Brexit Thread

[Fragony]

She's the Home Secretary, ie. the person the heads the department dealing with domestic affairs. The position may be called Interior Minister in some countries. Anything to do with UK residents is her area. Another way of wording the question is, since Rudd is the official spokesperson for the government in this area, does the UK government have the mandate to make companies list their foreign employees?

Absolutily not, that goes way too far for me

[Greyblades]

You really don't know anything if you think Havering is poor.

Romford's an unswept hole in the ground dotted with rusting factories and decaying offices choked with congested roads and plaugued by homicidal traffic light sequencers. The rest of havering must be a dream land if it's supposed to shake off romford's shell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The mandate bit is important, because the government accepts that it has to do something. What is that something? Does it include the Rudd proposal? Does it include other measures to further clamp down on foreigners? Should the government do these things, if they have popular approval?

The mandate was conferred last year during the election. The Referendum was held to decide who governs, not how​ they govern. To suggest that our democratically elected government does not have a mandate to govern is, as we say, unwise.

[Pannonian]

Romford's an unswept hole in the ground dotted with rusting factories and decaying offices choked with congested roads and plaugued by homicidal traffic light sequencers. The rest of havering must be a dream land if it's supposed to shake off romford's shell.

So you don't know about the suburbia that is Upminster, Hornchurch, and the rest of Old Havering. There are areas where houses are near mansion size. The reason why Havering may be relatively cheap, house wise, is because the rail lines only serve the borough sparsely. The bits that used to be farmland, pre-war, are far away from any rail service. And of course, areas like proper, really Ye Olde Havering (such as the village that gives the borough its name) don't even pretend to have rail service. These areas have properties that are nearabouts an acre per as standard, each supporting several cars (including a minimum of one Rover, Land or Range). I don't know about their house prices, but I wouldn't call them poor.

[Pannonian]

The mandate was conferred last year during the election. The Referendum was held to decide who governs, not how​ they govern. To suggest that our democratically elected government does not have a mandate to govern is, as we say, unwise.

Would a Norwegian solution, retaining access to the single market whilst respecting the four freedoms (including freedom of movement), but severing links to the European parliament, be an acceptable response to the referendum result?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would a Norwegian solution, retaining access to the single market whilst respecting the four freedoms (including freedom of movement), but severing links to the European parliament, be an acceptable response to the referendum result?

I suggested exactly that directly after the Referendum result. I has been my preferred position for several years now. However, in the long term I don't believe Freedom of Movement will last - unregulated movement of labour is rather like unregulated capitalism. You institute it in the hope it will result in something better for everyone, but what you tend to find is it devolves to the lowest common denominator. In the case of product that means a crap fridge that lasts five years, in the case of the labour market it means minimum wage.

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

[Pannonian]

I suggested exactly that directly after the Referendum result. I has been my preferred position for several years now. However, in the long term I don't believe Freedom of Movement will last - unregulated movement of labour is rather like unregulated capitalism. You institute it in the hope it will result in something better for everyone, but what you tend to find is it devolves to the lowest common denominator. In the case of product that means a crap fridge that lasts five years, in the case of the labour market it means minimum wage.

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.

Tart as it may seem, I'm not Greyblades. Nor am I Rory or InsaneApache.

[Husar]

"Oh we can't get Brits to do this job!"

You could if you offered them a decent wage.

And then the price would probably triple or worse in quite a few cases.
People might stop buying that thing and then what happens to the jobs?
If people continue to buy it, they have less disposable money for other things, affecting other jobs.
The question is whether the ones getting jobs at first will get a sufficient amount of income to make up for that.
But consider that their income has to be less than what everybody else spends on the produce they produce or else the company is working at a loss, no?

[Pannonian]

Tart as it may seem, I'm not Greyblades. Nor am I Rory or InsaneApache.

A fair number of people think like him though. And I'd like to know what he thinks of the Rudd proposal. It hammers immigrants, which was his key area of concern. The Rudd proposal seeks to dissuade companies from employing immigrants, thus making the UK less attractive to them, thus reducing immigration whilst leaving the government's hands free in other areas. If immigration is thus reduced and the government is still free to negotiate a way to remain in the single market, then the housing market can be made accessible to people like him without further damaging the economy. Thus would Greyblades and others who think like him agree with proposals like the above that seek to make the UK more unpleasant for immigrants?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And then the price would probably triple or worse in quite a few cases.
People might stop buying that thing and then what happens to the jobs?
If people continue to buy it, they have less disposable money for other things, affecting other jobs.
The question is whether the ones getting jobs at first will get a sufficient amount of income to make up for that.
But consider that their income has to be less than what everybody else spends on the produce they produce or else the company is working at a loss, no?

Triple? No, I don't think so - possibly double.

In wealthy Western countries Eastern European and African immigrants have begun to form a specific subclass, One that works harder, for less money, with less benefits and worse housing. The free movement of people exacerbates this problem so that instead of integrating they they are beginning to form new ghettos.

We need to start weening ourselves off this cheap labour, it causes wage depression across the continent, that means we all have four TV's and people in Poland are still a decade behind us.

[Husar]

Triple? No, I don't think so - possibly double.

In wealthy Western countries Eastern European and African immigrants have begun to form a specific subclass, One that works harder, for less money, with less benefits and worse housing. The free movement of people exacerbates this problem so that instead of integrating they they are beginning to form new ghettos.

We need to start weening ourselves off this cheap labour, it causes wage depression across the continent, that means we all have four TV's and people in Poland are still a decade behind us.

Consider that when the net pay doubles or almost doubles, the income tax bracket and other related payments may go up considerably, so the labour cost of the employer may easily triple. But even a doubling of the price of food for example may just counter the wage increase especially for the poorer strata of society.

I fully agree though that the wealth discrepancies are a bad thing, I'm just not sure whether they are caused by the free movement of labour alone. You also get free movement of labour within a country and it is perfectly possible for the wealth discrepancy within a nation to be as large as the one between two nations. Within Germany we also have a few wealthy cities and some cities that are close to bankruptcy. With your argument, we should limit the movement of labour between these cities to give the poor ones a chance?

One could even argue that the wealth discrepancy leads to the wage depression as wealthy people get more control over politics and therefore it is a vicious circle. However, we worship the free market with all of its invisible hands and every politician who wants to change it seems to have close to zero chance of getting elected. I still maintain that wealth is relative and every time you "empower" a poor guy to be able to buy a TV, having a TV is now the new standard for poverty. That is something you can only mitigate by doing something against the income and wealth inequality and therefore the difference in political power.

We currently have a competitive system where everyone likes to pretend that we can all be winners if we just want it enough and stick to the rules. :dizzy2:

[Greyblades]

Greyblades made the case that freedom of movement was one of the reasons he voted no, on the grounds that there are limited resources to go round (housing was one cited resource IIRC) and that immigrants inflated the housing market. Goodness knows what he made of Corbyn's position that there should be no limits on immigration, but then that lot have a habit of ignoring logic and consistency.
I think it is funny that the main thing that proved corbyn unelectable is that he didnt diverge from the party line you defended so vigerously.

[Gilrandir]

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836032/The-SNP-try-BLOCK-Brexit-laws-Westminster-Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-accuses-right-wing-Tories-trying-hijack-referendum.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836032/The-SNP-try-BLOCK-Brexit-laws-Westminster-Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-accuses-right-wing-Tories-trying-hijack-referendum.html

I don't think that having to divest themselves of Scotland would slow the Tory push for a hard exit. Might well enhance it. British "country mice" want OUT and they want out last week or so.

[Pannonian]

I don't think that having to divest themselves of Scotland would slow the Tory push for a hard exit. Might well enhance it. British "country mice" want OUT and they want out last week or so.

Tories like the status quo. Scotland within the Union but denied to its main opponents.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tories like the status quo. Scotland within the Union but denied to its main opponents.

Tony Blair doomed the UK when he created the devolved administration. No government will ever agree to federalise England into its historic regions and the longer Scotland remains an anomaly the more inevitable a divorce becomes. Just like Ireland, just like India, Canada, Australia.

Ironically Blair made Disraeli's mistake of believing people would be grateful for getting a vote.

[rory_20_uk]

And here comes Scotland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836032/The-SNP-try-BLOCK-Brexit-laws-Westminster-Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-accuses-right-wing-Tories-trying-hijack-referendum.html

Reminds me of the Life of Brian - they don't want a referendum (since economically it'd be a disaster unless oil doubles / triples in value) but their electorate gets all excited about discussing the right to have one.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Doesn't this repetitive "In, Out; In, Out" strike you as metaphorical?

[edyzmedieval]

For the most part, I'm interested in the economic outlook that's related to the Brexit. Initially, the weakness in the pound triggered a solid business/economical outlook, but that took a serious crash dive when PM May outlined her plans to trigger the Brexit, which caused some serious havoc in the exchange markets. GBP/USD (Pound to dollar ratio) took a serious beating, and even suffered a flash crash of 6%.

That's not a good sign by any standards - even if a flash crash was most likely triggered by automatic sellings because of the breaking of a support/resistance point within the exchange market.

In the long run, economically, it can benefit or it can suffer. It depends very much on the government.

Britain needs to do the Brexit really carefully. Manage it properly, or else there will be some consequences for the entire world, not just for Britain.

Bloomberg article on the GBP - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-13/pound-s-plunge-squeezes-u-k-companies-as-brexit-hedges-expire

[Husar]

Well, Boris Johnson thought the economic outlook is rather bad:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/secret-boris-johnson-column-favoured-uk-remaining-in-eu


In a Telegraph article, written days before a published version in which he backed leaving, the foreign secretary wrote of the EU: “This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms. The membership fee seems rather small for all that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it?”
[...]
He also warned that Brexit would cause an “economic shock” and could lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom in the article revealed in the book, All Out War: the Full Story of How Brexit Sank Britain’s Political Class.

Thankfully, he never published that and "used it only to make up his mind" or "found another perspective" or whatever. :2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

For the most part, I'm interested in the economic outlook that's related to the Brexit. Initially, the weakness in the pound triggered a solid business/economical outlook, but that took a serious crash dive when PM May outlined her plans to trigger the Brexit, which caused some serious havoc in the exchange markets. GBP/USD (Pound to dollar ratio) took a serious beating, and even suffered a flash crash of 6%.

That's not a good sign by any standards - even if a flash crash was most likely triggered by automatic sellings because of the breaking of a support/resistance point within the exchange market.

In the long run, economically, it can benefit or it can suffer. It depends very much on the government.

Britain needs to do the Brexit really carefully. Manage it properly, or else there will be some consequences for the entire world, not just for Britain.

Bloomberg article on the GBP - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-13/pound-s-plunge-squeezes-u-k-companies-as-brexit-hedges-expire

I wouldn't take to much interest in that. One of the biggest Dutch banks is going to settle in city. Take your opertunity ffs it is NOT going to last long. Friendly advise to Brittish orgahs, buy now. If we go down together I'll at least buy the beer

[Kralizec]

They (ING) are moving the activities of some 50 investment bankers to London. They said the move is logical at the moment but essentially provisional, depending on what sort of post-Brexit deal the UK is going to make.

It's remarkable in a way, as ING issued pessmistic warnings about Brexit before the referendum and said they might move their activities out of the UK in that event. Then again, the real Brexit is probably still 2 years away.

[Fragony]

They (ING) are moving the activities of some 50 investment bankers to London. They said the move is logical at the moment but essentially provisional, depending on what sort of post-Brexit deal the UK is going to make.

It's remarkable in a way, as ING issued pessmistic warnings about Brexit before the referendum and said they might move their activities out of the UK in that event. Then again, the real Brexit is probably still 2 years away.

surely is remarkable, I really don't understand it. It comes as a complete surprise

[rory_20_uk]

2 years is a long time in banking. Perhaps they think whatever happens, companies will need very expensive advice. If at the end of 2 years the roles are not required they'll move again.

Bankers and hyenas operate to the same set of rules.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Encircling and lashin out being a rule? oh noes. I actually got cririrism here for comparing it to hyenana strategy.

[edyzmedieval]

Rory is correct about the banking advice, the investment banking arm will operate most likely well because of the availability of capital, given that companies will now have to decide what to do with it if they do not invest any more in the UK.

[Fragony]

Rory is correct about the banking advice, the investment banking arm will operate most likely well because of the availability of capital, given that companies will now have to decide what to do with it if they do not invest any more in the UK.

Hold that tougjt until proven wrong, Nobody knows what the consequences are.

Dear Brittsh, should I post a suduko.

you'll be fine

[rory_20_uk]

Hold that tougjt until proven wrong, Nobody knows what the consequences are.

Dear Brittsh, should I post a suduko.

you'll be fine

Who cares what the consequences are - as long as you can bill for the advice.

~:smoking:

[edyzmedieval]

The consequences have started to unravel - particularly in the economy. It will take some time until they fully do, it's still a long time until the Brexit finally happens, but it already started to show.

London will be a combination of still the top financial centre of the world and a place to run from.

And a lot of European financial hubs are trying to lure bankers away from London.

[Pannonian]

The consequences have started to unravel - particularly in the economy. It will take some time until they fully do, it's still a long time until the Brexit finally happens, but it already started to show.

London will be a combination of still the top financial centre of the world and a place to run from.

And a lot of European financial hubs are trying to lure bankers away from London.

And Frag will be assuring us that Britain will be fine, even as he is keeping as far away from here as possible. Just like Nigel Farage telling us that the EU is evil and to be kept out of our lives, even as he is making sure that he can bring his kids up in Germany. If Frag is so fond of the idea of living outside the EU, he should move to the UK and put his money where his mouth is.

[Montmorency]

And Frag will be assuring us that Britain will be fine, even as he is keeping as far away from here as possible.

That's rather unfair - he's just across the Channel.

[Pannonian]

That's rather unfair - he's just across the Channel.

A world away. He's living inside the EU, whilst assuring Brits that living outside the EU is preferable. If he believes it that strongly, all he has to do is move across the water (and it may be the North Sea at that point) and make his home in the post-EU utopia that he keeps assuring us is here. He's less bad than that hypocritical arsehole Farage in that he isn't actively trying to get out of here, but his constant reassurances about the UK are no less tiresome and for the same reason.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A world away. He's living inside the EU, whilst assuring Brits that living outside the EU is preferable. If he believes it that strongly, all he has to do is move across the water (and it may be the North Sea at that point) and make his home in the post-EU utopia that he keeps assuring us is here. He's less bad than that hypocritical arsehole Farage in that he isn't actively trying to get out of here, but his constant reassurances about the UK are no less tiresome and for the same reason.

That's a very mercenary view - maybe he's like Kadagar and wants freedom for his own people, and not just the Brits? Or maybe you forgot there's a difference between being English and being Dutch?

If so I suggest you spend some time outside the big cosmopolitan cities.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who cares what the consequences are - as long as you can bill for the advice.

~:smoking:

You've been talking with my broker again, haven't you?

[Pannonian]

That's a very mercenary view - maybe he's like Kadagar and wants freedom for his own people, and not just the Brits? Or maybe you forgot there's a difference between being English and being Dutch?

If so I suggest you spend some time outside the big cosmopolitan cities.

One of liberalism's ideals is self determination, something that English culture also strongly believes in, although in that case it's known as minding one's own business. I've spent some time in Holland, and I enjoy the place, but I wouldn't dream of telling them what's right for them. Their affairs are their own business, not mine.

[Fragony]

And Frag will be assuring us that Britain will be fine, even as he is keeping as far away from here as possible. Just like Nigel Farage telling us that the EU is evil and to be kept out of our lives, even as he is making sure that he can bring his kids up in Germany. If Frag is so fond of the idea of living outside the EU, he should move to the UK and put his money where his mouth is.

Very unlikely but I hope the Netherlands follows. Wilders is the only one who wants out but despite probably becoming the biggest party all the parties can still form a rainbow-coalition. Wilders and a few small libertarian parties wants referenda to be binding like in Switserland. Hard, constitution would have to be changed and that's not easy. I will probably be dissapointed if a binding referendum about leaving the EU would be held.

Nice brittish cottage in would be nice by the way, some sheep, nice shire-horse and some ground.

[Sarmatian]

One of liberalism's ideals is self determination, something that English culture also strongly believes in, although in that case it's known as minding one's own business. I've spent some time in Holland, and I enjoy the place, but I wouldn't dream of telling them what's right for them. Their affairs are their own business, not mine.

That's a healthy attitude in life, I agree, but if all did so, there would no point in this board. It would be a very boring Ukraine thread if only Gilrandir is allowed to post there.

[Pannonian]

That's a healthy attitude in life, I agree, but if all did so, there would no point in this board. It would be a very boring Ukraine thread if only Gilrandir is allowed to post there.

Then there's some place for outsiders to have their say as well. But AFAICS Frag is the most frequent commenter on how things will be better for the UK outside the EU. I've talked before about how the neolibs imposed their theories on Yeltsin's Russia whilst living outside the scope of their effects. I despised them then, and I despise their equivalent now.

[Fragony]

Then there's some place for outsiders to have their say as well. But AFAICS Frag is the most frequent commenter on how things will be better for the UK outside the EU. I've talked before about how the neolibs imposed their theories on Yeltsin's Russia whilst living outside the scope of their effects. I despised them then, and I despise their equivalent now.

I don't tell you what to do, only what I think. How does my optimism compare to Brussel's eurocrats who were wrong about all doom-scenario's of a possible vote for a brexit, nothing what they were furiously screaming is actually happening. I know the real brexit has still to happen but the fearmoning makes eurocrats look really stupid and I like that because I dispise the EU

[Gilrandir]

It would be a very boring Ukraine thread if only Gilrandir is allowed to post there.
A correction:
It was a very boring Ukraine thread until Gilrandir was allowed to post there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A correction:
It was a very boring Ukraine thread until Gilrandir was allowed to post there.

Nothing like having a healthy self concept......

[Beskar]

I don't tell you what to do, only what I think. How does my optimism compare to Brussel's eurocrats who were wrong about all doom-scenario's of a possible vote for a brexit, nothing what they were furiously screaming is actually happening. I know the real brexit has still to happen but the fearmoning makes eurocrats look really stupid and I like that because I dispise the EU

Actually, the impacts are still happening over here and Brexit hasn't even started or happened yet officially. The pound has dropped significantly to that of the euro, all prices are rising at a minimum of 10%, in some cases, 40% We are getting the fabled "even more Austerity" being imposed upon us by the government. Scotland now pushing forward with a 2nd referendum. Our government went through a period of real instability, and the ramifications have had a profound impact on the political climate.

[Fragony]

Actually, the impacts are still happening over here and Brexit hasn't even started or happened yet officially. The pound has dropped significantly to that of the euro, all prices are rising at a minimum of 10%, in some cases, 40% We are getting the fabled "even more Austerity" being imposed upon us by the government. Scotland now pushing forward with a 2nd referendum. Our government went through a period of real instability, and the ramifications have had a profound impact on the political climate.

Short-term consequences were to be expected, and screw the political climate really, instability isn't always bad

[edyzmedieval]

Short-term consequences include this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/tesco-pulls-marmite-from-online-store-amid-price-war-with-unilev/

And these are short-term issues, which were eventually resolved by Tesco and Unilever. But what will happen in the future when bigger issues will occur, and not just Marmite?

[Fragony]

Not having marmite is probably a very big issue for the English ;)

[Pannonian]

Not having marmite is probably a very big issue for the English ;)

Tesco have since then warned that food prices are likely to rise sharply. Probably not an issue for you since you can afford to scoff, in more ways than one. You're neither British nor poor, so rises in the costs of essentials is something that you can comfortably laugh at. Just like the neolibs and 90s Russia.

[Fragony]

No I am not Brittish (and no I am not rich), and I certainly not having fun at your expense. If you dislike neolabarism so much, why do you dislike it so much that big-companies who come up with prices that can't be competed with are in trouble? Those are what the EU cater

[Pannonian]

No I am not Brittish (and no I am not rich), and I certainly not having fun at your expense. If you dislike neolabarism so much, why do you dislike it so much that big-companies who come up with prices that can't be competed with are in trouble? Those are what the EU cater

What stayaway theorists like yourself and the neolibs fail to realise is that poor people need to eat too. For you and the neolibs, the purity of a political idea trumps the reality of needing to tighten belts because costs of essentials are rising, costs that the rich can easily account for, but which account for a far greater proportion of a poor household's budget. Why is Putin so popular in Russia? Because of Yeltsin.

[Fragony]

What stayaway theorists like yourself and the neolibs fail to realise is that poor people need to eat too. For you and the neolibs, the purity of a political idea trumps the reality of needing to tighten belts because costs of essentials are rising, costs that the rich can easily account for, but which account for a far greater proportion of a poor household's budget. Why is Putin so popular in Russia? Because of Yeltsin.

Skip the staway, the Brittish and Dutch ecomomy are way too interconnected to use such a word. I am no theorist I am a layman and but isn't an expert anything more than someone who can explain why he had it wrong? Economics aside there are other reasons to be rid of the hand in your pants. The EU has become an unacountable monster

[Pannonian]

Skip the staway, the Brittish and Dutch ecomomy are way too interconnected to use such a word. I am no theorist I am a layman and but isn't an expert anything more than someone who can explain why he had it wrong? Economics aside there are other reasons to be rid of the hand in your pants. The EU has become an unacountable monster

The economies are about to become less interconnected, as you continue to have your common market, while we are about to leave, much to your pleasure. As for other reasons, I'd have thought that food on the table would be the first and overriding reason of politics, but I guess you think differently. It's easier for you to think differently after all, since you're not going to see food disappear, nor do you care if it happens to others, as long as you get to win your argument.

[Fragony]

The economies are about to become less interconnected, as you continue to have your common market, while we are about to leave, much to your pleasure. As for other reasons, I'd have thought that food on the table would be the first and overriding reason of politics, but I guess you think differently. It's easier for you to think differently after all, since you're not going to see food disappear, nor do you care if it happens to others, as long as you get to win your argument.

I would be a sadistic psychopath if I would like food seing dissapear and I just happen to not be a sadistic psychopath. I would call the EU that as they keep dumping surpluss in Africa, literraly making it impossible to build something themselve. I wonder what will happen in Brittain when smaller companies actually have a chance.

[Husar]

I wonder what will happen in Brittain when smaller companies actually have a chance.

Even higher prices as the whole economies of scale advantage is lost, efficiency goes down, resources are wasted.

[Fragony]

Even higher prices as the whole economies of scale advantage is lost, efficiency goes down, resources are wasted.

Are you familiar with the broken glass theory? A little bit harm can do a lot of good basicly. Libertarians are disgusted by the premise but we could see it in action in the UK.

[Pannonian]

Are you familiar with the broken glass theory? A little bit harm can do a lot of good basicly. Libertarians are disgusted by the premise but we could see it in action in the UK.

Classical neolib argument. Never mind the decrease in living standards. It's all for your own good, says he who lives a world away. The political writer I admire most is George Orwell. Orwell sought to understand the people he was writing about by going there and living amongst them. You're the polar opposite of Orwell.

[Fragony]

Classical neolib argument. Never mind the decrease in living standards. It's all for your own good, says he who lives a world away. The political writer I admire most is George Orwell. Orwell sought to understand the people he was writing about by going there and living amongst them. You're the polar opposite of Orwell.

Have never read anything of him so I can say nothing about it, but the English seem to have a broken window that needs fixing. You don't have to be so hostile, my mom and father have/had no education at all, my mom grew up in a lower-class neighbourhood in Haarlem and my father always kept his beard to hide the stabbing wounds. Do you think I am aristocracy or something. My face is covered with scars, I got scars from stabbing wounds everywere and got actually shot. Does Orwell?

[Pannonian]

Have never read anything of him so I can say nothing about it, but the English seem to have a broken window that needs fixing. You don't have to be so hostile, my mom and father have/had no education at all, my mom grew up in a lower-class neighbourhood in Haarlem and my father always kept his beard to hide the stabbing wounds. Do you think I am aristocracy or something. My face is covered with scars, I got scars from stabbing wounds everywere and got actually shot. Does Orwell?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Fragony]

I take it that he did, but you should get the point

Edit, ohlol, just forgot something. I'll take the redicule as a man

[edyzmedieval]

Frag, Marmite is one of those quintessential British things that also happens to be cheap and good affordable food for those who enjoyed it. Granted, it's not a staple food, but a lot of people enjoy it, and a shortage of Marmite and a significant price increase (10% at the minimum is not small) is something that would affect a considerable number of people.

Case in point - it did. And look what happened. A public price war between Tesco, the largest retailer, and Unilever, one of the largest producers of food products.

[edyzmedieval]

Lawyers are thriving because of Brexit - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/lawyers-are-thriving-because-of-brexit

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, the impacts are still happening over here and Brexit hasn't even started or happened yet officially. The pound has dropped significantly to that of the euro, all prices are rising at a minimum of 10%, in some cases, 40% We are getting the fabled "even more Austerity" being imposed upon us by the government. Scotland now pushing forward with a 2nd referendum. Our government went through a period of real instability, and the ramifications have had a profound impact on the political climate.

Price rises of between ten and forty percent?

Given that inflation is only just tipped into 1% positive I'd like some data on that, please.

Also not seen "even more austerity", noises from Hammond point in much the opposite direction.

As to the government having a period of "real instability" that's just cobblers - at no point was there not a Prime Minister, at no point did we suffer mass-resignations from the Front Bench. That happened on the OTHER side of the chamber.

You're right about Scotland, though, but then the SNP have been sounding off like a bunch of shut in cats since the election.

[Husar]

Given that inflation is only just tipped into 1% positive I'd like some data on that, please.

Inflation?
From the previously posted link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/tesco-pulls-marmite-from-online-store-amid-price-war-with-unilev/


The pound has fallen 17 per cent since Britain voted to leave the EU.

Bryan Roberts, a retail analyst at TCC Global, said: “A lot of suppliers are seeking to pass on price increases to retailers but in the current environment retailers are increasingly reluctant to take it. They want to keep prices as low as they can to increase their affordability against the competition.”

Former chairman of Northern Foods Lord Haskins told BBC Newsnight that he expected food inflation of around five per cent in the next year, with discounters affected as well as the main supermarket brands.

"Despite the fact that people will grumble about paying more for Marmite, they will pay more for Marmite and that’s what the strengths of good brands are," he said.

"But then the people who pay for Marmite have got less money to pay for something else so it will affect shopper’s behaviour in a substantial way."

There you also have your broken window theory. :sweatdrop:

I don't know about Marmite, but if the pound is falling, imports should become more expensive of course, nothing to do with inflation. Certainly not if retailers are so far trying to resist. And then how is inflation calculated in the UK? Here they use some "representative goods" to calculate it. With that method, only goods included in the calculations actually impact official inflation figures for obvious reasons.

[edyzmedieval]

The rapid decline in the value of the pound fuels inflation. And inflation was at 0.6%, and it almost doubled in a couple of months.

Bloomberg - Carney looking for inflation test - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/u-k-inflation-rate-surges-to-highest-in-almost-two-years

[Husar]

The rapid decline in the value of the pound fuels inflation. And inflation was at 0.6%, and it almost doubled in a couple of months.

I didn't say that it doesn't, I said the effect can be delayed or that inflation numbers can be misleading as far as real inflation is concerned depending on how they're calculated or what you personally buy.

edit: okay, the "nothing to do with inflation" was a bad formulation in that regard. :sweatdrop:

Oh and the inflation does also not impact prices, prices impact inflation, so you can't say that imported goods can't become more expensive due to low inflation. The same can be true for locally produced goods since inflation is just an average, single items can have a lower or higher change in price.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lawyers are thriving because of Brexit - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/lawyers-are-thriving-because-of-brexit

Are you that surprised? After the next mass extinction, the only creatures left will be cockroaches....and lawyers. I'll not offer an opinion on which would be preferable as the new "top species," but....

[Beskar]

Price rises of between ten and forty percent?
Given that inflation is only just tipped into 1% positive I'd like some data on that, please.

Well, Unilever argument with Tesco was 10%. The 40% figure was the cost of importing bicycle parts from Japan from a BBC4 caller Bicycle UK Supplier, who is now getting the parts from an Italian manufacturer firm instead at only 25% the cost he was paying previously. There were numerous callers on this subject, and all the callers from businesses who import from outside the UK say prices for them were ranging from 10-40%, and this is currently getting swallowed by the hedge-funding and leverages the companies had in place, so they do not burden the customer with sudden price hikes, but these will be being passed on soon since said funding typically runs out after 6 months to a year. So if the situation doesn't improve, it hits our wallets.

Either way, looks like Husar beaten me to it. It is to do with the value of the pound, and the price hikes of costs/increases of importing from aboard.

[edyzmedieval]

I didn't say that it doesn't, I said the effect can be delayed or that inflation numbers can be misleading as far as real inflation is concerned depending on how they're calculated or what you personally buy.

edit: okay, the "nothing to do with inflation" was a bad formulation in that regard. :sweatdrop:

Oh and the inflation does also not impact prices, prices impact inflation, so you can't say that imported goods can't become more expensive due to low inflation. The same can be true for locally produced goods since inflation is just an average, single items can have a lower or higher change in price.

Inflation in the UK's case over here is fueled by Brexit - and look at the Tesco price war with Unilever. Unilever is suffering because of the pound, leading to higher prices and lower profits. They want to offset those costs by raising prices -> inflation.

And this is just one example.

The effect will be delayed for a little while before the rest of the producers and retailers see how the government is dealing with the formal application of Brexit. Hence why some are resisting price increases for the moment.

[Husar]

Inflation in the UK's case over here is fueled by Brexit - and look at the Tesco price war with Unilever. Unilever is suffering because of the pound, leading to higher prices and lower profits. They want to offset those costs by raising prices -> inflation.

And this is just one example.

The effect will be delayed for a little while before the rest of the producers and retailers see how the government is dealing with the formal application of Brexit. Hence why some are resisting price increases for the moment.

Eh, yes, I know a bit about economics considering I'm studying something sort of economic.

I may have misunderstoof PVC since I thought he was saying that price hikes of 10-40% were not justified because inflation is only 1%. Now that I read it again he was probably saying they are not happening given that inflation is low. There are still a few possible explanations, such as the last calculation having been a while ago and so on, but it makes more sense now.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi

Apparently it is calculated monthly.

[Montmorency]

Depreciation and inflation are not exactly the same thing, basically.

[Kralizec]

Just curious, what makes May and the rest of the government think that there's a mandate to leave the single market?

Slightly less than half of the population voted for the status quo. A razor thin majority voted for leaving. I can believe that a majority of the Leave voters wants out of the single market in order to curb immigration, but since when is the Will of the People (tm) determined by a 'majority of the majority'?

[Fragony]

Just curious, what makes May and the rest of the government think that there's a mandate to leave the single market?

Slightly less than half of the population voted for the status quo. A razor thin majority voted for leaving. I can believe that a majority of the Leave voters wants out of the single market in order to curb immigration, but since when is the Will of the People (tm) determined by a 'majority of the majority'?

Oh common Europe is a continent, the EU an overhead.

[Kralizec]

I disagree, smoked mackerel is much tastier than salmon.

[Fragony]

I disagree, smoked mackerel is much tastier than salmon.

Depends, mackerel is used for bait mostly. But yeah it's tasty. Add moyonaise, a lot

[Sarmatian]

but since when is the Will of the People (tm) determined by a 'majority of the majority'?

Since always, pretty much.

One could argue that with such an important issue, there should have been a requirement of a minimum 60-70% of people coming out to vote for any result to be valid, but the general agreement is that those who don't have an opinion shouldn't hold back those that do have one.

If you think the issue is important, get out and vote.

[Kralizec]

That reminds me of the guy who started the petition requiring a second referendum, if the turnout was low or the result was close. He filed it before the referendum was actually held, in the expectation that Remain would win, since he himself was in favour of leaving.

As it turns out, Leave won and the petition was then signed in huge numbers by Remainers....and the guy who originally started the petition then scorned the Remainers for trying to overturn the result.

[Greyblades]

Oh yeah that was hillarious, especially when it ended up flooded by foriegn proxies with the vatican city signers outnumbering the cuty' population 2 to 1.

[Kralizec]

Hyperbole is nice, but sources are better. This article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-brexit-petition-second-fraud-investigation-latest-results-signatures-a7104416.html) says that there were some 77.000 fraudulent or suspicious signatures, of more than 3 million signatures at the time (it peaked at over 4 million). Less than 3 %.

Edit: the point was, of course, that the person who started the petition is a hypocritical POS.

[Greyblades]

The salt must flow.

22 Hypocrytical brexiteers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376)vs 4 million bremain sore losers/democracy underminers, probably not the best place to claim moral superiority over.

[Kralizec]

Excercising the legal right to petition your government does not undermine democracy. It's a cornerstone of democratic government. Your way of thinking is bizarre.

And the person who started the petition is still a POS.

[Greyblades]

As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result.

[Husar]

As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result.

Hardly a new idea:

“Obamacare. We’re going to repel it, we’re going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!” yelled Trump.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/09/14/trump-america-a-dumping-ground-for-the-rest-of-the-world/

[Brenus]

"As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result" That is called democracy. When you don't like something, you use debates and votes to change things.
It is not you have to agree with something, it is you have to accept the changes or rules until you can democratically change things.

[Montmorency]

Has Greyblades become so Americanized that he forgot the concept of the recall election?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has Greyblades become so Americanized that he forgot the concept of the recall election?

18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.

[Montmorency]

18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.

Mine doesn't. :tomato:

More seriously, they are rare and inconsequential compared to those in other countries (in part owing to decentralization, maybe). I'll give you that they have become more popular recently.

[Montmorency]

Actually, damn it. The recall might just become the next trendy device of defiance a la the filibuster.

If you really need to recall the puniest of city officials, then perhaps those positions should not be electable in the first place.

Definitely not in my state - no thanks.

[edyzmedieval]

From the outside, British politics looks quite the curious thing - you have an unelected leader of the cabinet (Mrs May, the PM), working with the cabinet on the results of a referendum that are not legally binding (the Brexit vote), to trigger an outside event (the exit from the EU) that is legally binding and will be horribly difficult to work out, which by all means will be economically, socially and politically damaging to the country.

:inquisitive:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From the outside, British politics looks quite the curious thing - you have an unelected leader of the cabinet (Mrs May, the PM), working with the cabinet on the results of a referendum that are not legally binding (the Brexit vote), to trigger an outside event (the exit from the EU) that is legally binding and will be horribly difficult to work out, which by all means will be economically, socially and politically damaging to the country.

:inquisitive:

It could end up being a positive -- longer term -- on all three levels you name, but I cannot see it NOT being damaging for at least the next few years.

[Brenus]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

[Pannonian]

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

One of the certainties is that, if we want to sell to EU countries, we have to abide by EU regulations. Same with any market, but the EU is 50% of our exports. As for refugee problems; none of them are EU-related.

[Brenus]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future":laugh4: That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.:yes:
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future":laugh4: That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.:yes:
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

[Montmorency]

Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

[Husar]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants :sweatdrop: ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

[Pannonian]

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

I do, but in central Florida (Oviedo).* My wife and daughter drink bottled or tap water that has been re-filtered. I myself just drink it and notice nothing untoward.


*Only an hour away from the WDW complex....hence the location in my forum identity blurb

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants :sweatdrop: ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this. (http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/10/pepsi-admits-aquafina-bottled-water-just-tap-water-coca-colas-dasani-next/)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

Ah...the old "have my cake and eat it too" approach taken by electorates world wide. I can understand your frustration.

[Pannonian]

Predictably the UK government has moved to protect the commercial and financial interests of London and the City, for that is what UK governments do. That will take up a large chunk of government spending and reduce the impact of Brexit on London. This means the political actioning of Brexit will have to involve deregulation elsewhere (since it won't be any kind of Brexit otherwise). Which will screw the regions over.

[Montmorency]

Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc.

Less power and more stakeholders, ultimately (or "constituents" if you prefer, though it's not quite the same). As a matter of most general functioning, bureaucracies drag along to avoid the potential of stepping on toes, violating rights, and so on. It's better for things to fall apart from inaction than to take a firm role but attract claimants, critics, competitors, and civil suits for whatever reason. This incentive even works when it inevitably leads to the same troubles it hopes to avert (i.e. negligence, e.g. Flint water crisis). Leaving aside long-term social or institutional impacts, the same process of individuals avoiding liabilities will naturally have a broader affect on the population with government agents than when it happens with private agents, except in cases like massive ecological disasters or proliferation of harmful substances.

The key difference you might name is that the government incentive is to avoid angering or alarming stakeholders, while in private industry there is clearer demand for concrete positive (for stakeholders) outcomes.

[Beskar]

Looks like some people have been watching CGP Grey...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

[Idaho]

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this. (http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/10/pepsi-admits-aquafina-bottled-water-just-tap-water-coca-colas-dasani-next/)

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

[Idaho]

Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.
You are getting confused between motivation and justification.
The motivation for cost cutting is greater profit. The justification is pricing pressure.

[Montmorency]

Nice, but one mistake he makes is to forget the connection in dictatorships between 'subkeys' and 'the common citizens who can be ignored', which also highlights that he doesn't discuss at all the vital interactions, both direct and indirect, between rulers and the 'keys of keys'. And in general, he makes a mistake by simply assuming that citizens of democracies or educated and citizens of dictatorships are starving and illiterate, rather than examining how these individual factors are related to the poles he describes, or even whether they are tangential. To be frank, saying this didn't even impact the argument as he made it so it would have been better to completely avoid introducing that weakness.

Another thing he misses is that revolutions, as opposed to "revolts", are typically external, rather than internal. Members of the power structure who survive in the former are typically practicing opportunism rather than planned obsolescence.

Another one is that he doesn't consider how geography, and more generally history, generate the factors under consideration, and whether for example a productive population today might produce an autocracy now because there are more contributors to citizen productivity than there were a few centuries ago. A ruleset constructed just for today can't be robust.

And then there's his rule zero, which directly contradicts some of his first words: "take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you".

But the biggest oversight is treating "treasure" as the central exchange, when ironically it is in fact concrete "power". Rulers trade power, not merely money or resources.

It feels like he's ripping on Charles Tilly, but not sufficiently.

----

Apparently that's a book he's summarizing. :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

The fantasy line is neither accurate nor polite. Why don't you tone down your commentary with me, please. To my recollection, I have never tossed any rudeness (even implicitly) your way even when disagreeing with you.

My USDA example does reflect the fact that much more complexity (and better science) went into farming, especially after the dust bowl caught everyone's attention. Yet the drop in the number of farms is not simply a product of individual farmers being more productive per person and per acre (they are) but of the growth of corporate agriculture. So a goodly portion of those services designed to cope with a more complex understanding of agriculture is being used to advance the corporations you seem to detest so thoroughly and it is not in service of "the little farmer."

Profit, and the market, DO have quite a lot of inefficiencies in practice. The "invisible hand" is as haphazard as any other human endeavor -- including government. Governments may not have to meet the earnings expectations of stockholders, but the other drags on their efficiency are every bit as problematic and -- to my experience -- more so. I would concur that most government control and regulation efforts are not intending to squeeze more from their customers, but too much of government (at least in the USA, I cannot claim to know yours equally well) is horribly inefficient and ends up costing the public as much or more for a given service than most private ventures.

On the other hand, some issues simply cannot be met effectively by the private sector (infrastructure issues for one; defense against aggression for another) and government is required to regulate the private sector at least to the level of minimizing fraud and keeping the air and water clean -- because some issues are too important and enough private sector folk are unethical so as to mandate the need for regulation.

I am neither unaware of, nor happy with, the weaknesses of a regulated but largely decentralized capitalist system. I am simply not trusting of government enough -- at least as it is currently constituted -- to see a small cadre of "experts" as the solution. That path also has too many pitfalls.

How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?

[Brenus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

[Fragony]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round-1-to-brexiteers-as-uk-economy-passes-early-test/

[Pannonian]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round-1-to-brexiteers-as-uk-economy-passes-early-test/

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

[Fragony]

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

Of course, the Dutch are merchants at heart. A lot dutchies want out as well and really like it that England is doing fine, makes a nexit closer. Fellow dutchie Krazilec or TA will probably really disagree with me, and in a much better argumented manner. But the results don't lie. Results are neglectable. Not without any pain as so far, saying that would be cruel, but it looks promising.

Can I still move to the UK if I was right all the time?

[Montmorency]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

I seem to recall something about a primitive form of stock market and banking developing in ancient Mesopotamia on the basis of futures and derivatives, until a particular monarch realized he could simply appropriate the wealth of the entire enterprise and it was no longer. So you're both right - the form is not persistent, but the impulse is.

[Husar]

Who would've thought that greed isn't exactly a new concept? :creep:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who would've thought that greed isn't exactly a new concept? :creep:

On that we agree.

[Pannonian]

Fall in pound post-Brexit means price of tea will go up (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37799701)

Nations have fought wars of independence for less.

[Fragony]

But what about straws, there are many hanging onto them. These aren't the colonal times. More expensive marmite and tea, oh noes. THIS MEANS, uhmmmm nothing really

[edyzmedieval]

Not yet, Frag. Not yet. We still haven't triggered Article 50 yet.

[Gilrandir]

Again pessimistic news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/pound-is-october-s-worst-performer-as-brexit-angst-haunts-market

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Economy grew by 05% last quarter, more than expected post-Brexit.

My thought on this is that they're trying to bleed volatility out of the market by dragging all this out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

No.

Not correct, not even a little bit.

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism.

That's why in English today when you get a loan the bank is lending you capital - because Thomas Aquinas determined that whilst loans were usury (a mortal sin) lending capital was not.

[Montmorency]

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.

[Montmorency]

Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.

If you say that, then this is the time to specify and clarify.

[edyzmedieval]

It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

I labeled it "markets/capitalism" precisely for a reason. I wanted it to be understood that I was referring to the divers forms of market exchange (capitalism, mercantilism, barter, etc.) that rely on negotiation (implicit or explicit) and the individual protecting their own value in the exchange. I was not trying to quibble over which form was in ascendance at which point in history. I was contrasting it with efforts at directed or controlled economies.

There are always points of time where some expert or cadre of experts believes that they can direct/control things better than the controlled chaos of the marketplace in order to promote the greater good. Such efforts have always fallen short, even if they enjoyed short term success, and we revert back to some form of markets/capitalist exchange.

[Brenus]

"Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism." So Greece, Rome and England are the world...
Joke apart, you should read a little bit more about Middle Ages (Guilds), and about the how titles were distributed. And of course, later, why the new bourgeoisie wanted titles as well...
And then, you can explain the 3 orders following St Augustin.
Capitalism: Wealth creating more wealth, according the definition from the "genius of Humanity" aka Google. or "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets." from the same.
Private property in Medieval Ages: Not really. The 100 years war started because a king confiscated the land of his vassal. In the Tsarist Russia, the Emperor (Autocrat) owned all the lands and lands were redistributed in the Mir System/Obshchina until the Revolution. Even in UK today, (but I might be mistaken) the land still belongs to the Queen who rents it to you for building your house or cultivate it (The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other owners hold an estate in land).
A NO is not enough, you have to give your definition of it. Market did exist before capitalism, whatever your exchange system was, cocoa (Inca), rice (Japan), sea-shells (Kingdom of Kongo). And we can debate if the Empire of China was capitalist: the government was bureaucratic and absolutist, order and subordination, so was India and the Caste system.
And as a probable player of Shogun, you are aware of what was the economical system, warriors (and honor) at the top, and merchants at the very low level. Far from Capitalism indeed.
I think you mix-up market economy and capitalism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.

That's partially true,but it's also true that the feared sudden flight of investment failed to materialise.

what's more, it illustrates the upside to a devalued currency, especially when that currency is as overvalued as the Pound was

[Papewaio]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

[Sarmatian]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

If they move out of London, Frankfurt is a safer bet.

[Gilrandir]

The 100 years war started because a king confiscated the land of his vassal.


You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I.



In the Tsarist Russia, the Emperor (Autocrat) owned all the lands and lands were redistributed in the Mir System/Obshchina until the Revolution.


Your statement is not accurate.
1. It totally omits landowners (pomeshchiki) who owned most of arable land.
2. The Mir system is about distributing lands OWNED ONLY BY PEASANTS whose lands were significantly smaller (than the pomeshchikis' ones) and of worse quality.
3. The Mir system started to deteriorate by 1905 and was demolished not in 1917 but by Stolypin's reforms prior to WWI.
4. I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire. It was not true of medieval countries (and Russia was one until at least 1861, and perhaps even until 1917) where the monarch was just one of the landowners.

[rory_20_uk]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

In the Pharmaceutical industry, a articular role has to be in Europe. Yet many have their HQ in Switzerland. They just have this role in a different office.

So, regarding the HQ, they could easily just designate a different branch the EU HQ and that's that. It is what trade has to be physically undertaken in the EU HQ and not routed there from somewhere else that will be interesting - VPN from London.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

"You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I."
It might surprise you, but the best books about 100 years war are French.
But to answer your smart remark, I was showing a cause relevant to the debate... Can't really see the importance of the death all the heirs of the French King as relevant...
For English, I recommend:
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hywchron.htm#preliminary summary
Or for TV show, if you prefer:
https://youtu.be/mQbdN-JCMbk
The 1973 version was much better with the superb interpretation of Robert d'Artois by Jean Piat.

"I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire." Well, I think he was. He could take back any title and any lands attached to the title.

"Your statement is not accurate." Don't care. The purpose was to prove that it was not capitalism. Partially accurate is enough for the purpose.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mir-Russian-community
Apparently, Encyclopedia Britanica disagree with you...

[Gilrandir]

"You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I."
It might surprise you, but the best books about 100 years war are French.


It is a judgement-based claim of a person who is as much competent in the War in question as in the differences between a language and a dialect.



But to answer your smart remark, I was showing a cause relevant to the debate... Can't really see the importance of the death all the heirs of the French King as relevant...


Neither this nor "confiscation of the land by the king" is a cause. A marxist like you claim you are should know the difference between a cause and a pretext (aka casus belli). Otherwise you would say that the cause of WWI was the Sarajevo assassination.



"I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire." Well, I think he was. He could take back any title and any lands attached to the title.


:laugh4: In this case the judge is the owner of EVERYTHING since he can take anything from a person by the court's decision. The ability to decide doesn't make anyone the owner (unless he proclaims the estates his property after the decision).



https://www.britannica.com/topic/mir-Russian-community
Apparently, Encyclopedia Britanica disagree with you...

I didn't see anything in Britannica that is contrary to what I said. Unless it is the conclusion on how viable the Mir was. And I based my judgement (besides the previous knowlege) on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina
in which:
The institution was effectively destroyed by the Stolypin agrarian reforms (1906–1914), the Russian Revolution and subsequent collectivization of the USSR.



"Your statement is not accurate." Don't care. The purpose was to prove that it was not capitalism. Partially accurate is enough for the purpose.

I'm glad you admit it. Yet if I said something like "partially accurate" about my claims, I would earn a ton of contempt (and a hundredweight of insults) from you, now wouldn't I?

[Sarmatian]

Brexit will require a parliament vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world/europe/uk-brexit-vote-parliament.html?_r=0)\

A blow for the PM who insisted that government doesn't need parliament's consent.

Since the majority of MPs are against Brexit, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brexit will require a parliament vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world/europe/uk-brexit-vote-parliament.html?_r=0)\

A blow for the PM who insisted that government doesn't need parliament's consent.

Since the majority of MPs are against Brexit, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Take a brave MP to vote for party preference against the will of their borough on this one. Though, some of the Boroughs may well have shifted a bit since the vote...

[Beskar]

Looks like the Pound grew stronger too with this outcome. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-legal-challenge-pound-sterling-value-rise-latest-dollar-euro-currency-exchange-high-court-a7394951.html)

[Pannonian]

Take a brave MP to vote for party preference against the will of their borough on this one. Though, some of the Boroughs may well have shifted a bit since the vote...

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

You've hit on the London-centric theme a couple of times now, and I see how you believe it would play out here to further the "goal" of brexit (at least after the fashion of "paying off" the London Boroughs to accept it whilst the less populated but geographically broader hinterlands receive less). And your argument seems to make sense to me on a political level -- it very much ties in with my assessment of the limitations of democratic-republican government.

As I recall, however, NI and Alba were nearly as solid in support of the "NO" vote as was greater London. Yet if it plays out as you suggest, would that not end up encouraging/reinvigorating the independency movements in Ulster and Scotland? After all, they would not get the "payoff" London would receive under your formula.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

Excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a bit at this-but I have been drinking.

If the MP's try to stop Brexit they just make Brexit, a nastier Brexit, more likely a decade from now. We're only having Brexit now because the Lisbon Treaty was forced on us, to double down on the same stupidity is to further erode trust in British politics.

Of course, there will be some Eurocrats relieved by this - the more ineffectual the British are as a "political body" the harder it is for them to stand in the way of EU integration.

It's important to understand that, up to now, the pound has been over-valued vs the UK economy (which is why we cannot export) and London is laundering everyone else's money. Brexit would have hurt London in the long term and benefited the UK's manufacturing sector (by re-aligning our currency with the actual strength of our economy). It says a lot that it was Hedge Fund managers with no actual vested interest in the UK who brought this case.

The ruling is also nonsense - Parliament will demand to know the negotiating terms before agreeing to triggering article 50, but the EU won't even discuss negotiation until the article is triggered.

So, now we have a REAL Constitutional crisis instead of an imagined one looming. Great fucking job, guys.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a bit at this.....

We call that "baby barfing" on this side of the pond. Thought you'd enjoy the alliteration.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We call that "baby barfing" on this side of the pond. Thought you'd enjoy the alliteration.

Yes, very Anglo-Saxon.

fun fact: I fitted my new RX480 whilst tipsy - seems fine so far.

[Montmorency]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.

[Pannonian]

You've hit on the London-centric theme a couple of times now, and I see how you believe it would play out here to further the "goal" of brexit (at least after the fashion of "paying off" the London Boroughs to accept it whilst the less populated but geographically broader hinterlands receive less). And your argument seems to make sense to me on a political level -- it very much ties in with my assessment of the limitations of democratic-republican government.

As I recall, however, NI and Alba were nearly as solid in support of the "NO" vote as was greater London. Yet if it plays out as you suggest, would that not end up encouraging/reinvigorating the independency movements in Ulster and Scotland? After all, they would not get the "payoff" London would receive under your formula.

That kind of London-centric policy-making isn't paying off London for giving them what they didn't want. It's just what UK governments do, probably exacerbated by the government and Parliament being based in London. The EU forced at least some degree of decentralisation in funding by redistributing EU dues to the regions in order to promote regional identities (a game which Italy are particularly adept at). Once the UK government doesn't have to do this any more, it will revert to its own tendency, which is to be London-centric. The first big spending commitment since the referendum has been made, to expand Heathrow. It will benefit London's economy (at the cost of upsetting some nimbies), with some trickle down effects for other areas, but it will cost a hell of a lot, which will mean commitments to other areas won't be met. There will probably also be some upgrading on rail links around London, again benefiting London's economy with some trickle down effects for others, but again costing a hell of a lot and meaning commitments to other areas won't be met. That's what UK governments do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

The Crisis will be triggered when the government says it wants to take a diplomatic action and parliament is able to prevent it. Hopefully this will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. The problem is built into the exit procedure though - because the UK can't negotiate before it triggers article 50 (which means the UK is leaving the EU, no take-backs) it is unclear what will happen, say, to the rights of UK Citizens to work and travel around the EU.

In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.


I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.

We don't, and mostly that's a good thing - until you get something like this. One might argue this is our flexible unwritten constitution coming up against the codified EU Constitution.


That kind of London-centric policy-making isn't paying off London for giving them what they didn't want. It's just what UK governments do, probably exacerbated by the government and Parliament being based in London. The EU forced at least some degree of decentralisation in funding by redistributing EU dues to the regions in order to promote regional identities (a game which Italy are particularly adept at). Once the UK government doesn't have to do this any more, it will revert to its own tendency, which is to be London-centric. The first big spending commitment since the referendum has been made, to expand Heathrow. It will benefit London's economy (at the cost of upsetting some nimbies), with some trickle down effects for other areas, but it will cost a hell of a lot, which will mean commitments to other areas won't be met. There will probably also be some upgrading on rail links around London, again benefiting London's economy with some trickle down effects for others, but again costing a hell of a lot and meaning commitments to other areas won't be met. That's what UK governments do.

You mean the decision that has been put off for a decade?

The refusal of multiple UK governments to put the South East's Transport links in order have held up sensible development for decades.

As to UK governments only benefiting London,it's not some sort of blind bias. London launders Europe's money, and thereby generates money for the exchequer. The UK's other regions either produce food, raw resources or finished goods. The unnaturally high value of the pound makes these other endeavours unprofitable, and the UK government has been trying to lower the value of the pound on and off since before they found oil in the North Sea. A few days ago, before the rise in the Pound analysts were saying that the expansion in manufacturing meant that the sector might actually make a positive contribution to GDP. That's not going to happen now.

Consider - for example - tin and copper mining, Cornwall's economy requires mining for the county to be in growth, Cornwall's farmland is too poor for mass production of crops or livestock and it's too remote with too little flat land for large scale production of finished goods, except possible ships. The fall in the price of tin and the high cost of labour in the UK meant mining wasn't practical. With the fall in the Pound it was conceivable that once things stabilised mining might become profitable again, meaning thousands of new jobs in Cornwall.

Not to mention that, in general, if £1=€1 then the cost of producing and exporting finished goods in the UK is roughly the same as it is in Germany because the Euro keeps German labour costs and export prices artificially low vs the UK.

Membership of the EU has become a systemic problem for the UK economy, leaving is one way to fix the problem - and nobody seems to have a better idea.

[Montmorency]

In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.

To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question, certainly not at this point in your country's history. If it indeed is, then that needs to be checked one way or another by the courts.

[Kralizec]

IMO the argument that PVC made, about EU inflexibility vs. flexibility isn't very convincing, because of...


To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question

...this. The way the exit procedure is setup, and the fact that European politicians won't discuss details until the exit procedure is triggered, has a very good reason. Leaving the EU is not a decision to be taken lightly, or something that you'd want member states to wave around as a bargaining tactic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question, certainly not at this point in your country's history. If it indeed is, then that needs to be checked one way or another by the courts.

It's not a problem with the UK Constitution, it's the withdrawal mechanism. It's designed not to work (surprise) because you basically leave, and then negotiate your exit.

[Montmorency]

Where is the problem, in legal terms, of the UK government following that process?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where is the problem, in legal terms, of the UK government following that process?

Well, there's the rub.

In order for us to leave we have to repeal an Act of Parliament, which will require a vote. However, once we trigger Article 50 we ARE leaving, so the argument being put forward is that, because the Referendum was not explicitly mandatory (vs advisory) Parliament will have to pass an Act SAYING we're leaving, because the process is designed to be irreversible, once it starts it won't stop - we would have to re-apply for membership.

Normally when negotiating something the Government would begin negotiations and then present the deal to Parliament for approval at the end. What certain people are now trying to do is force a vote before negotiations begin. That means the Government will have to put forward its negotiating strategy in detail (the EU doesn't) and it also means that Parliament might try to proscribe the Government's ability to negotiate.

This would, of course, be easier if the EU would agree to negotiations before triggering Article 50 - so far they have refused.

Basically, Tony Blair signed the Lisbon Treaty and now we're screwed.

Edit:

Sorry, I'm not sure that explicitly answers your question.

The point under argument is that because Article 50 is irreversible it inevitably means stripping UK Citizens of certain rights (Rights they have from the EU to work and travel etc) and, so the argument goes, we therefore Require an Act because the Government cannot remove rights of any kind without Parliament's consent.

So, it's not leaving the EU that will strip us of our Rights, it's saying we intend to negotiate to leave.

Kinda sums up why I want to leave - if the EU was a boyfriend it would be the emotionally abusive kind.

[Montmorency]

and it also means that Parliament might try to proscribe the Government's ability to negotiate.

Well sure, it can do so or it can explicitly grant full discretion to negotiate however necessary subject to ongoing review - as is typically done in various other countries.

We've already heard about whether or not this is "fair" to applicants for exit. But prompted by your earlier post here, where does a constitutional problem come into play at any point?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well sure, it can do so or it can explicitly grant full discretion to negotiate however necessary subject to ongoing review - as is typically done in various other countries.

We've already heard about whether or not this is "fair" to applicants for exit. But prompted by your earlier post here, where does a constitutional problem come into play at any point?

The problem arises because the Government would usually use the Royal Prerogative for this.

So what's at stake is the balance of power between Monarch and Parliament.

If the Prerogative doesn't work for this, what else doesn't it work for?

Edit: There's also the basic principle that, explicit or not, the referendum was intended to settle the question - now Parliament might settle the question.

So you actually have two things at stake - executive power and the value of the popular vote.

[Montmorency]

The problem arises because the Government would usually use the Royal Prerogative for this.

So what's at stake is the balance of power between Monarch and Parliament.

If the Prerogative doesn't work for this, what else doesn't it work for?

How? What circumstances are you thinking of, if we have already covered those in which the Parliament explicitly invokes the article and the government proceeds with negotiation, the Parliament rules out the referendum result and maintains the status quo, or the Parliament rules out the referendum with the caveat that the government is directed to otherwise seek modifications or accommodations to EU membership standards (as the UK has always done)?

What specifically could happen or come into legal conflict in these or unmentioned circumstances? Clandestine diplomacy at the highest levels? That would be a more run-of-the-mill political crisis.


Edit: There's also the basic principle that, explicit or not, the referendum was intended to settle the question - now Parliament might settle the question.

So you actually have two things at stake - executive power and the value of the popular vote.

Are you sure you haven't gotten confused and weren't just thinking of this the whole time?

[Husar]

fun fact: I fitted my new RX480 whilst tipsy - seems fine so far.

Since we don't seem to agree on a lot otherwise, maybe we can be RX 480 buddies? Also, welcome to the club!

[Gilrandir]

We're only having Brexit now because the Lisbon Treaty was forced on us,


You are having Brexit because some politicians spouted too many fairy visions of the Promised EUless land.



So, now we have a REAL Constitutional crisis instead of an imagined one looming. Great fucking job, guys.


I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.

You don't have to have a constitution to enjoy constitutional crisis.

[Husar]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/enemies-of-the-people-british-newspapers-react-judges-brexit-ruling?CMP=share_btn_tw


On Thursday morning, the high court ruled that parliament – and not the prime minister by use of prerogative powers – would need to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s exit from the European Union.

On Thursday evening, a portion of the British media exercised its own prerogative: to attack the judges behind the ruling.

Apart from the obvious issue of not respecting the highest court (disagreement obviously happens here as well, but never as strongly as in this case AFAIK), I would also like to ask why the judges look like sad christmas presents wearing carpets from the 70s on their heads?

I get that judges are meant to look ridiculous in every country, but those wigs really take the cake. :sweatdrop:
And no, that does not mean one shouldn't respect the ruling, it is merely about maybe updating the looks just a tad little bit once in a thousand years. I mean they probably also, hopefully, don't talk anymore like they did in the 1070s.

[Sarmatian]

To paraphrase dear old Furunculus, there's no connection between demos and kratos in the UK.

The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them. Maybe Brits should get the EU to help them cut through all that red tape and regulations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To paraphrase dear old Furunculus, there's no connection between demos and kratos in the UK.

The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them. Maybe Brits should get the EU to help them cut through all that red tape and regulations.

City mice/country mice. The city mice "know better" and think the country mice voted Yes for silly reasons.

[edyzmedieval]

You don't have a constitutional crisis - the UK doesn't have a constitution. At most you have a discussion about the rule of law, and let's not forget the referendum was advisory and in no way legally binding.

And the High Court judges simply respected the rule of law.

[Pannonian]

City mice/country mice. The city mice "know better" and think the country mice voted Yes for silly reasons.

The city mice know the country mice voted for stupid reasons. They know this because, immediately after the result, the country mice asked the government to guarantee what the EU had previously given them. When the tendency over the past few decades indicates that the government has little inclination to give them that, and in some cases (eg. Liverpool), deliberately starve the region into irrelevance in favour of the city mice. Given the option of spending 5bn on London or spending numerous packets of 100m in outlying regions, Westminster can be relied on to give London 4.8bn while the regions have to make do with 10m each. Londoners know this, despite the regioners desperately asking Westminster for assurances that they won't miss out on the 100m that the EU had previously given them. The city mice have little sympathy for the almighty shafting that the country mice are going to get in coming years.

[Brenus]

"The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them" Nope. The decision of the Parliament ruling over the Monarchy, as May evoked the "Royal Prerogative" was dealt with by the Civil War (1642 to 1646).

[Montmorency]

Let's be clear: the UK does have a Constitution, it is simply distributed, not contained in or confined to a single document. None of the legal reasoning surrounding the actions of government or Parliament in this particular case, however, involve anything more than the most straightforward questions; there is no crisis.

While I believe that in the case of the US federal government, there would be more scope than in the UK to proceed with negotiations and afterward present the results to Congress, as a general rule for states where there is specific legislation affected or nullified by larger executive efforts, then it is inevitably and only the legislature that can authorize executive action by removing or modifying that legislation. This is even the case in most dictatorships that I know of, with the legislative process being no more than a pretense but existing nonetheless.

To simplify what I've been speaking of, partly using as reference American negotiations on the nuclear agreement with Iran:

1. Legislature passes resolution of approval for terms of engagement.
2. Officials of government discuss with foreign parties or under auspices of foreign/multinational body.
3. Officials of government present terms for finalization.
4a. Inconclusive, return to Step 2.
4b. Legislature passes resolution of disapproval, possibly cancelling the enterprise in its current form.
4c. Legislature passes resolution of approval, finalizing terms.

If Step 4c is taken, then if course there must be further legislative changes to fit whatever the results of Step 2 were fit into the existing legal structure.

In the specific case of the United States, partly due to the nature of the federal executive and the highly multinational nature of the topic, Congress has passed some legislation pertaining to things like waivers for sanctions in the case of following the roadmap, which was agreed to by Iran and the body involved, but Congress AFAIK never passed either approval or disapproval of the final agreement as it stands.

[Kralizec]

You don't have a constitutional crisis - the UK doesn't have a constitution. At most you have a discussion about the rule of law, and let's not forget the referendum was advisory and in no way legally binding.

And the High Court judges simply respected the rule of law.

Well, strictly speaking 'constitution' just means 'foundation'. As in, the fundamental principles that underpin the state and its laws. In most countries the word is translated and understood as meaning a document containing these principles (i.e. Grundgesetz/Grondwet, meaning 'basic (written) law')
That would have been perfectly fine except, well, we have the UK.

Even in countries that have written constitutions there are principles or conventions that are not literally included in the written document, but which are considered important enough that violating them would cause outrage and political upheaval. I don't think the Brexit court case qualifies though. I'm not even sure I understand PVC's point.

From the angle of the EU, article 50 is drafted under the assumption that countries which start the exit procedure had better be serious about wanting to leave. And from the UK angle, such a commitment would have to be approved by parliament first.
It certainly sucks for the UK parliament that they "have" to agree to an exit procedure without knowing beforehand what the final terms will be, or without being able to dismiss the final terms if it turns out they're not beneficial....but I don't see how any of that amounts to a constitutional crisis. Or why it reflects badly on the EU, which seems to be PVC's implied point.

[edyzmedieval]

By any stretch, the UK has a constitution - except it really doesn't. We view the UK constitution as a constitution because it acts like one, definitely, but it is a compendium of legal documents, statutes, common laws... It's not a constitution per-se, but it does act like one.

And within this legal framework of the United Kingdom, you have the Parliament that acts as the sovereign power of the people. It's a matter of rule of law here. The High Court of Judges simply outlined that the UK constitution/legal documents have enforced for hundreds of years. Parliament is the boss and you have to respect the will of the Parliament. And that's not a constitutional crisis because it simply respected the rule of law, as it had been outlined for hundreds of years and that's how the British system has worked from the days of King John Lackland who was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

This is democracy. Just as the referendum was.


:rulez:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How? What circumstances are you thinking of, if we have already covered those in which the Parliament explicitly invokes the article and the government proceeds with negotiation, the Parliament rules out the referendum result and maintains the status quo, or the Parliament rules out the referendum with the caveat that the government is directed to otherwise seek modifications or accommodations to EU membership standards (as the UK has always done)?

What specifically could happen or come into legal conflict in these or unmentioned circumstances? Clandestine diplomacy at the highest levels? That would be a more run-of-the-mill political crisis.

Are you sure you haven't gotten confused and weren't just thinking of this the whole time?

Well, I told you I wasn't sober.

Really though, I think it's two issues. You have Parliament backing a Referendum and then possibly disregarding it. Then you also have Parliament trying to curtail the government's Royal Prerogative using the Referendum as a stalking horse.

Of course, Parliament may just rubber stamp the Referendum - we don't know. However, at the time the Referendum was held it was generally understood that it would decide the issue. In a country where Common Law still governs that's actually very important. The Referendum Bill apparently didn't specify if it was Mandatory or Advisory. The Government position is that it was understood to be mandatory and therefore is. The Judges to the opposite view.


Since we don't seem to agree on a lot otherwise, maybe we can be RX 480 buddies? Also, welcome to the club!

We can be buddies, just don't expect me to vote with you. Also, thanks. I'm liking it so far.


You are having Brexit because some politicians spouted too many fairy visions of the Promised EUless land.

You don't have to have a constitution to enjoy constitutional crisis.

No, we're having Brexit because, with regards to the EU, Parliament has repeatedly acted Contrary to the Will of the People. This has created a Democratic Deficit, as Sarmation says, and because we are a democracy it made a referendum on membership inevitable. The British don't really want what the EU is selling, except for trade. We want trade


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/enemies-of-the-people-british-newspapers-react-judges-brexit-ruling?CMP=share_btn_tw

Apart from the obvious issue of not respecting the highest court (disagreement obviously happens here as well, but never as strongly as in this case AFAIK), I would also like to ask why the judges look like sad christmas presents wearing carpets from the 70s on their heads?

I get that judges are meant to look ridiculous in every country, but those wigs really take the cake. :sweatdrop:
And no, that does not mean one shouldn't respect the ruling, it is merely about maybe updating the looks just a tad little bit once in a thousand years. I mean they probably also, hopefully, don't talk anymore like they did in the 1070s.

To be fair, the current costume is only about 2-300 years old, and those are bad wigs. It's perfectly possible to have a good wig and not look like an idiot. However, now that woman can be judges (and powdered wigs never look good on women) it seems all male judges must now have poorly fitting wigs.

To address your main point, this will now go to the Supreme Court (that was always going to happen, I see no reason why the government should no appeal - the hedge fund managers would have). I personally think the judges are wrong, and it's clearly a matter of opinion, their opinion being that the Government cannot proceed because the Referendum was not mandatory.

If Parliament DOES try to stop us leaving in the end it will poison politics in this country for decades. It will also destroy the Labour Party, as they will never be able to call themselves "party of the people" afterwards.


The city mice know the country mice voted for stupid reasons. They know this because, immediately after the result, the country mice asked the government to guarantee what the EU had previously given them. When the tendency over the past few decades indicates that the government has little inclination to give them that, and in some cases (eg. Liverpool), deliberately starve the region into irrelevance in favour of the city mice. Given the option of spending 5bn on London or spending numerous packets of 100m in outlying regions, Westminster can be relied on to give London 4.8bn while the regions have to make do with 10m each. Londoners know this, despite the regioners desperately asking Westminster for assurances that they won't miss out on the 100m that the EU had previously given them. The city mice have little sympathy for the almighty shafting that the country mice are going to get in coming years.

The City Mice think they know better, they also think they know why the country mice voted the way they did.

What they don't think about is what politics will be like after we leave the EU - there will be no more cover for Westminster, so when someone dumps two tons of manure outside the entrance to Downing Street and demands to know why British farmers are being driven into the ground the Government won't be able to blame the CAP.

The people trying to overturn the result keep going on about "our democracy" but they refuse either to address the fact that Europe has been used as anti-democratic cover for successive UK government for decades (whether true or not) or the fact that outside London life is pretty bad for a lot of people. EU subsidies pump in money, they don't give people jobs or a livelihood they can be proud of.

Again Cornwall - tin. Go ask a Cornishman and a lot of them would rather be down a mine breathing in toxic fumes that handing our leaflets to German tourists about all the old, sad, closed mines. That's not a dig at the Germans btw, they just seem to be over represented in Cornwall in the summer.

[Pannonian]

The City Mice think they know better, they also think they know why the country mice voted the way they did.

What they don't think about is what politics will be like after we leave the EU - there will be no more cover for Westminster, so when someone dumps two tons of manure outside the entrance to Downing Street and demands to know why British farmers are being driven into the ground the Government won't be able to blame the CAP.

The people trying to overturn the result keep going on about "our democracy" but they refuse either to address the fact that Europe has been used as anti-democratic cover for successive UK government for decades (whether true or not) or the fact that outside London life is pretty bad for a lot of people. EU subsidies pump in money, they don't give people jobs or a livelihood they can be proud of.

Again Cornwall - tin. Go ask a Cornishman and a lot of them would rather be down a mine breathing in toxic fumes that handing our leaflets to German tourists about all the old, sad, closed mines. That's not a dig at the Germans btw, they just seem to be over represented in Cornwall in the summer.

If the country mice are so confident about life outside the EU, then they should accept whatever the UK government hands out to them rather than ask for assurances, including any loss of investment as the price to be paid for reasserting national sovereignty. As with the cited example of Liverpool, back in the days before the EU took an interest in promoting regional identities, the UK government were free to carry out a policy of starving regions that were deemed to be politically undesirable or irrelevant. That kind of policymaking was, of course, what estranged Scotland from England, with the Scots deemed to be a suitable test bed for policies that the UK government wanted to try out on a limited scope before introducing them to England. With the Europeans out of the equation, the UK government is free to resume this strategy, free from any worry that the EU may make up for what they deliberately set out to deprive the regions of.

[Montmorency]

Yes, there are many American rural folk who demand in various ways that the government leave them to suffer in peace, while demanding intervention elsewhere. Fundamental democratic deficits are driven by the latent characteristics of a society, not the availability of scapegoats (which are inherently always available).

[Furunculus]

To paraphrase dear old Furunculus, there's no connection between demos and kratos in the UK.

The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them. Maybe Brits should get the EU to help them cut through all that red tape and regulations.

this voter is quite content with the court ruling, people are getting a taste of what the sovereignty of parliament means in practice, and they will grow to like it. we are refounding the link between the demos and the kratos, and this leaver is smiling.

[Furunculus]

No, we're having Brexit because, with regards to the EU, Parliament has repeatedly acted Contrary to the Will of the People. This has created a Democratic Deficit, as Sarmation says, and because we are a democracy it made a referendum on membership inevitable.

I always take the view that what matters is legitimacy, and this derives from a combination of [both] representation [and] accountability.

Representative democracy is two words, and people get awfully hung up on the second without pausing to consider the first.

It doesn't matter if you get to vote if you have no confidence that the outcome will be acceptable to your wishes, and the only reason we consent that others may act in our name is because we do believe they will represent us.

When governance ceases to be deemed legitimate it becomes tyranny, and we turn up in front of parliament with pitchforks and burning brands. it's the way we roll.

[Brenus]

"I personally think the judges are wrong" Nope.
It is a point of law: "The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,"
A V DICEY, in
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm
Chapter: The Sovereignty of Parliament

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"I personally think the judges are wrong" Nope.
It is a point of law: "The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,"
A V DICEY, in
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm
Chapter: The Sovereignty of Parliament

So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum which was understood to have the purpose of settling the Question of EU Membership and then Judges set aside the result and say that, in fact, another law is needed... is this not a problem?

The Argument is legal positivism vs legal negativism. I.e. if it was understood that the government would follow the Referendum result when Parliament passed the Act is that sufficient, or does the requirement have to be written into the Act?

Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?

[Montmorency]

Not really. If it is understood to be binding, then that should be explicit in the first place. You said it was not specified either way when the referendum was granted.

Will of the people is irrelevant in the first place, and in the second place as well since the referendum was on "Leave or Remain", not any specific procedural sequence. How the state goes about it has no bearing on the will of the people via the referendum, nor vice versa.

[Gilrandir]

No, we're having Brexit because, with regards to the EU, Parliament has repeatedly acted Contrary to the Will of the People. This has created a Democratic Deficit, as Sarmation says, and because we are a democracy it made a referendum on membership inevitable.


You give the reason why you had a REFERENDUM. I gave the reason why it (the referendum) turned out the way it did (i.e. with Brexit).

[Furunculus]

Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?

Yes, of course they can. At their peril!

We have just had Nov5th if you'll recall, a warning for a parliament that fails to represent as much as a celebration of the survival of our parliament from existential threat.


The Argument is legal positivism vs legal negativism. I.e. if it was understood that the government would follow the Referendum result when Parliament passed the Act is that sufficient, or does the requirement have to be written into the Act?

Interesting, expand on that if you would please?

A Sarmation - I always admire a chap who quotes A.V. Dicey. ;)
He was incidently, grudgingly accepting of referenda as a valid mechanism to decide matters of deep constitutional importance that cut across party lines - in a way that no party is likely to oppose the other allowing normal parliamentary democracy to decide the issue.

[Brenus]

"Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?" To oppose the Parliament (foundation of the democratically elected representation of the people) is a path you don't want to take: it is the open way to Dictatorships where the secret will of the people (that suddenly only few know) is opposed to the openly democratically elected representation.
The UK is a parliamentary Monarchy. You elect representatives who themselves choose the Prime Minister.
In France, our Constitution makes a referendum executive and law. Which didn't stop Zarkolland to ignore the result of the last one against the Euro-Constitution...

Cameron didn't expect to lose the referendum, and the Brexiters didn't expect to win, None of them thought about how to deal with it really.
Fault is on Cameron and his party when they pledged to have a referendum on the question and ignoring how to do it, in following the law and the English Constitution.

"So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum " Did it? Referendum in UK are not binding... I don't think you need to pass a law to organise a general consultation... But, I might be wrong on this one...

Me think the only way out is general election with clear indication from MPs what they will vote. And if Media are to be believed, May should win easily as all agree Corbyn can't win elections.
We should see how Boris will come with his bus and the hundred of Pounds saved for the NHS...
And this time, I will be allowed to vote!!!!!

[Beskar]

Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.

[Furunculus]

Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.

i rather think not.

how many of the 48% voted to remain out of love for the EU, and how many of the rest simply to avoid what project fear promised?

but there won't be one. there might be a general election, and i'll lay a crisp .org tenner on may returning with a majority at least five times the size of current.

stick that in your mandate and smoke it, as corbynites might say.

[Pannonian]

i rather think not.

how many of the 48% voted to remain out of love for the EU, and how many of the rest simply to avoid what project fear promised?

but there won't be one. there might be a general election, and i'll lay a crisp .org tenner on may returning with a majority at least five times the size of current.

stick that in your mandate and smoke it, as corbynites might say.

The tragedy of Europhiles who argued against Corbyn. May has a free run to do whatever she likes, as Corbyn has no interest in parliamentary democracy, or any kind of democracy outside the Labour party and his affiliates. His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success.

[Brenus]

"His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success." Still, May doesn't do it... Why?
You could think she had a boulevard in front of her let's have elections and Labour in in History for a long long time... So why doesn't she do it? :yes:
The tragedy of the Europhiles who argued (plotted) is they still refused the result of the Labour elections. They want to change the people. Bad Labour voters who didn't vote for what they were told by Tories and Media...

[edyzmedieval]

For the most part, there won't be another vote for the European Union referendum. That's pretty much clear.

However, a clear path to Brexit is not there because MPs will still oppose it, and a significant portion of Remainers will still fight against Brexit.

Plus - economic problems.

[Pannonian]

"His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success." Still, May doesn't do it... Why?
You could think she had a boulevard in front of her let's have elections and Labour in in History for a long long time... So why doesn't she do it? :yes:
The tragedy of the Europhiles who argued (plotted) is they still refused the result of the Labour elections. They want to change the people. Bad Labour voters who didn't vote for what they were told by Tories and Media...

By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't? I'm not going to go via other avenues to oppose him, but neither am I obliged to support him. In a democracy, I'm free to continue to think how I wish, even as I accept the electoral result and the right of the electorate to get what they voted for. In the case of Labour, it is the right of the Labour members to see their party get driven into irrelevance by the British electorate. Just as it's the right of the British electorate to see their country decline as a result of the Euro referendum. They voted, and they have to accept the result of their vote. And I'm not obliged to think that either was a good decision.

[Pannonian]

For the most part, there won't be another vote for the European Union referendum. That's pretty much clear.

However, a clear path to Brexit is not there because MPs will still oppose it, and a significant portion of Remainers will still fight against Brexit.

Plus - economic problems.

What would have been a constitutional issue is if a party with a platform of remaining in the EU, or at least a clear platform on what kind of Brexit to pursue, wins a general election. Does the referendum, which according to Brexit campaigners does not commit them to any concrete promises, hold sway, or does a manifesto with concrete promises hold sway?

It doesn't matter anyway, as Corbynite Labour have no intention of appealing to the British electorate, with the result that May's Tories will win any general election on any manifesto they care to print.

Incidentally, Corbyn was recently asked by an ITV journalist for his view if May were to call a general election. Corbyn's response was to accuse the journalist of harassment. If he's not prepared to answer a simple question about parliamentary politics, what is he doing as Labour leader? Is he planning to turn the Labour party into something that exists outside parliamentary democracy?

[Brenus]

"By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't?" :laugh4: No. Democracy is not the concensus, but the confrontation of idea by peaceful means... It is a social contract, a regulation. In democracies, we decide that 50.01 as the power of decision even if 49.99 are against. Does not mean the 49.99 have to agree, that means they have to accept the decision until they can change it by vote.

"what is he doing as Labour leader? " He was elected. What is the part you don't understand?

She didn't asked his view: She asked: “Would you be happy if Theresa May called a general election?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-itv-news-harassment-general-election-article-50-a7400621.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37989728

Essentially, the vast majority of Britons want to remain part of the Single Market and a very strong majority want curbs on EU migration. If you read all the way through it looks like the result of the Referendum just came down to which one of those people thought was more important.

[Pannonian]

This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37989728

Essentially, the vast majority of Britons want to remain part of the Single Market and a very strong majority want curbs on EU migration. If you read all the way through it looks like the result of the Referendum just came down to which one of those people thought was more important.

Which makes you wonder about Labour's position, which is pro-Brexit but also pro-freedom of movement. It's as though Corbyn and McDonnell sift through the options, but instead of dreaming of being allowed all the good bits, they somehow cherry pick all the bits that are unpopular.

[rory_20_uk]

This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37989728

Essentially, the vast majority of Britons want to remain part of the Single Market and a very strong majority want curbs on EU migration. If you read all the way through it looks like the result of the Referendum just came down to which one of those people thought was more important.

The people wanted the EEC. And hence the people have not been asked their opinion as things changed.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.”

The Brexit White Paper (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588948/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf)

IIRC PFH argued that his Brexit involved regaining sovereignty but remaining part of the single market. The government reckons we'd never lost sovereignty during our membership, and we're leaving the single market.

[Husar]

It is more important than ever that we face the future together, united by what makes
us strong: the bonds that unite us, and our shared interest in the UK being an open,
successful trading nation.
3.1 We have ensured since the referendum that the devolved administrations are fully
engaged in our preparations to leave the EU and we are working with the administrations in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver an outcome that works for the whole of the
UK. In seeking such a deal we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England. A good deal will be one that works
for all parts of the UK.

:laugh4:
Come on, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should get their sovereignty back.
Keeping Ireland artificially divided is a terrible idea, it leads to ethnic mixing with a lot of tension and problems such as terrorism, murder and other crime. And ever since Hadrian's wall was rendered inoperable, the Picts caused trouble of all sorts in England, it should be returned to its former glory. And Scotland should pay for it. :2thumbsup:

[Greyblades]

There are two things that brexit's win was supposed to secure; soverignty and immigration controls, the single market is a worthy prize and bargains should be attempted but if europe insists that access is only for those that sacrifices one or both of those principles Britain will choose to do without.

[Pannonian]

There are two things that brexit's win was supposed to secure; soverignty and immigration controls, the single market is a worthy prize and bargains should be attempted but if europe insists that access is only for those that sacrifices one or both of those principles Britain will choose to do without.

1. We've never lost control of our sovereignty, as the white paper explicitly states.
2. We've always had control of immigration from non-EU countries. It's that our governments haven't enforced existing controls. That's Westminster's choice, not Brussels. And even EU immigrants are limited, as they have to be within a job within 3 months or their stay here is revoked. There are certain key infrastructure areas that are heavily dependent on EU migrants, so even with control, the government isn't going to reduce their number.

In exchange for not much change in the above, we're leaving the single market.

[Greyblades]

1. We werent able to dictate our own policy without being overruled by the EU in multiple areas. Parliament's soverignty was only absolute in that it had the ability to cancel the EU's influence in an "I reject all and choose nothing" act, as it just did.
2. You havent refuted that we didnt have total control over our immigration policy.

You ever get tired of losing this argument?

[Montmorency]

1. We werent able to dictate our own policy without being overruled by the EU in multiple areas. Parliament's soverignty was only absolute in that it had the ability to cancel the EU's influence in an "I reject all and choose nothing" act, as it just did.
2. You havent refuted that we didnt have total control over our immigration policy.

You ever get tired of losing this argument?

But your sovereignty will still be constrained. You would have to proceed by pulling out of the United Nations and any international treaties and organizations.

[Greyblades]

Much less, and by our consent, that's the point.

Last I checked the UN hasnt drastically expanded it's influence on our domestic policy since it's inception without our consultation.

[Pannonian]

But your sovereignty will still be constrained. You would have to proceed by pulling out of the United Nations and any international treaties and organizations.

And GB continues to (probably intentionally) miss the fact that the UK government has always had more control over all these things than it has chosen to exercise. Once the UK government has even greater control, it will continue to do the same as before, for the same reasons as before (ie. the economy and infrastructure are dependent on them), except without access to the single market.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And GB continues to (probably intentionally) miss the fact that the UK government has always had more control over all these things than it has chosen to exercise. Once the UK government has even greater control, it will continue to do the same as before, for the same reasons as before (ie. the economy and infrastructure are dependent on them), except without access to the single market.

That is and isn't true.

For example - weights and measures - we were briefly forced to adopt metric and Imperial was banned until mass-revolt forced the EU to soften the regulation.

Port Talbort Steel - the UK Government cannot take it into public ownership without violating EU regulations on unfair state support for private business. The same regulations that enforced mass-privatisation in Bulgaria and Romania, creating new opportunities for graft.

The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.

[Pannonian]

That is and isn't true.

For example - weights and measures - we were briefly forced to adopt metric and Imperial was banned until mass-revolt forced the EU to soften the regulation.

Port Talbort Steel - the UK Government cannot take it into public ownership without violating EU regulations on unfair state support for private business. The same regulations that enforced mass-privatisation in Bulgaria and Romania, creating new opportunities for graft.

The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.

And when nothing changes because the practicalities demand current solutions? How do you resolve sectors that employ a disproportionate number of non-UK citizens? Do you close hospitals because Asian nurses and doctors aren't welcome any more? Do you let OAPs rot in their homes because eastern European carers aren't wanted any more?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And when nothing changes because the practicalities demand current solutions? How do you resolve sectors that employ a disproportionate number of non-UK citizens? Do you close hospitals because Asian nurses and doctors aren't welcome any more? Do you let OAPs rot in their homes because eastern European carers aren't wanted any more?

Strawman.

I was talking about EU regulation making UK regulation inflexible, you are talking about the UK becoming Xenophobic.

[Montmorency]

The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.

What's the next excuse?

[Pannonian]

Strawman.

I was talking about EU regulation making UK regulation inflexible, you are talking about the UK becoming Xenophobic.

You've listed a couple of instances where the UK overturned or did not implement EU regulations, in keeping with the white paper's statement that the UK had never actually lost sovereignty. In return for not having those disagreements which had ended in the UK's favour, we've left the single market, meaning we will no longer be competitive in the market where 50% of our exports go.

And note that by far the biggest reason voters have cited as the reason for Leave is immigration, ie. they want less of it. The reason we are leaving the single market is because the government recognises this as a non-negotiable point. If you disagree, and freedom of movement isn't as important a point as flexibility of regulations, then perhaps you can write to the PM and explain that FoM is actually negotiable after all, and thus access to the single market is possible. Perhaps we can have another referendum clarifying this point. Perhaps this second referendum will clarify that, yes, the UK is indeed xenophobic after all, and we're willing to wreck our economy if it means fewer of these nasty foreigners will be here. As it is, the government takes this as a given.

[Pannonian]

What's the next excuse?

Foreigners who are already here.

[Gilrandir]

But your sovereignty will still be constrained. You would have to proceed by pulling out of the United Nations and any international treaties and organizations.

The Commonwealth included?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's the next excuse?

There isn't one, that's the point.


You've listed a couple of instances where the UK overturned or did not implement EU regulations, in keeping with the white paper's statement that the UK had never actually lost sovereignty. In return for not having those disagreements which had ended in the UK's favour, we've left the single market, meaning we will no longer be competitive in the market where 50% of our exports go.

And note that by far the biggest reason voters have cited as the reason for Leave is immigration, ie. they want less of it. The reason we are leaving the single market is because the government recognises this as a non-negotiable point. If you disagree, and freedom of movement isn't as important a point as flexibility of regulations, then perhaps you can write to the PM and explain that FoM is actually negotiable after all, and thus access to the single market is possible. Perhaps we can have another referendum clarifying this point. Perhaps this second referendum will clarify that, yes, the UK is indeed xenophobic after all, and we're willing to wreck our economy if it means fewer of these nasty foreigners will be here. As it is, the government takes this as a given.

Like I said - excuses.

As to the Immigration argument - people need to get over this. Wanting less immigration does not make you evil in a country as overcrowded as this one.

[Husar]

As to the Immigration argument - people need to get over this. Wanting less immigration does not make you evil in a country as overcrowded as this one.

???

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000

[Montmorency]

There isn't one, that's the point.

Doesn't seem likely.

[Montmorency]

???

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000

Using country-wide densities rarely tells you anything useful, as though land and property and people were fungible.

[Pannonian]

There isn't one, that's the point.

Like I said - excuses.

As to the Immigration argument - people need to get over this. Wanting less immigration does not make you evil in a country as overcrowded as this one.

There's a bright point I suppose. Immigration from the EU is down in some areas, and existing EU immigrants are wanting out.


Nurses from Europe are turning their backs on Britain, according to new figures showing the number registering to work here since the Brexit referendum has fallen by 90 per cent.

Just 101 nurses and midwives from other European nations joined the register to work here last month - a drop from 1,304 in July, the month immediately after the referendum, official figures show.

The statistics from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) also show a rise in the number of EU nurses who have decided to stop working in the UK.

Last month, 318 decided to leave the NMC’s register - almost twice the 177 who did so in June, the month of the referendum.

The number of overseas nurses asking for an application pack to register to work in Britain also fell dramatically, with just 453 enquiries in December - compared with 697 in July. An even sharper drop was seen last February, after rules were changed to allow regulators to carry out language tests.

Last January, almost 3,700 nurses and midwives from the Continent asked for an application pack - but after the clampdown, the figure fell to just 861 the following month, since when it has dropped.

The NHS is heavily reliant on overseas workers, and the number of nurses coming to Britain from elsewhere in Europe has tripled in the last four years.

...

Racist attacks on NHS staff have more than doubled in a year, with Brexit blamed for inflaming tensions in hospitals. Assaults on health service employees involving religious or racial factors rose from 225 in 2014-15 to 496 in 2015/16, with a continued rise in recent months, official statistics show.

Earlier this month, it emerged that almost every hospital in the UK has a shortage of nurses.

Staff said patients were being left unwashed, unmonitored and without crucial medications, amid a worsening crisis in the country’s hospitals.

Last week it emerged that more than 7,000 nurse posts could be axed from NHS hospitals across the country despite a mounting Accident & Emergency crisis.

Every area has been ordered to draw up measures to save £22 billion and reorganise health services in order to meet rising demand from an ageing population.

But the documents suggest that the proposals could result in the loss of more than 17,000 staff by 2020 – including 7,300 nurses and midwives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurses-coming-uk-falls-90-per-cent-since-brexit-vote/

[Pannonian]

Using country-wide densities rarely tells you anything useful, as though land and property and people were fungible.

The largest and most densely populated city in the UK was heavily Remain. So was the second largest. In London, the most central (and thus densely populated) areas were Remain. Some of the suburbs were Leave.

[Husar]

Using country-wide densities rarely tells you anything useful, as though land and property and people were fungible.

Well, just claiming it is overcrowded doesn't tell me anything useful either because I have no idea what the statement is based on or why he thinks so. :shrug:


In the end, perhaps only two things can be said for certain about population trends. Sooner or later, they make fools of those who offer dramatic forecasts. But people will keep making them. In 1960, in the US journal Science, a paper by the distinguished physicist and philosopher Heinz von Foerster and two colleagues declared, “Our great-great-grandchildren will not starve to death. They will be squeezed to death.” The paper was titled Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, AD 2026. See you in the northern ticket hall then?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/09/is-britain-full-home-truths-about-population-panic

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

???

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000

We are the 50-most populous in the world, and many of the most populous above us are either horribly overcrowded and suffer socially as a result (Japan, Hong Kong), Micro-Stare or Enclaves (Monaco, Gibraltar, the Vatican), or tiny Island nations (Bermuda, Malta).

At the same time there are ~30 fewer people per square kilometre in Germany and ~120 fewer in France.

Let me give you a concrete example. I live in the City of Exeter, I have friends living in the village of Pinhoe, it's about an hour's walk between the two but over the last four years that walk has gone from about 50% fields to 25% fields and dropping. In another five years Exeter will effectively swallow Pinhoe whole.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7434176,-3.4758759,2325m/data=!3m1!1e3

Google Earth actually shows you the bit under development, you can actually see the boundaries between village and city being blurred.


The largest and most densely populated city in the UK was heavily Remain. So was the second largest. In London, the most central (and thus densely populated) areas were Remain. Some of the suburbs were Leave.

Londoners don't appreciate how horribly smelly and cramped London appears to oursiders, they are immune to the sensation of being "squashed" because they are already so closely packed.

[Husar]

We are the 50-most populous in the world, and many of the most populous above us are either horribly overcrowded and suffer socially as a result (Japan, Hong Kong), Micro-Stare or Enclaves (Monaco, Gibraltar, the Vatican), or tiny Island nations (Bermuda, Malta).

At the same time there are ~30 fewer people per square kilometre in Germany and ~120 fewer in France.

Let me give you a concrete example. I live in the City of Exeter, I have friends living in the village of Pinhoe, it's about an hour's walk between the two but over the last four years that walk has gone from about 50% fields to 25% fields and dropping. In another five years Exeter will effectively swallow Pinhoe whole.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7434176,-3.4758759,2325m/data=!3m1!1e3

Google Earth actually shows you the bit under development, you can actually see the boundaries between village and city being blurred.

Things like that happen in Germany just as well, the entire Ruhrgebiet is slowly growing together. A lot of that is probably due to urbanization and less so due to immigration. When you zoom out from your google maps view, you see fields everywhere. Pinhoe and Exeter probably started to grow together somewhere around the middle ages. What's funny is that the Brexit also causes Britain to compete against its neighbors, and a larger population is a competitive advantage. So we'll see about that.

I would actually agree in general that the planet has far too much population given the goals of consumption everyone has. But Britain being overcrowded sounds a bit off given that Israel, Japan and so on are even more densely populated and seem to make it work. To just claim that they have problems from overpopulation does not convince me really, you'd have to show a bit more than that. I mean surely they have problems, but I'm not sure they're caused by overpopulation in a significant way. Tokyo's crowded subway system can be attributed to urbanization, centralization and the height of buildings just the same. If they spread the population more evenly around the country, that problem could be gone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Things like that happen in Germany just as well, the entire Ruhrgebiet is slowly growing together. A lot of that is probably due to urbanization and less so due to immigration. When you zoom out from your google maps view, you see fields everywhere. Pinhoe and Exeter probably started to grow together somewhere around the middle ages. What's funny is that the Brexit also causes Britain to compete against its neighbors, and a larger population is a competitive advantage. So we'll see about that.

I would actually agree in general that the planet has far too much population given the goals of consumption everyone has. But Britain being overcrowded sounds a bit off given that Israel, Japan and so on are even more densely populated and seem to make it work. To just claim that they have problems from overpopulation does not convince me really, you'd have to show a bit more than that. I mean surely they have problems, but I'm not sure they're caused by overpopulation in a significant way. Tokyo's crowded subway system can be attributed to urbanization, centralization and the height of buildings just the same. If they spread the population more evenly around the country, that problem could be gone.

Pinhoe was mostly fields until a few decades ago, the bit that currently connects it to Exeter is an Industrial estate built, irrc, in the early 90's, so during my lifetime. Those fields are for sheep and cows, so as Exeter expands it destroys its own local food supply. Who's buying these houses though? Some are locals, true, but that's because people commute from Exeter to London and Bristol - that's threee hours to London. Rather puts London's quality of life into perspective. Urbanisation is part of a function of over-crowding. As more and more people are born the jobs dry up in rural areas, so people move to the cities, which therefore expand, swallowing the surrounding rural areas and destroying the basis for the rural economy (land). This results in rural over-population which causes people to move to cities and... you get the picture.

In Britain we're reaching a tipping point similar to the one after WWII where we had our last population explosion. the difference is that this time the population explosion is caused by immigration, without immigration the population would be slowly falling and might stabilise, alleviating the need for so much new housing.

As a result many people are resentful of immigration they see as uncontrolled (because it's enshrined in EU treaty and not a policy they can vote a government out for). This feeling of lack of control is a big part of why many people voted Out and the key theme my father returns to (you may recall he's Swedish, so he can't vote himself). Lack of control over agricultural policy is another reason people voted Out and probably a bigger one where I grew up than immigration.

Now, frankly, I think Pannonion et al bear a significant amount of the responsibility for the rise in racist attacks. It was Remain who said that those who voted Leave were racists and Xenophobes, so when Leave won the racists and Xenophobes felt empowered. That's why I'm annoyed people KEEP going on about it. If you're troubled by the racist attacks you need to find non-racists (like me) who voted Leave for political reasons or reasons of principle and not out of Xenophobia - and you need to engage with them publicly.

I want the same thing for Europe everyone else here does - peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone - I just happen to believe the EU can't deliver those things.

[Husar]

Pinhoe was mostly fields until a few decades ago, the bit that currently connects it to Exeter is an Industrial estate built, irrc, in the early 90's, so during my lifetime. Those fields are for sheep and cows, so as Exeter expands it destroys its own local food supply. Who's buying these houses though? Some are locals, true, but that's because people commute from Exeter to London and Bristol - that's threee hours to London. Rather puts London's quality of life into perspective. Urbanisation is part of a function of over-crowding. As more and more people are born the jobs dry up in rural areas, so people move to the cities, which therefore expand, swallowing the surrounding rural areas and destroying the basis for the rural economy (land). This results in rural over-population which causes people to move to cities and... you get the picture.

I think you got it wrong again. As I understand you, you don't like urban life for yourself, so you see everything through that lens.
I can't seem to find anything that suggests overpopulation were the cause of urbanization. As you say yourself, your population is shrinking without immigration, and immigrants tend to go to cities right away. Job in the countryside are drying up because people are leaving and because the jobs there are increasing automated. Cities also offer other bonuses such as better access to modern technology, economies of scale for the ones offering it and so on. The impact of cities destroying the surrounding economy may exist but it has to be incredibly small compared to every other factor. One might as well claim that more smaller villages mean more road connections, power lines and other infrastructure and pollution from all the driving around that destroys just as much or even more land than expanding cities.


In Britain we're reaching a tipping point similar to the one after WWII where we had our last population explosion. the difference is that this time the population explosion is caused by immigration, without immigration the population would be slowly falling and might stabilise, alleviating the need for so much new housing.

People began to move to cities in the Middle Ages already, the additional housing there is needed anyway. Technically the empty houses in the countryside could be razed though to let the area be reclaimed by nature.


As a result many people are resentful of immigration they see as uncontrolled (because it's enshrined in EU treaty and not a policy they can vote a government out for). This feeling of lack of control is a big part of why many people voted Out and the key theme my father returns to (you may recall he's Swedish, so he can't vote himself). Lack of control over agricultural policy is another reason people voted Out and probably a bigger one where I grew up than immigration.

Now, frankly, I think Pannonion et al bear a significant amount of the responsibility for the rise in racist attacks. It was Remain who said that those who voted Leave were racists and Xenophobes, so when Leave won the racists and Xenophobes felt empowered. That's why I'm annoyed people KEEP going on about it. If you're troubled by the racist attacks you need to find non-racists (like me) who voted Leave for political reasons or reasons of principle and not out of Xenophobia - and you need to engage with them publicly.

I want the same thing for Europe everyone else here does - peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone - I just happen to believe the EU can't deliver those things.

We will see whether curbing immigration will actually help. a shrinking population is a terrible economic prospect if one can't increase exports. Not only does the relation of pensioners to paying workers increase (in addition to medical reasons), it also means the markets shrink whereas businesses want to grow. Of course one business can still grow by cannibalizing another, but if the new business is less labor intensive, you end up with more unemployed people again. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm sceptical for now and need to sleep.
Have a good night. :sweatdrop:

[Sarmatian]

Trying to find logical reasons for Leave is wrong as the referendum was really about giving people a way to say **** YOU to the system. They took the opportunity provided and that's it. Very little logic, more about baser emotions.

[Gilrandir]

If you're troubled by the racist attacks you need to find non-racists (like me) who voted Leave for political reasons or reasons of principle and not out of Xenophobia - and you need to engage with them publicly.


It seems to me at the current stage it doesn't matter what reasons made people vote Out. Just like it doesn't matter why people voted for Trump. Both categories can justify their choice by the most benevolent intentions, but both nations now have to face the consequences which are (to my mind) are not what they had wanted to see. And I'd venture to presume the worst is yet to come.

[Pannonian]

It seems to me at the current stage it doesn't matter what reasons made people vote Out. Just like it doesn't matter why people voted for Trump. Both categories can justify their choice by the most benevolent intentions, but both nations now have to face the consequences which are (to my mind) are not what they had wanted to see. And I'd venture to presume the worst is yet to come.

Energy prices are going up because of the drop in the pound. And we've not even left yet.

[Pannonian]

Trying to find logical reasons for Leave is wrong as the referendum was really about giving people a way to say **** YOU to the system. They took the opportunity provided and that's it. Very little logic, more about baser emotions.

Real incomes will drop across the board as prices rise and people (especially the less well off) will be able to buy less with their money. That's the price we'll have to pay for "removing the EU excuse for politicians".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Real incomes will drop across the board as prices rise and people (especially the less well off) will be able to buy less with their money. That's the price we'll have to pay for "removing the EU excuse for politicians".

Every doom and gloom prediction so far has been proved wrong.

It's time to admit we don't know what's going to happen.

[Sarmatian]

Every doom and gloom prediction so far has been proved wrong.

It's time to admit we don't know what's going to happen.

All the doom and gloom prediction were about what happens when Britain leaves EU. Britain is still in EU.

You can't disbelieve negative consequences of the Brexit by cherry picking worst predictions and stating they didn't materialize. The sun will rise again the day after article 50 is triggered, and againt after UK actually leaves.

Godzilla won't appear but negative consequences will be felt by most people. The real cost, though, will be in opportunities lost, both economically and politically.

EDIT: On the other hand, there is still a chance, however small, that EU crumbles under its own weight, in which case the general consensus will be that UK made an excellent choice.

[Greyblades]

The damage of brexit is entirely dependant on access to the single market, access that I find reason to believe will be granted without the immigration requirements.

I say this because for all their bluster the EU is not stupid enough to believe the brexit damage will be one way only, as a leaked report indicates (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/01/eu-brexit-deal-city-leaked-report-european-parliament-article-50)

[Kagemusha]

The damage of brexit is entirely dependant on access to the single market, access that I find reason to believe will be granted without the immigration requirements.

I say this because for all their bluster the EU is not stupid enough to believe the brexit damage will be one way only, as a leaked report indicates (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/01/eu-brexit-deal-city-leaked-report-european-parliament-article-50)

It would be suicidal for EU to allow Britain access to the single market without the immigration requirements. It would lead to a mass exodus from EU, so i cant see that happening.

[Greyblades]

Bother, I believe you caught me falling into the EU = Europe trap.

I meant the European nations arent stupid enough to believe the damage will be one sided. The EU being one more nation leaving away from collapse has two choices let britain keep the single market or be the scapegoat for the local european politicians when the local deficit balloons.

Rock and hard place, perhaps, but at the tail end of an age where can kicking became an artform it is obvious what the favourable choice will be.

[rory_20_uk]

It would be suicidal for EU to allow Britain access to the single market without the immigration requirements. It would lead to a mass exodus from EU, so i cant see that happening.

It would almost be that most European countries want free trade and put up with the rest as an unfortunate side effect - and we can't have that! Many countries would fragment (Scotland would cede, perhaps Belgium would fall apart, Spain, perhaps Italy) if they had the security from NATO and borderless trade there would be much less need to be in a larger country.

And then what would all the bureaucrats do? Try and climb the new greasy poles? No - best keep things they are.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All the doom and gloom prediction were about what happens when Britain leaves EU. Britain is still in EU.

You can't disbelieve negative consequences of the Brexit by cherry picking worst predictions and stating they didn't materialize. The sun will rise again the day after article 50 is triggered, and againt after UK actually leaves.

Godzilla won't appear but negative consequences will be felt by most people. The real cost, though, will be in opportunities lost, both economically and politically.

EDIT: On the other hand, there is still a chance, however small, that EU crumbles under its own weight, in which case the general consensus will be that UK made an excellent choice.

Oh, I'm not saying there will be no pain, I'm just saying that the pre-Brexit predictions were all worst-case scenario and ONE prediction was that as soon as the result came through our economy would start to collapse as international trade and investment dried up.

Clearly, that hasn't happened and now looks unlikely, after an initial wobble international business has generally decided it still wants to trade with Britain and in Britain. At the same time our international partners are rapidly coming to the realisation that an independent Britain will be much easier to do a trade deal with than Europe.

Now, when we do leave there will be a period of painful adjustment but it's entirely unclear how long that period will be, how painful, and what we will be adjusting to. The same voices as before are predicting Armageddon, but they now ring hollow.

So, time to admit we don't know what the future holds, and by the by we can't command the sea to retreat either.

[Pannonian]

Oh, I'm not saying there will be no pain, I'm just saying that the pre-Brexit predictions were all worst-case scenario and ONE prediction was that as soon as the result came through our economy would start to collapse as international trade and investment dried up.

Clearly, that hasn't happened and now looks unlikely, after an initial wobble international business has generally decided it still wants to trade with Britain and in Britain. At the same time our international partners are rapidly coming to the realisation that an independent Britain will be much easier to do a trade deal with than Europe.

Now, when we do leave there will be a period of painful adjustment but it's entirely unclear how long that period will be, how painful, and what we will be adjusting to. The same voices as before are predicting Armageddon, but they now ring hollow.

So, time to admit we don't know what the future holds, and by the by we can't command the sea to retreat either.

I know for certain that the Norway model that you thought was the most likely result is definitely off the cards, as the PM has ruled out one of the preconditions. So we won't have the same access to the single market, which accounts for 50% of our exports. We'll need to renegotiate a trade deal to have some kind of access, which has been confirmed won't be as privileged as before (again, this isn't guesswork, but quotes from the powers that be). There are any number of areas where we are uncertain, but we are certain of the above.

Something else that has been predicted, that is coming to pass bit by bit, is increased costs leading to companies passing on the costs to their customers. For some things we can just do without. However, Labour recently mooted a proposal to cap energy costs. Which suggests there is at least some realistic possibility that energy will be one of the things that will increase in cost in the coming future. Should we do without heating in the future, as one of the necessary belt tightening costs that political Brexit (such as you've trumpeted) will require?

[rory_20_uk]

We trade with China, America, India without a trade agreement. Somehow we manage.

With the EU it'll be interesting to see whether the pragmatists or ideologues win out.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

It would almost be that most European countries want free trade and put up with the rest as an unfortunate side effect - and we can't have that! Many countries would fragment (Scotland would cede, perhaps Belgium would fall apart, Spain, perhaps Italy) if they had the security from NATO and borderless trade there would be much less need to be in a larger country.

And then what would all the bureaucrats do? Try and climb the new greasy poles? No - best keep things they are.

~:smoking:

It's easy to cry about bureaucrats. The governments of the member states agreed to freedom of movement. That was a long time ago, with fewer member states, but when Cameron tried to get restrictions on it the other countries didn't jump on the bandwagon with him.

The Dutch PVV tried to score points with the public a couple of years ago by agitating against eastern Europeans. It only earned them a modest popularity boost at best, and you rarely hear about it from them nowadays. They've returned to their usual tropes of bashing Islam and the European Union on more general subjects. Freedom of movement isn't controversial over here, even if the EU itself is lacking in popularity.

That there's going to be some sort of compromise between the UK and the EU almost goes without saying, but it's not going to give the UK the same kind of market acces it has today. Even if only for legalistic reasons - you simply can't be part of a trade bloc and retain the ability to negotiate trade deals with third parties, which is one of the government's stated goals.

[Shaka_Khan]

If you're troubled by the racist attacks you need to find non-racists (like me) who voted Leave for political reasons or reasons of principle and not out of Xenophobia - and you need to engage with them publicly.
Whenever I bring up the issue of racist attacks, both the Leave supporters and the Trump supporters ignore the topic because they think it's a waste of their time. They ridicule people like us for bringing it up. Can't people solve problems without having people suffer? I know a British national whose mother is from the Philippines. He was punched in the face in England at a sidewalk. Racist attacks are really happening more ever since the Brexit. I'm not saying that this is the case with you: I noticed that a lot of the Brexit supporters have a problem with cultures that are different from theirs. I came from a city where I myself was in the minority, so it doesn't bother me whether I'm in the majority or minority. Hearing different languages in my home city didn't bother me. This is why I couldn't relate to some of the people who felt uncomfortable with the other cultures.

This is an issue that interests me very much. I wonder how the Leave supporters feel about it now, and whether they feel any benefits. Is it worth it? The people who opposed Leave are still against it now. If the Brexit is any indication, it seems like a lot of the Trump supporters will continue to support him for a long time. I'm anxious to know when the general population will come to the same conclusion.

[Shaka_Khan]

-double post-

[Gilrandir]

This is an issue that interests me very much. I wonder how the Leave supporters feel about it now, and whether they feel any benefits. Is it worth it?

The UK hasn't officially left so it is too early to speak of any consequences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Whenever I bring up the issue of racist attacks, both the Leave supporters and the Trump supporters ignore the topic because they think it's a waste of their time. They ridicule people like us for bringing it up. Can't people solve problems without having people suffer? I know a British national whose mother is from the Philippines. He was punched in the face in England at a sidewalk. Racist attacks are really happening more ever since the Brexit. I'm not saying that this is the case with you: I noticed that a lot of the Brexit supporters have a problem with cultures that are different from theirs. I came from a city where I myself was in the minority, so it doesn't bother me whether I'm in the majority or minority. Hearing different languages in my home city didn't bother me. This is why I couldn't relate to some of the people who felt uncomfortable with the other cultures.

This is an issue that interests me very much. I wonder how the Leave supporters feel about it now, and whether they feel any benefits. Is it worth it? The people who opposed Leave are still against it now. If the Brexit is any indication, it seems like a lot of the Trump supporters will continue to support him for a long time. I'm anxious to know when the general population will come to the same conclusion.

While the large majority of Brexit supporters and Trump supporters are decent folk, most of whom are simply concerned with "taking care of our own first," the stupid racists (sorry, that's redundant) are fellow travelers on these issues even if their motivations are far more sinister. Sadly, this means that some of them will be emboldened in their racist agenda. I hope it gets slapped down hard on both sides of the pond.

And yes, Pannonian, I am fully aware that you believe -- quite possibly correctly -- that those operating from a "take care of our own first" motivation are actually enacting a process that will take care of themselves less effectively than the current system.

I do get tired of the racist fringe groups being used (purposefully?) to tar the characterization of the Trump supporters (and apparently the pro brexiters as well).

[Pannonian]

While the large majority of Brexit supporters and Trump supporters are decent folk, most of whom are simply concerned with "taking care of our own first," the stupid racists (sorry, that's redundant) are fellow travelers on these issues even if their motivations are far more sinister. Sadly, this means that some of them will be emboldened in their racist agenda. I hope it gets slapped down hard on both sides of the pond.

And yes, Pannonian, I am fully aware that you believe -- quite possibly correctly -- that those operating from a "take care of our own first" motivation are actually enacting a process that will take care of themselves less effectively than the current system.

I do get tired of the racist fringe groups being used (purposefully?) to tar the characterization of the Trump supporters (and apparently the pro brexiters as well).

One of the ironies about the Leave campaign is that one of the most effective scare stories was the spectre of Turkey joining the EU with subsequent freedom of movement into Britain (even though the UK has been the strongest advocate for Turkish membership throughout the years, and even though accession wouldn't be possible without all current members agreeing). We don't want these Muslims here, right? Now that we've realised that trade negotiations with the post-UK EU won't be as smooth as Brexiteers anticipated, we're scratching around for trade deals with whoever may be interested. One of the trumpeted proposed deals is with Turkey, which, of course, won't come without reciprocal freedom of movement.

Bloody myopic idiots.

And Blair has entered the arena. I wonder if pro-EU Labour supporters will automatically turn pro-hard Brexit simply to support Corbyn and oppose Blair. The comments on online newspaper articles indicate they will.

[Greyblades]

(even though the UK has been the strongest advocate for Turkish membership throughout the years, and even though accession wouldn't be possible without all current members agreeing)
Yes, Brexiteers have been really approving of what the government was doing with the EU in the last 20 years years, undoubtably approving. ~:rolleyes:


One of the trumpeted proposed deals is with Turkey, which, of course, won't come without reciprocal freedom of movement.
Of course, it's inevitable that nations will never accept trade deals if they dont have free movement deals attached, I mean it's not as if even Merkel herself said a few months ago said she would allow wriggle room on freedom of movement or anythi- oh (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/angela-merkel-brexit-free-movement-eu).

Turkey may want freedom of movement but may's cotinuing aptitude for political self preservation wont let them get it. Either Turkey will drop the idea or there wont be a deal.


Bloody myopic idiots.
Myopic, says the one who wanted to stay shackled to the sinking ship because he feared a more immediate discomfort.


And Blair has entered the arena. I wonder if pro-EU Labour supporters will automatically turn pro-hard Brexit simply to support Corbyn and oppose Blair. The comments on online newspaper articles indicate they will. The only site I found with approving commenters was the guardian. I forsee Blair ensuring brexit acceptance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know for certain that the Norway model that you thought was the most likely result is definitely off the cards, as the PM has ruled out one of the preconditions. So we won't have the same access to the single market, which accounts for 50% of our exports. We'll need to renegotiate a trade deal to have some kind of access, which has been confirmed won't be as privileged as before (again, this isn't guesswork, but quotes from the powers that be). There are any number of areas where we are uncertain, but we are certain of the above.

We may still end up with a "Transitional Deal" in the Norway model, and then get stuck "in transition" so you don't even know that, really. As to the eventual Trade Deal being less favourable for all concerned, this is not news.


Something else that has been predicted, that is coming to pass bit by bit, is increased costs leading to companies passing on the costs to their customers. For some things we can just do without. However, Labour recently mooted a proposal to cap energy costs. Which suggests there is at least some realistic possibility that energy will be one of the things that will increase in cost in the coming future. Should we do without heating in the future, as one of the necessary belt tightening costs that political Brexit (such as you've trumpeted) will require?

This is an interesting one, actually.

Beskar mentioned a guy who had to switch from getting Bicycle parts from Japan to Italy after the pound dropped, but that they were actually cheaper from Italy. Obviously that price is liable to go up after Brexit, but this raises a number of questions:

1. Why can't we manufacture something as mundane as this ourselves instead of transporting it half way across the world? Aside from anything else this is a waste of shipping and an undeeded impact on the environment, not to mention a waste of time.

2. Why was he getting them from Japan rather than Italy to being with - given we have no trade deal with Japan? Does this mean that, in reality, Trade Deals are not so important.

As a final note, bear in mind that 50% of our exports go to the EU partly because we are in the EU. If we were not in the EU we would have different trade deals with other nations and a different export profile.


One of the ironies about the Leave campaign is that one of the most effective scare stories was the spectre of Turkey joining the EU with subsequent freedom of movement into Britain (even though the UK has been the strongest advocate for Turkish membership throughout the years, and even though accession wouldn't be possible without all current members agreeing). We don't want these Muslims here, right? Now that we've realised that trade negotiations with the post-UK EU won't be as smooth as Brexiteers anticipated, we're scratching around for trade deals with whoever may be interested. One of the trumpeted proposed deals is with Turkey, which, of course, won't come without reciprocal freedom of movement.

Bloody myopic idiots.

One assumes the two groups are the same - it does not follow that because people didn't want free movement of people and labour from Turkey that politicians didn't want a trade deal. Likewise, British politicians wanted the EU in Turkey to bulwark it against Islamism by redirecting its gaze Westwards.

This was never realistic - Turkey would rather be the shark in the Middle East than another fish in Europe.


And Blair has entered the arena. I wonder if pro-EU Labour supporters will automatically turn pro-hard Brexit simply to support Corbyn and oppose Blair. The comments on online newspaper articles indicate they will.

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.

[Gilrandir]

2. Why was he getting them from Japan rather than Italy to being with - given we have no trade deal with Japan? Does this mean that, in reality, Trade Deals are not so important.



Trade agreements may not be comprehensive, so some goods may be outside them. Perhaps it was the case.

[LittleGrizzly]

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.
................................................................................

You do realise it was Blair not Corbyn who influenced the insane change in the bit you quoted.

The inference of it being another example of him (Blair) needing to go (and his few supporters) Is correct though.

[Pannonian]

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.
................................................................................

You do realise it was Blair not Corbyn who influenced the insane change in the bit you quoted.

The inference of it being another example of him (Blair) needing to go (and his few supporters) Is correct though.

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that's been Labour since 1935. The last time the Tories won there, the Weimar Republic still existed.

[Idaho]

That was a pretty dire result in the by-election, whichever way you look at it.

[Greyblades]

Labour splinter when? Cant wait for a labour rights party that isnt smothered by globalist ideologues and identity politics.

Maybe they can even have it without the commies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That was a pretty dire result in the by-election, whichever way you look at it.

It's not looking dire from here at all. Notably, Labour only really held the other seat because the Right Wing/Brexit vote appears to have been split between UKIP and the Tories, and this after UKIP's new leader was hit by a fairly hefty public-relations ruckus.

Don't worry though, I'm sure Corbyn will be re-elected at this year's Labour Party Conference.

[Beskar]

It's not looking dire from here at all. Notably, Labour only really held the other seat because the Right Wing/Brexit vote appears to have been split between UKIP and the Tories, and this after UKIP's new leader was hit by a fairly hefty public-relations ruckus.

It was when he was saying he was the camera man during the moon landings, and Neil Armstrong stole the limelight as they wanted to film the 'first' steps which got me doubting his authenticity.

[LittleGrizzly]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

[Pannonian]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

By Conservative policy, do you mean things like invoking article 50?

[LittleGrizzly]

That's people policy to be honest with you. As stupid and costly as its going to be people voted for Brexit so the politicians have to give it to them, even as someone who doesn't want it myself the only way out I could possibly justify is holding another referendum once the terms of Brexit are clear.

For someone who rants at Corbyn for his lack of electability it seems a strange criticism, surely anything else would have really annoyed leave voters whereas it is hard for many people to complain about Corbyn accepting the referendum result.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

Now hang on a second, Tony Blair never lost an election.

This is the last election he fought, in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

You can clearly see that Labour's heartland in Scotland is largely in tact, the SNP has made only small gains at this point and Labour is very much the party of Scottish Government, in the Scottish Parliament too irrc.

Labour loses it's first election in 2010 under Gordon Brown, who is generally considered to have been Left of Blair, and does even worse in 2015 under Ed Milliband who was significantly to the Left of both. Indeed, the SNP's almost clean sweep happened under "Red Ed". Now Labour has lost a By-Election to a sitting Government in a time of economic uncertainty under the Far-Left Corbyn.

At this point simply claiming "we weren't Left-Wing enough" is not credible. The more Left-Wing Labour goes the less the public is buying what they're selling. That's not surprising, really, because the General Public don't want a Left-Wing or Right-Wing government - they want a Centerist one. That's why Blair and Cameron both did well, because they represented the more Centrist parts of their own parties, and they nabbed good ideas "from the other side."

Even that isn't really the problem, though, because the reality is that politics aside Corbyn is not a good leader. He applied a three-line whip to the Brexit vote and then didn't punish MP's that rebelled.

[Pannonian]

Now hang on a second, Tony Blair never lost an election.

This is the last election he fought, in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

You can clearly see that Labour's heartland in Scotland is largely in tact, the SNP has made only small gains at this point and Labour is very much the party of Scottish Government, in the Scottish Parliament too irrc.

Labour loses it's first election in 2010 under Gordon Brown, who is generally considered to have been Left of Blair, and does even worse in 2015 under Ed Milliband who was significantly to the Left of both. Indeed, the SNP's almost clean sweep happened under "Red Ed". Now Labour has lost a By-Election to a sitting Government in a time of economic uncertainty under the Far-Left Corbyn.

At this point simply claiming "we weren't Left-Wing enough" is not credible. The more Left-Wing Labour goes the less the public is buying what they're selling. That's not surprising, really, because the General Public don't want a Left-Wing or Right-Wing government - they want a Centerist one. That's why Blair and Cameron both did well, because they represented the more Centrist parts of their own parties, and they nabbed good ideas "from the other side."

Even that isn't really the problem, though, because the reality is that politics aside Corbyn is not a good leader. He applied a three-line whip to the Brexit vote and then didn't punish MP's that rebelled.

I remember when Blair was Leader of the Opposition. He and the Shadow Cabinet consistently put Major's government under intense pressure, forcing policy changes and ministerial changes when they weren't up to scratch. Nowadays Corbyn draws a salary as Leader of the Opposition, but I'm not sure which part of the job description he does. On an issue where 48% of the electorate voted otherwise, he whipped his party into ushering it through without requiring scrutiny. The Opposition are supposed to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. If they don't oppose, are they still loyal? Shouldn't they hand over to someone who will do the job more effectively, like the SNP?

[LittleGrizzly]

So all those Labour voters switched to SNP because of Ed Milliband?!

They'd been delighted with Blairite policy all these years but then because Ed was slightly to the left of Blair they all jumped ship to the SNP?

I'd be amazed if you could find even a small percentage of SNP voters who would have voted Labour rather than SNP had the labour candidate been more of a Blairite than Ed.

Ed walked into an impossible job in Scotland, just like in 1997 they wanted to kick the Tories out of Scotland except this time they were wearing red rosettes.

I realise you have a lot of bias when it come to Corbyn but don't you wonder at all why Labour had lots of Scottish seats before the Blairites took power but within a few years of them leaving power Labour has lost almost all of them.

Being too left wing isn't the reason all those Scottish voters abandoned Labour, they abandoned them because they did nothing for them in office, they abandoned them because they noticed very little difference to the Tories, which is why they all but kicked them out of Scotland first.

Labour has an identity problem now partially left over from the Blairite years where it is difficult to prove to a large amount of potential Labour voters that we are different. Too many of them remember Blair and believe differently.

[LittleGrizzly]

You would just have people whining that he didn't care about electability, one of your biggest complaints about him. Especially considering it was UKIP who were going to be a threat in some Labour seats.

But then for this issue you don't want him to do the sensible thing in terms of electability but to do what you want him to do despite the fact it will cost him votes.

So you don't really care about electability wen you criticise him on other issues, you just use electability as a cover to attack him for not doing what you want.

For once Corbyn is doing the most sensible thing in terms of vote winning and those who criticise him most strongly still criticise him for it. It is almost as if their problem is ideological...

[Fragony]

You would just have people whining that he didn't care about electability, one of your biggest complaints about him. Especially considering it was UKIP who were going to be a threat in some Labour seats.

But then for this issue you don't want him to do the sensible thing in terms of electability but to do what you want him to do despite the fact it will cost him votes.

So you don't really care about electability wen you criticise him on other issues, you just use electability as a cover to attack him for not doing what you want.

For once Corbyn is doing the most sensible thing in terms of vote winning and those who criticise him most strongly still criticise him for it. It is almost as if their problem is ideological...

Would it be odd if it was ideological? Corbyn's selling point is being ideological, that is the path he takes.

[Beskar]

If we want to be fair, the SNP are more "Left-Wing" than Labour are. So it isn't a case where being Left-Wing got them kicked out of Scotland, it was more that the Scottish wanted a Left-Wing alternative which stood up for them, which was the SNP. They were ignored by their own Scottish Labour Prime-Minister (Brown) and the Lib-Dems jumped into bed with the Conservatives. Also Nicola Sturgeon did very well in the pre-election debates, that even people in England wish they could vote for local SNP candidates for their areas, as they identified with her brand of politics the most. (to be fair, I would have chosen her in that election too)

Lib Dems were actually doing the 'right thing' and watering down right-wing policy, but lost the respect of the general electorate which punished for it, and the Conservatives claimed the successes the Lib-Dem did as their own handiwork as they re-branded them as their 'successes'. This led to complete decimation of the party in Scotland.

After the coalition government with Cameron and now under Theresa May, you are seeing real conservative policy which is ruining the country. Since they cannot actually win against arguments such as "More funding of the NHS" as they cut-funding by 15% real-terms since the coalition government and even though we have this massive crisis with A&E, 1 in 6 A&E departments are set to close due to lack of funding... they turn to the alternative, attack Corbyn and use the Murdock-Guard-Dog & Daily Fail to do the dirty-work for them.

As for Copeland, there is this Jonathan Pie clip about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1cCgOwMeQs

Main Points:
Copeland has been losing votes for years, it only won by 2000 votes last time.
Votes gained by Tories were not from Labour, but from UKIP thanks to Paul Nuttall's terrible leadership.
Labour Blairite MP resigned to put Corbyn intentionally into the manure whilst he goes to a cushy job.
Tony Blair and Peter Mendelson both wanted Corbyn to lose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So all those Labour voters switched to SNP because of Ed Milliband?!

They'd been delighted with Blairite policy all these years but then because Ed was slightly to the left of Blair they all jumped ship to the SNP?

I'd be amazed if you could find even a small percentage of SNP voters who would have voted Labour rather than SNP had the labour candidate been more of a Blairite than Ed.

Ed walked into an impossible job in Scotland, just like in 1997 they wanted to kick the Tories out of Scotland except this time they were wearing red rosettes.

I realise you have a lot of bias when it come to Corbyn but don't you wonder at all why Labour had lots of Scottish seats before the Blairites took power but within a few years of them leaving power Labour has lost almost all of them.

Being too left wing isn't the reason all those Scottish voters abandoned Labour, they abandoned them because they did nothing for them in office, they abandoned them because they noticed very little difference to the Tories, which is why they all but kicked them out of Scotland first.

Labour has an identity problem now partially left over from the Blairite years where it is difficult to prove to a large amount of potential Labour voters that we are different. Too many of them remember Blair and believe differently.

I think you have a greater bias regarding Corbyn than I do, frankly, and I think you're confusing electable with political "purity". Corbyn appeals more to Labour's traditional Left-Wing base but it much less popular than any other recent Labour leader - including Blair.

To blame Blair for the losses in the 2010 election doesn't track. By that point Blair was several years out of Office, Gordon Brown was firmly in control and irrc Blair was barely visible during the campaign. If Blair, specifically, was the problem then the collapse would have happened five years earlier. As it was the real collapse happened in 2015 under a leader who was very different ideologically, and definitely Left-Wing.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair, for a number of reasons, and I probably agree with you in regards to his character but Labour need to stop blaming him for problems when he has been out of Office, and Parliament, for over a decade.


If we want to be fair, the SNP are more "Left-Wing" than Labour are. So it isn't a case where being Left-Wing got them kicked out of Scotland, it was more that the Scottish wanted a Left-Wing alternative which stood up for them, which was the SNP. They were ignored by their own Scottish Labour Prime-Minister (Brown) and the Lib-Dems jumped into bed with the Conservatives.

Lib Dems were actually doing the 'right thing' and watering down right-wing policy, but lost the respect of the general electorate which punished for it, and the Conservatives claimed the successes the Lib-Dem did as their own handiwork as they re-branded them as their 'successes'.

After the coalition government with Cameron and now under Theresa May, you are seeing real conservative policy which is ruining the country. Since they cannot actually win against arguments such as "More funding of the NHS" as they cut-funding by 15% real-terms since the coalition government and even though we have this massive crisis with A&E, 1 in 6 A&E departments are set to close due to lack of funding... they turn to the alternative, attack Corbyn and use the Murdock-Guard-Dog & Daily Fail to do the dirty-work for them.

This is a disappointingly blinkered post. The idea that the Lib-Dems "watered down" Conservative Policy is more Myth than fact. Two examples - legalisation of homosexual marriage and raising of the tax free allowance - were in the Conservative Manifesto.

Fact is - there's little to separate David Cameron and Nick Clegg politically, or indeed socially. There was that famous Mic pickup where they walk off-set after talking to the public and Clegg says to Cameron "if we keep going like this we'll have nothing to disagree about." (sic). The Acrimony in the Coalition (that ultimately killed off most of the Lib-Dems) days to the period after the AV Referendum when, on the direction of George Osborne, the Conservatives ran attack adds against Clegg. This worked tactically to win said Referendum but proved to be a major strategic blunder as it soured the working relationship in government.

The counter-argument is always Tuition Fees but the reality there is they were always going to go up, so long as number of places goes up.

Teresa May is a different Kettle of fish to David Cameron, certainly, but she's also the one who coined the phrase "nasty party" as a warning to other Conservatives.

You say the NHS has had a 15% cut in real-terms in the last five years? Well, the NHS had massive cash injections during the Blair years and it didn't perform much better then - so just throwing money at the problem won't help. Every other department has received bigger cuts, cuts which have resulted in job losses amongst other things, and we're still running a deficit. The NHS has been ring-fenced for a long time, a practice with ideological motives, not practical ones.

[Pannonian]

I think you have a greater bias regarding Corbyn than I do, frankly, and I think you're confusing electable with political "purity". Corbyn appeals more to Labour's traditional Left-Wing base but it much less popular than any other recent Labour leader - including Blair.

To blame Blair for the losses in the 2010 election doesn't track. By that point Blair was several years out of Office, Gordon Brown was firmly in control and irrc Blair was barely visible during the campaign. If Blair, specifically, was the problem then the collapse would have happened five years earlier. As it was the real collapse happened in 2015 under a leader who was very different ideologically, and definitely Left-Wing.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair, for a number of reasons, and I probably agree with you in regards to his character but Labour need to stop blaming him for problems when he has been out of Office, and Parliament, for over a decade.

Labour's Campaigns manager Ian Lavery says that Corbyn is "one of the most popular politicians in the country". So popular in fact, that he is net negative among every single demographic (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyns-approval-rating-slides-into-net-negative-for-every-demographic_uk_589d9c95e4b094a129ea0a87). Even among Labour voters (-2).