Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Fox Ulike]

Just now, Countryfox said:

I don't think that making our own decisions rather than letting 'Brussels" decide what is right or wrong is being superior.  Call me old fashioned but imo they do not always treat us fairly.

What have Brussels decided that you didn't think was fair?

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

What have Brussels decided that you didn't think was fair?

 

Fishing quotas ...  

[lifted*fox]

your own government don't treat you fairly and they won't start treating you more so because they've been let off the EU's 'leash'.

 

people are in for a rude awakening when they wake up and realise that the EU was actually ensuring that you were treated better. 

 

but hey ho, such is life. 

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

your own government don't treat you fairly and they won't start treating you more so because they've been let off the EU's 'leash'.

 

people are in for a rude awakening when they wake up and realise that the EU was actually ensuring that you were treated better. 

 

but hey ho, such is life. 

I disagree ...  they have improved some things but overall we managed pretty well before and I think we will manage a lot better after ...    but hey ho such is life ...

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

I don't think that making our own decisions rather than letting 'Brussels" decide what is right or wrong is being superior.  Call me old fashioned but imo they do not always treat us fairly.

Thinking that the UK should make our own decisions in this way means you trust your own judgement better than that of "Brussels", ergo you think your judgement is superior, ergo believe yourself to be superior.

 

Again though, such attitude is part and parcel of what we'd call sovereignty anyway - self-determination goes hand in hand with trusting your own judgement over that of other parties and therefore thinking you can do things better.

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Thinking that the UK should make our own decisions in this way means you trust your own judgement better than that of "Brussels", ergo you think your judgement is superior, ergo believe yourself to be superior.

 

Again though, such attitude is part and parcel of what we'd call sovereignty anyway - self-determination goes hand in hand with trusting your own judgement over that of other parties and therefore thinking you can do things better.

 

Fishing quotas ..

[lifted*fox]

the world has changed significantly though. 

 

we 'managed pretty well' in a totally different situation and that situation isn't coming back. everyone has moved on. trade has moved on. 

 

it amazes me that people have this hazy dream of a once great britain (that has never actually existed tbh) and think we're somehow reverting back to it. 

 

we're pulling ourselves out of the EU and everyone else will just carry on regardless. the whole world isn't going to stop so we can play make believe about a time gone by.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

Fishing quotas ..

Right, exactly. Seeking a better deal for the UK on that topic, because of a belief that UK fishermen are more important than those from other places.

 

Like I said, the lines get very blurred.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Foxin_mad has clearly not seen one of those Costa Coffee vending machines that are appearing everywhere.

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Fishing quotas ...  

Actually yeah. I can see that one.

 

I mean, fishing quotas are in place to prevent over-fishing, but as an island we probably deserved preferential treatment.

 

What did we get and what do you think we should be entitled to?

 

That is probably the best and most concrete reason I’ve heard yet for leaving the EU. In fact, it’s the only concrete reason I’ve heard.

 

It’s fishing quotas and chlorinated chicken. That’s why we’re going?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Conservatives

 

@Conservatives

·

20h

 

 

Patients should come first, not legal firms. That's why we're introducing a cap on legal fees paid to lawyers in clinical negligence cases, saving up to £45 million a year.

 

 

Or just cut out clinical negligence? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Nothing is "free" - it has to be paid for by the taxpayer and I'm still yet to hear a good argument as to why people who are among the poorest in society should have to fund those who will often end up being the richest in society through adult education, I'm all for courses we need like nursing, engineering etc being subsidised to some extent but why should a fork lift truck driver pay more in tax so the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire can go and do business, art or economics?

 

I'd rather shove the £11billion this would cost per year into technical colleges where those people who aren't academically great can actually find and learn skills that will get them into employment rather than leaving them on the scrapheap.

 

If you want to hurt the poor and give a bung to the middle classes there are far better ways than free tuition fees, just look at what has happened in Scotland since they started doing this. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36392857 ) - and that's not even to mention the money they have drained from healthcare and secondary education to carry this on.

 

How anyone still supports this is bonkers.

I hate your politics.

[Countryfox]

8 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Actually yeah. I can see that one.

 

I mean, fishing quotas are in place to prevent over-fishing, but as an island we probably deserved preferential treatment.

 

What did we get and what do you think we should be entitled to?

 

That is probably the best and most concrete reason I’ve heard yet for leaving the EU. In fact, it’s the only concrete reason I’ve heard.

 

It’s fishing quotas and chlorinated chicken. That’s why we’re going?

 

You asked for an example and I gave you one ...   there are many more ...   but I'm off out now ...   and tbh I can see I'm just p1ssing in the wind here ...

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

You asked for an example and I gave you one ...   there are many more ...   but I'm off out now ...   and tbh I can see I'm just p1ssing in the wind here ...

Errr. I was agreeing with you.

 

I'd hate to see your reaction if I told you that you were talking bollox!!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Nothing is "free" - it has to be paid for by the taxpayer and I'm still yet to hear a good argument as to why people who are among the poorest in society should have to fund those who will often end up being the richest in society through adult education, I'm all for courses we need like nursing, engineering etc being subsidised to some extent but why should a fork lift truck driver pay more in tax so the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire can go and do business, art or economics?

 

I'd rather shove the £11billion this would cost per year into technical colleges where those people who aren't academically great can actually find and learn skills that will get them into employment rather than leaving them on the scrapheap.

 

If you want to hurt the poor and give a bung to the middle classes there are far better ways than free tuition fees, just look at what has happened in Scotland since they started doing this. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36392857 ) - and that's not even to mention the money they have drained from healthcare and secondary education to carry this on.

 

How anyone still supports this is bonkers.

 

Nothing is free, but there is something used called a cost effective ratio I believe, which is an attempt to quantify the value of spending public money. 

 

Like with any large government spending commitment it’s difficult with higher education to quantify what the exact position is, but there are clearly benefits both locally and nationally in having a population with a higher level of education and skills. Indeed poorer people in a town with a University would stand to benefit from the associated jobs and student spending power the University brings with it.

 

It’s also worth considering the government still effectively funds a large proportion of higher education through the current loans system. The governments own figures show that a large proportion of the notional debt accrued by graduates doesn’t get paid back; and my understanding is those that do are returning money to private companies who have purchased these loan book off the government.

 

For some this would seem to be an inefficient system awash with bureaucracy where the tax payer are not getting value for money and obvious improvements could be made - even if you support the idea of students making a contribution to their higher education. 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I believe that it's borne from an idea that the UK is "taking back control" and therefore thinking that they as a nation trust their judgement over that of other countries and ergo consider themselves superior...however, of course, the very premise of national sovereignty itself is tied up in this too and it's a thorny issue - where is the line between self-determination as a nation and the belief in that self-determination becoming a belief in superiority over others? I honestly don't know.

 

Would the restriction of freedom of movement not qualify as insular/protectionist, then? Yes, it's something that all nations do and it's something that's likely necessary but it seems to qualify in the strictest definition of the words to me.

Sorry was typing out a massive post and it crashed so a smaller one will have to do.

 

We are "taking back control" - the great repeal act will enshrine all current law into parliament and then our own (and only our own) elected representatives will decide which parts of that to keep and which parts of that to discard, then if the British people don't like that we will kick them out for someone else, instead of watching us adopt into law things our elected officials tried to vote agaisnt, it's going to be a very welcome change. Self-determination is nothing to do with superiority.

 

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

To you it might be matt. But I think a lot of Leavers will be expecting post-Brexit Britain to be a very different place to the one that you think it will be.

 

As I said. Leave had no measurable objectives, and no strategy for achieving them. So no-one really knows what Brexit will actually end up delivering.

 

You voted for uncertainty, and that’s what you’ve got!

To be honest mate, from what you have written on here I don't think you really have a clue what Leave voters want, you haven't given that impression once that you do, don't worry about that, very few people seem to judging by what I read, even in the mainstream press good pro-EU writers like Philip Collins, Zoe Williams and David Aaronovich just don't get that it's about making decisions and accountability, it really isn't enough to just be told "they can do that anyway" and you be expected to take it.

 

As for strategy to achieve objectives, unfortunately it wasn't possible for the leave campaign to do that as they weren't in a government so rightly those guarantees would have been laughed at, a Remain supporter held the position of Prime Minister (David Cameron), Home Secretary (Theresa May before the Damascene conversion), Foreign Secretary (Phillip Hammond) and Chancellor (Gideon) - at the time we were assured by the leadership even in the event of a vote to leave they would be staying on to implement the decision.

 

In hindsight it's probably why this progression would have been taken better via a general election rather than a referendum (even though that seems completely impractical given the parties were split), we then could have produced a leave manifesto to go on, or Cameron could have been more responsible and set out policy for both outcomes, rather than gambling on fear keeping the masses in line.

 

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thinking that the UK should make our own decisions in this way means you trust your own judgement better than that of "Brussels", ergo you think your judgement is superior, ergo believe yourself to be superior.

 

Again though, such attitude is part and parcel of what we'd call sovereignty anyway - self-determination goes hand in hand with trusting your own judgement over that of other parties and therefore thinking you can do things better.

Wanting to make your own decisions doesn't mean you think you are superior, I think a Labour government would be a total disaster for this country but I'll still support then making decisions for the people of here over another country doing so even if I thought the latter's judgement was better (which is almost certainly will be) - that's democracy in a nation.

 

Although, given the way the EU has behaved with Greece, Spain and Italy I think could safely say I trust our own courts more.

 

39 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

we 'managed pretty well' in a totally different situation and that situation isn't coming back. everyone has moved on. trade has moved on.

Absolutely, one of the reasons why Brexit is such a superb idea.

 

The EU is now only about 12% of global trade and that figure will only get lower, it's absolutely absurd we tie ourselves into a declining block for the short-term instead of seeking out more trade with the emerging markets across the World for our long-term benefit.

 

No better time to do it than the next decade or so and the economic growth is going to be more rapid than ever.

 

29 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I hate your politics.

Aside from that, which bits do you disagree with in the post? I don't understand your politics at the minute, for the first few months you posted it was all about wealth re-distribution and fairness, the last couple of weeks all you have done is backed policy that makes life hard for the poor and easier for the rich, from protectionist tariffs to free tuition fees. Strange turn of events.

 

Anyway I'm off, up the City!

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sorry was typing out a massive post and it crashed so a smaller one will have to do.

 

We are "taking back control" - the great repeal act will enshrine all current law into parliament and then our own (and only our own) elected representatives will decide which parts of that to keep and which parts of that to discard, then if the British people don't like that we will kick them out for someone else, instead of watching us adopt into law things our elected officials tried to vote agaisnt, it's going to be a very welcome change. Self-determination is nothing to do with superiority.

 

Wanting to make your own decisions doesn't mean you think you are superior, I think a Labour government would be a total disaster for this country but I'll still support then making decisions for the people of here over another country doing so even if I thought the latter's judgement was better (which is almost certainly will be) - that's democracy in a nation.

 

Although, given the way the EU has behaved with Greece, Spain and Italy I think could safely say I trust our own courts more.

 

 

1

Thanks for the reply - both of these posts tie into the same thing, really - if you self-determine, it means that you do trust yourself to make a better decision than that of another party. Even trusting your own country when they do something in your own opinion foolhardy (like electing a Labour government for you) means that you view the judgement of the British people for the future to be more important than that of other actors.

 

How far along the line trusting your own judgement and viewing it as more important than those other actors (as an individual or as a nation) goes before tying into a feeling of superiority is evidently open for debate.

Edited 16 February 2018 by leicsmac

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

Actually yeah. I can see that one.

 

I mean, fishing quotas are in place to prevent over-fishing, but as an island we probably deserved preferential treatment.

 

What did we get and what do you think we should be entitled to?

 

That is probably the best and most concrete reason I’ve heard yet for leaving the EU. In fact, it’s the only concrete reason I’ve heard.

 

It’s fishing quotas and chlorinated chicken. That’s why we’re going?

Don’t forget the African farmers. We love them now.

[Rogstanley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Nothing is "free" - it has to be paid for by the taxpayer and I'm still yet to hear a good argument as to why people who are among the poorest in society should have to fund those who will often end up being the richest in society through adult education, I'm all for courses we need like nursing, engineering etc being subsidised to some extent but why should a fork lift truck driver pay more in tax so the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire can go and do business, art or economics?

 

I'd rather shove the £11billion this would cost per year into technical colleges where those people who aren't academically great can actually find and learn skills that will get them into employment rather than leaving them on the scrapheap.

 

If you want to hurt the poor and give a bung to the middle classes there are far better ways than free tuition fees, just look at what has happened in Scotland since they started doing this. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36392857 ) - and that's not even to mention the money they have drained from healthcare and secondary education to carry this on.

 

How anyone still supports this is bonkers.

Your article shows more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland going into higher education.

 

The idea that free education for everyone is somehow a benefit to the rich at the expense of the poor is just nuts.

 

At the basic level everyone benefits from a better educated nation.

 

In addition to that, making higher education practically only available to the rich (which is what the continued increase in fees plus 6%+ interest rates is obviously leading to) is clearly going to lock in inequality.

 

Toddy says he hates your politics. I just find it hard to fathom. Unless you are secretly the son of a member of the aristocracy, or perhaps in line to inherit a vast fortune, it makes no sense to relentlessly promote the interests of the establishment like you do. Every post you make is either in favour of the rich, in favour of the establishment, or running down an already disadvantaged group even further. Makes no sense.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Your article shows more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland going into higher education.

 

The idea that free education for everyone is somehow a benefit to the rich at the expense of the poor is just nuts.

 

At the basic level everyone benefits from a better educated nation.

 

In addition to that, making higher education practically only available to the rich (which is what the continued increase in fees plus 6%+ interest rates is obviously leading to) is clearly going to lock in inequality.

 

Toddy says he hates your politics. I just find it hard to fathom. Unless you are secretly the son of a member of the aristocracy, or perhaps in line to inherit a vast fortune, it makes no sense to relentlessly promote the interests of the establishment like you do. Every post you make is either in favour of the rich, in favour of the establishment, or running down an already disadvantaged group even further. Makes no sense.

 

Precisely why I hate his politics. Plus he blatantly attempts to misrepresent at every opportunity. Sick of him tbh.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Precisely why I hate his politics. Plus he blatantly attempts to misrepresent at every opportunity. Sick of him tbh.

How awful for you. Fancy people thinking they have a right to disagree with you.

[foxinexile]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

The EU is now only about 12% of global trade and that figure will only get lower, it's absolutely absurd we tie ourselves into a declining block for the short-term instead of seeking out more trade with the emerging markets across the World for our long-term benefit.

 

Slightly misleading, though a figure seemingly repeated on a regular basis, for what reason I am unsure. You could look at the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and Japan finalised (but not yet ratified I don't think?) in December last year. This covers economies worth around 30 percent of the globe's GDP (not taking into account deals agreed with Vietnam, Canada etc.), hardly a "declining block" (sic). This doesn't take into account ongoing talks with Mercosur (which have stalled due to the EU but should be concluded this year), which Cecilia Mallstrom talked about with accuracy: "...only in tariffs we will be saving ... billions!"

 

As we've known for a long time, Brexit wasn't about the economy etc. etc. etc., and we all have to hope that these deals can be replicated by the UK once we're out, but suggesting the EU is losing significance or doesn't hold as much influential economic influence (if that's what you mean by "declining"?), or insinuating it, is quite misleading, given how receptive other global economies appear to be with regards to having access to its markets. 

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Your article shows more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland going into higher education.

 

The idea that free education for everyone is somehow a benefit to the rich at the expense of the poor is just nuts.

 

At the basic level everyone benefits from a better educated nation.

 

In addition to that, making higher education practically only available to the rich (which is what the continued increase in fees plus 6%+ interest rates is obviously leading to) is clearly going to lock in inequality.

 

Toddy says he hates your politics. I just find it hard to fathom. Unless you are secretly the son of a member of the aristocracy, or perhaps in line to inherit a vast fortune, it makes no sense to relentlessly promote the interests of the establishment like you do. Every post you make is either in favour of the rich, in favour of the establishment, or running down an already disadvantaged group even further. Makes no sense.

Bloody hell.

 

If you are confused about my politics Rog/Moose/Bunk/Frank/Chandler how do you think I feel about you? 

 

5 personas that we know of, two left, two right and one a libertarian - least I'm consistent. 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Precisely why I hate his politics. Plus he blatantly attempts to misrepresent at every opportunity. Sick of him tbh.

Why not answer my question and tell me what I said was wrong? 

 

Last couple of weeks you have sided with the rich protectionist Tories, don't get upset because I point that out and now you back a system that is tried and tested to give an advantage to the wealthy who want to go to Uni.

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

 

The EU is now only about 12% of global trade and that figure will only get lower, it's absolutely absurd we tie ourselves into a declining block for the short-term instead of seeking out more trade with the emerging markets across the World for our long-term benefit.

 

 

That 12% stat looks wildly inaccurate. WTO stats for 2015 show the EU accounted for 33.7% of exports and 32.6% of imports (goods only, not services): https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2016_e/wts2016_e.pdf (pp.92-93)

Compared to the EU with a third of global trade, only the US and China are in double figures! Yes, the EU's share is declining proportionally as developing countries grow faster, but it's still by far the biggest player in global trade. It also has the benefit of being on our doorstep, which has major advantages re. transport costs, complex just-in-time supply chains, fresh produce etc.

 

Are you getting confused with our exports to the EU "only" accounting for 12% of the UK economy, as described here, and mentioned before by Webbo? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715547/EU-exports-mere-12-British-economy-Trade-figures-focus-Europe-steadily-dropped-past-five-years.html 

That's a fair point, though we shouldn't be too complacent as losing a chunk of that 12% also impacts the other 88%, particularly the domestic economy: e.g. if the Sunderland Nissan plant stopped exporting to the EU, lots of domestic suppliers and their employees would lose out, while lots of other domestic firms would lose business as redundant workers stopped buying consumer goods, furniture, cars, meals out, local services etc. The reverse multiplier can mean that £1 of lost output in one sector can easily mean £5 lost overall, depending on other factors like savings, tax, alternative income: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

 

Just take UK exports for a minute: 43% currently go to the EU, about 15% to the US, 5% to China, 2% to Australia, 1% to India, miniscule % to Africa: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-trade-partners/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/

So, imagine Brexit means we lose 10% of our exports to the EU: 43% x 10% = 4.3% of total.

To make up for that, we'd have to increase exports to the US by about 30%, or to China by almost 100%, or to Australia by 200%, or to India by 430%!

Unless you have a time machine, it's sod all use to us that India might be a great trading power in 2050, or Africa in 2100.....because we live in 2018, when the greatest trading power is the EU, with the US and China the only other really big players.

 

Edited 16 February 2018 by Alf Bentley