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**

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/979049662433947650

As Thomas Jefferson may or may not have said, “the price of liberty is eternal fiscal vigilance”. We cannot put the spending horse ahead of the growth cart.

...

.. where does she think the horse is supposed to go then ?

**Darkjim**

The horse will be sold off in one of our new trade deals, and we won't make carts anymore, problem solved.

**Kilkrazy**

Brexy Multi-Bonus!

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped

**Whirlwind**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Here’s another question, how would remaining in the eu have helped with that? If they own it they own it right?

What are the options? Buy them back?

The only restriction the EU place is in summary the amount of fish that each nation can draw from different fisheries. This is based on scientific data on what is sustainable (so we don't have a cod grand banks scenario).

The allocation is udnertaken by th UK and always has been. From what I understand they allocate a large fraction to "Producer Organisations" which are meant to distribute them to their members. The problem being these same POs effectively being the same as the fishing companies. If you are an independent the share of the fisheries you get is basically the scraps off the table as the government process massively favours the big PO involved organisations (and I'm sure their are party donations). The POs aren't bound to ensuring they use UK fleets/vessels so in effect whoever happens to own a large share of the PO massively benefits. In the EU we had to the power to change this. All it requires is a change in the allocation method (no public owned companies needed). However the small fisherpeople have been told a pack of lies that it is the EU allocation system that is at fault rather than our own implementation of these quotas. They have been 'useful fools' for the Leave campaign. Allowing less control to be put in the hands of the POs would quickly help redress some of the balance.

The big concern when we leave (both scientifically and probably in the EU) is that these restrictions will be lifted. Although initially smaller vessels might benefit (because they aren't hamstrung by UK govenrment unfair business practices) it will also lift restrictions on the big PO companies as well. That would result in a massive upswing in unsustainable fishing which would lower prices and make small vessels less viable both here and in the EU. However over 10-20 years, and as fish migrate and don't respect borders, this could result in massive depletion of fisheries which will likely if the early cheap prices haven't already done so probably end the majority of small fishing vessels. The large fleet vessels won't care they will just move on to deeper seas. For the smaller vessels here and in the EU will become rusting wrecks. But of course we don't expect the Tories to care about anything other than the big business donors do we?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkjim wrote:
The horse will be sold off in one of our new trade deals, and we won't make carts anymore, problem solved.

We won't need them because the UK will do things differently...by inventing new imaginary devices using square wheels that will somehow work...

**Steve steveson**

Not with an attitude like that they won’t.

**reds8n**

..glad we cleared that one up then eh ?

Still it's not like there's any real political news to be discussed

http://uk.businessinsider.com/all-the-bad-news-theresa-may-government-just-tried-to-bury-take-out-the-trash-2018-3

A rather cynical tradition has developed in recent years in which, in the final days and hours before MPs leave Parliament for an extended break, the government releases a deluge of embarrassing reports, statistics, and statements in an apparently deliberate attempt to bury them.

This Easter has been no different. Here are just some of the inconvenient stories Theresa May's government has tried to bury over the past 24 hours.

When George Osborne was Chancellor he announced a controversial cut to housing benefit which threatened to prevent all people aged between 18-21 from claiming it. The change became a rallying point for campaigners, who accused ministers of attempting to push young people into poverty and homelessness.

As a result the government later introduced a large number of exemptions in an attempt to fight off criticism of the cut. However, so widespread were the exemptions that the policy only ended up affecting a very small number of people once it was eventually introduced. As a result the government today quietly ditched the policy altogether.

"I am today announcing that the Government will amend regulations so that all 18-21 year olds will be entitled to claim support for housing costs in [Universal Credit]" the Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey acknowledged in a statement slipped out on parliament's website today.

A damning report slipped out on Wednesday reveals that the government's much-trumpeted border 'exit checks' introduced to keep track of people moving to the UK have completely failed. The study, by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that as of last summer, there were hundreds of thousands of people whose right to remain in the UK had expired but for whom the government had absolutely no record of having left. Of the 601,000 that slipped through the net, 513,000 did not hold a visa.

Government employees interviewed by the inspectors were damning. "We were initially told that the system would tell us if someone has or has not left the country," one anonymous employee said. "It sounds so simple, but the reality is that there are so many ways in which the data can get muddled and confused. Internally, there was no comprehension at the vast and complicated nature of the data and the patterns we are seeing."

When David Cameron's government resurrected the 'right to buy' scheme they promised to replace any increase in the number of social homes sold, with new homes. However, according to a written statement slipped out on Thursday afternoon that is simply not happening.

According to a statement by the housing minister Dominic Raab, the statistics reveal that "while the number of homes available for social rent has increased, some local authorities have not been building enough Right to Buy replacements to match the pace of their sales,"

Overall, the new statistics show that since the right to buy scheme restarted, there have been around 63,000 sales of social homes as opposed to just 16,000 new builds. This means that four times as many homes have been sold as those that have been built to replace them.

The immigration chief inspector also submitted a damning report on the treatment of child asylum seekers. The report is highly critical of the government's communication, assessment and care for those claiming asylum, stating that the children's "best interests" were not secured by ministers. In conclusion, they found that "there is a considerable amount of work for the Home Office to do. Given the impact the asylum system has on the lives of those children and young people who come into contact with it, I hope that the Home Office can move quickly to make the necessary improvements."

Yet another damning immigration report slipped out over the past 24 hours reveals that the government has failed to properly implement a whole series of official recommendations designed to clamp down on the spread of modern slavery in the UK. The new report found that of the 12 earlier recommendations, five had either not been properly implemented or completed.

TBF the housing benefits idea was always ridiculous and ill thought out.

If , for example, you've been in care your whole life what are you supposed to do when you turn 18 ? Magically inherit a castle or something ?

Deserves to be scrapped and rethought out.

It's a pretty pisspoor state of affairs when a govt. cannot get through their own recommendations with regards to the slave trade though eh ?

Politically edifying exchange of the week :

"There's no policy of indefinite detention. Nobody is held indefinitely" Home Office perm Sec Philip Ruttnam tells MPs

Yvette Cooper: "So what definite date are they given?

Ruttnam: "There is not a policy of giving a definite date"

related :

https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/979313072371322880

The registration system for EU nationals is delayed & wont go live until the end of this year. That gives the Govt two years to process 3.5m EU citizens, as well as those who arrive during the transition. That means the Home Office granting one application every 3.75 seconds.

and Leave.EU leap on board the antirascism party :

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/979331640987176960

classy there eh ?

.. I haven't been so distraught since I learnt that Long Distance Clara wasn't actually married to Hugo the Chef, but they were, apparently, living in sin !

**Whirlwind**

and Leave.EU leap on board the antirascism party :

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/979331640987176960

classy there eh ?

.. I haven't been so distraught since I learnt that Long Distance Clara wasn't actually married to Hugo the Chef, but they were, apparently, living in sin !

Well they are only proving what half the country already thought. That Leave.EU is lead be group of racist, religiously intolerant parts of the population.

At least we have something to point to when people sit around in denial.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

It's a real shame that there are not regulations on politicians outright lying to the populace given that there will be less money available to the NHS. Unless of course she means by certainty is that they are definitely going to scrap it?

**Kilkrazy**

Profound divisions in the UK revealed by Brexit study

The authors make several arguments as to why it is highly unlikely people will change their minds about the UK leaving the EU:

People’s preferences about EU membership are tied up with values, which are entrenched and unlikely to shift

Confirmation bias’ leads Remainers and Leavers to discount information that does not correspond with their values

For many Leavers, the attraction of Brexit was about identity politics more than economic calculus

This report was released in February. I don't think we discussed it at the time, but it's interesting because of the next item:

UK majority will soon back remaining in EU as demographics change.

TL/DR: Brexit is supported more strongly by the older generation, who are inevitably more likely to die. The young generation now moving into voting age, tend to support Remain.

Of course this is based on analysing the voting pattern last time, and there would be different factors in a second referendum. However, if Brexit is not a dynamic success, I believe we will attempt to rejoin the EU in the next 10-15 years.

**Graphite**

Got to love some Theresa May quotes

"What I'm clear about is <Massively vague and ill defined thing that I want>. What I'm unclear about is everything else, like how much it will cost or how it will be achieved"

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

However, if Brexit is not a dynamic success, I believe we will attempt to rejoin the EU in the next 10-15 years.

In the unlikely event of that scenario happening, I doubt the EU would forgive and forget, and let us waltz back in as though we had never left.

They would lay down the law to us: no rebate, no opt outs, and the Euro would replace Sterling...

That's a very hard sell to the British public...

A lot of Remain supporters would probably baulk at that.

**Future War Cultist**

Yep. I believe we would also be required to accept membership of the Schengen zone.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Yep. I believe we would also be required to accept membership of the Schengen zone.

Fact of the day: I have visited Schengen and Maastricht and Brussels as well for that matter

Europe is a wonderful place, full of wonderful people, and if they had kept it as a common market, people like Farage would have been a very minor footnote in history:

Daily Mail page 17 8th August 2005: former city trader done for selling whale meat to North Korea in violation of UN sanctions, or something as equally as daft...

The above would likely have been the sum total of Farage's impact on British history had the EEC stayed the EEC.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Alternatively, if a significant segment of the British public weren't OK with blatantly xenophobic BS he'd have no influence either.

**Disciple of Fate**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, if a significant segment of the British public weren't OK with blatantly xenophobic BS he'd have no influence either.

And when most of the stuff he's ranting about are flat out lies, what does it matter what reality is?

**Kilkrazy**

It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".

You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Reality?

Back in the 1970s, 2/3rds of the British public voted to join the EEC. A few decades later, we're out...

If a hugely successful business had crashed that bad, or if Man United dropped from the PL to League 2

serious, serious, questions would be asked. Fingers would be pointed day and night...

That's the reality that Remain should be asking themselves. How did they go from people dancing in the streets in 1973, and even the Daily Mail cheering the move, to 2016 and leave?

I'm sorry to say that Remain was at the helm for 40 years, but now they've sent their project to the bottom of the ocean.

That's gross incompetence in my book.

And I keep banging this drum, but from my reading of 'All out War,' if Remain had taken the referendum seriously for even a nano-second, they'd have won, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There's half-arsed campaigns, and then there's David Cameron's half-arsed campaign...

A die-hard Brexit supporter like me could have ran a better Remain campaign...

That's your reality.

**Disciple of Fate**

You misunderstand my point about reality. Fact is that Farrage was very far from being truthful. It doesn't necessarily matter what the truth or reality of the matter is as long as people buy into the lies. This was certainly noticeable in a certain topic that is not to be named on DakkaDakka. Certain beliefs just flew in the face of reality/established facts, but that didn't matter when the lies are convincing or what people want to hear.

Even if the EU had barely evolved since the 70's Farrage would have still found something to lie about. Because Farrage is in it for his own gain, not out of any conviction on a certain topic. Farrage was raging against a monster he invented, not the one that actually existed. The EU had/has plenty of faults, but Farrage just chose to plain lie about the EU. Meanwhile he earned a lot of money from the organization he supposedly hates so much.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".

You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.

I'm going to go with "nope", for several reasons.

1: I didn't call anyone racist. I said that there is a chunk of the UK population that is "ok with xenophobic BS". The continued existance of the Daily Mail, The Sun, the Leave.eu post linked earlier on this very page and a multitude of other instances of blatantly xenophobic BS that gets to continue seemingly supports my claim. The Sun and the Daily Mail would go out of business if people didn't support the absolute rubbish they peddle.

2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

3: I realize that people's concerns are genuine and heartfelt. Now what? Why does that matter in the slightest if that conviction is based on a faulty understanding of the situation. Ignorance is an explanation for xenophobia, but it's not an excuse.

4: The genuineness and heartfeltness of people's concerns are secondary, in that what matters is why people feel worried. If the entire population of Slough woke up tomorrow and started demanding that Parliament seriously start working for a ban on uranium imports from Indonesia, citing anti-nuclear sentiments, the reasonable reaction isn't to go "Sure, we'll get on that. We hear your concerns and are working on a solution!", it's to point out that the problem that Slough is worried about doesn't exist because there already is no import of uranium from Indonesia anyway. This doesn't stop being the case just because Slough starts complaining more loudly. Figure out why Slough argues this way, but don't just accept the Sloughian framing of the problem as the truth.

That last sentence is not one I thought I'd ever write.

**Future War Cultist**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".

You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.

Have an exalt.

**Whirlwind**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not a thing of a chunk of the population being "ok with xenophobic BS".

You have to realise that peoples' concerns are genuine and heartfelt, even if they are based on a faulty understanding of the situation. They are not racists.

Have an exalt.

The problem is that there are racists, how widely is uncertain. The leaders of the countries, the politicians should be responsible to answer and challenge incorrect notions before they start rolling out of control. Instead we have politicians and people like Farage and May that are being allowed to feed off these incorrect notions (such as controlling immigration), that grows those same sentiments which these politicians feed off and re-magnify and the cycle repeats getting worse each time.

As a populace we are feeding that treadmill and the politicians in turn do the same, we are all at fault, but it does grow racism in society as a whole. It needs someone to try and break that cycle but none of our current main politicians want to do it because they fear the impact on their party.

The only light is that the younger populace do appear to be more aware that people shouldn't be determined by colour/religion/sexual preference alone. I see Wrexit as the last anguished screams of a beast that is dying and is lashing out in it's death throws. Or I can only hope.

**godardc**

How is Nigel Farage xenophobic ? What made you think that ? And about what did he lie ?

**AlmightyWalrus**

There's his stance on the Rivers of Blood speech, his constant misrepresentation of the Swedish rape statistics, the "breaking point" pro-Brexit poster, and eleventyfive-billion other examples. There's also the little deal with him leading the UKIP while said party took every opportunity no matter how dishonest to complain about how immigration was destroying Great Britain.

**godardc**

Hmm, I know him for being the leader of UKIP, who wanted (and succeeded in) to secede from the Union (who can blam him ?), but not for being a stupid racist, I will take a look

**AlmightyWalrus**

There's a difference between being "a stupid racist" and being xenophobic.

Besides, I'd never call Farage stupid.

**godardc**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's a difference between being "a stupid racist" and being xenophobic.

Besides, I'd never call Farage stupid.

Yes indeed ! But often, I speak to people who don't understand the difference so I assumed you mixed the two, you too. I apologize, my bad ! What is he up to, now that his party reached its goal ?

**notprop**

2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.

The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UK MP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

notprop wrote:
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.

The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UK MP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.

If MEP's have no relevance here, why are we worried about the EU?

**jouso**

notprop wrote:
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.

The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UK MP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.

UKIP got almost 4 million votes on the 2015 election. The fact that Farage didn't get a seat was down to the unique British electoral system, not lack of relevance. Serious is a whole different thing, Beppe Grillo might not be a serious politician, but for sure he's been very relevant in Italian politics.

And even before that, UKIP has been disproportionally represented in the media front.

With 25 appearances by Nigel Farage on Question Time and more than 23,000 press mentions, UKIP is attracting historically unprecedented levels of coverage for a minor party.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/just-how-much-media-coverage-does-ukip-get

It's undeniable that it's been UKIP that caused a shift the balance of power in the conservative party.

**AlmightyWalrus**

notprop wrote:
2: Considering the amount of support Farage has enjoyed there clearly is a not insignificant chunk of the population of the UK that is OK with xenophobic BS, because otherwise Nigel Farage would be a fringe loony instead of a loony in the middle of the spotlight. It's not about malice or actively hating "lesser races" or anything like that, it's about apathy and not caring about what the people you (generic you) vote for actually do.

Perculiar that you imagine that Farage is seen as a serious or relevant politician and this is what you base let’s face it quite ignorant remarks on.

The clue is in the fact that he has never been a UK MP. MEPs really have no relevance here, I couldn’t name any and I doubt many Brits could. That might also be ignorant but it isn’t Xenophobic.

The man was a leading figure of the Leave campaign. Come on. I should have been writing in past tense since Farage has stepped back since the vote, but when you're one of the leading figures for something the size of the Brexit vote you're pretty blatantly serious and important.

**Kilkrazy**

When notprop said MEPs have no relevance what he meant is that most people in the UK don't bother to vote in EU elections. This doesn't make the EU irrelevant, it makes the people who don't bother to vote, irrelevant.

Farage has stood for parliament and lost seven times. As party leader he of course chose the best chance seat and still failed. This helps show that the 13% of the total votes which UKIP scored in 2010 was spread across the country, because it consists of the same sort of right-wing nationalist base who are present in most European countries, e.g. le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, and Haider in Austria. It's worth noting that UKIP managed to get a number of local council seats which are contested in much smaller constituencies.

Personally I feel that this large a group does deserve to be represented, even though I disagree with their views. Ironically they are the kind of people who are more likely to have voted against the referendum to bring in the Alternative Vote system.

The disproportionate amount of media attention to UKIP goes some way to redressing the balance. It is a double-edged sword, though, because it has also exposed what a bag of clown shoes the party is on the whole.