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.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
DINLT moves the goalposts! Read all about it!

It's a fair point.

Country leaving the EU = no city of culture.

Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.

Will you just read the gakking article and try arguing based on the facts, and not your made up anti-EU propoganda? It's really tiring having to deal with.

Country leaving the EU = Can no longer use EU membership as eligability = no longer eligable.
Country that's a candidate for EU membership years before the human rights abuses = elibgable.

What part of that don't you get? The EU isn't picking on us, they are just trying to stop us wasting time bidding for something we decided to disqualify ourselves from.

On Catalonia, I'll ask for a 3rd time (knowing I'll get ignored). What do you think the EU should have done?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The city of culture decision is concrete proof, if any were needed, that the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Previous entrants have included Bergen and Istanbul, which are cities in non-EU nations.

And of course, Britain is still legally an EU member until 2019...

I agree, this one seems pretty off at first, but on some reading it's perfectly fair. How can we host an event only open to EU/EEA/Candidate nations when by the time it happens we will be none of those?

EU complaining about Turkish abuse is irrelevant here - they were a serious candidate with a pro-EU governemnt when they were nominated. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed to enter now since as I understand it, they are no longer an active candidate.

We voted to leave the EU, so we can't really be surprised when we start getting excluded from things we need to be in the EU to be eligable for.

The headline was basically EU code for Britain is not giving us more money.

Can you break that down for people that don't understand "EU code"?
It's not mentioned or implied anyway, and the description seems pretty clear - the UK still doesn't seem to have any idea what it's doing.

At least I'm willing to admit the British side is not perfect.

No-one has said the EU is perfect. But you must be able to concede that the UK is a lot further from perfect than the EU.

According to the official website, Hungary will be submitting bids, and good luck to them.

But when you consider the run-ins that Hungary has had with Brussels these past years, and not a cheep from the Commission on their cities bid...

It's hard not to conclude that the UK is being singled out for nothing more than the temerity of leaving.

Europe is not the EU, and although we are leaving a political union, geographically, we're going nowhere...

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

According to the official website, Hungary will be submitting bids, and good luck to them.

Hungary is in the EU?

Europe is not the EU, and although we are leaving a political union, geographically, we're going nowhere...

Here are the criteria for being eligable: EU member. EEA member. Candidate member.

Which one are we?
Are you arguing that by 2023 we'll be one of the above again? Because it's fair enough if you are, it's fairly likely.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
DINLT moves the goalposts! Read all about it!

It's a fair point.

Country leaving the EU = no city of culture.

Country not in the EU + human rights abuses = city of entrant.

Will you just read the gakking article and try arguing based on the facts, and not your made up anti-EU propoganda? It's really tiring having to deal with.

Country leaving the EU = Can no longer use EU membership as eligability = no longer eligable.
Country that's a candidate for EU membership years before the human rights abuses = elibgable.

What part of that don't you get? The EU isn't picking on us, they are just trying to stop us wasting time bidding for something we decided to disqualify ourselves from.

On Catalonia, I'll ask for a 3rd time (knowing I'll get ignored). What do you think the EU should have done?

Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.

The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.

**Future War Cultist**

@ Herzlos

Threaten them with article 7, like they threatened Poland with?

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.

The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.

To be fair the EU still hasn't actually been told that we don't want to be in the EEA. The way things are progressing they are suggesting a Canada style deal, so this is in fitting.

I don't think the EU have dredged this up now to play politics with negotiations - who actually cares? I think more likely the next round in proceedings has started and someones asked "Will the UK actually be eligable by 2023?".

Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.

**A Town Called Malus**

Herzlos wrote:

Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.

DINLT doesn't deal with detail. He makes grand sweeping generalisations and then ignores any call as to how they could possibly work.

**Herzlos**

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Herzlos

Threaten them with article 7, like they threatened Poland with?

From a skim read it sounds as if threatening A7 would come next, if Spain didn't take heed of the initial warning.

Steps:
1. Warning
2. Threaten with A7
3. Trigger A7.1 (official notice)
4. Trigger A7.2 (suspension of voting rights).

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Herzlos wrote:

Or would you rather they left with hoops to jump through until we've left, and pull it out from under us then? I mean, if we're not eligable it should be dealt with now and we don't need to waste any more time or money on it.

DINLT doesn't deal with detail. He makes grand sweeping generalisations and then ignores any call as to how they could possibly work.

I've always been open and upfront about not being a numbers man. I prefer to focus on the bigger picture.

None the less, you, I, and everybody else on this forum are just ordinary joes who are in no position to implement these ideas or comments.

Yes, we may strongly disagree with each other from time to time, but the debates on this forum are generally pleasant, good natured, and respectful.

It's only a toy soldiers forum after all.

Despite my strong opposition to the EU, I still respect EU supporters on this forum, and hope that the friendly debate we have continues for a long time

**nfe**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.

Or the campaigns could have read the rules. Whether you think the rules are fair or not is completely irrelevant. They are what they are and they weren't a secret. A campaign for those rules to change and be open to any nation in Europe would probably be valid and worthwhile, but as the rules stand, there's nothing to see here.

**Mr. Burning**

I had no idea there was a European City of Culture. I should have anticipated it, but it isn't something that I think affects me.

On that subject, why on earth is it an issue that UK entrants are now no longer applicable. I'm almost certain that most bidding teams would have an inkling of the criteria and may have put brakes on their bidding process when 24th June 2016 rolled round.

If they didn't, more fool them.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

nfe wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At any rate, I feel sorry for the entry cities like Milton Keynes. The EU could have told them this months ago, instead of wasting their time and money.

Or the campaigns could have read the rules. Whether you think the rules are fair or not is completely irrelevant. They are what they are and they weren't a secret. A campaign for those rules to change and be open to any nation in Europe would probably be, but as the rules stand, there's nothing to see here.

In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.

If the EU had adopted that stance, I for one would have given them credit for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
I had no idea there was a European City of Culture. I should have anticipated it, but it isn't something that I think affects me.

On that subject, why on earth is it an issue that UK entrants are now no longer applicable. I'm almost certain that most bidding teams would have an inkling of the criteria and may have put brakes on their bidding process when 24th June 2016 rolled round.

If they didn't, more fool them.

Hull entered it one year.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've always been open and upfront about not being a numbers man. I prefer to focus on the bigger picture.

But in order to be taken seriously as a big picture man, you need to have some rudementary understanding of the smaller details, like vaguely how it'd work. You can't just shout "We should have a UK Space station by 2019" and be done with it.

I do agree though, this is one of the most pleasant discussions on the subject, and I'd be happy for anyone on either side to buy me a beer

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.

1. If you make an exception, everyone else will want one
2. The competition is in 2023, 4 years after your 2019 cut off. We'll be long, long gone by then, and why would the EU want to upset the EU cities to humour us?

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, to nobody's surprise, the EU are up to their old tricks again.

Write a scathing report about Britain's negotiating position, 'accidently' leak it to the press, and get their henchmen in the Remain supporting press to try and kick up a stir.

They must think we were born yesterday, if they're still trying this tactic.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/23/irish-report-shows-eu-lack-of-respect-for-uk-handling-of-brexit

Just to confirm, did you read the bit that it was a report by the Irish government? Where does it say that it was leaked by the EU. You do like jumping to conclusions and blaming the EU for anything and everything? It is a report by the Irish government on their perception of the EU talks. Lets not forget they have a vested interest to get the UK government to move to somewhere that isn't in make believe land. They are obviously concerned that the UK is about to implement some form of hard border which is not really good news for Ireland or stability in NI. What you should be more worried about is that this is not an EU report but a report by another government on their view of our negotiating strategy (and the exasperation with it).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
nfe wrote:

In my biased opinion, the fairest and most sensible thing to do would be for the EU to say, yeah, we know Britain is leaving, but they entered their bids in good faith before Brexit, so we'll make an exception just this once, and obviously, after 2019, Britain can't enter future competitions.

If the EU had adopted that stance, I for one would have given them credit for it.

There is another possibility of course. The UK likely has to contribute funds towards the City of Culture process. If the UK has looked through the bill and decided that it doesn't want to support it anymore then the EU is entitled to withdraw that support to UK bids. The original bids were likely put forward because the government probably assured them that they weren't about to turn the negotiations into a farce.

This really just comes across as:-

Person supporting leave doesn't like EU and wants to go separate way
EU accepts this decision and starts pulling things from a country that wants to go its own way
Person supporting leave complains that EU is letting country go it's own way and won't fund things there anymore.

**reds8n**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Don't you think they could have had the good manners to tell us months ago, rather than waste our time, and then spring this on us during the middle of negotiations.

The cynical part of me thinks this is convenient timing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/27/european-capital-of-culture-2023-uk-cities-submit-final-bids

27th October 2017

As the UK is still a member of the European Union, it is currently the country’s legal right to host the event. However, whether or not the event goes ahead after Brexit is dependent on the outcome of negotiations with the EU.

Michel Magnier, director for culture and creativity at the EU’s Director-General for Education and Culture, told the Irish News earlier this month that the 2023 event “could be a problem”.

“We have to prepare for the long period, five to six years, and it’s very difficult to see how it will work given that we have complete legal and political uncertainty over what we should be doing,” he said.

Launching the bidding process, a statement from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport warned local authorities that the title would be “subject to the outcome of those exit negotiations which could have a bearing on the UK’s participation”.

June 2016
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/brexit-vote-likely-kill-bids-11521503

BBC today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42097692

In December 2016, the UK government said the competition would "run as normal", but did warn bidders that it "may be subject to" the Brexit negotiations.

meanwhile...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/ken-clarke-says-david-cameron-did-some-sort-of-deal-to-win?utm_term=.jde3ppOPjA#.er70MM3xop

Ken Clarke has claimed David Cameron may have done "some sort of a deal" to win the support of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers in the run-up to the 2010 general election, culminating in senior executives at the Sun demanding the government introduce prison ships to the UK because the newspaper was running a campaign on the issue.

Clarke, who served as justice secretary in Cameron's first cabinet, said he found himself lectured by Rebekah Brooks, the former Sun editor who later became chief executive of the newspaper's parent company, on the need to put prisoners on ships off Britain's shores.

"Quite how David Cameron got the Sun out of the hands of Gordon Brown I shall never know," the veteran Tory MP said. "Rupert would never let Tony [Blair] down because Tony had backed the Iraq war. Maybe it was some sort of a deal. David would not tell me what it was. Suddenly we got the Murdoch empire on our side."

He continued: "We won in 2010 and I found myself justice secretary, lord chancellor. Within a week or two we had got Andy Coulson on board – I think he was Murdoch’s man, that was part of the deal I assume – as the press officer. I am not being totally indiscreet. Nobody seemed bothered by it very much."

Clarke made the comments earlier this month while giving evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into Murdoch's bid to take full control of the broadcaster Sky, but they have only just been released.

The Tory politician went on to describe efforts by senior management at Murdoch's UK news operation to introduce prison ships.

"Within a few weeks of taking over my prime minister arranged a meeting with Rebekah Brooks. Rebekah Brooks described herself as running the government now in partnership with David Cameron. I found myself having an extraordinary meeting with Rebekah who was instructing me on criminal justice policy from now on, as I think she had instructed my predecessor, so far as I could see, judging from the numbers of people we had in prison and the growth of rather exotic sentences.

"She wanted me to buy prison ships because she did accept that the capacity of the prisons was getting rather strained, putting it mildly, it was not the way I described it.

"She really was solemnly telling me that we had got to have prison ships because she had got some more campaigns coming, which is one of her specialities. I regarded this as a very amusing conversation and took not the slightest notice.

"As long as I was justice secretary we would not have any of this. I do not think my successor needed any promoting from Rebekah so it all went back to the norm."

Labour peer Lord Falconer, another former justice secretary who was also giving evidence to the investigation, expressed shock at the revelation and said he had been the subject of similar lobbying while in Tony Blair's government: "When I became the lord chancellor responsible for prisons I was rung up first of all by the prime minister, then by the chancellor of the exchequer, then by the home secretary, separately, all asking me why in the face of the prison crisis I was not considering prison ships. That was 2007.

"That is an amazing piece of information, the extent to which the Murdoch press was able to get, at least, for all the reasons that Ken said. Let me tell you prison ships are a very bad idea!"

At the hearing Clarke also mocked the idea that Murdoch would maintain existing standards at Sky News if he was allowed to take total control of the news channel.

"The idea that we allow the owner of Fox News to buy Sky News, assuming he will resist the temptation and be a changed man who will carry on running according to British broadcasting standards, entirely impartial ... Believe that, you believe anything.

"We do have a particularly low level, a ridiculous level, of public debate in this country at the moment. It does become ever more tempestuous, scandal ridden, shock horror crisis and all the rest of it. It would be a great thing if we could stop and protect objectivity."

A spokesperson for Rebekah Brooks declined to comment.

.. what the actual feth ?!

**Mr. Burning**

Really not surprised by this. I recall Prison Ships being touted at the time. A thoroughly strange notion.

At the time I was somewhat suckered into the possibility and the need for such ships. Asylum seekers were touted as possible residents on board as well.

What you have to wonder though. Is why Prison Ships are such big deal for Murdoch.

**Kilkrazy**

The head of the Design Council (or something) was on Radio 4 saying how important the City of Culture is to the winner. Liverpool doubled its tourism following its success in 2008.

However it's difficult to know what the European Commission would say to Bratislava or Annecy or Darmstadt if their bids for City of Culture were overlooked in favour of a city that's left the EU and is no longer allowed by the rules of the competition. (Yes, you were wrong about that too, DINLT.)

If Belfast wanted to stay in the competition they shouldn't have voted to leave. It is the definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Budget 2017: The endless living squeeze

What is the point of capitalism?
That might seem like a pretty big question, but one answer could be "to provide people the opportunity through work to become richer".
What, though, if the economy fails in that endeavour?
If the system leaves you - despite all your efforts - worse off in December than you were the previous January?
Or worse off now than you were a decade ago?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42097238

UK economy faces 'longest fall in living standards in 60 years'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42087881

**Henry**

The whining about being barred from the city of culture bid has been non stop on the news and radio today. It's like the people who voted for Brexit don't even know what they voted for.... oh, wait a minute...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
In other "bully boy EU" news, the five British cities competing for European City of Culture 2023 have been told they are not eligible for the competition.

Pfft. Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.

Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.

What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?

**Herzlos**

It's funded by the eu. They can do what they want with it.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Herzlos wrote:
It's funded by the eu. They can do what they want with it.

Still petty.

**nfe**

Here's a fun graph.

**Thebiggesthat**

I like the fact there are clear rules on this European city of culture thing, but even though they have been explained, explained again, and laid out clearly so as to leave no grey area, a leave voter wants them to both break the rules of the competition, and then starts using it as a stick to beat the EU with. The rules for EU city of culture are petty because we (leaving the EU and not interested in being a part of it again) aren't now eligible?

All this having of cake and eating it is going to make for some rather tubby little Englanders.

I say, whack the rules up on a big red bus, that'll make it clear.

**Kilkrazy**

Britain could run its own city of culture competition, so the five cities who have prepared bids can make use of the work done so far.

Of course it's a pity to miss out on the EU cash, but the DUP probably could get the government to stump up a few million if Belfast won.

**jouso**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.

Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.

What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?

They are. Switzerland and Iceland are in the EEA, Serbia and Ukraine are candidate countries.

Which leaves out the UK, Belarus and Russia. If you count the Caucasus then Azerbaijan and Armenia (Georgia is a EU candidate so it would be eligible, too). It would be a colourful competition, that's for sure.

I found DINLT criticism of Turkey a bit amusing, considering the UK was the country that pushed the hardest for Turkish membership.

**Thebiggesthat**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Britain could run its own city of culture competition, so the five cities who have prepared bids can make use of the work done so far.

Of course it's a pity to miss out on the EU cash, but the DUP probably could get the government to stump up a few million if Belfast won.

We can give the winning city some of this massive pot of money we will save. After the NHS, Emergency Services, all those that relied on EU subsidies, there will be at least 73p left for culture!

**nfe**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Britain could run its own city of culture competition, so the five cities who have prepared bids can make use of the work done so far.

Of course it's a pity to miss out on the EU cash, but the DUP probably could get the government to stump up a few million if Belfast won.

The UK already has a City of Culture competition. Belfast has won it. I think it's currently Hull.

**Kilkrazy**

Although the UK is a small, overcrowded island, I think we can find room for two cities of culture.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

People often accuse me of missing the point, but I would argue that others are missing the point, and the point is this:

Europe and the EU are not one and the same. Never have been, never will be.

Europe is a entity will be here long after the EU is gone.

Since June 23rd 2016, there have been a number of media articles bemoaning the loss of European identity and people no longer feeling European.

It's testament to the work the EU have done over the years in merging the two in people's minds.

The City of Culture set up is part of this culture war.

As somebody who reads a lot of history, there are eerie similarities here between the EU and the Khmer Rouge, especially with regard to 'year zero.'

IMO, everything before the treaty of Rome is seen as death, destruction and genocide, whilst everything after is the road to better things.

I'd never deny that Europe's history has its fair share of death and destruction, but it also gave us the Renaissance and Democracy amongst other things.

Similarly, even EU supporters would admit that since the 1950s, there have been plenty of wars and genocides worldwide, some of which sadly occurred in Europe

The break up of Yugoslavia being a prime example...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Lets just start our own European City of Culture league. Preferably with Blackjack and Hookers.

Seriously though I find it rather petty that a Nation must be an EU or EEA member to be eligible, it sounds exclusionary and Elitist. The EU =/= Europe, no matter how much the Eurocrats wish it so. Sounds like its more about Politics and the European Project than culture.

What about Switzerland? Bosnia? Serbia? Ukraine? Iceland? Are they not eligible? Why not?

They are. Switzerland and Iceland are in the EEA, Serbia and Ukraine are candidate countries.

Which leaves out the UK, Belarus and Russia. If you count the Caucasus then Azerbaijan and Armenia (Georgia is a EU candidate so it would be eligible, too). It would be a colourful competition, that's for sure.

I found DINLT criticism of Turkey a bit amusing, considering the UK was the country that pushed the hardest for Turkish membership.

You're mistaking me for the UK government. I've always opposed Turkish membership of the EU on the basis that I see them as a Asian/Middle East country, and therefore, not European.

Admittedly, it makes strategic sense to have Turkey in NATO and I have no problems with that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I like the fact there are clear rules on this European city of culture thing, but even though they have been explained, explained again, and laid out clearly so as to leave no grey area, a leave voter wants them to both break the rules of the competition, and then starts using it as a stick to beat the EU with. The rules for EU city of culture are petty because we (leaving the EU and not interested in being a part of it again) aren't now eligible?

All this having of cake and eating it is going to make for some rather tubby little Englanders.

I say, whack the rules up on a big red bus, that'll make it clear.

All I'm saying is that a bit realpolitik and common sense could have prevailed. Bids submitted before 2019 could have stood as a one-off exception.

After all, when it comes to citizens' rights, nobody will object to 2019 being the cut off point.

**Herzlos**

His Turkey point is that you're yet again bashing the EU for doing something that was driven by the UK.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

All I'm saying is that a bit realpolitik and common sense could have prevailed.

Sums up Brexit as a whole, pretty aptly.

Bids submitted before 2019 could have stood as a one-off exception.

Yeah, they could. But why?

Can you imagine how bizarre it'd be for a UK city with win the EU city of culture, whilst not being in the EU? Or the accusations if none of the UK countries gets it.

This is really a non-issue. I bet that before this came up you didn't even know there was a European city of culture, and are just latching onto this for the EU bashing.