Webbo Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 Just now, Rogstanley said: Sorry, what's the question? You were saying the govt could cut taxes and have the same affect as doing away with tariffs. But there isn't any tax (VAT) on food, so which taxes would you remove/reduce to have the same affect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: @Alf Bentley see that’s where we disagree Alf, i’d say we might as well go with no deal, unless we miraculously got a ‘cake and eat it deal’ otherwise what was the point in the Leave vote? But that’s the sadist in me going with the ‘give them their head’ view. I can see the appeal in theory - and maybe I'd be up for the excitement if I was 20-30 years younger and had no commitments (though I've no idea about your age or family status). But I'm mid-50s, so obviously likely to be in physical decline over the next couple of decades, if I get that long - and have a teenage daughter due to enter the world of work/adulthood within a few years. A wild experiment with economic/social armageddon doesn't seem such a good idea in those circumstances.... Do you have a sneaky thought that you might be wrong and that a no-deal scenario will all prove a great success? Or are you imagining that the Brexiteers will have to own the disaster that they create? Because, I really cannot see how it will be a success - and I'm afraid the Brexiteers will never own any disaster. If it does prove disastrous, they'll say it was all the fault of the treachorous Europeans or immigrants or the Labour Party. Indeed, a Soft Brexit scenario would make the Leave vote pretty pointless - and would leave us somewhat worse off than we were. But a No Deal scenario would be even worse - destroying and damaging lives. I'll take a gentle kick up the arse over a full-scale vicious beating, thanks! It might all just end up being mildly grim, but I seriously fear that No Deal could cause social meltdown within a few years. In the past, I've sometimes imagined choosing to leave this country permanently - but dismissed that idea a good few years back. I never imagined that I might be FORCED to leave this country as it had become too horrible to live in, but I seriously think that might be the outcome under No Deal. Edited 12 April 2018 by Alf Bentley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: You were saying the govt could cut taxes and have the same affect as doing away with tariffs. But there isn't any tax (VAT) on food, so which taxes would you remove/reduce to have the same affect? Could be achieved with a range of measures, income tax cut (or tax free allowance increase) for employed people, welfare increase for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 Can a minority government take unilateral action without parliamentary consent? Interesting constitutional question that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 12 April 2018 Author Share Posted 12 April 2018 @Alf Bentley I do have a feeling a ‘no-deal’ might have more scope to be a success, given how vested interests would need to ensure it was. HOWEVER - I can’t see ‘no-deal’ happening because the difficulties that would impose on the NI border question. How do you solve that based on a hostile divorce? My hunch is we’ll end up a fudge somewhere in the middle - both sides have set out hard stances, which they slowly roll back, to the point where they meet somewhere in the middle, allowing both to claim victory. That’s typically how the EU do negotiations and I see no difference here. The problem May has with this, despite that probably being the best outcome she could expect - I doubt many of the public on either side will see it as a victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 12 April 2018 Author Share Posted 12 April 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: Can a minority government take unilateral action without parliamentary consent? Interesting constitutional question that. Yes - sure that’s only been a recent ‘convention.’ http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7166 The deployment of the Armed Forces is currently a prerogative power. Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct. In 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons would have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces, prior to doing so, except in the event of an emergency. The defeat of the Government in a vote on military action in Syria in August 2013 was widely viewed as an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty on such matters. Yet many have argued that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. In 2011 the Government committed to legislate on this issue but by the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament no proposals were forthcoming. Going forward proponents of a formalised role for Parliament have suggested adopting a parliamentary resolution as either an interim step or as a viable alternative to legislation. Establishing either is fraught with difficulties and arguably, therefore, makes the continuation and strengthening of the current convention more likely in the immediate future. Edited 12 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 4 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Yes - sure that’s only been a recent ‘convention.’ http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7166 The deployment of the Armed Forces is currently a prerogative power. Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct. In 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons would have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces, prior to doing so, except in the event of an emergency. The defeat of the Government in a vote on military action in Syria in August 2013 was widely viewed as an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty on such matters. Yet many have argued that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. In 2011 the Government committed to legislate on this issue but by the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament no proposals were forthcoming. Going forward proponents of a formalised role for Parliament have suggested adopting a parliamentary resolution as either an interim step or as a viable alternative to legislation. Establishing either is fraught with difficulties and arguably, therefore, makes the continuation and strengthening of the current convention more likely in the immediate future. I realise this but the minority aspect is the interesting bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 12 April 2018 Author Share Posted 12 April 2018 A 62 page research briefing if you want it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 12 April 2018 Author Share Posted 12 April 2018 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: I realise this but the minority aspect is the interesting bit. The early pages of the research briefing on past conflicts and votes are interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-figures-latest-accident-emergency-performance-a-e-record-winter-crisis-a8300901.html?amp&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 12 April 2018 Author Share Posted 12 April 2018 Just thought: what an awful time to have a massively under qualified and experienced Defence Secretary in Gavin Williamson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 5 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Just thought: what an awful time to have a massively under qualified and experienced Defence Secretary in Gavin Williamson. He's actually been doing a good job in terms of what his role entails (sticking up for his department). Not sure when the last time we had a "qualified" Defence Sec was. Hammond wasn't, Fallon wasn't, Fox wasn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 57 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Yes - sure that’s only been a recent ‘convention.’ http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7166 The deployment of the Armed Forces is currently a prerogative power. Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct. In 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons would have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces, prior to doing so, except in the event of an emergency. The defeat of the Government in a vote on military action in Syria in August 2013 was widely viewed as an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty on such matters. Yet many have argued that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. In 2011 the Government committed to legislate on this issue but by the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament no proposals were forthcoming. Going forward proponents of a formalised role for Parliament have suggested adopting a parliamentary resolution as either an interim step or as a viable alternative to legislation. Establishing either is fraught with difficulties and arguably, therefore, makes the continuation and strengthening of the current convention more likely in the immediate future. There might be no legal obligation but with only 22% of the public supporting it there is the very real possibility of it costing her politically, particularly if it goes 'tits up'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 (edited) Trump backtracking now: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?” April 12, 2018 Does he ever think before he tweets? Edited 12 April 2018 by Buce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 1 minute ago, Buce said: Trump backtracking now: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?” April 12, 2018 Does he ever think before he tweets? I'm embarrassed to be the same species as that man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: @Alf Bentley I do have a feeling a ‘no-deal’ might have more scope to be a success, given how vested interests would need to ensure it was. HOWEVER - I can’t see ‘no-deal’ happening because the difficulties that would impose on the NI border question. How do you solve that based on a hostile divorce? My hunch is we’ll end up a fudge somewhere in the middle - both sides have set out hard stances, which they slowly roll back, to the point where they meet somewhere in the middle, allowing both to claim victory. That’s typically how the EU do negotiations and I see no difference here. The problem May has with this, despite that probably being the best outcome she could expect - I doubt many of the public on either side will see it as a victory. I get it that a sudden total disaster is in nobody's interests, but I'm not imagining that, anyway. I imagine more of a slow-burning, gradually deteriorating medium/big disaster. Which vested interests would need to ensure that No Deal was a success in the medium-term? Big business could survive and move/find other markets, likewise the EU, USA & other major trading nations. Financial capital is mobile. Although I don't expect it to happen, I can conceive of No-Deal Brexit proving a success for British society over several decades if we make an awful lot of good decisions in the meantime....but we probably won't make good decisions - and in several decades I'll be dead or dribbling! The only way I can see it proving a "success" in the short-term is very much on Thatcherite terms: undercutting other advanced economies through low corporate taxation, deregulated social/environmental standards, slashing of public services, low pay etc. That, of course, is very much the dream scenario for some of the big-money people who back Brexit (as opposed to general voters). They would view a situation where big business makes big bucks at a cost of social misery and mayhem as a great triumph, but I don't. Likewise, my hunch is that we'll end up with a fudge. Rather than the fudge being in the middle, I'm hopeful that it will end up much closer to the EU's stance (fairly close alignment, minimal tariffs/red tape, no Irish border, no free movement but generous, pragmatic approach to immigration) than to the UK's stance....but then the UK stance is still pretty much "cake and eat it", apart from the many areas in which we've capitulated (provisionally, at least). All still massively unpredictable. I'm not sure that many normal people (as opposed to freaks like us lot in this thread) think in terms of "victory/defeat" re. Brexit, or even of "success/failure". The vast majority of people took a view (which they mainly still hold and don't challenge) and just get on with their lives, waiting for Brexit to be implemented. I'd see people reacting more to the real effects of Brexit when it happens....though they won't necessarily be seen as effects of Brexit. If, say, jobs are lost, living standards fall, public services suffer further cuts, social deprivation and inequality worsens and the UK has a more testing relationship with other European nations, I don't expect many people will blame Brexit (apart from fervent Remainers). More likely, they'll blame the Europeans, the government, the opposition, immigrants, Remoaners, the elite or whoever - and it could get very nasty indeed. Needless to say, I'd like nothing more than to be massively wrong about all this. Edited 12 April 2018 by Alf Bentley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 39 minutes ago, Buce said: Trump backtracking now: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?” April 12, 2018 Does he ever think before he tweets? It's crazy, isn't it? Trump has managed to undermine America's ability to usefully project power and in so doing has probably condemned more Syrians to death by chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 Fearful, derailed motor industry sees no advantage to brexit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43627343 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 16 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: It's crazy, isn't it? Trump has managed to undermine America's ability to usefully project power and in so doing has probably condemned more Syrians to death by chemical weapons. Yeah. I think his stupidity and political incompetence is an even bigger threat to the World than Putin's machinations. To know that he leads the most powerful nation on the planet is bloody scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Fearful, derailed motor industry sees no advantage to brexit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43627343 Let's be honest - nobody really sees any advantage to Brexit, it's just abstract shit about 'taking back control'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 The cabinet supports action! Stongly worded letter imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 2 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Just thought: what an awful time to have a massively under qualified and experienced Defence Secretary in Gavin Williamson. To be honest they don’t do a lot do they? The cabinet are all involved in the big decisions and the permanent undersecretary does the actual work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 1 hour ago, Beechey said: I'm embarrassed to be the same species as that man. True. Guess it is a reminder though that for all our civilisation, our animalistic base purposes still speak to a lot of people in a way that has influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 Look at Syria, and you can see all the elements that have led to world wars https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/syria-elements-world-wars-west-leaders-escalate-history?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 12 April 2018 Share Posted 12 April 2018 It's the hypocrisy of it all that dismays me. How many kids have died in Yemen to Saudi (British supplied) bombs? Are those kids any less dead than the ones gassed in Syria? Did they die less horribly? I read today that 8,000 civilians died during the retaking of Mosul - many of them blown apart by British and American bombs. Were their deaths cleaner than the ones in Syria? Are the ones who still live but with no legs happier than the ones choking in Syria? I don't know what the answer is in Syria, but I do know that more killing isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts