it kind of shows a lack of either competence or will of the national or state governments when the needs of the poorest have to be taken care of by volunteers and NGOs .
5394
Post by: reds8n
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43244088
MPs will get a 1.8% pay rise for 2018-19, taking their overall salary to £77,379 from 1 April, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said.
The salary for chairmen of Commons select committees will also increase by 1.8% to £15,509, which is added to their basic salary for being an MP.
It is a bigger increase on the 1.4% pay rise MPs got last year.
IPSA says it is in line with its policy of adjusting MPs' pay at the same rate as changes in the public sector wages.
Members of the Scottish Parliament were given a 0.6% pay rise to £62,149 a year in December.
108533
Post by: simonr1978
r_squared wrote:As a nation we are wealthy enough to provide crisis accommodation for those in need.
Not always. It's provided to a degree depending on satisfying certain criteria and in many cases councils are under little or no obligation to help out if you are not classed as vulnerable and/or are considered to have made yourself homeless, for example on release from prison unless something has been pre-arranged (not guaranteed) ex-prisoners are counted as making themselves homeless because of their convictions and can count on practically no government assistance whatsoever.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Herzlos wrote:I still can't get my head around the Brexit being a vote against the establishment theory; most of it's cheerleaders ate poster boys for the establishment.
Reese Mogg is a literal caricature of the establishment.
Boris is an Etonian who never got there by his merits.
Farage is an ex banker who'd sell a testicle to be part of the establishment.
It's based on the premise that it's easier to vote out a government in London, than a government made up of 27 other nations and 400 million more people.
Automatically Appended Next Post: r_squared wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:.... but this story is a welcome antidote to those who think EU member states have the moral high ground over Britain.
This is another example of the problem you have specifically DINLT. I don't remember seeing anyone in these threads suggest the the EU enjoys "moral superiority" over the UK. Please provide a quote or something to support that statement, otherwise it suggests that you're actually arguing against an imagined position.
I'm referring to Remain supporters in the media and not to people on this forum. Automatically Appended Next Post: A Town Called Malus wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ally yourself with a side that's honest about screwing you over, or ally yourself with the side that pretends to be your friend, and then screws you over...
Which side is meant to be which? Because the leave side was anything but honest about screwing anyone over.
As for allying with Nick Clegg being a bad thing because of Tory cuts. What do you think is going to happen when the UK economy suffers due to Brexit? More austerity. You voted for cuts by voting for the option that would damage the UK economy.
We can vote out Conservative governments in this nation if we so choose. Conservative rule is not written into stone, but then again, in my lifetime, I've seen the Tories get votes by bribing people with right to buy, so maybe you have a point? Automatically Appended Next Post:
It makes the point that the EU is just as wretched at times as Britain is, so media hysterics about Britain being cast adrift are just that - hysterics.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
welshhoppo wrote:With the passing snow storm (that I saw none of, apart from the cold and wind) I have an open question that I'd like your opinions on.
In this day and age, should people have a fundamental right to abode?
There's been loads of things flying around the internet for homeless people to have shelter in the cold, and to supply them with warm food.
So, in this day and age, should we even have homeless people? Or should we all be neo-liberalist and not help out other people?
People should have a fundamental right to shelter. There's no reason anyone should be homeless beyond selfishness. Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll be honest, I've never had any inclination to vote out the European parliament. I assume most are in the same position.
It would be nice if we could make our MEPs actually take part though. Automatically Appended Next Post: The average man in the street didn't vote Brexit over parliamentary accountability. All of the polling shows that immigration was front and centre.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The chief executive of York based builder Persimmon was recently given a bonus of over £100 million -- that's bonus not salary.
It would be enough to build and give a home to every single homeless person in York.
He received the bonus because Persimmon's share price has tripled in the past few years since the government introduced its much criticised "help to buy" scheme for first time buyers.
Half of Persimmons homes sold in 2016 were to "help to buy" customers, meaning the tax payer subsidised this chap's bonus.
Under the circumstances, I do not feel it is right that homeless people are freezing to death in churchyards and shop doorways in the 6th richest country in the world.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
You wouldn't even need to give them a house each, I was thinking of something along the lines of a pod hotel. Everyone can get somewhere warm to sleep, a shower, charge a phone a d some hot food.
4001
Post by: Compel
I know in America that the Salvation Army have come under a lot of criticism for their homeless shelters, particularly when it comes to, for example, LGBTQ homeless people (a group one would imagine would be quite likely to become homeless at a young age).
I wouldn't be surprised if the state in the UK isn't too different.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Herzlos wrote:You wouldn't even need to give them a house each, I was thinking of something along the lines of a pod hotel. Everyone can get somewhere warm to sleep, a shower, charge a phone a d some hot food.
You'd just have to deal with the people going "they wouldn't be homeless if they didn't waste their money on phones!" and similar drivel.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Two things need to be said about homeless in the UK.
1) Rough sleeping is the tip of the iceberg for homelessness and only represents a tiny part of the problem.
2) Rough sleeping generally is not an issue of lack of housing. It is much more complex. Most rough sleepers have very complex issues with addiction and mental health. It is not as simple as proving a bed. Most end up in and out of shelters and support for various reasons. Some struggle with the requirements to go clean (with support), some with the impact of mental health, some with the fact that shelters are full of people who have had difficult lives so do have high levels of violence and aggression, some have just been living in the street so long they struggle with not being on the street.
The first absolutely needs more house building and other things, the second is much more difficult to answer. First we need to address the way we treat addiction and mental health, both in the medically and socially.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
I wholeheartedly agree. Providing accommodation is the easy half of the solution.
38077
Post by: jouso
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It makes the point that the EU is just as wretched at times as Britain is, so media hysterics about Britain being cast adrift are just that - hysterics.
Which no one has ever claimed. The EU is just one more system of checks and balances. Keeps the governments in check and at the same time is kept in check by those same governments.
I'm sure that if the EU attempted to regulate the rules under which individual countries hand residence permits and citizenship the cries of power-grabbing EU would be deafening.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.
The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. Under its terms all main UK-based carriers would have reduced access to the US market because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.
One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.
Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.
“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.
Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.
In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.
The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.
There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.
The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.
London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.
Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.
The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.
One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”
Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.
“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.
British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.
The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.
British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.
A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”
The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.
“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Handwavium continues to be employed in fairly large amounts.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
AdmiralHalsey wrote:You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...
Mmmmm. Just goes to show what happens when you give demagogues a free pulpit to stand on.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
AdmiralHalsey wrote:You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...
Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...
As far as I'm concerned, and I make no apologies for saying this, but the EU is Europe's biggest threat. It's illiberal, it's insidious, and it's anti-democratic.
It's anti-European...
The parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us. Automatically Appended Next Post: A Town Called Malus wrote:AdmiralHalsey wrote:You know, stuff like discussing the implications of this was curiously utterly absent from the actual Brexit vote...
Mmmmm. Just goes to show what happens when you give demagogues a free pulpit to stand on.
I've long argued that Tony Blair should be done for war crimes.
38077
Post by: jouso
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
jouso wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.
If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.
They're not even in the same league. 
103604
Post by: Inquisitor Gideon
Why is sovereignty still being thrown out as some sort of excuse? It means nothing in this day and age. If we could make like easier for all by throwing that antiquated idea under a bus we should. It's doing nothing but holding us as a country back. Even more so now due to brexit.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:jouso wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.
If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.
They're not even in the same league.
So we are back to insults and hand waving again? Come up with some evidence. If it’s so obvious that the EU is less accountable than the UK government surely it is easy to show how and why this is he case?
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Why is sovereignty still being thrown out as some sort of excuse? It means nothing in this day and age. If we could make like easier for all by throwing that antiquated idea under a bus we should. It's doing nothing but holding us as a country back. Even more so now due to brexit.
Sovereignty may mean nothing to global corporations who would love nothing more than no borders, an endless flow of labour from pole to pole, and zero limits on the flow of goods and capital, but some of us still believe in nation states and governments being accountable to people who vote them in, and not to distant supra-national entities.
Something has been seriously bugging me for a while about the EU, I couldn't put my finger on it, and now I've found the answer. 
Now, let me be clear that I'm not accusing my fellow Dakka members of this, but since 2016, the Remain supporting media has accused the Brexit side of being narrow minded nationalists, little Englanders etc etc
Nationalism in the light of Brexit has been seen as a disease. Now, here comes my point.
In his essay, Notes on Nationalism, George Orwell talks about transferred nationalism. E.g loyalty to a cause that goes beyond borders but is still nationalistic in nature. He gives 3 examples:
1. Catholics the world over traditionally supporting the authority of Rome.
2. Communists the world over looking to Moscow in the Cold War days.
3. Jews the world over supporting the state of Israel i.e. Zionism.
And to that list, you can add people all over Europe looking to the authority of Brussels...
I'll be honest and say that re-reading my old books does come in handy. No longer can Remain supporters accuse Brexit supporters of nationalist tendencies, and all the negative connotations that go with the word.
Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...
If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Steve steveson wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:jouso wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
Parliament is a sham, house of Lords is an oligarchy, the Supreme Court is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
See? You can do that with every government above city council level, and still ring true.
If you think the House of Commons is on the same level as the European Parliament, then there's a bridge I want to sell you.
They're not even in the same league.
So we are back to insults and hand waving again? Come up with some evidence. If it’s so obvious that the EU is less accountable than the UK government surely it is easy to show how and why this is he case?
Evidence? The House of Commons proposes, repeals, and introduces legislation at its leisure. The EU parliament only rubber stamps what is put to it...
The surest test of the sovereignty and independence of any Parliament is the ability to be able to dissolve itself if it so chooses.
If the EU Parliament could be dissolved, Farage would have proposed that bill on day 1 of taking up his MEP role...
103604
Post by: Inquisitor Gideon
In what way do you honestly think that national states and governments are more accountable than the supposed supra-national entities to the general people? They're just as distant and unassailable as each other. The only difference is if you're lucky, you may be able to see the building somewhere in your country. I mean come on, that is such a pathetic excuse.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...
If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.
Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.
I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh." HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.
I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 Witzkatz wrote:Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...
If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.
Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.
I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh." HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.
I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.
Look at what the EU has: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a foreign policy, a parliament, an expansionist policy, and most importantly, the desire to control and exercise violence on its own behalf, if necessary.
What do I mean by violence? Let me be clear that I'm not talking about massacring citizens across the EU if they don't like Juncker
I'm talking about authority and the state's right to control violence. For example, we all know that the authority of any nation rests on the ability of armed men and women to keep law and order.
This is exercised by the police, the army etc etc
We all have that in our countries Britain, USA, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc etc
Our nations wouldn't exist without it. Anarchy would prevail. Of course, we have the rule of law, so the police can't do what they want.
But this control over the use of violence is one of the most defining attributes of any nation state IMO.
The EU's desire to have this by way of a military force is characteristic of its transformation into a nation IMO. Add the above elements into this flag, anthem, currency etc etc
Then you have a nation state in all but name.
Therefore, IMO, I am correct to call the EU a nation state, and its supporters nationalists.
I'm calling a spade a spade here.
I
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
Can I pay my taxes with 'sovereignty'? Can I pay my mortgage with 'sovereignty'? No? Then they can go ram it.
Regarding 'liberty' - I feel pretty free and liberal under the eu. I'm irish, Westminster has done more to try to curtail the rights and freedoms of the Irish than the European
And border controls - this old chestnut. The uk has control of their borders. They chose not to exercise it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...
Yes, the eu is a 'gilded cage' and they're coming to lock you up. We're all prisoners.
Eh, no.
Please. Your over the top hysteria has actually gone past the point of being cute and amusing. Now it's just baffling.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The parliament is a sham, the commission is an oligarchy, the ECJ is unaccountable to ordinary people like us.
Oh come on, stop being a damned hypocrite.
The exact Same things can be said about Westminster. I didn't vote for May. I've never voted tory. I have no say in the House of Lords. And the old Etonian establishment and chumocracy is still a thing. And an unaccountable shadowy one at that.
And as an Irishman living in Scotland, it's quite annoying how all the desires and wishes my of the Scots continually get overridden by those fools down south. A situation that is only going to get worse unless brexit forces indyref 2, and then we can leave this malarkey behind.
4001
Post by: Compel
EDIT: Bleh, never mind
47598
Post by: motyak
DINLT you're changing tack from your last barely coherent ramble that isn't directed at any point here and is rather tilting against a windmill that you yourself made and called a giant to this new even worse windmill. Please don't put words and arguments in the mouths of the other people in this thread, it is incredibly rude. Take that last sentence in a mod voice
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Steve steveson wrote:Two things need to be said about homeless in the UK.
1) Rough sleeping is the tip of the iceberg for homelessness and only represents a tiny part of the problem.
2) Rough sleeping generally is not an issue of lack of housing. It is much more complex. Most rough sleepers have very complex issues with addiction and mental health. It is not as simple as proving a bed. Most end up in and out of shelters and support for various reasons. Some struggle with the requirements to go clean (with support), some with the impact of mental health, some with the fact that shelters are full of people who have had difficult lives so do have high levels of violence and aggression, some have just been living in the street so long they struggle with not being on the street.
The first absolutely needs more house building and other things, the second is much more difficult to answer. First we need to address the way we treat addiction and mental health, both in the medically and socially.
Agreed, there are vastly more people in temporary accommodation or surfing sofas. The whole issue needs more thought. Support is only really provided now when you are homeless because of Tory austerity the funds to help local government support people before they get there has all but dried up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42427398
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
What does this actually mean. There's no argument here just sweeping generalisations without any reasoning for your statements.
How does being outside the EU improve out liberty. It could be easily argued that we gain more liberty by being in the EU because instead of being restricted to one country we get to live, work and play in any of the 28 countries, can change when we please and so forth. How is that less liberty than having to be monitored where you work, live and play which has to be approved and is restricted?
What does sovereignty mean? Does it mean we all have to get up in the morning a swear allegiance to a family that stabbed its way into power hundreds of years ago? That we hand the power back to a few who determine our every ability? That the nation state should be first and foremost in all our lives? Compare that to being in the EU where you are not bound by the ideals of any nation state you can move to one which more closely aligns with your aspirations and ideals. Does that not put the power back to the people rather because an individual gets to choose the life they want to live. Those with better standards will become more powerful and better represent the populace, rather than the few drive the populace to doing what they want?
Border control to me just reads "racism lite" (not that I am accusing you of that). But as a populace the only reason to have border control is to stop people from other countries coming here; determining people's future not from the choice they want to make but a view on that group of people as a whole.
The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...
What about nuclear agreements that allow worldwide and European use of nuclear material to support medicine and similar. Are you willing to sacrifice cancer treatments, even xrays to avoid that gilded cage?
The only way you can avoid a gilded cage is to live in a cave and have nothing...
38077
Post by: jouso
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Witzkatz wrote:Turns out that EU supporters are just as nationalistic as the rest of us...
If anybody has a good argument to refute George Orwell's point, I'd like to hear it.
Again, I think you are overstating - in your own perception - the love of Europeans for the EU. People are not waving EU flags with tears in their eyes, they are not standing at home in front of the TV watching Juncker speak, with a trembling fist thinking of the glorious EU motherland, they are not going to EU rallies and teaching their kids Ode an die Freude on the flute.
I'm pretty sure most European's feelings towards the EU can be, overall, summarized as "Eh." HOWEVER, it will still be regarded as better than the alternative of fighting for your own little piece of dirt in a globalized world with the US and China.
I feel like this has been said many, many times already in this thread, but really, creating imaginary exaggerated, dystopian patriotic support for glorious EU to feel better about sovereignity-regaining, utopian patriotic Brexit is getting a little stale. Especially if you go as far as bringing Orwell into this.
Look at what the , EU has: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a foreign policy, a parliament, an expansionist policy and most importantly, the desire to control and exercise violence on its own behalf, if necessary.
Just about every supranational entity has a flag, quite a few have anthems. I suggest you look at this Twitter thread, there are some very colourful anthems there. They tend to have their own assemblies, too like the Andean Parliament or Central American Parliament.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/967166196868141058?s=19
As per supranational currencies? CFA Franc has been around for longer than the euro.
Foreign policy? More often than not their very raison d'être is to present a united front to the world. Most if not all of them have varying degrees of alignment.
Military? The Organisation of African Countries has been doing that for decades.... But the prime example is the UN who has engaged in military operations (or peace campaigns in UN-speak) ever since there was a UN.
Just recently saw the siege of gadotville, an interesting Netflix film about an almost forgotten Irish operation in the Congo
34390
Post by: whembly
reds8n wrote:https://www. ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.
The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. Under its terms all main UK-based carriers would have reduced access to the US market because they would not meet the criteria for ownership and control.
One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together” said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.” A British official said it showed “the squeeze” London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.
Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.
“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,” said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North America”.
Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress” in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.
In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.
The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.
There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.
The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control” does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.
London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.
Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.
The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.
One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunch”. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,” he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.”
Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficulties”.
“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?” he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.
British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waivers”, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.
The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.
British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.
A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.”
The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.
“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,” said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.”
This here is actually a problem with commercial aviation in general... both governments would loath to open up a foreign airliners to domestic flights simply because of intense lobbying from those US & UK based airline companies.
Frankly, I'd open it up to any airliners to compete domestically... but, that won't fly (heh) since many carriers want to maintain their fiefdom.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://fotw.info/flags/us$disn.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_dollar
meh, least it's not like they also control some of the largest and most powerful media entities in the worl...d.... too ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mickey_Mouse_Club
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/09/08/mousketeers-club-mickey-mouse-new-cast/644477001/
crap, they've even got a youth wing too ?!
All they really need now is a really odd founder, who might've had some views that seem a bit odd today and...
... hmm .
Does it mean we all have to get up in the morning a swear allegiance to a family that stabbed its way into power hundreds of years ago
speaking of which :
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The passport issue sums up the sovereignty issue.
Brexiteers celebrated the return of the iconic blue passport once we are free of EU regulation.
EU regulation does not require a red passport.
EU regulations specify a passport design that satisfies ICAA rules.
Once we leave the EU we will be able to assert our sovereignty and flout the ICAA rules.
We won't be able to travel anywhere, though.
Well done for this great victory.
/sarcasm
100848
Post by: tneva82
reds8n wrote:https://www. ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies” deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
Gee. Bigger country offering smaller country bad deal. No surprise. That's why there's power in numbers. UK decided it wants to get bullied in trade deals by big fish. Have fun with it now.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
I'd argue Brexit gives away some sovereignty. We're still going to have to do what the eu wants if we want to trade with them, but now we have no say in eu regs and thus we have less say over the laws we follow than we used to.
Ditto for liberty.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
More food supply issues in the UK:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jaguar-land-rover-halt-production-uk-due-water-shortage-171837590.html
Cadbury have been forced to halt chocolate production at their Bournville site.
The confectionary giants have been affected by water shortages in the area.
Cadbury insist that the UK’s supply of chocolate will ‘is not immediately impacted’ as they have considerable levels of stock.
Not immediately impacted they say...
4001
Post by: Compel
Good thing there isn't any sort of holiday weekend that is essentially entirely about chocolate (and some guy with a stone) coming up...
38077
Post by: jouso
Whirlwind wrote:
The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's
How the EU works, in two simple charts (business interests and farmers not included).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.
I think a lot of the Brexit vote was a protest vote against economic bad conditions, the remoteness of political elites, and fears about immigration.
In this it was similar to the Trump vote and the just concluded Italian elections.
To expand on this point, there is a clear trend towards authoritarian leadership, which is a common feature of economic bad times. One example is Brexiteers's support of Theresa May's try for expansion for the so-called "Henry the 8th" powers (which allow the UK government in some ways to avoid the sovereignty of Parliament and rule by dictat.)
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.
You're damn right it doesn't make any difference. All I see is elites selecting other elites.
The section on how laws are made in the EU should be broadcast to every man, woman, and child in Europe, because it exposes the EU parliament for the sham it is.
You'll note that in that diagram only the EU commission gets to generate an idea, but the Parliament only gets to debate, and NOT propose.
Any Parliament that can't propose its own legislation is not worthy of the name. It's a toy town Parliament, a talking shop, and good riddance to it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?
It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.
47598
Post by: motyak
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.
You're damn right it doesn't make any difference. All I see is elites selecting other elites.
All you see is all you want to see to further cement your existing viewpoint. I feel that graphic was meant for users who are open to processing new information and engaging with the reality of what others post.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kilkrazy wrote:You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?
It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.
When I say the government, I mean the unelected ministers appointed by the unelected prime minister. They are the people who direct the civil service to draw up new legislation.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Kilkrazy wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?
It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.
When I say the government, I mean the unelected ministers appointed by the unelected prime minister. They are the people who direct the civil service to draw up new legislation.
We do have private members bills.
I must also say that I find your comments on unelected PMs and unelected ministers to be well...bizarre.
Why? Because for 2 years you have reminded me that we in the UK have a Parliamentary system. Theresa May was elected. The vast majority of her ministers were also voted in by somebody in the UK...
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Can you point out when I had the chance to actually vote for who I wanted as a prime minister? May wasn't initially chosen as pm via a general election. And As far as I can remember, one day I woke up and she had been shuffled into the position and declared prime minister by stealth. Heck, the members of her own damned party didn't even get the chance to vote her in.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Theresa May was elected as the member for Maidenhead. She was not elected as PM.
May then becomes a member of the European governining structure, the ministers she appoints become memebrs of the council of ministers, and so on.
In other words the governance structure of the EU that you blame for its lack of democratic accountability is actually rather similar to the UK government you praise so much, which isn't actually nearly as democratic as you like to think.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
jouso wrote: Whirlwind wrote:
The ECJ is a court not a political establishment. Our courts are not accountable to the populace either. That is mob rule. The courts interpret the laws of the land which are put in place by politicians both democratically elected in the EU and the UK. In some ways the UK is less democratic because the parliament is less representative of the voting populace's desires. On the other hand the EU having PR is much more proportional in comparison. I think you are confusing not being democratic with having a larger parliament because of the larger number of people the bloc represents. However I repeat the UK parliament is a lot less democratic than the EU's
How the EU works, in two simple charts (business interests and farmers not included).
It an interesting graphic.
The MEPs have moer power than the Council of Ministers Statement - really? does anyone believe that - they can't even get the Eu to shut down the money sink of the dual parliments and the nonense of moving between one and the other.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Your argument assumes they want to.
In reality, the entire budget of the EU is under 1% of its GDP, The cost of maintaining two parliaments is within the margin of accounting error due to rounding.
If they don't want to, your argument is meaningless.
I mean, I understand why you've made the argument, because you disapprove of the money spent on two parliaments, but it looks like you've focussed on a very tiny part of the whole and ignored the bigger picture.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Kilkrazy wrote:Your argument assumes they want to.
In reality, the entire budget of the EU is under 1% of its GDP, The cost of maintaining two parliaments is within the margin of accounting error due to rounding.
If they don't want to, your argument is meaningless.
In a November 2013 resolution, MEPs called for a treaty change to allow Parliament to decide where it sits. Parliament said it would initiate an EU treaty revision procedure to propose the changes needed to allow Parliament itself to decide on the location of its seat and its internal organisation. It would be "more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place", MEPs said.
So they want to move - it makes sense to move, but France makes too much money out of it for them to be allowed to do so.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-eu/european-parliament-not-moving-from-strasbourg-france-says-idUKKBN1DX0I1
A 2013 study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million could be saved per year should all EP operations be transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels (2014 prices). This is a significant amount, though it corresponds to just 6% of Parliament’s budget, or 1% of the EU’s administrative budget or just 0.1% of the entire EU budget. In 2014 the Court of Auditors prepared its own, independent analysis in response to the EP’s resolution of 20 November 2013. The Court confirmed the conclusions of the 2013 EP study but arrived at a total expenditure associated with the Strasbourg seat of €109 million per year. A further €5 million could be saved on missions in the budgets of the European Commission and the Council.
We should just ignore such waste? More than 100 million Euros a year is nothing - it should be ignored.?? MEPs disagree
The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has amongst most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue (...), especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the member states", said the resolution, which was approved by 483 votes to 141, with 34 abstentions.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I'm sure you didn't vote Leave in order to save the 16 million Euros that the UK pays towards the EU double parliament.
For you to focus on it so strongly makes it seem as if you haven't got a better argument to make.
From a practical angle, 0.1% of the overall budget is not the place I would spend my efforts in reducing waste.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure you didn't vote Leave in order to save the 16 million Euros that the UK pays towards the EU double parliament.
For you to focus on it so strongly makes it seem as if you haven't got a better argument to make.
From a practical angle, 0.1% of the overall budget is not the place I would spend my efforts in reducing waste.
Ah so you argrumne tis ignore it... right - brilliant. Yeah I am sure 100 million Euros every year could not be better spent. Also is moving every month a good use of our extremely well paid MEPs time, not to mention the support staff.
Wierd how the actual MEPs disagree with you.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's not 100 million Euros. It's £14.6 million a year to the UK.
Boris Johnson spent over £40 million on his garden bridge plan.
You should have a go at him if you want to save the country some money.
I'm ignoring the EU parliament problem because it's so tiny it isn't worth spending time on.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Kilkrazy wrote:Theresa May was elected as the member for Maidenhead. She was not elected as PM.
May then becomes a member of the European governining structure, the ministers she appoints become memebrs of the council of ministers, and so on.
In other words the governance structure of the EU that you blame for its lack of democratic accountability is actually rather similar to the UK government you praise so much, which isn't actually nearly as democratic as you like to think.
Explaining how the European population indirectly elects the Commission members and directly the members of the EP gets brought up every month or so, when the undemocratic arguments rears its head again (even though many governments work the same). Its the groundhog day moment of this thread.
38077
Post by: jouso
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You do know that the UK parliament can't propose legislation?
It's done by the government using the documentation drawn up by the civil service in response to government strategies.
When I say the government, I mean the unelected ministers appointed by the unelected prime minister. They are the people who direct the civil service to draw up new legislation.
We do have private members bills.
..
And MEPs do propose legislation to the commission as well as amendments to the laws the Commission sends their way.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Kilkrazy wrote:It's not 100 million Euros. It's £14.6 million a year to the UK.
Boris Johnson spent over £40 million on his garden bridge plan.
You should have a go at him if you want to save the country some money.
I'm ignoring the EU parliament problem because it's so tiny it isn't worth spending time on.
So its £15 million that could be better spent - what amount to you is worth bothering about? 50 million, 100 million? its 15 Million every year so it grows and mounts up.
So £100 Million Euros a year wasted is nothing - right so why do the MEPs want it to change? Are they wasting our time by doing so?
What else should juist be brushed under the carpet and hidden away?
So because Boris is stupid we should pretend that an anual waste of this scale, that no one (except the French) wants, that reduces the efficency of the EU Parliment is all fine and just one of those things?
101511
Post by: Future War Cultist
@ Mr Morden
The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
 Future War Cultist wrote:@ Mr Morden The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.
That's kind of a myth though, EU auditors have signed off for the audits for ten years now. The level of errors amounted to 3.1% of the budget in 2016. Hardly riddled. Yes oversight needs to improve, but that would also mean an increase in supranational powers. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/auditinbrief-2016/auditinbrief-2016-EN.pdf#page=6 Claim: The European Union is so corrupt that the European Court of Auditors has not signed off its accounts for 20 years.
Reality Check verdict: The Court of Auditors has signed the EU accounts every year since 2007, while pointing out that EU countries, once they receive the EU funds, misuse about 4.4% of the total budget....
If the auditors do suspect corruption, they pass the cases to OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud office. According to the latest figures provided by the Commission, fraud affects 0.2% of the EU's annual spending. The estimated cost of fraudulent irregularities was €248m in 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Boris is estimated to have wasted as much as £940 million of London taxpayers' money during his time in office.
The list of his failed projects consists of; the new double-decker bus, the Boris bikes, the Arcal-MIttal tower, the Emirate Airline cable-car, and the garden bridge.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/this-is-what-boris-johnson-being-mayor-has-actually-cost-london-10491163.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/18/bridge-940m-bill-boris-johnsons-mayora-vanity-projects-garden-bridge-routemaster-bus
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
And should be rightly chastised for it.
And that makes the MEPS and I wrong to question the waste of the dual Euro parliments how?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
It doesn't, but it brings into question the motives of people who go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how awful the EU is without a single word about how their own party colleagues are worse.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.
If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.
You're damn right it doesn't make any difference. All I see is elites selecting other elites.
The section on how laws are made in the EU should be broadcast to every man, woman, and child in Europe, because it exposes the EU parliament for the sham it is.
You'll note that in that diagram only the EU commission gets to generate an idea, but the Parliament only gets to debate, and NOT propose.
Any Parliament that can't propose its own legislation is not worthy of the name. It's a toy town Parliament, a talking shop, and good riddance to it.
That's not really true though because you are considering that these organisations are all working in isolation which they aren't really. An MEP can tap up someone to try and implement a law they believe is beneficial. just like they can in the UK parliament.
The diagram only shows the due process. The reason that the commission brings forward ideas is because each one consults with its own states the impacts of such a change. What is missing from the diagram is what happens in individual member states. They gather evidence of the impacts these changes have on each country to come to a consensus as to what works for all parties and what compromises are needed. The EU Parliament is not in a position to do such things because each MEP has no actual right of power over consultation in their member states.
At the top of the diagram it should be
X comes up with idea.
Each member of the commission then takes it back to their home country and consults with parliament/businesses/etc on the impacts (i.e. there is direct consultation with the countries democratically voted parliament).
Each member comes to a consensus on the idea based on the feedback from their parliament and consultations.
They then take that back to the commission. If they agree then it goes forward as per the diagram. If not it either gets amended or dropped. There is a lot more consultation with our own parliament before these ideas even get off the ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote:@ Mr Morden
The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.
Do we have a citation for mass embezzlement going on in the EU or is it just I've read a few articles about bad eggs and making aspersions based on a few biased articles. The EU doesn't sign off it's accounts because it can't track exactly how individual states are spending the money they are allocated. Given that they have no jurisdiction to undertake audits on specific elements of individual member states finances expenditure that really isn't a surprise that money that might be distributed to 100's of charities (for example) is difficult to keep track of. If doesn't however mean the money is being fraudulently used.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote:@ Mr Morden
The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.
I find it ironic that at one moment someone complains that we need to take back control of our laws because the EU make them and have no say on them. And then in the next breath complaining that an individual state can stop something happening because of their own interests and hence block changes (which would imply that we have full control of the laws we sign up to)..... 
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?
If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?
4802
Post by: Mario
Techpriestsupport wrote:Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?
If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?
From how I understand it (not British): Yes, the Brexit referendum was non-binding so it was more like a suggestion. Of course if the government were to ignore that then some of them might get problems when it comes to the next election (if their region were pro-Brexit and they voted against it). I think they could have gone with a binding referendum to force the government but it would also have benefited form much clearer wording in any case as the simplistic yes/no option they used leaves way too many issues unanswered. Even if the government follows the referendum's suggestion they have way too many unclassified issues. Somebody might be pro-Brexit but not at all cost (like a huge economic hit, loss if certain EU rights, or whatever)
19970
Post by: Jadenim
Techpriestsupport wrote:Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?
If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?
To your second point, essentially, no. As pointed out earlier, we don’t even get to elect our Prime Minister directly, we can only vote for our parliamentary representatives and then hope that they do vaguely what we want/expect them to.
For all the talk of whether it would have been better to have a legally binding referendum, I’m not sure it’s even possible under our constitutional arrangements.
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
Techpriestsupport wrote:Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?
If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?
Correct. It was basically a massive opinion poll,
'Do you want to leave the EU?' Answer Y/N, to which 72% of the British public that could vote, voted, and of those 72% 52% voted to leave. [So a shade over 36% of the voting public.] It was very non binding, though it may have been politically unpopular to go against it. We'll never know.
The British public can vote in elections for it's MPs, and those MPs can be voted out of office. Some particularly unpopular prominent individuals lost their seats this way last election. But once a government is elected, the public has no influence till the next election [Once every five years, unless an early election is called.]
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Or one of the elected MPs stands down, where a local election is triggered to determine a replacement. Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.
You're damn right it doesn't make any difference.
Which is a shame. How can you be taken seriously and be well informed about something if you refuse to be informed? You're essentially telling us that your problem with the eu is a perception that doesn't match reality.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
In the UK, referenda are non-binding on Parliament because Parliament is sovereign. The way around this is for Parliament to pass an Act to create a binding referendum. This was not done for the EU referendum, so it was not binding on Parliament.
Once the immediate panic hit, Cameron resigned, and May turned up as Prime Minister after a short and barely contested election within the Conservative Party.
May for some reason known only to herself then announced a bunch of stuff about considering the referendum to be "the will of the people" and various "red lines" which defined the likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations for several years to come.
May then called a general election on the basis of wanting a better majority in Parliament to provide the strong and stable leadership needed to deliver the form of Brexit she had outlined.
She lost her majority.
And that is why the UK currently is rolling around the world stage like a clown car.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Techpriestsupport wrote:Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?
Yes the referendum wasn't binding on Parliament to enact. Our system is based on what is meant to be a representative democracy so that we vote for an individual member of parliament ( MP) and they act on their constituents behalf. The Prime Minister ( PM) is meant to be a first amongst equals in that they are meant to facilitate this process. In reality the PM sets the government and because things divide between parties effectively set the agenda. As such any individual MP can have more or less say depending on the government of the day and where that MP sits. The current Prime Minister is more likely to be considerate of her own constituents concerns that she is of 'Sheila' from the opposite party representing somewhere else. The referendum should be considered as advisory and it is up to the MPs how they enact this.
The frustration for many is that the vote was evenly split between for, against and didn't vote. So the reality is that the country is at best divided over the issue. However the UK Prime Minister currently is truly awful and terribly weak and instead of trying to balance both sides of the view is allowing the bigoted, far right elements, in it for themselves elements of her party to dictate the leaving terms even though this was never asked (and the reality is that those in parliament that wanted to leave have been shown to have lied through their back teeth to get what they want). Many will argue that the Tories got a new mandate in last years election but only managed to achieve this by bribing another niche Northern Ireland (even further right party) to vote on key issues with them. The reality is that only 40% of the population actually supported and voted for the incumbent party whereas 60% did not implying that that the approach they are taking isn't favoured by the majority of the population (and gets worse when considering the younger/more educated elements of the population). However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?
Not in this way no. Although if several million people turned up outside the PMs home and refused to move until a law was voted on then that might be a way. More usually changes happen because an individual or group would take an issue to court and that would result in new case law that the government would have to accept or introduce new legislation to change it
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
65463
Post by: Herzlos
I'm not sure that's cherry picking.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Ask yourself this: had the situation been reversed i.e the UK wanting a club perk, despite leaving the club, you don't think the Remain reaction would be a whole lot different? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Disciple of Fate wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out
It's been suggested that the UK might pay money to continue to access EU institutions such as Medicines, Euratom etc etc
If that comes to pass, then in the interests of fairness, the EU should stump up cash to Britain for access to our fishing grounds. Fair is fair.
109406
Post by: Kroem
However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
There's benefits to both ways but what I like about first past the post is that it take geography into account. People in the West Country or places like Cumbria would be completely drowned out by the big cities in PR.
Whilst in FptP you can might have 10 constituencies in the city and 1 in the country but at least we get some say!
The biggest problem I can see in our elective system atm is Labour blocking the election boundary reforms recommended by an independent commission because they know it will lose them MPs...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
 Kroem wrote:However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such. You could also look on that referendum as a foreshadowing of the EU referendum, where the Tories on the anti- AV campaign smeared the system with absolute bs with no regard for factual accuracy.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Disciple of Fate wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out
It's been suggested that the UK might pay money to continue to access EU institutions such as Medicines, Euratom etc etc
If that comes to pass, then in the interests of fairness, the EU should stump up cash to Britain for access to our fishing grounds. Fair is fair.
Sure, fair is fair, the problem is that there isn't a lot of time left to work these things out, plus the UK might almost be paying the same amount as it is currently doing for its Eu contribution.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
I think the Euratom situation perfectly sums up the idiocy of those in Parliament pushing for brexit.
They are spending billions on a new nuclear reactor and have made promises regarding how much the companies running and part-financing it will be charging for the energy it produces but then they decide to leave the organisation whose membership is what allows us to buy nuclear material.
109406
Post by: Kroem
A Town Called Malus wrote: Kroem wrote:However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such.
Haha I had to look it up but you're absolutely right! The AV people didn't do a great job of getting their message across there did they...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Kroem wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Kroem wrote:However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such.
Haha I had to look it up but you're absolutely right! The AV people didn't do a great job of getting their message across there did they...
It wouldn't have helped. The Tories on the anti- AV side smeared it completely and utterly in so much bs it never stood a chance. Saying things like under AV someone who came in third could win and other misleading stupidity. And it is understandable. The Tories didn't have anything to gain from it at that point. They had the right wing vote pretty well locked up whilst the left was fragmented into Labour, Green, Lib-Dem (prior to the student fees betrayal). So a switch to AV might have cost them seats as people voting for Greens as first choice wouldn't be putting Conservative 2nd or 3rd. On the other hand, it would have given the Tories some protection from losing votes to UKIP, as UKIP would be unlikely to win seats and UKIP voters might put Conservative as the second choice, so the votes wouldn't be lost.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Kilkrazy wrote:You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.
If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.
Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?
or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.
Yes the referendum wasn't binding on Parliament to enact. Our system is based on what is meant to be a representative democracy so that we vote for an individual member of parliament (MP) and they act on their constituents behalf. The Prime Minister (PM) is meant to be a first amongst equals in that they are meant to facilitate this process. In reality the PM sets the government and because things divide between parties effectively set the agenda. As such any individual MP can have more or less say depending on the government of the day and where that MP sits. The current Prime Minister is more likely to be considerate of her own constituents concerns that she is of 'Sheila' from the opposite party representing somewhere else. The referendum should be considered as advisory and it is up to the MPs how they enact this.
The frustration for many is that the vote was evenly split between for, against and didn't vote. So the reality is that the country is at best divided over the issue. However the UK Prime Minister currently is truly awful and terribly weak and instead of trying to balance both sides of the view is allowing the bigoted, far right elements, in it for themselves elements of her party to dictate the leaving terms even though this was never asked (and the reality is that those in parliament that wanted to leave have been shown to have lied through their back teeth to get what they want). Many will argue that the Tories got a new mandate in last years election but only managed to achieve this by bribing another niche Northern Ireland (even further right party) to vote on key issues with them. The reality is that only 40% of the population actually supported and voted for the incumbent party whereas 60% did not implying that that the approach they are taking isn't favoured by the majority of the population (and gets worse when considering the younger/more educated elements of the population). However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
If they didn't vote and there was not a medical or similar reason - thats entirely their fault
I assme you feel that all of the following should not have passed assuming thant anyone who didn't vote was against it?
France — French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7%
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, 19 October 2002, 62.9% in favour, turnout 49.5%
Spain — Spanish European Constitution referendum, 2005, 20 February 2005, 81.8% in favour, turnout 41.8%
San Marino - Sammarinese referendum, 2013, 20 October 2013, 50.28% in favour, turnout 43.38%
Denmark — Danish Unified Patent Court membership referendum, 2014, 25 May 2014, 62.5% in favour, turnout 55.9%
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.
If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.
Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?
or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.
You've obviously made up your mind already.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.
If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.
Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?
or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.
You've obviously made up your mind already.
On this matter - I agree with the MEPs - I take you feel they are wrong and that the Twin Parliment is a suitable use of our money and their time?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Britain First leader’s both doing time.
18 weeks for the Racist Potato. 36 weeks for the Screeching Racist Potato.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Mr Morden wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mr Morden wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.
If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.
Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?
or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.
You've obviously made up your mind already.
On this matter - I agree with the MEPs - I take you feel they are wrong and that the Twin Parliment is a suitable use of our money and their time?
I don't.
92104
Post by: r_squared
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Britain First leader’s both doing time.
18 weeks for the Racist Potato. 36 weeks for the Screeching Racist Potato.
It's great news, although the racist potato supporters will doubtless complain that their free speech is being curtailed, the thick grunts.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/britain-first-leaders-convicted-of-anti-muslim-hate-crimes
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
I think it is in exchange for a more comprehensive free trade agreement. It makes sense at a couple of levels:-
Firstly it is almost impossible to manage illegal fishing unless you militarise your coast guard (build a wall... ) and there would be so many shared close coastal waters (Mainland UK/EIRE, NI/EIRE, Northern Europe/ UK) that it would be almost impossible to stop both deliberate and accidental excursions.
If we want free trade for food then that would include fish, so hence it's just an open market for the same goods.
Finally fish, being a much more sane species than humans don't care about arbitrary lines on a map and generally go where they please so it prevents mass camping at the boundary with huge nets which could be both an environmental and shipping lane issue.
For those that like to read past headlines, there is an interesting blog here on why Theresa May's aspirations are still problematic.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/what-mutual-recognition-really-entails.html?ncid=newsletter-ukThe%20Waugh%20Zone%20070317
Also buried here is an interesting article:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-waugh-zone-wednesday-march-7-2018_uk_5a9fa7c2e4b0e9381c139030?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
After the PMQs hubbub has died down, MPs will be facing an important vote as Labour tries to change the law to reveal the source of a rather large, mysterious donation to the DUP during the 2016 EU referendum campaign. The £425,000 gift was mostly spent on advertising outside Northern Ireland to support the Vote Leave campaign. If the money had been given directly to Vote Leave, it would have had to be fully declared, but the Northern Irish loophole meant it was not. The Electoral Commission is looking into it and wants more transparency.
Ministers want to change the law but are refusing Labour demands to backdate it to include 2016. Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Smith says: “The Tories must explain why they are doing the DUP’s dirty work by helping them avoid publishing the source of the funds received in the EU Referendum.” The Opposition managed to stop the Government’s plans being nodded through on a Statutory instrument this week and a full vote will take place today. There’s a Tory three-line whip, but ministers have yet to fully explain why they are defying the Electoral Commission. One to keep an eye on.
£425k given to the DUP during the referendum that was then spent outside of NI....hmmm something fishy going on here!
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://www.ft.com/content/d466cd3e-2158-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
Euroclear, one of the world’s largest securities depositories, is to move its holding company from Britain, redrawing its corporate structure in preparation for the UK’s departure from the European Union.
The group will shift its domicile and tax residency to Brussels, its biggest centre of operations, later this year.
The move is the second part of a two-stage plan in reaction to Brexit after unveiling last month plans to build a securities settlement system for Ireland that did not rely on London.
Euroclear operates settlement houses that are critical to the daily functioning of global markets. It holds €28.6tn in assets, typically highly liquid instruments such as top-rated government bonds or cash, for investors to use for securities and derivatives trading.
It has been in business for 50 years and has historically been a UK plc and tax resident in Switzerland. Both will be based in Belgium next year. Euroclear will continue to operate a London subsidiary to serve the UK, one of its biggest markets.
“We want to redomicile the topco to the eurozone. It will be in Belgium as it’s where most of our business operations are. We are preparing to launch a transfer of arrangement sometime after the summer,” Lieve Mostrey, chief executive of Euroclear, told the Financial Times.
She described it as making sure Euroclear had got certainty over its legal environment. “For the type of company we are we feel more comfortable in the eurozone.”
holds €28.6tn in assets
When it was pointed out things like this would happen, there were the usual screeches about "project fear"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/philip-hammond-unique-brexit-deal-financial-services-speech-just-eu-reject-it-2018-3
[quoteChancellor Philip Hammond said on Wednesday that the UK would negotiate a "unique" Brexit agreement which includes financial services, just hours after EU negotiators rejected the possibility of such a deal.
"It is possible to include financial services within a trade deal but that it is very much in our mutual interest to do so," Hammond said.
Hammond's speech comes within hours of European Council president Donald Tusk saying such a deal was "out of the question".
........
"The EU itself pursued ambitious financial services co-operation in its proposals for TTIP – which it described as a partnership that would be: ‘more than a traditional free trade agreement'" Hammond said.
However, Labour pointed out that TTIP negotiations had ultimately collapsed.
"The Chancellor has shown his hand, and it is clear he is looking for a TTIP type deal as his blueprint," Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell said.
"Yet those negotiations took nearly four years and collapsed..."
Superb.
We're now actively aiming at copying the deal that failed.
textbook work.
https://themedicinemaker.com/issues/0218/hold-me-closer-uk-pharma/
some highlights :
The Channel Tunnel and the Port of Dover handle 90 percent of freight traffic between the UK and mainland Europe. Around £119 billion of goods pass through Dover every year – about one sixth of British trade by value. On average, around 10,000 freight vehicles pass through Kent every day and the demand is predicted to rise by over 50 percent in the next decade.
There is a real concern that new customs checks at the border could cause lengthy delays, with severe consequences for pharma supply chains. The flow of goods through the busiest ferry terminal in Europe is currently “frictionless,” yet delays are not uncommon. Bad weather, operational problems, industrial action, and more recently, migrant action at Calais, have caused delays. And in cases of severe disruption, Operation Stack is implemented.
Operation Stack is a procedure used to park (or “stack”) lorries on the M20 motorway in South East Kent. The system has been implemented 74 times in the past 20 years. On 24 June 2015 Operation Stack was enacted due to industrial action taken by French employees of the MyFerryLink company. This was the first time “Phase 4” of Operation Stack was used, which involved clearing 30 miles of parked Heavy Goods Vehicles. Between January and November 2015 Operation Stack was implemented on a record 32 days, including three five-day stints.
The UK Freight Transport Association (FTA) estimated the cost of the delays to the UK International Road Freight industry at £750,000 per day. The FTA has estimated, based on Border Force KPIs, that passport checks alone cost £1 per minute. “It is therefore highly probable that costs related to customs checks being performed at the border would be much greater due to time spent by customs officials to check goods against documentation,” they said (1).
In an interview with The Times, Tim Waggott, the Port of Dover chief executive said, “We will see [Operation Stack] every day of the year in perpetuity if we don’t get this sorted”
Pharma supply chains are fragile and highly dependent on frictionless trade, a point well made by many of the submissions to the Committee. For example, according to Merck KGaA, around 12 percent of their products are “dropshipped” directly to customers from Germany “within 24 hours of an order being placed,” so any delays at UK ports would have a “significant impact” on the company’s ability to meet the needs of its clients. Merck KGaA also highlighted that products that must be kept cold during transportation; they point out that the refrigeration system is maintained by the running engine of the vehicle in which they are transported. “If delays at ports become consistent, the whole sector will have to develop new ways of transporting and storing goods and medicines to mitigate the risk of a product overheating and becoming unusable,” said Merck KGaA. They went on to explain that several customers have “already stated their intention to seek alternative suppliers based in the EU.”
Johnson & Johnson raised similar concerns, warning that “ingredients and products can cross the border multiple times in the manufacturing and distribution process [...] Systems must be put in place to ensure that this can continue without the need for Border Inspection Post Personnel checks and tariffs.”
As one example, a company that manufactures products in the North West of England identified four occasions where its products cross UK/EU borders before reaching the end user. They added, “Currently this is frictionless, so there is a high risk that any new arrangements will add cost and/or bureaucracy, changing decision-making about both ongoing and future manufacturing.”
Eli Lilly’s Kinsale site in Ireland is one of the company’s major centers for API manufacturing. “As a measure of the integrated nature of our supply routes, products manufactured in Kinsale cross the border from Ireland into the UK before being exported to Europe and beyond,” says Chris Lowry, Public Affairs Manager at Eli Lilly. “The fact that these products cross between the UK and the EU multiple times evidently leaves them particularly exposed to any potential customs and border controls. We would be extremely dismayed to see such impediments put in place. Importantly, any delays at borders run the risk of disrupting patient supply of medicines.”
“We are a global industry, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) is a great example of a multinational operation, working across complex environments that change over time,” says Virgina Acha, Executive Director of Global Regulatory Policy at MSD. “Biopharma discovery, development, manufacture and supply chain arrangements take many years to undertake and many years to change. There are long cycles in planning schedules, with some speciality biological products, for example, only having a production run every one to two years. Supply is carefully allocated in this global planning. The relatively sudden, exceptional and across the board changes that Brexit seems likely to generate will profoundly challenge biopharmaceutical businesses.”
Lowry concurs, adding, “Imposing barriers would levy substantial cash flow costs to companies and disrupt the close intertwining of trade and regulation. Mitigating these impacts may require us to explore and validate new supply routes, which given the distribution and storage requirements of some products, is not a simple task.”
Take Agri-food for example: between 20 and 50 percent of shipments of beef and lamb imported from outside the EEA must be checked at the border. The capacity is not there to cope with the volume of beef and lamb that would need to be checked,” he says. Not only is capacity lacking, but there also isn’t enough space to build the capacity, argues Owen. The result could be queues of traffic in motorways leading up to the UK’s borders with the EU. Not only would this impact exports from the UK to the EU, but any EU to UK exporters would end up stuck in the same queue when trying to get back to the continent – a nightmare scenario for pharma supply chains.
brilliant.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
well if they can afford umpteen billion to build HS2 and force people to sell them their homes/land to do so
surely they can do the same around dover creating whatever space they need for the giant customs carpark required to keep it running smoothly,
and they'll be able to spend all the extra money we'll be getting from interational trade with Bolivia, Vanuatu etc will easily pay for all the new customs officers needed to man it
it will be quicker, easier and more efficient than it is now,
honest,
really
well as long as there aren't any illegal immigrants on the lorries
18698
Post by: kronk
Herzlos wrote:What's the point of a 584ml bottle of champagne, where a 750ml bottle won't Do?
When I travel, my wife doesn't want a whole bottle of wine.
Putting a stopper on a nice bottle doesn't keep the bottle nice. It makes good wine into average and average wine into Yellow Tail.
Mr Morden wrote:
So its £15 million that could be better spent - what amount to you is worth bothering about? 50 million,
15 million British Pound Moneys wouldn't pave a city block. In the grand scheme of government spending, it's a meaningless spend.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
surely they can do the same around dover creating whatever space they need for the giant customs carpark required to keep it running smoothly,
and they'll be able to spend all the extra money we'll be getting from interational trade with Bolivia, Vanuatu etc will easily pay for all the new customs officers needed to man it
Not sure whether being sarcastic...? I think you are, I *hope* you are!
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.
Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/
The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...
Um, the term 'Brass neck' is unknown to me, could you put it in context here?
19970
Post by: Jadenim
Cojones?
Basically it’s a suprising, almost outrageous, request or statement, which you would normally expect to be turned down. There’s also an implication that the person making the statement isn’t deserving.
A teenager who sits on the couch for an entire year and then asks their parents to buy them a car for Christmas would be a good example.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kroem wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Kroem wrote:However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.
We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such.
Haha I had to look it up but you're absolutely right! The AV people didn't do a great job of getting their message across there did they...
I voted Yes in that referendum. I don't think AV is a very good system but I thought at least it might open the gate to a more extensive reform of UK constitutional government.
There are many ways we could re-organise the electoral system and the houses of Parliament, and we can take examples and ideas from many countries. For example, the Japanese system involves FPTP constituencies plus a proportional allocation of seats.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
I'd happy if alternate voting came to america. It won't under our current system. Just something to remember for after the revolution.
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
Techpriestsupport wrote:I'd happy if alternate voting came to america. It won't under our current system. Just something to remember for after the revolution.
Can always come back and join the empire.
You will have to start spelling donut like doughnut however.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
welshhoppo wrote:Techpriestsupport wrote:I'd happy if alternate voting came to america. It won't under our current system. Just something to remember for after the revolution.
Can always come back and join the empire.
You will have to start spelling donut like doughnut however.
Sorry, but there will be a nice day in hell before I accept an government with a hereditary monarchy.
46587
Post by: Darkjim
Impact report released, more or less -
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf
Check out section 23, to find out what impact Brexit may have on your local area.
Annex A is a lot of fun too. Best impact = not very much, worst impact = Mad Max.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
We had better hope that all the extra sovereignty is nourishing.
46587
Post by: Darkjim
And that there are a lot of calories in a blue passport.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Kilkrazy wrote:We had better hope that all the extra sovereignty is nourishing.
If not you could always consider eating known brexit supporters. I'm keeping an eye on some known trump voters for when things tank in America.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I dug up my old blue passport from my cellar last week. It was issued in 1989 and expired in 2001 after an emergency two-year extension.
It's a bit mouldy but I think I can simmer it in a rough cider stock and dress it with shredded Wensleydale, and it will come out quite nice.
The plus is that it is in a leather jacket which will add some good protein. There's no point keeping the jacket because ICAA compliant passports are a different size.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Kilkrazy wrote:I dug up my old blue passport from my cellar last week. It was issued in 1989 and expired in 2001 after an emergency two-year extension.
It's a bit mouldy but I think I can simmer it in a rough cider stock and dress it with shredded Wensleydale, and it will come out quite nice.
The plus is that it is in a leather jacket which will add some good protein. There's no point keeping the jacket because ICAA compliant passports are a different size.
Better idea: use it to bait a trap for a brexit supporter who thinks blue passports are such a big deal. Once you're done eating him you can use the passport as bait for the next one.
46587
Post by: Darkjim
That does sound nice.
I've got a bloke down the road with a Union Jack on a flagpole in his front garden, I'm going to eat him, and any pets he might have.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
 Darkjim wrote:That does sound nice.
I've got a bloke down the road with a Union Jack on a flagpole in his front garden, I'm going to eat him, and any pets he might have.
Aaaauuuuugggghhhh! You'd eat a dog or cat? What kind of monster are you?!?! Eating a person stupid enough to vote for a policy or leader who created an utter disaster is one thing, they did something to deserve it. Plus you're helping reduce the moron population a little. But to murder and eat their innocent dog or cat is just barbaric.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 kronk wrote:
15 million British Pound Moneys wouldn't pave a city block. In the grand scheme of government spending, it's a meaningless spend.
And thats why you have waste anywhere - because people think X amount does not matter.
109406
Post by: Kroem
Thanks for sharing, that makes for some quite interesting reading.
It seems that even an FTA scenario (which seems to be what we are heading for) would have a major negative impact from the bits that I read.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Depends how restrictive an FTA, but it's obvious that the best possible outside the EU deal is going to be worse in some ways than what we have got now. It can't fail to be, because what we have now is nearly 100% frictionless trade.
The really worrying thing about the report is that the best possible non-EU FTAs are likely to add so little to the economy. The Brexit message has always been that any losses from leaving the EU would be more than conpensated for by the huge gains to be had elsewhere.
Still and all and everything, a lot of people will simply see this as more Project Fear, and ignore it. Others will accept their impoverishment as the price of freedom.
For example, Rees-Mogg has said that the report doesn't count because it has been widely mocked [by Hard Brexiteers like him].
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Kroem wrote:
Thanks for sharing, that makes for some quite interesting reading.
It seems that even an FTA scenario (which seems to be what we are heading for) would have a major negative impact from the bits that I read.
A quick glance shows £90bn extra borrowing required by 2033/34 under a FTA agreement (which is the most likely scenario).
I think we should get another bus written up. Something along the lines of:-
"Brexit will cost us £1.7bn per week. Let's fund our NHS instead!"
5394
Post by: reds8n
hey look :
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/971735569549201408
David Davis lied , repeatedly, to both the public and Parliament.
.... sure any minute now he'll be asked to resign, forced to by a surge of loyal patriots eager to ensure that UK parliament remains blah blah etc etc
Above the 0: the benefits of Brexit
Below the 0: the costs of Brexit
.. shall we put this on a bus then ?
46587
Post by: Darkjim
PROJECT NEWS. FAKE FEAR. Or something.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I was watching BBC business news this morning, and they reported that the nations that make up TPP are in Chile ready to put pen to paper.
We're taking 14 trillion dollars worth of economic benefits here. 
And to that I say set sail for the Asia Pacific region.
The EU reminds me of a friendly and reliable corner shop. There for you when you need a pint of milk and a loaf of bread on a winter's morning, but limiting on what you can buy.
Asia Pacific on the other hand is like the brand new supermarket that's just opened on the edge of town.
Yeah, there's the small matter of Geography, but Canada, Mexico and the USA are just across the Atlantic, and the rest can be easily reached through the Panama Canal.
People will say that the bulk of our trade is with the EU, and they're right, but let's swap the corner shop for the supermarket and set sail for Asia Pacific.
Automatically Appended Next Post: reds8n wrote:hey look :
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/971735569549201408
David Davis lied , repeatedly, to both the public and Parliament.
.... sure any minute now he'll be asked to resign, forced to by a surge of loyal patriots eager to ensure that UK parliament remains blah blah etc etc
Above the 0: the benefits of Brexit
Below the 0: the costs of Brexit
.. shall we put this on a bus then ?
No disrespect intended reds8n, but that looks like it was cobbled together by a high school geography student.
It looks nothing like the professional standards that a government agency would produce be it EU or UK.
Doesn't seem right to me. I could be wrong.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect intended reds8n, but that looks like it was cobbled together by a high school geography student. It looks nothing like the professional standards that a government agency would produce be it EU or UK. Doesn't seem right to me. I could be wrong.
Section 18. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf This is why people don't take your opinion seriously when it comes to this topic. You would rather believe in some undefined conspiracy than the fact that Brexit is bad.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect intended reds8n, but that looks like it was cobbled together by a high school geography student.
It looks nothing like the professional standards that a government agency would produce be it EU or UK.
Doesn't seem right to me. I could be wrong.
Good grief, did you even bother to check the original link and where it came from...
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf
Does www.parliament. uk indicate at all where the report might have come from...
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Bah!
If my tax money is paying for this stuff, the least they can do is make it look modern and not like something from 1970s East Germany. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey, this is DINLT you're talking to When did I ever bother with facts and figures?
I jest of course.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I was watching BBC business news this morning, and they reported that the nations that make up TPP are in Chile ready to put pen to paper.
We're taking 14 trillion dollars worth of economic benefits here.
The total value of the market within the TPP group is $14trillion dollars. That includes all trade that is already happening anyway. That's not the benefits which is much lower (though hopefully for those involved at least something) because a lot of that trade is already happening. There is a distinct difference. We already have access to some of that market through the EU free trade anyway (e.g. Japan) and to the others through non free trade agreements. You are mis-attributing benefits vs total value of the market.
Yeah, there's the small matter of Geography, but Canada, Mexico and the USA are just across the Atlantic, and the rest can be easily reached through the Panama Canal.
I guess you have looked at too many flat world maps because the Panama Canal is on the equator. You are talking vast distances here.
Interesting piece on the Guardian about UK tax fraud and our inability to deal with it. The EU is taking us to court over this.
The EU executive has said the UK owes €2.7bn (£2.4bn) to Brussels for alleged failure to tackle customs fraud, as it launched legal action against the government.
While the case is unrelated to Brexit, the threat of a hefty payment to Brussels is bound to raise tensions as the UK and EU debate customs arrangements to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The European commission announced it was sending a letter of formal notice to the government over its refusal “to make customs duties available to the EU budget as required by EU law”. Citing a confidential report by the EU’s anti-fraud office Olaf, the commission said the UK “negligence” had allowed customs fraud that caused a €2.7bn loss to the EU budget. “The UK must assume the financial consequences of its violations of union rules,” the commission said.
A government spokesman said it would respond in due course to the commission, but did not recognise the estimates of alleged duty loss.
The case came to light last year, after EU anti-fraud investigators, accused British customs officials of turning a blind eye to criminal gangs using fake invoices and making false claims about the value of clothes and shoes imported from China. France, Germany, Spain and Italy lost a combined €3.2bn from 2013 to 2016 in VAT revenues, as a result of British failures in handling imports at its ports, according to Olaf.
A letter of formal notice is the first stage in the EU’s legal process against rule-breaking. It could lead to the government being taken to the European court of justice, although most cases are settled without going to a judge.
The British government has agreed that any cases registered at the ECJ on Brexit day, should be allowed to continue to a binding ruling. But the UK wants to ensure British lawyers can continue to be involved, a point that needs to be settled in ongoing Brexit negotiations.
The case helps to explain why EU diplomats mistrust British proposals for an unprecedented customs arrangements that would see the UK collecting EU customs duties on the Irish border. One EU diplomat described the UK as “the weak link in the chain” on customs controls, while a senior French official last year accused the government of not making an effort to stop fraud.
Makes you wonder whether things like this don't help our case when May talks about trying to have an open borders agreement. If the UK can't manage things now how can we expect to when things get worse with Wrexit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bah!
If my tax money is paying for this stuff, the least they can do is make it look modern and not like something from 1970s East Germany.
This is a scan of a print out of a power point presentation I think. It was designed for a projector so the colours are made more bold as they have a habit of washing out more subtle displays.
This is also probably after Davis the Dunce decided to drop as much coffee, tea, and other unmentionables all over it to stop people realising just how big of a lie he put forward to parliament and the public.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
@whirlwind.
If faced with the choice of staying with the EU and its 500 million people or the booming markets of Asia/Pacific with 2 billion+ people to tap into, then give me TPP any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
As I've said before, I've sold a ton of miniature war gaming stuff to Australia over the years, so I'm already halfway there.
Common sense also tells me that the USA should be out natural trading partner, what with the ease of a common language and cultural similarities and all that.
Where is our trade deal with the USA? Oh, we don't have one, because the EU doesn't have one with the USA
We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs here.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Please don't take this too personal, DINLT, but your grand strategies about leaving Europe behind and setting sail for the Asian markets literally sounds like you're in the mindest of an Anno 1702 computer game, where the player can easily switch out the AI players he does trade with and go for the most profitable routes.
While the real world is more like Anno 1702, but it's a free-for-all with a few dozen players, who play it COMPETITIVELY and have played it for years, who have already formed alliances and are just waiting to exploit the smaller players whevere the opportunity arises.
It's. not. that. simple. But we had that topic of trade outside of the EU with Asian markets in this thread already, with more business-savvy people than myself pointing out the problems with it, so I'm not going to try and repeat those arguments.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@whirlwind.
If faced with the choice of staying with the EU and its 500 million people or the booming markets of Asia/Pacific with 2 billion+ people to tap into, then give me TPP any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
As I've said before, I've sold a ton of miniature war gaming stuff to Australia over the years, so I'm already halfway there.
Common sense also tells me that the USA should be out natural trading partner, what with the ease of a common language and cultural similarities and all that.
Where is our trade deal with the USA? Oh, we don't have one, because the EU doesn't have one with the USA
We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs here.
2 billion people is fine, but not when the vast majority of them don't have 2 pence to rub together. It's the value of the market that is important.
Miniatures are easier to transport because they are small and dense but they are never going to set the world on fire and is just a bit part of the economy (and lets not forget that the miniatures market is messed up anyway in Australia with the insane prices they have from a certain company). However this doesn't work when you talk about large bulky items that you can only relatively transport in a small numbers. In those cases it is always more cost effective not to manufacture the parts near where the raw resources are (energy, metals etc) ship them to a destination near to where they are being sold and then build them there (e.g. our car manufacturing). Shipping bulky items across a *globe* is not efficient because the world is not flat as maps suggest - those types of maps make us look much closer to such countries than we really are. Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:Please don't take this too personal, DINLT, but your grand strategies about leaving Europe behind and setting sail for the Asian markets literally sounds like you're in the mindest of an Anno 1702 computer game, where the player can easily switch out the AI players he does trade with and go for the most profitable routes.
While the real world is more like Anno 1702, but it's a free-for-all with a few dozen players, who play it COMPETITIVELY and have played it for years, who have already formed alliances and are just waiting to exploit the smaller players whevere the opportunity arises.
It's. not. that. simple. But we had that topic of trade outside of the EU with Asian markets in this thread already, with more business-savvy people than myself pointing out the problems with it, so I'm not going to try and repeat those arguments.
I think he might be working on the principle that Transmat technology is just at around the corner... Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@whirlwind.
Common sense also tells me that the USA should be out natural trading partner, what with the ease of a common language and cultural similarities and all that.
Where is our trade deal with the USA? Oh, we don't have one, because the EU doesn't have one with the USA
We're operating with one hand tied behind our backs here.
And how is that actually working out?
We have huge steel and Aluminium barriers about to be put in place.
Huge rumoured car tariffs to be put in place
Worse access for airline carriers than we already have.
If nothing more it should show that being small and insignificant relatively is going to leave us with a lot worse deals. It's why the person who shall not be named doesn't like the EU. Not because of the nonsense he spouts it is because more than anything he is a business person that wants to flatten any sort of competition.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Contrary to popular belief, I love Europe: the people, the culture, the history, the food.
But as a trading partner, it's yesterday's news.
A blind man can see that the centre of gravity is shifting from Europe to Asia. We had our day in the sun, and now somebody else is taking up the mantle.
Civilizations rise, civilizations fall...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:Please don't take this too personal, DINLT, but your grand strategies about leaving Europe behind and setting sail for the Asian markets literally sounds like you're in the mindest of an Anno 1702 computer game, where the player can easily switch out the AI players he does trade with and go for the most profitable routes.
While the real world is more like Anno 1702, but it's a free-for-all with a few dozen players, who play it COMPETITIVELY and have played it for years, who have already formed alliances and are just waiting to exploit the smaller players whevere the opportunity arises.
It's. not. that. simple. But we had that topic of trade outside of the EU with Asian markets in this thread already, with more business-savvy people than myself pointing out the problems with it, so I'm not going to try and repeat those arguments.
I don't mind being criticised - it's good, honest, healthy debate - the backbone of our Western Democracy.
To me, Germany will always be the nation of Goethe and Heinrich Heine.
38077
Post by: jouso
Tusk takes a hard line re: Ireland border.
EU freezes Brexit talks until Britain produces Irish border solution
Donald Tusk says negotiations will be 'Ireland first' from now on
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-talks-irish-border-tusk-varadkar-northern-ireland-uk-solution-dup-a8246216.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Europe's time is a long way from being up. It'll last longer than us.
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Herzlos wrote:
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Sovereignty, herzlos - sovereignty! duh!
This is dinlt you are talking to don't forget. Don't ever expect him to read past the sensationalist headlines. Or offer anything of substance in his arguments bar bluster, chest thumping and Har-haring. Remember, after all this is the guy who spouted:
'Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...'
He has no answers. And he is blInd to it. And proud of that blindness.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Deadnight wrote:Herzlos wrote:
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Sovereignty, herzlos - sovereignty! duh!
This is dinlt you are talking to don't forget. Don't ever expect him to read past the sensationalist headlines. Or offer anything of substance in his arguments bar bluster, chest thumping and Har-haring. Remember, after all this is the guy who spouted:
'Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...'
He has no answers. And he is blInd to it. And proud of that blindness.
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Herzlos wrote:Europe's time is a long way from being up. It'll last longer than us.
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Finance and services would be a good start. I'm led to believe that we're a global leader in that.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
The irony being that the UK government is doing everything it can to make it more difficult to get out of the EU properly. Quicksand maybe, but if it is then the UK dove into it head first.
Its like a runner saying the race is unfair after kneecapping themselves.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
I'm Irish. We've had eight hundred years of your 'sovereignty' and 'freedom, liberty and rule of law'. You're talking rubbish.
Oh, and for the record - How dare you.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Deadnight wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
I'm Irish. We've had eight hundred years of your 'sovereignty' and 'freedom, liberty and rule of law'. Go ram it.
How dare you.
I can only imagine the Mod reaction if I posted something this...
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Deadnight wrote:Herzlos wrote:
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Sovereignty, herzlos - sovereignty! duh!
This is dinlt you are talking to don't forget. Don't ever expect him to read past the sensationalist headlines. Or offer anything of substance in his arguments bar bluster, chest thumping and Har-haring. Remember, after all this is the guy who spouted:
'Probably because people were rightly focused on the important stuff: liberty, sovereignty, border control etc etc
Open skies agreements, trade deals, business concerns etc etc are neither here nor there, because a gilded cage is still a prison...'
He has no answers. And he is blInd to it. And proud of that blindness.
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:Europe's time is a long way from being up. It'll last longer than us.
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Finance and services would be a good start. I'm led to believe that we're a global leader in that.
The West was build on slavery, conquest and oppression. That we've been kicked out of most of our empire is testament to that.
Plus if Brexit has any impact of sovereignty and self determination it'll be weakening it. We're a global society so it's in our own interest to get along with our neighbours.
I'm also not sure the far East is waiting to use our banking and services; we're outsourcing a lot of service work to India and China anyway. They also aren't interested in most of our goods. Our education, Sure, but China will overtake us there eventually too
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Deadnight wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
I'm Irish. We've had eight hundred years of your 'sovereignty' and 'freedom, liberty and rule of law'. Go ram it.
How dare you.
I can only imagine the Mod reaction if I posted something this...
The eu was also built on the eec which was ultimately built on a foundation of two world wars and a century of everyone being obsessed with nationalism and 'sovereignty' - especially the sovereignty they could take from everyone else (which is as much what the west was built on than anything else's - spare me the paper thin charicature of your ideals - we both know the reality of our history). In other words, petty nationalism and each nation only giving a damn about itself led to two world wars, and it was a bad idea, and probably for the best something not to repeat.
The eu is not the enemy. Your island mentality is. You talk of everyone being Somalia without sovereignty. It's the other way around. Somalia is the way it is because everyone thinks their tribe is most important, is the only one that counts, that they'll be find going it alone and laughs at the idea of working together for a better future, because the idea of coming together to be a part of something bigger and collectively better than 'your tribe' is somehow a bad idea.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
Prior to the eu, we had about eight hundred odd years odd of this from England/U.K., so don't dare come and tell me that the eu is somehow this big bogeyman and without it things are better. Because at the end of the day, you had a seat at the table in the eu. Something you rarely gave your colonies with all your all important 'sovereignty'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:
The West was build on slavery, conquest and oppression. That we've been kicked out of most of our empire is testament to that.
Plus if Brexit has any impact of sovereignty and self determination it'll be weakening it. We're a global society so it's in our own interest to get along with our neighbours.
A part of me wonders if a lot of this is the echo of empire. We've neve been a coloniser. We're a small nation. Not an incredibly rich one either. Because of our history, and how we have been preyed on by stronger neighbours, I wonder if Ireland's general (and historical ) enthusiasm towards the eu is partly due to an understanding that it's better for smaller generally weaker countries to stand together as a bloc, and collectively it lets us play in the big leagues. Otherwise we are prey. I think this is a sentiment generally partially echoed in a lot of the states (thinking Poland and eastern Europe mainly, but to be fair, plenty countries in the west like Spain Portugal, Italy etc can't really be called rich or powerful either -Not like the us) that are a part of the eu and this goes back to the eec' forefathers - benelux.
When I look at the uk, I see a country that still remembers its empire, and is largely quite happy to go into a union, but from my perspective only to command, and never, or only grudgingly to share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43333274
Interesting times. Northern Ireland is back on the agenda.
38077
Post by: jouso
According to Tusk and Varadkar Northern Ireland IS the agenda.
Nothing moves until the border (or lack thereof) is resolved.
92104
Post by: r_squared
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:.....The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
Honestly, you don't half talk some gak sometimes.
Actually what you're seeing is evidence of the complexity of the real world, not fantasy "just walk away" BS. Only the financially secure have little to fear from this scenario, which is why the wealthy elites like Mogg, Boris and their ilk are able to spout total bollocks. If you truly were for the people of Britain, then you would be telling that bunch of elitist establishment arseholes to stuff their fantasies up their well padded arse.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:Europe's time is a long way from being up. It'll last longer than us.
On Asia; what do you propose we sell them? What do we buy at a better tariff?
Finance and services would be a good start. I'm led to believe that we're a global leader in that.
...and that is due for the greater part because of our membership of the EU. Once we're out, the value of those services is likely to be much less. Automatically Appended Next Post: jouso wrote:
According to Tusk and Varadkar Northern Ireland IS the agenda.
Nothing moves until the border (or lack thereof) is resolved.
I can see the response from the tabloid press already, but tbf, Ireland is an EU member, and the EU is doing it's job negotiating in their interests.
I'm struggling to see how the UK Govt is going to deal with this after making themselves beholden to the DUP.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
That's why they keep putting it off and why the eu are forcing the issue
101511
Post by: Future War Cultist
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Deadnight wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The West was built on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and the sovereignty that you mock. Nothing else is of consequence if you don't have that foundation in place. You end up like Somalia without them.
All I see from the EU is a modern day court of Louis XIV - locking people in with expected norms and behaviours.
The modern version of this is lock people and nations in in with trade protocols, regulatory protocols, a fiscal union, and when the strait jacket is in place, spring a political union on them.
I've read the history of the EU, I've seen the quotes from past EU heavyweights. This was always their end game. A blind man can see it.
That Britain is having difficulty extracting itself from this quicksand, is proof enough for me.
I'm Irish. We've had eight hundred years of your 'sovereignty' and 'freedom, liberty and rule of law'. Go ram it.
How dare you.
I can only imagine the Mod reaction if I posted something this...
Well I’ve notified them of it, including by PM.
47598
Post by: motyak
Stick to the topic, if you hit the triangle goodo but don't keep on about it in thread that isn't useful.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
I apologise, but I found dinlt's post horrendously offensive and inconsiderate, let alone inaccurate. Regardless, post has been edited FWC.
jouso wrote:
According to Tusk and Varadkar Northern Ireland IS the agenda.
Nothing moves until the border (or lack thereof) is resolved.
It's an interesting development though. I think most of us here will agree that this is a hugely contentious issue with regard to brexit. The gfa cannot be left to fail. In my mind, this is more important. It's one issue than cannot be thrown under the bus.
They attempted to kick it into the long grass and deal with it later; now we're being told nothing moves until this is sorted. Proper hard ball moment from the eu.
The question is though, what will the response be? What can the response be? Northern Ireland voted to stay by a large margin. May is being propped more up by the dup who are holding her to leave at all costs. where can there be any give? The image that comes to mind is Blake Bortles down to his last throw against the patriots at the NFL play offs - hands on head, head shaking, no play to make. He just knew he was out of options other than a Hail Mary.
100848
Post by: tneva82
You mean the area that is already losing jobs as banks are moving to EU in preparation since UK will be losing their banking passport to EU?
46587
Post by: Darkjim
Well, if nothing else, today marks the retirement of the phrase 'Brexit dividend'. Except in the negative sense, such as -
there is no such thing as the Brexit dividend
or
there never was any such thing as the Brexit dividend
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
It'd be much the same as their reaction each time I post at all. But I have to admit, I did exalt his post.
I hate to suggest this here, but, what's to stop the UK from pulling back from Brexit and saying 'let's stay in until we figure this out'?
34390
Post by: whembly
 BaronIveagh wrote:
It'd be much the same as their reaction each time I post at all. But I have to admit, I did exalt his post.
I hate to suggest this here, but, what's to stop the UK from pulling back from Brexit and saying 'let's stay in until we figure this out'?
Whether or not May calls for a new election?
5470
Post by: sebster
BaronIveagh wrote:I hate to suggest this here, but, what's to stop the UK from pulling back from Brexit and saying 'let's stay in until we figure this out'?
The referendum isn't binding, so legally there's nothing that is making the government continue negotiations. They could just say 'screw it, we'll stay in the EU' if they wanted.
But backing out now would make Britain even less stable, and for a country with large finance and insurance sector that's major advantage is its international connectedness and stability, adding in even more instability could be pretty close to fatal. And the referendum was put up by a Conservative government, if a Conservative government was to suddenly turn its back on the result of that poll they'd be slaughtered in the election.
92104
Post by: r_squared
 sebster wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:I hate to suggest this here, but, what's to stop the UK from pulling back from Brexit and saying 'let's stay in until we figure this out'?
The referendum isn't binding, so legally there's nothing that is making the government continue negotiations. They could just say 'screw it, we'll stay in the EU' if they wanted.
But backing out now would make Britain even less stable, and for a country with large finance and insurance sector that's major advantage is its international connectedness and stability, adding in even more instability could be pretty close to fatal. And the referendum was put up by a Conservative government, if a Conservative government was to suddenly turn its back on the result of that poll they'd be slaughtered in the election.
Which is one of the reasons we're stuck with it, for conservative party unity. But now we've invoked article 50, it's not even guaranteed that we could stop it without agreement from the EU. I imagine if we were to change our minds, the rebate would be gone as part of the agreement for us to remain, at the very least.
Basically, the conservatives have made a total pigs ear of this whole thing, I imagine that they are going to get a good kicking at the next election when the effects of their gross mismanagement of the country are really starting to be felt.
100848
Post by: tneva82
sebster wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:I hate to suggest this here, but, what's to stop the UK from pulling back from Brexit and saying 'let's stay in until we figure this out'?
The referendum isn't binding, so legally there's nothing that is making the government continue negotiations. They could just say 'screw it, we'll stay in the EU' if they wanted.
But backing out now would make Britain even less stable, and for a country with large finance and insurance sector that's major advantage is its international connectedness and stability, adding in even more instability could be pretty close to fatal. And the referendum was put up by a Conservative government, if a Conservative government was to suddenly turn its back on the result of that poll they'd be slaughtered in the election.
And how happy you would think EU would be for UK wasting EU's money like that? 2 year time limit was invented for a reason.
Even if they stay UK's standing would drop to bottom anyway. Why put much weight on opinions of a member who's hardly stable member and has history of wasting EU's time and money.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
We should not ignore the degree to which Brexit is bad news for the rest of the EU.
If the decision was reversed now,a lot of the EU would be happy for the EU not to leave.
38077
Post by: jouso
Kilkrazy wrote:We should not ignore the degree to which Brexit is bad news for the rest of the EU.
If the decision was reversed now,a lot of the EU would be happy for the EU not to leave.
Everyone would be relieved if May backtracked.
The status of the UK as a major European political reference and its standing within the EU has been irreversibly damaged, though.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Yeah I think it's a pretty safe bet the eu would let us stay in as-is. They may ask us to reimburse the money wasted though.
If we leave and re-join then we'll lose all our opt outs.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't think the EU would ask to be re-imbursed the money "wasted".
Such a demand would put a big lot more lead into the Brexiteer pencil and be completely counterproductive in regards to getting the UK back in.
However I think it is very unlikely the UK will reverse course. I think it is far more likely the UK will re-apply in 10-15 years, and get back in with a much worse deal than we have now.
109406
Post by: Kroem
It will be interesting to see how the new blood coming into politics affects the EU negotiating position, the new parties in Italy seem much less inclined to inflict some sort of punishment on England for leaving.
I remember people postulating that leaders in Europe would want to inflict a harsh Brexit on us to subdue Euroscepticism in their own countries, but if European leaders start becoming Eurosceptic themselves that completely flips that equation!
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
Kroem wrote:It will be interesting to see how the new blood coming into politics affects the EU negotiating position, the new parties in Italy seem much less inclined to inflict some sort of punishment on England for leaving.
I remember people postulating that leaders in Europe would want to inflict a harsh Brexit on us to subdue Euroscepticism in their own countries, but if European leaders start becoming Eurosceptic themselves that completely flips that equation!
Or more cynically (and likely) eurosceptic parties will want a harsh Brexit to point out how bad the EU is (as there is no country with a leave sentiment big enough as of yet besides the UK). Its exactly what Le Pen, Wilders and UKIP did in the EU, feth about and then point out and say "look how the EU feths about". Realtically Eurosceptics have nothing to gain by having the EU moderate its tone, how could they use that to bash the EU with?
Plus self interest, in the end money talks, Italy might have to pay the EU more if the EU is less harsh.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well, the point of the UK Parliament's report is that if it comes true, it won't be the EU giving the UK a hard time as we will be getting it from world circumstances anyway.
In other words, the best deal the EU can possibly give us, short of EU membership, is going to leave us worse off than now.
If this is what happens, the Hard Brexiteers won't be in any place to blame the EU for the fallout.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
The Brexiteer's Guide to trade deal negotiating.
1. Drop Trou
2. Bend over
3. Grab your ankles
4. Hope for the best.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Damian Hinds to cut workload to tackle teacher shortage
It is refreshing to see a government minister admit they have got it wrong and promise meaningful changes.to address the situation.
I am very sick of hearing a news report in which the government is blamed for underfunding the NHS or similar, and "a government spokesperson" rebuts it with a specious bit of crap like "the NHS is treating more patients that at any time in history."
It's is very dangerous, because when I hear that kind of bollocks I can't help major eye-rolling and I get a lot of my news from Radio 4 while driving to work and back.
To get back to Damian Hinds, let's see if what he has promised is going to come about in reality.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Most workload problems in teaching come from senior staff in individual schools trying to meet targets and Ofsted demands. It’s going to need some sort of culture change, because the government doesn’t dictate workloads directly, it’s the people running schools. Saying that ‘mocksteds’ put too much pressure on staff is good, but the government don’t tell schools to do them. Senior staff in schools choose to do them. And as long as they are trying to look after their jobs and it’s within their power to do them, mocksteds will continue. The constant demands for data will continue because senior staff want them, ours go beyond what the government require for example. Every school I’ve been at is the same. There’s plenty of research showing marking kids’ books doesn’t improve results, but to ‘show progress’ every school I’ve been at demands teachers mark books, which is vastly time consuming for anyone doing a lot of lessons.
Academisation is partly a problem because some schools use their autonomy to take the piss with demands heaped on staff, and unions are in a weakened position to fight back. Parents are very demanding and senior staff appease them at the expense of the workload their staff already carry. The behaviour of senior staff in some free schools I’ve known of is disgusting, a shocking workload placed on their staff and a culture of bullying. Cuts to schools mean they run on the minimum number of staff, meaning everyone has more work and lessons to do. Teacher retention is a serious problem because younger teachers are the ones teaching the most lessons, they are the bread and butter of schools yet these are the ones being driven out by workloads and badly run schools, especially for schools and academy chains.
101511
Post by: Future War Cultist
A list of things we can do after Brexit. It’s the VAT and Flight Duty opportunities that interest me the most. We have exemptions but the Commission is always trying to close them down. They have to find ways to keep funding those perks of theirs. Also, Mrs Fish could actually bring in her minimum pricing for alcohol without the ECJ bitching about it, in addition to control of Scottish waters. This is why I backed it. To have the ability to actually run our internal affairs without being blocked by the Byzantine EU machine.
59456
Post by: Riquende
Seriously? One of the big benefits of Brexit is going to be a return to duty free shopping? Filling up your boot with cheap cigarettes & vodka at the ferry terminal is well worth the price of everyone being generally poorer and not being able to just afford those luxuries normally.
Since before the referendum, I've been saying I'm yet to see a single worthwhile reason for leaving. Still holds true.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There will be a seriously embarrassing decline of duty free shopping when people find out they can't fly/drive back from Spain/France/Italy with as much fags and booze as they like, and have to pay Customs on entry to the UK.
Still, it does sound good that we won't have to worry about the Commission doing something it hasn't managed to do in the last 45 years. Well worth an 8% decline in GDP, IMO.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://qz.com/642811/the-eu-will-finally-allow-member-states-to-scrap-their-tampon-tax/
European Union member states will now be able to choose whether they want to subject women to a tax on their tampons and sanitary pads.
Spurred by the UK, the EU voted on Mar. 17 to allow member states to have more flexibility on reducing the value added tax (VAT) on goods—with a special provision to get rid of the VAT on sanitary products, nicknamed the “tampon tax” when applied to female hygiene products.
EU member states apply a VAT of between 17% to 25% (pdf, p.3) to most goods, with a reduced VAT for items considered “necessary,” such as medicines and, in certain states (including the UK), sanitary products. Until now, the UK and any other state willing to give female hygiene products (along with other sanitary products) an exemption on VAT had to get the EU’s permission in order to do so. When it’s passed into law, however, this week’s resolution—unanimously adopted by 28 country leaders—will allow member states to have more flexibility on imposing reduced VAT on goods, with a specific provision allowing for zero tax “on option for sanitary products.”
from March 2016.
AS for the Scottish stuff ..well...
Scotland under the current proposals, will in fact lose power , with a lot of it being devolved back to London :
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/972045498839392261
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frameworks-analysis
TLDR : Scotland loses what control it does have , Fisheries is one of the 24 "common framework" powers being re-centralised in London.
..Think you might find Scotland was rather keen on remaining in the EU anyway.
Sturgeon is for sure.
The nationalisation thing...
.. hmm.. yeah, that could be an issue.
It really depends upon how it's done :
http://brexitcentral.com/labour-unable-nationalise-rail-new-eu-rules/
"Under the new rules, it will be technically possible to have a state monopoly on rail, if rail franchises are subject to competition and state-controlled bodies manage to win every contract.
but :
But under this system, the government could comply with the new legislation but be caught out by EU state aid rules, which happened to the French government when it tried to maintain a state monopoly on rail. In order to comply with the 4th Railway Package the French split up their state-owned railway SNCF into separate entities, SNCF Mobilités (operations and trains) and SNCF Réseau (infrastructure manager), both of which were wholly owned by the state railway SNCF (EPIC). But the plan failed to comply with EU rules on state aid and a recent ECJ judgement found similar structures in France were not compliant. Subsequently, a review commissioned by the French government recommended that both companies (Mobilités and Réseau) should be privatised.
.. but does anyone seriously think we'd be able to actually (re)nationalise the whole thing anyway ?
... I certainly don't think the current Govt not the majority of pro-brexit people would even consider that.
as for the animal exports
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-26/debates/39AF207E-7235-4D57-8723-54F6F87CC17B/LeavingTheEULiveFarmAnimalExports
It is also somewhat disingenuous to suggest that such a ban on live exports was always on the Government’s wish list and that it just was not possible to achieve until we left the EU. Ministers who argued during the EU referendum campaign that we would get a live exports ban once we left the EU are members of a party and a Government who in 2012 were instrumental in stopping action at EU level—I think it was being led by Germany—that would have limited the journey time for live animals to below eight hours. In most cases that would have been tantamount to a ban on live exports from the UK. However, the UK went along to those discussions and argued against attempts to limit the hours.
I have raised this issue in a number of debates, including the recent debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it seems to me to be representative of the verbal and policy gymnastics that the Government have undertaken since the EU referendum, and nobody has come back to me and said that the UK did not take that stance. So let nobody be under the false illusion that we could not have taken significant action to limit —perhaps not ban, but limit—live transit times.
also
I conclude by talking about something the Minister needs to advise us on, and that is World Trade Organisation agreements. Colleagues will be aware that under WTO agreements countries cannot, under normal circumstances, discriminate between trading partners. The principle is known as most favoured nation treatment, and in practice it means that the UK could not allow for the live export of animals to the Republic of Ireland while excluding the rest of the EU. Therefore, it is wholly possible that a ban on live animal exports could contravene WTO rules—a view shared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, among others. Any WTO member can challenge another member on its trade policy, which could then be ruled as breaching the organisation’s rules.
However, as a member of the EU, the UK is already party to several trade bans that have never been challenged at the WTO, including the import ban on cosmetics tested on animals and the ban on fur produced from cats and dogs. When the Government consider their future options, they can look at the 2009 EU seal import ban as an example of how to pass the WTO test. I hope that the Minister can explain how he feels we will pass that test if we introduce at least a partial ban on exports.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42340677
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Kilkrazy wrote:There will be a seriously embarrassing decline of duty free shopping when people find out they can't fly/drive back from Spain/France/Italy with as much fags and booze as they like, and have to pay Customs on entry to the UK. Still, it does sound good that we won't have to worry about the Commission doing something it hasn't managed to do in the last 45 years. Well worth an 8% decline in GDP, IMO.
Also, that article highlights the tampon tax as an example of where we'll have new powers to make changes. Even though the EU is well aware of this issue as it was raised with them before the referendum by David Cameron and were working on a solution which gave member states more leeway in setting VAT rates. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35834142
65463
Post by: Herzlos
Sums Brexit up pretty well though; taking back control to do what we could have done anyway.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Chancellor Philip Hammond refuses to confirm that Brexit is "worth it".
A second referendum on Brexit is a legal requirement...
Allegedly, under a 2011 law which the government is trying to scrap ASAP, but campaigners are working to prevent them doing it.
Truly Brexit Britain is the clown car that keeps on rolling however many parts fall off or catch fire.
101438
Post by: GoatboyBeta
Kilkrazy wrote:
Truly Brexit Britain is the clown car that keeps on rolling however many parts fall off or catch fire.
And if we were not all locked in said clown cars boot it would be hilarious
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Can’t remember if I’ve said it before....
But has anyone else noted that the Arch Brexiteers are still, even at this late hour, continuing to simply make promises they’ve no idea they can actually keep? As if they’re trying to convince themselves that it’s actually a good idea?
65463
Post by: Herzlos
I think the plan is to blame the eu for everything when it goes wrong, do they may as well try to keep their voters happy in an attempt to get re-elected.
38077
Post by: jouso
Herzlos wrote:I think the plan is to blame the eu for everything when it goes wrong, do they may as well try to keep their voters happy in an attempt to get re-elected.
They can blame the US, too.
The UK will have to “concede everything” to get a trade deal with Donald Trump’s America, US policy experts have warned MPs.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-must-concede-everything-for-us-trade-deal-1-4703683
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
And in all fairness America deserves to be blamed for a lot.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Irrelevant to the thread, though.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Not necessarily. Even if England suffers as a side effect of Brexit in trade with the U. S. the political spin in it could be 'blame America' which would be British politics.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/25m-for-5g-projects-on-the-anniversary-of-the-uks-digital-strategy
tucked away in there...
The Strategy also reflects the Government’s ambition to make the internet safer for children by requiring age verification for access to commercial pornographic websites in the UK. In February, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) was formally designated as the age verification regulator.
Our priority is to make the internet safer for children and we believe this is best achieved by taking time to get the implementation of the policy right. We will therefore allow time for the BBFC as regulator to undertake a public consultation on its draft guidance which will be launched later this month.
For the public and the industry to prepare for and comply with age verification, the Government will also ensure a period of up to three months after the BBFC guidance has been cleared by Parliament before the law comes into force. It is anticipated age verification will be enforceable by the end of the year.
If you recall this was supposed to roll out next month
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-shut-down-porn-6168615
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-porn-crackdown-could-7380745
bodes well for all those hi-tech border controls and the like eh ?
or the registration of 3 million odd EU citizens.
Inside 12 months.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-must-concede-everything-for-us-trade-deal-1-4703683
The UK will have to “concede everything” to get a trade deal with Donald Trump’s America, US policy experts have warned MPs. Taking evidence in Washington this week, MPs on the Commons defence committee were told that Britain was in a weak position and would be used as a “guinea pig” for a “harsh” new US trade policy. Concerns have also been raised across the Atlantic about the UK becoming a “little England” on defence if it is forced into further cuts to defence spending as a result of a post-Brexit downturn, putting its position as the America’s foremost military ally at risk. The warnings come in the week that President Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminium, hitting struggling British industries while sparing America’s “real friends”, Canada and Mexico.
US authorities also warned that vital aviation agreements with the UK could be downgraded after Brexit, while American business leaders demanded Britain give up EU protections for such as Scotch whisky and allow competition from cheaper foreign imitations. SNP MP Martin Docherty-Hughes, who sits on the committee, said: “We were told by senior advisers to the Trump administration that they have great respect for the UK, but if you can’t move a division to the front within 10 days, you aren’t really able to do very much.” He added: “We’re not even out of the EU yet and we’re being hit with trade tariffs, and we are afforded no protection by being in the so-called special relationship. “It’s whimsical, wishful thinking to believe that Brexit will lead either to greater trade or more investment in our military.”
Dr Tom Wright, director of the Centre on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the US had “maximum leverage” in any trade negotiation and would demand the UK open its market to American imports and adopt lower standards and regulations. “In these bilateral trade talks, the Trump administration’s policy is to see Britain in a relatively weak position and to try to maximise their advantage,” he told MPs.
“[President Trump] believes that the US ought to be in surplus with every country in the world… the British deal is a guinea pig for what they would want.” Dr Wright added: “When you add it all up, [US Trade] Secretary Ross is essentially saying, ‘The US will do a deal with the UK, you just basically need to concede everything.’”
On defence, MPs were told by former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Affairs Victoria Nuland that “if you end up with serious economic repercussions from Brexit, you may not be able to afford what you are currently spending, let alone the reinvestment that is required.” She added: “The hope is that out of all of this comes a greater Britain, not a little England, because we will be very lonely out there defending the planet if that is what happens.”
brilliant.
Whilst on Sunday Rees-Mogg said that the Brexit dividend should go to the NHS.
.. even though we've just established there isn't a brexit dividend and Brexit is hurting the NHS further.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Parliament paralysed as Brexit delays vital votes
The Times reports that the Government is getting business through Parliament at the slowest rate in recent history, because they don't have a commanding majority. Automatically Appended Next Post: Have voters changed their minds about Brexit?
TL/DR: Yes, but it's not that simple when you look at the details.
Generally, there now seems to be a 52:48 opinion against Brexit, but what actually would happen at a second referendum would be a shake-up based on lots of different things such as what questions were asked (and the weather, etc.)
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Not really. The nitty gritty of trade with the US quickly becomes mired in the politics of the US.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Just out of curiousity, do people in England feel better about their government given what's happened to America?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Please don't introduce US politics into the thread.
I'm as interested as you to discuss Trump, and gun control, and so on, but that whole area of topics is off limits because it just leads to terrible arguments.
63118
Post by: SeanDrake
So let me get this right.
Boris states "Russias smug response is a sign of their Guilt" everything is hunky dory.
If Corbyn suggests we should wait until samples are assessed by the OPCW as is required by our international treaties, and he's a putin apologist.
Sigh.
The tories took 10 years to do not much about the Linvinenko Pollonium poisoning.
Pretty much ignored the 14 murders inbetween.
And now, in less than 10 days has gone all tub-thumping shouty crackers?
What gives?
I think we all know what gives!
May wants her falklands moment, she also wants to get rid of Corbyn and hide the ongoing car crash of brexit, and the 40+ years of Tory chickens coming home to roost, and it has worked, for a day or so at least.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
SeanDrake wrote:So let me get this right.
Boris states "Russias smug response is a sign of their Guilt" everything is hunky dory.
If Corbyn suggests we should wait until samples are assessed by the OPCW as is required by our international treaties, and he's a putin apologist.
Sigh.
The tories took 10 years to do not much about the Linvinenko Pollonium poisoning.
Pretty much ignored the 14 murders inbetween.
And now, in less than 10 days has gone all tub-thumping shouty crackers?
What gives?
I think we all know what gives!
May wants her falklands moment, she also wants to get rid of Corbyn and hide the ongoing car crash of brexit, and the 40+ years of Tory chickens coming home to roost, and it has worked, for a day or so at least.
I agree that this is a diversion away from Wrexit. The problem May will have is that if she only throws out Russian 'diplomats' then that's a relatively weak response. The Tories do also have the problem that a broad attack on Russian assets might undermine their own income (why we ever think foreign donations to political parties is a good idea is beyond me). In the end she is unlikely to come out strong because of the limited options she has entangled herself with. She can't run off and invade Russia to annex what has been invaded. She's not even winning the propaganda war on the issue on social media because of Russian bots/accounts.
As for Corbyn his approach was wrong. Rather than allowing right wing media to portray him as supporting Russia. I agree that this information should be released as per international agreements. But I would go further and play a better game against May. Tell her to release the information to the world so anyone can access it (not the exact chemical make up of the nerve gas). Horrify the world in terms of what its effect does reinforcing that it could be any civilian. Turn the world against their own media machine and prove beyond doubt where it came from. That would have been a better response from Corbyn and meet both the correct idea that facts come first, but also making clear that you support your own civil service rather than allow it to be used as raising questions.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Yeah...I'm with Corbyn.
11029
Post by: Ketara
I'm not entirely sure what information beyond what it was, who dun it, and how far it spread (excluding the chemical formula), could be released that would somehow change/alter the situation in any substantial way.]
I mean, you could release the data from the heart monitor of the officer in hospital, or an additional statement from a chemical analyst saying, 'Yup, it's Novichok', but it wouldn't really add much. Neither would releasing the extensive police file where they walk around and ask for witness testimonies. 'I saw it officer, they fell right over! Looked really sick too!'
I mean, it's a basic chemical analysis. If you're not going to release the in depth details of your scientific diagnosis, and you've already attributed it, there's not much left beyond people echoing what you've already said, the basic detective legwork, and 'people' stories. Corbyn asking for the favourite flavour crisps of the critically ill spy to be released isn't going to do much for his image.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
SeanDrake wrote:So let me get this right.
Boris states "Russias smug response is a sign of their Guilt" everything is hunky dory.
If Corbyn suggests we should wait until samples are assessed by the OPCW as is required by our international treaties, and he's a putin apologist.
Sigh.
The tories took 10 years to do not much about the Linvinenko Pollonium poisoning.
Pretty much ignored the 14 murders inbetween.
And now, in less than 10 days has gone all tub-thumping shouty crackers?
What gives?
I think we all know what gives!
May wants her falklands moment, she also wants to get rid of Corbyn and hide the ongoing car crash of brexit, and the 40+ years of Tory chickens coming home to roost, and it has worked, for a day or so at least.
I don't doubt that there is some attempt from May to divert from the car crash of Brexit, but how many of those murders involved poisoning 21 other people and putting hundreds of others at risk. The UK could manage to ignore Russian behaviour when it was confined to murdering ex spy's and political dissidents. Not so much when it starts dragging in innocent bystanders.
The question to ask is why the Russians want the sample.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Yes. Thats crossing a line, when their assassination attempts start causing mass casualties.
We're too far gone now.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
They've even said that they know the exact plant the chemical was produced in. The only reason they want the sample is to put their usual brand of casting doubt on the situation. Look at how they handled the MH17 fiasco (spoiler, they mishandled it for months, before saying "yeah, we didn't do it. Must have been the Ukrainians").
As I've said in every other thread about the Russians being implicated for something, its like arguing the sky is blue. You could present them with a mountain of evidence, but they'll still come out with unsubstantiated claims either saying it wasn't them, or blaming someone else. If they hadn't committed this attack then they would have attended the meeting where they were asked to respond to the allegations. Instead they went on state media and: threatened the West with nuclear weapons, called Britain Nazis, and blamed: Britain for attacking itself, the CIA, Ukraine, and a few other smaller post-Soviet states.
To which the British government responded: "if you're going to treat us and International Law like its all a piece of dirt on your boot then we don't care about what your response is".
Meanwhile the French have come out as saying they're implementing sanctions on the Russians regardless of the 10 day waiting period, upon review, and saying it was the Russians regardless.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Whirlwind wrote:SeanDrake wrote:So let me get this right.
Boris states "Russias smug response is a sign of their Guilt" everything is hunky dory.
If Corbyn suggests we should wait until samples are assessed by the OPCW as is required by our international treaties, and he's a putin apologist.
Sigh.
The tories took 10 years to do not much about the Linvinenko Pollonium poisoning.
Pretty much ignored the 14 murders inbetween.
And now, in less than 10 days has gone all tub-thumping shouty crackers?
What gives?
I think we all know what gives!
May wants her falklands moment, she also wants to get rid of Corbyn and hide the ongoing car crash of brexit, and the 40+ years of Tory chickens coming home to roost, and it has worked, for a day or so at least.
I agree that this is a diversion away from Wrexit. The problem May will have is that if she only throws out Russian 'diplomats' then that's a relatively weak response. The Tories do also have the problem that a broad attack on Russian assets might undermine their own income (why we ever think foreign donations to political parties is a good idea is beyond me). In the end she is unlikely to come out strong because of the limited options she has entangled herself with. She can't run off and invade Russia to annex what has been invaded. She's not even winning the propaganda war on the issue on social media because of Russian bots/accounts.
As for Corbyn his approach was wrong. Rather than allowing right wing media to portray him as supporting Russia. I agree that this information should be released as per international agreements. But I would go further and play a better game against May. Tell her to release the information to the world so anyone can access it (not the exact chemical make up of the nerve gas). Horrify the world in terms of what its effect does reinforcing that it could be any civilian. Turn the world against their own media machine and prove beyond doubt where it came from. That would have been a better response from Corbyn and meet both the correct idea that facts come first, but also making clear that you support your own civil service rather than allow it to be used as raising questions.
You I and Corbyns mother can see his approach is wrong. His front bench has been doing its best to 'refine' his position. I dont think he is a traitor, I do think that this incident has exposed further shortcomings. Its getting harder to separate his principled positions from entrenched dogma. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still not entirely sure what HE is with. Certainly his party don't seem to know.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
 Ketara wrote:I'm not entirely sure what information beyond what it was, who dun it, and how far it spread (excluding the chemical formula), could be released that would somehow change/alter the situation in any substantial way.]
I mean, you could release the data from the heart monitor of the officer in hospital, or an additional statement from a chemical analyst saying, 'Yup, it's Novichok', but it wouldn't really add much. Neither would releasing the extensive police file where they walk around and ask for witness testimonies. 'I saw it officer, they fell right over! Looked really sick too!'
I mean, it's a basic chemical analysis. If you're not going to release the in depth details of your scientific diagnosis, and you've already attributed it, there's not much left beyond people echoing what you've already said, the basic detective legwork, and 'people' stories. Corbyn asking for the favourite flavour crisps of the critically ill spy to be released isn't going to do much for his image.
It's more about the psychology of the situation. Publish the effects, graphic images etc. Make it horrific and horrifies the world about what these chemicals do. It's easy to ignore and turn away from the three people that it has majorly effected (and god knows how many in small doses) for most of the world. If you psychologically persuade people of the consequences then you may get a greater reaction. Go to the UN with graphic images and make people puke if that is needed. It may be gross but it won't be forgotten especially when that is focused on a few elements of the Russian government. Make people understand the human cost (rather than being political ping pong) both to the public, media and so forth. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr. Burning wrote:
I'm still not entirely sure what HE is with. Certainly his party don't seem to know.
He's a pacifist. Which is fine when you are talking to rational people. The problem is Putin is sociopath and being a pacifist isn't going to work around such traits.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Pacifism has nothing to do with it. I’m a pacifist (although not an absolute pacifist) but no one is talking of war or killing anyone. If he is a pacifist then he should be roundly condemning a government that acts to kill its own citizens in this way and supporting anything to stop them killing more people.
I may just have the wrong view of him, but I can’t help thinking it’s because of a misplaced loyalty for a state that no longer exists that many aging socialists seem to have for the Russia.
11029
Post by: Ketara
So....you want Corbyn to demand May start circulating loads of image of people on their deathbeds who can't consent to having their image shared? Or you want them to devise computer mockups? Or something? To show that chemical warfare is bad? And that would be him 'playing a better game'? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the political masterstroke here. Not to mention that trying to make political capital out of tragedy is scumlike behaviour anyway.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think Corbyn was right to call May on the donations the Tories have accepted from Russian oligarchs, but he was wrong to criticise the handling of the evidence of Russian involvement in the chemical weapon attack.
He's hopelessly naive to think a Russian agent would have left an implausibly undeniable calling card at the scene of the crime.
It makes him look at best a childish idealist and at worst a quasi-traitor..
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.
A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't introduce US politics into the thread.
I'm as interested as you to discuss Trump, and gun control, and so on, but that whole area of topics is off limits because it just leads to terrible arguments.
What? We have german politics and UK politicsa but can't have american politics?
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
 Techpriestsupport wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't introduce US politics into the thread.
I'm as interested as you to discuss Trump, and gun control, and so on, but that whole area of topics is off limits because it just leads to terrible arguments.
What? We have german politics and UK politicsa but can't have american politics?
Not anymore, no.
I understand you're rather new to the site, but I'm sure a mod will be able to send you a message explaining why if you wanted to know. It's easier than taking this thread in that direction.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.
A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.
I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.
92104
Post by: r_squared
Steve steveson wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.
A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.
I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.
I couldn't disagree more.
The fact that he hasn't immediately leapt onto the populist "attack" on Russia, and has given a more considered approach, demostrates restraint and pragmatic statesmanship. It also leaves the country options, which May seems to decide we don't need every time she opens her mouth on any given subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43424867
If anything the Russians are more likely to respect Corbyn's approach as a man with whom they can talk. We have no big stick to shake, and it'll be ridiculously easy for the Russians to prove that and expose our empty posturing.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Corbyn has been described as being a campaigner not a politician. His style strikes a chord with people who are fed up with slick, spin doctored rhetoric.
He's got a big following with younger people, who have grown up since the Thatcher Revolution. Thes epeople don't remember the "winter of discontent", the miners' strikes and so on. They also see that the neo-liberal capitalist system has only enriched the already rich. After 10 years of austerity, the bottom 75% of the country are worse off.
That's all to explain Corbyn's electoral success and his hold on the party.
I think it was fine for Corbyn to attack the Tories over their oligarch money. I think it was wrong to suggest we need to wait for the result of the trial to see if Russia can be blamed. There won't ever be a trial because whoever did it was careful not tog et caught.
However, just because we can't have legally unshakeable proof, doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that someone thought it would be a good idea to squirt nerve agents around the centre of Salisbury. So we look at the balance of evidence, and make a decision based on likelihood.
There's no use going into all those factors because everyone knows them. The whole thing points at the Russian government as the culprit. If Corbyn believes that is incorrect, he should lay out his reasoning for why.
118560
Post by: Herbington
Kilkrazy wrote:Corbyn has been described as being a campaigner not a politician. His style strikes a chord with people who are fed up with slick, spin doctored rhetoric.
He's got a big following with younger people, who have grown up since the Thatcher Revolution. Thes epeople don't remember the "winter of discontent", the miners' strikes and so on. They also see that the neo-liberal capitalist system has only enriched the already rich. After 10 years of austerity, the bottom 75% of the country are worse off.
That's all to explain Corbyn's electoral success and his hold on the party.
I think it was fine for Corbyn to attack the Tories over their oligarch money. I think it was wrong to suggest we need to wait for the result of the trial to see if Russia can be blamed. There won't ever be a trial because whoever did it was careful not tog et caught.
However, just because we can't have legally unshakeable proof, doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that someone thought it would be a good idea to squirt nerve agents around the centre of Salisbury. So we look at the balance of evidence, and make a decision based on likelihood.
There's no use going into all those factors because everyone knows them. The whole thing points at the Russian government as the culprit. If Corbyn believes that is incorrect, he should lay out his reasoning for why.
I imagine the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq have made some in parliament it bit more wary about performing decisive action without knowing the full story. I know it has made me wary about jumping to conclusions.
63118
Post by: SeanDrake
Oh dear May could have made a poor choice surprise surprise.
The independent body setup to monitor chemical weapons have confirmed that since last Feb Russia has no stockpiles and no production facilities for chemical weapons.
The only other use of this agent was in 95 and the Mafia used it to knock off a banker after being sold it by a scientist.
The Double agent was helping the Spanish government against the Russian Mafia.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
r_squared wrote: Steve steveson wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.
A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.
I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.
I couldn't disagree more.
The fact that he hasn't immediately leapt onto the populist "attack" on Russia, and has given a more considered approach, demostrates restraint and pragmatic statesmanship. It also leaves the country options, which May seems to decide we don't need every time she opens her mouth on any given subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43424867
If anything the Russians are more likely to respect Corbyn's approach as a man with whom they can talk. We have no big stick to shake, and it'll be ridiculously easy for the Russians to prove that and expose our empty posturing.
Empty posturing? I would say, short of full scale war, we hold almost all the cards. All Russia has is gas exports, which would damage them as much as us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDrake wrote:Oh dear May could have made a poor choice surprise surprise.
The independent body setup to monitor chemical weapons have confirmed that since last Feb Russia has no stockpiles and no production facilities for chemical weapons.
The only other use of this agent was in 95 and the Mafia used it to knock off a banker after being sold it by a scientist.
The Double agent was helping the Spanish government against the Russian Mafia.
You mean this one:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/
The fact that Russia have destroyed the chemical weapons they hold, and ability to mass manufacture, on a large scale, tens of thousands of metric tones of the stuff, says nothing about their position of or ability to produce the amount used in the UK.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is of course impossible that in the 17.1 square kilometres of the Russian Federation, a small canister of nerve agent could have been hidden from the international authorities.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
I tried coming up with a suitably mocking, good-natured fun-poking at the statement of Russia being only 17.1 square kilometres big, but I didn't come up with anything.
72203
Post by: ulgurstasta
I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Especially considering that such a weapon would likely be used in an illicit form, like say assassinations. What was the source for that nuclear material used in the tea assassination?
Clearly, regardless of what's been released, what's been shown to the other states who backed Britain was clear enough to warrant them unconditionally accusing Russia of this.
I assume that something like this is the answer Russia wanted, though as has been said, it proves nothing. Just another way for the Russians to deflect their accusations (perhaps deliberately so).
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
While this might be treasonous....
_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.
I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.
What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.
Nothing about this makes sense.
11029
Post by: Ketara
 ulgurstasta wrote:I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!
what a bizarre statement. The media narrative? You mean the media reporting the results of the police investigation and the government announcing the culprit? Unless one intends to accuse the government of lying,or demand the police hand deliver the dossier to their house before going along with the story (good luck with that), why wouldn't people believe things.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
AdmiralHalsey wrote:While this might be treasonous....
_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.
I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.
What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.
Nothing about this makes sense.
It is because Russia (Putin, really) is pushing the limits. He wants an assassination that frightens his enemies and is implausibly deniable, and sends a message to the West that Russia is not going to knuckel under to the world order of international law.
The radioactive Polonium poisoning was the same thing.
In the 1980s, the Bulgarians assassinated someone in London with an umbrella that injected a tiny pellet of Ricin poison. It's James Bond stuff, but it is happening.
Think about anyone except a government organisation wanting to murder someone, and deciding to use nerve gas, or radiation poison or something odd like Ricin. Much easier to push them in front of a train (which has happened to two Russians in the UK in the last 10 years.)
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
AdmiralHalsey wrote:While this might be treasonous....
_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.
I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.
What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.
Nothing about this makes sense.
Because the denial becomes plausible if someone is shot. Russian want people to know it was them. They want ex-spies and political dissidents to know they are not safe. They want to show western governments they can act with impunity. If someone was strangled or shot it could be the Russian government, or it could be someone else they crossed, mafia, a random nationalistic lunatic, or just a random act of violence. Using nerve agents or strange radioactive substances sends a clear message "It wasn't us. Wink wink. We would never do it. No. Wink wink. It just happens that people cross us they end up dead.". Automatically Appended Next Post: ulgurstasta wrote:I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!
I think you need to look in to what has happened. There was an investigation. It involved over 200 police and military personnel. The evidence was passed to the UK government and then on to our allies, all of whom have come to the same conclusion. The only way you could argue that the UK did not follow the letter of international law was not giving Russia 10 days to reply. This is the wording of the relevant convention:
A State Party shall have the right to request the Executive Council to obtain clarification from another State Party on any situation which may be considered ambiguous or which gives rise to a concern about its possible non-compliance with this Convention. In such a case, the following shall apply:
(a) The Executive Council shall forward the request for clarification to the State Party concerned through the Director-General not later than 24 hours after its
receipt;
(b) The requested State Party shall provide the clarification to the Executive Council as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the receipt of the request;
It is doubtful that this even applies, as the question from the UK government was not about the chemical weapons, but about the murder.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Ketara wrote:So....you want Corbyn to demand May start circulating loads of image of people on their deathbeds who can't consent to having their image shared? Or you want them to devise computer mockups? Or something? To show that chemical warfare is bad? And that would be him 'playing a better game'? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the political masterstroke here. Not to mention that trying to make political capital out of tragedy is scumlike behaviour anyway.
No not like that - I'm well aware of that you can't do something like that without consent . More images of the effects on organs and so forth to demonstrate the effects is has.
Part of your own statement shows why perhaps something can be achieved. We all know chemical weapons are bad, but they are worse than this, they are horrific. In a world with an attention span of about 7 seconds the images that truly remain powerful are the horrific ones, those that shock. And the question of political capital can just as easily be pointed at by both sides (where does one draw the line between political capital and asking why it shouldn't be done in a different way). However May has ejected a few intelligence officers which Russia likely expected anyway. No real issue to them. They will be laughing themselves silly over such an action. It's not about a few expulsions; it's about winning hearts and minds. Automatically Appended Next Post: Steve steveson wrote: Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.
A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.
I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.
So what response would you have taken. Most investigations take weeks to conclude about who did what and when. It would be a huge embarrassment if after Boris the Clown comes out with "overwhelmingly likely" (whatever that means) that Putin was involved it turned out that it was annoyed radicals. Not only would Russia laugh at us, but would also undermine allies trust in us. It would be better to keep it low key, complete the investigation as thoroughly. Keep an open mind and state this (issue the horrific effects of the nerve gas and bodies). But make the perpetrators think they got away with it, let them relax a bit. Then when as much evidence as reasonably possible is gathered call a session at the UN on the use of chemical weapons present the evidence and report and...
Then eject the Russian Ambassador from the country.
Much more forceful and evidence based and open so everyone can see.
All May is doing is waving a tattered flag so she can appear more stalwart than Corbyn. The problem is that she won't win that way and is doing it for local political motives rather than what should be a public shaming of the Russian government's actions.
92104
Post by: r_squared
Whirlwind wrote:...
All May is doing is waving a tattered flag so she can appear more stalwart than Corbyn. The problem is that she won't win that way and is doing it for local political motives rather than what should be a public shaming of the Russian government's actions.
I agree. I think that they seem to have come to a conclusion for this investigation with startling rapidity. To be so absolutely sure that the Russian Govt has committed this attack, and we haven't even arrested anyone, or have even named or produced a suspect seems unusual at least.
There has been a great deal of assumptions made, and the fact that our allies have formed up behind us suggests only that it is politically expedient for them to do so. I'm not convinced that, after our history of wmd evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence.
However, I'm fairly certain that we will never actually know the real facts of this event. I just hope that May isn't foolish enough to escalate this.
Russia has much more stake in this country than 25% of our gas supplies, and the last thing we need at the moment is more instability and expense on the latest "threat".
34390
Post by: whembly
Our shipyards are building many of these guys:  Soon, US can help defray the Russian Energy influence.
5394
Post by: reds8n
.. Remarkable few days really.
Quite something to see the Uk Govt. -- who couldn't put together the speech or the stage of their party leader at their own poxy party conference -- are, apparently, orgainsing bio=weapon chemical attacks inside our own country to... I dunno.... win some local elections.
or something.
..what else is happening :
David Davis asked why the government is refusing to put Brexit legislation through the commons, blames Labour for planning to vote against it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/parliamentary-democracy
meanwhile, watch this :
https://twitter.com/Open_Britain/status/974596360598106112
" On #BBCQT last night, Chris Grayling made the startling admission that the Gov just won't bother checking trucks coming into Dover post-Brexit. "
.. oh christ almighty, is he delusional or just entirely ignorant of of the basics of his job/the way trade works.
see :
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/974710480592887809
and these people are, allegedly, in charge.
It's like actual snuff politics.
As if alien body snatchers have taken over the Govt.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Whirlwind wrote:
No not like that - I'm well aware of that you can't do something like that without consent . More images of the effects on organs and so forth to demonstrate the effects is has.
Part of your own statement shows why perhaps something can be achieved. We all know chemical weapons are bad, but they are worse than this, they are horrific. In a world with an attention span of about 7 seconds the images that truly remain powerful are the horrific ones, those that shock.
So...your political masterstroke for Corbyn is that he should demand that the equivalent of the images on the back of cigarette packages be mocked up by computer and circulated? Which is what they'd have to do, given the current sufferers cannot consent and there aren't exactly loads of dissected victims of this specific brand of chemical warfare lying around to be photographed.
I'm sorry, but I'm utterly baffled by this line of thinking. What would it achieve, politically or otherwise? People going, 'Oh no, chemical weapons are bad and nasty'? We've known that since the trenches of WW1. How would this prove Corbyn is 'on the ball' as it were? How exactly would this be, to use your words, 'playing a better game' than May? What's the modified endgoal, the adjustment of the current status quo in Labour's favour? What would it achieve that the images from loads of kids being hit by chemical weapons on Syria don't already?
And the question of political capital can just as easily be pointed at by both sides (where does one draw the line between political capital and asking why it shouldn't be done in a different way). However May has ejected a few intelligence officers which Russia likely expected anyway. No real issue to them. They will be laughing themselves silly over such an action. It's not about a few expulsions; it's about winning hearts and minds.
She named a number of other measures also. Depending on how she bothers to enforce them, they could actually lead to some significant financial harm to Putin's government. That one remains to be seen.
So what response would you have taken. Most investigations take weeks to conclude about who did what and when.
If a nuke went off tomorrow, American/British intelligence could tell you what country and what plant made it within a day. Some things have certain signatures which are impossible to falsify. I couldn't say whether or not this is one of them (I'm not a chemical warfare specialist), but it clearly emphasises that such things are possible. Apparently samples have already been forwarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for verification, and I've read one Dr Martin Boland (an Australian chemistry researcher) outlining the process which they'd likely have used to isolate and analyse the structure of the nerve agent involved.
If the government does in fact, know to a large degree of certainty who did it, there'd be no point in hanging around.
Then when as much evidence as reasonably possible is gathered call a session at the UN on the use of chemical weapons present the evidence and report and...
Then eject the Russian Ambassador from the country.
Much more forceful and evidence based and open so everyone can see.
Just to clarify. Your 'forceful' action is to say virtually nothing in the face of Russian hilarity and British public outrage, wait half a year for the full report of something they've more or less established the conclusions of in a few days, then waffle in the UN for an afternoon and expel a single Russian diplomat? That's the approach you think wouldn't leave the Russians 'laughing themselves silly'?
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Some people see an energy solution, I see a WMD. A multi megaton weapon without the harmful side effects of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. Load a shitton of LNG on board, crew her with some Chechnyan 'patriots' and.... wait, what were we talking about again?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
A gas explosion would be nasty, but it's not the same as a nuclear weapon. The LNG has to burn off in combination with oxygen. This limits the rate at which the "explosion" can proceed.
16689
Post by: notprop
So hot air from America then...?
95191
Post by: godardc
Just taking some news from the neighbour: how is UK doing those days ? And the Brexit ? It has been years since you asked for it !
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
BaronIveagh wrote:
Some people see an energy solution, I see a WMD. A multi megaton weapon without the harmful side effects of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. Load a shitton of LNG on board, crew her with some Chechnyan 'patriots' and.... wait, what were we talking about again?
More likely it would be a target for terrorists than weaponised as some massive floating bomb.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Ketara wrote:
So...your political masterstroke for Corbyn is that he should demand that the equivalent of the images on the back of cigarette packages be mocked up by computer and circulated? Which is what they'd have to do, given the current sufferers cannot consent and there aren't exactly loads of dissected victims of this specific brand of chemical warfare lying around to be photographed.
I'm sorry, but I'm utterly baffled by this line of thinking. What would it achieve, politically or otherwise? People going, 'Oh no, chemical weapons are bad and nasty'? We've known that since the trenches of WW1. How would this prove Corbyn is 'on the ball' as it were? How exactly would this be, to use your words, 'playing a better game' than May? What's the modified endgoal, the adjustment of the current status quo in Labour's favour? What would it achieve that the images from loads of kids being hit by chemical weapons on Syria don't already?
I wouldn't say it's a political masterstroke... just better than what May is doing....
It's more about playing the psychology game. We all know it's bad to be affected by chemical weapons. But a lot of what we see is sanitised. As a populace we tend to ignore things we don't like as it allows us to easier brush it under the table. The strategy is prevent that from happening to have full frontal coverage of its influence so that people are horrified about it not just say over "well, dear it is truly horrible what has happened now where's the tea and cakes" [insert stupid british posh voice]. You get much more of an effect when you get a psychological reaction.
She named a number of other measures also. Depending on how she bothers to enforce them, they could actually lead to some significant financial harm to Putin's government. That one remains to be seen.
Yes we can all name measures, actions are much more important. She could for example say she is going to take a great steaming dump over Russia somewhere. Also Putin is one of the richest people on earth, a few financial sanctions isn't going to effect him in the slightest and he simply doesn't care what happens to the rest of the populace.
If a nuke went off tomorrow, American/British intelligence could tell you what country and what plant made it within a day. Some things have certain signatures which are impossible to falsify. I couldn't say whether or not this is one of them (I'm not a chemical warfare specialist), but it clearly emphasises that such things are possible. Apparently samples have already been forwarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for verification, and I've read one Dr Martin Boland (an Australian chemistry researcher) outlining the process which they'd likely have used to isolate and analyse the structure of the nerve agent involved.
But unlike a ballistic missile you can't track the trajectory exactly to where that nerve agent came from. When it was manufactured and who actually applied it. They can pinpoint where it was manufactured, but as with any crime there is also a motive and a perpetrator. A lot of this material was manufactured during the late cold war era. We have no idea who managed to get access to it after the fall of the USSR. Don't get me wrong I do think it is in all likelihood a state sanctioned act, but just knowing where something came from is not an immediate implication of guilt.
Just to clarify. Your 'forceful' action is to say virtually nothing in the face of Russian hilarity and British public outrage, wait half a year for the full report of something they've more or less established the conclusions of in a few days, then waffle in the UN for an afternoon and expel a single Russian diplomat? That's the approach you think wouldn't leave the Russians 'laughing themselves silly'?
Throwing out the Ambassador is much stronger statement. They are there to be the direct representative of one country to another. Throwing out a random subset of administrators/intelligence officers is nothing if they can just get replaced the following week. Automatically Appended Next Post:  godardc wrote:Just taking some news from the neighbour: how is UK doing those days ? And the Brexit ? It has been years since you asked for it !
In summary. Really, really, really badly...
100848
Post by: tneva82
Herbington wrote:I imagine the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq have made some in parliament it bit more wary about performing decisive action without knowing the full story. I know it has made me wary about jumping to conclusions.
Also guilty until PROVEN otherwise is cornerstone of western countries. Or at least so west likes to claim. Is UK willing to drop that idea and go toward North Korean style?
Well then again...We ARE talking about UK. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:It is of course impossible that in the 17.1 square kilometres of the Russian Federation, a small canister of nerve agent could have been hidden from the international authorities.
It is of course impossible that independent party didn't do something again that independent parties have been shown to do before right? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote: ulgurstasta wrote:I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!
what a bizarre statement. The media narrative? You mean the media reporting the results of the police investigation and the government announcing the culprit? Unless one intends to accuse the government of lying,or demand the police hand deliver the dossier to their house before going along with the story (good luck with that), why wouldn't people believe things.
Well we have had goverment ACCUSE Russia. Have they actually shown any evidence about it?
US accused Iraq of non-existant WMD. UK joined suit.
Easy to accuse but where's the god damn proof? Whenever you have US& UK(known liers) accusing those would be good to have first. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:[
If a nuke went off tomorrow, American/British intelligence could tell you what country and what plant made it within a day. Some things have certain signatures which are impossible to falsify. I couldn't say whether or not this is one of them (I'm not a chemical warfare specialist), but it clearly emphasises that such things are possible. Apparently samples have already been forwarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for verification, and I've read one Dr Martin Boland (an Australian chemistry researcher) outlining the process which they'd likely have used to isolate and analyse the structure of the nerve agent involved.
Of course production source isn't proof of actually who did it. Or did you forget case of where this gas was actually used by independent party? The case referred just few posts above. Obviously any such case is flat out impossible here so you can within day instantly put blame on Russia with no margin of error whatsoever!
Truly is UK guilty searching methods have improved a lot in couple decades! From attacking illegally into Irak claiming non-existant WMD's into pin pointing guilty perpetrators of gas attack within day without even catching the ones who actually released it! AMAZING! Has UK created psi-corps from Babylon 5 in meanwhile or where these magic powers have come from?
11029
Post by: Ketara
godardc wrote:Just taking some news from the neighbour: how is UK doing those days ? And the Brexit ? It has been years since you asked for it !
The previous hundred pages of this thread are still there if you care to read them.
Anyway, apparently we're looking at moving various Russian exiles to a 'low' threat status. Buzzfeed is also trying their hand at journalism again with regards to the topic. An extended series here:-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.ko5Ej1n3n#.paK7B2lNl
If there is indeed, a Russian hit squad roaming the UK, that would be some cause for mild concern. Nothing to ensure that they only stick to ex-Russians after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:
Well we have had goverment ACCUSE Russia. Have they actually shown any evidence about it?
To our allies and one international organisation, apparently. Given they haven't hand delivered the dossier to your door personally though, you may wish to write them a letter requesting that the Home Office add you to its VIP mailing list.
US accused Iraq of non-existant WMD. UK joined suit.
Easy to accuse but where's the god damn proof? Whenever you have US&UK(known liers) accusing those would be good to have first.
Most people are aware that the people at the top, their motives, levels of tolerance, and opportunities for such things rotate quite frequently due to elections. Sometimes governments cover things up, sometimes they don't. Whilst you have the odd outlier (see Blair), few of Her Majesty's Ministers usually have the chutzpah to come in and point blank lie/exaggerate to the House of Commons about such things. It does happen, but when there's the potential for this much egg on their faces and so little gain if they are wrong, it would be exceedingly irrational and strange behaviour.
Tl;dr, shouting 'Why do you believe the government without proof, sheeple?' is just as bad as blindly trusting anything the government says. We have sufficient information that it is reasonable to believe Russia would have been the most likely culprit with regards to motive, sufficient information to indicate that it would exceptionally hard for anybody else to have pulled it off (even the guy who betrayed Novichok said he couldn't recreate it in a lab right now), and very little reason for our Government to be lying (there are much easier ways to distract from a domestic issue).
I am consequently willing, applying basic logic and analysis, to go along with what the Government is saying as the most accurate and likely course of events right now. Especially given that they have access to a wealth more data than me, and little motivation to be lying about it. Applying Occam's Razor, it is vastly more likely to have been Russia (who do this sort of thing not infrequently, see Litvinenko) sending a message than any other party/motive.
Of course production source isn't proof of actually who did it. Or did you forget case of where this gas was actually used by independent party? The case referred just few posts above. Obviously any such case is flat out impossible here so you can within day instantly put blame on Russia with no margin of error whatsoever!
The interesting thing about Novichok is that like many such chemical weapons, it actually has a relatively short lifespan before it degrades. In other words, it couldn't have been stored in an ex-employee's garage (as was claimed in the 1995 case) ever since the program closed before escaping into a wider circulation of illegal weaponry. It would have to have been produced more recently. There was also substantial doubt over whether or not the state was involved in that 1995 case as well. Given the extreme complexity of the formula and faciltiies required for production; it is extremely unlikely to have been made by a non-state actor. And if it was, you'd then have to come up with a plausible motive for it to have been used in this instance. So attempting to speculate in such a direction from no proof would really only be of interest to conspiracy theorists, people convinced of their own cleverness, and Russian shills.
Truly is UK guilty searching methods have improved a lot in couple decades! From attacking illegally into Irak claiming non-existant WMD's into pin pointing guilty perpetrators of gas attack within day without even catching the ones who actually released it! AMAZING! Has UK created psi-corps from Babylon 5 in meanwhile or where these magic powers have come from?
You're aware nobody here is impressed by this sort of dialogue, right? I mean, if you're enjoying it, do carry on. I'd just hate for you to be wasting your doubtless rapier wit on those of us too ill-cultured to appreciate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote:
But unlike a ballistic missile you can't track the trajectory exactly to where that nerve agent came from. When it was manufactured and who actually applied it. They can pinpoint where it was manufactured, but as with any crime there is also a motive and a perpetrator. A lot of this material was manufactured during the late cold war era. We have no idea who managed to get access to it after the fall of the USSR. Don't get me wrong I do think it is in all likelihood a state sanctioned act, but just knowing where something came from is not an immediate implication of guilt.
It actually is in this case, to an extent. Most nerve agents have limited shelf lifes. The two variants of Novichok have a more extended 'basic' one due to the fact that they are stored as separate chemical compounds before being combined to produce the finished chemical. But that in turn means that they have to have been mixed quite recently, and combining all these steps effectively, which as Vil Mirzayanov put it, requires a state actor.
The Russian Scientist who helped Develop It wrote:“You need a very high-qualified professional scientist,” he continued. “Because it is dangerous stuff. Extremely dangerous. You can kill yourself. First of all you have to have a very good shield, a very particular container. And after that to weaponize it – weaponize it is impossible without high technical equipment. It’s impossible to imagine.”
“The final product, in storage, after one year is already losing 2%, 3%. The next year more, and the next year more. In 10-15 years, it’s no longer effective.”
In other words, it's impossible for it to be a leftover sample knocking around which simply fell into the wrong hands. You need at least three different skill sets, to make the base compounds, then transport/store it, and then safely combine and utilise it. No criminal or non-state actor would know where to start synthesizing the base chemicals. No non-state actor would have the technical equipment to recombine the original compounds. And even if they did, they wouldn't be able to utilise it practically.
This simply cannot have been done by someone who doesn't have access to a specialised chemical warfare laboratory and engineers. So Russia's allusions to old weapons stockpiles lying around is utter misdirection. Which given they have the same knowledge as I've just sketched out above, is very strange behaviour if they didn't do it.
92104
Post by: r_squared
I don't expect anyone will ever see such a "dossier" providing conclusive proof as to how this nerve agent came to be deployed here, however I reserve the right to apply a healthy dollop of scepticism before I accept Theresa May's accusations right off the bat, particularly considering the extremely short periods of time since the start of the investigation. I'm interested in which other state or actor might have an interest in ruffling feathers between the West and Russia. Who else has the resources and capability? Who has the most to gain from this?
Besides, anyone who has just accepted that it was the Ruskies must be careful to examine their sources before making a judgement. As a rule of thumb, if Boris Johnson, the Daily Mail and the Sun are absolutely certain of something, then its almost certainly rubbish.
I'm not sure who has attacked us, and why they would do so, and i'm struggling to see who has the most to gain. But, sadly, Theresa May is so hopelessly buried under a steaming pile of Brexit that this is a welcome distraction and an opportunity to show how strong she could be, whilst the BBC and the right wing press demonise Corbyns more measured response. Perhaps it was her?
11029
Post by: Ketara
r_squared wrote:I don't expect anyone will ever see such a "dossier" providing conclusive proof as to how this nerve agent came to be deployed here, however I reserve the right to apply a healthy dollop of scepticism before I accept Theresa May's accusations right off the bat, particularly considering the extremely short periods of time since the start of the investigation. I'm interested in which other state or actor might have an interest in ruffling feathers between the West and Russia. Who else has the resources and capability? Who has the most to gain from this?
This is probably the most realistic alternative candidate. Which says something.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Jeremy Corbyns responses only look measured because the bar is literally touching the ground.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Ketara wrote:It actually is in this case, to an extent. Most nerve agents have limited shelf lifes. The two variants of Novichok have a more extended 'basic' one due to the fact that they are stored as separate chemical compounds before being combined to produce the finished chemical. But that in turn means that they have to have been mixed quite recently, and combining all these steps effectively, which as Vil Mirzayanov put it, requires a state actor.
But it still is an assertion that it can *only* be a state actor. There are plenty of people trained to be able to create one or more components given the correct equipment. Because it requires specialist knowledge and the chemical composition does not mean it cannot be undertaken by another group. That could even be in a Russian lab "Here's a million dollars; we have your kids/family". There's plenty of ways that someone could get the sample. That doesn't make it a state action. Unlike a ballistic missile which is launched and follows basic physical laws which allows you to track back to the initial launch site. You can't do that with chemicals that can be hidden from general view. The evidence and claims are too circumstantial at the moment and that always then runs the risk that it is viewed as misleading if in the future it is definitively proven otherwise (e.g. WMD in Iraq). Again I do think that the Russian government is involved but that the evidence should be more robust before throwing accusations about. But once you have all that evidence in hand, take action then and do it harshly. Or we could just throw a few nukes about and end it all anyway...
11029
Post by: Ketara
Whirlwind wrote:
But it still is an assertion that it can *only* be a state actor. There are plenty of people trained to be able to create one or more components given the correct equipment. Because it requires specialist knowledge and the chemical composition does not mean it cannot be undertaken by another group. That could even be in a Russian lab "Here's a million dollars; we have your kids/family". There's plenty of ways that someone could get the sample. That doesn't make it a state action.
You've missed the point. It's not just getting the 'sample'. This isn't a James Bond film, where some one eyed gangster holds a gun to a screaming child whilst demanding the scientist father grabs a vial of glowing liquid from his lab at work. There is no 'sample' in that way.
What there is, is a number of basic chemical compounds, the exact chemical ratios of which are closely guarded state secrets. Then there is the specialist gear and and even more secret procedure which are required in order to synthesize these compounds into an ultimately unstable short lived (relatively speaking) nerve agent. And then there is the manufacture and supply of the heavily engineered containment system which stabilises and prevents the newly created compound from deteriorating immediately, whilst permitting deployment. All of these different areas of production are compartmentalised, so as to not spread knowledge of the full process (we know that from the whistleblower).
In other words, the very nature of this particular chemical beast dictates that it has to have been made recently ( as opposed to being a leftover from the original stockpile), and that a huge amount of extremely specialist knowledge and skills across multiple people/teams utilised in its employment. Whilst that does not guarantee it is not a state actor beyond all possibility, it being the Yakuza or something is about as likely as ISIS suddenly firing a hydrogen bomb. You just don't find that kind of assortment of skills, funding, and equipment allied together outside of the state.
Plus, I mean, seriously, do you think some multi-billionaire person or corporation is going to waste that kind of money and resources topping a retiree having dinner with his daughter? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's a state, and knowledge of this kind of nerve agent was always restricted to one state in particular. We're talking about it. It's not like it's VX or Sarin, or something. I suppose China or America could have wasted hundreds of millions recreating the process, but I really don't see Trump or Jinping doing all that to knock off some old coot and get a few diplomats expelled.
Unlike a ballistic missile which is launched and follows basic physical laws which allows you to track back to the initial launch site. You can't do that with chemicals that can be hidden from general view.
Not what I was referring to. I believe that there is a form of nuclear signature which actually allows you to attribute what type of nuclear material was used, where it originated from, and how/where it was processed. It's not a case of watching the missile. Something to do with radiation, I don't know the details.
But once you have all that evidence in hand, take action then and do it harshly. Or we could just throw a few nukes about and end it all anyway...
No offence, but your idea of harsh action is telling the Russian ambassador to go home and making a speech at the UN. I daresay that Russia would pay even less attention to that than we do to Spain over Gibraltar. You claim that the evidence is 'circumstantial', but you have absolutely no information beyond what the state has chosen to release at this preliminary stage. I daresay the people over at Scotland Yard have far more detail and evidence than we do; and working on the balance of probabilities, if they say it was Russia at this stage? I'm inclined to believe them. Too little in the way of motivation to lie that doesn't stray into crackpot territory.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Ketara wrote:
Not what I was referring to. I believe that there is a form of nuclear signature which actually allows you to attribute what type of nuclear material was used, where it originated from, and how/where it was processed. It's not a case of watching the missile. Something to do with radiation, I don't know the details.
You could analyse the isotopes of the resultant fallout or of the nuclear fuel of the device. Different sources of Uranium or Plutonium will have different ratios of isotopes, along with ratios of impurities.
92104
Post by: r_squared
Ketara wrote:...
No offence, but your idea of harsh action is telling the Russian ambassador to go home and making a speech at the UN. I daresay that Russia would pay even less attention to that than we do to Spain over Gibraltar. You claim that the evidence is 'circumstantial', but you have absolutely no information beyond what the state has chosen to release at this preliminary stage. I daresay the people over at Scotland Yard have far more detail and evidence than we do; and working on the balance of probabilities, if they say it was Russia at this stage? I'm inclined to believe them. Too little in the way of motivation to lie that doesn't stray into crackpot territory.
However, with that said, what "harsh" action do you recommend? How should the UK respond to this, as you seem to be claiming this is a deliberate attack on our sovereign territory? Surely releasing a chemical weapon against a British citizen, in Britain by another nation state, constitutes an act of war?
If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?
Considering some commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Spectator, think that Corbyn and not May has the right attitude to Russia, perhaps it is your "crackpot" acceptance of the Govt agenda that should be questioned?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
tneva82 wrote:Herbington wrote:I imagine the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq have made some in parliament it bit more wary about performing decisive action without knowing the full story. I know it has made me wary about jumping to conclusions.
Also guilty until PROVEN otherwise is cornerstone of western countries. Or at least so west likes to claim. Is UK willing to drop that idea and go toward North Korean style?
It's obvious that that principle can only work if you are dealing with people who uphold the rule of law. Putin's Russia' doesn't. Automatically Appended Next Post: r_squared wrote:...
If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?
...
No, there is a distinction in international law between an act of war and whatever the UK government has characterised this event as. (I can't remember but you can look it up.)
92104
Post by: r_squared
Kilkrazy wrote:... r_squared wrote:...
If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?
...
No, there is a distinction in international law between an act of war and whatever the UK government has characterised this event as. (I can't remember but you can look it up.)
An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war...
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-war/
an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/act+of+war
an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/act-of-war
Well, that would seem like the deploying of munitions to kill a foreign national in their country of citizenship counts as an action likely to provoke a war.
Also Theresa May herself said...
the government would "conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom"
However, I am in no way advocating that this is an act of war, I was questioning Ketara about what he thought what was an appropriate response, seeing as he is determined to poo poo anything other than the Govt line of accusation. He said that those of us unwilling to jump to the same conclusions as him and advocating a more considered approach are somehow displaying weakness.
So Ketara, what is your considered approach to this political incident? Are you willing to escalate? And in what way should we do so?
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Russia is clearly ready and willing to fight a dirty war with us. They're daring us to escalate.
I rather doubt that we're willing to fight that war.
11029
Post by: Ketara
r_squared wrote:
However, with that said, what "harsh" action do you recommend? How should the UK respond to this, as you seem to be claiming this is a deliberate attack on our sovereign territory?
I actually addressed this in the other thread, if you go and look. Ending up in the awkward situation of multi-threading a subject here, might be best to start confining to one. My fun idea was to start playing in the Ukraine. We could even have fun with cyber-attacks and suchlike heading back in their direction. As Putin is so wonderfully demonstrating, there are many ways of subverting and undermining which don't involve actual declarations of war.
If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?
An act of war is whatever a state decides it is. It can go from years of border incursions down to spitting over it and claiming the other side spat first. Probably not best to start open warfare until it happens another two times. After that, we'd be more or less obligated to.
Considering some commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Spectator, think that Corbyn and not May has the right attitude to Russia, perhaps it is your "crackpot" acceptance of the Govt agenda that should be questioned?
Not quite. I'm afraid you misread. I said that trying to assume (or even realistically leave open the possibility) that the government is actively lying /and/ ascribe responsibility to non-state actors/the American or Chinese governments (the only real alternatives) would be crackpot. Because it is. I've outlined precisely why using the chemical/manufacturing facets involved. It's nothing to do with 'agendas' or how the various parties have reacted, I'm talking about the assignation of responsibility for the attack. Which is backed up in this case with a healthy dollop of science.
I would have put together the exact same opinion given the same facts without the government declaring responsibility; the fact they have done so to this extent (with far more information and expertise available than any of us) only further solidifies it. It simply isn't technically feasible for any non-state actor to have pulled it off, and it would be utter political lunacy on the part of any other potential state actor but the Russians.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Kilkrazy wrote:A gas explosion would be nasty, but it's not the same as a nuclear weapon. The LNG has to burn off in combination with oxygen. This limits the rate at which the "explosion" can proceed.
Estimates using a 5 tank LNG carrier used as a FAE have an estimated 550 yard blast radius with flash burns and structural damage in excess of a mile in every direction. That's actually pretty comparable to a nuke in the 20kt range. Trick is you have to elevate the temp of the LNG to close to it's boiling point and then open the valves, dumping it for about ten min of so before sparking it.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
BaronIveagh wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:A gas explosion would be nasty, but it's not the same as a nuclear weapon. The LNG has to burn off in combination with oxygen. This limits the rate at which the "explosion" can proceed.
Estimates using a 5 tank LNG carrier used as a FAE have an estimated 550 yard blast radius with flash burns and structural damage in excess of a mile in every direction. That's actually pretty comparable to a nuke in the 20kt range. Trick is you have to elevate the temp of the LNG to close to it's boiling point and then open the valves, dumping it for about ten min of so before sparking it.
What is the Job Title for this and where can I apply?
47598
Post by: motyak
I think Ketara has the right of it guys, let's stick any further Russian poisoning related stuff in that thread. If may and Putin have a meeting unrelated then here works. But to avoid people getting confused about where the information is let's keep the rest there
92104
Post by: r_squared
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/news/93692/jeremy-corbyn-not-given-full-access-top-secret-information-salisbury
The Times has reported that Theresa May has refused to include Corbyn in the top level briefing over the nerve agent attack. To give context, David Cameron previously briefed Ed Milliband in order to gain his support for action against Syria.
Now, considering May has a minority govt it would seem prudent to ensure that the leader of the opposition was onside should it be necessary to carry out any action that requires support in parliament.
There are only 2 reasons why she wouldn't;
1. She is playing politics. Deliberately denying Corbyn the information he needs to make a decision to support or oppose the Govt in order to make herself look strong and him look weak.
2. The Govts evidence is not as conclusive as they are purporting. It will not stand scrutiny from someone more balanced and will provoke questions over the stability and rationality of their decision.
She does not have to share this information with the leader of the opposition, but in this scenario her refusal to do so tells you one of two things. You decide what she means, depending on your viewpoint.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.
Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like.
Personally I think this is a mistake as Putin's idea is to weaken the West by spreading discord and suspicion. It's a technique that works well against an open society with freedom of speech and so on, so we have to be extra-careful when dealing with this kind of thing.
4001
Post by: Compel
What would be the harm in, for example, sharing information with the shadow defence minister.
Or, for example, Keir Starmer. I saw him on Newsnight the other day and, despite being Labour, he seemed like a good person for the Government to get on side, both politically and knowledge wise.
92104
Post by: r_squared
Kilkrazy wrote:There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.
Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like...
Without checking the exact chronology of events, it is Corbyn's job to act as opposition to the Govt. I have also never heard of that unwritten rule myself, I would still expect the opposition to continue to do its job if it disagreed with the Govts direction. Corbyn's views on our foreign policy are well known, and his response should have been expected by any competent PM. A real coup for May could have been achieved if she had been able to show Corbyn evidence to support her assessment and actions, and he agreed with and supported her.
She has failed to do that, and I don't believe she is "dishing out a consequence" like some school marm disciplining an errant child. I feel she has acted as she has because she doesn't have a compelling argument, and she dare not show it to Corbyn because he will be vociferous in his attacks on her.
If this turns out to be another case of "WMD's", she may come to regret her actions, and Corbyn will be vindicated on foreign policy, once again.
As Owen Jones made very clear in an interview with the BBC recently, it is the same people in Govt who keep making the same mistakes which result in destabilisation and needless death who are lauded as hard nosed, clear thinking leaders, rather than the populist, followers of the path of least resistance. People like Corbyn who consistently opposed all our major foreign interventions have been proven to be on the right side of history every single time, and are still continually derided as traitors and snowflakes.
It's fething bizarre.
16689
Post by: notprop
Rubbish, Corbyn flip-flops from one position to another looking at what he thinks is popularity so randomly why the hell would you include him in something serious?
Just look at Europe, he’s against, he’s weakly Pro Campaign, now he’s out again.
Defends: he’s anti-trident but would keep the subs (jobs)?
He has no place at the top table.
100911
Post by: Whirlwind
Edited by motyak, moved to correct thread
47598
Post by: motyak
Wanted to avoid the red text but remember, poisoning debate in the poisoning thread. Thanks guys 
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
In more personal news. .
I am now one of the minority of people aged 26 and under who own their own house.
It's been a right pain in the ass. And it's only been helped by my lower middle class parents who allowed me and my missus to stay at theirs rent free for the past 2 years whilst we saved up.
It's a shame that owning your own home is such a rarity these days.
16689
Post by: notprop
Don’t know many people that don’t own.
Location and age dependent I’m sure.
Well done though, just prepare for all the costs that go with it!
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
 notprop wrote:Don’t know many people that don’t own.
Location and age dependent I’m sure.
Well done though, just prepare for all the costs that go with it!
Home owning is at like a 30 year low. Plenty of people my age around here don't own their own house. Many of them are too young to use rent to buy, and a lot of new builds are surprisingly expensive.
That is when they aren't being bought by landlords.
92104
Post by: r_squared
notprop wrote:Rubbish, Corbyn flip-flops from one position to another looking at what he thinks is popularity so randomly why the hell would you include him in something serious?
Just look at Europe, he’s against, he’s weakly Pro Campaign, now he’s out again.
Defends: he’s anti-trident but would keep the subs (jobs)?
He has no place at the top table.
You really are reaching there especially considering the flip flops of the likes of May and Boris.
Why don't you top it off with some accusations of IRA sympathies or some other vague bs about Czech spies?
Besides, if May wants to shoot herself in the foot again, then I'm more than happy. I've just enjoyed watching Boris squirm in the spotlight of Andrew Marr's questions involving corruption, £160K tennis matches with Putin minister's wives and the conservative party's connections to Russian oligarchs.
The Tories are a shower of squirming gak and are as trustworthy and consistent as a tomcat on meth. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I own, and I know plenty of people who don't, and can't afford to either. This anecdotal evidence argument thing is great isn't it?
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
(EDIT: Just saw the red text about siphoning off Salisbury discussion to the other thread. Since this is a more general point about Foreign Policy, is it cool to leave it here or should I move it?) Kilkrazy wrote:There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements. Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like.
Feth that rule. Corbyn is right to not respect it. Thats how we got the Iraq War. I just looked up one of the votes relating to the Iraq War. If the Conservative party had taken a party stance against the Iraq War and enough of their MP's voted against the motion ("That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"), the Iraq War might have been prevented. There were more Labour MP's who voted against the Iraq War (84) and their own Party's Government, than Conservatives (2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq
|
|
