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.
DINLT is a true populist; he has easy fixes to complicated problems, ignores the fact that said 'fixes' won't really fix anything and when asked to explain how anyone (either himself or the politicians of the UK) would go about to actually implement these fixes in the first place, his responses usually boils down to "huh? just do it!" or "It's not for me to decide, but for someone else.", while not even considering if said fixes are possible to implement in the first place or where the money required to implement said changes should be coming from.
Edit: I'm still waiting for his reply in regards to if he has an actual pain threshold for Brexit, or if he thinks the UK should go trough with it no matter the costs, even if it (hypothetically) turns England, Scotland, Wales and NI into third world countries for decades to come.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 03:28:54
You won't get one, I've been asking that question in a general way for months and got nowhere.
I'm not against the idea if trading more with India, but I don't think it's a replacement for the EU. They've got some very wealthy people who are ideal customers for high end goods. We can sell them more Indian or German owned cars.
But India wants more free movement in exchange for trade, and there are some deep rooted political issues based on our prior occupation and damage.
Of all the trade deals we're talking about, I can see the benefit for them but not so much for us. No one has been able to suggest the benefits either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 06:01:05
Herzlos wrote: You won't get one, I've been asking that question in a general way for months and got nowhere.
I'm not against the idea if trading more with India, but I don't think it's a replacement for the EU. They've got some very wealthy people who are ideal customers for high end goods. We can sell them more Indian or German owned cars.
But India wants more free movement in exchange for trade, and there are some deep rooted political issues based on our prior occupation and damage.
Of all the trade deals we're talking about, I can see the benefit for them but not so much for us. No one has been able to suggest the benefits either.
This is a general reply to yourself and a few others.
1. What's wrong with trading with India? It's a faster growing economy than say, Germany, has more people, and there is the obvious historic link with the UK. Send forth the British cargo ships. Yeah,, our history with India is obviously not ideal for obvious reasons, but the Indian middle class, by all accounts, are Anglophiles, so let's cash in on that.
2. Indian immigration. People have cited this as a stumbling block to a UK/India trade deal. I don't think it's a problem. The vast majority of British people would welcome skilled Indian doctors/nurses/dentists whatever, for the NHS. None but the most extreme racist would disagree with high skilled Indian immigrants entering the UK.
3. The EU/India trade deal. reds8n seems to think that the EU would get there first. I beg to differ knowing the EU, it will take at least 10 years, 12 committees, 3 commissions, and even then, a 3 man parliament in Latvia would probably veto it or something. The EU moves at the pace of a snail suffering from arthritis.
DINLT is a true populist; he has easy fixes to complicated problems, ignores the fact that said 'fixes' won't really fix anything and when asked to explain how anyone (either himself or the politicians of the UK) would go about to actually implement these fixes in the first place, his responses usually boils down to "huh? just do it!" or "It's not for me to decide, but for someone else.", while not even considering if said fixes are possible to implement in the first place or where the money required to implement said changes should be coming from.
Edit: I'm still waiting for his reply in regards to if he has an actual pain threshold for Brexit, or if he thinks the UK should go trough with it no matter the costs, even if it (hypothetically) turns England, Scotland, Wales and NI into third world countries for decades to come.
I've never pretended to have all the answers, and yeah, I'd be the first to admit that I don't do detail, but a grand vision and drive? That's what I propose.
Like I say, if I were British PM, I'd be pushing hard for massive infrastructure building from Land's End to John O'Groats, as an example.
Does that mean to say I know how to build a bridge or a road? Of course not. Leaders provide leadership and direction. Subordinates do the details. That's how it works, and that's what the UK is missing right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 07:53:29
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
On India, it's a fast growing economy but the majority of the 1bn population are too poor to want to buy anything from us The vast majority of the population don't touch alcohol or meat, so what we can actually sell to those that can afford goods is limited.
They have a growing middle class with new wealth, but beyond cars and hi-fis I'm not sure what we make that they'll want and can't get elsewhere. They are closer to China than us.
I'm not sure we'll negotiate a deal first, the EU has already started.
Do you really think brexiteers won't be up in arms at all those Indians taking our jobs and houses? The argument I keep hearing is that we're over crowded so this is moving one set of migrants yo another. Worse, we're changing from white Christian migrants to brown Hindu migrants. The bigots will love that, even if they can get their head around the fact they are brown but not Muslim.
India wants to sell us stuff tariff free, but they won't have any problem screwing us over after the whole colony thing. There's still a huge amount of resentment going on since we gakked them over pretty bad.
Grand vision is fine, but without seemingly basic consideration of the practicalities it's not great for a discussion. I agree that on an idea level this stuff is fine, but it's orders of magnitude harder to actually do, for less reward.
For instance, it's easy to say we should have a motorway that runs from John o groats to lands end, thats the easy bit. You'll have years figuring out the route, junctions etc, years to build, lots of devices to move, lots of land to buy. Building the road alone is about a million a mile. I think we should do it, but there's literally thousands of details to consider, not least what else we could do with the money or time.
I'd say our problem is that current leadership has some vague ideas, but no clue about how they'd actually work. Like the I'm open Irish border.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 08:56:07
Let's say for argument's sake we cut a deal with India, and part of that deal includes immigration. Let's assume that it's high-skilled immigration.
And let's say that we take in 1000 doctors a year or something.
Those Indian doctors will save lives and because of their high pay, obviously won't be claiming dole money.
Who would argue against Indian doctors in Britain? Not I. And I bet 99% of the British public would roll out the red carpet for them.
If we get highly skilled immigrants from India, it won't be a problem IMO.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Whirlwind wrote: =
And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.
Is that how'd you'd qualify the UN statement? 'Yelling abuse at a country'? Because it's considerably stronger worded, but still hardly Donald Trump v Kim Jong Un now, is it? There is something in between 'actively endorsing the actions of a country's premier' and 'declaring to have his head removed and family shot'.
Eh. I think I'm done with this one. If we've reached the stage where you can read a statement which declares they support X, and interpret it as them saying they oppose X, there's not really any further we can go on this one. Not to mention that as said before, even the UN are making stronger statements than them, and they have even less of an interest/mandate on the matter. If you honestly believe that that is anywhere near an appropriate reaction, I can't imagine that we'll find any common ground on this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 10:08:37
Let's say for argument's sake we cut a deal with India, and part of that deal includes immigration. Let's assume that it's high-skilled immigration.
And let's say that we take in 1000 doctors a year or something.
Those Indian doctors will save lives and because of their high pay, obviously won't be claiming dole money.
Who would argue against Indian doctors in Britain? Not I. And I bet 99% of the British public would roll out the red carpet for them.
If we get highly skilled immigrants from India, it won't be a problem IMO.
If we cut a deal with India, it'll be for 100,000 highly skilled individuals (doctors, accountants, whatever). People are already outraged that we have Eastern European doctors and they are buying everything up*. The deal will probably include the highly skilled individuals families.
The biggest point of Brexit was that we want to control immigration, because we're full. They aren't going to like anything that isn't controlling immigration. Like I said, it'll be worse when the migrants are obviously foreign and different. Plenty will be outraged at the continued Islamification of the UK (despite the fact they are almost all Sikh or Hindu).
As for 99% rolling out the red carpet, that's a stretch. Maybe 50% won't care, 25% will think it odd and 25% will be outraged at the fact house prices haven't gone down.
*That's one big thing India wants is investment potential; so any trade deal is going to result in Indian companies buying up a lot more UK stuff - buildings, businesses, etc.
Whirlwind wrote: =
And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.
Is that how'd you'd qualify the UN statement? 'Yelling abuse at a country'? Because it's considerably stronger worded, but still hardly Donald Trump v Kim Jong Un now, is it? There is something in between 'actively endorsing the actions of a country's premier' and 'declaring to have his head removed and family shot'.
Eh. I think I'm done with this one. If we've reached the stage where you can read a statement which declares they support X, and interpret it as them saying they oppose X, there's not really any further we can go on this one. Not to mention that as said before, even the UN are making stronger statements than them, and they have even less of an interest/mandate on the matter. If you honestly believe that that is anywhere near an appropriate reaction, I can't imagine that we'll find any common ground on this one.
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
Edit: Did you mean EU or UN?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 10:38:00
Theresa May's speech has been one of the most relentless political car crashes in history. Even if you loved every written word in it, she's only managed to say about half of them, and they've mostly been through coughs.
I believe the Tories have driven themselves into a poltical blind alley. It is obvious by now that the kind of free market policies that Tories have pursued since Thatcher and Labour since Blair, have failed large numbers of people and chunks of the national infrastructure like rail, energy and housing, while other chunks such as broadband and water are inefficient, or are returning to public ownership (sometimes other country's ownership.) Finally, Brexit needs to go really well to rescue the government from another disaster, and it probably won't go well (the way things are going ATM.) The Tories own Brexit.
Meanwhile, Labur have broken out the Red Flag and announced a lot of social democratic policies which address the previous Tory failures and appeal to a lot of people. While the Tories are trying to counter this by talking about "return to failed socialism" and so on, the actual Corbyn programme is less socialist than the UK was from the late 40s to the early 80s.
For example, Harold McMillan was building 300,000 council houses a year. That's what we tackle the housing crisis. Instead, the Tories offer more Help To Buy, a cash handout to people who've already got enough money to consider buying a house, but would like some extra money off the government, which only results in distorting the market and raising prices.
On short, the Tories can't carry on with their current policies because they don't work and are unpopular, but they can't abandon them because that plays right into the Labour hands. Therefore we get these half-baked ideas like raising the salary level where graduates have to pay their loans back. (This certainly will help a bit, but in the long term it's just building up a massive liability for the tax payer.)
We don't have free market policies in the UK. Failed banks don't get bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds in a free market!
What we have is crony capitalism, and 30 years of governments who are unwilling to take on the NIMBY property owners and BTL mob, because they want to keep the property bubble going (it creates a false bubble of a vibrant economy) and also, because they don't want to upset these people at election time.
That's why they don't build more homes in this country, and why we get more help to buy bribes.
PM DINLT would be advocating a national policy of 1 million new homes every year as a bare minimum.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Free markets are what the Tories currently say they need to defend and remake the case for, in opposition to Labour's newly rediscovered enthusiasm for nationalisation.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to look like a shambles, or if they've just run out of anyone competent. I mean, membership is at an all time low with an all time highest average age.
A nervous, coughing, spluttering, prankster interrupted, letters falling down, shambles of a conference speech from a party dying on its rear.
May's speech pretty much summed up the last 7 years of Tory rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to look like a shambles, or if they've just run out of anyone competent. I mean, membership is at an all time low with an all time highest average age.
Yeah, today, we might have witnessed the death of the Tory party.
Only Ed's tombstones can top this truly awful performance from a modern, British political leader
PS what happened to those tombstones?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 14:22:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Only Ed's tombstones can top this truly awful performance from a modern, British political leader
PS what happened to those tombstones?
It turned up in some warehouse in South London, I think. Looked it up a while ago to try and work out it's mass for a tutorial talking to undergrads about henge monuments
Only Ed's tombstones can top this truly awful performance from a modern, British political leader
PS what happened to those tombstones?
It turned up in some warehouse in South London, I think. Looked it up a while ago to try and work out it's mass for a tutorial talking to undergrads about henge monuments
Thanks for the info
Ed's tombstones and Farage's battle on the Thames against Geldof are two of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
Edit: Did you mean EU or UN?
I'm deriding the EU statement by comparing it to the UN one. Which is watered down also, but nowhere near as much as the EU one. If the EU had come out with a statement along the lines of the UN, I'd consider arguments of diplomacy/subtlety on the part of the EU to actually have some merit. As things stand, the EU's statement directly endorsed the President, the Spanish Constitution, and refused to attribute any form of culpability. When the UN, a place filled with representatives of dictators, is issuing more vehement statements than you on behalf of human rights? It speaks volumes.
I've never pretended to have all the answers, and yeah, I'd be the first to admit that I don't do detail, but a grand vision and drive? That's what I propose.
Like I say, if I were British PM, I'd be pushing hard for massive infrastructure building from Land's End to John O'Groats, as an example.
Does that mean to say I know how to build a bridge or a road? Of course not. Leaders provide leadership and direction. Subordinates do the details. That's how it works, and that's what the UK is missing right now.
But build what? 20 motorways, 30 airports, 2000ft giant concrete phalluses one for each cabinet member? You can't just build and end expect things to be all right. There's also not that much money, even HS2 and Hinkley Point are a squeeze (with the latter effectively being on credit).
On the other hand would you really trust the current lot to build anything. They can't even put a sign up. By the end of the speech it was even worse...
I'm deriding the EU statement by comparing it to the UN one. Which is watered down also, but nowhere near as much as the EU one. If the EU had come out with a statement along the lines of the UN, I'd consider arguments of diplomacy/subtlety on the part of the EU to actually have some merit. As things stand, the EU's statement directly endorsed the President, the Spanish Constitution, and refused to attribute any form of culpability. When the UN, a place filled with representatives of dictators, is issuing more vehement statements than you on behalf of human rights? It speaks volumes.
The first and second are correct, the latter is not in terms of culpability. The UN and EU statements are effectively the same just turning the words around. The only real difference is that the UN stated they could send mediators in.
There's a lot more sublety and diplomacy going on - the UN statement is clearly condemning the action and pressuring the Spanish Government to deal with it, without saying as much. In political terms they got quite the bashing, and there's no way anyone who's aware of how things works will think the EU isn't gakked off about it, but this is a statement that's been carefully constructed by seasoned diplomats. We don't want a trump style approach because it'd be pointless and imflammatory and then you'd be accusing the EU of violating sovereignty or something.
It's exactly the sort of response that you'd expect from a mature organization, whereas Trump style or May style responses (raving threats or completely ignoring the issue) are exactly what you don't want.
I'm afraid some folks just want to gun for the EU regardless of what they do and nothing will be correct. It's 'justification' as to why we should leave because how bad they are compared to our own rule (despite the fact our government said nothing about was going on). So realistically what the EU did was infinitely better than anything we did, but it is still a reason to leave. On the other hand if the best people can come with as justification to leave is a PR statement then really the EU aren't doing that bad at all...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/04 18:25:35
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.
Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?
I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.
You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.
Load them with what, exactly?
Duchy Originals?
I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc
It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.
I mean other than the majority of the Indian populace being unable to afford those things/ prohibited by their religion, sure you're on to a winner, up until the EU walks up with it's selection of stuff and larger market share for trade going the other way.
Not to mention trying to sell medicines to one of the largest producers of generic drugs in the world.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Trying to imply that Labour constituency's are all in urban areas so they don't care about the countryside? Gotta protect the green and pleasant land from those socialist city folk and there brown friends
Trying to imply that Labour constituency's are all in urban areas so they don't care about the countryside? Gotta protect the green and pleasant land from those socialist city folk and there brown friends
They should fire their joke writer and hire Frankie Boyle.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Not to mention trying to sell medicines to one of the largest producers of generic drugs in the world.
Very good point. It seems the biggest thing we sell to India is aircraft and other engines. I'm not sure how much a trade agreement will grow that.
They sell a huge number of cars to us though, and even the high end ones we sell to them are Indian owned (Jaguar Land Rover) or German owned (Bentley, Rolls Royce).
From an import point of view, it might get us slightly cheaper cars, and textiles.
But I'd have expected this discussion to have been made by the Brexiteers, trying to sell us on why these deals are good and what we can gain from them.
I'm afraid some folks just want to gun for the EU regardless of what they do and nothing will be correct. It's 'justification' as to why we should leave because how bad they are compared to our own rule (despite the fact our government said nothing about was going on). So realistically what the EU did was infinitely better than anything we did, but it is still a reason to leave. On the other hand if the best people can come with as justification to leave is a PR statement then really the EU aren't doing that bad at all...
I think that's the crux of it; some people just don't like the EU for whatever reason and can't be impartial about it.
I'd like to think I was fairly impartial about the EU; I'm certainly not it's biggest fan and it does a lot of things in an extravagent and wasteful way. But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
But I still feel we're so much better off in it, than next to it. That way we can try to reform it and benefit from membership.
Thats a delusion. There is only one direction in which the EU can ever and will ever reform, and that is "Ever closer union". For anyone who opposes further integration and blurring of national boundaries and sovereignty, the only long term solution is withdrawal.
But for anyone that wants integration and the eventual establishment of a European Super State, then I'm sure its all fine and dandy for you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/05 11:53:36
I understand your opinion, but it is only your opinion. The EU will be reformed in the ways that the member states want to reform it, influenced more by the most important states like Germany and the UK. If you don't want the EU to become a United States of Europe, the way to prevent that is to stay inside and work against it.
As a Leaver, you think the EU has already gone too far in terms of trade and free movement, that's why you voted to leave. That is why Brexiteers in general are against a transition period. There's no danger of the EU becoming a mighty federal dictatorship in the next 18 months. You want to stop free trade and free movement as soon as possible
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
knowing the 
