Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

I have no idea why Conservatives think some kids might be being brainwashed at school.

 

Edited 24 September 2018 by MattP

[yorkie1999]

Give em a proper education and we'll empty our prisons? Well that's a vote winner for a start.

[Carl the Llama]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

For the fifth time in reply, Vote Leave wasn't in any position to promise those things as they weren't the government, that's why it was so important to get it from Cameron and Osbourne, they were running the country so what voting leave meant was up to them to tell us and they both did, they told us voting to leave meant we would be outside the single market. I have no idea how anyone can take the view that's it's a dishonest position to point this out just because you can't get it explictly in the literature of of the Vote Leave website.

What the Vote Leave website did say though was that we should control our borders, seek independent trade and not take the judgement of the ECJ - and none of those can happen without us leaving the single market, as was made quite clear to the electorate before, during and after the referendum and continues to be to this day.

 

Calling something a lie over and over again doesn't make it one. Of course Vote Leave weren't going to make promises, it's exactly why the big red bus said "LETS" rather than "WE WILL" give the NHS 350mill instead.

100% we can control our borders without leaving the SM.  What a strange thing to say.

 

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

I have no idea why Conservatives think some kids might be being brainwashed at school.

 

Yeah because the Tories are famous for not attracting well-educated members.  Another strange utterance.

 

Let's be real though:  Of course guido's going to highlight the idiotic remarks so that fellow rightists can try to make them seem like a bigger deal than they are, in this case taking the ball and running with it to the conclusion that it's proof of an anti-right conspiracy.  People have been accusing the education system of lefty brainwashing for as long as I can remember, if there's any truth to it then you have to say that the conspirators are doing a piss poor job.

[Smudge]

4 hours ago, bovril said:

Pigeon selfie fail!

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, Smudge said:

Pigeon selfie fail!

I don't know who's photobombing who. 

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

100% we can control our borders without leaving the SM.  What a strange thing to say.

Why is it strange?

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/can-we-be-part-single-market-and-control-immigration/

[Kopfkino]

9 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45621361

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45609604

 

i would prefer to stay in the EU, but I do find it strange that people berate brexit on here, but still express a willingness to vote for a party whose economic plans going to lead to a huge drop in investment in this country.  Giving workers up to 10% of your company and possibly terminating a contract with no compensation are not really going to make the UK an attractive proposition no matter how you try to spin it.

 

The really worrying thing about the first one is it's popular with people 

 

Now I'm firmly behind a change in corporate governance in this country and it's no bad thing to have worker representation on boards in my opinion, but this policy takes the biscuit. Share schemes are great of course, 2m already have a remuneration package that includes shares or share options, John Lewis has made it work . But this idea is bonkers. Basically the government forces 10% of the company into a fund, lets workers take £500 (one week on average salary) and keeps the rest for itself. Just another addition to corporation tax through expropriation. Actually it's not a share scheme for workers because the worker has no control over their shares and presumably if they leave relinquish any right to the dividend and probably will just lead to lower base pay. Cost of capital for business will inevitably increase, inevitably isn't a good look on the international stage, lawyers will probably get richer implementing many legal sub 250 employee sub-units or firms will just move to be listed elsewhere. Just another policy for the state to extract more, another policy that infringes on property rights, another policy that will make people poorer and the state bigger, but worryingly people are heavily in favour of it. Again they somewhat identify the right problem, kind of get close to coming up with something that on the face of it is good to counter the problem but end up creating a complete shit heap of a policy when you actually look at it, all because everything is "what would Karl do".

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why is it strange?

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/can-we-be-part-single-market-and-control-immigration/

It's strange because we already have controlled borders, we never signed up to Schengen.

 

It's strange because non-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration yet those clamouring for more control never seem to mention it even though our regulations regarding those immigrants are already completely removed from the EU's sphere of influence and, given the respective figures, tightening the current rules there would have more practical impact if reducing migration is your goal.

 

It's strange because if you're concerned about unskilled benefit migrants then the EU's regulations already allow for refusal of benefits to such individuals.

 

It's strange because the UK has had a long history of openness towards immigrants and integrating them into our society so if we still hold those values then there's unlikely to be much, if any, change from our current approach anyway.

 

It's strange because if we were to sacrifice SM membership for the sake of 'more control' then the end result would be that we take in migrants from elsewhere instead to supplement the hit to our labour force.

 

In short it's strange because we're asking for something we won't use.

[Carl the Llama]

Anyway...

[Salisbury Fox]

 If you had a business of under 250 employees why on earth would you expand to give 10% of your business away.   The lack of compensation for enforced nationalisation is just as crazy, I believe that a lot of pension schemes are tied into some of these companies and so I am sure that that will end well too. 

 

I hope that greater scrutiny is given to these mad policies if an election is called. No wonder he was proposing measures to deal with capital flight, I mean they are not even hiding it anymore. It really is shit or bust.

[Spiritwalker]

7 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I hope that when we leave the E.U., we dump most of the rubbish that is described as "Political Correctness," as well as the pathetic Bill of Human Rights. Common sense used to prevail, and it is time it prevailed once more, as under E.U./law, we have become a spineless, narrow minded nation.

 

Oh for the great days of British Colonialism, and being an empire.

Which part of the Bill of Human Rights do have an issue with?

The right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, the right not

to be enslaved, or just all that kind of stuff?

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

Which part of the Bill of Human Rights do have an issue with?

The right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, the right not

to be enslaved, or just all that kind of stuff?

Pretty sure we had that before we were in the EU.

[lifted*fox]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Anyway...

Majestic. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

100% we can control our borders without leaving the SM.  What a strange thing to say.

 

Yeah because the Tories are famous for not attracting well-educated members.  Another strange utterance.

 

Let's be real though:  Of course guido's going to highlight the idiotic remarks so that fellow rightists can try to make them seem like a bigger deal than they are, in this case taking the ball and running with it to the conclusion that it's proof of an anti-right conspiracy.  People have been accusing the education system of lefty brainwashing for as long as I can remember, if there's any truth to it then you have to say that the conspirators are doing a piss poor job.

2

My point too.

 

TBH, the whole lefty academia brainwashing thing always confuses me a bit: why go to the trouble of becoming ingratiated in the education system and then affecting only students as they come through over a period of years when you can get yourself a TV and Internet news network and reach everyone to deliver the same message with a higher level of success much faster? The Fox News Method - proven successful.

[Innovindil]

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The really worrying thing about the first one is it's popular with people 

 

Now I'm firmly behind a change in corporate governance in this country and it's no bad thing to have worker representation on boards in my opinion, but this policy takes the biscuit. Share schemes are great of course, 2m already have a remuneration package that includes shares or share options, John Lewis has made it work . But this idea is bonkers. Basically the government forces 10% of the company into a fund, lets workers take £500 (one week on average salary) and keeps the rest for itself. Just another addition to corporation tax through expropriation. Actually it's not a share scheme for workers because the worker has no control over their shares and presumably if they leave relinquish any right to the dividend and probably will just lead to lower base pay. Cost of capital for business will inevitably increase, inevitably isn't a good look on the international stage, lawyers will probably get richer implementing many legal sub 250 employee sub-units or firms will just move to be listed elsewhere. Just another policy for the state to extract more, another policy that infringes on property rights, another policy that will make people poorer and the state bigger, but worryingly people are heavily in favour of it. Again they somewhat identify the right problem, kind of get close to coming up with something that on the face of it is good to counter the problem but end up creating a complete shit heap of a policy when you actually look at it, all because everything is "what would Karl do".

"we'll give you free money" usually resonates well with the masses, but I think it's very telling that our heavy duty labour intellectuals on here haven't tried defending this policy tbh. 

 

Better to rehash daft shit like the Jews or what voteleave "promised". 

[Nick]

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Pretty sure we had that before we were in the EU.

But we did get paternity and maternity pay and imprived working conditions from the EU right?

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's strange because we already have controlled borders, we never signed up to Schengen.

 

It's strange because non-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration yet those clamouring for more control never seem to mention it even though our regulations regarding those immigrants are already completely removed from the EU's sphere of influence and, given the respective figures, tightening the current rules there would have more practical impact if reducing migration is your goal.

 

It's strange because if you're concerned about unskilled benefit migrants then the EU's regulations already allow for refusal of benefits to such individuals.

 

It's strange because the UK has had a long history of openness towards immigrants and integrating them into our society so if we still hold those values then there's unlikely to be much, if any, change from our current approach anyway.

 

It's strange because if we were to sacrifice SM membership for the sake of 'more control' then the end result would be that we take in migrants from elsewhere instead to supplement the hit to our labour force.

 

In short it's strange because we're asking for something we won't use.

OK. Looks like we have very different definitions of what controlling a border is. This certainly is strange.

 

Not being in Schengen did not me we could refuse people into the country without good reason, that is not controlling your own borders.

 

Your argument here is that we have control of our borders because we don't have to pay benefits to unemployed migrants? That's not really much help to a manual labourer who has voted for Brexit because of a saturated job market that he partakes in, the point about other replacement migrants may be true or it might not, we can only predict at this point in time.

 

Im really struggling to understand how refusal of benefits equates to border control? One of the reasons Cameron got mocked from all sides was that he assumed this after his negotiation.

 

By this logic we have control of our borders whilst illegal immigrants go and work in the black market. 

 

Asking people to leave because they don't have a job and not giving them state money is not in any way having control over your borders or immigration and I doubt any nation outside the European Union would seriously claim that it is.

Edited 25 September 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

But we did get paternity and maternity pay and imprived working conditions from the EU right?

What was the reason an elected UK government couldn't implement that on its own? 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

But we did get paternity and maternity pay and imprived working conditions from the EU right?

Given that we have additional rights to the base EU legislation, I would assume we would have had them by now anyway,

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36434855

[Finnegan]

Surely if you've got illegal immigrants working the black market then the immigration laws in place at the time, however much "control" you think you have, are irrelevant? 

 

Because they're here......... illegally? 

Edited 25 September 2018 by Finnegan

[Nick]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

 

Edited 25 September 2018 by Nick

[Nick]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

What was the reason an elected UK government couldn't implement that on its own? 

Greed and prioritising profit over people I’d imagine.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Swan Lesta said:

Greed and prioritising profit over people I’d imagine.

So why did they then take it on and go even further, as @Strokes link showed?

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

So why did they then take it on and go even further, as @Strokes link showed?

Are you referring to the improvements to maternity conditions that Labour introduced in 2007? 

 

The UK led the way in writing much of the legislation so it’s fair to say we might have been able to do it for ourselves and probably unfair to say we are beholden to the EU law making regime, however if we’d have done it alone then other countries would have an edge on us in terms of productivity which is perhaps not a good idea economically. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

OK. Looks like we have very different definitions of what controlling a border is. This certainly is strange.

 

Not being in Schengen did not me we could refuse people into the country without good reason, that is not controlling your own borders.

 

Your argument here is that we have control of our borders because we don't have to pay benefits to unemployed migrants? That's not really much help to a manual labourer who has voted for Brexit because of a saturated job market that he partakes in, the point about other replacement migrants may be true or it might not, we can only predict at this point in time.

 

Im really struggling to understand how refusal of benefits equates to border control? One of the reasons Cameron got mocked from all sides was that he assumed this after his negotiation.

 

By this logic we have control of our borders whilst illegal immigrants go and work in the black market. 

 

Asking people to leave because they don't have a job and not giving them state money is not in any way having control over your borders or immigration and I doubt any nation outside the European Union would seriously claim that it is.

It's a fair point that I worded my initial remark about SM & control poorly, but I've cleared up what I meant by that and I do believe the benefits issue is an important one because it strips benefit tourists of their incentive to up sticks and move to a country with a significantly higher cost of living, leaving you with immigrants who want to actively contribute to the labour force.

 

You may wish to clarify your own remark in bold up there though because it reads like you're asking for arbitrary deportations.