|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 30, 2024 11:06:26 GMT
Where have I said the UK is doing brilliantly? I am saying the economy is doing much better than the doom and groomers say it is. Obviously the pandemic brought a lot of suffering and the war a lot of inflation, but the UK is actually doing better than the left wing media keep portraying and the statistics I keep posting links to prove that. Most people's wage increases are much higher than their European counterparts, unless you are unlucky enough to work for government like health. craftguildofchefs.org/news/uk-hospitality-salaries-outpace-national-average-almost-3#:~:text=The%20latest%20research%20shows%20UK,at%2011.5%25%20and%2011.2%25. It isn't just the super rich better off. From the 1990s savings decline ed in the UK but since the referendum savings have been increasing. In recent weeks household ISAs issued have been a record levels. There is a lot of money about. news.sky.com/story/isa-deposits-hit-record-high-bank-of-england-says-13145994But were is also far more inequality which got better foremost of the 20 th century but stopped improving when the UK joined the EEC and the UK started handing over wealth to Europe and abandoning industry. Things got a whole lot worse after Maastricht and East European countries joined the EU. Got a whole lot worse after we keft the EU as well That is very true. We have suffered because of the pandemic and the inflation due to the war and Tory mismanagement, 4 PMs is going some, chopping and changing economic policy. Nevertheless, maybe because of, or, thanks to Brexit, the UK has done better over the last 5 year period than other European G7 countries. The compound average growth rate from 2018 to 2023 at 1.1% has been the same as Italy, whose GDP is still lower than it was many years ago, and the UK growth has been greater than Germany (0.4%) and France (0.9%). www.worldeconomics.com/Countries-With-Highest-Growth/Germany.aspxThere are other European countries that have done better than the UK and others that have done worse. Most of those that have done better have been getting huge regional aid from the EU, thanks in part to British tax payers till 2020. Brexit is being falsely blamed for UK economic woes. Why do you think many European citizens are getting sick of their governments and swinging towards the right? Many EU countries have the same problems of poverty, low growth, long hospital waiting lists, drug shortages. Most have higher unemployment than the UK, twice as high in France. Many have dreadfully high youth unemployment.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 30, 2024 11:07:02 GMT
I see now you may not be Gaslighting or Deluded but perhaps just naive or maybe disengenuous or just perhaps simply you lack knowledge of how these multi million £ international investments work I have no expectation you will reply to my 4th or 5th time asking your opinion on "Secret Courts" because you have studiously avoided it in the past www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2023/03/why-the-uk-needs-to-drop-corporate-courts-from-the-pacific-trade-deal/Besides their appalling nature, they break a fundamental principle by which you claim to stand by. Specifically they bind a future Parliament to actions of a previous Parliament. Of course there can ultimately be disregarded in litigation in "Secret Court" by UK Government paying compensation. This is a position the EU would never countenance but in desperation UK has. The contingency of Astra Zenica Investment is marginally dependent on Planning Approval, but fundamentally is more obviously dependant on Government subsidy. Moreover why is Astra Zenica not in a position to commit investment without third-party agreement, other than UK Government. I wouldn't hold my breath that Investment will proceed, particularly with a change in Government, nor will I that you will answer a straight question for the 4th / 5th time You keep banging on about "Secret courts". I addressed this issue 4 years ago, on page 1,232; it's called sovereignty. I said: "Naturally if we agree treaties with other nations such as trade agreements we should comply with those regulations we have freely entered into. In reality this means that future UK governments can determine UK foreign policy and not be tied to EU foreign policy, establish trade agreements with non EU countries, set immigration laws, decide on what aid the UK regions require, set tax policy, decide on aid to farming, industry, sports, and the arts, etc., set our own competition rules, human rights, environment and food standards, health and safety standards, equality standards, employment law, and those other matters that have been dictated by the EU in the past. Naturally there will be some losses depending on what the final agreed relationships with the EU are, but there are no sensible reasons why the UK could not agree many of the reciprocal rights with the EU which existed when the UK was a full member, such as travel, security, policing, etc."Assuming there is new government in a week's time, they are perfectly free to introduce any law to change what the Tories have done, including re-joining the EU. UK government and laws are subject to the collective will of the British people since Brexit, not bureaucrats in Brussels. Astra Zenica cannot invest without planning permission. Planning will set terms. We have a judicial system in this country that prevents government doing or authorising what it wants as the present government is finding over deporting illegal immigrants. The freedom of judicial rulings in this country are another benefit of Brexit. It's all there on page 1,232. Planning permission has bugger all to do with what I'm talking about, you are just using it as a distraction I'm talking about Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS clauses which are contained in CPTPP that allows Private Companies to sue current and future Governments in SECRET COURTS if a Government enacts Laws which harm the profits of those companies e.g. increase in minimum wage, change to environmental laws, workers rights etc Furthermore some of the Countries within CPTPP have lower Environmental and Human Rights Standards than UK (and EU) but the consumer buying those goods will not be aware The Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010 CRAG is not fit for purpose because it doesn't give Parliament Sovereignty over scrutiny of Trade Deals and the Government and Ministers are exceeding its Perogative Power This is not just my opinion but that of the HoC Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee PACAC who submitted its findings to Government. Understandably Government partially agreed with some findings and disagreed with others "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" The process began by Government presenting the CPTPP for scrutiny Following this process, the agreement will be subject to pre-ratification scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG).www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-agreement-summary/the-accession-of-the-uk-to-the-cptpp-agreement-summary-web-versionPACAC found that CRAG was not fit for purpose and laid out its reasons to Government Under CRAG, the Government is required to lay some treaties, along with an explanatory memorandum, and after a period of 21-sitting days, if the Commons has not voted to delay ratification, a treaty can be ratified. The evidence we received was clear that CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. We identified three main areas of concern with the current system for parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements under CRAG:the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.several categories of treaty are not captured by CRAG at all.the 21-sitting day period is an arbitrary and, in many cases, wholly insufficient period for the scrutiny of treaties, especially in light of their increasing length, complexity and impact on the domestic level.In order for the arrangements for entering into treaties to respect the core constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament must be given the opportunity to give its express approval to all treaties before they can be ratified or enter into force. We recommend that CRAG be amended to implement new arrangements to give effect to this principle and propose a new system by which the House of Commons must indicate its explicit approval of international agreements for them to bind the UK.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/204/summary.html
PACAC laid out its SPECIFIC issues with CPTPP The CPTPP deal undermines high standards of human rights and labour rights protections
The CPTPP trade agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions which are incompatible with corporate accountability, democracy and the protection of human rights For these reasons, the UK should not accede to the CPTPP agreementThe CPTPP agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. These allow corporations to sue states through a secretive parallel legal system if government polices threaten their future profits – even if those policies are aimed at protecting human rights and the environment.
Corporations have already used ISDS to sue governments more than a thousand times, including over laws aimed at raising minimum wages, guaranteeing affordable water to citizens and phasing out the use of fossil fuels.committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110788/html/This is the detailed findings PACAC submitted to Government which were rejected partially or in whole publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/685/report.htmlIt surprises me that on the one hand your core principle is Parliamentary Sovereignty yet CPTPP specifically and the Parliamentary scrutiny of Trade Deals generally is a clear affront to that. We shall reap what we sow, the excesses and unconstitutional acts this Administration has engaged in for the last 14 will not be rowed back but rather exceeded particularly if the Polls are any way correct in the size of Majority. The only solution I can see long term is a written Constitution Magna Carta is out of date.
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Jun 30, 2024 11:10:15 GMT
Its now becoming obvious that the nation as a whole lost the Brexit vote. To pretend otherwise is just foolish.........
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 30, 2024 11:15:31 GMT
You keep banging on about "Secret courts". I addressed this issue 4 years ago, on page 1,232; it's called sovereignty. I said: "Naturally if we agree treaties with other nations such as trade agreements we should comply with those regulations we have freely entered into. In reality this means that future UK governments can determine UK foreign policy and not be tied to EU foreign policy, establish trade agreements with non EU countries, set immigration laws, decide on what aid the UK regions require, set tax policy, decide on aid to farming, industry, sports, and the arts, etc., set our own competition rules, human rights, environment and food standards, health and safety standards, equality standards, employment law, and those other matters that have been dictated by the EU in the past. Naturally there will be some losses depending on what the final agreed relationships with the EU are, but there are no sensible reasons why the UK could not agree many of the reciprocal rights with the EU which existed when the UK was a full member, such as travel, security, policing, etc."Assuming there is new government in a week's time, they are perfectly free to introduce any law to change what the Tories have done, including re-joining the EU. UK government and laws are subject to the collective will of the British people since Brexit, not bureaucrats in Brussels. Astra Zenica cannot invest without planning permission. Planning will set terms. We have a judicial system in this country that prevents government doing or authorising what it wants as the present government is finding over deporting illegal immigrants. The freedom of judicial rulings in this country are another benefit of Brexit. It's all there on page 1,232. Planning permission has bugger all to do with what I'm talking about, you are just using it as a distraction I'm talking about Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS clauses which are contained in CPTPP that allows Private Companies to sue current and future Governments in SECRET COURTS if a Government enacts Laws which harm the profits of those companies e.g. increase in minimum wage, change to environmental laws, workers rights etc Furthermore some of the Countries within CPTPP have lower Environmental and Human Rights Standards than UK (and EU) but the consumer buying those goods will not be aware The Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010 CRAG is not fit for purpose because it doesn't give Parliament Sovereignty over scrutiny of Trade Deals and the Government and Ministers are exceeding its Perogative Power This is not just my opinion but that of the HoC Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee PACAC who submitted its findings to Government. Understandably Government partially agreed with some findings and disagreed with others "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" The process began by Government presenting the CPTPP for scrutiny Following this process, the agreement will be subject to pre-ratification scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG).www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-agreement-summary/the-accession-of-the-uk-to-the-cptpp-agreement-summary-web-versionPACAC found that CRAG was not fit for purpose and laid out its reasons to Government Under CRAG, the Government is required to lay some treaties, along with an explanatory memorandum, and after a period of 21-sitting days, if the Commons has not voted to delay ratification, a treaty can be ratified. The evidence we received was clear that CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. We identified three main areas of concern with the current system for parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements under CRAG:the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.several categories of treaty are not captured by CRAG at all.the 21-sitting day period is an arbitrary and, in many cases, wholly insufficient period for the scrutiny of treaties, especially in light of their increasing length, complexity and impact on the domestic level.In order for the arrangements for entering into treaties to respect the core constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament must be given the opportunity to give its express approval to all treaties before they can be ratified or enter into force. We recommend that CRAG be amended to implement new arrangements to give effect to this principle and propose a new system by which the House of Commons must indicate its explicit approval of international agreements for them to bind the UK.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/204/summary.html
PACAC laid out its SPECIFIC issues with CPTPP The CPTPP deal undermines high standards of human rights and labour rights protections
The CPTPP trade agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions which are incompatible with corporate accountability, democracy and the protection of human rights For these reasons, the UK should not accede to the CPTPP agreementThe CPTPP agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. These allow corporations to sue states through a secretive parallel legal system if government polices threaten their future profits – even if those policies are aimed at protecting human rights and the environment.
Corporations have already used ISDS to sue governments more than a thousand times, including over laws aimed at raising minimum wages, guaranteeing affordable water to citizens and phasing out the use of fossil fuels.committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110788/html/This is the detailed findings PACAC submitted to Government which were rejected partially or in whole publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/685/report.htmlIt surprises me that on the one hand your core principle is Parliamentary Sovereignty yet CPTPP specifically and the Parliamentary scrutiny of Trade Deals generally is a clear affront to that. We shall reap what we sow, the excesses and unconstitutional acts this Administration has engaged in for the last 14 will not be rowed back but rather exceeded particularly if the Polls are any way correct in the size of Majority. The only solution I can see long term is a written Constitution Magna Carta is out of date. So the next government can withdraw from the CPTPP like the US if it wants to. That's sovereignty. Iam with David Starkey and totally opposed to a written constitution.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 30, 2024 11:48:26 GMT
Planning permission has bugger all to do with what I'm talking about, you are just using it as a distraction I'm talking about Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS clauses which are contained in CPTPP that allows Private Companies to sue current and future Governments in SECRET COURTS if a Government enacts Laws which harm the profits of those companies e.g. increase in minimum wage, change to environmental laws, workers rights etc Furthermore some of the Countries within CPTPP have lower Environmental and Human Rights Standards than UK (and EU) but the consumer buying those goods will not be aware The Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010 CRAG is not fit for purpose because it doesn't give Parliament Sovereignty over scrutiny of Trade Deals and the Government and Ministers are exceeding its Perogative Power This is not just my opinion but that of the HoC Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee PACAC who submitted its findings to Government. Understandably Government partially agreed with some findings and disagreed with others "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" The process began by Government presenting the CPTPP for scrutiny Following this process, the agreement will be subject to pre-ratification scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG).www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-agreement-summary/the-accession-of-the-uk-to-the-cptpp-agreement-summary-web-versionPACAC found that CRAG was not fit for purpose and laid out its reasons to Government Under CRAG, the Government is required to lay some treaties, along with an explanatory memorandum, and after a period of 21-sitting days, if the Commons has not voted to delay ratification, a treaty can be ratified. The evidence we received was clear that CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. We identified three main areas of concern with the current system for parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements under CRAG:the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.several categories of treaty are not captured by CRAG at all.the 21-sitting day period is an arbitrary and, in many cases, wholly insufficient period for the scrutiny of treaties, especially in light of their increasing length, complexity and impact on the domestic level.In order for the arrangements for entering into treaties to respect the core constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament must be given the opportunity to give its express approval to all treaties before they can be ratified or enter into force. We recommend that CRAG be amended to implement new arrangements to give effect to this principle and propose a new system by which the House of Commons must indicate its explicit approval of international agreements for them to bind the UK.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/204/summary.html
PACAC laid out its SPECIFIC issues with CPTPP The CPTPP deal undermines high standards of human rights and labour rights protections
The CPTPP trade agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions which are incompatible with corporate accountability, democracy and the protection of human rights For these reasons, the UK should not accede to the CPTPP agreementThe CPTPP agreement contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. These allow corporations to sue states through a secretive parallel legal system if government polices threaten their future profits – even if those policies are aimed at protecting human rights and the environment.
Corporations have already used ISDS to sue governments more than a thousand times, including over laws aimed at raising minimum wages, guaranteeing affordable water to citizens and phasing out the use of fossil fuels.committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110788/html/This is the detailed findings PACAC submitted to Government which were rejected partially or in whole publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubadm/685/report.htmlIt surprises me that on the one hand your core principle is Parliamentary Sovereignty yet CPTPP specifically and the Parliamentary scrutiny of Trade Deals generally is a clear affront to that. We shall reap what we sow, the excesses and unconstitutional acts this Administration has engaged in for the last 14 will not be rowed back but rather exceeded particularly if the Polls are any way correct in the size of Majority. The only solution I can see long term is a written Constitution Magna Carta is out of date. So the next government can withdraw from the CPTPP like the US if it wants to. That's sovereignty. Iam with David Starkey and totally opposed to a written constitution. So no comment on Parliamentary Sovereignty or that the Executive can bypass the Peoples Representatives, MPs, who have been delegated to make decisions on their behalf for a time limited period and enter Secret Deals without scrutiny. OK
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 30, 2024 13:49:30 GMT
Got a whole lot worse after we keft the EU as well That is very true. We have suffered because of the pandemic and the inflation due to the war and Tory mismanagement, 4 PMs is going some, chopping and changing economic policy. Nevertheless, maybe because of, or, thanks to Brexit, the UK has done better over the last 5 year period than other European G7 countries. The compound average growth rate from 2018 to 2023 at 1.1% has been the same as Italy, whose GDP is still lower than it was many years ago, and the UK growth has been greater than Germany (0.4%) and France (0.9%). www.worldeconomics.com/Countries-With-Highest-Growth/Germany.aspxThere are other European countries that have done better than the UK and others that have done worse. Most of those that have done better have been getting huge regional aid from the EU, thanks in part to British tax payers till 2020. Brexit is being falsely blamed for UK economic woes. Why do you think many European citizens are getting sick of their governments and swinging towards the right? Many EU countries have the same problems of poverty, low growth, long hospital waiting lists, drug shortages. Most have higher unemployment than the UK, twice as high in France. Many have dreadfully high youth unemployment. I didn't say it was because if Brexit, I said since - and it's only forecast to get worse fairnessfoundation.com/the-canariesI'm not particularly interested in 0.000% differences in growth that could be lost in rounding if it doesn't address inequality. If immigration was #1 Brexit issue then inequality was also well up there. On both it has manifestly failed and continues to fail. It was pointless. And in being pointless it's also been a distraction for the best part if 10 years from running the country. A lost generation. And I don't see why people shouldn't blame Brexit, you're all to happy to blame membership of the EU for all manner of problems. On a more conciliatory note - I do agree with your point about the threat of the Far Right if people's grievances are left to fester.
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Jun 30, 2024 15:19:35 GMT
Its now becoming obvious that the nation as a whole lost the Brexit vote. To pretend otherwise is just foolish......... To me it was also obvious before the vote.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 30, 2024 16:08:53 GMT
That is very true. We have suffered because of the pandemic and the inflation due to the war and Tory mismanagement, 4 PMs is going some, chopping and changing economic policy. Nevertheless, maybe because of, or, thanks to Brexit, the UK has done better over the last 5 year period than other European G7 countries. The compound average growth rate from 2018 to 2023 at 1.1% has been the same as Italy, whose GDP is still lower than it was many years ago, and the UK growth has been greater than Germany (0.4%) and France (0.9%). www.worldeconomics.com/Countries-With-Highest-Growth/Germany.aspxThere are other European countries that have done better than the UK and others that have done worse. Most of those that have done better have been getting huge regional aid from the EU, thanks in part to British tax payers till 2020. Brexit is being falsely blamed for UK economic woes. Why do you think many European citizens are getting sick of their governments and swinging towards the right? Many EU countries have the same problems of poverty, low growth, long hospital waiting lists, drug shortages. Most have higher unemployment than the UK, twice as high in France. Many have dreadfully high youth unemployment. I didn't say it was because if Brexit, I said since - and it's only forecast to get worse fairnessfoundation.com/the-canariesI'm not particularly interested in 0.000% differences in growth that could be lost in rounding if it doesn't address inequality. If immigration was #1 Brexit issue then inequality was also well up there. On both it has manifestly failed and continues to fail. It was pointless. And in being pointless it's also been a distraction for the best part if 10 years from running the country. A lost generation. And I don't see why people shouldn't blame Brexit, you're all to happy to blame membership of the EU for all manner of problems. On a more conciliatory note - I do agree with your point about the threat of the Far Right if people's grievances are left to fester. Apologies if I am guilty of instinctively jumping in to defend Brexit. I linked the economic performance because there are constant claims that the UK economy is performing worse because of Brexit, when it is performing just as well as our peer countries if not better. I think uncontrolled immigration was the issue at the time of the referendum. It is still an issue in terms of illegal but legal immigration is high for justifiable reasons, namely relatives, refugees, students, and workers coming to fill needed jobs like the NHS. We are agreed on the far right, if is very worrying and the UK is not immune. www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/30/a-deeply-unfair-and-unequal-country-report-warns-of-unprecedented-far-right-gains-in-ukI support our electoral system because it prevents minorities having a strong influence.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 30, 2024 21:41:02 GMT
We have Brexit to blame for everything shit that is happening in this country, the rest of the EU don't have that luxury so turn to right wing parties. Strange times.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 1, 2024 2:30:57 GMT
We have Brexit to blame for everything shit that is happening in this country, the rest of the EU don't have that luxury so turn to right wing parties. Strange times. Right Wing or Far Right Party's are the largest Party's in Switzerland, the Ruling Party in Italy and Hungary., part of the Finnish Government (reduced vote share in recent EU Elections) and in Sweden and Serbia they support the Government Yet if you read/listen to Media, Europe is "Lurching" to the Right. Strange Dat.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Jul 1, 2024 10:58:06 GMT
the shit hits the fan when the DFB ( ? ) in Germany rule the roost . Imagine the headlines in the Guardian then .
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 1, 2024 15:53:34 GMT
the shit hits the fan when the DFB ( ? ) in Germany rule the roost . Imagine the headlines in the Guardian then . Probably something like "German Football Association seizes control of country". To be fair, that would be newsworthy.
|
|