UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**welshhoppo**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I honestly regret going to University, I simply wasn't cut out for it intellectually (not that I'm not intelligent, but I lack the intellectual drive and interest to succeed at academia) or socially (undiagnosed Autism/Aspergers. Just got my diagnosis last month). I did far better in schools (11 GCSE's, 4 A's, 3 B's. 4 C's), probably because of the more rigid and structured learning environment. In schools, you are taught. In Universities, you're largely expected to teach yourself. I didn't handle the transition well.

I wish I'd done something vocational instead, like a trade school.

You're beginning to sound more and more like me. Are you sure you're not also a semi-depressed alcoholic with a morbid sense of humour?

Co'tor Shas wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
I was studying European Union law (so that a whole 12 weeks of my degree wasted off the bat.) But as I was going through notes it suddenly dawned upon me that there was no real basis for the EU to have the power that it does in regards to law.

When I brought this up in a seminar, asking how does the EU have the right to do this, because I wanted to know in regards to the law, I was shot down and told that this was a good thing end of discussion and good day and anything else was wrong.

Surely the basis would be the agreements signed by governments joining the EU, would it not?

Back when this was going on, there was no EU. It was still the EEC and was focused on trade. The Laws were brought in later, but the Courts were dealing with things that were not trade long before that.

**Kilkrazy**

The European Court of Human Rights isn't anything to do with the EU, not is the International Court of Justice. The UK will continue to be subject to both these courts after leaving the EU, and of course to the World Trade Organisation.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

welshhoppo wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I honestly regret going to University, I simply wasn't cut out for it intellectually (not that I'm not intelligent, but I lack the intellectual drive and interest to succeed at academia) or socially (undiagnosed Autism/Aspergers. Just got my diagnosis last month). I did far better in schools (11 GCSE's, 4 A's, 3 B's. 4 C's), probably because of the more rigid and structured learning environment. In schools, you are taught. In Universities, you're largely expected to teach yourself. I didn't handle the transition well.

I wish I'd done something vocational instead, like a trade school.

You're beginning to sound more and more like me. Are you sure you're not also a semi-depressed alcoholic with a morbid sense of humour?

I can tick off 2 out of 3 of those.

I went for drinks in Durham with work colleagues last month. It was the first time I'd drank in 2 years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

welshhoppo wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I bought two books at uni and barely used them. Waste of money. Use the library, all the essential course texts they have a dozen copies. If you're desperate to use them today they'll likely have a couple on short term loan meaning you'll never have to wait more than a couple of hours.

You'd think that wouldn't you?

Not a single book was available from the library for 90% of the times. They often had less than 5 copies of the books you needed.

And Kent had this lovely system where you could refresh your loan at home. It was a 2 week loan period and you could refresh it 6 times. So basically an entire semester.

The only books on short term loan were the very rare books. Regular books that you could buy didn't exist on short term loan.

In addition to books, my Uni (Teesside University) had some sort of electronic system with ebooks you could "borrow" temporarily. It was an utter nightmare to use especially on my rustbucket laptop, very slow internet connection, low framerate when scrolling, poor stability - it was always crashing.

**welshhoppo**

I'm scratching the back of my brain but I do think Kent was trying to implement something along those lines.

They used to upload everything to the blackboard, they would stream lectures (when it worked) and so on.

I think we might eventually reach a point where there is no need to go to university at all and we can all learn from our pods (as none of us will be able to afford houses). I mean the Open University is a thing.

**Howard A Treesong**

As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.

**reds8n**

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-bank-of-america-idUSKBN1A61NL?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59721ba204d3014f5408fc7f&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

LONDON/DUBLIN (Reuters) - Bank of America (BAC.N) on Friday became the first Wall Street lender to pick Dublin as its new base for its European Union operations as Britain prepares to leave the bloc.

International banks are planning to set up subsidiaries in the EU to ensure they can continue to serve clients if their London operations lose the ability to operate across the bloc once Britain leaves in March 2019.

Frankfurt and Dublin are emerging as early winners for banks' post-Brexit operations.

"Bank of America has operated in Ireland and engaged in the local community for almost 50 years," said Brian Moynihan, chairman and CEO of Bank of America.

The bank did not say how many roles would be moved or created in the Irish capital, where it currently has over 700 staff and a fully licensed entity, but said that some roles would also move to other EU locations.

The Irish government, which has been keen to attract investment banks to Dublin, welcomed the news.

"This announcement. ..is a strong endorsement of Ireland's attractiveness as a location for investment, and of the government's approach to securing Brexit-related activities," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said following the announcement and a meeting with Moynihan in Dublin on Friday.

Details of banks' Brexit arrangements are starting to emerge following a July 14 deadline for them to submit details of their contingency plans to the Bank of England.

Wall Street's Citigroup Inc. (C.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) have both picked Frankfurt as bases for their EU hubs, whilst Barclays (BARC.L) has said it is talking with regulators about extending its activities in Dublin.

Morgan Stanley is likely to spread some of its operations across the EU, with its asset management business expected to go to Dublin as well, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on July 19.

Bank of America is extending its existing lease on its building in Leopardstown, Dublin, according to the Irish Times. The newspaper also reported the bank was in talks on two other office spaces in the city that would be able to accommodate up to 1,000 employees, giving it the flexibility to add up to 300 additional staff.

Spoiler:

.... seems this is either the 12th or 13th -- claims differ -- to confirm they're moving out of the UK.

related :

http://news.sky.com/story/hammond-met-goldman-sachs-board-for-private-brexit-talks-10956637

there's times one almost feels sorry for Hammond .

**nareik**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.

I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.

To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.

**welshhoppo**

nareik wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.

To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.

Same here. I talk a lot more on forums that I do in real life.

My sunny disposition and charming personality must make it hard for me to talk to people in real life.

**Kilkrazy**

It's amazing how quickly things develop.

Only a year ago, we had absolutely no idea how Brexit was going to work.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's amazing how quickly things develop.

Only a year ago, we had absolutely no idea how Brexit was going to work.

Thats...sarcasm, right?

**nfe**

nareik wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
As I said before, you need human interaction for discussions and cooperative work. Teaching and lecturing isn't all about standing at the front with a script. Online is ok for some stuff, but with smaller classes you need the interaction.
I'm doing an online course at the moment, and for whatever reason I find myself interacting more in the discussion boards there than I ever did with my peers at uni.

To be honest, I think I probably just wasn't ready for university when I went. I did not have the perseverance I do now, nor did I have the social skills to effectively ask for help with anything.

I definitely wasn't ready the first time around. Went to uni straight from school and put exactly no effort in. Went back at 27 and applied myself and the experience was night and day. Now that I teach people at university I tend to feel that only a tiny fraction of school leavers are at all ready for university and almost everyone would be far better off working for at least a few years before embarking on higher education.

**reds8n**

...

... 2nd paragraph ..

Spoiler:

.. uh huh.

**nfe**

reds8n wrote:
...
... 2nd paragraph ..

Spoiler:

.. uh huh

Quite, quite hilarious, but the very worst kind of journalism. A guy that spoke to a guy says he was thinking about doing a thing. Case closed!

**Kilkrazy**

Lord Rothermere, who owns the Daily Mail among other papers, is known to be a Remainer, but he avoids interfering in the editorial policy.

If I am to speculate, moving the Daily Mail to Ireland would be a delicious kind of revenge on its editor Paul Dacre, who loathes the EU with a great passion and did so much to bring about the referendum result.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ruth Davidson has come out fighting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40699161

The BBC wrote:She also said people were losing faith in capitalism and were angry about social injustice.

Ruth Davidson wrote:"In short, the multiple instabilities of insecure employment, opaque career progression, wage stagnation, high rental and commuting costs and growing financial barriers to home ownership clearly explain why Britain's young adults don't feel they have a personal stake in a system that doesn't work for them."

One could add the high cost of further education but that isn't the case in Scotland, of course.

**r_squared**

Kilkrazy wrote:
....Ruth Davidson has come out fighting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40699161

The BBC wrote:She also said people were losing faith in capitalism and were angry about social injustice.

Ruth Davidson wrote:"In short, the multiple instabilities of insecure employment, opaque career progression, wage stagnation, high rental and commuting costs and growing financial barriers to home ownership clearly explain why Britain's young adults don't feel they have a personal stake in a system that doesn't work for them."

One could add the high cost of further education but that isn't the case in Scotland, of course.

It is interesting that Thatchers intent with the right to buy was to effectively buy working class voters by giving them a financial stake in the country with home ownership, and conever them to Tories. It worked. That, amongst other neo-liberal Tory/ New Labour policy has effectively disenfranchised every succeeding generation that follows.

If people have no stake in the country or its future, and they feel like cash cows for the pensions and securities of previous generations, they are quite obviously going to be angry and uncooperative. I have great sympathy for anyone under 40 at the moment, and I dread to think how my young teenage children are going to fare. It worries me greatly.

If the Tories continue, what's next? They've already botched everything with austerity and Brexit. What else do they have to do before people realise how financially incompetent and dangerous for the country they actually are?
The only way they'll get ousted is if they start cutting pensions, and raise taxes, which they will eventually have to do. There's only so much you can squeeze out of the public finances before you have to tackle the elephant in the room.

**welshhoppo**

Let's just get rid of pensions and shoot people when they are no longer able to work.

Just like that episode of Star Trek!

(Sarcasm)

**Kilkrazy**

In other news reported last week, the UK's rate of increase of life expectancy has reduced surprisingly compared with other similar countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608256

**r_squared**

welshhoppo wrote:
Let's just get rid of pensions...

The workplace pension is, I think, the first step on the path to removing the responsibility of pensions from the State. Like all things, it'll be gradual, but I get the feeling that by the time my kids approach retirement age, the idea of State issued pensions will be long forgotten for all bar the poorest in society. People will certainly be expected to take care of their own finances. The amount of NI I pay a month over the last 27 years, and am projected to pay for the next 24, could certainly have contributed to a quite comfortable pension, and private health and dental cover for my family too. Maybe the Tories are onto something.

Unfortunately, if we follow the rabbit down that hole, we'd then have a health care system like in the US. But as I can afford it, I'm alright Jack.

**welshhoppo**

I also agree with the private pensions becoming far more common. In many places they are mandatory.

I could see a future with no state funded pensions, or at least very rare.

It would save us billions, but is it fair?

**reds8n**

http://www.jayrayner.co.uk/news/michael-gove-asked-me-to-a-meeting-to-share-my-expertise-i-declined-instead-ive-given-him-a-piece-of-my-mind/

wee bit long but worth a scan.

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/07/The-Living-Standards-Audit-2017-FINAL.pdf

probably far too long but some salient points can be found :

https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/886138977555763200

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:
Let's just get rid of pensions and shoot people when they are no longer able to work.

Just like that episode of Star Trek!

(Sarcasm)

By raising the pension age you are effectively getting this, but in a less dramatic fashion

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Let's just get rid of pensions...

The workplace pension is, I think, the first step on the path to removing the responsibility of pensions from the State. Like all things, it'll be gradual, but I get the feeling that by the time my kids approach retirement age, the idea of State issued pensions will be long forgotten for all bar the poorest in society. People will certainly be expected to take care of their own finances. The amount of NI I pay a month over the last 27 years, and am projected to pay for the next 24, could certainly have contributed to a quite comfortable pension, and private health and dental cover for my family too. Maybe the Tories are onto something.

I'm generally of the view that state pensions should be means tested. It seems unreasonable that someone on a £50k pension should still be entitled to the same state pension as someone that has no private pension. I also think the state pension is ludicrously low for those that have no other income. My view is that the basic pension would rise to match the minimum wage (lets say £12000) but that the state only supports paying it to top up a private pension up to a certain point (lets say £18,000 as an example). As such if you have a private pension of £12000 you'd be entitled to a state pension of £6000. I also think you should roll all the remaining benefits into this as well. So free bus passes, winter allowance, TV licence and so on should all be incorporated into an aggregated amount. The principle is that those on low incomes get the support they need, those that don't need it don't have that same support as they don't need it.

In other news here is some lovely food we will get to enjoy as part of a US-UK free trade deal post Brexit. I think I'll buy European to be on the safe side...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-food-regulations-change-uk-us_uk_5975c4b3e4b09e5f6cd07c34?utm_hp_ref=uk

**Kilkrazy**

As regards pensions, I think the argument that everyone should have a stake in the system works both ways.

In other words, rich people who have saved into a private pension fund, and also have made extensive NI contributions to the state pension fund (mandatory by law), deserve their basic state pension as much as anyone else.

Also worth considering, if you have a huge pension fund and consequently a huge pension, you pay income tax on it.

**jouso**

Whirlwind wrote:

In other news here is some lovely food we will get to enjoy as part of a US-UK free trade deal post Brexit. I think I'll buy European to be on the safe side...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-food-regulations-change-uk-us_uk_5975c4b3e4b09e5f6cd07c34?utm_hp_ref=uk

This would have major consequences for UK producers. As a UK producer, do you lower your standards to compete with cheaper imports or do you keep more stringent EU standards so that you can keep exporting to your bigger market next door while the cheaper imports make it harder than ever to keep afloat?

Because for everyone except the biggest players maintaining two sets of standards is economically not possible.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.

Political news today:

Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.

Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.

I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.

I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.

But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this

Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?

The country IS going to the dogs!

**Mr. Burning**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.

Political news today:

Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.

Apologies for reacting to old news, and I would have posted my reply sooner, but I'm just back from my holidays.

I'll spare people my usual rant, and save my blood pressure from hitting the roof.

I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.

But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this

Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?

The country IS going to the dogs!

The Police and CPS have made a rod for their own backs. They are not fit for purpose and any increase in police numbers would mean an increase in the practices of bad policing.

Criminals roving the streets? then why are prisons teeming with the convicted?

Fearful of crime? Hardly. What you and everyone else should fear is ever ever being arrested or investigated.

Ever wonder why legal experts were so outraged when the right to silence was nixed?

Prospect of being interviewed under caution? Innocent? Make damn sure you have the best criminal defence team money can buy.

Criminals? Who are these people? They certainly aren't all Noyes, Brady, Bronson hardly any of them in fact.

**Jadenim**

Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.

Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...

feth. Off.

Edit; spelling.

**r_squared**

Jadenim wrote:
Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.

Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...

feth. Off.

Edit; spelling.

Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.

At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.

A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.

**Darkjim**

r_squared wrote:
Jadenim wrote:
Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.

Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...

feth. Off.

Edit; spelling.

Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.

At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.

A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.

Agree entirely, I use the HS2 route from time to time, and it is already a great service. I leave home in Cumbria at about 7.15am and can be in our office daaaaaaaaahn The Strand, 'avin a knees-up with Mother Brown, before 11. I have no idea how 20 minutes off that is worth £800squillion. But we apparently can't afford electrification to Windermere, which probably wouldn't even cost the PR budget for HS2.

**r_squared**

Whirlwind wrote:
...I'm generally of the view that state pensions should be means tested. It seems unreasonable that someone on a £50k pension should still be entitled to the same state pension as someone that has no private pension. I also think the state pension is ludicrously low for those that have no other income. My view is that the basic pension would rise to match the minimum wage (lets say £12000) but that the state only supports paying it to top up a private pension up to a certain point (lets say £18,000 as an example). As such if you have a private pension of £12000 you'd be entitled to a state pension of £6000. I also think you should roll all the remaining benefits into this as well. So free bus passes, winter allowance, TV licence and so on should all be incorporated into an aggregated amount. The principle is that those on low incomes get the support they need, those that don't need it don't have that same support as they don't need it.

I agree with Kilkrazy, if you've earned it, you should keep it. It would be galling in the extreme for someone who has worked hard to put in £2-400 a month into a private pension for decades to receive a much reduced, or removed State pension which puts them on the same level of pension income as someone who didn't, or couldn't, save that amount each month.
As it is many people factor in their State pension entitlement when calculating how much to pay into their private pension, and the overwhelming majority of people that would be affected by this would be normal working Joes.
Ive heard that many of the wealthy refuse their state pension entitlement anyway. Don't know how true that is, but I can imagine that many wouldn't even notice £150 a week.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...I've been shot down in flames before for saying that criminal gangs are roaming the streets with impunity, that the British public is cowed and fearful of crime, and that our prisons and judiciary are at breaking point.

But here it is at last. Proof in black and white that crime is spiralling out of control. The stats and figures back me up! Sadly, I've been proved right on this

Those crime figures make for grim reading, but who the feth is going to do anything about it?

The country IS going to the dogs!

I think you need to gain some perspective and calm down a bit. Apparently, according to statistics, Boston is the murder capital of the UK...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boston-in-lincolnshire-is-the-most-murderous-place-in-england-and-wales-home-office-figures-reveal-a6828571.html

Boston is not some seething cesspool of violence and murder, but the stats and reporting make it seem so. Perspective is needed and a cool head. Getting tied up in knots about this sort of thing re-enforces your own fears, and doesn't really do anything productive except spread your own anxieties.

**welshhoppo**

r_squared wrote:
Jadenim wrote:
Friday; sorry, there's no money for regional railway improvements, but hey, at least you won't have to put up with all that pesky construction, digging holes, etc.

Monday; oh, but we have £30 BILLION for Crossrail 2, because London is sooo lacking in public transport infrastructure...

feth. Off.

Edit; spelling.

Yep, more blatant hypocrisy that will be handwaived by the Tories. Infrastructure outside of London and the South East is uneconomical and a poor investment, apparently.

At least London is having to raise at least half of the cost, which tbf, seeing as it entirely benefits Londoners, seems fair. However, now they do that, when Boston campaigns for its relief road, and is told it must rise half the cost too, we're basically screwed. This sort of thing happens regularly, with councils having to get the begging bowl out for local business to contribute and invest. Easy to do in the south east, not so simple elsewhere.

A lot of our infrastructure projects could be tackled if it wasn't for HS2 hoovering up such an obscene amount of cash. It needs to be scrapped.

It doesn't help that Great Western didn't actually do any research into how much it would cost to electify the lines. It went by about 500% because they forgot they'd have to dig up Victorian tunnels whilst keeping the lines open and other silly things.

Besides HS2 is very important, people need to leave Birmingham as quickly as possible!