Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Yeah, them too.

 

But then eschewing both of those makes me a hipster Linux fanboy so what do I know

Not too sure many hipsters have Linux, they largely don't have the intelligence to operate it!  If it doesn't involve following other sheep around! 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

10 minutes ago, murphy said:

Well you can rely on me.

 

Aside from the EU council/parliament correction which I acknowledge, my points about democracy and how the EU works are correct.  The bullet points are basically'no you're wrong, no you're an idiot...blah, blah, blah

 

I have not gone into the extended argument of Poland, Hungary, Catalonia etc because going off on that tangent will take up the rest of my life and I've got things to do.

 

I notice that nobody has been able to provide an answer as to why tariiffs could not be subsidised or even paid for by the savings from the EU contribution.

 

 

 

Because companies / consumers pay tariffs, not the government 

[Carl the Llama]

24 minutes ago, murphy said:

Yes and subject to tarrifs.

 

The point is (yet again FFS) that I was responding to the anti American tone, ridicule and rhetoric of that part of the thread.  I think it is you that doesn't understand.

 

 

So that's a no to being able to point out the anti-American rhetoric then.  

[Buce]

56 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It costs about £20 a month I think, having the only just found it a few weeks gone I haven’t really done the maths yet. Obviously it’s a small price to pay for his health and happiness but if I can save a bit I’m definitely interested.

Thanks I will look into it.

 

No worries.

 

This is the company I use for any supplements - I doubt you'll find cheaper and it's all pharmaceutical grade.

 

https://www.bulkpowders.co.uk/health-wellbeing/joint-care.html?p=3

Edited 13 July 2018 by Buce

[murphy]

31 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Because companies / consumers pay tariffs, not the government 

Yes and business could claim it from the government.  That is what I am proposing.

[murphy]

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So that's a no to being able to point out the anti-American rhetoric then.  

Already been there, see a few posts back and try to keep up.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 minutes ago, murphy said:

Yes and business could claim it from the government.  That is what I am proposing.

 

Not a great proposal is it. 

[murphy]

5 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Not a great proposal is it. 

And that's not a great answer is it?

 

Our EU contributions outweigh potential tariffs.

Edited 13 July 2018 by murphy

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 minute ago, murphy said:

And not a great answer is it?

 

Our EU contributions outweigh potential tariffs.

 

So you’d be happy for your tax going to subsidise any company wishing to do trade to/from the UK, regardless of stature, import/export type, where the companies based, etc, etc, etc? 

[murphy]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

So you’d be happy for your tax going to subsidise any company wishing to do trade to/from the UK, regardless of stature, import/export type, where the companies based, etc, etc, etc? 

It's a simple proposal.  EU contributions that we would save would more than cover subsidies.  Not to mention tariffs we would receive the other way.

 

In all honesty, it seems too simplistic to me but in two years I have not got a straight answer to that question.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, murphy said:

Already been there, see a few posts back and try to keep up.

I'm trying but there is no post actually pointing out the anti-American rhetoric, but you clearly seem to think you've done so let's look at the posts you've made immediately before this one...

 

Is it this one?:

50 minutes ago, murphy said:

Well you can rely on me.

 

Aside from the EU council/parliament correction which I acknowledge, my points about democracy and how the EU works are correct.  The bullet points are basically'no you're wrong, no you're an idiot...blah, blah, blah

 

I have not gone into the extended argument of Poland, Hungary, Catalonia etc because going off on that tangent will take up the rest of my life and I've got things to do.

 

I notice that nobody has been able to provide an answer as to why tariiffs could not be subsidised or even paid for by the savings from the EU contribution.

I guess not because there's no mention of the USA but I'm taking nothing for granted now. (Btw I didn't call you an idiot, I pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't disproved that.)

 

This one?

57 minutes ago, murphy said:

Yes and subject to tarrifs.

 

The point is (yet again FFS) that I was responding to the anti American tone, ridicule and rhetoric of that part of the thread.  I think it is you that doesn't understand.

 

 

I guess not again because you're just talking about how a previous post was responding to it, not showing us where it is, you know, by actually quoting people making anti-American statements.

 

This?

1 hour ago, murphy said:

Well done.. That's me told.  Just with a lot of bullet points you can disprove my arguments by simply saying 'rhetoric', 'don't understand', 'incoherent' blah blah blah.

 

Great counter - bravo!

No mention of the USA again so probably not.  Incidentally, do you understand the term "projection"?  Just asking.

 

How about this one?

1 hour ago, murphy said:

Ok, for the last time.  The anti-American thing was in response to several back slapping and derisory comments about the American market when discussing other markets (go back and read it) as if the US market is all chlorinated chicken and cheap tat rather than Apple,Levis and Microsoft.  The tone and ridicule was self evident and Trump was not mentioned.

Well we already discussed this one so I guess I've gone too far back now.  No sign of you pointing out the rhetoric you're railing against.  Instead of telling me to go back and find it, try finding it yourself.  I already looked and clearly I'm too stupid to see it.

[murphy]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm trying but there is no post actually pointing out the anti-American rhetoric, but you clearly seem to think you've done so let's look at the posts you've made immediately before this one...

 

Is it this one?:

I guess not because there's no mention of the USA but I'm taking nothing for granted now. (Btw I didn't call you an idiot, I pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't disproved that.)

 

This one?

I guess not again because you're just talking about how a previous post was responding to it, not showing us where it is, you know, by actually quoting people making anti-American statements.

 

This?

No mention of the USA again so probably not.  Incidentally, do you understand the term "projection"?  Just asking.

 

How about this one?

Well we already discussed this one so I guess I've gone too far back now.  No sign of you pointing out the rhetoric you're railing against.  Instead of telling me to go back and find it, try finding it yourself.  I already looked and clearly I'm too stupid to see it.

Would love to keep going round in circles with you saying the same things but things to do... No, I'm not going to go trawking through pages of this shit for your benefit.

 

Seek and ye shall find.

 

Later,

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, murphy said:

And that's not a great answer is it?

 

Our EU contributions outweigh potential tariffs.

 

But every single serious attempt (including the Brexit government's own) to quantify what will happen after Brexit shows reduced growth. We will be getting poorer. There is no Brexit bonanza. The EU contributions have already been spent about five times by the government. The idea you have that there's a huge pot left to subsidise firms that have already seen massive subsidy in the form of tax cuts is, frankly, embarrassing.

[Carl the Llama]

24 minutes ago, murphy said:

Would love to keep going round in circles with you saying the same things but things to do... No, I'm not going to go trawking through pages of this shit for your benefit.

 

Seek and ye shall find.

 

Later,

Fair enough, this is getting dull anyway so I'll leave you with one final thought:

 

There is a pink unicorn.

 

What do you mean "prove it"? I just told you about it but fine: I'm talking about the pink unicorn.

 

What do you mean " give us proof"? I mentioned it 2 sentences ago. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, see for yourselves it's definitely there and no I don't have to explain where "there" is it should be obvious.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Little interesting fact that passed a few by this week....after the resignation of Boris Johnson this is now the first ever Conservative government without an old Etonian in the cabinet.

[Smudge]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

The problem with the anti Trump / USA argument is that 63 million Americans voted for him and seemingly are glad they did so. It's therefore difficult to blastTrump without indirectly blasting 63 million Americans.

66 million voted for Clinton!! The total population is about 326m

 

Tarring the nation for one electoral vote is like saying all Brits wanted Brexit. 

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Smudge said:

66 million voted for Clinton!! The total population is about 326m

 

Tarring the nation for one electoral vote is like saying all Brits wanted Brexit. 

Aye and they do, doesn't matter how many voted for Clinton or what the total population is 63 million people voted for Trump and if you slag Trump  you indirectly slag 63 million Americans.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Aye and they do, doesn't matter how many voted for Clinton or what the total population is 63 million people voted for Trump and if you slag Trump  you indirectly slag 63 million Americans.

This has been covered earlier, I believe?

[Smudge]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Aye and they do, doesn't matter how many voted for Clinton or what the total population is 63 million people voted for Trump and if you slag Trump  you indirectly slag 63 million Americans.

Bit of a narrow argument though isn't it?

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This has been covered earlier, I believe?

Yes but just responding to a response or should I ignore as I've already like you say have responded but then that would seem rude.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Smudge said:

Bit of a narrow argument though isn't it?

It's not an argument it's an observation and at the risk of repeating myself, sorry @leicsmac I've slag Trump off myself.

[Smudge]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Yes but just responding to a response or should I ignore as I've already like you say have responded but then that would seem rude.

Never known you to be rude DavieG

[Buce]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Little interesting fact that passed a few by this week....after the resignation of Boris Johnson this is now the first ever Conservative government without an old Etonian in the cabinet.

 

Yeah, but I expect there's still a few in the closet...

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, davieG said:

Yes but just responding to a response or should I ignore as I've already like you say have responded but then that would seem rude.

Like Smudge said, don't think you're ever rude mate.

 

Honestly, AFAIC though Trump voters and supporters in general are of significant number stateside, they are outnumbered by those who disapprove of his actions and as such disparaging them/Trump and disparaging the US in general are completely separate things.

[Buce]

 

The Tory's real plan for post-Brexit Britain:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/13/tory-brexiteers-plan-2019-britain-conservative

 

Here’s Tory Brexiteers’ real plan for 2019: a leaner, meaner Britain

Tim Bale

A book by Conservative hyperglobalists reveals a strategy of taxes and services cuts and an easy-hire, easy-fire culture

 

It’s a truth pretty universally acknowledged that the reason the Conservative government has struggled to come up with an agreed negotiating position in the wake of the country voting for Brexit is that many Tories who campaigned for leave didn’t really think they’d win the referendum. Even those who dared to dream were determined not to muddy their “take back control” messaging by getting dragged into discussing precisely how they’d go about it.

But there was another reason behind their reluctance to talk about what came next – the fact that the UK’s departure from the European Union will necessitate a change to the country’s political economy that risks proving as electorally unpopular as it will be profound. This is the love that dare not speak its name – at least until March 2019, when we are suddenly likely to start hearing a whole lot more about it.

For the party’s hyperglobalists, Brexit doesn’t just mean Brexit. It means a leaner, meaner Britain where the costs – financial and otherwise – of doing business are lowered in order to allow companies, and the country, to compete on the world stage.

 

This means cutting both tax and public services. State provision, after all, is deemed by its very nature to be a vested interest, inefficient and inferior to what markets can be enabled to provide. It also stymies incentives toward entrepreneurialism and creates welfare dependencies – as well as crowding out private (and charitable) sector activity.

Brexit also means cutting what these true believers like to call “red tape”. Indeed, one of the main reasons for wanting out of the EU, as well as the opportunity to do trade deals of our own, is the desire to escape the externally imposed regulation that supposedly hobbles and handicaps us in the so-called global race. No matter that the UK already has a relatively easy-hire, easy-fire culture – it needs to be even more dynamic.

So, what is this guide to how the UK can rebirth itself – primarily by learning, not so much from European countries (unless, of course, they are busy cutting welfare entitlements and making their labour markets more flexible) but from Asian dynamos such as South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, as well as places such as Brazil and Israel? It is – and maybe the title tells you all you need to know – Britannia Unchained. Its authors? Rising stars of the parliamentary Conservative party.

True, a couple of them have a lower profile than the others, although Kwasi Kwarteng is parliamentary private secretary to the chancellor, and Chris Skidmore has just been put in charge of a new policy commission set up by Theresa May. True, too, that one of them, leave cheerleader and disgraced former international development secretary Priti Patel, has recently crashed to earth. But the other two are definitely making their mark: uber-Thatcherite Liz Truss is now chief secretary to the Treasury, and hard Brexiteer Dominic Raab has just been appointed secretary of state for exiting the European Union.

 

Their recent rise to power does not represent the success of some carefully planned conspiracy to hijack the Tory party hatched in 2012, when their book was originally published. But it does provide strong clues as to the direction it may take after 2019 – presuming, of course, that the UK does actually manage to formally extract itself from the EU by that date.

We need those clues precisely because those responsible for steering the Conservatives’, and therefore the country’s, course from then on have been so coy with “the people” in whose name the referendum was fought and won.

If this is more than a little ironic, it is also understandable: after all, there is little or no evidence from opinion research that their prospectus for post-Brexit Britain would find many takers. This is true even among the famous 17.4 million who voted leave in 2016 – particularly if, along with shrinking the state, it also means an end (which if free marketeers are consistent it certainly should do) to migration targets.

Does this disjunction between what “the people” currently say they want and what they supposedly need actually bother Tory hyperglobalists, except insofar as it prevents them, at least for the moment, from revealing all?

No – the reason being that they are Leninists, in the same way that Margaret Thatcher, their inspiration and icon, was a Leninist. Just like her, in 1979, they believe they know what we want better than we do ourselves right now. And just like her, they have a crusading vision whose details, inasmuch as they’ve been fully worked out, are best kept under wraps until the time is right and we can be made to realise – they hope gratefully rather than grudgingly – that there truly is no alternative.

 

• Tim Bale is professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London