EU-BREXIT - Page 306 - 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 JohnRawls
#15051631
Rugoz wrote:10% seems too low even by the most optimistic estimates. E.g.



https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... e-brussels



In the US the "one-step" representative democracy in Washington is already despised by most citizens. What makes you think a 2-step representative democracy in Brussels will fare better in the long term?


10%. May be is a bit too low, but it is not 55% for sure. To get higher numbers like over 25% lets say, you need to take a very broad approach like European acts motivates countries to create specific laws along those recomendary guidelines/procedures/best practices and such. I find that to be very dishonest. Everyone has best practices suits.

As for the one step or two step representative democracies. I find it okay honestly. The only way i can see direct democracy for every position is possible can be online voting. So unless all countries in the EU implement online voting then having elections/votes all the times is simply too pricy and realistically people are not going to vote for smaller positions. It is hard to get them to vote for municipal elections, now imagine people voting on your minister of IT. Online voting is the future.

@Ter
I am a Eurosceptic but not a Europhobe. What this means is that I want the European Union to continue existing but in a reformed state. I do not deny the problems of the EU and i try to realistically analyze them with the situations in our countries and solutions that might be implemented.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15051646
JohnRawls wrote:10%. May be is a bit too low, but it is not 55% for sure. To get higher numbers like over 25% lets say, you need to take a very broad approach like European acts motivates countries to create specific laws along those recomendary guidelines/procedures/best practices and such. I find that to be very dishonest. Everyone has best practices suits.


To get to a 13% figure you have to exclude all EU regulations and directives, which are legally binding for member states. That would be nonsense.

JohnRawls wrote:As for the one step or two step representative democracies. I find it okay honestly. The only way i can see direct democracy for every position is possible can be online voting. So unless all countries in the EU implement online voting then having elections/votes all the times is simply too pricy and realistically people are not going to vote for smaller positions. It is hard to get them to vote for municipal elections, now imagine people voting on your minister of IT. Online voting is the future.


That doesn't answer my question:

"In the US the "one-step" representative democracy in Washington is already despised by most citizens. What makes you think a 2-step representative democracy in Brussels will fare better in the long term?"

It's not about whether you personally find it okay or not. As for "online voting", it's completely unnecessary as long as you only put the important legislation to a vote (i.e. the one that is being challenged). I vote on ~20-30 issues every year and have never used online voting. Whether it would increase the trust in EU institutions is another question.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15053278
BeesKnee5 wrote:BBC EU correspondent sums up the deal




May be i am not getting the sarcasm but Boris just proposed May deal V1.0 that he himself was against when May proposed so she went straight away for May deal v2.0. How is that renegotiate if May already negotiated both of those deals beforehand? :|
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15053790
So, despite the hubris from Labour with their personal attacks on BoJo, the prediction tonight is that the Tories are expected to achieve a respectable working majority, which, even if the DUP continue with their obstructiveness with their parent party, the Tory government will ensure that Brexit is implemented.

It will be interesting to see which MP's are the casualties of their position on frustrating the 2016 referendum decision to leave Europe.

The Labour election manifesto was a brazen attempt to steal that referendum result, with it's attendant promise to implement it by Labour before that referendum.
The manifesto wasn't just a bogus promise to let the people decide on a 'deal' negotiated by Labour if they won, it was a blatant act of political deception, by also giving an 'option' to 'remain', which was just a cowardly position that avoided the honest one, of promising a second referendum in the manifesto, which would also have stole the 2016 referendum result pledge to implement it.

The above is not the only reason they have lost, there is also the WASPI issue of bribing women with taxpayers money, that, even if some women were affected, there were other ways of achieving an equitable 'settlement' that would have also have given pension equity for pensioners born before April 1951 who are on a much reduced basic state pension than those born after & Pension Credit reduces those women's 'loss' anyway.



Another issue is that Labour's opposition was based on jobs lost, or lower rights for workers in a race to the bottom, which is a nonsense.

In fact, it's not a 'hard' Brexit that would create that situation, it's Labour's economic & fiscal policies.

Combine the above with the estimated £1.2 TRILLION increase in the national debt, the effects would have been higher interest rates,higher inflation , lower real wage increases & much higher unemployment.

There would also have been a rapid increase in falling house prices, accompanied by negative equity.

Labour's policies, although not all bad, were neither 'radical' or workable, nor realistic, in short, they were 'magic money tree' fantasies,
just like the Green Party or the Lib Dems.

I am reassured that the British people have their senses firmly rooted in reality & voted on their feet accordingly.

I was up early to vote at my polling station some 60 yards away, it was just after 7 a.m I was surprised to see others also voting at that time & from my observation, I knew that Turnout would be high.

I knew then that the government would win the election.

Labour had a very negative campaign, whereas the Tories kept it rather clean & moderate.

Labour & the Lib Dems are the big losers in the election.

On the one hand, Labour betrayed the very people whom it was appealing to for votes, but why, oh why, would anyone vote for a political party that ignored a democratic vote to leave Europe & then expect any democratic reward following that?

Then, the Lib Dems, who are completely off their rocker, in much the same way as the Greens or UKIP, completely squared up to the voters, by declaring, in effect, that the 2016 referendum was totally irrelevant, because anyone voting for them was voting to 'remain', thus, also ignoring the referendum result.

It matters not, whether you are a single MP, or a political party, to think that you can behave as if there had never been a referendum, is just about as undemocratic as could be & that's why you were shunned by the electors.

No matter whether you are for or against leaving Europe, as 'democrats' in a democratic system, you behave as a democrat, or you suffer the consequences, in so doing, you also betray the hopes of those that look to you to change their situation.

Personally, I would not have bothered voting, but I felt honour-bound, to stand up for any party(whether I would normally support, or not) that respected our democratic system & for that I have no regrets for once in my life.

The last election in which I voted was when Ted HEATH was elected into office, I voted Tory then, because of the Threshold Agreements between the government & the Trade Unions.

I did regret doing so, but this election was also about union influences & on that score I have no regret.

I am sure that BoJo will implement Brexit early next year, we shall see what kind of Brexit it is, but I am fairly sure that a 'softer' one is preferable, as long as there are no significant obligations owed to Europe in achieving that exit.

I am not in favour of any deal with America in respect of trade where our public services are concerned.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15053791
Sorry, x2 post.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15053838
78 majority for the Conservatives, a night of the long knives by the electorate on Labour & other 'remain' factions.

Jeremy CORBYN has done his 'duty' to the country by losing so comprehensively, but has done great dis-service to his constituency of Labour supporters throughout the country.
I may be wrong, but, I understand that 'Screaming' Lord Sutch, 'Leader' of the 'Official Monster, Loony Raving Party' , has suggested that Labour form a 'coalition' with his party, due to the striking similarities between them(that both parties are out-of-touch with reality & the people). :lol: :lol:

Tony BLAIR's constituency has now gone 'Blue', probably as a direct result of BLAIR's position on Brexit, as has the, 'Beast-of-Bolsover',Dennis SKINNER's seat, where he was 'skinned' by the Tories.

The Conservatives picked up seats in Leave-voting areas, punishment for Labour's deceit on leaving Europe, replicated in similar fashion with the Lib Dems.
The government will now implement Brexit by 31 January 2020.
Despite all the efforts of the BBC, the media in general, the poisonous negative ad hominem attacks against Boris JOHNSON, were all counter productive, as evidenced by the election result, the British people hate that type of behaviour & delivered their punishment accordingly.

It remains to be seen whether BoJo's 'Teflon' coating remains intact over the duration, but clearly, CORBYN sucked up the proverbial *** from the fan & he was BoJo's best asset in the campaign.

As usual, the doomsayers were wrong about the Tories, because the country will always do the right thing when circumstances demand it & the Tories have always been the default party in uncertain times.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15053880
Nonsense wrote:78 majority for the Conservatives, a night of the long knives by the electorate on Labour & other 'remain' factions.

Jeremy CORBYN has done his 'duty' to the country by losing so comprehensively, but has done great dis-service to his constituency of Labour supporters throughout the country.
I may be wrong, but, I understand that 'Screaming' Lord Sutch, 'Leader' of the 'Official Monster, Loony Raving Party' , has suggested that Labour form a 'coalition' with his party, due to the striking similarities between them(that both parties are out-of-touch with reality & the people). :lol: :lol:

Tony BLAIR's constituency has now gone 'Blue', probably as a direct result of BLAIR's position on Brexit, as has the, 'Beast-of-Bolsover',Dennis SKINNER's seat, where he was 'skinned' by the Tories.

The Conservatives picked up seats in Leave-voting areas, punishment for Labour's deceit on leaving Europe, replicated in similar fashion with the Lib Dems.
The government will now implement Brexit by 31 January 2020.
Despite all the efforts of the BBC, the media in general, the poisonous negative ad hominem attacks against Boris JOHNSON, were all counter productive, as evidenced by the election result, the British people hate that type of behaviour & delivered their punishment accordingly.

It remains to be seen whether BoJo's 'Teflon' coating remains intact over the duration, but clearly, CORBYN sucked up the proverbial *** from the fan & he was BoJo's best asset in the campaign.

As usual, the doomsayers were wrong about the Tories, because the country will always do the right thing when circumstances demand it & the Tories have always been the default party in uncertain times.


And Trump will like win in 2020 in America despite all the negativity of the media, impeachment, etc.
The left does not get it.
By Patrickov
#15053881
And I must say the arrogance and violence of China (and in a lesser extent Russia) have enhanced rightwing momentum. Many probably see turning left would lead their state towards Chinese domination.
By B0ycey
#15053887
Julian658 wrote:And Trump will like win in 2020 in America despite all the negativity of the media, impeachment, etc.
The left does not get it.


Conservatives won because of stupidity. Swinson stood for an election her supporters told her not to do and then deserted her as a result. Corbyn should have stepped a side as he is decisive and promised a manifesto that people knew would have bankrupt the country or would have resulted in many broken promises. Swinson called Corbyn a Brexiteer and Labour kept on mentioning her voting record splitting more votes away from them and Farage only stood in non Tory seats splitting Labour heartland votes still. Had the remain parties worked together and stepped aside in certain seats like he did this result would have been different.

RIP UK. Lib Dem push for more MPs has backfired big time. And now Swinson is looking for a new job. What an utter clusterfuck.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15053898
It would appear that Labour were never ready for an election, were they so, they would have tested their manifesto policies in front of independent, objective, free thinking members of the public.

Their mistakes were the only things that manifested themselves to the public, because they were so elementary, that, a two year-old could think of better policies to attract voters to the party.

For instance, the £1.2 TRILLION plucked from the magic money tree, had they asked a simple question, "Who will it be, that has to repay that additional crippling debt & the interest on it"?

The obvious answer is blindingly simple, it's the very group that Labour were targeting to vote for them-the younger generation, so why would those youngsters even contemplate doing so(voting Labour), it's ridiculous.

Labour were invoking a resurrection of the 'dead hand of Socialism' in front of the people, who duly rejected it & it's good that it also coincided with an election in which they got it wrong on Brexit.
That ensured they lost the election, it exposed the ideological cul-de-sac that Labour has entered, whether & how long it takes them to extricate themselves is an open question.

Again, the WISPA women affected by OSBORNE's State Pension changes, £58 BILLION, piled on top of the £1.2 TRILLION, a taxpayer - funded bribe to women of a certain age, unbelievable.

It's highly questionable, whether those women actually suffered financially, because, there are 'compensations' within the Pension Credit system, to which many of them would have been entitled, due to the fact that many of them were part-time workers, earning 'pin money' & many being dependent on their husband's pension entitlement anyway.
Also, with the fiscal policies targeting people that got off their backsides to improve their lot, in order to fund more 'Socialist' spending, that would be clawed back later when the Tories would have regained power, by another long period of austerity aimed at those who have felt the impact since 2010.

The irony of course, is that Labour's policies would have wreaked havoc on the economy, destroying the very jobs they declared their opposition to MAY's & Johnston's 'deal' was intended to avoid.
The manifesto spoke volumes on Labour's attitude to the aspirational people of this country, it's an appalling mess they have created, a veritable demolition derby against themselves & those whose support they sought.
By Patrickov
#15053906
@Nonsense

If the Conservatives are corrupt and rotten to a certain level (as suggested by the blog I have quoted, as well as this twitter post) then voters would have thought about absolutely none of the above and voted Labour regardless of how damaging the Labour leadership are. As in Hong Kong, many of the ousted pro-Beijing District Councillors were actually quite competent, it's their stance (or in some cases, like my local one, lack of one) which costed them their seats.

Of course, the British political landscape is much more complicated than something a simple two-party/camp model can explain.
By late
#15053908
Patrickov wrote:
And I must say the arrogance and violence of China (and in a lesser extent Russia) have enhanced rightwing momentum. Many probably see turning left would lead their state towards Chinese domination.



I don't know how people in other countries feel.

I do know China, as a threat, is not an issue in America. You see a few people making silly comparisons with Soviet Russia, but no one takes them seriously.

Bit ironic that we see North Korea as more of a threat than China.
By Patrickov
#15053910
B0ycey wrote:Conservatives won because of stupidity. Swinson stood for an election her supporters told her not to do and then deserted her as a result. Corbyn should have stepped a side as he is decisive and promised a manifesto that people knew would have bankrupt the country or would have resulted in many broken promises. Swinson called Corbyn a Brexiteer and Labour kept on mentioning her voting record splitting more votes away from them and Farage only stood in non Tory seats splitting Labour heartland votes still. Had the remain parties worked together and stepped aside in certain seats like he did this result would have been different.

RIP UK. Lib Dem push for more MPs has backfired big time. And now Swinson is looking for a new job. What an utter clusterfuck.


Seriously, all anti-Brexit parties have their own agenda, and many probably do not want the United Kingdom stay united.

First, both the Labour and the Lib Dems aim to take power for themselves. IMHO Swinson is "stupid" but she probably has little choice. Meanwhile Corbyn knows the situation better -- he has been ambiguous because he understands Brexit supporters do number a lot and he dares not alienating them. Of course, he in fact alienated more than he drew to support.

Saying using anti-Brexit as a means to take power, the SNP and SF actually have an easier job than Lib Dems because they do not need to form a majority government -- their actual aims are Scottish independence or Irish reunification, which they (and their voters) believe they can force the Tories to grant.

With all these on the table, though, I actually think My Honourable Friend is over-worrying. With the Tories winning so big I don't think they really need to make concessions to SNP or SF -- both Cameron and May had to endure SNP only because it's a hung parliament.

I somewhat believed that the most SF (IRA) could do was to rekindle The Troubles. Even if that happens, I do not see SNP having the guts to follow suit.
Last edited by Patrickov on 13 Dec 2019 16:30, edited 1 time in total.
By Patrickov
#15053911
late wrote:Bit ironic that we see North Korea as more of a threat than China.


I bet if Trump keeps consistent with North Korea it will be indeed very loyal, just like Vietnam.
By late
#15053921
Patrickov wrote:
I bet if Trump keeps consistent with North Korea it will be indeed very loyal, just like Vietnam.



NK played Trump for the fool he is.
By Patrickov
#15053925
late wrote:NK played Trump for the fool he is.


If Trump is played then the manipulator would be his so-called aides and not NK.

Xi Jinping is much more foolish than Trump (by wanting to assert influence for his nation, which it does not deserve) and I can assure that it is not Trump who is played with.
By B0ycey
#15053934
Patrickov wrote:Seriously, all anti-Brexit parties have their own agenda, and many probably do not want the United Kingdom stay united.


Sure they have their own agenda but ultimately neither party were going to get into any form of power without being part of a coalition. In terms of vote share, the leave parties got around 45%. The Brexit Party were smart enough to not challenge Tory seats. And you know what. That was a very smart move. So smart that if the Lib Dems and Labour did likewise they would have formed the majority I suspect.

As for breaking up the Union, only the SNP seem to want to do that. The Tories only have chances of seats at the borders there. That being the case, perhaps the need for any form of pact within Scotland wasn't needed as the SNP would have supported moves to stop Brexit whether there was a pact up there or not. But in England - especially in Labour heartlands and in London, fighting against each other has clearly backfired.

First, both the Labour and the Lib Dems aim to take power for themselves. IMHO Swinson is "stupid" but she probably has little choice. Meanwhile Corbyn knows the situation better -- he has been ambiguous because he understands Brexit supporters do number a lot and he dares not alienating them. Of course, he in fact alienated more than he drew to support.


Well Swinson was power grabbing when she declared she wanted a election and didn't retreat from that so had every choice actually. From her Twitter feed she should have knew she fucked up. The election was lost for them then. And Labour attacked her voting record every chance they had and when they did she lost another percentage point. As for Corbyn, he couldn't capitalise on a weak Tory government so I doubt he knew the situation well at all. He should have knew he couldn't win an election due to his historic baggage from that simple fact and yet he still never stepped down and put another Corbynite in his place. Instead he offered the electorate the kitchen sink to counter his baggage but what he promised was simply not affordable and people then began to worry about the economy if he got into power - which lost him votes.

Having said that, when you attack each other (remain parties) and remove the focus off Johnson as he can't be arsed to turn up for television events, you can see why yesterday happened.

Saying using anti-Brexit as a means to take power, the SNP and SF actually have an easier job than Lib Dems because they do not need to form a majority government -- their actual aims are Scottish independence or Irish reunification, which they (and their voters) believe they can force the Tories to grant.


Sure the SNP/SF have other issues. They are after all nationalists. And you can include the Brexit party in that category too. But so what? They have an easier job than Labour or Lib Dems because they target a demographic rather than a collective but that just suggests that both Labour and the Lib Dems should have made their jobs easier by working together than fighting each other.

With FPTP, a single party fighting for 50% of the electorate is always going to win a majority with 3/4 parties fighting for the other 50% amongst themselves.

With all these in the table, though, I actually think My Honourable Friend is over-worrying. With the Tories winning so big I don't think they really need to make concessions to SNP or SF -- both Cameron and May had to endure SNP only because it's a hung parliament.

I somewhat believed that the most SF (IRA) could do was to rekindle The Troubles. Even if that happens, I do not see SNP having the guts to follow suit.


Well Scotland is divided so it will just be Brexit all over again over there if they have a referendum this early. Also the SNP know the Tories won't give them a legal referendum anyway. So I suspect as Scotland cannot afford to go independent anyway, they will ask for an referendum knowing they will not be given one so they can gain more support in the future from this rejection whilst also at the same tome give them more time to promote immigration/business and build infrastructure to make an independent Scotland affordable with this growing economy - and certainly not call for violence today which if anything will lose them support. They are playing the long game even if that is not what it sounds like from their platform.

The common sense move for Scotland is Devo-Max, set up the infrastructure to become independent and then go independent in twenty years when the young become older. And that is what Sturgeon should ask for when her request is denied actually.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15053938
Patrickov wrote:Seriously, all anti-Brexit parties have their own agenda, and many probably do not want the United Kingdom stay united.

Indeed. Many of the 'anti-Brexit' parties probably secretly hope that Brexit goes ahead and proves to be a total clusterfuck. They will probably get their wish. Lol.

First, both the Labour and the Lib Dems aim to take power for themselves. IMHO Swinson is "stupid" but she probably has little choice. Meanwhile Corbyn knows the situation better -- he has been ambiguous because he understands Brexit supporters do number a lot and he dares not alienating them. Of course, he in fact alienated more than he drew to support.

Indeed, and this miscalculation has cost him (and his party) dearly.

Saying using anti-Brexit as a means to take power, the SNP and SF actually have an easier job than Lib Dems because they do not need to form a majority government -- their actual aims are Scottish independence or Irish reunification, which they (and their voters) believe they can force the Tories to grant.

With all these on the table, though, I actually think My Honourable Friend is over-worrying. With the Tories winning so big I don't think they really need to make concessions to SNP or SF -- both Cameron and May had to endure SNP only because it's a hung parliament.

I somewhat believed that the most SF (IRA) could do was to rekindle The Troubles. Even if that happens, I do not see SNP having the guts to follow suit.

Sinn Fein (IRA) do not want to rekindle the Troubles. Any member of either SF or the Provisional IRA who wanted to continue the armed struggle has already been forced out of those organisations and have formed their own splinter groups, which are all tiny and illegal organisations which are completely irrelevant to British or Irish politics. As for the SNP, they have absolutely no intention of fighting an armed struggle to gain Scottish independence. They don't even have the gumption of the Catalonians, who at least had the balls to hold an illegal referendum and then declare UDI on the back of it. The SNP do everything by the book - they even wait for permission from London before daring to hold a referendum on independence. Lol.
By Rich
#15053940
Potemkin wrote: As for the SNP, they have absolutely no intention of fighting an armed struggle to gain Scottish independence. They don't even have the gumption of the Catalonians, who at least had the balls to hold an illegal referendum and then declare UDI on the back of it. The SNP do everything by the book - they even wait for permission from London before daring to hold a referendum on independence. Lol.

To be fair to the SNP they do have to keep the Spanish happy, as the Spanish could veto their EU application. The Spanish will not tolerate secessionist radicalism.

Potemkin wrote:Sinn Fein (IRA) do not want to rekindle the Troubles. Any member of either SF or the Provisional IRA who wanted to continue the armed struggle has already been forced out of those organisations and have formed their own splinter groups, which are all tiny and illegal organisations which are completely irrelevant to British or Irish politics.

My analysis on this has been somewhat unstable and I certainly make no claims to expertise on today's Sinn Fein. My question is have these people completely lost their Mojo? Have they been completely institutionalised? Because there is nothing to stop them giving the nod and the wink to these splinter groups as Hamas does to Islamic Jihad and other minor groups. Its not a card that should be played lightly, but it is potentially a very powerful move in the right situation. As Sinn Fein are not seeking to create a new member state of the EU, they've actually got far more freedom of manoeuvrer than the SNP.
  • 1
  • 304
  • 305
  • 306
  • 307
  • 308
  • 328

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]