Jump to content

Kopfkino

Member
  • Post count

    2,815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,199 Excellent

About Kopfkino

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,604 profile views
  1. You can debate the desirability of political parties, and I probably don't agree with you particularly given the channelling of Washington (unless you are talking solely about a utopian world), but yes this is a consequence of not recognising parties and their function in law, and the norms for what happens when a party changes its leader whilst in government. ------- By handing over the choice of party leadership to the members we have created a situation where a group of people (in this case 125k Conservative members) can pay a small amount of money to directly elect the PM, in fact I'd guess you'd have to go back to the rotten boroughs for the last time a privileged fews could wield such undemocratic power. Moreover, even within the political party it drives a wedge between MPs and members. It's much less of a problem if MPs are choosing the leader cos they are at least in some way accountable to the public and the Executive has to command their confidence which is simpler if the leader isn't imposed on them. It's just another sledgehammer to the constitution, being able to change the PM quickly used to be a strength but that's essentially gone now.
  2. Well yeah this is a problem both of the main parties have now created. By prioritising party democracy they've done something wholly undemocratic for the nation whereby a select group of people have paid for the privilege to choose the Prime Minister without being accountable. At least Brown was effectively selected to be unopposed by Labour MPs whom are answerable to the public in at least some way.
  3. No I meant as in the UK could sign away its agricultural industry, as in completely open up to US competition and do damage to its own agricultural industry. Agriculture is normally difficult in trade negotiations because both sides usually want to protect it but its one area the UK (since the late 1800s) has allowed to lose out. In respect to China, the UK you'd say has the advantage in luxury consumer goods, vehicles and some engineering stuff and ofc in many tradable services (they'd love easier access to London's financial services, probably IT and comms too) but its hard to open up trade in services and I don't know China's trade well enough to know where they'd want us to give ground.
  4. Okay, convince me otherwise that it is a fully thought through position that acknowledges the implications. What is the problem with the Withdrawal Agreement? What are the benefits of leaving without a deal? What happens at the Irish border? In the event of no deal, what does our future relationship with the EU look like and how do we get there?
  5. Well I'd hazard a guess that if he supports a no deal, he's not much of a free trader anyway. But the UK could sign away agriculture for example in return for increased access to the US market for UK services. Tbf I don't really know enough about China's trade policy to know what they'd want but the UK could again secure more access for its services. I'm not saying that's an optimal thing to do but its an option. The general point being is it 'better' to negotiate as a bloc because its more powerful or is it better to negotiate alone with the ability to leverage facets of your trade policy more easily and actually have a debate over trade policy?
  6. What do you think happens when we leave without a deal? What do you think the EU will demand when after 2 weeks we ask to negotiate a future relationship? Or are we just going to have no sort of close relationship with our nearest neighbours? I'll answer it for you. We end up agreeing to the same terms as the WA. But only this time we'll be negotiating from an even worse position with no transition period and a worsening international standing having reneged on our commitments. What improvements do you want making? How do you solve the Irish trilemma? You're living in cuckoo land, you're believing in some kind of abstract world fed to you by people that have consistently shown themselves to have no idea and you obviously refuse to face up to the realities of the modern world. People voted to leave for what I believe were mostly completely understandable and legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, a fraction of them have let themselves be taken on a ride by a bunch of chancers that can only use rhetoric to address problems. People are addicted to confidence rather than ability and action.
  7. Be good of Newcastle to use the money they get for being media darlings to make themselves less boring if we have to watch half of their games
  8. People are deluding themselves if they think Silva is worth more than 10m
  9. I do wonder how many leaders we'll have to go through before the cuckoo landers finally realise what is possible and what Brexit should be if it is to be anything. Because 'believing in Brexit', soundbites, hubris, talking at the EU until they understand doesn't solve any of the problems that exist. No deal isn't a solution either. We ended up where we are now by not facing up to the realities of the modern world.
  10. And great to see Michael Hesseltine still squirming and bitter
  11. Do you ever think it sounds a bit sixth form Corbynesque politics? I listened to Farage yesterday and the message, as partly echoed by you, is we need to smash up all the political institutions to make everything rosy. It just sounds all a bit school boy ridiculous. The thing is also PM Farage with 32% of the vote isn't going to be rushing to change the electoral system because all of a sudden PR favours liberal, anti-brexit (then becoming pro EU accession) parties and Farage isn't holding on to power come the next election. I agree there needs to be change, but not Farage's change. But the reason that parliament can't implement the decision of the people is because Brexiteers blocked it. We'd be out of the EU now but for 28 Brexiteers. It would be a strange thing to want to smash up all the institutions because your own side (and the people that would end up as BP MPs having defected) has stopped the people's instruction being implemented. It's not really the same as the warnings in 2016 though is it? Because one was 'speculation' about what might happen as a reaction to an instruction that produced no immediate tangible change and what future change was to come was expected to be minimal and sensible, thus making it ludicrous to think things might implode immediately. This one is 'speculation' about what happens in the event of a very tangible sudden increase in the barriers to the overwhelming majority of the UK's trade along with a complete, almost overnight, severing of the mechanisms for the functioning of a deep and intricate supply chain (that encompasses every aspect of everyday life) that has been nurtured over 40+ years. Moreover, this is not an end point and merely leaves the UK facing exactly the same dilemmas but in an even weaker position. There is not any moral justification for leaving without a deal. The country isn't fine though. Be it Brexit related stuff like a lack of business investment or tough trading conditions or non-Brexit related stuff like violent crime, a social care crisis, criminal gangs, housing, and 'left-behind areas', the country is hardly fine. And you're happy to extend the malaise that with a dozy Brexit policy and smashing up the institutions. I just can't countenance it. A sensible Brexit that was less divisive, not unnecessarily corrosive was there to be had for anyone that isn't a fan of the EU (me included). A Brexit that reflects the nature of the modern world but returned sovereignty back to the UK. I've no idea how we ended up at this point. That all said, the polls favour Farage because we're at a European election when people feel they can vote for anyone and that inflates GE polls. At an actual GE the choice will again be between a Labour government that ends up cancelling Brexit or a Conservative government led by someone else that might be able to eventually manage it.
  12. I just don't get it. Why the clamour for Farage and why the clamour for a disastrous Brexit?
  13. Undoubtedly the timing and what has happened is a Brexit thing both because of uncertainty impacting sales and the delay meaning it ****ed up its carbon credit trade. But it was a more general point that if you have some of the highest green taxes in the world and pursue tougher carbon policies then heavy industry is going to suffer, particularly when even government then decides to import steel for cost reasons. It just seems strange to miss that out because ultimately the UK steel industry can't survive long-term, Brexit or no Brexit.
  14. Nils Pratley is usually ace but it's a glaring error to miss out the effect of green policies. This is partly green policy having its desired effect. Also another government/civil service cock-up. British Steel has gone into compulsory liquidation meaning no amount of short-term lending was going to save it so who analysed it and gave the go-ahead to piss £120m down the drain?
  15. Watched a bit of the Brexit Party's final rally earlier cos it popped up on Twitter. My ****ing god. Ended up deciding to vote Lib Dem cos bollocks to what leavers have turned Brexit into
×
×
  • Create New...