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**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Maybe not pub owner, but in my experience, nobody ever went bankrupt flogging booze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Quench_Retailing

Looks like we've also stumbled upon yet another innovative scheme we can use post brexit :

after all we already have the jam jars

The deadline for those parking charges has long passed and there’s still no sign of their retaliation. They never stood a chance anyway. Bailiffs don’t exist in Northern Ireland

Good for you

.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's a shame that pubs are not doing well, because I've been in some wonderful pubs in my time, the length and breadth of Britain, they're part of the national DNA, and it's an easy fix to get more people back into the pubs: give them tax breaks/cuts, and crack down on the supermarkets flogging cheap booze.

It's more that pub culture is dying off - you can't have a cheeky pint and drive anywhere, people tend not to go to the pub after a hard day in the mines anymore. Social media and internet means you don't need to go to one to socialise or watch the game.

The younger generations aren't as interested in pubs, alcohol or smoking these days. I can't remember the last time I was in one other than a Wetherspoons for lunch.
They seem to be going to coffee shops and restaurants instead.

I'd say it's more Pub Culture is changing.

When I were a lad, it was all about going out and getting hammered. Still is for me to a certain degree.

But my local pub scene has 'dead men walking', and some absolutely thriving. Those thriving form part of the local arts community. They all have regular gig nights. My local local even does Comedy Tapas - a stand up night once a month. They're what pubs should be - social hubs. That I can have a few (6) and get (only slightly) tiddly is just a bonus.

Come the Summer, it'll be Local & Live again - essentially an excellent excuse to enjoy the gorgeous Kent weather, and have a gig based pub crawl or three!

**Kilkrazy**

malamis wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the novelty and impact of social media in the world today -- FaceBook and Twitter, etc are only 10-15 years old -- some academic rigour of research and analysis in their activities is a very good thing.
...
...

Graduates with high paying jobs are likely to leave the country at the first opportunity if their options are open wide enough. The UK isn't and hasn't been the top choice to live in for some time now. Brexit might actually change that ... since residency permits are an ordeal, and living/working in a better paying, shorter working hour, nicer climate EU country will become a bit harder. Or alternatively it might galvanise the thinking population to leave and damn the torpedoes if they were on the fence. CHF 10 on the later.

Yes, some do for sure. Look at Simon Schama, who is a professor in New York. On the plus side of exporting Simon Schama and others, this is part of how the UK maintains its international soft power.

As long as the UK maintains a good standard of living and welcome academic environment, our exports are replaced by foreign entrants who pay taxes; for example, 20% of the University of Oxford's academic staff are EU citizens. (You can see where this is leading...)

We also have UK teens who go to EU universities where they can study for free, and get a foreign language and some international culture. (You can see where this is leading...)

Everything in personal and national life isn't about management accounting and financial contracts, after all.

**Jadenim**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I think we're at one of those watershed moments in human civilization, like when horse and cart was dominant, and motorcars first appeared on the scene. Sure, the horse and cart disappeared, but think of the jobs created by motoring.

Robots and automation are threatneting to take over, but I think a basic income and opportunites for people in a widely expanded volunteer sector, could be a good thing.

I've been musing on much the same thing; the potential changes to the social contract over the next few years could be fantastic. Or diabolical, if they are exploited. Either way, the world will probably look radically different in a couple of decades. I think a better analogy might be the introduction of the NHS and the Welfare state. We just need leaders with intelligence, creativity and vision to find the best way forward through these opportunities; unfortunately I can't see those on the horizon.

Either way, interesting times!

**Whirlwind**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Interestingly, BBC chose this image for the 'London Not Thunderdome' article.

I have to agree it's much sunnier than the south of England.

This is the Tory government isn't it? Out to take people to undertake menial, degrading jobs whilst they live the 'high life'?

So Gove, Boris and Davis appear to be mending earlier wounds (probably eyeing up the next leadership contest).

Gove has called Boris and Davis the 'Ronaldo and Messi' of Wrexit....I'm assuming he is referring to rich men avoiding tax at the expense of others (allegedly)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-davis-boris-brexit_uk_5a8c2a17e4b0a1d0e12d3b3a?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

**welshhoppo**

Well you could probably get rid of a bunch of the old benefits and replace them with a universal basic income.

Imagine the amount wed save on red tape alone.

**reds8n**

A tale of Brexit in 4 parts :

Spoiler:

bodes well eh ?

Another couple of months and we can all celebrate that only some of the poor will be turned in Soylent Green.

We're a mere 8 months out from Brexit and basically there still is no actual detailed plan.

For context: the beauty industry has put Christmas to bed and is working on Spring 2019 and we're trying to get things sorted for the 2019 student intake.

elsewhere :

http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/scottish-farmers-face-heavy-losses-brexit-sruc.htm?cmpid=EMP|FWCOM-2017-0327-fwgating-email|1

http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/mps-call-brexit-fund-farmers.htm?cmpid=EMP|FWCOM-2017-0327-fwgating-email|1

http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/budget-brexit-brave-new-world-lower-subsidies.htm?cmpid=EMP|FWCOM-2017-0327-fwgating-email|1

A journalist friend of mine has told me that they're having increasingly worried conversations with airlines who are desperately trying to schedule flights for 2019 with no idea what the situation is going to be.

.. It's almost like if you're running a country you cannot just wing stuff like this and hope it all comes together.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/02/20/aviation-cliff-edge-how-brexit-is-sabotaging-a-british-succe

The UK aviation industry is now the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. In 2006, it transported 268 million passengers, sustaining a million jobs, and contributing £52 billion to the economy and £9 billion directly to the Treasury. The EU is its single biggest destination, accounting for just over half of passengers.

No sane British government would ever want to leave a system which has proved so demonstrably successful. Theresa May would almost certainly rather find a way of staying in. But aviation, like every other sector, is a hostage in the internal Tory psychodrama over Brexit.

The single aviation market is part of the EU's legal spider's web. It comes under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which hard Brexiters reject, and has rules established and monitored by EU agencies, which hard Brexiters want to leave.

The most important agency in aviation is the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa). Everything you see on a plane in Europe has been vouched for by Easa - from the engine, to the landing gear, to the little trolley that goes up and down the aisle with the drinks. It's heavily influenced by the UK and France, who together provide two-thirds of all the rule-making input on European safety regulation.

If you leave it, bad things happen. All the things Easa used to take care of will suddenly have to be done by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). You don't even want to think about how much work that entails, or how many members of staff would have to be hired to do it. The level of technical complexity is dizzying.

Ensuring that the plane itself is safe to fly requires certifying 5,000 different parts. And that is just one tiny part of the work that the regulator needs to do. It'll also have to monitor the training and work of any engineer carrying out work on any plane anywhere in the UK. It'll need to have day-to-day oversight of the work done at all 172 maintenance, repair and overhaul sites. Even military training simulators for combat aircraft pilots will come under its remit.

That new regulatory work would come as Britain cut itself off from its largest market. Leaving Easa means we'd be out the continental system and back to the days of old-school bilateral treaties, restricted to flights to and fro. It would be like going back to the early 90s, but not in a fun Netflix series sort of way. Just in a really drab, irritating way. Most analysts expect there to be significant price rises for passengers, of somewhere between 15% and 30%.

This sounds bleak enough as it is, but in reality it would represent victory. Because even getting to this point means we'd have avoided several more catastrophic short-term hazards.

The first is no-deal Brexit. If talks fall apart, UK aviation faces disaster. No deal on Brexit means no deal on aviation - and no WTO-style arrangement to fall back on. Flights from the UK to Europe would have no legal foundation. Even Britain's flights to the US, which are currently validated by an EU treaty, would be affected. It would be chaos.

If a Brexit deal is reached, the transition element means UK membership of Easa would be extended for another couple of years, buying a little more time to hammer out some kind of long-term arrangement. But the third-party problem remains. Britain's flight rights and safety recognition with several other countries - including the US and Canada - both come through EU membership.

This is why the UK recently slipped out a message to world governments requesting that they continue to treat it as an EU member during transition.

In the area of flying rights, this strategy is likely to succeed. No-one gains from chaos in the air and planes grounded in a key global transport hub. The problem is with safety agreements.

The US and Canada will require detailed technical information about Britain's safety regime before they allow flights. Previously this was vouched for by our membership of Easa. But now, no-one knows what the UK is doing.

British ministers will insist that there's nothing to worry about. Our safety standards on Brexit day will be identical to the ones we had the day before. But the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) isn't worried about today. It's worried about what we'll be like tomorrow. And it is not getting anyguarantees about what a future UK aviation regime will be like, because the government is lost in a civil war between those wanting to stay close to the EU and those wanting complete divergence.

... and what are our MPS talking about today...

Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.

**r_squared**

So David Davis splashes some cold water in the face of the leave argument for sovereignty over our own laws;

UK businesses won’t be relieved of the mythical EU regulations and standards that parts of our media have gone on and on about for decades, because many of them are already global– and in fact, as the secretary of state said, these serve consumers, workers and, in some cases, our environment very well.

At least he believes we won't be heading for a race to the bottom, or a dystopian society based around the nomadic road warrior.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/20/david-davis-leavers-brexit-britain-vienna-speech

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
...

Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.

I'm not sure, but I think I remember mentioning before that I thought that the man is a bit of a tit who probably shouldn't be left in charge of an empty room.

**Kilkrazy**

There was a very interesting interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, with one of the Brex-gak-eer ministers (I can't remember exactly who) to cover the topic of the bonfire of the regulations.

The basis of his argument was that it doesn't matter what the detail of regulations is, providing the end result is the same, and this is how the post-Brexit UK can have its cake and eat it.

The problem is that when pressed, he was unable to give a single practical example to support his argument. It was just another piece of Brex-gak bs.

I think we can all see the point of the bonfire of the regulations in the history of the Working Time Directive.

When first proposed by the EU, this Directive cause the usual wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects like the CBI and ID, saying it would lead to a Max Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland of uncompetitiveness of UK businesses, Therefore the full weight of UK diplomacy was deployed and we got a triumphant exemption.

The result is that UK workers can be forced by their employees to do over 48 hours a week, while in poor old France they are restricted to 35 hours by law.

The UK's productivity is now the worst of the G7 and heading lower, while French productivity took a jump after their 35-hour week was introduced.

In short, feth off, Brex-gak-eers, and don't come back until you've got something to say that isn't a fire-hose of magical unicorn diarrhoea.

**Whirlwind**

r_squared wrote:

Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.

**Piston Honda**

It seems like there is a growing movement to vote at the age of 16 in the UK.

How likely is that to happen and what are your thoughts about that?

**BaronIveagh**

r_squared wrote:
Perhaps the Humungus' gritty hockey mask conceals the ravaged face of a once bumbling Tory Foreign minister?

If it did, he's gotten a lot more cut.

**Future War Cultist**

Piston Honda wrote:
It seems like there is a growing movement to vote at the age of 16 in the UK.

How likely is that to happen and what are your thoughts about that?

I’m torn on the idea. On the one hand the young are getting completely ripped off by a selfish older class who are out to hoard as much as they can. But kids are also stupid and naive. Honestly I think it’s best to just leave the age at 18. Because it’s not the age that’s the problem but participation. Old people vote in high numbers whilst the young don’t seem to bother.

Also, I’ve got a gripe coming on. I have to pay out like a fifth of my income in direct taxation (income tax, national insurance, road tax etc.) never mind things like vat and fuel duty. So at a bare minimum, I’m taxed at 20%. Remind me again the percentage of tax that big companies and mega rich pay again? A fraction of a percent isn’t it?

**Piston Honda**

Do you believe that the age to vote will be lowered? It Seems like a desperate way to get votes from the outside looking in.

**Future War Cultist**

Piston Honda wrote:
Do you believe that the age to vote will be lowered? It Seems like a desperate way to get votes from the outside looking in.

If labour get in, it’s quite possible. They’d like all those kids to have the ability to vote for them. The torries would never do it, as the young don’t generally vote for them. That’s what it comes down to though. It’s pure politics.

**Jadenim**

I’ve previously been in favour of lowering the voting age because you could leave school at 16, get a job, start paying taxes, join the army at 17, etc. all without any say in the policies governing those things (I.e. no taxation without representation, should sound familiar!

)

However I’m not sure that those arguments hold true, given the changes to school leaving age, etc. Not saying I no longer hold the belief, simply I don’t have kids and am no longer young (

), so I just don’t know how the rules work these days. But to me the principle holds; if at 16 you are considered an adult* and subject to legislation, you should have a say in that legislation.

* because, obviously, children are also subject to legislation, but it is assumed that their parents represent them.

**r_squared**

I believe that, in the UK, you're legally an adult at 18, unless you're in Scotland where the age is 16.
Tied in with the discussion earlier that teenagers struggle to make sound choices about their life's direction and suggestions that the brain doesn't fully mature until around 25, there maybe an argument against earlier voting, and in fact it may make sense to push it back until at least 21.
However, I'm not making that argument. I think that, if you can legally start a family and work, then you should be able to vote. There's also a suggestion that mid-teens are more politically activated than those ever so slightly older than them, so why not.

The fear on the right-wing is that children will be brainwashed by teachers, well if that's the case, then maybe the right wing should be making better policies and actually considering the youth vote rather than just dismissing it? Lefty right-on teachers may even come around to supporting the conservatives, if they actually made policies that supported, rather than attacked education and the younger generations.

**Herzlos**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Piston Honda wrote:
Do you believe that the age to vote will be lowered? It Seems like a desperate way to get votes from the outside looking in.

If labour get in, it’s quite possible. They’d like all those kids to have the ability to vote for them. The torries would never do it, as the young don’t generally vote for them. That’s what it comes down to though. It’s pure politics.

Exactly. 16 & 17 year olds are more likely to vote Labour, so the Tories will never allow it.

There's no reason 16 & 17 year olds couldn't be well enough informed - they have a better grasp of information gathering than most of us, and they could easily have some politics and economics taught at schools.

They could be better informed than plenty of the older voters, or anyone who reads the daily mail.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Voter participation in General Elections has been on a decline since the 1990s, and that trend looks to continue.

Instead of wasting time arguing for the kids to vote, it would be far more useful to try and win over the millions of adults who don't vote anymore.

A simple, why don't they vote anymore, would be a good question to start from.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

In terms of Teenage Idiocy, inherent to the age group because that's most what being a teenager is (we've all been one, we all know it's true, and completely natural), I see little difference between 16 and 18.

**welshhoppo**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In terms of Teenage Idiocy, inherent to the age group because that's most what being a teenager is (we've all been one, we all know it's true, and completely natural), I see little difference between 16 and 18.

I also agree.

Also, considering how many "kids" these days are still in school at 18 (either with A levels, or heading off to university) then they have even less knowledge of "the real world".

It's also one of the reasons that I don't like career politicians. Because they too have no knowledge of the real world.

**Kilkrazy**

My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

**welshhoppo**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

Enter the slippery slope arguement.

Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.

**Kilkrazy**

Speaking for myself, I am pretty happy with the status quo in terms of voting ages.

I think the most important thing is that political parties need to get better at energising the population and presenting policies clearly and honestly.

There are lots of criticisms around this, one of them being that a lot of voters are woefully ill-informed and operate pretty much on blind prejudice and the perceived character of the main party leaders, to the exclusion of any real engagement with policy.

However as often said before, democracy is the worst system of government that has been invented, except for all the other ones which have been tried.

I believe that a degree of porportional representation in Parliament would go a long way to energising voters who at the moment feel their votes count for nothing because they live in a safe "Party Y" seat.

**A Town Called Malus**

welshhoppo wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

Enter the slippery slope arguement.

Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.

But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.

**welshhoppo**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.

(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)

Enter the slippery slope arguement.

Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.

But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.

Well unless there is a means tested way of actually knowing how politically savvy people are. The same can be said for everyone.

One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.

Or are they?!?

**A Town Called Malus**

welshhoppo wrote:
[One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.

Or are they?!?

Bit of a waste of time trying to explain the difference between the Tories and UKIP considering the aftermath is the Tories adopting UKIPs positions of "Eat cake, have it too"

**welshhoppo**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
[One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.

Or are they?!?

Bit of a waste of time trying to explain the difference between the Tories and UKIP considering the aftermath is the Tories adopting UKIPs positions of "Eat cake, have it too"

Too true.

To be honest I used to vote Tory because I used to dislike the other parties more. But I'm not sure who to even vote for even more.

**Herzlos**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the most important thing is that political parties need to get better at energising the population and presenting policies clearly and honestly.

If you could somehow force politicians to be honest you'd go a huge way towards boosting voter numbers. I suspect a lot don't bother because they view it pointless - you can't actually take what they say as even close to true, and they feel the end result is the same - that they'll get shafted either way.

I honestly think a party gets more votes because they don't want the other party, rather they want that party.

Like I honestly can't say I know anyone who voted Tory because they like the Tories, but a few that voted Tory because 'anyone but Labour'.

**Kilkrazy**

You can force politicians to be honest by being informed on the issues and having a vote that actually counts.