Gordon Brown Endorses Corbyn, and something about austerity
So, my impression is that Corbyn has been on a roll in the past half-year.
Printable View
Gordon Brown Endorses Corbyn, and something about austerity
So, my impression is that Corbyn has been on a roll in the past half-year.
Should Corbyn be happy with Brown endorsing him, is that a dagger I see. If labour is anything even remotily as traiterous internally as our Dutch counterpart anything can be a Judas' kiss. Brittish politics is always fun to watch, as an outsider you simply cannot understand what's going on. To the naked eye, Corbyn is a force of nature who simply has no use for the likes of Gordon Brown who has all 50 shades of grey and none of them are interresting
Jeremy Corbyn got the Séan MacBride Peace Prize.
http://www.ipb.org/events/macbride-p...jeremy-corbyn/
Corbyn is to be fair to the man true to what he believes. He has had the good fortune that in his his entire life his principles have never really been tested - the closest was in the disastrous 1970s.
Gordon Brown was PM over 7 years ago - many if not most of Corbyn's supporters were in their early teenage years at that point and probably had little interest in politics. Such "minor" points as him selling UK's gold when almost at a historically low level whilst chancellor and his boasts to break the boom and bust cycle appear to be forgotten.
So he is another "fantastic" Labour ex-PM (who was mostly against the eeeevil Tony Blair) anointing the shadow leader.
Rather than focusing on the extremely difficult / complex global macroeconomics and redistribution from the wealthy western countries to the poorer ones which looks like a trend that is going to be extremely difficult to arrest, or the distorted global system of tax avoidance and how to solve it which would be extremely difficult to solve he avoids the "how" and just focuses on "aspirations". After all, the way to his solutions are extremely difficult if not impossible.
The good, well paid jobs appear to only be of importance to UK workers - it is almost as if his Socialism has a strong National flavour... National Socialism.
~:smoking:
If you want to be really funny you could call him a facist, keeping existing sctructures intact while catering lower-classes third way. It wouldn't be really fair but not that off, a Starwars themed I am your father moment would be priceless
No, t's not true it's not possible
In your heart you know it to be true
NOOOOO
Then again, it's a little bit true
Not enough Corporate Cronyism with Corbyn's policies.
corbyn has one redeeming quality as a politician:
he is willing to espouse ideas he believes in regardless of whether he loses favour among his peer group for publicly diverging from the consensus.
i admire that enormously.
alright, he has another redeeming quality (as human being):
he seems to be a decent man.
but this is of limited value in politics.
in all other realms I disagree with corbyn intensely:
he is doctrinaire, in pursuing ideas long since demonstrated to be a failure.
in order to achieve his collectivist dream, he is willing to throw overboard all the individual liberty i hold dear.
He's a Brexiter, as are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Ye Gods! There are more things in the world than Brexiteer / not-Brexiteer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Perhaps this will be a catalyst to a more developed / nuanced view of politics than the stale digital approach. Can people cope with the concept of two or even more variables at once??!?
~:smoking:
Given all the knock on effects from Brexit, other nuances are minor in significance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
How does this relate to my comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
One of the biggest economic risks being viewed as Corbyn becoming PM and the effects that might have? That would be down to his other policies, nothing to do with Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
There may be differing views on the role of the state in Britain's economy. However, when even right wing US free marketeer think tanks conclude that the UK economy will significantly contract as a result of Brexit, why will it matter who is in charge? We'll all be in the crap, excepting the super rich who will be able to exploit the basket case that is post-Brexit Britain (cf. John Redwood's financial advice). How that crap will be distributed makes little difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And for that reason, I judge a politician on whether or not they're urging me to drink the kool aid. And I'll despise any politicians who urge it while making alternative arrangements for themselves.
Ah yes, the WTO rules... Which we trade with Japan, USA, China, India, Brazil... the list is rather long. And somehow we manage to trade. Hardly optimal, but not going to end the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The super rich already can exploit the overseas money rules. They are pathetically easy to exploit - and cost merely a few thousand pounds to have a nice offshore Foundation with a "professional" local on the Board which means finding out the owner is almost impossible (since no books nor list of creditors is required). I found this out in about 10 minutes. Neither the Tories nor New Labour fixed this. Nor for that matter did Old Labour.
The economy will almost certainly contract, at the very least in the short term. Which puts pressure on investor / consumer confidence in the UK. Because since we run a large deficit even with the Eeeeevil Tories in power we need more to have the ability to sell money on the international markets.
If the Markets are not prepared to lend - due to the fiscal policies - then interest rates go way up and financing the debt becomes a problem. And if we are very unlucky with Corbyn nationalizing the Utilities and God knows what else debt will be truly vast. Or will he just wipe out the shareholders (which are often Pension funds since the utilities are "safe")? Then all the Banks will quickly offshore as the last vestiges of reasons to remain in the UK disappear. Possibly never to return - both no longer the gateway to Europe and the scare of electing utter nut jobs to be PM why take the risk?
Corbyn is a believer. He is an idealist. He would destroy the UK without remorse since he believes he would make something better from its ashes. Merely that he is prepared to go down with the ship doesn't make me like him any more for steering it towards the iceberg.
~:smoking:
Everything you've said about Corbyn can be equally applied to the neolib Brexiters. And as Farage and Redwood demonstrate, they're not even willing to stay with the ship after having steered it towards the iceberg.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Whether leaving the EU is an iceberg is very debatable - I would argue having drifted so far into the EU is the problem and then pain we are experiencing is very much how the closer one is to a black hole the greater the cost to get away from it - it would have been a lot easier one or two decades ago than it is now; if we had bowed to demands to ditch the pound the difficulty would be all the greater. Sorry about mixing metaphors, but icebergs only really have the detrimental effect once they are hit; black holes have their effect at a longer distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I have my political views, I'm not emotionally tied to one party or group of people and I'll try to defend their self-serving antics. Corbyn also has his pension from being an MP, and that is a lovely final salary and index-linked so even in the wildest hells he unleashes he'll be fine. It is just most others who will be destitute.
It probably is people such as you and I who both have their job and all their assets linked to the UK rather than our Dear Leaders of any stripe. I can try and get part of my pension invested abroad, but that's about it.
~:smoking:
If you're trying to get me to admit that Corbyn is no better, then you won't get any resistance from me. I despise the man and the politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Hard to dispise the man, he seems like a nice guy. I wouldn't like the politician either though, insanity is trying to same thing and expecting different results. But at least he really believes he isn't insane, but then again he would plunge you into a communist nightmare and won't listen to anyone once things start going wrong, good people can become the worst
Corbyn is apparently a moderate by Norwegian standards.
Norway is kinda a country of extremes, even the weather isQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Damning with faint praise much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I wonder what the 'Norwegian standards' are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You will be able to better inform people than me. It was a Norwegian person who commented about it. They thought it was amusing that Corbyn was pictured as some ardent militaristic communist whilst being "Moderate by our standards".I was reproducing it as a conversation point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
They key difference is that Norway has a truly vast Sovereign wealth fund that could weather almost any storm. The UK borrows money monthly. When you need to borrow money off people, what they think is rather important.
~:smoking:
From what I read the Labour Manifesto details an agenda and its policy implementation, and claims to be budget-balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Here's what it says about tax avoidance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manifesto
Is this a reference to something specific, or is it a complaint that Labour doesn't have a comprehensive plan for the world order?Quote:
The good, well paid jobs appear to only be of importance to UK workers - it is almost as if his Socialism has a strong National flavour... National Socialism.
How do you come by this assessment of his policy proposals?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Also, I wonder if a measure of idealism isn't pragmatic. Why vote for a party that doesn't seem to want to accomplish anything?
So the UK is already sinking and cannot survive in the long-term? And what are your choices:Quote:
They key difference is that Norway has a truly vast Sovereign wealth fund that could weather almost any storm. The UK borrows money monthly. When you need to borrow money off people, what they think is rather important.
1. Accelerate the trend and accept peonage.
2. Alter the logic of the framework.
:shrug:
Unless you borrow ENOUGH, in which case they're the ones who have to look after your well-being.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Oh it claims to be a balanced budget. Doesn't Labour always? By growing our way out of debt. Which requires debt now and then guaranteeing growth later on. And of course getting all the rich individuals to pay is part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Tax avoidance requires something more than the UK doing something since profit is moved abroad by accounting magic so there is nothing to tax in the UK since all the product was bought at cost. I'm no accountant, but Lewis Hamilton demonstrates that big ticket items would be bought abroad, owned by companies and loaned to the end-user if the attempt at purchase tax was instigated. Try to get them as they are the company owner? Either have it owned by a Foundation or else have the Directors as cutouts.
Very rich individuals can pretty do the same thing. Linky. Before the final vote is collected and Corbyn wins, all the money will be flitting to places where it is nigh on impossible to get it with shell companies in the middle declaring bankruptcy leaving no paper trail.
Getting all countries to harmonise their tax codes is the way forward. But making promises might also also work...
I'm all for changing the logic of the framework. Better that than Labour drive us to Peonage.
That tends not to work for Countries - the Credit Rating collapses, and things get very bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
~:smoking:
The Anti Tax Avoidance DirectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Quote:
The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.
Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.
It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.
Lovely in theory. The first image is so simplistic it is amusing: yes, when a company has an entity called Profit Syphon Inc elsewhere it is nice and simple. But sadly... that never happens!
How does the EU know what something is worth? Or what value is added at what point in the chain? Is making a car in Mexico allowed or not? Starbucks gets its coffee beans processed abroad and then sells the finished product to individual companies - so most money is in the preparation. Is this allowed? If not why not?
What is Intellectual Property worth? Or patients? They will remain owned by some company in the Seychelles and charge 10% of all revenue worldwide.
And lastly - if the entity in the EU has no money, how exactly can you tax it? All the sites in the EU are separately owned distributors.
Oh, and let's not forget countries such as Ireland are on the side of the Companies and are actively fighting these changes.
~:smoking:
If the UK were within this effort and contributing our expertise, then the EU's efforts may be more effective. Policy-wise, the UK is the money-laundering centre of the world. This isn't due to lack of expertise, but due to intentional policy. And if we were to agree to work towards this ideal that you said you'd like, then because of our experience in aiding money-laundering, we'd also have the most expertise in reducing it. So once again, you describe an ideal and blame the EU for not being able to live up to it, when it's the UK which has the greatest part in thwarting this ideal of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'd be interested to see where it states the UK is the Capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Ireland shelters Apple.
Netherlands for Starbucks.
Lichtenstein is another. Monaco. Several States in the USA are very useful. Yes, many British Overseas Territories. And the Seychelles. Malta. Cyprus. Quite the list!
And all those bright minds doing it come from all over the world. Probably most of them are not resident here - possibly not anywhere.
My ideal?? I didn't draft the EU rules they are pushing through. I merely point out that there are enough countries inside the EU who don't want it to proceed - and certainly enough outside of it that make this a lovely PR stunt that keeps a lot of bureaucrats employed without really doing anything.
~:smoking:
Once again, I point you to the extra 5000-10000 additional bureaucrats estimated to be needed by the UK to deal with the customs post-Brexit, of which around 1000 have already been recruited at 100k per position filled. If you want to moan about unnecessary bureaucrats employed at exorbitant expense, why not point to that instead? I don't like paying a lot for government either. That is one of the reasons why I can't stand Brexit, which shrinks the economy whilst growing the size of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
First of all, let's step back and note that global loss of revenue to multinational tax evasion is likely much less than $1 trillion a year. This is presumably more than what is lost to individual or miscellaneous avoidance, but let's say that's an equivalent amount. So, let's even say $1.5 trillion lost yearly to all (income tax) avoidance. We should now calculate and compare against total global tax revenues, but let's extrapolate from more accessible data on tax revenue as % of GDP. In 2015, global tax revenue was 15.22% of GDP. In 2016, global GDP (again according to the World Bank) was $75.6 trillion - let's say 15% of $75 trillion then, or $11.25 trillion. So on the highest end, your looking at something over ~10% of all tax revenue lost to avoidance. The real proportion is almost certainly lower, and to the extent avoidance is a part of life I don't suppose we have reason to believe it isn't already maximally exploited.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
To simplify matters let's look at the data for the UK in the first source above. The estimated loss for the UK is annually ~$1 billion. This is a little more than 0.1% of annual UK tax revenue. Even a much less conservative estimate would therefore be expected to remain far below 1% of revenue. (I don't know why the UK seems to lose much less as proportion of tax revenue than, say, the US or Japan, but that's another story.)
The conclusion, then, is that profit shifting has its limits already. With policy changes, both unilateral and multilateral, it can be further restricted and at the moment the UK probably has more than enough power to force the issue without losing much further revenue (in the worst case; the best case is of course increasing revenue and setting long-term trends).
The idea that raising taxes and closing loopholes will cause an exodus of enterprise and revenue is therefore unsupported, and in itself lends toward a strong argument for immediately reining in private enterprise across the board.
Next: a country can't hope to succeed by trying to retire outstanding debt within the current framework, since it always eventually requires the sale of the metaphorical "arm and a leg". Debt is not the problem; monetary policy and international finance is. States need to reassert their power in social welfare policy, while they still have some power left - without wielding it to undermine each other for short-term profit. This Prisoners' Dilemma isn't a perfect cage.
Yes, countries like Argentina or Greece are fairly easy to push around, but come on: Britons never never never shall be slaves.Quote:
That tends not to work for Countries - the Credit Rating collapses, and things get very bad.
Yes, it is necessary.Quote:
Getting all countries to harmonise their tax codes is the way forward. But making promises might also also work...
Do you really see Labour's policies as retaining a neoliberal framework, eventually concluding in national paralysis and individual suppression? Or, does Labour lean more into this than other parties do?Quote:
I'm all for changing the logic of the framework. Better that than Labour drive us to Peonage.
To slide in before the Truce, just let me raise one oversight: the estate tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't know how this sort of tax is instantiated elsewhere, but in the United States it seems the American estate tax is one which principals can substantially evade through tricks, loopholes, and asset structuring.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/m...r%20FINAL1.pdf
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tax...lected-n457236
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...ral-estate-tax
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...pay-estate-tax
Links above suggest something less than a majority of potential liability evaded, but I recall once reading a piece that described how estates worth billions in taxable assets could be manipulated by decedents and relatives to somehow yield tens of millions in revenue upon taxation.
Something to look into re: Britain.
In before the truce.
Holding assets in an offshore Foundation seems to be the best option. Ideally with wholly owned subsidiary companies to have key assets to enable share trading and divesting of assets if you want to do so. A few thousand a year to run and takes about 3 days to set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Thanks for the numbers. Often I've been told that adequate taxing would balance the books on the welfare state and to be honest I've never thoroughly looked into it.
~:smoking:
Nah! MarillionQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I see, you're worried that Labour's policies (but not Brexit :creep:) would somehow wreck the UK economy. Your fundamental errors are in believing that money is a finite resource (and perhaps wildly overestimating the cost of Labour's proposals), and that a mere Corbyn PMship would naturally provoke a devastating capital strike or a declaration of war by capital markets. You think capitalists would be politically motivated to punish the UK even for relatively tame reforms. If your qualms were shown to have a weaker basis than you assume, would you have a different attitude toward Labour's platform? Which, just to reiterate, is not at all an extreme platform for Labour historically.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
(In case you raise the specter of a US/CIA backstop alliance with the UK military, civil service, and capitalists to overthrow a UK Labour government, that's the least likely outcome - but would surely just be more reason yet to demand economic revision.)
@Idaho
On Corbyn and Brexit for the sake of saving Org real estate: his response to Johnson begging for new elections was deft. Some had been predicting their dispositions would be reversed... Also I forgot about the existence of the House of Lords. Pro-Brexit lords tried filibustering the recent 'No Hard Brexit' bill. Didn't even know they had filibusters across the pond. Apparently it's much weaker than it is here, as evidenced by the failure just now and by the fact that the British record for filibusters is only like 3 hours. Lightweights. @ACIN
Both Brexit and a Milnian government are equally detrimental to the UK's economy, in demonstrating how unstable and untrustworthy the UK is. Unless you are self sufficient, which no country in the world is or can be, with the possible exception of the US, then you need to trade for what you don't have, using currency that is essentially markers of your country's ability to provide goods and services. Both Brexit and a Milnian government are completely untrustworthy in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Hardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The ultimate question is: does the UK pay its debts? In Brexit, there would be an adverse affect on the UK economy. But the bills would still be being paid. In Corbyn's plans (as stated at least) he could be Nationalising companies at book value not traded value. And enforced selling of 10% of companies. In essence, stealing as National policy. Might the next step be capital controls? This is thought to be so likely that Labour has had to state they won't do it.
So, both bad economically. But one is worse.
~:smoking:
Leaving aside your opinions of individual members of the Labour Party, what complaints do you have with the Labour platform?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Why do you think that exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Quote:
Analysts have valued the regulated asset values of water and energy networks potentially facing nationalization at around 125 billion pounds ($159 billion).
Where is the theft? How does this affect the continuing capacity and willingness of the UK to honor its debts?Quote:
Labour’s policy document goes on to say that parliament could seek deductions from the determined price based upon:
- pension fund deficits
- asset stripping since privatization
- stranded assets
- the state of repair of assets
- state subsidies given to the energy companies since privatization
The existence of company stock and the rules for how it can be created and distributed are a function of law. Transferring 10% over 10 years (far less than 50% majority ownership, as older socialist plans have aspired to) to employee funds is not an unprecedented or pernicious disruption; it's just an exercise of regulatory authority. The business community will, as is typical, carry on and seek to identify and exploit loopholes.
Corbyn's manifesto economics are actually less radical than that now espoused by those implementing Brexit. However, we both know that he isn't limited to that. The difference is that I recognise the consequences of what he has in store, and reject it, whereas you still support Brexit despite its indisputably dire effects on the economy. You offer up sovereignty arguments, but why are Corbyn's sovereignty arguments invalid whereas yours are valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Labour supports Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The Telegraph claims most Britons now just wants Brexit Delivered: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...eveals-public/
This includes 35% of Remainers and 54% of the population overall (a significant increase on the referendum result).
The gambits in Parliament may well force Boris Johnson to extend the timetable but it looks like he will not be the one blamed for it. It has to be said, it's difficult for the Opposition to oppose an election after getting their emergency No-No-Deal Law passed and not look like they're afraid of the Prime Minister winning outright.
Was this the same as the last Telegraph poll that claimed the same, that turned out to be a series of leading questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
NB. The current PM, featured prominently in the short excerpt visible, was the Telegraph's star columnist.
Subsidiary question: does democracy trump every other consideration? If a democratically valid decision is made, does it get implemented whatever the results may be?
Definitely not!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
There are plenty of examples of "Bad" democracy. We generally call this "populism".
The idea behind democracy is that the unwashed are given freedom between very limited choices and are free to choose. All big decisions are kept out of their hands since they don't really understand what they want.
We saw this in every country where people were allowed to vote on the EU. Every country voted no, which just demonstrated a lack of understanding of their own wants. When the question was rephrased (and parameters tweaked) all got it right the next time!
Same with Brexit. No one really understood the question. Everyone implicitly believed the politicians for once. And sadly there are just some xenophobic racists / ex-Empire fantasists / the criminally insane who also are allowed to vote.
So clearly - for their own sake - this one wasn't really "democracy" but an outpouring of lies, misplaced anger and hatred so clearly can be ignored.
We need to trust the MPs all who represent a minority of their constituents and where the House is led by a minority party since the opposition is too cowardly to hold an election.
~:smoking:
Since you're being facetious, shall I present you with another question? If the referendum gives any mandate to implement its findings, and the country is charged with its implementation, does it carry within its mandate and implementation a responsibility to keep its other promises too? What shape does its implementation require? Is it the responsibility of the people who disagreed with the premise, or do the decision makers, ie. those who decided to do this, own responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If you want that in short:
1. Do the Leave government have to keep its other Leave promises?
2. Will the winners accept responsibility for the results?
It's within your power to answer these questions. In any normal election, any voter can easily answer these questions. In any normal election, the actions committed during a campaign are also due for scrutiny, but I'm not going to put you through that process. The actions of the Leave campaign would void the whole referendum (as they did in other elections elsewhere).
Let's go back to basics:
We have a First Past the Post, winner take all system where the winner has often less than 30% of the popular vote in their area yet all the authority
They get elected on a party manifesto which is neither exhaustive nor legally binding. They add in their own local issues that are based more on winning votes than something they have any intention of doing - since they go to Westminster and have little to do with the day to day running of the area they nominally represent.
They then go to Westminster where they every vote they make is monitored by the Whips and they know that their career is based on party loyalty - which can change dramatically outside of the election cycle but they are not held accountable for this.
The PM is any person who can win a vote. Even if this involves bribing people with Government money to do so. As long as they get just over 50% of the House they have effectively 100% of the power. So that can mean what? 15% of the populace voted for them.
And on top of this all power is technically the Monarch's but not really and this balance itself is not clearly delineated. Oh, and decisions of the Monarch can not be challenged in law, but the Monarch can choose to change her mind if asked.
To reiterate, in normal elections there is NO requirement to follow through on ANY promises WHATSOEVER. In this case, Boris was taken to court (as you probably recall) and was not found guilty. There are several other cases that have been brought and to date none have been successful. So as far as the Law is concerned there is nothing that was in breach.
And on top of this mess we had a referendum.
The rot started (from the UK perspective) right at the start. Cameroon wanted a mandate to do what he wanted. He's cut from the same Etonian stock as Boris - they want to be the leader doing what they want, not the leader doing what other people want. So, he was only interested in the "remain" answer - since he probably had decided to leave if the answer was "leave". Anything to do with "leave" became boring detail.
In essence, although the Ballot (the legal part of the process) had two simple choices - leave and remain you desperately try to add everything else on to this to cloud the issue as far as possible... We the voters set the outcome, not the process. A contract is governed by what is written in the contract, not posters stuck up around it. The Politicians are responsible for getting there since they have the power. Leave voters have no power over the MPs.
In essence, as long as the Ruling Classes screw something up badly enough that itself is reason to not undertake the activity?
~:smoking:
Point of Order: Rory was being ironic, not facetious. I will criticise him for not punctuating his point with "Or, in other words yes" and for being more acidic than he should have been but his point was otherwise quite clear, and relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To answer your question I would say "yes, in every instance." That is why we must be careful to maintain the "democratic machinery" of our society to mitigate against truly terrible decisions. Even so, we can see that modern democracies that the elected legislature often makes decisions that seem "wrong" after the fact. A Prime example of this is the US Congress refusing to go to War with the Axis Powers until After Pearl Harbour. Despite the US having been generally allied with the UK and France since WWI Congress not only refused to declare War, it made every effort to block the US from even selling the UK weapons - a situation which led to the UK having to ship its Gold Bullion to the US to buy expensive Thompson Machine guns.
That decision not only permanently wrecked the UK economy by depleting our gold reserves, it lengthened the War probably by years.
As regards the Comportment of the UK Government, the referendum was not an election and since then we have had an election. At the time that the Referendum was held the majority of the Pro-Leave camp were not in government. They did not so much make promises as sales pitches and some of those pitches were, frankly, a bit ludicrous. I struggle to see how anyone could actually expect that all the money that presently goes to the EU, pre-rebate, would end up in the NHS. Some of it would obviously have to go to replace EU subsidies. As regards other claims - the Leave camp cannot be directly blamed for the failure of negotiations because the negotiations were conducted primarily by Theresa May.
This idea that the "winners" must accept all responsibility for all facets of the outcome remains ludicrous - it is like saying the Irish must accept responsibility for us holding a referendum on membership because that was a foreseeable outcome of the Lisbon Treaty being enacted the way it was.
1. Parliament orders government to publish plans for no deal.
2. Government dissolves Parliament.
3. Government refuses to publish plans for no deal.
4. Scottish court rules that government's dissolution of Parliament is illegal.
Do Leavers support the government's actions to thus implement Leave?
What do you suggest leavers do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Note all the wrongdoings done by a government in the name of implementing their decision? How many illegalities would you accept from a government if it's done to enact your decision to leave the EU? Does your democratic decision trump the rule of law and the primacy of Parliament? If you want to argue that the latter continues to matter, then what's the line at which you accept that it's not worth it? If you will never accept that leaving the EU is not worth it, then does that mean whatever the government does in the name of enacting your decision is acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Illegalities? Which ones are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
The latest one being the prorogation of Parliament. The reasoning behind the court decision is revealing too.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The Scottish Court, not the English Court that had the opposite view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And the Scottish Court chose not to order anything do their judgement is toothless.
The English Court reasoning is interesting too - that nothing that has been done is against the law.
~:smoking:
That says everything about the mentality of Leave. If they can get away with it, then it's acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
that judgement is contested, and being resolved in the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
are there others?
duplicate post
That says everything about you: whatever excuse to overturn the simple fact more voted to leave. Everything else is just details - Leavers voted to leave not the method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You seem to be happy that all politicians have to do to overturn the will of the people is just to do it poorly and say "oh dear I tried..."
~:smoking:
i've been guilty of this too, but less personalisation of the debate would be useful.
i will endeavor to return to my more desultory presentation.
One of the leaders of the Leave campaign is currently heading the government. How does that square with that last line?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What do you think of the government ignoring Parliament's request to see the studies for no deal? It's not an impossible request, as the studies exist, and all the government has to do to comply is to make them available. Is the government's refusal to do so, on the grounds that it would only worry people, acceptable because Parliament is not currently sitting and is thus toothless?
I believe yellowhammer is now published.
Somewhat edited. It's a summary, not the detailed study which planners have had access to. Item 15 has been blanked entirely. The title has also been changed according to someone who'd been working on it: it's now titled "HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions", whereas it was originally the base scenario, ie. most likely scenario.
"Low income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel."
The section on agriculture is also noteworthy.
Here's section 15.
15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.
Government are now refusing to release personal communications relating to the prorogation of Parliament.
I do not know if all remainers think the same. Some things are specific to an individual as otherwise I would be engaging in lazy stereotyping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
One of the leaders of the leave campaign is heading the government. Are the other MPs also helping with the process? I think that they have backed several legal campaigns to try to block the government at least gives mixed messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And back to detail of what the government has done... I think that the Government should be concentrating on getting Leave sorted. What the government releases or not doesn't depend on whether the government is in session or not - since the Government is able to block any move as long as they have a majority. The Dodgy Dossier, anyone?
It would be great if Government - and other MPs could focus on getting things sorted rather than errata.
~:smoking:
Are you saying that Parliament should butt out and leave the government alone to do its thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Are you saying parliament should not carry out the will of the populace?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Isn't it the interpretation of Parliament as to what it should do? On the Parliament website, an MP's first duty is to the country and the people. Secondary duty is to their constituents. Tertiary is to their party.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If no deal is the will of the people, demonstrate it.
Well, at least that's clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Given that even a simple majority of the people is not sufficient then frankly nothing ever will. Any person is going to be "incorrect" in some way or other.
So this is an intrinsic belief you have that nothing would ever be sufficient. Everything else is detail and none of it could ever matter.
I'll no more waste my time than I would pop down a Church and argue the existence of God with a Priest.
~:smoking:
Since you interpret the 2016 result as no deal, will you own the consequences of no deal? Successive governments since 2016 have been attempting to implement the results of that referendum. A subsequent election in 2017 has clarified the mandate of the government in its efforts to implement the result of that referendum. One of the leaders of the Leave campaign took over the government this year. Does this not count as implementing the results of the referendum? Is opposition to the government's efforts in implementing said referendum no longer allowed?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's quite clear that certain MP's are, against the will of their constituents and the referendum result, trying to prevent us leaving at all. The English attempt to declare the prorogation illegal was headed by Gina Miller, a wealthy businesswoman with no political mandate and about as far from the "average citizen" as one could get.
The question at this point is whether we can get a deal or we need to leave without one. The referendum result demanded we leave - many Remainers at the time said there would be no second Referendum and no extension of the time table. Mostly to scare people into voting Remain.
Those people have since then achieved two extensions and some are pushing for a repeat Referendum.
On the other side, Boris said he could get a deal, but then he didn't become Prime Minister and Theresa May did, and she said we were leaving on 29th March, and "No deal is better than a bad deal". Having got the worst deal she tried to force it down Parliament's throat, stretching convention to breaking point in the process.
None of this excuses Boris trying to prorogue for five weeks, but it should put it in context.
The likelihood now is that we will leave with no deal. Are you still for leaving now that it's going to be on those terms? And if you are, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of leaving on those terms? Your above post indicates that you will not accept not leaving, since you are bitter at those who have worked towards that. If there is still a chance of changing one's mind, I assume that you still would not. So am I right in assuming that, given a choice between no deal and no Brexit, you would still choose Brexit even at the cost of no deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
slightly bored - because we've been through this a number of times already:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"yes"
And you characterise Gina Miller as an unelected rich woman. I don't know what their sources are, but Byline Times reports that hedge funds that have previously backed Johnson and Cummings have staked over 8 billion GBP on no deal. Would this be why the PM is so keen on no deal?
In the short term No Deal is bad, in the long term continued membership of the EU is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's really all that matters, in the end. The rest is just detail.
Also, I'm not bitter - I think you might be projecting.
I'm just tired.
Prorogation of Parliament deemed "unlawful".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson tilts the delicate balance of our Constitution one way, the Supreme Court tilts it far over the other way.
Prorogation of Parliament in order to deny Parliament a say in the most drastic constitutional period in living memory is unlawful. That the evidence indicates, indisputably, that the reason given by the executive is false, and that this act of prorogation was politically motivated. If you're going to report the news, report the reasoning given by the Supreme Court as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And one of the fundamental reasons for Brexit given by Brexiteers (I'm not allowed to specify posters any more) is that UK courts should not be subject to foreign-driven laws. This is the highest UK court defending the principle that the UK Parliament cannot be dissolved for political ends. As the ECJ did, it's ruled that the UK Parliament is sovereign. Not the UK executive.
11-0. And Man City thought they did well.