EU-BREXIT - Page 209 - 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
#15022146
Rich wrote:Marx and his successors have been preaching doom and gloom since the 1840s. Its amazing how such stupid ideas can go unchallenged. Its was not industrialisation that created such terrible poverty and poor quality of life for the lower classes in early nineteenth century Britain, but the massive expansion of the population. The rural population expanded not contracted during the early part of the industrial revolution.

I have no time for either BoJo's banal and idiotic optimism, or the apocalyptic ravings of so many Remainers.


Ever since the Black Death there have been perverse 'market' forces acting on the price of labour, indeed, it was probably one of the first events that had a significant effect that gave the 'entitlement' class at the 'top', the awareness of market forces,simply because it increased the cost of labour, brought about by shortages of it arising from the BD.
Later, in the 1440-90 period, there was an 'Alien's(foreigners) Subsidy', in which they were taxed higher than the English were, we may have to disincentivise such people once more if the economy goes south, although, I think that they will upstakes & move out of their own accord.

No doubt, many 'English' people will also do likewise. :hmm:


Ever since then, throughout the industrial revolution, the Victorian era, the two world wars, to the current period, labour has tended to concentrate within cities or towns, to where the new phenomena of factories created the demand for labour away from the countryside.

After WW2, the government introduced two policies that were nothing less than social engineering, one was late 1945-6, when Family Allowances were introduced, encouraging repopulation, the other was commonwealth migration, to supply the labour force following the war, but, in reality, it was importing cheap labour into the country, at a time when wages were already depressed & unions were becoming more organised in order to put pressure on the government to improve workers living standards.

The irony of course, is that, whilst the Labour Party have been doing the usual scam of haranguing the government to 'compensate' 'Labour's' client voters from abroad, the Carribean(Windrush)generation with 'free' taxpayers cash for no ligitimate reason, the same period in the early-mid 1950's saw many thousands of 'English' men, women,children, emigrate to Australia as £10 'Poms'.

It's funny how many thousands of English people couldn't wait to emigrate from here, willingly, with taxpayers money, because they saw no future here, yet, in 1948, the government were at the same time, encouraging migration inwards from the Carribean in particular, in order to provide labour for post-war reconstruction.
I still recall the very first Jamaican that I ever saw,he was probably better-off than most of us, he was selling silk ties, watches, etc, under his jacket & it's an aspect of migrants that I admire them for.

They,for the most, do want to work, in order to improve their lot, but I feel more strongly that, as a country, our businesses should do what they have always done, invest in the countries abroad, so that people wouldn't need to emigrate just to 'improve' their lot,sometimes, at other people's expense.

I think that people are relatively 'conservative' about migration,because, in it's proper context, it's about population levels, the increase, which,despite the rhetoric from pro-migrationist lobby, is not as 'beneficial' to the country as made out, but government will never, ever supply the proof that it is, because it doesn't have any proof.
By B0ycey
#15022439
BoJo isn't aiming for no deal the same as the EU isn't aiming for no deal. Although if he refuses to alter his position on the backstop then he might as well be aiming for no deal.

Thinking the EU will change their position on this issue because you call them friends is naive. They will maintain it on principle because that was agreed when negotiations took place.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#15022443
B0ycey wrote:BoJo isn't aiming for no deal the same as the EU isn't aiming for no deal. Although if he refuses to alter his position on the backstop then he might as well be aiming for no deal.

Thinking the EU will change their position on this issue because you call them friends is naive. They will maintain it on principle because that was agreed when negotiations took place.


Parliament rejected it though and he doesn't have the majority needed to run roughshod over parliament. If the EU don't accept that then no deal is what we will get.
By B0ycey
#15022449
SolarCross wrote:Parliament rejected it though and he doesn't have the majority needed to run roughshod over parliament. If the EU don't accept that then no deal is what we will get.


Sure Parliament rejected it but that isn't the EUs problem. It's ours. And I genuinely believe the ERG would have supported Mays deal had the DUP not been coalition partners (or May didn't gamble on a GE) because NI being treated equally in trade policy wasn't even on the radar until Foster came to light. That being that case perhaps it is time for BoJo to try and improve his hand by the same method so he can support the WA if he wants a deal so badly.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#15022461
B0ycey wrote:Sure Parliament rejected it but that isn't the EUs problem. It's ours. And I genuinely believe the ERG would have supported Mays deal had the DUP not been coalition partners (or May didn't gamble on a GE) because NI being treated equally in trade policy wasn't even on the radar until Foster came to light. That being that case perhaps it is time for BoJo to try and improve his hand by the same method so he can support the WA if he wants a deal so badly.

It might be that he doesn't want a deal that badly or at least he is not a fan of May's WA anyway so he is more or less happy that parliament rejected it. A deal would be nice but optional. A bad deal is worse than no deal.
By B0ycey
#15022467
SolarCross wrote:It might be that he doesn't want a deal that badly or at least he is not a fan of May's WA anyway so he is more or less happy that parliament rejected it. A deal would be nice but optional. A bad deal is worse than no deal.


Johnson will be judged by how Brexit plays out. He, like everyone else knows in Westminster that "No Deal" is bad for everyone. So when Brexit hits people in their pockets, this only plays in the hand of the Lib Dems and ruins Johnson legacy completely. Why? Because until the lies are exposed, people live in ignorance that No Deal will be OK and Johnson is just a loveable rogue. And that is why Johnson is subtley begging for a trade deal now. But I don't see the EU moving. So he has to.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15023428
Atlantis wrote:Those who are pushing for a hard Brexit are anticipating "turmoil". They want to see the world burn. They have rearranged their portfolios so that is won't affect them in any negative sort of way.

Steve Bannon: 'The Brexit turmoil is only just beginning'

There was never a need to press for a 'hard' Brexit Atlantis, that's because the 'alternative' 'soft' option, that is Theresa MAY's W.A, was rejected 3 times by parliament.
Parliament also rejected 'no deal',it is parliament itself which has steered the country to the default exit from europe-not- I may say so, Brexiteers, parliament placed itself up the creek without a paddle, by moving itself into a cul-de-sac of it's own creation, a case of 'check mate' to the democratic vote of the people.

Parliament had it's 'meaningful' vote's, the damage it has inflicted upon itself, is the fault of Theresa MAY, who failed in the job she was elected to do-lead-from the front.
She gave parliament the rope to hang itself, now, under BoJo, it's the government, albeit a week one, that must have it's way on europe.

It doesn't matter that the government is 'weak', so too are the opposition parties, the core strength in any country when it's virtually experiencing a collapse of one kind or another, is it's people & that is expressed by the referendum result.

Parliament believes that it is 'sovereign', that is a constitutional arrangement between the people - sovereign, but the sovereign power of the people trumps all other power, because the people can 'top' a sovereign's head & dismiss any government of it's choosing at election time.
User avatar
By SolarCross
#15024830


They real motive behind project fear. The EU is basically using our own money to buy our politicians for their use.
By Rich
#15024832
In 2016 the British electorate voted for a Brexit in name only. We have to accept that a lot of those Brexiteers were anti democratic fascists. They very specifically didn't want specifics to be in the referendum. They could have demanded that any or all of not joining the EEA and leaving the single market, the customs union, the ECJ, the ECHR, EU free move movement, the common travel area, Euro Atom and NATO be included explicitly in the referendum.

They didn't because these con men and women wanted to win a mandate for one thing and then lie and twist it in to something else. The obvious way to respect the result of the referendum was to to leave the EU, apply to join the EEA and remain part of the customs union. Once that had been completed further referendums could have been instituted to deepen the break with the EU and supra national institutions. Alternatively if these Brexiteers had an ounce of integrity they would have denounced the referendum from the start and sought to win a parliamentary majority for leaving. This would have avoided their absurd demand, that the British parliament must be shut down, so as power can be returned to the British parliament.
By Atlantis
#15024851
Nonsense wrote:There was never a need to press for a 'hard' Brexit Atlantis, ...


Yes, there was. A Tory Brexit always had to be a hard Brexit because a customs union wouldn't have given them the freedom to negotiate independent trade deals, which is what the "freer free trade" Tories base their plans on.

Rich wrote:In 2016 the British electorate voted for a Brexit in name only. We have to accept that a lot of those Brexiteers were anti democratic fascists. They very specifically didn't want specifics to be in the referendum. They could have demanded that any or all of not joining the EEA and leaving the single market, the customs union, the ECJ, the ECHR, EU free move movement, the common travel area, Euro Atom and NATO be included explicitly in the referendum.


A multiple-choice referendum doesn't work because it's unlikely to produce a convincing majority for any option.

They didn't because these con men and women wanted to win a mandate for one thing and then lie and twist it in to something else. The obvious way to respect the result of the referendum was to to leave the EU, apply to join the EEA and remain part of the customs union.


Most didn't expect to win and probably didn't know what they really wanted, except to piss at the "establishment" in Westminster and Brussels. The Brexitters played on the ambiguity of their message. Before the referendum, Farage tried to calm fears about a loss of trade by saying "OF COURSE, we can trade with the EU single market after Brexit - just like Norway does," even though he must have known that the Norway option was never on for the UK. A passive Norway-style EU membership without voting rights can't be sold as "taking back control."
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15024943
Atlantis wrote:Yes, there was. A Tory Brexit always had to be a hard Brexit because a customs union wouldn't have given them the freedom to negotiate independent trade deals, which is what the "freer free trade" Tories base their plans on.



A multiple-choice referendum doesn't work because it's unlikely to produce a convincing majority for any option.


Most didn't expect to win and probably didn't know what they really wanted, except to piss at the "establishment" in Westminster and Brussels. The Brexitters played on the ambiguity of their message. Before the referendum, Farage tried to calm fears about a loss of trade by saying "OF COURSE, we can trade with the EU single market after Brexit - just like Norway does," even though he must have known that the Norway option was never on for the UK. A passive Norway-style EU membership without voting rights can't be sold as "taking back control."


I accept what you say Atlantis, but, it wasn't necessary, had Theresa MAY been instructed by parliament not
to sign any W.A, without parliament first, debating, then, 'rejecting', or 'passing' the W.A.

The actuality was that it was rejected 3 times by parliament, that in itself, speaks volumes about the acceptability of what she cooked up with the E.U.
They walked all over her, because she is ignorant of how the E.U functions, as soon as she allowed parliament a 'meaningful' vote's, she was screwed,because thye E.U knew they had her over a barrel on the issue of 'no-deal' & she was from that point on her knees.

Her 'red lines' were a typical 'Tory' con on people who voted leave over issues of mass-uncontrolled immigration, because they conflate with E.U Treaties, therefore, saying that we alone control who enters the country, could only be possible outside of the Single Market.

The issue of Ireland conflicts with those E.U Treaties, because of the border, which has to be protected, in order to preserve the principle that, there is no access to the Single Market, without accepting 'free movement'.
Likewise, that affects the Customs Union as well, so any 'deal' would, at best, be a customs 'arrangement', with, perhaps, a temporary agreement by way of transition,depending on a trade deal being settled-after the W.A has been passed
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15025454
It's all rather nonsensical, but, it is indicative of the hypocrisy of Labour in respect of it's playing politics with our 'democracy'.

Many Westminster MP['s believe that only 'parliamentary' democracy is legitimate as a form of democratic expression, it isn't, but they see any 'alternative' form of democractic expression as a 'threat' to 'parliamentary' democracy, in other words, like trades union restrictive practices, MP's are trying to run a 'closed-shop' monopoly with our system of democracy.

With Brexit, Labour has tried all manner of political tactics in parliament, in order to effect stopping a U.K exit from europe, it's tactic's are to effect that change in order to undermine direct democracy,by circumventing democratic methods of doing so,that is of gaining a democratic mandate to effect such change.

By so doing, it has acted undemocratically, because, apart from parliament facillitating it's own passing of Article 50, to give parliamentary effect to A50 in law, Labour is attempting to effectively reverse leaving, by repeatedly voting against that policy, by supporting all ammendments that frustrate that objective.

It is using parliamentary 'democracy' to negate the legitimate expression of 'direct democracy', yet, by saying that CORBYN will march to Buckingham Palace, to demand :lol: :lol: :lol: that the Head of State 'appoints' him as the Prime Minister is derisible, because the government may lose a motion of 'no-confidence', is not the same as the opposition gaining a 'motion-of-confidence'.
The practical effect of submitting such a motion is, it will unify the Tories, along with some Labour,Lib-Dem MP's supporting the Tories under BoJo & will leave Labour out in the wilderness for decades,for, if the Tories call an election after CORBYN is forced to resign(if he has any honour)after humiliating his party, along with himself from that challenge, they will then effect the constituency boundary changes, that not even a 'BLAIR' like 'win' could overturn.

Labour have consistently lost the plot in parliament over Brexit, any party that attacks any form of democracy, does not deserve to be treated well by any 'democratic' system.
By snapdragon
#15025474
You are completely wrong nonsense.

Where do you get this rubbish from?
  • 1
  • 207
  • 208
  • 209
  • 210
  • 211
  • 281

The causes don't really matter, so discussing the[…]

No I asked you is he innocent. You can't answer […]

The EU does not have to police the world. The U.[…]

Canadian Federal Election

No, it's not. Historically, young people and Demo[…]