Forum menu
Of course it doesn't register. Blah blah, fake news, project fear, move along people. Look over here, a rabbit we'll hire some new policemen, do you like that?
Let the people decide’ slogan will cut through the bullshit.
Keeping the same stance that worked so well at the European elections?
Underlying this is complete and utter mis-understanding of HOW a our parliametary democracy works (or doesn’t) by a huge proportion of the electorate.
More a lack of interest and/or intellect than a mis-understanding. That is why populism and lies are winning.
Cheers Torso - that story is the neat encapsulation of the problem, there has to be a choice between an open irish border and therefore being signed up to the EU trade agreements, or some kind of solo dealmaking country (which has been a resounding fail thus far) to try and get more money from America etc and hard borders
And guess what, Ireland and the EU are more important than the Yanks.
an open irish border and therefore being signed up to the EU trade agreements
Think about what would happen if we leave with no deal. From a UK POV there would be no border. We'd do what we've done since the 20s and have an open border and tolerate a bit of smuggling/whatever. [1]
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still. What would the EU/Ireland do? They'd have a closed border would they? If they put a kiosk there, the IRA will blow it up. When they put a bloke there to guard it he'll get shot. So they put a platoon there... and so on. I can't see the EU wanting to play that game either. So the EU wouldn't have a closed border either.
If all that's true an open Irish Border both ways is not dependent on being signed up to EU trade agreements at all. ...and if the border can be open without a deal, it can just as easily be open with a deal.
[1] It happens today. Free movment of goods within the EU has limitations so smuggling is possible within the EU and we just let it happen. People illegally take lorry loads of Diesel across the Irish border for sale all the time, we just live with it. I'm pretty sure people drive heroin from (say) Holland to Spain, it's not legal but there's an open border, nobody checks and it's accepted as the price of the convenience of an open border.
Isn't there a question then, of the EU having other borders, with countries who would demand the same.
Hence the EU's aversion to the idea?
Or have I misunderstood?
Government legal team going in hard today on the "it's not for the courts to intervene" approach...
We’d do what we’ve done since the 20s and have an open border and tolerate a bit of smuggling/whatever. [1]
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still.
Yellowhammer paragraph 18, and I quote, "The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available"
“The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”
Thanks. Did they explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? It worked from 1921(ish) until 1975.
Also: Google says No results found for “The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”. So Linky please.
Kerley
More a lack of interest and/or intellect than a mis-understanding. That is why populism and lies are winning
Yes, but that is exactly why addressing the offshore tax dodgers matters.
Creating a them and us over people who basically work for a living regardless of if it's 15k/yr or 250k/yr or anywhere inbetween simply helps promote populism.
So from a UK POV there would be an open border still. What would the EU/Ireland do?
Maybe I missed the memo but wasn't controlling our borders a central theme leavers voted for?
Thanks. Did they explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? It worked from 1921(ish) until 1975.
Also: Google says No results found for “The model is likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigation to address this will be available”. So Linky please.
It's a bit irrelevant surely as an open border with the EU would be undermining the "Will of the People"
Oob, if we're wto we have to treat everyone the same. An open border with the EU means an open border with everyone else. At that point, why does anyone need a trade deal? They can already import anything in to the UK without any checks. So now anything that can be produced anywhere cheaper than we can here is free to come in at the lowest possible price. Goodbye manufacturing, farming, fishing...
People seem to be missing the fact the UK and Ireland joined the EEC at the same time so the 1921 to 73 situation cannot be replicated. Ireland remains an EU member so you need to put a border somewhere other than down the English Channel which was the case up till 73.
Maybe I missed the memo but wasn’t controlling our borders a central theme leavers voted for?
I think the fact that the Irish border was never even mentioned during the referendum campaign is really illustrative about how this has been about English Nationalism right from day one.
When the leavers talked about controlling borders they were clearly talking about the white cliffs of Dover and stopping Johhny Foreigner from entering good old blighty. Whenever they mentioned 'the UK' what they actually meant was Engerland, which doesn't actually have a land border with the EU, so it was never an issue for them.
I still don't think its sunk in yet. Hence their obvious frustration and flippant attitude to the problem. To them it's just those frightful peasants in the provinces making things difficult for glorious Albion
Hypothetical question; if brexit will lead to medical shortages that will in turn lead to deaths in the populace, should it still be carried out?
point missed cougar. Its not the tuition fees thing only – that is just representative of the betrayal.
You say that, but it's pretty much the only thing that ever gets mentioned. There isn't a political party in existence that hasn't welched on their promises at some point, why is this one so special? "Tuition fees" isn't a reason to hate them, it's an excuse.
Its the support for a vile tory government that did so much damage and led us into this mess we are in now.
Or looking at it another way, if they hadn't joined up with the Tories do you think less damage would have been done?
Out of interest I've just had a quick glance at the 2010 results and I can't see any other way a majority government could have been formed. A Labour / Lib Dem coalition wouldn't have been sufficient seats to form a majority, and the next biggest vote after LD was the DUP with 8 seats so essentially everyone else is an irrelevance. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding, which is entirely possible.
Don’t come here with facts about Thatcher otherwise people who hate her
Point of note, I'm fairly ambivalent towards Thatcher. It was simply the first example I could think of. Grateful for the correction though.
Hypothetical question; if brexit will lead to medical shortages that will in turn lead to deaths in the populace, should it still be carried out?
It's a price worth paying, apparently.
This is a very telling article:
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/09/18/190918-cummings-and-i/content.html?sig=V3ep8Di90VEsADMEg8fZ7UUHeKwBE-FtKNLriRS7hGY
Yes, but that is exactly why addressing the offshore tax dodgers matters.
Creating a them and us over people who basically work for a living regardless of if it’s 15k/yr or 250k/yr or anywhere inbetween simply helps promote populism.
Of course addressing tax dodgers matters. There is no them and us, some people take more from the system (net) than others and those are the people who can most afford any impact. Do you take £1,000 from someone who has £10,000 to live on or do you take £1,000 from someone who has £50,000 to live on. I would tae it from the £50,000, the tories would take it from the £10,000. That is how their austerity works. Bit off the Brexit topic here though and it is also nothing to do with populism so not sure why it was linked to that.
at the end of the day its a game of (almost) two halves.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/JjFWmY2/Football.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/JjFWmY2/Football.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Kelvin, I edited out the hypocrisy bit as I didn't feel it would contribute positively to the discussion.
The difference between Brexit and Indy is that we don't have a land border with the EU. If we did gain independence, legally, we would then be faced with the same problem as ROI and NI (albeit with less life threatening consequences). There is no magic technological solution to solve that issue and it would affect more people on a day to day basis than just hopping across the channel. That's before you consider the closest crossing to NI is Cairnryan meaning we would have to deal with through trade. We need to be able to trade freely with England for a host of logistical reasons, there is no quick fix for that problem.
Of course addressing tax dodgers matters. There is no them and us, some people take more from the system (net) than others and those are the people who can most afford any impact. Do you take £1,000 from someone who has £10,000 to live on or do you take £1,000 from someone who has £50,000 to live on. I would tae it from the £50,000, the tories would take it from the £10,000. That is how their austerity works.
You missed the entire point ... Labour will take it from those with £50k and the Tory's will take it from those with £10k. Whilst we argue those on £1M a week are getting off scott free.
Bit off the Brexit topic here though and it is also nothing to do with populism so not sure why it was linked to that.
IMHO it's got everything to do with populism and Brexit...
The whole point of brexit for the ERG is to avoid the anti-tax-dodging legislation...
Set 2 groups against each other whilst creating a common cause whilst your group stands by laughing and profits whilst pouring petrol onto the fire they created.
Cougar
As I have said a zillion times S+C. Was the answer. Retain the ability to vote down stuff
it would affect more people on a day to day basis than just hopping across the channel. That’s before you consider the closest crossing to NI is Cairnryan meaning we would have to deal with through trade.
That assumes a frictionless border with the UK is desirable to Scotland post Sexit. As I understand it a big motivation for Scotland to leave the UK is to tax and spend more than UK governments do. In which case high tarrifs into Cairnryan might mean there's no desire to import into Cairnryan for the English Market, it may be cheaper to go straight to the uk. And you can't significantly increase tax people if they have free movement and can simply move to Berwick Upon Tweed.
Free movement of capital and people is great if you're a neo-liberal looking to unshackle businesses. Not so great if you want to tax your population a bit more. (Hence John McDonnells comments about a run on the £ if he won.)
Cougar
As I have said a zillion times S+C. Was the answer.
S being Scotland? With all six of their seats?
S being Scotland? With all six of their seats?
I think he means supply and confidence.
Which would have left the Tories with a majority of -40. You can't govern with a -40 majority. You need another election. (Johnson's on -43 and needs an immediate election.)
The liberals had literally no choice and they are highly likely to be in the same situation again in the future. ...but this time they *will* insist on a change of leader whichever party comes out ahead.
Five Live were just saying earlier Mark Francois and the rest of the ERG fruitloops are getting themselves worked up into a right old lather with rumours that when Parliament is back in session, Boris intends to bring Mays deal back from the dead, as he now reckons enough Labour MPs will back it, with No Deal looming.
That'd be an interesting move. Would the Brexiteers ringleader be labelled a traitor for denying them their No Deal Brexit?
You missed the entire point … Labour will take it from those with £50k and the Tory’s will take it from those with £10k. Whilst we argue those on £1M a week are getting off scott free.
My original point was that if you are going to impact anyone then don't impact the £10,000 a year people impact the £50,000 and over people (which clearly includes the £1M per week people)
No more replies from me on this one as not worth the effort.
Boris intends to bring Mays deal back from the dead, as he now reckons enough Labour MPs will back it, with No Deal looming.
I hadn't thought of that, but now you mention it it seems inevitable. ...both Labour and the Tories desperately need Brexit behind them. With both parties in favour and 3 line whips it could pass.
Corbyn and Boris off the hook in a one-er.
Would the Brexiteers ringleader be labelled a traitor for denying them their No Deal Brexit?
He can't keep everyone happy whatever he does. This way he faces an election with Brexit behind him. I suspect even BINO will get the Brexit party off his back to a very large degree. (Clearly he thinks that or he wouldn't be suggesting it.)
Has the Liberal 'Remain' policy changed the situation such that the WA looks a good bet to Labour. The anti Brexit party have caused Brexit. I think yes. Ironic.
Alan Johnson was on being interviewed. It was an interesting interview but to summarise, his message to labour MP's was "just vote for the ****ing deal!"
Difficult to argue with that at his point in proceedings isn't it really?
I think if Johnson did bring it back, it'd fly through. The ERG would go mental, but that in itself should provide enough reason for a load of Labour MP's to vote for it and carry it.
“I voted to get rid of all that red tape”
I think if Johnson did bring it back, it’d fly through.
I'm 100pc positive that the leaderships of both parties would back it and whip accordingly - they both need Brexit in the past. Is that enough for it to pass? Very likely.
Corbyn can blame Boris, and Boris can blame the opposition for preventing him from having an election in time to negotiate a good deal. The liberal's fox is shot. It feels inevitable to me.
Difficult to argue with that at his point in proceedings isn’t it really?
Well, it would kick the can and change key dates… but I don’t see what it gains the UK above other ways to do that. It also moves us over a threshold that means all subsequent agreements require unanimous support from the parliaments of all those other countries, with no route back to our current preferential membership terms.
Surely Mays deal means having the back stop, how will Dumbojo sell that?
Corbyn will NOT whip to support Mays deal - he will have a 3 line whip against it as before. Maybe some labour idiots would vote for it but I doubt enough
I’m 100pc positive that the leaderships of both parties would back it and whip accordingly – they both need Brexit in the past. Is that enough for it to pass? Very likely.
The problem is - once we decide to leave with a deal, the actual process starts... Brexit will shape politics in this country for a generation at least. There is no putting it in the past.
Free movement of capital and people is great if you’re a neo-liberal looking to unshackle businesses. Not so great if you want to tax your population a bit more. (Hence John McDonnells comments about a run on the £ if he won.)
Free movement doesn’t effect tax that much, if you’re rich enough to get up and move to save a bit of tax you are rich enough to get a visa to wherever you want to go.
Free movement of capital encourages inward investment, so your tax intake if you never had free movement for capital might not be as high (even if taxation rates are higher) as it would have been in a free but lower tax environment.
But sure, something something neo-liberal cabal something something immigrants etc etc etc is easier to point a finger at.
The fact is that what will sort taxation is a more equitable division of economic power between nations and political and economic integration on tax.
All of which the EU is helping to achieve. The economic arguments against the EU are simply the products of the cognitive biases of those who are trying to make their view of the world fit their nativist understanding of democracy.
I think he means supply and confidence.
Ah right. I've never heard of that, dunno how it works.
There is no putting it in the past.
After the referendum UKIP went into oblivion for a couple of years. This kills the Brexit party to a large degree for Boris and shoots the libdems remain fox for Corbyn. It solves both their problems.
Free movement doesn’t effect tax that much, if you’re rich enough to get up and move to save a bit of tax you are rich enough to get a visa to wherever you want to go.
We're talking about Scotland. You don't need a visa for Berwick Upon Tweed and you don't need to be rich to move to Berwick Upon Tweed. It's not the Caymen Islands FFS.
Corbyn will NOT whip to support Mays deal – he will have a 3 line whip against it as before.
We'll see. It solves his biggest problems and he can put the blame square on Boris. Hard to see why he wouldn't jump at it.
Surely Mays deal means having the back stop, how will Dumbojo sell that?
With less difficulty than his alternatives.
So you want a hard border with Scotland or you want to force them to stay in a union with us?
Scotland undermining the UKs tax system by becoming a haven is the most hysterical thing I’ve ever heard. There are plenty of ways England could force Scotland’s hand if it needed to.
Not only that, the few lower middle and upper middle class people who are self employed and can take their clients with them who would move to Scotland (because it’s cheap to move there) to lower tax by a grand or two a year would be utterly inconsequential to England’s total tax revenue.
Scotland undermining the UKs tax system by becoming a haven is the most hysterical thing I’ve ever heard.
Where did you hear it?