EU-BREXIT - Page 233 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033373
Beren wrote:How was it a question?


True. :)
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033376
Presvias wrote:I have to admit, I did a double take myself, but apparently this used to happen in the past too.

(Just in case you doubt the authenticity of my claim:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... fer-corbyn
)

As for Labour fellow travellers, not decided on Corbyn or Labour themselves. The last time Labour had a genuinely brilliant leader was prob Clement Attlee, ditto for the Tories with Churchill. Neither party is fit for purpose.

Even with Brexit, a Norway+ option seems ok enough. Equally, revoking art 50 or holding a second ref could be okay.

..... It's just no deal and suspension of parliament that seems wrong.



'No deal' is fine,as is suspension of parliament.

People voted leave, they never voted on any 'deal' & the behaviour of MP's, although not the reason for suspension, would have been justified on that basis,if that reason was given,but much of the blame lies with the Speaker himself & remain MP's who do not have a clue what democracy means.

I would favour, what Guy Verhofstadt calls, an 'Association Agreement' between the U.K-EU.
Theresa MAY said that, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". well, nothing is agreed, nothing is ratified, unlike the E.U position & it's 'strange' that they can ignore that fact.
In addition to stating that they do not have to do anything,despite the fact that half of Ireland will remain in the E.U, they do have to reach an agreed position on the border question out of their own interest, which is why I favour a 'soft' border resolution.

Revoking A50 will simply not happen-period, as for a second referendum, the nonsense by CORBYN is ridiculous, he wants one too, with a 'leave' & 'remain' option included.
Take it from me, he has lost the plot, he is delusional, we had had a referendum in which them options were offered, CORBYN is rejecting the result of that with contempt for the voters & democracy.
No one would ever trust Labour to deliver the result,even if they did, the Lib Dems would do for Labour what they are doing to the Tories, as would the SNP.

As for the Norway choice, we would pay, but have no say with the E.U decisions, it will never happen.

Theresa MAY screwed up from day one, there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U.

The feelings are now generally mutual between the realist in the E.U-U.K, that ofefrs the best of the infitessimally small chance of a 'deal', the kind that I mentioned above.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15033384
Atlantis wrote:Let's just take British polls out off the equation. A subject cannot see itself objectively. The point is that Brexit has been seen as a total and complete shitshow by almost the entire world. Remember, I belong to a generation of continentals to whom everything British was good. Remember also the tremendous softpower the UK used to have by virtue of the international Anglophone media (and people like you and me discussing in English). In view of that, the loss of softpower and the negative view of today's UK represents a staggering decline.

Instead of being the first domino for the breakup of the EU, as Farage had intended it to be, Brexit has become the strongest force to weld Europe together. There is nothing like a weak and fumbling antagonist to achieve unity.

Even most of Europe's right-wing populists have abandoned plans to leave the EU or the Euro because Brexit serves as such a strong and irrefutable negative example.


Yeah, okay. It still doesn't explain why would the continentals care about decrease of British influence. This is a very vague topic for a common citizen. Do not take this as me somehow trying to refute your point. I am just saying that Brexits effect of the EU ratings is over exaggerated. Loss of influence and soft power is not something that average joes care for or notice in other countries unless they are directly dependant on it. (EU citizens are okay with or without it. British influence is not that important for them)
By foxdemon
#15033391
JohnRawls wrote:I am pretty wary of this map actually. Correlation is not causation. I do not think only Brexit contributed to this but it certainly played a part. What is more important:
1) Greek crysis is more or less resolved at least for now.
2) Economic conditions improved a bit compared to the recession and greek crysis.
3) Rise of radical left and right parties put a strain on the EU to actually express its point of view instead of being silent all the time. (Remember, EU didn't campaign during the referendum)

How much of an impact did Brexit have compared to everything else? UKs polls suggest that it is far from the most important factors. Although the polls did shift a bit in the UK.


That was going to be my response: correlation isn’t causation.

For an extra factor:
4)Trump’s antagonistic foreign policy versus the EU is shaping a collective EU identify. Recent visits by the Chinese navy and their combined exercises with the Russia navy might also be contributing to a growing awareness of common European interests among the European public.
User avatar
By Presvias
#15033404
Nonsense wrote:'No deal' is fine,as is suspension of parliament.

People voted leave, they never voted on any 'deal' & the behaviour of MP's, although not the reason for suspension, would have been justified on that basis,if that reason was given,but much of the blame lies with the Speaker himself & remain MP's who do not have a clue what democracy means.

I would favour, what Guy Verhofstadt calls, an 'Association Agreement' between the U.K-EU.
Theresa MAY said that, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". well, nothing is agreed, nothing is ratified, unlike the E.U position & it's 'strange' that they can ignore that fact.
In addition to stating that they do not have to do anything,despite the fact that half of Ireland will remain in the E.U, they do have to reach an agreed position on the border question out of their own interest, which is why I favour a 'soft' border resolution.

Revoking A50 will simply not happen-period, as for a second referendum, the nonsense by CORBYN is ridiculous, he wants one too, with a 'leave' & 'remain' option included.
Take it from me, he has lost the plot, he is delusional, we had had a referendum in which them options were offered, CORBYN is rejecting the result of that with contempt for the voters & democracy.
No one would ever trust Labour to deliver the result,even if they did, the Lib Dems would do for Labour what they are doing to the Tories, as would the SNP.

As for the Norway choice, we would pay, but have no say with the E.U decisions, it will never happen.

Theresa MAY screwed up from day one, there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U.

The feelings are now generally mutual between the realist in the E.U-U.K, that ofefrs the best of the infitessimally small chance of a 'deal', the kind that I mentioned above.



Well I can agree with this : "Theresa MAY screwed up from day one."

^ That's why we're in the current mess.

I also reluctantly agree with this..

"there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U." << It's not a good thing.

And I agree that an association agreement would've been fine too.

However, it is simply wrong to suggest that no one on the Leave side voted for a deal.

Clearly you have done your homework, so you will no doubt be aware that vote leave, grassroots out and leave.eu all very explicitly stated that we'd leave with a deal, as did all leaver politicians I can think of.

Even Sajid Javid on Marr was FORCED to concede that no deal would be the 'worst outcome' when pressed by Marr. (shrugs)

Even BJ can't openly tell us that he's affecting for a no deal; that'd be suicide because every single shred of proof (unless you can find me some to the contrary) very explicitly says that no deal Brexit will be damaging to the economy.

What can you say? I would have no problem with no deal if everything wasn't telling me that it's wrong.

No disrespect to pro-no dealers; but they seem to have very few arguments in support of their position IMHO. This mess resides largely with May's inability to negotiate (and to add insult injury, Maybot goes and gives honours to those utterly incompetent prats that fecked Brexit up for us...just to spite the whole country one last time..).
By foxdemon
#15033476
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Some people are at least honest:



I think it's unwise to solely rely on MPs doing the right thing in times like this when tensions run high and a central government policy leads to an impasse. The resolution has always been for the government to say, ok, let's take it to the public, but this course of action has been blocked by the Fixed Term Parliament Act which has essentially thrown a wrench into the constitution. Another side effect of the FTPA is that it has empowered a partisan speaker and MPs like Nick Bole who has no problem denying people a vote as long as there's a risk of them voting for something he doesn't like. He doesn't even seem to realise what an astonishing admission that is.

The FTPA is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is incompatible with how the UK political system is supposed to work and transfers influence from the public to the most odious people. It should not surprise then that it has been one of the very few legacies of the LibDems.


I agree. That legislation did mess up the system. It is remarkable that a system of government that worked for hundreds of years could be messed up by the contemporary aspirational class. Perhaps this is due to their belief in their superiority not only of those around them but also of all those who came before them? Could it come to pass that posterity will use ‘the anywheres’ as a by word for arrogance?


Agreed. They seem to be quite keen for parliament to become nothing but a regional assembly.



I was watching a video by Carl Benjamin regarding twitter reactions to #BritishIndependance, when it occurred to me that the British public is the last imperial subjects of the British ruling class. Though in today’s world, that ruling class is more like the EU’s Raj, given they are the rule class of a vassal state.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033480
Presvias wrote:Well I can agree with this : "Theresa MAY screwed up from day one."

^ That's why we're in the current mess.

I also reluctantly agree with this..

"there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U." << It's not a good thing.

And I agree that an association agreement would've been fine too.

However, it is simply wrong to suggest that no one on the Leave side voted for a deal.

Clearly you have done your homework, so you will no doubt be aware that vote leave, grassroots out and leave.eu all very explicitly stated that we'd leave with a deal, as did all leaver politicians I can think of.

Even Sajid Javid on Marr was FORCED to concede that no deal would be the 'worst outcome' when pressed by Marr. (shrugs)

Even BJ can't openly tell us that he's affecting for a no deal; that'd be suicide because every single shred of proof (unless you can find me some to the contrary) very explicitly says that no deal Brexit will be damaging to the economy.

What can you say? I would have no problem with no deal if everything wasn't telling me that it's wrong.

No disrespect to pro-no dealers; but they seem to have very few arguments in support of their position IMHO. This mess resides largely with May's inability to negotiate (and to add insult injury, Maybot goes and gives honours to those utterly incompetent prats that fecked Brexit up for us...just to spite the whole country one last time..).


"However, it is simply wrong to suggest that no one on the Leave side voted for a deal".

I should have put the notion in it's full context,which is the referendum question,that is all that people voted on.

I accept the above as it is in respect of MP's, but not of the referendum question,although reaching a 'deal', arrangement, or whatever, is always preferable in both parties interest,but of course, we are not there yet & the E.U have previously stated that they will not re-open the W.A.

The 'problem' for the E.U is, the U.K has not ratified the agreement in any shape or form, in fact, it has been rejected 3 times,so there is no agreement,yet the E.U insist that it's signed & sealed.
The fact is, until any 'agreement' is ratified by both parties parliaments, there is no 'agreement' reached, in fact, we are still at square one, heading for the default exit, an absolute failure of statecraft on all sides.


Theresa MAY stated that 'nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed', if 'everything' is not wrapped up watertight, then we can say that the default no position is the final one & we leave with no deal.

That is the logic of the situation,A50 provides for a leaving member state to settle it's account with the E.U,it's incumbent on the E.U to also agree with that member, an outcome that is fair,which it is not being so for the reason below.

The 'backstop' is being used by the E.U to attach 'strings' to our exit from the union, when that issue, as well as others is not agreed,then the E.U cannot be said to have negotiated without prejudice.
It is,as I state above, incumbent on both parties to 'agree' an amicable arrangement on the separation,the E.U has an equal responsibility on reaching a settlement on the Irish border question, because half of the problem is of their own making-the insistence of a border between the two halves of Ireland.
The E.U has,so far, refused to actually do 'anything' about the border, because it says, 'it doesn't need to', which is wrong & could be used against it in the ECJ.

Again, parliament is in the midst of a mental breakdown from remainers,if they think that they can influence the outcome they are delusional & deranged.

The E.U would,could never, ever, deal with a foreign, or even,a member state's parliament, only with the government will they negotiate, they will not agree anything concrete with one that is controlled by it's parliament, particularly when it's a matter of confidence & any 'panic' actions by parliament on it's resumption would shatter any blind faith that people have in the political system.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033511
SolarCross wrote:https://twitter.com/AllianceBE/status/1172055092662624256

lol, Singapore-on-Thames I like the sound of that.



Yes, to cap it, she also thinks that the U.K will be an economic threat to the E.U because she believes we will be what Singapore is recognised as, a dynamic successful economy that will be more successful than europe.

Of course, she is correct, for two very reasons that are image reflections of the EU-UK, the E.U is full of regulations that stymie economic success & BoJo wants the very opposite-deregulation.

It's for that reason the E.U wants to keep a lead on the U.K with a 'level playing field',customs & a 'hard' border in Ireland.

The E.U is the party that is playing hard ball, to preserve it's threatened status,but, hey, they lose whether we are in or out, we 'win',because,if they kept us in with strings attatched, we could pull the E.U apart from the inside & as competitors on the outside.

These trade blocs only sustain their position in the global market by acting like cartels, instead of being genuinely open market places in the global village & erecting strict rules is their hallmark protection against 'outsiders'.

Labour have screwed themselves politically, as have all remainer MP's,taking control of parliament at the last moment is ridiculous, I have said before, remain MP's should have done that as soon as negotiations were under way once A50 was notified, that would have stopped Theresa MAY's, putting her signature on any agreement before parliament had sanctioned or vetoed it.

The truth is, parliament funked it & in so doing failed the country.
Last edited by Nonsense on 12 Sep 2019 16:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Beren
#15033514
Nonsense wrote:Yes, to cap it, she also thinks that the U.K will be an economic threat to the E.U because she belives we will be what Singapore is recognised as, a dynamic successful economy that will be more successful than europe.

She's actually concerned about a race to the bottom, and the Brits are wrong to believe they could trigger such a race without consequences.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#15033519
Nonsense wrote:These trade blocs only sustain their position in the global market by acting like cartels, instead of being genuinely open market places in the global village & erecting strict rules is their hallmark protection against 'outsiders'.

Yeah that is exactly right. It is an expensive cartel to be in too. Net it cost us £9 billion in 2018, so much for free trade, lol.
By snapdragon
#15033527
Nonsense wrote:^ Rancid tripe.


Nope.

That is what people voted for when they voted leave- and that's without taking an end to immigration into consideration.

Nobody voted to be worse off.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033547
Beren wrote:She's actually concerned about a race to the bottom, and the Brits are wrong to believe they could trigger such a race without consequences.


I digress Beren, it's all about calculated risk, save for those in denial, as they cling to the false hope that they can rewind everything & carry on as if nothing happened.

I wouldn't challenge the concerns,it depends on what is going to be affected, in my opinion, nobody pressures anyone into entering a British supermarket,in order to buy chlorinated chicken for instance,provided that there are alternatives available, that the chlorinated kind are clearly labelled as such, then consumer choice is a reality.

In terms of healthcare,I would say your concerns are very real,but, politically, you cannot trust Labour with the N.H.S.

It was Gordon BROWN, with Tony BLAIR that,effectively began the privatisation of the N.H.S.

Tony BLAIR instigated Clause 4, which opened the door to that end & Gordon BROWN kicked the N.H.S door wide open for private business to get it's money-grabbing hands on a previously politically sacrosanct real estate with PFI.

So, no, the N.H.S is no longer "safe in Labour's hands" & CORBYN would never change that status one jot.

For the rest of business, that is private business, it's not a matter for government, save for lowering trade barriers,the American talks are mainly about government allowing American private corporations, whom TRUMP cares about more than any British public entity subjected to the bargaining, which will be virtually one-sided & will have adverse effects.

if we are to have a global economy, then all these nice little trade deals need to be eliminated, not encouraged, that's one of my main gripe's on leaving the E.U,along with Third Country migration, the status of migrants,effects on our resources & some long term problems being stacked up.

All the above is addressable, doesn't invalidate the decision to leave & there are much larger fish to fry on that score..
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15033560
SolarCross wrote:https://twitter.com/AllianceBE/status/1172055092662624256

lol, Singapore-on-Thames I like the sound of that.


As i said before, this a doable option. The problem with that is how you convince the UK people to slash half if not most government programs like Rail, NHS, subsidies for food and homes etc. Basically this goes heavily against the premise of Brexit that was promised. This is not how Brexit was advertised. Singapoore on Thames means austerity and tax cuts basically.

Do you really think the people of UK will allow anybody to destroy NHS and replace it with private healthcare for example? Removing all subsidies from business? Removing all subsidies for Home purchases? Removing all subsidies for food/basic needs?

This is a suicide plan as it stands right now. Not because it is not doable but because the people will revolt and chop everyone heads off like in the French Revolution just British style.

On top of that fact that we already warned Britain that if it will try to transform itself in to a tax haven of sorts then we will put punitive tariffs. It has always been a no brainer that you will need to cut taxes and spending to stay competitive. This is technically okay if you don't do it too much.

Image
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15033581
JohnRawls wrote:As i said before, this a doable option. The problem with that is how you convince the UK people to slash half if not most government programs like Rail, NHS, subsidies for food and homes etc. Basically this goes heavily against the premise of Brexit that was promised. This is not how Brexit was advertised. Singapoore on Thames means austerity and tax cuts basically.

Do you really think the people of UK will allow anybody to destroy NHS and replace it with private healthcare for example? Removing all subsidies from business? Removing all subsidies for Home purchases? Removing all subsidies for food/basic needs?

This is a suicide plan as it stands right now. Not because it is not doable but because the people will revolt and chop everyone heads off like in the French Revolution just British style.

On top of that fact that we already warned Britain that if it will try to transform itself in to a tax haven of sorts then we will put punitive tariffs. It has always been a no brainer that you will need to cut taxes and spending to stay competitive. This is technically okay if you don't do it too much.

Image



With respect JR, I think the 'problem' is the reverse of how you portray it.

It shouldn't really be about convincing people about cutting subsidies the areas you mention, rather, it's that it's never been explained, or justified, exactly why they have\are being subsidised in the first place.

We have ended up with our 'democracy' being eroded by the incestuous relationship between business & government.

When businessmen can readily walk into our seat of power, influencing our representatives, whom always 'listen' to them, yet totally ignore the public's wishes, then, what is the point of democracy & voting?

The N.H.S is in a poorer position with the dominating position of the outsourcing of services to the private sector, than it ever was when administered by local health authorities.
The N.H.S patient services is a lottery in many respects, the health administration is appalling in the way that it treats patients by 'churning' those patients waiting for operations, by shuffling them up or down the 'priority' waiting list,sometimes patients are literally discharged from an outsourced service & consequently are erased off the operating waiting list.

That is criminal negligence because, in the N.H.S there is a 'duty of care' & patients should not involuntarily be discharged before their treatment is complete.
Patients get shuffled along, to and fro between different consultants or doctors, with the intent to deny patients who need operations within the 18 weeks specified.
People should be held to account in the N.H.S, they are not, the reputation of the N.H.S is being deliberately set up to fail, ready for the justifying it's complete privatisation, of which outsourcing is a main component of that plan & the Labour Party have never objected to or promised to reverse that direction if they get into office.

Government practice of awarding contracts to the private sector is corrupt, in a democracy within an 'open' society, the process, including decisions of awarding contracts, should be fully open, not behind closed doors & full disclosure of data should always be available to the public as evidence of the integrity of that process.
Last edited by Nonsense on 12 Sep 2019 19:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#15033586
Atlantis wrote:The problem is not the presence of 5 parties. The problem is the two-party system that normally results from the FPTP election system because:

1) it polarizes politics and society and makes it impossible to arrive at a cross-party national consensus

2) it suppresses new political movements and generates anti-establishment currents that enter politics via the backdoor (Tory backbenchers in this case) from one day to the other without having had the opportunity to adjust to the practical business of politics (that's why the Brexitters didn't have a plan).

(1) While I'm not sure "national consensus" is actually a good thing (it's very, well, German...), I don't think it's fair to say it can't exist in a two-party system. After WW2, there was a "consensus" on the economy known as Butskellism, which lasted until Thatcher came along and tore up the rules. Then, Labour gave in to Thatcherism and that became the national consensus for 20-odd years.

(2) The rise of the "anti-establishment" current via the backdoor wasn't caused by the two-party system, but by a spectacular own goal from a prime minister who was actually in a position of strength. Besides, the Brexit referendum was explicitly not about the two-party system, but rather an aberration. Unlike, say, Switzerland, the British political system is not designed to have referenda as a major part of its lawmaking process. It's precisely why we're in the mess we're in today.
  • 1
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 234
  • 235
  • 243

So. according to you @Hindsite , anyone who is a[…]

Yes. However, climate change was originally intro[…]

Earth/humans were anti-money, but not all aliens w[…]

Chinese Imperial Bonds 1911

Communist China refuses to pay the imperial bonds[…]