Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 The government will be forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons for a second time, as it struggles to respond to hundreds of hostile amendments, Labour sources expect. MPs on both sides of the house had expected debate on the next stage of the complex bill to kick off next week – but the leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom, is now expected to confirm on Thursday that it will not feature in next week’s parliamentary timetable. That could mean the bill not coming back to the Commons until after a week-long recess early next month. With the budget due on 22 November, the government may struggle to fit in the eight days of debate necessary before Christmas. The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said the fresh delay called into question the prime minister’s ability to press ahead with Brexit. “This is further proof that the government’s Brexit strategy is in paralysis. The negotiations are in deadlock and now a crucial piece of legislation is facing further delay. “There is chaos at the heart of government. Theresa May cannot unite her cabinet or her party behind this deeply flawed bill. There are now serious questions about whether the prime minister can deliver Brexit." Labour’s shadow Brexit team has tabled more than 20 amendments to the bill, and warned that it will vote against it in its current form. Pro-EU backbenchers, convened by the all-party parliamentary group on European relations, chaired by Labour’s Chuka Umunna and the Conservative Anna Soubry, have also cooperated to lay down scores of other amendments, more than a dozen of which have enough Conservative signatures to potentially threaten May’s majority. Umunna said: “I am not at all surprised. It is a badly drafted bill and badly thought through. The number of amendments has given ministers a lot to think about which shows parliament is taking back control and already doing its job of scrutiny well on this.” Concerns covered by the amendments include the scope of so-called Henry VIII powers, which Labour has warned amount to a significant power grab by ministers; protections for human rights, and the issue of whether parliament would be given a vote before Britain plunged out of the EU without a deal. The withdrawal bill, which May announced as the “great repeal bill”, at last year’s Conservative party conference, is a key piece of legislation laying the groundwork for Brexit, by bringing EU legislation into UK law, and repealing the European Communities Act. Leadsom conceded last week that the government would need more time to sift through more than 300 amendments; but backbench rebels believe the longer she delays, the more time it gives them to organise their attack on what the former attorney general Dominic Grieve has called an “astonishing monstrosity” in its current form.
Fox Ulike Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 23 hours ago, Sampson said: America has made a lot of mistakes and often made things worse but the majority of those were trying to overthrow evil governments who murdered their own people, it's easy to make them the villain but they aren't imperialist and we'd all probably be a Soviet puppet state if America didn't exist and didn't bomb all those nations and tried to assassinate these leaders post-war whatever its faults. Like Iraq turned out to be a disaster but they were in there to overthrow an evil leader who killed his own people - it was understandable what the motivation was and not imperialist, it just didn't work and made things worse as you can never predict the way these things go. Are you serious? Korean War 1950 to 1953 "The first major U.S. strategic bombing campaign against North Korea, begun in late July 1950, was conceived as similar to the major offensives of World War II.[ On 12 August 1950, the U.S. Air Force dropped 625 tons of bombs on North Korea; two weeks later, the daily tonnage increased to some 800 tons." Led directly to the partition of Korea and the establishment of the regime which now threatens nuclear war. Vietnam War 1955 to 1975 "in the years following the end of the war, up to 300,000 South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps (not including "dissidents detained in the many prisons of Vietnam"), where many endured torture, starvation, and disease while being forced to perform hard labor.[ In addition, 200,000 to 400,000 Vietnamese boat people died at sea, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Iraq war 2003 - "The invasion and occupation led to sectarian violence which caused widespread displacement among Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi Red Crescent organization estimated the total internal displacement was around 2.3 million in 2008, and as many as 2 million Iraqis leaving the country. Poverty led many Iraqi women to turn to prostitution to support themselves and their families, attracting sex tourists from regional lands. " Sorry. I can respect most opinions on there that differ to my own, but your justification of "you can never predict these things" is truly pathetic.
Sampson Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Are you serious? Korean War 1950 to 1953 "The first major U.S. strategic bombing campaign against North Korea, begun in late July 1950, was conceived as similar to the major offensives of World War II.[ On 12 August 1950, the U.S. Air Force dropped 625 tons of bombs on North Korea; two weeks later, the daily tonnage increased to some 800 tons." Led directly to the partition of Korea and the establishment of the regime which now threatens nuclear war. Vietnam War 1955 to 1975 "in the years following the end of the war, up to 300,000 South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps (not including "dissidents detained in the many prisons of Vietnam"), where many endured torture, starvation, and disease while being forced to perform hard labor.[ In addition, 200,000 to 400,000 Vietnamese boat people died at sea, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Iraq war 2003 - "The invasion and occupation led to sectarian violence which caused widespread displacement among Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi Red Crescent organization estimated the total internal displacement was around 2.3 million in 2008, and as many as 2 million Iraqis leaving the country. Poverty led many Iraqi women to turn to prostitution to support themselves and their families, attracting sex tourists from regional lands. " Sorry. I can respect most opinions on there that differ to my own, but your justification of "you can never predict these things" is truly pathetic. Why is it pathetic? They were fighting against the Kim dynasty, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein - all of whom caused incredible suffering and mass murder of their own people - and the Korean War was a defensive war, the US joined South Korea it to try and stop the people of South Korea being enslaved by an invading tyrannical regime. Vietnam and Iraq didn't go well but you think that means we should never fight against evil because it's impossible to know how it will turn out afterwards despite the countless thousands of hours of prepping and intelligence the US and NATO do before deciding to enter a conflict? What do you think of the interventions against Slobodan Milosevic? A war that managed to overthrow a murderous regime and has slowly allowed the people of former Yugoslavia to build better lives away from the murderous tyranny of the state. I mean I went to Croatia 3 or 4 years ago and it's an incredibly beautiful country which is now a peaceful and very typical central European country, you wouldn't believe 15 years previously a genocidal maniac was leading a race war there and what horror could have still been going on there if he was never deposed. Edited 18 October 2017 by Sampson
Captain... Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 10 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why the system is set up so that different people on the same wage might pay different amounts of tax depending on how their mode of employment is defined instead of simply saying "you're earning x so we're taking y" but I'm struggling to think of it. If you are a director of a small business then you have higher risks and overheads. If you are a true business then corporation tax is only charged on profits so if you're not profitable then you pay no tax, if you are a business with employees and/or pay yourself a wage you do pay/contribute tax that way. But if you are a single director and effectively have a normal 9-5 job with no expenses and put your income through your business then the rates work out lower, as all income is profit and profit is taxed at a lower rate than income. The exact rates of corporation tax are a discussion point, but as it stands it is lower. On the other hand as a single director you most likely collect VAT and pay that, whilst VAT is separate to income, when I have worked as an employee I have generated 0 VAT for the Government, but when I have been a vat registered limited company, I have paid less in personal tax, but I have generated a fair amount in VAT. Being a single director is beneficial for self employed people not just for tax reasons, although that is the main one, it gives you more flexibility and makes it easier to generate and manage invoices, especially when you have multiple customers, and if you do want to employ someone you need to be a company. You also get greater protection of funds, but it is a lot more paper work. I have been PAYE, Sole Trader and single director, my personal opinion is that there should be a specific tax code/status for people in my position who do not have permanent work nor a fixed employer, but aren't true businesses. It should be easier to set yourself up, but you shouldn't get all the benefits of being a company. 1 1
Fox Ulike Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Sampson said: Why is it pathetic? They were fighting against the Kim dynasty, Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein - all of whom caused incredible suffering and mass murder of their own peple - and the Korean War was a defensive war, the US joined South Korea it to try and stop the people of South Korea being enslaved by an invading tyrannical regime. Vietnam and Iraq didn't go well but you think that means we should never fight against evil because it's impossible to know how it will turn out afterwards despite the countless thousands of hours of prepping and intelligence the US and NATO do before deciding to enter a conflict? What do you think of the wars against Slobodan Milosevic? A war that managed to overthrow a murderous regime and has slowly allowed people to build better lives away from the murderous tyranny of the state. Well that's the understatement of the Century. It's pathetic because it is obviously possible to know how it will turn out. The US carpetbombs North Korea. That didn't go well. The US bombs and invades Vietnam. That didn't go well. The USSR bombs and invades Afghanistan... That didn't go well either come to think out it. The US bombs and invades Iraq. "It's just impossible to know how it will turn out." Ironically, the US stays out of the Yugoslav wars, and actually, peace ensues after the war. Edited 18 October 2017 by Fox Ulike
Captain... Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 5 hours ago, Innovindil said: I haven't said that I don't want workers to have security, I've said that workers shouldn't be FORCED into having security. Zhc's suit some people, they shouldn't be made to sign up to set hours that don't suit their lifestyle. If you need guaranteed hours to feed your kids, then a zhc job isn't for you, and you probably shouldn't be signing up for it. If a zhc is all that's available, then that's unfortunate, but not really the problem of the businesses using them. ZHCs have their purpose and I have no issue with companies using them, sometimes you need a flexible work force. The main issue I have is with exclusivity clauses in ZHCs, which I thought was banned. Reading that link from Buce I'm not sure. You shouldn't be able to stop anyone on a ZHC from working elsewhere, if you can't guarantee them hours you can't stop them working. The other issue is how they work with JSA and other benefits, if you have a ZHC you shouldn't be classed as fully employed and it shouldn't stop you getting JSA if you have no hours for a week. However I do think that someone on JSA should have to take a ZHC if it is available, as long as it doesn't fvck up getting their JSA if they have one but are not offered any work.
Innovindil Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 21 minutes ago, Captain... said: ZHCs have their purpose and I have no issue with companies using them, sometimes you need a flexible work force. The main issue I have is with exclusivity clauses in ZHCs, which I thought was banned. Reading that link from Buce I'm not sure. You shouldn't be able to stop anyone on a ZHC from working elsewhere, if you can't guarantee them hours you can't stop them working. The other issue is how they work with JSA and other benefits, if you have a ZHC you shouldn't be classed as fully employed and it shouldn't stop you getting JSA if you have no hours for a week. However I do think that someone on JSA should have to take a ZHC if it is available, as long as it doesn't fvck up getting their JSA if they have one but are not offered any work. That's actually a really good suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. If they did force them to take a zhc but guaranteed them jsa if they didn't get the hours I think I'd be okay with it tbh.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 9 minutes ago, Innovindil said: That's actually a really good suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. If they did force them to take a zhc but guaranteed them jsa if they didn't get the hours I think I'd be okay with it tbh. It's exactly what Universal Credit will do
Sampson Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Well that's the understatement of the Century. It's pathetic because it is obviously possible to know how it will turn out. The US carpetbombs North Korea. That didn't go well. The US bombs and invades Vietnam. That didn't go well. The USSR bombs and invades Afghanistan... That didn't go well either come to think out it. The US bombs and invades Iraq. "It's just impossible to know how it will turn out." Ironically, the US stays out of the Yugoslav wars, and actually, peace ensues after the war. The Korean War didn't go well? So you think the US should have just stood back and let North Korea invade South Korea leading to a further 50million enslaved by the North Korean regime for almost 70 years now? While South Korea is now one of the most thriving countries in the world? How exactly didn't the Korean War go well? The US managed to defend South Korea, it didn't manage to save everyone but it saved tens of millions of lives from tyranny by the brainwashing and enslaving cult of the Kim dynasty. The US didn't invade Vietnam it just took over military action from France. And it didn't go well because they lost the war and the VC continued their evil regime - not because of anything that happened afterwards because of NATO and the US' intervention. You do not know what would've happened had the US won and he was overthrown. Iraq has turned out horribly becaise even worse regimes have replaced Saddam Hussein - but you ultimately don't know how the replacement will turn out. The US didn't stay out of the Yugoslav wars, it was NATO bombing of Yugoslavia which eventually brought Milosovic down. And in those cases more peaceful regimes came into power and I think most people would agree was an example of good military intervention. It's not obviously possible to know how things will turn out at all. You can never know really the turnout of the regime which comes into power afterwards - remember back in 2000 when we all thought Putin was going to a peaceful democratic leader? But at what point do we just sit back and let evil regimes cause untold suffering and murder and ignore it? At what point should we intervene? And at what point should we just sit back? It isn't an obvious answer at all and it's easy to get it wrong and end up causing more harm than good, absolutely it is, but that doesn't mean we should always sit back and never fight against evil regimes. Edited 18 October 2017 by Sampson 1
Fox Ulike Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Sampson said: The Korean War didn't go well? So you think the US should have just stood back and let North Korea invade South Korea leading to a further 50million enslaved by the North Korean regime for almost 70 years now? While South Korea is now one of the most thriving countries in the world? How exactly didn't the Korean War go well? The US managed to defend South Korea, it didn't manage to save everyone but it saved tens of millions of lives from tyranny by the brainwashing and enslaving cult of the Kim dynasty. The US didn't invade Vietnam it just took over military action from France. And it didn't go well because they lost the war and the VC continued their evil regime - not because of anything that happened afterwards because of NATO and the US' intervention. You do not know what would've happened had the US won and he was overthrown. Iraq has turned out horribly becaise even worse regimes have replaced Saddam Hussein - but you intimately don't know how the replacement will turn out. The US didn't stay out of the Yugoslav wars, it was NATO bombing of Yugoslavia which eventually brought Milosovic down. And in those cases more peaceful regimes came into power. It's not obviously possible to know how things will turn out at all. You can never know really the turnout of the regime which comes into power afterwards - remember back in 2000 when we all thought Putin was going to a peaceful democratic leader? But at what point do we just sit back and let evil regimes cause untold suffering and murder and ignore it? At what point should we intervene? And at what point should we just sit back? It isn't an obvious answer at all and it's easy to get it wrong. "They took over military action from France"!! What?? I see you're fully paid up on the US lexicon to justify their foreign interventions. You'll be telling me next that they didn't "bomb" Vietnam, but dropped "freedom projectiles" onto the country. No. They invade and bomb. They bomb civillians. Millions of people die. Millions of people are made homeless. The consequences last for decades. Call it what it is. Don't use language to try and cushion yourself from the reality of what actually happens when the US/USSR decide to 'liberate' a country. NATO and the US are separate organisations. And that actually answers your question. We should intervene when the UN makes the decision to send in Nato. We should follow international law. We should follow the decisions of the international community. Unilateral action is always illegal and always has dire consequences for the 'liberated' country. 1
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 1 hour ago, Innovindil said: That's actually a really good suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. If they did force them to take a zhc but guaranteed them jsa if they didn't get the hours I think I'd be okay with it tbh. Unfortunately the benefit system doesn't react quickly enough to week to week changes to make that realistic.
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 49 minutes ago, Sampson said: The Korean War didn't go well? So you think the US should have just stood back and let North Korea invade South Korea leading to a further 50million enslaved by the North Korean regime for almost 70 years now? While South Korea is now one of the most thriving countries in the world? How exactly didn't the Korean War go well? The US managed to defend South Korea, it didn't manage to save everyone but it saved tens of millions of lives from tyranny by the brainwashing and enslaving cult of the Kim dynasty. The US didn't invade Vietnam it just took over military action from France. And it didn't go well because they lost the war and the VC continued their evil regime - not because of anything that happened afterwards because of NATO and the US' intervention. You do not know what would've happened had the US won and he was overthrown. Iraq has turned out horribly becaise even worse regimes have replaced Saddam Hussein - but you ultimately don't know how the replacement will turn out. The US didn't stay out of the Yugoslav wars, it was NATO bombing of Yugoslavia which eventually brought Milosovic down. And in those cases more peaceful regimes came into power and I think most people would agree was an example of good military intervention. It's not obviously possible to know how things will turn out at all. You can never know really the turnout of the regime which comes into power afterwards - remember back in 2000 when we all thought Putin was going to a peaceful democratic leader? But at what point do we just sit back and let evil regimes cause untold suffering and murder and ignore it? At what point should we intervene? And at what point should we just sit back? It isn't an obvious answer at all and it's easy to get it wrong and end up causing more harm than good, absolutely it is, but that doesn't mean we should always sit back and never fight against evil regimes. Let's not forget that when Russia invaded Afghanistan the US was responsible for arming militia and sowing the seeds that eventually led to its current enemies.
Buce Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: Let's not forget that when Russia invaded Afghanistan the US was responsible for arming militia and sowing the seeds that eventually led to its current enemies. Or that the US armed Saddam and ignored his use of chemical weapons in the Iraq/Iran war, just a few years before invading on the WMD pretext.
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) Over in the commons the Tories are ripping up democracy yet again. Knowing they will lose any vote they're refusing to oppose the labour motion so no vote occurs. Hopefully labour put up a couple of stooges to oppose the motion and force a vote. This is what taking back control means to the the conservative party. Edited 18 October 2017 by Guest
Captain... Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 1 hour ago, KingGTF said: It's exactly what Universal Credit will do I think Universal Credit is good in theory, but it has gone the way of many of this government's plans. To balls up straightforward policy implementation time and time again is almost impressive.
Sampson Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 15 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: "They took over military action from France"!! What?? I see you're fully paid up on the US lexicon to justify their foreign interventions. You'll be telling me next that they didn't "bomb" Vietnam, but dropped "freedom projectiles" onto the country. No. They invade and bomb. They bomb civillians. Millions of people die. Millions of people are made homeless. The consequences last for decades. Call it what it is. Don't use language to try and cushion yourself from the reality of what actually happens when the US/USSR decide to 'liberate' a country. NATO and the US are separate organisations. And that actually answers your question. We should intervene when the UN makes the decision to send in Nato. We should follow international law. We should follow the decisions of the international community. Unilateral action is always illegal and always has dire consequences for the 'liberated' country. Of course innocent people die and are made homeless when you go to war or bomb a country but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose evil. You cannot just diplomatically talk nutters out of power - it's a sad inevitibly of life that war sometimes is the lesser evil than sitting by and doing nothing. But you ultimately cannot know how it's all going to turn out so it's a very difficult decision, certainly not an easy one where you don't know what's going to happen. The Korea and Vietnam wars were already underway. The US didn't create those wars or invade those countries those wars at all, it got involved and took sides in already ongoing conflicts. US lexicon? You honestly don't think the Kim dynasty, Ho Chi Minh or Saddam Hussein were evil people who caused tyranny and mass murders on their own people's lives? And that the US wasn't going there to try and bring these regimes down and to ultimately try and make their people's lives better? Whether naive or not or successful or not - Can you please explain exactly what you think was the US' motivation was if not trying to bring down tyrannical regimes for the freedom of its people? The US is the overwhelming power in NATO because it pays for almost 75% of NATO's collective miliary power on its own and was the overwhelming instigator of the Yugoslav bombing. NATO was a non-entity at the time of the Korean War - it was exactly because of the Korean War that the US wanted to build up support against the Warsaw Pact and Communist expansion that NATO really became an entity of any power. But I'm not sure on your point? Why does whether you go through an alliance body like NATO have anything to do with whether military intervention was successful or not or whether you can predict the outcomes or not?
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Captain... said: I think Universal Credit is good in theory, but it has gone the way of many of this government's plans. To balls up straightforward policy implementation time and time again is almost impressive. Trouble is, attempting to get the dwp to include housing payments was always going to result in chaos. Dwp administered benefits are straightforward in comparison to housing benefit, the many rules of which are labyrinthian. Dwp staff and systems were never going to find a much more complex system simple. Whilst one single payment is a fine objective, the government's implementation, as with many other things, is hideously poor. 6 week waits for benefits is ridiculous - in fact it wouldn't surprise me if it were unlawful given the destitution that is likely to cause, even with the potential for advance payments - with them not being a normal part of the system its unclear how dwp could administer huge numbers of advance payments if required. And whoever decided that charging benefit claimants 55p a minute to call to discuss their claim - well they shouldn't be anywhere near government or the public sector. Just a callous, vindictive decision. Thankfully highlighted by labour last week and ended this week.
Buce Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 19 minutes ago, toddybad said: Over in the commons the Tories are ripping up democracy yet again. Knowing they will lose any vote they're refusing to oppose the labour motion so no vote occurs. Hopefully labour put up a couple of stooges to oppose the motion and force a vote. This is what taking back control means to the the conservative party. They truly are scum of the worst kind.
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 7 minutes ago, Buce said: They truly are scum of the worst kind. They really are. It's time we just said it as it is.
Sampson Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, toddybad said: Let's not forget that when Russia invaded Afghanistan the US was responsible for arming militia and sowing the seeds that eventually led to its current enemies. Absolutely. Because the anti-commumist options in Afghanistan and Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils at the time when the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Asia which had directly murdered about 100mil of their own people were making headway in to the Middle East. It turned out horribly but no one could've known Communism would've fallen so dramatically - even if you asked people in 1986 people would've thought you mad suggesting it, it was only when Gorbachev came into power when things started to change. Sometimes you have to decsend into realpolitik. I mean we allied with Stalin to bring down Hitler for heaven's sake and even though we were left with 45 years of tyranny and a division of Europe as a result of it, it was probably the right thing to do. Edited 18 October 2017 by Sampson
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable.
Webbo Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable. I've just got home and haven't seen the news yet. If the tories are opposing labour then they're doing a good job.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, toddybad said: Shame that mattp and webbo aren't here with the Tories having a bad day I'd love them to explain how the tory actions tonight are actually democracy in action and perfectly reasonable. tbf I would suspect most people probably have more worthwhile uses for their time. Judging by recent days, you'll end up in a discussion with yourself soon enough Edited 18 October 2017 by KingGTF
Guest Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 17 minutes ago, Webbo said: I've just got home and haven't seen the news yet. If the tories are opposing labour then they're doing a good job. They haven't got the guts to oppose them
Guest Kopfkino Posted 18 October 2017 Posted 18 October 2017 51 minutes ago, Captain... said: I think Universal Credit is good in theory, but it has gone the way of many of this government's plans. To balls up straightforward policy implementation time and time again is almost impressive. It's not really a straightforward implementation though but they've had enough time to make it easier for themselves now. I must say it needs to be paused and worked on further to prevent a potentially great policy being ruined or scrapped, just the same as The Community Charge. The time frame does need some work (6 weeks was a stupid policy choice tbh).
Recommended Posts