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.

**reds8n**

http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-does-not-have-to-be-clever-to-be-brexit-secretary-2017-12

LONDON — David Davis believes he doesn't have to be "clever" or "know that much" in order to be Brexit Secretary.

Davis, who is managing Britain's exit from the European Union, told LBC that the only requirement for the job was staying "calm" rather than knowledgeable, or intelligent.

"What's the requirement of my job?" he asked LBC's Nick Ferrari.

"I don't have to be very clever. I don't have to know that much. I just do have to be calm."

The Brexit Secretary, who last week told MPs that his department had not commissioned a single Brexit impact assessment, told Ferrari that he did not believe in attempting to judge how Brexit would impact the economy.

"I don't believe in economic forecasts. They've all been proven wrong," he said, adding later that "anybody can do details."

Davis also accused his colleague, Chancellor Philip Hammond, of misspeaking when he said last week that Britain would pay a divorce bill regardless of the outcome of talks.

The Brexit secretary said Hammond had "slightly misspoke," adding that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that the payment was "contingent on on a deal."

Davis was also pressed on comments he made on Sunday that the Brexit deal agreed last week was merely "a statement of intent" and not legally enforceable.

The comments on the BBC, led to a warning from the Irish government, that they could still block the deal from ratification at the EU summit this week.

Davis downplayed the row, saying that his words at the weekend had been "twisted" out of context.

the only requirement for the job was staying "calm" rather than knowledgeable, or intelligent.

Truly we are led by giants.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But it's all working out so swimmingly so far.

You're....you're not suggesting gross incompetence?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

nothing is agreed until everything is agreed

It's on the official EU documents in black and white, so when people say that last week's agreement is not legally binding, they are correct.

Admittedly, the politics of it is another matter entirely.

**Herzlos**

bouncingboredom wrote:

Or they could pay for their own degree, get the better job, and still pay their taxes like everyone else does.

But if you do that you're ensuring that education and good jobs go to the kids of the already wealthy, with almost no opportunity for anyone from a poor background to improve themselves or contribute.

I'd never have gone to uni if I had to pay for it myself (uni costing about 1.5x my student salary), or my parents had to pay for it (they couldn't), but since I did I've been a higher rate tax payer for a few years now. I've easily paid more tax in my career than uni cost, and I needed a degree for this job. Without it I'd likely be earning half of what I do, and likely pay about a quarter of the tax. So am I a net taker or giver in the grand scheme of things?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Meanwhile in Poland...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/as-brexit-moves-on-poland-risks-becoming-eus-real-rogue-state/ar-BBGz5su?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

I have no idea how credible that news organisation is, but in chimes with what other media organisations are saying about Poland.

Another headache for the EU?

I keep banging this drum, but if we had even a barely competent Foreign Secretary, instead of a shambling buffoon, we might have been able to rally the Eastern nations to our side, or at the very least, got them questioning Tusk and Juncker's Brexit strategy and sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels.

What a missed opportunity

**Kilkrazy**

I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Herzlos wrote:
bouncingboredom wrote:

Or they could pay for their own degree, get the better job, and still pay their taxes like everyone else does.

But if you do that you're ensuring that education and good jobs go to the kids of the already wealthy, with almost no opportunity for anyone from a poor background to improve themselves or contribute.

I'd never have gone to uni if I had to pay for it myself (uni costing about 1.5x my student salary), or my parents had to pay for it (they couldn't), but since I did I've been a higher rate tax payer for a few years now. I've easily paid more tax in my career than uni cost, and I needed a degree for this job. Without it I'd likely be earning half of what I do, and likely pay about a quarter of the tax. So am I a net taker or giver in the grand scheme of things?

Pretty much this. Free University is a good thing, and benefits the nation.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What a missed opportunity

Brexit in a nutshell.

Honestly, did you expect any better?

**Kilkrazy**

To be honest, if kindergarten, primary and secondary school are free because it benefits the nation to educate the people, why should the same principle not apply to university? (And why not to apprenticeships?)

The fees system was introduced for two purposes.

1. To save the government from giving as much grants to the universities as previously.

Sadly this is a failure because billions of £ of loans will never be repaid, and will fall to the tax-payer anyway -- but crucially, not for another 25-30 years.

In other words, it's another accounting scam that simply gets costs off the balance sheet now by postponing them.

2. To marketise the higher education system on the theory that marketising things is always good.

Apart from this being automatic rubbish, it isn't working anyway because University of West London and University of Oxford both charge the same for their courses, because it is capped by the government, and there is no market.

I also fundamentally disagree that education should be like buying fish. It concerns peoples' lives and the life of the whole country.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Yup.

Education is how we've grown not just as a society, but as a species - the handing down of knowledge hard won speeds up progress.

To arbitrarily shut that down is unfair and pointless.

Consider folk like me. As I've said, I've got the merest clutch of GCSEs, but now have an excellent job many graduates would give their eye teeth for.

I didn't get to Uni in the end because I just wasn't ready in terms of maturity. The GCSE courses turned me off, and I languished for years in fairly menial low paid jobs.

Whilst I got lucky, there's many others in the same boat as me, people who didn't reach their potential in the 5-18 age group, only properly getting into gear later.

Does it make sense that they can't now go back into education without incurring crippling debt?

You say Uni isn't for everyone. And you're right, it's not. But that decision shouldn't boil down to 'can I afford this' - ever. I'd far rather thousands drop out in their first few months that a single student miss out on achieving their potential.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.

That may sound harsh, but it's realpolitik. We are after all leaving the EU. A friendly, working relationship is good, no argument from me, but it will never be a univeral pact of brotherly love.

and we shouldn't forget that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What a missed opportunity

Brexit in a nutshell.

Honestly, did you expect any better?

I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.

I was wrong...

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

This is why you get accused of thinking in the past - almost no-one alive now is old enough to remember this happening at the time. You're also glossing over the efforts the Polish put in to help us, and the suffering they faced for another 40 years under the Soviet Union. How long do we get to lord it over them for? 100 years? 200? Does that forgive anything we do in the interim?

I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.

I was wrong...

I wasn't even expecting basic competence, and I'm disappointed. So you shouldn't feel too bad about getting this one wrong.

**AndrewGPaul**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A lot of people were expecting the Brexit talks to have collapsed by now, and for May to have been ejected because of the shambles of June's election, but here we are, finishing 2017 with May as PM, and Brexit talks moving on to phase 2.

It's foolish to predict anything in politics.

**A Town Called Malus**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.

It would also help if we didn't have huge portions of our media railing against "eastern europeans swarming over here and stealing all the jobs/houses/NHS money/benefits etc."

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.

We didn't throw them under the bus in 1945. We recognised the reality of the situation: the Red Army controlled Poland, and we weren't prepared to fight them for Poland.

And of course, the USA, FDR in particular, had been seduced by Stalin, so the Americans wouldn't have went to war either.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

This is why you get accused of thinking in the past - almost no-one alive now is old enough to remember this happening at the time. You're also glossing over the efforts the Polish put in to help us, and the suffering they faced for another 40 years under the Soviet Union. How long do we get to lord it over them for? 100 years? 200? Does that forgive anything we do in the interim?

I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.

I was wrong...

I wasn't even expecting basic competence, and I'm disappointed. So you shouldn't feel too bad about getting this one wrong.

I'm not glossing over Polish efforts in WW2

I'm merely reacting to the idea that Britain should have put in lot of spade work to get Poland on side in the Brexit talks. It was Britain that pushed for Poland's entry into the EU, and of course, the WW2 thing.

At the very least, I'm saying we should have some credit in the Polish goodwill bank.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...

Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.

Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.

Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.

It would also help if we didn't have huge portions of our media railing against "eastern europeans swarming over here and stealing all the jobs/houses/NHS money/benefits etc."

You're mistaking a few vocal, Dad's Army types as the bulk of our media. That's not the case.

Newspaper readership numbers have been falling since the 1990s. IMO, newspapers are not as influential as they used to be.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ bouncingboredom

I was a binman.

I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.

I did 3 days as a Binman via an agency before I left to work in a Warehouse driving Forklifts.

Knockagh wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
@ bouncingboredom

I was a binman.

I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.

I did the bins too. Many years ago when I was at uni, (some 25 odd years ago....) the depot at Ballyearl. I did Rathcoole, Ballyclare and Shore Road. It was a great job back then, if everybody on your lorry would start early, around 5am, you could be finished up for half 10 or 11 and you got paid for 8 hours no matter how long it took. I think things have changed now though you must do your 8 hours. Probably some EU regulation! (I joke)

Na, I did 3 days as a Binman in summer of 2016 and that was still the case. You did your assigned rounds, and if you cracked on and finished early you got to go home early. You were still technically on the clock, so the HQ could call you and send you off to assist another crew that was falling behind on their rounds but if you'd already gone home they generally wouldn't bother.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...

Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.

Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.

Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.

Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.

It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.

Its a shame our Royal Marines will be sailing to battle on French warships...

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.

That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.

It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.

We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.

As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...

Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.

Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.

Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.

Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.

It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.

I had hoped the Brexiteer plan for the UK's future prosperity and international influence was a bit more sophisticated than just waiting for WW3 to break out.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.

Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.

It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.

And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.

**Ketara**

I think that when it comes to higher education skills, making them generally accessible is a good thing, whether in the form of loans, taxes, or grants, from government or private sources. Arguing about the format is looking far too closely at the trees, and missing the forest; namely the very basic query of 'Is the 3 year degree format the best way to deliver the kind of education required?'

As thing stand, the majority of students put in just enough work to scrape out with a 2:1, and the knowledge acquired is rarely directly applicable outside of STEM. As was said above (I think it was nfe?), the real skill learned is how to perform basic research and analysis of an issue, and put together a structured opinion on it in a coherent fashion. That's essentially what most papers are graded on. With that being acknowledged, is a three year expensive course the best way to acquire that skill?

Probably not, is the answer. There's some steps being taken to address this now with the courses being shortened to two years, but frankly? A motivated student could easily pick up the general skills learnt over the course of a degree in a year if they wanted to and worked hard. If you were willing to standardise a curriculum with that in mind rather than spreading out across multiple departments, you could likely bring the cost right down too.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Well, seemingly nothing sane or rational will!

**Kilkrazy**

Ketara wrote:
I think that when it comes to higher education skills, making them generally accessible is a good thing, whether in the form of loans, taxes, or grants, from government or private sources. Arguing about the format is looking far too closely at the trees, and missing the forest; namely the very basic query of 'Is the 3 year degree format the best way to deliver the kind of education required?'

As thing stand, the majority of students put in just enough work to scrape out with a 2:1, and the knowledge acquired is rarely directly applicable outside of STEM. As was said above (I think it was nfe?), the real skill learned is how to perform basic research and analysis of an issue, and put together a structured opinion on it in a coherent fashion. That's essentially what most papers are graded on. With that being acknowledged, is a three year expensive course the best way to acquire that skill?

Probably not, is the answer. There's some steps being taken to address this now with the courses being shortened to two years, but frankly? A motivated student could easily pick up the general skills learnt over the course of a degree in a year if they wanted to and worked hard. If you were willing to standardise a curriculum with that in mind rather than spreading out across multiple departments, you could likely bring the cost right down too.

Radio 4 was discussing this topic this morning, with relation to the proposed 2-year degrees.

As far as I understand it, there already are 2-year degrees, called Foundation degrees, but these are regarded as lower quality than full 3-year (or Scottish 4-year) degrees, as they contain less teaching. The government's new idea is that the 30 weeks of terms in a standard university academic year (24 weeks at Oxbridge) -- which is 90 teaching weeks in a full degree -- can be put into two years of 45 weeks each.

The counter-argument is that the Russell Group universities may not agree to this, since their teaching staff are also their research staff, and have a lot of work outside the lecture theatre. That would lead to a two-tier system in which a degree from the University of Oxford is considered better than a degree from the University of West London.

OTOH this situation already exists. It is well-known that some universities are better than others, attract and matriculate better quality students, and turn them out with higher skills in whatever degrees they choose to study.

I do agree that a lot of the general skills in many degrees can be taught fairly quickly. When I went back as a mature student to Birkbeck, three of the modules or courses in my degree were "Essay writing for academic purpsoes", "Research skills for business students", and "Numerical methods for business". Much of the material would be appropriate for any degree that was not highly maths or lab based.

**Herzlos**

The risk with condensed degree courses is again, funding. 45 weeks of course a year (7 off), means a lot less summer and thus makes it impossible to get a summer job. The extra workload probably also rules out being able to do an evening/weekend job at the same time.

It also adds a lot of additional pressure.

If I could afford it; I'd be all for a more compressed schedule, but it's not always possible.

**Kilkrazy**

If students were not paying tuition and hall fees, they would not have so much need for weekend/summer jobs.

**jouso**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.

Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.

It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.

And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.

It's interesting that everyone I've bumped into this "you'll need us when Putin invades" rhetoric are also the ones most vocally opposed to EU military integration (and immediately vehemently deny both statements are in any way connected).

Only a few fringe cases but still food for thought.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I'm opposed to EU Military Integration.
Europe does not need us because Putin is not going to invade.

Putin is a trumped up bogeyman that the EU is exploiting to justify more empire building projects (expanding EU influence into the Ukraine, establishing an EU military).