EU-BREXIT - Page 240 - 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.
By B0ycey
#15034416
SolarCross wrote:@B0ycey

Also which is worse for the NHS? Brexit or EU


The story is three years old FYI.

Being that if the UK remained in the EU they would need to ratify the deal with Washington, I would say Brexit as they would have a veto. Nonetheless do you think an isolated UK will get a favourable trade deal from America? Like anything that isn't tied down everything else is for sale including the NHS.

Although really the true answer isn't Brexit or the EU what is worse for the NHS is a Tory government.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15034433
SolarCross wrote:Another eminent QC claims that we exited the EU on the 29th of March

This is why Boris can ignore the surrender bill, technically we already left without a deal back in march.



In theory, the use of 'extensions', provided both parties are agreed, can be repeated ad infinitum,but, there may be a bone of contention arising from the E.U's statements of late.

This relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, for which the meeting that BoJo had yesterday with the Luxembourg PM is illuminating.

He, in his public rant against the U.K, basically, restates that the E.U - U.K Withdrawal Agreement stands as of last year, for which I have previously said that the W.A has not been ratified,is therefore, consequently, not agreed, because the U.K is a parliamentary democracy, like the E.U parliament,it has to be voted on within parliament & passed therein before being ratified.

If the E.U sticks to that line,then, interestingly, the A50 time limit should kick in exactly two years to the date of notifying the E.U.of our intention to leave the E.U, that date being 29th March 2017 - 29 March 2019.

Timeline

21 March 2019
E.U offer a 'short' extension to deadline of 22 May 2019, if MAY can get her Brexit deal passed, or 12 April 2019( if not),TUC-CBI warn of 'national emergency' over Brexit.

05 April 2019
Theresa MAY request a 'further extension' from the E.U.
Yvette COOPER's Bill to force the government to seek a further extension passes by one vote, 313-312.

E.U agree further, longer extension until 31 October 2019, if the WA is passed, U.K must now take part in E.U elections if WA is not agreed by MAY

Looking at the two extensions, it is plain that they were conditional & that those conditions were not met.

From that point of view, those extensions should have been declared null & void by the E.U or the ECJ.

Bearing that in mind, the original exit date,as the quoted Q.C in the link affirms, should still stand as under A50.

As we can see, it's not only the U.K that has been playing games within parliament, but the E.U27 also,but more importantly, has probably made up it's own rules to suit itself, thinking that the U.K parliament would bend over & become a vassal state to the E.U.

It seems that those who complain about constitutional impropiety on our shores, are not quite so consistent when they see it happening on the other side of the channel, perhaps Gina MILLER might like to focus her attention elsewhere.

Both sides agreed that the future EU-UK agreement must include provisions that avoid a hard border in Ireland, that is part of the W.A protocol, which is why I have argued for a 'soft' border in Ireland, thus respecting the Good Friday Agreement.

It should be remembered that, the E.U initially(in the original draft Withdrawal Agreement)wanted Northern Ireland to be subjected to E.U law & to remain in the Customs Union when the rest of the U.K has left.
As nothing has been agreed, the post W.A future talks on our relationship with the E.U cannot begin, which makes E.U assertions of the W.A being legal,despite no-ratification by the U.K side & it's refusal to open those talks on the future as contradictory nonsense.
Last edited by Nonsense on 18 Sep 2019 15:10, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15034456
SolarCross wrote:@Nonsense

The treaty allows for only one extension.


No, 'extensions' can be repeated, as is the case with our leaving,of course the E.U rhetoric is that it can only accept that, if, there is a purpose.


The whole point of A50 though, is, it's there to protect the departing member from being held 'hostage' by the E.U, as the U.K is now being held hostage by the Irish backstop & 'extensions' are only contingent on majority voting in the E.U along with the departing members consent.

Of more importance than A50 in getting us out of the E.U, were we interested in a future trade deal with europe, for which only a unanimous vote would seal any negotiated deal for the U.K as a 'Third Country', would be Article 218.

Here's the funny bit though, the E.U Brexit negotiator,Michel BARNIER, would not be able to be involved in those negotiations, because he has essentially failed with A50, due to the member leaving without completing or ratifying the W.A,which is currently the case & he therefore has no mandate to do anything more

What actually makes the E.U what it is, are the Treaties & that is the sole basis on which it exist.

It's for that reason, that a leaving member, may consider A218 more important than A50, but only if that member wishes to retain strong economic,non-political ties with the E.U.

Personally, I see more trouble within the U.K, arising from the situation in parliament, with parliament acting like an 'elective' dictatorship, in the way that the balance of power within the Commons, has led to MP's excerting power over the government elected by the people & Ministers power being undermined by a vexatious individual like Gina MILLER.

As I have said before, the inmates have taken over the Westminster political assylum & 'normal' business will be resumed, only when the election is called.

That an election hasn't been called through a 'no-confidence' vote, is indicative of those MP's holding the government hostage to their irrational actions, for which they will face a very harsh penalty when that election arrives.

For the Prime MInister, It would, in the current circumstances, with an unruly Speaker, be reasonable, IMHO, to not just prorogue parliament again, but to invoke an interregnum until the 2022 election date.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15034461
In a case that will impact the E.U economy,also it's budget as a consequence, is the WTO case brought by TRUMP, against the E.U subsidising the Airbus A350-80
'Launch Aid', being at the heart oif the case,for which TRUMP will impose trade tariffs of some $21 BILLION in order to recoup claimed competition losses estimated at $ 10-11 BILLION.

However, a counter claim by the E.U against Boeing Corporation could well offset those claim cost & inflict damage on American aircraft manufacturers as well as general economic effects.

With the U.K leaving the E.U, it could be making a costly mistake in cementing closer economic ties with America,with corporate litigation being a very prominent feature of business there,the U.K could end up an economic satellite state of America,having first been bled dry financially by American trading rules & with even more dire consequences than being a vassal state to the E.U.
By SolarCross
#15034540
B0ycey wrote:Although really the true answer isn't Brexit or the EU what is worse for the NHS is a Tory government.


Well that is not really true. The Tories are a big tent and by default they are not necessarily "small government" types. Although libertarian leaning types are also in that big tent they do not quite define it. If one is a libertarian or economic liberal then of course any big government institution like the NHS is going to be the target of suspicion and some mild polemics. But worse than libertarians for totalitarians like yourself will be those tories that are happy to embrace the NHS as a national project to made into a big success. Tories like Boris.



This is because you do not care about the NHS at all you just want to carry out Marx's ten planks of communism one of which is for the communist party to obtain a monopoly over healthcare. Who would dare make fun of your odious "Dear Leader" if they will be denied any chance of medical care because of it?

The Boris direction will ensure an NHS which is well funded by a booming private economy. The Corbyn direction will ensure that a crushed economy fails to adequately support the NHS but yet the NHS will be used as whip against dissidents or really anyone not in the cult of Corbyn.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15034546
SolarCross wrote:Well that is not really true. The Tories are a big tent and by default they are not necessarily "small government" types. Although libertarian leaning types are also in that big tent they do not quite define it. If one is a libertarian or economic liberal then of course any big government institution like the NHS is going to be the target of suspicion and some mild polemics. But worse than libertarians for totalitarians like yourself will be those tories that are happy to embrace the NHS as a national project to made into a big success. Tories like Boris.



This is because you do not care about the NHS at all you just want to carry out Marx's ten planks of communism one of which is for the communist party to obtain a monopoly over healthcare. Who would dare make fun of your odious "Dear Leader" if they will be denied any chance of medical care because of it?

The Boris direction will ensure an NHS which is well funded by a booming private economy. The Corbyn direction will ensure that a crushed economy fails to adequately support the NHS but yet the NHS will be used as whip against dissidents or really anyone not in the cult of Corbyn.



There have been more changes in the N.H.S over the last 10 years than any other comparable period of the N.H.S.

The N.H.S was failing to provide the comprehensive service to which it was set up to provide for.
Recent innovative medical advances, such as keyhole surgery, anti cancer drugs,preventative treatments, along with a host of other more radical advances, are coming to the fore when pressure on the service is becoming even more intense.

The primary reason of course is the rapidly expanding population level, a consequence of political social engineering vis a viz migration policies,with the attendent longevity of the population at large.
Treatments are available for diseases or conditions that were not previously treatable or recognised.

I am deaf, from contracting German Measles in the early 1940's,as a consequence I also have Meniere's Disease for more than 70 years,I can control it with developed vestibular exercises to a degree.

Being deaf, N.H.S hearing aids have changed considerably, where once there was no help available other than sign language, my first hearing aid was body worn, more like a transistor radio than an aid, it was simply an amplifier that also happened to pick up radio frequencies,it has gone from analogue-digital, is due to introduce Bluetooth devices in a couple of years & I am hoping that it adapt 'smart' technology too.

Whilst I support the N.H.S, it has to be recognised that treatments are undertaken, that are outside of the social provision for reasons of health, that is to say, are 'lifestyle' choices, which should not be provided by the N.H.S, but, by private provision.

So much treasure is utilised in the public provision of health, that the public, in particular younger generations, have added it into their equation's for their 'entitlement', as a consequence, they no longer see that there is a connection with their 'need' for healthcare, to the reason for that 'need'.

They, therefore think that they can 'have their cake & eat it too'.

Where exactly does the N.H.S go from here on, well, it has always managed, with more cash' to cope, eventually, with demand for it's services, either by satisfying or making redundant the excessive demands upon it,by 'churning' on waiting times or appointments, or other less honest deviations within it's administration, using methods more akin to 'spin-doctors' than real doctors.

We do see that some treatments such as optical or dental services are severely restricted to those on benefits or age, whilst everyone pays, but not everyone receives when needed.

These contradictions should & must change.

I believe that a publicly funded health service should prevail, but people must accept personal responsibility for their own health, by avoiding the risk associated with lifestyle choices or habits.

Private provider usage has been useful , as well as advantageous in recent changes to the N.H.S, it would be churlish to think otherwise & I believe that it should continue under proper control to ensure that it is beneficial primarily to the public at all stages of it's provision.
By Presvias
#15034573
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Which ones do you disagree with?


All of them.

This is another good one: "The former Prime Minister also tried to claim the UK could manage its immigration policy while inside the EU. Why are 'Remain' campaigners insisting we start to control immigration in any Brexit deal then? Because we cannot control EU immigration now, proving Cameron was lying"


I wouldn't say massively, but as of 2019 this is no longer true anyway despite the UK having been in a state of uncertainty for three years now.


(shrugs) It seems you are not really aware of what's going on.


Somewhat different to companies deserting the UK, but regardless I can only laugh at this. Do you have any idea of the size of the UK finance industry? The people being moved constitute less than 1% of the total people employed and similarly the assets are a small fraction of the total.


£1trillion is just the start, and I don't call 7k job losses….- just as the tip of the iceberg - trivial.

Re UK manufacturing, everything is looking worse.

And other Brexit related company failures appear inevitable..

Image
Image
Image

2 Sep 2019 09:36

UK factory PMI hits seven-year low
Newsflash: Britain’s factory sector is shrinking at its fastest rate in seven years, as the Brexit crisis hurts the UK economy.

Data firm Markit reports that new orders tumbled last month, with activity sliding at its fastest pace since 2012.

Steep reductions in new orders were seen across the consumer, intermediate and investment goods industries, driving output down across the sector.

Business confidence has also cratered, hitting its lowest level since Markit began tracking it in 2012.

Markit’s UK manufacturing PMI, based on interviews with factory bosses across the UK, fell to just 47.4 - weaker than the 48.4 expected, and deeper into contraction (anything below 50 shows the sector shrank).


Image

"Only one in five companies ready for EU trade under no-deal
Survey shows majority have not completed basic customs paperwork"

https://amp.ft.com/content/a064869a-d96 ... 216ebe1f17

"UK investment faces most sustained slump in 17 years thanks to Brexit uncertainty"
^ British Chamber of Commerce.

Still feeling 'confident' about Brexit?

It was true at the time it was written and hardly anybody predicted the general slowdown that followed which also means that it cannot be predominantly attributed to Brexit.


But it can partially be attributed to it.

As above, this is no longer the case for the current year.


Does not matter, we should follow long term trends, not temporal rebounds.

I won't prove something I haven't claimed.


Very well, please prove this then:

"These are perfectly good arguments, although I agree that there are many more, starting with the question why the UK would want to remain in a union which seemingly desires to economically annex one of its constituent nations
"

The case for leaving the EU is quite simple. The EU is designed to absorb its members into an ever closer political union by creating a supranational structure whose institutions are by definition superior to those of the member states, exemplified today by the EC and the ECJ. It's an experiment that tries to peacefully unify an entire continent, consisting of a diverse set of nation states some of which have existed in their current form for centuries, into a single political entity, something which has never succeeded without violence and oppression.


Untrue. There are many unions...the US being one of them. It's quite successful from what people say..

Then there's the Russian Federation (despite Putin et al), unless you think it's better to have complete balkanisation and sectarian wars all over the world of course?

The EU works well as a confederation with many unifying organisations. It's better than what came before.

Is it perfect? No, but let's not hope for balkanisation and complete isolationism.

There can be problems with 'annexation' (your phrase) and equally, its counterpart which is total isolation and protectionism; both are damaging.

This is important to note because it means that the EU is the radical and risky proposition and those who oppose it are the moderates who just want the UK to be a normal nation state like the overwhelming majority of countries around the world.


No it's not radical or risky, it works as intended and as it was laid out originally.

It works as expected from the first referendum. The full pamphlet explaining the EU was available in every newsagent, and a condensed pamphlet was sent to every home.

The majority voted for it; almost as many as voted to leave in 2016, shy of about 30k.

If a privileged trading relationship, which benefits both sides, is only possible via subordination to EU institutions it ought to be rejected, as the world has a perfectly good model to organise trade cooperation that doesn't involve being a member of what is committed to becoming a superstate. As such, joining the EU, and equally important signing up to later treaties without the consent of the public, was a historic mistake which has now simply been corrected.


So opt outs are just made up?

As for supporting "no deal", I know quite a few people in the UK who do support it now mainly because of what they consider the unwillingness of both, the EU and the previous UK government/pro-EU establishment in the UK, to properly terminate membership. If they are unable to negotiate a normal trade relationship, something which is eminently possible and exists around the world, then it has to be "no deal". So as far as I can tell, almost all leavers would prefer a cooperative relationship with the EU, but in the face of blatant obstruction they are prepared to just leave as well. It's the only sensible position in my view.


The blatant obstruction comes largely (but not entirely) from the UK side, when idiotic politicians play political football with NI.

I have no reason to believe that Johnson doesn't want a deal as long as the terms are reasonable. As above, the only sensible position is to go ahead and just leave if that's not possible.


Of course he doesn't want a deal, he's barely spent any time in Brussels.

He is backed by 8.6 billion hedge funders as skinster pointed out.

That's not what he said. He wouldn't commit to it before he had seen the details of the legislation.


Proof?

So the statement is from 2012, and UKIP had actually changed its policy by 2014? Shocking. :lol: I still don't see the problem with this by the way. I believe that Switzerland's healthcare system works along those lines.


They believe the same nonsense, despite their lies about being new, all cuddly and old laboury.

And since you seem to be unaware that politicians make u-turns all the time, let me present to you something truly outrageous. I recommend you watch some of the dozens of videos this Twitter account has compiled, starting with this:


So what? I don't support those guys and gals either.

In fact, Chuka Ummuna is particularly bad.

You can be sure that people speculated in a similar way before the UK joined the EU and, in fact, in the run up to any major policy change.


They're billionaires, crooks and philanderers who'd sell their own grandmas.

I've never heard German spoken in a Northern Irish accent.
By Presvias
#15034575
Image

https://amp.ft.com/content/ee66b928-971 ... c211dcd229

June 25, 2019 8:08 am by Sylvia Pfeifer in London
A no-deal Brexit would deliver a “knockout blow” to the competitiveness of Britain’s automotive sector and could cost it more than £70m a day due to delays at the border, the industry’s trade body has warned.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on Tuesday said leaving the EU without a deal would lead to the end of borderless trade that could bring “crippling disruption” to the industry’s just-in-time operating model.

New analysis by SMMT concluded that if all the 1,100 trucks that deliver some 42m components into the UK from the continent every day were held up for 24 hours, the resulting production stoppages could cost the industry about £50,000 a minute, or more than £70m a day in this worst-case scenario.


It is Utter utter rubbish to say that NDBrexit is going to be 'okay'.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to back up the economic benefits of no deal.

Nope, not one shred.
By Atlantis
#15034578
Presvias wrote:Image


It's even worse than what this chart suggests because now is the time manufacturers need to retool their factories for the next generation of e-cars or hybrid cars. With the uncertainty about Brexit, investments in British car manufacturing will be delayed until it is too late. British car manufacturing is almost entirely foreign owned. They'll just build their factories elsewhere.

Brexit will finish off what Thatcher has started and largely de-industrialize the UK.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15034580
Atlantis wrote:It's even worse than what this chart suggests because now is the time manufacturers need to retool their factories for the next generation of e-cars or hybrid cars. With the uncertainty about Brexit, investments in British car manufacturing will be delayed until it is too late. British car manufacturing is almost entirely foreign owned. They'll just build their factories elsewhere.

Brexit will finish off what Thatcher has started and largely de-industrialize the UK.

That would likely be welcomed by the Tories. After all, the main problem with industrialisation, from their point of view, was that it politically empowered the working classes. Much better to destroy manufacturing industry and replace it with financial services - you don't really need a working class for that (at least not in one's own nation, since you can simply offshore the exploitation on which financial services rely, and there's never any shortage of desperate third-world workers willing to sell their labour-power cheaply). That was Thatcher's master-plan in the 1980s, and it worked. The British working class is now politically impotent, and the fat cats in the City can rake in the millions entirely untroubled by wildcat strikes, flying pickets and unemptied bins. Brexit will just be the icing on the cake for them. If they are allowed to get away with it. Corbyn might be elected PM, and that would set the cat among the pigeons. Lol.
By B0ycey
#15034582
SolarCross wrote:Well that is not really true. The Tories are a big tent and by default they are not necessarily "small government" types.


Ignoring the 90% of bollocks, here is a fact check for you to digest so completely true FYI...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-generous-have-the-conservatives-been-with-the-nhs

Tories do not compare to Labour. And any recent spending boost doesn't contemplate the lack of spending during austerity either.

Then there is the Tory privatisation plans...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-privatisation-health-secretary-contracts-companies-matt-hancock-jon-ashworth-a8857021.html

All of which will intensify when we the sell of Bevins masterplan to the Yanks for tariff free steroid fulled Beef to flood our markets and the opportunity to sell Pork Pies across the Atlantic.
By Presvias
#15034583
Nonsense wrote:For the Prime MInister, It would, in the current circumstances, with an unruly Speaker, be reasonable, IMHO, to not just prorogue parliament again, but to invoke an interregnum until the 2022 election date.


This is a very strange thing to call for?

Yep, just double checked to see that my memory isnt playing tricks on me. Yep, you're calling for the complete suspension of democracy.

How could that possibly help us?

I'm sure Trump would also love to suspend the congress and senate if he could, oh for the days of living under a nice strongman auuthoritarian dictatorship...
By Atlantis
#15034585
Potemkin wrote:That would likely be welcomed by the Tories. After all, the main problem with industrialisation, from their point of view, was that it politically empowered the working classes. Much better to destroy manufacturing industry and replace it with financial services - you don't really need a working class for that (at least not in one's own nation, since you can simply offshore the exploitation on which financial services rely, and there's never any shortage of desperate third-world workers willing to sell their labour-power cheaply). That was Thatcher's master-plan in the 1980s, and it worked. The British working class is now politically impotent, and the fat cats in the City can rake in the millions entirely untroubled by wildcat strikes, flying pickets and unemptied bins. Brexit will just be the icing on the cake for them. If they are allowed to get away with it. Corbyn might be elected PM, and that would set the cat among the pigeons. Lol.


True, that's the model that's been promoted by neoliberals in the UK and the US. And that's why it is disingenuous of Trump to complain about the trade deficit. If you offshore industry, you are going to have a trade deficit. But the shift to the service industries can only go so far. We can't all make a living by selling each other services. Somebody will have to make the goods. And if the goods are all imported, then there is going to be a constant outflow of capital, which will be accumulated by the manufacturing countries.

Moreover, a high living standard can only be guaranteed by a high level of technological innovation. Since most innovation is in manufacturing, countries without manufacturing will be impoverished in the medium or long term.
Last edited by Atlantis on 18 Sep 2019 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
By Presvias
#15034587
SolarCross wrote:^ lol what a pair of lunatics


...So you agree with totally suspending parliament until 2022?

And you're calling me a lunatic?

Maybe a lunatic to you is someone who doesn't use the daily express to make their arguments for them?
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15034592
Presvias wrote:This is a very strange thing to call for?

Yep, just double checked to see that my memory isnt playing tricks on me. Yep, you're calling for the complete suspension of democracy.

How could that possibly help us?

I'm sure Trump would also love to suspend the congress and senate if he could, oh for the days of living under a nice strongman auuthoritarian dictatorship...



NO, i'm not calling for the complete suspension of democracy at all.

Suspending parliament is not suspending democracy.

Rather, I would say that frustrating Brexit as is the deliberate act of the opposition in parliament, is the suspension of democracy, because it is thwarting the implementation of a democratic decision of the voters in the biggest democratic excercise held in the country.

The 1975 referendum produced a 17.37 MILLION votes to 'Remain', with some 8 MILLION for the 'Leave' side,democracy was respected in 1975.
That's the only difference now, as when approximately the same number vote to 'Leave' in 2016, the 'democratic' house falls down, because the inmates of the Westminster assylum, bend the house rules to suit their personal prejudices against the democratic interest of the country.

In terms of helping us, remember, parliament has used every occasion to vote in a way that denies a deal, or a 'no-deal', in order to stop the country leaving the E.U.

Parliament has exhausted it's objective to stop us leaving on our own terms, leaving the only option left on the table, the so-called 'default' option, of leaving without any agreement, that is why it is reasonable to close parliament, in order that the referendum result can be implemented by the government on the terms set out in it's manifesto.
Once that act is complete, along with the 'Great Repeal Act', that is the repatriation of the legal system back to the U.K, along with a direct government - E.U arrangement to leave in an orderly way, then parliament can be allowed to resume it's functions until a new general election is called.
Last edited by Nonsense on 18 Sep 2019 19:18, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 238
  • 239
  • 240
  • 241
  • 242
  • 304

New Gallup International Survey in Syria Syri[…]

black21, you seem to be having a hard time connec[…]

The issue is money. Wrong! How much is spent on[…]

Good stuff! That would be a very long trip, that's[…]