|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 19, 2019 17:22:00 GMT
There’s a peculiar half story doing the rounds today: Freedom of movement 'will end' says the government which starts... This is pretty serious stuff imo. A first real test of Boris’s Brexit approach. It’s important he sets out sooner rather than later what the new approach is. I think it's all part of the sham. Why has it taken 3 years to get tough?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 19, 2019 18:40:02 GMT
There’s a peculiar half story doing the rounds today: Freedom of movement 'will end' says the government which starts... This is pretty serious stuff imo. A first real test of Boris’s Brexit approach. It’s important he sets out sooner rather than later what the new approach is. I think it's all part of the sham. Why has it taken 3 years to get tough? Wasn't May's Withdrawal Agreement stopping freedom of movement as soon as we left the EU? It'a difficult to describe May as "tough", but on the specific issue of immigration (assuming I've remembered right) then her deal was clamping down on immigration from day one.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 19, 2019 18:49:26 GMT
I think it's all part of the sham. Why has it taken 3 years to get tough? Wasn't May's Withdrawal Agreement stopping freedom of movement as soon as we left the EU? It'a difficult to describe May as "tough", but on the specific issue of immigration (assuming I've remembered right) then her deal was clamping down on immigration from day one. I may be wrong, Rip, but I thought it was being phased in under May's WA. So much has happened that I might well be wrong, though.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 19, 2019 22:50:40 GMT
Whilst I am passionately in favour of Brexit I am not in principle against immigration. I am not in favour of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and believe there should be controls, but I am quite relaxed about anyone coming to this country from anywhere to earn a living and help grow the economy. There are many sectors of the economy that are very dependant on immigrants to function. On the ethnicity issue we should all remember that virtually all our ancestors were at some time immigrants. many of them fled their countries because of poverty and persecution. It may take some generations but eventually everyone becomes absorbed into the general fabric of our society. Immigration is a major driving force of our economy (see links below) as are other factors such as having our own currency, the English language, the inherent talent of the population, and our unique heritage. America was built on immigration* which was essential to exploit its natural resources. If we are to continue to be the 5th biggest economy, we need to grow the economy and that will only happen with a larger working population, particularly as the retired population will continue to grow rapidly, and freedom to trade freely with those parts of the world that are growing rapidly, which the EU clearly isn't. * “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html
www.ft.com/content/f1ca7b14-b1d6-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 20, 2019 4:50:17 GMT
Whilst I am passionately in favour of Brexit I am not in principle against immigration. I am not in favour of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and believe there should be controls, but I am quite relaxed about anyone coming to this country from anywhere to earn a living and help grow the economy. There are many sectors of the economy that are very dependant on immigrants to function. On the ethnicity issue we should all remember that virtually all our ancestors were at some time immigrants. many of them fled their countries because of poverty and persecution. It may take some generations but eventually everyone becomes absorbed into the general fabric of our society. Immigration is a major driving force of our economy (see links below) as are other factors such as having our own currency, the English language, the inherent talent of the population, and our unique heritage. America was built on immigration* which was essential to exploit its natural resources. If we are to continue to be the 5th biggest economy, we need to grow the economy and that will only happen with a larger working population, particularly as the retired population will continue to grow rapidly, and freedom to trade freely with those parts of the world that are growing rapidly, which the EU clearly isn't. * “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html
www.ft.com/content/f1ca7b14-b1d6-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341Nicely put Mr Coke. I’ve been lucky enough to work in NZ & Canada but in both countries, the onus has been on an employer to show the need for my skills & for me to prove I am able to meet the need & benefit their economy. There are processes there to enable free movement, it’s just takes effort.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Aug 20, 2019 8:09:47 GMT
Crocodile tears. The UK has been able to control immigration from the EU to a far greater extent than it actually chose to do so. Other EU states manage to do just this. "Uncontrolled immigration", in this context, is a meaningless, nonsense term, used to trade on people's fears, and as part of the anti-EU drive.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Aug 20, 2019 13:18:28 GMT
Worth a read for a little understanding on why the WA (Which Boris is sneakily trying to bring back to the table) is a horrible idea, with or without the backstop. Link.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 20, 2019 13:27:54 GMT
Whilst I am passionately in favour of Brexit I am not in principle against immigration. I am not in favour of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and believe there should be controls, but I am quite relaxed about anyone coming to this country from anywhere to earn a living and help grow the economy. There are many sectors of the economy that are very dependant on immigrants to function. On the ethnicity issue we should all remember that virtually all our ancestors were at some time immigrants. many of them fled their countries because of poverty and persecution. It may take some generations but eventually everyone becomes absorbed into the general fabric of our society. Immigration is a major driving force of our economy (see links below) as are other factors such as having our own currency, the English language, the inherent talent of the population, and our unique heritage. America was built on immigration* which was essential to exploit its natural resources. If we are to continue to be the 5th biggest economy, we need to grow the economy and that will only happen with a larger working population, particularly as the retired population will continue to grow rapidly, and freedom to trade freely with those parts of the world that are growing rapidly, which the EU clearly isn't. * “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html
www.ft.com/content/f1ca7b14-b1d6-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341The only problem with this is 'grow the economy' how can we go on growing the economy year on year, we will run out of land at some point and run out of resources, We should start to look at localisation and degrowth more as we head towards a robotic work place Can't somebody look at degrowth as a way forward so we dont need 300,000 a year coming in
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 20, 2019 14:38:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Aug 20, 2019 14:57:45 GMT
Worth a read for a little understanding on why the WA (Which Boris is sneakily trying to bring back to the table) is a horrible idea, with or without the backstop. Link. I'm amazed May had the sheer audacity to present the WA as a negotiation, it seems like it was written by the EU for May, truly horrifying. Point 3 is absolutely breathtaking "The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited."
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Aug 20, 2019 15:33:07 GMT
Mays withdrawal agreement was designed to fail so we’d end up fully reintegrating in a few years, she was a remainer and an avid europhile, her heart was never in brexit.
I wanted Boris to be PM directly after the referendum because he represented the brexiteers most viable and best option, but I’ve never fully trusted him, he’s always been wishey washey on the EU. I’ve been saying for the last few weeks that The first thing he will do is attempt to get the Eu to scrap the backstop and then breath new life into Mays deal., I don’t think he’s seriously considering no deal.
For brexiteers we have no allies in paliament or the government, for them this is just a political game, hardly any of them are committed to leaving the EU.
|
|
|
Post by melbournestokie21 on Aug 20, 2019 15:37:49 GMT
Aussie here
Posted this on the corbyn thread but hoping for replies specifically about brexit and uk politics in general as an outsider.
Mums not a fan of the toris though she has a thin grasp of politics (grandad was a miner in Biddulph when the pits were closing)
So presumably labour was the working class party back then?
My question however is, I know pretty much nothing about uk politics.. just wondering if labour there is the same as the party over in Aus..
More concerned with social change and virtue signalling rather than actual issues (at the face of it anyhow).
Im naturally inclined to side with the toris as im a fan of the ironically named liberal party here, given I feel like I lean more towards having conservative values but wouldnt go as far as identifying as one idk.
Is anyone willing to explain brexit to me as an outsider? And with that why Coates is fanatical remainer (does he have genuine reasons other than self interest with bet365)
I know almost nothing about brexit but assume at the face of it its a backlash over England not needing the EU as much as it needs them.
Immigration, funding etc? Whats the key issue of it all?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 20, 2019 22:35:19 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be?
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Aug 20, 2019 22:54:43 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? Don't know what tomorrow's scare story will be but I do know the rest of the world is bigger than then the EU.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Aug 20, 2019 23:03:27 GMT
Aussie here Posted this on the corbyn thread but hoping for replies specifically about brexit and uk politics in general as an outsider. Mums not a fan of the toris though she has a thin grasp of politics (grandad was a miner in Biddulph when the pits were closing) So presumably labour was the working class party back then? My question however is, I know pretty much nothing about uk politics.. just wondering if labour there is the same as the party over in Aus.. More concerned with social change and virtue signalling rather than actual issues (at the face of it anyhow). Im naturally inclined to side with the toris as im a fan of the ironically named liberal party here, given I feel like I lean more towards having conservative values but wouldnt go as far as identifying as one idk. Is anyone willing to explain brexit to me as an outsider? And with that why Coates is fanatical remainer (does he have genuine reasons other than self interest with bet365) I know almost nothing about brexit but assume at the face of it its a backlash over England not needing the EU as much as it needs them. Immigration, funding etc? Whats the key issue of it all? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 21, 2019 7:14:23 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? We will as well now be able to set our own rate of vat or abolish it all together on certain products , something we aren't allowed to do at the moment
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Aug 21, 2019 7:56:15 GMT
Ian Holloway is blaming VAR & the new handball rule on the EU.
It gets nuttier every fucking day.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 21, 2019 8:11:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Aug 21, 2019 8:24:02 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? What barrier do you think the EU put up to third-world countries to stop them from selling their agriculture products to the West? There’s an EU initiative called Everything But Arms (EBA) where the world’s least developed countries can trade with the EU duty-free and quota-free for anything except armaments. Maybe that’s the goal of the government at the moment, to turn us into a third-world country so we can trade with the EU freely as part of EBA. That’ll learn ‘em.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 21, 2019 8:49:52 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? What barrier do you think the EU put up to third-world countries to stop them from selling their agriculture products to the West? There’s an EU initiative called Everything But Arms (EBA) where the world’s least developed countries can trade with the EU duty-free and quota-free for anything except armaments. Maybe that’s the goal of the government at the moment, to turn us into a third-world country so we can trade with the EU freely as part of EBA. That’ll learn ‘em. Perhaps we could make our own decisions without reference to the EU or the need for an EU initiative.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Aug 21, 2019 9:04:19 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? What barrier do you think the EU put up to third-world countries to stop them from selling their agriculture products to the West? There’s an EU initiative called Everything But Arms (EBA) where the world’s least developed countries can trade with the EU duty-free and quota-free for anything except armaments.Maybe that’s the goal of the government at the moment, to turn us into a third-world country so we can trade with the EU freely as part of EBA. That’ll learn ‘em. A bit like WTO and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). So we can import from LDCs rather than Spain and Holland if the EU are to impose tariffs?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 21, 2019 9:38:49 GMT
Quiz question. What hinders your negotiation stance more? Taking No Deal off the table or labelling the backstop undemocratic and unconscionable just four months after voting for it?
Answers to:
Some Hypocritical Fop Haired Cunt 10 Downing Street London W1 C UNT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 21, 2019 9:44:34 GMT
As the government struggle to deliver Brexit by 31st October, the daily scare stories are being trotted out by the media, with their negative slant on a no deal Brexit, which no one wants but no one is prepared to compromise their position on. Yesterday, we have the food scare that cheap none European food imports would put British farmers out of business. No comments of course that it would be much better for the poor to have cheaper food when we leave the EU, or the benefits to those third world countries that are desperate for foreign exchange by selling agricultural products to the West to which the EU put up a barrier. No mention that farmers benefit from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of c 4 billion Euro pa which of course is our own money which we could give agriculture directly and more objectively to suit our needs. No mention that French farmers receive over double British farmers, or that a lot of the money doesn't go to farmers but French food processors. Or that Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland all receive substantially more than the UK. capreform.eu/gainers-and-losers-from-the-cap-budget/The CAP is one of the reasons that the EU is desperate to prevent us leaving as we subsidise Europe. There will no doubt be a shortage of Dutch and Spanish tomatoes, but great news for Morocco! The media talk about how dependant we are on Europe for food, but fail to point out the biggest import sector is French, Spanish, Italian, and German wine. Well tough we will just have to buy from the rest of the world. Today we have had the scare that UK fuel plants will be threatened by cheap imports of fuel from outside the EU. Lower fuel prices would be a benefit to our economy. The government can flex fuel prices by taxation. No mention that lower fuel prices will be a huge benefit to farmers production costs, and the cost of transport of all goods within the UK. What will tomorrow's scare story be? What barrier do you think the EU put up to third-world countries to stop them from selling their agriculture products to the West? There’s an EU initiative called Everything But Arms (EBA) where the world’s least developed countries can trade with the EU duty-free and quota-free for anything except armaments. Maybe that’s the goal of the government at the moment, to turn us into a third-world country so we can trade with the EU freely as part of EBA. That’ll learn ‘em. Thank you for your response, I attach a couple of links to varying views on the effects of leaving the EU. We had to put up with increased food prices as a penalty for joining the EU and turning our backs on our kindred spirits in Australia and New Zealand. Now we are being told be some there will be increased food prices if we leave. We had to give up our fishing waters to the EU access when we joined the EU and now they want to keep them as part of any trade deal when we leave. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47401160brexitcentral.com/leaving-eu-wto-terms-will-pull-barriers-world-trade-cut-prices-consumers/The truth is no one knows what the detailed outcome will be. I expect pain in the short term as some people have their awkward hats on and say "I told you so", but in the long term we will be better off. We are being steadying stripped of our wealth by the the EU by a massive trade deficit of £70 billion pa and our financial contribution will increase massively if we decide to stay in the EU. I assume your last line is just being factitious. You may find this illuminating: capx.co/best-of-2018-the-unseen-benefits-of-leaving-the-eu/What we do know is what has happened in the past. We have been deceived by EU membership since we joined the EEC. It has cost this country £billions over the years to the benefit of the other countries and a minority of people in this country. The UK can still play a major world role outside the EU. Why you joke about us becoming a third world country I don't know, but we are still the 5th largest economy in the world and will be able to expand faster free from EU restrictions. Finally, I would ague that the EU has a limited life anyway. As soon as we are out, other countries will follow and the EU will implode under the weight of the poorer countries in the group, which is what Brussels are most afraid of.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 21, 2019 10:04:03 GMT
What barrier do you think the EU put up to third-world countries to stop them from selling their agriculture products to the West? There’s an EU initiative called Everything But Arms (EBA) where the world’s least developed countries can trade with the EU duty-free and quota-free for anything except armaments. Maybe that’s the goal of the government at the moment, to turn us into a third-world country so we can trade with the EU freely as part of EBA. That’ll learn ‘em. We had to put up with increased food prices as a penalty for joining the EU We had to give up our fishing waters to the EU access when we joined the EU and now they want to keep them as part of any trade deal when we leave. - In the long term we will be better off. We are being steadying stripped of our wealth by the the EU by a massive trade deficit of £70 billion pa and our financial contribution will increase massively if we decide to stay in the EU. Neither 2017 or 2018 reached 70 billionWill be able to expand faster free from EU restrictions. As soon as we are out, other countries will follow and the EU will implode under the weight of the poorer countries in the group, which is what Brussels are most afraid of. Just wondering if you have any facts to back up these points?... and I mean not from a Pro-brexit site like you referenced earlier.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Aug 21, 2019 10:24:26 GMT
Theres no time for a full renegotiation so surely Boris, if he wants a deal, has no choice but to resurrect Mays deal ? If the Eu budge on the backstop they’re not likely to budge on anything else, are they ?
If Boris does this he is going to get clobbered by brexiteers in a future general election.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Aug 21, 2019 10:29:13 GMT
Aussie here Posted this on the corbyn thread but hoping for replies specifically about brexit and uk politics in general as an outsider. Mums not a fan of the toris though she has a thin grasp of politics (grandad was a miner in Biddulph when the pits were closing) So presumably labour was the working class party back then? My question however is, I know pretty much nothing about uk politics.. just wondering if labour there is the same as the party over in Aus.. More concerned with social change and virtue signalling rather than actual issues (at the face of it anyhow). Im naturally inclined to side with the toris as im a fan of the ironically named liberal party here, given I feel like I lean more towards having conservative values but wouldnt go as far as identifying as one idk. Is anyone willing to explain brexit to me as an outsider? And with that why Coates is fanatical remainer (does he have genuine reasons other than self interest with bet365) I know almost nothing about brexit but assume at the face of it its a backlash over England not needing the EU as much as it needs them. Immigration, funding etc? Whats the key issue of it all? It's difficult to be objective across such a wide range of subjects but I will do my best, some of what I say will obviously be based on my own experience and beliefs so disclaimer: I'm a labour voter who would probably be classed as a democratic socialist, my favourite politician was Tony Benn who is well worth a listen to, and a read of his diaries regardless of your political alignment. So if you're ready for a little essay/missive: Your mum not being keen on the Tories is a common theme felt here in the many parts of the UK particularly in the post-industrial North/Midlands as she shifted the UK out of what was called the "post-war consensus", which was essentially a Keynesian economics based system with a mixed economy (nationally owned utilities and public services, allowances for private enterprise albeit somewhat taxed.) The consensus was managed in the same fashion by both Labour and the Conservative party until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher beat James Callaghan in the general election triggered by a no-confidence vote in the Labour government (lost by one vote) At this time the UK was known as the sick man of Europe and suffered immensely from un-competitive nationally owned businesses and trade unions strong-arming the government into unsustainable wage agreements (albeit ones driven by payment gaps due to rapidly uncontrallable inflation) which culminated in the "winter of discontent" of 1978-79 in which large trade unions went on strike resulting in rubbish not being collected, graves not being dug and picket lines outside hospitals. So, Thatcher won the 1979 election and made control of inflation at any cost her modus operandi. Based on the economics of Milton Friedman she cut the monetary supply, reduced direct taxes and cut public spending in a lot of different fields such as education, health, social housing, energy etc. The economy started to crash and the industries of the North and Midlands caught the brunt of it, and inflation still remained incredibly high despite dropping slightly since the Labour government. There were around 2.5 million people unemployed in 1981 when her popularity reached the lowest recorded level for a sitting prime minister. Anyway to fast forward a bit after thr Falklands War in 1982 (the British public like nothing more than a quick war) her popularity stabilised and the economy recovered sufficiently enough to easily win the 1983 general election, which is where Thatcherism went into overdrive. The nationally owned industries were sold off for a quick buck, previous Tory Prime Minister Harold MacMillan accused her of "selling the crown jewels". Next she began steps to deregulate Britain's financial markets to transition the UK from a manufacturing economy to a service and financially based one. The only problem with this was the fact most people in Birmingham and beyond were employed directly in manufacturing. The confrontation with the Unions was inevitable but unlike previous Prime Ministers she prepared herself. She effectively crippled the unions through a mix of legislation, under-cutting their labour (coal for instance, was brought in for 1/10th of the price from South Africa ahead of the miners strike) and they have never recovered to anywhere near what I would personally consider an effective level (I think they were too powerful in the 70s however). Entire communities dependent on manufacturing collapsed and a deep seated hatred for conservatives and Thatcher emerged which I would say still persists in many communities to this day. Her rhetoric didn't help either, referring to the Unions and their members as "the enemy within" What I would say about this period is that the decline of UK manufacturing was inevitable, but Thatcher was callous in how it was carried out and it was transitioned far too quickly leaving many immensely skilled people out of a job for life. What Tony Benn referred to "a complete and utter contempt for skill". Thatcher pressed on with her economics and deregulated the stock market in 1986 and the economy boomed as financial services flocked to London. She won the 1987 election with consumate ease against Neil Kinnock who was in the process of reforming the Labour Party from a socialist party to a more centrist one. Thatcher's demise came when she supported changes to council tax in the form of a poll tax. That is to say, charging each person individually for council tax as opposed to charging based on the rental value of a house. This naturally effected the poorer members of society. She lost the support of her cabinet and resigned from office and was replaced by John Major. I'm boring myself now so I'll wrap up quickly as possible. Labour were now almost completely reformed into a centrist party led by Tony Blair. The Tories were suffering major scandals and after 18 years in government were grossly unpopular with a lot of people. Without the usual defence of saying Labour were marxist dinosaurs to fall back on, Labour annihilated the Conservatives in 1997. Winning over 400 seats out of 659. Blair barely touched the reforms made by the previous Tory governments but did spend more money on education sectors. In Health he actively continue the marketisation brought in under Thatcher. He also committed a lot more money to the welfare state during this time but this was offset in other areas, such as bringing in tuition fees for students. Iraq permanently damaged his popularity though so he resigned in 2007 replaced by Gordon Brown who got slapped in the face of the economic crash in 2008. He later admitted they should have made greater steps to regulate the financial sector in their 13 years in power. They lost the general election to a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition led by David Cameron who pursued austerity (quite similar to Maggie's initial policies) to counter the deficit. The arse fell out of public services and I personally would argue we've still not full recovered in this country. Such auysterity led to the need to create a "credible" opposition to the Tories and with changes to the Labour leadership elections a genuinely left-wing candidate was elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The trouble is, Corbyn is just about the least appealing leader that the members could have chosen to appeal to middle England (basically the marginal seats you have to claim to win a GE). He was traditionally a protest MP, and has associated with causes some deem unpalletable. He also carried Labour into forms of identity politics and social justice, which again a lot of people don't view as electable. That all depends on your point of view. In Normal circumstances, the party lines would be fairly drawn in the sand but Brexit has completely clouded the issue on every topic you can think of. Corbyn as a socialists is pre-disposed against the EU but has revised his position whilst in the post-industrial cities the EU (this is completely my opinion) has been used as a scapegoat for their woes, when in reality its the governments of the last 20-30 years that have left them behind to follow the pound sterling elsewhere. That said, there are plenty of legitimate arugments to take up with the EU on more or less any issue you can think of, particularly how democratic it is or not, policies of free movement, greatyer integration, hence this mess. It's very difficult to pigeon hole as a set of issues because everyone has different priorities. Essay over, hope it helps clear at least some things up for you. (and sorry all for the massive post)
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Aug 21, 2019 10:47:26 GMT
Aussie here Posted this on the corbyn thread but hoping for replies specifically about brexit and uk politics in general as an outsider. Mums not a fan of the toris though she has a thin grasp of politics (grandad was a miner in Biddulph when the pits were closing) So presumably labour was the working class party back then? My question however is, I know pretty much nothing about uk politics.. just wondering if labour there is the same as the party over in Aus.. More concerned with social change and virtue signalling rather than actual issues (at the face of it anyhow). Im naturally inclined to side with the toris as im a fan of the ironically named liberal party here, given I feel like I lean more towards having conservative values but wouldnt go as far as identifying as one idk. Is anyone willing to explain brexit to me as an outsider? And with that why Coates is fanatical remainer (does he have genuine reasons other than self interest with bet365) I know almost nothing about brexit but assume at the face of it its a backlash over England not needing the EU as much as it needs them. Immigration, funding etc? Whats the key issue of it all? It's difficult to be objective across such a wide range of subjects but I will do my best, some of what I say will obviously be based on my own experience and beliefs so disclaimer: I'm a labour voter who would probably be classed as a democratic socialist, my favourite politician was Tony Benn who is well worth a listen to, and a read of his diaries regardless of your political alignment. So if you're ready for a little essay/missive: Your mum not being keen on the Tories is a common theme felt here in the many parts of the UK particularly in the post-industrial North/Midlands as she shifted the UK out of what was called the "post-war consensus", which was essentially a Keynesian economics based system with a mixed economy (nationally owned utilities and public services, allowances for private enterprise albeit somewhat taxed.) The consensus was managed in the same fashion by both Labour and the Conservative party until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher beat James Callaghan in the general election triggered by a no-confidence vote in the Labour government (lost by one vote) At this time the UK was known as the sick man of Europe and suffered immensely from un-competitive nationally owned businesses and trade unions strong-arming the government into unsustainable wage agreements (albeit ones driven by payment gaps due to rapidly uncontrallable inflation) which culminated in the "winter of discontent" of 1978-79 in which large trade unions went on strike resulting in rubbish not being collected, graves not being dug and picket lines outside hospitals. So, Thatcher won the 1979 election and made control of inflation at any cost her modus operandi. Based on the economics of Milton Friedman she cut the monetary supply, reduced direct taxes and cut public spending in a lot of different fields such as education, health, social housing, energy etc. The economy started to crash and the industries of the North and Midlands caught the brunt of it, and inflation still remained incredibly high despite dropping slightly since the Labour government. There were around 2.5 million people unemployed in 1981 when her popularity reached the lowest recorded level for a sitting prime minister. Anyway to fast forward a bit after thr Falklands War in 1982 (the British public like nothing more than a quick war) her popularity stabilised and the economy recovered sufficiently enough to easily win the 1983 general election, which is where Thatcherism went into overdrive. The nationally owned industries were sold off for a quick buck, previous Tory Prime Minister Harold MacMillan accused her of "selling the crown jewels". Next she began steps to deregulate Britain's financial markets to transition the UK from a manufacturing economy to a service and financially based one. The only problem with this was the fact most people in Birmingham and beyond were employed directly in manufacturing. The confrontation with the Unions was inevitable but unlike previous Prime Ministers she prepared herself. She effectively crippled the unions through a mix of legislation, under-cutting their labour (coal for instance, was brought in for 1/10th of the price from South Africa ahead of the miners strike) and they have never recovered to anywhere near what I would personally consider an effective level (I think they were too powerful in the 70s however). Entire communities dependent on manufacturing collapsed and a deep seated hatred for conservatives and Thatcher emerged which I would say still persists in many communities to this day. Her rhetoric didn't help either, referring to the Unions and their members as "the enemy within" What I would say about this period is that the decline of UK manufacturing was inevitable, but Thatcher was callous in how it was carried out and it was transitioned far too quickly leaving many immensely skilled people out of a job for life. What Tony Benn referred to "a complete and utter contempt for skill". Thatcher pressed on with her economics and deregulated the stock market in 1986 and the economy boomed as financial services flocked to London. She won the 1987 election with consumate ease against Neil Kinnock who was in the process of reforming the Labour Party from a socialist party to a more centrist one. Thatcher's demise came when she supported changes to council tax in the form of a poll tax. That is to say, charging each person individually for council tax as opposed to charging based on the rental value of a house. This naturally effected the poorer members of society. She lost the support of her cabinet and resigned from office and was replaced by John Major. I'm boring myself now so I'll wrap up quickly as possible. Labour were now almost completely reformed into a centrist party led by Tony Blair. The Tories were suffering major scandals and after 18 years in government were grossly unpopular with a lot of people. Without the usual defence of saying Labour were marxist dinosaurs to fall back on, Labour annihilated the Conservatives in 1997. Winning over 400 seats out of 659. Blair barely touched the reforms made by the previous Tory governments but did spend more money on education sectors. In Health he actively continue the marketisation brought in under Thatcher. He also committed a lot more money to the welfare state during this time but this was offset in other areas, such as bringing in tuition fees for students. Iraq permanently damaged his popularity though so he resigned in 2007 replaced by Gordon Brown who got slapped in the face of the economic crash in 2008. He later admitted they should have made greater steps to regulate the financial sector in their 13 years in power. They lost the general election to a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition led by David Cameron who pursued austerity (quite similar to Maggie's initial policies) to counter the deficit. The arse fell out of public services and I personally would argue we've still not full recovered in this country. Such auysterity led to the need to create a "credible" opposition to the Tories and with changes to the Labour leadership elections a genuinely left-wing candidate was elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The trouble is, Corbyn is just about the least appealing leader that the members could have chosen to appeal to middle England (basically the marginal seats you have to claim to win a GE). He was traditionally a protest MP, and has associated with causes some deem unpalletable. He also carried Labour into forms of identity politics and social justice, which again a lot of people don't view as electable. That all depends on your point of view. In Normal circumstances, the party lines would be fairly drawn in the sand but Brexit has completely clouded the issue on every topic you can think of. Corbyn as a socialists is pre-disposed against the EU but has revised his position whilst in the post-industrial cities the EU (this is completely my opinion) has been used as a scapegoat for their woes, when in reality its the governments of the last 20-30 years that have left them behind to follow the pound sterling elsewhere. That said, there are plenty of legitimate arugments to take up with the EU on more or less any issue you can think of, particularly how democratic it is or not, policies of free movement, greatyer integration, hence this mess. It's very difficult to pigeon hole as a set of issues because everyone has different priorities. Essay over, hope it helps clear at least some things up for you. (and sorry all for the massive post) Wowzers, great post mate
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Aug 21, 2019 10:47:44 GMT
Aussie here Posted this on the corbyn thread but hoping for replies specifically about brexit and uk politics in general as an outsider. Mums not a fan of the toris though she has a thin grasp of politics (grandad was a miner in Biddulph when the pits were closing) So presumably labour was the working class party back then? My question however is, I know pretty much nothing about uk politics.. just wondering if labour there is the same as the party over in Aus.. More concerned with social change and virtue signalling rather than actual issues (at the face of it anyhow). Im naturally inclined to side with the toris as im a fan of the ironically named liberal party here, given I feel like I lean more towards having conservative values but wouldnt go as far as identifying as one idk. Is anyone willing to explain brexit to me as an outsider? And with that why Coates is fanatical remainer (does he have genuine reasons other than self interest with bet365) I know almost nothing about brexit but assume at the face of it its a backlash over England not needing the EU as much as it needs them. Immigration, funding etc? Whats the key issue of it all? It's difficult to be objective across such a wide range of subjects but I will do my best, some of what I say will obviously be based on my own experience and beliefs so disclaimer: I'm a labour voter who would probably be classed as a democratic socialist, my favourite politician was Tony Benn who is well worth a listen to, and a read of his diaries regardless of your political alignment. So if you're ready for a little essay/missive: Your mum not being keen on the Tories is a common theme felt here in the many parts of the UK particularly in the post-industrial North/Midlands as she shifted the UK out of what was called the "post-war consensus", which was essentially a Keynesian economics based system with a mixed economy (nationally owned utilities and public services, allowances for private enterprise albeit somewhat taxed.) The consensus was managed in the same fashion by both Labour and the Conservative party until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher beat James Callaghan in the general election triggered by a no-confidence vote in the Labour government (lost by one vote) At this time the UK was known as the sick man of Europe and suffered immensely from un-competitive nationally owned businesses and trade unions strong-arming the government into unsustainable wage agreements (albeit ones driven by payment gaps due to rapidly uncontrallable inflation) which culminated in the "winter of discontent" of 1978-79 in which large trade unions went on strike resulting in rubbish not being collected, graves not being dug and picket lines outside hospitals. So, Thatcher won the 1979 election and made control of inflation at any cost her modus operandi. Based on the economics of Milton Friedman she cut the monetary supply, reduced direct taxes and cut public spending in a lot of different fields such as education, health, social housing, energy etc. The economy started to crash and the industries of the North and Midlands caught the brunt of it, and inflation still remained incredibly high despite dropping slightly since the Labour government. There were around 2.5 million people unemployed in 1981 when her popularity reached the lowest recorded level for a sitting prime minister. Anyway to fast forward a bit after thr Falklands War in 1982 (the British public like nothing more than a quick war) her popularity stabilised and the economy recovered sufficiently enough to easily win the 1983 general election, which is where Thatcherism went into overdrive. The nationally owned industries were sold off for a quick buck, previous Tory Prime Minister Harold MacMillan accused her of "selling the crown jewels". Next she began steps to deregulate Britain's financial markets to transition the UK from a manufacturing economy to a service and financially based one. The only problem with this was the fact most people in Birmingham and beyond were employed directly in manufacturing. The confrontation with the Unions was inevitable but unlike previous Prime Ministers she prepared herself. She effectively crippled the unions through a mix of legislation, under-cutting their labour (coal for instance, was brought in for 1/10th of the price from South Africa ahead of the miners strike) and they have never recovered to anywhere near what I would personally consider an effective level (I think they were too powerful in the 70s however). Entire communities dependent on manufacturing collapsed and a deep seated hatred for conservatives and Thatcher emerged which I would say still persists in many communities to this day. Her rhetoric didn't help either, referring to the Unions and their members as "the enemy within" What I would say about this period is that the decline of UK manufacturing was inevitable, but Thatcher was callous in how it was carried out and it was transitioned far too quickly leaving many immensely skilled people out of a job for life. What Tony Benn referred to "a complete and utter contempt for skill". Thatcher pressed on with her economics and deregulated the stock market in 1986 and the economy boomed as financial services flocked to London. She won the 1987 election with consumate ease against Neil Kinnock who was in the process of reforming the Labour Party from a socialist party to a more centrist one. Thatcher's demise came when she supported changes to council tax in the form of a poll tax. That is to say, charging each person individually for council tax as opposed to charging based on the rental value of a house. This naturally effected the poorer members of society. She lost the support of her cabinet and resigned from office and was replaced by John Major. I'm boring myself now so I'll wrap up quickly as possible. Labour were now almost completely reformed into a centrist party led by Tony Blair. The Tories were suffering major scandals and after 18 years in government were grossly unpopular with a lot of people. Without the usual defence of saying Labour were marxist dinosaurs to fall back on, Labour annihilated the Conservatives in 1997. Winning over 400 seats out of 659. Blair barely touched the reforms made by the previous Tory governments but did spend more money on education sectors. In Health he actively continue the marketisation brought in under Thatcher. He also committed a lot more money to the welfare state during this time but this was offset in other areas, such as bringing in tuition fees for students. Iraq permanently damaged his popularity though so he resigned in 2007 replaced by Gordon Brown who got slapped in the face of the economic crash in 2008. He later admitted they should have made greater steps to regulate the financial sector in their 13 years in power. They lost the general election to a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition led by David Cameron who pursued austerity (quite similar to Maggie's initial policies) to counter the deficit. The arse fell out of public services and I personally would argue we've still not full recovered in this country. Such auysterity led to the need to create a "credible" opposition to the Tories and with changes to the Labour leadership elections a genuinely left-wing candidate was elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The trouble is, Corbyn is just about the least appealing leader that the members could have chosen to appeal to middle England (basically the marginal seats you have to claim to win a GE). He was traditionally a protest MP, and has associated with causes some deem unpalletable. He also carried Labour into forms of identity politics and social justice, which again a lot of people don't view as electable. That all depends on your point of view. In Normal circumstances, the party lines would be fairly drawn in the sand but Brexit has completely clouded the issue on every topic you can think of. Corbyn as a socialists is pre-disposed against the EU but has revised his position whilst in the post-industrial cities the EU (this is completely my opinion) has been used as a scapegoat for their woes, when in reality its the governments of the last 20-30 years that have left them behind to follow the pound sterling elsewhere. That said, there are plenty of legitimate arugments to take up with the EU on more or less any issue you can think of, particularly how democratic it is or not, policies of free movement, greatyer integration, hence this mess. It's very difficult to pigeon hole as a set of issues because everyone has different priorities. Essay over, hope it helps clear at least some things up for you. (and sorry all for the massive post) Magnificent summary. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 21, 2019 11:21:15 GMT
Quiz question. What hinders your negotiation stance more? Taking No Deal off the table or labelling the backstop undemocratic and unconscionable just four months after voting for it? Answers to: Some Hypocritical Fop Haired Cunt 10 Downing Street London W1 C UNT Answer - taking no deal off the table. Something went wrong with the address you gave. That post code didn't work for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Aug 21, 2019 11:24:28 GMT
There was a possibility, early in the process, to agree a deal very quickly.
That was lost as soon as our Remainer PM adopted her "damage limitation" mode and agreed the sequencing of the negotiations, with the Withdrawal Agreement first.
There is still nothing, other than entrenched positions, preventing an agreement to continue trading tariff-free until a full Trade Agreement is signed.
Or we could simply join the EEA for 3-5 years while we sort out the long-term TA.
|
|