Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If the Vote Leave website states we will be in control of our borders then that's a clear indiciation we'll have to be outside of the single market, the EU has consistently told us from the start of Cameron's negotiation that it's simply non-negotiatable to be a member of it and have any restriction on freedom of movement.

 

As I say, the reason they probably haven't put that in writing is that they were in no position to do it, you obviously think it was being sly as it would cost them votes, we'll agree to disagree on that.

 

We again have different opinions on what the future holds, for what it's worth I think the EU has done more for fascism across the continent than anything over the past ten years, I doubt these movements would have sprung up without the mass unempoyment and debt that the Eurozone has caused. I'd argue more people would turn to extremes here if the government is seen to implement a version of Brexit that seems to be more the desire of the remain side than the leave side, I do think this has been quite strange, I don't think a losing side in an national referendum/election has ever demanded so much influence over the result than this one, although the Clinton lot are giving them a run for their money.

 

All a soft Brexit would do is change our situation from being half in the European Union to being half out of it, obviously we can't predict what politics will look like in three years time but as I say, soft Brexit and I'm confident that we'll have enough of that 17.4million voting to make sure it's done properly next time around.

 

A question back to you would be? What really changes if we remain a member of the single market? What would even be the point of leaving?

 

My last post now until after the festive season, so a Merry Christmas to everyone!

 

Vote Leave were in as much of a position to promise to leave the single market as they were to promise border/immigration control, new trade deals or an extra £350m per week for the NHS. They chose to promise all the latter, but not the former.

Agree to disagree on the basis that I'm right and you're wrong. :whistle:

 

The bit about leaving the single market being implied via the border control promise is a cop-out. It might be implied to you. It might be implied to me (though I reckon a partial compromise might be possible). It certainly was not implied to the vast majority of voters who paid a lot less attention to the detailed debate than any of us bores. To have any sort of mandate to leave the single market, the Brexiteers needed to make that ambition clear - and they chose not to. Now they'll need to acquire a mandate via the democratic process. I hope that the Supreme Court upholds the earlier judgment so that parliament is able to decide the issue - and mandates the government to negotiate Brexit so as to keep us in the single market.

 

I largely agree with your comments about the EU fanning the flames of fascism across the continent. The combination of neo-liberal economics, a financial crash and the inflexible structures of the Eurozone have generated a lot of unnecessary stagnation, unemployment, resentment - and fascism. The EU bears a lot of the blame for that - as Brexit will if economic problems and the failure to deal with concerns about immigration cause resentment, strife and extremism in this country. I really do hope that my negative expectations for the state of our economy and society post-Brexit prove misplaced. I reckon economic and social misery is the factor most likely to cause extremism. If the economy is booming and pay rising, people notice immigrants a lot less.

 

Most of us on the losing side are demanding no influence at all over the result of the referendum: the result was that we leave the EU and we accept that. We are demanding influence over the terms under which that result is implemented - and your winning side has no mandate whatsoever for that, and no right whatsoever to suggest that we have less right than you to an opinion about the terms of Brexit.

 

In answer to your question: I don't see Soft Brexit as a beneficial change from the status quo, but the nation voted for Brexit and I do see Soft Brexit as nowhere near as bad an option as Hard Brexit. I see no point in leaving under either scenario (unless the EU implodes, which is quite possible). That's why I voted Remain. Now have you found that categorical Vote Leave commitment to leave the single market? I'm not talking about Gove's personal statements or Boris defensively backing them, under pressure, in a single interview a fortnight before the vote....

 

Merry EUmas, everyone! :ph34r: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

As someone opposed to Hard Brexit, I have no interest in finding a way of including your Hard Brexit aspirations in Soft Brexit, Webbo.

We already make our own laws (though some of them implement EU laws or are subject to EU justice). Good luck with stopping paying into the EU - they're talking about a £60bn bill for leaving, aren't they? Did Vote Leave mention that?

Making our own trade deals was not a major factor in the vote, I don't think. Border control certainly was, so negotiations on that are important; my guess is that limited flexibility would be available, but not full border control AND single market membership.

 

If we're going to expect politicians to achieve all their declared aspirations, we must also expect the Brexit Tories to deliver a booming economy, £350m extra per week for the NHS, immediate trade negotiations etc. Likewise, we should presumably hold the government to its declared policies - to eliminate the deficit by 2020, to improve public services, to reduce net migration to under 100,000 etc.

 

If you wanted people to vote to leave the single market, you should have asked that question - in which case, you'd have united Remainers and Soft Brexiteers and would have lost the vote. :thumbup: 

In reality, Strokes, people voted for one thing only:

 

Image result for "referendum ballot paper"

The £60bill bill for leaving is what we currently pay into the eu for the next 2 years and a contribution to the eu retirement funds. Not a "pay so you can leave" bill. 

 

If we go for a soft brexit then nothing changes, we still pay in, we still accept eu laws and we still accept the free movement of people. 

 

Regardless of whatever you think, that isn't what leave voted for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Boris Johnson was pretty clear that he wanted a softish brexit in this piece

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html

It says;

" Boris Johnson has said the UK there will be “still have access to the single market”, despite Britain’s historic vote to leave the EU. "

 

America has access to the single market, as does every other country. I can't see anything else that comes close to what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big poker game is underway....

https://www.ft.com/content/f136b774-c530-11e6-9043-7e34c07b46ef

 

" EU Brexit negotiators are insisting Britain agrees to its European divorce settlement before Brussels offers any transitional deal, expecting international banks to get cold feet over losing “passporting” rights and start shifting operations from London to the eurozone. British chancellor Philip Hammond said this month that he wanted to discuss an interim deal “early on in the negotiations” to reassure the City of London that there would be no regulatory cliff-edge in March 2019, the date set for Britain’s exit from the union.But the first priority of Michel Barnier, chief EU negotiator, is to sort out the terms of the divorce. This means Britain must offer assurances on issues such as the rights of EU expats and paying an exit bill of up to €60bn before a deal on a “soft landing” is possible.Senior EU diplomats admit the timetable also reflects a cold calculation of interests: delaying agreement on a transition would spur companies to move some of their business to the EU to cope with the danger of a hard exit. British officials fear Brussels may hold out for a transitional deal so long that many banks will have already taken crucial decisions to leave the UK".

 

Right, I really am returning to the real world now! Merry Chrimbo, one and all!

Btw, what's happened to the seasonal emojis? :o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Vote Leave were in as much of a position to promise to leave the single market as they were to promise border/immigration control, new trade deals or an extra £350m per week for the NHS. They chose to promise all the latter, but not the former.

 

 

Actually, according to your link it said "We will be able to save £350 million a week.We can spend our money on our priorities like the NHS, schools and housing. " Which is obviously true. If you don't spend your money on one thing you can spend it on another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It says;

" Boris Johnson has said the UK there will be “still have access to the single market”, despite Britain’s historic vote to leave the EU. "

 

America has access to the single market, as does every other country. I can't see anything else that comes close to what you're saying.

 

2 hours ago, Barky said:

That's not all he said. He also said Britons would retain their right to live, work and settle in the eu. You can't do that unconditionally without freedom of movement, so he's implying that a degree of free movement would continue. Soft brexit.

As above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Actually, according to your link it said "We will be able to save £350 million a week.We can spend our money on our priorities like the NHS, schools and housing. " Which is obviously true. If you don't spend your money on one thing you can spend it on another.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

 

"Deduct both the rebate (£4.9bn), which is never actually paid, and the money that is paid but sent back (£5.8bn), from the gross £17.8bn annual “membership fee” and you arrive at a net figure of £7.1bn. This equates to £136m a week, less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus".

 

"It is also misleading of Vote Leave to suggest – as it does in the second half of that battlebus slogan, “Let’s fund our NHS instead” – that whatever amount Britain saves on its “membership fees” by leaving the EU would be available to spend on public services. Unless a future Westminster government decides to stop spending money on British farmers, scientific research and the country’s poorer regions, it plainly would not".

 

So, there is only a £136m per week saving, not £350m - unless you opt to ruin Britain's farmers, scientific research and poorer regions by giving their EU funds to the NHS. In that case it rises to £248m (but still not £350m).

 

So, that's a pack of lies, basically. They won't be able to save £350m per week....but at least they have a mandate to try to use the £136m saving to magically provide £350m of funding.

Those lies played a role in the campaign. In contrast, they didn't campaign to leave the single market and have no mandate whatsoever for that.

 

Fvck me! That's enough, isn't it?! Let's start again in the EU thread in the New Year, when life is going to get really interesting, I suspect.  

Enjoy the festivities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

 

"Deduct both the rebate (£4.9bn), which is never actually paid, and the money that is paid but sent back (£5.8bn), from the gross £17.8bn annual “membership fee” and you arrive at a net figure of £7.1bn. This equates to £136m a week, less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus".

 

"It is also misleading of Vote Leave to suggest – as it does in the second half of that battlebus slogan, “Let’s fund our NHS instead” – that whatever amount Britain saves on its “membership fees” by leaving the EU would be available to spend on public services. Unless a future Westminster government decides to stop spending money on British farmers, scientific research and the country’s poorer regions, it plainly would not".

 

So, there is only a £136m per week saving, not £350m - unless you opt to ruin Britain's farmers, scientific research and poorer regions by giving their EU funds to the NHS. In that case it rises to £248m (but still not £350m).

 

So, that's a pack of lies, basically. They won't be able to save £350m per week....but at least they have a mandate to try to use the £136m saving to magically provide £350m of funding.

Those lies played a role in the campaign. In contrast, they didn't campaign to leave the single market and have no mandate whatsoever for that.

 

Fvck me! That's enough, isn't it?! Let's start again in the EU thread in the New Year, when life is going to get really interesting, I suspect.  

Enjoy the festivities.

I was just pointing out that they didn't, according to your link, promise to spend £350m a week on the NHS. If we're not just going on your link there's a film going around with prominent leave and remain campaigners saying we would be leaving the single market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to jump in and add something to the more 'lefty' side of the conversation just because I feel bad watching Alf going at it on his lonesome but I know I'm incapable of doing so without being incredibly sarcastic or combative and in any case there really is no way of putting across what he's said any more concise or measured a way (as usual).

 

Frankly I commend the man:  I did not think a year ago that in late-December of 2016 we'd still be discussing the minutia of a bus slogan which seemed blatantly flawed and idiotic at the time - let alone with all the hindsight we now have - and I certainly don't have the patience to still be having that conversation without being full-on condescending to anyone trying to claim the message meant anything other than £350m a week to the NHS because anybody with an ounce of honesty should be able to admit that there was no nuance to the famous idiot bus: It was as black and white as the unfortunately binary referendum question which we're still tearing the country apart over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Webbo said:

I was just pointing out that they didn't, according to your link, promise to spend £350m a week on the NHS. If we're not just going on your link there's a film going around with prominent leave and remain campaigners saying we would be leaving the single market.

 

Breaking news: Unilateral implementation of Brexit has begun. Free movement has been abolished.

 

In early developments, a Finnish citizen has been detained in the Dover area for illegally seeking to work in the UK.

He had set up an innovative airborne, livestock-hauled parcel delivery service.

 

You were naughty this year and voted for Brexit, didn't you, Webbo? No presents for you, son! :thumbup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 23 December 2016 at 08:39, MattP said:

I'm just glad the immediate 500,000 job losses, the late 2016 recession and the emergency budget all quickly passed by, I may have regretted my vote had it not. Mayday Mayday! lol

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-impact-recession-eu-referendum-credit-suisse-employment-job-hiring-a7136541.html

Why are you talking about the punishment budget as if it were a wrong prediction? There's never a budget that is objectively necessary (in other words it's never the only way), the punishment budget is what would would have been necessary under osbournes strategy - it was a threat from a bloke who fell on his own sword before he could carry it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just back from Italy and all people wanted to talk about was lcfc and how much they admired us for voting leave. Not one person wanted Italy to remain in the European Union.they all said they hated the euro and the eu and everyone they knew felt the same.be interesting to have a referendum in all the eu countries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Just back from Italy and all people wanted to talk about was lcfc and how much they admired us for voting leave. Not one person wanted Italy to remain in the European Union.they all said they hated the euro and the eu and everyone they knew felt the same.be interesting to have a referendum in all the eu countries

Pinch of salt but https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-referendum-today-vote-remain-leave-eu-europe-study-shows-regrexit-7499991 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Just back from Italy and all people wanted to talk about was lcfc and how much they admired us for voting leave. Not one person wanted Italy to remain in the European Union.they all said they hated the euro and the eu and everyone they knew felt the same.be interesting to have a referendum in all the eu countries

Isn't that what pollsters do? Talk to a few members of the public then use the opinions of those to map out how they think the voters will vote. That methods worked out well recently hadn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Barky said:

Not only do we have the worst roads in the developed world but our train fares are also six times higher than in europe

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rail-fares-six-times-higher-than-in-europe-zpz30ldg6

 

How are we managing to be worse than every comparable country, at everything?

Can't speak for the other fields, but for public transportation there are two issues.

 

First, we "won the war but lost the peace" in terms of infrastructure; we have never had to build road and rail infrastructure from basic in the last half century in the way most other OECD countries have, which leaves us with a lot of antiquated networks no longer fit for purpose and unable to update them in the way they need for fear of the disruption it would cause.

 

Second, privatisation hasn't worked as companies aren't competing over routes: they're each monopolising different ones and charging what they like for them. Why the hell do I need to go with two different bus companies just to get across Leicester, for instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rail travel in this country is a disgrace sadly.

 

It's just not an accessible mode of transport as an every day option for people who don't earn above say 30K.

 

We could learn a lot from the Dutch in this respect. (And in a few other areas too I might add.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Isn't that what pollsters do? Talk to a few members of the public then use the opinions of those to map out how they think the voters will vote. That methods worked out well recently hadn't it.

 No they don't talk to people face to face,that is why they are often wrong.Didn't claim it proved anything,but I'd bet massively on Italy leaving if given the vote.easy money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Rail travel in this country is a disgrace sadly.

 

It's just not an accessible mode of transport as an every day option for people who don't earn above say 30K.

 

We could learn a lot from the Dutch in this respect. (And in a few other areas too I might add.)

The Koreans, too. And yes, I mean the ones who aren't a lunatic totalitarian rebel state with a leader beholden to a cult of personality.

 

Um...hang on, sorry...if there's any confusion, the ones that have the wonderful KTX network. All about the infrastructure again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've met very few Italians who'd like to leave the EU despite sharing many concerns with British people.

 

But that's anecdotal evidence and people tend to spend time and converse with those who share their point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Can't speak for the other fields, but for public transportation there are two issues.

 

First, we "won the war but lost the peace" in terms of infrastructure; we have never had to build road and rail infrastructure from basic in the last half century in the way most other OECD countries have, which leaves us with a lot of antiquated networks no longer fit for purpose and unable to update them in the way they need for fear of the disruption it would cause.

 

Second, privatisation hasn't worked as companies aren't competing over routes: they're each monopolising different ones and charging what they like for them. Why the hell do I need to go with two different bus companies just to get across Leicester, for instance?

The first issue is valid when comparing against 'new money' countries who have built entire networks almost from scratch with modern technology, but it's not valid for comparing against the likes of France and Germany who have just as much old infrastructure to work with and around as we do.

 

The second issue should be solved by strong regulation. Again I'm pretty sure Germany at least has a very similar hybrid public/private financing model to ours. Network rail is also wholly owned by the government so track maintenance is basically nationalised.

 

For me it comes down to the government taking money from tax payers and not reinvesting anywhere near enough of it back into the networks. It's the same story on the roads and the government's excuse for that is that they prefer other forms of transport. Then when you look at other forms of transport you see they're not investing there either. Where does all the money go? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

The first issue is valid when comparing against 'new money' countries who have built entire networks almost from scratch with modern technology, but it's not valid for comparing against the likes of France and Germany who have just as much old infrastructure to work with and around as we do.

 

The second issue should be solved by strong regulation. Again I'm pretty sure Germany at least has a very similar hybrid public/private financing model to ours. Network rail is also wholly owned by the government so track maintenance is basically nationalised.

 

For me it comes down to the government taking money from tax payers and not reinvesting anywhere near enough of it back into the networks. It's the same story on the roads and the government's excuse for that is that they prefer other forms of transport. Then when you look at other forms of transport you see they're not investing there either. Where does all the money go? 

I'm not sure you can even make a valid comparison with France and Germany. Both of their transportation infrastructures (not to mention lots of other things) were bombed, shelled and otherwise detonated into mush. Ours, while there was a fair bit of damage, were not.

 

I certainly agree with the need for strong regulation, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...